Friday, February 03, 2006

Cindy Sheehan: Capitol Police Apology is "Crock of Horse Manure"

Cindy Sheehan: Capitol Police Apology is "Crock of Horse Manure"

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan

Dear Friends,

I just saw the below "apology" on MichaelMoore.com...thanks Eric!

This is the biggest crock of horse manure ever.

Everyone is saying how "wonderful" it is that they apologized to me.

Look at a few things they said: My "initial" conduct wasn't enough to warrant me getting arrested.

None of my conduct was. I didn't yell at the officer, or call anyone an "idiot" like Mrs. Young did.

Secondly, it states the Mrs. Young wasn't arrested because she didn't "return to the gallery."

Why did they arrest me? They didn't even give me the opportunity to leave the gallery.

They had fours hours to figure out that I didn't do anything wrong. The Capitol police tried the tactic of smearing me and lying about me when I was in jail to the media. I guess they didn't count on the Reuter's reporter who was sitting right next to me.

They also started lying about me when I was in jail, I heard a female officer say "She took off her jacket and threw it." And Mike Weight, who arrested me, said I "stood up and started yelling something."

The Capitol police could not support their lies, that's why they apologized.

That's the only reason.

Love,

Me

* * *

The United States Capitol Police will request that the U.S. Attorney's Office not pursue the charge against Cindy Lee Sheehan who was arrested Tuesday Night before the President's State of the Union address.

Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery. Subsequently she was arrested and transported to USCP Headquarters for processing.

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan's manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. The USCP also asked Mrs. Beverly Young, to leave the gallery because of a T-shirt she was wearing. Mrs. Young did not return to the Gallery so there was no need for further police action. Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague," said Chief Terrance W. Gainer. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

Chief Gainer met with Chairman Young and his wife to both apologize and share the Department's plans for avoiding this in the future. A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan.

The Department will work with the House Sergeant at Arms to clarify the rules of the House, and ensure that officers clearly understand the rules.

If you have any questions or concerns pertaining to this release please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.

* * * * * *
Prepared by:
Sergeant Kimberly Schneider
United States Capitol Police
Public Information Officer

Link to Capital Police release

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Also read: "What Really Happened at the State of the Union," February 1, 2006

Cindy Sheehan is the founder the Camp Casey Peace Foundation, a co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace www.gsfp.org and the author of Not One More Mothers Child available from BuzzFlash and at www.koabooks.com


LINK

The Last Chance Democracy Cafe

The Last Chance Democracy Café:
Episode 47: I Can Still Remember Freedom

Date: December 23, 2078.
Location: Rural Montana.

It was a strikingly unlikely sight, even for a world that had become accustomed to unlikely sights: A President of the United States walking alone in the moonlight, still a full hour before dawn, in a wide open field at the end of a long dirt road; he was 110 miles away from the nearest town. A week’s accumulation of snow had turned into muck the day before when the temperature soared to a radically unseasonable 67 degrees, only to plunge back into the low 20s after nightfall, freezing the saturated fields. Every step taken by the famous, solitary figure was met with a loud crunching sound, the sound of a child biting into a piece of rock candy. Only to him, it conjured up something different, for him it was the sound of millions of voices crying out in anguish.

Read the rest of this entry »

Republican Darts at The Last Chance Democracy Cafe

Cindy Sheehan: Capitol Police Apology is "Crock of Horse Manure"

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan

Dear Friends,

I just saw the below "apology" on MichaelMoore.com...thanks Eric!

This is the biggest crock of horse manure ever.

Everyone is saying how "wonderful" it is that they apologized to me.

Look at a few things they said: My "initial" conduct wasn't enough to warrant me getting arrested.

None of my conduct was. I didn't yell at the officer, or call anyone an "idiot" like Mrs. Young did.

Secondly, it states the Mrs. Young wasn't arrested because she didn't "return to the gallery."

Why did they arrest me? They didn't even give me the opportunity to leave the gallery.

They had fours hours to figure out that I didn't do anything wrong. The Capitol police tried the tactic of smearing me and lying about me when I was in jail to the media. I guess they didn't count on the Reuter's reporter who was sitting right next to me.

They also started lying about me when I was in jail, I heard a female officer say "She took off her jacket and threw it." And Mike Weight, who arrested me, said I "stood up and started yelling something."

The Capitol police could not support their lies, that's why they apologized.

That's the only reason.

Love,

Me

* * *

The United States Capitol Police will request that the U.S. Attorney's Office not pursue the charge against Cindy Lee Sheehan who was arrested Tuesday Night before the President's State of the Union address.

Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery. Subsequently she was arrested and transported to USCP Headquarters for processing.

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan's manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. The USCP also asked Mrs. Beverly Young, to leave the gallery because of a T-shirt she was wearing. Mrs. Young did not return to the Gallery so there was no need for further police action. Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague," said Chief Terrance W. Gainer. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

Chief Gainer met with Chairman Young and his wife to both apologize and share the Department's plans for avoiding this in the future. A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan.

The Department will work with the House Sergeant at Arms to clarify the rules of the House, and ensure that officers clearly understand the rules.

If you have any questions or concerns pertaining to this release please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.

* * * * * *
Prepared by:
Sergeant Kimberly Schneider
United States Capitol Police
Public Information Officer

Link to Capital Police release

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Also read: "What Really Happened at the State of the Union," February 1, 2006

Cindy Sheehan is the founder the Camp Casey Peace Foundation, a co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace www.gsfp.org and the author of Not One More Mothers Child available from BuzzFlash and at www.koabooks.com


Play a handy game of darts

Bush Just Has to Face It: He is Wrong and Chirac is Right

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006
The crises over Hamas and Iran underline the collapse of the neocon mission and the end of a one-superpower world
by Jonathan Steele
 

George Bush's presidency still has three years to run, but this week's state of the union address had an unmistakably ebb-tide air. Its tone - "chastened, deferential, modest" in the words of the Los Angeles Times - suggested that the president felt the waves of power were flowing against him.

This is not the same as being a lame duck. The moment when second-term presidents start to face severe problems in getting legislation through Congress or convincing foreign allies to support controversial measures normally comes later in the cycle. The last midterm elections (in this case November 2006) are the usual peak before the White House incumbent's domestic authority declines. On foreign policy the slippage comes even later. It may be delayed as far as the final weeks of office, as Bill Clinton found when he tried to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians in January 2001.

Nor does the change in Bush's demeanour this week result mainly from fading support among Americans for what will be remembered as the central decision of his presidency, the mistaken war on Iraq. His unprecedentedly low poll ratings certainly affected his mood on Tuesday night, and one sharp-eyed New York Times reporter noted that "he smiled seldom and only winked once". But the reason for Bush's gloom goes much deeper.

Like missionaries who find that the heathens are refusing to be converted, he and his neocon colleagues are beginning to realise that their mission of freedom is not as convincing as they expected. It is also having unpredicted effects, forcing them to confront awkward choices: carry on elaborating grand principles, or adjust the message and feel guilty of sinful backsliding.

Bush's speech was remarkable for the number of times he called on his fellow Americans not to retreat, not to give up, not to succumb to pessimism, not to be defeatist. If his policies were not floundering, these pleas would not have been necessary. They were markedly different from the confident tone of last year's address, when he had just been inaugurated for a second term and the administration hoped that Iraq's first elections would bring the collapse of the insurgency. Now, after a constitutional referendum and another election, the attacks on US and British forces show no sign of abating significantly.

Bush insisted on Tuesday that democracy was still on the march around the world, particularly in the Middle East. He cited the polls in Egypt, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, though when he claimed that Iran "is held hostage by a small clerical elite" he seemed to forget that its president was also elected: he won in a well-contested race with a high voter turnout and no obvious frontrunner.

Yet, as one listens to Bush and his neocon team, their sense of frustration is palpable. They realise they have been ambushed by their own policies. Their zeal for ideological purity pushed them into positions from which it is hard to escape without looking as though they are betraying themselves.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has made two difficult trips to Europe in less than a month. The first was overshadowed by the scandal over secret US torture centres in Europe; the second was meant to be a triumphant assertion of progress in Afghanistan, but turned into a series of crisis meetings on Hamas and Iran.

Rice pleads with Europeans to understand that a real war is going on and there are bad people out there. She urges us not to be complacent about terrorism and argues the need to make tough changes in our civil-liberty laws. She sees it as a success that the Bush administration has abolished the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. This means, she argues, that the tolerance shown to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1980s, which allowed them generous time to drop their commitment to violence, cannot be repeated with Hamas now.

She fears that Hamas's victory will erode Europeans' commitment to the war on terror as they struggle to square the circle of continuing to help the Palestinians while calling on their new government to tear up its manifesto. The Hamas crisis is not just a foreign-policy dilemma. It is a metaphor for the brittle nature of the Bush administration's self-awarded global mission as it faces the contradictions of the real world.

The crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions is equally significant. The post-cold-war era, when there was only a single superpower, is over now. The United States is being forced to enlist Russia and, to a lesser extent, China as partners in finding a compromise. With this, the economic rise of India and the resurgence of anti-yanqui nationalism in several states in Latin America, we have clearly entered a multipolar world.

No one in Downing Street or Washington will admit it publicly, but Jacques Chirac has turned out to be right. His global Gaullism, the notion that the world has several power centres, and it is no longer just "the west versus the rest", offers a more accurate picture than the image of the lone cowboy acting in the name of us all. The analysis is not Chirac's alone, of course. The French president is in most ways a discredited figure, little loved even at home. But he is the most prominent European to dare to embrace multipolarity as the new reality of international politics.

Leaders of the non-aligned nations have been saying the same thing for a long time, as have Washington's latest bugbears, such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. In his soft-spoken way, Kofi Annan has also been calling for a new recognition of the dispersal of international power. In a little-reported speech in London this week, he took issue with even the concept of a five-nation power centre made up of the permanent members of the UN security council. "Do not underestimate the slow erosion of the UN's authority and legitimacy that stems from the perception that it has a very narrow power base, with just five countries calling the shots," he pleaded.

UN reform is a slow process, and it is doubtful whether the new claimants for permanent security-council seats, such as Brazil, India and Japan, will get their way soon. But the trend is in their direction, regardless of whether it is formalised by the UN now or in several years.

So, Bush's frantic pleas to his American audience not to retreat are signs not just that his ideological simplicities carry less conviction at home than they once did. He has also begun to see that US power abroad is on the wane.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

The Unintended Politics of Brokeback Mountain

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006
by CommonDreams.org
by Bill C. Davis
 

Brokeback Mountain has transcendent imagery, organic, poetic language, and honest, loving acting. All elements in this movie accumulate to create a gut-wrenching, illuminating mythic human narrative.

As it penetrates the emotional psyche of audiences, without one character uttering a single political thought, this movie has shattering political implications. It concretizes and complicates, in the best sense, what has been debated as an abstraction and broadcast on TV as a cartoon.

When asked if he had seen the movie, Bush gave a befuddled and flustered denial, as if he had been asked if he took an illegal drug recently. He was anxious for it to be known he did not take the movie in lest anyone think he was looking to have his thinking confounded or his moral certainties polluted.

Beyond the times and locales in which these two men fall and continue in love, the back story of one of the men is key both personally and politically.

As a boy, his father brought him to view the desecrated body of a man who stepped over the social, cultural, sexual line that the boy as an adult now steps over. That murder was both a criminal and political act for which no one had to suffer any justice. The image was a protein planted in the brain of a young boy by a deranged patriarch. It was an invisible fence put up in the landscape of his social consciousness and ultimately his emotional life.

As an adult he defied this interdiction. The physical expression – the passionate kiss – the tender touch - the irresistible pull and penetration – all political acts – all acts of defiance even though he never thought of them as either.

The need for secrecy and deception occurs to the two men as an unconscious reflex. The oppression is internal and external. This is the success and challenge of the omnipresent patriarch. Our lover is threatened with death for the thing that has revealed itself to be the most essential aspect of his existence.

What moved him to embrace this essential thing in the face of the graphic consequences he held in his memory is mysterious and heroic. He was the embodiment of a house divided against itself and he moved toward his unique humanity in spite of the pre-ordained death sentence that was drilled into his senses. This is personal and political. This is rebellion and an exquisite erotic declaration to the open skies and the rocky, rolling countryside.

Last month the US backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of gay people. At this level both governments acted much like the mindless father who led his son to view the savaged corpse of an outcast. The message – from Iran, US and the other governments who backed this initiative – is what one of the characters in Brokeback Mountain warns his lover – “if this thing grabs hold of us in the wrong place – at the wrong time – we’re dead.” The politics of that statement are in the questions that must follow – where is the wrong place? What is the wrong time? (Apparently even a gay bar in New Bedford Ma. in 2006 is the wrong place and time.)

The poignancy of this movie is that the two men in “Brokeback” most likely didn’t think they even had the right to suffer what they were suffering – or that they were entitled to whatever happiness they could sneak in away from their proscribed lives. One of them was ready to make the bold move to ordered permanence – the other had the internal brand of his father’s edict.

Humanity in all its variations, and when and where it can have full expression, is political. Protecting human rights is the reason societies organize and legislate. In cracking open the nucleus of this particular human experience Brokeback Mountain takes something exceptional and makes it universal which is the mark of great art and which, intended or not, creates and clarifies political action.

Bill C. Davis is a playwright – www.billcdavis.com 

When Two Worlds Collide - Rove v. Fitzgerald

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006
by Elizabeth de la Vega
 

For Karl Rove, no news from the Plame case -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA agent -- is definitely not good news. Seismic activity is notoriously silent, so we may not be hearing any rumblings at the moment. But speaking as a former prosecutor, I believe it highly likely that, just below the surface, the worlds of Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, shifting like tectonic plates, are about to collide. As was true with Vice President Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with obstruction of justice and lying to a federal agent as well as to the grand jury, Rove might not be charged with the leak itself. I am confident, however, that Rove will not leave this party empty-handed. He will, at the very least, almost certainly be charged with making false statements to an FBI agent. Here's why.

For starters, the evidence that Rove deliberately lied to the FBI is overwhelming.

In case anyone's forgotten, on July 14, 2003, eight days after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in an op-ed in the New York Times publicly questioned Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to acquire "yellowcake" uranium in Africa, columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" had told him the trip to Niger, which Wilson referenced in that piece, had been arranged by his wife Valerie, whom the officials described as a CIA operative assigned to investigate matters involving weapons of mass destruction.

It is now undisputed that Karl Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson before Novak's now infamous article appeared: Novak himself (whom Rove has known for 30 years) and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Some details of the discussion with Cooper are in dispute, but there's no question that the two men discussed Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA agent and the administration's claim that she had arranged her husband's trip to Niger. After the conversation, Rove sent an e-mail about it to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Rove's aide Susan Ralston has reportedly testified that Rove told her not to log in the phone call, although that was the usual office procedure. On July 17, Cooper wrote an article in which he described conversations with two government officials who claimed Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and had arranged Wilson's trip to Africa. Cooper questioned whether the administration was declaring war on Wilson.

Between July 14 and October 8, when Rove was interviewed by the FBI, the Bush administration held approximately 30 press briefings in which the leak and/or the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were discussed. There were hundreds of news articles and repeated calls for an investigation by congressmen, columnists, and the CIA.

By mid-September, Karl Rove was increasingly being named as one of the "two senior administration officials" who blew Wilson's cover and Bush's press officer Scott McClellan was facing ever more insistent questions about Rove's involvement. On September 16, McClellan said that "it was ridiculous" to suggest Rove was the leaker. On the morning of September 29, McClellan announced that "the President knows Rove is not involved." From that date to October 8, when Rove was interviewed, Bush and McClellan were specifically questioned about Rove's possible role on ten separate occasions. On October 7, Rove and other White House staffers were required to provide investigators with all documents relating to any contacts they had had with reporters about Joseph Wilson, his trip to Niger, or his wife, Valerie Wilson.

As has now been widely reported, when Karl Rove spoke to FBI agents, he specifically told them that he had not spoken to any reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife before Novak's article appeared.

Given the almost seamless press coverage of the leak during the preceding three months, the time and effort that the White House was devoting to the issue, as well as the intensifying focus on whether he himself had leaked the information, it is impossible to believe that, on October 8, Karl Rove -- known for his brilliance, attention to detail, and legendary memory -- did not remember those two conversations with reporters about Valerie Wilson. If Rove told the FBI agents otherwise, it was surely a deliberate lie.

According to reports, Rove then added that he had first heard about Valerie Wilson from a reporter, though he did not remember which reporter or when he heard it. He also said that he had enlisted the aid of the Republican National Committee and conservative news agencies among other groups to spread disparaging information about Joseph Wilson and his wife, but only after Novak's article appeared.

Rove's elaboration not only compounded his initial lie but also illuminated the world of politics that he has been incapable of leaving behind -- a world that collides head-on with the one Patrick Fitzgerald inhabits, where politics have no place and where laws, and the highest standards of public service, prevail.

Despite his measured words, Fitzgerald revealed much about his worldview in the press conference in which he announced Libby's indictment. He said that the investigation was serious because the disclosure of classified information about a CIA officer could jeopardize national security. But equally serious -- and he repeated this more than once -- was the betrayal of government employees by their own officials. Anyone who has worked as a federal prosecutor for two decades, as has Fitzgerald, has also worked closely, often late and long hours, with law enforcement agents, so it is not surprising perhaps that when asked about the damage caused by the leak, Fitzgerald offered the following:

"I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their job, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected. And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow employees."
Over and over again, in that same press conference, Fitzgerald demonstrated his belief that if you sign onto a system that has certain rules, you have to follow those rules even if it might be personally advantageous to break them. Those who tuned in saw reporters repeatedly ask him about information he could not reveal without violating the rules of grand jury secrecy or prosecutorial ethics. He was asked, for example, whether other people might be charged. He declined to answer. He was asked to evaluate the strength of the case. He declined to answer. He acknowledged how frustrating his inability to answer undoubtedly was to the assembled media, but explained that he couldn't gather information according to the rules of grand jury secrecy -- which prohibit talking about people who were investigated but not charged with a crime -- and then afterwards reveal the information anyway because it was too "inconvenient" not to answer reporters' questions.

Later in the press conference, he said simply, "All I can do is make sure that myself and our team follow the rules."

Fitzgerald's world is far removed from the world of expediency and personal advantage in which Karl Rove operates. In his carefully crafted statements during the FBI interview on October 8, Rove indicated an obvious belief that he could get away with spreading information about government employees for political purposes as long as someone else had revealed that information first, regardless of whether or not the information was disparaging or classified. He did not appear to be concerned with where the information came from, or even whether it was true.

Although it is astounding that Rove would blatantly describe such a despicable ethos (if you can call it that), it should not have been unexpected. In the world of campaign politics that Rove has so long inhabited, smears and personal attacks are designed to seem as if they were spontaneously generated. They can then wander around, undirected, until they finally curl up in America's living rooms like so many mysterious, uninvited guests. These intruders may be rude and destructive, but no one is supposed to be able to get rid of them, in part because no one is supposed to be able to sort out or pinpoint how they got there in the first place. Thus, although Karl Rove has lurked in the background of an unprecedented number of whisper and smear campaigns -- that, for instance, John McCain had an illegitimate child (a rumor spread during the Republican primaries that preceded the 2000 election), or that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian (a persistent rumor that was spread during Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaign) -- he has never been held accountable. And that is a state of affairs to which Rove became accustomed.

Rove has escaped responsibility for his sneaky campaign tricks because the candidates for whom he has worked -- most prominently, George Bush -- have had a stunning ability to accept, unquestioningly, the miraculous appearance of information that takes down their opponents. They had no problem about endorsing brazen dishonesty or the least interest in ferreting out bad actors in their camps. At the same time, opposing candidates have had neither the resources, nor the time to fully investigate the attacks before plummeting in the polls. Afterwards, of course, it was already far too late.

Unlike Rove's former adversaries in the political world, however, Fitzgerald has both the time and investigative resources. When Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor, all the known facts on the outing of Valerie Wilson indicated that government officials had broken the rules, if not the law. It's no surprise then that Fitzgerald has pursued the matter vigorously; nor should it be a surprise that Rove's statement to the FBI on October 8 would have raised some obvious red flags and caused Fitzgerald to become skeptical. Rove deliberately omitted key information about conversations with reporters that he could not possibly have forgotten; he claimed to have heard classified government information only from a reporter -- despite the fact that he himself was one of the highest government officials in the nation; and then he admitted that he had no qualms about enlisting surrogates to betray government employees in order to achieve political gain.

Rove's statement raised more questions than answers. It also opened a window into the world of a President's key adviser who never left campaign mode and who had never before been tripped up, no matter what he did. Such a man would be quite unprepared for an investigator like Fitzgerald who operates under a very different timetable and in a world ordered by radically different rules.

Now that Rove's statement has been shown to be so obviously false, it would be most surprising if when his world and Fitzgerald's collide, the result isn't a political earthquake. The moment an earthquake arrives remains impossible to predict, but it would be surprising if, in the CIA leak case, the impact of a Rove indictment did not cause massive aftershocks.

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

FW: NEW ARTICLE: It's Time for a Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil

FYI - attached is an op-ed on oil industry profiteering just published in Costco's nationwide magazine, which goes out to millions of consumers. I argued for a windfall profits tax, while two experts at the Tax Foundation argued against it. This piece comes out the very same week ExxonMobil reported the most profits of any corporation in American history. For links to source material in this article, just go to www.workingforchange.com/blog - David

*********************************

http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/200602/

Costco Connection - February, 2006

It's Time for a Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil

By David Sirota

Most consumers appreciate low prices. But don't get too comfortable: Unless we halt energy profiteering and enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies, we might be kissing those low prices goodbye.

Salary.com reported that skyrocketing gas prices are swallowing many Americans' entire 2005 salary increases. And this winter, consumers face huge heating bills. A windfall profits tax is a first step in stopping this price gouging. It is a simple concept: It taxes oil profits above a certain level deemed excessive by economic experts. Not only would this tax raise $3 billion to $4 billion a year in public revenues, but, more important, it would punish oil companies that are trying to bleed consumers dry.

Just look at ExxonMobil to see what "swimming in cash" means. In just the third quarter of 2005, the company reported roughly $10 billion in profits. According to BBC News, that was more than any company ever reported in American history. Fortune magazine noted that Exxon executives, sitting on a $25 billion treasure chest, were worrying about "the headache of what to do with all that cash" – not about Americans struggling to afford higher energy prices.

A windfall profits tax, of course, would ensure oil companies remained financially healthy because it would kick in only when profits become egregiously excessive, as they are now. And let's be honest – it's time this industry started paying its fair share anyway.

Opensecrets.org reports that since 1990 the oil and gas industry has used almost $200 million in political campaign contributions. That cash makes sure the industry's tax rates are far lower than the average American's. Today, while the middle class's tax burden rises, major oil companies are raking in huge profits but paying just 13 percent in taxes. Meanwhile, Congress recently gave the industry billions in new tax breaks, meaning many oil companies may end up paying no taxes at all.

To be sure, corrupt politicians, oil executives and academic naysayers will oppose a windfall profits tax, telling us scary but unsupported stories about how it will supposedly mean disaster. But you need only visit your local gas station or watch product prices rise to know the real disaster will come if Congress does not enact this commonsense measure and refuses to protect American from the oil profiteers.

It Takes More Than Free Trade to End Poverty

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006

Mandelson treats the negotiations with impoverished African countries as a bargain between equals
by Joseph Stiglitz
 

Last year was supposed to be the year to "make poverty history". But after a year of rock concerts, high-level summits and unprecedented public attention on the problems facing the world's poorest, 2005 ended with a whimper rather than a bang.

The meeting of trade ministers in Hong Kong in December was a chance to make major changes to the world trading system and give hundreds of millions of people the opportunity to trade their way out of poverty. At the end of the meeting, WTO director-general Pascal Lamy described the accord as a landmark document that managed to break the deadlock in global trade talks.

The so-called successes of the Hong Kong deal, however, are of little more than symbolic value to the developing countries, who are coming to realize that, despite the promises they have been given, this trade round will once again deliver them little of real value.

Take, for instance, the gesture of removing agriculture export subsidies. It is a move in the right direction, but export subsidies make up only a small fraction (roughly 4 per cent) of total subsidies given to farmers in rich countries. The bulk of agricultural support comes in the form of production subsidies, which operate to increase the amount of food on the world market and hence lower the prices received by producers in the poor countries. So while the removal of export subsidies is welcome, it is only a tiny part of the egregious distortion of world agricultural markets.

The other headline achievement of the Hong Kong meeting was to give goods from the poorest countries free access to the markets of the rich countries. Unfortunately, the fine print of the deal undermines much of its value. The United States and Japan slipped in a provision which would allow them to continue to tax a small number (3 per cent) of products. While this may appear to be a small compromise, it is in fact enough to diminish the value of the package significantly, because poor countries are only able to produce a very small range of goods competitively. Thus this exception gives the US scope to exclude the majority of the goods they can actually export.

The declaration at Hong Kong, of course, was not a deal, but an agreement about the way forward. The agreement was really just a shell, with much of the detail to be fleshed out in the coming months. What happens henceforth will determine the scope of the gains from the Doha round and whether, in the end, developing countries are better or worse off as a result.

Unfortunately, there are several reasons to be pessimistic. One is the increasingly hard-line approach taken by the European Union. The EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, continues to demand that the developing countries make reciprocal concessions in return for access to the EU's market. He said last week that "Anyone coming to the negotiating table empty handed must expect to leave empty handed." Mandelson treats the negotiations as a bargain between equals, but impoverished African countries can hardly be expected to negotiate on equal terms with the giant advanced economies.

The second threat to the Doha round is the increasing detachment of the US, which continues to plough ahead with special trade agreements with its friends and allies outside the WTO. These bilateral agreements threaten to create a spaghetti-bowl of trade deals which hamper multilateral progress and leave the poorest countries out in the cold.

The main problem with the round is that whenever the negotiators from the rich countries reach a stalemate, they respond by taking issues off the agenda. One after another, thorny issues have been jettisoned or pushed into the background, so that the agenda is now so narrow that there is very little for anyone to object to and, unfortunately, very few areas in which real progress can be made.

As Andrew Charlton of the LSE and I point out in our recently published book Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development, there was in fact a broad agenda that could deliver benefits to the poorest countries, but which has been almost entirely ignored in the Doha round. For example, there is much that could be done to reduce tariffs on industrial goods. Rich countries collect tariffs four times higher on their imports from poor countries than imports from other rich countries. Similarly, some advances could quickly be made by liberalizing labor-intensive service sectors in which developing countries have genuine export interests.

Opening the door to trade is one thing, but the real challenge is to help developing countries go through it. Without assistance to build decent roads, efficient ports, and to produce goods of sufficient quality, new trading opportunities are meaningless. Aid and trade must go hand in hand if poverty is to be reduced.

For now, what is clear is that more attention has been focused on the image of progress than on the reality of enhancing incomes and opportunity in the developing world.

Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics and Chair of the Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Green for Danger?

Published on Friday, February 3, 2006 by Inter Press Service
by Bill Berkowitz
 

OAKLAND, California - As the George W. Bush administration ratchets up its domestic spying capabilities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is collecting "research" reports on direct-action environmental groups produced by right-wing think tanks.

The revelations are nothing new. In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government spied on a host of civil rights organisations and prominent civil rights leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It also scrutinised and infiltrated a number of anti-Vietnam War groups. In the 1980s, Pres. Ronald Reagan's administration spied on groups opposed to its policies in Central America. And during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, government agencies were actively collecting information on opponents of the war.

Recently, the New York Times reported -- albeit more than a year after it had uncovered the facts -- that in the name of the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has been using the National Security Agency (NSA), the nation's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on the conversations of U.S. citizens and others in the country.

Amid a swarm of criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, Pres. Bush has been criss-crossing the country on another public relations offensive, maintaining that secret electronic eavesdropping is absolutely essential to keep the U.S. safe from terrorists.

"It's important for people to understand that this programme is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," Bush said at a Jan. 26 press conference.

When the Los Angeles Times' James Gerstenzang suggested that the president's justification of his surveillance policy "seem[ed] to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was: 'When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal,' " Bush responded: "Most presidents believe that during a time of war that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us."

He then offered his understanding of the legislation that was passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "Go ahead and conduct the war. We're not going to tell you how to do it."

"Thirty-five years ago," the San Francisco Chronicle's Bob Egelko recently wrote, "President Richard Nixon claimed constitutional authority to wiretap Americans' phone calls to protect national security without asking a judge..."

The Supreme Court disagreed, unanimously ruling that "the Constitution granted the powers he was claiming to judges, not presidents".

Egelko also pointed out that "presidents have approved wiretaps without court orders since the 1940s, but the legality of the practice was thrown into doubt after the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that electronic eavesdropping was a search, and thus covered by the prohibition on unreasonable searches in the Constitution's Fourth Amendment".

The story of government agencies spying on U.S. citizens apparently has many layers. Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the FBI has been collecting information from partisan, ideologically-driven right-wing think tanks that have long had environmental activists in their crosshairs.

A segment of a recent broadcast of National Public Radio's show Living on Earth called "Big Brother" explored the FBI's programme that spies on environmental activists. Guest host Jeff Young introduced the piece by noting that the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act had "expand[ed] the government's power to monitor U.S. citizens in its fight against terrorism".

Young pointed out that he had noticed -- while examining nearly 2,000 pages of documents -- that the FBI had been depending "pretty heavily on research done by a couple of think tanks that are very conservative, pro-business, anti-regulation in their mindset and their mission" for information on Greenpeace, a longtime environmental group involved in peaceful protest activities.

Young's guest, Ann Beeson, the associate legal director of the ACLU, talked about how right-wing think tanks are providing grist for FBI investigations: "Unfortunately, it's another bit of information that might lead one to conclude that the FBI is not à just doing this to investigate crimes, but is doing it purposefully to suppress legitimate dissent and criticism of the administration's policies."

Beeson pointed out that another FBI document related to the anti-Star Wars activities of Greenpeace appears to indicate that the agency "is concerned that the protest itself could harm the public image of the missile defense system. Now, to me that sounds very much like the FBI trying to assist the administration in preventing criticism of its positions and programs from getting out there in the public. And that's a very dangerous job for the FBI to be engaged in."

"Amongst the nearly 2,000 pages on Greenpeace were documents from the Capital Research Centre and the Washington Legal Foundation," Deepa Isac, a staff attorney with Greenpeace, told me in a phone interview.

The FBI documents included two issues of CRC's Organisation Trends, which focused on the "radical tactics of ... 'direct action' groups" and a document from the Washington Legal Foundation, titled "Direct action protest groups not above the law," written by Glenn G. Lammi, the Chief Counsel of the Legal Studies Division for the Foundation.

The WLF is a non-profit, tax-exempt public foundation, which was founded in 1977 to "fight activist lawyers, regulators, and intrusive government agencies at the federal and state levels, in the courts and regulatory agencies across the country".

Isac recognised that it was hard to determine how these documents from right-wing think tanks were used, but she pointed out that that the FBI had "no documents from counter-balancing organisations".

"I don't know the full extent of the FBI's work, but Greenpeace has always acted non-violently while working to protect the environment," Isac noted. "It was surprising to discover that it would use counter-terrorism resources to target peaceful groups like Greenpeace."

Right-wing advocacy and "research" groups attacking environmentalists is nothing new. Apparently, however, since the FBI determined that eco-extremists were a major domestic terrorist threat, it has ratcheted up its spying operations.

*Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column "Conservative Watch" documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the U.S. Right.

Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service

Revolutionary Movements and Leadership   

Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be lead out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves." --Eugene Victor Debs - December 18, 1905

By Charles Sullivan

02/03/06 "ICH" -- -- As a writer, I get many responses to my articles across a wide spectrum of ideologies, from all over the world. This is one of the things that make writing interesting to me—engaging people and hearing their ideas about things that matter. Almost invariably people ask me what they can do, or who is going to lead the next great social justice movement. What follows is my response to those inquiries. Bear in mind that it is hastily crafted and intended as a rough outline—a starting point. I will leave it to others more capable than me to build upon the foundation I have laid; or if necessary to start anew.

As the result of our hurried lifestyle, we live in a relatively intellectually shallow culture that has been softened by the idea of instant gratification. When we are sick we take a pill with the expectation that it will quickly make our malady disappear. We rarely consider the underlying causes of illness and disease. Our meals are rarely savored: they are prepared quickly and eaten in haste. Everything we do is predicated upon speed. This, I believe, has led to a kind of intellectual laziness that is prevalent among Americans, more than anywhere else in the world. We want quick fixes, easy answers—instant gratification. We want someone to lead us and tell us what to do, in essence relieving us of the burden of personal responsibility we know is ours.

Let us come to understand, however, that the complex problems facing not only America, but also the world, have no simple or easy solutions. If solutions exist—not all problems can be solved by mortal minds—these issues will require deep thought and long and persistent effort on the part of many. If we are serious about the business of revolution we must not only be committed to meaningful change, we must be in it for the long haul. Unfortunately, change often occurs at glacial speed, not at the velocity of light, as we might hope. Even when change appears to happen very quickly, it only appears that way after a long hard struggle on the part of many to reach critical mass. When critical mass is reached, and we rarely know exactly where we are in relation to it, then things happen quickly and dramatically. But it is a long and difficult process that leads up to critical mass.

It is expecting too much of anyone to lead a revolution. Revolutions succeed only by the force of many, acting in unison toward a common goal, not by the leadership of a few. If they are to succeed, movements must be bigger than the leadership that organizes them. They must be essentially self-organizing. Leaders can be assassinated, movements cannot. Effective national and global movements are the result of the efforts of millions upon millions of individuals united in common belief, and common effort. They are the result of many single acts added together that move the whole toward a common goal. These acts have a cumulative and profound impact when carried out day after day, month after month, year after year. This is when they acquire the force of revolutionary change for the betterment of all.

Centralized power is concentrated power that is prone to corruption and betrayal. Decentralized, loosely organized movements disperse power throughout the entirety of the movement or cause. It places power equally into the hands of all, rather than a few. This is the kind of movement that, it seems to me, is most likely to succeed. It is the kind of movement in which, paradoxically, everyone is a leader, and no one is a leader. This kind of organization is the kind that most troubles authority, the status quo, because they do not know how to attack it. Its leadership is at once everywhere and nowhere. How does one assassinate an entire movement without engaging in genocide?

There are few tried and true methods to follow. Mostly these are uncharted waters where we venture. However, there is one absolute certainty—we must massively organize on a global scale across a broad spectrum of interrelated concerns and issues. There is no other place to start than at the beginning. This means we must start from where we are—at home and in our respective communities. We might begin by creating decentralized but loosely organized networks of local activists, who meet regularly at someone’s home, or a local library, perhaps, to discuss matters of importance to them; who work both individually and in unison on the issues that concern them. Partnerships are formed and alliances made, as we educate ourselves and decide how to solve local problems.

Some members of this group might work on organizing and democratizing the work place; others might address homelessness and affordable housing. Another group might work to put their own people on school boards, or run candidates for county commissioner. Still others might work on preserving wild forests or monitoring the biological health of local streams and rivers. There are any number of issues to choose from. It requires no more than a single person to begin working on them. The work can begin immediately and its impact can be felt at once. Of course, the more people involved the better. The idea is to find common ground and to make connections based upon commonality.

Meanwhile, broader networks begin to branch out from the local network into the surrounding county, then to the state level. From the state level they broaden their scope to the National level. From there the next step is the global level. All of these citizen activists will be in constant communication with each other, coordinating their efforts and broadening membership in the group. The network continuously branches out in concentric circles, building bridges across platforms and ideologies as it proceeds, until it circumnavigates the globe and joins hands with the people of every nation. There is no fast way to accomplish this. It requires time and persistent effort. This is the basis of a sound and enduring foundation.

Thus we now have large numbers of individuals working on specific parts of interrelated issues that produce specific outcomes. Rather than being overwhelmed by the immensity and complexity of the larger problem, they are broken down into manageable parts. Similar groups will form in every community. They will talk to each other, teach each other, share results and coordinate their efforts. The enormity and complexity of issues can be overwhelming and paralyzing. One hardly knows where to begin, so nothing gets down. The pitfall of enormity can be avoided by delegating work and breaking everything down into manageable portions. If there are enough people willing to do the work they may need to be given a rough blue print and a little guidance. There will necessarily be some false starts, but together we will find our way.

Seemingly disparate but interrelated issues such as corporate control, revolutionary unionism, militarism, public funding of political campaigns, proportional representation in government, sweatshops, civil rights, starvation and hunger, disease, safe organically grown food, small family farming—a broad spectrum of issues—are addressed in this way. Clearly, there is no shortage of issues to select from. There is something for everyone. Find something that interests you and get started.

By continuously attacking these individual issues on many levels, we will be making steady progress on the broad front of a massive social justice movement of global dimensions. Thus we must reach out to the people working in other but related movements, who are already working on their own issues and know them best. In effect, we would be uniting the working poor with labor unions at home and in Sri Lanka; democratizing and liberating the work place through revolutionary unionism, taking public ownership of the economy from the corporations and redistributing wealth equitably to those who produce. We would be cleaning our streams and rivers, even as we address global warming. All things are related. Pluck a flower, trouble a star.

We would work in unison with the disempowered and voiceless across every front, in every nation. Together we have a voice. Separate we do not. Those working on civil rights issues would be united with people working on labor issues, because those issues are interconnected. Individual problems will not be fixed in isolation from the whole. A particular problem can be isolated temporarily for the purpose of making it a manageable part, but it must be reassembled within the matrix of the integrated whole if it is to work. For example, women chained to work tables in Chinese sweatshops would be working with the employees of Wal-Mart in the US and Germany to emancipate all parties from wage slavery. The problem must be fixed globally; otherwise, it migrates to regions where there are few environmental regulations, or no protection for workers against corporate tyranny.

Creative and visionary ways must be found to bring groups of people together in common causes that may appear to be unrelated, but which are in fact interrelated. I will leave that to minds more brilliant than my own, but I will participate.

Ours will be a movement that gives voice to the voiceless, wherever they are, whatever they do. Uniting thousands of smaller issues into a great river of revolutionary activism is the only thing that will set us free. Many of these movements already exist—we have only to join forces with them. It is a monumental undertaking that will require relentless effort, self sacrifice, and commitment to the larger common cause. Uniting all of these disparate factions and moving them forward under a social justice umbrella, pushing forward in unison against our oppressors gives us enormous power that is virtually unstoppable. It is a power that can remake civilization by working toward the common good, by looking out for each other. It requires a different way of thinking than the one we are accustomed to. This way of thinking and doing stresses cooperation over competition and exploitation.

The most important principle of the movement is also logistically the most difficult to achieve—to unite and to focus the disparate parts—to make them function as a single organism in the cause of social justice. This means that we must work in accord across party lines, race, sex, socioeconomic class, political ideology, theology and geopolitical boundaries. We will be creating a global Commonwealth that tolerates and celebrates diversity. It will be based upon mutual respect and concern for the welfare of others. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

The rug weaver in India, the peasant farmer in Bangladesh, the Jewish Monk living in the rocky deserts of Israel; the truck driver moving across the plains of Montana, the anti-war protester in the streets of Washington or London in the prelude to war; the soldier in the sands of Iraq, as well as the insurgent on the other side of the fight; the political prisoners in the US such as Leonard Peltier, and his counterpart in China—all share a commonality with enormous potential to unite. Our rulers succeed by keeping us apart.

The wars that continually erupt across the planet and cause misery and suffering to the poor and the disenfranchised; the enormous gaps that exist between the classes; racism, sexism—the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few must be abolished. They will not be abolished by the system that created them. We must believe that another world is possible. We must believe it with all our heart and we must be willing to work for it. It will be humankind’s most incredible journey. It will be the most important and satisfying work we can do.

As we proceed along this diverse but united front toward a goal of social justice and world peace, we must recognize that what we are trying to accomplish is nothing less than a global revolution of Democratic Socialism. The name is not important; the substance of the dream is.

This requires a new paradigm—that of the Commonwealth, which is really an old paradigm that has served humankind well for thousands of years. From this moment forth let us not work for private gain and individual wealth; let us work for the common good of everyone, everywhere. Let us recognize that no one can be free until everyone is free.

Let those with technical expertise now come forward to organize global forums online so that we can share ideas, even as we set out to change our respective communities. Let us not only begin talking among ourselves; let us begin the work that we know must be done—work that we can do ourselves beginning this very moment. Let us come together for peace, whatever name we give to it. Everything we do matters—the effect is cumulative.

This hope for remaking civilization in the image of the common people, rather than the money changers, must rise, like a Phoenix, out of the ashes of capitalism. That will be a glorious day. Let us begin the Great Work.

The killing has got to stop

JOE COLGAN
GUEST COLUMNIST

I write as a veteran who has a special love for our troops and their families, and as the father of Lt. Benjamin Colgan, who was killed in action in Baghdad on Nov. 1, 2003. I also write on behalf of those who joined me in meeting with Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell last December about this senseless war in Iraq.

How many more Americans and Iraqis must perish or be maimed until the "stay-the-course" approach is discredited?

In October, Cantwell signed a letter stating "simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success." Yet when I met with Cantwell, she failed to distinguish her position from that of President Bush.

She also touted the importance of the Warner/Frist Amendment, which does nothing more than offer advice to the president and require that he report to Congress. After almost three years of unnecessary war, is this the best our highest deliberative body can do: make suggestions that will be ignored and beg to be kept informed? At this point in her re-election campaign, Cantwell must clarify her position on the Iraq war and hold public forums to discuss realistic options for ending this ever-deepening disaster.

It is time to acknowledge that the United States has now hit a dead-end on both the political and military fronts in Iraq, with current U.S. involvement in both areas only inflaming civil war. Last December's election in Iraq -- an event heralded as promising stability -- is itself undermined by the continuation of this occupation.

The United States is caught in the middle of a sectarian divide, and it will only get worse. Over the past five months, it has been widely reported that the United States has been trying to engage the Sunnis in political dialogue. Experts say that failing to do so can only deepen the insurgency. Yet showing Sunnis diplomatic respect inspires mistrust and anger from the rival Shiites.

Militarily, we've created the armed basis for a civil war. Iraqi armies in the north now consist of more than 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia members who "wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades," according to a Knight Ridder new story in December. In southern Iraq the army consists of pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists. We have created military forces that, as they increase in "operational readiness," actually add to the instability of Iraq. Yet we continue a policy that conditions U.S. military disengagement on such operational readiness.

More Iraqi civilians are dying as a result of U.S. military actions. U.S. air strikes in Iraq have jumped from 25 per month last August to around 150 in December. The results of this strategy are predictable and horrifying. On Jan. 2, as many as 14 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were killed in a U.S. air strike. On Dec. 24, 2005, The Washington Post reported that U.S. air strikes killed many dozens of civilians throughout Iraq's Western Anbar province during the November offensive. In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch deplored the U.S. strategy of resorting to indiscriminate aerial strikes resulting in civilian deaths.

A "reduction" of U.S. troops during 2006, in concert with an increasing air war, is not morally defensible or a way out.

The city of Fallujah represents a microcosm of the larger nightmare. We destroyed this town in order to save it. More than half its residents remain as refugees in their own country, and Americans are again dying in Fallujah at an increasing rate (12 in the past two months). The Pentagon's policy of "clear, hold and build" in reality does nothing more than "destroy, banish and build resentment."

We must go beyond the administration's false choice of staying the course or cutting and running. It is time for Cantwell to help move the debate beyond pointless rhetoric by taking a clear position and holding public forums to promote a better understanding of the costs of this war and how to end it. The only victory to be gleaned from this war is one for the American soul: Let's stop the killing.

Joe Colgan of Kent served in the Army from February 1963 to January 1966.
LINK

Read and weep

 
Thursday, February 02, 2006

VIEW: Iran’s real crime? —S Imam

If Iran starts its own euro-denominated oil bourse and it takes off, the US dollar — already an ailing currency due to huge deficits in the US economy — will be marginalised as the global currency. Iran is taking a calculated risk

Iran proposes to set up by March 2006 an “oil/energy bourse” for trading based on the euro, rather than the US dollar. While it may seem innocuous, this represents a grave threat to the continued global hegemony of the United States and as such its ailing economy.

Oil trade based on the US dollar gained strength when Saudi Arabia agreed to join it after the US government’s decision to de-link its currency from gold. Since the 1970s, the OPEC countries have agreed to sell oil for US dollars only. This means that every country needing to import oil must first acquire enough US dollars. Today most of the oil trading takes place on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the London-based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). The net result is global hegemony of the US dollar.

However, if Iran starts its own euro-denominated oil bourse and it takes off, the US dollar — already an ailing currency due to huge deficits in the US economy — will be marginalised as the global currency.

Iran is taking a calculated risk and hoping that enough countries have an interest in a “petro-euro” market to contain American aggression. Many central banks around the world are already quietly shedding their dollar reserves, nervous that America’s economic fundamentals ($500 billion federal deficit, $700 billion current accounts deficit, $4.5 trillion federal debt, record business and personal debts, little savings) cannot be sustained for long, and hoping to insulate themselves from what they see as an inevitable recession. Since 2000 the US dollar has declined by a third against the euro, despite the petrodollar arrangement.

Europe is eager, meanwhile, to enjoy more of the “virtuous circle” that results from supplying a major reserve currency: a ready market for its currency and guaranteed reinvestment as euro-holders plant their money in European markets. President Vladimir Putin of Russia, too, has also expressed interest in switching from dollars to euros. Russia would benefit from getting paid for its exports in a stronger currency. This would also represent a political victory over America after 15 years of watching its (Russia’s) clients and assets in the oil-rich Caspian region co-opted by the American expansion.

It is easy to understand therefore why Iran’s nuclear programme has become the cornerstone of the US foreign policy. One of Saddam Hussein’s crimes that infuriated US and precipitated the invasion of Iraq, some analysts believe, was selling oil for euro. But Iran’s crime is even greater. It plans to launch a euro-based bourse. So how can Iran be spared?

Luckily for Iran, and unfortunately for USA, American forces in the region (deployed in the Middle East and Afghanistan) are completely bogged down. In these circumstances, an invasion of Iran can become a disastrous undertaking for US. The US strategy for now, therefore, is to stop Iran from exporting oil by securing UN Security Council resolution imposing economic sanctions on the country under the pretext of its alleged nuclear weapons programme. So far Iran seems to have played its cards well. Its only fear is that another 9/11 like incident could hand US the licence to kill anyone!

This is the only factor beyond Iran’s control. Otherwise even the threat of an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations by Israeli and/or US air force(s) cannot reverse the situation. Let’s see how far the US can push the IAEA board to refer Iran’s case to UN Security Council. The regular meeting of the IAEA board meeting is scheduled for February 2.

S Imam is a London-based journalist from Pakistan

Revolutionary Movements and Leadership   

"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be lead out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves." --Eugene Victor Debs - December 18, 1905

By Charles Sullivan


02/03/06 "ICH" -- -- As a writer, I get many responses to my articles across a wide spectrum of ideologies, from all over the world. This is one of the things that make writing interesting to me—engaging people and hearing their ideas about things that matter. Almost invariably people ask me what they can do, or who is going to lead the next great social justice movement. What follows is my response to those inquiries. Bear in mind that it is hastily crafted and intended as a rough outline—a starting point. I will leave it to others more capable than me to build upon the foundation I have laid; or if necessary to start anew.

As the result of our hurried lifestyle, we live in a relatively intellectually shallow culture that has been softened by the idea of instant gratification. When we are sick we take a pill with the expectation that it will quickly make our malady disappear. We rarely consider the underlying causes of illness and disease. Our meals are rarely savored: they are prepared quickly and eaten in haste. Everything we do is predicated upon speed. This, I believe, has led to a kind of intellectual laziness that is prevalent among Americans, more than anywhere else in the world. We want quick fixes, easy answers—instant gratification. We want someone to lead us and tell us what to do, in essence relieving us of the burden of personal responsibility we know is ours.

Let us come to understand, however, that the complex problems facing not only America, but also the world, have no simple or easy solutions. If solutions exist—not all problems can be solved by mortal minds—these issues will require deep thought and long and persistent effort on the part of many. If we are serious about the business of revolution we must not only be committed to meaningful change, we must be in it for the long haul. Unfortunately, change often occurs at glacial speed, not at the velocity of light, as we might hope. Even when change appears to happen very quickly, it only appears that way after a long hard struggle on the part of many to reach critical mass. When critical mass is reached, and we rarely know exactly where we are in relation to it, then things happen quickly and dramatically. But it is a long and difficult process that leads up to critical mass.

It is expecting too much of anyone to lead a revolution. Revolutions succeed only by the force of many, acting in unison toward a common goal, not by the leadership of a few. If they are to succeed, movements must be bigger than the leadership that organizes them. They must be essentially self-organizing. Leaders can be assassinated, movements cannot. Effective national and global movements are the result of the efforts of millions upon millions of individuals united in common belief, and common effort. They are the result of many single acts added together that move the whole toward a common goal. These acts have a cumulative and profound impact when carried out day after day, month after month, year after year. This is when they acquire the force of revolutionary change for the betterment of all.

Centralized power is concentrated power that is prone to corruption and betrayal. Decentralized, loosely organized movements disperse power throughout the entirety of the movement or cause. It places power equally into the hands of all, rather than a few. This is the kind of movement that, it seems to me, is most likely to succeed. It is the kind of movement in which, paradoxically, everyone is a leader, and no one is a leader. This kind of organization is the kind that most troubles authority, the status quo, because they do not know how to attack it. Its leadership is at once everywhere and nowhere. How does one assassinate an entire movement without engaging in genocide?

There are few tried and true methods to follow. Mostly these are uncharted waters where we venture. However, there is one absolute certainty—we must massively organize on a global scale across a broad spectrum of interrelated concerns and issues. There is no other place to start than at the beginning. This means we must start from where we are—at home and in our respective communities. We might begin by creating decentralized but loosely organized networks of local activists, who meet regularly at someone’s home, or a local library, perhaps, to discuss matters of importance to them; who work both individually and in unison on the issues that concern them. Partnerships are formed and alliances made, as we educate ourselves and decide how to solve local problems.

Some members of this group might work on organizing and democratizing the work place; others might address homelessness and affordable housing. Another group might work to put their own people on school boards, or run candidates for county commissioner. Still others might work on preserving wild forests or monitoring the biological health of local streams and rivers. There are any number of issues to choose from. It requires no more than a single person to begin working on them. The work can begin immediately and its impact can be felt at once. Of course, the more people involved the better. The idea is to find common ground and to make connections based upon commonality.

Meanwhile, broader networks begin to branch out from the local network into the surrounding county, then to the state level. From the state level they broaden their scope to the National level. From there the next step is the global level. All of these citizen activists will be in constant communication with each other, coordinating their efforts and broadening membership in the group. The network continuously branches out in concentric circles, building bridges across platforms and ideologies as it proceeds, until it circumnavigates the globe and joins hands with the people of every nation. There is no fast way to accomplish this. It requires time and persistent effort. This is the basis of a sound and enduring foundation.

Thus we now have large numbers of individuals working on specific parts of interrelated issues that produce specific outcomes. Rather than being overwhelmed by the immensity and complexity of the larger problem, they are broken down into manageable parts. Similar groups will form in every community. They will talk to each other, teach each other, share results and coordinate their efforts. The enormity and complexity of issues can be overwhelming and paralyzing. One hardly knows where to begin, so nothing gets down. The pitfall of enormity can be avoided by delegating work and breaking everything down into manageable portions. If there are enough people willing to do the work they may need to be given a rough blue print and a little guidance. There will necessarily be some false starts, but together we will find our way.

Seemingly disparate but interrelated issues such as corporate control, revolutionary unionism, militarism, public funding of political campaigns, proportional representation in government, sweatshops, civil rights, starvation and hunger, disease, safe organically grown food, small family farming—a broad spectrum of issues—are addressed in this way. Clearly, there is no shortage of issues to select from. There is something for everyone. Find something that interests you and get started.

By continuously attacking these individual issues on many levels, we will be making steady progress on the broad front of a massive social justice movement of global dimensions. Thus we must reach out to the people working in other but related movements, who are already working on their own issues and know them best. In effect, we would be uniting the working poor with labor unions at home and in Sri Lanka; democratizing and liberating the work place through revolutionary unionism, taking public ownership of the economy from the corporations and redistributing wealth equitably to those who produce. We would be cleaning our streams and rivers, even as we address global warming. All things are related. Pluck a flower, trouble a star.

We would work in unison with the disempowered and voiceless across every front, in every nation. Together we have a voice. Separate we do not. Those working on civil rights issues would be united with people working on labor issues, because those issues are interconnected. Individual problems will not be fixed in isolation from the whole. A particular problem can be isolated temporarily for the purpose of making it a manageable part, but it must be reassembled within the matrix of the integrated whole if it is to work. For example, women chained to work tables in Chinese sweatshops would be working with the employees of Wal-Mart in the US and Germany to emancipate all parties from wage slavery. The problem must be fixed globally; otherwise, it migrates to regions where there are few environmental regulations, or no protection for workers against corporate tyranny.

Creative and visionary ways must be found to bring groups of people together in common causes that may appear to be unrelated, but which are in fact interrelated. I will leave that to minds more brilliant than my own, but I will participate.

Ours will be a movement that gives voice to the voiceless, wherever they are, whatever they do. Uniting thousands of smaller issues into a great river of revolutionary activism is the only thing that will set us free. Many of these movements already exist—we have only to join forces with them. It is a monumental undertaking that will require relentless effort, self sacrifice, and commitment to the larger common cause. Uniting all of these disparate factions and moving them forward under a social justice umbrella, pushing forward in unison against our oppressors gives us enormous power that is virtually unstoppable. It is a power that can remake civilization by working toward the common good, by looking out for each other. It requires a different way of thinking than the one we are accustomed to. This way of thinking and doing stresses cooperation over competition and exploitation.

The most important principle of the movement is also logistically the most difficult to achieve—to unite and to focus the disparate parts—to make them function as a single organism in the cause of social justice. This means that we must work in accord across party lines, race, sex, socioeconomic class, political ideology, theology and geopolitical boundaries. We will be creating a global Commonwealth that tolerates and celebrates diversity. It will be based upon mutual respect and concern for the welfare of others. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

The rug weaver in India, the peasant farmer in Bangladesh, the Jewish Monk living in the rocky deserts of Israel; the truck driver moving across the plains of Montana, the anti-war protester in the streets of Washington or London in the prelude to war; the soldier in the sands of Iraq, as well as the insurgent on the other side of the fight; the political prisoners in the US such as Leonard Peltier, and his counterpart in China—all share a commonality with enormous potential to unite. Our rulers succeed by keeping us apart.

The wars that continually erupt across the planet and cause misery and suffering to the poor and the disenfranchised; the enormous gaps that exist between the classes; racism, sexism—the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few must be abolished. They will not be abolished by the system that created them. We must believe that another world is possible. We must believe it with all our heart and we must be willing to work for it. It will be humankind’s most incredible journey. It will be the most important and satisfying work we can do.

As we proceed along this diverse but united front toward a goal of social justice and world peace, we must recognize that what we are trying to accomplish is nothing less than a global revolution of Democratic Socialism. The name is not important; the substance of the dream is.

This requires a new paradigm—that of the Commonwealth, which is really an old paradigm that has served humankind well for thousands of years. From this moment forth let us not work for private gain and individual wealth; let us work for the common good of everyone, everywhere. Let us recognize that no one can be free until everyone is free.

Let those with technical expertise now come forward to organize global forums online so that we can share ideas, even as we set out to change our respective communities. Let us not only begin talking among ourselves; let us begin the work that we know must be done—work that we can do ourselves beginning this very moment. Let us come together for peace, whatever name we give to it. Everything we do matters—the effect is cumulative.

This hope for remaking civilization in the image of the common people, rather than the money changers, must rise, like a Phoenix, out of the ashes of capitalism. That will be a glorious day. Let us begin the Great Work.

Syria moots Arab aid for Palestinians

Syria plans proposing to Arab nations to compensate the Palestinians for any aid Western powers might cut after the election victory of Islamist group Hamas.

State-run Sana news agency on Tuesday quoted Farouq al-Shara, the foreign minister, as saying Syria would submit the proposal at an Arab summit in March.

 

"The move comes within the framework of the continuous Arab support to the Palestinian people, and the respect of its will and choices," Sana said.

 

The Quartet of major powers trying to broker Middle East peace - Russia, the European Union, the US and the UN - said earlier this week that Hamas must reject violence and recognise Israel or risk losing the vital aid.

 

But Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said on Tuesday the world should not cut off funding to the Palestinians after Hamas's victory.

 

Syria is a key Hamas supporter and has been under a US-led international pressure to expel the group's leadership from Damascus, including politburo chief Khaled Meshaal.

 

Putin said the world should not
cut off Palestinian funding

Israel said it expected to suspend monthly tax payments to the Palestinian Authority during a policy review after Hamas's win, a decision that Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri described

as an Israeli attempt "to steal Palestinian money".

 

Saudi criticism

 

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, meanwhile, said the EU was being "unreasonable" for threatening to cut crucial financial aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian government.

"The European Union insisted on having elections in Palestine, and this is the result of what they asked for," Prince Saud al-Faisal said in Malaysia.

"Now to come around and say (they) do not accept the will of the people that was expressed through democratic means seems an unreasonable position to take," said al-Faisal, who was accompanying Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah on a state visit to Kuala Lumpur.

The prince indicated that Riyadh would maintain its position as the Palestinians' biggest Arab donor, saying that "if anybody changes his relations to the Palestinian Authority prematurely, it would be a disastrous thing".

Hamas, which won last week's Palestinian legislative elections, on Monday promised that international aid would only go toward helping ordinary Palestinians and said that a Hamas government is ready to open up its budget and spending to outside monitors.

Hamas pledge

The Islamic resistance faction's assurance came as foreign ministers from the 25 EU nations urged Hamas to recognise the state of Israel, renounce violence and disarm, and threatened to cut off funding if the demands were ignored.

Europe is the largest international donor to the Palestinian Authority, which relies heavily on foreign aid to meet its annual operating budget of about $1.6 billion. About one-third goes to salaries and the rest to rehabilitate the war-shattered infrastructure.


Al-Faisal voiced optimism that Hamas - which has opposed Arab-Israeli peace talks and carried out dozens of suicide bombings against Israelis - might assume a more moderate agenda.

"I cannot believe that they will not act responsibly as a government," al-Faisal said. "We have to wait and see, and we suggest that everybody wait and see. We need cool heads now, rather than reactions that close the door to (a) peaceful settlement."

LINK