The Polemical Report

Libyan intervention: Venal leaders exploit good intentions and prop-up bloody regimes

2011-05-03T02:26:00.002+01:00

Image Courtesy of B.R.Q

The humanitarian case for intervening in Libya is well-stated – Libyan rebels faced an inevitable massacre. Yet, the humanitarian justification runs counter to recent, and ongoing, international activities of the intervening coalition. The continued support for authoritarian regimes within the region poses an unsettling (if not unfamiliar) juxtaposition with the moralistic rhetoric.

"[W]henever and wherever violence is used against peaceful demonstrators, we must not hesitate to condemn it." David Cameron - UK Prime Minister

Regrettably, the actions commissioned by leaders of coalition nations belie the noble sentiments David Cameron glibly expressed. It is a cynical deceit. Clear and honourable sentiments designed to beguile the electorate and obscure deplorable deeds. The quote itself is from a speech Cameron gave in Kuwait whilst touring the Middle East marketing UK arms to oppressive regimes.

Much of the coalition’s international activities have proven to be supportive of counter-revolutionary authoritarian regimes; Constantly denying the human rights abuses of client states, funding torture, and supporting the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. With the exception of Libya, the response to the uprisings has been to support favoured leaders. Cameron encouraged weapon sales, Obama kept funds flowing, and Sarkozy increased ‘defence’ funding for Tunisia. If the position becomes untenable, the coalition members (reluctantly) distance themselves, and urge the untenable leader to step down whilst continuing to support the regime. The figurehead changes, but the regime and unpopular policies endure.

The approach to Libya is different. Whilst it is true that relations with Gaddafi greatly improved (in some instances, quite markedly) during the 2000s, and that oil companies were the main beneficiaries, improving oil networks and dominating markets, Gaddafi was not subservient enough for the coalition’s liking. Gaddafi had long since created political conditions fit for revolution, which coalition leaders eagerly exploited in order to re-orientate Libyan polity more favourably to coalition interests. Gaddafi was too unreliable, regulations and agreements too uncertain, and resources too valuable. Gaddafi had to go.

Intervention began by arming Libyan rebels through Saudi proxies, and the subsequent agreement to the use of Saudi troops in Bahrain secured Saudi support for intervention in Libya. Despite claiming great concern for human rights and support for democracy the coalition are supporting counter-revolutionary regimes and downplaying the significance of brutal oppression. (Conveniently, for the coalition, as media attention focuses on conflict, coverage of atrocities elsewhere has been inconspicuous). Client states, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and Yemen, have bloodily cracked down protests with the continued support of coalition members.

Even if the unpalatable realities of dirty deals could be dismissed as the acceptable consequences of engaging in Realpolitik, the unpredictable long-term consequences will inevitably bare greater significance. The composition of the rebellion demands closer inspection for the reason that should the rebellion succeed (to one extent or another) they shall have considerable impact on the future of Libya and beyond.

The rebels initial advance was characterised by indiscipline, overconfidence and overreaching. Little has changed. Inexperienced, poor communication structures and utilising child soldiers, they are ill equipped to battle their professional adversaries. Whilst the figureheads appear a palatable enough assembly of human rights lawyers, much of the self-appointed rebel leadership is made-up of men with murky pasts. Pepe Escobar neatly summed up the composition as a ‘mixed bag of former Gaddafi loyalists, dodgy exiles, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis, business opportunists and true youthful revolutionaries.’

Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu, once considered an extremist, detained in Guantánamo Bay, transferred to Libya, is now ‘a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.’ Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi (or Abdul Hakeen al-Hassadi) ‘fought against the US in Afghanistan, was arrested in Pakistan, imprisoned probably at Bagram, Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released’ now leads the rebel Darnah Brigade. Colonel Khalifa Haftar, ‘former commander of the Libyan army in Chad who was captured and changed sides in 1988, setting up the anti-Gaddafi Libyan National Army reportedly with CIA and Saudi backing.’ ‘For 20 years, Colonel Haftar has lived not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.’

Not only do the rebels lack coherence as a group, the pattern of extremist to detainee then ally is worryingly familiar. (As are the tired deceptions regarding the denial of civilian casualties.)

The no fly zone permitted by U.N. Resolution 1973 to protect civilians offers insufficient scope for the coalition to fulfil their objective – a servile state. Mission creep is inevitable. Gaddafi’s forces have proved themselves ruthless tacticians; in response to the enforcement of the no fly zone, they adopted light armour guerrilla tactics. The result has been that coalition pilots fly around ineffectively whilst rebels and civilians suffer growing casualties.

The future for Libyans looks bleak; continued conflict, more drones, and a decline in living standards [pdf]. It is not enough to point at egregiousness and call for intervention. The long term and the cost of compromises must be considered. Our venal leaders are exploiting well-intentioned principles, propping-up bloody regimes and allying themselves with sinister bedfellows in expectation of healthy profits for national corporations.

13 months of injustice in Honduras

2010-07-27T02:00:00.000+01:00

Tomorrow marks 13 months since the Honduran coup.

A band of self-interested and corrupt political and military elites, with the tacit support of Senators, Congressmen, and the Obama administration, overthrew a legitimate president. The de-facto government deployed the military, and human rights abuses spiralled. Those involved in the coup were quickly granted amnesty. A sham 'election' was held and President “Pepe” Lobo was inaugurated. With politicians, activists, journalists, and protesters silenced through intimidation, detention, assault, and assassination, little dissension has been heard outside Honduras.

For more info: The Coup Is Not Over: Marking a Year of Resistance in Honduras

Another 'I'm not dead' notification

2010-07-26T12:00:00.004+01:00

Hello all,

It’s been quite a while since I posted anything meaningful, so I thought that I’d provide a heads up that I’ll be blowing the dust off the keyboard and blogging again soon.

Output, which has tended to be sporadic, will be even more so (so you might want to make use of The Polemical Report’s RSS feed).

In the mean time here are a bunch of links to stuff I found linkworthy.

2010-02-20T15:08:00.000Z

Please excuse the lack of blog posts; it’s been difficult to find time to blog of late. (I realise that this in itself has become somewhat of a recurrent theme – such an internet cliché). I hope to be back blogging sooner rather than later, but ‘the best laid plans of mice and men’ and all that.

Anyway, as always, in the absence of real output on The Polemical Report, I point in the direction of Alienated Left. For those of you that enjoy the social/ political cultural commentary type stuff that Phil BC (A Very Public Sociologist) does, you might well enjoy the offerings of Red Mike.

Uponnothing answers questions about blogging.

2009-12-31T16:44:00.001Z

Curious about the people behind the blogs and hungry for advice, I asked some of my favourite bloggers about blogging.

Second up, Uponnothing - Angry Mob - Twitter profile.

Pre-interview statement.

Before I start I’ll just point out that Angry Mob is currently ~~dead~~ [Update: back online] because I am transferring it to my own hosting company. The old hosts have been painfully slow in transferring the domain names across so everything is offline for the time being. I hope to have Angry Mob back up some time in January.

Who are you?

I’m nearly 28, work for an FE college as a Learning Advisor and am a qualified English Lecturer. I created Angry Mob back in February I think.

Briefly explain your blog.

My blog is an attempt to analyse some of the stories that the Tabloid media publish that are clearly lies or distortions. I attempt to point out the hatred, racism, homophobia and misogyny of the Tabloid Press and try to identify the consequences of this. I try to keep an eye on the people posting on Tabloid websites, because their ignorance and hatred is a direct reflection of the media diet that they consume (or at least they reinforce their views through their choice of media consumption).

Why did you start?

I used to run a political blog a couple of years ago, but i wasn’t really passionate enough about it to make it any kind of success. The readership didn’t really grow and as a result I turned my back on it and stopped blogging completely. After completing a PGCE in FE I changed jobs and suddenly I had access to the Daily Mail each day. After a few months reading it and being shocked at just what a hate-rag it was I began to notice that some of my colleagues were very influenced by it. They would get angry every morning and start ranting about immigrants, benefits and other issues which they really knew nothing about. I began to realise just how influential the Daily Mail was in forming opinions that had no bearing in reality and I began to look into the stories and Angry Mob began. It was largely for my own sanity.

What keeps you motivated?

Motivation is difficult, when you work full time, drive a 2 hour commute each day (imagine violins playing now) you can start to neglect logging onto the Mail website or digging through the print edition for stories to write about. However, sometimes reading the Mail website or paper really motivates you and makes it easy to write a post because sometimes the lies are so blatant that you don’t have to work hard to point them out.
Motivation is sometimes maintained by monitoring your reader stats, when you fail to update as frequently your readership suffers and you feel like you have to write more. Likewise, arbitrary measurements like Wikio ranking can sometimes motivate you as well. My aim was to get into top 300 on Wikio for the general category and this month I got up to 200. My overall rank with Total Politics was 203, which for such a new blog was pleasing. Such things shouldn’t really motivate me, but I have to admit they do a little bit because they find a competitive edge I didn’t really think I had.

If any, which other bloggers do you admire and why?

I admire many bloggers for what they write, and for how they help other bloggers get a wider readership. Tim Ireland in particular offered a lot of link support and traffic in the beginning and I really admire his work over at Bloggerheads because he is so persistent and thorough, you always get the feeling that he is writing with truth as his only goal – he is never concerned with being a crowd-pleasing writer, merely a recorder of truth in an age when the Mainstream Media and other high-ranking bloggers produce spin and guff. The Enemies of reason is another blog that gave me a lot of traffic and still does. It is always well-written in a humorous style, but thought-provoking at the same time. He has patiently waded through the tabloids for a long time and deserves every credit for still keeping the blog feeling fresh. TabloidWatch is a blog that started at a similar time to Angry Mob and has also gone from strength to strength because it’s always well researched and goes after a wider selection of Tabloids than Angry Mob. Quite how he manages to update the blog so frequently is beyond me, but he deserves his growing readership and he sends me a lot of traffic.
I also admire Five Chinese Crackers and Mailwatch – although Mailwatch is a collaboration of bloggers and not updated that often.

What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?

I don’t really use Blogger tools as I don’t use Blogger software. My site is run through Joomla 1.5 as when I started the site I wanted it to be a website, as opposed to a blog. To this end content was added not simply added to a frontpage (like a blog) but into different sections throughout the blog which had to be dug through by readers. However, because this was time consuming and I could not add enough content to justify a website, I have changed Angry Mob to become more like a blog, although I still maintain static content sections like The Daily Mail Dictionary and the Richard Littlejohn audit.

Excluding the home page, which have been the 5 most viewed pages on your blog? Do they represent a good place for a newcomer to your blog to start?

My most popular page ranked by views is the Daily Mail Dictionary which is approaching 30,000 visitors. I cannot be more precise because Angry Mob is currently dead. I would definitely recommend the top ranked posts as a good place to start with Angry Mob, but some of my favourite posts – the ones I consider to be written well etc – are often amongst the least read. Likewise, the post I knock up in five minutes and barely proofread sometimes seem to get way more readers. It is hard to predict which posts will get linked to, and which will not.

Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader?

My basic target audience are people who are fed up with the mainstream press. People who like to find out more about stories and how the mainstream media often completely distort them. Google sends a lot of visitors to the site who may not be this kind of reader, but might walk away with a slightly different view – although I doubt people really change their opinions based on something they’ve read online, but we can all dream.

Do you set yourself any format guidelines (e.g. length, tone, style)?

I have no format guidelines. Sometimes I avoid swearing, sometimes I swear a lot. It depends on my mood, some posts are serious, others are more vitriolic.

Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?

My main advice to bloggers is to blog about what they know and what interests them, makes everything easier to do. Use Twitter to gain readers and you’ll be surprised how much traffic you get from having a presence on it. If you do not feel that you can update regularly enough then try and join a blog or set up a shared blogging site. You’ll get much bigger and readers will return more for a regularly updated blog.
To this extent I am aiming to build a new blog on media matters that maintains a good deal of static content to counter some of the Media's favourite myths. I hope to have a team of contributers and welcome anyone else who would like to join in. I intend for the site to be serious in tone, no swearing etc so that it could be used as an educational resource.

Anything else to add?

Contact me if anyone wants to get involved in the new project. I also run a hosting company specialising in cheap blog hosting (http://blueglobewebhosting.co.uk/) so consider us an alternative to free but limited blogging accounts.

Hopefully Angry Mob will return in the new year.

See here for interview Phil BC - A Very Public Sociologist.

It is hard to be straightforward when issues are complex.

2009-12-15T23:34:00.002Z

Hello world, I thought it was about time I blew the cobwebs from my keyboard and blogged again. Here goes…

Craig Murray wrote a piece on the detainment of British yachtsmen.

Here is my own summary of events:

The detainment and subsequent release of five British yachtsmen took place in the context growing international tension surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. IAEA recently issued a resolution of which Miliband said it 'sends the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern'.

Although the incident is reminiscent of a prolonged stand-off between the UK and Iran in March 2007, after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard detained a 15-strong Royal Navy crew, international law applies differently to civilian and naval vessels.

Whereas naval vessels access to territorial seas is not guaranteed, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees the right of civilian passage. This factor is likely to have prevented the incident escalating as it did in 2007, when international water boarders were disputed.

Despite having international law on his side, David Miliband opted for a low-key diplomatic approach*.

Craig Murray subsequently constructed a diatribe against 'the media,' for their simplistic response to the incident, which failed to take into account international law and how this affected proceedings, and ‘The Left, for their partisan response.

The Iranians had absolutely no right to arrest these yachtsmen, whether they were in Iranian territorial waters or not […] Amazingly, if you do a Google news search on the term "innocent passage", you get not one result. In all the acres of media coverage there has not been a single mention of what in fact is the law applicable to this situation […] I will never understand why so many on the political left will excuse any bad behaviour by anybody so long as their general stance is anti-US foreign policy and anti-Zionist.

Firstly, well done Craig for exposing the complexities of the incident and highlighting the media's clear shortcomings. Secondly, although in parts he was a tad polemical, Craig was quite right to attack the Left for its partisan response.

It is often difficult to marry the competing demands of blogging - Dillow's assessment is as good as any I have read.

[T]he many things that make a good blog are to some extent incompatible; originality versus consistency; passion versus intellectual rigour; number of posts versus quality of individual posts; brevity versus weight of evidence; wit versus gravitas, and so on.

For me, blogging about politics, and often, international affairs, it can become quite difficult to make a point without including a series of caveats to address the complexities.

Compare and contrast:

The US attitude to Iran is hypocritical**.

The US attitude (and that of the international community, which really means ‘Washington and whoever happens to agree with it’***) to Iran is hypocritical (what with their own bounty of nuclear weapons, support for Israel - who have nuclear weapons themselves, and denial of its existence. Not that I am defending Iran against all the criticism levelled against it. Some of the things Ahmadinejad has said are unacceptable, but so too is misquoting, exaggerating and making things up to strengthen your argument. Clearly the Iranian regime is bad, look at Human Rights Watch reports - hang on, they are far from perfect themselves. Look, look at this, see, the Iranian regime is horrific. Although, really I should put that into context, to understand the situation - we should briefly look at the Ayatollah, etc...)

It is hard to be straightforward when the situation is complex.

Anyway, I hope to be back blogging (on things other than blogging) soon. Make sure you check out Alienated Left. I have set up a Google profile - so you can check out all my recommended readings.

* Miliband did the right thing
** For a much better assessment see Alienated Left.
*** See Noam Chomsky Political Discourse Dictionary

Honduras 09: "An election that met international standards of fairness and transparency"

2009-12-04T16:20:00.001Z

"This shows that given the opportunity to express themselves, the Honduran people have viewed the election as an important part of the solution to the political crisis in their country."

Ian Kelly, Department Spokesman for U.S. Department of State November 29, 2009

"We see this election as a very important step forward for Honduras, and I would like to commend the Honduran people for an election that met international standards of fairness and transparency despite some incidents that were reported here and there."

Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. November 30, 2009*

"[The Honduran people] clearly signaled their desire to move forward with new leadership through their robust participation in Sunday’s elections."

Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs December 3, 2009

Honduras: An election validated by blood and repression - The Real News Network

* During the briefing on the Honduran election Valenzuela recognised the coup as a 'coup' rather than using weasel words, such as 'not legal'. This is not significant.

Valenzuela was asked, "Will the United States recognize the new government if the Honduran congress fails to vote to reinstate Zelaya on December 2nd?"

To which he responded, "I would prefer not to deal with hypotheticals on this." Which of course meant 'No'.

Valenzuela was asked, "Is there any chance that the U.S. will not recognize the results of this election?"

To which he responded, "I don’t want to get into hypotheticals." Which also meant 'No'.

Valenzuela was also asked, "So is it not a legitimate concern that by recognizing the election, you could be encouraging further coups?"

To which he responded, "No"

Honduras Election and Aftermath

2009-12-01T21:56:00.002Z

3772744335_a9a4e95e72_b, originally uploaded by HablaHonduras.

Compare and contrast:

Ian Kelly Department Spokesman for U.S. Department of State

We commend the Honduran people for peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders in an electoral process that began over a year ago, well before the June 28 coup d'etat. Turnout appears to have exceeded that of the last presidential election. This shows that given the opportunity to express themselves, the Honduran people have viewed the election as an important part of the solution to the political crisis in their country.

We look forward to continuing to work with all Hondurans and encourage others in the Americas to follow the lead of the Honduran people in helping advance national reconciliation and the implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. Significant work remains to be done to restore democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, but today the Honduran people took a necessary and important step forward.

Lisa Sullivan, Human Rights Observer for School of Americas Watch - Electoral observer as part of the Quixote Center Accompaniment Delegation

In the days prior to the elections we scattered to different cities, towns and villages, meeting with fishermen, farmers, maquila workers, labor leaders, teachers and lawyers, as well as those who were jailed for carrying spray paint, hospitalized for being shot in the head by the military, and detained for reporting on the repression. [...]

As elections were in full swing in the morning, our delegate and nurse practitioner, Silvia Metzler visited Angel Salgado and Maria Elena Hernandez who were languishing in the intensive care unit of the Hospital Escuela in Tegucigalpa . Both had been shot in the head at one of the many military checkpoints, no questions asked. Doctors give Angel a zero possibility of survival and he leaves behind a 6 year old son. Maria Elena has a better chance of recovery, but it will be a long road. She was selling snacks on the side of the road to support her teenage children when caught by military bullet.

Quixote Honduran Elections Delegation's blog (+ images)

A peaceful march of over 500 people was just culminating at the Central Park of San Pedro Sula when a large armoured tank with high pressure water cannons mounted on the top pulled up at the rear of the march - along with a large truck full of military troops. The 500 peaceful, unarmed protesters turned around to face the tank and troops - and in unison, they sat down in the middle of the street. The truck retreated 2 blocks. The soldiers got off the truck, and began to put on gas masks. Everything went silent - and suddenly the crowd was attacked with water cannons and gas. People are fleeing. There are wounded and detained.

The official US position shares little in common with reality. Unfortunately, the situation is much more like the picture Eva Golinger paints.

The true divides in Latin America - between justice and injustice, democracy and dictatorship, human rights and corporate rights, people's power and imperial domination - have never been more visible than today. [...] The handshakes, smiles, gifts and promises of "no intervention" and "a new era" made by President Obama himself to leaders of Latin American nations last Spring at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad have unraveled and turned into cynical gestures of hypocrisy. [...]

Washington stands alone, with its right-wing puppet states in Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica and Israel, as the only nations to have publicly indicated recognition of the electoral process in Honduras and the future regime. A high-level State Department official cynically declared to the Washington Post, "What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" Well, Washington has sat for 50 years and refused to recognize the Cuban government. But that's because the Cuban government is not convenient for Washington. The Honduran dictatorship is.

For an illustration of the two faces of the Honduran elections see the Guardian picture feature.

Hat tip to Dan Archer (who is responsible for the brilliant Archcomix, and whose Twitter feed I've been following) for bringing to my attention some of the above sources.

I should also point out that Rick B beat me to the punch on this one (despite some similarity, I didn't notice his post until I was about to post this - honest).

A few links about nothing in particular

2009-12-01T15:37:00.004Z

Sorry about the lack of blog posts of late, but isn’t Alienated Left coming along? Go have a good look around. I hope to be back blogging soon. In the meantime, I have a a few links that I'd like to share.

The Billion-Pound-O-Gram helps but billion pound figures into perspective.

Northern Heckler takes the Conservative's inheritance tax policy and a misleading article to task. The Mirror also had an interesting angle on inheritance tax (it might not be the best writing, but the point is valid). Via Phil BC via northbriton45.

Tabloid Watch notes what that few have reported.

How Belle de Jour's secret ally Googlewhacked the press Via bloggerheads via McGuireDavid

Michael Moore had this to say about healthcare reform (I might blog on this in the future, he's quite right in my opinion).

Bensix looks at The Government’s Uneasy Relationship With Evidence

A look at Italian Law.

I'm linking to several Angry Mob pages for no other reason than search engine optimisation. Angry Mob is on the first page of google for various searches, and this is my contribution to keeping the site where it belongs:
Amanda Platell: Racist and Clueless, James Slack: Please Kill Yourself, Liz Jones is Considerably Richer than You, Daily Mail and Rape, Jan Moir: I'm thinking she's a piece of shit, and, Paul Dacre Must Die.

Via Jamie Sport - "There's literally no way our awesome cross-platform twitter news ad campaign will go wrong. Yeah!"

And that's about it link-wise for now (well, I wouldn't want you getting link-fatigue). For those of you that are so inclined, you can follow me on Twitter.

China, Rare Earth Metals & The Emergence of a New Global Power.

2009-11-19T05:15:00.003Z

When the Afghan war began, and the Russian involvement in the "Stans", it became common to talk about Central Asia being the "New Great Game" for the warring superpowers. But the real new Great Game is being played in the swamps of the Niger Delta, on the borders of Colombia-Venezuela, in the metal mines of the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] and now in the rare earth mines of the world.

If you think this sounds like part of a conspiracy theory, think again. These are the words of Newsnight’s economics editor, Paul Mason. "97% of the specialist metals that are crucial to green technology are currently mined in China". They are used in rechargeable batteries that are used to store power from renewable energy sources and for use in electric cars, etc. They are also used in certain missile guidance systems (so, it's swings and roundabouts, I guess).

For a better explanation of why rare earth metals are important watch Paul Mason's Newsnight report, his blog provides an account of the U.S. and Japanese role.

Quilliam Foundation & Craig Murray

2009-11-18T00:09:00.002Z

Craig Murray is facing legal difficulties regarding some posts on his blog. As a gesture of solidarity, I'm linking to disruptive.org for mirrors of the offending blog posts and Smog's blog for screenshots.

Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord - Dead?

2009-11-08T17:29:00.000Z

I have written before about the hollow accord, which Washington heralded as ‘a breakthrough’ and ‘an historic agreement.’ Hillary Clinton spoke of working towards a ‘full return of democracy and a better future for the Honduran people.’ As recently as Friday, Washington continued to refer to the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord as ‘an historic victory for democracy’. I have also criticised those who were too easily seduced by intoxicating rhetoric (the more perceptive of whom quickly changed their tune). A background to this post can be found here.

One of the more confusing aspects of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord was the optimistic response of Zelaya given that it was so riddled with loopholes. A likely explanation for Zelaya’s surprising optimism was that it was part of a longer-term strategy. Should the coup leaders fail to soften their stance during negations, Zelaya would be able to walk away. Only his reinstatement would bring broad international recognition to the forthcoming national elections, meaning that he has considerable leverage. Unfortunately, the coup regime continues to receive recognition and substantial aid from the U.S. As long as Micheletti & co. have this on their side, they still have the power to largely ignore Zelaya and his supporters’ demands, which is exactly what they have done. Zelaya has been left with only his final hand to play; he declared the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord ‘dead’. Having made a tactical decision to sign the accord, he as been left with little option but to urge his supporters to boycott the elections in the hope that the lack of electoral legitimacy will pressure the next government. Regrettably, the U.S. is pledging to steadfastly recognise the elections regardless of legitimacy, which is undermining Zelaya’s final hand. Whilst Zelaya declares the accord ‘dead’, the U.S. are declaring ‘continued support’ for the accord, regardless of Zelaya.

The reason why the U.S. wishes to talk-up the accord is painfully clear, as Ian Kelly, department spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Sate, said during a farcical press conference, the accord ‘gives us a way to support the elections.’ ‘It is the best way forward’. The accord legitimises the forthcoming elections and offers no reversal on Zelaya’s position as a legal outcast. Zelaya’s tactical decision has backfired because the U.S is continuing to support the dictatorial regime that assumed power by force. Meanwhile Zelaya remains trapped inside the Brazilian embassy, threatened with arrest if he steps foot on Honduras soil.

Whilst Zelaya deserves great sympathy, the accord - even if it returned Zelaya - was always unlikely to give the Honduran people what they deserve. The resistance to the coup is about more than just Zelaya. The people of Honduras want real change, real human rights, and justice for the oppression suffered during the coup regime. An historic victory for democracy? Nothing could be further from the truth.

EU lifts sanctions on Uzbek government.

2009-11-05T18:25:00.000Z

The sanctions were initially enacted in response to the Andijan massacre of 2005 (an incident in which troops shot at unarmed protesters - the number killed is disputed, but believed to be in the hundreds). Since then, sanctions have been slowly eroded.

Germany, clearly incentivised by advancing its own economic interests, has led the fight for lifting sanctions. EU nations can once again sell weapons to a corrupt regime lead by the brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

The claim that the Uzbek situation has progressed is specious:

There have been no improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan. There remains no freedom of speech, assembly, movement or religion. Thousands of political prisoners slave in the gulags, children are forced into the fields by soldiers to pick the cotton. Thousands still suffer hideous torture every year.

The value of the removal of sanctions is largely symbolic. Uzbekistan has been obtaining weapons from non-EU sources. Although Russia is reported to be their main suppliers, the U.S. has played a major role in supporting the Karimov regime. Because of its usefulness as a launch pad for offences in the Middle East, the U.S. has pumped money in to the hands of the Karimov government in order to buy favour with the regime.

Obama has been more than willing to ‘cut deals’ with Karimov. Obama recently agreed to triple the fee for its U.S. airbase in Uzbekistan. The most recent official U.S. rhetoric on Uzbekistan-U.S. Relations spoke of ‘partnership,’ ‘historic agreement,’ ‘a very positive development,’ and ‘our friends in the Uzbek government.’ There was even an attempt to sell Uzbekistan to U.S. corporations, ‘we will explore ways that we can expose more American companies to the opportunities here.’

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to questions regarding human rights, there was considerable obfuscation:

With respect to the human rights question, the United States and Uzbekistan intend to initiate a bilateral annual consultation in which we will discuss the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda. I conveyed an invitation from the United States government to the government of Uzbekistan to send a high-level delegation at the time of their choosing to the United States to begin those consultations. As I said in my statement, I am confident that we will be able to make progress on the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda.

As for why so many nations are willing to get into bed with one of the world's most egregious regimes, I will leave you with Craig Murray’s a concise appraisal

The politicians do it because the media and public do not seem to care, so they think they can get away with it. So far, they are right.

Micheletti and Zelaya reach 'breakthrough'

2009-10-31T18:21:00.006Z

The details are vague, there is still much to be agreed upon, and the agreement is rife with dubious pre-conditions, yet many who opposed the Micheletti coup are hyperbolic in their response to the latest development. (For background information, see below)

Mark Weisbrot declared that this was "a victory for democracy in the Western Hemisphere." He continued;

This shows that international pressure really matters. Despite the fact that the U.S. blocked stronger action by the Organization of American States, it ultimately had to go along with the rest of the hemisphere […] This shows that Latin America is not going back to the days when U.S.-trained and funded military forces could overturn the will of the electorate.

With so many uncertainties and discouraging preconditions, such blind optimism is, at best misguided, at worst counter-productive.

First of all, whilst the agreement ‘calls for’ a truth and reconciliation commission, this is far from a guarantee of justice. The ‘agreement’ makes no effort condemn the coup or those involved in its implantation. Quite the opposite is true. The details of the agreement that are known legitimise the coup orchestrators. A power-sharing government has been agreed to - this means that those responsible for the coup shall be rewarded with the power and prestige of occupying positions of authority within the Honduran polity. This is a clear indication that, unless there are some significant developments, the truth and reconciliation commission will allow the crimes and human rights abuses of the de facto government to go unpunished. Secondly, the ‘agreement’ itself has to receive support from congress and the supreme court. Such a condition is ludicrous. They are the very bodies that were complicit in the conspiracy against Zelaya in the first place! Seeking their approval further legitimises the coup.

In contrast to the pre-coup circumstances, Micheletti & co. have gained influence through the barrel of a gun, and done so with impunity. Zelaya has lost four months of his presidency and found himself politically weakened. The Honduran people have seen dozens killed, had their human rights severely weakened, been attacked for peaceful protest, and seen their own voices ignored. The people wanted a president to bring social justice. They are left with a man so constrained that it is unlikely that he will be anything other than a popular figurehead for a puppet regime.

Although the situation could be worse, the fight is far from over.

Background
On Sunday, June 28, approximately 200 members of the Honduran military surrounded the presidential palace and forced the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, into custody and then flew him to Costa Rica.

The official justification for the military coup was that Zelaya was to hold a referendum to extend presidential terms beyond a single four-year term, which, it was argued, would be unconstitutional. This continues to be reported as the justification for the coup.

What has tended to be far less widely reported is that constitutional amendments are not uncommon, between the year of its approval, 1982, and 2005, the only years that it was not amended were 1983 and 1992. The constitution itself was approved during a period of heavy U.S. interference.

The genuine motivation for the coup is that Zelaya allied Honduras with the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA) - an alternative to Free Trade Area of the Americas. The U.S. feared that Honduras could turn into a 'pacifist state', at the cost of a U.S. military base, as happened in Ecuador.

The subsequent period has been characterised by protests, military suppression, former cabinet misters going into hiding, and the poor fearing sanctions and greater economic hardship.

On July 6th the Honduran military blocked Zelaya’s planned return to Honduras and fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, who had initially intended to welcome the Zelaya’s return.

Despite ‘tough talk’ from Barack Obama, some rightly questioned whether the Obama administration is as opposed to the coup against Zelaya as it should be.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama still has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand. (Acknowledging the coup as such would require stopping all forms of non-humanitarian aid by law). Obama tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily.

'The use of culture to promote imperial agenda did not end after the Cold War'

2009-10-24T10:02:00.004+01:00

Eva Golinger discusses the State Department sponsoring the Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movement (Translated from Spanish).

The potential use of these [new] technologies to promote psychological operations and propaganda is unlimited. Its strength is the speed of dissemination of messages and global coverage. [...]

The student movement "white hands" in Venezuela, financed and trained by U.S. agencies, anti-communist protests in Moldova, the demonstrations against the Iranian government and the latest virtual protests against President Chavez are examples of this new strategy. New technologies-Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others, are the main weapons, and traditional media such as CNN and its affiliates, helping to exaggerate the real impact of these movements promoting matrices false and distorted view of its importance and legitimacy.

The Alliance Youth Movement is another chapter in the destabilization plans against sovereign countries that reject imperialist imperial domination. The double standard of Washington reaffirms this fact. While the Department of State encourages, supports and sponsors the training of young people from other countries in the use of new technologies to destabilize their governments, the United States criminalizes using Twitter and Facebook to convene protests against Washington's policies. This was shown three weeks ago when two American citizens were arrested for using Twitter to inform the protesters against the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on the repressive actions of the police.

For information on the US citizens arrested for using Twitter see Democracy Now!

See here for my earlier post about the over-reaction to Twitter as a revolutionary tool of democracy.

When Moore met Chávez

2009-10-22T08:01:00.002+01:00

In an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Michael Moore discussed meeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (see video).

Moore's anecdote was a bizarre fiction. Just harmless fun? Well, his 'embellished' account left Eva Golinger feeling less than amused.

Anyone who has ever traveled [sic] or been close to President Chávez knows very well that it is absolutely impossible to just “go knock on his door”. Presidential security lines the hallways, elevators and all entrance points. Take it from someone who knows first hand. Moore’s story is complete and utter fiction. Also the man Moore identified in the interview as Chávez’s “bodyguard” is actually Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, but hey, all latinos look alike!

The tale continues. Moore says he entered the room and a “bottle and a half of tequila later”, he was writing Chávez’s speeches! Of course, Michael, all of us Latin Americans drink tequila! Man, he couldn’t even get his alcohol right in his fairy tale! Tequila is Mexican, Michael. Venezuela makes rum. Get it straight. And anyway, President Chávez does not drink at all and is well known for his anti-alcohol position. But in Moore’s story, latinos are all a bunch of partiers! No work, just party, drinks and fun at 2am! [...]

No tequila, no parties, no scandals, just a normal meeting between a head of state and an invited guest. In fact, the real meeting lasted three hours, without tequila. [...]

Moore’s declarations against President Chávez are offensive and insulting and a clear sign of his hipocresy [sic] and lack of ethic.

Proposition 13 & the effects of regressive policy in California

2009-10-21T08:25:00.002+01:00

The financial crisis has hit California particularly hard. Poverty continues to spiral as unemployment reaches a post-war high of 12.2%. The political response has been to implement drastic cuts.

In July, the state legislature haggled for weeks over how to close a $26 billion budget gap. Instead of increasing taxes of corporations or the wealthy, the budget deal that emerged to be signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger ordered deep spending cuts, laying off tens of thousands of state workers.

Reduced funding for education, coupled with big tuition increases, sparked a student and faculty strike at California’s public universities. Programs for ex-prison inmates and parolees have been slashed. And the social safety net of healthcare and services for the poor, children and elderly - the least powerful and least vocal members of society - has been systematically shredded. [...]

A legal challenge has temporarily halted some of the cuts to elderly care. But Governor Schwartzenegger is trying to overturn the court ruling and re-institute the cuts. [...]

So, why has California been hit so disproportionately hard, and what are the causes of this drastic response? Whilst Schwartzenegger's regressive political attitude can take some of the blame, Proposition 13 plays the lead role.

Proposition 13 was an initiative that was enacted by the voters of California. The key components of the proposition were to cap property tax (even if the value rises) and put into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget. The bill gained popular support and the Californian constitution was duly amended.

Ever since its was written into law, Proposition 13 has played a duel role in exacerbating California's instability and inequality as well as preventing progressive reform.

It is so iniquitous because the maximum rise in property tax is considerably lower than the actual increases in property prices. Neighbours living in identical homes are liable to pay substantially different property tax depending upon when they purchased the property. This means that the tax liability is heavily tied to the date of purchase rather than the value of the property or financial circumstances of the owner. (A relatively well-know example of this is billionaire Warren Buffet, who pays less than 0.06% tax on a $4,000,000 Laguna Beach home purchased in the 1970s. Meanwhile, a working family in a modest, newly purchased home is liable to pay several times this amount).

By capping property tax, Proposition 13 effectively places the state’s budget in a straitjacket. As Krugman argues, "limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions," which is why California has been so heavily affected by the financial crisis. And, by putting into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget, Proposition 13 prevents progressive reform and encourages drastic regressive policy responses in times of economic hardship. With Proposition 13 in place, the response to people needing a safety-net in times of need will always be to take it away from them.

The EU boost for dairy farmers that isn't

2009-10-20T11:14:00.003+01:00

A recent news item, and its reporting, caught my eye. BBC News Reported that;

EU boosts aid for dairy farmers

Dairy farmers in the European Union are to receive 280m euros (£255m) in aid, says the EU's farm commissioner.

The decision follows weeks of protests by thousands of farmers over the low price of milk, including the spraying of milk onto fields.

This is an important news story. Sadly, the BBC failed to offer substantial discussion of the context or implications of agricultural subsidies.

Here are a few things that they failed to adequately address:

1) Agricultural subsidies harm developing nations

Subsidies have a double impact on poor farmers in poor countries: farmers are undercut and swamped by the flood of cheap subsidised imports. Local exporters get rock bottom prices when they try to sell their crops onto depressed world markets

2) The largest payouts go to multinationals, not farmers.

While most people still believe that Europe's agricultural subsidies have been used to protect farmers, particularly small farmers, it is now emerging that among the main beneficiaries are large multinationals.

The CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] accounted for nearly half of the total EU budget in 2004, costing taxpayers €43.6bn. While the largest part of the CAP budget was indeed made up of direct aid to farmers (€30bn), most of that went to the largest farmers, and nearly €14bn went on other CAP schemes such as export refunds to large companies, storage payments and BSE payments to large-scale renderers and abattoirs. The UK received €4bn in agricultural payments in 2004. [...]

The largest UK recipients of money include companies such as Tate & Lyle, Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft and a host of manufacturers of bulk animal fats, sugars and refined starches. Further FoI [Freedom of Information] requests reveal a similar pattern of the largest individual payments going to multinationals in other European countries. [...]

The largest recipient of payments in the UK for 2003-4 was Tate & Lyle and its subsidiaries, which took more than £227m over two years from the CAP. Meadow Foods, a leading manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins for ice cream, spreads, sports drinks, processed meats and confectionery, received nearly £26m in the year 2003-4. Other large dairy manufacturers supplying the processed food industry dominate the list of top recipients of money paid by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which administers CAP payments in this country.

Our detailed analysis of the full list of RPA payments has also unearthed a number of anomalies. They include:
Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy.
Premier Foods, the company at the heart of the Sudan 1 contamination crisis, received over £60,000, believed to be in export subsidies.
Eton college received £2,652 last year but admitted to us that what it was for was "a bit of a mystery". Although it tried, it was unable to obtain information for us from the RPA to explain the payment.
Drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Boots, Reckitt, and ACS Dobfar, received substantial payments for using sugar in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

3) The European Milk Board do not want subsidies

This brings us back to the BBC's report, which made broad statements such as;

Most of the EU's member states - including France and Germany - had been pressing for aid after the global economic downturn reduced demand.

And

EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she was forced to "empty her pockets" to meet the demands of 21 of 27 member states seeking an emergency fund for dairy farmers.

The report closed with remarks

These EU market interventions help support dairy prices.

That's not what the European Milk Board think, their preferred solution is to "limit milk production" and to "set up a monitoring mechanism, in which milk producers, consumers, dairies and politicians take joint responsibility and analyse the market, with the aim of bringing milk production in line with demand." As for the protests,

The motto of the rally is "No subsidies in the milk sector, only flexible production regulation"

In regards to the subsidies themselves, the president of the European Milk Board, Romuald Schaber, said,

It makes no sense when ministers talk about money, which then flows into the milk sector in the form of subsidies with little impact. Flexible production controls represent no extra burden to the taxpayer and can be an effective way of creating milk prices which are fair both to producers and consumers.

I'm sure that by now you get the point, so I won't dwell on the environmental impact, welfare concerns or GM issues associated with milk production. (Or, that the people making the decision, the European Commission, are unelected.) When the best response to falling milk prices would be to reduce production quotas, yet the EU offer money with no details of reform, mainstream news media organisations report the story as though the EU had given farmers what they want.

THE BALANCE OF POWER

2009-10-19T01:06:00.002+01:00

The latest article at Media Lens

Journalists who criticise powerful interests can be attacked for their 'bias', for revealing their prejudices. On the other hand, as we will see in the examples below, almost no-one protests, or even notices, the lack of balance in patriotic articles reporting on the experience of British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the credibility of British and American elections, or on claims that the West is spreading democracy across the Third World. Then, notions of patriotism, loyalty, the need to support 'our boys', make 'balance' seem disloyal, disrespectful; an indication, in fact, that a journalist is 'biased.'

The media provide copious coverage of state-sponsored memorials commemorating the 50th, 60th, 65th anniversaries of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Arnhem, the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of the Atlantic, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, and so on. Even the 200th anniversary of The Battle of Trafalgar was a major news item. Remembrance Sunday, Trooping The Colour, Beating The Retreat, the Fleet Review are all media fixtures. The military is of course happy to supply large numbers of troops and machines for these dramatic flypasts, parades and reviews.

On June 11, 2005, senior BBC news presenter, Huw Edwards, provided the commentary for Britain's Trooping The Colour military parade, describing it as "a great credit to the Irish Guards". Imagine if Edwards had added:

"While one can only be impressed by the discipline and skill on show in these parades, critics have of course warned against the promotion of patriotic militarism. The Russian novelist Tolstoy, for one, observed:

"'The ruling classes have in their hands the army, money, the schools, the churches and the press. In the schools they kindle patriotism in the children by means of histories describing their own people as the best of all peoples and always in the right. Among adults they kindle it by spectacles, jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic press.'" (Tolstoy, Government is Violence - Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, Phoenix Press, 1990, p.82)

Edwards would not have been applauded for providing this 'balance'. He would have been condemned far and wide as a crusading crackpot, and hauled before senior BBC management.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury recently offered the mildest of criticisms of the invasion of Iraq in a sermon in St Paul's Cathedral, the Sun newspaper responded: 'Archbishop of Canterbury's war rant mars troops tribute.' [...]

The Sun's article was archived under "news/campaigns/our_boys". As Tolstoy would have understood, the Sun is in fact a bitter class enemy of "our boys". It is a rich man's propaganda toy parading as a trusty pal of 'ordinary people'.

A few links.

2009-10-15T08:25:00.006+01:00

Paul Street responds to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (ZNet article)

Al Jazeera reports on the plight of Sri Lankan war refugees kept in "welfare camps" (video).

Landartgenerator.org graphically demonstrates the surface area required to solar power the world & the surface area required to power the world with off shore wind power alone. (For more detail see here)

Strangemaps exposes the inadequacy of using potential GDP to measure of the impact climate change.

The excellent Adam Curtis blogs about the history of the Congo & Kabul

Bensix looks at the Tories and foreign policy

George Monbiot highlights government and military police collusion to prevent justice.

Laurie Penny - inspiring diary piece.

Trafigura

2009-10-13T19:12:00.005+01:00

Image courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

Due to the gagging of the Guardian (which has now been lifted) causing greater interest in the Trafigura story, here is a partial re-post of an old post (with an update), which provides links that explain the story's background.

Trafigura, a company whose corporate social responsibility policy makes the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant look like Oxfam, is responsible for the several deaths and the injury of thousands due the to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast. The story serves as a measure of news agencies' priorities. Not one of the tabloids mentions the story at all. [Update: Although this has changed, there is now an article on The Daily Mail website by James Slack, there is no mention of the victims or Trafigura's crimes. (For a more detailed look at Slack's work see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)] Meanwhile, David Leigh and Rob Evans, expose links to Conservative lords including the leader of the Conservative party in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde. And, that the victims are to receive little compensation.

2009-10-11T08:47:00.001+01:00

Noam Chomsky's latest article (at In These Times) tackles the pretexts of the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy, the role of NATO, and Obama's foreign policy. In the following passage, Chomsky summarises the controversies surrounding newly discarded plans for anti-missile systems in Europe and the hypocrisy of the U.S. stance on nuclear weapons.

A few weeks ago the Obama administration announced a readjustment of U.S. anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. That led to a great deal of commentary and debate, which, as in the past, skilfully evaded the central issue.

Those systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But that cannot be the motive. The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the Earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated.

The purpose of the U.S. interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent. In this regard, antimissile systems are a first-strike weapon, and that is understood on all sides. But that seems to be a fact best left in the shadows. [...]

The present nuclear stand-off with Iran summons the Cold War’s horrors—and hypocrisies.

The outcry over Iran overlooks the Obama administration’s assurance that the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement is exempt from the just-passed U.N. resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India greeted by announcing that it can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world’s major nuclear powers, with yields up to 200 kilotons.

And, over the objections of the United States and Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities for inspection. Israel announced it would not cooperate.

A new blog

2009-10-10T08:47:00.000+01:00

Alongside Duncan, who blogs at In Place of Fear, I've started a new multi-author new blog called Alienated Left. It's a work in progress at the moment, I hope to add new contributors soon. Please check it out & let me know any thoughts or feelings.

PS. I shall still continue to post work here - it'll just provide a second home for my longer and less 'ranty' posts.

Obama & the Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T19:14:00.010+01:00

Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize takes the biscuit. What on earth for? For saying the right things but not actually doing them(!) Allow me to outline his achievements in office; ditching state-funded abstinence only sex-ed in favour of evidence-based programmes, & securing federal funding for stem cell research. Other than that, there has been sweet talk and inaction. As I wrote earlier:

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?” [...]

His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) andUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.
Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.
Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits that is objectionable. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency, George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

Let's not forget the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan, the failure to reform the financial sector and the constant watering down of his stance on healthcare reform.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is.

I’m fed up with talk of "his efforts to bring peace to the world," "attempts by Obama to go further than we expected" about how he's "stuck his neck out" over nuclear disarmament and more. Shame on you Sunny for peddling such deception.

IRAQ WAR PHOTOGRAPHER DIARY - MILITIAS

2009-10-09T03:25:00.011+01:00

Below is a re-post of Zoriah's blog post (with permission).

June 26, 2008 IRAQ WAR PHOTOGRAPHER DIARY - MILITIAS

The above image is of a confiscated weapons cache housed inside of a US/Iraqi army base in Sadr City. Notice that there are no magazines in these weapons. As I was taking these photos, U.S. soldiers filled their pockets with loaded magazines, intending to distribute them to local militias. I am lying in my cot in a dank, concrete room in Joint Security Station Sadr City when one of the Army commanders who bunks next to me walks though the door, obviously frustrated an annoyed. He is stationed upstairs in the Tactical Operations Center, which is basically a command center for all the troops in the area and a relay point between them and other commands around the area. "What's wrong man? You look pissed," I say, as he throws his bag down on his bunk. "Everyone upstairs is all fucking pissed off because the fucking New York Times just broke a story about how the U.S. is arming and funding all of these neighborhood militias and gangs all around Iraq," he says. I mention to him that I happen to know for a fact that this is true because not more than two days ago I saw it with my own eyes. He responds, "Yeah, I know its true too, we are taking guns out of one guys hand and putting them into the hands of another guy. I'm not pissed about the article, I just have to work with a bunch of idiots who are pissed about the article. That is what makes my life miserable." I have decided to post what I wrote a few days ago, now that I am sure that hunch was correct.

I am a photojournalist. It is my job to be a visual story teller, showing people what other's lives and struggles are like, when they would otherwise have no way of visualizing these lives. I don't consider myself to very an expert in politics, warfare or the situation in Iraq. It puts me in the unique position of seeing and experiencing without pre-conceived notions or ideas. Since my job is based on truly "seeing", I am at ease with learning things along my path. I am noticing a disturbing trend in Iraq right now, one that I feel pretty sure will prove to be a major mistake in this war and cause a fair amount of grief to the Iraqi people and most likely beyond. The U.S. Military is arming and funding militias and civil military groups across the country. After a discussion with a soldier about the Sons of Iraq, what is now called a "neighborhood guard" by the US military, the soldier said, "We are basically paying these guys off with money and weapons to not kill us."

The streets of Iraq are now filled with various militias and private security forces. Think of these militias as Blackwater without background checks, rules or any kind of oversight whatsoever (ok, so just think of it like Blackwater!) . Often, they are composed mainly of children not old enough to drive and carrying AK-47 assault rifles nearly as big as themselves.

Another soldier explains to me that most of the members from the militant groups and death squads a year or two ago, are now either wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi National Police Force, or in one of the hundreds, if not thousands of militias. As I said before, I no expert on such things, but in my humble opinion this appears to be a disaster waiting to happen.

Osborne lies again

2009-10-08T08:47:00.002+01:00

Courtesy of Chris Dillow

George Osborne says:
The world is watching Britain at the moment. It is casting doubt on our country’s creditworthiness. It is questioning our resolve to deal with our debts. And when that starts to happen, then long term interest rates rise.
Meanwhile on planet earth the opposite is happening. Real long-term interest rates - yields on index-linked gilts - have fallen to record lows.

Read the rest at Stumbling Mumbling

Iran's nuclear threat & a twitter round up

2009-10-07T13:57:00.005+01:00

In Place of Fear looks at the nuclear threat Iran pose - GROUNDHOG DAY OF FEAR OF IRAN (PART I). John Pilger concludes that Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie.

I've started you use Twitter as a notebook for future posts, for those of you that haven't been following, here is what you've missed:

In the light of The Express's awful front page, I get the impression more people should read the last 3 paragraphs of an earlier work by Angry Mob.

Adam Curtis blogged on the history of the West's relationship to Afghanistan - Part 1 & 2.

Chris Dillow examined why so many are supporting Roman Polanski.

Glenn Beck & Dan Hannan are too disturbingly misguided for words.

In terms of tabloid cock-ups this headline is pretty amusing (see the first comment for an explanation).

Chris Grayling puts his foot in his mouth (see video).

Phil BC answers questions about blogging.

2009-10-05T00:50:00.002+01:00

Curious about the people behind the blogs and hungry for advice, I asked some of my favourite bloggers about blogging.

First up Phil BC - A Very Public Sociologist

Who are you?

I’m Phil BC, a PhD student living in Stoke-on-Trent. I became interested in politics at junior school, having moved from the right to the left in the 22 years since. I’m a trade unionist and a member of the Socialist Party.

Briefly explain your blog.

Officially: Sociology with a Militant Twist. Unofficially? An opportunity to mouth off on whatever issues that take my fancy.

Why did you start, & what keeps you motivated?

From the start I originally intended the blog to be more academic and sociological, but very quickly the focus became political. Prior to blogging I used to regularly contribute to the discussion list I founded, the UK Left Network, so I was already in the habit of screaming my opinions into cyberspace. It was inevitable my blog would be more of the same – though hopefully a lot more structured and coherent.

How I keep myself motivated? It’s difficult to say. Once you start writing regularly you feel a desire to keep going, especially if it’s bound up in your real world political activity in some way. If you stop for any length of time it’s much harder to get restarted – as I found out when I lost interest for a few months in 2007.

What are your thoughts on the role of biographical details informing how blogs are read?

I’m not sure about this myself. Does anyone read Guido because ‘He’s Guido’, or does he attract audiences because of the tittle-tattle he trades in? Not that you can entirely separate the two. I don’t know. Would any of my present readers migrate elsewhere if I dropped or changed my political affiliation? I haven’t a clue. I would hope not. Ultimately every blogger hopes they attract an audience because the find what’s written is interesting.

What inspires your blog? Do you have any blogging role models?

Political activity inspires my blogging – the problems of developing a socialist critique and strategy appropriate to the present day animates most of what I do online. As for role models, I hope I won’t be embarrassing anyone! To name a few – Andy Newman of Socialist Unity, Louise at HarpyMarx, Dave’s Part, Splintered Sunrise, Jim at The Daily (Maybe), Stroppy at Stroppyblog, Dave and Paul at Though Cowards Flinch – all of their writing is spot on in different ways. If I could write as well as them I’d be chuffed!

If your blog didn’t exist, which other blogs would fill the gap?

Tough question! When I started there were no Socialist Party bloggers I was aware of and now there are loads. I’m sure they would have filled the SP’s gap in the far left blogging firmament. On the strategic thinking side of things the excellent Though Cowards Flinch follows a fairly similar trajectory as I do. The Third Estate also does some good thinking outside the box.

What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?

I don’t use too many – I’m still too paralysed by what Eddie Izzard calls ‘techno-fear’, despite being an internet user for 14 years. I use statcounter and that’s it. Once my PhD is done I have a few plans for the site, but they’ll have to wait until then.

What are your thoughts regarding the popularity of particular posts? Are you ever surprised by what people find of interest (or don’t)?

It never ceases to amaze me how some searches end up on the blog, particularly those looking for pictures of women’s body parts! It’s always interesting to see posts detailing the minutiae of small far left parties attract more attention than say an analysis of the predicament of the Labour party or a look at a piece of research. Interesting but not surprising – debates on the merits or otherwise of competing left groups always exercised the bulk of posts in the UK Left Network’s heyday.

Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader? If not, How do you decide what does & does not need explaining?

I guess my primary audiences are Marxists and other passing left-wingers. Occasionally I do write for a broader audience and that sometimes gets picked up and highlighted by bigger blogs. There’s also a small number of academics who pop by from time to time. So when I write a post I have a good idea of who’s going to read it, and from there I set the level of assumed knowledge. Even if I’m writing about something complex I try and keep it readable (either explaining or linking to explanations of technical terms as I go along). See the recent postings of my old Masters’ dissertation or last winter’s reading of Georg Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness for example.

Do you set yourself any format restrictions (e.g. length, tone, style)?

I’m very aware of TL;DR! Though it varies 1,500 words tends to be my maximum. I also always write in Arial. Style varies from piece to piece – it usually depends on the literary merits of what I’m reading at that moment!

Since you began blogging, have you noticed any significant changes in the blogesphere?

Yes, blog designs are much better! There’s more of an intersection between blogging and other social media. Blogs are taken a bit more seriously by the political commentariat. Overall quality of left wing blogging has improved and there’s more of us about.

Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?

If blogging is an adjunct to your political activity then you’ll never run out of things to write on. Also just ignore or ban any trolls you attract. They can be the most awful time thieves.

Anything else to add?

Thanks for interviewing me!

Update
... looking back, I wish I'd started blogging much earlier. It would have been very helpful to have blogged all my old MA and MRes lessons. The discipline of sitting down and forcing yourself to work your notes up into something readable for a wider audience is, in my opinion, excellent practice for any student wanting to get on in academia.

In support of Tim Ireland

2009-09-26T01:47:00.007+01:00

Tim Ireland has asked bloggers to produce articles based on the conduct of those wishing to smear him for his investigative work in the Glen Jenvey case. With that in mind, here is Justin McKeating’s article in full as it says what I want to say and says it well (except for that bit about knowing Tim Ireland, I don’t know him).

Tim Ireland: no good deed goes unpunished

Remember this story in The Sun from earlier in the year?

Fears grew last night that hate-filled Islamic extremists are drawing up a “hit list” of Britain’s leading Jews – bringing the Middle East conflict terrifyingly close to home.
TV’s The Apprentice boss Sir Alan Sugar and Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson are among prominent names discussed on a fanatics’ website. Labour Peer and pal of Tony Blair Lord Levy, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer Anthony Julius are also understood to be potential targets.

In a very fine piece of investigative journalism (remember that?) Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads, with help from Richard Bartholomew, discovered this story to be a massive hoax perpetrated by a man called Glen Jenvey, a man who has in the past worked with Tory MP Patrick Mercer, the parliamentary counterterrorism subcommittee chairman.

Tim’s reward? To be smeared, to have his mental health impugned, to be accused of being a paedophile, lied about, vilified, stalked, and finally his home address made public on the internet. He has had to involve the police. The harassment continues. Those in a real position to help him put an end to this have, disgracefully and unforgivably, refused to do so.

I’m proud to know Tim well and know something of what he’s been through in the last few months. And all for calling someone on their dangerous bullshit. He deserves much better for doing what a far better resourced press and media should have been doing themselves. He deserves full credit and any damage to his reputation restored.

To those who have helped do this to him or stood by and done nothing by allowing petty disputes get in the way of doing the right thing: it won’t be forgotten. This isn’t a game or an inter-blog spat – this is about a person’s safety and well-being and that of his family. The behaviour of some of the prominent Tories involved in all this is gut-churning.

Tim could do with a hand. You could start here.

Update

I hadn't anticipated recognition from Tim would drive newcomers to the 'site. To newcomers, the welcome, at the top right, pretty much explains this blog. Although the body of this post came via Chicken Yoghurt, I usually speak for myself. To Tim, thank you for the link, I am proud to support you, & good luck.

Obama & Waxman-Markey - Corrupted By Corporate Interests

2009-09-25T12:42:00.008+01:00

Over in the U.S. Paul Krugman is trying hard to sell the “fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill," the Waxman-Markey bill (otherwise known as ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009’). The bill has already passed the House and is due for floor action in the Senate where it will face renewed opposition.

Krugman asserts that, due to denial of climate change failing to gain sufficient purchase to block the bill, its main opposition will be based on the bill’s potential cost. In response to this, Krugman argues that whilst saving the planet will not come free - it will not cost all that much either. He quite rightly argues that the early stages of conservation to a lower carbon economy will not be particularly demanding.

First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Krugman then puts the longer-term costs in perspective.

[I]n 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day. [...] By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming.

Although Krugman successfully defends the bill from arguments based on expense, he misses a far more important point. Whilst Obama has edged away from his predecessor’s ‘head in the sand’ approach to climate change, the Waxman-Markey bill is a considerable distance from the ideal. There are too many loopholes and too many concessions. Obama's talk of taking a "bold and necessary step" to "confront America's energy challenge and reclaim America's future" is hollow.

In terms of the bill’s substance, George Monbiot notes that:

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill's measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it's printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

The bill also ignores the greenhouse impact of biofuels, thereby encouraging its usage.

In almost all cases, biofuels made from grain or oil crops create more greenhouse emissions than petroleum. This is partly because they lead to an expansion in total crop production, which means that forests must be cut down, unploughed pastures must be tilled and wetlands must be drained to accommodate it. The carbon stored in both the vegetation and the soil is released and oxidised.

The impact of biofuels has been devastating on the worlds poor.

In 2008, the expansion of biofuel production was directly responsible for the decline in global food stocks, which caused grain prices to rise, catalysing famines in many parts of the world. Cereal stockpiles declined by 53m tonnes; the production of biofuels, mostly by the US, consumed almost 100m tonnes, according to a piece in the Economist on 6th December 2007. As the UN's special rapporteur, Jean Ziegler says, turning food for people into food for cars is, "a crime against humanity".

What about the costs involved, has Obama been as clear and coherent as Krugman? No.

Instead of straight talk, however, Mr Obama has mostly been offering happy talk.
When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate-change bill on June 26th, he rejoiced that it would create millions of new green jobs and reduce America’s “dangerous dependence on foreign oil”. Almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that it might do something for the planet. As usual, he gave the impression that planet-cooling will require no sacrifice from voters.

This is drivel. The shift to a lower-carbon economy will destroy jobs as well as create them, and hit growth. Greens wish Mr Obama would use his immense popularity and rhetorical skills to persuade Americans that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of helping to avert planetary catastrophe. But rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress.

All too often, commentators are eager to lionise Obama for simply being better than Bush. (In fairness to Krugman, perhaps he is suppressing whatever discontent he may feel towards the bill for the misguided view that it is for the greater good). The Waxman-Markey bill is highly flawed. Those with a genuine concern for the environment and the world’s poor ought to be suspicious of this highly compromised bill, which has been corrupted by corporate interests.

Hector Reyes & Justice For Nueva Linda Civil Association

2009-09-23T00:31:00.003+01:00

In his latest post, Guatemala-based Independent photo-journalist James Rodríguez documents the commemorative events that honoured of the those killed at the Nueva Linda massacre. The events which lead up to the massacre are as follows:*

Hector Reyes, a local peasant leader who belonged to the Landless Maya Workers Union (STMST), sustained his family by working in Nueva Linda. Reyes, however, disappeared mysteriously on September 5, 2003, while running an errand for the then-owner and Spanish citizen Carlos Vidal Fernandez.

Due to the lack of clarification by the authorities regarding the disappearance of Hector Reyes and the probable complicity by the owner of the landholding, peasants from 22 nearby communities occupied Nueva Linda in October 2003.

The peasants formed the Justice For Nueva Linda Civil Association - they took over Nueva Linda to pressure the authorities into clarifying the disappearance and to demand justice.

Almost a year later, on August 31, 2004, Guatemalan security forces unleashed a violent eviction in Nueva Linda.

Rights Action estimate that the violent eviction resulted in 12 deaths and 45 injured.

The video below looks at the massacre and the people affected.

Unfortunately for Guatemalans, cases like this are not particularly remarkable. The murder rate has been rising steadily, in 2008 was 47 per 100,000. To put that in context, that is over 39 times the murder rate in England and Wales (1.19 per 100,000). In Guatemala less than 3 percent of murder cases are resolved.

Journalists seeking to expose injustice are particularly vulnerable. For Justice For Nueva Linda Civil Association to continue and for James Rodríguez to cover the story is humbling in its courageousness.

*For a more detailed background see the Rights Action report linked above and justicianuevalinda.org (the non-Spanish literate may wish to make use of google translate)

George Osborne - Opportunistic liar

2009-09-21T01:16:00.001+01:00

George Osborne recently said,

Labour's secret spending plans, which Gordon Brown never wanted to make public, appear to reveal an income tax bombshell.

However, as Channel 4 News FactCheck reveal:

The figures Osborne quoted don't hide any secret tax-hike bombshell. They are the same numbers put out by the Treasury with the budget, in April.

So not secret.

What about those tax increases?

Some income tax increases, for big earners, were set out in the budget. The most headline-grabbing, a new, higher 50 per cent tax rate on earnings over £150,000 a year, is expected to raise £2.4bn, according to the Treasury's estimates.

Taking away the tax-free personal allowance on high earners is also expected to bring in another £1.5bn.

Which is great, but accounts for just 3.9bn.

According to the figures Osborne released, gross income tax revenues are due to increase from £144.7bn in 2010-11, to £191.8bn in 2013-14; a £47bn, or 32.5 per cent, increase.

So, where does the rest come from? Forecast growth.

George Osborne is complaining about increased income tax revenues generated by taxing the rich and economic recovery whilst trying to make it appear as though there is a 'secret' plan for an 'income tax hike'. His crude attempt to mislead the electorate is an insult. George Osborne is an opportunistic liar.

A few links to things that have happened in my absence.

2009-09-18T03:00:00.004+01:00

The U.S. offer unconvincing assurances regarding its continued use of rendition.

Birth deformities in Fallujah continue - the cause remains unknown.

Obama's actions belie his rhetoric once more as he extends the Cuban trade embargo.

The Other Taxpayers' Alliance continue their efforts to expose the Taxpayers' Alliance as a murky millionaires' club.

I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything David Mitchell writes about David Cameron and MPs expenses.

This Richard Littlejohn cock-up is exquisitely ridiculous. Whist this Daily Mail attempt to whip up a false moral outrage is tedious.

I have added extra links to the “Lockerbie bomber” links & can be found on Twitter nowadays too.

Update

*Pink link added retrospectively.

Top 100 Left of Centre Blogs

2009-09-02T10:18:00.007+01:00

Thank you (again) to all that voted for The Polemical Report in the Total Politics Annual Blog Poll. The Polemical Report ranked 54th in the Left of Centre blogs section. Thank you (again) to those that have linked to this blog too.

To newcomers to the site, the welcome (at the top right) pretty much explains the blog. If you are not sure where to start, you could do worse than looking at the feature posts.

As for regular visitors, I apologise for the lack of posts of late - I shall be back blogging soon*.

Update

*Computer problems have waylaid blogging plans - I shall be offline longer than I first hoped.

A few links about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber”

2009-08-23T11:33:00.013+01:00

As a blogger, I am still finding my voice. Blogs like In Place of Fear are an inspiration; it is a fantastic blog. Unfortunately, it is criminally undervalued, according to Google Reader it only has three subscribers!

The latest post by Duncan McFarlane (In Place of Fear) is about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber” - (*as is this more recent one). Along with offerings on this topic by Beau Bo D'Or, John Pilger, Paul Mason , septicisle (Obsolete) (parts 1,2,3&4) and this Gerald Scarfe cartoon, it forms my recommended reads on the topic. (Craig Murray offers more of the same).

Update

*Pink links added retrospectively.

This is old but true.

Top 60 Welsh Blogs

2009-08-20T06:44:00.001+01:00

Thank you to all that voted for The Polemical Report in the Total Politics Annual Blog Poll. The Polemical Report is ranked 15th in the Welsh blogs section. Thank you to those that have linked to this blog too.

To newcomers to the site, the welcome (at the top right) pretty much explains the blog. If you are not sure where to start, you could do worse than looking at the feature posts. If you are looking for something about Welsh politics, check out this post on the Euro Election results.

Please have a good browse and comment freely.

U.S. healthcare & Obama's concessions

2009-08-18T19:15:00.017+01:00

The current U.S. system is expensive and inefficient.

[T]he incredible cost of US health care is breath-taking, whether you're a reformer or anti-reformist. The US spent some $2.2 trillion (£1.34 trillion) on healthcare in 2007. It is a mind-boggling number which amounts to over 16% of US GDP. That is nearly twice the average spent by other rich nations with advanced health systems - yet you have to wonder if this is value for money when, by most measures, the US is a less healthy nation than other rich countries, on everything from infant mortality to longevity.

The U.S. healthcare system needs reforming. Cue Barrack Obama, one time advocate of single payer healthcare system.

As Paul Krugman writes, the single payer healthcare system would be the best option for reform.

True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system.

The evidence makes interesting reading.*

Despite his previous endorsement of single payer healthcare, Obama repositioned himself in opposition to single-payer healthcare during the presidential candidacy campaign. His new proposition was for a public option to compete with private insurers.

Since the presidential election, Obama has constantly made concessions. In March 2009, Obama talked about the importance of being pragmatic

Each of us must accept that none of us will get everything that we want, and that no proposal for reform will be perfect. If that's the measure, we will never get anything done.

This was an exceptional piece of positioning; he presented himself as being open-minded and pragmatic whilst simultaneously ruling out a single payer solution. Since then, Obama has gone even further to placate those in opposition to significant healthcare reform, Obama recently said:

[T]he public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.

Obama's change of discourse suggests that the competing public option proposal is now off the table. In a generous light, the initial change of stance could be viewed as born of the ugly reality of electoral politics rather than unprincipled toadying. If Obama makes this latest concession, which he seems willing to make, there can be no such generosity. In three moves Obama's stance on healthcare has changed from seemingly principled, to apparent pragmatism, to sell-out.

In the light of Obama making concession after concession, will the considerably watered down healthcare reform package pass?

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Oh dear ... The lessons of Clinton healthcare plan of 1993 teaches us that this is a formidable opposition.

During the Clinton administration, support for completely rebuilding the health care system peaked in the spring of 1993 [55%] and declined subsequently. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

This does not mean that the opposition to healthcare reform is insurmountable. Healthcare reform has popular support. As Chomsky notes in Failed States, the majority of Americans recognise that their healthcare system needs reforming.

"An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that ‘over 2/3 of all Americans thought the government should guarantee everyone the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply'; a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent regard universal health care as ‘more important than holding down taxes'; polls reported in Business Week found that ‘67 percent of Americans think it is a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27 percent dissenting'."

Regardless of the fact the U.S. polity is contradicting the will of the majority, the question is whether a reform so far removed from perfect is worth 'getting done' at all?

On the one hand, the reform itself is to be welcomed for improving America's healthcare system by potentially providing universal healthcare. The proposed healthcare reforms will make U.S healthcare more like the Swiss healthcare system, which primarily provides universal coverage through regulation and subsidy.

On the other hand, whilst the Swiss system provides good care, it is expensive. The only reason that the Swiss-style system is an improvement is that the status-quo is so inefficient and iniquitous. Obama has thrown away the opportunity to implement a progressive government-run healthcare system that would benefit more Americans significantly more so than this fudge. (Even his seemingly discarded proposal of 'competitive public option' system would be preferable).

With his endless concessions, Obama may have bought the votes of the odd 'blue dog', but by and large, the latest proposal continues to face the same opposition that a proposal for a single payer healthcare system would have faced. America needs Obama to be the strong and principled leader he portrays himself to be. America needs a president that ignores manufactured opposition, listens to the right-minded, and defends the interests of the people he serves. What America has is flaccid corporatist**.

*UK citizens might be interested to note that the NHS is comparatively cheap and efficient. In contrast to the current U.S system, it provides better care on almost every measure and costs around 40% as much per person. Although, when considering healthcare provision, it is important to bear in mind more than the degree of privatisation and amount of expenditure. Policy priorities significantly influence results. For instance, Cuba's universal healthcare includes preventive health care provision. Japan's citizens have healthy lifestyles. In both of these considerations the U.S. lags behind, which makes U.S. healthcare very inefficient in terms of expenditure versus life expectancy. A point well made by Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling. The American system is also hugely wasteful in term of 'over-treating' the elderly. (Of course, the argument could always be made that such factors are economically determined, but I digress).

** The link is to an excellent (but very long) article by Paul Street about Obama. As it is on Znet, you may have to register to view it.

Update

I might try to re-write this and offer it as a new post in the future, because, in attempting to pre-emptively defend my argument, it has become diffuse. The latest article by Paul Krugman reiterates some of the arguments contained above in a clearer manner.

[T]here’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled. [...]

[T]he supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms. [...]

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

Basically, Obama should take a leaf out of Barney Frank’s book.

Twitter & the digital divide

2009-08-13T20:33:00.002+01:00

Twitter has been receiving numerous plaudits due to Twitter’s role in the media coverage of the Iranian election protests.

Twitter is a jolt of democratisation to journalism.

To date, the most salient, powerful example of Twitter's influence has been Iranian protesters using the service (among many other methods) to assemble marches against what they feel has been an unjust election.

There is no question of Twitter's power

Many users have become accustomed to clicking on Twitter when news breaks. There, they can find a sea of reaction, commentary and links to actual articles.

There is an obvious weakness in the rapidity and lack of accountability that a more 'democratic' journalism brings

News that circulates on Twitter, re-tweeted from person to person, can spread quickly - often too quickly for it to be verified. False rumours spread daily on Twitter.

However, it is another aspect of Twitter that is troubling me, the power of Twitter and who it serves. Twitter is less democratic than it appears. Rash declarations proclaiming the unambiguously beneficial value of services like Twitter to the larger discourse are over-simplistic. Reality is more complex.

Let us reconsider the Iran protests and Twitter.

It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.

This helps explain the almost uniform opposition to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Twitter when he receives strong support in poorer rural Iran. Whilst I welcome greater exposure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime's human rights abuses, people ought to be aware of the bias of Twitter. In the light of the tidal wave of opposition to Ahmadinejad, Twitter was functioning as medium of propaganda for the U.S. State Department without the requirement of their engagement. A fact underscored by the U.S. State Department urging Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance that would have temporarily stopped service to Iran during the protests.

Twitter excludes the disadvantaged. Twitter effectively provides a megaphone to those with access to the required media that can afford to invest the time whilst the vast majority of the world cannot afford to have their voices heard.

Reaction to recent events in Latin America provides a further example. In the face of growing investment in American imperialism in the region, it is the geographically remote from the region that tend to pass comment. In the wake of the Honduras coup, for example, the privileged self-interested few who support the coup were disproportionately loud. The majority of Hondurans, those that were to benefit from the ousted Zelaya's progressive reforms, the poor, seldom tweet.

It seems as though the privileged few continue to have the upper hand.

Truths in the face of misinformation (AKA cut the crap)

2009-08-12T00:31:00.002+01:00

The British government supports torture.

The Conservative Party is not progressive.

Update

In relation to UK and U.S. complicity in torture, Newsnight interviews former Uzbek intelligence officer.

Honduras & the ultra-conservative mainstream media

2009-08-07T19:36:00.001+01:00

I appreciate that I have been going on about the Honduras coup quite a bit. The reason is that the mainstream media has largely ignored the situation, and when they have covered it, they have tended to be misleading. The latest offering from Media Lens is on this topic and is well worth a read. It brings to light the work of many of the best writers on the situation in Honduras whilst castigating The Independent for ultra-conservative opinion pieces on the issue.

Lobbying and the media in the U.S.

2009-08-06T11:46:00.004+01:00

The videos speak for themselves.

The power of Public Relations

2009-08-04T18:16:00.011+01:00

Consider the case of Gary McKinnon. Bell Yard are litigation PR specialists who represent Gary McKinnon, and do so pro bono. They are terrifyingly formidable, as their track record and McKinnon’s growing media presence demonstrate. Bell Yard previously represented the Natwest 3. Using the example of the Natwest 3, Nick Davies explains how PR companies manage the media (see video below).

I raise the point not to discuss the specifics of the cases but to highlight the role of the PR industry. Even morally ambiguous examples of media management are often insidious. For every example of media management like the case of Gary McKinnon, there are countless examples of the PR industry effecting the news agenda for deplorable motives.

Much of the rightwing press often acts as little more than publishers of press releases by xenophobic and neoliberal lobby groups. Credit is due to those that doggedly expose Migration Watch and The Taxpayers' Alliance for corrupting the news agenda and denounce the media for its willingness to be corrupted.

The influence of the PR industry over news agendas is frightening. The extent of their influence is something that far too few are aware.

Update

Credit is also due to The Other Taxpayers' Alliance.

'Golden Brown' & 'Brown and out' - The policies and perceptions of Gordon Brown

2009-08-03T17:51:00.001+01:00

At the risk of fisking Steve Richards’ article, Richards is generous in his description of the Brown government’s achievements and underplays the influence of the economy on public opinion. Nonetheless, it is recommended reading as it highlights that the media and electorate are preoccupied by personality and that the portrayal of Cameron as substantive and progressive is maddeningly deceptive. Richards warns that the problem for the Brown government is that despite some heartening policies, “Policies are easily lost if they do not fuel the prevailing narrative”.

Tony Blair had a genius for making the incremental seem exciting. Between 1994 and 1999, if Blair had announced he was going for a short walk around the garden of No 10, the world would have hailed a revolution in transport policy. So, imagine the excitement if Blair had declared in 1997 that a Labour government would take over greedy train operators, high earners would pay more tax, the free market in energy was over and that we must all plan to pay for care for the elderly, with the well-off paying more.

The present government has announced policies along these lines in recent months and quite a few more, too. Yet it is loathed by voters from left and right. It has no support in the media and is accused of lacking purpose. [...]

The disparity is striking. When Blair was cautiously dumping the referendums on electoral reform and the euro, ruling out any tax rises, keeping to the previous Tory government's spending plans and refusing to touch the privatised railways, he and Labour were hailed for their energetic crusade. Now, by comparison, Brown looks pale and miserable and some of his ministers hide away in a state of indifference - yet they display erratic boldness.

[... In response to increasing taxes for high earners] The papers screamed their disapproval, but polls suggest the move was by far the most popular the government had made for some time. [... The policies] announced in recent months hint at a coherent outlook that would certainly enhance the quality of most voters' lives. [… Yet] voters see only the obvious flaws. Brown is a hopeless communicator who when questioned looks irritated at best and at worst miserable. In public, he is incapable of using humour, a powerful weapon in the political artist's armoury. [...]

The comparison between the adulatory response in 1997 to a timid government and the contempt shown towards one that dares to be bolder shows the limited relevance of policy in shaping perceptions. To reinforce the point, a Conservative Party that has returned to its comfort zone of sweeping spending cuts and Euroscepticism is hailed for its modernisation and seen widely as an agent of change.

A couple of links to a couple of polemical films

2009-08-02T19:56:00.001+01:00

The Corporation - Shareware version of Mark Achbar’s exploration of the role of corporations.

Sicko - Michael Moore examines the inefficient and expensive U.S. healthcares system that leaves many either uninsured or underinsured.

A few more links

2009-07-30T08:25:00.003+01:00

Anton Vowl at The Enemies of Reason gets annoyed at the Mail for thinking, Let's chortle at the poor - with the same article twice.

Chris Dillow at Stumbling Mumbling addresses relative poverty for the hard of thinking.

Hopi Sen thinks that it’s pretty clear David Cameron doesn’t know what that word means:

“Apparently David Cameron doesn’t know what a tw-t is. At last, an explanation for George Osborne’s career.”

A few links from my reader backlog

2009-07-25T19:23:00.002+01:00

A few links to posts about the British press from Rhetorically Speaking, Enemies of Reason, No Sleep 'til Brooklands, and, Tabloid Watch.

Andrew Neil considers America's view of our "socialised" medical system.

For a limited period, the film section of Adam Curtis’ latest work It Felt Like a Kiss is available online. I’ll let Charlie Brooker explain:

He's made a new documentary called It Felt Like A Kiss. Except it isn't just a documentary. It's also a piece of interactive theatre, with music composed by Damon Albarn and performed by the Kronos Quartet. [...]

I haven't seen any of the live-action elements yet, but what I've seen of the film is astonishing. If you're familiar with his previous work, you'll know he specialises in creating mesmerising collages, simultaneously impish and forbidding; utterly accessible yet often giddyingly deep. Yes, they're political documentaries, but simply calling them "political documentaries" is a bit like simply calling Spike Milligan a biped. They're complex ideological arguments and emotional tone poems in one. They're frightening, fun and entirely unique.

Let me know what you think.

The Total Politics top UK blog poll

2009-07-23T19:40:00.002+01:00

It seems as though political bloggers are incapable of not commenting upon the Total Politics UK blog poll, and I am no different. There are plenty of good reasons to boycott the poll. The number of blogs that boycott means that the poll is becoming more and more meaningless. Nonetheless, it is still influential in terms of driving traffic.

As a blog visitor, I am certainly going to check out the poll results, cheer on my favourites, and visit blogs that perform well in categories that interest me. For all its flaws, the Total Politics UK blog poll is still the best resource of its kind.

As a blogger, this poses a bit of a moral dilemma.

Part of me wants to electioneer for the sake of achieving a ranking and attracting visitors. Few people know of this blog’s existence. The number of unique visitors per day rarely makes it into double figures. Sometimes I have something important to blog about. I realise how pretentious it might appear to claim that I am part of a counter-hegemonic discourse, but (admittedly with almost no significance) I am. (At the time of writing) there are 73m search results for “Obama’s dog”, yet “Honduras Coup” retrieves fewer than 6m. But, I digress...

Obviously, I would prefer to promote this blog by means free of tobacco-companies, rightwing lobbyists, rightwing propagandists, and rightwing bias. Unfortunately, when it comes to dissemination of information through blogging, a ranking in the Total Politics UK blog poll is valuable currency. The number of bloggers blogging about it, even to criticise, is symptomatic of its influence.

Perhaps, I need to play the game. As Tom Morello (of political music combo Rage Against the Machine) said of signing to a major label:

Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.

The other part of me is disappointed with myself for being unrealistic. Even with the number of blogs boycotting and a plea for votes, I almost certainly won't appear in the rankings, not even the easier categories.

So there you have it, there's is no incentive to sell out. In which case, I am going to take the hugely principled step of saying ... it's up to you. Do whatever you think is best. If you decide to hold your nose and vote, I in no way encouraged it. It was your own choice.

Go here for information on voting and/or here for reasons for abstaining.

P.S. if you do vote, please consider The Polemical Report

When a coup "isn't a coup"

2009-07-22T23:07:00.000+01:00

Eva Golinger highlights an exchange during the U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing with Assistant Secretary of State Phillip J. Crowley.*

QUESTION: Coming back to Honduras, we’re getting some reports out of the region that there might be some sort of rift now between Zelaya and the Venezuelan Government. Is that Washington’s understanding? And if so, is that something that can be leveraged as these negotiations move on? To put it another way, is Chavez out of the way, and does that make Washington happy?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) We certainly think that if we were choosing a model government and a model leader for countries of the region to follow, that the current leadership in Venezuela would not be a particular model. If that is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson. [...]

QUESTION: When you say that the Venezuelan Government is – should not be an example of government for any leader -

MR. CROWLEY: I’m a believer in understatement.

QUESTION: Can you say that again? (Laughter.) It’s like – it’s justifying, sort of, the coup d’état, because if any government try to follow the socialist Government of Venezuela, then it’s fair, then, that somebody can try to make it – you know, defeat the government or something like that? Can you explain a little bit where we’re – what was your statement about Venezuela?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think, as we have talked about and as the Secretary has said in recent days, we have, on the one hand, restored our Ambassador to Venezuela. There are a number of issues that we want to discuss with the Venezuelan Government.

On the other side of the coin, we have concerns about the government of President Chavez, not only what he’s done in terms of his own country – his intimidation of news media, for example, the steps he has taken to restrict participation and debate within his country. And we’re also concerned about unhelpful steps that he’s taken with some of this neighbors, and interference that we’ve seen Venezuela – with respect to relations with other countries, whether it’s Honduras on the one hand, or whether it’s Colombia on the other. And when we’ve had issues with President Chavez, we have always made those clear.

QUESTION: Have you ruled this as a coup d'état there legally --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

Golinger rightly infers from this that

The State Department finally concluded 3 weeks of ambiguity on its determination of whether or not a coup d'etat has taken place in Honduras. Despite the United Nations, European Union, Organization of American States and every Latin American nation clearly condemning the events as a coup d'etat, the United States government has today stated it doesn't consider a coup has taken place. The Obama administration joins only with the coup regime and its supporters (other coup leaders and/or executors of coups) in that determination. [... Furthermore] Crowley also made this statement, which appears to be a not-so-veiled attempt to tell President Zelaya and any other head of state overthrown by US allies that they better have learned their lesson: Washington will back (fund, support, design) coups against governments that align themselves with Venezuela.

In addition to drawing attention to Golinger's exceptional work on the Honduras coup and the coup itself, I wanted to highlight Crowley's criticism of Chavez. On the 11th April 2002 there was a failed coup d'état in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez, which involved some of the key actors in the Honduran coup. The coup attempt was heavily backed be the Venezuelan media, which can be seen in the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. With this in mind, it is understandable that Chavez has a troubled relationship with his nation's media.

In her latest post, Golinger chronicles the latest events.

Washington is also the only government with a remaining ambassador in place in Honduras, and has broken absolutely no diplomatic, military or economic ties with the coup regime. Yesterday the European Union suspended over $90 million in aid to Honduras because of the coup.

The coup regime also issued an order to the Venezuelan Embassy declaring all Venezuelans to leave the country immediately. [...]

Meanwhile, the Honduran people are still out in the streets protesting the coup, on this 25th day since the de facto regime was first installed. The economy remains shut down by striking workers, schools remain closed because of teacher's strikes and there are disturbances throughout the nation. A national curfew is still in effect, imposed by the dictatorial regime.

Elsewhere, Nikolas Kozloff looks at the importance of U.S. airbase at Soto Cano to the coup.

Prior to the recent military coup d’etat President Manuel Zelaya declared that he would turn the base into a civilian airport, a move opposed by the former U.S. ambassador. What’s more Zelaya intended to carry out his project with Venezuelan financing. For years prior to the coup the Honduran authorities had discussed the possibility of converting Palmerola into a civilian facility. Officials fretted that Toncontín, Tegucigalpa’s international airport, was too small and incapable of handling large commercial aircraft. An aging facility dating to 1948, Toncontín has a short runway and primitive navigation equipment. The facility is surrounded by hills which makes it one of the world’s more dangerous international airports.

Palmerola by contrast has the best runway in the country at 8,850 feet long and 165 feet wide. The airport was built more recently in the mid-1980s at a reported cost of $30 million and was used by the United States for supplying the Contras during America’s proxy war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua as well as conducting counter-insurgency operations in El Salvador. [...]

In 2006 it looked as if Zelaya and the Bush administration were nearing a deal on Palmerola’s future status. In June of that year Zelaya flew to Washington to meet President Bush and the Honduran requested that Palmerola be converted into a commercial airport. Reportedly Bush said the idea was “wholly reasonable” and Zelaya declared that a four-lane highway would be constructed from Tegucigalpa to Palmerola with U.S. funding. [...]

But constructing a new airport had grown more politically complicated. Honduran-U.S. relations had deteriorated considerably since Zelaya’s 2006 meeting with Bush and Zelaya had started to cultivate ties to Venezuela while simultaneously criticizing the American-led war on drugs. [...]

Over the next year Zelaya sought to convert Palmerola into a civilian airport but plans languished when the government was unable to attract international investors. Finally in 2009 Zelaya announced that the Honduran armed forces would undertake construction. To pay for the new project the President would rely on funding from ALBA [...]

The Honduran elite and the hard right U.S. foreign policy establishment had many reasons to despise Manuel Zelaya as I’ve discussed in previous articles. The controversy over the Palmerola airbase however certainly gave them more ammunition.

*A full transcript is available from the government website, as is the video. For those that would like to see the words come out of his mouth, the first question comes at 24.19 in the video. An inarticulate question and a lot of hot air about mediation from Crowley follows, which is best skipped. The second exchange comes at 28:42.

Barack Obama 182 days in office

2009-07-20T23:57:00.010+01:00

In the course of electioneering, Barack Obama massively exaggerated his intentions. He played on hope, built expectations, and was destined to disappoint. As a president he has presents himself as mindful that his predecessors have left him a considerable agenda. He is faced with formidable opposition to almost everything that he sets out to do, he needs to act tough and make enemies for the sake of the principles he claims to uphold. He needs to carry his public goodwill to shore up his reforms, push through a second stimulus package if needed, ensure that healthcare reform is anything like the plans he speaks of, leave Iraq and stand-up to Israel.

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?”

The highlights of his presidency have been the reversal of Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his easing of restrictions on Cuba, and the change of rhetoric on many issues. With the exception of providing government funding for stem cell research, his achievements are easily exaggerated. His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.

Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits that is objectionable. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is. In the light of the military coup d'état in Honduras Hugo Chavez addressed Obama via Venezuelan state television. He said, "don't deceive the world with a discourse that contradicts your actions". Fat chance

Update

I should have included the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan and the failure to reform the financial sector too.

Wake up call - the Honduras coup d'état reading list

2009-07-20T21:16:00.005+01:00

James D Cockroft calls the Honduras coup "The Moment of Truth for the Obama Administration"

The military coup currently underway in Honduras is a hard coup accompanied by various vain attempts to make it appear soft and "constitutionalist." Behind the coup are diverse social, economic, and political forces, of which the most important is the administration of President Barack Obama. No important change can happen in Honduras without Washington's approval. The Honduran oligarchy and transnational corporations (banana growers, pharmaceutical manufacturers) are defending their interests, as they always have, with a military coup.

James Hodge and Linda Cooper report on the U.S. Continuing to Train Honduran Soldiers.

A day after an SOA-trained army general ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint, President Barack Obama stated that "the coup was not legal" and that Zelaya remained "the democratically elected president." The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act requires that U.S. military aid and training be suspended when a country undergoes a military coup, and the Obama administration has indicated those steps have been taken. However, Lee Rials, public affairs officer for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the successor of SOA, confirmed Monday that Honduran officers are still being trained at the school.

"Yes, they're in class now." Rials said [...]

Whatever legal argument the coup leaders had against Zelaya, it fell apart when they flew him into exile rather than prosecuting him, the attorney [Herrera Hernández] said. The legal system has broken down, he added, for if this can happen to the president, who can't it happen to?

Eva Golinger looks at the "reasons" for the coup and the growing U.S. military presence in Latin America.

They claim that President Zelaya was violating the constitution by proposing a non-binding national survey on the possibility of future constitutional reform. Most strange in this claim is that a non-binding survey, which means it doesn't legally matter what the outcome is, to consult the people's will regarding their constitution, is somehow a violent crime that justifies kidnapping, forced exile, and 3 weeks of imposed national curfew, suspension of constitutional rights and repression of the people. [...]

Meanwhile, the outrage is growing in Latin America over Obama's request (happily accepted by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe) to occupy 5 new military bases in Colombia. This agreement, which was consolidated in the Oval Office this past June 30, 2009, as Obama simultaneously and cynically declared the Honduran coup "illegal", will turn Colombia into a dangerous launching pad for US military operations in the region, never seen before in history. $46 million of US taxpayer monies was already approved by Congress - as requested by Obama - for pumping up the capacity of just one of the Colombian bases that US forces will occupy. The base in Palanquero - central Colombia - is set not just for counter-drug operations, which is the usual justification for US military presence in the region, but also for "hemispheric security operations". Hmmm, security operations? Against whom? Maybe neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, two nations that are in revolution and maintain anti-imperialist doctrines.

The people of the US and the world should express outrage and disgust at this violent, intimidating and threatening massive US presence in Latin America, authorized by "agent of change" Barack Obama.

During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity". If only it were.

Military Coup in Honduras & the role of the U.S.

2009-07-17T04:15:00.020+01:00

On Sunday, June 28, approximately 200 members of the Honduran military surrounded the presidential palace and forced the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, into custody and then flew him to Costa Rica. In the days following, the role of the U.S. has become clearer - this coup was U.S. supported.

School of Americas Watch reported at the time:

The Honduran state television was taken off the air. The electricity supply to the capital Tegucigalpa, as well telephone and cellphone lines were cut. [… T]he people of Honduras are going into the streets, in spite of the fact that the streets are militarized. From Costa Rica, President Zelaya has called for a non-violent response from the people of Honduras, and for international solidarity for the Honduran democracy.

Richard Gott explains that:

Manuel Zelaya, president since 2006, is an improbable revolutionary. A wealthy landowner with timber and cattle interests, he was the candidate of the Liberal party, one of the two traditional parties of the Honduras oligarchy that have controlled the country's political system for most of the past century, with a sizeable input from the armed forces. Foreign journalists of a certain generation have a vivid memory of Honduras in the 1980s when the country was a military base, organised and funded by the United States, for the operations of the "contras", the paramilitary forces that invented a civil war against the Sandinista government in neighbouring Nicaragua. … [ F]ew of those who voted at the elections in November 2005 imagined that Zelaya would embark on a programme of radical change. He won with only a slim majority over his rivals.

The official tenuous justification for the military coup d'état is that Zelaya was to hold a referendum to extend presidential terms beyond a single four-year term. This, it is argued, would be unconstitutional. Yet constitutional amendments are not uncommon, between the year of its approval, 1982, and 2005, the only years that it was not amended were 1983 and 1992. The constitution itself was approved during a period of heavy U.S. interference.

The genuine motivation for the coup d'état is that Zelaya allied Honduras with the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA) - an alternative to Free Trade Area of the Americas. The U.S. feared that Honduras could turn into a 'pacifist state', at the cost of a U.S. miltary base, as happened in Ecuador.

Zelaya, always dark-suited, cuts a strange figure alongside such fiery radicals as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, not to mention Raúl Castro. Yet in his small country of 7 million people, he has sought to introduce a range of social programmes, including a minimum wage, and to mobilise the poor majority. His success has been sufficient to summon up a violent challenge from the traditional elite before it is too late.

The subsequent period has been characterised by protests, military suppression, the interim president Roberto Micheletti forming a new cabinet, former cabinet misters going into hiding, and the poor fearing sanctions and greater economic hardship.

On July 6th the Honduran military blocked Zelaya’s planned return to Honduras and fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, who had initially intended to welcome the Zelaya’s. Estimates regarding injuries and deaths vary slightly.

This event was also captured by photojournalist James Rodriguez.

Despite ‘tough talk’ from Barack Obama, some have questioned whether the Obama administration is as opposed to the coup against Zelaya as it should be.

While the Obama administration have said that the coup is illegal and that Zelaya remains the only legitimate President of Honduras there has also been some vagueness. Unlike the ALBA governments the US has not recalled its ambassador from Honduras or refused to recognise the new government. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, when asked at a press conference if the US commitment to a return to democratic and constitutional practices in Honduras meant the restoration of Zelaya to office, gave no clear answer. It’s possible that the Obama administration’s attitude to Zelaya is ambiguous, or alternatively that it’s attempting to avoid handing ammunition to right wingers (including some Democrats) in the US congress who consider Chavez and Zelaya to be ‘dictators’ and enemies of the US or who want to revive the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It may even be, as Hugo Chavez has suggested, that Obama opposed the coup but other elements in the US government, military and intelligence agencies backed it

However Honduras’ military remains heavily US armed, funded and trained (there are even 300 US troops permanently based in the country) and it seems likely that if the Obama administration really wanted to restore democracy in Honduras it would only need to suspend all military aid and arms sales until Zelaya was restored to power. Many of the officers involved in the coup were trained at the notorious US School of the Americas in the 1980s and 1990s, including the main leader of the coup, General Romeo Vásquez Velasquez. Latin American History professor Greg Grandin says that “The Honduran military is effectively a subsidiary of the United States government. Honduras, as a whole, if any Latin American country is fully owned by the United States, it’s Honduras....Its economy is wholly based on trade, foreign aid and remittances. So if the US is opposed to this coup going forward, it won’t go forward. Zelaya will return.”

Since Duncan McFarlane’s post (quoted above), more evidence has come to light of U.S. interference. Eva Golinger reports that

Things are getting worse each day inside Honduras. Over the weekend, two well-known social leaders were assassinated by the coup forces. Roger Bados leader of the Bloque Popular & the National Resistance Front against the coup d'etat, was killed in the northern city of San Pedro Sula. Approximately at 8pm on Saturday evening, Bados was assassinated, killed immediately by three gun shots. Bados was also a member of the leftist party, Democratic Unity (Unificación Democrática) and was president of a union representing workers in a cement factory. His death was denounced as part of the ambience and repressive actions taken by the coup government to silence all dissent.

Ramon Garcia, another social leader in Honduras, was also killed on Saturday evening by military forces who boarded a bus he was riding in Santa Barbara and forced him off, subsequently shooting him and wounding his sister. […]

Meanwhile, the coup government has hired top-notch Democrat lobbyists in Washington to make their case before Congress and the White House and convince the US people to recognize them as a legitimate government. The New York Times has confirmed that Clinton lobbyist Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel for President Bill Clinton from 1996-1998, and close advisor to Hillary's campaign for president last year, has been hired by the Latin American Business Council - an ultraconservative group of Latin American businesses - to represent the coup leaders in the U.S.

In a more recent report several key facts have been established

The Department of State had prior knowledge of the coup.
The Department of State and the US Congress funded and advised the actors and organizations in Honduras that participated in the coup.
The Pentagon trained, schooled, commanded, funded, and armed the Honduran armed forces that perpetrated the coup and that continue to repress the people of Honduras by force.
The US military presence in Honduras, which occupies the Soto Cano (Palmerola) military base, authorized the coup d'etat through its tacit complicity and refusal to withdraw its support of the Honduran military involved in the coup.
The US Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, coordinated the removal from power of President Manuel Zelaya, together with Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon and John Negroponte, who presently works as an advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Department of State has refused to legally classify the events in Honduras as a "coup d'etat," nor has it suspended or frozen its economic aid or commerce to Honduras, and has taken no measures to effectively pressure the de facto regime.
Washington manipulated the Organization of American States (OAS) in order to buy time, therefore allowing the coup regime to consolidate and weaken the possibility of President Zelaya's immediate return to power, as part of a strategy still in place that simply seeks to legitimate the de facto regime and wear down the Honduran people that still resist the coup.
The strategy of "negotiating" with the coup regime was imposed by the Obama administration as a way of discrediting President Zelaya - blaming him for provoking the coup - and legitimizing the coup leaders.

The History of Oil

2009-07-16T01:38:00.003+01:00

George Galloway defends the Iranian regime on state funded television

2009-07-14T01:11:00.005+01:00

This is not as much newsworthy as it is compelling. You only have to watch a few minutes to get the gist, this is bizarre! As Hopi Sen puts it;

Seeing George Galloway on PressTV made me shudder. Watch it. The man stares, dead eyed, into camera, contorting facts to convince the world that the Iranian elections were free and fair, while trying to blame Mousavi for the violence of the regime. Ughhh.

Here it is.

PS. In the final minute Galloway makes a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chávez, this is appallingly asinine.

When an act of courteousness leads to being branded ‘the lecher of the free world’.

2009-07-12T15:37:00.003+01:00

The Daily Mail printed a picture in which “Barack Obama was caught out yesterday in a leer worthy of his Italian counterpart Mr Berlusconi” (see bottom story on this page). Only he was not. Barack Obama was in fact being courteous as the first 63 second of the below video demonstrates.

For another example of The Daily Mail’s penchant for making things up see Eric The Fish: King of the Sea’s look at The Mail’s apology for making up that somebody that they do not like is a supporter of Al Qaeda and radical cleric Abu Qatada.

Luiz Felipe Scolari moves to Bunyodkor

2009-07-09T13:50:00.010+01:00

Sport might not be a topic too often blogged about on this blog, but this is different. For the uninitiated, Luiz Felipe Scolari has been a very successful manager. FC Bunyodkor is a Uzbek football club. The Uzbekistan league is a low profile league. So, is this is a case of a 'big' manager going to a small club? Yes, but there is more to the story than that.

The club itself is very new;

Four years ago Bunyodkor did not exist. They won promotion from the amateur second division at the first attempt, finished runners-up in cup and league next time out, and in their third season won the double, with a run to the semi-finals of the Asian Champions League to boot. They have a former World Cup winner in the team, alongside the Asian footballer of the year. Now they are getting serious.

The success of the team is straightforward, it is due to its ownership. Gulnara Karimova controls the club. She is the daughter of Islam Karimov, the brutal dictator of Uzbekistan, and is thought to be his likely successor. The purpose of the club is to perform as a PR vehicle for the Karimov regime. The Karimov regime, which Britain supports, is brutal and repressive.

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death. His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. [...]

An Islamist terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. [...]

Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. [...]

[F]ar from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year [2002], he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes.

Due to the club's wealth, people and organisations have been clambering to be involved with F.C. Bunyodkor. Luiz Felipe Scolari's association with the club looks as though it is just the latest landmark in a continuing trend of FC Bunyodkor's progress. Meanwhile, due to its geographical proximity to key natural resources, it looks as though Britain and the U.S. will continue to support Karimov's regime.

Robert McNamara has died

2009-07-09T02:59:00.008+01:00

Robert McNamara, Defence Secretary under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, died June 6th. McNamara was the subject of The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara - a compelling documentary by Errol Morris. Indeed, it is one of my favourite documentaries by my favourite documentary maker.

80% Carbon cut - a landmark pledge?

2009-07-09T01:51:00.007+01:00

The Independent leads on "US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions" today, is this as inspiring as it appears?

Looking at the US climate-change bill, George Monbiot thinks not.

The cut proposed by [2050 is 80%, yet by] 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill's measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it's printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

The Economist describe the US climate change bill as 'A squeaker, with more to come'.

Instead of straight talk, however, Mr Obama has mostly been offering happy talk. When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate-change bill on June 26th, he rejoiced that it would create millions of new green jobs and reduce America’s “dangerous dependence on foreign oil”. Almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that it might do something for the planet. As usual, he gave the impression that planet-cooling will require no sacrifice from voters.

This is drivel. The shift to a lower-carbon economy will destroy jobs as well as create them, and hit growth. Greens wish Mr Obama would use his immense popularity and rhetorical skills to persuade Americans that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of helping to avert planetary catastrophe. But rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress.

So, the bill is a fudge, and the pledge (if it is even upheld) will be too. Sadly, as Monbiot points out, "This bill is the best we're going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed."

Media Matters - five years old today

2009-06-24T21:42:00.004+01:00

Media Matters for America, a non-profit organisation dedicated to scrutinising the media, is five years old today. It is fair to suggest that they have made a few enemies along the way …

For an example of the kind of thing they do, here is a compilation of Fox news’ coverage of the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency.

For more, see their website & youtube profile.

Craig Murray on the Conservative’s European Alliance

2009-06-22T21:12:00.001+01:00

Craig Murray on the Conservative’s European Alliance

I watched him [Silvio Berlusconi] this morning on EuroNews making a European Election campaign speech. He said: "How do I feel when I see all these non-Italians walking around Milan? When I look around Milan, I think I am in Africa!" […]

Still more alarming, even Berlusconi is not right wing enough for David Cameron's Tories and they have allied themselves with some truly horrible nationalist parties from Eastern Europe.

I was First Secretary at the British Embassy in Warsaw heading the Embassy's political and economic sections. I speak Polish. I can tell you definitively that the Kaczynski's Law and Justice Party - the British Conservative's now main ally in the EU parliament - consists of a large number of anti-Semitic and ultra-conservative Catholic crazies of the worst kind. […]

Kaczynski continually condemns anti-Semitism in public. You might ask yourself why he has to do that. One prominent member of his party (and of ther Sejm) once walked out of a lunch with me in Warsaw where a girl from the Adenauer Foundation was also present, because she was Jewish. I have heard casual anti-Semitism from components of Law and Justice which you would not believe.

Witness William Hague being 'perfectly clear'.

2009-06-22T04:18:00.001+01:00

David Mitchell responds to the Daily Mail’s ‘Not in my front yard’ anti-wheelie bin campaign

2009-06-21T12:07:00.000+01:00

David Mitchell responds to the Daily Mail’s ‘Not in my front yard’ anti-wheelie bin campaign

Councils issue wheelie bins to make collection and recycling more efficient and effective. They're better than normal bins - they've got wheels and can be emptied mechanically. Because they're bigger, they can be collected fortnightly. Because collections can be fortnightly, recycling collections can be slotted in without doubling the refuse budget. I'm sure the NIMFYs would hate me for saying this, which is why I'm doing it, but it's good, simple, common sense. The bins might not look lovely, but there are more important considerations in play here. […]

Explaining why mid-terrace residents had no option but to keep the unsightly wheelie bins in front of their houses, a Chester resident said: "Otherwise they would have to walk three bins all the way down the street, round the corner and into the backyard. Imagine doing that with three bins? It's just crazy."

I can almost hear the Oxfam advert: "This is Andrea. Every week, she has to walk three bins all the way down the street, round the corner and into the backyard. It's either that or people will see her bins. It's crazy, but you can help."

Noam Chomsky Political Discourse Dictionary

2009-06-21T00:25:00.015+01:00

Preface

Almost every term in political discourse has a literal meaning and a propaganda version. […] The propaganda version - which is typically the one that prevails - that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States.

Presented below select definitions of the ‘propaganda version’ of terms offered by Chomsky. It is a work in progress. Further suggestions (preferably sourced) and comments are encouraged.

Anti-Globalization - a propaganda term devised by the advocates of a particular investor-rights version of international integration. No sane person is opposed to globalization, surely not the left or the workers movements, which were founded on the commitment to international solidarity - that is, a form of globalization that is concerned with the rights and needs of people, not private capital.

Debt Repayment, International - commercial banks made bad loans to their favorite dictators, and those loans are now being paid by the poor, who of course had absolutely nothing to do with the process.

Democracy, Developing Nations – requires that the media and political system be in the hands of local oligarchies or similar elements committed to the form of “development” favoured by U.S. investors, that the public be marginalized (by violence, if necessary), and that the military, with its long-established links to the U.S. system of violence, be granted free rein.

Democracy Promotion - The neoliberal rollback of democracy.

[Note]. Where neoliberal rules have been observed since the '70s, economic performance has generally deteriorated and social democratic programs have substantially weakened.

Demographic Problem – a term devised to disguise the obviously racist presuppositions

Deterrence - means the opposite of what it says. Our offensive stance should primarily be based on nuclear weapons because they are so destructive and terrifying. Furthermore, just the possession of massive nuclear forces casts a shadow over any international conflict, as people are frightened of us because we have this overwhelming force.

Economic Interest, National - a misleading term because countries don't have economic interests, groups inside of them do and those interests may differ.

Failed State - a state that has the formal political institutions, but they are not functioning. Functioning in a democratic society is supposed to mean that public policy somehow reflects public interests and concerns.

Financial Crisis - "the crisis" has a clear enough meaning: the financial crisis that hit the rich countries with great impact, and is therefore of supreme importance.

Globalization - specific form of international economic integration that has been instituted within the "neoliberal" framework of past several decades.

Humanitarian Crisis - a problem somewhere that threatens the interests of rich and powerful people [as opposed to] the massacres in Colombia, for example, or the slaughters and expulsions of people in south-eastern Turkey, which are being carried out with crucial support from Clinton. Those aren't humanitarian crises.

International Community, The - a technical term referring to Washington and whoever happens to agree with it.

Labour Flexibility - a fancy way of saying that when you go to sleep at night, you don't know if you have a job tomorrow morning - and that's supposed to be a very good thing. […] Labour-market flexibility has gotten a bad name as a euphemism for keeping wages down and workers out, which in fact is exactly what it is, which is why it's gotten that bad name.

Legal - in US-Israeli parlance means "illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel.”

Libertarian - means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Here [the U.S.] it means ultra-conservative - Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that.

Literal meaning

Socialist and anti-state, an anti-state branch of socialism, which meant a highly organized society, completely organized and nothing to do with chaos, but based on democracy all the way through. That means democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally.

Etymology of literal meaning
Throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers Movement and the Socialist Movement. It sort of broke into two branches, roughly, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky, and so on. The anti-statist branch, which included Marxists, Left Marxists - Rosa Luxemburg and others - kind of merged, more or less, into an amalgam with a big strain of anarchism into what was called "libertarian socialism."

Manufacturing Consent –

Etymology
“The term "manufacturing consent" is not mine, I took it from Walter Lippmann, the leading public intellectual and leading media figure of the twentieth century, who thought it was a great idea. He said we should manufacture consent, that's the way democracies should work. There should be a small group of powerful people, and the rest of the population should be spectators, and you should force them to consent by controlling, regimenting their minds. That's the leading idea of democratic theorists, and the public relations industry and so on”

Moderate - 'they do what we say' - willing to conform to US demands, irrespective of the nature of the regime.

NAFTA Miracle - a "miracle" for U.S. investors and the Mexican rich, while the population sank into misery.

National Security Interests - only an incidental relation to the security of the nation, though they have a very close relation to the interests of dominant sectors within the imperial state, and to the general state interest of ensuring obedience.

Nicaragua, The U.S. War Against - if we want to be kind to the United States - we could say it was international terrorism. A stronger, probably more accurate, term would be outright aggression.

Peace Process - conventionally used to refer to whatever the U.S. government happens to be doing, often undermining diplomatic efforts.

Radical - not under U.S. control.

Rogue State - is used to refer to any state that is disobedient, that the US has in the sights of its rifles. […] An instrument of propaganda, to beat selective enemies over the head.

Stab ility

a code word referring to a “favourable orientation of the political elite” – favourable not to their populations, but to foreign investors and global managers.
subordination to Washington’s will

Terrorism - literal meaning - the calculated use of violence against civilians to intimidate, induce fear, often to kill, for some political, religious, or other end. It turns out to be almost the same as the definition of official U.S. policy. Except, when it is U.S. policy, it is called ‘counter-insurgency’ or ‘low-intensity conflict’ or some other name. Furthermore, if you apply the literal definition, you conclude that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state because it engages in these practices all the time.

propaganda version - directed against the United States or its allies and carried out by enemies

Terrorism, International - introduced during the 1980s when it was pretty clear that the Soviet pretext was collapsing and another one had to be found and "international terrorism" was invented as a pretext to replace it.

Tough love - love for the rich and privileged, tough for everyone else.

Trade - propaganda version [used in addition to literal meaning]. An operation inside of a command economy which has to cross borders. E.g. US trade with Mexico after NAFTA - about half of it is not trade in any serious sense. It's just interaction as internal to a command economy. If General Motors makes the parts in Indiana and sends them to Mexico to be assembled because they have cheaper labor and fewer environmental constraints, and then sends them back to Los Angeles to sell the cars, that is called trade in both directions, but it is not trade in any reasonable sense.

U.S., The -
a leading terrorist state.
"United States" is conventionally used to refer to structures of power within the United States; the "national interest" is the interest of these groups, which correlates only weakly with interests of the general population.

Obama’s Cairo speech

2009-06-20T00:28:00.000+01:00

What he did say was largely inoffensive, what he failed to say …

Fisk writes

About the Venue

[P]lease note that Obama has chosen Egypt for his latest address to the Muslims, a country run by an ageing potentate – Hosni Mubarak is 80 – who uses his secret police like a private army to imprison human rights workers, opposition politicians, anyone in fact who challenges the great man's rule.

And that: …

The Egyptian Organisation of Human Rights, a separate group, discovered that 10 of the 29 died after torture. In one case, rights groups acquired a videotape of a prisoner being anally raped with a stick by a police officer. Other videos show one of Mubarak's political opponents – a woman – being sexually molested by a plain-clothes police officer in a Cairo street.

As for the speech itself: …

when Obama said that some governments, "once in power, are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others", there was a roar of applause from the supposedly obedient audience. […] As the Palestinian intellectual Marwan Bishara pointed out yesterday, it is easy to be "dazzled" by presidents. This was a dazzling performance. But if one searched the text, there were things missing.

There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this. […]

For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism, on "cycles of suspicion and discord" – even if America and Islam shared "common principles" which turned out to be "justice, progress and the dignity of all human beings".

There was one merciful omission: a speech of nearly 6,000 words did not include the lethal word "terror". "Terror" or "terrorism" have become punctuation marks for every Israeli government and became part of the obscene grammar of the Bush era.

An intelligent guy, then, Obama. Not exactly Gettysburg. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. One could only remember Churchill's observations: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare."

Chomsky notes that:

Obama's June 4 Cairo address to the Muslim world kept pretty much to his well-honed "blank slate" style -- saying very little of substance, but in a personable manner that allows listeners to write on the slate what they want to hear. CNN captured its spirit in headlining a report "Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world."

Whereas John Pilger - Smile on the face of the tiger [Please read in full]

President Barack Obama made his “historic” speech in Cairo, “reaching out to the Muslim world”, reported the BBC. “Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said Obama, “does not serve Israel’s security.” That was all. The killing of 1,300 people in what is now a concentration camp merited 17 words, cast as concern for the “security” of the killers. This was understandable. During the January massacre, Seymour Hersh reported that “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” for use in Gaza.

Chomsky on Israeli settlement expansion

2009-06-19T00:43:00.007+01:00

Chomsky wrote the following about the planned expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine:

Washington's position was presented most strongly in Hillary Clinton's much-quoted statement rejecting "natural growth exceptions" to the policy opposing new settlements. Netianyahu, along with President Peres and in fact virtually the whole Israeli political spectrum, insists on permitting "natural growth" within the areas that Israel intends to annex, complaining that the US is backing down on Bush's authorization of such expansion within his "vision" of a Palestinian state.

Senior Netanyahu cabinet members have gone further. Minister Yisrael Katz announced that "the current Israeli government will not accept in any way the freezing of legal settlement activity in Judea and Samaria.” (Ha'aretz, May 31). The term "legal" in US-Israeli parlance means "illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel.” In this usage, unauthorized outposts are termed "illegal," though apart from the dictates of the powerful, they are no more illegal than the settlements granted to Israel under Bush's "vision."[…]

If Obama were serious about opposing settlement expansion, he could easily proceed with concrete measures, for example, by reducing US aid by the amount devoted to this purpose. That would hardly be a radical or courageous move. The Bush I administration did so (reducing loan guarantees), but after the Oslo accord in 1993, President Clinton left calculations to the government of Israel. Unsurprisingly, there was "no change in the expenditures flowing to the settlements," the Israeli press reported: "[Prime Minister] Rabin will continue not to dry out the settlements," the report concludes. "And the Americans? They will understand" (Hadashot, Oct. 8; Yair Fidel, Hadashot Supplement, Oct. 29, 1993).

Obama administration officials informed the press that the Bush I measures are "not under discussion," and that pressures will be "largely symbolic" (Helene Cooper, NYT, June 1). In short, Obama "understands." […]

[A]ll of these discussions about settlement expansion evade the most crucial issue about settlements: what Israel has already established in the West Bank. The evasion tacitly concedes that the illegal settlement programs already in place are somehow acceptable (putting aside the Golan heights, annexed in violation of Security Council orders) -- though the Bush "vision," apparently accepted by Obama, moves from tacit to explicit. What is in place already suffices to ensure that there can be no viable Palestinian self-determination. Hence there is every indication that even on the unlikely assumption that "natural growth" will be ended, US-Israeli rejectionism will persist, blocking the international consensus as before.

A few links about immigration

2009-06-18T16:22:00.005+01:00

Stumbling and Mumbling - Immigration and the left – why the left should not support extra immigration controls.

Stumbling and Mumbling - Taking “our” Jobs?

Immigration and tabloids

Tabloid Watch - When truth means lies

Tabloid Watch - Omission of fact

Enemies of Reason - BNP opportunism supported by racist media

No Sleep ‘Till Brooklands - International fugitives come from other countries, Mail finds

Enemies of Reason - A quiz - Melanie Phillips or Geert Wilders?

(Accidental) Honesty vs. Less bad economic management

2009-06-15T14:04:00.011+01:00

Conservative Health spokesperson, Andrew Lansley, let slip that the Conservatives plan to ring-fence health and aid spending at the expense of a 10% cut for other departments. Labour jumped at the opportunity to cast the Conservatives as spending cutters.

Brown accused the Conservatives of being out of line with received opinion, “The only party that's proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party” said Gordon Brown at PMQs. What’s more, Labour proposed increased spending. (In itself, referring to public spending rather than investment is peculiar for frontbenchers.)

As it turns out Gordon Brown was being very misleading, you might even say that he was lying.

Due to the constraints placed on the treasury by the financial crisis, whoever is in government will have little choice about what to do. Both the Conservatives and Labour will do the same thing - protect healthcare expenditure and cut other departments more or less to the same amount, 10%.

The truth has come out and Brown has egg on his face. Cue George Osborne for a dose of piousness,

“The real dividing line is not ‘cut versus investment’, but honesty versus dishonest […] We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt means that many government departments will face cuts in their budgets. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.”

To the Times’ credit, they acknowledge, albeit fleetingly, that Osborne “gives no specific Conservative spending plans”.

So, is it a case of honest vs. dishonest?

Firstly, ‘honest’ should be prefixed by accidentally, reluctantly or surreptitiously, depending on which is actually the case. I would opt for accidentally given the way in which the Conservatives initially handled Lansley’s admission.

Secondly, there is more to Labour than dishonesty. As bad as Labour have been on the economy, the Conservative would have been far worse. When Brown acted swiftly to support banking when it was most needed Cameron, Osborne and Co. had little response.

Labour’s press management is appalling. Rather than the media focusing on the bold decisions made by Brown in contrast to the Conservatives' reluctance to do anything, the media are focusing on Brown’s petty lies. Labour have themselves to blame.

UPDATE

The day after this post was published Polly Toynbee offered the following advice to Labour:

Talk about the national debt honestly and turn it against the Tories. If Britain really is coming out of recession, keep telling voters the truth: virtually every penny of debt comes from rescuing the country from depression and the knock-on effect of recession. Saving banks that were hours from shutting ATMs and starving the population, then flooding the economy with money to stop a depression, was action strongly supported by the Financial Times and the Economist. The Tories – alone – opposed it and would have plunged us back to the 1930s. Most of the debt is due to recession – when tax revenues dry up and unemployment costs soar. These costs would be phenomenally higher in a long Tory-induced depression. […]

Voters know the Tories will cut with relish anything they dare, but David Cameron will win on competence if he is the only one who seems to face up to the debt. Labour has the best record on the recession and the best record on public services – but no chance if no one believes a word it says.

Be still my beating heart – electoral reform is on the agenda.

2009-06-10T14:45:00.007+01:00

The news that Gordon Brown is to give electoral reform “consideration” was leaked in advance of the official announcement. According to Newsnight's Paul Mason, it is a condition placed on Brown for his uncontested leadership. The Alternative Vote system is the one the government favours. Surely, this is to be welcomed by all … surely not that is.

The problem? Nobody can agree on the best electoral system.

Meanwhile it looks like the House of Lords is to become elected. Moving aside the objection that an elected second chamber is not as desirable as most people think (now there is a future blog post to look forward too), is it really wise to reform the second chamber when the future electoral system of the first chamber is unknown?

No voting system is perfect. If the second chamber is to become elected, why not use a different voting system to the one used in the first chamber in order to balance out the faults. For example, a first past the post system in one chamber to deliver a strong government and proportional representation in the other in order to better reflect voter intention.

What will be the outcome? We wait with bated breath.

Krugman on Brown

2009-06-09T21:12:00.004+01:00

As is often my want, I thought that I would point in the opposite direction to much of the blogesphere. Paul Krugman, receiver of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has this to say about Gordon Brown:

Do Mr. Brown and his party really deserve blame for the crisis here? Yes and no.

Mr. Brown bought fully into the dogma that the market knows best, that less regulation is more. In 2005 he called for “trust in the responsible company, the engaged employee and the educated consumer” and insisted that regulation should have “not just a light touch but a limited touch.” It might as well have been Alan Greenspan speaking.

There’s no question that this zeal for deregulation set Britain up for a fall. […] But here’s the thing. While Mr. Brown and his party may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.

After all, would a Conservative government have been any less in the thrall of free-market fundamentalism, any more willing to rein in runaway finance, over the past decade? Of course not.

And Mr. Brown’s response to the crisis — a burst of activism to make up for his past passivity — makes sense, whereas that of his opponents does not.

The Brown government has moved aggressively to shore up troubled banks. This has potentially put taxpayers on the hook for large future bills, but the financial situation has stabilized. Mr. Brown has backed the Bank of England, which, like the Federal Reserve, has engaged in unconventional moves to free up credit. And he has shown himself willing to run large budget deficits now, even while scheduling substantial tax increases for the future.

All of this seems to be working. Leading indicators have turned (slightly) positive, suggesting that Britain, whose competitiveness has benefited from the devaluation of the pound, will begin an economic recovery well before the rest of Europe.

Whilst the victories of hateful fascists across Europe are a grotesque articulation of anti-political feeling, resentment & bigotry, the victories of this hateful ensemble is largely symbolic. A loathsome symbol to be despised by all the right-minded and politically aware. They serve as warning to future voters. Yet, for now, they have little power.

In terms of the legislature, the gentle shift of the Europe further rightwards is more potent. The centre-left coalition shrank– the right is even more powerful.

As we reject New Labour we reject the ‘third way’ economics. The even more laissez-fair economics of the right awaits us.