A War on Coca Nobody Believes In
By JAMES J. BRITTAIN
Since their systemic targeting of producer nations through militarized methods of eradication, government officials in Washington have regularly brandished bogus data when concerning the effectiveness and validity of the US’s so-called ‘war on drugs’. Dating back to the 1980s, Colombia became a figurative and literal battleground in this war, as the world’s principal cultivator of coca. As liberalized economic policies debilitated Colombia’s rural political economy hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized producers, campesinos, and landless farmers gravitated toward the narcotic industry, via cultivation, as a way of life and survival. The United States, denounced such activities a threat, as drugs were proclaimed a risk to ‘national security’ (White House, 1986). In turn, Washington devoted a great deal of time, money, and military resources to curb coca ‘at the source’. Yet this militarized approach toward eradication has consistently produced incredibly poor results. Rather than facilitating a decline the narcotic industry witnessed an enormous expansion over the past two decades.
A fascinating shift related to this historic debacle was reported in early November. The United States Embassy in Bogotá announced a miraculous 29 per cent decrease in Colombian coca cultivation and an estimated 39 per cent drop in cocaine production in 2008 alone. Such figures are incredible, for rates of coca cultivation have, in actuality, significantly risen since Washington embarked on its war on drugs in Colombia. Throughout the 1980s, when Colombia was identified as a threat to US national security, cultivation averaged 46,000 hectares. [1 hectare = 2.47 acres.] By the 1990s levels had reached 61,000 hectares, while the past decade saw median rates hovering at 140,000 hectares. Taking the subject a step further, when one situates rates of coca cultivation in conjunction with rates of coca eradicated via manual and aerial techniques it becomes glaringly apparent that growth rates have done anything but declined. To the contrary, coca accelerated – especially under the administration of Álvaro Uribe Vélez [2002-2010]. Such information devastates the ‘success’ Washington (and Bogotá) today claim.
Who drafted and released the information to the public? While formally released through the US Embassy in Bogotá, the report and findings came from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – specifically the US Director of Central Intelligence, Crime and Narcotics Center (CNC). What is unique about this is the unspoken absence of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). For the greater part of the last decade, the ONDCP has been the principal medium for formally releasing information related to coca cultivation levels within Colombia. The fact that the CIA/CNC released this report and not the ONDCP should spark some question and debate.
Many, particularly US officials in Washington and Bogotá, have shown disdain and upset toward the ONDCP’s data over the past several years. Embarrassingly, the ONDCP has shown that coca levels have not decreased but rather climbed to heights never witnessed in Colombia’s history. When one compares levels of coca from the 1980s to those of today the data disclose inclines averaging 350 per cent. During the late 1990s and early-mid 2000s, as the US spent just under $8 billion in counter-narcotic missions in Colombia, the ONDCP illustrated that levels did the opposite of deteriorating. This unquestionably caused a great deal of stress for government officials within both the US and Colombia, as was shown in 2006 when that latter’s former Interior Minister Sabas Pretelt chastised the ONDCP – going so far as to argue the office manipulated and systematically inflated levels of coca in Colombia (United Press International, 2006).
Tfhe United States has long attempted to manipulate figures related to Colombia’s coca levels. During the 1990s, Washington was vocal in its promotion of a clear decrease in Colombia’s narcotic industry due to US involvement and approach toward drug eradication. However,– to the embarrassment and discredit of Washington – research, external to government sources, found that cocaine productivity had greatly increased. Figures showed cocaine levels to be two times higher than the US had claimed.
Such inaccuracies are not isolated blunders . Both Washington and Bogotá have consistently contradicted, miscalculated, or been openly incorrect when concerning ‘mutual assured findings’ of coca. When referring to levels of ‘successful’ eradication two separate state agencies in the United States reported vastly different figures over a span of several years. In 2008, two reports were produced relative to levels of coca cultivation: one from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (2008) and the other from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (2008b). The quantitative data between the two fluctuated in the thousands of hectares. Variations were so significant that between 2003 and 2007 rates of aerial fumigation differed by almost 27,000 hectares. Annual rates of inaccuracy towards aerial eradication averaged 5,400 hectares, while manual eradication was slightly ‘better’ at 3,330 hectares. All this is significant based on the fact that the findings came from the same state intelligence.
Oversights persist today. While applauding their self-proclaimed success—even though current levels far exceed anything witnessed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s—the US Embassy in Bogotá, on two separate occasions, presented errors with their current figures. According to the Embassy’s “(2009a) Fact Sheet: 2008 Cocaine Production and Cultivation: Colombia,” 129,876 hectares of coca had been exposed to aerial fumigation while 95,731 hectares underwent some form of manual eradication. This equates to a total of 225,607 hectares. Yet, in the same document officials stipulate, “combined aerial spraying and manual eradication for 2008 was 227,605 hectares”. Such information is further problematic when concerning the embassy’s (2009b) Official U.S. Colombia Survey Shows Sharp Drop in Coca Cultivation and Cocaine Production press release that argued, “high levels of aerial eradication were sustained covering more than 133,000 hectares” – a difference well over 3,000 hectares or the size of roughly 1,400 football fields.
While such miscalculations, yet again, demonstrate the quantitative inadequacies of US intelligence they also fail to calculate the social costs of a militarized approach toward eradication.
Claiming they are trying to encourage agricultural workers to engage in crop substitution, Washington and Bogotá are, in fact, destabilizing the rural political economy. Let us look at a scenario where numerous peasants do give up growing coca after vast portions of their territory have been ecologically attacked. What, in reality, would transpire? First, numerous peasants would adopt (legal) production of non-coca crops leading to an immediate influx of a small handful of the most profitable crops in a particular geographic region, thus driving down the potential returns for said goods. This would subsequently cause a cyclical effect of poverty – one of the original causes that led to the original shift to coca in the beginning. More rural producers would then fall back to the coca-industry as a means of survival.
A second dilemma that might—and has—been faced by small producers is a lack of guarantees by the state to ensure they are taken care of in a post-coca socioeconomic climate. It has been seen repeatedly that those who agreed to state-imposed crop substitution do not receive promised financial support or assistance from the state, development agencies, or NGOs. Suffering from a lack of capital, producers are then forced (again) to return to coca, as no other means of subsistence is available. The third consequence deals with the ecology of the area, which affects not only coca cultivators but also those peasants who long refrained from growing coca altogether. As a result of spraying poisonous defoliants via aerial fumigation many have had their lands destroyed – inhospitable to agriculture. A plethora of cases even revealed how such practices affected legal crops (i.e., plantain, lemons, yucca, maize, etc.) during US/Colombian counter-narcotic campaigns. This caused a rash of peasants having little option but leave for the city or ironically take up coca as a means to cover their losses.
There have even been confirmed accounts of officials admitting the goal of fumigation was to structurally displace peasants in order to increase cheap labour in urban centres while privately centralizing rural resources in the hands of large-scale agro-business. Lastly, it must be emphasized how eradication practices have indisputably damaged the lives of millions in Colombia and the environment in which they live. Aerial fumigation has forced many to abandon their homes and villages due to contamination of land and water. This has subsequently devastated present and future food production, economic stability, and precarious health defects and conditions in young and old. The destruction of crops, soil, and water tables has hampered the capacity for entire communities not only to sustain themselves but has led to further ecological destruction as more are forced to colonize forested regions. Not wanting to leave the sociocultural life they know, many are forced to cut down and inhabit long-time unpopulated territories.
While temporary declines may arise – albeit seldom – the underlining political-economic causes of coca cultivation have not been diminished. Ironically, militarization eradication through aerial spraying or manual displacement of crops is surly to augment conditions of deprivation. It is under these circumstances that the narcotic industry will not wane but rather be sustained (if not increased). Such positions are not simply the critique of a few but even those within the state apparatus itself. In October officials within Colombia expressed the failure of such policies. Here’s a report this year by Neda Vanovac:
“Colombia’s National Planning Council claimed … the fight against drugs is lost and the current government’s ‘Democratic Security’ policy in large part is responsible for the systematic increase in human rights violations in the country. The president of the council, Adolfo Atehortua, condemned the nation’s anti-drug policy, saying that it had been a total failure. As proof, he said that neither the number of hectares planted with illicit crops nor the net production of drugs had been significantly reduced. He also suggested that the spraying stop as it was increasing poverty in rural areas, reported newspaper El Espectador. “The general and indiscriminate aerial spraying of crops damages farmers who have no other options, the helpless producers, testers without life projects or jobs, but does not eliminate the persistency of the drug plantations,” the Council President argued.”
César Gaviria Trujillo, president of Colombia between 1990-1994, added his protest to the current approach to eliminating drugs in Colombia. In November, he (alongside Fernando Henrique Cardoso – former president of Brazil and Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León – former president of Mexico stated:
“The war on drugs has failed. And it’s high time to replace an ineffective strategy with more humane and efficient drug policies … Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization of consumption simply haven’t worked. Violence and the organized crime associated with the narcotics trade remain critical problems in our countries … Over the last 30 years, Colombia implemented all conceivable measures to fight the drug trade in a massive effort where the benefits were not proportional to the resources invested.”
Even Colombia’s current Foreign Minister, Rodrigo Pardo, has entered into the debate contradicting Washington’s claim of success. Pardo expressed the people of Colombia are “tired of the drug strategy … what we have done has not worked ... We have put so much money and effort into it yet the statistics remain the same”.
While applauding the successes those at the helm of power have clearly turned a blind eye to the cause and consequences of their actions. It is increasingly apparent when reflecting upon such conditions that Washington and Bogotá are not carrying out an attack against drugs but are rather waging war on the poor.
James J. Brittain, teaches sociology at Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. He can be reached at james.brittain@acadiau.ca
Works Cited
Abruzzese, Renzo. 1989. Coca-leaf Production in the countries of the Andean subregion. New York: UNODC.
Barstow, Anne and Tom Driver. 2003. Colombians Speak Out about Violence and U.S. Policy. Documentary Film (Independent).
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. 2008. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Washington, DC: Department of State.
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, César Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo. 2009. The War on Drugs is a Failure. Bogotá: Partido Liberal Colombiano
Hamer, Ashley. 2009. “Fight against drug trafficking in Colombia is failing: experts,” November 18 On-Line http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/6939-fight-against-drug-trafficking-in-colombia-is-failing-experts.html Accessed November 18, 2009.
Latin American Working Group. 2003. The Numbers Game: Coca Cultivation in Colombia. Washington, DC: LAWG.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2005. 2004 Coca and Opium Poppy Estimates for Colombia and the Andes. Washington, DC: White House.
____. 2006. 2005 Coca Estimates for Colombia. Washington, DC: White House.
____. 2007. 2006 Coca Estimates for Colombia. Washington, DC: White House.
____. 2008a. “Official U.S. Colombia Survey Reveals Sharp Decline in Cocaine Production,” September 10 http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press08/091008.html On-Line Accessed September 14, 2008.
____. 2008b. “Targeting Cocaine at the Source,” no date On-Line Accessed http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/international/factsht/target_cocaine_src.html October 1, 2008.
Scott, Peter Dale. 2003. Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. New York: Bowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
United Press International. 2006. “Colombia Rejects Coca Expansion Report,” April 17 On-Line http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2006/04/17/Colombia-rejects-coca-expansion-report/UPI-70001145285639/ Accessed April 17, 2006.
United States Department of State. 2003. Coca Cultivation in Colombia, 2002. Washington, DC: Department of State.
United States Embassy in Bogotá. 2009a. Fact Sheet: 2008 Cocaine Production and Cultivation: Colombia. Bogotá: United States Embassy.
United States Embassy in Bogotá. 2009b. “Official U.S. Colombia Survey Shows Sharp Drop in Coca Cultivation and Cocaine Production,” November 6 On-Line http://bogota.usembassy.gov/pr_75_061109.html Accessed November 9, 2009.
Vanovac, Neda. 2009. “Council: Govt security policy caused increase in human rights violations,” October 27 On-Line http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/6603-council-govt-security-policy-caused-increase-in-human-rights-violations.html#at Accessed October 27, 2009.
White House. 1986. National Security Decision Directive Number 221: Narcotics and national security. Washington, DC: Department of State.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A Battle to Redefine Humanity
This is Bigger than Climate Change. It is a Battle to Redefine Humanity
It's hard for a species used to ever-expanding frontiers, but survival depends on accepting we live within limits
By George Monbiot
December 16, 2009 "The Guardian" Dec. 15, 2009 -- This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.
The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.
The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accommodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.
This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially by environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.
The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.
I fear this chorus of bullies, but I also sympathise. I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs. All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live.
Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.
So here we are, in the land of Beowulf's heroics, lost in a fog of acronyms and euphemisms, parentheses and exemptions, the deathly diplomacy required to accommodate everyone's demands. There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be, though every neurone revolts against it.
Although the delegates are waking up to the scale of their responsibility, I still believe they will sell us out. Everyone wants his last adventure. Hardly anyone among the official parties can accept the implications of living within our means, of living with tomorrow in mind. There will, they tell themselves, always be another frontier, another means to escape our constraints, to dump our dissatisfactions on other places and other people. Hanging over everything discussed here is the theme that dare not speak its name, always present but never mentioned. Economic growth is the magic formula which allows our conflicts to remain unresolved.
While economies grow, social justice is unnecessary, as lives can be improved without redistribution. While economies grow, people need not confront their elites. While economies grow, we can keep buying our way out of trouble. But, like the bankers, we stave off trouble today only by multiplying it tomorrow. Through economic growth we are borrowing time at punitive rates of interest. It ensures that any cuts agreed at Copenhagen will eventually be outstripped. Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet.
For all their earnest self-restraint, the negotiators in the plastic city are still not serious, even about climate change. There's another great unmentionable here: supply. Most of the nation states tussling at Copenhagen have two fossil fuel policies. One is to minimise demand, by encouraging us to reduce our consumption. The other is to maximise supply, by encouraging companies to extract as much from the ground as they can.
We know, from the papers published in Nature in April, that we can use a maximum of 60% of current reserves of coal, oil and gas if the average global temperature is not to rise by more than two degrees. We can burn much less if, as many poorer countries now insist, we seek to prevent the temperature from rising by more than 1.5C. We know that capture and storage will dispose of just a small fraction of the carbon in these fuels. There are two obvious conclusions: governments must decide which existing reserves of fossil fuel are to be left in the ground, and they must introduce a global moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Neither of these proposals has even been mooted for discussion.
But somehow this first great global battle between expanders and restrainers must be won and then the battles that lie beyond it – rising consumption, corporate power, economic growth – must begin. If governments don't show some resolve on climate change, the expanders will seize on the restrainers' weakness. They will attack – using the same tactics of denial, obfuscation and appeals to self-interest – the other measures that protect people from each other, or which prevent the world's ecosystems from being destroyed. There is no end to this fight, no line these people will not cross. They too are aware that this a battle to redefine humanity, and they wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today.
It's hard for a species used to ever-expanding frontiers, but survival depends on accepting we live within limits
By George Monbiot
December 16, 2009 "The Guardian" Dec. 15, 2009 -- This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.
The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.
The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accommodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.
This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially by environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.
The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.
I fear this chorus of bullies, but I also sympathise. I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs. All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live.
Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.
So here we are, in the land of Beowulf's heroics, lost in a fog of acronyms and euphemisms, parentheses and exemptions, the deathly diplomacy required to accommodate everyone's demands. There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be, though every neurone revolts against it.
Although the delegates are waking up to the scale of their responsibility, I still believe they will sell us out. Everyone wants his last adventure. Hardly anyone among the official parties can accept the implications of living within our means, of living with tomorrow in mind. There will, they tell themselves, always be another frontier, another means to escape our constraints, to dump our dissatisfactions on other places and other people. Hanging over everything discussed here is the theme that dare not speak its name, always present but never mentioned. Economic growth is the magic formula which allows our conflicts to remain unresolved.
While economies grow, social justice is unnecessary, as lives can be improved without redistribution. While economies grow, people need not confront their elites. While economies grow, we can keep buying our way out of trouble. But, like the bankers, we stave off trouble today only by multiplying it tomorrow. Through economic growth we are borrowing time at punitive rates of interest. It ensures that any cuts agreed at Copenhagen will eventually be outstripped. Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet.
For all their earnest self-restraint, the negotiators in the plastic city are still not serious, even about climate change. There's another great unmentionable here: supply. Most of the nation states tussling at Copenhagen have two fossil fuel policies. One is to minimise demand, by encouraging us to reduce our consumption. The other is to maximise supply, by encouraging companies to extract as much from the ground as they can.
We know, from the papers published in Nature in April, that we can use a maximum of 60% of current reserves of coal, oil and gas if the average global temperature is not to rise by more than two degrees. We can burn much less if, as many poorer countries now insist, we seek to prevent the temperature from rising by more than 1.5C. We know that capture and storage will dispose of just a small fraction of the carbon in these fuels. There are two obvious conclusions: governments must decide which existing reserves of fossil fuel are to be left in the ground, and they must introduce a global moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Neither of these proposals has even been mooted for discussion.
But somehow this first great global battle between expanders and restrainers must be won and then the battles that lie beyond it – rising consumption, corporate power, economic growth – must begin. If governments don't show some resolve on climate change, the expanders will seize on the restrainers' weakness. They will attack – using the same tactics of denial, obfuscation and appeals to self-interest – the other measures that protect people from each other, or which prevent the world's ecosystems from being destroyed. There is no end to this fight, no line these people will not cross. They too are aware that this a battle to redefine humanity, and they wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Jewish Panels Vet U.S. Government Appointees
American Jews eye Obama's 'anti-Israel' appointees
By Natasha Mozgovaya
source
Morton A. Klein - Who voted for this guy!?
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel.
A few months ago, boisterous protests by the American Jewish community helped foil the appointment of Chaz Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, citing his "anti-Israel leaning."
The next attempt to appoint an intelligence aide, in this case, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, also resulted in vast criticism over his not having a pro-Israel record.
American Zionists are urging Obama to cancel Hagel's appointment because of what they call a long and problematic record of hostility toward Israel.
The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, described Hagel's nomination as such: "Any American who is concerned about Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, maintaining the Israeli-U.S. relationship and supporting Israel in its legitimate fight to protect her citizens from terrorism should oppose this appointment."
Republican Jews have also protested Hagel's appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then-president George Bush to speak about Iran's nuclear program at the G8 summit that year.
In August of 2006, Hagel refused to sign a letter requesting the UN declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
In a speech at the conference of self-declared "pro-peace, pro-Israel" lobby J Street, Hagel spoke about his views on the issue of Israel and the Middle East.
"The United States' support for Israel need not be - nor should it be - an either-or proposition that dictates our relationships with our Arab allies and friends. The U.S. has a long and special relationship with Israel, but it must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships," Hagel said.
The latest round of heated debate has been over the nomination of Hannah Rosenthal to head the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration.
Rosenthal, who is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, served as a Health Department regional director under the Clinton administration, and held positions in different left-leaning Jewish organizations.
Between 2000 and 2005, Rosenthal was the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; she was also the executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women. In recent years, she has served on the advisory board of the J Street lobby.
The president of Americans for Peace Now lauded Obama's appointment of Rosenthal. Even Anti-Defamation League chairman Abraham Foxman came out in support of Rosenthal's appointment.
"This appointment signals the continued seriousness of America?s resolve to fight anti-Semitism," Foxman said in a statement.
Shortly after the announcement of Rosenthal's nomination, conservative Jewish web sites began to attack her, some of them declaring that Obama appointed an anti-Israeli to fight anti-Semitism.
Rumors brewed that she had accused Israel of systemically strengthening anti-Semitism. Bloggers argued that her appointment would cause Jews and Israelis to cast doubt on Obama and his relationship with Israel.
In one of her articles, Rosenthal criticized conservative voices in the Jewish community who she accused of taking over the discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"It's a scary time, with people losing the ability to differentiate between a Jew, any Jew, and what's going on in Israel," Rosenthal said.
In an interview with the new online Jewish magazine, Tablet, Rosenthal said that she loves Israel.
"I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely," Rosenthal said.
Related articles :
You might like:
* Vandals spray Nazi slogans in Hebrew on West Bank mosque
* MKs look to ban U.S. Jewish billionaire from owning newspaper
* Livni reportedly cancels U.K. visit, fearing arrest
* Palestinians have learned from early Zionists
Blair, Obama and the Narcissist's Defense
Miraculous Organ: Blair, Obama
and the Narcissist's Defense
by Chris Floyd
source
In recent days we have all witnessed two vomitous eruptions of moral nullity that would tax the powers of a Voltaire or a Vidal to do them proper justice; they quite o'er-crow the meager gifts of a hack like me. But I will sketch a few observations here nonetheless, if only to add one more small voice to those few who bear witness to the evils perpetrated by our unaccountable leaders.
We speak of course of Barack Obama's Nobel speech and Tony Blair's recent comments on the Iraq War. Let's take the lesser figure first.
I.
Since leaving office, Tony Blair has dipped his blood-smeared snout into various corporate troughs, amassing millions, while simultaneously becoming one of the great whited sepulchres of our day, making a great show of his conversion to Catholicism, his "faith foundation," and so on. He has even lectured at Yale Divinity School. But this holy huckster looks more haunted every day. The glaring, bulging eyes, the frantic rictus of his grin – indistinguishable from the grimace of a man in gut-clenching pain --- and the ever-more strident, maniacal defense of his war crimes give compelling testimony to the hellish fires consuming his psyche.
Next month, Blair will go before the Chilcot Inquiry, a panel of UK Establishment worthies charged with investigating the origins of Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq. Although the worthies have been remarkably toothless in their questioning of the great and good so far – the smell of whitewash is definitely in the air – the inquiry has at least performed the useful function of bringing the forgotten subject of Iraq back into the public eye, while collating and confirming, with sworn testimony, much of what we have learned in dribs and drabs over the years about the rank, deliberate deceit behind this murderous catastrophe. One choice bit that has emerged from the inquiry is the revelation that the centerpiece of Blair's case for immediate war – the claim that Saddam Hussein could hit Europe with WMD-loaded missiles on just 45 minutes' notice – came from unconfirmed, third-hand gossip passed along by an Iraqi taxi driver.
As Blair's turn on the well-padded Chilcot cushion draws near, he has launched frantic efforts to keep his testimony secret while at the same time trying to undercut the rationale for the whole war origins inquiry, which has focused on the professed justification for the invasion: disarming Iraq's (non-existent) WMD. So last week, Blair gave an interview to a friendly, timorous chat-show host in which he made the brazen admission – no, the proud boast – that he would have found a way to drive Britain into war with Iraq even if he had known for certain that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (And of course, given the nature of the "'intelligence" that Blair used in his pre-war WMD claims it is certain that Blair was indeed certain that Saddam had no such weapons when the invasion was launched).
Thus it is now Blair's contention that there is no charge to answer concerning the origins of the war; all this WMD guff is meaningless. He would have found "other arguments" to persuade Britons to follow George W. Bush into the war that American militarists had long been planning.
Blair's admission has drawn a remarkable response from another Establishment mandarin, Sir Ken Macdonald, who served for five years as Director of Public Prosecutions under Blair's government – and now works in private practice at a major law firm…alongside Tony Blair's wife, Cherie. The headline in The Times puts it plainly: "Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war." In his column, Macdonald writes:
"The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.
"...Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards power. Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that “hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right”. But this is a narcissist’s defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death. “Yo, Blair”, perhaps, was his truest measure."
Macdonald also gives us a sneak peek inside the workings of the elite, with observations that doubtless apply equally well across the ocean:
"In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It’s the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure. So which way will our heroes jump?
"We must hope in the right direction — for it is precisely this privately arranged nature of British Establishment power, stubborn beyond sympathy for years in the face of the modern world, that has brought our politics so low. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt."
It is almost certain that the Chilcot inquiry will produce little more than the usual blood-flecked whitewash. Certainly, Tony Blair will face no official action for his crimes; he will not even lose any of his corporate sponsors, unlike the heinous Tiger Woods, whose sexual intimacy with consenting adults is obviously far worse than the murder of more than one million innocent people. (We'll never see Woods lecturing at Yale Divinity School now!)
But keep looking at Blair's face; watch, year by year, as it brings forth the hideous fruits of the inferno within. For as one of his illustrious countrymen once put it: "Murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ."
II.
"A narcissist's defense." As a description of Obama's Peace Prize speech, Macdonald's phrase could hardly be bettered. But the intense, near-pathological self-regard in the speech was not Obama's alone, of course; we must do him the credit of acknowledging that in this regard, at least, he was what we so often proclaim our leaders to be: the embodiment of the nation. His soaring proclamation of American exceptionalism, in a setting supposedly devoted to universal principles of peace, was breathtaking in its chutzpah – but entirely in keeping with the feelings of the vast majority of his countrymen, and the ruling elite above all.
Many have already remarked on Obama's adoption in the speech of Bush's principle of unilateral, "pre-emptive" military action, anytime, anywhere, whenever a leader declares his nation is under threat. This approach -- which Bush called "the path of action" -- was roundly scorned by critics of the former regime, many of whom now scramble to praise Obama's "nuanced" embrace of aggression. But again, let us give credit where it is due; in this aspect of the speech, Obama did in fact go beyond Bush's more narrowly nationalist conception, saying: "I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation."
Thus Obama would, apparently, extend the right of unilateral military action to "any head of state" that feels the necessity of defending his or her nation. But of course this is just empty verbiage, a pointless, bald-faced lie that not even Bush would have tried to get away with. Would Obama accept a unilateral, pre-emptive strike by Tehran against Israel, where legislators and government officials routinely talk of attacking Iran? Would Obama cheer the "right" of Russia to strike unilaterally at Poland if the U.S. "missile shield" deal, now on hold, was suddenly consummated? Would Obama support a unilateral strike by India at Pakistan -- or vice versa -- in the still-seething cauldron of tensions on the subcontinent, where both nations legitimately feel threatened by the other? Would he support the right of Kim Jong-il to "defend his nation" by attacking South Korea the next time there is a threatening border incident there?
No, it is clear that only the United States -- and its allies, like Israel -- are to be allowed the supreme privilege of unilateral war. The line was inserted in the speech simply because it would sound good in the moment, and create a temporary emotional reaction that might carry listeners past the macabre incongruity underlying the entire event: giving a peace award to the bloodstained leader of a military machine hip-deep in the coagulate gore of two, vast, civilian-slaughtering wars.
Obama staked his boldest claim to American exceptionalism with a passage that he lifted, almost verbatim, from his West Point speech just a few days before (see here and especially here), when he announced his second massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan:
"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."
Here is chutzpah -- and hubris -- raised to the level of the sublime. Obama has taken the words he used to instigate the certain death of thousands of human beings and the acceleration of hatred, extremism, chaos and brutal corruption around the world -- and offered them as justification for the hideous, unabashedly Orwellian doctrine at the core of his speech: War is Peace. In this perverse inversion of values, Obama, as a warmaker, is actually a peacemaker, you see -- and thus a legitimate heir to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who was evoked at several points in the speech.
And here we come to what was for me the most revolting part of the speech. And perhaps the most significant too. All the cant about America's altruism and "enlightened self-interest" in killing millions of people -- Indochina was one of many convenient blank spots in Obama's historical survey-- for the sake of all the children of the world (red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in our sight) was just par for the rhetorical course. It was nothing that had not been said many times before, including the references -- so lauded by Obama's liberal apologists -- to those inadvertent "mistakes" America seems to keep making; out of a surfeit of good intentions, no doubt. But I don't think an American president has so openly and directly traduced the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi before. (And to do it while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, no less! Oh, that sublime brass....)
Although larded with usual hyper-yet-flaccid, florid-yet-false oratorical stylings that have become Obama's trademark, his words about King and Gandhi drip with scorn and condescension. I was actually taken aback when I read these passages:
"I make this statement [about the moral justification for war] mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.
The intellectual incoherence and arrogant sneering behind this supposedly laudatory passage is staggering. After claiming to be the personal embodiment of King and Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent action, Obama gives the game away with this line: "I face the world as it is." Those other two guys, they were just dreamers, they were unrealistic, they were unserious; they didn't "face the world as it is," they weren't savvy and pragmatic, like me. I have to go to war because I'm a head of state "sworn to protect and defend my nation."
[Here, Obama indulges in a trope that is pandemic among his apologists: the idea that he was somehow forced to become the head of a militarist state waging endless war around the world, that he has somehow woken up and found himself "the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars." But of course he chose to pursue this kind of power in this kind of system -- chose it, pursued it, fought like hell to win it. It's what he wanted. Yet still this notion of Obama as a helpless victim of fate -- lost in a world he never made -- persists.]
He then goes on to give the lie to his previously stated admiration for Gandhi and King: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." Thus, King, Gandhi and any practitioner of non-violent resistance to evil are, ultimately, naive, ineffectual -- weak.
Notice the incoherence – or perhaps deliberate elision – at work here. Obama says he must face down "threats to the American people" -- and then talks about Hitler's armies, immediately coupling, and rhetorically equating them, with al-Qaeda's scattered handful of hidden fugitives. Are the American people now threatened by Hitler's armies? Are al-Qaeda's paltry forces -- less than 100 of them in Afghanistan, according to Obama's own war-wagers -- the equal of Hitler's armies of millions of men?
But there is a deeper untruth beyond these cheap rhetorical tricks. For it is blatantly untrue to say that "a nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies." First of all, one cannot make that statement because this approach was never tried. Therefore you cannot say categorically that it would not have worked. Doubtless it would have cost millions of lives; but as Gandhi himself pointed out, the violent resistance to Hitler's armies also cost tens of millions of lives. But Obama's formulation -- which is a hackneyed one indeed -- only deals with one view of non-violent resistance to Hitler: i.e., from the outside, resisting his armies as they poured across the borders. There is another way in which a non-violent resistance movement without any doubt could have "halted Hitler's armies": if it had taken root and spread throughout Germany itself, including among the armed forces and its supporting industries.
In the event, this did not happen. But it was not, and is not, an impossibility for humankind to pursue such an approach. Therefore it is fatuous and false to state what cannot possibly be known: whether non-violent resistance would have thwarted Nazism, and whether this would have been more or less costly than the way of violence.
Similarly, it is false to say that "negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." The only response to this bald statement is: How do you know? Has anybody tried it? No. Therefore you cannot call it an impossibility -- and then use this supposed, untested "impossibility" as your justification for laying waste to whole nations. You may say that it would be unjust to negotiate with al-Qaeda, that those who use murderous violence to achieve their ends should simply be killed or prosecuted. (Although where would that leave the leaders of the exalted, exceptional, unilateral United States?) But of course this is precisely what Gandhi did: he sat down and negotiated with the representatives of an empire that had caused the deaths of millions of his own people. He negotiated with them in good faith, with good will, despite what they had done and were doing to his people -- and despite the fact that many of his interlocutors, such as Winston Churchill, hated him with a blind, racist fury. And he was successful -- although again, not without cost, both before and after the liberation. But Gandhi, and King, knew the costs of non-violence – because they were genuinely savvy, and genuinely realistic about the nature of evil.
In any case, aside from the particulars of any real situation or hypothetical scenario, the speech is a glaring example of Obama's deep-seated (and perhaps unconscious) contempt for the path of peace, and its practitioners. It is also a manifestation of his own inferno, of his desperate need to justify -- to himself and to the world -- his free, deliberate choice to follow the blood-choked "path of action" as the commander-in-chief of a bloated, brutal war machine.
No one forced any of these decisions – or these specious, obscene justifications – on Obama or Blair. It is their own narcissism -- their own lust for power, and their love for the system that gave them that power – has covered them with the blood and shame that now taint their every word and deed.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Building Wall Under Ground at Gaza
Egyptians, with US Assistance, Building Wall Under Ground at Gaza
by Michael Jansen
Egyptian officials yesterday confirmed that Cairo is covertly constructing an underground steel barrier along the border with Gaza to cut smuggling into the Strip.
They contradicted a report in the Cairo daily Al-Shorouk quoting an unidentified source who said, "Egypt is dealing with smuggling seriously and is capable of stopping it without [a] wall."
When completed in 18 months' time, the impenetrable and indestructible wall will be 10-11km in length and will extend 18-30m below the surface along the 13km-long border.
Four kilometres have, reportedly, been completed north of the town of Rafah, which is bisected by the border that also divides Palestinian families - many of whom are involved in the illegal cross-border trade.
Over the past year the number of tunnels has doubled from 750 to 1,500. They carry essential goods, household appliances, fuel, medicines, fertiliser, seeds, clothing, motorbikes, and even the occasional car.
If the flow of goods is impaired or interdicted, the 1.5 million Gazans would be reduced to reliance on the ration package con- taining flour, pulses and tea distributed by UN agencies.
Only basic supplies are permitted to enter the Strip through goods crossings controlled by Israel, which tightened its blockade of Gaza following the seizure of power there by Hamas in June 2007.
Israel routinely bombs tunnels it claims are used for explosives and weapons traffic, while Cairo tries to tackle smuggling by arresting dealers, closing down warehouses on the Egyptian side of the frontier and blowing up tunnels.
Last March, the US provided Egypt with $32 million (€21.75 million) to install electronic surveillance devices and other equipment to prevent smuggling.
Since these efforts have failed to halt or seriously limit commerce, Cairo is said to have come under pressure from the US and Israel to agree to the sinking of an underground barrier.
US army engineers have designed the wall, modelled on structures used to reinforce levees in hurricane-prone New Orleans. US firms have manufactured its sections, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Farmers and herdsmen have remarked on the clearing of land near the border, and local municipal official Suleiman Bair said farmers would be compensated for the loss of fruit and olive trees. Shoot-outs have erupted between Egyptian police and Bedouin tribesmen involved in smuggling and tunnel protection.
Confirmation of the construction of the underground wall coincided with an appeal issued by dozens of UN agencies, inter- national organisations and national non-governmental bodies for $664.4 million to finance humanitarian programmes in Gaza, East Jerusalem and areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian economy has been devastated by Israel's settlements, separation wall, checkpoints and restrictions on movement.
UN humanitarian co-ordinator Maxwell Gaylard asserted: "The continued erosion of livelihoods and the denial of basic human rights together are compelling Palestinians to become more and more dependent on international aid."
A wall between Egypt and Gaza is likely to deepen the distress and dependence of Palestinians trapped in the Strip.
by Michael Jansen
Egyptian officials yesterday confirmed that Cairo is covertly constructing an underground steel barrier along the border with Gaza to cut smuggling into the Strip.
They contradicted a report in the Cairo daily Al-Shorouk quoting an unidentified source who said, "Egypt is dealing with smuggling seriously and is capable of stopping it without [a] wall."
When completed in 18 months' time, the impenetrable and indestructible wall will be 10-11km in length and will extend 18-30m below the surface along the 13km-long border.
Four kilometres have, reportedly, been completed north of the town of Rafah, which is bisected by the border that also divides Palestinian families - many of whom are involved in the illegal cross-border trade.
Over the past year the number of tunnels has doubled from 750 to 1,500. They carry essential goods, household appliances, fuel, medicines, fertiliser, seeds, clothing, motorbikes, and even the occasional car.
If the flow of goods is impaired or interdicted, the 1.5 million Gazans would be reduced to reliance on the ration package con- taining flour, pulses and tea distributed by UN agencies.
Only basic supplies are permitted to enter the Strip through goods crossings controlled by Israel, which tightened its blockade of Gaza following the seizure of power there by Hamas in June 2007.
Israel routinely bombs tunnels it claims are used for explosives and weapons traffic, while Cairo tries to tackle smuggling by arresting dealers, closing down warehouses on the Egyptian side of the frontier and blowing up tunnels.
Last March, the US provided Egypt with $32 million (€21.75 million) to install electronic surveillance devices and other equipment to prevent smuggling.
Since these efforts have failed to halt or seriously limit commerce, Cairo is said to have come under pressure from the US and Israel to agree to the sinking of an underground barrier.
US army engineers have designed the wall, modelled on structures used to reinforce levees in hurricane-prone New Orleans. US firms have manufactured its sections, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Farmers and herdsmen have remarked on the clearing of land near the border, and local municipal official Suleiman Bair said farmers would be compensated for the loss of fruit and olive trees. Shoot-outs have erupted between Egyptian police and Bedouin tribesmen involved in smuggling and tunnel protection.
Confirmation of the construction of the underground wall coincided with an appeal issued by dozens of UN agencies, inter- national organisations and national non-governmental bodies for $664.4 million to finance humanitarian programmes in Gaza, East Jerusalem and areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian economy has been devastated by Israel's settlements, separation wall, checkpoints and restrictions on movement.
UN humanitarian co-ordinator Maxwell Gaylard asserted: "The continued erosion of livelihoods and the denial of basic human rights together are compelling Palestinians to become more and more dependent on international aid."
A wall between Egypt and Gaza is likely to deepen the distress and dependence of Palestinians trapped in the Strip.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Robert Jensen in Converstaion with Chris Hedges
First, if a radio station in your area airs Alternative Radio, you can hear a talk I gave on religion and politics. http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/JENR002.shtml
Last month I interviewed Chris Hedges onstage in Austin. A piece drawn from that conversation is online in the Austin American-Statesman. Thanks to Statesman reporter Brad Buchholz for doing a great job of putting the piece together.
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/books/2009/12/06/1206hedgesweb.html
Author warns of pageantry's perils
Chris Hedges, who wrote 'Empire of Illusion,' examines America's identity crisis in an age of consumerism and spectacle.
By Brad Buchholz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Chris Hedges sees, in America, a nation that has lost its way. He sees a country that places prosperity above principle, celebrity above substance, spectacle above nuance and introspection. He sees a "timid, cowed, confused" populace disconnected from language, governed by consumerism, ambivalent toward the common good, enamored by an American myth that has no basis in the American reality.
"We are a culture that has been denied, or has passively given up, the linguistic and intellectual tools to cope with complexity, to separate illlusion from reality," Hedges writes in his new book, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle." "We have traded the printed word for the gleaming image. Public rhetoric is designed to be comprehensible to a ten-year-old child or an adult with a sixth-grade reading level.
"Most of us speak at this level, are entertained and think at this level. We have transformed our culture into a vast replica of Pinocchio's Pleasure Island, where boys were lured with the promise of no school and endless fun. They were all, however, turned into donkeys — a symbol, in Italian cutlure, of ignorance and stupidity."
Hedges paints a bleak picture in this book — all the more sobering when one considers that this Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist has spent decades covering violence and war around the globe, in Africa and the Balkans, South America and the Middle East. He states, plainly, that the age of American Imminence is over. Our standard of living is going to drop. Our consumptive tendencies are going to change. Yet the biggest problem, as Hedges sees it, is American denial — an eagerness to cling to the good-times, anything-we-want illusion, "the the dark message of corporatism," at the expense of this perilous end-of-empire reality.
For all his years in journalism, Hedges has never been hesitant to step outside the lines and draw conclusions in a pointedly "progressive" point of view. He lost his job at The New York Times, in fact, for speaking out against the war in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Nationalism and myth were at the heart of his breakout book, "War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning," which was a finalist of the National Book Critics Circle award for non-fiction in 2002.
The son of a Presbyterian minister, Hedges attended divinity school before embarking on a career in journalism. An avowed socialst, he claims to have voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic presidential primary of 2008 and Independent candidate Ralph Nader in the election. He does not associate the word "hope" with the word "Obama." He does not own a television. As a gesture of protest, he once wrote he would not pay federal income taxes in the event of a U.S. invasion of Iran.
Last month, three days after the Fort Hood tragedy, Hedges spoke at St. Andrews Presbyterian church in a program moderated by University of Texas journalism professor and peace activist Robert Jensen. Fort Hood didn't come up in the conversation, or the question-and-answer session that followed. But these topics, from "Empire of Illusion," did:
American Illusion
"You strive toward a dream; you live within an illusion. And societies that cannot distinguish between illusion and reality die. If you look at the twilight periods of all great empires – Roman, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian — there is, in those final moments, not only a deep moral degeneration but an inability to distinguish what is real from fantasy.
"During the election between McCain and Obama, we were waging two wars, pre-emptive wars that under post Nurmberg laws are defined as criminal wars of aggression. We were running offshore penal colonies where we openly tortured individuals stripped of all rights. We had suspended habeas corpus. We had engaged in warrant-less wiretapping and eavesdropping on tens of millions of Americans . ... And yet we spoke of ourselves as the greatest democracy on Earth – and that as the embodiment of the highest values, we had a right to deliver it to others by force."
American Values
"We talk about (the importance of) American culture. (But in truth): American culture was destroyed after World War I, with the rise of Madison Avenue and the implanting of mass corporate culture which sought to instill new values into the American consciousness. Instead of the values of thrift, communitarianism, modesty (and) self-sacrifice, we developed, courtesy of the advertising industry, this cult of self — this deep narcissism and hedonism that disconnected us from others and gave us mass corporate culture.
"So it's not American culture that we embrace for the moment. It's not American culture we export. It's corporate culture. And I think that altered situations will force us back into a moral system that defies the dark ethic of corporatism. And hopefully reconnects us to those values within our past that I think were brought us closer to fostering the building of common good.
'Vocational America'
"Education in the United States has become vocational. ... Many of the state universities, community colleges and online for-profit universities — that are growing faster than any other university sentiment — have no use for the Humanities, literature, history, philosophy, classics, art. Why? Because the Humanities ask the kind of broad questions of meaning that those systems that prize above all else vocational workers do not want to ask.
"The problem with our vocational system is that it measures and rewards a very narrow kind of intelligence, a kind of analytical intelligence to create legions of systems managers — people who have a drone-like ability to work for very long hours, and (have) a kind of penchant or capacity for manipulation, but don't know how to question assumptions or structures."
'The Liberal Church'
"I come out of a liberal church. The liberal church has failed us, and they've failed us on two levels. (First), they have defined spirituality as 'How is it with me,' which is a form of narcissism. Martin Luther King preached a great sermon called, 'Jesus didn't come to bring us peace of mind.' And secondly, they have failed us because they did not stand up to the Christian right. The Christian right is a mass movement, I think the most dangerous mass movement in American history — and they are Christian heretics.
"They have acculturated the Christian Gospel with the worst aspects of American imperialism and American Capitalism. Jesus did not come to give us a Cadillac and to make us rich and to bless arm fragmentation bombs being dropped all over the Middle East. It was an utter perversion of the message of the Gospel. And because the liberal church lacked the fortitude and the spine to renounce this movement — leaving it to repugnant figures like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris ... at a time when the culture so desperately needs a moral voice, the church sadly to me has become in many ways morally irrelevant.
Capitalism
"Capitalism is probably ingrained in human nature. But there are different kinds of capitalism. The kind of penny capitalism that I saw at the farmer's market in the town I grew up in is not a dangerous form of capitalism ... but corporate capitalism is something else. Corporate Capitalism is cannibalizing the nation.
"Karl Polanyi in 1944 wrote a brilliant work called 'The Great Transformation' in which he talked about the inevitable totalitarianism and wars and breakdown that was caused by a system that permitted unregulated capitalists to flourish. When everything becomes a commodity, including human labor, when the natural world becomes a commodity that is valued only by its capacity to generate profit, then you commit collective suicide, because you exhaust human beings and human resources, you deplete them, until they die. And that's precisely what's happening. Look at the oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, our permanent war economy. ..."
Capitalism and Celebrity
"The ethic of celebrity culture ... is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. What are the values promoted on reality television programs like "Survivor"? A capacity for manipulation. Building false friendships (with) those you betray. A destruction of real community and solidarity. Basically: the traits of psychopaths. And what do you get in return? Fleeting fame and money.
"Well, that is the ethic of Wall Street. That is what allowed the titans of large corporations to fleece their shareholders, people who had put month by month small sums aside for their retirement, for their college, destroy these institutions like Lehman Brothers, and then like Richard Fuld did, walk away with a severance package of $45 million. The ethic of celebrity culture is the ethic of Wall Street. And the crisis that faces the country at its core is not so much an economic crisis or a political crisis as it is a moral crisis.
The Bankruptcy of Liberalism
"I fear more the bankruptcy of liberalism than I do the fanaticism of the right. ... I think the book for our times is probably Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground," (1864) in which he writes about a defeated dreamer, who becomes a cynic at a time when liberalism is bankrupt and who descends into a state of moral nihilism ... which understood precisely where his country was going."
The Failure of Democrats
"Those of us who care about the working class in this country – and much of my own family comes from the working class — should have walked out on the Democratic party in 1994 when they passed NAFTA. That thrust a knife in the back of the working class in this country – followed by Clinton's so-called welfare reform, followed by a Democratic party that quite consciously did the bidding of corporations to receive (campaign) money. That was the intent. So by the 1990s, the Democratic party had parity with the Republicans in terms of corporate donations — and of course now they get more.
"The bankruptcy of American liberalism is that it continued to speak against war, continued to speak on behalf of the working class, continued to support constitutional rights, and yet backed the party (the Democratic party) that betrayed all of these values. This wasn't lost on the working class. The anger of the working class toward liberals in this country is not misplaced, because liberals continue with that type of hypocrisy. They continue to espouse values and yet support political parties that tear down those values. And that's very dangerous. . . .
"The progressive movements in this country rely on the working class to propel our democracy fowrward. (But) our working class has been decimated. It doesn't exist any more, because there are no jobs, no meaningful jobs. And so that rage and frustration which you're already seeing leaping up around the fringes of society — and of course America is a very violent nation, that undercurrent of violence runs very deep — is presaging, I fear, a backwash. But a right wing backwash. And that is largely because the liberal class in this country became gutless."
Health Care
"Any discussion of health care in this country should begin with the factual acknowledgment that the for-profit health care industry is a problem and must be destroyed. This is an industry that's not only responsible last year for the deaths of 20,000 Americans who could not get proper health care, medical coverage. But it (is) legally allowed (to) hold sick children hostage while parents bankrupt themselves to try to save their sons and daughters. This is a system, in theological terms, of death.
"Our for-profit health care system makes money off of death, the same way our arms merchants make money off of death. And the inability within our country to face this reality, the inability in a corporatized media to even have this discussion is, I think, evidence of the power of the corporate state, which drives debate, which permits institutions that are morally bankrupt to have a seat at the table. And that is symptomatic of a society in deep decay."
Violence
"When you push a populace to violence, you unleash a poison that infects everyone. I don't believe in the term "A Just War." ... And the longer we continue to speak to those in the Middle East through the language of violence, the more we empower those who are only capable of speaking back to us in the language of violence. When you look at 9/11: huge explosions and death above the city skyline, nihilistic violence as a message. Where did they learn that from? From (Secretary of Defense Robert) McNamara of '65, when he justified the bombing of North Vietnam, which left hundred of thousands of Vietnamese dead, (in the name of) delivering a message to Hanoi.
The perpetrators of 9/11 simply learned to speak the langue we taught them. ... You cannot promote a virtue through force. ... You cannot implant democracy through force. Because once you use force, you speak in a language in which the very concept of human rights is an absurdity."
Faith
"I'm a Christian Agnostic — which means, and I think that's probably biblically accurate, that I know nothing, and I believe I can know nothing, about God.
"God is a human concept. God has been given by various theological systems – our own and others – numerous attributes, some of which are morally repugnant. But the reality of the transcendent is something that artists and religious thinkers — who of course in early history were fused into one — have struggled to document.
"Marcel Proust wrote that the real news of our lives never appears in a newspaper. The most powerful forces of human life are non-rational – not irrational, but non-rational: Grief, love, beauty, search for meaning, struggle with our own mortality. You can't empirically measure these forces. The Buddhists say you can memorize as many sutras as you want, it will never make you wise. If you're not in touch with these forces – and Paul Woodruff wrote a great book about this, 'Reverence' – you're not a complete human being."
bbuchholz@statesman.com; (512) 912-2967
Last month I interviewed Chris Hedges onstage in Austin. A piece drawn from that conversation is online in the Austin American-Statesman. Thanks to Statesman reporter Brad Buchholz for doing a great job of putting the piece together.
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/books/2009/12/06/1206hedgesweb.html
Author warns of pageantry's perils
Chris Hedges, who wrote 'Empire of Illusion,' examines America's identity crisis in an age of consumerism and spectacle.
By Brad Buchholz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Chris Hedges sees, in America, a nation that has lost its way. He sees a country that places prosperity above principle, celebrity above substance, spectacle above nuance and introspection. He sees a "timid, cowed, confused" populace disconnected from language, governed by consumerism, ambivalent toward the common good, enamored by an American myth that has no basis in the American reality.
"We are a culture that has been denied, or has passively given up, the linguistic and intellectual tools to cope with complexity, to separate illlusion from reality," Hedges writes in his new book, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle." "We have traded the printed word for the gleaming image. Public rhetoric is designed to be comprehensible to a ten-year-old child or an adult with a sixth-grade reading level.
"Most of us speak at this level, are entertained and think at this level. We have transformed our culture into a vast replica of Pinocchio's Pleasure Island, where boys were lured with the promise of no school and endless fun. They were all, however, turned into donkeys — a symbol, in Italian cutlure, of ignorance and stupidity."
Hedges paints a bleak picture in this book — all the more sobering when one considers that this Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist has spent decades covering violence and war around the globe, in Africa and the Balkans, South America and the Middle East. He states, plainly, that the age of American Imminence is over. Our standard of living is going to drop. Our consumptive tendencies are going to change. Yet the biggest problem, as Hedges sees it, is American denial — an eagerness to cling to the good-times, anything-we-want illusion, "the the dark message of corporatism," at the expense of this perilous end-of-empire reality.
For all his years in journalism, Hedges has never been hesitant to step outside the lines and draw conclusions in a pointedly "progressive" point of view. He lost his job at The New York Times, in fact, for speaking out against the war in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Nationalism and myth were at the heart of his breakout book, "War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning," which was a finalist of the National Book Critics Circle award for non-fiction in 2002.
The son of a Presbyterian minister, Hedges attended divinity school before embarking on a career in journalism. An avowed socialst, he claims to have voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic presidential primary of 2008 and Independent candidate Ralph Nader in the election. He does not associate the word "hope" with the word "Obama." He does not own a television. As a gesture of protest, he once wrote he would not pay federal income taxes in the event of a U.S. invasion of Iran.
Last month, three days after the Fort Hood tragedy, Hedges spoke at St. Andrews Presbyterian church in a program moderated by University of Texas journalism professor and peace activist Robert Jensen. Fort Hood didn't come up in the conversation, or the question-and-answer session that followed. But these topics, from "Empire of Illusion," did:
American Illusion
"You strive toward a dream; you live within an illusion. And societies that cannot distinguish between illusion and reality die. If you look at the twilight periods of all great empires – Roman, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian — there is, in those final moments, not only a deep moral degeneration but an inability to distinguish what is real from fantasy.
"During the election between McCain and Obama, we were waging two wars, pre-emptive wars that under post Nurmberg laws are defined as criminal wars of aggression. We were running offshore penal colonies where we openly tortured individuals stripped of all rights. We had suspended habeas corpus. We had engaged in warrant-less wiretapping and eavesdropping on tens of millions of Americans . ... And yet we spoke of ourselves as the greatest democracy on Earth – and that as the embodiment of the highest values, we had a right to deliver it to others by force."
American Values
"We talk about (the importance of) American culture. (But in truth): American culture was destroyed after World War I, with the rise of Madison Avenue and the implanting of mass corporate culture which sought to instill new values into the American consciousness. Instead of the values of thrift, communitarianism, modesty (and) self-sacrifice, we developed, courtesy of the advertising industry, this cult of self — this deep narcissism and hedonism that disconnected us from others and gave us mass corporate culture.
"So it's not American culture that we embrace for the moment. It's not American culture we export. It's corporate culture. And I think that altered situations will force us back into a moral system that defies the dark ethic of corporatism. And hopefully reconnects us to those values within our past that I think were brought us closer to fostering the building of common good.
'Vocational America'
"Education in the United States has become vocational. ... Many of the state universities, community colleges and online for-profit universities — that are growing faster than any other university sentiment — have no use for the Humanities, literature, history, philosophy, classics, art. Why? Because the Humanities ask the kind of broad questions of meaning that those systems that prize above all else vocational workers do not want to ask.
"The problem with our vocational system is that it measures and rewards a very narrow kind of intelligence, a kind of analytical intelligence to create legions of systems managers — people who have a drone-like ability to work for very long hours, and (have) a kind of penchant or capacity for manipulation, but don't know how to question assumptions or structures."
'The Liberal Church'
"I come out of a liberal church. The liberal church has failed us, and they've failed us on two levels. (First), they have defined spirituality as 'How is it with me,' which is a form of narcissism. Martin Luther King preached a great sermon called, 'Jesus didn't come to bring us peace of mind.' And secondly, they have failed us because they did not stand up to the Christian right. The Christian right is a mass movement, I think the most dangerous mass movement in American history — and they are Christian heretics.
"They have acculturated the Christian Gospel with the worst aspects of American imperialism and American Capitalism. Jesus did not come to give us a Cadillac and to make us rich and to bless arm fragmentation bombs being dropped all over the Middle East. It was an utter perversion of the message of the Gospel. And because the liberal church lacked the fortitude and the spine to renounce this movement — leaving it to repugnant figures like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris ... at a time when the culture so desperately needs a moral voice, the church sadly to me has become in many ways morally irrelevant.
Capitalism
"Capitalism is probably ingrained in human nature. But there are different kinds of capitalism. The kind of penny capitalism that I saw at the farmer's market in the town I grew up in is not a dangerous form of capitalism ... but corporate capitalism is something else. Corporate Capitalism is cannibalizing the nation.
"Karl Polanyi in 1944 wrote a brilliant work called 'The Great Transformation' in which he talked about the inevitable totalitarianism and wars and breakdown that was caused by a system that permitted unregulated capitalists to flourish. When everything becomes a commodity, including human labor, when the natural world becomes a commodity that is valued only by its capacity to generate profit, then you commit collective suicide, because you exhaust human beings and human resources, you deplete them, until they die. And that's precisely what's happening. Look at the oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, our permanent war economy. ..."
Capitalism and Celebrity
"The ethic of celebrity culture ... is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. What are the values promoted on reality television programs like "Survivor"? A capacity for manipulation. Building false friendships (with) those you betray. A destruction of real community and solidarity. Basically: the traits of psychopaths. And what do you get in return? Fleeting fame and money.
"Well, that is the ethic of Wall Street. That is what allowed the titans of large corporations to fleece their shareholders, people who had put month by month small sums aside for their retirement, for their college, destroy these institutions like Lehman Brothers, and then like Richard Fuld did, walk away with a severance package of $45 million. The ethic of celebrity culture is the ethic of Wall Street. And the crisis that faces the country at its core is not so much an economic crisis or a political crisis as it is a moral crisis.
The Bankruptcy of Liberalism
"I fear more the bankruptcy of liberalism than I do the fanaticism of the right. ... I think the book for our times is probably Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground," (1864) in which he writes about a defeated dreamer, who becomes a cynic at a time when liberalism is bankrupt and who descends into a state of moral nihilism ... which understood precisely where his country was going."
The Failure of Democrats
"Those of us who care about the working class in this country – and much of my own family comes from the working class — should have walked out on the Democratic party in 1994 when they passed NAFTA. That thrust a knife in the back of the working class in this country – followed by Clinton's so-called welfare reform, followed by a Democratic party that quite consciously did the bidding of corporations to receive (campaign) money. That was the intent. So by the 1990s, the Democratic party had parity with the Republicans in terms of corporate donations — and of course now they get more.
"The bankruptcy of American liberalism is that it continued to speak against war, continued to speak on behalf of the working class, continued to support constitutional rights, and yet backed the party (the Democratic party) that betrayed all of these values. This wasn't lost on the working class. The anger of the working class toward liberals in this country is not misplaced, because liberals continue with that type of hypocrisy. They continue to espouse values and yet support political parties that tear down those values. And that's very dangerous. . . .
"The progressive movements in this country rely on the working class to propel our democracy fowrward. (But) our working class has been decimated. It doesn't exist any more, because there are no jobs, no meaningful jobs. And so that rage and frustration which you're already seeing leaping up around the fringes of society — and of course America is a very violent nation, that undercurrent of violence runs very deep — is presaging, I fear, a backwash. But a right wing backwash. And that is largely because the liberal class in this country became gutless."
Health Care
"Any discussion of health care in this country should begin with the factual acknowledgment that the for-profit health care industry is a problem and must be destroyed. This is an industry that's not only responsible last year for the deaths of 20,000 Americans who could not get proper health care, medical coverage. But it (is) legally allowed (to) hold sick children hostage while parents bankrupt themselves to try to save their sons and daughters. This is a system, in theological terms, of death.
"Our for-profit health care system makes money off of death, the same way our arms merchants make money off of death. And the inability within our country to face this reality, the inability in a corporatized media to even have this discussion is, I think, evidence of the power of the corporate state, which drives debate, which permits institutions that are morally bankrupt to have a seat at the table. And that is symptomatic of a society in deep decay."
Violence
"When you push a populace to violence, you unleash a poison that infects everyone. I don't believe in the term "A Just War." ... And the longer we continue to speak to those in the Middle East through the language of violence, the more we empower those who are only capable of speaking back to us in the language of violence. When you look at 9/11: huge explosions and death above the city skyline, nihilistic violence as a message. Where did they learn that from? From (Secretary of Defense Robert) McNamara of '65, when he justified the bombing of North Vietnam, which left hundred of thousands of Vietnamese dead, (in the name of) delivering a message to Hanoi.
The perpetrators of 9/11 simply learned to speak the langue we taught them. ... You cannot promote a virtue through force. ... You cannot implant democracy through force. Because once you use force, you speak in a language in which the very concept of human rights is an absurdity."
Faith
"I'm a Christian Agnostic — which means, and I think that's probably biblically accurate, that I know nothing, and I believe I can know nothing, about God.
"God is a human concept. God has been given by various theological systems – our own and others – numerous attributes, some of which are morally repugnant. But the reality of the transcendent is something that artists and religious thinkers — who of course in early history were fused into one — have struggled to document.
"Marcel Proust wrote that the real news of our lives never appears in a newspaper. The most powerful forces of human life are non-rational – not irrational, but non-rational: Grief, love, beauty, search for meaning, struggle with our own mortality. You can't empirically measure these forces. The Buddhists say you can memorize as many sutras as you want, it will never make you wise. If you're not in touch with these forces – and Paul Woodruff wrote a great book about this, 'Reverence' – you're not a complete human being."
bbuchholz@statesman.com; (512) 912-2967
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Prince of Blackness
Is Erik Prince 'Graymailing' the US Government?
By Jeremy Scahill
December 4, 2009
The in-depth Vanity Fair profile of the infamous owner of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is remarkable on many levels--not least among them that Prince appeared to give the story's author, former CIA lawyer Adam Ciralsky, unprecedented access to information about sensitive, classified and lethal operations not only of Prince's forces, but Prince himself. In the article, Prince is revealed not just as owner of a company that covertly provided contractors to the CIA for drone bombings and targeted assassinations, but as an actual CIA asset himself. While the story appears to be simply a profile of Prince, it might actually be the world's most famous mercenary's insurance policy against future criminal prosecution. The term of art for what Prince appears to be doing in the VF interview is graymail: a legal tactic that has been used for years by intelligence operatives or assets who are facing prosecution or fear they soon will be. In short, these operatives or assets threaten to reveal details of sensitive or classified operations in order to ward off indictments or criminal charges, based on the belief that the government would not want these details revealed. "The only reason Prince would do this [interview] is that he feels he is in very serious jeopardy of criminal charges," says Scott Horton, a prominent national security and military law expert. "He absolutely would not do these things otherwise."
Jeremy Scahill: Top Blackwater staff authorized attempted bribes of Iraqi officials in the wake of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, the New York Times has reported.
There is no doubt Prince is in the legal cross-hairs: There are reportedly two separate Grand Juries investigating Blackwater on a range of serious charges, ranging from gun smuggling to extralegal killings; multiple civil lawsuits alleging war crimes and extrajudicial killings; and Congress is investigating the assassination program in which Prince and his company were central players. "Obviously, Prince does know a lot and the government has to realize that once they start prosecuting him," says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "In some ways, graymail is what any good defense lawyer would do. This is something that's in your arsenal."
Perhaps the most prominent case of graymail was by Oliver North when he and his lawyers used it to force dismissal of the most serious charges against him stemming from his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. In another case, known as Khazak-gate, a US businessman, James Giffen, allegedly paid $78 million in bribes to former Khazakh Prime Minister Nurlan Balgimbayev in an attempt to win contracts for western oil companies to develop the Tengiz oil fields in the 1990s. In 1993, he was charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the largest overseas bribery case in history. After Giffen was indicted, he claimed that if he did what he was accused of, he did it in the service of US intelligence agencies. The case has been in limbo ever since.
"This is as old as the hills as a tactic and it has a long track record of being very effective against the government," says Horton. "It's basically a threat to the government that if you prosecute me, I'll disclose all sorts of national security-sensitive information. The bottom line here is it's like an act of extortion or a threat: you do X and this is what I'm going to do." Horton said that the Vanity Fair article was Prince "essentially putting out the warning to the Department of Justice: 'You prosecute me and all this stuff will be out on the record.'"
According to Ciralsky's article, Prince was a "full-blown asset" of "the C.I.A.'s National Resources Division [which] recruited Prince in 2004 to join a secret network of American citizens with special skills or unusual access to targets of interest:"
Two sources familiar with the arrangement say that Prince's handlers obtained provisional operational approval from senior management to recruit Prince and later generated a "201 file," which would have put him on the agency's books as a vetted asset. It's not at all clear who was running whom, since Prince says that, unlike many other assets, he did much of his work on spec, claiming to have used personal funds to road-test the viability of certain operations...
Prince was developing unconventional means of penetrating "hard target" countries--where the C.I.A. has great difficulty working either because there are no stations from which to operate or because local intelligence services have the wherewithal to frustrate the agency's designs. "I made no money whatsoever off this work," Prince contends. He is unwilling to specify the exact nature of his forays. "I'm painted as this war profiteer by Congress. Meanwhile I'm paying for all sorts of intelligence activities to support American national security, out of my own pocket."
"I think that [Prince] will use all of his information and his knowledge of these secret dealings in basically what is an extortion play: 'You come after me, and I'll spill the beans on everything,'" says Horton. "That's the essence of graymail and the Department of Justice will usually get its feathers all ruffled up and they'll say, 'You can't deal with the government like this. This is unfair and improper.' But in the end, it usually works."
In the Vanity Fair article, Prince alleges that he was outed--by whom he does not say, but the implication is that CIA Director Leon Panetta named him in a closed door hearing of the Intelligence Committee last June, and then the name was leaked by one of the attendees of that hearing. Sloan, the former federal prosecutor, said that if what Prince says in the Vanity Fair article about his role in secret CIA programs is true, he has a case that laws were broken in revealing his identity. "I'm not his fan, but he's not wrong. For somebody to leak his identity as a CIA asset clearly merits a criminal investigation," Sloan said. "Whether they should have ever hired Erik Prince or made him into an asset is a separate question. Assuming he really was a CIA asset, basically a spy, an undercover operative, and somebody decided to leak that, that's not acceptable and that is a violation of the same law that leaking Valerie [Plame]'s identity was. If you can't leak one person, you can't leak any person, not just the people you like versus the people you don't like."
While much of the focus in the Vanity Fair story was on Prince's work with the CIA, the story also confirmed that Blackwater has an ongoing relationship with the US Special Forces, helping plan missions and providing air support. As The Nation reported, Blackwater has for years been working on a classified contract with the Joint Special Operations Command in a drone bombing campaign in Pakistan, as well as planning snatch-and-grab missions and targeted assassinations. Part of what may be happening behind closed doors is that the CIA is, to an extent, cutting Blackwater and Prince off. But, as sources have told The Nation, the company remains a central player in US Special Forces operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Prince's choice of Adam Ciralsky to tell his story is an interesting one as well. Ciralsky was a CIA lawyer who in 1997 was suspended under suspicion he was having unauthorized contacts with possible Israeli intelligence agents. Ciralsky vehemently denied the allegations, saying he was the victim of a "witch-hunt" at the Agency. In any case, there is no question that Prince would view Ciralsky through the lens of his own struggle against the CIA. "When I saw the article, the first thing that just leapt off the page was his name. I thought, 'My god, why would he go to Adam?'" said Horton. "And then I read the article and I thought, of course he'd go to Adam. There is this legal theme being developed in the article and Adam, as a lawyer who had dealt with the CIA, fully understands that. I mean I think he fully understood he was going to do a piece that would help Prince develop his legal defense and that's what this is. The amazing thing to me is that Vanity Fair printed it. Do the editors of Vanity Fair not understand what's going on here?"
About Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, published by Nation Books. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!.
By Jeremy Scahill
December 4, 2009
The in-depth Vanity Fair profile of the infamous owner of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is remarkable on many levels--not least among them that Prince appeared to give the story's author, former CIA lawyer Adam Ciralsky, unprecedented access to information about sensitive, classified and lethal operations not only of Prince's forces, but Prince himself. In the article, Prince is revealed not just as owner of a company that covertly provided contractors to the CIA for drone bombings and targeted assassinations, but as an actual CIA asset himself. While the story appears to be simply a profile of Prince, it might actually be the world's most famous mercenary's insurance policy against future criminal prosecution. The term of art for what Prince appears to be doing in the VF interview is graymail: a legal tactic that has been used for years by intelligence operatives or assets who are facing prosecution or fear they soon will be. In short, these operatives or assets threaten to reveal details of sensitive or classified operations in order to ward off indictments or criminal charges, based on the belief that the government would not want these details revealed. "The only reason Prince would do this [interview] is that he feels he is in very serious jeopardy of criminal charges," says Scott Horton, a prominent national security and military law expert. "He absolutely would not do these things otherwise."
Jeremy Scahill: Top Blackwater staff authorized attempted bribes of Iraqi officials in the wake of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, the New York Times has reported.
There is no doubt Prince is in the legal cross-hairs: There are reportedly two separate Grand Juries investigating Blackwater on a range of serious charges, ranging from gun smuggling to extralegal killings; multiple civil lawsuits alleging war crimes and extrajudicial killings; and Congress is investigating the assassination program in which Prince and his company were central players. "Obviously, Prince does know a lot and the government has to realize that once they start prosecuting him," says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "In some ways, graymail is what any good defense lawyer would do. This is something that's in your arsenal."
Perhaps the most prominent case of graymail was by Oliver North when he and his lawyers used it to force dismissal of the most serious charges against him stemming from his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. In another case, known as Khazak-gate, a US businessman, James Giffen, allegedly paid $78 million in bribes to former Khazakh Prime Minister Nurlan Balgimbayev in an attempt to win contracts for western oil companies to develop the Tengiz oil fields in the 1990s. In 1993, he was charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the largest overseas bribery case in history. After Giffen was indicted, he claimed that if he did what he was accused of, he did it in the service of US intelligence agencies. The case has been in limbo ever since.
"This is as old as the hills as a tactic and it has a long track record of being very effective against the government," says Horton. "It's basically a threat to the government that if you prosecute me, I'll disclose all sorts of national security-sensitive information. The bottom line here is it's like an act of extortion or a threat: you do X and this is what I'm going to do." Horton said that the Vanity Fair article was Prince "essentially putting out the warning to the Department of Justice: 'You prosecute me and all this stuff will be out on the record.'"
According to Ciralsky's article, Prince was a "full-blown asset" of "the C.I.A.'s National Resources Division [which] recruited Prince in 2004 to join a secret network of American citizens with special skills or unusual access to targets of interest:"
Two sources familiar with the arrangement say that Prince's handlers obtained provisional operational approval from senior management to recruit Prince and later generated a "201 file," which would have put him on the agency's books as a vetted asset. It's not at all clear who was running whom, since Prince says that, unlike many other assets, he did much of his work on spec, claiming to have used personal funds to road-test the viability of certain operations...
Prince was developing unconventional means of penetrating "hard target" countries--where the C.I.A. has great difficulty working either because there are no stations from which to operate or because local intelligence services have the wherewithal to frustrate the agency's designs. "I made no money whatsoever off this work," Prince contends. He is unwilling to specify the exact nature of his forays. "I'm painted as this war profiteer by Congress. Meanwhile I'm paying for all sorts of intelligence activities to support American national security, out of my own pocket."
"I think that [Prince] will use all of his information and his knowledge of these secret dealings in basically what is an extortion play: 'You come after me, and I'll spill the beans on everything,'" says Horton. "That's the essence of graymail and the Department of Justice will usually get its feathers all ruffled up and they'll say, 'You can't deal with the government like this. This is unfair and improper.' But in the end, it usually works."
In the Vanity Fair article, Prince alleges that he was outed--by whom he does not say, but the implication is that CIA Director Leon Panetta named him in a closed door hearing of the Intelligence Committee last June, and then the name was leaked by one of the attendees of that hearing. Sloan, the former federal prosecutor, said that if what Prince says in the Vanity Fair article about his role in secret CIA programs is true, he has a case that laws were broken in revealing his identity. "I'm not his fan, but he's not wrong. For somebody to leak his identity as a CIA asset clearly merits a criminal investigation," Sloan said. "Whether they should have ever hired Erik Prince or made him into an asset is a separate question. Assuming he really was a CIA asset, basically a spy, an undercover operative, and somebody decided to leak that, that's not acceptable and that is a violation of the same law that leaking Valerie [Plame]'s identity was. If you can't leak one person, you can't leak any person, not just the people you like versus the people you don't like."
While much of the focus in the Vanity Fair story was on Prince's work with the CIA, the story also confirmed that Blackwater has an ongoing relationship with the US Special Forces, helping plan missions and providing air support. As The Nation reported, Blackwater has for years been working on a classified contract with the Joint Special Operations Command in a drone bombing campaign in Pakistan, as well as planning snatch-and-grab missions and targeted assassinations. Part of what may be happening behind closed doors is that the CIA is, to an extent, cutting Blackwater and Prince off. But, as sources have told The Nation, the company remains a central player in US Special Forces operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Prince's choice of Adam Ciralsky to tell his story is an interesting one as well. Ciralsky was a CIA lawyer who in 1997 was suspended under suspicion he was having unauthorized contacts with possible Israeli intelligence agents. Ciralsky vehemently denied the allegations, saying he was the victim of a "witch-hunt" at the Agency. In any case, there is no question that Prince would view Ciralsky through the lens of his own struggle against the CIA. "When I saw the article, the first thing that just leapt off the page was his name. I thought, 'My god, why would he go to Adam?'" said Horton. "And then I read the article and I thought, of course he'd go to Adam. There is this legal theme being developed in the article and Adam, as a lawyer who had dealt with the CIA, fully understands that. I mean I think he fully understood he was going to do a piece that would help Prince develop his legal defense and that's what this is. The amazing thing to me is that Vanity Fair printed it. Do the editors of Vanity Fair not understand what's going on here?"
About Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, published by Nation Books. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!.
The Nichepaper Manifesto
The Nichepaper Manifesto
Dear Newspaper Magnates,
So you're going to try and charge people for news yet again. Cart, meet horse.
Journalists didn't make 20th century newspapers profitable — readers did. 20th century newspapers were never supernormally profitable because of what they wrote: it was the natural monopoly dynamics of classifieds that fueled massive margins.
In the 21st century, it's time, again for newspapers to learn how to profit with stakeholders — instead of extracting profits from them. The 21st century's great challenge isn't selling the same old "product" better: it's learning to make radically better stuff in the first place. Here's how to begin building 21st century newspapers.
***
20th century news isn't fit for 21st century society. Yesterday's approaches to news are failing to educate, enlighten, or inform. The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair. It is the news industry itself that commoditized news by racing repeatedly to the bottom. It's time for a better kind of news.
A new generation of innovators is already building 21st century newspapers: nichepapers. The future of journalism arrived right under the industry's nose. Nichepapers, as the name implies, own the microniche. (Here's a nice, timely discussion of Nichepapers by Michael Massing in the New York Review of Books.)
Nichepapers are different because they have built a profound mastery of a tightly defined domain — finance, politics, even entertainment — and offer audiences deep, unwavering knowledge of it.
Nichepapers aren't a new product, service, or business model. They are a new institution. They're a living example of the institutional innovation that is the key to 21st century business. They're not the same old newspaper, sold a different way. They are 21st century newspapers, built on new rules, that are letting radical innovators reinvent what "news" is.
Here are eight of the most essential:
Knowledge, not news. Newspapers strive to give people the news. Next stop, commodity central. Nichepapers strive to impart meaningful, lasting knowledge instead.
Commentage, not commentary. Newspapers dictate to their reader what news and opinion are. Nichepapers co-create knowledge through "commentage." Commentage is the kid sister of reportage: it is the art of curating comments to have a dialogue with the audience — because the audience can fill gaps, plug holes, and thicken the foundations of knowledge. Many newspapers have comments — so what? Almost none are having a dialogue with commenters — who are mostly stuck in a twilight zone where they can only talk to one another. Nichepapers, in contrast, are always having deep dialogues with readers.
Topics, not articles. That's why Nichepapers develop topics — instead of telling quickly-forgotten stories. When Talking Points Memo exposed the Bush administration's series of politically motivated firings, it did so in a series of posts, that let the story develop, surface, thicken, and climax. Stories are for information — topics are for knowledge.
Scarcity, not circulation. Newspapers strive for circulation, by telling the same stories in the same ways — in slightly different places. Nichepapers strive for scarcity: to develop a perspective, analytical skills, and storytelling capabilities that are inimitable by rivals.
Now, not then. Newspapers give you the news then. Nichepapers give you knowledge now. Why have weekly columns and daily articles — that then get lost in the wilderness of a vast archive? It's an arcane, obsolete way to produce content. Nichepapers develop topics of conversation, not individual stories, and let them co-evolve with readers.
Provocation, not perfection. Newspapers seek perfection: perfect grammar, perfect ledes, perfect headlines. Nichepapers seek provocation instead. Sometimes, yes, that provocation is mere titillation. But more often than not it's authentic provcation: nichepapers provoke us to think; they challenge us; they educate us in ways that newspapers stopped doing long ago.
Snowballs, not sell-outs. Newspapers long ago sold out to advertisers, PR flaks, powerful "sources," and lobbyists. When was the last time the WSJ bit the hand that fed it? Why is the Post's editorial page so predictably tepid? Nichepapers haven't sold out — and if their economic promise delivers, they won't have to. They "sell in" instead: they pitch topics and stories to the community, and let the best ones snowball — through contributions like tips, criticisms, and corrections.
Tasks, not tech. Nichepapers aren't about technology. They might use a blog post, vlog post, podcast, wiki, series of tweets, or a long-form article — or all of these, all at once. They are tech-neutral, using whatever works best for a given task.
Here are four models for Nichepapers that apply these rules in different ways. Each is named after an archetypal historical newspaper — because the key to reinvention is getting back to the basics of making better stuff:
The Sentry — Talking Points Memo. The incomparable TPM is the gold standard of a Nichepaper. It's also a very specific kind: a sentry, always patrolling the political arena for malfeasance, misbehavior, and broken promises. By combining reportage, commentage, opinion, and muckraking, TPM delivers perhaps the most hard-hitting, most persistent, and most fearless investigative political journalism in America today.
The Chronicle — Perez Hilton. Perez Hilton is the first 21st century gossip columnist. He chronicles whatever's lewd, crude, and most likely to be viewed in the entertainment world — in such excruciating detail, the result is a paradox: the lurid becomes banal. Yet, like TPM, Perez is unafraid to challenge the status quo, persistently, chronically, and often, funnily.
The Intelligencer — Business Insider. Henry Blodget used to be an equity analyst, so it's no surprise that his latest venture, Business Insider, crosses the line from pure news into deeper analysis — intelligence. Though BI often gets it wrong (here's Joe Weisenthal arguing that bribes create value, for example), the analysis is what counts: it gives readers more food for thought per word than News 1.0.
The Pioneer — The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is perhaps the classic Nichepaper — and what makes it different is that it's always pioneering new ideas, concepts, stories, and angles. The HuffPo's perspective is politically liberal — and that's its domain. But it is the pioneering that makes the HuffPo different. And it's open to pioneering new ideas from nearly anyone — as long as their ideas are good enough to matter.
Those rules and models above aren't the only ones, or the best ones. They are avenues that radical innovators are already exploring to reconceive news for the 21st century. And they suggest what the endgame of news 2.0 looks like.
The 21st century news organization is a portfolio of the different kinds of nichepapers. An Intelligencer for healthcare, a Pioneer for education, a Chronicle for finance and entertainment — that's what the future of news looks like. Why?
Nichepapers are the future of news because their economics are superior. All the Nichepapers above are "real" enterprises, with staff, offices, and fixed and variable costs. Nichepapers offer more bang for the buck: greater benefits for far less cost. Readers get more, better, and faster content — while publishers realize lower capital intensity, lower distribution, marketing, and production costs, and less risk. What is different about them is that they are finding new paths to growth, and rediscovering the lost art of profitability by awesomeness.
And that's really the point.
Profitability can't be recaptured from a commodity. Newspapers used to be yesterday's most profitable industry. Warren Buffett made his fortune by investing in newspapers, yesterday. Yet, today, business model innovation, aka "monetization," is the surest, quickest path to self-destruction. Charging once more for the same old "content" — as argued for by David Simon, in an impassioned CJR article — will inevitably lead newspapers exactly where it led banks investment "banks" and automakers: into economic implosion.
To reinvent the buying and selling of news, it's necessary first to reconceive the making of news. The AP's latest attempt at business model innovation, for example, is a heavyweight "rights management" system for the same old stuff. But protecting yesterday's "product" is exactly what prevented the music industry and Hollywood from rediscovering the art of value creation.
Nichepapers are, above all, "M" organizations. Today's radical innovators are confronting the truth that, because it failed the fundamental test of being meaningful, yesterday's news is, well, yesterday's news.
Nichepapers, in contrast, do meaningful stuff that matters the most. The great failing of 20th century news is that monopoly power became a substitute for meaningful value creation. At root, that's the lesson that newspapers are learning the hard way.
Love,
Umair and the Edge Economy Community
Dear Newspaper Magnates,
So you're going to try and charge people for news yet again. Cart, meet horse.
Journalists didn't make 20th century newspapers profitable — readers did. 20th century newspapers were never supernormally profitable because of what they wrote: it was the natural monopoly dynamics of classifieds that fueled massive margins.
In the 21st century, it's time, again for newspapers to learn how to profit with stakeholders — instead of extracting profits from them. The 21st century's great challenge isn't selling the same old "product" better: it's learning to make radically better stuff in the first place. Here's how to begin building 21st century newspapers.
***
20th century news isn't fit for 21st century society. Yesterday's approaches to news are failing to educate, enlighten, or inform. The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair. It is the news industry itself that commoditized news by racing repeatedly to the bottom. It's time for a better kind of news.
A new generation of innovators is already building 21st century newspapers: nichepapers. The future of journalism arrived right under the industry's nose. Nichepapers, as the name implies, own the microniche. (Here's a nice, timely discussion of Nichepapers by Michael Massing in the New York Review of Books.)
Nichepapers are different because they have built a profound mastery of a tightly defined domain — finance, politics, even entertainment — and offer audiences deep, unwavering knowledge of it.
Nichepapers aren't a new product, service, or business model. They are a new institution. They're a living example of the institutional innovation that is the key to 21st century business. They're not the same old newspaper, sold a different way. They are 21st century newspapers, built on new rules, that are letting radical innovators reinvent what "news" is.
Here are eight of the most essential:
Knowledge, not news. Newspapers strive to give people the news. Next stop, commodity central. Nichepapers strive to impart meaningful, lasting knowledge instead.
Commentage, not commentary. Newspapers dictate to their reader what news and opinion are. Nichepapers co-create knowledge through "commentage." Commentage is the kid sister of reportage: it is the art of curating comments to have a dialogue with the audience — because the audience can fill gaps, plug holes, and thicken the foundations of knowledge. Many newspapers have comments — so what? Almost none are having a dialogue with commenters — who are mostly stuck in a twilight zone where they can only talk to one another. Nichepapers, in contrast, are always having deep dialogues with readers.
Topics, not articles. That's why Nichepapers develop topics — instead of telling quickly-forgotten stories. When Talking Points Memo exposed the Bush administration's series of politically motivated firings, it did so in a series of posts, that let the story develop, surface, thicken, and climax. Stories are for information — topics are for knowledge.
Scarcity, not circulation. Newspapers strive for circulation, by telling the same stories in the same ways — in slightly different places. Nichepapers strive for scarcity: to develop a perspective, analytical skills, and storytelling capabilities that are inimitable by rivals.
Now, not then. Newspapers give you the news then. Nichepapers give you knowledge now. Why have weekly columns and daily articles — that then get lost in the wilderness of a vast archive? It's an arcane, obsolete way to produce content. Nichepapers develop topics of conversation, not individual stories, and let them co-evolve with readers.
Provocation, not perfection. Newspapers seek perfection: perfect grammar, perfect ledes, perfect headlines. Nichepapers seek provocation instead. Sometimes, yes, that provocation is mere titillation. But more often than not it's authentic provcation: nichepapers provoke us to think; they challenge us; they educate us in ways that newspapers stopped doing long ago.
Snowballs, not sell-outs. Newspapers long ago sold out to advertisers, PR flaks, powerful "sources," and lobbyists. When was the last time the WSJ bit the hand that fed it? Why is the Post's editorial page so predictably tepid? Nichepapers haven't sold out — and if their economic promise delivers, they won't have to. They "sell in" instead: they pitch topics and stories to the community, and let the best ones snowball — through contributions like tips, criticisms, and corrections.
Tasks, not tech. Nichepapers aren't about technology. They might use a blog post, vlog post, podcast, wiki, series of tweets, or a long-form article — or all of these, all at once. They are tech-neutral, using whatever works best for a given task.
Here are four models for Nichepapers that apply these rules in different ways. Each is named after an archetypal historical newspaper — because the key to reinvention is getting back to the basics of making better stuff:
The Sentry — Talking Points Memo. The incomparable TPM is the gold standard of a Nichepaper. It's also a very specific kind: a sentry, always patrolling the political arena for malfeasance, misbehavior, and broken promises. By combining reportage, commentage, opinion, and muckraking, TPM delivers perhaps the most hard-hitting, most persistent, and most fearless investigative political journalism in America today.
The Chronicle — Perez Hilton. Perez Hilton is the first 21st century gossip columnist. He chronicles whatever's lewd, crude, and most likely to be viewed in the entertainment world — in such excruciating detail, the result is a paradox: the lurid becomes banal. Yet, like TPM, Perez is unafraid to challenge the status quo, persistently, chronically, and often, funnily.
The Intelligencer — Business Insider. Henry Blodget used to be an equity analyst, so it's no surprise that his latest venture, Business Insider, crosses the line from pure news into deeper analysis — intelligence. Though BI often gets it wrong (here's Joe Weisenthal arguing that bribes create value, for example), the analysis is what counts: it gives readers more food for thought per word than News 1.0.
The Pioneer — The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is perhaps the classic Nichepaper — and what makes it different is that it's always pioneering new ideas, concepts, stories, and angles. The HuffPo's perspective is politically liberal — and that's its domain. But it is the pioneering that makes the HuffPo different. And it's open to pioneering new ideas from nearly anyone — as long as their ideas are good enough to matter.
Those rules and models above aren't the only ones, or the best ones. They are avenues that radical innovators are already exploring to reconceive news for the 21st century. And they suggest what the endgame of news 2.0 looks like.
The 21st century news organization is a portfolio of the different kinds of nichepapers. An Intelligencer for healthcare, a Pioneer for education, a Chronicle for finance and entertainment — that's what the future of news looks like. Why?
Nichepapers are the future of news because their economics are superior. All the Nichepapers above are "real" enterprises, with staff, offices, and fixed and variable costs. Nichepapers offer more bang for the buck: greater benefits for far less cost. Readers get more, better, and faster content — while publishers realize lower capital intensity, lower distribution, marketing, and production costs, and less risk. What is different about them is that they are finding new paths to growth, and rediscovering the lost art of profitability by awesomeness.
And that's really the point.
Profitability can't be recaptured from a commodity. Newspapers used to be yesterday's most profitable industry. Warren Buffett made his fortune by investing in newspapers, yesterday. Yet, today, business model innovation, aka "monetization," is the surest, quickest path to self-destruction. Charging once more for the same old "content" — as argued for by David Simon, in an impassioned CJR article — will inevitably lead newspapers exactly where it led banks investment "banks" and automakers: into economic implosion.
To reinvent the buying and selling of news, it's necessary first to reconceive the making of news. The AP's latest attempt at business model innovation, for example, is a heavyweight "rights management" system for the same old stuff. But protecting yesterday's "product" is exactly what prevented the music industry and Hollywood from rediscovering the art of value creation.
Nichepapers are, above all, "M" organizations. Today's radical innovators are confronting the truth that, because it failed the fundamental test of being meaningful, yesterday's news is, well, yesterday's news.
Nichepapers, in contrast, do meaningful stuff that matters the most. The great failing of 20th century news is that monopoly power became a substitute for meaningful value creation. At root, that's the lesson that newspapers are learning the hard way.
Love,
Umair and the Edge Economy Community
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Norwegian Lice Threaten Salmon Extinction
Sea lice are out of control in Norway
Norway's state broadcaster NRK reported on Monday:
"In the past year, the amount of sea lice in Norwegian fish farms exploded. The industry has been on the hump of the environmental movement in the wake of illness boom. This is because the salmon lice infect the wild salmon, and thereby threaten wild salmon stocks.": http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6888215
The Green Warriors of Norway said in a press release - "Sea Lice Situation is Out of Control" - issued yesterday:
"The sea lice situation is now out of control along the entire coast of Nordland and south. Green Warriors of Norway requires complete slaughter of all salmon biomass with multi-resistance against lice medicines": http://www.nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=121&articleId=2354&news=1
The Norwegian Hunters and Fishers (NJFF), Norwegian Salmon Rivers Owners (Norsk Lakseelver) and WWF Norway called on the Fisheries Minister to take the sea lice problem more seriously. NJFF reported yesterday under the headline "A Lot of Talk - Little Action":
"......life-threatening situation for our wild salmon along the coast is informed by a disaster. The trend of increasing resistance to the main treatment methods are cause for great concern. The organizations ask that the Minister immediately initiated after a standstill for further growth in the industry......We will increase the pressure in this case. The battle is now": http://www.njff.no/portal/page/portal/njff/nyhet?element_id=57753689&displaypage=TRUE
The Norwegian Salmon Association reported last week under the headline "Norway is managing the extinction of wild salmon!":
"The Director of The Directorate for Nature Management, Janne Sollie, says today that Norway is not managing the farmed salmon business, but the extinction of wild salmon! She says this due to the fact of record high and disastrous levels of sea-lice in the farmed salmon farms. If this is allowed to keep on, all wild salmon will be history!
The Directorate for Nature Management is the national governmental body for preserving Norway's natural environment. The directorate serves as an advisory and executive agency under the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. The Government do not listen to their warning! It's shameful how Norway's officials are promoting and protecting the business of farmed salmon! An unsustainable business ruining wild life!": http://norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=262
[Sea lice data for Norwegian salmon farms can be accessed online via: www.lusedata.no ]
3) The Green Warriors of Norway (led by Kurt Oddekalv) revealed that "Norwegian commercial fish farms are once more using these [diflubenzuron and teflubenzuron] controversial chemicals to get rid of salmon lice". NMF reported today:
"The use of these chemicals was stopped after the agreement was signed in February 1999, and fish farmers have used other drugs instead. However, since the salmon louse has developed resistance against the drugs used, these controversial chemicals are again being thrown into Norwegian salmon cages. The industry respected the agreement until now, and we claim the minister of fisheries to be responsible for breaking the agreement": http://nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=42&articleId=2361&news=1
The Norwegian media reported this extensively today via NRK, Dagbladet, Adresseavisen and other media outlets:
"Truer med å sverte norsk laks: Miljøkriger Kurt Oddekalv mener regjeringen har brutt avtale, og vurderer derfor internasjonal aksjon" (NRK, 2nd December): http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6891582
"Slik presset Oddekalv regjeringen - Miljøaktivisten truet Bondevik-regjeringen til å minimalisere bruken av to omstridte lusemiddel. Nå er avtalen brutt, mener Oddekalv, som på nytt truer med internasjonal kampanjer mot norsk laks i utlandet" (Adresseavisen, 2nd December): http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/article1417790.ece
"Regjeringen inngikk avtale med Kurt Oddekalv: Hvis laksenæringen kuttet på bruken av to omstridte lusemidler, skulle Miljøvernforbundet avstå fra planlagte aksjoner" (Dagbladet, 2nd December): http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/12/02/nyheter/innenriks/miljo/politikk/regjeringen/9303659/
Details in English via: "The deal is broken by the Minister" (NMF, 2nd December): http://nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=42&articleId=2361&news=1
Norway's state broadcaster NRK reported on Monday:
"In the past year, the amount of sea lice in Norwegian fish farms exploded. The industry has been on the hump of the environmental movement in the wake of illness boom. This is because the salmon lice infect the wild salmon, and thereby threaten wild salmon stocks.": http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6888215
The Green Warriors of Norway said in a press release - "Sea Lice Situation is Out of Control" - issued yesterday:
"The sea lice situation is now out of control along the entire coast of Nordland and south. Green Warriors of Norway requires complete slaughter of all salmon biomass with multi-resistance against lice medicines": http://www.nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=121&articleId=2354&news=1
The Norwegian Hunters and Fishers (NJFF), Norwegian Salmon Rivers Owners (Norsk Lakseelver) and WWF Norway called on the Fisheries Minister to take the sea lice problem more seriously. NJFF reported yesterday under the headline "A Lot of Talk - Little Action":
"......life-threatening situation for our wild salmon along the coast is informed by a disaster. The trend of increasing resistance to the main treatment methods are cause for great concern. The organizations ask that the Minister immediately initiated after a standstill for further growth in the industry......We will increase the pressure in this case. The battle is now": http://www.njff.no/portal/page/portal/njff/nyhet?element_id=57753689&displaypage=TRUE
The Norwegian Salmon Association reported last week under the headline "Norway is managing the extinction of wild salmon!":
"The Director of The Directorate for Nature Management, Janne Sollie, says today that Norway is not managing the farmed salmon business, but the extinction of wild salmon! She says this due to the fact of record high and disastrous levels of sea-lice in the farmed salmon farms. If this is allowed to keep on, all wild salmon will be history!
The Directorate for Nature Management is the national governmental body for preserving Norway's natural environment. The directorate serves as an advisory and executive agency under the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. The Government do not listen to their warning! It's shameful how Norway's officials are promoting and protecting the business of farmed salmon! An unsustainable business ruining wild life!": http://norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=262
[Sea lice data for Norwegian salmon farms can be accessed online via: www.lusedata.no
3) The Green Warriors of Norway (led by Kurt Oddekalv) revealed that "Norwegian commercial fish farms are once more using these [diflubenzuron and teflubenzuron] controversial chemicals to get rid of salmon lice". NMF reported today:
"The use of these chemicals was stopped after the agreement was signed in February 1999, and fish farmers have used other drugs instead. However, since the salmon louse has developed resistance against the drugs used, these controversial chemicals are again being thrown into Norwegian salmon cages. The industry respected the agreement until now, and we claim the minister of fisheries to be responsible for breaking the agreement": http://nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=42&articleId=2361&news=1
The Norwegian media reported this extensively today via NRK, Dagbladet, Adresseavisen and other media outlets:
"Truer med å sverte norsk laks: Miljøkriger Kurt Oddekalv mener regjeringen har brutt avtale, og vurderer derfor internasjonal aksjon" (NRK, 2nd December): http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6891582
"Slik presset Oddekalv regjeringen - Miljøaktivisten truet Bondevik-regjeringen til å minimalisere bruken av to omstridte lusemiddel. Nå er avtalen brutt, mener Oddekalv, som på nytt truer med internasjonal kampanjer mot norsk laks i utlandet" (Adresseavisen, 2nd December): http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/article1417790.ece
"Regjeringen inngikk avtale med Kurt Oddekalv: Hvis laksenæringen kuttet på bruken av to omstridte lusemidler, skulle Miljøvernforbundet avstå fra planlagte aksjoner" (Dagbladet, 2nd December): http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/12/02/nyheter/innenriks/miljo/politikk/regjeringen/9303659/
Details in English via: "The deal is broken by the Minister" (NMF, 2nd December): http://nmf.no/default.aspx?pageId=42&articleId=2361&news=1
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Canada as Global Pariah
Under Harper: Canada Will Remain a Global Environmental Pariah
by George Monbiot
As long as Stephen Harper’s government holds the reigns of power, Canada will remain a global environmental pariah.
The reasons why this is so are not hard to find, but they are seldom analyzed in public discourse on the issue.
To the extent that the Harper government has an economic strategy, beyond letting the marketplace take the country where it will, it is to make Canada an “energy superpower.” That goal, in turn, rests almost entirely on the massive development of the Alberta oil sands to extract oil for export to the United States. Finally, under the terms of NAFTA, the more oil Canada exports to the United States, the more oil it will be required to export in the future. Large scale oil sands development is incompatible with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Indeed, Canada is en route to passing the United States as an emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis.
Let’s examine each of the links in this chain of inter-connected realities.
With its close ties to the multinational and national petroleum companies operating in Alberta, the Harper government is dedicated to the proposition that Canada should be a secure base for rising petroleum exports to the United States, in short an “energy superpower.”
Indeed, over the past couple of decades, the American reliance on Canadian oil has grown steadily larger. In July 2006, at 1.6 million barrels a day, Canada was the largest single exporter of crude oil to the United States. Rounding out the top five exporters to the U.S. were Mexico with just over 1.5 million barrels daily, Saudi Arabia at over 1.2 million barrels, Venezuela with nearly 1.2 million barrels, and Nigeria with just over 1.0 million barrels. These five countries were the source of sixty-six per cent of American oil imports. What these totals make clear is the high dependence of the United States on Canada and other Western Hemisphere sources of oil and its relatively low reliance on Middle Eastern sources.
The Harper government’s vision of Canada as a major world petroleum exporter is based on the Alberta oil sands. As oil, national security and the war on terror have become tightly aligned in the thinking of American political leaders, Canada’s largest petroleum deposit, the oil sands, has been ever more closely scrutinized from Washington. Located across an enormous region of north-eastern Alberta---in three major areas spread over 140,800 square kilometers, an area larger than the state of Florida---centred on Fort McMurray about three hundred kilometers north of Edmonton---the oil sands contains almost as much oil as the conventional reserves of Saudi Arabia.
In the early years of this century, oil sands investments totaled nearly $200 billion. By the spring of 2008, oil sands production reached 1.3 million barrels a day, more than half of Canada’s oil production. Ten per cent of North American crude oil production already comes from the oil sands. Incredible as it may seem, the Alberta government produced one scenario that concluded that by 2050, the oil sands could produce eight million barrels of oil a day, transforming Alberta into a North American Saudi Arabia.
The vision of Canada as a vast supplier of petroleum from the oil sands for a thirsty United States is one that promotes dreams of enormous profits in the minds the executives of the petroleum companies and the investors in those companies.
But it is a truly dark vision for the simple reason that the industrial process by which oil is produced from the oil sands results in the release of an enormous volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Pursuing the vision commits Alberta, indeed Canada as a whole, to the emission of greenhouse gases on a gargantuan scale, exactly what the earth does not now need. Not only is the production of oil sands oil very expensive, it involves strip mining on a vast scale and the reduction of huge tracts of land to a scarred horror. The production of oil from the oil sands requires enormous inputs of fresh water and natural gas.
The oil sands has become by far the biggest source of greenhouse emissions in Canada. It is no exaggeration to say that without a steep reduction in the production of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands, all other programs in Canada to reduce emissions will be fruitless. Oil sands development has directly shaped the environmental policies of the Harper government.
Let’s look further into this matter of greenhouse gas emissions. The way to do this meaningfully in the lead up to the Copenhagen climate change conference is to tally the metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per country per capita per year. Then we can examine the total emissions of key countries.
Using 2006 figures, the per capita CO2 emissions of the United States were 19.78 metric tons, Canada 18.81, and Australia 20.58. These were the top emitters per capita among the major advanced countries. Further down the list were other major industrialized countries: Japan, 9.78; Germany, 10.40; U.K., 9.66; Italy, 8.05; and France, 6.60. Then we come to the major developing countries: China, 4.58; India, 1.16; Mexico, 4.05; and Brazil, 2.01.
Here are the total emissions of these countries for 2006 in millions of metric tons of CO2: China, 6017.69; United States, 5902.75; India, 1293.17; Japan, 1246.76; Germany, 857.60; Canada, 614.33; United Kingdom, 585.71; Italy, 468.19; Mexico, 435.60; France, 417.75; Australia, 417.06; and Brazil, 377.24.
When we break out the Canadian per capita emissions further, we find that between them Alberta and Saskatchewan (with Saskatchewan higher than Alberta) come in at a staggering 70. The rest of Canada scored 16.
What the figures tell us is that on a per capita basis, developed countries are much more serious emitters of greenhouse gases than are developing countries and that includes the two giants China and India. On the other hand, because of their gigantic populations, China and India are enormous emitters of CO2, respectively ranking number one and number four among the countries of the world.
The nub of the problem is that the developed countries established their high living standards by polluting, on a per capita basis, much more wantonly than the rest of the world. Developing countries are not prepared to allow developed countries to acquire a “grandfather” clause in climate change agreements that would allow them to go on polluting much more per capita than anyone else.
Developed countries, the United States in particular, is determined to be allowed to go on spewing out CO2 emissions, per capita, at a vastly higher rate than China, India or Brazil. The Europeans, who pollute less, are less committed to their right to pollute because they got there first, but they too pollute, per capita much more than China or India.
The Harper government is the worst of the bunch. Our government is determined to insert a rising rate of CO2 emissions right into the heart of our economic strategy. Right now, Canada’s per capita emissions of CO2 are close to five times as high as those of China. The emissions of Alberta and Saskatchewan are fifteen times as high as China’s on a per capita basis.
Any government committed to increasing the production of oil from the oil sands, precisely the position of the Harper government, is dedicated to the proposition that Canada should have the right for decades to come to pollute far more per capita than other countries. On this agenda, Canada will certainly pass the United States, per capita, in greenhouse gas emissions and will likely overtake Australia. Admittedly, it will be as a supplier of dirty oil to the United States that Canada will make itself a “pollution superpower”.
The members of the Harper government did not arrive at their environmental policy, relying on so-called intensity targets, which allow oil sands production to keep on rising as long as emissions-per-barrel go down, for nothing. They did it for the oldest of political reasons. As a government, they are serving the interests of oil companies that have tens of billions of dollars in future profits at stake. It’s as simple as that.
Finally, there’s the matter of NAFTA. Under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada has to continue exporting as much petroleum to the United States as it has been exporting on a rolling average of the previous three years. This means, among other things, that Canada would be required to continue its exports of petroleum to the U.S. even if imports of petroleum to eastern Canada from overseas were cut off as a consequence of a supply crisis generated by falling supplies or a geo-political conflict. This stipulation means that Canada has to make the supplying of the American petroleum market a higher priority than meeting the requirements of Canadian markets experiencing a shortage.
If, as the Harper government fervently wishes, the expansion of oil sands projects dramatically increases Canadian petroleum production, the country’s commitment to export more petroleum to the United States will rise in lock step. The whole point of more oil sands operations is to meet the oil requirements of the U.S.
The plain fact is that when you combine the Harper government’s economic strategy with the stipulations of NAFTA, this country is being locked into rising, not falling, CO2 emissions. Anyone who wants to change the course Canada is on with respect to climate change needs to come to terms with these hard realities. Anything else is nothing more than hot air.
Stephen Harper is going to Copenhagen because the presidents of the United States and China are going. He will be there to try to prevent a binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions from being achieved. As long as he remains in power, Canada will be a global pariah on the issue of climate change.
rowland morgan wrote:
This article is so awful that I feel an urge to mitigate it with some observations on what has brought Canada to this.
BRITAIN
For a start, note that Monbiot admits that a gigantic investor in the tar sands is RBS, the Royal Bank of Scotland, a financial monster that arose directly from Thatcher's fanatical liberalisation of the City of London, and was bailed out big-time by Gordon Brown's New Labour government. (Its former CEO has been paid off with a sixteen million-pound pension fund.) So, in effect it is the British government and the City of London banksters that are among the biggest instigators of the tar sands project.
If Canada's CO2 emissions have increased, the UK also has failed to stem its addiction to car use, even though (unlike Canada) it has a relatively dense penetration of rail infrastructure to build on.
"Between 1996 and 2006, car ownership went up by 30% to 29.6m, while the UK population rose by 4%...In the past 20 years a consistently high number of people, 80-90%, have said they would find it very difficult to adapt to not having a car." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8007798.stm)
The UK has failed to conserve its offshore oil, which was only discovered and delivered in the 1960s and 70s. The resource is already approaching depletion. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=129)
OURSELVES
Furthermore, note that the tar sands pipeline connecting Northern Alberta with the USA, was built under the supervision of the Rt Hon Gary Lunn MP, member for Saanich-GI, who seems to have rigged his election in 2009. (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=2bca304d-36f2-4bcd-9737-cf04d146443d). There has been a singular absence of public outcry in B.C. about this flagrant apparent abuse of the electoral system, and the RCMP have refused to investigate it with impunity.
But even without electoral corruption, Canada's political system does not offer an alternative to tar sands development, with Ignatieff in 2009 calling the tar sands "Canada's national treasure".
NAFTA plus other semi-secret continental agreements integrate Canada's economy with that of the USA to an even greater extent than other globalised economies. With its culture penetrated (since 1958) by US television propaganda, and its armed forces integrated into NORAD (also since 1958), Canada's independence from the USA is largely a charade conducted by Canada's owning class for its own purposes. This charade includes rigging elections with impunity.
USA
Dealing adequately with the influence of the deranged oil addiction of the USA is obviously beyond these notes. Suffice it to say that the US effectively has no alternative transport to the motor car, and it has the biggest car ownership of any large country, 765 vehicles per 1,000 population (2002 data, UNECE), with light-vehicle sales between 8 and 11 million a year. (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html) Its client economy in China is rapidly becoming a larger car market than the USA. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100497742)
Developing continental oil resources to reduce dependence on the Middle East has been a top priority in the USA. Since the invasion of Iraq, it has been plain that if Canada attempted to resist development of the tar sands to US requirements, some kind of armed response would be inevitable.
Canada is a client economy of the USA's, and as such has no genuine political choice (nor is one on offer) about developing the tar sands, primarily to serve the USA's rabid oil addiction, but also to serve the USA's client economy in China, where comparable car ownership will require an additional 1,100 million cars.
by George Monbiot
As long as Stephen Harper’s government holds the reigns of power, Canada will remain a global environmental pariah.
The reasons why this is so are not hard to find, but they are seldom analyzed in public discourse on the issue.
To the extent that the Harper government has an economic strategy, beyond letting the marketplace take the country where it will, it is to make Canada an “energy superpower.” That goal, in turn, rests almost entirely on the massive development of the Alberta oil sands to extract oil for export to the United States. Finally, under the terms of NAFTA, the more oil Canada exports to the United States, the more oil it will be required to export in the future. Large scale oil sands development is incompatible with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Indeed, Canada is en route to passing the United States as an emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis.
Let’s examine each of the links in this chain of inter-connected realities.
With its close ties to the multinational and national petroleum companies operating in Alberta, the Harper government is dedicated to the proposition that Canada should be a secure base for rising petroleum exports to the United States, in short an “energy superpower.”
Indeed, over the past couple of decades, the American reliance on Canadian oil has grown steadily larger. In July 2006, at 1.6 million barrels a day, Canada was the largest single exporter of crude oil to the United States. Rounding out the top five exporters to the U.S. were Mexico with just over 1.5 million barrels daily, Saudi Arabia at over 1.2 million barrels, Venezuela with nearly 1.2 million barrels, and Nigeria with just over 1.0 million barrels. These five countries were the source of sixty-six per cent of American oil imports. What these totals make clear is the high dependence of the United States on Canada and other Western Hemisphere sources of oil and its relatively low reliance on Middle Eastern sources.
The Harper government’s vision of Canada as a major world petroleum exporter is based on the Alberta oil sands. As oil, national security and the war on terror have become tightly aligned in the thinking of American political leaders, Canada’s largest petroleum deposit, the oil sands, has been ever more closely scrutinized from Washington. Located across an enormous region of north-eastern Alberta---in three major areas spread over 140,800 square kilometers, an area larger than the state of Florida---centred on Fort McMurray about three hundred kilometers north of Edmonton---the oil sands contains almost as much oil as the conventional reserves of Saudi Arabia.
In the early years of this century, oil sands investments totaled nearly $200 billion. By the spring of 2008, oil sands production reached 1.3 million barrels a day, more than half of Canada’s oil production. Ten per cent of North American crude oil production already comes from the oil sands. Incredible as it may seem, the Alberta government produced one scenario that concluded that by 2050, the oil sands could produce eight million barrels of oil a day, transforming Alberta into a North American Saudi Arabia.
The vision of Canada as a vast supplier of petroleum from the oil sands for a thirsty United States is one that promotes dreams of enormous profits in the minds the executives of the petroleum companies and the investors in those companies.
But it is a truly dark vision for the simple reason that the industrial process by which oil is produced from the oil sands results in the release of an enormous volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Pursuing the vision commits Alberta, indeed Canada as a whole, to the emission of greenhouse gases on a gargantuan scale, exactly what the earth does not now need. Not only is the production of oil sands oil very expensive, it involves strip mining on a vast scale and the reduction of huge tracts of land to a scarred horror. The production of oil from the oil sands requires enormous inputs of fresh water and natural gas.
The oil sands has become by far the biggest source of greenhouse emissions in Canada. It is no exaggeration to say that without a steep reduction in the production of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands, all other programs in Canada to reduce emissions will be fruitless. Oil sands development has directly shaped the environmental policies of the Harper government.
Let’s look further into this matter of greenhouse gas emissions. The way to do this meaningfully in the lead up to the Copenhagen climate change conference is to tally the metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per country per capita per year. Then we can examine the total emissions of key countries.
Using 2006 figures, the per capita CO2 emissions of the United States were 19.78 metric tons, Canada 18.81, and Australia 20.58. These were the top emitters per capita among the major advanced countries. Further down the list were other major industrialized countries: Japan, 9.78; Germany, 10.40; U.K., 9.66; Italy, 8.05; and France, 6.60. Then we come to the major developing countries: China, 4.58; India, 1.16; Mexico, 4.05; and Brazil, 2.01.
Here are the total emissions of these countries for 2006 in millions of metric tons of CO2: China, 6017.69; United States, 5902.75; India, 1293.17; Japan, 1246.76; Germany, 857.60; Canada, 614.33; United Kingdom, 585.71; Italy, 468.19; Mexico, 435.60; France, 417.75; Australia, 417.06; and Brazil, 377.24.
When we break out the Canadian per capita emissions further, we find that between them Alberta and Saskatchewan (with Saskatchewan higher than Alberta) come in at a staggering 70. The rest of Canada scored 16.
What the figures tell us is that on a per capita basis, developed countries are much more serious emitters of greenhouse gases than are developing countries and that includes the two giants China and India. On the other hand, because of their gigantic populations, China and India are enormous emitters of CO2, respectively ranking number one and number four among the countries of the world.
The nub of the problem is that the developed countries established their high living standards by polluting, on a per capita basis, much more wantonly than the rest of the world. Developing countries are not prepared to allow developed countries to acquire a “grandfather” clause in climate change agreements that would allow them to go on polluting much more per capita than anyone else.
Developed countries, the United States in particular, is determined to be allowed to go on spewing out CO2 emissions, per capita, at a vastly higher rate than China, India or Brazil. The Europeans, who pollute less, are less committed to their right to pollute because they got there first, but they too pollute, per capita much more than China or India.
The Harper government is the worst of the bunch. Our government is determined to insert a rising rate of CO2 emissions right into the heart of our economic strategy. Right now, Canada’s per capita emissions of CO2 are close to five times as high as those of China. The emissions of Alberta and Saskatchewan are fifteen times as high as China’s on a per capita basis.
Any government committed to increasing the production of oil from the oil sands, precisely the position of the Harper government, is dedicated to the proposition that Canada should have the right for decades to come to pollute far more per capita than other countries. On this agenda, Canada will certainly pass the United States, per capita, in greenhouse gas emissions and will likely overtake Australia. Admittedly, it will be as a supplier of dirty oil to the United States that Canada will make itself a “pollution superpower”.
The members of the Harper government did not arrive at their environmental policy, relying on so-called intensity targets, which allow oil sands production to keep on rising as long as emissions-per-barrel go down, for nothing. They did it for the oldest of political reasons. As a government, they are serving the interests of oil companies that have tens of billions of dollars in future profits at stake. It’s as simple as that.
Finally, there’s the matter of NAFTA. Under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada has to continue exporting as much petroleum to the United States as it has been exporting on a rolling average of the previous three years. This means, among other things, that Canada would be required to continue its exports of petroleum to the U.S. even if imports of petroleum to eastern Canada from overseas were cut off as a consequence of a supply crisis generated by falling supplies or a geo-political conflict. This stipulation means that Canada has to make the supplying of the American petroleum market a higher priority than meeting the requirements of Canadian markets experiencing a shortage.
If, as the Harper government fervently wishes, the expansion of oil sands projects dramatically increases Canadian petroleum production, the country’s commitment to export more petroleum to the United States will rise in lock step. The whole point of more oil sands operations is to meet the oil requirements of the U.S.
The plain fact is that when you combine the Harper government’s economic strategy with the stipulations of NAFTA, this country is being locked into rising, not falling, CO2 emissions. Anyone who wants to change the course Canada is on with respect to climate change needs to come to terms with these hard realities. Anything else is nothing more than hot air.
Stephen Harper is going to Copenhagen because the presidents of the United States and China are going. He will be there to try to prevent a binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions from being achieved. As long as he remains in power, Canada will be a global pariah on the issue of climate change.
rowland morgan wrote:
This article is so awful that I feel an urge to mitigate it with some observations on what has brought Canada to this.
BRITAIN
For a start, note that Monbiot admits that a gigantic investor in the tar sands is RBS, the Royal Bank of Scotland, a financial monster that arose directly from Thatcher's fanatical liberalisation of the City of London, and was bailed out big-time by Gordon Brown's New Labour government. (Its former CEO has been paid off with a sixteen million-pound pension fund.) So, in effect it is the British government and the City of London banksters that are among the biggest instigators of the tar sands project.
If Canada's CO2 emissions have increased, the UK also has failed to stem its addiction to car use, even though (unlike Canada) it has a relatively dense penetration of rail infrastructure to build on.
"Between 1996 and 2006, car ownership went up by 30% to 29.6m, while the UK population rose by 4%...In the past 20 years a consistently high number of people, 80-90%, have said they would find it very difficult to adapt to not having a car." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8007798.stm)
The UK has failed to conserve its offshore oil, which was only discovered and delivered in the 1960s and 70s. The resource is already approaching depletion. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=129)
OURSELVES
Furthermore, note that the tar sands pipeline connecting Northern Alberta with the USA, was built under the supervision of the Rt Hon Gary Lunn MP, member for Saanich-GI, who seems to have rigged his election in 2009. (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=2bca304d-36f2-4bcd-9737-cf04d146443d). There has been a singular absence of public outcry in B.C. about this flagrant apparent abuse of the electoral system, and the RCMP have refused to investigate it with impunity.
But even without electoral corruption, Canada's political system does not offer an alternative to tar sands development, with Ignatieff in 2009 calling the tar sands "Canada's national treasure".
NAFTA plus other semi-secret continental agreements integrate Canada's economy with that of the USA to an even greater extent than other globalised economies. With its culture penetrated (since 1958) by US television propaganda, and its armed forces integrated into NORAD (also since 1958), Canada's independence from the USA is largely a charade conducted by Canada's owning class for its own purposes. This charade includes rigging elections with impunity.
USA
Dealing adequately with the influence of the deranged oil addiction of the USA is obviously beyond these notes. Suffice it to say that the US effectively has no alternative transport to the motor car, and it has the biggest car ownership of any large country, 765 vehicles per 1,000 population (2002 data, UNECE), with light-vehicle sales between 8 and 11 million a year. (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html) Its client economy in China is rapidly becoming a larger car market than the USA. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100497742)
Developing continental oil resources to reduce dependence on the Middle East has been a top priority in the USA. Since the invasion of Iraq, it has been plain that if Canada attempted to resist development of the tar sands to US requirements, some kind of armed response would be inevitable.
Canada is a client economy of the USA's, and as such has no genuine political choice (nor is one on offer) about developing the tar sands, primarily to serve the USA's rabid oil addiction, but also to serve the USA's client economy in China, where comparable car ownership will require an additional 1,100 million cars.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)