Daily Censored
Dailycensored.com
///////////////////////////////////////////
2009 - The Year in Review
Posted: 28 Dec 2009 11:56 AM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Dailycensored/~3/a4083xatPCE/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
In the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 2009, a white transit cop in Oakland,
California, shot and killed Oscar Grant, a young black man. Grant was lying
face down on a train platform with his hands handcuffed behind his back at
the time of the shooting. The cop claimed he thought Grant was going for a
gun. Thus was the New Year ushered in.
This police execution took place while Israel was carrying out a murderous
attack on the residents of Gaza. Using white phosphorous (which burns clear
through the part of the body it lands on), Dense Inert Metal Explosives
(DIME) weapons that essentially explode inside the body, and other inhuman
weapons, the Israeli military killed an estimated 1,400 people, mostly
civilians, and destroyed thousands of homes. They have followed this up
with a blockade that prevents any rebuilding. The US congress passed a
resolution supporting Israel while soon-to-be President Obama remained
essentially silent.
Just weeks later, Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated as president of the
United States. Millions around the world hoped that this signaled a real
change from the aggressive policies of his predecessor. They also hoped
that this signaled a real change from the racism so institutionalized in
the United States. For Oscar Grant and his family, including his young
daughter, however, it was too late for bhopeb.
In February, Venezuelans passed a constitutional amendment allowing
President Hugo Chavez to run for president yet again. This was part of the
process of leftist governments coming to power throughout the region b a
process that US capitalism has been powerless to combat. This process has
been combined with the rise of Chinese capitalism, as many of these regimes
have moved to build closer ties with this rival of US capitalism. Mexico,
sitting right on the border with the US, descended deeper into chaos as the
drug gangs continued their takeover of several states there.
Meanwhile, the US and world economies threatened to go into a free fall. On
Feb. 17, Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus package that basically bailed
out the banks and insurance companies. Similar measures were passed in many
other capitalist countries. Workers, meanwhile, were allowed to lose their
jobs, homes and life savings.
March saw the meeting of the G20, a meeting which again marked an
increasingly fractious and divided world, one made all the more so by the
mounting economic crisis. Among other things, the future of the role of the
dollar was called into question, but the problem is that capitalism has no
alternative to it.
At this time the Pakistani regime saw mass protests for a politically
independent judiciary. These protests placed Pakistan at the center of
world attention.
It was also around this time that the world press started to pay attention
to the pirates operating from Somalia. The destruction of their fisheries
and their marine environment by toxic dumping and illegal factory-sized
fishing boats b pirate capitalism it could be called b have been ignored,
however.
On the world arena, US capitalismbs main representative, President Obama,
traveled to Cairo to address the Islamic world. He had previously referred
to Iran as bThe Islamic Republic of Iranb, its formal name. This was the
first time a US president so referred to Iran, and it marked an attempt to
win over that reactionary regime, or at least elements within it. Equally
important, it showed a flexibility on his part that is intended to
strengthen the support the US regime receives from its allies.
Shortly after this trip, the Iranian regime was rocked by mass street
protests against a fixed election. Lying behind these protests was
dissatisfaction at the repressive regime. While Western capitalism decries
the Iranian regime, they also rely on it. If the standard bearer for
Islamic fundamentalism is overthrown by a popular movement, a more
class-based movement in the Islamic world could threaten to arise. This is
many times more dangerous to Western capitalism (as well as that in the
rest of the world).
In the end of June, the elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, an
ally of Venezuelabs Chavez, was overthrown by a coup. In a sign of the
continuing weakness of US capitalismbs influence in the region, this has
not sparked off other similar attempts elsewhere in Latin America, nor has
the Obama regime been able to openly support the coup.
Also at this time, the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique b
both ruled by France b erupted in mass general strikes that started to take
on insurrectionary proportions. Ultimately, the strikers basically won all
their demands.
In July, a nationalist crisis hit the bourgeois regime of China as deadly
riots broke out in Xingjian province, the homeland of the Uighur people.
These tensions continue along with similar ones in Tibet. By the end of the
year, dozens of Uighurs were condemned to death by Chinese courts in the
aftermath.
In October, the Palestinian Authority voted to delay the UNbs hearing of
the Goldstone Report. This report documented the war crimes of the State of
Israel (as well as some lesser crimes by Hamas). The outrage was so great
amongst the Palestinian masses that the PA was forced to reverse its vote
within a few days. The US congress voted to condemn the Goldstone report
without its members having even read it.
Within the United States b in California, specifically b in a development
that should give the worldbs working class some hope, a radicalized student
movement started to develop. This is potentially one of the most
significant developments in US politics. It comes at a time when the entire
US working class is under mounting attack and will tend to spread to a
wider movement in the US. Such a movement has been lacking in the US since
at least the 1960s if not before.
December was ushered in by Obamabs announcement that he would be sending
30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Shortly after, the world economy
was rocked by the threat of default by Dubai. The crisis there appears to
be but the tip of an iceberg as other states, including Greece, Spain and
Ireland, are in a similarly precarious situation. Even a downgrading of the
credit rating of these states will threaten the world banking system,
because the banks can keep a lower amount of capital for the higher-rated
bonds that governments sell. If the bond ratings decline, then the banks
must increase their capital.
In the US, the economy appeared to be slowly recovering, but this recovery
has been based on government stimulus spending, such as spending to
encourage consumers to buy new cars. As that spending dries up, it is
likely that consumer spending will also decline. Businesses have shown
little confidence in the economy as their investment of their cash hoards
has been very low.
The latest hot spot for world imperialism appeared to be developing in
Yemen. In the north of Yemen, a rebel group is fighting both the central
Yemen government as well as forces from Saudi Arabia. Both the Yemen and
Saudi regimes claim this rebel group is supported by the Iranian regime. In
the south, a Shia rebel group is developing that claims it is supported by
al Qaeda.
As the year drew to a close, representatives of the different regimes in
the world met in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss the looming global
warming/climate change crisis. Lacking a mass international workersb
movement to discipline them, they failed to accomplish anything of
significance. Instead, they spent their time trying to assure that national
cliques of capitalists other than themselves would pay for the crisis.
While this was going on, US President Obama accepted the Nobel Prize for
Peaceb& and gave a bellicose speech in which he justified all the wars US
capitalism has engaged in. The many, many invasions of Latin American
countries, the many plots they engaged in to overthrow
democratically-elected governments b this was cleansed from the historical
record by Obama. Instead, he drew the picture of the US as the worldbs
defender of liberty and justice throughout history.
Just a few days after this speech, he went to Copenhagen forced his way
into a meeting of the heads of state of China, India, Brazil and South
Africa, gave a speech in which he essentially told the rest of the world
that they would have to deal with the global warming issue in the way that
US capitalism dictated or not deal with it at all and left after saying bwe
will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today.b
Meanwhile, the Chinese capitalists continue to build two coal-fired power
plants per week.
Outside, however, a new generation of activists is getting a taste of the
total reckless fixation on profit that capitalism represents.
2009 also saw the bicentennial of Charles Darwinbs birthday, as well as the
400th anniversary of the proof presented by Galileo that the universe does
not revolve around the Earth. Both these developments were blows to
religious mysticism and confusion.
As the year closes, resurgent protests in Iran continue, and Troy Anthony
Davis languishes on death row in the US state of Georgia for a murder he
almost certainly did not commit.
Dailycensored.com
///////////////////////////////////////////
American Mantra: Free Market Capitalism and Obama
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 03:22 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Dailycensored/~3/RkffeVSoSe8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
American Mantra: Free Market Capitalism and Obama
By Peter Phillips
Free Market Capitalism remains the the dominant American ideological truth.
The decline of communism opened the door for unrepentant free marketers to
boldly espouse market competition as the final solution for global harmony.
According to the American mantra, if given the opportunity to freely
develop, the marketplace will solve all evils. We will enjoy economic
expansion, individual freedom, and unlimited bliss by fully deregulating
and privatizing societybs socio-economic institutions.
The selection of Obama as the U.S. President placed into power the party of
the trilateralist wing of the American corporate elite.B Obamabs
business/government revolving-door cabinet is comprised of just as many
corporate CEObs and business elites as any presidency in recent history.
This new government elite will continue the work to see that the American
mantra remains safe, globalized, and unchallenged.
Pesky socialist or nationalist leaning governments will be undermined,
pressured into compliance or even invaded if they dare to resist the
American mantra. The full force of U.S. dominated global institutions: WTO,
World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, will focus on maximizing free market circumstances
and corporate access to every region of the world.
Economic safety nets, environmental regulations, labor unions, human
rights, become second place to the free flow of capital and investments.
Indigenous resisters face overt repression, disappearance, or imprisonment
by governments fully armed and supported by the American dominated New
World Order.
So what is the underlying rationale for this American mantra? Are its
dogmatic beliefs based on specific socio-economic facts? Are free market
forces clearly the best mechanism for human betterment? Do these mechanisms
work cross-culturally and are they efficient under all circumstances?
A closer examination of the American mantra reveals that free market
essentially means constant international U.S. government intervention on
behalf of American corporations. A public-private partnership that utilizes
U.S. embassies, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Military, Homeland Security,
Department of Commerce, USAID, and every other U.S government institution
to protect, sustain, and directly support our vital interest bU.S. business.
American mantra institutions push market deregulation that transforms
foreign economies for the benefit of U.S. businesses. Post-NAFTA Mexicans
are now importing U.S. grown corn for their tortillas, as millions of
formally subsidized peasant farmers leave the land to seek minimum wage
work in the cities of United States. Los Angeles has become the center for
new American sweatshops, as illegals compete for poverty jobs, citizens
cannot afford to accept.
Government-assisted foreign market penetration by U.S firms often results
in the buying out of successful indigenous companies and the competitive
overwhelm of others. This situation leaves U.S. multinationals in dominate
positions in foreign domestic markets and creates win-fall profit taking
opportunities.
The free market mantra carries with it shock treatment policies of lowering
public expectations, forced austerity measures, and dismantled human
services. A privately run water system is deemed superior to a public
system because the profit motive will create maximum efficiency. Yet there
is absolutely no research that systematically compares public verses
private efficiency levels, only the dogmatic assertion that this is so.
The American mantra affects the U.S. population as well. Poverty and
unemployment are rising, the working poor expanding and homelessness one
pay check away for many.
It is time to re-examine the American mantra and speak for global humanity.
We must establish business socio-economic accountability standards and
reacquaint our government with its responsibility for maintaining the
common good.
Peter Phillips is a professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and
President of Media Freedom Foundation.
///////////////////////////////////////////
74% of 29,000 respondents in 27 countries critical of neoliberal capitalism
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 12:48 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Dailycensored/~3/91ecVKnoRaU/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Global Survey surprisingly unknown in Latin America:
74% of 29,000 respondents in 27 countries critical of neoliberal capitalism,
91% of Chileans want to redistribute wealth and 84% want more state control
By Ernesto Carmona * (special for Argenpress)
Nine out of ten Chileans are demanding government intervention in the
redistribution of wealth, while a vast majority want to bring control to
free market capitalism, advocated by the far-right candidate Sebastian
Pinera. A global survey commissioned by the BBC in London to the
international research GlobeScan opinion revealed in November that 91% of
respondents in Chile would like their government to take a more active role
in a more uniform redistribution of wealth, as long as 5 % would prefer a
less active role and 3% prefer to leave things as they are.
The results of this international survey was never aired in the mainstream
media in Chile and Latin America during the fanfare of the 20th anniversary
of the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, because they show an
extensive universal dissatisfaction of 74% critical of capitalism
neoliberal. The totalitarian dogma of free market only had 11% acceptance
among 29,033 respondents in 27 countries around the world who said they
were good and that further regulation is not a good idea (1). Those who
showed the greatest adherence to capitalism as it is today because work
well, were U.S. respondents (25%) and Pakistan (21%).
Latin Americans are particularly the most enthusiastic supporters of a more
active government role in the functioning of the economy in Mexico with 9
out of 10 respondents (92%) supporting a better redistribution of wealth,
91% in Chile and 89% in Brazil. The highest proportions of those who want
to see more assets to the government in regulating business were in Brazil
(87%), Chile (84%), France (76%), Spain (73%), China (71% ) and Russia
(68%).
Data from Chile
According to the report detailed the BBCs Country (2), Chileans are most in
demand worldwide for a more active government control of wild capitalism: 9
out of 10 citizens want more government action in the redistribution of
wealth (second is just Mexico), while another calls for more high
percentage of government regulatory activity (second only Brazil). And a
roughly B> of total respondents, again among the highest in the world,
believes there should be more government control and ownership over the
industry.
b Nearly half (48%) agreed to declare that the free market capitalism has
some problems, but these can be solved by more regulation and reform, but
20% believe that we need a different system and just 5 % believe that the
free market is acceptable without change.
b A large majority (72%) of Chilean approves increasing government control
of important industries, while 11% want less government control and 9%
prefer the current level.
b Nine out of ten (91%) feel their government should take a more active
role in the even distribution of wealth, only 5% support a less active
role, and 3% prefer the current role.
b More than 4 / 5 of respondents (84%) calling for greater government
presence in the regulatory activity of capitalism, while 9% is clamoring
for a minor role and 3% support the same role today.
b 59% believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was positive, while
11% believe that it was wrong (30% gave no answer).
Research in 27 countries, designed by the BBC to inflate the acceptance of
capitalism to 20 years after the fall of the wall, included only 5 of the
Latin American nations whose governments promote neoliberalism: Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Panama. The result was a surprise world that
fell like a bucket of cold water on the propagandists of capitalism,
because the different variants of critical system joined an overwhelming
majority of 74%, a result not expected by those who commissioned the
survey. The similar consultation held in 2005 by the same institute
GlobeScan in 20 countries showed a majority of 63% favorable to capitalism
as the best possible system. The results of this new survey did not serve
to inflate the Freedom Party held in Berlin on 9 November, but showed no
nostalgia for the vanished real socialism.
The study was designed and commissioned by the BBC World Service and
conducted in the field by the international polling firm GlobeScan,
together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA, for its
acronym in English), University of Maryland, whose staff consulted to
29,033 people (as) adults from 27 countries between June 19 and 13 October
2009. The total number of respondents was interviewed face-to-face or by
telephone in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Czech
Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya,
Mexico, Nigeria , Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Spain,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States by local researchers
in each country partners. In 9 of the 27 nations the sampling was limited
to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from + / 2.2%
and 3.5%.
Farewell to neoliberal capitalism
The survey uncovered an overwhelming 74% critical current neoliberal
capitalism. 51% believed that the free market system has problems that
could only straighten regulation and reform, while the global average of
23% argues simply that capitalism is fatally damaged and requires a new
economic system, from 43% in France, 38% in Mexico, 35% in Brazil, 31% in
Ukraine and 20% in Chile. Furthermore, the majority want their governments
to be more active in the possession or direct control of major industries
of the nation in 15 of the 27 countries. This view is particularly
prevalent in the former Soviet states of Russia (77%) and Ukraine (75%),
but also in Brazil (64%), Indonesia (65%) and France (57%).
An overall majority of two thirds (67% average in all countries) would
prefer that governments redistribute wealth more evenly. But this approach
is even stronger in 22 of the 27 countries surveyed. In 17 of the 27
countries would like to see the government doing more to regulate business,
with a world average of 56%. Some 22% believed that the collapse of the
Soviet Union was a bad thing, while an average of 54% voted that it was
good, but this view was the majority only in 15 countries, while 24% of
world he did not know. Among the countries that belonged to the Warsaw
Pact, 61% of Russians and 54% of Ukrainians believe that the disintegration
of the Soviet Union was a bad bad thing, however, 4 / 5 of Poles (80%) and
almost 2 / 3 of the Czechs (63%) believe otherwise.
GlobeScan President Doug Miller had to admit: In appearance, the Berlin
Wall fell in 1989 may not have been the final victory of market capitalism
that seemed then, particularly after the events of the past 12 months.
Steven Kull of PIPA said: Some aspects of socialism, such as government
efforts to equalize wealth, continues to attract many people around the
world.
Results in detail
The Europeans say they feel that the disintegration of the USSR was a good
thing, with a big enough majority in Germany (79%), United Kingdom (76%)
and France (74%) thinking the same. The consensus is stronger in the U.S.,
where 81% say that the end of the Soviet Union was mainly a good thing. In
most developed nations, including Australia (73%) and Canada (73%) also
have the same vision.
Far from the developed West that view is less strong: 7 out of 10 Egyptians
(69%) believes that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was regrettable.
The views are matched in India (where 28% think that had a negative effect
and 26% to applaud), Kenya (bad for 28% and good by 26%) and Indonesia (bad
thing for 31% and slightly good for 28%). However, it is also a high
percentage of those who say no. In China, interestingly, 50% believe that
the disappearance was good and 21% that was bad.
Despite having a similar perspective on many key issues, France and Germany
sharply disagree when it comes to free market capitalism. In France, 47%
believe that the problems of capitalism can be solved with regulation and
reform, while almost the same (43%) believes is fatally doomed. In Germany,
however, there is very little support (8%) for another economic system,
with almost 3 / 4 (74%) believe that the problems of free market capitalism
can be solved by regulation and reform.
The lower support (9%) to redistribute wealth was in Turkey, but who do not
support a greater government role in the economic field form the majority
in India (60%), Pakistan (66%), Poland (61 %) and USA (59%). Only Turkey
has a majority (71%) believe that their government should do less to
regulate business. However, there is also an extensive opposition
elsewhere, including the Philippines (47% oppose), Pakistan (36%), Nigeria
(32%) and India (29%). Ownership or direct state control over industries
has seen more than U.S. opposition (52%), Germany (50%), Turkey (71%) and
Philippines (54%).
Other Latin American results
BRAZIL: Brazilians are among the majority of all the countries surveyed
that favors a more active role in government regulatory activity. They are
also the third highest calling for a greater role of government in
redistributing wealth, but behind his Latin American colleagues Mexico and
Chile.
b 43% say that capitalism has flaws that can be solved by regulation and
reform. However, 35% believe they need an alternative system. Only 8% say
that capitalism works very well without government action.
b Nine out of ten people (89%) call for greater government action in the
more even distribution of wealth, while only 7% do not demand change, and
2% claimed less government action.
b Two thirds (64%) support the government to adopt a more active role in
the possession or control of major industries, while 17% say that
government must play the same role now and 13% would prefer a lesser role.
b An overwhelming majority (87%) calls for more government regulation of
business, 7% is tilted because everything remains the same and only 2%
calls for less regulation.
COSTA RICA: The Costa Ricans are among the most most favorable to the
collapse of the Soviet Union between the Latin American audience. They are
also those most likely to address the problems of free market capitalism
with regulation within its region.
b Just over half (52%) agreed that the problems of capitalism can be
addressed with regulation and reform. However, 25% say they need an
alternative system. The 10% say that capitalism works well and more rules
would diminish its effectiveness.
b Three-fifths (61%) of Costa Ricans believe their government should take a
more active role in controlling major industries, 22% believe the
government should be less active and 13% believe they should retain
unchanged its role.
b A large majority (82%) think the government should be more active in
redistributing wealth, while 12% think it should be less active and 4% say
it should keep the same role as in the present.
b Seven in ten (71%) want their government to do more to regulate business,
while 19% want less government action and 7% want the same level as now.
b A majority (63%) believe that the fall of the Soviet Union was a good
thing, 16% believed that it was wrong (21% offered no response).
MEXICO: Mexicans constitute the largest majority of those included in the
survey believe their government should do more to evenly distribute wealth.
With the vision of free market capitalism as a system fatally damaged are
also second only to the French, although this was not the most common
response. An average high of Mexicans said the government must also do
their job better and control major industries and regulate big business.
b An exceptionally high 38% believe that capitalism is inevitable and that
should reign a new economic system, while 4 in 10 people believe that free
market capitalism is damaged but can be repaired with reforms. Just 2 $ you
think you are healthy and that the reforms as ineffective again.
b 61% of Mexicans believe the government should assume a greater role in
controlling the ownership of important industries, compared with 17% who
prefer a discreet role under and 8% supported a similar role today.
b An overwhelming majority (92%)-the highest of all countries surveyed,
supported the government take a greater role in distributing wealth evenly.
b A strong majority (64%) said that the government should do more to
regulate business, while 14% think there should be less regulation and 9%
because it is tilted as in the present.
b More than half (54%) believe that the fall of the Soviet Union was a good
thing, while 4% thought that it was wrong (43% gave no answer).
PANAMA: Panamanians are among the average number of people think that
government should be more active intervention in the economy, with most
supporting a greater role in state ownership and control of important
industries in the redistribution of wealth, and regulation of business.
However, when comparing this result with other Latin American countries,
the number of people supporting these positions is relatively low.
b Half (50%) believe that free market capitalism is damaged but can be
restored with tighter regulation, while 26% think it is fatally damaged and
only 9% believe that the free market works well now.
b 63% supported the government to assume a role in the control or ownership
of major industries, while 21% support a smaller role, and 7% because the
government is inclined to maintain the same role as in the present.
b An overwhelming majority (80%) think the government should play a more
active role in spreading the wealth, 12% think they should have a role, and
3% believe they should continue as now.
b Seven in ten respondents (71%) said that the government should assume a
greater role in regulating business, not 16% think it must have less
regulation and 5% say it should be like this.
b Less than half (47%) thought that the fall of the Soviet Union was
something especially good, while 17% believe it was an especially bad thing
(36% gave no answer).
///////////////////////////////////////////
Need to Reestablish Seperation of Power in DC
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 05:48 AM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Dailycensored/~3/rdSfvaCRM64/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
No other nation has been more concerned about the segmentation of
governmental power than the United States. The Founding Fathers fractured
it in innumerable ways. They asserted that all power derives from the
consent of the governed, the federal and state constitutions act as
distribution grids bapportioning authority between the federal government
and the fifty states, and then even more so among the separate states and
their various localities. At both the federal and state levels, an
additional tripartite division of authority separates legislative,
executive, and judicial power.
The organizing principle was not efficiency or consistency. It was a a
profound distrust of concentrated power. The constitutional draftsmen
openly advocated distrust as the principal rationale for the diffusion of
governmental power accomplished by their blueprints. Obvious methods of
consolidating decision making authority were ditched for the comfort of
knowing that surge protectors were wired throughout the highly engineered
system to safeguard against dangerous concentrations of unchecked power.
However, particularly during the past 38 years there has occurred a
conspiracy by government attorneys and judges to usurp the power of the
legislative branch. This must stop, if we citizens are to control what
occurs in the District of Colombia. See, http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
///////////////////////////////////////////
Hope Fades for End of the American Empire under Obama
Posted: 30 Dec 2009 07:03 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Dailycensored/~3/wnP36Wa3fd8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
John Pilger writes a strong informational piece on the lies of Obama. As
we start to see more of this from the current global dominance
administration, hope fades for peace and the end of the American Empire
Welcome to Orwellbs World 2010
By John Pilger
December 30, 2009 Information Clearing House In Nineteen Eighty-Four,
George Orwell described a superstate called Oceania, whose language of war
inverted lies that bpassed into history and became truth. bWho controls the
pastb, ran the Party slogan, bcontrols the future: who controls the present
controls the pastb.b
Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at
the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize winner affirmed that peace
was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that bextends well beyond
Afghanistan and Pakistanb to bdisorderly regions and diffuse enemiesb. He
called this bglobal securityb and invited our gratitude. To the people of
Afghanistan, which America has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: bWe
have no interest in occupying your country.b
In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the
American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations
Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said the bthe worldb
supported the invasion in the wake of 9/11 when, in truth, all but three of
37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said
that America invaded Afghanistan bonly after the Taliban refused to turn
over [Osama] bin Ladenb. In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand
over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistanbs military regime, and were
ignored. Even Obamabs mystification of 9/11 as justification for his war is
false. More than two months before the Twin Towers were attacked, the
Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, was told by the Bush administration
that an American military assault would take place by mid-October. The
Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly
supported, was no longer regarded as bstableb enough to ensure Americabs
control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.
Obamabs most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a bsafe havenb for
al-Qaedabs attacks on the West. His own national security adviser, General
James Jones, said in October that there were bfewer than 100b al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are
hardly Taliban at all, but ba tribal localised insurgency [who] see
themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying powerb. The war is
a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of
bworld peaceb.
Beneath the surface, however, there is serious purpose. Under the
disturbing General Stanley McCrystal, who gained distinction for his
assassination squads in Iraq, the occupation of one of the most
impoverished countries is a model for those bdisorderly regionsb of the
world still beyond Oceaniabs reach. This is a known as COIN, or
counter-insurgency network, which draws together the military, aid
organisations, psychologists, anthropologists, the media and public
relations hirelings. Covered in jargon about winning hearts and minds, its
aim is to pit one ethnic group against another and incite civil war: Tajiks
and Uzbecks against Pashtuns.
The Americans did this in Iraq and destroyed a multi-ethnic society. They
bribed and built walls between communities who had once inter-married,
ethnically cleansing the Sunni and driving millions out of the country. The
embedded media reported this as bpeaceb, and American academics bought by
Washington and bsecurity expertsb briefed by the Pentagon appeared on the
BBC to spread the good news. As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the opposite was
true.
Something similar is planned for Afghanistan. People are to be forced into
btarget areasb controlled by warlords bankrolled by the Americans and the
opium trade. That these warlords are infamous for their barbarism is
irrelevant. bWe can live with that,b a Clinton-era diplomat said of the
persecution of women in a bstableb Taliban-run Afghanistan. Favoured
western relief agencies, engineers and agricultural specialists will attend
to the bhumanitarian crisisb and so bsecureb the subjugated tribal lands.
That is the theory. It worked after a fashion in Yugoslavia where the
ethnic-sectarian partition wiped out a once peaceful society, but it failed
in Vietnam where the CIAbs bstrategic hamlet programb was designed to
corral and divide the southern population and so defeat the Viet Cong the
Americansb catch-all term for the resistance, similar to bTalibanb.
Behind much of this are the Israelis, who have long advised the Americans
in both the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. Ethnic-cleansing,
wall-building, checkpoints, collective punishment and constant surveillance
b these are claimed as Israeli innovations that have succeeded in stealing
most of Palestine from its native people. And yet for all their suffering,
the Palestinians have not been divided irrevocably and they endure as a
nation against all odds.
The most telling forerunners of the Obama Plan, which the Nobel Peace Prize
winner and his strange general and his PR men prefer we forget, are those
that failed in Afghanistan itself. The British in the 19th century and the
Soviets in the 20th century attempted to conquer that wild country by
ethnic cleansing and were seen off, though after terrible bloodshed.
Imperial cemeteries are their memorials. People power, sometimes baffling,
often heroic, remains the seed beneath the snow, and invaders fear it.
bIt was curious,b wrote Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, bto think that the
sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And
the people under the sky were also very much the same, everywhere, all over
the world b& people ignorant of one anotherbs existence, held apart by walls
of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same people who b& were
storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one
day overturn the world.b