lørdag den 27. november 2010
Dokumentar: Human Resources.
I en ny dybdeborende dokumentar med titlen "Human Resources" foretager dokumentaristen Scott Noble en interessant og forstyrrende udforskning af mange forskellige emner som tilsammen udgør en skrækindjagende syntese og sønderlemmende kritik af moderne styreformer og former for kontrol. Hvis man kunne lide Adam Curtis "The Century of the Self" vil man også kunne lide "Human Resources".
torsdag den 25. november 2010
Preben Wilhjelm: Hvorfor danner S, SF og DF ikke bare regering?
Preben Wilhjelm er det tætteste man kommer på en dansk politiker som jeg respekterer men desværre er han en gammel mand som for længst har forladt Borgen. Dengang han var repræsentant for VS i Folketinget udtalte et socialdemokratisk folketingsmedlem, at Preben Wilhjelm udgjorde omtrent halvdelen af Folketingets hjernekapacitet. Om det skulle forstås som et kompliment til Preben Wilhjelm eller en kritik af Folketingets øvrige medlemmer, melder historien desværre ikke noget om, men hans skarpe hjerne - han er både licentiat i jura og atomfysiker - er stadig i glimrende form. Igår kunne man læse en veloplagt kronik af ham i politiken.
USA planlagde krig mod Afghanistan før 9-11 iflg. Pakistans tidligere udenrigsminister.
Den 18. september 2001, altså før Afghanistan-krigen påbegyndes i oktober måned, bringer BBC en artikel hvor den forhenværende pakistanske udenrigsminister Niaz Naik udtaler, at USA allerede havde planer om at angribe Afghanistan før den 11. september:
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."
David Korten: Den Nye Økonomi.
Hvad er økonomiens formål?
Vi begynder med et fundamentalt spørgsmål. Er mennesker til for at tjene økonomien? Eller eksisterer økonomien for at tjene mennesker? Hvis det er det sidste, er det så nok kun at tjene et begunstiget mindretal? Eller bør den tjene alle? Når man stiller det sådan op er svaret selvindlysende og råber på en genopfindelse af vores karakteristiske kultur og institutioner.
Det eksisterende pengedrevne økonomiske system er designet og forvaltet af Wall Street koncerner for at maksimere det finansielle afkast til deres største spillere. Dets indikatorer anser konverteringen af de manges reelle levende rigdom, til de fås fantomrigdom, som en nettofortjeneste for samfundet. Dets indbyggede dynamikker driver mod finansiel ustabilitet, koncentration af rigdom, et stresset miljø og politisk korruption og skaber derfor forøget risiko for økonomisk, socialt, miljømæssigt og politisk kollaps.
Den Gamle Økonomi arbejder for de få på kort sigt og for ingen på lang sigt. Vi har brug for en Ny Økonomi som tjener alle mennesker til alle tider.
Et Demokratisk Markedsbaseret Alternativ.
Selvom det finansielle kollaps i september 2008 skabte megen tragisk lidelse er det en velsignelse set i et større perspektiv. Billioner af dollars i finansiel fantomrigdom forsvandt på et øjeblik. Korruptionen i et økonomisk system som destruerer menneskeliv, fælleskab og miljø for at tjene penge til de allerede velstående, blev udstillet foran alles øjne.
Vi – folket, har midlerne og retten til at erstatte kulturen og institutionerne i dette korrupte system med en Ny Økonomis institutioner og kultur, som prioriterer menneskers, familiers, fælleskabers og naturens behov over grådige bankfolk på Wall Streets. De samme forholdsregler som er nødvendige for at sikre vores kollektive overlevelse vil give os den verden af fælles fred, velstand og sikkerhed som de fleste mennesker har drømt om i årtusinder.
Moderne Patrioter.
Millioner af mennesker verden over har sluttet sig sammen for at genopbygge deres lokale økonomier og fælleskaber. De støtter lokalejede virksomheder i menneskestørrelse og familielandbrug, udvikler lokale finansielle institutioner, genopretter landbrugs- og skovarealer og ændrer fremgangsmåderne for brug af land for at koncenterere befolkningen i kompakte samfund som mindsker afhængigheden af biler, ombygger deres bygninger for at spare på energien og arbejder på anden vis henimod lokal selvforsyning af fødevarer, energi og andre basale fornødenheder.
Ved at tage kontrol over deres liv og bygge modstandsdygtige lokale økonomier som bruger lokale resourcer og ansætter lokale folk for at møde lokale behov under lokal kontrol, erklærer de deres uafhængigheden fra Wall Street selskabernes koloniale dominans. De er den moderne ækvivalent til de tapre patrioter som i tidligere tider erklærede deres uafhængighed fra den britiske konge og hans royale selskaber og som påbegyndte en ny nation dedikeret til at opnå et modigt ideal kaldet demokrati.
Et levende Systemperspektiv.
De fleste diskussioner som har at gøre med miljøet, retfærdighed, fred, fattigdom, race, køn, immigration, kriminalitet, værdier, uddannelse, familieliv og meget andet, fokuserer på handlinger som i bunden af floden skal udbedre konsekvenserne af systemfejl længere oppe af strømmen. Ægte, vedvarende løsninger afhænger af transformationen af grundlæggende værdier og institutioner på måder som sjældent diskuteres i offentlige debatter. Vi kan ikke længere tolerere denne stilhed. Vores fremtid afhænger af transitionen til en Ny Økonomi som efterligner strukturerne og dynamikkerne i Jordens biosfære. Det begynder alt sammen med en samtale.
Oversættelse af Thomas Bonde November 2010.
Den engelske version og meget mere kan læses på David Kortens site.
Vi begynder med et fundamentalt spørgsmål. Er mennesker til for at tjene økonomien? Eller eksisterer økonomien for at tjene mennesker? Hvis det er det sidste, er det så nok kun at tjene et begunstiget mindretal? Eller bør den tjene alle? Når man stiller det sådan op er svaret selvindlysende og råber på en genopfindelse af vores karakteristiske kultur og institutioner.
Det eksisterende pengedrevne økonomiske system er designet og forvaltet af Wall Street koncerner for at maksimere det finansielle afkast til deres største spillere. Dets indikatorer anser konverteringen af de manges reelle levende rigdom, til de fås fantomrigdom, som en nettofortjeneste for samfundet. Dets indbyggede dynamikker driver mod finansiel ustabilitet, koncentration af rigdom, et stresset miljø og politisk korruption og skaber derfor forøget risiko for økonomisk, socialt, miljømæssigt og politisk kollaps.
Den Gamle Økonomi arbejder for de få på kort sigt og for ingen på lang sigt. Vi har brug for en Ny Økonomi som tjener alle mennesker til alle tider.
Et Demokratisk Markedsbaseret Alternativ.
Selvom det finansielle kollaps i september 2008 skabte megen tragisk lidelse er det en velsignelse set i et større perspektiv. Billioner af dollars i finansiel fantomrigdom forsvandt på et øjeblik. Korruptionen i et økonomisk system som destruerer menneskeliv, fælleskab og miljø for at tjene penge til de allerede velstående, blev udstillet foran alles øjne.
Vi – folket, har midlerne og retten til at erstatte kulturen og institutionerne i dette korrupte system med en Ny Økonomis institutioner og kultur, som prioriterer menneskers, familiers, fælleskabers og naturens behov over grådige bankfolk på Wall Streets. De samme forholdsregler som er nødvendige for at sikre vores kollektive overlevelse vil give os den verden af fælles fred, velstand og sikkerhed som de fleste mennesker har drømt om i årtusinder.
Moderne Patrioter.
Millioner af mennesker verden over har sluttet sig sammen for at genopbygge deres lokale økonomier og fælleskaber. De støtter lokalejede virksomheder i menneskestørrelse og familielandbrug, udvikler lokale finansielle institutioner, genopretter landbrugs- og skovarealer og ændrer fremgangsmåderne for brug af land for at koncenterere befolkningen i kompakte samfund som mindsker afhængigheden af biler, ombygger deres bygninger for at spare på energien og arbejder på anden vis henimod lokal selvforsyning af fødevarer, energi og andre basale fornødenheder.
Ved at tage kontrol over deres liv og bygge modstandsdygtige lokale økonomier som bruger lokale resourcer og ansætter lokale folk for at møde lokale behov under lokal kontrol, erklærer de deres uafhængigheden fra Wall Street selskabernes koloniale dominans. De er den moderne ækvivalent til de tapre patrioter som i tidligere tider erklærede deres uafhængighed fra den britiske konge og hans royale selskaber og som påbegyndte en ny nation dedikeret til at opnå et modigt ideal kaldet demokrati.
Et levende Systemperspektiv.
De fleste diskussioner som har at gøre med miljøet, retfærdighed, fred, fattigdom, race, køn, immigration, kriminalitet, værdier, uddannelse, familieliv og meget andet, fokuserer på handlinger som i bunden af floden skal udbedre konsekvenserne af systemfejl længere oppe af strømmen. Ægte, vedvarende løsninger afhænger af transformationen af grundlæggende værdier og institutioner på måder som sjældent diskuteres i offentlige debatter. Vi kan ikke længere tolerere denne stilhed. Vores fremtid afhænger af transitionen til en Ny Økonomi som efterligner strukturerne og dynamikkerne i Jordens biosfære. Det begynder alt sammen med en samtale.
Oversættelse af Thomas Bonde November 2010.
Den engelske version og meget mere kan læses på David Kortens site.
Dokumentation: Carter-administrationens støtte til Suharto.
Året er 1978. De Indonesiske styrker fortsætter, i strid med det internationale samfunds bestemmelser, militæroperationerne man i 1975 påbegyndte da Indonesien invaderede og besatte Øst-Timor. Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med at man fra indonesiske side planlægger et massivt luftbombardament af Øst-Timor mhp. at nedkæmpe den væbnede separatistbevægelse, anmoder Jimmy Carters vicepræsident Walter Mondale den 26. April i et memorandum til præsidenten, om Carters tilladelse til at sælge en eskadrille A-4 kampfly til Suharto-styret. Walter Mondale begrunder anmodningen med, at det vil gavne amerikanske interesser: "Eftersom det underliggende formål med mit besøg er at bekræfte, at vi ønsker at samarbejde med Indonesien, mener jeg en positiv respons til Suharto vil være i vores interesse." Selvom Mondale i briefingen nævner, at der under besøget vil blive talt om menneskerettigheder med Suharto, er der ingen nævnelse af situationen på det besatte Øst-Timor i memoet.
onsdag den 24. november 2010
Jeremy Scahill Interview
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"We met with various factions of the Taleban when we were in Afghanistan. Some of them are loyal to [Mullah] Omar, others are members of the Haqqani network which is backed by Pakistan and the ISI spy agency there. Then you have people who are sort of freelancers. One of the most disturbing news we heard is that Omar, the Amir of the Taleban, the Afghan Taleban, sent an envoy to meet with a new Taleban commander and they hacked to death Omar's envoy..."
Propaganda: Kabuls børn lever i sikkerhed.
NATOs øverste civile repræsentant, britiske Mark Sedwill,udtalte for nylig, at børnene i den afghanske hovedstad Kabul nok lever i større sikkerhed end børn i London, Glasgow eller New York. Denne udtalelse står imidlertid i skarp kontrast til realiteterne.
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole har følgende kommentar til udtalelsen på sin blog:
"Quite apart from the bombings in the Afghan capital, far beyond anything in Western capitals, some 1,795 children were killed or wounded in conflict-related violence from September 2008 to August 2010 (admittedly in the whole country and not just in Kabul). Moreover, there are powerful crime syndicates and kidnapping rings in the capital and drug addiction is spreading among even children and youth. He wasn’t speaking of infant mortality, so it isn’t fair to slam him on the grounds that a fifth of Afghan children die before reaching age five. But knowledge of the truly horrific health statistics of Afghan children might have instilled some caution about making Panglossian statements."
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole har følgende kommentar til udtalelsen på sin blog:
"Quite apart from the bombings in the Afghan capital, far beyond anything in Western capitals, some 1,795 children were killed or wounded in conflict-related violence from September 2008 to August 2010 (admittedly in the whole country and not just in Kabul). Moreover, there are powerful crime syndicates and kidnapping rings in the capital and drug addiction is spreading among even children and youth. He wasn’t speaking of infant mortality, so it isn’t fair to slam him on the grounds that a fifth of Afghan children die before reaching age five. But knowledge of the truly horrific health statistics of Afghan children might have instilled some caution about making Panglossian statements."
Var Irak-krigen ulovlig?
Et af de væsentligste i spørgsmål angående den danske deltagelse i Irak-krigen er om denne deltagelse var i strid med gældende international lov. Lad os se nærmere på det.
Nürnberg-tribunalet nævnes som regel i historiske udredninger om international lov idet tribunalet lagde grunden for det der idag kendes som Nürnberg-principperne hvor man definerede ‘forbrydelser mod freden’ således:
“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
Under retssagerne i Nürnberg sagde dommer Ross H. Jackson:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
En anden juridisk konstruktion man typisk støder på i sammenhænge hvor der tales om international lov, er FN-chartret. Med udgangspunkt i chartret udtalte Kofi Annan - som på daværende tidspunkt var generalsekretær for FN - i 2004, at krigen var ulovlig:
“From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.”
Det er ikke vanskeligt at fremhæve hans bevæggrund for denne dom idet der i FN Chartrets Artikel 2, paragraf 4 utvetydigt står:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Så er der Rom-statutten som Danmark indførte som en del af landets lovgivning i januar 2002. I statutten er angrebskrig ligeledes defineret som en forbrydelse. Problemet er så her, at der ikke hersker enighed om hvad der præcis karakteriserer en sådan, hvorfor ICC ikke kan føre retssager hvor angrebskrig behandles som en forbrydelse.
Summa summarum: Irak-krigen kan ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd da resolution 1441 ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov.
Nürnberg-tribunalet nævnes som regel i historiske udredninger om international lov idet tribunalet lagde grunden for det der idag kendes som Nürnberg-principperne hvor man definerede ‘forbrydelser mod freden’ således:
“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
Under retssagerne i Nürnberg sagde dommer Ross H. Jackson:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
En anden juridisk konstruktion man typisk støder på i sammenhænge hvor der tales om international lov, er FN-chartret. Med udgangspunkt i chartret udtalte Kofi Annan - som på daværende tidspunkt var generalsekretær for FN - i 2004, at krigen var ulovlig:
“From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.”
Det er ikke vanskeligt at fremhæve hans bevæggrund for denne dom idet der i FN Chartrets Artikel 2, paragraf 4 utvetydigt står:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Så er der Rom-statutten som Danmark indførte som en del af landets lovgivning i januar 2002. I statutten er angrebskrig ligeledes defineret som en forbrydelse. Problemet er så her, at der ikke hersker enighed om hvad der præcis karakteriserer en sådan, hvorfor ICC ikke kan føre retssager hvor angrebskrig behandles som en forbrydelse.
Summa summarum: Irak-krigen kan ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd da resolution 1441 ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov.
tirsdag den 23. november 2010
Dokumentation: Nixons støtte til Suharto
I et dokument klassificeret som "Top Secret/Sensitive" lærer vi om et møde den 26. Maj 1970 der finder sted i Det Hvide Hus. Mødet er mellem Richard Nixon og den indonesiske præsident Suharto som er på sit første statsbesøg til USA. Til mødet, hvor også Henry Kissinger er tilstede, byder Richard Nixon den indonesiske leder velkommen og tilføjer, at han anser Suharto for en gammel ven. Nixon spørger ind til hvordan det forholder sig med landets revolutionære bevægelser, hvortil Suharto svarer at "their strength can be said to have been nullified ... Tens of thousands of these have been interrogated and placed in detention." Studenterbevægelsen i landet er nu iflg. Suharto "active participants in the New Order" hvilket man har opnået fordi "they have received indoctrination concerning the ideas of the New Order". Nixon spørger herefter ind til Suhartos tanker angående "U.S. programs in Indonesia" hvortil Suharto svarer: "Our achievement has been based upon the hard work of our government and people but the assistance which we have received from friendly countries has been particularly helpful. We are aware that the U.S. Government faces many problems and we are thankful for the increases in aid that have been possible in the past. " Til dette svarer Nixon: "As always we are interested in supporting your economic progress and in these efforts we do so without any strings attached and without interference in your internal affairs. When you became President in Indonesia it was a difficult and dangerous time in Indonesia. We wanted to help then and we continue on the same basis." Suharto takker Nixon for hans respekt for "our non-aligned status" og forklarer herefter Nixon, at Indonesiens militær er skrøbeligt, da det militære udstyr stammer fra Rusland og Kina, hvorfor man fra russisk og kinesisk side kender til landets militære svagheder, samt, at det er vanskeligt at skaffe reservedele nu hvor Indonesien har erklæret sig neutralt. Nixon lader til at forstå problematikken idet han siger: "To maintain your non-alignment, you must be strong enough to defend such neutrality. During your visit here I would like your Chief of Staff to meet appropiate people to determine the needs of Indonesia and the appropriate role of the U.S." og Nixon tilføjer "We know your intentions are only for the purposes of defense and that you have no intention of attacking others ... We will follow through. It is our desire to help but not hurt your position. We understand that the internal political situation in Indonesia is very complex and that your country is in a critical geographical position. Please feel free to speak ... with me concerning any aspect of our economic program, private investment, Export-Import Bank or military assistance. Our primary interest is a free and independent Indonesia." Suharto slutter mødet af med disse ord: "I am very happy with our cooperation in an atmosphere of mutual respect."
Om Barack Obama's statsbesøg i Indonesien.
I November måned i år var Barack Obama, som led i en længere rundrejse i Asien, på statsbesøg i Indonesien. Under sit besøg holdt han en længere tale til det indonesiske folk i hvilken han blandt andet roste Indonesiens styreform: "Jeres demokrati er symboliseret ved jeres folkevalgte præsident og lovgivere. Jeres demokrati er vedholdende og sikret af dets checks and balances [og] et dynamisk civilsamfund; politiske partier og fagforeninger; spillevende medier og engagerede borgere som har sikret at – i Indonesien – vil man ikke vende tilbage [til tidligere tiders diktatur]." Han bekendtgjorde, at han mente en "tolerancens ånd" herskede i Indonesien hvilket udgjorde "fundamentet for Indonesiens eksempel for verden". Præsidenten fortalte endvidere indoneserne, at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien."[1]
Unægteligt fine ord men desværre også et skønmaleri af en indonesisk orden som ikke formår at leve op til præsidentens højstemte retorik. I menneskerettighedsorganisationen Human Rights Watch's årsrapport fra 2010, som dækker begivenheder der fandt sted i 2009, omtales en række indonesiske menneskerettighedsproblematikker herunder straffrihed for militærpersonnel der udfører menneskerettighedskrænkende handlinger mod civilbefolkningen. Specielt omtales situationen i provinserne Papua og West Papua:
"Indonesian authorities have responded to a longstanding, low-level armed separatist insurgency in the provinces of Papua and West Papua with a strong troop presence and often harsh and disproportionate responses to non-violent dissent or criticism. Human Rights Watch has long expressed concerns over anti-separatist sweeps by the police, which often result in individuals who peacefully express support for independence being arrested and detained on charges of treason or rebellion (makar).
The government continues to restrict access by foreign human rights monitors and journalists to Papua, exacerbating the existing climate of impunity and making investigations extremely difficult. Prior to being ordered to close its Jayapura office, the ICRC had been visiting detainees in Papua's Abepura prison, where prison guards continued to torture inmates, including political prisoners Buchtar Tabuni and Yusak Pakage."[2]
Den 11. marts i år sender Human Rights Watch et brev til USA's forsvars- og udenrigsministre Robert Gates og Hillary Clinton, i hvilket man ytrer bekymring omkring amerikanske planer om at genoptage støtten til den indonesiske hærs specialstyrke Kopassus. I brevet står der:
"In recent weeks, US officials have suggested that the Department of Defense may be seeking to resume US military training for members of Kopassus, and particularly in the area of counter-terrorism. This raises a number of serious questions about the US's commitment to withholding military assistance to foreign military forces that have committed serious violations of human rights. These questions stem from unique aspects of the Kopassus counter-terrorism component known as Unit 81, the entity whose members the Department of Defense presumably seeks to train."
The operational component of Unit 81 appears to have existed since 1982, when Kopassus established an elite counter-terrorism force known as "Detachment 81." That force has been reorganized once in 1995, when it was enlarged and renamed "Group 5," and again in 2001, when it was reduced in size and renamed "Unit 81."
Since its creation, Unit 81's activities have been largely shrouded in secrecy. Members of Unit 81 reportedly rotate through other Kopassus components and units, including Group 3 (which contains Kopassus' notorious "covert war" unit). In addition, members of what is now known as Unit 81 have accompanied Kopassus combat units or other military personnel in field operations, including in Aceh and East Timor, although they remained under the command of their superiors headquartered in Jakarta.
In several instances, members of what is now called Unit 81 have been credibly accused of serious human rights abuses or other improper conduct, for instance, in controlling abusive pro-Indonesia militias in East Timor between 1986 and 1999 and committing the enforced disappearance of student activists in 1997-1998 in Jakarta." [min fremhævning].[3]
Dette lod imidlertid ikke til at bekymre den amerikanske regering idet man i Juli måned indvilligede i at påbegynde et "gradvist og begrænset" engagement med Kopassus og dermed afslutte et ti år langt moratorium som forhindrede USA i at støtte specialstyrken. Dette udløste stor protest fra menneskerettighedsgruppen The West Papua Advocacy Team som erklærede:
"The U.S. Administration’s decision to resume cooperation with the most criminal and unreformed element of the Indonesian military removes critical international pressure for reform and professionalization of the broader Indonesian military … It signals to Indonesian human rights advocates who have born the brunt of security force intimidation that they stand alone in their fight for respect for human rights and genuine reform in Indonesia."[4]
Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med Obama's besøg kom en række interne dokumenter fra Kopassus frem i dagens lys. Ifølge rettighedsaktivisten Allan Niarn, som bragte dokumenterne på sin blog, inkluderer disse en liste over fjender ledet af den papuanske baptistpræst Socrates Sofyan Yoman og man kan i dokumenterne læse at specialstyrken gør sig i "mord og kidnapninger". Dokumenterne "beskriver et hemmeligt netværk som overvåger, infiltrerer og splitter papuanske institutioner." I Allan Nairns omtale af dokumenterne kan man læse at:
"The leaked cache of secret Kopassus documents includes operational, intelligence and field reports as well as personnel records which list the names and details of Kopassus "agents."
The documents are classified "SECRET" ("RAHASIA") and include extensive background reports on Kopassus civilian targets - reports that are apparently of uneven accuracy.
The authenticity of the documents has been verified by Kopassus personnel who have seen them and by external evidence regarding the authors and the internal characteristics of the documents.
A detailed 25-page secret report by a Kopassus task force in Kotaraja, Papua defines Kopassus' number-one "enemy" as unarmed civilians. It calls them the "separatist political movement" "GSP/P," lists what they say are the top 15 leaders and discusses the "enemy order of battle."
All of those listed are civilians, starting with the head of the Baptist Synod of Papua. The others include evangelical ministers, activists, traditional leaders, legislators, students and intellectuals as well as local establishment figures and the head of the Papua Muslim Youth organization. [min fremhævning]
The secret Kopassus study says that in their 400,000 - person area of operations the civilians they target as being political are "much more dangerous than" any armed opposition since the armed groups "hardly do anything" but the civilians -- with popular support -- have "reached the outside world" with their "obsession" with "merdeka" (independence/ freedom) and persist in "propagating the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua," ie. "murders and abductions that are done by the security forces."[5]
Efter disse afsløringer var kommet frem i lyset behandles de i en artikel i Jakarta Globe hvor chefen for det indonesiske militær kommer med en længere udtalelse, i hvilken han forsvarer uhyrlighederne ved, at beskrive specialstyrkens operationer i West Papua som blotte indsamlinger af efterretninger:
"The Indonesian military chief has confirmed claims by a rights activist [Allan Nairn] that the armed forces are actively carrying out intelligence gathering in Papua, and defended the move as crucial for national security... On Thursday, Adm. Agus Suhartono, the recently appointed chief of the Indonesian Military, admitted that they were involved in intelligence gathering operations, but only to guard against threats to the nation’s sovereignty and to back up police operations there. He rejected the idea that gathering intelligence among civilians was wrong, saying all intelligence operations in Papua served to detect and prevent separatist threats. 'What we’re doing is maximizing the use of our intelligence unit for the sake of the military and the country,' Agus said." ( jvf. Markus Junianto Sialoho, "Indonesian Military Chief Defends Spying Operation in Papua," The Jakarta Globe, November 12, 2010).
Obama-administrationens påskud for at påbegynde støtten til Kopassus igen var, at der var tale om støtte til terrorbekæmpelse, men som de lækkede dokumenter tydeligt illustrerer er der tale om støtte til omfattende menneskerettighedskrænkelser mod civilbefolkningen på West Papua. Dette kan næppe undskyldes med, at man ikke var klar over at den slags fandt sted i Indonesien, da Human Rights Watch allerede i Marts måned havde gjort både forsvarsministeren og udenrigsministeren opmærksomme på det stærkt bekymrende ved Kopassus virksomhed og derfor ved USAs planer om at støtte specialstyrken. Obama talte altså derfor efter alt at dømme mod bedre vidende da han i sin tale sagde at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien." Desværre var der ingen blandt de danske trykte medier der valgte at bringe en kritisk dækning af Obamas statsbesøg. For en kritisk kommentar til dette tavshedens tyranni anbefales Uffe Kaels Aurings indlæg på medieoplysning.dk.
Unægteligt fine ord men desværre også et skønmaleri af en indonesisk orden som ikke formår at leve op til præsidentens højstemte retorik. I menneskerettighedsorganisationen Human Rights Watch's årsrapport fra 2010, som dækker begivenheder der fandt sted i 2009, omtales en række indonesiske menneskerettighedsproblematikker herunder straffrihed for militærpersonnel der udfører menneskerettighedskrænkende handlinger mod civilbefolkningen. Specielt omtales situationen i provinserne Papua og West Papua:
"Indonesian authorities have responded to a longstanding, low-level armed separatist insurgency in the provinces of Papua and West Papua with a strong troop presence and often harsh and disproportionate responses to non-violent dissent or criticism. Human Rights Watch has long expressed concerns over anti-separatist sweeps by the police, which often result in individuals who peacefully express support for independence being arrested and detained on charges of treason or rebellion (makar).
The government continues to restrict access by foreign human rights monitors and journalists to Papua, exacerbating the existing climate of impunity and making investigations extremely difficult. Prior to being ordered to close its Jayapura office, the ICRC had been visiting detainees in Papua's Abepura prison, where prison guards continued to torture inmates, including political prisoners Buchtar Tabuni and Yusak Pakage."[2]
Den 11. marts i år sender Human Rights Watch et brev til USA's forsvars- og udenrigsministre Robert Gates og Hillary Clinton, i hvilket man ytrer bekymring omkring amerikanske planer om at genoptage støtten til den indonesiske hærs specialstyrke Kopassus. I brevet står der:
"In recent weeks, US officials have suggested that the Department of Defense may be seeking to resume US military training for members of Kopassus, and particularly in the area of counter-terrorism. This raises a number of serious questions about the US's commitment to withholding military assistance to foreign military forces that have committed serious violations of human rights. These questions stem from unique aspects of the Kopassus counter-terrorism component known as Unit 81, the entity whose members the Department of Defense presumably seeks to train."
The operational component of Unit 81 appears to have existed since 1982, when Kopassus established an elite counter-terrorism force known as "Detachment 81." That force has been reorganized once in 1995, when it was enlarged and renamed "Group 5," and again in 2001, when it was reduced in size and renamed "Unit 81."
Since its creation, Unit 81's activities have been largely shrouded in secrecy. Members of Unit 81 reportedly rotate through other Kopassus components and units, including Group 3 (which contains Kopassus' notorious "covert war" unit). In addition, members of what is now known as Unit 81 have accompanied Kopassus combat units or other military personnel in field operations, including in Aceh and East Timor, although they remained under the command of their superiors headquartered in Jakarta.
In several instances, members of what is now called Unit 81 have been credibly accused of serious human rights abuses or other improper conduct, for instance, in controlling abusive pro-Indonesia militias in East Timor between 1986 and 1999 and committing the enforced disappearance of student activists in 1997-1998 in Jakarta." [min fremhævning].[3]
Dette lod imidlertid ikke til at bekymre den amerikanske regering idet man i Juli måned indvilligede i at påbegynde et "gradvist og begrænset" engagement med Kopassus og dermed afslutte et ti år langt moratorium som forhindrede USA i at støtte specialstyrken. Dette udløste stor protest fra menneskerettighedsgruppen The West Papua Advocacy Team som erklærede:
"The U.S. Administration’s decision to resume cooperation with the most criminal and unreformed element of the Indonesian military removes critical international pressure for reform and professionalization of the broader Indonesian military … It signals to Indonesian human rights advocates who have born the brunt of security force intimidation that they stand alone in their fight for respect for human rights and genuine reform in Indonesia."[4]
Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med Obama's besøg kom en række interne dokumenter fra Kopassus frem i dagens lys. Ifølge rettighedsaktivisten Allan Niarn, som bragte dokumenterne på sin blog, inkluderer disse en liste over fjender ledet af den papuanske baptistpræst Socrates Sofyan Yoman og man kan i dokumenterne læse at specialstyrken gør sig i "mord og kidnapninger". Dokumenterne "beskriver et hemmeligt netværk som overvåger, infiltrerer og splitter papuanske institutioner." I Allan Nairns omtale af dokumenterne kan man læse at:
"The leaked cache of secret Kopassus documents includes operational, intelligence and field reports as well as personnel records which list the names and details of Kopassus "agents."
The documents are classified "SECRET" ("RAHASIA") and include extensive background reports on Kopassus civilian targets - reports that are apparently of uneven accuracy.
The authenticity of the documents has been verified by Kopassus personnel who have seen them and by external evidence regarding the authors and the internal characteristics of the documents.
A detailed 25-page secret report by a Kopassus task force in Kotaraja, Papua defines Kopassus' number-one "enemy" as unarmed civilians. It calls them the "separatist political movement" "GSP/P," lists what they say are the top 15 leaders and discusses the "enemy order of battle."
All of those listed are civilians, starting with the head of the Baptist Synod of Papua. The others include evangelical ministers, activists, traditional leaders, legislators, students and intellectuals as well as local establishment figures and the head of the Papua Muslim Youth organization. [min fremhævning]
The secret Kopassus study says that in their 400,000 - person area of operations the civilians they target as being political are "much more dangerous than" any armed opposition since the armed groups "hardly do anything" but the civilians -- with popular support -- have "reached the outside world" with their "obsession" with "merdeka" (independence/ freedom) and persist in "propagating the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua," ie. "murders and abductions that are done by the security forces."[5]
Efter disse afsløringer var kommet frem i lyset behandles de i en artikel i Jakarta Globe hvor chefen for det indonesiske militær kommer med en længere udtalelse, i hvilken han forsvarer uhyrlighederne ved, at beskrive specialstyrkens operationer i West Papua som blotte indsamlinger af efterretninger:
"The Indonesian military chief has confirmed claims by a rights activist [Allan Nairn] that the armed forces are actively carrying out intelligence gathering in Papua, and defended the move as crucial for national security... On Thursday, Adm. Agus Suhartono, the recently appointed chief of the Indonesian Military, admitted that they were involved in intelligence gathering operations, but only to guard against threats to the nation’s sovereignty and to back up police operations there. He rejected the idea that gathering intelligence among civilians was wrong, saying all intelligence operations in Papua served to detect and prevent separatist threats. 'What we’re doing is maximizing the use of our intelligence unit for the sake of the military and the country,' Agus said." ( jvf. Markus Junianto Sialoho, "Indonesian Military Chief Defends Spying Operation in Papua," The Jakarta Globe, November 12, 2010).
Obama-administrationens påskud for at påbegynde støtten til Kopassus igen var, at der var tale om støtte til terrorbekæmpelse, men som de lækkede dokumenter tydeligt illustrerer er der tale om støtte til omfattende menneskerettighedskrænkelser mod civilbefolkningen på West Papua. Dette kan næppe undskyldes med, at man ikke var klar over at den slags fandt sted i Indonesien, da Human Rights Watch allerede i Marts måned havde gjort både forsvarsministeren og udenrigsministeren opmærksomme på det stærkt bekymrende ved Kopassus virksomhed og derfor ved USAs planer om at støtte specialstyrken. Obama talte altså derfor efter alt at dømme mod bedre vidende da han i sin tale sagde at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien." Desværre var der ingen blandt de danske trykte medier der valgte at bringe en kritisk dækning af Obamas statsbesøg. For en kritisk kommentar til dette tavshedens tyranni anbefales Uffe Kaels Aurings indlæg på medieoplysning.dk.
søndag den 21. november 2010
Lars Løkke: "Iran ér en trussel"
Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen udtalte i forbindelse med NATO-topmødet, at "Iran ér en trussel" hvorfor "det afgørende er at få truffet nogle beslutninger om, at opbygge det missilskjold, som kan øge vores sikkerhed i forhold til de trusler, som vi er omgærdet af. I den sammenhæng er Iran et af de steder, man kan få øje på."[1]
Dette er han ikke alene om at mene. Udviklingsminister Søren Pind skrev i 2008, at Iran for alt i verden måtte forhindres i at udvikle en atomar våbenkapacitet, til trods for at der ikke var det store belæg for at formode, at Iran var i gang med dette. Han sagde: "Den vestlige verden kan ikke leve med, at Iran får atomvåben. Så hellere krigen. Mine børn skal ikke opleve den knugende skræk for det atomare ragnarok, jeg selv måtte vokse op under. Det skal, om nødvendigt, med vold og magt, forhindres."[2] Men hvordan forholder det sig egentlig med Iran? Er landet rent faktisk en trussel mod verdens største militære organisation og dens medlemslande eller er der tale om en opfundet trussel?
En officiel men først for nylig deklassificeret amerikansk vurdering af Irans militære kapacitet lyder: "Iran har meget store militære styrker, men de ville være relativt ineffektive mod et direkte angreb fra et veluddannet, sofistikeret militær såsom USA's eller dets allierede. På nuværende tidspunkt er Irans styrker kun nok til at forhindre eller forsvare sig mod konventionelle trusler fra Irans svagere naboer... men mangler luftstøtte og logistisk evne til at projicere magtmidler længere væk fra Irans grænser eller til at konfrontere regionale stormagter som Tyrkiet eller Israel."[3]
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole foretager følgende sammenligning: "Irans militære budget er på lidt over 6 milliarder dollars om året. Sverige, Singapore og Grækenland har alle større militære budgetter. Desuden er Iran et land med 70 mio. indbyggere, således at udgifter til forsvar per capita er lille i forhold til de andre, da de er meget mindre lande med hensyn til befolkning. Iran bruger mindre per indbygger på sit militær end noget andet land i Den Persiske Golf-region med undtagelse af De Forenede Arabiske Emirater."[4] Den amerikanske Harvard-professor i international politik Stephen Walt har endvidere en komparativ analyse af Irans og USAs militære kapaciteter på sin blog.
Ideen om at Iran skulle udgøre en militær trussel mod Vesten står altså i skarp kontrast til fakta omhandlende landets militære kapacitet og Iran har da heller ikke angrebet noget andet land i flere hundrede år. Landet er omringet på begge sider af USAs og NATOs styrker i Irak og Afghanistan og har været under konstante trusler om militær intervention fra israelsk side i årevis, men Iran har ikke fundet at dette udgør grund nok til voldshandlinger, hvilket da også er ganske forståeligt. Iranerne er efter alt dømme pragmatiske nok til at vide, at skulle man begynde på noget sådant ville det næppe falde ud til Irans fordel da man militært såvel som økonomisk er underlegen.
Manglende vilje til aggression er til gengæld ikke noget der karakteriserer Israel som pt. er den eneste atommagt i Mellemøsten og som har udviklet sin atomare våbenkapacitet i modstrid med gældende internationale aftaler, vel at mærke uden at dette har haft nogle nævneværdige konsekvenser for den enorme økonomiske, militære og politiske støtte som landet modtager fra USA. Iran er berettiget til at udvikle atomreaktorer til fredelige formål idet landet er underskriver af ikke-spredningsaftalen og der er pt. intet belæg for at hævde, at Irans atomprogram skulle have andre formål end fredelige. Israel har derimod aldrig underskrevet aftalen eller nogensinde bekymret sig stort om international lov og med den mangeårige aggressive Israelske udenrigspolitik in mente burde man måske bekymre sig mere om hvorvidt Israel udgør en trussel mod freden.
Noget kunne derfor tyde på, at NATO - og folk som Løkke og Pind - opfinder trusler i en verden efter Den Kolde Krig hvor NATOs fortsatte eksistensberettigelse kan drages i tvivl, hvilket betyder at NATO, fremfor at være garant for freden, selv er gået hen og blevet en stigende trussel i verden.
De danske oversættelser i ovenstående er lavet af Poyâ Pâkzâd.
Dette er han ikke alene om at mene. Udviklingsminister Søren Pind skrev i 2008, at Iran for alt i verden måtte forhindres i at udvikle en atomar våbenkapacitet, til trods for at der ikke var det store belæg for at formode, at Iran var i gang med dette. Han sagde: "Den vestlige verden kan ikke leve med, at Iran får atomvåben. Så hellere krigen. Mine børn skal ikke opleve den knugende skræk for det atomare ragnarok, jeg selv måtte vokse op under. Det skal, om nødvendigt, med vold og magt, forhindres."[2] Men hvordan forholder det sig egentlig med Iran? Er landet rent faktisk en trussel mod verdens største militære organisation og dens medlemslande eller er der tale om en opfundet trussel?
En officiel men først for nylig deklassificeret amerikansk vurdering af Irans militære kapacitet lyder: "Iran har meget store militære styrker, men de ville være relativt ineffektive mod et direkte angreb fra et veluddannet, sofistikeret militær såsom USA's eller dets allierede. På nuværende tidspunkt er Irans styrker kun nok til at forhindre eller forsvare sig mod konventionelle trusler fra Irans svagere naboer... men mangler luftstøtte og logistisk evne til at projicere magtmidler længere væk fra Irans grænser eller til at konfrontere regionale stormagter som Tyrkiet eller Israel."[3]
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole foretager følgende sammenligning: "Irans militære budget er på lidt over 6 milliarder dollars om året. Sverige, Singapore og Grækenland har alle større militære budgetter. Desuden er Iran et land med 70 mio. indbyggere, således at udgifter til forsvar per capita er lille i forhold til de andre, da de er meget mindre lande med hensyn til befolkning. Iran bruger mindre per indbygger på sit militær end noget andet land i Den Persiske Golf-region med undtagelse af De Forenede Arabiske Emirater."[4] Den amerikanske Harvard-professor i international politik Stephen Walt har endvidere en komparativ analyse af Irans og USAs militære kapaciteter på sin blog.
Ideen om at Iran skulle udgøre en militær trussel mod Vesten står altså i skarp kontrast til fakta omhandlende landets militære kapacitet og Iran har da heller ikke angrebet noget andet land i flere hundrede år. Landet er omringet på begge sider af USAs og NATOs styrker i Irak og Afghanistan og har været under konstante trusler om militær intervention fra israelsk side i årevis, men Iran har ikke fundet at dette udgør grund nok til voldshandlinger, hvilket da også er ganske forståeligt. Iranerne er efter alt dømme pragmatiske nok til at vide, at skulle man begynde på noget sådant ville det næppe falde ud til Irans fordel da man militært såvel som økonomisk er underlegen.
Manglende vilje til aggression er til gengæld ikke noget der karakteriserer Israel som pt. er den eneste atommagt i Mellemøsten og som har udviklet sin atomare våbenkapacitet i modstrid med gældende internationale aftaler, vel at mærke uden at dette har haft nogle nævneværdige konsekvenser for den enorme økonomiske, militære og politiske støtte som landet modtager fra USA. Iran er berettiget til at udvikle atomreaktorer til fredelige formål idet landet er underskriver af ikke-spredningsaftalen og der er pt. intet belæg for at hævde, at Irans atomprogram skulle have andre formål end fredelige. Israel har derimod aldrig underskrevet aftalen eller nogensinde bekymret sig stort om international lov og med den mangeårige aggressive Israelske udenrigspolitik in mente burde man måske bekymre sig mere om hvorvidt Israel udgør en trussel mod freden.
Noget kunne derfor tyde på, at NATO - og folk som Løkke og Pind - opfinder trusler i en verden efter Den Kolde Krig hvor NATOs fortsatte eksistensberettigelse kan drages i tvivl, hvilket betyder at NATO, fremfor at være garant for freden, selv er gået hen og blevet en stigende trussel i verden.
De danske oversættelser i ovenstående er lavet af Poyâ Pâkzâd.
Verdens ældste kobberalderlandsby fundet i Serbien.
Hindustan Times November 15, 2010: "A "sensational" discovery of 75-century-old copper tools in Serbia is compelling scientists to reconsider existing theories about where and when man began using metal. Belgrade - axes, hammers, hooks and needles - were found interspersed with other artefacts from a settlement that burned down some 7,000 years ago at Plocnik, near Prokuplje and 200 km south of Belgrade.
The village had been there for some eight centuries before its demise. After the big fire, its unknown inhabitants moved away. But what they left behind points to man's earliest known extraction and shaping of metal."
The village had been there for some eight centuries before its demise. After the big fire, its unknown inhabitants moved away. But what they left behind points to man's earliest known extraction and shaping of metal."
USA fortsætter sin undergravende virksomhed i Latin-Amerika.
USA har en lang historie hvad undergravende virksomhed i Latin-Amerika angår.
I Guatemala væltede man i 1953 Arbenz Guzman, den første demokratisk valgte præsident i Sydamerika. Han var ikke statskommunist, men en oprigtig demokrat, men han måtte fjernes da han udgjorde en trussel mod amerikanske forretningsinteresser, idet hans økonomiske reformer gik på tværs af United Fruit Company’s profitinteresser i landet.
I 1972 skabte man, gennem en årelang indsats fra CIAs side, grobunden for Augusto Pinochets militærkup i Chile og dermed grundlaget for omstyrtningen af den demokratisk valgte regering under ledelse af Salvador Allende som døde under kuppet.
I 1980erne støttede man under Reagan-administrationen en lang række fascistoide grupperinger i Latin-Amerika. Blandt andet støttede man de nicaraguanske Contraer med penge man havde tjent på at sælge våben til Iran, selvom Iran også på daværende tidspunkt var USAs officielle fjende. Støtten til Contraerne via våbenhandlen med Iran, gik hen og blev en national skandale - Iran-Contra affæren. Nicaragua lagde efterfølgende sag an mod USA ved International Cour de Justice og vandt sagen. Domsafsigelsen ved ICJ var hård. USA havde i landets handlinger mod Nicaragua brudt gældende international lovgivning i fire henseender, nærmere bestemt ved:
1) at intervenere i en andens stats affærer.
2) at have brugt magt mod en anden stat.
3) at krænke en andens stats suverænitet
4) at spærre for fredelig maritim handel.
Desværre tyder noget på, at historien om USAs undergravende rolle i Latin-Amerika langt fra er slut. I denne måned afholdt man i Washington et møde hvor højreorienterede nøglespillere i tidligere Latin-Amerikanske statskup mødtes med flere højtplacerede medlemmer af Kongressen, hvoraf flere bestrider vigtige udenrigspolitiske stillinger. Dette indikerer at USAs aggressive politik i regionen ikke blot er historisk og afsluttet, men derimod fortsat er aktuel. Læs mere her.
I Guatemala væltede man i 1953 Arbenz Guzman, den første demokratisk valgte præsident i Sydamerika. Han var ikke statskommunist, men en oprigtig demokrat, men han måtte fjernes da han udgjorde en trussel mod amerikanske forretningsinteresser, idet hans økonomiske reformer gik på tværs af United Fruit Company’s profitinteresser i landet.
I 1972 skabte man, gennem en årelang indsats fra CIAs side, grobunden for Augusto Pinochets militærkup i Chile og dermed grundlaget for omstyrtningen af den demokratisk valgte regering under ledelse af Salvador Allende som døde under kuppet.
I 1980erne støttede man under Reagan-administrationen en lang række fascistoide grupperinger i Latin-Amerika. Blandt andet støttede man de nicaraguanske Contraer med penge man havde tjent på at sælge våben til Iran, selvom Iran også på daværende tidspunkt var USAs officielle fjende. Støtten til Contraerne via våbenhandlen med Iran, gik hen og blev en national skandale - Iran-Contra affæren. Nicaragua lagde efterfølgende sag an mod USA ved International Cour de Justice og vandt sagen. Domsafsigelsen ved ICJ var hård. USA havde i landets handlinger mod Nicaragua brudt gældende international lovgivning i fire henseender, nærmere bestemt ved:
1) at intervenere i en andens stats affærer.
2) at have brugt magt mod en anden stat.
3) at krænke en andens stats suverænitet
4) at spærre for fredelig maritim handel.
Desværre tyder noget på, at historien om USAs undergravende rolle i Latin-Amerika langt fra er slut. I denne måned afholdt man i Washington et møde hvor højreorienterede nøglespillere i tidligere Latin-Amerikanske statskup mødtes med flere højtplacerede medlemmer af Kongressen, hvoraf flere bestrider vigtige udenrigspolitiske stillinger. Dette indikerer at USAs aggressive politik i regionen ikke blot er historisk og afsluttet, men derimod fortsat er aktuel. Læs mere her.
Om NATOs missilskjold.
Den udenrigspolitiske kommentator Poyâ Pâkzâd har skrevet nogle ret interessante blogindlæg om NATOs missilskjold som jeg hermed anbefaler.
Missilskjold! Et forsvar? pt. 1
Missilskjold! Et forsvar? pt. 2
Missilforsvaret skal muliggøre et angreb på Iran.
Missilskjold! Et forsvar? pt. 1
Missilskjold! Et forsvar? pt. 2
Missilforsvaret skal muliggøre et angreb på Iran.
Afghanere ved ikke hvorfor deres land er besat.
Citat fra en artikel på MSNBC.com. den 19. Oktober.
"Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.
The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001."
"Few Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Taliban strongholds where fighting remains fiercest, know why foreign troops are in Afghanistan, says the "Afghanistan Transition: Missing Variables" report to be released later on Friday.
The report by The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) policy think-tank showed 92 percent of 1,000 Afghan men surveyed in Helmand and Kandahar know nothing of the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. targets in 2001."
lørdag den 20. november 2010
Professor Stephen Zunes om Obama-administrationens støtte til repressive regimer.
Ekspert i amerikansk udenrigspolitik i Mellemøsten, Professor i international relations Stephen Zunes, har skrevet en række læseværdige kritiske artikler omhandlende Obama-administrationens udenrigspolitik i Nord-Afrika og Mellemøsten, samt om ledende Demokraters holdninger til samme.
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East."
[stephenzunes.org] Zunes: "U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation."
[The Huffington Post] Zunes: "Arming the Saudis."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack."
[Truthout] Zunes: "Iraq: The Democrats' War."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East."
[stephenzunes.org] Zunes: "U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation."
[The Huffington Post] Zunes: "Arming the Saudis."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack."
[Truthout] Zunes: "Iraq: The Democrats' War."
torsdag den 18. november 2010
Træk tropperne hjem.
Meldingerne omkring krigens forventede afslutning er meget forskellige. Førhen hed det sig, at man ville trække sig ud i 2011, nu tales der om 2014. Den britiske forsvarschef Gen. Sir David Richards udtaler imidlertid til den britiske avis, Daily Mail, at NATO bliver nødt til at fortsætte tilstedeværelsen i Afghanistan i mange årtier endnu: “Nato now needs to plan for a 30 or 40 year role to help the Afghan armed forces hold their country against the militants.” [1]
Den amerikanske befolknings opbakning til Afghanistan-krigen er imidlertid faldende. Nu er 50% procent iflg. den seneste undersøgelse imod krigen mens 44% er for.[2] At krigsmodstanden ikke er større, midt i en krisetid hvor fattigdommen er voksende, har nok at gøre med, at krigspropagandaen fra de højreorienterede medier flyder i en lind strøm, mens kritiske røster meget sjældent interviewes. Når der er kritik er den som regel af strategisk beskaffenhed, sjældent af doktrinær.
Krigen mod terror er sandsynligvis den dyreste krig USA nogensinde har befundet sig i. Professor i public finances v. Harvard University, Linda Bilmes, forfattede for to år siden “The Three Trillion Dollar War” sammen med Joseph Stieglitz, hvor de estimerede at de reelle omkostninger ved krigene løb op i flere billioner. Der var dog iflg. de to økonomiprofessorer tale om et konservativt estimat. Jeg anbefaler at læse Bilmes vidnesudsagn omkring krigsudgifterne foran House Comittee of Veterans’ Affairs tidligere i år.[3]
Krigen mod terror, som nu ikke længere kaldes dette officielt, har spredt sig. Den føres nu på mindst fire fronter, nemlig i Afghanistan og Irak samt i Pakistan og Yemen, og muligvis snart også i Iran. Samtidig påståes det, at der nu også strømmer en stor terrortrussel fra Somalia. Alligevel forsikres vi om, at vi er lige ved at være der. Krigen er måske ikke så stor en succes som håbet, men i det mindste en relativ succes. Dette er imidlertid usandt.
Karzais styre er gennemsyret af korruption og religionsfriheden i Afghanistan er aftagende under hans styre [4]. Blot fyrre kilometer fra hovedstaden hersker Taleban (dvs. en af de oprørgrupper uden fælles ledelse, vi i de vestlige medier kender under fællesbetegnelsen Taleban.)[5]
Der er ikke ret mange reelle fremskridt at spore for den civile og uskyldige afghaner, selv efter hele ni års krigsførelse. Den afghanske feminist Malalai Joya påpegede i et interview forleden, at koalitionsstyrkerne anses for at være endnu en fjende af store dele af den afghanske befolkning - de to andre er Nord-Alliancen og Taleban. Hun sagde:
“The only solution is the troops should withdraw because their presence is making the situation worse. Troops are daubed by Afghans as “enemies” rather than “friends”. Afghan people are squashed between three enemies: the Taliban, the fundamentalist warlords and foreign troops.
If the foreign enemy leaves Afghanistan, my people would only face two internal enemies and it would be easier to combat them. All the war criminals of the past 30 years should be put on trial and punished for their unforgivable crimes against the men, women and children of this nation. There are some that say the Taliban may get back to power, but my people, despite being wounded and tired of all the war, may lead a decisive combat against these dinosaurs with the extreme hatred that they have for them.
And then, a democratic, independent and secular government should be installed, free of all kinds of fundamentalist, mafia and criminal germs.” [6]
Vi må heller ikke glemme, at krigen i Afghanistan ikke har hjemmel i international lov. (jvf. juraprofessor Marjorie Cohns behandling af sagen.) [7]
Danmarks tilstedeværelse i Afghanistan er af forhenværende forsvarsminister, Søren Gade, gentagne gange blevet begrundet med, at vi er der for at forhindre terrorangreb på vestlige interesser, men hverken terrorangrebene i London eller Madrid havde deres rod i Afghanistan, hvorfor intet tyder på, at vores tilstedeværelse skulle kunne garantere at der ikke sker terrorangreb i Vesten.
Af alle disse grunde bør Danmark trække tropperne hjem.
Den amerikanske befolknings opbakning til Afghanistan-krigen er imidlertid faldende. Nu er 50% procent iflg. den seneste undersøgelse imod krigen mens 44% er for.[2] At krigsmodstanden ikke er større, midt i en krisetid hvor fattigdommen er voksende, har nok at gøre med, at krigspropagandaen fra de højreorienterede medier flyder i en lind strøm, mens kritiske røster meget sjældent interviewes. Når der er kritik er den som regel af strategisk beskaffenhed, sjældent af doktrinær.
Krigen mod terror er sandsynligvis den dyreste krig USA nogensinde har befundet sig i. Professor i public finances v. Harvard University, Linda Bilmes, forfattede for to år siden “The Three Trillion Dollar War” sammen med Joseph Stieglitz, hvor de estimerede at de reelle omkostninger ved krigene løb op i flere billioner. Der var dog iflg. de to økonomiprofessorer tale om et konservativt estimat. Jeg anbefaler at læse Bilmes vidnesudsagn omkring krigsudgifterne foran House Comittee of Veterans’ Affairs tidligere i år.[3]
Krigen mod terror, som nu ikke længere kaldes dette officielt, har spredt sig. Den føres nu på mindst fire fronter, nemlig i Afghanistan og Irak samt i Pakistan og Yemen, og muligvis snart også i Iran. Samtidig påståes det, at der nu også strømmer en stor terrortrussel fra Somalia. Alligevel forsikres vi om, at vi er lige ved at være der. Krigen er måske ikke så stor en succes som håbet, men i det mindste en relativ succes. Dette er imidlertid usandt.
Karzais styre er gennemsyret af korruption og religionsfriheden i Afghanistan er aftagende under hans styre [4]. Blot fyrre kilometer fra hovedstaden hersker Taleban (dvs. en af de oprørgrupper uden fælles ledelse, vi i de vestlige medier kender under fællesbetegnelsen Taleban.)[5]
Der er ikke ret mange reelle fremskridt at spore for den civile og uskyldige afghaner, selv efter hele ni års krigsførelse. Den afghanske feminist Malalai Joya påpegede i et interview forleden, at koalitionsstyrkerne anses for at være endnu en fjende af store dele af den afghanske befolkning - de to andre er Nord-Alliancen og Taleban. Hun sagde:
“The only solution is the troops should withdraw because their presence is making the situation worse. Troops are daubed by Afghans as “enemies” rather than “friends”. Afghan people are squashed between three enemies: the Taliban, the fundamentalist warlords and foreign troops.
If the foreign enemy leaves Afghanistan, my people would only face two internal enemies and it would be easier to combat them. All the war criminals of the past 30 years should be put on trial and punished for their unforgivable crimes against the men, women and children of this nation. There are some that say the Taliban may get back to power, but my people, despite being wounded and tired of all the war, may lead a decisive combat against these dinosaurs with the extreme hatred that they have for them.
And then, a democratic, independent and secular government should be installed, free of all kinds of fundamentalist, mafia and criminal germs.” [6]
Vi må heller ikke glemme, at krigen i Afghanistan ikke har hjemmel i international lov. (jvf. juraprofessor Marjorie Cohns behandling af sagen.) [7]
Danmarks tilstedeværelse i Afghanistan er af forhenværende forsvarsminister, Søren Gade, gentagne gange blevet begrundet med, at vi er der for at forhindre terrorangreb på vestlige interesser, men hverken terrorangrebene i London eller Madrid havde deres rod i Afghanistan, hvorfor intet tyder på, at vores tilstedeværelse skulle kunne garantere at der ikke sker terrorangreb i Vesten.
Af alle disse grunde bør Danmark trække tropperne hjem.
onsdag den 17. november 2010
Søren Pind om den aktivistiske udenrigspolitik
I en kronik i Jyllands-Posten den. 20.07.08 med titlen "Dette moralske tomrums røst: Fortsat dialog." går Søren Pind til angreb på modstanderne af den aktivistiske udenrigspolitik. Pind lader os forstå, at modstanderne af state-building gennem krig mod verdens diktaturer, herunder modstanderne mod Irak-krigen, blot ønsker "fortsatte cocktailpartys med disse moderne svar på Hitler og Stalin." mens "Argumentet om, at en blodig diktator er fjernet" ikke bider på krigsmodstanderne.
Først og fremmest er det intet mindre end overordentlig interessant, at Pind karakteriserer begivenhederne som ledte op til den anden Golf-krig som et cocktailparty, idet det anslås at sanktionspolitikken har kostet op mod en halv million børn livet, mens opretholdelsen af No-Fly Zones bombardementerne forvoldte at Irak var under angreb fra luften fra august 1992 frem til den anden Irak-krigs begyndelse i marts 2003.
Når Pind fremhæver "at en blodig diktator er fjernet" uden at nævne krigens mange negative konsekvenser er det vanskeligt at undlade at se hans argumentation som et forsøg på hvidvaskning af krigen, idet de mange negative konsekvenser af krigsførelsen bekvemt udelades. Et kort men ufuldstændigt overblik over de negative konsekvenser lyder således: 1.9 millioner mennesker er flygtet ud af landet og bor nu i flygtningelejre i nabolandene; 2,6 millioner mennesker er ligeledes flygtet fra deres hjem men befinder sig fortsat indenfor landets grænser; det er fortsat uvist hvor mange omkomne der er tale om, men tabstallene er sekscifrede; de økonomiske omkostninger måles i mange hundreder milliarder dollars, hvis ikke i billioner; krigen har gjort Irak til et arnested for terrorisme og Al-Qaeda har nu en tilstedeværelse i landet; en stor dels af verdens kulturarv er forsvundet og landets infrastruktur ligger mange steder i ruiner.
Dette nævner Pind som sagt ikke med et eneste ord i sin kronik, men fortsætter i stedet med at beskylde krigsmodstanderne for at svigte den vestlige verdens værdier: "De, der befordrer løgnen, svigter dermed ikke kun de undertrykte i disse lande verden over. De svigter samtidig den verdensdel, der siden den amerikanske uafhængighedserklæring har stået fast på, og været en lysende fakkel for den afmægtigt bastede og bundne med påstanden om, at hvert enkelt menneske er en unik skabning og at denne skabning, har ret til liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke."
Når vi holder de negative konsekvenser for de mange irakere jeg ovenfor nævnte in mente, fremstår det netop citerede nærmest demagogisk. Pinds argumentation er endvidere igen mangelfuld, idet han bekvemt undlader at nævne, at det netop er en væsentlig del af den vestlige verdens juridiske og kulturelle arv, at man ikke begiver sig ud i krig med mindre der er tale om (selv)forsvar. Irak-krigen kan imidlertid ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd som ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov, men ikke alene er angrebskrig ulovlig, det er intet mindre end den største internationale forbrydelse man kan begå iflg. dommer ved Nurnberg-processerne Ross H. Jackson. Da Søren Pind er cand.jur må vi antage at han er bekendt med gældende international lov.
Først og fremmest er det intet mindre end overordentlig interessant, at Pind karakteriserer begivenhederne som ledte op til den anden Golf-krig som et cocktailparty, idet det anslås at sanktionspolitikken har kostet op mod en halv million børn livet, mens opretholdelsen af No-Fly Zones bombardementerne forvoldte at Irak var under angreb fra luften fra august 1992 frem til den anden Irak-krigs begyndelse i marts 2003.
Når Pind fremhæver "at en blodig diktator er fjernet" uden at nævne krigens mange negative konsekvenser er det vanskeligt at undlade at se hans argumentation som et forsøg på hvidvaskning af krigen, idet de mange negative konsekvenser af krigsførelsen bekvemt udelades. Et kort men ufuldstændigt overblik over de negative konsekvenser lyder således: 1.9 millioner mennesker er flygtet ud af landet og bor nu i flygtningelejre i nabolandene; 2,6 millioner mennesker er ligeledes flygtet fra deres hjem men befinder sig fortsat indenfor landets grænser; det er fortsat uvist hvor mange omkomne der er tale om, men tabstallene er sekscifrede; de økonomiske omkostninger måles i mange hundreder milliarder dollars, hvis ikke i billioner; krigen har gjort Irak til et arnested for terrorisme og Al-Qaeda har nu en tilstedeværelse i landet; en stor dels af verdens kulturarv er forsvundet og landets infrastruktur ligger mange steder i ruiner.
Dette nævner Pind som sagt ikke med et eneste ord i sin kronik, men fortsætter i stedet med at beskylde krigsmodstanderne for at svigte den vestlige verdens værdier: "De, der befordrer løgnen, svigter dermed ikke kun de undertrykte i disse lande verden over. De svigter samtidig den verdensdel, der siden den amerikanske uafhængighedserklæring har stået fast på, og været en lysende fakkel for den afmægtigt bastede og bundne med påstanden om, at hvert enkelt menneske er en unik skabning og at denne skabning, har ret til liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke."
Når vi holder de negative konsekvenser for de mange irakere jeg ovenfor nævnte in mente, fremstår det netop citerede nærmest demagogisk. Pinds argumentation er endvidere igen mangelfuld, idet han bekvemt undlader at nævne, at det netop er en væsentlig del af den vestlige verdens juridiske og kulturelle arv, at man ikke begiver sig ud i krig med mindre der er tale om (selv)forsvar. Irak-krigen kan imidlertid ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd som ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov, men ikke alene er angrebskrig ulovlig, det er intet mindre end den største internationale forbrydelse man kan begå iflg. dommer ved Nurnberg-processerne Ross H. Jackson. Da Søren Pind er cand.jur må vi antage at han er bekendt med gældende international lov.
tirsdag den 16. november 2010
[Iraq] No-Fly Zone War.
NYTimes (August 13, 1999): "With Little Notice, U.S. Planes Have Been Striking Iraq All Year."
The Guardian (December 4, 2002): "Britain and US step up bombing in Iraq."
IraqJournal.org (December 10, 2002): "No-Fly Zones Over Iraq: Washington's Undeclared War on "Saddam's Victims".
Washington Post (December 22, 2002): "Casualties of an 'Undeclared War': Civilians Killed and Injured as U.S. Airstrikes Escalate in Southern Iraq."
The Independent (23 February 2003): "US and Britain Pound Iraqi Defenses in Massive Escalation of Airstrikes."
NYTimes (July 19 2003): "U.S. Attacked Iraqi Defenses Starting in 2002."
The Guardian (December 4, 2002): "Britain and US step up bombing in Iraq."
IraqJournal.org (December 10, 2002): "No-Fly Zones Over Iraq: Washington's Undeclared War on "Saddam's Victims".
Washington Post (December 22, 2002): "Casualties of an 'Undeclared War': Civilians Killed and Injured as U.S. Airstrikes Escalate in Southern Iraq."
The Independent (23 February 2003): "US and Britain Pound Iraqi Defenses in Massive Escalation of Airstrikes."
NYTimes (July 19 2003): "U.S. Attacked Iraqi Defenses Starting in 2002."
Extraordinary Renditions.
BBC: Amnesty says EU 'failing' over CIA renditions.
BBC: What happened in Europe's secret CIA prisons?
BBC: CIA 'tortured suspects' in secret prison in Poland.
Huffington Post: Breaking the Conspiracy of Silence: Europe and Extraordinary Rendition.
The Guardian: The necessary reckoning on rendition and waterboarding.
BBC: What happened in Europe's secret CIA prisons?
BBC: CIA 'tortured suspects' in secret prison in Poland.
Huffington Post: Breaking the Conspiracy of Silence: Europe and Extraordinary Rendition.
The Guardian: The necessary reckoning on rendition and waterboarding.
mandag den 15. november 2010
Obama og Indonesiens specialstyrker.
Tidligere i år valgte man fra Obama-administrationens side at genoptage støtten til Kopassus, Indonesiens specialstyrker, som ellers var faldet i unåde grundet specialstyrkens centrale rolle i folkemordet i Øst-Timor, der estimeres at have kostet op mod en sjettedel af Øst-Timors befolkning livet.
Umiddelbart samtidig med Obamas besøg i Indonesien kom det imidlertid frem, grundet et lækket internt dokument fra Kopassus, at specialstyrken fortsat idag gør sig i uhyrligheder, idet dokumentet omtaler, at specialstyrken begår mord og foretager bortførelser samt generelt betragter civile kritikere i den besatte West Papua region som fjenden. Obama nævnte imidlertid ikke dette med et eneste ord under sit besøg.
OMTALE:
The Guardian: West Papua deserves Barack Obama's attention.
AllainNairn.com: Secret Files Show Kopassus, Indonesia's Special Forces, Targets Papuan Churches, Civilians. Documents Leak from Notorious US-Backed Unit as Obama Lands in Indonesia.
The Guardian: Obama's missed opportunity in Jakarta.
Umiddelbart samtidig med Obamas besøg i Indonesien kom det imidlertid frem, grundet et lækket internt dokument fra Kopassus, at specialstyrken fortsat idag gør sig i uhyrligheder, idet dokumentet omtaler, at specialstyrken begår mord og foretager bortførelser samt generelt betragter civile kritikere i den besatte West Papua region som fjenden. Obama nævnte imidlertid ikke dette med et eneste ord under sit besøg.
OMTALE:
The Guardian: West Papua deserves Barack Obama's attention.
AllainNairn.com: Secret Files Show Kopassus, Indonesia's Special Forces, Targets Papuan Churches, Civilians. Documents Leak from Notorious US-Backed Unit as Obama Lands in Indonesia.
The Guardian: Obama's missed opportunity in Jakarta.
Irak-krigens konsekvenser.
Den amerikanske tænketank Center for American Progress om Irak-krigens menneskelige, strategiske og økonomiske omkostninger.
Link.
Lancet-undersøgelsen:
OM FLYGTNINGEPROBLEMATIKKEN:
Think Progress: Confronting The Iraqi Nakba.
Link.
Lancet-undersøgelsen:
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).Link til Wikipedia artikel om undersøgelsen.
The first survey published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).
The second survey published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
OM FLYGTNINGEPROBLEMATIKKEN:
Think Progress: Confronting The Iraqi Nakba.
between 2003 and 2009, in addition to the more than 100,000 Iraqis killed and many more wounded and maimed, more than 4.5 million Iraqis were expelled and displaced amid Iraq’s sectarian civil war — new, grim details of which are contained in the WikiLeaks trove. Around 2.6 million remain internally displaced in Iraq, unable to return to their homes. Another 1.9 million remain refugees, mostly in neighboring Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It has utterly changed the face not only of Iraq, but of the region. If Americans are going to learn the right lessons from Iraq, and satisfy the huge moral debt we’ve incurred, we’ve simply got to regain our sense of shock about the enormity of what we have done there: Through a combination of hubris, idealism, incompetence, and plain ignorance, the United States facilitated, sponsored, and oversaw Iraq’s Nakba.Link.
[Afghanistan-krigen] Økonomiske aspekter.
MANGLENDE FINANSIELT TILSYN:
Wireds Dangerroom-skribent Spencer Ackerman om manglende fnansielt tilsyn med millioner af dollars som lander i lommerne på afghanske embedsmænd og regeringsrådgivere:
"According to a new report from the U.S.’ independent Afghanistan-reconstruction auditor, Arnold Fields, American agencies spent at least three years paying Afghan government officials and “technical advisers” off the books — outside official channels and without “collecting any information” on who they paid and how much they doled out. From 2005 to 2008, and in some cases into 2010, both agencies declined to “centrally manage” their record keeping, allowing an untold amount of aid money to disappear into the pockets of their favored Afghans.
And that went into a lot of pockets. The Afghan Ministry of Finance estimates that U.S. and international donors pay $45 million annually to support 6,600 government employees and advisers, but that’s an undercount, reliant on “incomplete data.” Just this year, after the Ministry demanded the U.S. start a tally of who it pays, at least 900 government officials received U.S. cash, totaling $1 million each month."
Kilde.
Wireds Dangerroom-skribent Spencer Ackerman om manglende fnansielt tilsyn med millioner af dollars som lander i lommerne på afghanske embedsmænd og regeringsrådgivere:
"According to a new report from the U.S.’ independent Afghanistan-reconstruction auditor, Arnold Fields, American agencies spent at least three years paying Afghan government officials and “technical advisers” off the books — outside official channels and without “collecting any information” on who they paid and how much they doled out. From 2005 to 2008, and in some cases into 2010, both agencies declined to “centrally manage” their record keeping, allowing an untold amount of aid money to disappear into the pockets of their favored Afghans.
And that went into a lot of pockets. The Afghan Ministry of Finance estimates that U.S. and international donors pay $45 million annually to support 6,600 government employees and advisers, but that’s an undercount, reliant on “incomplete data.” Just this year, after the Ministry demanded the U.S. start a tally of who it pays, at least 900 government officials received U.S. cash, totaling $1 million each month."
Kilde.
fredag den 12. november 2010
Reagan's udenrigspoliitk.
Støtten til Saddam Hussein:
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Dawoody: "Reagan & Saddam: The Unholy Alliance."
http://www.counterpunch.org/dawoody06082004.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Støtten til Muhammed Zia ul-Haq, Pakistansk fundamentalistiske muslimske diktator:
“Zia’s longevity as a ruler was made possible by the unstinting support he received from President Ronald Reagan and the U.S. administration after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.”
“General Zia’s eleven-year rule was to have the most long-lasting and damaging effect on Pakistani society, one still prevalent today. Zia, who seized power from Bhutto in a coup in 1977, dealt with Pakistan’s identity crisis by imposing an ideological Islamic state upon the population. Many of today’s problems—the militancy of the religious parties, the mushrooming of madrassas and extremist groups, the spread of drug and Kalashnikov culture, and the increase in sectarian violence took place during the Zia era.”
“Between 1982 and 1990 the CIA, working with the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence; det pakistanske efterretningsvæsen, som USA var med til at opbygge] and Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service, funded the training, arrival, and arming of some thirty-five thousand Islamic militants from forty-three Muslim countries in Pakistani madrassas to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. This global jihad launched by Zia and Reagan was to sow the seeds of al Qaeda and turn Pakistan into the world center of jihadism for the next two decades.”
Kilde - Ahmed Rashid: ”Descent into Chaos: The U.S. And the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia.”
History Commons: Context of 'April 1981: Reagan Administration Says It Can Turn a Blind Eye to Pakistani Nuclear Program'
The Guardian: "The man who knew too much."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUATEMALA.
Robert Parry: "Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression."
http://www.truth-out.org/guatemala-a-test-tube-repression63859
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL SALVADOR:
Washington Post: Former Salvadoran Foes Share Doubts on War.
Dennis Hans. "From Afghanistan to El Salvador: Reagan's Dark Global Legacy".
http://www.counterpunch.org/hans06072004.html
Wiki-article on the Salvadoran Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/enemiesofwar/elsalvador2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL:
the lost chapter.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/062908.html
Perception Management.
Lost History: CIA's Perception Management
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost12.html
The October Surprise.
Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden.
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html
The Tricky October Surprise Report.
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/061710.html
Richard Allen's Notes on Bush 'October Surprise' Call.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/allen-shackley-notes.html
How Two Elections Changed America.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/110409.html
The Russian Report.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russianreport1980.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Dawoody: "Reagan & Saddam: The Unholy Alliance."
http://www.counterpunch.org/dawoody06082004.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Støtten til Muhammed Zia ul-Haq, Pakistansk fundamentalistiske muslimske diktator:
“Zia’s longevity as a ruler was made possible by the unstinting support he received from President Ronald Reagan and the U.S. administration after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.”
“General Zia’s eleven-year rule was to have the most long-lasting and damaging effect on Pakistani society, one still prevalent today. Zia, who seized power from Bhutto in a coup in 1977, dealt with Pakistan’s identity crisis by imposing an ideological Islamic state upon the population. Many of today’s problems—the militancy of the religious parties, the mushrooming of madrassas and extremist groups, the spread of drug and Kalashnikov culture, and the increase in sectarian violence took place during the Zia era.”
“Between 1982 and 1990 the CIA, working with the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence; det pakistanske efterretningsvæsen, som USA var med til at opbygge] and Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service, funded the training, arrival, and arming of some thirty-five thousand Islamic militants from forty-three Muslim countries in Pakistani madrassas to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. This global jihad launched by Zia and Reagan was to sow the seeds of al Qaeda and turn Pakistan into the world center of jihadism for the next two decades.”
Kilde - Ahmed Rashid: ”Descent into Chaos: The U.S. And the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia.”
History Commons: Context of 'April 1981: Reagan Administration Says It Can Turn a Blind Eye to Pakistani Nuclear Program'
The Guardian: "The man who knew too much."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUATEMALA.
Robert Parry: "Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression."
http://www.truth-out.org/guatemala-a-test-tube-repression63859
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL SALVADOR:
Washington Post: Former Salvadoran Foes Share Doubts on War.
Dennis Hans. "From Afghanistan to El Salvador: Reagan's Dark Global Legacy".
http://www.counterpunch.org/hans06072004.html
Wiki-article on the Salvadoran Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/enemiesofwar/elsalvador2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL:
the lost chapter.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/062908.html
Perception Management.
Lost History: CIA's Perception Management
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost12.html
The October Surprise.
Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden.
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html
The Tricky October Surprise Report.
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/061710.html
Richard Allen's Notes on Bush 'October Surprise' Call.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/allen-shackley-notes.html
How Two Elections Changed America.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/110409.html
The Russian Report.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russianreport1980.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fredag den 24. september 2010
mandag den 20. september 2010
Contractors research
lørdag den 18. september 2010
Prison Industrial Complex Research
Etnicitet og fængsling.
IPS NEWS: Money for Prisons, Not for Social Services.
Litteraturhenvisninger.
Wikiartikel om The Prison-Industrial Complex.
PRISONS: HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/confronting-human-rights-abuses-in-us-prisons/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0712-08.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Rights_Police_USA_RFA.html
IPS NEWS: Money for Prisons, Not for Social Services.
Litteraturhenvisninger.
Wikiartikel om The Prison-Industrial Complex.
PRISONS: HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/confronting-human-rights-abuses-in-us-prisons/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0712-08.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Rights_Police_USA_RFA.html
War on drugs.
According to FBI data released yesterday, police arrested 1,663,582 people on drug charges in the United States last year, slightly fewer than the 1,702,537 arrested in 2008. A little more than half of the drug arrests involved marijuana, and nearly 9 out of 10 marijuana arrests involved possession, as opposed to sale or manufacturing. The number of marijuana arrests, 858,408, was up slightly from the previous year's total, 847,863, but still lower than the historic peak of 872,721 in 2007.
As I've noted before, there is no obvious relationship between marijuana arrests and marijuana use. Although arrests have more than doubled since the early 1990s, the number of pot smokers was no lower in 2008 than it was in 1990 and perhaps somewhat higher, even allowing for methodological changes that seem to have boosted self-reported drug use after 2001.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/16/drug-arrests-down-pot-arrests
Omtale af en ny rapport som omhandler narkorelaterede fængslinger i USA.
“Despite comparable usage of illicit drugs, in 2008, African Americans, who make up 12.2 percent of the general population, comprised 44 percent of those incarcerated for drug offences, according to the report.
Researchers say that disproportionate enforcement of drug laws in communities of colour destabilises families and communities and decreases the likelihood of positive outcomes for children and other family members left behind.
Due to the prolonged economic meltdown, many states are now making drastic cuts in funding for social services - such as health, education, and public housing - but not on policing and prison improvement and expansion.”
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52868
onsdag den 4. august 2010
lørdag den 31. juli 2010
US Government
FOREIGN POLICY:
Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process
MILITARY: INTELLIGENCE.
Washington Post: Top Secret America.
PRISONS: HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/confronting-human-rights-abuses-in-us-prisons/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0712-08.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Rights_Police_USA_RFA.html
Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process
MILITARY: INTELLIGENCE.
Washington Post: Top Secret America.
PRISONS: HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/confronting-human-rights-abuses-in-us-prisons/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0712-08.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Rights_Police_USA_RFA.html
onsdag den 30. juni 2010
Brain Food July
TECH:
Potatoes May Power The Batteries Of The Future.
Researchers design more reliable invisibility cloak.
Plastic Bags Into Power?
Electric Vehicle Preview: 526-horsepower Mercedes-Benz SLS E-Cell.
'Regenerated lung tissue implanted in rat'.
At German Airports, Bees Help Monitor Air Quality.
‘Programmable matter’ may shape future tools.
Beetle-Inspired Bottle Harvests Drinking Water From Thin Air.
Green machine: A salty solution for power generation.
ANCIENT HISTORY:
Separation between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens might have occurred 500,000 years earlier.
How our species owes its success to religion.
Respect Your Elders, Human!
PHYSICS / SPACE:
Every black hole may hold a hidden universe.
MIND:
Science historian cracks the 'Plato code'.
Ecstasy may help trauma victims.
LIFE:
Plants 'can think and remember'.
Thousands of undiscovered plant species face extinction.
Potatoes May Power The Batteries Of The Future.
Researchers design more reliable invisibility cloak.
Plastic Bags Into Power?
Electric Vehicle Preview: 526-horsepower Mercedes-Benz SLS E-Cell.
'Regenerated lung tissue implanted in rat'.
At German Airports, Bees Help Monitor Air Quality.
‘Programmable matter’ may shape future tools.
Beetle-Inspired Bottle Harvests Drinking Water From Thin Air.
Green machine: A salty solution for power generation.
ANCIENT HISTORY:
Separation between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens might have occurred 500,000 years earlier.
How our species owes its success to religion.
Respect Your Elders, Human!
PHYSICS / SPACE:
Every black hole may hold a hidden universe.
MIND:
Science historian cracks the 'Plato code'.
Ecstasy may help trauma victims.
LIFE:
Plants 'can think and remember'.
Thousands of undiscovered plant species face extinction.
fredag den 11. juni 2010
Brain Food June
ANCIENT HISTORY:
Mystery seafaring ancestor found in the Philippines.
Crocodile and Hippopotamus Served as 'Brain Food' for Early Human Ancestors.
Some Like It Hot: Site of Human Evolution Was Scorching.
Sahara cave may hold clues to dawn of Egypt.
Skulls show New World was settled twice.
Pagan Antiquities Unearthed in Israel.
Ancient cave paintings found in Romania.
Turkmen capital is 8 thousand years old, archeologists say.
LIFE:
The real Avatar: Ocean bacteria act as 'Superorganism'.
Hormone that triggers love can also lead to war.
All Modern Life on Earth Derived from Common Ancestor.
A new view of fossils: The behavior of ancient life forms.
Sperm whale faeces 'helps oceans absorb CO2'.
Chimpanzees kill to win new territory.
AGRICULTURE:
The Story of Soil.
Fertile ground: The dark side of nitrogen.
From Seeds of Suicide to Seeds of Hope: Why Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide and How Can We Stop This Tragedy?
MIND:
The God Chemical: Brain Chemistry And Mysticism.
Psychologist Says Antidepressants Are Just Fancy Placebos.
Coffee Consumption Unrelated to Alertness: Stimulating Effects May Be Illusion.
Relaxed people 'heal twice as quickly'.
Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution.
TECH:
Finally! 3D Without the Glasses.
Scientists take first steps in growing working livers.
Solar plane set for night flight.
Researchers Develop 90% More Efficient Air Conditioning!
You Want Range? Mid-East Electric Vehicle Promises 2,236 Miles.
Building organs block by block.
UAE Announces Plans for World's Largest Solar Plant.
Noninvasive Ultrasound Pulses Could Treat Neuro Disorders, Enhance Cognitive Function.
EU sees solar power imported from Sahara in 5 yrs.
Highly Efficient Solar Cells Could Result from Quantum Dot Research.
MIT Uses Carbon Nanotubes to Boost Lithium Battery Power 10x
New tech moves beyond the mouse, keyboard and screen.
Mystery seafaring ancestor found in the Philippines.
Crocodile and Hippopotamus Served as 'Brain Food' for Early Human Ancestors.
Some Like It Hot: Site of Human Evolution Was Scorching.
Sahara cave may hold clues to dawn of Egypt.
Skulls show New World was settled twice.
Pagan Antiquities Unearthed in Israel.
Ancient cave paintings found in Romania.
Turkmen capital is 8 thousand years old, archeologists say.
LIFE:
The real Avatar: Ocean bacteria act as 'Superorganism'.
Hormone that triggers love can also lead to war.
All Modern Life on Earth Derived from Common Ancestor.
A new view of fossils: The behavior of ancient life forms.
Sperm whale faeces 'helps oceans absorb CO2'.
Chimpanzees kill to win new territory.
AGRICULTURE:
The Story of Soil.
Fertile ground: The dark side of nitrogen.
From Seeds of Suicide to Seeds of Hope: Why Are Indian Farmers Committing Suicide and How Can We Stop This Tragedy?
MIND:
The God Chemical: Brain Chemistry And Mysticism.
Psychologist Says Antidepressants Are Just Fancy Placebos.
Coffee Consumption Unrelated to Alertness: Stimulating Effects May Be Illusion.
Relaxed people 'heal twice as quickly'.
Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution.
TECH:
Finally! 3D Without the Glasses.
Scientists take first steps in growing working livers.
Solar plane set for night flight.
Researchers Develop 90% More Efficient Air Conditioning!
You Want Range? Mid-East Electric Vehicle Promises 2,236 Miles.
Building organs block by block.
UAE Announces Plans for World's Largest Solar Plant.
Noninvasive Ultrasound Pulses Could Treat Neuro Disorders, Enhance Cognitive Function.
EU sees solar power imported from Sahara in 5 yrs.
Highly Efficient Solar Cells Could Result from Quantum Dot Research.
MIT Uses Carbon Nanotubes to Boost Lithium Battery Power 10x
New tech moves beyond the mouse, keyboard and screen.
torsdag den 4. marts 2010
MASSEFÆNGSLINGER.
Udvikling i USA
Army National Guard Advertises for “Internment Specialists”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8801
Sammenlignende site.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190
Kina / Laogai [genopdragelses- og arbejdslejre]:
Wikipedia-article
Human Righs Watch: Reeducation through Labour in China.
USA – Current developments.
HISTORISK RELEVANTE ARTIKLER OG LINKS.
Colonial Burma’s prison: continuity with its pre-colonial past?
“The practice of confining convicted criminals in prison for a stipulated period of time – to punish or reform – is a modern western innovation. Pentonville in north London, opened in 1842 and said to be the first modern prison, had four wings radiating from a central hub from which guards could observe every cell, each holding a single prisoner. The ‘modern’ prison then became one of many western innovations (including the railway, scientific medicine and the filing cabinet) transported to the colonial world from the mid-19th century.”
http://www.iias.nl/nl/39/IIAS_NL39_05.pdf
Koncentrationslejrenes opståen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps
Gulag:
Katorga. Precursor to the Gulag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Prisoner_of_War_Camps.pdf
Reconcentrados:
http://chss.montclair.edu/witness/Reconcentrados.html
http://www.historyofcuba.com/gallery/gal10.htm
US Citizen Isolation Camps: A Conservative Hails FDR’s Concentration Camps
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory31.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
The Ideological Uses of Japanese-Americans in U.S. Concentration Camps:
http://www.paradigme.com/sources/SOURCES-PDF/Pages%20de%20Sources04-1-3.pdf
The Civil War Concentration Camps:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html
FRANSK KOLONIALISME / IMPERIALISME
The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam.
Description: Peter Zinoman's original and insightful study focuses on the colonial prison system in French Indochina and its role in fostering modern political consciousness among the Vietnamese. Using prison memoirs, newspaper articles, and extensive archival records, Zinoman presents a wealth of significant new information to document how colonial prisons, rather than quelling political dissent and maintaining order, instead became institutions that promoted nationalism and revolutionary education.
Excerpt.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8991/8991.ch01.pdf
Udvikling i USA
Army National Guard Advertises for “Internment Specialists”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8801
Sammenlignende site.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190
Kina / Laogai [genopdragelses- og arbejdslejre]:
Wikipedia-article
Human Righs Watch: Reeducation through Labour in China.
USA – Current developments.
HISTORISK RELEVANTE ARTIKLER OG LINKS.
Colonial Burma’s prison: continuity with its pre-colonial past?
“The practice of confining convicted criminals in prison for a stipulated period of time – to punish or reform – is a modern western innovation. Pentonville in north London, opened in 1842 and said to be the first modern prison, had four wings radiating from a central hub from which guards could observe every cell, each holding a single prisoner. The ‘modern’ prison then became one of many western innovations (including the railway, scientific medicine and the filing cabinet) transported to the colonial world from the mid-19th century.”
http://www.iias.nl/nl/39/IIAS_NL39_05.pdf
Koncentrationslejrenes opståen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps
Gulag:
Katorga. Precursor to the Gulag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Prisoner_of_War_Camps.pdf
Reconcentrados:
http://chss.montclair.edu/witness/Reconcentrados.html
http://www.historyofcuba.com/gallery/gal10.htm
US Citizen Isolation Camps: A Conservative Hails FDR’s Concentration Camps
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory31.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
The Ideological Uses of Japanese-Americans in U.S. Concentration Camps:
http://www.paradigme.com/sources/SOURCES-PDF/Pages%20de%20Sources04-1-3.pdf
The Civil War Concentration Camps:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html
FRANSK KOLONIALISME / IMPERIALISME
The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam.
Description: Peter Zinoman's original and insightful study focuses on the colonial prison system in French Indochina and its role in fostering modern political consciousness among the Vietnamese. Using prison memoirs, newspaper articles, and extensive archival records, Zinoman presents a wealth of significant new information to document how colonial prisons, rather than quelling political dissent and maintaining order, instead became institutions that promoted nationalism and revolutionary education.
Excerpt.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8991/8991.ch01.pdf
onsdag den 3. marts 2010
Neurofood 2010
WEEK NINE.
Sean Carroll on the arrow of time.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html
Freethinking About Finances.
http://nobeliefs.com/finances.htm
Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution
http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html
NATURAL BUILDING: Idustrial-Strength Fungus.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1957474,00.html
Center For Cognitive Liberty and Ethics on Drug Policy
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/faqs/faq_drugpolicy.htm
US Waves White Flagin Disastrous 'War on Drugs'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html
Indra's Net: Alchemy and Chaos Theory as Templates for Transformation
http://www.realitysandwich.com/indras_net_alchemy_transformation
America, the fragile empire
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferguson28-2010feb28,0,7706980.story
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece
Sean Carroll on the arrow of time.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html
Freethinking About Finances.
http://nobeliefs.com/finances.htm
Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution
http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html
NATURAL BUILDING: Idustrial-Strength Fungus.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1957474,00.html
Center For Cognitive Liberty and Ethics on Drug Policy
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/faqs/faq_drugpolicy.htm
US Waves White Flagin Disastrous 'War on Drugs'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html
Indra's Net: Alchemy and Chaos Theory as Templates for Transformation
http://www.realitysandwich.com/indras_net_alchemy_transformation
America, the fragile empire
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferguson28-2010feb28,0,7706980.story
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece
søndag den 14. februar 2010
Relevante Links..
Links til artikler.
Arbejderen: 14-årige i sikringscelle Forslaget om at sænke den kriminelle lavalder til 14 år er en politisk beslutning, fastslår Venstre - men eksperter står i kø for at advare.
Arbejderen: Politiet anklages efter ransagninger.
Arbejderen: 14-årige i sikringscelle Forslaget om at sænke den kriminelle lavalder til 14 år er en politisk beslutning, fastslår Venstre - men eksperter står i kø for at advare.
Arbejderen: Politiet anklages efter ransagninger.
torsdag den 11. februar 2010
Globalization Is Killing The Globe: Return to Local Economies
By Thom Hartmann
February 10, 2010 "Huffington Post" -- Globalization is killing Europe, just as it's already wiped out much of the American middle class.
Spain and Greece are facing immediate crises that many other European nations see on the near horizon: aging boomer workers are retiring with healthy benefit packages, but the younger workers who are paying for those benefits aren't making anything close to the income (or, therefore, paying the taxes) that their parents did.
Globalists/corporatists/conservative "free market" and "flat earth" advocates say this is a great opportunity to cut benefits for the old folks (and for the young folks in the future), thus bringing the countries budgets back into balance, and this story is the main corporate media storyline.
But it overlooks the real issue (and the real solution): how globalization is killing these nations' economies and what can be done about it.
From the days of Adam Smith, classical economics pointed out that manufacturing and extraction are the only two ways to "create wealth."
"Wealth" is different from "income." Wealth is value, which endures at least for some time. Income is simply compensation for work. If you wash my car for $10 and I mow your lawn for $10, we have a GDP of $20 and it looks like we both have income and economic activity. But no wealth has been created, just income.
On the other hand, if I build your car, I'm creating something of value. And if you turn my lawn into a small farm that produces food we can all eat, you're creating something of value. Not only do we have an "economy" with a "GDP," we also have created wealth.
A stick on the ground has no commercial value, but if you add labor to it by carving it into an axe handle -- a thing of commercial value -- you have "created wealth." Similarly, metals in the ground have no commercial value, but when you add labor to them by extracting, refining, and forming them into products, you "create wealth." Even turning seeds and dirt and cows into hamburgers is a form of manufacturing and creates wealth.
This is the "Wealth of Nations" that titled Adam Smith's famous 1776 book.
On the other hand, when a trader at Goldman Sachs makes a "profit" trading stocks, bonds, or currencies, no wealth whatsoever is created. In fact, to the extent that that trader takes millions in commissions, pay, and bonuses, he's actually depleting the wealth of the nation (particularly to the extent that he moves his money offshore to save or invest, as many do).
To use the United States as an example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s manufacturing accounted for a high of 28 percent of our total gross domestic product (and much of the rest of the economy like agriculture that, in a classical sense is "manufacturing" wasn't even included in those numbers), and when Reagan came into office it was at a strong 20 percent. Today it's about ten percent of our GDP.
What this means is that we're creating less wealth here, because we're not making much anymore. (And the biggest growth in American manufacturing has been in the military sector, where goods are made that are then destroyed when they explode over foreign cities, causing even more of our wealth to vanish.)
The main effect of the globalism fad of the past 30 yearrs -- lowering the protective barriers to trade that countries for centuries have used to make sure their own local economies are self-sufficient -- has been to ship manufacturing (the creation of wealth) from developed nations to developing nations. Transnational corporations love this, because in countries with lower labor costs and few environmental and safety regulations, it's more profitable to manufacture products. They then sell those products in the "mature" countries -- the places that used to manufacture -- and people burn through the wealth they'd accumulated in the earlier manufacturing days (home equity, principally, along with savings and lines of credit) to buy these foreign-manufactured goods.
At first, it looks like a good deal to consumers in developed nations. Goods are cheaper! But over a decade or two or three, as the creation of real wealth is reduced and the residue of the old wealth is spent, the developed nations become progressively poorer and poorer. At the same time, the "developing" nations become wealthier -- because those are the places that are producing real wealth.
Which brings us to Spain and Greece -- and the problem of all developed nations including the USA. So long as globalism continues apace, the transnational corporations and their CEOs will continue to become fabulously wealthy. But, more importantly, they also acquire the political power that comes with that control of economies.
So they tell us that instead of putting back into place tariffs, domestic content laws, and other "protectionist" policies that built America from the time the were first proposed by Alexander Hamilton in 1791 (and largely adopted by Congress in 1793) until they were dismantled by Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, we should instead simple "accept the reality" that we're "living beyond our means" and we have to "cut back our wages and social programs."
In other words, they get richer, our nations become poorer, and national sovereignty is reduced.
Nations -- and in large countries like the USA, even states -- must again rebuild their manufacturing base and become locally self-sufficient, so their own consumers are buying products manufactured by their own workers.
"But won't that make Wal-Mart's stuff more expensive?" whine the flat-earthers.
Yes, it will. But most Americans (and Greeks and Spaniards) would gladly pay 10 percent more for the goods in their stores if their paychecks were 20 percent higher. And manufacturing paychecks have always been higher, because manufacturing is where "true wealth" is generated (thus the basis for most union movements, which further guarantee healthy worker income and benefits).
The transnational corporations benefiting from globalization are also, in most cases, the transnational corporations that own our media, so even the word globalization is rarely heard in reports on economic crises around the world.
But globalization is the villain here, and one that needs to be taken in hand and brought under control quickly if we don't want to see virtually the nations of the world end up subservient to corporate control, a new form of an ancient economic system known as feudalism.
February 10, 2010 "Huffington Post" -- Globalization is killing Europe, just as it's already wiped out much of the American middle class.
Spain and Greece are facing immediate crises that many other European nations see on the near horizon: aging boomer workers are retiring with healthy benefit packages, but the younger workers who are paying for those benefits aren't making anything close to the income (or, therefore, paying the taxes) that their parents did.
Globalists/corporatists/conservative "free market" and "flat earth" advocates say this is a great opportunity to cut benefits for the old folks (and for the young folks in the future), thus bringing the countries budgets back into balance, and this story is the main corporate media storyline.
But it overlooks the real issue (and the real solution): how globalization is killing these nations' economies and what can be done about it.
From the days of Adam Smith, classical economics pointed out that manufacturing and extraction are the only two ways to "create wealth."
"Wealth" is different from "income." Wealth is value, which endures at least for some time. Income is simply compensation for work. If you wash my car for $10 and I mow your lawn for $10, we have a GDP of $20 and it looks like we both have income and economic activity. But no wealth has been created, just income.
On the other hand, if I build your car, I'm creating something of value. And if you turn my lawn into a small farm that produces food we can all eat, you're creating something of value. Not only do we have an "economy" with a "GDP," we also have created wealth.
A stick on the ground has no commercial value, but if you add labor to it by carving it into an axe handle -- a thing of commercial value -- you have "created wealth." Similarly, metals in the ground have no commercial value, but when you add labor to them by extracting, refining, and forming them into products, you "create wealth." Even turning seeds and dirt and cows into hamburgers is a form of manufacturing and creates wealth.
This is the "Wealth of Nations" that titled Adam Smith's famous 1776 book.
On the other hand, when a trader at Goldman Sachs makes a "profit" trading stocks, bonds, or currencies, no wealth whatsoever is created. In fact, to the extent that that trader takes millions in commissions, pay, and bonuses, he's actually depleting the wealth of the nation (particularly to the extent that he moves his money offshore to save or invest, as many do).
To use the United States as an example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s manufacturing accounted for a high of 28 percent of our total gross domestic product (and much of the rest of the economy like agriculture that, in a classical sense is "manufacturing" wasn't even included in those numbers), and when Reagan came into office it was at a strong 20 percent. Today it's about ten percent of our GDP.
What this means is that we're creating less wealth here, because we're not making much anymore. (And the biggest growth in American manufacturing has been in the military sector, where goods are made that are then destroyed when they explode over foreign cities, causing even more of our wealth to vanish.)
The main effect of the globalism fad of the past 30 yearrs -- lowering the protective barriers to trade that countries for centuries have used to make sure their own local economies are self-sufficient -- has been to ship manufacturing (the creation of wealth) from developed nations to developing nations. Transnational corporations love this, because in countries with lower labor costs and few environmental and safety regulations, it's more profitable to manufacture products. They then sell those products in the "mature" countries -- the places that used to manufacture -- and people burn through the wealth they'd accumulated in the earlier manufacturing days (home equity, principally, along with savings and lines of credit) to buy these foreign-manufactured goods.
At first, it looks like a good deal to consumers in developed nations. Goods are cheaper! But over a decade or two or three, as the creation of real wealth is reduced and the residue of the old wealth is spent, the developed nations become progressively poorer and poorer. At the same time, the "developing" nations become wealthier -- because those are the places that are producing real wealth.
Which brings us to Spain and Greece -- and the problem of all developed nations including the USA. So long as globalism continues apace, the transnational corporations and their CEOs will continue to become fabulously wealthy. But, more importantly, they also acquire the political power that comes with that control of economies.
So they tell us that instead of putting back into place tariffs, domestic content laws, and other "protectionist" policies that built America from the time the were first proposed by Alexander Hamilton in 1791 (and largely adopted by Congress in 1793) until they were dismantled by Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, we should instead simple "accept the reality" that we're "living beyond our means" and we have to "cut back our wages and social programs."
In other words, they get richer, our nations become poorer, and national sovereignty is reduced.
Nations -- and in large countries like the USA, even states -- must again rebuild their manufacturing base and become locally self-sufficient, so their own consumers are buying products manufactured by their own workers.
"But won't that make Wal-Mart's stuff more expensive?" whine the flat-earthers.
Yes, it will. But most Americans (and Greeks and Spaniards) would gladly pay 10 percent more for the goods in their stores if their paychecks were 20 percent higher. And manufacturing paychecks have always been higher, because manufacturing is where "true wealth" is generated (thus the basis for most union movements, which further guarantee healthy worker income and benefits).
The transnational corporations benefiting from globalization are also, in most cases, the transnational corporations that own our media, so even the word globalization is rarely heard in reports on economic crises around the world.
But globalization is the villain here, and one that needs to be taken in hand and brought under control quickly if we don't want to see virtually the nations of the world end up subservient to corporate control, a new form of an ancient economic system known as feudalism.
onsdag den 10. februar 2010
Degrowth economics: Why less should be so much more
by Serge Latouche
Last December we published an article about contraction economics - décroissance or ’degrowth’- a topic that has become a major subject of debate, not just within the counter-globalisation movement but in the wider world. The big question is: how should ’degrowth’ apply to the South?
THE logic of advertising so dominates the media that it views anything new - material, cultural or otherwise - as a product launch. And in any product launch, the key word is concept. So as discussion of décroissance (literally "degrowth", that is economic contraction or downscaling) spread, the media naturally started to ask what was the concept. We are sorry to disappoint the media, but degrowth is not a concept. There is no theory of contraction equivalent to the growth theories of economics. Degrowth is just a term created by radical critics of growth theory to free everybody from the economic correctness that prevents us from proposing alternative projects for post-development politics.
In fact degrowth is not a concrete project but a keyword. Society has been locked into thought dominated by progressivist growth economics; the tyranny of these has made imaginative thinking outside the box impossible. The idea of a contraction-based society is just a way to provoke thought about alternatives. To accuse its advocates of only wanting to see economies contract within the existing system rather than proposing an alternative to that system, and to suspect them (as do some counter-globalisation economists) of wanting to prevent the underdeveloped world from resolving its problems reflects at best ignorance and at worst bad faith.
Proponents of contraction want to create integrated, self-sufficient and materially responsible societies in both the North and the South. It might be more accurate and less alarming if we replaced the word degrowth with "non-growth". We could then start talking about "a-growthism", as in "a-theism". After all, rejecting the current economic orthodoxy means abandoning a faith system, a religion. To achieve this, we need doggedly and rigorously to deconstruct the matter of development. The term "development" has been redefined and qualified so much that it has become meaningless. Yet despite its failings, this magical concept continues to command total devotion across the political spectrum. The doctrines of "economism" (1), in which growth is the ultimate good, die hard. Even counter-globalisation economists are in a paradoxical position: they acknowledge the harm that growth has done but continue to speak of enabling Southern countries to benefit from it. In the North the furthest they are prepared to go is to advocate slowing down growth. An increasing number of anti-globalisation activists now concede that growth as we have known it is both unsustainable and harmful, socially as well as ecologically. Yet they have little confidence in degrowth as a guiding principle: the South, deprived of development, cannot be denied at least a period of growth, although it may cause problems.
The result is a stalemate where neither growth nor contraction suit. The proposed compromise of growth slowdown follows the tradition in these debates in that it lets everyone agree on a misunderstanding. Forcing our economies to grow more slowly will never deliver the benefits of a society free from constant growth (that is, being materially responsible, fully integrated and self-sufficient) but it will hurt employment, which has been the one undeniable advantage of rapid, inequitable and environmentally catastrophic expansion. To understand why the creation of a non-growth society is so necessary and so desirable for North and South, we must examine the history of the idea. The proposal for a self-sufficient and materially responsible society is not new; it is part of the tradition of development criticism. For more than 40 years an international group of commentators had analysed economic development in the South and denounced the harm it has done (2). These commentators do not just address recent capitalist or ultra-liberal development: for example, they have considered Houari Boumediene’s Algeria and Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania, which were both officially socialist, participatory, self-reliant and based on popular solidarity. And they have also noted that development has often been carried out or supported by charitable, humanist NGOs. Yet apart from a few scattered success stories, it has been an overwhelming failure. What was supposed to bring contentment to everyone in every aspect of life led only to corruption, confusion and structural adjustment plans that turned poverty into destitution.
Degrowth must apply to the South as much as to the North if there is to be any chance to stop Southern societies from rushing up the blind alley of growth economics. Where there is still time, they should aim not for development but for disentanglement - removing the obstacles that prevent them from developing differently. This does not mean a return to an idealised version of an informal economy - nothing can be expected to change in the South if the North does not adopt some form of economic contraction. As long as hungry Ethiopia and Somalia still have to export feedstuffs destined for pet animals in the North, and the meat we eat is raised on soya from the razed Amazon rainforest, our excessive consumption smothers any chance of real self-sufficiency in the South (3).
If the South is to attempt to create non-growth societies, it must rethink and re-localise. Southern countries need to escape from their economic and cultural dependence on the North and rediscover their own histories - interrupted by colonialism, development and globalisation - to establish distinct indigenous cultural identities. The cultural histories of many societies reveal inherently anti-economistic values. These need to be revived, along with rejected or forgotten products and traditional crafts and skills. Insisting on growth in the South, as though it were the only way out of the misery that growth created, can only lead to further westernisation. Development proposals are often born of genuine goodwill - we want to build schools and health clinics, set up water distribution systems, restore self-sufficiency in food - but they all share the ethnocentrism bound up with the idea of development. Ask the governments of countries what they want, or study surveys of populations duped by the media, and they do not ask for the schools and clinics that western paternalism considers fundamental needs. They want air conditioning, mobile phones, fridges and, above all, cars (Volkswagen and General Motors are planning to start producing 3m vehicles a year in China, and Peugeot is also investing heavily there). For the benefit of their governing elites, we might also add nuclear power stations, fighter jets and tanks to the wish list.
Or we could listen to the exasperated Guatemalan leader cited by Alain Gras (4): "Leave the poor alone and stop going on about development!" All the leaders of popular movements, from Vandana Shiva in India to Emmanuel Ndione in Senegal, say the same thing. Advocates of development may pontificate about the need to restore self-sufficiency in food; but the terms they use prove that there was self-sufficiency and that it has been lost. Africa was self-sufficient in food until the 1960s when the great wave of development began. Imperialism, growth economics and globalisation destroyed that self-sufficiency and make African societies more dependent by the day. Water may not have come out of a tap in the past, but most of it was drinkable until industrial waste arrived to pollute it.
Are schools and clinics really the right ways to achieve and maintain good standards of education and health? The great polemicist and social thinker Ivan Illich (1926-2002) had serious doubts about their effectiveness, even in the North (5). As the Iranian economist Majid Rahnema puts it, "What we call aid money serves only to strengthen the structures that generate poverty. Aid money never reaches those victims who, having lost their real assets, look for alternative ways of life outside the globalised system of production which are better suited to their needs" (6).
There is no prospect of just returning to the old ways - no more than there is a universal model of progress on contraction or non-growth lines. Those millions for whom development has meant only poverty and exclusion are left with a weak mixture of lost tradition and unaffordable modernity, a paradox that sums up the double challenge that they face. But we should not underestimate the strength of our social and cultural achievements: once human creativity and ingenuity have been freed from the bonds of economism and development-mania, there is every reason to believe that they can tackle the task.
Different societies have different views of the shared basic aim of a good life. If we must give it a name, it could beumran (thriving or flourishing), as used by the Arab historian and philosopher Ibn Kaldûn (1332-1406); Gandhi’s swadeshi-sarvodaya (self-sufficiency and welfare); bamtaare (shared well-being) in the language of the West African Toucouleurs; or fidnaa/gabbina (the shine of someone who is well-fed and free of all worry) in the vocabulary of Ethiopia’s Borana people (7). What really matters is that we reject continuing destruction in the name of development. The fresh and original alternatives springing up point the way towards a successful post-development society.
However, neither North nor South will overcome their addiction to growth without a collective and comprehensive detoxification programme. The growth doctrine is like a disease and a drug. As Rahnema says, Homo economicus had two strategies for taking over virgin territories: one operated like HIV, the other like a drug pusher (8). Growth economics, like HIV, destroys societies’ immune systems against social ills. And growth needs a constant supply of new markets to survive so, like a drug dealer, it deliberately creates needs and dependencies that did not exist before. The fact that the dealers in the supply chain, mainly transnational corporations, benefit so much from our addiction will make it difficult to overcome. But our ever-increasing consumption is not sustainable; sooner or later we will have to give it up.
Le Monde Diplomatique November 2004
Last December we published an article about contraction economics - décroissance or ’degrowth’- a topic that has become a major subject of debate, not just within the counter-globalisation movement but in the wider world. The big question is: how should ’degrowth’ apply to the South?
THE logic of advertising so dominates the media that it views anything new - material, cultural or otherwise - as a product launch. And in any product launch, the key word is concept. So as discussion of décroissance (literally "degrowth", that is economic contraction or downscaling) spread, the media naturally started to ask what was the concept. We are sorry to disappoint the media, but degrowth is not a concept. There is no theory of contraction equivalent to the growth theories of economics. Degrowth is just a term created by radical critics of growth theory to free everybody from the economic correctness that prevents us from proposing alternative projects for post-development politics.
In fact degrowth is not a concrete project but a keyword. Society has been locked into thought dominated by progressivist growth economics; the tyranny of these has made imaginative thinking outside the box impossible. The idea of a contraction-based society is just a way to provoke thought about alternatives. To accuse its advocates of only wanting to see economies contract within the existing system rather than proposing an alternative to that system, and to suspect them (as do some counter-globalisation economists) of wanting to prevent the underdeveloped world from resolving its problems reflects at best ignorance and at worst bad faith.
Proponents of contraction want to create integrated, self-sufficient and materially responsible societies in both the North and the South. It might be more accurate and less alarming if we replaced the word degrowth with "non-growth". We could then start talking about "a-growthism", as in "a-theism". After all, rejecting the current economic orthodoxy means abandoning a faith system, a religion. To achieve this, we need doggedly and rigorously to deconstruct the matter of development. The term "development" has been redefined and qualified so much that it has become meaningless. Yet despite its failings, this magical concept continues to command total devotion across the political spectrum. The doctrines of "economism" (1), in which growth is the ultimate good, die hard. Even counter-globalisation economists are in a paradoxical position: they acknowledge the harm that growth has done but continue to speak of enabling Southern countries to benefit from it. In the North the furthest they are prepared to go is to advocate slowing down growth. An increasing number of anti-globalisation activists now concede that growth as we have known it is both unsustainable and harmful, socially as well as ecologically. Yet they have little confidence in degrowth as a guiding principle: the South, deprived of development, cannot be denied at least a period of growth, although it may cause problems.
The result is a stalemate where neither growth nor contraction suit. The proposed compromise of growth slowdown follows the tradition in these debates in that it lets everyone agree on a misunderstanding. Forcing our economies to grow more slowly will never deliver the benefits of a society free from constant growth (that is, being materially responsible, fully integrated and self-sufficient) but it will hurt employment, which has been the one undeniable advantage of rapid, inequitable and environmentally catastrophic expansion. To understand why the creation of a non-growth society is so necessary and so desirable for North and South, we must examine the history of the idea. The proposal for a self-sufficient and materially responsible society is not new; it is part of the tradition of development criticism. For more than 40 years an international group of commentators had analysed economic development in the South and denounced the harm it has done (2). These commentators do not just address recent capitalist or ultra-liberal development: for example, they have considered Houari Boumediene’s Algeria and Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania, which were both officially socialist, participatory, self-reliant and based on popular solidarity. And they have also noted that development has often been carried out or supported by charitable, humanist NGOs. Yet apart from a few scattered success stories, it has been an overwhelming failure. What was supposed to bring contentment to everyone in every aspect of life led only to corruption, confusion and structural adjustment plans that turned poverty into destitution.
Degrowth must apply to the South as much as to the North if there is to be any chance to stop Southern societies from rushing up the blind alley of growth economics. Where there is still time, they should aim not for development but for disentanglement - removing the obstacles that prevent them from developing differently. This does not mean a return to an idealised version of an informal economy - nothing can be expected to change in the South if the North does not adopt some form of economic contraction. As long as hungry Ethiopia and Somalia still have to export feedstuffs destined for pet animals in the North, and the meat we eat is raised on soya from the razed Amazon rainforest, our excessive consumption smothers any chance of real self-sufficiency in the South (3).
If the South is to attempt to create non-growth societies, it must rethink and re-localise. Southern countries need to escape from their economic and cultural dependence on the North and rediscover their own histories - interrupted by colonialism, development and globalisation - to establish distinct indigenous cultural identities. The cultural histories of many societies reveal inherently anti-economistic values. These need to be revived, along with rejected or forgotten products and traditional crafts and skills. Insisting on growth in the South, as though it were the only way out of the misery that growth created, can only lead to further westernisation. Development proposals are often born of genuine goodwill - we want to build schools and health clinics, set up water distribution systems, restore self-sufficiency in food - but they all share the ethnocentrism bound up with the idea of development. Ask the governments of countries what they want, or study surveys of populations duped by the media, and they do not ask for the schools and clinics that western paternalism considers fundamental needs. They want air conditioning, mobile phones, fridges and, above all, cars (Volkswagen and General Motors are planning to start producing 3m vehicles a year in China, and Peugeot is also investing heavily there). For the benefit of their governing elites, we might also add nuclear power stations, fighter jets and tanks to the wish list.
Or we could listen to the exasperated Guatemalan leader cited by Alain Gras (4): "Leave the poor alone and stop going on about development!" All the leaders of popular movements, from Vandana Shiva in India to Emmanuel Ndione in Senegal, say the same thing. Advocates of development may pontificate about the need to restore self-sufficiency in food; but the terms they use prove that there was self-sufficiency and that it has been lost. Africa was self-sufficient in food until the 1960s when the great wave of development began. Imperialism, growth economics and globalisation destroyed that self-sufficiency and make African societies more dependent by the day. Water may not have come out of a tap in the past, but most of it was drinkable until industrial waste arrived to pollute it.
Are schools and clinics really the right ways to achieve and maintain good standards of education and health? The great polemicist and social thinker Ivan Illich (1926-2002) had serious doubts about their effectiveness, even in the North (5). As the Iranian economist Majid Rahnema puts it, "What we call aid money serves only to strengthen the structures that generate poverty. Aid money never reaches those victims who, having lost their real assets, look for alternative ways of life outside the globalised system of production which are better suited to their needs" (6).
There is no prospect of just returning to the old ways - no more than there is a universal model of progress on contraction or non-growth lines. Those millions for whom development has meant only poverty and exclusion are left with a weak mixture of lost tradition and unaffordable modernity, a paradox that sums up the double challenge that they face. But we should not underestimate the strength of our social and cultural achievements: once human creativity and ingenuity have been freed from the bonds of economism and development-mania, there is every reason to believe that they can tackle the task.
Different societies have different views of the shared basic aim of a good life. If we must give it a name, it could beumran (thriving or flourishing), as used by the Arab historian and philosopher Ibn Kaldûn (1332-1406); Gandhi’s swadeshi-sarvodaya (self-sufficiency and welfare); bamtaare (shared well-being) in the language of the West African Toucouleurs; or fidnaa/gabbina (the shine of someone who is well-fed and free of all worry) in the vocabulary of Ethiopia’s Borana people (7). What really matters is that we reject continuing destruction in the name of development. The fresh and original alternatives springing up point the way towards a successful post-development society.
However, neither North nor South will overcome their addiction to growth without a collective and comprehensive detoxification programme. The growth doctrine is like a disease and a drug. As Rahnema says, Homo economicus had two strategies for taking over virgin territories: one operated like HIV, the other like a drug pusher (8). Growth economics, like HIV, destroys societies’ immune systems against social ills. And growth needs a constant supply of new markets to survive so, like a drug dealer, it deliberately creates needs and dependencies that did not exist before. The fact that the dealers in the supply chain, mainly transnational corporations, benefit so much from our addiction will make it difficult to overcome. But our ever-increasing consumption is not sustainable; sooner or later we will have to give it up.
Le Monde Diplomatique November 2004
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)