Alternatives International

Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection

CONN HALLINAN — 2009-08-07T13:44:36Z

While the Obama administration was careful to distance itself from the recent coup in Honduras — condemning the expulsion of President Manuel Zelaya to Costa Rica, revoking Honduran officials' visas, and shutting off aid — that doesn't mean influential Americans aren't involved, and that both sides of the aisle don't have some explaining to do.

The story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup is that Zelaya — an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power.

That story is a massive distortion of the facts. All Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention, a move that trade unions, indigenous groups, and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for. The current constitution was written by the Honduran military in 1982, and the one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country. Since the convention would have been held in November, the same month as the upcoming presidential elections, there was no way Zelaya could have remained in office in any case. The most he could have done was to run four years from now.

And while Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chavez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage. "What Zelaya has done has been little reforms," Rafael Alegria, a leader of Via Campesina, told the Mexican daily La Jornada. "He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously."

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup.

The first hint that something was afoot was a suit brought by Venezuelan lawyer Robert Carmona-Borjas claiming that Zelaya was part of a bribery scheme involving the state-run telecommunication company Hondutel.

Carmona-Borjas has a rap-sheet that dates back to the April 2002 coup against Chavez. He drew up the notorious "Carmona decrees," a series of draconian laws aimed at suspending the Venezuelan constitution and suppressing any resistance to the coup. As Chavez supporters poured into the streets and the plot unraveled, Carmona-Borjas fled to Washington, DC. He took a post at George Washington University and brought Iran-Contra plotters Otto Reich and Elliott Abrams to teach his class on "Political Management in Latin America." He also became vice-president of the right-wing Arcadia Foundation, which lobbies for free-market policies. Weeks before the June 28 Honduran coup, Carmona-Borjas barnstormed the country accusing Zelaya of collaborating with narco-traffickers.

Carmona-Borjas' colleague, Reich, a Cuban American with ties to right-wing factions all over Latin America and former assistant secretary of State for hemispheric affairs under George W. Bush, has been accused by the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization of "undeniable involvement" in the coup.

This is hardly surprising. Reich was nailed by a 1987 congressional investigation for using public funds to engage in propaganda during the Reagan administration's war on Nicaragua. He is also a fierce advocate for Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, both implicated in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1973 that killed all 73 on board.

Reich is also a ferocious critic of Zelaya. In a recent piece in the Weekly Standard, he urged the Obama administration not to support "strongman" Zelaya because it "would put the United States clearly in the same camp as Cuba's Castro brothers, Venezuela's Chavez, and other regional delinquents."

One of the charges that Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign. McCain has deep ties with telecom giants AT&T, MCI, and Qualcomm and, according to Nikolas Kozloff, author of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge of the United States, "has acted to protect and look out for the political interests of the telecoms on Capitol Hill."

AT&T, McCain's second largest donor, also generously funds the International Republican Institute (IRI), which has warred with Latin American regimes that have resisted telecommunications privatization. According to Kozloff, "President Zelaya was a known to be a fierce critic of telecommunications privatization."

When Venezuelan coup leaders went to Washington a month before their failed effort to oust Chavez, IRI footed the bill. Reich, as then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's special envoy to the Western Hemisphere, met with some of those leaders.

Republicans in Congress have accused the Obama administration of being "soft" on Zelaya. Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) protested the White House's support of the Honduran president holding up votes for administration nominees for the ambassador to Brazil and an assistant secretary of state. Meanwhile, Zelaya's return was unanimously supported by the UN General Assembly, the European Union, and the Organization of American States.

But meddling in Honduras is a bipartisan undertaking.

"If you want to understand who is the real power behind the [Honduran] coup, you need to find out who is paying Lanny Davis," says Robert White, former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador and current president of the Center for International Policy. Davis, best known as the lawyer who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial, has been lobbying members of Congress and testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in support of the coup.

According to Roberto Lovato, an associate editor at New American Media, Davis represents the Honduran chapter of CEAL, the Business Council of Latin America, which strongly backed the coup. Davis told Lovato, "I'm proud to represent businessmen who are committed to the rule of law."

But White says the coup had more to do with profits than law. "Coups happen because very wealthy people want them and help to make them happen, people who are used to seeing the country as a money machine and suddenly see social legislation on behalf of the poor as a threat to their interests," says White. "The average wage of a worker in free trade zones is 77 cents per hour." According to the World Bank, 59% of Hondurans live below the poverty line.

The United States is also involved in the coup through a network of agencies that funnel money and training to anti-government groups. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contribute to right-wing organizations that supported the coup, including the Peace and Democracy Movement and the Civil Democratic Union. Many of the officers that bundled Zelaya off to San Jose were trained at the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, the former "School for the Americas" that has seen torturers and coup leaders from all over Latin America pass through its doors.

The Obama administration condemned the coup, but when Zelaya journeyed to the Honduran-Nicaragua border, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced him for being "provocative." It was a strange statement, since the State Department said nothing about a report by the Committee of Disappeared Detainees in Honduras charging 1,100 human rights violations by the coup regime, including detentions, assaults, and murder.

Human rights violations by the coup government have been condemned by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, the International Observer Mission, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protest Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders.

Davis claims that the coup was a "legal" maneuver to preserve democracy. But that's a hard argument to make, given some of its architects. One is Fernando Joya, a former member of Battalion 316, a paramilitary death squad. Joya fled the country after being charged with kidnapping and torturing several students in the 1980s, but he has now resurfaced as a "special security advisor" to the coup makers. He recently gave a TV interview that favorably compared the 1973 Chilean coup to the June 28 Honduran coup.

According to Greg Grandin, a history professor at New York University, the coup makers also included the extremely right-wing Catholic organization, Opus Dei, whose roots go back to the fascist regime of Spanish caudillo Francisco Franco.

In the old days, when the United States routinely overthrew governments that displeased it, the Marines would have gone in, as they did in Guatemala and Nicaragua, or the CIA would have engineered a coup by the local elites. No one has accused U.S. intelligence of being involved in the Honduran coup, and American troops in the country are keeping a low profile. But the fingerprints of U.S. institutions like the NED, USAID, and School for the Americas — plus bipartisan lobbyists, powerful corporations, and dedicated Cold War warriors — are all over the June takeover.

Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.

Editor: Jen Doak

Some Thoughts on Nepal

2009-06-26T18:16:18Z

Anand Swaroop Verma

After the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr Pushp Kamal Dahal “ Prachand” the political parties once again have created the situation which reminds of the days of the 12-point agreement which took place in November 2005. The 12 point understanding was reached at that time between the CPN-Maoists (which was underground and carrying out peoples' war) and seven parliamentary parties. This was a historic accord as based on this the programme which was framed that culminated in November 2006 peace agreement, election to the Constituent Assembly and establishment of republic.

If 12- point accord was not signed then the monarchy would not have been thrown out so soon in Nepal. This is worth recalling that America had brazenly launched a campaign against the accord. The then US Ambassador to Nepal, Mr James Moriarty had advised the parliamentary parties not to join hands with the Maoists and instead should face the Maoists in league with King Gyanendra.

He also told the parties that even if they had signed the accord they should come out of it and do some evaluation. This is imperative to mention that this agreement was signed in Delhi and at a time when the government of India was also busy arresting the Maoists of Nepal. Obviously this accord could not have been signed without the consent and knowledge of India. Since the image of Nepali Congress of the then Nepal prime minister, Mr Girija Pradad Koirala has been quite good in the eyes of the Indian government, this accord could be signed in India due to his efforts. However after some time once the situation completely normalised it was revealed that Mr Prachanda had suggested to hold the meeting in Rolpa and had even offered to ensure the security of the political leaders but Mr Koirala did not agree for this. Instead he selected Delhi while giving guarantee of security to Mr Prachanda and his colleagues. In fact once Mr Gyanendra took control of power on February 1, 2005 and launched the drive to arrest the leaders of the parliamentary parties then they realized the need for joining hands with the Maoists for providing strength to fight against monarchy. Maoists were also looking for proper opportunity to forge alliance with parliamentary parties.

The American reaction to this accord also revealed that notwithstanding mutual cooperation between India and US on many issue of having control on Nepal they have sever contradictions. India treats a strong presence of America in Nepal against its national interest.

The political polarization in Nepal on the issue of dismissal of the old Shahi army chief Rukmangad Katwal to a large extent is the manifestation of the American desire that all the parties should form a front against Maoists. Monarchy has been abolished but its remnants are present in the form of Katwal and once again America, which had earlier lost the game, has tried to turn the situation in its favour. It is significant that the parties like Nepali Congress, CPN (UML) and others have united on the issue of Katwal and trying to alienate the Maoists. The Nepali Congress and CPN(UML) which won only 37 and 33 seats respectively out of 240 seats of the constituent assembly are contemplating to form the government alienating the Maoists which won 120 seats in first-past-the-post voting.

An analysis of the May 2009 events would reveal that the former general secretary of CPN(UML), Mr Madhav Nepal who lost the elections badly from Kathmandu and Rautahat by less known Maoist candidates and whose party was completely washed out, was getting ready to take over the task of the prime minister. The persons who have led the people of Nepal, democracy of Nepal and politics of Nepal to such a dastardly shameful situation are the same who from the beginning were striving to forge some kind of understanding between monarch and the political parties so that a joint offensive could be launched against the Maoists. On May 17 Mr Nepal already managed to get the majority (301) with the help of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Nepali Congress. If some dramatic development does not take place he would become the prime minister.

This government would last for how many days or when the government will be constituted is yet uncertain. But one thing is certain that isolating the CPN(Maoists) which has 240 seats in the constituent assembly would be a tough proposition for any government to function.

Now it is gradually becoming clear that under a well planned conspiracy the Prachanda government was thrown out of power. It is also known who were the persons to encourage the army general Mr Katwal not to abide by the government orders. The main ally of the CPN(Maoists) in the government, the CPN(UML) had impressed upon Mr Prachanda for immediate sacking of Mr Katwal. After deliberating the issue inside the party the party chief Mr Jhalnath Khanal had conveyed this to Mr Prachanda. Despite this the day Prachanda sacked Katwal, the party protesting this step withdrew its support to the government. Incidentally the senior vice president of the party and home minister of the government, Mr Bamdeo Gautam had publicly criticized this move of his party and had described this as a suicidal step.

To express protest and displeasure at the President, Mr Rambaran Yadav reinducting Katwal, massive rallies were held in four major towns besides Kathmandu in the country. Addressing the massive rally in Kathmandu Mr Prachanda made it clear that under no circumstances the CPN(Maoists) would go back to the villages and forests and resort to guerilla warfare. It would take to peaceful struggle against the feudal and status quoits forces which do not desire that a complete structural change should take place in Nepal and a peoples' constitution could be drafted. Mr Prachanda resigned on the issue of supremacy of civilian rule in contrast to the supremacy of army and increased the popularity of party many fold. Generally the action of President enacted in league with Katwal is being described as “coup'detat”. Mr Prachand holds the view that till the President does not retreat, the struggle will continue. On a whole once again Nepal appears to be on the threshold of a civil war.

The approach of Indian media on the developments taking place in Nepal has been quite shameful and ridiculous. Editorials of the newspapers and particularly of Hindi newspapers are quite amazing and unbelievable how could these newspapers muster so much of courage to disseminate misinformation to the people. These comments generally observe that Mr Katwal refused to succumb to the pressure of Mr Prachanda to take the guerillas of his Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) in the national army which is why he was sacked. Obviously if a reader is fed with this (mis)information he would stand by Mr Katwal and condemn Mr Prachand for this. For him the step taken by the President would appear to be rational. These editors even did not bother to inform that the question of induction of fighters of PLA into the national army was not the issue of Mr Prachanda or CPN(Maoists) instead it was the part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached in November 2006 based on which the present incidents gradually developed. This is an integral element of the peace process. These editors even did not think it proper to inform that the peace accord reached between the government and Maoists underlined that neither the Maoists nor the government would go for fresh recruits till the two forces are unified. Violating this agreement Mr Katwal in fact recruited 3000 persons in the Nepali army. The UNMIN (United Nations Mission in Nepal) which has been monitoring both the armies had in fact written to the Prime Minister to stop recruitments in Nepali army. The Prime Minister through his defence minister had informed Mr Katwal of this direction but the army chief refused to abide it. During the rule of Mr Prachand atleast on five-six occasions Mr Katwal refused to obey the government orders.

The Hindi daily 'Janasatta' carried the most idiotic editorial. It said "since Mr Prachand could not succeed in inducting his persons of the armed squad he sacked Mr Katwal". It also mentioned that his insistence to transform the army according to wish could not be accepted. Else, "tomorrow it would be said that the judges of the jan adalats (People's Court) which he ran would be given the place similar to the judges of the judiciary. Democracy has its own norms, rules and compulsions. When a party or a government prefers to overlook these then that gives rise to the threat of authoritarianism'.

'Dainik Hindustan' ran an editorial on May 5, 2009 under the heading "Prachand Arajakata" (Prachanda's Anarchy). It wrote "This incident underlines that his dropping title Prachanda which he had adopted for guerilla war and becoming a suave Jananayak ( peoples's leader) was a façade and he failed to provide a correct leadership to Nepal under the pressure of China and Maoists. Violence and immature political education and the illusion of having accomplished the Maoist revolution within 20 years did not allow him to understand the ground realities of his country as well as to his neighbouring countries. He was hell bent to induct the personnel of the peoples liberation army into the country's army." The editorial had confessed that at the time of cease fire agreement the issue of unification of armies was included in it but the army chief was reluctant to accept it. Despite this the editorial declared sacking of army chief as disorder.

'Dainik Jagran' wrote no army chief would ever accept those persons who were resorting to violence and arson till yesterday should be made the part of army. 'Dainuik Bhaskar' also justified the opposition from the army chief as this was heinous attempt to politicise the army. Obviously the editorial made it clear that the editor was not aware of the fact the general was refusing to obey the political decision which was incidentally an important part of the peace agreement. 'Rashtriya Sahara' held that Prachanda was trying to achieve his political target by inducting the PLA personnel into the army. Besides the editorial cautioned "Prachanda along with all Maoists should realize that in democracy and that too in a coalition government it was not possible to impose ones own desires on others and this was also against the principles of democracy".

On May 5 the article 'Nepal Phir Badhal' (Nepal Again in Bad Shape) by Madhukar Upadhyaya editor of the daily 'Aaj Samaj' observed "In spite of the protest from the partners of the ruling coalition, Mr Dahal at the advice of his party issued an order in the name of the army chief that former Maoist guerillas should be inducted in the army. Naturally the army chief refused to implement it and as a result Mr Dahal sacked him". Madhukar also wrote as to how in the entire world after a war comes to an end the fighters are not inducted in the army. He gave the example of Ajad Hind Fauj of Subhas Bose and said that the personnel of fauj were not taken in the Indian army. Some body should ask Madhukar what necessitated him to do so much of research. He should have known that the decision to absorb the maoist fighters in the army was arrived at after much deliberation and then the government had entered into agreement with the Maoists for unification of both the armies. Obviously it implied that Madhukar is not aware of the basis of the agreement and is also not aware of the sensitiveness of the situation.

The editorial of the 'Navbharat Times' reflected that the writer was aware that under the peace agreement various parties had accepted this condition. This also mentioned that Katwal wanted some special power and for this he did not bother to confront the government. This was the only editorial which confessed that behind Katwal the President and all the political parties had opened a front against the Maoists.

In contrast to most of the idiot Hindi editors some editors tried to take the situation seriously and studied the matter in the right perspective. Look at the editorial of May 5 of 'Hindustan Times'- "Though the Maoists would be blamed for acting in haste and also unilateral, the undemocratic approach of the General towards the civic control and peace process is primarily responsible for the present crisis. At the time when the peoples' struggle against the King Gyanendra was at its peak all the parties had agreed that PLA should be inducted into the democratized national army. Now once the democracy has been established and the task to create the Constitution of Nepal is in progress, the Nepali Congress and the CPN(UML) have gone back on this issue. The maximum damage has been done by the attitude of the General Katwal." The editorial refers to violations of the government orders by the General Katwal. The editorial mentioned that no democratic institution could tolerate such indiscipline of the General. It also referred to the danger that it may jeopardize the peace process. The editorial also wrote that the CPN(UML) and Nepali Congress on the name of opposing the Maoists had endorsed the actions of the President Yadav and also euglogised it that it started a dangerous precedent for the new born democracy and also people-army relation. 'The Asian Age' also gave proof of its lack of knowledge. It also echoed the views of most of the editors of Hindi papers. It appreciated the President for the reason that he protected the army from being destabilized with the entry of the Maoist forces in the army.

Nepal has two armies: the old monarch's army which is now national army and the Maoist PLA. National and international organizations have accepted the identities of both the forces. Under the 2006 peace agreement the national army is in the barracks and the Maoists forces are in specially erected cantonments. Since the two armies must not violate the peace agreement a UN Team has been monitoring them. Without knowing the following management mechanisms of the two forces, any comment would be incorrect and ridiculous.

1. In point 4 of the 'Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2006' of November 21, 2006 under the heading 'Management of Armies and Arms' the issue of management of the army has been explained. In point 4.4 it is stated that 'The interim cabinet shall form a special committee to carry out monitoring, integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants.'

2. In the same manner in the part 20 of the interim constitution under the heading 'Provision Regarding The Army' the issue of rehabilitation of the soldiers in the point 146 it has been mentioned "The Council of Ministers shall form a special committee to supervise, integrate and rehabilitate the combatants of the Maoist Army, and the functions, duties and powers of the committee shall be as determined by the Council of Ministers."

3. On December 23, 2007 a 23 point agreement was reached by seven parties. This was signed by Sushil Koirala( Nepali Congress), Madhav Nepal (CPN-UML), Prachand (CPN-Maoist), Amik Sherchan (Janamorcha), Narayan Man Bijukchhe (Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party), Shyam Sunder Gupta (Nepal Sadbhavana Party—Anandi Devi) and C P Mainali ( United Left Front). Under article of the agreement it is said "Regarding the integration of the verified combatants of the Maoist Army, the special committee formed by the Council of Ministers as per the interim constitution shall move ahead the process after deliberations/discussion"

4. The news released by ANI and Nepal News.Com it is said "the chief of the Nepal army General Rookmangud Katwal said that the political parties have already reached agreement on army integration." The General talking to newsmen in Kathmandu said that now discussions are going on amongst them which is the part of the democratic process. He said as per the peace pact and other understandings among the parties, the army integration will be carried out through a special cabinet committee which has not yet been formed."

5. On October 28, 2008 the government formed a five-member army integration special committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Bamdeo Gautam who happens to be the leader of CPN(UML). Members of the committee include defence minister, Ram Bahadur Thapa, the leader of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Mohammed Habibullah and Peace and Reconstruction minister Janardan Sharma (ex-officio member). One post was kept vacant for Nepali Congress. The main problem facing the committee was the Maoist wanted to head it which was opposed by the Nepali Congress. Finally the leader of CPN(UML) was entrusted with the task to lead the committee.

e-mail : vermada@hotmail.com

Translation of the Hindi article published in the June 2009 issue of FILHAAL, a radical Hindi fortnightly published from Patna.

Remembering the Tiananmen Democrats (1989-2009)

2009-06-25T18:41:51Z

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the great movement of the Chinese students centered on Beijing's Tiananmen Square and the bloody suppression of this non-violent, democratic movement by the Chinese state power.

Paresh Chattopadhyay

Between the first-‘May Fourth'- movement, 1919 till the last-‘Democracy Movement' of 1989, there had been several popular movements in China with mass participation of and often leadership by the students- the most important being the 1976-‘April Fifth'-Movement at the funeral of Zhou Enlai, 1978'Xidan Democracy Wall Movement during which the big character posters appeared often criticizing public officials and public policies, student demonstrations in the winter of 1986-87, and finally, the ‘Democracy Movement' in 1889, starting on April 16, on the occasion of the death of the former general secretary of the communist party of China,Hu Yaobang ,when the students and teachers of the various Beijing universities began putting up posters in memory of Hu Yaobang ,and ending with its bloody suppression on June 3-4.

During the 1986-87 Movement demands were made by the students for better conditions for them, and for the country as a whole, democracy and freedom, honest elections, freedom of press, price controls and solidarity with student protesters across the country. The party accused the students of ‘raising the red flag to attack the red flag' and the student movement as that of ‘bourgeois liberalization' which must be opposed. Those who from within the party sympathized with the movement-like the physicist Fang Lizhi-were expelled from the party. The general secretary of the party, Hu Yaobang had to give up his post for his positive attitude to the movement. Historically the majority of the Chinese intellectuals have submitted to the state, but the circumstances have evolved to a point where they were placed in opposition to the old men standing guard over the monopoly of power, which they called ‘socialism'.

When Hu died on April 15,1989,the commemorative activities ignited the prairie fire of student revolt. This ex-general secretary was one of the very, very few who were open to the students' demand for democracy and liberty. A student activist later observed: “The mood was that something ought to be done in the year marking the seventieth anniversary of the May Fourth Movement, the bicentennial of the great French Revolution and the fortieth anniversary of the foundation of the People's Republic of China.”

The four modernizations-those of agriculture, industry, science and technology, and defense-initiated by Zhou Enlai and adopted by Deng Xiaoping had initially considerable support both inside and outside the Party as an alternative to the years of deprivation of the Cultural Revolution period (1966-1976) Secondly, as economic reforms required relative independence of the scientists and artists, they were freer than during the Cultural Revolution years. (It should be noted in passing that the Maoist rhetoric particularly during the days of the Cultural Revolution sounded libertarian and many socialists and sympathizers of socialism around the world accepted it uncritically, genuinely believing that Mao was successfully building a self-managed socialist society). However, the Party's hierarchical and oppressive rules continued. Exactly as it had happened in other ‘socialist' lands since 1917, state machinery, the army, trade unions and other mass organizations continued to be subjected to the Party's absolute rule and the (in)famous principle of ‘democratic centralism'-individual obeying the organization, minority obeying the majority, the subordinate obeying the superior and the whole Party obeying the Central Committee-continued to prevail. As regards the economy, the coexistence of market and the bureaucratic economy created a system of dual pricing-free market prices and the prices set by the state. This differential price system enabled the bureaucrats with power and influence to make substantial profit by simply diverting the state resources to the free market. Such activities accentuated the already existing shortages and inflation. Price increases adversely affected particularly the urban population, which demanded higher wages accentuating further the ongoing inflationary process.

The 1989 Democracy Movement of the students thus erupted within this context of rampant inflation, official profiteering and authoritarian Party rule. The most remarkable factor was the official corruption and bureaucratic privilege that had been a constant characteristic of the ‘socialist' regime for many years. An important aspect of this process was the use of public funds for practicing nepotism as a means of establishing a de facto system of inheritance. As the economy opened up in 1980s new opportunities arose for these people.

Many bureaucrats and their families were involved in business and trading using their power and influence for personal profit. But they could not be touched. On the other hand, they put people in prison without trial and the torture of prisoners was endemic. Controlling the media allowed the authorities to suppress the truth and generate false impressions, denying criticisms and preventing those in opposition.

Although freedom of speech is proclaimed in the Chinese Constitution it was clearly being violated. A participant of the Movement held that the suppression of the opposite voices was based on the logic:‘ Truth equals the world view of the proletariat, which equals Marxism, which equals world view of the CCP, which equals proclamations of the Party Organs, which equals views of the Party Leadership', and then cited Marx: ‘freedom of speech, association, assembly is like soil, air and space'. According to the participants the Cultural Revolution and many other campaigns initiated by the CCP were clearly violations of the constitutional norms set by the same rulers. The civil rights of more than a billion people were denied for a long time. Several million people who were in the reform movements, Party and non-Party members, were persecuted and/or executed. “That is the CCP's unforgettable crime against the Chinese people”.

On March 30, 1979, Deng Xiaoping announced four “Cardinal Principles” defining four limits of opposition, “Activities against Socialism, against Proletarian Dictatorship, against the leadership of the Party, against Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought prohibited according to law and will be prosecuted”. Following the participants of the Democracy Movement, Chinese politics reflects “eight-in –one” principle: “party and power as one, party and government as one, party and legal system as one, party and state as one, party and armed forces as one, party and people as one, party and economy as one, party and culture as one”. Theoretically all power belongs to the people and their representatives in the National People's Congress sine October 1, 1949. But the political programme of the CCP is not supported by a nation-wide general election, nor is the party's will produced by the NPC. As a participant put it, “the fundamental shortcoming of all socialist countries is a political system that replaces people with bureaucrats as masters of society. The leader enjoys life long tenure of office with enough power even to appoint his own successor. Such a practice runs counter to the principles of republic and carries rather the characteristics of a monarchy.

That is why socialist countries are republics in name only, and monarchies in reality. China's socialism has been a feudalistic socialism, which is the socialism of the Stalinist model. Stalin was a typical tyrant whose regime was a socialist monarchy, and that of Mao Zedong was of the same kind.” The participant asserted, “ I believe in communist blueprint outlined by Marx”. The dissident physicist Fang Lizhi (expelled from the Party for his sympathy with the Democracy Movement) observed, “Cultural Revolution movement was initiated by the leadership at the top downwards. From the first big character poster CR was a manipulation of the masses by the leaders. CR was a movement in which leaders hoodwinked the masses. (In contrast) the Student Movement this time is a spontaneous one that grounds itself in the independent judgment of a large number of people. The Movement moves upwards from the base, urging leaders to change and make reforms.”

The participants of the Democratic Movement fought magnificently and completely non-violently for fifty days. “As a dynamic and peaceful movement it was unprecedented in Chinese history”, said Su Shaozhi, the ex-director of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, dismissed during the ‘anti-bourgeois Liberalization' campaign in 1987. Tens of thousands stayed on in Beijing to carry on prolonged demonstrations, hunger strike and sit-in. They considered their Movement as an anti-patriarchal, anti-feudal and anti-authoritarian pro-socialist struggle. In course of the movement there appeared the demands “ Overthrow the Autocracy”, “Down with Dictatorship”. The New China News Agency reported that people were shouting “Down with the Communist Party”. Slogans like “ Long live Democracy, Human Rights, and Freedom” became loud and frequent. The Internationale was sung repeatedly with new meaning and significance. (This reminds one of the famous 1921 slogan of the Kronstadt sailors and toilers, “ all power to the Soviets and not to Parties” when they became completely disillusioned with the Bolsheviks, who ultimately massacred thousands of them on totally trumped up charges).

Finally, “the so-called People's Liberation Army suppressed the students' and citizens' completely peaceful Democratic Movement with armed force, with a massacre followed by mass arrests and executions producing shocked criticisms around the world” (Su Shaozhi).

This ultimate act of the Chinese rulers, however, did not shock every body in India, certainly not everybody on the Left. Not to speak of the CPM members, we know also independent Marxists outside the Party who were not at all unhappy at this spectacle and even justified it on the ground that the participants in the Democracy Movement in their opposition to Chinese ‘socialism' with their demand for democracy and individual liberty were at least inspired by ‘American imperialism'. On the other hand, however shocking, this event should not surprise any one who has even a moderate knowledge of ‘socialism' in power in the twentieth century. Socialism, Chinese style, has been well within world ‘socialist' tradition inaugurated by the Bolshevik regime starting in 1917 mutatis mutandis.

Victor Serge, Leninist till the end and a member of the executive committee of the Comintern –who was saved from execution or at least perpetual internment in a labor camp by the direct intervention of Romain Rolland with Stalin—wrote in his Memoirs two decades after October, 1917: “ The Russian Marxism, formed at the school of despotism, did not dare to show itself as libertarians or, rather, it did so only for a very short period of soviet democracy from October 1917 to the summer of 1918. Afterwards it resolutely placed itself on the road of the old authoritarianism and, soon, totalitarian statism. It lacked the spirit of freedom. The fear of freedom, which is really the fear of the masses, characterizes almost the whole development of the Russian Revolution .The only problem that the revolutionary Russia of 1917-1923 could not pose is that of freedom, the only declaration which it was necessary to make and which it did not make is that of human rights”. Speaking particularly of the Stalin period Serge observed: “ The soviet secret police ‘Tcheka' judged the accused without hearing or seeing them, that is, without giving the accused any possibility of self-defense, pronounced their arrest in secret and proceeded to their execution in the same way. The ultimate consequence was the extermination of a whole generation of Bolshevik revolutionaries.”

*We have liberally drawn on the excellent book (of collection of documents): Voices from Tiananmen Square edited by Mok Chiu and J. Frank Harrison (1990)

Trade Agreement Kills Amazon Indians

Laura Carlsen — 2009-06-23T18:07:03Z

The recent clash between indigenous peoples and Peruvian national police sends a powerful message from the Amazon jungle straight to Washington: The enormous social, political, and environmental costs of the free-trade model are no longer acceptable.

Using a combined offensive of helicopter and ground forces, the police attacked a peaceful demonstration of 2,000 Wampi and Aguaruna indigenous people near the town of Bagua. The protesters belong to the interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle, an organization of about 300,000 members and 1,350 communities in the region. They blocked roads and occupied oil facilities to protest the executive decrees of President Alan García to implement the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). The decrees open up the Amazon to foreign investment, particularly gas and oil extraction.

Graphic Violence

In the police attack and counterattack by protestors and nearby residents of Bagua, indigenous organizations and international news reports count over 50 dead and hundreds missing. The Peruvian government claims that 24 police officers and nine civilians died in the violence.

Reports that police threw the bodies of protestors in the river to hide the real death toll have begun to circulate on the Internet and in the international press. International human rights and advocacy organizations such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Survival International and Amazon Watch, have deplored the violence, the subsequent crackdown on NGOs in Peru, and the role that the free-trade agreement has played in the crisis.

Videos of the attack show well-armed police up against indigenous protesters with spears, and scenes of chaotic violence suffused in tear gas. The rage of the local communities can be seen in this video of an indigenous woman, even if one can't understand Spanish. Many images show indigenous women at the forefront of these protests.

Regional analyst Raul Zibechi points out that mobilization of these indigenous organizations didn't spring up overnight. Protests against the decrees began on April 9 and intensified on June 4, when the ruling party blocked discussion of repeal in Congress, although a commission had already declared them unconstitutional.

Background to the Events

The real back story dates from May 2004, when the U.S. and Peruvian governments began negotiations for a free-trade agreement as U.S. plans for a broader regional agreement broke down. Peru broke from the Andean group, some of whose members had balked at the demands of the United States, to sign its own bilateral agreement on December 8, 2005. The signing provoked the first round of widespread protests, led by small farmers. From then until the signing of the ratified version at the beginning of this year, demonstrations continued in various sectors, leading to four killed in 2008.

The connection between the protests, repudiated decrees, and the free-trade agreement is explicit, as even the Peruvian government describes in its chronology of events: "By Law 29157 published on Dec. 20, 2007 the Congress delegated legislative powers to the Executive branch on various subjects related to the Peru-U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement and to support improvements in economic competitiveness."

The resulting decrees include moves to privatize water and allow private investment in other sectors. The most controversial decree relates to forestry. Indigenous organizations warn that this ruling effectively opens up 45 million hectares to foreign investment and timber, oil, and mining exploitation. The decrees stipulate that a minority of communal land holders can push a vote to parcel off and privatize lands, much as constitutional reform in Mexico was a pre-condition to NAFTA and led to massive out-migration. Two decrees have been suspended for 90 days, but indigenous groups have called for repeal.

Washington's Role

The Amazon conflict presents an acid test for Congress and the Obama administration on trade. The Bush administration presented the Peru agreement as a model of compromise between free-trade Republicans and Democrats with growing anti-free-trade constituents. It incorporated environmental and labor standards into the text and was redubbed a "Trade Promotion Agreement." Obama and the Democratic leadership supported the U.S.-Peru free-trade agreement, although a majority of Democrats still voted against it. At the Pathways to Prosperity meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed the agreement as "good environmental stewardship," just four days before Peruvian police shot indigenous activists protesting invasion of the Amazon jungle.

Some Washington organizations have now signed a letter asking the Obama administration to communicate to the Peruvian government that repeal of the decrees "does not conflict with the obligations of the U.S.-Peru TPA."

But even if the administration showed a new flexibility on free-trade agreements, the conflict wouldn't likely go away. This isn't just a battle over jungle lands and competing interests in the Amazon. As a planetary lung and a reserve of culture and biodiversity, the Amazon region provokes conflicting views of human progress.

For Peruvian President Alan García, in an editorial in El Comercio, the area considered a marvel by many is really just a big waste: "There are millions of hectares of timber lying idle, another millions of hectares that communities and associations have not and will not cultivate, hundreds of mineral deposits that are not dug up and millions of hectares of ocean not used for aquaculture. The rivers that run down both sides of the mountains represent a fortune that reaches the sea without producing electricity."

García argues that indigenous peoples born in the Amazon do not have special land-use rights on the area. Instead, the Amazon should be carved up into very large plots and sold to people with the capital to make use of it. The Peruvian government coveted the free-trade agreement with the United States because, with required changes in national legislation, it opens up the Amazon to foreign investment.

In contrast, indigenous communities and their supporters value the conservation of the Amazon. They want to preserve traditional knowledge and cultures, all of which would be threatened by bioprospecting and patent law changes under the FTA.

This contest between oil wells and jungles, foreign engineers and Amazon inhabitants has spread to the rest of Peru and the world. On June 11, tens of thousands of people marched in support of the indigenous protests in cities and towns across the country, chanting, "In defense of the jungle — the jungle is not for sale." Simultaneously, demonstrators hit the streets to show support for the indigenous communities in cities throughout the world.

In Peru, those who have suffered most under this economic model have led the charge for change — just as in Mexico, where hundreds of thousands of farmers marched to protest NAFTA's agricultural chapter; Colombia, where Minga demonstrations opposing a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement mobilized thousands of people; Costa Rica, where nearly half the population voted against CAFTA; and Guatemala, where FTA protesters were killed in the streets.

Yet somehow these voices never make it into the U.S. trade debate. The assumption that a free-trade agreement is a gift to a developing country continues to be enforced by governments' refusal to heed messages from grassroots movements. Meanwhile, The New York Times echoes accusations that neighboring countries have duped these thousands of women, farmers, indigenous groups, and workers.

The Amazon conflict shows that as long as providing clear access and mobility for transnational companies and financial capital is accepted as the sole measure of progress, concerns for the earth and human beings with little economic power and a different view of progress won't be part of the discussion.

The U.S. government must do more than authorize repeal of the hated national laws it provoked. It must rethink this free-trade model and begin to listen to voices from the bottom of the economic ladder. The crisis compels a new vision of sustainable growth and social equity, and the Obama administration has noted the need for change. Reviewing trade policy should be at the top of the agenda.

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen (at) ciponline (dot) org) is director of the Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org) for the Center for International Policy in Mexico City.

Editor: John Feffer

The Endless War Continues

Pierre BEAUDET — 2009-06-19T19:41:54Z

Since the election of Barak Obama, mainstream observers have commented the turmoil in the backrooms of the White House and the Pentagon. Apparently, the new President is trying to repair the damages done by the irresponsible and reckless moves of the Bush era and refocus the US around a new set of policies. It is going to be very tough. On a parallel track, many think that the long-term decline of the US is inevitable, partially because of its own internal fractures (economic crisis, military overstretch), partially because of the rise of emerging powers (China, the BRIC, etc.). All of this leaves the impression that US elites are in disarray. Is it the case?

An ‘inevitable' decline?

For sure, these trends are too obvious to be denied. The ‘reengineering' of the extended Middle East by Bush and Cheney is dead. The setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be denied. Other crises (Palestine, Somalia) demonstrate the vulnerability of US policies. At the same time, the demise of the US economy reveals its profound weaknesses while European and Asian competitors are becoming more affirmative. There are however different problem coming out of these projections. The first challenge is of course the reconciliation of ‘temporalities'. For now and the immediate future, the US will retain its capacity to remain as the sole and unique superpower, which gives it considerable advantages. But one can say, what are 20 or 25 years in real historical time? Perhaps more problematic is a simplistic interpretation of the current trends as if the crisis of US hegemony is leading inevitably to its demise and eventual replacement (by China or another block of alternative powers). This in my mind is premature and not only that, a bit dangerous in analytical and political terms.

Lessons from the past

The recent historical evolution should make us more cautious. In the 1970s, the US was battered in Vietnam and later in different countries like Iran, Nicaragua and Angola. It was also the time where its economic control over the world slumped under the weight of European, Japanese and later East Asian competitors. There were many theories back then about the upcoming fall of the US Empire. However what happened during the 1980s and the 1990s? Fist of all, the US absorbed the shock of the Vietnam debacle and reorganize their geopolitical priorities towards defeating their still greatest enemy at that time, the Soviet Union, which they achieved through the Afghan wars. Towards the global south, Washington also restructured its counter-offensive with the new tools of monetarism and structural adjustment policies, redirecting the big financial flows back towards the US, thus creating almost two decades of prosperity. Sure, that ‘bubble' was going to bust at same point (maybe this point has arrived), but nonetheless, the US recuperated a lot of its lost hegemony to the point where a new arrogant posturing could came about in the late 1990s (the ‘New American Century project'). Which is perhaps one of reasons of the present crisis (‘overconfidence' in Washington). My point is relatively simple. Although the US Empire was tested hard 30 years ago, it managed its crisis-exit in a way that kept it on the top of the world, perhaps differently, but still powerfully. Conclusion: we should be very careful in underestimating the capacities of the Empire to steer itself out, again, of the present mess.

Strategic goals

I believe that there are many indications of that capacity unfolding now in what Bush was in a way honest to term as the ‘endless war'. Indeed, this ‘endless war', apart from the lunatic ideological spins that were attached to it by neoconservatives, is necessary for the US to retain the empire. The scramble of resources (oil in particular) explains a lot of things, but not everything. To put it simple, it is fundamental for the US to retain its position as the gendarme of the world, remaining the only military power to project its might everywhere anytime. Moreover, it needs to do that in the epicenter of today's world, which can be defined broadly as ‘Eurasia', with Central Asia and the Middle East as the physical center of that space. Preventing China and Russia and to a second extent the rest of Asia and Europe to integrate is the strategic priority if the US empire can withhold its competitors and overcome its (profound) internal weaknesses. In the meantime, the US gets from this position a sort of global ‘rent', forced on or accepted by its competitors and eventually paid by the peoples of the world.

The endless war was not a ‘mistake'

In that sense, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not a mistake. Bush, Cheney and their associates were not ‘just' new Doctors Strangelove. It was rational and logical. However, the means they had conceived to achieve that were not satisfactory, as it was pointed out early in the process by the Pentagon generals and their mouthpiece Colin Powell. The tactics were at the best approximate (the techno, rapid and cheap war that would eliminate the enemy without much difficulty). In addition, the synchronization of the offensive got mixed up with the blurring of various targets and the incapacity to focus between real and imaginary enemies (Palestinians, Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, etc.). Because of these turns, the Bush project was tactically defeated and this defeat is of course very important, but not the end of the story! Today in Washington, Obama leads a new crusade led by the generals, those very same people who were marginalized during the previous administration. The time now, they say, is to get ‘serious'.

New tactics

The generals who never believe the myth about the no-cost war know that this is going to be a very prolonged and tough battle. They need to engage on the ground, as the ‘surge' demonstrates (Iraq and Afghanistan). One of the ‘lessons' of Iraq is that there has to be not only physical occupation of the territory, but massive and ground-level ‘eradication' of the enemy, which can only happened by massive displacement of populations, like the French did in Algeria or the British in Malaysia. The main elements of the ‘new' endless war' are:

– Massive killings of civilian population (like in Sri Lanka recently and now in Pakistan). ‘Sorry, there is not other way', the generals would say: you have to eliminate the water to get the fish, and yes, the water is the people. This is not done by drones, aerial bombings and missiles, but by foot soldiers on the ground, shooting everyone on sight. Geneva conventions or not.

– This kind of ugly war is to be conducted in two levels. First, what is needed the command, control and technical level, led of course by the US, using its technological might, but also, highly advanced and deadly ‘special units', ultra tough and ultra equipped relatively small combat forces capable of destabilizing and killing the enemy 24 hours per day. Second, you also need the physical force on the ground to proceed to the painful process of massive elimination. This preferably is to be contracted out to secondary forces (the ‘new' local armies being set up in Afghanistan, Iraq, even Palestine, or the revamping of some ‘old' armies like Pakistan).

– Once that very physical process is under war, the parallel track is what could be termed as ‘walling', containment, imprisonment and encirclement. On this of course, Palestine is the laboratory. The population after the killing of the elimination of its leadership is not going to be ‘left alone', slowly recuperating and eventually rebuilding its forces. It has to be put into open air concentration camps. ‘Target' killings of leaders, destruction of civic and political structures, dismantling of what remains of the ‘rule of law', infrastructure and administrative neglect are the continuation of the endless war at the local level.

– The political side of that containment is evidently community fragmentation, reinventing or exacerbating social, ethnic, cultural differences, creating two or three or four ethnic, religious or even social enclaves, everyone fighting everyone. With a vague mantle of meaningless ‘election' and ‘parliamentary democracy' The ‘laboratory' of this has been Iraq, but is not being extended in many other places.

Restructuring

The massive and deadly assaults that we have witnessed in the recent past in Lebanon, Gaza, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are announcing what is to come. However, the test is still ahead for the United States. To a certain extent, these current battles are still relatively small. The ‘real' confrontations, as they were planed by the previous administrations, are about Iran, Pakistan and perhaps even southern Europe (Caucasus). It will at a later stage come to surrogate and fragile allies like the Philippines, Egypt and to many other countries that are part of this ‘arc of crises' between Asia and Africa. The US elites, who have mandated Obama to steer the boat, are therefore in front of a gigantic challenge. They have to operate at simultaneous levels. First, they need to use the economic crisis ‘cleverly', which means a massive restructuring of the society and the economy. In a nutshell, to eliminate the remnants of Keynesianism and to squeeze out the middle and popular classes so as to relaunch accumulation. Of course, this is difficult, so there comes in the ‘battle of ideas'. Obama has no other choice than to redefine the crude ‘war of civilizations' which was wrongly defined by the neoconservatives as a sort of a ‘Christian crusade'. This new war of civilizations is as Obama explained it his Cairo speech the conflict between liberal modernity and narrow and conservative nationalism. The nations of the world still have to decide, as Bush said it in 2001, that they are ‘with us' (the ‘liberal' empire) or against us.

Empire

At another level, the US needs to ‘discipline' its close allies, meaning the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, who have been already and for decades capitulating and accepting to be the junior partners of the ‘triad', as defined by Samir Amin. The reorganization of the European right and the ultra right, combined with the self-destruction of social-democracy is important in the grand strategy. At the same time, confining the UN to its present hole is another necessity (this is the mandate given to Ban Ki Moon) and imposing NATO as the semi-multilateral agency dealing seriously with political and military challenges, even integrating ‘development' and humanitarian dimensions. The design would not be completed if the US does not attempt to control and eventually discipline the ‘emerging' powers, which is the drive behind the so-called G-20. The BRIC and other secondary powers are offered a piece of the meal, if they accept to operate as subordinates and ‘workshops' in a new international division of labor where production is delocalized in the global south to the benefit of the local ruling class and more importantly to the benefit of the Northern techno-financial overclass. Of course all of these secondary powers (except China –see later) are ambiguous, split between their own progress and confidence, and on the other hand the sentiment that they are still small ‘links' in the imperialist chain. This is coupled with the fears of the local ruling classes to be overthrown by their multitudes (remember what the French bourgeoisie used to say in the 1930s, ‘better Hitler than the Front populaire').

The dilemmas of China

By its size, history and resources, China stands apart. On the long term, the tide is turning in its favor . Every year, predictions announcing China as the economic powerhouse of the world are saying that the pace is accelerating. At the same time, the Chinese State and ruling class seem to be solid, at least in comparison. Remains the muddy areas of ecological pressures, commercial dependence on export markets, border controls, social and national unrest, etc. Not an easy ride. Nonetheless, China is standing and it starting seriously to project itself as a world power. First to secure markets and resources. Secondly, to defend itself in front of real (not imaginary) threats from the Empire. For sure, the reinvestment in military might is impressive. However, at least for many decades, the gap between China and the US will remain impressive. Therefore, the ‘game' is pretty straightforward for China: to gain time, to postpone the confrontation and therefore to propose to the US some sort of a compromise. Part of the deal, China is not directly blocking the attempts of the Empire to consolidate its hegemony even though it is trying to slow it in its militaristic drive. Which is demonstrated by its frantic efforts to prevent the assault against Iran or North Korea. On the other hand, it needs to stand up to the US in many areas of the world where its direct economic influence is growing, particularly in Asia, Africa and South America. This contradiction is the biggest challenge of the time.

Counter-hegemonic forces

One of the major analytical weaknesses that we see not only in ruling circles but also within the intellectual world remains to ignore the basic class fractures. Contradictions within the elites, either tactical or strategic, are not a ‘world apart': they are part and parcel of a larger confrontation involving all social groups including the dominated. At some point, the structural crises get beyond control and eventually, lead to the breakdown. This happens not only because the elites cannot rule, but also because the people are refusing them to rule (Trotsky). In these (rare) moments of fractures, the possibility of the revolution appears.

Indeed, the present crisis is not only the result of inter-imperialist contradictions and conflicts between the Empire and emerging powers. Insurgent peasants in Vietnam and Angola were able in their time to paralyze imperialist restructuring. Resistance fighters in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq are doing the same today. But in itself, resisting is not enough. Vietnamese won because they had a counter-hegemonic project that led the people not only to oppose the US, but to maintain resistance for decades and undertake, while at war, the reconstruction of their society. Obviously, this capacity is not here at this moment with different anti-US movements. What concerns us therefore, the democratic left and social movements, is to provide these capacities, which is implicitly the agenda of the World Social Forum. In other words, we have to propose far-reaching, realistic and hard analysis of the current crisis, seen as a moment of opportunities, both for the elites and for the popular movements and identify, within the camp of the adversaries, the weak links. We have to wage our multiple battles combining immediate, short-term decisive actions with long-term structural changes.

Obama's Cairo Speech

Gilbert ACHCAR — 2009-06-12T18:02:27Z

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on the 4th of June 2009 definitely lived up to expectations — provided we agree on what could have been expected. With regard to the form, Obama fully lived up to his role as the new black and human face of America in its relation with the rest of the world in general, and with the Muslim world in particular. He respected the specifications of his mission, seeking to repair the huge damage caused to America's image and "soft power" by the previous administration of George W. Bush. The world witnessed a spectacular attempt at seducing the Muslim world, its youth in particular.

The president's assets were intensively used: the colour of his skin, his Muslim paternal background, his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq and, last but not least, his Rooseveltian posture suited to our times of global economic crisis. The speech was very obviously inspired from FDR's famous "Four Freedoms" speech of the 6th of June 1941: the language of peace and disarmament, i.e. freedom from fear; freedom of thought; and religious freedom. Only Roosevelt's "freedom from want" was missing, a testimony to the extent to which this concept is embarrassing for governments that are temporarily resorting to "Keynesian" tools only in order to rescue the neoliberal economic system.

This being said, the difference with the Bush-Cheney administration was not only one of style and tone. The difference in substance too was blatant, despite preconceived hostile assertions that it was pretty much the same discourse and that, although the new president is black, the White House is still... white. The key substantive differences could be summarized as follows: a criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq; a commitment to withdraw all troops from that country; an acknowledgement of the Palestinian people's more than sixty-year old tragedy (implicitly recognizing the Nakba); a clear and firm rejection of Israel's expansion of its settlements in the occupied West Bank; a relatively open attitude toward Hamas; an acknowledgment of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy within the boundaries of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and a willingness to talk to the Iranian government, without preconditions.

These are important substantive differences, although they represent no dramatic break with the longer perspective of U.S. foreign policy. The truth is that it is the Bush-Cheney administration that represented a discontinuity with the long tradition: Obama's attitude is actually much closer to that of Bush senior than was that of the latter's own son. The commitment to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict, as a major source of harm to U.S. strategic interests, and the willingness to exert pressure on Israel to that end, were already displayed by the Bush senior administration. And the openness to Tehran (and Damascus) was clearly advocated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in 2006, although the Bush administration refused to follow this part of its recommendations.

The rest is hardly new, even when compared to the record of the previous president: the advocacy of a "two-state solution" for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and — despite all false impressions — the discourse about Islam, democracy, etc. People tend to confuse the neoconservative discourse with that of the Bush-Cheney, and for that matter Rice, administration: they were different. George W. Bush could outbid anybody in his "respect" for Islam — and, to be sure, in his close friendship with the Saudi dynasty! And, needless to say, Barack Obama will ultimately be judged for his deeds and not, or not only, for his words.

Beyond these differences and convergences, nothing else could be expected from Obama's speech, if one adhered to a sober assessment of what he and his administration represent. Not the leftward shift in domestic and foreign policies brought with the election of FD Roosevelt in 1932 on the crest of a wave of social radicalization, but a return to the centre after eight years of dramatic shift of the White House to the far right of the mainstream political spectrum, and a return to the fundamentals of bipartisan consensus in U.S. foreign policy.

On one point however, one could have expected better from Barack Obama than what he delivered: His speech was lamentably constrained within the parameters of the "clash of civilizations" paradigm whose main theoretician, the late Samuel Huntington, did not advocate the clash, as his non-readers believe, but warned of it. The paradigm was one of a world divided into blocs, the majority of which are constituted around a single religious criterion. Thus, Obama in Cairo exclusively addressed the "Muslims," scattering his speech with quotes from the Koran, expressing a view of the world dominated by religion — and only Abrahamic religions at that, forgetting that in his own country there are millions who do not belong to any of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, not to mention those who refuse to belong to any religion at all. In doing so, he paid an unintended tribute to the man whom he mentioned at the beginning of his speech and built up as its main target: Osama bin Laden.

Gilbert Achcar is Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. A translation of this article is published in the June 5, 2009 edition of the Italian daily Il Manifesto.

The Constantly Widening Gap between Words and Deeds

2009-06-08T18:36:13Z

Reuven Kaminer

There are political circles and commentators who live from minute to minute. For them, every squeak from a world leader is a virtual earthquake, a real revolution. This is especially true now that we are dealing with a US president, who is handsome, articulate, and even eloquent. The present level of manipulated excitement stems from the non-revelation that Barak Obama is against settlements and for the two state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also sees importance in improving the tainted image of the United States in the Arab and Moslem worlds. Now who can ask for anything more?

It is not that I disregard the significance of declarations but these must be carefully sifted so as to distinguish changes in the usual discourse. Repetition of old and pious wishes means little, while the appearance or disappearance of different formulations and elements is worth attention. But even before seeing how Obama is stacking up to his recent declarations, seen in Israel as criticism of Israeli policy, there is one new Obama element which demands urgent analysis.

The Normalization Gambit

Obama has added a new, problematic, and dangerous dimension to the formula for the solution of the conflict. He has called on both the Palestinians and the Arab countries to take immediate steps, before the conclusion of peace with Israel, so as to normalize their relations with Israel. Now this demand is quite embarrassing for the so-called moderate pro-USA, Arab countries which already maintain a high level of geo-political coordination with Israel despite the occupation. Moreover, Obama's demand that an occupied people, the Palestinians, who are denied the most basic of rights to their very existence, should take steps normalizing their relations with the occupying power as a condition for reaching a peace agreement is ludicrous, to say the least. This idea, coming from Obama, may indicate a certain lack of understanding of the conflict. Any expression of moderation by the Palestinians has always been interpreted by Israel and its allies as a sign of weakness, and full-scale normalization in the region before peace will become the ultimate proof for the Israeli argument that the occupation is no barrier to peace.

This scandalous demand for pre-peace normalization is cause for concern that regional normalization meets, first and foremost, the requirements of US policy, and if normalization before peace and as a condition for peace is inimical to the interests of Israeli-Palestinian peace, then the Palestinians will just have to wait. . . . The Israeli right has already drawn up a long list of confidence measures that it will demand immediately from the Arab world and from the Palestinians. These will be preconditions for moving forward and Obama will be called on to pay the bill. Is this accidental, or just another escape route from peace that must be available in case of need?

The Outposts Farce — Who Is Mocking Whom?

Obama, just like Bush, is against settlements since they are quickly destroying the dwindling territorial base for the establishment of a Palestinian entity. The area under discussion is a mere 22% of Palestine and choking it with literally hundreds of towns and villages is designed to wipe out a country and a people, literally to wipe it off the map. The Netanyahu government, like the Olmert government, is a coalition of enthusiastic annexationists, who exploit every opportunity to grab land and drive out the local population. The recent US protests against the settlements should be seen as a request that Israel stop embarrassing Obama on a daily basis, especially when he is busy trying to improve the US image in the Muslim world.

The latest phase of the settlement drive, which resulted in the establishment of a spate of tens of illegal outposts, is spearheaded by groups of crazed, young religious fanatics, known in Israel as "the hilltop youth." They carry IDF-issued weapons and recognize no secular authority as they pursue their goal and simply rebuild any of the shanty sites torn down by the IDF. They are enthusiastically backed by the rabbis in the West Bank, who happen to be government employees, and they are the darlings of the right-wing politicians. The IDF acts under the assumption that sheet metal and lumber are the guilty party. The army bulldozes the shanties, declares victory, and goes home. The "hilltop youth" rebuild the shanties and are practically immune from prosecution as long as they stick to shanty building (on Arab land) and serial pogroms against the Palestinian farmers in the area.

A few weeks ago, peace activists from the New Profile underwent a degrading police investigation on suspicion that they were encouraging youngsters to question their conscription to an army of occupation and national oppression. The settler rabbis inspire lawlessness and violence against the state, and the settler provocations go on without arrests.

Asides from statements, there is no sign that Obama intends any action against Israeli responsibility for the outposts and the "natural growth" of the established settlements.

At this point, we have to go back to square one. In its essence, the occupation is not a purely Israeli affair, but a joint US-Israeli project. Indeed, the management is local, but ownership belongs to the US as the financial backer and the provider of the political and military cover for the operation. The United States owns this occupation and is morally and politically responsible for the continued violent repression of the most basic Palestinian rights.

At this point, Netanyahu still fears the settlers more than he fears Obama, unless Obama gets serious. He may move against the outposts only to demonstrate that this is a tremendously difficult and politically costly action. He has reasonable hopes of modifying Obama's ban on natural growth, as long as Obama is not clear that the settlements themselves must be dismantled and not "regulated." The very existence of any settlement over the 1967 border is illegal and should be summarily dismantled. This would solve the natural growth dilemma.

So far, Netanyahu is a bit worried, along with Barak. His plan is to drag out the whole matter until the US loses interest or prefers to avoid any confrontation with Israel. This tactic, it must be noted, has succeeded in the past.

Obama in Cairo

It is to be feared that Obama's "dramatic" speech to the Islamic and Arab worlds has more to do with cosmetics than with politics. Obama is certainly right about the need to improve the image of the United States but, alas, this is not a matter of rhetoric.

The Washington DC, Riyad, Cairo triangle is one of those decaying power alliances that hold the fort for the United States. Obama's Middle East partners are not squeamish about torture and jail for their opponents who dare to act up. Mubarak and the Saudi king, Abdullah, are the heads of reactionary, brutal regimes. Of course, they are bastards but they are Obama's bastards — so what else is new? Even speechwise, there was very little of new substance in the Cairo spiel. Especially, if you were at Annapolis.

Once again, we are struck with the gap between words and action. Obama's propaganda team is working overtime to present the current problems in a limited and almost meaningless framework. So let's get it clear for the n'th time. The twenty-two outposts are not the problem, nor is the need to restrict the "natural growth" in the more established settlements. The problem is not the lack of an indeterminate, endless peace process. The problem is not even the need that Netanyahu adopt the Olmert-Bush two-state formula. Are we to become excited at the prospect that Obama might nudge Netanyahu back to the negotiating table? Aw, come on!

Even in his strongest suit, rhetoric, Obama is way off base. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a conflict between two overzealous national formations that must learn manners and civility from the international community and its leader. Israel, based on the unique advantages of the military, political, and economic support of the United States, has been skimming off Palestinian rights and land for more than forty years as commission for its pro-US services. Obama is not an honest broker, he is not even a biased broker. He is a side to the conflict and he will be one until he, openly and clearly, makes a commitment to cut off the funds and guns which implement policies that he opposes — ostensibly.

Reuven Kaminer blogs at <http://www.reuvenkaminer.blogspot.com/> .

Changing the Discourse: First Step toward Changing the Policy?

2009-06-04T18:10:06Z

Phyllis Bennis

President Barack Obama's much-anticipated Cairo speech reflected a significant shift away from the ideological framework of militarism and unilateralism that shaped the Bush administration's war-based policy towards the Arab and Muslim worlds. His "not Bush" focus was perhaps most sharply evident in his public denunciation of the Iraq War as a "war of choice." Obama's call for a "new beginning" based on "the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition" was followed by a move to shift the official U.S. discourse towards something closer to internationalism - particularly by pointing to parallels between historical (and some contemporary) grievances and treating them as equivalent. This included his reference to the U.S. "role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government" along with Iran's "role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians."

Certainly, the equivalences were limited. Equating Palestinians and Israelis as "two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history…" doesn't reflect the reality that Israel is an occupying power with specific obligations under the Geneva Convention, while Palestinians living under occupation are a protected population under international law. But in the context of decades of U.S. privileging of Israelis as the only ones who have suffered, equating the two was a major step forward.

As expected, Obama focused first on the historic contributions of Arabs and Muslims to global civilization and to U.S. culture and history. His articulation of U.S. policy - and particularly U.S. active obligations - on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were addressed only in broad strokes, although there was more detail regarding Iran.

The shift in discourse, away from justifying reckless imperial hubris, unilateralism and militarism and towards a more cooperative and potentially even internationalist approach was potent. The actual policy shifts were much smaller. It remains the work of mobilized people across the U.S. - starting with the millions who mobilized to build a movement capable of electing Barack Hussein Obama as President - to turn that new language into new policies - reversing the escalation and moving towards ending Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ending the occupation of Iraq immediately rather than years from now, ending U.S. military aid to Israel and creating a policy based on an end to occupation and equality for all, launching new negotiations with Iran not based on military threats, implementing U.S. nuclear disarmament obligations, and more.

That's the next step.

The Wars

Obama began by framing Washington's regional wars in the context of "violent extremism." He pointed to Iraq as a reminder of the need to "use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems," though he undercut that claim with the added "whenever possible." He did reiterate the claim that the "we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources" in Iraq, and that the U.S. will honor the agreement with Iraq "to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012."

But on Afghanistan, Obama's own war, he continued to claim that "Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals," and that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan "because of necessity." He claimed "we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan" and "we seek no military bases there." But he went on that the U.S. troops are there because there are "violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can." This was a clear statement of intention to remain occupying or militarily engaged in those countries for a long time to come. As an after-thought, Obama added that "military power alone is not going to solve the problems" and bragged of a plan to invest $1.5 billion a year in Pakistan for schools and hospitals and refugee assistance, and that the U.S. is "providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy." That claim might have had legitimacy if it reflected more than a tiny pittance of the current $97 billion of war-funding the Obama administration has requested for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars just through September.

Israel-Palestine

Obama began with a reassertion of the "unbreakable" bond between the U.S. and Israel. He traced the history of Jewish persecution "around the world," but despite his focus here on the Islamic world, made no mention of the history of Jews finding refuge and welcoe in Muslim lands during some of the worst periods of anti-Semitism. (He did refer to Islam's "proud tradition of tolerance … in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition" but did not mention Islam's protection of Jews.)

And on settlements, he said that the U.S. "does not accept" the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." Although he did not specifically refer to ending so-called "natural growth" in the settlements, the reference to "earlier agreements" was clearly designed to remind the audience of Israel's 2003 agreement to freeze all settlement expansion including "natural growth."

Obama's overall language was stronger than that of any earlier U.S. president: Israel "must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." His description of Palestinian suffering went beyond earlier U.S. accounts, including references to 60 years of "the pain of dislocation" and "the displacement brought about by Israel's founding." And he described the Palestinians' situation as "intolerable." His definition of the "legitimate Palestinian aspiration," however, was limited to "dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own," and despite the reference to Palestinian refugees and 60 years of dislocation, he did not mention the right of return.

Obama mentioned Israel's obligations only as statements - "Israel must also live up to its obligation…" "Israel must acknowledge," etc. He did not, in the crucial weakness of the speech, make any U.S. commitment to insuring that compliance - such as conditioning all or even part of the $3 billion annual U.S. military aid to Israel on a complete settlement freeze or other adherence to other aspects of U.S. or international law.

Similarly, regarding the Arab peace initiative, Obama ignored the reality that the initiative's starting point - a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders - has never been implemented. Instead he demanded that the Arab states "must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities." He called on them to "help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past," as if it were a Palestinian choice, rather than the consequence of continuing Israeli occupation and apartheid, that make creation of a Palestinian state impossible.

Obama did move the discourse significantly by his linking the Palestinian struggle to that of the U.S. civil rights movement and those in South Africa. While Obama referred only to the non-violent nature of those struggles, and didn't explicitly describe the Palestinian struggle for human rights as a civil rights or anti-apartheid struggle, those parallels are now part of the U.S. framework for understanding the fight for Palestinian rights. This gives new legitimacy to the anti-apartheid and "BDS" (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movements that shape the global civil society mobilizations in support of Palestinian equality.

Iran

The Iran discussion was perhaps the most significant in actual policy terms. Obama again turned to his pattern of equivalence, describing the U.S. "role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government" and Iran's role in "acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." While that's hardly an equal comparison, for a U.S. president to take full responsibility for the overthrow of a government and link it to Iran's later actions, is a huge step forward.

And on the prospects for diplomacy, Obama used language that parallels almost word-for-word the way Iran intellectuals, diplomats and government officials describe what Iran is looking for in future negotiations: "we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect." That commitment to respect, and the lack of a preliminary demand for what Iran must acquiesce to, could be the hallmark of a potential new diplomatic process. He didn't, unfortunately, call for a regional peace conference, involving all countries in the region including Iran, to replace his current call for Arab governments to join the U.S. and Israel in a regional anti-Iran alliance.

Importantly, Obama did restate the U.S. commitment "to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." And he stated officially that "any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Unfortunately, Obama simultaneously indicated an old-style unilateralist super-power approach to U.S. and international obligations to that treaty (NPT). He described the "core of the treaty" as the commitments of those nations wanting access to peaceful nuclear power not to seek nuclear weapons - Article IV of the NPT. But he made no mention of the reciprocal and at least equally (if not more) important Article VI - which requires the recognized nuclear weapons states - including the United States - to move towards comprehensive nuclear disarmament. So Obama's own commitment to "seeking" nuclear abolition is not linked to recognition of an actual treaty obligation to end Washington's own nuclear arsenal.

He also didn't call for a Middle East-wide nuclear weapons-free and weapons of mass destruction-free zone, as called for in the U.S.-backed Article 14 of Security Council resolution 687 that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Such a call would have included the need to disarm Israel's dangerous 100-300 high-density nuclear weapons, and at least tacitly recognized the destabilizing impact that nuclear arsenal in fomenting a Middle East nuclear arms race.

Democracy

Obama took an important step in acknowledging that the war in Iraq, and specifically the Bush administration's claim that it was a war "for democracy" had undermined the U.S. claim of supporting democracy. He said "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other."

He went on to say that the U.S. "would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election" and that "we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people." Good positions - but ones that ignore the reality of continuing U.S. positions in the Arab world in particular. Certainly the January 2006 Palestinian election - deemed "free and fair" by U.S. and European monitors - that brought Hamas to majority power in the elected parliament was not "welcomed" by the United States. And just in recent days, Vice-President Joe Biden told Lebanon directly that future U.S. support would depend on the outcome of their forthcoming election - an unmistakable reference to U.S. intentions of cutting aid if Hezbollah, already the second-largest party in Lebanon's parliament, achieves greater elected power. (In this, the Obama administration is channeling President George H.W. Bush's position in 1990 regarding Nicaragua - telling the population that if they voted for the Sandinistas they would face years of continuing war, while a victory for the U.S.-backed opposition would lead to new economic assistance. The popular Sandinistas were roundly defeated.)

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. Her most recent book is Ending the Iraq War: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking points and articles on a regular basis, click here and choose "New Internationalism."

Too Many Palestinians!

2009-05-27T20:41:09Z

The Alternative Information Center (AIC)

The Carmel Academic Center in Haifa shut down the concentration in accounting within its Department of Business Administration because a majority of the students applying were Palestinian citizens of Israel. This was revealed in a news item reported on Israeli news Channel 10 on 24 May (in Hebrew only).

According to this report, just over one week before studies were to commence, the center administration announced that the accountancy concentration would not open. According to a student (S.), “I was told […] that the students for accounting did not pay tuition, and later that there were not enough students.”

Dr. Amos Baranes, a senior lecturer at the Carmel Academic Center and head of the Accounting Concentration, held a conversation about this decision with Gil Reshef, the entrepreneur behind the for profit Carmel center, which opened in the current academic year:

In this recorded conversation, Reshef said

“If it is a majority Arab, we can't allow ourselves, because we can't allow ourselves an institution that will be categorized as Arab. Haifa University has this image and has a big problem [as] it is perceived as a university of Arabs […] We are not funded (by the state) and if we will be seen as Arab, [students] will not come […]”

Shocked by this conversation. Dr. Baranes met with Carmel Academic Center President, Professor Yehezkel Taler, formerly the Deputy Chair of the Israel Council for Higher Education. The conversation was recorded:

Dr. Baranes: “Yesterday I had a conversation with Gil; Gil also raised the issue about which you spoke, the Jewish/Arab issue, that we shouldn't be an Arab majority […]”

Taler: “Here there was also a problem.”

Dr. Baranes: “What?”

Taler: “Here there was also a problem. Of all those who registered, three were Jews, the rest Arab.”

A horrified Baranes turned to the Israel Council of Higher Education, which accredits all institutes of higher education in Israel, including the Carmel center. In a written response, the Council noted that “it was clarified beyond doubt that the college didn't open the program due to financial considerations.”

However, when Carmel College President Taler learned that Dr. Baranes contacted the Israel Council for Higher Education, he removed Baranes from the center's academic council and told him his future at the college is unclear. Taler told Baranes (in a taped conversation):

Taler: “I don't want you there (Carmel's academic council) […] I am not prepared that someone from the academic council will correspond with Ahmad Tibi (Dr. Tibi, Knesset member from the Ra'am Ta'al party) and the Israel Council for Higher Education.”

Carmel College's website (in Hebrew only) provides a telephone number (*5745) that can be dialed only from the areas under Israel's control. When calling this number, the AIC was told that no telephone number exists that can be dialed from abroad, and that no fax number is available. However, we found their email and fax number, which you may find below.

The Alternative Information Center encourages Palestinian, Israeli and international activists for justice to contact the Carmel Academic Center and the Israeli Council of Higher Education to protest this blatant case of institutionalized racism by the Carmel Academic Center, and the lack of an in-depth investigation of this case by the Israel Council for Higher Education.

Carmel Academic Center:

E-mail: carmelcam@carmel.ac.il This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Fax: +972 (0)3 533-1645
Telephone: *5745 (For those able to call from areas under Israeli control)

Israel Council for Higher Education:

Secretariat of the Council
Fax: +972 (0)2 5679955
Telephone: +972 (0)2 5679911

Quality Assessment Unit:
adi@che.org.il This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Fax: +972 (0)2 5611914
Telephone: +972 (0)2 5611914

Shadow Wars

CONN HALLINAN — 2009-05-27T13:53:42Z

Sudan: The two F-16s caught the trucks deep in the northern desert. Within minutes, the column of vehicles was a string of shattered wrecks burning fiercely in the January sun. Surveillance drones spotted a few vehicles that had survived the storm of bombs and cannon shells, and the fighter-bombers returned to finish the job.

Syria: Four Blackhawk helicopters skimmed across the Iraqi border, landing at a small farmhouse near the town of al-Sukkariyeh. Black-clad soldiers poured from the choppers, laying down a withering hail of automatic weapons fire. When the shooting stopped, eight Syrians lay dead on the ground. Four others, cuffed and blindfolded, were dragged to the helicopters, which vanished back into Iraq.

Pakistan: a group of villagers were sipping tea in a courtyard when the world exploded. The Hellfire missiles seemed to come out of nowhere, scattering pieces of their victims across the village and demolishing several houses. Between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, 60 such attacks took place. They killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda members along with 687 civilians.
In each of the above incidents, no country took responsibility or claimed credit. There were no sharp exchanges of diplomatic notes before the attacks, just sudden death and mayhem.

War without Declaration

The F-16s were Israeli, their target an alleged shipment of arms headed for the Gaza Strip. The Blackhawk soldiers were likely from Task Force 88, an ultra-secret U.S. Special Forces group. The Pakistanis were victims of a Predator drone directed from an airbase in southern Nevada.

Each attack was an act of war and drew angry responses from the country whose sovereignty was violated. But since no one admitted carrying them out, the diplomatic protests had no place to go.

The "privatization" of war, with its use of armed mercenaries, has come under heavy scrutiny, especially since a 2007 incident in Baghdad in which guards from Blackwater USA (now Xe) went on a shooting spree, killing 17 Iraqis and wounding scores of others. But the "covertization" of war has remained largely in the shadows. The attackers in the Sudan, Syria, and Pakistan were not private contractors, but U.S. and Israeli soldiers.

Assassination Teams

In his book The War Within, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward disclosed that the U.S. military has developed "secret operational capabilities" to "locate, target, and kill key individuals in extremist groups."

In a recent interview during a Great Conversations event at the University of Minnesota, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a U.S. military "executive assassination ring," part of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Hersh says that "Congress has no oversight" over the program.

According to a 2004 classified document, the United States has the right to attack "terrorists" in some 15 to 20 nations, including Pakistan, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli military has long used "targeted assassinations" to eliminate Tel Aviv's enemies. U.S. and NATO "assassination teams" have emerged in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, according to the UN, they have killed scores of people. Philip Alston of the UN Human Rights Council charges that secret "international intelligence services" allied with local militias are killing Afghan civilians and then hiding behind an "impenetrable" wall of bureaucracy.

When Alston protested the killing of two brothers in Kandahar, "not only was I unable to get any international military commander to provide their version of what took place, but I was unable to get any military commander to even admit that their soldiers were involved," he told the Financial Times.

In Iraq, such special operations forces have carried out a number of killings, including a raid that killed the son and a nephew of the governor of Salahuddin Province north of Baghdad. The Special Operations Forces (SOF) stormed the house at 3AM and shot the governor's 17-year-old son dead in his bed. When a cousin tried to enter the room, he was also gunned down.

Such "night raids" by SOFs have drawn widespread protests in Afghanistan. According to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, night raids involve "abusive behavior and violent breaking and entry," and only serve to turn Afghans against the occupation.

Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri Kamal al-Maliki charged that a March 26 raid in Kut that killed two men violated the new security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq.

The Predator strikes have deeply angered most Pakistanis. Owais Ahmed Ghani, governor of the Northwest Frontier Province, calls the drone strikes "counterproductive," a sentiment that David Kilcullen, the top advisor to the U.S. military in Afghanistan, agreed with in recent congressional testimony. The U.S. government doesn't officially take credit for the attacks.

Budgets and Strategy

If Congress agrees to the Defense Department budget proposed by Pentagon chief Robert Gates, attacks by SOF and armed robots will likely increase. While most the media focused on the parts of the budget that step back from the big ticket weapons systems of the Cold War, the proposal actually resurrects a key Cold War priority of the 1960s.

"The similarities between Gates' proposals and the strategy adopted by the Kennedy administration are too great to ignore," notes Nation defense correspondent Michael Klare. These similarities include "a shift in focus toward unconventional conflict in the Third World."

Gates' budget would increase the number of SOFs by 2,800, build more drones like the Predator and its bigger, more lethal cousin, the Reaper, and enhance the rapid movement of troops and equipment. All of this is part of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency doctrine.

The concept is hardly new. The units are different than they were 50 years ago — Navy SEALS and Delta Force have replaced Green Berets — but the philosophy is the same. And while the public face of counterinsurgency is winning "hearts and minds" by building schools and digging wells, its core is 3AM raids and Hellfire missiles.

The "decapitations" of insurgent leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is little different — albeit at a lower level — than Operation Phoenix, which killed upwards of 40,000 "insurgent" leaders in South Vietnam during the war in Southeast Asia.

Hidden Wars

In the past, war was an extension of a nation's politics "too important," as World War I French Premier Georges Clemenceau commented, "to be left to the generals."

But increasingly, the control of war is slipping away from the civilians in whose name and interests it is supposedly waged. While the "privatization" of war has frustrated the process of congressional oversight, its "covertization" has hidden war behind a wall of silence or denial.

"Congress has been very passive in relation to its own authority with regard to warmaking," says Princeton international law scholar Richard Falk. "Congress hasn't been willing to insist that the government adhere to international law and the U.S. Constitution."

The SFOs may be hidden, but there are eight dead people in Syria, four of them reportedly children. There are at least 39 dead in northern Sudan, and more dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of civilian dead in Pakistan runs into the hundreds.

The new defense budget goes a long ways toward retooling the U.S. military to become a quick reaction/intervention force with an emphasis on counterinsurgency and covert war. The question is: Where will the shadow warriors strike next?

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.

Editor: John Feffer