M.J. Akbar
One must not be harsh: it is not true that liars do not have a conscience. Why else would Tony Blair edge, at the cautious pace that public life demands, towards the Roman Catholic Church? He dropped in on Pope Benedict XVI in Rome on his farewell free ride around the world, and British media is full of stories about his proposed conversion to Catholicism.
Why would Blair want to become a Catholic except to confess? This Catholic practice has a unique advantage. Its details can never reach the front pages of the "feral" British newspapers. The Father Confessor shares details of the guilt only with God. Such a privilege is not available in the many schools and sects of the Protestant dispensation, a revolutionary theological movement inspired by a German reformer in the early 16th century, Martin Luther, because, in his view (with much evidence to back him) the Papacy had become dissolute. There were many venal sins that individual Popes were prey to, but Luther was angered most by the degeneration in the system of "indulgences" by which a sinner could, literally, pay his way out of sin. Money to the Church purchased forgiveness. The key to heaven lay in the treasury of the Vatican.
Protestants seek a solution. Catholics can get an absolution. True, matters are not quite so simple, for the Roman Church has long ended such deviations. Blair can’t sell the mortgage of his homes in London, and send a cheque to the Vatican appropriate to the dimensions of his lies on Iraq. But he is not turning into a Catholic to find out how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Somewhere in his conscience there must be a thirst for redemption. The guilt of young lives sentenced to war must be heavy.
It is entirely in character therefore that he is trying to relaunch himself as a missionary, with Palestine as his mission.
There is some confusion about the precise profile of the mission. His few remaining friends are suggesting that Blair has been appointed some sort of High Plenipotentiary who will bring peace to the Middle East with the same skills that he displayed to bring amity in Ireland. But Blair’s Boss, George Bush, has just put in a corrective. State Department officials clarified on Wednesday 27 June that his only responsibility is "shoring up" Palestinian institutions, and not trying to negotiate a peace deal, or "final status", between Israel and the Palestinians. This latter job is for the Big Boys. And for a Big Girl. The State Department said that Condoleezza Rice would handle the serious bit herself, because, as she and Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have said, the United States is the only country Israel trusts as broker. Blair is a "true friend of Israel" agrees Olmert, but Britain is not the United States.
Blair’s mandate is really not much more than to ensure there is enough money for the Ramallah municipality to clear the garbage, and wheedle out all the Palestinian cash that Israel has withheld on one excuse or the other.
Blair’s parish is not even the whole of Palestine. He deals only with the part under the control of Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas and Gaza are out of his bounds. As presently defined, Blair has even less responsibility than once entrusted to the former World Bank President, Jim Wolfensohn, by the Quartet (America, European Union, Russia and the United Nations). Wolfensohn was told to get on with the economics of Palestine but to keep out of politics.
Blair, to state it simply, is no longer one of the Big Boys. He may or may not get a salary in his new mission, although he will certainly get a plane. I do hope, however, they don’t send the bill for the costs of the plane to Mahmoud Abbas. Nothing is impossible in the worldview of accountants.
Wolfensohn, whose sincerity and stature were beyond question, failed because the economics of Palestine is inextricably linked to its internal and external politics. Assuming Blair can manage more elbow room than a World Bank official, can he do any better at a moment of severe crisis?
What can Blair do as part-time envoy over the next one year that he could not do during ten years as full-time Prime Minister?
What can anyone do during an American election year, when balance is held hostage to election sensitivities? This process used to last less than a year. It has now extended to almost two years. New ideas do not get an airing during the missile wars of election debates. The risk of a missile becoming a boomerang is too high.
Blair’s mandate is limited to the patch controlled by Mahmoud Abbas. But the difficult part of the story is Hamas and the support it commands, not Abbas. Or is it the new strategy that Blair can mollycoddle Abbas while Israel goes to war with Hamas? It would be an easier war for Israel than Lebanon last year. Unlike hilly Lebanon, Gaza is flat, and Hamas is not Hezbollah.
Can Blair, perceived by most Muslims as part of the problem, reinvent himself as part of the solution? Blair represents a past that must be swept out of the way if a new route map is to be found. His successor, the new Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown, understands this. He has appointed David Miliband, a critic of the Iraq war and of Blair’s foreign policy, as his foreign secretary. Jack Straw led the campaign to make Brown Prime Minister but did not get his old job back because Straw was too closely identified with the war. Even before being sworn in, Brown said, "I would like to see all security and intelligence analysis independent of the political process and I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to do that." This was as sharp a slap across the Blair face as it was possible for a colleague to deliver. It was candid admission that Blair had manipulated intelligence (a charge Blair has assiduously denied) to build his case for the Iraq war.
A last question: was giving Salman Rushdie a title the best career launch for a job as middleman in the Middle East? Or even for a role as do-gooder for Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine?
But there is some good news for Blair. His famed and accomplished ability to lie with smouldering conviction should stand him in very good stead in his new mission. Who wants the truth in the Middle East? No one. The truth would upset too many governments. It might even uproot some of them.
Blair now accepts that Iraq is a "disaster". In his farewell remarks, he expressed his sympathy for the British troops who had sacrificed so much in his cause. He wished both his friends and his foes well as he said goodbye, but could not hide his long-suppressed hatred for the "feral" media (in a category beyond either friendship or enmity) which had been instrumental in aborting his term to a mere ten years. But at no point during his long goodbye did Blair apologise for Iraq.
Being Blair means never having to say sorry. Except, possibly, in the solitude of a confession in a Roman Catholic church some time soon.
“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer. "My 80% friend isn't my 20% enemy" Ronald Reagan.
Search This Blog
Tuesday 3 July 2007
Friday 22 June 2007
Fatherhood? No thanks!
Jug Suraiya
Sartre, that exemplary anti-Dad, had it right: To beget children, nothing better; to have them, what iniquity. To give birth to children was not just a good thing but a necessary process if the human species were to survive. However, to have children — in the possessive sense that one has a job, or a car, or a career — is both different and undesirable.
A distinction must be made between fatherhood and motherhood. Motherhood is entirely natural; fatherhood isn't. Gender isn't destiny. But it is design. Women are designed to bear children — if they should choose to. Elective motherhood — single moms, lesbian moms, even conventional married moms — is fine. Obligatory motherhood, literally thrust upon women by a patriarchal society, is not.
Men are barren, in that they aren't designed to bear children. In this sense, fatherhood is based on a claim of dubious possession: my son, my daughter. Only too often, the emphasis is on the 'my' rather than on the 'daughter' or the 'son'. This possessiveness, this insistence on trying to make their children into moulded replicas of themselves, is born out of something more primal than mere egotism or selfishness; it is born out of deep-seated genetic insecurity. As sociobiology says, only mothers are real mothers, in that they know for sure their children are really theirs; all fathers are only putative fathers, whose children may really belong to someone else, carry another's genes.
To compensate for this doubt, men try harder to be fathers, to bring into this world, by the circuitous route of another's womb, replicas of what they hope are themselves. The poor guys can never be sure. And the less sure they are, the more insecure, possessive and patriarchal they get: no daughter of mine will marry into a different community, go out late at night, wear tight jeans; no son of mine will be anything other than a doctor/ engineer/carrier-on of the family business. If the operative words of motherhood are 'we' and 'ours' (We will have a child, it'll be our child), the operative words of fatherhood are 'me' and 'mine', the vocabulary of the patriarchal tyrant.
And the ultimate Patriarchal Tyrant, of course, is God, who according to Judeo-Christian theology made man in His own image. Looking at His handiwork, that doesn't say much of Him or His image. According to a more elevated view, God is not the Father of man, but the other way round: man created God in his image, and so is not the son of God but His father. In whichever case, between the two of them, man and his God, they've made awful hash of things. Baap reh baap , what an ungodly mess? You said it.
Sartre, that exemplary anti-Dad, had it right: To beget children, nothing better; to have them, what iniquity. To give birth to children was not just a good thing but a necessary process if the human species were to survive. However, to have children — in the possessive sense that one has a job, or a car, or a career — is both different and undesirable.
A distinction must be made between fatherhood and motherhood. Motherhood is entirely natural; fatherhood isn't. Gender isn't destiny. But it is design. Women are designed to bear children — if they should choose to. Elective motherhood — single moms, lesbian moms, even conventional married moms — is fine. Obligatory motherhood, literally thrust upon women by a patriarchal society, is not.
Men are barren, in that they aren't designed to bear children. In this sense, fatherhood is based on a claim of dubious possession: my son, my daughter. Only too often, the emphasis is on the 'my' rather than on the 'daughter' or the 'son'. This possessiveness, this insistence on trying to make their children into moulded replicas of themselves, is born out of something more primal than mere egotism or selfishness; it is born out of deep-seated genetic insecurity. As sociobiology says, only mothers are real mothers, in that they know for sure their children are really theirs; all fathers are only putative fathers, whose children may really belong to someone else, carry another's genes.
To compensate for this doubt, men try harder to be fathers, to bring into this world, by the circuitous route of another's womb, replicas of what they hope are themselves. The poor guys can never be sure. And the less sure they are, the more insecure, possessive and patriarchal they get: no daughter of mine will marry into a different community, go out late at night, wear tight jeans; no son of mine will be anything other than a doctor/ engineer/carrier-on of the family business. If the operative words of motherhood are 'we' and 'ours' (We will have a child, it'll be our child), the operative words of fatherhood are 'me' and 'mine', the vocabulary of the patriarchal tyrant.
And the ultimate Patriarchal Tyrant, of course, is God, who according to Judeo-Christian theology made man in His own image. Looking at His handiwork, that doesn't say much of Him or His image. According to a more elevated view, God is not the Father of man, but the other way round: man created God in his image, and so is not the son of God but His father. In whichever case, between the two of them, man and his God, they've made awful hash of things. Baap reh baap , what an ungodly mess? You said it.
Tuesday 19 June 2007
My 30 Days of Consumer Celibacy
By Wendee Holtcamp, OnEarth Magazine
A few days into a vow of shopping celibacy, I visit a Hallmark store with my kids. The 75-percent-off rack draws me in. I've forgotten that I'm supposed to be living according to the Compact, an agreement to avoid all new purchases in favor of used goods in an attempt to reduce my impact on the environment.
'Look at these cute penguins,' I say, showing them to my kids.My 10-year-old son, Sam, picks one up. 'Cool. They poop candy.'
I pay and leave the store before realizing what I've done. I stop short. 'I am not supposed to buy anything new!' I yelp. My kids glare at me. 'Well,' I say, taking a deep breath, 'I will just have to start again tomorrow.'
The original Compacters, who formed their group in early 2006, did not intend to start a movement. It was just 10 San Francisco friends trying to reduce their consumption by not buying new stuff for a year. The group's manifesto was simple: to counteract the negative global environmental and socioeconomic impacts of U.S. consumer culture. Named after the Pilgrims' revolutionary Mayflower Compact, the small idea led to a Yahoo Web site that has attracted more than 8,000 adherents and spawned some 50 groups in spots as far-flung as Hong Kong and Iceland.
What they don't say on the Compact Web site: Kicking consumerism may require its own 12-step program. So after my Hallmark relapse, I started again from square one. According to the guidelines, I must buy used, or borrow. No new stuff, with the exception of food, necessary medicines and health care items, and -- no joke -- underwear.
'This all started over a dinner conversation about the limitations of recycling,' says Rachel Kesel, a professional dog walker and one of the original friends who established the Compact. What else could people do to tread more lightly on the earth? 'One of the solutions is not to buy so much crap.'
The average American generates about 4.5 pounds of trash a day -- a figure that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, includes paper, food, yard trimmings, furniture, and everything else you toss out at home and on the job. That makes the United States the trashiest country in the industrialized world, followed by Canada at 3.75 pounds a day and the Netherlands at 3 pounds a day. In part, we can thank the corporations that spend billions to convince us that the newest, shiniest widgets will make us happy and attract friends and lovers.
What's more, each new widget is designed to wear out or otherwise fade into obsolescence, so we'll have almost no choice but to buy more and more. In the words of Dr. Seuss's Once-ler in The Lorax, 'A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!!' The old Thneed -- often in working condition -- goes out with the trash. And in the process of making thneeds, the Swomee-Swans get smog in their throats and the Super-Axe-Hacker whacks all the Truffala-Trees, and the gills of the Humming-Fish get gummed up with Gluppity-Glup.
I was already an eco-savvy consumer when I began my moratorium on new stuff. I bought organic produce, 'green' beauty products, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and the like. 'A month won't be too bad,' I told my preteen daughter. Without thinking I added, 'I'll just buy everything I need beforehand.' She laughed. As if I were joking.
The Compact has, for the most part, attracted people who were already living frugally or eco-consciously and whose dismay over society's overzealous buying habits may have been brewing for some time. Such feelings are not universally shared. On a Seattle radio show that aired just after the group formed, the host ripped into John Perry, one of the original Compacting friends, saying, 'You people are bad for America and you're bad for the American economy.'
A Web forum mocking the Compact sprang up, one of the first posts proclaiming, 'Today I'm starting a Compact wherein no one can buy anything yellow. Except bananas. And lemons. ... Oh, wait. I need legal pads.' The Compact founders were called pretentious, since they live upper-middle-class lives, and hypocritical, since one of them works in marketing -- the art and science of selling goods.
After this criticism, the Compacters consulted several economists about the soundness of their premise. Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University, theorizes that if throngs of citizens shopped secondhand, it would drive the market to produce higher-quality, more durable goods. Some sectors of the economy would expand, he says, as people spent more money on services or used goods, which are often sold by smaller, independent business owners. But if enough of us started buying less stuff, wouldn't corporate profits fall, leading to layoffs and a drop in the gross domestic product -- that classic index of the economy?
I ran this by Bob Costanza, a professor of ecological economics at the University of Vermont who has given some thought to the question. 'If 'growing GDP' is considered to be the goal, then yes, buying secondhand will hurt 'the economy' because less stuff will be produced per unit time,' he says. 'But this just shows how wrong this narrow conception of the economy is.' So maybe we need to rethink the way we define a strong economy to encompass not only the health of our financial markets, but also the health of our natural resources.
Still, not everyone immediately grasps why buying used products has less impact on the environment than buying new ones. When you buy a new widget -- a cell phone, for example -- the store orders a replacement, instigating a chain of events that eventually leads to more raw material being mined from the earth. In contrast, when you buy used, the seller -- at a garage sale, a thrift store, or on eBay -- does not put in a replacement order. The chain stops there. I nearly lost a friend once when I bought a used teak table after I had exhorted her never to buy anything that wasn't made from sustainably harvested wood. My purchase did not cause a living tree to be cut down, I told her. She didn't get it.
Giving up new stuff forced me to shop creatively. A visit to Goodwill yielded a travel mug for my Starbucks visits, clothes for my daughter, and a bongo drum to substitute for the practice pad my son needed for his drum lessons. Buying a basketball net proved more challenging. I found one through Freecycle, a Web site where users trade belongings, but it had so much rust it wouldn't have passed muster with my suburban homeowners' association. After much looking, I bought a like-new one for $30 on my local Craigslist Web site. Then it took two weeks and 55 e-mail, text, and voice messages before I got my basketball net.
When my laptop went on the fritz, I panicked. I needed a working computer, so I went shopping for a new one. This time, the widget-maker's plan to lure me into buying the newest, shiniest model backfired. Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system won't work with the perfectly good computer accessories I already own, so if I were to fork over a grand for a new laptop, I'd also have to buy new software, new drivers, and new Microsoft Office programs. Exasperated, I took a deep breath and went home. Sticking to my Compact vow, I hauled an old dinosaur of a computer out of the closet while I waited, impatiently, for laptop repairs.
I wondered: Am I really making a difference? Do I need to eliminate everything I would ordinarily buy new? The answer surprised me. In The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, Michael Brower and Warren Leon of the Union of Concerned Scientists calculated the impact of various consumer purchases on four environmental problem areas: air pollution, water pollution, global warming, and habitat alteration.
They analyzed the environmental footprints of everything from cheese to carpet to feminine products and then aggregated them into 50 categories of goods and services. In the end, they found that just 7 of the 50 categories were responsible for the lion's share of environmental degradation: cars and trucks; meat and poultry farming; crop production; home heating, hot water, and air conditioning; household appliances; home construction; and household water use and sewage treatment.
Interestingly, the personal items I worked so hard to forgo are not among the worst offenders. Clothing, books, magazines, and toys account for a relatively small fraction of the total environmental destruction wrought by our modern lifestyle. Brower and Leon suggest that we focus on choices that matter most: alternative energy utility providers, energy-saving appliances, organic food, and fuel-efficient or hybrid cars. Over time, buying smart may be more important than buying used.
I grew up in a log cabin with a hippie dad who chose simplicity. We had an outhouse, wood stoves, chickens, and a vegetable garden. Compacting should be second nature to me. Still, I found myself rebelling. I'm a self-employed single mom!
Call me an impatient American consumer, but the truth is, I both care passionately about the environment and live in a world where I often have zero extra time. And shopping for used stuff takes lots of time. I made a commitment some time ago to use my purchasing power to help the environment, and spending a month Compacting forced me to reexamine my priorities. It also helped me reconsider my needs versus my wants. We could have forgone the candy-pooping penguins, and I can find many perfectly good things used -- and at less cost. But eventually, I will need a brand new laptop.
'I don't think everyone has to stop shopping to change American consumption habits,' Rachel Kesel tells me. 'But a lot of people need to be put on detox for a while.'
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
Monday 18 June 2007
The Bunkum Olympic Legacy
The Olympic Games are supposed to encourage us to play sport; they are meant to produce resounding economic benefits and to help the poor and needy. It's all untrue.
GEORGE MONBIOT
Everything we have been told about the Olympic legacy turns out to be bunkum. The Games are supposed to encourage us to play sport; they are meant to produce resounding economic benefits and to help the poor and needy. It's all untrue. As the evictions in London begin, a new report shows that the only certain Olympic legacy is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Both Lord Coe and the sports secretary Tessa Jowell, like the boosters for every city which has bid for the Olympics, have claimed that the Games will lever us off our sofas and turn us into a nation of athletes. But Jowell knows this is nonsense. In 2002, her department published a report which found that "hosting events is not an effective, value for money, method of achieving . . . a sustained increase in mass participation."(1) One study suggests that the Olympics might even reduce our physical activity: we stay indoors watching them on TV, rather than kicking a ball around outside(2). And this is before we consider the effects of draining the national lottery: Sport England will lose £100m.
The government's favourite thinktanks, Demos and the Institute of Public Policy Research, examined the claim that the Olympics produce a lasting economic boom. They found that "there is no guaranteed beneficial legacy from hosting an Olympic Games ... and there is little evidence that past Games have delivered benefits to those people and places most in need."(3) Tessa Jowell must be aware of this as well -- she wrote the forward to the report. A paper published by the London Assembly last month found that "longterm unemployed and workless communities were largely unaffected [by better job prospects] by the staging of the Games in each of the four previous host cities"(4).
But far more damning than any of this is the study released last week by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. In every city it examined, the Olympic Games -- accidentally or deliberately -- have become a catalyst for mass evictions and impoverishment. Since 1988, over 2 million people have been driven from their homes to make way for the Olympics(5). The games have become a licence for land grabs.
The 1988 Olympics in Seoul are widely considered a great success. But they were used by the military dictatorship (which ceded power in 1987) as an opportunity to turn Seoul from a vernacular city owned by many people into a corporate city owned by the elite. 720,000 people were thrown out of their homes. People who tried to resist were beaten up by thugs and imprisoned. Tenants were evicted without notice and left to freeze: some survived by digging caves into a motorway embankment. Street vendors were banned; homeless people, alcoholics, beggars and the mentally ill were rounded up and housed in a prison camp. The world saw nothing of this: just a glossy new city full of glossy new people.
Barcelona's Olympics, in 1992, are cited as a model to which all succeeding Olympic cities should aspire. But, though much less destructive than Seoul's, they were also used to cleanse the city. Roma communities were evicted and dispersed. The council produced a plan to "clean the streets of beggars, prostitutes, street sellers and swindlers" and "annoying passers-by"(6). Some 400 poor and homeless people were subjected to "control and supervision". Between 1986 and 1992, house prices rose by 240% as the Olympic districts were gentrified, while public housing stock fell by 76%. There was no consultation before the building began -- the Games were too urgent and important for that. Around 59,000 people were driven out of the city by rising prices.
Even before the 1996 Olympics, Atlanta was one of the most segregated cities in the United States.But the Games gave the clique of white developers who ran them the excuse to engineer a new ethnic cleansing programme. Without any democratic process, they demolished large housing projects (whose inhabitants were mostly African-American) and replaced them with shiny middle-class homes. Around 30,000 families were evicted. They issued "Quality of Life Ordinances", which criminalised people who begged or slept rough. The police were given pre-printed arrest citations bearing the words "African-American, Male, Homeless": they just had to fill in the name, the charge and the date. In the year before the Games, they arrested 9,000 homeless people(7). Many of them were locked up without trial until the Games were over; others were harassed until they left the city. By the time the athletes arrived, downtown Atlanta had been cleared for the white middle classes.
In Sydney there was much less persecution of the poor. But the economic legacy was still regressive: house prices doubled between 1996 and 2003. No provision was made for social housing in the Olympic Village, and there were mass evictions from boarding houses and rented homes, which the authorities did nothing to stop. The old pattern resumed in Athens, where the Olympics were used as an excuse to evict 2700 Roma, even from places where no new developments were planned.
In Beijing, 1.25m people have already been displaced to make way for the Games, and another quarter of a million are due to be evicted. Like the people of Seoul, they have been threatened and beaten if they resist. Housing activists have been imprisoned. One man, Ye Guozhu, who is currently serving four years for "disturbing social order", has been suspended by his arms from the ceiling of his cell and tortured with electric batons. Beggars, vagrants and hawkers have been rounded up and sentenced to "Re-Education Through Labour". The authorities are planning to hospitalise the mentally ill so that visitors won't have to see them.
London is about to establish its credentials as a true Olympic city by evicting gypsies and travellers from their sites at Clays Lane and Waterden Crescent. 430 people will be thrown out of the Clay's Lane housing co-op and an allotment 100 years old will be destroyed to make way for a concrete path that will be used for four weeks(8). Nine thousand new homes will be built for the Games, but far more will be lost to the poor through booming prices: they are rising much faster around the Olympic site than elsewhere in London(9). The buy-to-let vultures have already landed.
The International Olympic Committee raises no objection to any of this. It lays down rigid criteria for cities hosting the Games, but none of them include housing rights(10). How could they? City authorities want to run the Games for two reasons: to enhance their prestige and to permit them to carry out schemes that would never otherwise be approved. Democratic processes can be truncated, compulsory purchase orders slapped down, homes and amenities cleared. The Olympic bulldozer clears all objections out of the way. There can be no debate, no exceptions, no modifications. Everything must go.
None of this is an argument against the Olympic Games. It is an argument against moving them every four years. Let them stay in a city where the damage has already been done. And let it be anywhere but here.
GEORGE MONBIOT
Everything we have been told about the Olympic legacy turns out to be bunkum. The Games are supposed to encourage us to play sport; they are meant to produce resounding economic benefits and to help the poor and needy. It's all untrue. As the evictions in London begin, a new report shows that the only certain Olympic legacy is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Both Lord Coe and the sports secretary Tessa Jowell, like the boosters for every city which has bid for the Olympics, have claimed that the Games will lever us off our sofas and turn us into a nation of athletes. But Jowell knows this is nonsense. In 2002, her department published a report which found that "hosting events is not an effective, value for money, method of achieving . . . a sustained increase in mass participation."(1) One study suggests that the Olympics might even reduce our physical activity: we stay indoors watching them on TV, rather than kicking a ball around outside(2). And this is before we consider the effects of draining the national lottery: Sport England will lose £100m.
The government's favourite thinktanks, Demos and the Institute of Public Policy Research, examined the claim that the Olympics produce a lasting economic boom. They found that "there is no guaranteed beneficial legacy from hosting an Olympic Games ... and there is little evidence that past Games have delivered benefits to those people and places most in need."(3) Tessa Jowell must be aware of this as well -- she wrote the forward to the report. A paper published by the London Assembly last month found that "longterm unemployed and workless communities were largely unaffected [by better job prospects] by the staging of the Games in each of the four previous host cities"(4).
But far more damning than any of this is the study released last week by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. In every city it examined, the Olympic Games -- accidentally or deliberately -- have become a catalyst for mass evictions and impoverishment. Since 1988, over 2 million people have been driven from their homes to make way for the Olympics(5). The games have become a licence for land grabs.
The 1988 Olympics in Seoul are widely considered a great success. But they were used by the military dictatorship (which ceded power in 1987) as an opportunity to turn Seoul from a vernacular city owned by many people into a corporate city owned by the elite. 720,000 people were thrown out of their homes. People who tried to resist were beaten up by thugs and imprisoned. Tenants were evicted without notice and left to freeze: some survived by digging caves into a motorway embankment. Street vendors were banned; homeless people, alcoholics, beggars and the mentally ill were rounded up and housed in a prison camp. The world saw nothing of this: just a glossy new city full of glossy new people.
Barcelona's Olympics, in 1992, are cited as a model to which all succeeding Olympic cities should aspire. But, though much less destructive than Seoul's, they were also used to cleanse the city. Roma communities were evicted and dispersed. The council produced a plan to "clean the streets of beggars, prostitutes, street sellers and swindlers" and "annoying passers-by"(6). Some 400 poor and homeless people were subjected to "control and supervision". Between 1986 and 1992, house prices rose by 240% as the Olympic districts were gentrified, while public housing stock fell by 76%. There was no consultation before the building began -- the Games were too urgent and important for that. Around 59,000 people were driven out of the city by rising prices.
Even before the 1996 Olympics, Atlanta was one of the most segregated cities in the United States.But the Games gave the clique of white developers who ran them the excuse to engineer a new ethnic cleansing programme. Without any democratic process, they demolished large housing projects (whose inhabitants were mostly African-American) and replaced them with shiny middle-class homes. Around 30,000 families were evicted. They issued "Quality of Life Ordinances", which criminalised people who begged or slept rough. The police were given pre-printed arrest citations bearing the words "African-American, Male, Homeless": they just had to fill in the name, the charge and the date. In the year before the Games, they arrested 9,000 homeless people(7). Many of them were locked up without trial until the Games were over; others were harassed until they left the city. By the time the athletes arrived, downtown Atlanta had been cleared for the white middle classes.
In Sydney there was much less persecution of the poor. But the economic legacy was still regressive: house prices doubled between 1996 and 2003. No provision was made for social housing in the Olympic Village, and there were mass evictions from boarding houses and rented homes, which the authorities did nothing to stop. The old pattern resumed in Athens, where the Olympics were used as an excuse to evict 2700 Roma, even from places where no new developments were planned.
In Beijing, 1.25m people have already been displaced to make way for the Games, and another quarter of a million are due to be evicted. Like the people of Seoul, they have been threatened and beaten if they resist. Housing activists have been imprisoned. One man, Ye Guozhu, who is currently serving four years for "disturbing social order", has been suspended by his arms from the ceiling of his cell and tortured with electric batons. Beggars, vagrants and hawkers have been rounded up and sentenced to "Re-Education Through Labour". The authorities are planning to hospitalise the mentally ill so that visitors won't have to see them.
London is about to establish its credentials as a true Olympic city by evicting gypsies and travellers from their sites at Clays Lane and Waterden Crescent. 430 people will be thrown out of the Clay's Lane housing co-op and an allotment 100 years old will be destroyed to make way for a concrete path that will be used for four weeks(8). Nine thousand new homes will be built for the Games, but far more will be lost to the poor through booming prices: they are rising much faster around the Olympic site than elsewhere in London(9). The buy-to-let vultures have already landed.
The International Olympic Committee raises no objection to any of this. It lays down rigid criteria for cities hosting the Games, but none of them include housing rights(10). How could they? City authorities want to run the Games for two reasons: to enhance their prestige and to permit them to carry out schemes that would never otherwise be approved. Democratic processes can be truncated, compulsory purchase orders slapped down, homes and amenities cleared. The Olympic bulldozer clears all objections out of the way. There can be no debate, no exceptions, no modifications. Everything must go.
None of this is an argument against the Olympic Games. It is an argument against moving them every four years. Let them stay in a city where the damage has already been done. And let it be anywhere but here.
The Market Is A Donkey
The uncertainty of certainty is India's hallmark. It should apply to growth too.
MARK TULLY
When I wrote a book called No Full Stops in India nearly 17 years ago, my friend Karan Thapar accused me on television of wanting to drag India back into some mythical Golden Age which had never existed. I asked Karan, "Do you want an India true to itself or an imitation America?" Much has changed over those years. India then was on the verge of bankruptcy, the first faltering steps towards unravelling the red tape strangling the economy had not taken the country very far forward. The Hindu rate of growth had been overtaken, but no one was talking about India being one of the economic superpowers of the 21st century. Within the country, optimism was in short supply. Now India has been recognised for what it is, a country with the material and human resources to become one of the biggest players in the global market. It is argued that this change has come about because India has followed the example of the economically successful, Western countries and that it must follow them without questioning. But I still believe in what I wrote in No Full Stops-- "The Western world and the Indian elite who imitate it ignore the genius of the Indian mind. They want to write a full stop in the land where there are no full stops." I have now written a book called India's Unending Journey because I believe the remarkable growth of India's economy makes it even more important not to write a full stop and become an imitation America. (see review)
India traditionally does not write full stops because it understands the uncertainty of certainty, it prefers the middle road, and believes in the perpetual search for balance. So, the answer to any question can never be final, no theory should be closed to questioning, and no policy should be taken so far that it creates imbalance. The West, on the other hand, tends to see things in black and white, to look for certainties, and so to lurch from one extreme to another.
The most obvious evidence for this contrast lies in the different attitudes to religion. R.C. Zaehner, who held the chair at Oxford India's philosopher-president S. Radhakrishnan once held, wrote, "Hindus do not think of religious truth in dogmatic terms.... For the passion for dogmatic certainty that has wracked the religions of Semitic origin they feel nothing but shocked incomprehension." This suspicion of dogmatic certainty is a feature of all the other great religions born in India. Even the religions of Semitic origin in India have been touched by this pluralism. The two theologians who have done the most to persuade the Roman Catholic Church to soften its attitude to other churches and other faiths were deeply influenced by the many years they spent in India. I often tell people in countries that are having problems with religious pluralism that India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world, that they are entirely free to practise their religion, and that the suggestion that a Muslim woman should not dress as she pleases would never arise here.
I believe firmly in the secularism that insists no religion should be privileged and no one should be discriminated against because of their religion, or indeed the lack of it. But the problem is that secularism in the West often degenerates into a denial of religious freedom because of that habit of seeing issues in black and white. One morning in Delhi I woke up to hear a politician on BBC World service suggesting that no one should send Christmas cards because they were not secular. When I opened my daily paper I found a front-page picture of a Christmas party the Governor of West Bengal held for children. We hear a great deal about religious fundamentalism these days, but very little about secular fundamentalism.John Gray, who is a professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, has written, "Today religious believers, driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all human knowledge, have to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast secular believers-- held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time-- are in the grip of unexamined dogmas." Secular fundamentalism is alive and kicking in India too. I know from experience that you only have to mention the word Hinduism to be accused by some secularists of being a supporter of Hindutva.
But unexamined dogma isn't just dangerous when it comes to religion. There are unexamined economic dogmas which are perhaps even more dangerous. When I was a young man, Britain was in the grip of socialism. Monetarists and market economists were comparatively lonely people. Socialism had great achievements to its credit in Britain but it was taken too far. Socialists didn't examine their certainties, see that the power of the state was unbalancing the economy and cramping entrepreneurial initiative, and that management and the trade unions had come to see each other in black-and-white terms, were engaged in a shouting match rather than holding a dialogue. India, imitating the West, took socialism even further and the imbalance that created led to the dreaded neta-babu and licence permit rajs. But it's important not to see Indian socialism in black-and-white terms, to acknowledge its very real achievements-- the basic heavy industries that India with its very limited manufacturing capacity needed, the establishment of a nuclear industry, the green revolution, and others. Is it not surprising that after taking socialism too far, Britain swung to the opposite extreme under Margaret Thatcher. That swing has taken the Labour party with it. Tony Blair has been described as the greatest tribute to Margaret Thatcher. In India, the swing has been less violent but there is no doubt that market economics is dominant today and that for all the questions being asked about the speed of economic reforms, it is accepted as inevitable that India will have to travel on that road.
Following the middle road would mean recognising the benefits of market capitalism but at the same time agreeing with Rajiv Kumar, the economist who heads the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. He once said to me, "The market is like a donkey. If you walk behind it and let it lead you, you will get kicked. If you ride on it, and direct it, it can take you where you want."
What should India want? Who could quarrel with Rajiv Kumar's shopping list-- good education, health services and cheap goods the poor need and can afford. The market is currently delivering the goods and services the elite and the middle class want. Yet, most of the press, and in particular the pink press in India, is in the grip of the unexamined dogma that if the GDP is rising, all is well. The balanced view would be to acknowledge how narrow a measure GDP growth is and to question where the growth is taking place and who is benefiting from it. Doubtless, market capitalists will accuse me of being anti-growth, but I would be the first to acknowledge that India's economy needs to grow. It's a question of examining the certainties of the present pattern of growth, trying to make it more balanced.
The fundamental wisdom of India can be applied in many other fields too. Any society needs a measure of competition to assess people's skills, but too much competition divides a society into successes and failures. On the other hand, egalitarianism taken too far fails to take account of the fact that we are all born different.The sexual revolution which was meant to liberate women and make them equal to men has, in the view of many, taken sexual liberty so far that women have become commodities, and their bodies tools in the hands of advertising agencies. Katherine Rake, who heads a society founded to fight for women's rights as far back as 1866, has said one of the problems facing the feminist movement now is "the hypersexualisation of our culture, a phenomenon that has developed and snowballed with hardly a murmur of dissent". There has been no dissent, no discussion, so no attempt to find a middle road between my childhood, when repressive Victorian sexuality still survived, and today when sex is described as a recreation.
Of course, I would be unbalanced if I suggested that India had always searched for the middle road and for balance, but I would contend that Amartya Sen was right when he wrote in his book The Argumentative Indian about 'India's long argumentative history' and the importance of 'discussions and arguments'. When I was discussing this with historian Ramachandra Guha, who has publicly disagreed with Amartya Sen, he maintained that The Argumentative Indian went too far, that the record showed the glass of India's open-mindedness could be described as either half-full or half-empty. I would certainly agree it is not full but I think India and the world will be a better place if we think of the glass as half-full and try to make it fuller. That is what I have tried to argue in India's Unending Journey.
MARK TULLY
When I wrote a book called No Full Stops in India nearly 17 years ago, my friend Karan Thapar accused me on television of wanting to drag India back into some mythical Golden Age which had never existed. I asked Karan, "Do you want an India true to itself or an imitation America?" Much has changed over those years. India then was on the verge of bankruptcy, the first faltering steps towards unravelling the red tape strangling the economy had not taken the country very far forward. The Hindu rate of growth had been overtaken, but no one was talking about India being one of the economic superpowers of the 21st century. Within the country, optimism was in short supply. Now India has been recognised for what it is, a country with the material and human resources to become one of the biggest players in the global market. It is argued that this change has come about because India has followed the example of the economically successful, Western countries and that it must follow them without questioning. But I still believe in what I wrote in No Full Stops-- "The Western world and the Indian elite who imitate it ignore the genius of the Indian mind. They want to write a full stop in the land where there are no full stops." I have now written a book called India's Unending Journey because I believe the remarkable growth of India's economy makes it even more important not to write a full stop and become an imitation America. (see review)
India traditionally does not write full stops because it understands the uncertainty of certainty, it prefers the middle road, and believes in the perpetual search for balance. So, the answer to any question can never be final, no theory should be closed to questioning, and no policy should be taken so far that it creates imbalance. The West, on the other hand, tends to see things in black and white, to look for certainties, and so to lurch from one extreme to another.
The most obvious evidence for this contrast lies in the different attitudes to religion. R.C. Zaehner, who held the chair at Oxford India's philosopher-president S. Radhakrishnan once held, wrote, "Hindus do not think of religious truth in dogmatic terms.... For the passion for dogmatic certainty that has wracked the religions of Semitic origin they feel nothing but shocked incomprehension." This suspicion of dogmatic certainty is a feature of all the other great religions born in India. Even the religions of Semitic origin in India have been touched by this pluralism. The two theologians who have done the most to persuade the Roman Catholic Church to soften its attitude to other churches and other faiths were deeply influenced by the many years they spent in India. I often tell people in countries that are having problems with religious pluralism that India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world, that they are entirely free to practise their religion, and that the suggestion that a Muslim woman should not dress as she pleases would never arise here.
I believe firmly in the secularism that insists no religion should be privileged and no one should be discriminated against because of their religion, or indeed the lack of it. But the problem is that secularism in the West often degenerates into a denial of religious freedom because of that habit of seeing issues in black and white. One morning in Delhi I woke up to hear a politician on BBC World service suggesting that no one should send Christmas cards because they were not secular. When I opened my daily paper I found a front-page picture of a Christmas party the Governor of West Bengal held for children. We hear a great deal about religious fundamentalism these days, but very little about secular fundamentalism.John Gray, who is a professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, has written, "Today religious believers, driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all human knowledge, have to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast secular believers-- held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time-- are in the grip of unexamined dogmas." Secular fundamentalism is alive and kicking in India too. I know from experience that you only have to mention the word Hinduism to be accused by some secularists of being a supporter of Hindutva.
But unexamined dogma isn't just dangerous when it comes to religion. There are unexamined economic dogmas which are perhaps even more dangerous. When I was a young man, Britain was in the grip of socialism. Monetarists and market economists were comparatively lonely people. Socialism had great achievements to its credit in Britain but it was taken too far. Socialists didn't examine their certainties, see that the power of the state was unbalancing the economy and cramping entrepreneurial initiative, and that management and the trade unions had come to see each other in black-and-white terms, were engaged in a shouting match rather than holding a dialogue. India, imitating the West, took socialism even further and the imbalance that created led to the dreaded neta-babu and licence permit rajs. But it's important not to see Indian socialism in black-and-white terms, to acknowledge its very real achievements-- the basic heavy industries that India with its very limited manufacturing capacity needed, the establishment of a nuclear industry, the green revolution, and others. Is it not surprising that after taking socialism too far, Britain swung to the opposite extreme under Margaret Thatcher. That swing has taken the Labour party with it. Tony Blair has been described as the greatest tribute to Margaret Thatcher. In India, the swing has been less violent but there is no doubt that market economics is dominant today and that for all the questions being asked about the speed of economic reforms, it is accepted as inevitable that India will have to travel on that road.
Following the middle road would mean recognising the benefits of market capitalism but at the same time agreeing with Rajiv Kumar, the economist who heads the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. He once said to me, "The market is like a donkey. If you walk behind it and let it lead you, you will get kicked. If you ride on it, and direct it, it can take you where you want."
What should India want? Who could quarrel with Rajiv Kumar's shopping list-- good education, health services and cheap goods the poor need and can afford. The market is currently delivering the goods and services the elite and the middle class want. Yet, most of the press, and in particular the pink press in India, is in the grip of the unexamined dogma that if the GDP is rising, all is well. The balanced view would be to acknowledge how narrow a measure GDP growth is and to question where the growth is taking place and who is benefiting from it. Doubtless, market capitalists will accuse me of being anti-growth, but I would be the first to acknowledge that India's economy needs to grow. It's a question of examining the certainties of the present pattern of growth, trying to make it more balanced.
The fundamental wisdom of India can be applied in many other fields too. Any society needs a measure of competition to assess people's skills, but too much competition divides a society into successes and failures. On the other hand, egalitarianism taken too far fails to take account of the fact that we are all born different.The sexual revolution which was meant to liberate women and make them equal to men has, in the view of many, taken sexual liberty so far that women have become commodities, and their bodies tools in the hands of advertising agencies. Katherine Rake, who heads a society founded to fight for women's rights as far back as 1866, has said one of the problems facing the feminist movement now is "the hypersexualisation of our culture, a phenomenon that has developed and snowballed with hardly a murmur of dissent". There has been no dissent, no discussion, so no attempt to find a middle road between my childhood, when repressive Victorian sexuality still survived, and today when sex is described as a recreation.
Of course, I would be unbalanced if I suggested that India had always searched for the middle road and for balance, but I would contend that Amartya Sen was right when he wrote in his book The Argumentative Indian about 'India's long argumentative history' and the importance of 'discussions and arguments'. When I was discussing this with historian Ramachandra Guha, who has publicly disagreed with Amartya Sen, he maintained that The Argumentative Indian went too far, that the record showed the glass of India's open-mindedness could be described as either half-full or half-empty. I would certainly agree it is not full but I think India and the world will be a better place if we think of the glass as half-full and try to make it fuller. That is what I have tried to argue in India's Unending Journey.
Saturday 16 June 2007
HOW TO STAY AWAKE IN MEETINGS?
HOW TO STAY AWAKE IN MEETINGS: (OFFERED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE)
Do you keep falling asleep in meetings and seminars? What about those long
and boring conference calls? Here's a way to change all of that.
1. Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call,
prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5' x 5' is a good
size. Divide the card into columns - five across and five down. That will
give you 25 one-inch blocks.
2. Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
* synergy
* strategic fit
* core competences
* best practice
* bottom line
* revisit
* expeditious
* to tell you the truth (or 'the truth is')
* 24/7
* out of the loop
* benchmark
* value-added
* proactive
* win-win
* think outside the box
* fast track
* result-driven
* empower (or empowerment)
* knowledge base
* at the end of the day
* touch base
* mindset
* client focus(ed)
* paradigm
* game plan
* leverage
3. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
4. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand
up and shout ' BULLSHIT !'
' ' '
Testimonials from satisfied players:
'I had been in the meeting for only five minutes when I won.' - Adam,Atlanta
'My attention span at meetings has improved dramatically.' - David , Florida
'What a gas! Meetings will never be the same for me after my first win.' -
Dan , New York City
'The atmosphere was tense in the last process meeting as 14 of us waited for
the fifth box.' - Ben, Denver
'The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed 'BULLSHIT!' for the third
time in two hours.' - Paul, Cleveland
Email straight to your blog, upload jokes, photos and more. Windows Live Spaces, it's FREE!
Sunday 10 June 2007
Iraq Occupation Coming To A Head Over Oil
By Kevin Zeese
08 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The situation in Iraq is coming to a head. Oil workers have been on strike for three days and are being threatened by the Iraqi government and surrounded by the Iraqi military. The Parliament passed a resolution urging an end to the U.S. occupation and has refused to act on the oil law the U.S. is demanding. Both the Democrats in Congress and the Bush Administration have united around the passage of the oil law as the top benchmark for the Iraqi government.
If these trends continue it will become evident to the world what this war was about all along--oil. Even the U.S. media will have to publish an honest analysis of the Iraq oil law and why Iraqis are resisting it.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the U.S. occupation came this week when the Iraq Parliament passed a law opposing the continuation of the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. Law makers say they plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now. The last time the UN mandate was extended Prime Minister Maliki acted without consultation with the parliament and they reacted angrily. Now, they are acting before the mandate can be extended to make their voices heard.
The parliament has not acted on the oil law submitted to them on February 26th despite aggressive U.S. pressure. The Democratic leadership in Congress joined with President Bush to make passage of the law the top benchmark to show success of the government. Both Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Gates have made recent trips to the region to urge passage of the law. But, the parliament is resisting--even threatening to take a vacation rather than pass the oil law.
In Congress, Dennis Kucinich has tried to raise the issue of the unfairness of the oil law in a Democratic caucus meeting. Rep. David Obey erupted in anger and name calling at Kucinich's suggestion that the benchmark requiring passage of the oil law was part of the theft of Iraq's primary resource. Kucinich did not respond to Obey's angry name calling but instead made an hour long speech describing the Iraq oil law and how it would result in U.S. oil companies controlling their market and reaping most of the profits from Iraqi oil.
Iraq oil workers seeing this U.S. pressure have taken their own action. Members of the union have been on strike since Monday 4th June. Among the union's demands is consultation on the proposed oil law, which the union opposes. On Tuesday, al-Maliki warned that he would meet threats to oil production "with an iron fist."
Maliki issued arrest warrants for leaders of the union on a charge of "sabotaging the economy." The warrant specifically names Hassan Juma'a Awad, the leader of the 26,000-strong Federation of Oil Unions, and three other leaders of the Federation.
If Maliki follows through on his "iron fist" promise and uses the military against the oil workers it will be evident to all Iraqi's that he puts the demands of U.S. occupation forces ahead of the needs of the oil workers. It will also become obvious that he is willing to turn over Iraq's oil to western oil companies rather than meet the needs of the Iraqi people. His already fragile government will lose support and may fall presenting the occupation forces with new political problems. The dividing line between the government and the people, with the government on the side of the occupation will also become evident and violence will likely escalate against the U.S. and Iraqi army and police. The oil law may unite the resistance and focus their energy on the occupation.
U.S. Labor Against the War has been hosting a tour for two Iraqi oil worker leaders. Their visit has been pretty much ignored by the U.S. media but has been reported by David Swanson on AfterDowningStreet.org. Swanson reports a visit to Capitol Hill where one congressman seemed unable to listen to her views. Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS), said what many members of Congress believed--violence would escalate if the U.S. left Iraq and the civil war between Sunni and Shia'a has been going on since before the U.S. occupation. Iraqi Electrical Utility Workers Union President Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein tried to explain that the civil war began after the occupation and that violence would be reduced if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq. But Moore seemed unable to grasp this. There was very little media in attendance, Swanson reports that a reporter from Telesur (the only large camera in the room) asked why Hashmeya believes the U.S. is still in Iraq. She cited oil and other resources, and the creation of large military bases. "I don't mean that the American people want these things, I mean the administration. We consider the American people friends."
The recent comments by representatives of the Bush administration that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be much like the U.S. presence in South Korea--which has lasted 50 years--is relevant to the oil law because U.S. oil companies are seeking 30 year contracts in Iraq. Thus, having a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq will help to assure enforcement of those contracts.
The "coming out" of oil as the central goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is going to make the occupation more difficult. And, coming at a time when Bush is escalating the number of troops to approximately 200,000 it is going to assure more violence, and more death. The chant, mocked at the beginning of the invasion by many, "no war for oil" is now becoming to be seen for what it is--the truth. And it will be a truth seen by the entire world.
For more information:
U.S. Labor Against the War, includes more information on the Iraq oil workers tour from June 4 to June 29 in many U.S. cities.
Better than Calling Congress, (David Swanson's report on Iraq oil worker visit to Congress).
Iraqi Troops Face Off Against Striking Oil Workers, UPI.
As the U.S. Discusses Staying in Iraq for 50+ Years, the Bush Administration and Congressional Democrats Push for Iraq to Open its Oil Fields to Foreign Oil Companies, Interview with Antonia Juhasz,
It's All About the Oil, Kucinich on the Floor of Congress,
08 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The situation in Iraq is coming to a head. Oil workers have been on strike for three days and are being threatened by the Iraqi government and surrounded by the Iraqi military. The Parliament passed a resolution urging an end to the U.S. occupation and has refused to act on the oil law the U.S. is demanding. Both the Democrats in Congress and the Bush Administration have united around the passage of the oil law as the top benchmark for the Iraqi government.
If these trends continue it will become evident to the world what this war was about all along--oil. Even the U.S. media will have to publish an honest analysis of the Iraq oil law and why Iraqis are resisting it.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the U.S. occupation came this week when the Iraq Parliament passed a law opposing the continuation of the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. Law makers say they plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now. The last time the UN mandate was extended Prime Minister Maliki acted without consultation with the parliament and they reacted angrily. Now, they are acting before the mandate can be extended to make their voices heard.
The parliament has not acted on the oil law submitted to them on February 26th despite aggressive U.S. pressure. The Democratic leadership in Congress joined with President Bush to make passage of the law the top benchmark to show success of the government. Both Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Gates have made recent trips to the region to urge passage of the law. But, the parliament is resisting--even threatening to take a vacation rather than pass the oil law.
In Congress, Dennis Kucinich has tried to raise the issue of the unfairness of the oil law in a Democratic caucus meeting. Rep. David Obey erupted in anger and name calling at Kucinich's suggestion that the benchmark requiring passage of the oil law was part of the theft of Iraq's primary resource. Kucinich did not respond to Obey's angry name calling but instead made an hour long speech describing the Iraq oil law and how it would result in U.S. oil companies controlling their market and reaping most of the profits from Iraqi oil.
Iraq oil workers seeing this U.S. pressure have taken their own action. Members of the union have been on strike since Monday 4th June. Among the union's demands is consultation on the proposed oil law, which the union opposes. On Tuesday, al-Maliki warned that he would meet threats to oil production "with an iron fist."
Maliki issued arrest warrants for leaders of the union on a charge of "sabotaging the economy." The warrant specifically names Hassan Juma'a Awad, the leader of the 26,000-strong Federation of Oil Unions, and three other leaders of the Federation.
If Maliki follows through on his "iron fist" promise and uses the military against the oil workers it will be evident to all Iraqi's that he puts the demands of U.S. occupation forces ahead of the needs of the oil workers. It will also become obvious that he is willing to turn over Iraq's oil to western oil companies rather than meet the needs of the Iraqi people. His already fragile government will lose support and may fall presenting the occupation forces with new political problems. The dividing line between the government and the people, with the government on the side of the occupation will also become evident and violence will likely escalate against the U.S. and Iraqi army and police. The oil law may unite the resistance and focus their energy on the occupation.
U.S. Labor Against the War has been hosting a tour for two Iraqi oil worker leaders. Their visit has been pretty much ignored by the U.S. media but has been reported by David Swanson on AfterDowningStreet.org. Swanson reports a visit to Capitol Hill where one congressman seemed unable to listen to her views. Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS), said what many members of Congress believed--violence would escalate if the U.S. left Iraq and the civil war between Sunni and Shia'a has been going on since before the U.S. occupation. Iraqi Electrical Utility Workers Union President Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein tried to explain that the civil war began after the occupation and that violence would be reduced if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq. But Moore seemed unable to grasp this. There was very little media in attendance, Swanson reports that a reporter from Telesur (the only large camera in the room) asked why Hashmeya believes the U.S. is still in Iraq. She cited oil and other resources, and the creation of large military bases. "I don't mean that the American people want these things, I mean the administration. We consider the American people friends."
The recent comments by representatives of the Bush administration that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be much like the U.S. presence in South Korea--which has lasted 50 years--is relevant to the oil law because U.S. oil companies are seeking 30 year contracts in Iraq. Thus, having a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq will help to assure enforcement of those contracts.
The "coming out" of oil as the central goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is going to make the occupation more difficult. And, coming at a time when Bush is escalating the number of troops to approximately 200,000 it is going to assure more violence, and more death. The chant, mocked at the beginning of the invasion by many, "no war for oil" is now becoming to be seen for what it is--the truth. And it will be a truth seen by the entire world.
For more information:
U.S. Labor Against the War, includes more information on the Iraq oil workers tour from June 4 to June 29 in many U.S. cities.
Better than Calling Congress, (David Swanson's report on Iraq oil worker visit to Congress).
Iraqi Troops Face Off Against Striking Oil Workers, UPI.
As the U.S. Discusses Staying in Iraq for 50+ Years, the Bush Administration and Congressional Democrats Push for Iraq to Open its Oil Fields to Foreign Oil Companies, Interview with Antonia Juhasz,
It's All About the Oil, Kucinich on the Floor of Congress,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)