McOKWIRI HILLMAN

Shouldn't we read the truth about the destruction and pillage of Africa

2010-05-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

Noting that periodically sub-Saharan Africa receives some attention in the US and at least since Mr Clinton moved into the Big House has occasionally been given attention by news and pundits-- of all persuasions-- I remain struck by the determination to treat the events in the Congo Basin/ East Africa as unique and detached deformities of the Dark Continent. Reporting and commentary acquire more colour and sparkle but once squeezed into view, reveal themselves to be the same dubious paste of unknown content. This situation has by no means improved now that the Big House is occupied by a man of Kenyan and Kansan descent. One example washed through the US liberal journal, Atlantic, is an article by Samantha Powers. The writing to the Left is not much better since with few exceptions her assumptions are shared widely across the North American and European political spectrum.

Rwanda is not unique-- despite the attempts to wrap it in its very own "war crimes tribunal" (ICTR). In fact the proper comparison for Rwanda is Indonesia (1965) where a million odd were murdered at the insistence of US and UK corporate interests represented by their governments overtly and covertly. The US and its international harem of corporate-driven states used the same tactics in Rwanda that they did when they gave Suharto the green light to annihilate anyone who might be capable of continuing support for the post-colonial nationalism of Sukarno. This is the genealogy that needs to be reported: Congo's Lumumba (1960), Ghana's Nkrumah (1966), Indonesia's Sukarno were just the most prominent personalities murdered or forced into exile to prevent the people of their respective countries from attaining independence and control over their own resources.

Just to take some typical examples, reporting of the diplomatic missions of deceased General Vernon Walters and current US pro-consul in Central Asia, Richard Holbrooke, involves routinely ignoring their ignominious careers providing ground support US-sponsored terror regimes -- although this information would have made their conduct for more comprehensible to the reader. Sometimes the reporting is so myopic that the author has apparently neglected to read anything else published in the same medium or as in the case of one broadcaster reporting on a "colour" movement in Iran, neglected to review even her own past reporting on the same subject.

Another curiosity is that in media obsessed with statistics there are rarely if any cumulative reports of the death tolls. Reporting incidental daily figures in isolation prevents anyone from grasping the volume or proportion of deaths and casualties, either absolutely or relatively. Everyone can quote 6 million Jews. Those with somewhat more circumspect mental faculties include the 20 million who died because of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union. However who can say how many Africans have been murdered in the Congo Basin. Never mind those who still dispute the number of deaths in the "triangular trade". The Société Générale destroyed the records for the Belgian contribution but despite almost constant UN presence in the region there are no reliable totals. Those that are used pertain almost entirely to the Rwanda case as if the rest of the Congo had been pacified since 1960. Are we to believe that if we have no memory of African history then no one in Africa does either? Of course the only parts of Africa that receive any coverage are those where there is visible fighting. The "peaceful" plunder of the remainder of the continent goes largely ignored.

Americans-- and as a result those bombarded with US media too-- are saturated with stories about the extractive practices of the NSDAP regime (well supported by all the major extractive corporations on the Allied side). People here and in the UK can repeat from memorising (to call it memory would be gross distortion) often incomplete, inaccurate or downright false statements about the operation of their government under the NSDAP. Yet no one can say anything coherent about more than two centuries of vicious extraction from Africa-- let alone the ongoing theft and murder. People standing at the bar over a drink can chat away about "lampshades" made from the skin of murdered KZ prisoners. Yet no one can say a word about the men, women and children who were disfigured, tortured, murdered and robbed by American and European corporations to supply free copper or other raw materials for super-profits. A footnote some time ago explained that one of the rare materials (coltan) in the Congo basin is a mineral needed for cell-phone production. Do iPhone-linked liberals think about the corporate mass murder in the Congo which contributes to their exclusive and stylish 24-7 reachability? Certainly almost no one reports about it. Roger Casement was probably the last person to report the high crimes of the Congo in any depth and he was destroyed as a person by the Belgian and British States for doing it.

So perhaps it is dangerous to publish the whole story-- not the one that focuses on the Tarzan-vision of Africans-- when talking about Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo. Authors who are fixated on the violent results rather than the chain of causality, make the same mistakes repeatedly. But maybe these are not mistakes. Maybe this is the real purpose of such articles, to confirm the prejudices with spice. Mr Clinton's "apology" for neglecting the Rwanda crisis had nothing to do with being "black" in even the most absurd sense of this deceit, reported by at least one commentator. Like most US presidential posing it was duplicitous.

The massacres were not the tragic rage of peasants in factional warfare but the orchestrated assault on broad swathes of the population with machetes bought en masse and deployed by death squads of the same calibre US and UK governments have organised in every part of the world to murder and demoralise rural populations. Neither Clinton needed to know any of this. Whether Mr Clinton did is also immaterial. His posturing was part of the campaign in part orchestrated by the institutions like the IRC to sell a new brand of "missionary"-style intervention to defend corporate plunder.

In the 19th century Christian missionaries were sent into target countries-- usually with generous support by whatever companies had a financial interest in the territory. The provocation of aggressive and caustic Christendom normally triggered resistance and such resistance was then marketed at home as brutal native savagery against "peaceful Christian missionaries". (In fact it could be argued that the sole reason why Christendom is so obsessively described as "peace-loving and humble" at home is to mask its thousand-year history of filthy, brutal, self-righteous greed.) Thus the protective forces of the sending State acquired a pretext for invasion and slaughter, followed by occupation of the targeted lands and enslavement of the local labour. Today this doctrine and strategy is called "humanitarian interventionism". While in the Big House, Mr Clinton was its principal missionary. People like the Bush presidents spared us the hypocrisy of humanitarianism, preferring the more overt language of "full spectrum dominance" and "global war" etc.

Before it was the "white man's burden" and "manifest destiny". Then it became development and anti-communism. Now it is "humanitarian intervention" and "globalisation". These are all re-branding for the same vicious, greedy practices of an elite raised in filth and hypocrisy, to put it nicely. As Noam Chomsky has often said there is a tendency to focus on governments as if they were the only actors in international affairs. This has not been the case at least since the British crown chartered the Honourable East India Company in 1708.

The reporting today reminds me of an experience I had in the not too distant past. For whatever reason, mainly habit, I have used the same brand of toothpaste for 2 decades. Periodically the packaging and labelling are changed so that it is impossible to detect from the now five or six different variants of toothcare substance under the same brand the plain paste that I have been using since I was a child. I cannot say whether this toothpaste is of particularly high quality but it has the least repulsive taste and feel of all the stuff I have had to try on various occasions in my life. No one in the store could tell me which of the packages contained plain toothpaste. Of course the same product is still made but in the pathological determination to disguise a standard product with novelty even the name is changed at varying intervals. The machine for marketing this firm's product cannot grasp the notion of clear and consistent labelling for its standard product(s). In fact there is no interest at all in selling products which one can understand and/ or identify.

That is the way most people write about current events-- especially those which are not new but comprise standard products produced more or less the same for decades or centuries. There is no interest in the reader recognising the product for what it is. The reader has also become addicted to this planned ignorance and no longer even asks about the genuine product content-- happy as he or she is to see new packaging, the more sparkling the better.

It would be an enormous assistance to readers to identify the product in consistent and clear ways rather than presenting and re-presenting the "events" as if they were new, simply because of the need to dazzle with new packaging (presidential or ambassadorial as the case may be).

Some stores here and probably in the UK offer the option of disposing of the outer packaging of an item bought-- at the checkout before leaving the store. One idea is to encourage the store to reduce the amount of packaging the customer is obliged to take home and to aggregate the collection of such waste and recyclables. But the question remains-- why should the packaging be necessary in the first place? Well maybe before writing an article about a "news" product, the same question ought to be asked: why is the "news" packaging needed? Much fuss is made about government secrecy but this is truly exaggerated. The main reason people are misinformed is not government secrecy but the continuous re-packaging of low-fact paste and its witting and unwitting distribution by lazy or somnambulant journalists and pundits. Maybe the most ecological way to inform readers is to write the story, the history, without the dazzle and sparkles designed to distract-- to allow the reader to see the facts on the shelf plainly.

That would be an enormous improvement in the original product indeed.

The US was behind the Rwandan Genocide: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa ...... by Michel Chossudovsky

2010-04-07T21:56:00.000-07:00

Originally written in May 2000, the following text is Part II of Chapter 7 entitled "Economic Genocide in Rwanda", of the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order , Global Research, Montreal, 2003. This text updates the author's analysis on Rwanda written in 1995 , which was published in the first edition of Globalization of Poverty, TWN and Zed Books, Penang and London, 1997. To order the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty, click here .

This text is in part based on the results of a study conducted by the author together with Belgian economist Pierre Galand on the use of Rwanda's 1990-94 external debt to finance the military and paramilitary.

The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington's hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America's design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)

From the mid-1980s, the Kampala government under President Yoweri Musaveni had become Washington's African showpiece of "democracy". Uganda had also become a launchpad for US sponsored guerilla movements into the Sudan, Rwanda and the Congo. Major General Paul Kagame had been head of military intelligence in the Ugandan Armed Forces; he had been trained at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas which focuses on warfighting and military strategy. Kagame returned from Leavenworth to lead the RPA, shortly after the 1990 invasion.

Prior to the outbreak of the Rwandan civil war, the RPA was part of the Ugandan Armed Forces. Shortly prior to the October 1990 invasion of Rwanda, military labels were switched. From one day to the next, large numbers of Ugandan soldiers joined the ranks of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). Throughout the civil war, the RPA was supplied from United People's Defense Forces (UPDF) military bases inside Uganda. The Tutsi commissioned officers in the Ugandan army took over positions in the RPA. The October 1990 invasion by Ugandan forces was presented to public opinion as a war of liberation by a Tutsi led guerilla army.

Militarization of Uganda

The militarization of Uganda was an integral part of US foreign policy. The build-up of the Ugandan UPDF Forces and of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) had been supported by the US and Britain. The British had provided military training at the Jinja military base:

"From 1989 onwards, America supported joint RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front]-Ugandan attacks upon Rwanda... There were at least 56 'situation reports' in [US] State Department files in 1991... As American and British relations with Uganda and the RPF strengthened, so hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda escalated... By August 1990 the RPF had begun preparing an invasion with the full knowledge and approval of British intelligence. 20

Troops from Rwanda's RPA and Uganda's UPDF had also supported John Garang's People's Liberation Army in its secessionist war in southern Sudan. Washington was firmly behind these initiatives with covert support provided by the CIA. 21

Moreover, under the Africa Crisis Reaction Initiative (ACRI), Ugandan officers were also being trained by US Special Forces in collaboration with a mercenary outfit, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI) which was on contract with the US Department of State. MPRI had provided similar training to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the Croatian Armed Forces during the Yugoslav civil war and more recently to the Colombian Military in the context of Plan Colombia.

Militarization and the Ugandan External Debt

The buildup of the Ugandan external debt under President Musaveni coincided chronologically with the Rwandan and Congolese civil wars. With the accession of Musaveni to the presidency in 1986, the Ugandan external debt stood at 1.3 billion dollars. With the gush of fresh money, the external debt spiraled overnight, increasing almost threefold to 3.7 billion by 1997. In fact, Uganda had no outstanding debt to the World Bank at the outset of its "economic recovery program". By 1997, it owed almost 2 billion dollars solely to the World Bank. 22

Where did the money go? The foreign loans to the Musaveni government had been tagged to support the country's economic and social reconstruction. In the wake of a protracted civil war, the IMF sponsored "economic stabilization program" required massive budget cuts of all civilian programs.

The World Bank was responsible for monitoring the Ugandan budget on behalf of the creditors. Under the "public expenditure review" (PER), the government was obliged to fully reveal the precise allocation of its budget. In other words, every single category of expenditure --including the budget of the Ministry of Defense-- was open to scrutiny by the World Bank. Despite the austerity measures (imposed solely on "civilian" expenditures), the donors had allowed defense spending to increase without impediment.

Part of the money tagged for civilian programs had been diverted into funding the United People's Defense Force (UPDF) which in turn was involved in military operations in Rwanda and the Congo. The Ugandan external debt was being used to finance these military operations on behalf of Washington with the country and its people ultimately footing the bill. In fact by curbing social expenditures, the austerity measures had facilitated the reallocation of State of revenue in favor of the Ugandan military.

Financing both Sides in the Civil War

A similar process of financing military expenditure from the external debt had occurred in Rwanda under the Habyarimana government. In a cruel irony, both sides in the civil war were financed by the same donors institutions with the World Bank acting as a Watchdog.

The Habyarimana regime had at its disposal an arsenal of military equipment, including 83mm missile launchers, French made Blindicide, Belgian and German made light weaponry, and automatic weapons such as kalachnikovs made in Egypt, China and South Africa [as well as ... armored AML-60 and M3 armored vehicles.23 While part of these purchases had been financed by direct military aid from France, the influx of development loans from the World Bank's soft lending affiliate the International Development Association (IDA), the African Development Fund (AFD), the European Development Fund (EDF) as well as from Germany, the United States, Belgium and Canada had been diverted into funding the military and Interhamwe militia.

A detailed investigation of government files, accounts and correspondence conducted in Rwanda in 1996-97 by the author --together with Belgian economist Pierre Galand-- confirmed that many of the arms purchases had been negotiated outside the framework of government to government military aid agreements through various intermediaries and private arms dealers. These transactions --recorded as bona fide government expenditures-- had nonetheless been included in the State budget which was under the supervision of the World Bank. Large quantities of machetes and other items used in the 1994 ethnic massacres --routinely classified as "civilian commodities" -- had been imported through regular trading channels. 24

According to the files of the National Bank of Rwanda (NBR), some of these imports had been financed in violation of agreements signed with the donors. According to NBR records of import invoices, approximately one million machetes had been imported through various channels including Radio Mille Collines, an organization linked to the Interhamwe militia and used to foment ethnic hatred. 25

The money had been earmarked by the donors to support Rwanda's economic and social development. It was clearly stipulated that funds could not be used to import: "military expenditures on arms, ammunition and other military material". 26 In fact, the loan agreement with the World Bank's IDA was even more stringent. The money could not be used to import civilian commodities such as fuel, foodstuffs, medicine, clothing and footwear "destined for military or paramilitary use". The records of the NBR nonetheless confirm that the Habyarimana government used World Bank money to finance the import of machetes which had been routinely classified as imports of "civilian commodities." 27

An army of consultants and auditors had been sent in by World Bank to assess the Habyarimana government's "policy performance" under the loan agreement.28 The use of donor funds to import machetes and other material used in the massacres of civilians did not show up in the independent audit commissioned by the government and the World Bank. (under the IDA loan agreement. (IDA Credit Agreement. 2271-RW).29 In 1993, the World Bank decided to suspend the disbursement of the second installment of its IDA loan. There had been, according to the World Bank mission unfortunate "slip-ups" and "delays" in policy implementation. The free market reforms were no longer "on track", the conditionalities --including the privatization of state assets-- had not been met. The fact that the country was involved in a civil war was not even mentioned. How the money was spent was never an issue.30

Whereas the World Bank had frozen the second installment (tranche) of the IDA loan, the money granted in 1991 had been deposited in a Special Account at the Banque Bruxelles Lambert in Brussels. This account remained open and accessible to the former regime (in exile), two months after the April 1994 ethnic massacres.31

Postwar Cover-up

In the wake of the civil war, the World Bank sent a mission to Kigali with a view to drafting a so-called loan "Completion Report".32 This was a routine exercise, largely focussing on macro-economic rather than political issues. The report acknowledged that "the war effort prompted the [former] government to increase substantially spending, well beyond the fiscal targets agreed under the SAP.33 The misappropriation of World Bank money was not mentioned. Instead the Habyarimana government was praised for having "made genuine major efforts-- especially in 1991-- to reduce domestic and external financial imbalances, eliminate distortions hampering export growth and diversification and introduce market based mechanisms for resource allocation..." 34, The massacres of civilians were not mentioned; from the point of view of the donors, "nothing had happened". In fact the World Bank completion report failed to even acknowledge the existence of a civil war prior to April 1994.

In the wake of the Civil War: Reinstating the IMF's Deadly Economic Reforms

In 1995, barely a year after the 1994 ethnic massacres. Rwanda's external creditors entered into discussions with the Tutsi led RPF government regarding the debts of the former regime which had been used to finance the massacres. The RPF decided to fully recognize the legitimacy of the "odious debts" of the 1990-94. RPF strongman Vice-President Paul Kagame [now President] instructed the Cabinet not to pursue the matter nor to approach the World Bank. Under pressure from Washington, the RPF was not to enter into any form of negotiations, let alone an informal dialogue with the donors.

The legitimacy of the wartime debts was never questioned. Instead, the creditors had carefully set up procedures to ensure their prompt reimbursement. In 1998 at a special donors' meeting in Stockholm, a Multilateral Trust Fund of 55.2 million dollars was set up under the banner of postwar reconstruction.35 In fact, none of this money was destined for Rwanda. It had been earmarked to service Rwanda's "odious debts" with the World Bank (--i.e. IDA debt), the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

In other words, "fresh money" --which Rwanda will eventually have to reimburse-- was lent to enable Rwanda to service the debts used to finance the massacres. Old loans had been swapped for new debts under the banner of post-war reconstruction.36 The "odious debts" had been whitewashed, they had disappeared from the books. The creditor's responsibility had been erased. Moreover, the scam was also conditional upon the acceptance of a new wave of IMF-World Bank reforms.

Post War "Reconstruction and Reconciliation"

Bitter economic medicine was imposed under the banner of "reconstruction and reconciliation". In fact the IMF post-conflict reform package was far stringent than that imposed at the outset of the civil war in 1990. While wages and employment had fallen to abysmally low levels, the IMF had demanded a freeze on civil service wages alongside a massive retrenchment of teachers and health workers. The objective was to "restore macro-economic stability". A downsizing of the civil service was launched.37 Civil service wages were not to exceed 4.5 percent of GDP, so-called "unqualified civil servants" (mainly teachers) were to be removed from the State payroll. 38

Meanwhile, the country's per capita income had collapsed from $360 (prior to the war) to $140 in 1995. State revenues had been tagged to service the external debt. Kigali's Paris Club debts were rescheduled in exchange for "free market" reforms. Remaining State assets were sold off to foreign capital at bargain prices.

The Tutsi led RPF government rather than demanding the cancellation of Rwanda's odious debts, had welcomed the Bretton Woods institutions with open arms. They needed the IMF "greenlight" to boost the development of the military.

Despite the austerity measures, defense expenditure continued to grow. The 1990-94 pattern had been reinstated. The development loans granted since 1995 were not used to finance the country's economic and social development. Outside money had again been diverted into financing a military buildup, this time of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). And this build-up of the RPA occurred in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of civil war in former Zaire.

Civil War in the Congo

Following the installation of a US client regime in Rwanda in 1994, US trained Rwandan and Ugandan forces intervened in former Zaire --a stronghold of French and Belgian influence under President Mobutu Sese Seko. Amply documented, US special operations troops -- mainly Green Berets from the 3rd Special Forces Group based at Fort Bragg, N.C.-- had been actively training the RPA. This program was a continuation of the covert support and military aid provided to the RPA prior to 1994. In turn, the tragic outcome of the Rwandan civil war including the refugee crisis had set the stage for the participation of Ugandan and Rwandan RPA in the civil war in the Congo:

"Washington pumped military aid into Kagame's army, and U.S. Army Special Forces and other military personnel trained hundreds of Rwandan troops. But Kagame and his colleagues had designs of their own. While the Green Berets trained the Rwandan Patriotic Army, that army was itself secretly training Zairian rebels... [In] Rwanda, U.S. officials publicly portrayed their engagement with the army as almost entirely devoted to human rights training. But the Special Forces exercises also covered other areas, including combat skills... Hundreds of soldiers and officers were enrolled in U.S. training programs, both in Rwanda and in the United States... [C]onducted by U.S. Special Forces, Rwandans studied camouflage techniques, small-unit movement, troop-leading procedures, soldier-team development, [etc]... And while the training went on, U.S. officials were meeting regularly with Kagame and other senior Rwandan leaders to discuss the continuing military threat faced by the [former Rwandan] government [in exile] from inside Zaire... Clearly, the focus of Rwandan-U.S. military discussion had shifted from how to build human rights to how to combat an insurgency... With [Ugandan President] Museveni's support, Kagame conceived a plan to back a rebel movement in eastern Zaire [headed by Laurent Desire Kabila] ... The operation was launched in October 1996, just a few weeks after Kagame's trip to Washington and the completion of the Special Forces training mission... Once the war [in the Congo] started, the United States provided "political assistance" to Rwanda,... An official of the U.S. Embassy in Kigali traveled to eastern Zaire numerous times to liaise with Kabila. Soon, the rebels had moved on. Brushing off the Zairian army with the help of the Rwandan forces, they marched through Africa's third-largest nation in seven months, with only a few significant military engagements. Mobutu fled the capital, Kinshasa, in May 1997, and Kabila took power, changing the name of the country to Congo... U.S. officials deny that there were any U.S. military personnel with Rwandan troops in Zaire during the war, although unconfirmed reports of a U.S. advisory presence have circulated in the region since the war's earliest days.39

American Mining Interests

At stake in these military operations in the Congo were the extensive mining resources of Eastern and Southern Zaire including strategic reserves of cobalt -- of crucial importance for the US defense industry. During the civil war several months before the downfall of Mobutu, Laurent Desire Kabila basedin Goma, Eastern Zaire had renegotiated the mining contracts with several US and British mining companies including American Mineral Fields (AMF), a company headquartered in President Bill Clinton's hometown of Hope, Arkansas.40

Meanwhile back in Washington, IMF officials were busy reviewing Zaire's macro-economic situation. No time was lost. The post-Mobutu economic agenda had already been decided upon. In a study released in April 1997 barely a month before President Mobutu Sese Seko fled the country, the IMF had recommended "halting currency issue completely and abruptly" as part of an economic recovery programme.41 And a few months later upon assuming power in Kinshasa, the new government of Laurent Kabila Desire was ordered by the IMF to freeze civil service wages with a view to "restoring macro-economic stability." Eroded by hyperinflation, the average public sector wage had fallen to 30,000 new Zaires (NZ) a month, the equivalent of one U.S. dollar.42

The IMF's demands were tantamount to maintaining the entire population in abysmal poverty. They precluded from the outset a meaningful post-war economic reconstruction, thereby contributing to fuelling the continuation of the Congolese civil war in which close to 2 million people have died.

Concluding Remarks

The civil war in Rwanda was a brutal struggle for political power between the Hutu-led Habyarimana government supported by France and the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) backed financially and militarily by Washington. Ethnic rivalries were used deliberately in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. Both the CIA and French intelligence were involved.

In the words of former Cooperation Minister Bernard Debré in the government of Prime Minister Henri Balladur:

"What one forgets to say is that, if France was on one side, the Americans were on the other, arming the Tutsis who armed the Ugandans. I don't want to portray a showdown between the French and the Anglo-Saxons, but the truth must be told." 43

In addition to military aid to the warring factions, the influx of development loans played an important role in "financing the conflict." In other words, both the Ugandan and Rwanda external debts were diverted into supporting the military and paramilitary. Uganda's external debt increased by more than 2 billion dollars, --i.e. at a significantly faster pace than that of Rwanda (an increase of approximately 250 million dollars from 1990 to 1994). In retrospect, the RPA -- financed by US military aid and Uganda's external debt-- was much better equipped and trained than the Forces Armées du Rwanda (FAR) loyal to President Habyarimana. From the outset, the RPA had a definite military advantage over the FAR.

According to the testimony of Paul Mugabe, a former member of the RPF High Command Unit, Major General Paul Kagame had personally ordered the shooting down of President Habyarimana's plane with a view to taking control of the country. He was fully aware that the assassination of Habyarimana would unleash "a genocide" against Tutsi civilians. RPA forces had been fully deployed in Kigali at the time the ethnic massacres took place and did not act to prevent it from happening:

The decision of Paul Kagame to shoot Pres. Habyarimana's aircraft was the catalyst of an unprecedented drama in Rwandan history, and Major-General Paul Kagame took that decision with all awareness. Kagame's ambition caused the extermination of all of our families: Tutsis, Hutus and Twas. We all lost. Kagame's take-over took away the lives of a large number of Tutsis and caused the unnecessary exodus of millions of Hutus, many of whom were innocent under the hands of the genocide ringleaders. Some naive Rwandans proclaimed Kagame as their savior, but time has demonstrated that it was he who caused our suffering and misfortunes... Can Kagame explain to the Rwandan people why he sent Claude Dusaidi and Charles Muligande to New York and Washington to stop the UN military intervention which was supposed to be sent and protect the Rwandan people from the genocide? The reason behind avoiding that military intervention was to allow the RPF leadership the takeover of the Kigali Government and to show the world that they - the RPF - were the ones who stopped the genocide. We will all remember that the genocide occurred during three months, even though Kagame has said that he was capable of stopping it the first week after the aircraft crash. Can Major-General Paul Kagame explain why he asked to MINUAR to leave Rwandan soil within hours while the UN was examining the possibility of increasing its troops in Rwanda in order to stop the genocide?44

Paul Mugabe's testimony regarding the shooting down of Habyarimana's plane ordered by Kagame is corroborated by intelligence documents and information presented to the French parliamentary inquiry. Major General Paul Kagame was an instrument of Washington. The loss of African lives did not matter. The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

Despite the good diplomatic relations between Paris and Washington and the apparent unity of the Western military alliance, it was an undeclared war between France and America. By supporting the build up of Ugandan and Rwandan forces and by directly intervening in the Congolese civil war, Washington also bears a direct responsibility for the ethnic massacres committed in the Eastern Congo including several hundred thousand people who died in refugee camps.

US policy-makers were fully aware that a catastrophe was imminent. In fact four months before the genocide, the CIA had warned the US State Department in a confidential brief that the Arusha Accords would fail and "that if hostilities resumed, then upward of half a million people would die". 45 This information was withheld from the United Nations: "it was not until the genocide was over that information was passed to Maj.-Gen. Dallaire [who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanda]." 46

Washington's objective was to displace France, discredit the French government (which had supported the Habyarimana regime) and install an Anglo-American protectorate in Rwanda under Major General Paul Kagame. Washington deliberately did nothing to prevent the ethnic massacres.

When a UN force was put forth, Major General Paul Kagame sought to delay its implementation stating that he would only accept a peacekeeping force once the RPA was in control of Kigali. Kagame "feared [that] the proposed United Nations force of more than 5,000 troops... [might] intervene to deprive them [the RPA] of victory".47 Meanwhile the Security Council after deliberation and a report from Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali decided to postpone its intervention.

The 1994 Rwandan "genocide" served strictly strategic and geopolitical objectives. The ethnic massacres were a stumbling blow to France's credibility which enabled the US to establish a neocolonial foothold in Central Africa. From a distinctly Franco-Belgian colonial setting, the Rwandan capital Kigali has become --under the expatriate Tutsi led RPF government-- distinctly Anglo-American. English has become the dominant language in government and the private sector. Many private businesses owned by Hutus were taken over in 1994 by returning Tutsi expatriates. The latter had been exiled in Anglophone Africa, the US and Britain.

The Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) functions in English and Kinyarwanda, the University previously linked to France and Belgium functions in English. While English had become an official language alongside French and Kinyarwanda, French political and cultural influence will eventually be erased. Washington has become the new colonial master of a francophone country.

Several other francophone countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have entered into military cooperation agreements with the US. These countries are slated by Washington to follow suit on the pattern set in Rwanda. Meanwhile in francophone West Africa, the US dollar is rapidly displacing the CFA Franc -- which is linked in a currency board arrangement to the French Treasury.

Profitting from Haiti Disaster

2010-01-20T18:36:00.000-08:00

US corporations, private mercenaries, Washington and the International Monetary Fund are using the crisis in Haiti to make a profit, promote unpopular neoliberal policies, and extend military and economic control over the Haitian people.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, with much of the infrastructure and government services destroyed, Haitians have relied on each other for the relief efforts, working together to pull their neighbors, friends and loved ones from the rubble. One report from IPS News in Haiti explained, "In the day following the quake, there was no widespread violence. Guns, knives and theft weren't seen on the streets, lined only with family after family carrying their belongings. They voiced their anger and frustration with sad songs that echoed throughout the night, not their fists."

It is not this type of solidarity that has emerged in the wake of the crisis – and the delayed and muddled response from the international community – that most corporate media in the US have focused on. Instead, echoing the coverage and calls for militarization of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, major media outlets talk about the looting, and need for security to protect private property.

That militarization is already underway. This week the US is sending thousands of troops and soldiers to the country. The Haitian government has signed over control of its capital airport to the US. Brazil and France have already lodged complaints that US military planes are now being given priority over other flights at the international airport.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez responded to the US troop deployment. "I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said. "They are occupying Haiti undercover." The Venezuelan President pledged to send any necessary amount of gasoline needed to the country to aid with electricity and transport.

There is also little mention in the major news outlets’ coverage of how the US government and corporations helped impoverish Haiti in the first place, creating the economic poverty that makes disasters like this so extensive. Nor is there mention of the country’s heroic struggle against imperialism and slavery. Fidel Castro pointed out in a recent column, "Haiti was the first country in which 400,000 Africans, enslaved and trafficked by Europeans, rose up against 30,000 white slave masters on the sugar and coffee plantations, thus undertaking the first great social revolution in our hemisphere. … Napoleon's most eminent general was defeated there. Haiti is the net product of colonialism and imperialism, of more than one century of the employment of its human resources in the toughest forms of work, of military interventions and the extraction of its natural resources."

University professor Peter Hallward, writing in the Guardian Unlimited, criticized Washington for its responsibility in creating the suffering it is now pledging to alleviate in Haiti. "Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide's phrase) ‘from absolute misery to a dignified poverty’ has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. Aristide's own government (elected by some 75% of the electorate) was the latest victim of such interference, when it was overthrown by an internationally sponsored coup in 2004 that killed several thousand people and left much of the population smoldering in resentment. The UN has subsequently maintained a large and enormously expensive stabilization and pacification force in the country."

Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti told Hallward of the root causes for the overpopulation of neighborhoods in the city of Port-au-Prince that were hit so hard by the earthquake. "Those people got there because they or their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labor force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Unnatural crises such as this made the earthquake much more devastating.

As Noami Klein thoroughly proved in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, throughout history, "while people were reeling from natural disasters, wars and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry leaders nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during less muddled times." This push to apply unpopular neoliberal policies began almost immediately after the earthquake in Haiti.

In a talk recorded by Democracy Now!, Klein explained that the disaster in Haiti is created on the one hand by nature, and on the other hand "is worsened by the poverty that our governments have been so complicit in deepening. Crises—natural disasters are so much worse in countries like Haiti, because you have soil erosion because the poverty means people are building in very, very precarious ways, so houses just slide down because they are built in places where they shouldn’t be built. All of this is interconnected. But we have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy, which is part natural, part unnatural, must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti, and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interests of our corporations."

Following the disaster in Haiti, Klein pointed out that the Heritage Foundation, "one of the leading advocates of exploiting disasters to push through their unpopular pro-corporate policies," issued a statement on its website after the earthquake hit: "In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the U.S. response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti earthquake offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region."

The mercenary trade group International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) immediately offered their services to provide "security" in Haiti to its member companies, according to Jeremy Scahill. Within hours of the earthquake, Scahill wrote, the IPOA website announced, "In the wake of the tragic events in Haiti, a number of IPOA’s member companies are available and prepared to provide a wide variety of critical relief services to the earthquake’s victims."

Kathy Robison, a Fortune 500 executive, formerly with Goldman Sachs Companies, wrote of the earthquake disaster in Haiti. "The business leaders I have been meeting with have seen enough disappointment and suffering," she wrote. "What Haiti needs is economic development and the building of a true middle class. … There is much we are planning as far as creating new and innovative ways of using international aid and government support to promote private investment."

On January 14, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced a $100 million loan to Haiti to help with relief efforts. However, Richard Kim at The Nation wrote that this loan was added onto $165 million in debt made up of loans with conditions "including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage and keeping inflation low." This new $100 million loan has the same conditions. Kim writes, "in the face of this latest tragedy, the IMF is still using crisis and debt as leverage to compel neoliberal reforms."

The last thing Haiti needs at this point is more debt; what it needs is grants. As Kim wrote, according to a report from the The Center for International Policy, in 2003 "Haiti spent $57.4 million to service its debt, while total foreign assistance for education, health care and other services was a mere $39.21 million."

In the midst of the suffering and anguish following the earthquake, many Haitians came together to console and help each other. Journalist David Wilson, in Haiti during the time of the earthquake, wrote of the singing that followed the disaster. "Several hundred people had gathered to sing, clap, and pray in an intersection here by 9 o'clock last night, a little more than four hours after an earthquake had devastated much of the Haitian capital." A young Haitian American commented to Wilson on the singing, "Haitians are different," he said. "People in other countries wouldn't do this. It's a sense of community."

If these elements of the "relief" efforts continue in this exploitative vein, it is this community that will likely be crushed even further by disaster capitalism and imperialism.

While international leaders and institutions are speaking about how many soldiers and dollars they are committing to Haiti, it is important to note that what Haiti needs is doctors not soldiers, grants not loans, a stronger public sector rather than a wholesale privatization, and critical solidarity with grassroots organizations and people to support the self-determination of the country.

"We don’t need soldiers," Patrick Elie, the former Defense Minister under the Aristide government told Al Jazeera. "There is no war here." In addition to critiquing the presence of the soldiers, he commented on the US-control of the main airport. "The choice of what lands and what doesn’t land, the priorities of the flight[s], should be determined by the Haitians. Otherwise, it’s a takeover and what might happen is that the needs of Haitians are not taken into account, but only either the way a foreign country defines the need of Haiti, or try to push its own agenda."

Is Africa the next Afghanistan or Iraq?

2009-10-27T00:16:00.000-07:00

The United States is taking its military venture in Africa to new levels amid suspicions that Washington could be advancing yet another hidden agenda.

American operatives are expected to fly pilot-less surveillance aircrafts over the Seychellois [Seychelles] territory from US ships off its coast, in what Washington claims are meant to spy on the Somali pirates, according to a BBC report on Wednesday.

Washington has also started to equip Mali with USD 4.5 million worth of military vehicles and communications equipment, in what is reported to be an increasing US involvement in Africa.

The latter nation is reportedly cooperating with the US to fend off alleged al-Qaeda operatives in North Africa.

The developments come as the White House seeks grounds to establish a major military presence in Africa.

US officials have been strongly arguing that there is an alleged terror nexus in Somalia along with a militant-run recruitment network which, they claim, could ensnare the Somali-American community.

The US reportedly started operating spy planes over Somalia in 2006 when it generously aided an Ethiopian military intervention in the Horn of Africa nation.

Commenting on the developments, analysts caution that similar pretexts were used to justify the US invasion of Afghanistan, the missile attacks in Pakistan, and its waning military operations in Iraq, where the civilian population continue to bear the brunt of the US intervention.
More than 1,000 American and East African troops are to be deployed in northern Uganda next week as the United States carries out its biggest military exercise in Africa this year.

Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi are each sending up to 150 soldiers to join 450 US military personnel in Kitgum for the October 16-25 exercise known as Natural Fire 10.
....
[T]he decision to site the exercise in northern Uganda raises questions about whether it may presage a renewed US-supported assault against the Lord's Resistance Army.

Natural Fire 10 will involve live fire in the field as well as convoy operations, crowd control and vehicle checkpoints, the US Army reports.

And while Maj Gen William B. Garrett III insisted recently that the exercise is focused on training for humanitarian relief, the US Army commander added that the forces he will lead in Natural Fire 10 will be ready to respond to any security threat that may arise in the Kitgum region.

The Obama administration is being urged by dozens of Democratic and Republican members of Congress to help finish the fight against the LRA.

Several non-governmental organisations based in the US also advocate US military action to put an end to the maraudings of the LRA.

The US provided operational support to a joint Ugandan-DR Congo-Southern Sudan offensive last December that was aimed at capturing or killing LRA leader Joseph Kony....

But the operation dubbed Lightning Thunder failed in its objectives.

Kony escaped, and his forces embarked on a killing spree that took the lives of an estimated 1,000 Congolese villagers.

Natural Fire 10 may well have the primary purposes claimed for it, but the skills being taught to the East African soldiers "are readily transferable to any sort of operations that their commanders want to undertake," notes Daniel Volman, head of the Washington-based, non-governmental African Security Research Project.

The exercise in northern Uganda is scheduled to begin one week after the conclusion of another US-led military exercise in Gabon.

Nearly 30 African nations - including Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda - took part in that communications-focused initiative led by the US Africa Command.

According to Africom, the Africa Endeavour exercise sought to establish a network linking African armies' command and control structures in order to better prepare for joint operations.

Africom is also playing a co-ordination role in Natural Fire 10, which is being conducted by the US Army's Africa unit based in Italy.

Together, these exercises are cited by Africom's critics as further indications of what they describe as the growing militarisation of the US presence in Africa.

Situating the exercise in Uganda reflects the close military relationship that the United States has developed with that East African country, Volman says.

He suggests that Washington also appreciates President Yoweri Museveni's demonstrated willingness to "face down any criticisms" that may arise in response to Uganda's hosting of a large-scale, US-led military exercise.

Supplies for Natural Fire 10 have been sent by ship to Mombasa and then moved overland into Uganda.

The equipment includes three CH-47 Chinook helicopters that the US typically uses for troop movements and battlefield supply operations.

In an experiment to be conducted during Natural Fire 10, the helicopters will be equipped with a route-reconnaisance device that normally operates on the ground.

The US Army says that planned test flights of the device are intended to provide forces on the ground with real-time aerial views of roads and bridges in order to help make faster, better-informed decisions on transportation routes.

Worries persist in Africa that the Pentagon intends to station large numbers of US troops on the continent, despite denials by Africom's leaders that such a move is being planned.

The United States already maintains about 2,000 troops at a base in Djibouti.

This Joint Task Force/Horn of Africa detachment is the source of some of the US soldiers, sailors and Marines who will participate in Natural Fire 10.

Anglo-American Retribution On Zimbabwe And the Chinese Factor

2009-09-11T20:36:00.000-07:00

Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, presides over one of the world’s richest minerals treasures, the Great Dyke region, which cuts a geological swath across the entire land from northeast to southwest. The real background to the pious concerns of the Bush Administration for human rights in Zimbabwe in the past several years is not Mugabe’s possible election fraud or his expropriation of white settler farms. It is the fact that Mr. Mugabe has been quietly doing business, a lot of it, with the one country which has virtually unlimited need of strategic raw materials Zimbabwe can provide—China. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is, along with Sudan, on the central stage of the new war over control of strategic minerals of Africa between Washington and Beijing, with Moscow playing a supporting role in the drama. The stakes are huge.

Zimbabwe’s President, Robert Mugabe is a very very bad man. This we all know from reading the newspapers or hearing the pronouncements of former president George W. Bush, earlier Britain’s Tony Blair and more recently Gordon Brown. In their eyes he has sinned badly. They charge that he is a dictator; that he has expropriated, often with violence, the farms of whites as part of land reform; they claim he rigged his re-election by vote fraud and violence; that he has ruined the economy of Zimbabwe.

Whether Robert Mugabe deserves to be in Washington’s honor roll of villains alongside Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, and Adolf Hitler, however, it is not the reason Washington and London have made Zimbabwe regime change priority number one for their Africa policy.

What his sin is seems to have more to do with his attempts to get out from under Anglo-American neo-colonial serfdom dependency and to pursue a national economic development independent of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. His real sin seems to be the fact that he has turned to the one nation that offers his government credits and soft loans for economic development with no strings attached—The Peoples’ Republic of China.

Western media accounts conveniently tend to omit the second major party to what is a huge tug of war between Anglo-American interests and China to get control of Zimbabwe’s vast mineral wealth. We should keep in mind that for Washington there are always "good dictators" and "bad dictators." The difference is whether the given dictator serves US national interests or not. Mugabe clearly is in the latter category.

Cecil Rhodes’ legacy
Zimbabwe is the name of what under the era of British Imperialism a century ago was named Rhodesia. The name Rhodesia came from the British imperial strategist and miner, Cecil Rhodes, founder of the Rhodes scholarships to Oxford, and author of a plan for a vast private African zone, to be chartered from the Queen of England, from Egypt to South Africa. Cecil Rhodes created the British South Africa Company, modeled on the East India Company, along with his partner, L. Starr Jameson of Jameson Raid notoriety, to exploit the mineral riches of Rhodesia. It controlled what was later named Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia-Nyasaland. The model was that the British Government would assume all risks to militarily defend Rhodes’ looting while Rhodes and his London bankers, above all Lord Rothschild, who was a close associate, would assume all the gains of the business.

Rhodes, a seasoned geologist, knew well that there was a remarkable geological fault running from the mouth of the Nile at the Gulf of Suez south through Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, down through today’s Zimbabwe on to South Africa. Rhodes had already instigated several wars to gain control of the diamonds of Kimberly and the gold of Witwatersrand in South Africa. This geological phenomenon he, as well as enterprising German explorers, had discovered in the 1880’s. They named it the Great Rift Valley.

Rhodesia, like South Africa after the bloody Boer wars, was settled by white settlers to secure future minerals gains for allied interests of the City of London, mainly those of the powerful Oppenheimer family and their gold and diamond enterprises in the region.

In 1962 when Africa was undergoing the wave of national liberation from colonial rule, a wave calculatedly supported by "non-colonial power" Washington, Rhodesia was one of the last bastions, along with former British colony South Africa, of white Apartheid rule. Whites in Rhodesia constituted only 1-2% of the total population so their methods of holding on to power were rather ruthless.

White supremacist Prime Minister, Ian Smith, declared Rhodesian independence from Britain in 1965 rather than agree to the slightest compromise on race or power sharing with black nationalists. Britain got UN trade sanctions imposed to force Smith to buckle under. Despite sanctions, there was considerable support from conservative business interests in London. Britain’s Tiny Rowland, head of the Lonrho mining conglomerate, secured the bulk of his African profits from Rhodesian copper mining and related ventures under the Smith regime. The City of London knew very well what riches lay in Rhodesia. The question was how to secure enduring control. Smith’s Rhodesian backers had little interest in giving it all to London.

Following a long and bloody struggle, in 1980 the leader of the black African Popular Front coalition, Robert Mugabe, overwhelmingly won election as the first Prime Minister of a new Zimbabwe. Twenty eight years later, the same Robert Mugabe is under escalating attack from the West, especially Zimbabwe’s former colonial master, England, including strong economic sanctions designed to bring the country to the brink of collapse, to force him to open the economy to foreign (read Anglo-American and allied) investment. Ironically, the issue seems not all that different from the Ian Smith era: London and US control of the resources of the rich land, and Zimbabwean efforts to resist that control.

The Great Dyke
Within Zimbabwe, a portion of the rich Great Rift is called the Great Dyke, an intrusive geological treasure zone running over 530 kilometers from the northeast to the southwest of the country, in places up to 12 kilometers wide. A river runs along the fault and the region is volcanically active. Here also lie vast deposits of chromium, of copper, platinum and other metals.
The US State Department, as well as London, is aware of the vast minerals and other riches of Zimbabwe. It states in a recent report on Zimbabwe,

"Zimbabwe is endowed with rich mineral resources. Exports of gold, asbestos, chrome, coal, platinum, nickel, and copper could lead to an economic recovery one day...The country is richly endowed with coal-bed methane gas that has yet to be exploited.
With international attractions such as Victoria Falls, the Great Zimbabwe stone ruins, Lake Kariba, and extensive wildlife, tourism historically has been a significant segment of the economy and contributor of foreign exchange. The sector has contracted sharply since 1999, however, due to the country's declining international image.(sic).

Energy Resources
With considerable hydroelectric power potential and plentiful coal deposits for thermal power station, Zimbabwe is less dependent on oil as an energy source than most other comparably industrialized countries, but it still imports 40% of its electric power needs from surrounding countries--primarily Mozambique. Only about 15% of Zimbabwe's total energy consumption is accounted for by oil, all of which is imported. Zimbabwe imports about 1.2 billion liters of oil per year. Zimbabwe also has substantial coal reserves that are utilized for power generation, and coal-bed methane deposits recently discovered in Matabeleland province are greater than any known natural gas field in Southern or Eastern Africa. In recent years, poor economic management and low foreign currency reserves have led to serious fuel shortages."

In short, chrome, copper, gold, platinum, huge hydroelectric power potential and vast coal reserves are what is at stake for Washington and London in Zimbabwe. The country also has unverified reserves of uranium, something in big demand today for nuclear power generation.

It is clear of late that so long as the tenacious Mugabe is running things, not the Anglo-Americans, but rather the Chinese, are Zimbabwe’s preferred business partners. This seems to be Mugabe’s greatest sin. He’s not reading from the right program as George W. Bush’s friends see it. His real sin seems to be turning East not West for economic and investment help.

The Chinese connection
During the Cold War China recognized and supported Robert Mugabe. In recent years as China’s search for secure raw materials escalated its foreign diplomacy, relations have become stronger. According to the Chinese media, China has invested more in Zimbabwe than any other nation.

Already back in July 2005 as Tony Blair turned the sanctions screws tighter on Zimbabwe, Mugabe flew to Beijing to meet with the top Chinese leadership, where he reportedly sought an emergency loan of US$1 billion and asked increased Chinese involvement in the economy.

It began to bear fruit. In June 2006 state--owned Zimbabwean businesses signed a number of energy, mining and farming deals worth billions of dollars with Chinese companies. The largest was with China Machine-Building International Corporation, for a $1,3bn contract to mine coal and build thermal-power generators in Zimbabwe, to reduce Zimbabwe’s electricity shortage. The Chinese company had already built thermal-power stations in Nigeria and Sudan, and had been involved in mining projects in Gabon.

In 2007 the Chinese government donated farm machinery worth $25 million to Zimbabwe, including 424 tractors and 50 trucks, as part of a $58 million loan to the Zimbabwean government. The Mugabe administration had previously seized white-owned farms and gave them to blacks, damaging machinery in the process. In return for the equipment and the loan the Zimbabwean government will ship 30 million kilograms of tobacco to the People's Republic of China.

Other Zimbabwe-China agreements included a deal between the Zimbabwe Mining Development and China’s Star Communications, forming a joint venture to mine chrome, with funding from the China Development Bank. Zimbabwe also agreed to import road-building, irrigation and farming equipment from the China National Construction and Agricultural Machinery Import and Export Corporation and China Poly Group. Zimbabwe also relies on China for imports of telecommunications equipment, military hardware and many other critical items it can no longer import from the west because of the British-led sanctions.

Relations have become so important that Zimbabwe’s police have a dedicated "China desk" to protect Chinese interests in the country.

In April 2007 the chairman of China’s top political advisory body, Jia Qinglin, head of the National Committee of the Chinese Peoples’ Political Consultative Conference, flew to Harare to meet with Mugabe. It was a follow-up to the 2006 Beijing China-Africa Cooperation Summit where the Chinese government invited the heads of more than 40 African states to discuss relations. Africa has become a diplomatic and economic priority for China and its economy.

At that time, Beijing got an open invitation to help develop dormant mines in the country. The deputy speaker of Zimbabwe's parliament called for more Chinese investment in the country's mining sector, according to Chinese news agency. Zimbabwe's mining laws were changed to allow the government to reallocate mining claims that were not being exploited.

Mining generates half of Zimbabwe's export revenue. It is the only sector in the country that still has foreign investors after the collapse of the main agricultural sector. Western companies with mining claims in Zimbabwe were not exploiting them Zimbabwe assured Chinese investors that they would not expose themselves to legal action if they took over claims held by Western companies.

A few months after, in December 2007, Chinese company, Sinosteel Corporation, acquired 67 percent stake in Zimbabwe's leading ferrochrome producer and exporter Zimasco Holdings. Zimasco Holdings is the fifth largest high carbonated ferrochrome producer in the world. It used to produce 210,000 tons of high-carbon ferrochrome per year, nearly all of it along the mineral-rich Great Dyke, accounting for 4 percent of global ferrochrome production.

Zimasco has also the world's second largest reserves of chrome, after South Africa. It was formerly owned by Union Carbide Corporation, now part of Dow Chemicals Corp.
Oh, oh! Alarm bells went ringing in London and in Washington at that news.
China clearly views Africa as a central part of its strategic plan, most notably for its oil reserves and vital raw materials such as copper, chrome, nickel. The continent is also at the same time becoming an important region for Chinese manufactured exports. But the raw materials battle is at the heart, and the real reason by all accounts, why Washington recently decided to form a separate Africa Command in the Pentagon.

Controlling China’s economic emergence is an un-stated strategic priority of United States foreign and military policy and has been since before September 11, 2001. The only delicate point in the business is the fact that China, with well over $1.7 trillions of foreign exchange reserves, most believed in form of US Treasury securities, could trigger a complete dollar panic and further collapse of the US economy should she decide for political reasons it were too risky to continue holding its hundreds of billions of US dollar debt. In effect, by buying US Government debt with its trade surpluses, China has been indirectly financing US policies counter to Chinese national interest such as the Iraq war, or even the $100 million or so annually that Condi Rice’s State Department did spend on Tibet.

China is refusing to play by the rules of the Anglo-American neo-colonial game. It does not seek IMF or World Bank approval before dealing with African countries. It makes soft loans, regardless who might be running the country. In this it does nothing different from Washington or London. The Chinese see American influence in Africa less entrenched than in the rest of the world, thus offering unique opportunities for China to pursue its economic interests.

It may or may not be cynical. It may be Realpolitik. If it results in the ability of certain African countries to use China as a political counterweight to the one-sided Anglo-American domination of the Continent, that itself could be a major benefit to Africans depending on how they use it.

Clearly, it has been extremely positive for Chinese access to vital economic minerals for its economy as well as oil from places such as Darfur and southern Sudan, or Nigeria.

Mineral wealth has once more put Africa on center stage of a battle for mineral riches between East and West. This time, unlike during the Cold War era, however, Beijing is playing with far more assets, and Washington with far less.

Karl Marx...The real Globalist Vision!

2009-08-26T01:32:00.000-07:00

If nothing else, the wholesale plunder of the planet’s natural resources has brought into sharp focus the necessity for some kind of global (and globally enforceable) regulation of what’s left of the planet’s precious cargo of life. But can capitalism undertake such a task? Not only that, is it willing to do so and is even some kind of ‘reformed’ capitalism capable of doing so given that the basic drive of capitalism is expand or die.

The clarion call of Marx and his 19th century socialists was Internationalism, ‘All Workers of the World Unite’, predicated as it was on the globalizing nature of industrial capitalism as it sought to expand the capitalist market into every nook and cranny where there was a buck to be made. And in so doing, Marx correctly predicted that industrial capitalism would create an organized and politically conscious working class wherever it spread, who were at the time, the most advanced section of working people, and that it would be the organized working class ‘led’ by a revolutionary organization that would do away with capitalism and replace it with a rational, planned socialist economy.

So much for the theory. The practice has taught some of us valuable lessons about just how difficult it is to build a socialist economy and not merely because we had nothing but theory to go on but also because the dominant capitalist states were determined that any and all alternatives to capitalism would and should fail and crucially, should be seen to fail.

That said, it is now apparent that the scale of the plundering is so huge that it threatens the future of life on the planet let alone the possibility of socialism, and it is most visible in the planet’s oceans with some estimates suggesting that in less than forty years 90% of the ocean’s fish stock will have been wiped out. With 1 billion people totally dependent on fish as their source of protein, this is a crisis of staggering proportions. And the thought of our planet’s oceans empty of life is simply too appalling to contemplate! The ocean is after all, our womb, we even cry salt tears.

The plain fact is, that rather than rising populations being the cause of resource depletion (Malthus rears his ugly, dead head once again), it is the insatiable appetites of the allegedly developed nations, perhaps 10% of the world’s population that is responsible for the carnage.

Around ten million sharks are slaughtered every year just for the unfortunate creature’s fins to satisfy the desires of a handful of wealthy Japanese. The carcass is tossed back into the ocean.

Every year millions of tons of tuna are sucked out of the ocean just so we can have a damn tuna sandwich, and it’s not like these are necessities, they are luxuries we can well do without. But how do you regulate 70% of planet when our ‘global’ economy is a free-for-all?

The issue is simple: can capitalism solve the crisis that confronts us without signing its own death warrant and is it even willing to try? History shows us that the answer is a resounding no to both questions.

Is Cuba showing us the way forward?

There is a certain irony in the fact that Cuba, through force of circumstance has had to embark on the construction of a sustainable economy. But it’s no accident that the world’s only socialist economy has embarked on such a revolutionary course for it is literally the only country on the planet capable of undertaking such a task. That it is in part because of the decades-long US embargo coupled to the collapse of the Soviet Union in no way diminishes the accomplishment. But regardless of the reasons, Cuba has shown us not only that it’s possible but impossible without a planned, socialist economy.

Imagine if you will, another island nation, the UK, taking a comparable route to the future? Cuba is after all, a poor country that for decades has been deliberately starved of resources and, like other countries that attempted to construct socialism, it lacks a developed infrastructure. In a word it was the least equipped to take on such a gargantuan task, let alone do it in the shadow of ‘El Norte’.

Everything that Marx wrote 150 years ago pointed in the direction that we are now being forced to consider. But will it take ecological collapse to get us to confront the issue and will that be too late?

This is not an academic question, it is now an issue of survival. But will it be only when there are no cans of tuna on the shelves or fish in the chippie that our overfed and under-informed populace wake up to the reality of the situation?

In the past, the struggle for socialism was predicated on economic and political justice for all working people and this hasn’t changed but what has changed is that the effects of unending ’growth’, that is, expansion of the capitalist ‘market’ has finally met its limit, the planet itself.

But if you think this would be some kind of wake-up call to our so-called leaders, think again. Can a leopard change its spots? Instead, it’s seen as yet another opportunity to make money! Worse still, the responsibility for ending this madness has been dumped on us but crucially without any corresponding power to do anything meaningful about it. Instead we are brow-beaten into tightening our belts, even criminalized for dumping too much garbage! Garbage we didn't create but are forced to buy when we go to the supermarket. We get the guilt and Walmart’s shareholders get the gelt.

Dafur Propaganda for An American Invasion!

2009-08-20T15:00:00.000-07:00

The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.
Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the "Save Darfur" lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination i here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa.
1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie the US government and media elite told us to justify a war.
Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's still better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".
2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
The 1995 US and NATO military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the US military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes. It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the US's secret prison and torture facilities.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
"The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd"don’t you agree? What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many Africans have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrick Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese "genocide" worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.
4. It's all about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet's energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It's all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world's supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It's all about Sudan's strategic location
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world's easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan has water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.
7. The backers and founders of the "Save Darfur" movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer
"The "Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum...
"The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year...
Though the "Save Darfur" PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manufacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the "Save Darfur Coalition", the flagship of the "Save Darfur Movement" go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
"None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act."
9. "Save Darfur" partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur.
President Bush had openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The slick, well financed and nearly seamless PR campaign simplistically depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan. In the make-believe world it creates, there is no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and can also negotiate in good faith if it chooses. Negotiations are never a guarantee of anything, but refusal to participate in negotiations, as the U.S. appears to be urging the rebels in Darfur to do, and as the "Save Darfur" PR campaign justifies, avoids any path to a political settlement among Sudanese, leaving open only the road of U.S and NATO military intervention.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.
"Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camps in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback."
Apparently Blackwater doesn't need to come to the Congo, where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape and the disappearance of schools, hospitals and civil society into vast law free zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), all under a veil of complicit media silence already constitute the perfect business-friendly environment for siphoning off the vast wealth of that country at minimal cost.
Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across the wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call "ungoverned spaces". Just don't expect to see details on the evening news, or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie.

A Look Into Somalia !

2009-08-18T02:16:00.000-07:00

How bad is the situation in Somalia, the third target of George W. Bush's "Terror War" take-downs? It's "worse than Darfur,"

The speed and size of the exodus from Mogadishu has eclipsed the emergency in the western Sudanese province, where there are established camps run by international aid agencies. There are no such camps in Somalia, an east African country already on its knees after 16 years of clan fighting and no central government.

Most of those who have fled in recent weeks, including women, children and the elderly, are camping in fields in areas surrounding Mogadishu, without access to food, shelter, clean water or medicines.

The few medical relief agencies operating in the region, including Medecins Sans Frontieres and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have reported fears of cholera outbreaks.

Where did these refugees come from? They were driven from their homes by the "regime change" operation greenlighted by the Bush Administration late last year. The Bushists employed the American-trained and -funded military of the repressive Ethiopian dictatorship plus an alliance of Somali warlords and gangsters as a proxy force to overthrow the first stable government in Somalia in the past 15 years -- the Islamic Courts Council. Bush also contributed U.S. airstrikes -- on civilians -- and U.S. Special Forces troops to the aggression. (See "Black Hawk Rising: CIA Warlords Take Control in Mogadishu" for more information and links.)

The Council -- a coalition of moderate and hardline grassroots Islamic courts -- stood in the way of the implantation of the more pliable warlord-gangster faction that the Bushists wanted to bring to power. There's oil to be had in Somalia -- and its new Bush-installed masters have duly announced that they will pursue an "oil law" just like the American-authored measure in Iraq, opening up the country like a can of sardines to foreign oil barons. Meanwhile, Somalia's strategic position in the Horn of Africa makes it a key linchpin for the Administration's "Africom" -- the new "unified command" to oversee America's burgeoning military involvement in Africa. (And oh yes; there were supposed to be some of them al-Qaedniks hiding out in Somalia; in fact, Bush killed dozens of Somali civilians in bombing raids on fleeing civilians in an attempt to knock off a couple of the alleged dastards. He failed, of course; but at least the men, women and children who had their guts ripped out and their heads blown off and their limbs torn from their bodies died in a good cause.)

The Somali "regime change" op intensified a couple of month ago when Bush's Ethiopian proteges launched a ferocious attack on resistance forces in the capital of Mogadishu. Tanks and artillery rained shells on residential areas, killing hundreds of people and driving hundreds of thousands more from the city. Many fled toward Kenya, where most were turned away, and others were captured by Kenyan security forces and American agents, then "rendered" to torture chambers in Ethiopia. The victims included a pregnant Swedish woman and a New Jersey man.

But don't worry, neither of them were white, so it's OK. If they had been of paler hue, of course, perhaps the Bush-backed bloodbath would have attracted more than a modicum of carefully massaged notice in the American media. But not even the "progressive" blogosphere paid much attention to this new "War on Terror" atrocity. Most of them seemed more preoccupied with what Jonathan Chait said about them in the New Republic -- a topic of supreme importance, to be sure, and far more interesting than the same old yadda yadda yadda about human suffering over in Africa somewhere, especially if George Clooney is not around.

Yet even if Clooney-less human suffering doesn't move the punditry of print and pixel, you'd think the long-term strategic considerations raised by this murderous "intervention" in Africa would spark some interest. With the establishment of Africom, with its cozying up to the vicious dictatorship in Ethiopia -- and the even more repressive regime in oil-rich Equitorial Guinea (as Crossed Crocodiles notes) -- the Bush Administration has well and truly launched us on a new "Great Game," this time between the United States and China, in a bid to dominate Africa's energy resources. We are in for some down and dirty times in Africa over the next decades, and the Bush-backed war in Somalia -- with its brutality, lies, ruin, death and murder -- is just a curtain-raiser.

Iran Now!

2009-07-31T01:06:00.000-07:00

The troubles that have followed the Iranian presidential elections have been generally misread by the Western press and policymakers. What we have witnessed was not a frustrated East European-style 'colour revolution'; nor was presidential candidate Mir Hussain Mousavi's movement an uprising of liberal Westernised sympathisers against the principles of the Iranian Revolution - albeit there were surely some who are hostile to the Revolution amongst his supporters.

Rather, what we have been witnessing is a power struggle - between factions of the 'old guard' clergy who all initially assumed power in 1979 - that erupted into public view in the recent election campaign. As that dispute is settled over the coming months, we can expect big changes in the top ranks of the power elite. But the revolution is not about to implode.

The essential dispute centres around prominent clerics, mainly former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who have sought to weaken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ability to pursue his populist attack on their privileged position. They also have sought to diminish the political weight of the Revolutionary Guard, which they see as increasingly at odds with their interests.

This faction of the elite is deeply threatened by Ahmadinejad's assault on their personal wealth, and by his claims that it was these senior clerics' pursuit of their own narrow self-interest, at the expense of ordinary people, that is the root cause of Iran's economic woes.

It was this group of powerful clerics that stood behind the Mousawi challenge to Ahmadinejad. It was Khatami who was designated by this faction to propose to Mousawi that he stand for election; it was Khatami who initially offered the opposition leader the umbrella of their powerful political standing at the center of Iran's elite.

Thanks in no small part to this blessing, Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, could credibly campaign on the platform of their revolutionary credentials. Their quarrel, they made clear, was with Ahmadinejad and his conduct of government.

Mousavi's casting of his mission as one of restoring the revolution to its original ideals was not only an internal message; it was also replayed widely in the Arab media. But the West seemed to be hearing and hoping for something else: that he was challenging the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The extent to which Mousavi intended to send this signal and benefit by leveraging Western support is unclear. But that perception has opened Mousavi and his prominent backers to the risk of severe repercussions internally in the wake of the post-election turmoil.

Indeed, it is on the basis of such allegations that an influential editor of the conservative Kayhan newspaper, has called for both Mousavi and Khatami to face trial.

Paradoxically, the Western understanding that Ahmadinejad is a tool of the clerical leadership who stands with the repressive Revolutionary Guard and Basij (the popular militia) against reform could not be more wrong. It was Ahmadinejad who campaigned against the wealth and self-interest of some of the clerical elite. Mousavi was more closely allied to those interests.

The West should also understand that there are clerics in both Qom and Tehran, some of whom despise Ahmadinejad himself, who nonetheless share his view that some senior clerics have failed to actualise the spirit of the revolution in their lifestyles.

What we are dealing with here is a complex struggle over the future course of the revolution. It is a struggle for the future vision of Iran that is overlaid by deep personality differences that in turn arouse deep passions.

For now, it is clear that a powerful determination has emerged in the wake of the election to exorcise the Rafsanjani-Khatami circles from the establishment, fuelled by a growing popular anger as the evidence of their external links to the West is being carefully examined. Rafsanjani himself, who is well aware of the dangers of becoming isolated and excluded from the circles of power, is now walking a tight rope.

On July 4, he was quoted as saying that the election crisis reflected a power struggle at the "highest levels of the system". In a carefully worded statement, he warned that any "awakened consciousness" could not be ignored, but also spoke of the need to safeguard revolutionary institutions. Though one step removed, his Kargozaran party has gone further, calling the election results "unacceptable" as a result of "massive election fraud."

The impact of these recent events on Iranian foreign policy is likely to be the opposite of what Western commentators have foreseen. It is not likely that the Revolutionary Guard, which is under the control of the Supreme Leader, will be paralysed, but rather the reverse.

Despite hopes in the West, an end to the revolution is not in sight. More likely is a counter-reaction that will lead to the isolation of Mousavi and his associates as popular forces allied with Ahmadinejad seek to inject new stimulus into the revolution by cleansing it of the corrupted elements of its old guard

Mercenaries Cashing On Africa!

2009-07-06T14:22:00.000-07:00

European mercenaries, the notorious "Dogs of War," came to prominence in Africa in the 1960s when the mineral-rich continent was convulsed by wars and revolutions as Britain, France and Belgium relinquished their vast colonies.

Western soldiers of fortune like Britain's "Mad Mike" Hoare, Bob Denard of France and the Belgian, "Black Jack" Schramme, became household names as they fought for one African dictator or another to grab Africa's riches.

In the 1980s and '90s, the mercenaries metamorphosed into their modern incarnation of "private military companies," headed by outfits like Executive Outcomes and Sandline, hired to protect oil, diamond and copper interests for global conglomerates or to crush rebellions by power-hungry tribal tyrants.

International opprobrium and a slew of legislation by countries such as South Africa, once a haven for the mercenaries, severely curbed their activities. But these privateers, particularly U.S. companies such as Blackwater, DynCorp and Vinnell Corp., found themselves with a goldmine in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their combined strength often matched the U.S. military presence. Trigger-happy personnel and questionable financial dealings gave this new generation of mercenaries a black name as well.

Now, as the United States prepares to pull out most of its forces in Iraq, mercenaries are mustering for another move into Africa, courtesy of the new combat command established by the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. Africa Command, universally known as Africom.

Its main mission is to work with African militaries to improve security to counter encroachment by al-Qaida. But it is also designed to protect Africa's oil wealth, upon which the United States increasingly relies. But Africom is also charged with helping development programs -- and oddly enough, that's where the military contractors see the prospect of big bucks.

It was, then, not so strange to find scores of representatives from the plethora of security companies that were spawned by Bush's war against terrorism, with its vast outsourcing program, gathered at, of all things, the annual meeting of the International Peace Operations Association in Washington a few weeks ago.

Africom's diplomacy-driven development operation, it seems, was the magnet. Of particular interest was a U.S. State Department contract, the Africa Peacekeeping Program, worth around $1 billion over five years. It covers everything from logistics and construction, training courses for African troops, aerial surveillance missions and bolstering coastal security.

That last issue is of special concern because of the rampant piracy off war-ravaged Somalia in the Gulf of Aden and, on the western side of the continent, increasing oil theft in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea. Oil theft there costs Nigeria an estimated $2 billion a year.

At another recent gathering in South Africa, naval commanders from 33 of the continent's 54 states agreed on the urgent need to cooperate to counter an unprecedented surge in criminal activity that includes piracy, smuggling trafficking and pollution, including the dumping of toxic waste.

Toxic waste dumping is becoming a major problem in Africa's poorly policed waters in the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Another threat is large-scale fishing by European fleets off Africa, which is depleting stocks at such a rate that local fishing industries are collapsing. West Africa loses $170 million annually because of illegal fishing, which it is powerless to prevent.

A week earlier the Nigerian navy took delivery of two new 115-foot Manta-class offshore patrol craft and two Agusta helicopters to beef up its maritime presence in the Niger Delta, epicenter of that nation's oil industry. The purchase of the Mantas was financed by the state-run Nigerian National Petroleum Corp.

That's one pointer to how the new-age mercenaries, the private military companies, could do business with African states under Africom's diplomatic umbrella while the bulk of U.S. forces concentrate on the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan.

Why USA is Hogwashing Iran!

2009-06-19T10:07:00.000-07:00

How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the U.S. media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the U.S. media.

The U.S. media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status in the 1950s, was overturned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The U.S. “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the U.S. puppet government and held hostage U.S. embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled U.S. corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence for it whatsoever. The U.S. media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the U.S. Government.

What is the source of the information for the U.S. media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.”*

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

There have been numerous news reports that the U.S. government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the U.S. government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The U.S. media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the U.S. government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the U.S. interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the U.S. government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the U.S. media treating it as an indication of U.S. omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Moussavi is a bought and paid for operative of the U.S. government.

We know for a fact that the U.S. government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the U.S. and foreign media.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the U.S. and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the U.S. and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western devotion to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The U.S. government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

I believe that the purpose of the U.S. government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Moussavi, the U.S. government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American lives and money to liberate. Has Moussavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on U.S. television.

The only hard information available is the poll . The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

Damn Western Chauvinism!

2009-05-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

Once again I find myself saluting Iranian President Ahmadinejad, in full support of his words. No one could do better bringing to light European racial discriminatory sentiments.

What we saw at the UN Anti Racism Forum was crude collective institutional Islamophobic racism in its making, a coordinated show of rabid western chauvinism. A bunch of European diplomats behaving as a herd of sheep, exhibiting complete denial of the notion of freedom of speech and the culture of debate.

Eloquently and profoundly, President Ahmadinejad was stating the full truth and expressing some universally acknowledged facts.

Israel is indeed a racist state!

Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish state’. Though Jews do not form a racial continuum, their national state’s legislation is racially orientated. The Israeli legal system is discriminatory towards those who fail to be Jews. As if this is not enough, the Israeli army proves to be murderous towards the indigenous inhabitants of the land.

Considering Israel being an apartheid state due to this institutionalised discrimination, one would expect that the Geneva anti-Racism Forum would primarily serve to deal with states such as Israel. But the truth of the matter is tragic, in current world affairs, Israel is the one and only racially orientated state. And as we could see yesterday, the ‘West’ failed once again to address the most obvious humanist call for action.

Needless to say that Ahmadinejad was also totally correct in describing the historic circumstances that lead to the birth of Israel.

It was indeed Jewish suffering that bought about the formation of the Jewish state. It is true also that the Jewish state was founded at the expense of the Palestinian people who are in fact the last suffering victims of the Nazi era.

The fact that European diplomats have behaved intolerantly proves that they and the governments behind them are the root cause of current racism, namely Islamophobia.

On a final note, if the British government insists upon sending delegates to such a conference, it better make sure that those assigned to the task are capable of presenting an eloquent argument that can withstand intellectual scrutiny. Peter Gooderham, the UK ambassador to the UN in Geneva, is clearly not suited to the job. The Ambassador went on record saying "Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a UN anti-racism forum."

Ambassador Gooderham better advise us where the ‘anti Semitism’ is exactly.

President Ahmadinejad did not refer to a Jewish race, he did not refer to Judaism either. He did not refer to the Jewish people, if anything, he was referring to their suffering.

Ambassador Gooderham, in case you have managed to miss it all, while acting like a sheep in a herd, President Ahmadinejad was telling the truth referring to some universally accepted facts.

It would save some embarrassment in the future if British diplomats would be properly trained to understand the complexity of current world affairs and the ideologies that are involved in shaping those affairs. It would save us from watching the odd buffoon diplomats throwing around meaningless sound bites, which they themselves fail to fully comprehend.

Bush Eff-ed Up Somalia!

2009-05-04T15:46:00.000-07:00

"The Ethiopian invasion, which was sanctioned by the U.S. government, did destroyed virtually all the life-sustaining economic systems which the population had built for the last fifteen years."

Up until 6 months ago, no one in the Bush administration showed the least bit of interest in the incidents of piracy off the coast of Somalia. that all changed and there was talk of sending in the Navy to patrol the waters off the Horn of Africa and clean up the pirates hideouts. Why the sudden about-face? Could it have something to do with the fact that the Ethiopian army was planning to withdraw all of its troops from Mogadishu by the end of the year, thus, ending the failed two year US-backed occupation of Somalia?

The United States has lost the ground war in Somalia, but that doesn't mean its geopolitical objectives have changed one iota. The U.S. intends to stay in the region for years to come and use its naval power to control the critical shipping lanes from the Gulf of Aden. The growing strength of the Somali national resistance is a set-back, but it doesn't change the basic game-plan. The pirates are actually a blessing in disguise. They provide an excuse for the administration to beef up it's military presence and put down roots. Every crisis is an opportunity.

There's an interesting subtext to the pirate story that hasn't appeared in the western media. According to Simon Assaf of the Socialist Worker:

"Many European, U.S. and Asian shipping firms – notably Switzerland's Achair Partners and Italy's Progresso – signed dumping deals in the early 1990s with Somalia's politicians and militia leaders. This meant they could use the coast as a toxic dumping ground. This practice became widespread as the country descended into civil war.

Nick Nuttall of the UN Environment Programme said, "European companies found it was very cheap to get rid of the waste."

When the Asian tsunami of Christmas 2005 washed ashore on the east coast of Africa, it uncovered a great scandal. Tons of radioactive waste and toxic chemicals drifted onto the beaches after the giant wave dislodged them from the sea bed off Somalia. Tens of thousands of Somalis fell ill after coming into contact with this cocktail. They complained to the United Nations (UN), which began an investigation.

"There are reports from villagers of a wide range of medical problems such as mouth bleeds, abdominal hemorrhages, unusual skin disorders and breathing difficulties," the UN noted.

Some 300 people are believed to have died from the poisonous chemicals.

In 2006 Somali fishermen complained to the UN that foreign fishing fleets were using the breakdown of the state to plunder their fish stocks. These foreign fleets often recruited Somali militias to intimidate local fishermen. Despite repeated requests, the UN refused to act. Meanwhile the warships of global powers that patrol the strategically important Gulf of Aden did not sink or seize any vessels dumping toxic chemicals off the coast.

So angry Somalis, whose waters were being poisoned and whose livelihoods were threatened, took matters into their own hands. Fishermen began to arm themselves and attempted to act as unofficial coastguards." (Socialist Worker)

The origins of piracy in Somalia is considerably different than the narrative in the media which tends to perpetuate stereotypes of scary black men who are naturally inclined to criminal behavior. In reality, the pirates were the victims of a U.S.-EU run system that still uses the developing world as a dumping ground for toxic waste regardless of the suffering it causes. (just ask Larry Summers) In fact, the dumping continues to this day, even though we have been assured that we're living in a "post racial era" following the election of Barak Obama. Unfortunately, that rule doesn't apply to the many black and brown people who still find themselves caught in the imperial crosshairs. Their lives are just as miserable as ever.

Ethiopia's plan for withdrawal

In 2006, the Bush administration supported an alliance of Somali warlords known as the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) that established a base of operations in the western city of Baidoa. With the help of the Ethiopian army, western mercenaries, US Navy warships, and AC-130 gunships; the TFG captured Mogadishu and forced the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) to retreat to the south. Since then the resistance has coalesced into a tenacious guerrilla army that has recaptured most of the country.

The Bush administration invoked the war on terror to justify its involvement in Somalia, but their case was weak and full of inconsistencies. The ICU is not an Al Qaida affiliate or a terrorist organization despite the claims of the State Department. In fact, the ICU brought a high level of peace and stability to Somalia that hadn't been seen for more than sixteen years.

“The ICU was a relatively honest administration, which ended warlord corruption and extortion. Personal safety and property were protected, ending arbitrary seizures and kidnappings by warlords and their armed thugs. The ICU is a broad multi-tendency movement that includes moderates and radical Islamists, civilian politicians and armed fighters, liberals and populists, electoralists and authoritarians. Most important, the Courts succeeded in unifying the country and creating some semblance of nationhood, overcoming clan fragmentation.”

The Bush administration was mainly interested in oil and geopolitics. According to most estimates 30 per cent of America's oil will come from Africa within the next ten years. That means the Pentagon will have to extend its tentacles across the continent. Washington's allies in the TFG promised to pass oil laws that would allow foreign oil companies to return to Somalia, but now all of that is uncertain. It is impossible to know what type of government will emerge from the present conflict. Many pundits expect Somalia to descend into terrorist-breeding, failed state for years to come.

The latest round of fighting has created a humanitarian disaster. 1.3 million people have been forced from their homes with nothing more than what they can carry on their backs. Over 3.5 million people are now huddled in tent cities in the south with little food, clean water or medical supplies.

According to the UN News Center: "Nearly half the population is in crisis or need of assistance....Continuing instability, coupled with drought, high food prices and the collapse of the local currency have only worsened the dire humanitarian situation in recent months. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of the population, are in need of assistance. In addition, one in six children under the age of five in southern and central Somalia is currently acutely malnourished." (UN News Center)

The war between the occupying Ethiopian army and the various guerrilla factions did steadily intensify over the two years. Fighters from the ICU, Al-Shabaab and other Islamic groups did move from the south to the vicinity of Mogadishu where fighting could have broken at any time. It was"game-over" for Bush's proxy army and the transitional federal government. They could not win, which is why the Ethiopian leaders announced a complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year. By January 1, 2009, the occupation was over.

In a recent Chicago Tribune article, "U.S. Appears to be Losing in Somalia", journalist Paul Salopek sums it up like this:

"(Somalia) is a covert war in which the CIA has recruited gangs of unsavory warlords to hunt down and kidnap Islamic militants...and secretly imprison them offshore, aboard U.S. warships. The British civil-rights group Reprieve contended that as many as 17 U.S. warships may have doubled as floating prisons since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks...

"Somalia is one of the great unrecognized U.S. policy failures since 9/11," said Ken Menkhaus, a leading Somalia scholar at Davidson College in North Carolina. "By any rational metric, what we've ended up with there today is the opposite of what we wanted." (Paul Salopek, "U.S. Appears to be Losing in Somalia" Chicago Tribune)

The CIA has done its job well. It's created a beehive for terrorism and the potential for another catastrophe like 9-11.

Currently, negotiations are underway between the guerrilla leaders and the TFG over a power-sharing agreement. But no one expects the talks will amount to anything. The moderate ICU may regain power but the country will still be ungovernable for years to come. At best, Somalia is a decade away from restoring the fragile peace that was in place before Bush's bloody intervention.

Cmon Somalia!

2009-04-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

Piracy 1. "the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea" – Compact Oxford English Dictionary.

The British have affection for Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, “The Pirates of Penzance”. These pirates are jolly rascals. No such description can be applied to the pirates of Somalia and even less to the pirates of the Levant, the Israeli navy.

Wide publicity has been given to piracy in Somali waters since Captain Phillips of the American-crewed Maersk Alabama was captured. The arrival of a U.S. missile cruiser and a U.S. destroyer added the tension and glamour required by the Hollywood confederation. The killing of three young Somalis and the release of the captain provided the blood and the triumph for the star-spattered banner.

Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and along the long shoreline of Somalia started in 1995 in response to rapacious fishing, mostly by Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean vessels.1 The dumping of toxic waste by European nations stoked more resentment.2 Foreign fishing boats were the first targets but when these got protection from local warlords, the Somali pirates turned to commercial and cruise shipping. With at least 20,000 vessels on passage, they had plenty to choose from. Since the U.S. navy Seals shot their men, over 60 more seamen have been taken hostage.

Why is it that little is heard of the piracy off the coast of the Zionist entity and the strip it dominates called Gaza? In contrast to the actions of young fishermen from an impoverished and broken Somali nation, the entity carries out its piracy under the title of the Israeli occupation force, out of a country with the greatest wealth and with the pretence of a fully-fledged legal system. As it turns out, its maritime law is the British Maritime Law of 1856, a hangover from the British Mandate.

These evil doings of the Zionist entity pale besides the piracy suffered by the fishermen of Gaza since the second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon striding into the Temple Mount with many dozens of border guards in September 2000. The disastrous 1993 Oslo Accords did “allow” the fishermen to go out 20 nautical miles and south along Sinai. Altogether, they had access to 75,000 square kilometres of sea. There has been a steady increase in the attacks on these men and their boats;6 now they are being attacked by the shore. Since 2000, 15 men have been killed and over 200 injured. Precious high quality protein is being kept from the mouths of often malnourished children. Some believe the discovery of over one trillion cu. ft of natural gas by BP off the Gazan shore is the prime reason for fencing in the fishermen by force.7 Some in Gaza believe the gas is already coming ashore in Israel, at Ashkelon.

Since mid-March, 20 men have been snatched by the entity and one shot.8 They are forced to strip off and swim naked to the Israeli warships. They were all taken for interrogation in Ashdod and then released but some of the vessels remained impounded. All this is the maritime equivalent of the robbery being done in the ineptly named “West Bank” and in Silwan, as well as the imprisonment of thousands in Israeli gaols (sometimes without charge) and the 1.5 million in the concentration camp which is Gaza.

The Somali pirates have netted about 100 million dollars per year but this is very small fry compared with the many billions burnt by the banks of the U.S. and UK. And no hostage has been killed by his captor. The fourth Security Council resolution on Somali piracy to be passed in 2008 was brought by Condoleezza Rice. “The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution authorizing member states to fight pirates in Somali territory by land, sea and air.”9 As of 18 December 2008, naval ships from 11 NATO, four SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and four other countries were deployed in the region in order to serve as escorts and to deter acts of piracy.

What are the UN and all the Western nations doing about the more dangerous piracy of the Israeli state? These nations are silent and lift no finger, showing they approve of Israel's murderous actions against the Palestinian fishermen and foreign nationals bringing aid. This is a grotesque hypocrisy and a sure sign “the powerful own the law” – for the time being.

The greatest act of piracy by the Israeli state was the all-out attack on the communications ship USS Liberty on 8 June 1967.10 Rockets, napalm and torpedoes killed 34, wounded more than 170 crew members and damaged the ship severely. The ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nautical miles northwest from the Egyptian city of El-Arish. There were inquiries and many words. Crew members were silenced.

I Weep For Palestine!

2009-01-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

In times of crisis, most Arabs watch the news. Sometimes it’s comforting for the truth to be stated the way it is, with all of its gory and unsettling details, without blemishes and without censorship. When Israel carried out massive air strikes against Gaza on Saturday, December 27, terrorizing an already hostage and malnourished population, I too tuned in to Arab news channels.

Within seconds I learned of the tally: 290 deaths and climbing, with 700 more wounded, all in one day. But as dramatic as this event may have seemed – the highest Israeli inflicted death toll in one day in Palestine since Israel’s establishment in 1948 – there was nothing new to learn. Tragedies anywhere - natural or manmade – tend to lead to social, cultural, economic and political upheavals, revolutions even, that somehow alter the social, cultural, economic and ultimately political landscapes in the affected regions, save in Palestine.
I gazed pointlessly at the screen. Learning of the aftermath of such tragedies seems more of a ritual than a purposeful habit. The Arab and international responses to the killings can only serve as a reminder of how ineffectual and irrelevant, if not complacent their timid mutterings are.

Once again the US blamed Palestinians, and the Hamas “thugs” using words that defy logic, such as “Israel has the right to defend itself.” The statement remains as ludicrous as ever, for a country like Israel with an army that possesses the world’s most lethal weapons, including nuclear arms, cannot possibly feel threatened by an imprisoned population whose only defense mechanism are fertilizer-based homemade rockets. While Israel has killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians in Gaza (one thousand on Saturday alone) a handful of Israelis have reportedly died as a direct result of the Palestinian rockets in years. Do numbers matter at all?
European governments chose their words carefully, “expressing concern”, “calling on Israel to use restraint” and so on. Arab governments were, as usual, distracted with trivialities, protocols and easily lost sight of the crisis at hand.

Then, the same, ever predictable outbursts began. Passionate callers from all over the world called various TV and radio stations in the Middle East and shouted, yelled, cried, vented, called on God, called on Arab leaders, called on all of those with “living conscience” to do something. In turn, audiences too cried at home as they listened to the heated commentary and watched footage of heaps of Palestinian bodies throughout the Gaza Strip.
The passion soon spilled to the streets of Arab capitals, of course under the ever-vigilant eyes of Arab police and secret services. Flags of U.S. and Israel, and in some cases Egypt were sat ablaze along with effigies of Bush and Israeli leaders.

‘Rising up to the occasion’ some Arab governments declared, with much hype their intention to send an airplane or two of medicine and food to Gaza, a few boxes clad with the donor country’s flag, flashed endlessly on local media. Meanwhile, news reports spoke of Palestinians attempting to flee the Gaza prison into the Sinai desert. They were met with decisive Egyptian security presence at the border.
Strangely enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas remained faithful to the script, despite Gaza’s unprecedented tragedy. On Sunday, he blamed Hamas for the bloodbath. "We talked to them (Hamas) and we told them, 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop", so that we could have avoided what happened."
Was Mr. Abbas informed of the fact that Hamas hasn’t carried out one suicide bombing since 2005? Or that the ‘truce’ never compelled Israel to allow Palestinians in Gaza access to basic necessities and medicine? Or that it was Israel that attacked Gaza in November, killing several people, claiming that it obtained information of a secret Hamas plot?

Even stranger that while Abbas has chosen such a position, many Israelis are not convinced that the war on Gaza was at all related to the Hamas’ rockets, and is in fact an election ploy for desperate politicians vying for Israel’s dominating right wing vote in the upcoming February elections. In fact, the Israeli design against Gaza had little to do with the ‘escalation’ of the rocket attacks of mid December.
"Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public - all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces "Cast Lead" operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip," wrote the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz on December 28, which also revealed that the plan had been in effect for six months.
"Like the U.S. assault on Iraq and the Israeli response to the abduction of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser at the outset of the Second Lebanon War, little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians," said Haaretz.

No Country for Women

2008-12-27T12:01:00.000-08:00

Most of the story is borrowed from news articles!

A year on from the violence that broke out immediately after the 2007 presidential elections in Kenya, the country appears to have moved on.
Local and international headlines are now reflecting the debate over whether some of the bigger names implicated in the violence should be given amnesty. But while things appear normal on the surface - the debris has been cleaned up, the politicians have shaken hands and the economy is getting back on track - there are those, often women, often hidden away in one of the country's slums, whose lives have been permanently altered.
They have not been able to move on. Their pain is still too real and now their plight is being forgotten or ignored.

'This is politics'
"Just pray to God for a new life. This is politics and there is nothing we can do about it," were the only 'comforting' words that Nancy Wanjiru's local government leader could offer when she approached him, seeking justice after being raped by her neighbours.

'I live in hope' A mother of four, Nancy is from Nairobi's Mathare slum. She now lives, with three of her children, in a one room tin structure that was donated to her by a friend. Her eldest daughter has returned to Nancy's ancestral village.Before the elections, Nancy owned a hairdressing business and ran a bar with her husband. But all that remains now is a bare plot of land where the businesses and her home once stood. Everything was burnt to the ground. This was not all Nancy lost in the violence.
"I was having breakfast with my husband on the morning of January 3," she says ."There was a knock at the door but before we could even open it, two men burst in and started attacking my husband and I. I knew them both - they were my neighbours."

The men struck Nancy's head with a machete. Her husband, pleading with the attackers to let his wife go, was beaten senseless, thrown into a nearby river and left for dead. They then turned on Nancy, raping her repeatedly. "I was too concerned about my husband at that time," she says.
"Some friends and I found him by the river, he hadn't died. We rushed him to the hospital. I did not tell anyone that I had been raped." Nancy says she was so embarrassed by what had happened to her that, even at the hospital, she was reluctant to seek help for herself.'Death sentence'A few days later she started to feel unwell and felt that she had to tell her husband what had happened.
Nancy lives in Nairobi's Mathare slum

"I opened up to my husband and told him that I'd been raped," she says.
"It came as a shock to him but he accepted me, at that time. I also told my eldest son, who is 16. People were starting to talk about it at the IDP [internally displaced persons] camp where we had taken refuge. I didn't want my family to hear it from someone else."With no money, all Nancy could do was visit a slum clinic and take painkillers.Then her husband's family took him in but left Nancy and her children at the camp."I'd still go to look after him, and to do his laundry, then go back to the camp," she says.That was until the day her husband told her that he no longer wanted a woman who had been raped.

At this time, Nancy's eldest son insisted she be tested for HIV."Three months after the rape, I went to a mobile clinic that had been set up at the camp. I tested positive. I waited for another two weeks and tested again. I was still HIV positive. "It was a dark moment for me. I knew I had got a death sentence on my life now. I had been infected by the two men who raped me. It was worse because I knew them and even to this day, still see them free, and going on with life as though it all happened in my imagination.

"'Abandoned'"The final action lies with the government,"

It is the government that has abandoned women like Nancy and many more, who are still seriously sick. Some have died and some have lost their sanity."
about 46 per cent of those who were subjected to sexual attacks where children and that of all the women raped during the violence, 31 per cent contracted HIV.
Pamela Aoko was shot when a gang attacked her .That ought to make someone in authority uncomfortable enough to take action," she says."But there has not [been] any programme - not even a counselling programme - set up by the government to help the victims .... There seems to be a lot of tolerance of sexual violence on all levels."When Nancy went to the police station to report her rape and to say that she could identify her rapists, one of the men was arrested."But just about two days later, my area member of parliament and the local councillor went in to the police station and had him released.

"But we are so many of us suffering in secret - almost all the women who got raped were thrown out by their husbands. "I have a friend who just delivered twins. She got pregnant after a rape ordeal in January. But she would not be willing to talk to anyone about it. She keeps saying that she thinks she is losing her mind," says Jane Auma,

Jane was also raped, along with her daughter. While both of them contracted HIV, her daughter also fell pregnant but later miscarried.
Abandoned by her husband, Jane is now living in poverty in the Kibera slum.A handful of NGOs are offering counselling services to these women, but otherwise they are being forgotten while the rest of the country talks of peace and reconcillation.

Besides Boots and Bombs

2008-12-10T17:51:00.000-08:00

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai have dramatised how the urgent will often take precedence over the important for the incoming Barack Obama administration.

The attacks have plunged relations between Pakistan and India into unpredictable territory just when a series of policy reviews in Washington are focused on overhauling strategy in Afghanistan.

With Afghanistan in a “downward spiral” Washington is groping for a new strategy. It would do well to recall Lewis Carroll’s famous line in Alice in Wonderland: “When you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.”

The Obama administration will need to define both where it needs to go and the way out of the quagmire in Afghanistan.

Washington recognises that no country is more pivotal than Pakistan to its goals of defeating terrorism and stabilising Afghanistan. But this relationship is today held together only at the leadership level with the wider establishments and publics in both nations viewing the other with suspicion, even hostility.

The trust deficit must be addressed as this will determine the quality of cooperation that Washington and Islamabad can mobilise to avert the chaos that now threatens to engulf the region.

President-elect Obama should break from the Bush legacy of treating Pakistan as hired help rather than valued ally. Pakistan has paid a heavy price for being America’s frontline ally. Thousands of people, including 2,000 military personnel, have been killed in terrorist attacks since 2001. Economic losses are estimated at $34 billion.

Three decades of strife in Afghanistan have taken a heavy toll on Pakistan. George W. Bush’s flawed Afghan strategy compounded by the fatal distraction of Iraq, widened the conflagration and pushed the war into Pakistan.

Obama has pledged a troop surge in Afghanistan. But without a fundamental change in strategy, this may increase the sense of occupation and mire the United States in a war without end. Moscow deployed more than 150,000 troops at the height of its occupation of Afghanistan and failed to avoid defeat.

A more realistic approach must start with redefining U.S. goals, and distinguish between what is vital and attainable (disruption of terrorist networks) and what is desirable but best left for Afghans to undertake (transforming society).

So far Washington has lacked clarity about objectives and sought to eliminate terrorists, defeat the Taliban, transform society and promote democracy.

This has fused Pashtun nationalism with radicalism, and fuelled the growing insurgency.

Over-reliance on military force led to high civilian casualties and become a potent factor behind support for the Taliban.

A new strategy must seek to de-couple Al Qaeda and the Taliban, engage the Taliban in a reconciliation process and hold out the offer for an eventual withdrawal of foreign forces in return for a cessation of attacks and support for the creation of a viable Afghan army. Bombing campaigns should be replaced by political accommodation and economic development.

A new Afghan grand assembly (or Loya Jirga) should be called to endorse this process. Washington should also help orchestrate a regional consensus to back this plan that should include Iran and Russia.

Washington should cease unilateral missile strikes into Pakistan’s territory. These attacks have inflamed public opinion, undercut Pakistan’s own counter-insurgency efforts and risk shattering ties with Islamabad.

Instead the United States should strengthen Pakistan’s own capacity to fight militancy.

A new U.S. approach should also recognise that Pakistan’s stability depends not just on containing militancy but also on strengthening the economy and on addressing its long adversarial relationship with India.

Economic help to Pakistan should be construed more in trade than in aid terms. The Obama administration should make a preferential trade deal for Pakistani textiles — the lifeblood of its economy — the centrepiece of economic assistance. Trade creates jobs and durable income that are more effective anti-terrorism tools than bombs and bullets.

Obama has already acknowledged the need to resolve the long-running Kashmir dispute to enable Pakistan to switch focus from India to counter-insurgency. Washington should launch a diplomatic initiative aimed at reaching an accommodation between Pakistan and India.

This may seem a daunting menu, but continuing with present policy promises to sink the region in a whirlpool of chaos.

True Islamic Ritual

2008-12-08T10:53:00.001-08:00

Hajj is the last of the five pillars of Islam. The other four are a declaration of faith in one God and in His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the five daily prayers, zakah (giving a percentage of one’s income to charity), and fasting during the month of Ramadan. Pilgrimage is an once-in-a-lifetime obligation only for those who have the physical and financial means to undertake such an arduous journey.

While all the great religions state that humans are more than mere physical creatures in that we possess an essence beyond the material world, Hajj represents the spiritual journey toward this essence.

Hajj is unquestionably the most demanding of all the Islamic duties, and the Prophet said: “Whoever performs Hajj to this house — Kaaba — and does not commit any obscenity and wrongdoing, he, or she, will come out as the day he, or she, was born — pure and free from sins.”

During these days of worship, one can honestly expect many benefits such as the opportunity to correct one’s faults, to sincerely atone for one’s sins and make up for any shortcomings or wrongdoings of the past. Deeply engrossed in prayers, the pilgrims will seek Allah’s mercy.

During Hajj, millions of Muslims converge in unison on Makkah rising above all barriers based on race, nationality or class and that is a tribute to the universality of Hajj.

As reported by an Islamic scholar, the rituals and the experience of Hajj can be overwhelming.

“Imagine yourself stepping on the same land where Prophet Muhammad used to step and going through the valleys and mountains wherein he used to receive the divine revelation. It gives you another insight into how much he and his companions did suffer in order to get this message communicated to us in its most perfect and purest form.

“Of course we hear and read about such things but when we see them with our own eyes, it places us in a different atmosphere.

“When you go to the mountain of Hera, you realize that this is the same place where the Prophet used to seclude himself from the whole world for one month every year. It is the place that witnessed the revelation of the first words of the Qur’an and the appearance of the Archangel Gabriel.

“When you move in the Sacred Mosque of Makkah and remember Abraham and his son Ishmael, you can feel the true meaning of sacrifice and how a father left his newborn with his weak mother in that barren piece of land.”

Yes dear Hajis, this is your moment. It is your time and opportunity to dedicate yourselves to the true meaning of Islam, the religion of peace. Keep away from temptations the Holy Book warns of, and resist the calls of those who exhort violence and mayhem.

And above all, spread this message of peace and good will when you return to your lands.

Was the Pope right?

2008-12-01T01:16:00.000-08:00

Now that the shock waves touched off by Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks at Regensburg on 12 September 2006 have subsided, the overall consequences have proven more positive than negative. Above and beyond polemics, the Pope’s lecture has heightened general awareness of their respective responsibilities among Christians and Muslims in the West
It matters little whether the Pope had simply misspoken or, as the highest-ranking authority of the Catholic Church, was enunciating church policy. Now the issue is one of identifying those areas in which a full-fledged debate between Catholicism and Islam must take place. Papal references to “jihad” and “Islamic violence” came as a shock to Muslims, even though they were drawn from a quotation attributed to Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos.

It is clear that the time has come to open debate on the common theological underpinnings and the shared foundations of the two religions. The appeal by Muslim religious leaders, “A Common Word”, had precisely this intention: our traditions have the same source, the same single God who calls upon us to respect human dignity and liberty.

These same traditions raise identical questions concerning the ultimate purpose of human activity, and respect for ethical principles.

In a world that is experiencing an unprecedented global crisis, a world in which politics, finance and relations between humans and the environment suffer from a cruel lack of conscience and ethical integrity, it is a matter of greatest urgency that Christian-Muslim dialogue turn its attention to both theological issues and to those of values and ultimate aims.

Our task is not to create a new religious alliance against the “secularised” and “immoral” world order, but to make a constructive contribution to the debate, to prevent the logic of economics and war from destroying what remains of our common humanity.

Our constructive dialogue on shared values and ultimate goals is far more vital and imperative than our rivalries over the number of believers, our contradictory claims about proselytism and sterile competition over exclusive possession of the truth.

Those dogma-ridden individuals who, in both religions, claim truth for themselves are, in fact, working against their respective beliefs.

Whoever claims that he/she alone possesses the truth, that “falsehood belongs to everybody else…” has already fallen into error. Our dialogue must resist the temptation of dogmatism by drawing upon a comprehensive, critical and constantly respectful confrontation of ideas.

Ours must be a dialogue whose seriousness requires of us, above all else, humility.

We must delve deep into history the better to engage a true dialogue of civilisations. Fear of the present can impose upon the past its own biased vision. Surprisingly, the Pope asserted that Europe’s roots were Greek and Christian, as if responding to the perceived threat of the Muslim presence in Europe.

His reading, as I noted after the lecture at Regensburg, is a reductive one.

We must return to the factual reality of the past, to the history of ideas. When we do so, it quickly becomes clear that the so-called opposition between the West and the Muslim world is pure projection, an ideological instrument if you will, designed to construct entities that can be opposed or invited to dialogue, depending on circumstances.

But the West has been shaped by Muslims, just as the Muslim world has been shaped by the West; it is imperative that a critical internal process of reflection begin: that the West and Europe initiate an internal debate, exactly as must Islam and the Muslims, with a view to reconciling themselves with the diversity and the plurality of their respective pasts.

The debate between faith and reason, and over the virtues of rationalism, is a constant in both civilisations, and is, as such, far from exclusive to the Greek or Christian heritage. Neither is it the sole prerogative of the Enlightenment.

The Pope’s remarks at Regensburg have opened up new areas of inquiry that must be explored and exploited in a positive way, with a view to building bridges and, working hand-in-hand, to seek a common response to the social, cultural and economic challenges of our day.

It is essential, then, to speak of freedom of conscience, of places of worship, of the “argument of reciprocity”; all questions are possible in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and respect.

Still, it is essential that each of us sit down at the table with the humility that consists of not assuming that we alone possess the truth; with the respect that requires that we listen to our neighbors and recognize their differences; and, finally, the coherence that summons each of us to maintain a critical outlook in accepting the contradictions that may exist between the message and the practice of believers.

These are the essential elements to be respected if we are to succeed.

Will we ever Know?

2008-11-24T13:42:00.000-08:00

It seems at the moment, the incredible will happen: the most important "white" country in the world will elect a black president.

143 years after the assassination of Abe Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, and 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, the dreamer of the Dream, a black family will occupy the White House.

This will have huge implications in many directions. One of them is an electrifying message to a world-wide order to which I belong: the Order of the Optimists.

How does an optimist differ from a realist? My definition is: a realist sees reality as it is. An optimist sees reality as it could be.

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist thinker, believed in "the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will." I disagree. True, for anyone versed in world history it is easy to be a pessimist, but for each pessimistic lesson there is an optimistic one (and vice versa, unfortunately).

A year before the ascent to power of Adolf Hitler, few believed it to be possible. But it did happen, and a dark chapter began on the pages of world history. On the other hand, a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall, practically nobody believed that it would happen in their lifetime.

At the beginning of 1947, hardly anyone believed that within a year the State of Israel would come into being. At the same time, also at the beginning of 1947, practically nobody imagined that a Naqba (disaster) would befall the Palestinians. But it happened.

David Ben-Gurion used to say that all experts are experts on what has happened, not what is going to happen. That is not entirely true. But in principle it is true: experts analyze the existing situation and tend to extrapolate from it into the future. But the future is made by human beings, who are never entirely predictable.

In a world in which a person like Barack Hussein Obama can appear from nowhere and advance within a few years to the highest levels of world politics - nothing is predictable, and therefore everything is possible. As the ancient Jewish maxim goes: "Everything is possible and permission is granted."

For all the optimists of the world, the message of these elections is: Yes, we can! And if we want it, it is no fairy tale.

That reminds me of the German, the Frenchman, the Englishman and the Jew who decided to write about elephants. The German goes to Africa, returns after ten years and composes a five-volume tome: "A Foreword to a General Introduction to the Origins of the African Elephant". The Frenchman comes back after half a year and writes a slim and elegant volume: "The Love Life of Elephants". The Englishman returns after a week and produces a booklet: "How to Hunt Elephants". The Jew stays at home and writes an essay about "the Elephant and the Jewish Question".

During the last few weeks, the Jews in America and in Israel have been asking: Is He Good For The Jews?

The Women Of Rwanda!

2008-11-13T20:20:00.001-08:00

The Rwandan capital Kigali is a city that is being rebuilt and leaving its past behind. Mud huts are making way for gleaming new office blocks.

However, still prominent on the skyline is the pockmarked and bullet-ridden Rwandan parliament building, bearing the scars of the battle for the capital in 1994 and the country's brutal civil war and genocide.

Five years ago, the building became famous for something other than war as Rwanda elected 39 women to its 80 member chamber of deputies, giving it the highest percentage of women parliamentarians not only in Africa, but across the world.

Rwandans go to the polls in several weeks time to vote for a new lower house of parliament, an electoral test that will indicate to some extent if women are truly shaping the country's future or if the result was largely down to constitutional changes.

The country's 2003 constitution implemented a target set by the UN of 30 per cent female representation in parliament but even allowing for this the results were unexpected. As well as the 24 reserved seats, women won a further 15.

The UN has praised Rwanda as a beacon for female development in Africa – a continent where politics is, more often than not, the domain of ageing men.

Female literacy has risen from 10 per cent before the genocide to 50 per cent and the empowerment and education of women are at the forefront of what the government calls its '2020 vision' - the movement to a modern, knowledge based economy by 2020.

The country's new era of equal opportunity has also coincided with unprecedented economic development.

The economy grew by six per cent in 2007, the 14th year of continuous growth since the genocide and an impressive statistic for a country which is still relies on subsistence farming.

Women have always played a role in agriculture but the events of the last decade have seen dramatic changes in the way they have been rewarded for this work.

But it took the murder of 800,000 of their countrymen and women in just 100 days for the inequalities to be addressed.

Culture is a very strong thing in any community …women were not allowed to inherit land equal to the men… for example you find that a woman was not allowed to open an account, that was the situation before genocide.

There is also, inevitably, a political origin to the rise of women. Rwanda is today controlled by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the political wing of the rebel army which took control of the country in 1994.The RPF holds more than half the seats in parliament and more importantly the office of president.

Paul Kagame now runs the country but many of the policies he has implemented were formulated as a guerrilla commander in the forests of Uganda and Northern Rwanda.As minority Tutsi refugees unable to return to their own country, the RPF were acutely aware of discrimination. As a rebel movement they understood that empowering women effectively doubled their numbers.

Whatever the RPF's motivation, women have not only achieved political representation but also positions of power in the government. Nine of Rwanda’s senators and a third of its ministers are now women.The public has also come to accept women in these roles

As economic empowerment led to political power, the example of women in power is changing the way Rwandan women now see themselves. A new generation, for whom the past is another country.

Rwanda's record-breaking parliament has now closed and in two days time the nation will go to the polls to elect a new set of parliamentarians.

However, whatever the result, many feel that both economically and politically the country’s women have already proved their point.

"It's just like men, if you don't try men in positions of leadership you'll never know their capabilities so Rwanda has tried women in positions of responsibility and now the leadership is sure that, yes, they are capable,"

"So I think this is a good lesson that other countries can also learn."

From Russia with Love

2008-11-13T20:03:00.000-08:00

The geopolitics of Russo-American relations is best portrayed by an old Swahili proverb that says 'when the bulls fight, the grass gets crushed, and when elephants make love the grass gets crushed'.

In that way, post-Cold War rapprochement between Washington and Moscow allowed the latter to brutally crush Chechnya and for Putin to neutralise political dissent with little opposition from Washington.
It also allowed the Pentagon to use Moscow's military bases in the former republics of the Soviet Union for various aggressive operations and paved the way for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, renewed tension and conflict between the old Cold War nemeses has opened the way for the destruction and mayhem in Georgia. If continued, it will lead to a deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and trigger or escalate conflicts and arms races around the world.

While the bullying of smaller, weaker countries has been a feature of the international system since communities organised into states, it is imperative to determine who started the war in Georgia in order to chart where this conflict is heading.

The Georgian president, blames the Russians for starting the war by amassing great military power on the border in the beginning of August while he was in Italy.

But many reckon the ambitious pro-Western Georgians started the military escalation and timed it as international media attention was focused on the Olympic games in Beijing.
But "Did Washington purposely encourage an irresponsible and unpredictable regime in this misadventure?" to use the rhetorical question of Sergy Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.

The answer, according Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet president, is an emphatic yes. He believes Saakashvili "would not have dared to attack without outside support".

If Washington's support for Saakashvili was aimed at cornering Putin, Russia's retaliation against Georgia has bloodied George W's nose. After less than a week of fighting, Russia won the day and began withdrawing troops.

The swift deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow over the latter's military intervention is shocking, but hardly surprising.

Their 'marriage of convenience' has been strained for some time now.

Soul-mate ... to checkmate

Theirs was presumably a love at first sight. But it feels like a lifetime since Bush looked into Putin's eyes and was able to get a sense of his soul.

The two had reportedly gotten along well. So much, that Bush had more chemistry with the ex-KGB head than with his ally, Tony Blair.
When Bush tried to lecture his Russian host, yet again, about democracy during the 2006 G8 summit, Putin took a direct jab at the US president: "We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

At that time, the US were six years into the Afghanistan war and three years into Iraq's; the US was growing insecure because of the loss of its strategic capital and financial prestige around the world.In the meantime, the robust and confident Russian leadership under Putin benefited from higher oil prices and grew bolder vis-à-vis the Bush administration's foreign policies.

While the ridiculing of the macho Texan did not go down too well, Bush's need for Putin's help with a number of strategic challenges around the world stretching from North Korea to Iran helped defuse tensions

And now, Georgia's miscalculated adventure gives the ultranationalists and Cold War romantics in Moscow and Washington the alibis to escalate the rhetoric and eventually break off the engagement.

Cold War?

Though for many of us outside Europe the Cold War was pretty hot, some long for the bipolar system because of the Bush administration's abuse of its power in a uni-polar world.

Putin's nostalgia is evident as he grows more powerful within Russia and more feared in neighbouring countries. He is frequently quoted to have said that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the [20th] century".

But while for Putin, the Warsaw alliance is no more, the US is exploiting the Georgian tragedy to reinvigorate the Nato alliance and solidify its leadership at the helm.

Since the end of the Cold War (without a single shot), Nato has gone through a major identity crisis with Europe becoming an ever hesitant partner.
Thanks to the Georgian crisis, Washington no longer needs to plead with its wary European partners to expand and strengthen Nato as they tried disparately during their April summit in Bucharest.
During the Cold War, Nato had a much defined European mission to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.

For all practical purpose, Washington will insist on this definition but will also try to expand it worldwide under the guise of confronting terrorism and rogue states.

A moment In History

2008-11-10T11:35:00.000-08:00

When i moved from Europe at the end of last year to come the United States i had high hopes for this nation that i thought i knew so much about from stories had heard,movies and TV programs had watched growing up. My move was more than appropriate and there would never have been a better timing,the presidential primaries and caucuses were on and America had the prospects of a first black president.

If Barack Obama ever requires a reminder of the hopes African-Americans have for their first president, he does not need to look far from the White House.

The Washington DC suburb of Anacostia is only a few miles from Obama's presidential residence, but it is a world apart.

The area suffers from endemic poverty and high crime rates. Many buildings are abandoned and there are few shops.

But when i visited Anacostia in June there was only one word on everyone's lips: "Obama".

And that has left expectations high following the Illinois senator's historic victory.

History of struggle

Anacostia, which is about 99 per cent African-American, has also played a part in the history of the community's struggle against racism and discrimination.

Frederick Douglass, the former slave who escaped and became a leading campaigner against slavery in the 19th century, lived in Anacostia and his former home there is now a museum.

And many people are keenly aware of the historic significance of the Illinois senator's victory.

"It really is a monumental thing for us as black people", Michelle Obama, who will be the first black first-lady, is educated and well-spoken.

and i have the feeling that Obama will provide a role model and a symbol of African-American achievement.

Barack Obama's speech

2008-11-04T23:24:00.000-08:00

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

'Unyeilding support'

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

'Task ahead'

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy, who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep, from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers, from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for 221 years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

'Spirit of patriotism'

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.

Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends ... though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

'Peace and security'

To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing – Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America – the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

'Common purpose'

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

'Fundamental truth'

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace, to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one, that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."

News from Home....

2008-11-03T22:30:00.000-08:00

Small parties are already being planned alongside larger street carnivals, and a concert is being touted as an “Obama After Party” celebration.

Obama’s Kenyan relatives are making headlines. An alleged telephone call from Senator Obama to his half-brother Malik Abango made the front page of Taifa Leo, Kenya’s main Swahili-language daily, and the Nairobi Star reports the family will slaughter a bull “if Obama is elected.” The Star goes on to report that the family is so hopeful of an Obama victory that the bull in question has already been ordered.

Part of the excitement in Kisumu is related to the Luo identity of Obama’s late father, who Barack Obama met only briefly when he was a child. Senator Obama is referred to as “wuod Luo,” the son of a Luo, in t-shirts sold in the streets of Kisumu, the regional capital.

Ethnic politics play a large role in Kenya, which was convulsed by deadly violence after a disputed December 2007 election - widely criticized by international observers - edged out the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, a Luo. In a power-sharing agreement resulting from African-mediated peace talks, Odinga is now Kenya’s prime minister, while his rival, Mwai Kibaki, continues to hold the post of president.

Fifty kilometers away from Kisumu in the village of Kogelo, site of the Obama family homestead, the prospect of an Obama presidency brings with it hopes for development. Rumors of an Obama homecoming to Kogelo abound, and some expectations for his contributions to the village run unrealistically high. The East African Standard reports one local trader as saying “Obama atajenga nyumba nyingi. Ataleta stima na pia mbolea.” (Obama will build many houses here. He will bring electricity and provide fertilizer.)

Journalists from major international media outlets are arriving in Kisumu to cover the Obama family’s reaction to the news of election results. Two large television screens are being set up in the village, and press conferences have been planned for later this week.

Street vendors, meanwhile, have made significant profits from selling Obama-related goods, including framed portraits of the senator and greeting cards in which the senator wishes students good luck on their exams – one card reads “Yes, u can!” under a smiling photo of Obama. Another popular item available for purchase on Kisumu’s streets offers two regional heroes for the price of one: a clock featuring Odinga and Obama next to each other above the phrase “two great leaders.”

The World Votes Obama

2008-10-29T18:09:00.000-07:00

In every other country in the world that has registered enough votes, Economist readers (not radicals by inclination) give Obama a landslide victory.In several African countries, 100 per cent of votes go to Obama. Sure, it's not scientific, but it's indicative of how the world feels.
There have been similar polls in recent months, carried out by the BBC (in 22 countries) and Reader's Digest (in 17 countries), and they also show massive majorities for the Democratic candidate.
In part, this is because many foreigners just do not get large parts of the Republican party's message.
Talk of abortion, gun rights and patriotism may win elections in America, but it leaves outsiders indifferent, or, (especially in Europe), it turns them cold.
The more the Republican Party tries to make this an election about "values" and "culture wars", the more it repels foreigners.
Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, attracts crowds, and voters, in the heartland with her patriotic talk and folksy style, but abroad people are concerned about her lack of knowledge of the outside world.But there are also more specific reasons why, in 2008, the world is leaning so heavily towards Obama.

Alternate options

America's image in the outside world has taken a terrible beating in the past eight years, and while John McCain has tried to disassociate himself from the Bush-Cheney administration, he cannot do so entirely.He belongs to the same party and, to foreign ears, his language is just as hawkish.

John McCain believes in consulting allies, and acting through international institutions where possible, but many foreigners worry that after the Iraq debacle, he is the more likely of the two candidates to get America involved in another reckless war.

Change, in the shape of Obama, is a much more attractive option for a majority of foreigners.In truth, after Bush and Iraq, any candidate put forward by the Democrats would have enjoyed the support of most non-Americans. But Barack Obama has struck a chord across the world. If you think the huge crowd that turned out to see him in Berlin was enthusiastic, just imagine if he wins, and see the reception he will get in Lagos, Nairobi or Jakarta.

A 'tarnished commodity'

In Africa, a continent where I lived for many years and traveled countries, I hear from friends and family of huge excitement at the prospect of an Obama victory.Africans, often struggling to overcome poverty and prejudice, have always taken encouragement from the successes of their descendants in the diaspora.I've watched Nigerians (many with no previous interest in tennis) cheer on Serena Williams in a Wimbledon final, or Thierry Henry as he scored another glorious goal for Arsenal.

The son of a Kenyan is now poised to become the most powerful man on the planet.

Some think it is almost too good to be true.The outside world is entranced by Obama's rise not just because of the (maybe shaky) assumption that a man with a cosmopolitan background will relate to the rest of the world with greater sympathy than his predecessors, but also because of what it says about the United States.

The "American dream" is a tarnished commodity these days, but this election has done something to revive it in the eyes of outsiders.

But in recent years, America has infuriated and frustrated many beyond its borders.Now, by coming close to electing the son of an immigrant from a minority community, it has humbled the outside world.
Europeans are left wondering whether such a thing would be possible in their own country; and, if they are being honest, they may conclude, "probably not".

An Obama victory, in the eyes of some foreigners, does not only grant the United States redemption for the sins of the past eight years, it also reasserts America's right to international leadership.

Given all this, it does not require great powers of prophecy to see that one of the first casualties of an Obama presidency would be the crushing of foreign expectations, as the new man struggles to cope with the limitations of the job, and the need to satisfy competing interests at home and abroad.Not that any of this need bother the Republicans right now; they, sensibly, are oncentrating on the task at hand.

On November 4, it is only Americans who will vote, and for their own interests.

Am a proud kenyan proud Of Obama

2008-10-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

A man is the son of his father, so we say out here in Africa. But how much of Barack Obama Senior is in his son, the Democratic nominee for US president? Or just how Kenyan is Sen Obama?
First, he is unequivocally American by birth and upbringing. But his writing, speeches and mannerisms have left little doubt that the Illinois senator is proud of his Kenyan roots.
Why else does he feel compelled to mention it in his major speeches?
In that first famous address at the Democratic national convention that catapulted him onto the national stage, he spoke about his Kenyan father for an entire four minutes.
He has done so at every significant event he has to introduce himself: at the first primary victory in Iowa, at his victory over Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, at his nomination acceptance speech in Colorado and at the first presidential debate with John McCain in Mississippi.
It is evident that Obama is acutely conscious of and comfortable with his Kenyan roots. The search for his identity began in his teenage, he writes in Dreams from My Father, when it suddenly occurred to him that everybody around him was either white or with a “proper” American name.
It was in college that he decided that he should be called Barack or Obama, not Barry. By this time the impact of an absent father who had long divorced his mother and returned to a tragically unhappy life in Kenya was at its peak. His father’s letters that firmly instructed him to “know his people” tugged at his heart.
The intensity with which Obama tells the story of his first meeting with Auma, his Kenyan half-sister, is startling. Her plane from Germany was about to land in Chicago.
“I pulled into the airport parking lot … and ran to the terminal as fast as I could. Panting for breath, I spun around several times, my eyes scanning the crowds… Damn! I knew I should have left earlier. …
“What if she had walked right past me and I hadn’t even known it? I looked down at the photograph in my hand … smudged now from too much handling. Then I looked up, and the picture came to life… I lifted my sister off the ground as we embraced… I picked up her bags and we began to walk … and she slipped her arm through mine. And I knew at that moment that I loved her, so naturally, so easily and fiercely…”
It was Obama’s first encounter with his own flesh and blood from Alego, Kenya. The next telling moment is when he landed at the Nairobi airport for the first time in 1986. A woman at the British Airways desk looked at his passport and asked if he was related to “Dr Obama.”
That had never happened before, Obama writes. “For the first time in my life, I felt the comfort, the firmness of identity that a name might provide… how people might nod and say: ‘Oh, you are so and so’s son.’ No one here in Kenya would ask how to spell my name… My name belonged and so I belonged.”
The next day while with Auma at a kiosk near Koja Mosque, he writes, an old woman pointed at him and said in Kiswahili that he looked like an American. Obama, beating his chest, promptly instructed his sister, “Tell her I’m Luo!”
Obama’s narration of his Kenyan experience in the subsequent weeks reveals an impressive understanding of his father’s land: the first supper at aunt Jane’s house at Kariakor; his visit to the Mathare slum with aunt Sarah; his night out with brother Roy at Garden Square; his travel by matatu to Alego and Kendu Bay — his great grandfather’s place where uncles insisted he taste the local brew chang’aa; his diarrhoea attack that his grandfather’s sister insisted to treat with local herbs and bitter roots.
Most poignant in Obama’s narrative is the scene at his father’s grave at Kogelo, Alego. When at 21 his aunt Jane had phoned him in New York to tell him that his father was dead, he had just sat down on the couch, stared at cracks in his college apartment and tried to measure the loss of a father he hardly knew.
Four years later, he now sat between the graves of his grandfather and his father, under the mango tree behind his grandmother’s house.
“For a long time I sat between the two graves and wept,” he writes. “When my tears were finally spent … I felt the circle finally close. I realised that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation…
“I saw that my life in America — the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I’d felt as a boy, the frustration and hope in Chicago — all of it was connected with this piece of earth an ocean away ...
“The pain I felt was my father’s pain. My questions were my brother’s questions. Their struggle, my birthright.”
Sen Obama is his father’s son. It is said that Obama Sr had a driving intellect and ambition; two traits that Auma worries may drive his brother too far.
But as the Boston Globe wrote recently, if someone had said to Obama Sr: “You know, your son might be president,” he would have said: ‘Well, of course. He’s my son.’”

The Effects of a real Black president in America

2008-10-22T17:03:00.000-07:00

At the start of August, with the Democratic Party convention a month away, I could only find a sprinkling of Africans who thought Illinois Senator Barack Obama was going to beat Senator Hillary Clinton in the race to be the party’s presidential candidate.
However, none of these few Africans gave him a chance in the race for the American presidency against Republican Senator John McCain.
It was only a month ago that a few African voices on the various lists and chatrooms on the Internet began to express confidence in an Obama victory.
Still, the majority think he will be assassinated in the first few days in office, because America is simply too racist a society and is not ready for a black president.
Now with national polls showing Obama up on McCain by anything between 10 and 14 points, the ranks of the believers are growing.
The fat lady has not sung, so Obama doesn’t have this election in the bag yet, despite all the glowing polls. In fact the fat lady is only getting on to the stage, but it would be perfectly reasonable for Obama’s Kenyan relatives in Kogelo to order new suits and dresses now in preparation for a big victory celebration after November 4 in America.
Obama’s victory would be history-making enough in the USA, but it might even have far-reaching effects in Africa and the Third World in ways that we are not fully prepared for.
There are whole activist, anti-globalisation, and NGO industries in many parts of the world built around agitating against the inequities and imperial transgressions of America. A major drive of this anti-Americanism is the USA’s moral culpability on the question of racism.
There are many racist societies in the world, but America is seen as the one that most benefited from it through slavery, and is the modern democracy that has the worst record of tackling racism.
For example, India, that still has a caste system, could elect Kocherill Raman Narayanan, as its first “untouchable” president in 1997, but America, where racial segregation was outlawed as early as 1856, is still considered unlikely to elect a person of colour as president more than 150 years later.
The most America is expected to do is to have fictional black presidents as in the addictive TV series, 24, not in real life.
But even then, the first black president in the series, David Palmer (a convincing role played by Dennis Haysbert) loses office and is assassinated by white conspirators.
His younger brother Wayne Palmer (an extremely flat performance by D.B. Woodside), is also finished off in a plot by his white vice-president.
This evil white hand striking down a promising black, Hispanic, or Asian prospect is a central part of the narrative of the evil American empire.
Take it away and more than 50 years of scholarship and political mobilisation in many countries will fall apart.
If Obama is elected president, thousands of public intellectuals, radical professors and social activists, and nationalist politicians and journalists will be plunged into crisis.
Now they will have to explain how it is possible that a black person could be elected in this profoundly racist country.
This, in a situation where Obama’s nomination has already unsettled many because part of this international narrative about America, also considers the Democrats hypocritical liberals.
They are happy to posture as being against racism and for minorities, as long as these people are mostly serving as sidekicks. Thus black people can sit at the high table with white liberals, but not at the head of it.
Again, this is best illustrated in the TV series, West Wing, in the very liberal Democratic President Josiah Bartlet’s White House, with marginal black characters like presidential assistant Charlie Young.
And when Hillary Clinton and, especially, her husband, the man once referred to as the “first black president” seemed to play the race card against Obama, the cynics were vindicated.
Ironically, the Republicans, although more openly racist, do better. It took George Bush, not Clinton, to appoint a Gen Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as America’s foreign affairs ministers.
The best election result for the radical international non-American intellectual order, therefore, is for Obama to lose.
That would make sense, because it would confirm the dominant orthodoxy that America is racist; and/or that it has a very corrupt political system that allows the Republican-linked Establishment to steal elections.
An Obama victory would leave many Third World intellectuals and nationalists either jobless, struggling for relevance, or scurrying back to the drawing boards to explain an America led by a black president. Of course, they will also wish that he met some misfortune at the hands of a red-neck.
And to imagine that this “crisis” wouldn’t have happened if a Kenyan student called Barack Obama hadn’t gone to the US on scholarship, become a deadbeat dad, and left his son behind in America to be raised by his mother!

CAN WE TRUST THE POLLS ?

2008-10-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

Although large numbers of white Democrats and independents have told pollsters that the race of a candidate is not a factor in how they will decide their vote, there is ample evidence that they are not telling the truth -- either to pollsters or, in many cases perhaps no less importantly, to themselves. Andrew Hacker, a political scientist at Queen's College, New York, has written strikingly on this subject, starting with the phenomenon known as the "Bradley Effect."The term refers to Tom Bradley, a former black mayor of Los Angeles, who lost his 1982 bid to become governor of California, even though every poll in the state showed him leading his white opponent by substantial margins. Similar results appeared in 1989, when David Dinkins ran for mayor of New York City and Douglas Wilder sought election as governor of Virginia.Dinkins was ahead by 18 percentage points, but won by only two, and Wilder was leading by nine points, but squeaked through by only half a percent. Numerous other examples lead Hacker to offer this advice to Obama campaign offices: always subtract 7% from favorable poll results. That's the potential Bradley effect.Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-trained Republican Party has been hard at work disenfranchising black voters. Although we are finally beyond property qualifications, written tests, and the poll tax, there are many new gimmicks. These include laws requiring voters to present official identity cards that include a photo, which, for all practical purposes, means either a driver's license or a passport.Many states drop men and women from the voting rolls who have been convicted of a felony but have fully completed their sentences, or require elaborate procedures for those who have been in prison -- where, Hacker points out, black men and women outnumber whites by nearly six to one -- to be reinstated. There are many other ways of disqualifying black voters, not the least of which is imprisonment itself.After all, the United States imprisons a greater proportion of its population than any other country on Earth, a burden that falls disproportionately on African Americans. Such obstacles can be overcome but they require heroic organizational efforts.

the secret war with iran

2008-10-15T23:18:00.000-07:00

Few days ago i read Bergmans book The Secret War With Iran, for sometime had been interested on what his thoughts and views would be,since he was allover the news, anchors and reporters quoted him.Comingfrom Kenya and knowing how the mainstream media in America and Europe its now clear to me why an average American is ignoranton international affairs and takes the authority and media as the basis of truth .Bergman’s book is a work of propaganda in the truest sense to convince Americans that attacking Iran is a necessity.

If one knew little about the Middle East and its many strands of religious, political, military, and strategic interests, this seemingly well written work would have the reader believing that Israel is the altruistic good guy – although making tactical mistakes in its counter terrorist endeavours – and the Iranians are the cause of all the atrocities in the Middle East.
In the epilogue Ronen Bergman indicates that he “began researching this book in order to uncover and make sense of” the “secret war” that has been ongoing between Israel and Iran, and “to place the events…in their historical context.” If that is what he intended to do, then this work fails completely.
The major fault with The Secret War With Iran is exactly that, one of context. It is a fault that puts this book squarely in the genre of blatant apologetics and rhetoric exhorting the Americans to attack Iran. The contexts not revealed in the text are several. The main hidden context being the reasons for much of the Middle East’s anger at Israel, the ongoing occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian “territories”.
This uses many guises from outright military force, imprisonment, torture, house demolition, through to the subtler and yet more psychologically abusive tactics of land expropriation, marriage laws, and a multitude of other laws that make it impossible for the Palestinian people to have a home and a culture. Only once in the work do I recall the word occupation being used, with the implication otherwise that the Israeli military is in Palestinian territory to stop the terrorists, not to ethnically cleanse the territory for Jewish Zionist settlers.
The United States is mentioned frequently with the final commendation being that “Israel’s considerable contribution to America’s endeavors to make the world a better place must be acknowledged.” I would consider that an outright lie, unless Israel’s contribution is the shaping of the American political landscape (consider AIPAC and all the right wing American apocalyptic rapture fanatics looking for Armageddon).
America has little consideration for the world being a better place, only a place that is subservient to its demands and wishes for resources and geopolitical control. That underlies the second major dissimulation in the text, the massive support that the United States has given Israel both directly as $3 billion in direct aid and more in military aid (per annum), and the aid it has provided to other Middle East countries in its attempts at hegemonic control. Alongside rests the American tendency to make this a religious war, “this crusade” in the words of Bush, and the Israeli acceptance and support for that are all concealed to the reader. Iran is not the only country that uses money, religious fanaticism, and subterfuge to work towards its goals.
Another area taken out of context is of course the Iranian attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. What Bergman describes as Iran’s march towards achieving nuclear success rings mostly true in relation to other books; and while he does simply admit that Israel has nuclear weapons, the Israeli process could well suffer the same description as he has given to the Iranian attempts as a “dance of lies, deception, fabrications, and stalling that [Israel/Iran] has been carrying out to mislead the West.”
Israel of course was very successful with this, achieving a clear nuclear supremacy in the Middle East (one bomb would have done that) yet still playing a tune of recalcitrant coyness. The latter phrase refers to the fact that Israel operated entirely outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and still does and has never officially admitted to having a weapon, while Iran has been working within it, even if deceptively.
Finally of course, lies the context of the United States being the main nuclear power in the world, the only nuclear power to have used the weapon, the only power to advocate a first-strike pre-emptive roll for them, and the main power abrogating treaties that attempt to control their spread (the ABM treaty, the NPF treaty and its current relations with India). This lack of context emphasizes the double standards that to a sceptical and educated mind permeate the stories. Along with the occupation of Palestine, the massive military support of the U.S., and the Israeli nuclear weapons, other double standards occur.
The suicide bombings effects in Israel are vividly described, but never are the atrocities committed by the IDF in the occupied territories. Bergman says, “No attempt was made to get down to the root of the matter [suicide bombings].” Of course not, because the root of the matter is the occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people, although at this point in his tale of woe, the Israelis are in occupied Lebanon.
Hizbollah and the Palestinians are implicated in drug dealings, ignoring the connection that wherever the Americans go in their quest against communists or terrorists major drug operations seem to spring up. Where there’s oil, there are Americans, where there are Americans there are war and drugs – it’s not strictly limited to Hizbollah and the Taliban.
The ultimate insult from the perspective of double standards is in the reference section. Bergman’s sources are almost entirely Jewish (should we be surprised?) and he emphasizes the oral interviews as the main emphasis for his research. Oral history is described as “a complex matter that demands various rules and precautions, mainly finding written or oral evidence to confirm the information process.”
That fully contradicts Israeli attempts to deny the oral history of Palestine, the destruction of over 500 villages and towns, the slow gradual cleansing of Palestinians from their land in spite of both oral and written records. Of course the occupation and ethnic cleansing are not even considered in this work so that disturbs Bergman not at all. [see note 1]
It would be laborious to go through the work pointing out all the other matters that are borderline dissimulation, double standards, and outright lies, but allow me a few examples. First up is Mossadegh who in most histories is considered to be a full fledged democratic personage who took power away from the Shah, gave the power to the people via the parliament, nationalized the oil companies (mostly British at the time) and while he despised the communists, allowed them to continue to operate.
Bergman however describes Mossadegh as someone who “practically took over the government.” If taking over the government means transferring the power to the people, then yes, he “practically” took it over – we should be so lucky if that happened in the US The only reason he did not was because Britain and the US conspired to eliminate him one way or another. That is where the real story of modern Iran begins, not with the overthrow of the Shah.
A few ‘smaller ‘ items entertain the story along the way: Khomeini seeing the world “as a clash between good and evil (same school of religion as Bush); the Shah’s son being “perhaps the best person to explain his downfall” (truly unbiased that would be); the US “maintained pressure on Tehran not to violate human rights” (a constant with US foreign affairs, never minding its own business); criticizing the PLO for behaving in Lebanon “as if the country belonged to them” (perhaps recognizable from the Israeli occupation of Palestine?).
What really irked my anger was the simplistic lie concerning the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, that “Israel was not an active partner in this atrocity, but its forces also did nothing to prevent it.” Even if one could salvage a grain of truth from this, the Israelis were an occupying force and therefore responsible under international law for the safety and health of the citizens of that country. There is so much evidence against this that it can only be labelled a lie – oh yes, I forgot, it’s oral history mostly, corroborated by many participants and eye-witnesses. I guess it doesn’t count then.
I could go on …and on…with the double standards and out of context information in this work, but then I would be rewriting it for the next while, an unnecessarily strenuous task. What then is Bergman’s ultimate purpose in writing all this? Possibly threefold.
First, having the US attack Iran would save Israel a lot of men and equipment at least initially. Secondly, it would destroy Iran’s perceived intent against Israel, but as with the Shah, would manipulate the geopolitical scene in Israel’s favour. It could, but not likely, shift some of the retaliation and revenge focus away from Israel but as the US and Israel are so intertwined that would not be too likely. Another consideration, as it is a work of propaganda in the truest sense, is to convince American politicians of all stripes (well, there really is only one stripe to an American politician) that attacking Iran is a necessity.
Whatever the reason, the book falls within the categories of rhetoric, dissimulation, and propaganda. Bergman has faithfully fulfilled the Israeli media position of an aggrieved Israeli state fighting off all the terrorists, while denying its own terror and ethnic cleansing within the Palestinian territory. Read it if you wish, but be guarded as to what you accept.

Could Racist America cause Obama's Loss!

2008-10-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, was running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Its not only till a few day of frantic debates and fear mongering from the republicans that havent managed to reduce the widening gap in polls with Obama leading with 52 and McCain a distant 41.Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?
If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.
Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Kenya's politics & policies

2008-10-13T23:43:00.000-07:00

Until late 2007, Kenya was considered one of the most stable countries in Africa . It has functioned as East Africa ’s financial and communications hub, the headquarters of many international nongovernmental organizations, and a magnet for tourism. Analysts looked favorably upon its healthy and broad-based economic expansion under President Mwai Kibaki, which stood in marked contrast to the growth of countries such as Angola and Equatorial Guinea that depend on the export of a single commodity—oil. Yet disputed elections in late December 2007 spurred outbreaks of violence across the country that killed more than six-hundred people. That prompted some fears that Kenya would split on tribal lines and descend into prolonged unrest. Experts say such a scenario is unlikely, but also suggest that prior depictions of Kenya ’s stability were premature. Kenya is a young democracy, they say, and its weak institutions—not inherent ethnic divisions—are at the root of the current political crisis.
The Power of the PresidentIn Kenya , most institutions—including the judiciary, parliament, and the electoral commission—are subservient to the president. The president appoints high court judges and electoral commissioners, has the power to dissolve parliament, and controls the federal budget. The extent of presidential power is a holdover from the colonial period, experts say, and has changed little since independence in 1963. For instance, the president still appoints provincial and district commissioners, who oversee municipal services such as education, health, and transportation. these commissioners function like a “shadow government entirely in the control of the president.” Districts known to be supportive of the opposition party, or with opposition parliamentarians, tend to receive fewer resources than those controlled by the ruling party, he says.Members of parliament are elected by the general population but parliament has little power to address public grievances. When voters realize elected officials aren’t going to address their concerns about social and economic inequality, this leads them to distrust institutions and produces a “sense of disempowerment and disillusionment,”. The electoral commission’s inability to resolve disputes over the legitimacy of vote tabulation following December 2007 elections served as further evidence that Kenya ’s political institutions could not be considered independent. Kenyans have not traditionally identified themselves by ethnic group and studies have shown they do not have significant feelings of ethnic injustice.Widespread corruption has further eroded public trust in political institutions. Kenya ranked 150 out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, the same ranking as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia , both of which recently emerged from civil war. The Kenya Bribery Index 2007, published by the Kenya branch of Transparency International, reported than Kenyans paid twice as many bribes in 2006 as the previous year, but noted that the total sum paid by each person remained the same because each bribe was smaller.
Winner Take All: A History of Political ViolenceExperts say elections are dominated by a winner-take-all mentality due to the consolidation of power in the executive branch. Though Kenya has had multiparty elections since 1992, the opposition has little power in the government. “If you lose the election, you have nothing to do,”. As a result, opposition MPs often don’t even show up to conduct the business of parliament, Because elections are such high-stakes affairs, political candidates are accustomed to hiring groups of young, armed men to protect their interests (this practice is also common in Nigeria ). Each poll since the introduction of multiparty elections—in 1992, 1997, and 2002—has been accompanied by low-level outbreaks of violence. Most experts trace this violence back to tactics that President Daniel arap Moi, who led from 1978 until 2002, used to divide the population and retain political power. “When Western donors compelled Moi to institute multiparty politics, his reaction was to make a prophecy that it would end in ethnic violence,”. While there was not a history of ethnic violence under British rule, colonial officials fostered divisions among Kenya ’s ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against their rulers. “If we don’t create a new constitutional order, we will have even a bigger crisis in the future” Experts say this ethnic tension was stoked and manipulated by Moi. Kenya has forty-one different ethnic groups; the Kikuyu, with 22 percent of the population, is the most prosperous group. When Moi, who is Kalenjin, faced the prospect of losing power to an opposition party that contained many Kikuyu, he started an anti-Kikuyu campaign and incited land clashes in the Rift Valley between Kalenjins and Kikuyus in 1992 and 1997. Major rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported extensively on the state-sponsored nature of this violence. By the 2002 election of President Mwai Kibaki, who is Kikuyu, such political violence had become routine. According to an independent research project on public opinion in sub-Saharan Africa, 66 percent of Kenyans said in 2005 that competition between political parties “often” or “always” leads to violent conflict (up from 54 percent in 2003).
Political and Economic Tensions with an Ethnic FaceNews reports were quick to label the violence that followed December 2007 presidential elections as tribal, but some experts say this is a gross oversimplification. Contrary to prevailing attitudes, Kenyans have not traditionally identified themselves by ethnic group and studies have shown they do not have significant feelings of ethnic injustice. In a 2003 Afrobarometer survey, 70 percent said they would choose to be Kenyan if faced with a choice between a national identity and their ethnic group (28 percent refused to identify themselves as anything but Kenyan). Analysts say much of the unrest that erupted after the December 2007 polls was just the latest display of politically organized violence. Political coalitions on both sides hired thugs to do their bidding, and ordinary Kenyans were caught in the cross fire, they say.Though much of Kenya ’s ethnic violence can be attributed to political manipulation, there are economic inequalities between some ethnic groups, and long-standing bitter disputes over land, particularly in the Rift Valley. According to the 2007/2008 UN Human Development Index , Kenya ranks 148 of 177 countries on income inequality. Many Kenyans believe the Kikuyu have accrued a disproportionate percentage of the benefits of Kenya ’s recent economic growth. The head of the Nairobi Stock exchange, the Central Bank of Kenya , and Kenya Electric Generating Company, the region’s largest power generator, are all Kikuyu (Bloomberg). These are “economic issues that get reflected through ethnic institutions,”
Constitutional ReformThere is broad consensus within and outside Kenya that the country needs constitutional reforms that strengthen local government and rectify regional resource imbalances. There has been a push for such reforms since 1991, and some experts say the current political stalemate offers an opportunity to catalyze action. “If we don’t create a new constitutional order, we will have even a bigger crisis in the future,” Others think there is a short-term opportunity for incremental reforms, including establishing an independent electoral commission and eliminating the president’s power to dissolve parliament. These could be combined with an agreement on basic constitutional principles.There is evidence that political patronage in Kenya ’s public spending has increased economic and regional inequalities.Most interested parties, save for the president and his advisers, agree that power should be shifted from the executive branch to strengthen the judiciary and parliament. But experts disagree on how to achieve that shift, and what other elements are necessary for effective constitutional reform. Some, including the opposition party led by Raila Odinga, argue for a system of governance with a federalist character, somewhat like Nigeria . Others recommend a system of subsidiarity, in which decisions are made at the provincial level and coordinated with the central government. if power is decentralized, local capacity must be built up. “If you decentralize administration but not competence, these regions will continue to be poor,” constitutional reforms should be preceded by a long-term economic growth plan for the country.How to initiate constitutional reforms in the current political climate remains unclear. the attorney-general, who has the security of tenure and is the legal adviser to all branches of government, could spearhead a reform process.
Prospects for the FutureKenyans see democracy and economic growth as inextricably linked. Their main aspiration for democracy, according to Afrobarometer, is that it will create more equitable distribution of economic opportunity (PDF). For Kenya ’s economy to take off, it must distribute power among ethnic groups. “ Kenya could be a shining example But it could unravel further politically and the economy could become moribund for regional imbalances to be addressed, the country needs to upgrade its infrastructure a large-scale government employment scheme, structured like the New Deal in the 1930s United States , could employ youth to do this. The Rot in kenyan politics Blurry video of a policeman beating a demonstrator; a photograph of angry slum-dwellers storming a food depot; headlines featuring the word "violence." That, more or less, sums up the news from Kenya, or at least the news that has filtered into the general consciousness over the past few weeks. Unless you were paying very close attention, you were probably tempted, as I was at first, to dismiss these events as yet more evidence of Africa's ungovernability. Uganda, Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone; tribal enmity plus poverty equals violence; another country evolving into a "failed state." Doesn't it prove, once again, that Africa is an exception to all of the rules about global development, democratization, "progress"?
Actually, it doesn't. In fact, the closer one looks at Kenya, the less exceptional Africa seems. What was most striking to me about the violence in Kenya in recent weeks was not how much the country resembles Rwanda but, rather, how much it resembles, say, Ukraine in 2004 or South Korea in the 1980s. Perhaps the real story here is not, as one headline had it, about " The Demons That Still Haunt Africa" but about how Africa is no different from anywhere else.
I am exaggerating here, somewhat, to make a point. Of course Kenya is special, as all countries are special, and of course there are some notably bloody Kenyan ethnic conflicts. The Kikuyu tribe, which constitutes about a fifth of Kenya's population, has dominated the country's politics and economics since independence -- and is profoundly resented for it. Among other things, the disturbances of recent weeks have included a wave of attacks on the Kikuyu sections of a Nairobi slum, and cross-tribal violence, with the Luo, in the Rift Valley. But step back a few paces, and look at the broader picture. The immediate cause of the current unrest was not ancient ethnic hatred. The immediate cause was political. As happened in Ukraine, an election was held and one of the candidates appears to have stolen it. This was no piece of subtle fakery, nor did it involve anything so legalistic as a supreme court. On the contrary, with television cameras rolling, Kenyan paramilitary police stormed the conference center where votes were being counted -- and where the challenger, Raila Odinga, was said to be ahead of the incumbent, President Mwai Kibaki -- and expelled journalists and foreign observers. Soon afterward, an election official emerged to declare Kibaki the winner. Violence, apparently prepared well in advance, broke out immediately. There will be many explanations for the viciousness of what followed, but one of them, surely, is that this particular election fraud took place at a crucial moment in Kenyan history. As any student of revolution knows, popular uprisings generally take place not in the poorest countries but in those that have recently grown richer. In 2007, Kenya's economy grew 6.4 percent, a figure that will rapidly translate into fewer infant deaths, better nutrition and steadier jobs -- as well as increased ambitions, both personal and political. The more hope you have for the future, the more frustrating it is to be badly governed. And Kenya, famously, is extraordinarily badly governed. On the international "perceived corruption" rankings put together by the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International, Kenya came in 150th, alongside Liberia and Sierra Leone, countries that are recovering from long-term civil wars. Year on year, Kenyans told the organization that they pay more and more bribes, too. Judges are for sale, lawmaking is arbitrary, government jobs are doled out according to ethnicity, not merit. No wonder there is widespread frustration. Thus there is nothing mysterious about the anger or the unrest, nothing that requires more Live Aid concerts or global outpourings of emotion, nothing especially "African" about Kenya's problems at all. Kenya needs a cleaner, more democratic, more rule-abiding government; it needs to eliminate the licenses and regulations that create opportunities for bribery; it needs to apply the law equally to all citizens. The West can help Kenya change these things by encouraging these values through the nature of the aid it gives and the strings attached to that aid. Ultimately, though, Kenya's political elite will have to decide what kind of country they want their children to live in. Yes, there are cultural factors, and, yes, Kenya is unique, but in the end politics, not culture, lies at the heart of the country's current problems

MEZEKAR

2008-10-13T22:58:00.000-07:00

Ethiopia 1986….
What does a woman do when she gives birth to a beautiful baby girl,
After her brother has been murdered and the government demands $100
To pay for the bullet they used to bruise his body?

That woman names the baby that would one day become my best friend Mezekar, because in Ethiopia ’s hard language Mezekar means to remember. Now remember Death is a way of life, you can’t avoid strife until the next persons struggle is so often worse.

In the context of the universe I wonder is my story even worth a verse.
So many of us race through history chasing this one mystery,
Who as suffered the most misery?

Now I get confused was it the blacks or the Jews
Indians, Asians or some obscure group of Caucasians,
On this occasion save your idealistic phrases like “there is only one human race”.
Now this here is a competition, everybody state your case,
Cause somebody got to stand in the first place... Right……….Wrong!

I don’t need the grand prize for pity,
I could go overseas or simply ride through the city and see that my standard of living is better than 9/10th of the planet.
So when am here slamming poetry,
Refugees of many nationalities are slamming me for the opportunities I take for granted.

If indeed I believe collectively black people have suffered like no other,
Can I personally say have suffered more than a 14 yr old white Bosnian boy who promised to uphold his dead mothers last request to protect his 10 year old sister, from the soldiers that slashed her dress, tied him up with wire made him watch them steal mamas promise. Now he feels like a liar that’s a lot for kids to carry on their own.

So no I don’t have a self pity, the world owes me an apology so I refuse to move own poem.

Because Mezekar means to remember that most tsunami victims don’t have a home, and by the way that includes the Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians in Kenya the news coverage never mention.

Mezekar means that I must remember to mention that those malnourished kids with visible ribs ,you see on TV never make fat jokes or go start riots, but they don’t have any sympathy for any folks on the latest low fat diet.

Mezekar means that most politicians ought to be tried for telling a teen child taking care of his six siblings alone by selling crack its not worth the risk. No you aint got no Mom or Dad but go back to the projects ,rats and roaches and wait till a great opportunity approaches.

You should know this………….
You cannot avoid strife until the next persons struggle is so often worse..
In the context of the universe your story is worth a verse…
But Mezekar means Remember…

McOKWIRI HILLMAN

2008-07-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

Have learnt to live and love with every passing day to experience and to take into account every action that am part of. Not only to look at life from my point but to borrow from the past to deal with the present in order to welcome tomorrow.