BOLIVIA: EVO MORALES VICTORY CONFIRMED

from Weekly News Update on the Americas

On Dec. 23, with 99.7% of the votes counted from the Dec. 18 general elections, Bolivia’s National Electoral Court (CNE) announced that Evo Morales Ayma of the Movement to Socialism (MAS) had won the presidency with nearly 54% of the valid votes cast. Morales got more than 1.5 million votes; turnout was an unprecedented 84.52% of the country’s 3,670,971 registered voters. He will be inaugurated on Jan. 22 for a five-year term, taking over from interim president Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze, the former Supreme Court president who became president of Bolivia last June 9 after popular protests forced out the previous president, Carlos Mesa Gisbert.

Jorge Quiroga of the right-wing Democratic and Social Power (Podemos) coalition took second place with 28.59%. (Quiroga previously served as interim president from Aug. 7, 2001 to Aug. 6, 2002; he had been elected as vice president in 1997 on the ticket with former dictator Hugo Banzer Suarez, and took over the presidency after Banzer became sick with cancer and stepped down.) Two other right-wing candidates trailed: Samuel Doria Medina of the National Unity Front (UN) with 7.8% and Michiaki Nagatani of the formerly ruling Nationalist Revolutionary Movement (MNR) with 6.47%. The Indigenous Pachakuti Movement (MIP) of Altiplano campesino leader Felipe Quispe Huanca got 2.16% of the vote. Three other parties–including the right-wing New Republican Force (NFR), led by Manfred Reyes Villa, who came in a close third behind Morales in the 2002 elections–each got less than 1% of the vote. Parties which get less than 3% of the vote apparently lose their legal electoral status. (El Diario, La Paz, Dec. 24; El Nuevo Herald, Miami, Dec. 24 from AFP; , Dec. 23; CNE website, Dec. 25; La Jornada, Mexico, Dec. 24 from Reuters, AFP)

In the 130-seat Chamber of Deputies, the MAS will have a majority with 64 seats, followed by Podemos with 44, the UN with 10 and the MNR with eight. One seat each went to the MIP, the Agricultural Patriotic Front of Bolivia (Frepab) and the Social Union of Bolivian Workers (USTB). In the 27-member Senate, the MAS will hold 12 seats, Podemos will have 13, and the UN and MNR will have one each. (Reuters, Dec. 24; AFP, Dec. 23; ENH, Dec. 24 from AFP) The MAS also won at least three of the country’s nine governor’s posts in the Dec. 18 election. (LJ, Dec. 23) [NOTE: the governors or “prefectos” of Bolivia’s nine departments were elected for the first time this year, in response to autonomy demands in the east of the country. They were previously appointed by the president.–WW4R]

According to the CNE, 3.98% of the ballots cast were blank, and 3.36% were void. The CNE said repeat elections will be held in January at several polling places which suffered problems on election day, but results from those sites will not affect the overall results. (ED, Dec. 24; AP, Dec. 23; CNE website, Dec. 25)

The election was historic in a number of ways. In the eight previous general elections held since 1978–when democracy was restored in Bolivia following a period of military governments–no presidential candidate ever won more than 34% of the vote. Morales is also the first indigenous president in a country where the World Bank estimates that 62% of the population is indigenous. (Bolivia Press, Dec. 19; World Bank website] Morales was born into an Aymara indigenous family in the highlands, where he spent his childhood herding llamas and growing potatoes. He later migrated with his family to the coca-growing region of Chapare in the Cochabamba tropics, and gained prominence there as a leader of the campesino coca growers (cocaleros). Morales still owns his own coca leaf plot in the Chapare. (Miami Herald, Dec. 21 from AP)

The new vice president-elect is Alvaro Garcia Linera, a sociologist, mathematician and former member of the leftist rebel group Tupaj (or Tupac) Katari Guerrilla Army (EGTK), which was active in the late 1980s in Bolivia. In April 1992 Garcia and his companion at the time, EGTK member and Mexican national Maria Raquel Gutierrez Aguilar, were arrested in La Paz in connection with EGTK activities and tortured by the government, according to an Amnesty International report from March 1993. Garcia’s brother, Jose Raul Garcia Linera, and his companion Sylvia Maria Renee de Alarcon, both EGTK members, were arrested in March 1992 and were also tortured. (Amnesty International USA Reports “Bolivia: Cases of torture and extrajudicial executions allegedly committed by the Bolivian security forces,” March 18, 1993 and “Bolivia–Awaiting Justice: Torture, Extrajudicial Executions and Legal Proceedings,” Sept. 18, 1996) The four were among a group of 12 EGTK members–another was Felipe Quispe–who were charged and jailed for more than five years but never sentenced; all were eventually released on parole in 1997 following a series of protests and hunger strikes. Gutierrez fled Bolivia in May 2001 and returned to Mexico, violating probation terms which barred her from leaving the country.

ECONOMIC CHANGES AHEAD?

President-elect Morales met on Dec. 21 with the country’s private business leaders. “We want everyone to work together,” Morales told them. Morales said his first move after being sworn into office on Jan. 22 will be to overturn Supreme Decree 21060, the 1985 measure which made Bolivia the first country in Latin America to adopt “free market” and privatization policies. The new administration says it will work with Congress to pass a new law governing economic policy, and plans to impose new taxes on the rich. (Cronica, Buenos Aires, Dec. 24 from Telam)

On Dec. 21 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced it would erase 100% of Bolivia’s IMF debt, along with the debts of 18 other deeply impoverished countries. The total debt forgiveness package covers $3.3 billion; in the Americas the other countries to benefit are Honduras, Nicaragua and Guyana. The IMF will implement the debt forgiveness plan in 2006, according to IMF managing director Rodrigo de Rato, and other countries will likely be added. (El Nuevo Herald. Dec. 22 from AP) Bolivia’s debt with the IMF is $222 million, equivalent to 4.48% of its total foreign debt of more than $4.95 billion, according to Simon Cueva, the IMF’s representative in Bolivia. The World Bank is expected to make an announcement about a similar debt forgiveness program in the coming months.

Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) president Juan Antonio Morales said on Dec. 23 that Bolivia currently has a surplus of $438 million; he said exports for 2005 are predicted to reach $2.686 billion, a record high, mainly due to an increase in production volume and favorable prices on the international market. Bolivia’s principal exports are hydrocarbons (oil and gas), metals and grains. The bank president said economic growth this year was expected to be 3.9%. (ENH, Dec. 24 from AFP) Vice president-elect Garcia noted that while Bolivia’s macroeconomic figures “are going well,” poverty has been increasing because of the “injustices of the [neoliberal economic] model.” (ENH, Dec. 25 from AP)

On Dec. 22, Morales and Garcia met with the powerful Federation of Neighborhood Boards (Fejuve) of the city of El Alto. The El Alto Fejuve, headed by Abel Mamani, has led radical protests demanding nationalization of Bolivia’s natural resources, particularly water and gas. The Fejuve leaders signed an agreement with Morales and Garcia, pledging to cooperate with the new government toward fulfilling a series of 18 demands. The agreement did not set deadlines. (El Mundo, Santa Cruz, Dec. 23)

On Dec. 23, at a meeting with leaders of the Mine Workers Union Federation of Bolivia (FSTMB), Morales again promised that one of the first actions of his government will be “to change the economic model” in effect since 1985. Economist Carlos Villegas, the future government’s main adviser, explained to the press that the neoliberal policies imposed with decree 21060 increased the informal sector and unemployment and weakened worker protections. (ENH, Dec. 25 from AP; La Jornada, Dec. 24 from Reuters, AFP)

The Bolivian Workers Central (COB) labor federation took a harsher tone with Morales: COB general secretary Jaime Solares warned the president-elect that his first action in office must be “nationalization without compensation, and for that you don’t have to go consult Washington or the president of Brazil, but simply apply the mandate of the Constitution.” The COB gave Morales’ government 180 days to fulfill his electoral promises. Solares also demanded that Morales make good on his promise to “reduce the president’s salary,” as well as the salaries of legislators, and to eliminate the salaries of alternate deputies in the Congress. (Economia y Negocios Online, Chile, Dec. 19 from AFP) Such cost-cutting measures were part of the 10-point plan put forward by the MAS during the election campaign. (El Diario, La Paz, Dec. 20)

On Dec. 20, Morales said that as president he plans to keep controls on coca production but said he will study expanding the areas where it can be legally grown. Current laws permit coca cultivation in 29,000 acres of Los Yungas in La Paz department, and 7,900 acres in the Chapare. Morales said his government will promote the “international decriminalization of coca” but that “there won’t be free cultivation of the coca leaf.” Morales directly addressed the US government, urging it “to make an alliance for an effective fight against drug trafficking. We are in agreement that there must be zero cocaine and zero drug trafficking, but there will not be zero coca nor zero cocaleros,” he said. “We don’t want the fight against drug trafficking to be a pretext for geopolitical interests and control of Bolivian sovereignty, or that it be a pretext for imposing military bases,” Morales added. The coca leaf is a mild stimulant which is consumed in Bolivia for traditional and medicinal use and is believed to help with acclimation to high altitudes; it can be chewed or included in products such as candy, gum or beverages. (Miami Herald, Dec. 21 from AP; ENH, Dec. 21 from AP) At Morales’ request, the European Union (EU) has agreed to provide $499,800 to finance a study to determine how much of Bolivia’s coca production goes for legal uses and how much is used to make cocaine. The EU will not participate in implementation of the study. (MH, Dec. 24 from AP) The cocaleros of the Chapare had originally proposed such a study in 2002. (ENH, Dec. 21 from AP)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, Dec. 26

——

Weekly News Update on the Americas
http://home.earthlink.net/~nicadlw/wnuhome.html

See also WW4 REPORT #115
http://www.ww3report.com/node/1244

See also our last update on the struggle in Bolivia:
/node/1272

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Jan. 1, 2006
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingBOLIVIA: EVO MORALES VICTORY CONFIRMED 

BOLIVIA: “GAS WAR” IMPUNITY AGGRAVATES TENSIONS

by Kathryn Ledebur and Julia Dietz

Over two years have passed since Bolivian security forces killed 59 and left over 200 people seriously injured during widespread demonstrations protesting the management of Bolivia’s gas reserves in September and October of 2003. As in other social conflicts in Bolivia, there have not been legal consequences for the human rights violations committed during the “Gas War.”

By the time President Gonzalo SĂĄnchez de Lozada resigned, the armed forces and police had killed almost as many people during his fourteen-month presidency as during the seven years of the Hugo Banzer dictatorship (1971-1978), considered one of Bolivia’s bloodiest military governments since the 1952 revolution. The military’s systematic refusal to cooperate in a meaningful way with investigations—although ordered to do so by the Bolivian Supreme court—and the delay of the United States government to deliver subpoenas to SĂĄnchez de Lozada and two former cabinet ministers living in the U.S. have impeded attempts to seek justice for the victims and stem future human rights violations in a politically tenuous climate.

In a country where no member of the armed forces, or the political leaders that command them, have faced serious legal consequences for human rights violations, meaningful investigation into the violence that occurred in September and October 2003 could set an important precedent, and help prevent further violations. To that end, the Bolivian Congress authorized a “Trial of Responsibility” in 2004 to determine the whether SĂĄnchez de Lozada and eleven cabinet members are legally responsible for the deaths. The Attorney General’s office has carried out detailed preliminary investigations—including forensic studies, crime scene investigations and the collection of eyewitness testimony—which all point to the excessive use of force against protestors on the part of the armed forces under SĂĄnchez de Lozada’s command.

As part of the initial investigative phase of the trial, accused ministers who had returned to the legislature lost their Congressional immunity in order to face the charges against them. Nine of SĂĄnchez de Lozada’s former cabinet ministers were indicted in May 2005. The most serious charge against them is “genocide in the form of bloody massacre,” punishable by ten to twenty years in prison. Though in English this terminology seems nonsensical, anyone directly or indirectly responsible for a massacre (which Bolivian law defines as the death of two or more people resulting from violence perpetrated by one or more individuals) is charged with “genocide” under Article 138 of Bolivia’s Penal Code, which levies additional penalties against government officials found responsible for such crimes.

U.S. Intransigence

The Bolivian Supreme Court, Congress, and two presidential administrations have authorized the Trial of Responsibility. However, the difficulty in serving legal papers notifying SĂĄnchez de Lozada, his defense minister, and his energy minister living in the US of their legal obligation to return to Bolivia to testify has impeded progress in the case.

SĂĄnchez de Lozada and his ministers have been widely discredited within Bolivia, to the extent that their MNR party chose to run an unknown as its presidential candidate. Unfortunately, in the U.S., SĂĄnchez de Lozada has been able to consistently present himself as a dignified, democratically-elected statesman who was a victim of subversive forces, participating frequently in public events and even publishing an editorial in the Washington Post. The gross misrepresentation of the social protest in September and October of 2003 reflects both SĂĄnchez de Lozada’s continuing high-level political connections and a fundamental misunderstanding within the U.S. of the deep-rooted causes of internal discontent and the gravity of the human rights violations perpetrated by the Bolivian security forces.

On June 22, 2005, in an effort to notify the three ex-officials living in the United States of the charges against them and give them the opportunity to testify in their defense, the Bolivian government sent letters rogatory to the U.S. State Department, a formal request to serve a Bolivian subpoena to the three ex-officials. Letters rogatory is a complicated mechanism for serving legal documents to individuals residing in other countries that can take as long as six months to a year. Over five months have passed, and the U.S. government has yet to deliver the documents, a delay perceived in Bolivia as a willful attempt on the part of U.S. authorities to impede the process. President Eduardo Rodriguez sent a note to the U.S. State Department requesting that they serve the subpoenas in a timely manner. Indictments cannot be issued against the three men until they have received these documents.

In an effort to bring to light Sanchez de Lozada’s central role in the 2003 killings and demonstrate that he can be easily located to be subpoenaed, in October 2005 a group of U.S. citizens symbolically served him with the document (in facsimile) and the list of victims at a public event in Washington where he was speaking, organized by Princeton University. The formal notification, though, remains stalled in the US Department of Justice, with little indication of progress.

Legal Notification: the Next Step

Letters rogatory is not an extradition request and does not include an enforcement mechanism to oblige the U.S. to turn over SĂĄnchez de Lozada and his ministers to Bolivian authorities. If they decide not to return once they have formally received the documents, investigation into the charges against them can continue in their absence. They can be indicted, provided there is sufficient evidence against them. However, they must be present for the trial to proceed. Bolivia could request extradition from the United States after the three men are formally charged. Bolivia’s public prosecutor Milton Mendoza says he wants to avoid any procedural errors when requesting extradition: “We don’t want to give him reasons to question the process” and “claim that is he being politically persecuted.” (Los Tiempos, Cochabamba, Oct. 18, 2005)

The case against the remaining ministers could continue even if the process against those in the U.S. does not progress. But as the two highest-ranking civilian officials in charge of the armed forces, SĂĄnchez de Lozada and ex-Minister of Defense Carlos SĂĄnchez BerzaĂ­n would be considered responsible for ordering the use of force against protesters. If they continue to evade participation, the Trial of Responsibility runs the risk of languishing indefinitely in the overloaded Bolivian court system, like the great majority of human rights cases in the country.

Conclusion

Bolivia’s future remains uncertain, and renewed political and social conflict appear almost inevitable. In this tense climate, legal consequences for those who have directly committed or authorized human rights violations would go a long way to avoid further loss of life and an escalation of any future confrontations.

In the past, Washington interference in Bolivian politics, and lack of enforcement of U.S. legislation designed to fight impunity by restricting aid to security forces that do not face appropriate legal consequences for gross rights violations, have helped generate political instability. Delays in the serving of subpoenas to SĂĄnchez de Lozada and others residing the U.S., as a result of either bureaucratic red tape or a lack of political will, could continue this trend. The timely delivery of the letters rogatory, a routine reciprocal legal procedure regulated by international treaties, does not oblige the U.S. to take further actions or a political stance in the Trial of Responsibility. Political fallout would be negligible. In contrast, a protracted delay in this already extended process could exacerbate tensions within the nation and contribute to the political instability that the U.S. government fears.

——

This story originally appeared in Upside Down World, Dec. 7
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/132/1/

RESOURCES:

Andean Information Network, Impunity Updates, Cochabamba
http://www.ain-bolivia.org/

See also:

“Bolivia: Mandate or Muddle on Oil & Gas Resources,” WW4 REPORT #101
http://ww3report.com/bolivia2.html

“Bolivia: In the Wake of ‘Black October’,” WW4 REPORT #93
http://ww3report.com/bolivia.html

———————–
Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Jan. 1, 2006
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingBOLIVIA: “GAS WAR” IMPUNITY AGGRAVATES TENSIONS 

YES, THE PENTAGON MURDERS JOURNALISTS

Part Three in a Troubling Series

by Michael I. Niman

Remember Fallujah? It’s the Iraqi city of 300,000 that we had to destroy in order to save back in April of 2004. Over 30 Americans died and over 400 American troops were wounded and airlifted away. And at least 1,200 Iraqis were killed. A Red Cross official reported that American forces used cluster bombs and chemical phosphorous weapons inside the city. The target of the U.S. assault, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, along with up to 80 percent of his fighters, managed to slip out of town, leaving the Fallujans to catch the brunt of the American attack. In the end, some 10,000 homes in the city were completely leveled, and an estimated 150,000 residents displaced.

The official Bush administration line, however, was that the assault was a campaign to “liberate” the city and free its people. American corporate media pundits celebrated the destruction, explaining that the Fallujah operation would set a new tempo for the Iraq war by pacifying the resistance. In the end, however, the operation didn’t pacify the resistance. To the contrary, it exposed the U.S. as a rogue outlaw state, executing one of the worst attacks on a civilian population target since Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. And for many in the region, it justified the resistance—with recent polls showing increasing numbers of Iraqis supporting violence as a means to oust the occupation forces.

If the Bush administration had its way, the whole criminal siege of Fallujah, with its depraved indifference to human life, would have gone unnoticed. The corporate media’s Pentagon-spun propaganda stories about liberation would have gone unchallenged by any unseemly intrusions of reality. Toward that end, the Pentagon declared Fallujah a no-reporting zone, barring all un-embedded journalists from the city. In short, the Pentagon hoped to control all images coming out of the massacre. And they would have pulled it off, had it not been for one independent freelance journalist from Alaska, Dahr Jamail, and an Al-Jazeera TV crew.

At the height of the siege, the Al-Jazeera crew did what journalists have an ethical obligation to do—broadcast images of the horror to television audiences around the world. They did this, they claim, at great peril to their own lives. One night, they reported that U.S. tanks targeted the fleeing TV crew on two occasions, causing them to comment that “The U.S. wants us out of Fallujah, but we will stay.” The U.S. responded by bombing the building where the TV crew had slept earlier, killing their host. At one point, whenever the TV crew would attempt to broadcast, U.S. jets would target their signal, even though it was unlike any of the rudimentary communication devices employed by the harried resistance fighters.

Al-Jazeera’s critics wrote off the network’s complaints as sensationalism. By the time the U.S. attacked Fallujah, however, there was already a growing body of damning evidence indicating that the Pentagon was in fact targeting the last remaining unembedded TV network with an effective on-the-ground operation in Iraq. U.S. forces, one year earlier, bombed Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayoub, after the network naively gave their GPS coordinates to the Pentagon in order to prevent an accidental attack. A few days earlier, U.S. forces bombed a hotel in Basra that was used exclusively by Al-Jazeera. U.S. forces also seized several Al-Jazeera reporters, imprisoning them in now-infamous gulags including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, where they claim they were tortured. Two years earlier, the U.S. bombed Al Jazeera’s Afghanistan studios in Kabul.

Throughout this period of killing and allegedly torturing journalists, the Pentagon has always maintained a stance of plausible deniability. The bombings were accidental. Given the massive civilian carnage in Iraq and the now legendary stupidity of our alleged “smart bombs,” this was plausible—though highly unlikely and embarrassing nonetheless on a whole bunch of other fronts. And the arrests? Well, you know. Shit happens.

We now know, however, that a lot more shit almost happened. Last month, Britain’s Daily Mirror reported that George W. Bush, during the siege of Fallujah, approached British Prime Minister Tony Blair with a plan to silence Al-Jazeera once and for all. Having failed to kill their crew on the ground in Fallujah, Bush supposedly wanted to put out a hit on the whole damned network—in effect going to war against Qatar, by bombing Al-Jazeera’s global headquarters in Doha, Qatar’s capitol. Did I mention that Qatar is a strategic ally of the U.S. and the Bush administration and a partner in the so-called “War on Terror”? I know George W. never claimed to be a whiz at foreign relations, but this one would have been a mega-boner. Luckily, Tony Blair seemed to have talked George out of it.

One anonymous British government source told The Mirror the threat was “humorous, not serious.” But the newspaper quoted another source as saying that “Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair.”

Bush, for his part, is denying the report, and the British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, citing his country’s Official Secrets Act, oxymoronically declared what has got to be this month’s most talked about memo an official secret. He’s now threatening to prosecute any journalist that publishes the memo on April 16, 2004 White House meeting where Bush and Blair discussed the idea of bombing Al-Jazeera—and has already levied charges against the officials who leaked the story to The Mirror, Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh and Leo O’Connor, a former aide to MP Tony Clarke. Ironically, these whistleblowers may be the only people prosecuted in the whole snuff-Al-Jazeera affair.

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, the dung weevils are lining up to defend Bush’s alleged desire to openly bomb a media organization into oblivion for the crime of being a media organization. Patricia Williams of The Nation reports that Frank Gaffney, the former Reagan-era Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and current president of the neo-conservative Center for Security Policy, has been making the rounds on the wonk circuit, recently appearing on the BBC to explain that it was appropriate to talk about “neutralizing” Al-Jazeera. Williams reports that Gaffney, writing for Fox News’ website, argued that Al-Jazeera must be taken off the air “one way or another,” and that it was “imperative that enemy media be taken down.” Gaffney implored his readers to remember Bush’s invective that “you are either with us or with the terrorists.”

Put simply, media that reports on the horrific and embarrassing realities associated with a myriad of Bush administration policies, are, in effect, “with the terrorists,” since they obviously aren’t in line with the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. Most upsetting is the fact that Gaffney’s vituperation against a free press was promulgated by Fox News—a self-described “news” organization that should have been more outraged than acquiescent to this call for silencing embarrassing news by murdering journalists.

In the Bush lexicon, speaking unpleasant truths means being “with the terrorists.” It is also the responsibility of a free press. Avoiding the threat of such censure by the Bush junta means abdicating one’s responsibility as a journalist. Yet, this sort of behavior—the avoidance of reporting on disturbing realities—is what passes for journalism today in the United States.

Seymour Hersh reported in the Dec. 5 edition of The New Yorker that U.S. bombing raids are increasing in Iraq. Put simply, we “liberated” them, now we’re bombing the hell out of them. Hersh points out that despite this deadly escalation, there is no significant discussion of the growing air war. Media critic Norman Solomon, writing a follow-up to Hersh’s piece for Truthout.org, conducted a database search and found out that neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post even printed the phrase “air war” so much as one time so far in 2005.

Solomon speculates that as the U.S. withdraws ground forces from Iraq, it will replace their efforts with the bloodier but safer (for American forces) specter of bombing campaigns. The U.S. media, so far, have ignored this story, as dozens of similar ones. But why should this be surprising? You’d think they’d report on the Bush administration’s desires to murder journalists. For journalists, maybe this story would strike close to home. But then, reporting on it wouldn’t be “with us,” as Bush so eloquently puts it. And if you’re not with us, well, you’re with the terrorists, who face indefinite detention, and all that nasty stuff. On the other hand, if you are “with us,” you’re not a journalist—you’re just a stenographer. But you’re alive, sort of…

——

Reprinted from ArtVoice, Buffalo, NY, Dec. 8, 2005
http://artvoice.com/issues/v4n49/yes_we_murder_journalists

Dr. Michael I. Niman’s previous columns are archived at:
http://www.mediastudy.com.

RESOURCES:

“Exclusive: Bush Plot to Bomb his Arab Ally,” The Mirror, Nov. 22, 2005
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headl ine=exclusive–bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html

“UK charges official with leaking Blair memo,” MSNBC, Nov. 22, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153489/

“U.S. Media Dodging Air War in Iraq,” by Norman Solomon, TruthOut, Dec. 5, 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120505Y.shtml

See also:

“Truth, Death and Media in Iraq,” by Michael Niman, WW4 REPORT, August 2005
/node/849

“Iraq: US troops kill Reuters soundman,” WW4 REPORT Aug. 30, 2005
/node/1012

U.S. Bombs Al-Jazeera in Kabul, WW4 REPORT, Nov. 17, 2001
/8.html#afghan7

———————–
Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Jan. 1, 2006
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingYES, THE PENTAGON MURDERS JOURNALISTS 

FOUCAULT’S PERSIAN GULF

Reality, Perception and the Iranian Revolution

BOOK REVIEW

FOUCAULT AND THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION
Gender and the Seductions of Islamism
by Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson
University of Chicago, 2005

by Sandy McCroskey

I.

When Michel Foucault arrived in Iran in September 1978 to begin what turned out to be a short-lived second career as a journalist, an earthquake had just obliterated forty villages. “Ten years ago to the day,” Foucault tells us, a quake destroyed the town of Ferdows in the same area. In its place arose two new towns.

“On one side, there was the town of administration, the Ministry of Housing, and the notables. But a little further away, the artisans and the farmers rebuilt their own town, in opposition to all these official plans. Under the direction of a cleric, they collected the funds, built and dug with their own hands, laid out canals and wells, and constructed a mosque. On the first day they planted a green flag. The new village is called Islamiyeh. Facing the government and against it, Islam: already ten years old.”

Throughout his life and work, Foucault had been deeply concerned with manifestations of “the will not to be governed,” with all forms of resistance to “this monstrosity we call the state,” whether in its capitalist (“the harshest, most savage, most selfish, most dishonest, oppressive society one could possibly imagine”) or socialist formations (though he remained affiliated with the socialist party in France). On the day before the shah finally fled Iran, Foucault gave a lecture (on liberalism—in the European sense—and “governmentality”) at the College de France, in which he posed the question: “Why is it necessary for the state to govern any given aspect of life at all?” The Iranian uprising could never have happened without the opposition of church and state and, from day one, Foucault never lets us forget that. To a degree, it should have been obvious: The vast majority of Iranians were Shi’ite Muslims; any mobilization of the masses would have to have the approval, at least, of the religious authorities. But there was clearly something here that could not be explained by Western theory on “revolution.” Religion appeared to be the primary instigating, guiding and unifying force.

Another seismic upheaval, Foucault tells us, had shortly preceded the quake: the Black Friday massacre of September 1, when the army mowed down at least 250 anti-shah demonstrators in Tehran. It was only the latest, and not yet the worst, in a series of such events; eventually the army would refuse to fire on their countrymen (and -women), but not before thousands became martyrs to the cause and—the way most of them looked at it—entered the gates of paradise. This willingness to sacrifice oneself deeply impressed Foucault. It is known that he had no philosophical objection to suicide (far from it)—as a personal choice that should be available to everyone, but also as a political act. “Death is power’s limit, the moment that escapes it,” he wrote in The Will to Know.

Foucault tells us that “the economic difficulties in Iran at that time were not sufficiently great for people to take to the streets, in their hundreds of thousands, in their millions, and face the machine-guns bare-chested.” So what set it off? Nationalist leftists, the far-left Fedayeen and Muhajedeen and indeed almost every social group in Iran were all opposed to the shah. But it was the willingness of so many to put their lives on that line in demonstrations organized by the Shi’ites (often taking the form of religious ceremonies mourning those previously fallen in the struggle), that ultimately brought down the regime—despite its fearsome army, despite its ruthless secret police, despite the backing of the entire world economic order, including the United States. Jimmy Carter was only then starting to tsk-tsk at the shah’s numerous and flagrant human rights violations. “In Iran the religious calendar sets the political schedule,” Foucault notes. Looking forward to the annual Muharram celebration, “the great ritual of penance,” Foucault could already see “exaltation in the martyrdom for a just cause,” when “the crowds are ready to advance toward death in the intoxication of sacrifice.”

Foucault saw the virtual absence of political maneuvering inside the movement, as well as the apparent lack of a political program to be implemented should it succeed, as evidence of a total rejection by the “collective will” of “politics,” tout court. He was well aware that after the departure of the shah this could change, overnight, though he liked to think it was part of the overall rejection of the past century of Iran’s dependence on the West. Of course, one reason the uprising manifested itself as “non-political” was that there was no political arena: Parties had been abolished in 1963 (the same year women were so magnanimously given the vote); the far-left militias had refused all discussion with the regime (they were “on strike against politics”). Now, of course, we know all too well what rushed in to fill the political vacuum after the shah fell.

Foucault has been criticized for hypostatizing “a perfectly united collective will” behind the uprising. It is clear he was aware of differing and even competing tendencies: In his November 7 dispatch for Corriere della Sera, he gives as one factor in the instigation of what appears to have been an atypically violent student riot the “rivalry between the political and the religious groups. There was on everyone’s mind a sort of mutual challenge between revolutionary radicalism and Islamic radicalism, neither of which wanted to seem more conciliatory and less courageous than the other.” But this isn’t what interested him, particularly. In an interview he tells journalist Pierre Blanchet: “What I liked about your articles was that they didn’t try to break up this phenomenon into its constituent elements, they tried to leave it as a single beam of light, even though we know that it is made up of several elements.”

That collective will asked for “a sole and very precise thing, the departure of the shah. But for the Iranian people, this unique thing means everything… This political will is one of breaking with all that marks their country and their daily lives with the presence of global hegemonies.” For one thing, rampant corruption. Foucault is not talking about Iran, he’s talking about us, when he asks, “Do you know of a treatise on political economy, or of sociology, or history books, that offers a serious and detailed analysis of the speculation, corrupt practices, embezzlement, and swindling that constitute the veritable daily bread of our trade, our industry, and our finances?” In Iran, the regime was synonymous with corruption; that was simply the way things worked. One can wonder how many countries are different. In Iran, though, the shah’s shameless pillaging of his own people, dividing the spoils among his own family and favorites, was made possible by the generous sponsorship of foreign powers. To most Iranians, modernization had meant nothing but displacement and hardship. For the past hundred years they had trudged along, heads down, on a forced march to an alien future. Now they were again lifting their eyes… to the sky…

“Throughout this whole year, revolt ran through Iran, from celebrations to commemorations, from worship, to sermons, to prayers. Tehran honored the dead of Abadan, Tabriz those of Isfahan, and Isfahan those of Qom. White, red, and green lanterns were lit up after nightfall on big tree branches in front of hundreds of houses. It was the ‘wedding bed’ of the boys just killed. In the mosques during the day, the mullahs spoke ferociously against the shah, the Americans, and the West and its materialism. They called for the people to fight against the entire regime in the name of the Quran and of Islam. When the mosques became too small for the crowd, loudspeakers were put in the streets. These voices, as terrible as must have been that of Savonarola in Florence, the voices of the Anabaptists in Munster, or those of the Presbyterians at the time of Cromwell, resounded through the whole village, the whole neighborhood.”

Ealier in the report excerpted above, Foucault tells us that he had spoken with a sociologist about the role of Islam in the people’s daily lives, and, told that it is “a refuge,” he suspected his interviewee of toning down the truth for the sake of his Western ears. A reformed Marxist, Foucault was convinced by now that religion could be something other than “the opiate of the people.” He continues:

“Many of these sermons were recorded, and the tapes circulated throughout Iran. In Tehran, a writer who was not at all a religious man let me listen to some of them. They seemed to evoke neither withdrawal nor a refuge. Nor did they evoke disarray or fear.”.

I must have read this passage three times before it dawned on me that Foucault could tell us only what the tapes do not “evoke”—or even “seem to evoke”—because, not knowing the language, he can’t tell us what they do say

The answer Foucault most often heard to the question, “What do you want?” was “Islamic government.” Foucault clearly accepted the most optimistic interpretation of what this would mean. The mullahs, while not a “revolutionary force,” were not part of a hierachical structure; they acted as “photographic plates,” simply reflecting the people’s will. As for after the revolution—why, one must have “faith in the creativity of Islam.” At times, he waxes almost ecstatic: “What place can be given, within the calculations of politics, to such a movement, to a movement that does not let itself be divided among political choices, a movement through which blows the breath of a religion that speaks less of the hereafter than of the transfiguration of this world?”

File under “famous last words”: “By Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control.” “Khomeini is not a politician. There will not be a Khomeini party; there will not be a Khomeini government.” So there’s no doubt Foucault was genuinely shocked when Khomeini consolidated his grip and the hands and heads started falling. He spoke out about the repression in an open letter to the (alas, only) nominal head of government Mehdi Bazargan, and reminded him of their conversations before the revolution, when Foucault was given many assurances about the positive effect religion would have in reining in (as opposed to reigning in) government. But he did not seem sufficiently contrite to many of his critics, and he is said to have lost friends over this.

Foucault clearly hadn’t sufficiently prepared for tackling this assignment. Although he had “read several books on Islam and Shi’ism,” it doesn’t seem he had often dipped into the supposed source, the Koran. Nor had he been informed of the contents of Khomeini’s 1943 treatise, Kashf al-Asrar (The Unveiling of Secrets), which spelled out exactly what the ayatollah would do upon accession to power over thirty years later. Oops!

How could Foucault not have gotten a hint of the authoritarian nature of traditional Islamic societies? In 1961, he wrote in Folie et dĂ©raison that the establishment of “communities of ethical uniformity” placed the nonconformist into “a relation to himself that was of the order of transgression, and a nonrelation to others that was of the order of shame.” Nothing in Foucault’s reportage is as troubling as his repeated invocation of the confused notion of “political spirituality.” When such mirages as this float before the eyes, one must wonder if, under the blazing Persian sun, the skin-headed savant forgot to wear a hat.

II.

From September 1978 to May 1979, Foucault published eleven articles on Iran, nine in the Italian Corriere della Sera and two in Le Nouvel Observateur. He also gave interviews on the topic for a magazine in Persian and a French book. The Italian pieces didn’t appear in French until 1994, and it is only now that most of these articles, unique in Foucault’s canon, can be found in English—in the appendix to Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson’s Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism. The appendix also contains a couple of short (even snippy!) replies of Foucault to his critics, articles by his critics and some related documents on the feminist front. Especially worthwhile are the essays by the late Maxime Rodinson, who forthrightly tears into the hazy concept of “political spirituality” and from the beginning had no illusions about the “archaic fascism” in Islamism.

Although those interested in Foucault can only be grateful for this volume, Afary and Anderson do not do Foucault any favors in the strident commentary that takes up the first half of the book. They seem to believe that they have discovered Foucault’s philosophic Achilles’ heel, that his treatment of the events in Iran reveals flaws that compromise all his work.

Afary and Anderson’s most constant refrain is the dubious claim that Foucault’s work is pervaded with a dualism that privileges premodern over modern cultures. A reference to “the famous gaze” of the shah is rather facilely taken to be an allusion to a similar trope in Surveiller et punir (Discipline and Punish), with its contrast between the era when criminals expiated their debt to society in gruesome, ritualistic displays of physical punishment and death, and the modern age of the “panoptical” carceral society. Surely (I thought) they do not mean to imply that Foucault favored a return to the barbarism of eye-for-an-eye justice (as Khomeinism in practice turned out to be). The implication returns in the discussion of Foucault’s studies (concurrent with his interest in Iran) of Christian ascetic practices, in which he is said to have been more interested in the expression of penitence through bodily mortification than through verbal confession—”which Foucault criticized alongside modern disciplinary techniques”! (These penitence rituals are similar to the ancient practices of celebrants of Muharram, commemorating the founding myth of Shi’ism, the martyrdom of Hussein at the Battle of Karbala.)

This line of research is tied in, of course, with Foucault’s being a sadomasochistic perv, though it’s not clear how that is supposed to have affected his conclusions. As a matter of fact, Foucault argued for the abolition of all punishment—as utopian as that may sound. It is, at any rate, very questionable if Iranian society under the shah can be taken as epitomizing the carceral society drawn in Surveiller et punir from European models and experiences, in the ultimate development of which all good citizens will have internalized the tyrant’s gaze to such a degree that the state has no need of secret police or omnipresent spy technology to keep most people in line. In Iran, the ideology of the oppressor had never been adopted by the populace, and the shah needed every gun at his disposal—until even that wasn’t enough.

Afary and Anderson’s language is often just plain silly: “In distancing himself from the possibility of attaining absolute knowledge [for shame!], and the Hegelian dialectic of mutual recognition, Foucault instead celebrated the French author Marquis de Sade.” Foucault’s fascination with self-sacrifice is condemned with a flip of a limp bit of jargon, “the discourse of death.”

Although on several occasions they commend the astuteness of Foucault’s perceptions—for example, when he countered assessments of Khomeini as a flash in the pan who had come to the fore only because of the impotence of the parties, driven underground—somehow the very same sort of observation is taken by them as evidence of both Foucault’s perspicacity and despicableness: “Foucault stood out in his celebration of the dominant Islamist wing, including the latter’s rejection of Western Marxist and liberal notions of democracy, women’s equality, and human rights.” Suffice to say that Foucault never “celebrated” the oppression of anyone. You see what a lot of mischief that little, uncalled-for “including” can do. Thus goes this inquisition, where Foucault’s text is stretched out of shape on the rack of the authors’ preconceptions.

They pull a similar trick when they say that “Foucault’s support for the new wave of Islamist uprisings that started in Iran in 1978, what he called this ‘powder keg’ set against the dominant global powers, was not entirely uncritical.” This would be “support,” however qualified, for events Foucault would never see, as he wrote nothing (“lapsed into silence,” in our authors’ formulation) about this part of the world after May 1979, and died in 1984.

To drive home the enormity of Foucault’s transgression, there is an epilogue bringing us up to September 11, 2001. To be sure, Foucault foretold that the dominant West’s confrontation with that other, Muslim world could be the source of many conflagrations to come, though when he spoke of Islam “setting the whole region afire,” it seems he was thinking of nationalist revolts. There are to date only two other countries that have fallen under radical Muslim control since 1979 (or can we count Iraq yet?), and they got that way not at all in a manner similar to the Iranian “people power” revolution. War-ravaged Afghanistan fell to the Sunni Taliban army in 1996, while in Sudan Islamist rule was imposed through a succession of military coups in the 1980s. It is not known if Foucault had an inkling that Islamist revolt would evolve into the borderless terrorism of a global jihad—itself another form of totalitarianism—but it is highly unlikely that he would have applauded the fall of the Twin Towers as “the high point of the spectacle,” as did that idiot Jean Baudrillard (trotted out here to somehow invalidate Foucault’s ideas, though his work has nothing at all to do with Foucault’s).

Afary and Anderson quote, with seeming approval, Le Monde editor Alain Minc’s scurrilous reference to Foucault as an “advocate of Khomeinism…and in theory of its exactions” [emphasis added]. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and their ilk are attacked for attempting to put a little blame on US foreign policy—well, one could have predicted that.

A section of A&A’s book contains the sensational-sounding heading “Foucault’s Meeting with Ayatollah Khomeini and ‘Political Spirituality'”. Who wouldn’t want to be a fly on that wall? We read that “Foucault was granted a meeting with Khomeini at his residence outside Paris.” But the extract from Didier Eribon’s Foucault biography that follows does not actually say that. It refers to “a visit to Neuphles,” where Khomeini was in retreat, during which Foucault saw the ayatollah’s son and son-in-law display a touch of tolerance by insisting that a German journalist not be sent away even though she was not wearing a veil. Nor does Foucault come any closer to Khomeini elsewhere in the section. In a footnote to his brief treatment of the Iranian affair, James Miller cites Eribon as a source for the statement that “Foucault never met Khomeini; he did go…to Neuphles-le-Chateau outside Paris, where Khomeini was in exile between October 7, 1978, and his eventual return to Iran the following year; but all [Foucault’s] group got to see was Khomeini walking in the distance.” I haven’t read Eribon, but my money’s on Miller here.

Among their most egregious errors, Afary and Anderson quote at length a passage from an April 1978 lecture in Tokyo as presenting Foucault’s own account of shifting attitudes toward sexuality in the West over past centuries. Those with a little familiarity with Foucault’s History of Sexuality, even from reviews, might recognize that Foucault was only recounting the standard story about such things, the reigning paradigm that he would now proceed to shatter, if his listener would just sit tight for the rest of the seminar.

Foucault’s treatment of matters pertaining to sexuality and social control is far more nuanced than Afary and Anderson seem able to grasp. And ain’t that a shame, for a book with the portentous (and academic-sexy) subtitle “Gender and the Seductions of Islamism,” which might lead us to think that A&A have pinpointed the critical blind spot in Foucault’s worldview, on which all the book’s themes will converge. It doesn’t quite work that way.

The authors’ most serious accusation is that Foucault didn’t care about women’s rights. It is true that in the context of the Iranian revolution, he said precious little about them. He mentions “the subjugation of women” in his last article on the topic, in May 1979, but it doesn’t figure in his open letter to Prime Minister Bazargan, except as understood to be part of “human rights.”

There is a chapter headed “Debating the Outcome of the Revolution, Especially on Women’s Rights,” but where was the debate? Kate Millet and other feminists traveled to Iran, and reported that women’s rights were in execrable shape. They were apparently attacked for this by some French leftists—but not by Foucault, who didn’t disagree that things had taken a bad turn after the revolution.

It is true that before the ascent of Khomeini to power he seemed blissfully unaware that the righteous Islamists would often flog a woman for not donning the veil. If we give him the benefit of the doubt on that, he still could not have been ignorant that women in a traditionally patriarchal culture would not have the same privileges as men—perhaps this was too obvious a fact for Foucault to feel it needed restating in his own ever-provocative prose. Another explanation is that he may have regarded it as presumptuous for him to pass judgment on another culture. One may consider this as a kind of Orientalism-in-spite-of-itself, in which Foucault would be in the illustrious company of no less enlightened a gent than Edward W. Said—whom Afary and Anderson show mocking Simone de Beauvoir as “silly” and full of herself when, during a March 1979 meeting in Paris on the Palestinian-Israeli situation, she spoke about her upcoming journey to Iran with Kate Millet and inveighed against the forced wearing of the chador. (The text of a speech Beauvoir gave after the trip is included in the appendix.)

When Foucault said, in his letter to Bazargan, that he was sure the Iranians were tired of receiving “such noisy lectures” from the outside world, he could have been referring to Millet, Beauvoir and others. It’s just vague enough; you can’t be sure.

One is tempted to connect a few dots in the chapter on “Male Homosexuality in Mediterranean and Muslim Societies.” When Iranian feminists spoke out against the traditional ways of homosexuality in their country (with the prevalence of passive/dominant relations, often with a significant age difference), did Foucault consider this another case of one culture attempting to impose its values on another? But this would only be wild speculation. The chapter contains much on same-sex relations between males in the Muslim world that sheds some light on why Foucault could be shocked to discover that the Koran commands that homosexuals be executed. Afary and Anderson give us a darkly comic account of the night when he was presented with this information, chapter and verse. (It is not known whether this was during Foucault’s first or second visit to Iran.)

But all this could be beside the point. Foucault makes only passing mention of anti-Semitism among the Iranian Islamists, just enough to let us know he was aware of it. Now, Foucault himself was the farthest thing from an anti-Semite. His estrangement from the more anti-Zionist Gilles Deleuze was caused in part by their disagreement on Israel/Palestine. Yet he suggested that Khomeini’s movement could gain in strength by putting the liberation of Palestine on the agenda (one wonders, wasn’t it already?). It should be clear that he was not endorsing every Islamist position—no more than he was converting to Islam. Afary and Anderson call the Iranian episode “the most passionate and significant political commitment of Foucault’s life”—with the admitted, and extremely significant, exception of his work in the early 1970s with the Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons, which he founded. And “commitment” is perhaps too strong a word for Foucault’s stance vis-a-vis Iran, which Foucault himself, speaking to his students in the cooler confines of the College de France on the eve of what history would call the Iranian Revolution, typified as “wishful participation.”

The reader who knows something about Foucault may lose patience with Afary and Anderson in the first couple chapters. I do urge readers to turn first to Foucault’s own report, unmediated; but there is some valuable information to be dug out of the remainder (some of which has, obviously, informed this review).

For example, Foucault writes briefly of one Ali Shariati, Khomeini’s predecessor as leader of the fundamentalist movement, who had died two years earlier but whose “shadow…haunts all political and religious life in Iran today.” Foucault tells us that Shariati studied in Europe, had contacts with various strains of revolutionary, socialist thought and brought back to his country the message that Shi’ism’s true meaning was “in the sermons of social justice and equality that had already been preached by the first imam [Ali].” From Afary and Anderson we learn that Shariati was influenced by Heidegger, who was also very important to Foucault; Heidegger’s concepts of existential choice and authenticity are said to have inflected a reinterpretation of Shi’ism.

Alavid Shi’ism—a pure Shi’ism of Ali—was to replace the “Safavid Shi’ism” institutionalized by the Safavid Dynasty in the seventeenth century, when Shia became (perforce) the faith of the nation. Shariati began to teach (and we can’t blame the atheist Heidegger for this) that becoming a martyr was the one sure path to paradise and, adding a new tone of vindictiveness, the one sure way to damn your enemies to hell. According to Afary and Anderson, in Shariati’s interpretation of the founding myth of Shi’ism, Hussein’s martyrdom was “not the type of death through which God forgave the sins of humanity, it was one that pointed toward revenge, a death that marked the enemy as a horrible sinner.” (I am assuming, of course, that Afary and Anderson’s reading of Shariati is more accurate than their reading of Foucault.) Foucault also does not mention the strain of anti-Semitism that Afary and Anderson tell us ran through Shariati’s thought, and one must wonder how deeply he had read in the man’s works.

III.

I think that Foucault wrote nothing else about Iran after May 1979 simply because, well, it was over. He’d said all he had to say in his last article, “Is It Useless to Revolt?” where he insisted that to call the revolt meaningless because it ultimately failed was as illegitimate as the mullahs’ justification of their reign by the blood of the martyrs.

In his last years Foucault turned his attention to Stoicism and the concept of self-creation through a purely individual ethics that would function as “a very strong structure of existence, without any relation with the juridical per se, or with an authoritarian system or a disciplinary structure.” His ethics had, of course, been a personal one already in 1979, “antistrategic,” as he wrote. “One must be respectful when a singularity arises and intransigent as soon as the state violates universals.” He was always on the lookout for the chinks in power’s armor, for “what must unconditionally limit” politics. Confronting the uprising that he considered to have world historical importance (and who will say that it didn’t?) as “perhaps the first great insurrection against global systems,” he considered it a duty to listen, as one should listen to anyone who pits his life against overwhelming power, to the madman at the end of his rope, to the criminal who would dash across the bullet-strafed yard. One is not required, he added dryly, “to stand in solidarity with them.” After all, he called this form of rebellion “the most modern and the most insane,” and he wanted to call the article in which this line appears “Iran’s Madness” (editors!). But note that the most mad form of rebellion is not said to be necessarily a specifically Muslim rebellion: It is simply the “revolt against global systems.” It could mean, in fact, the global justice movement. In which case it is me, I sincerely hope, and I hope it is you.

So let us not say that Foucault didn’t listen, just because he got taken in. That’s a risk you run when you listen. The other always speaks a different language.

———————–
Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Dec. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingFOUCAULT’S PERSIAN GULF 

PARAGUAY: THE PENTAGON’S NEW LATIN BEACHHEAD

Is the Real Enemy Islamic Terrorism, or Bolivia’s Indigenous Revolution?

by Benjamin Dangl

The recent shift to the left among Latin American governments has been a cause for concern in the Bush administration. The White House has tried in vain to put this shift in check. Presidential elections in Bolivia on December 18 are likely to further challenge US hegemony. Evo Morales, an indigenous, socialist congressman, is expected to win the election. How far will the US go to prevent a leftist victory in Bolivia? Some Bolivians fear the worst.

In the past year, US military operations in neighboring Paraguay, Bolivia’s neighbor on the southeast, have complicated the already tumultuous political climate in the region. White House officials claim the operations are part of humanitarian aid efforts. However, political analysts in both Paraguay and Bolivia say the activity is aimed at securing the region’s gas and water reserves—and intervening in Bolivia if Morales wins.

Five hundred US troops arrived in Paraguay on July 1 with planes, weapons and ammunition. Reports from a journalist with the Argentine newspaper Clarin corroborate that an airbase exists in Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay, which is 200 kilometers from the border with Bolivia and may be utilized by the US military.

Earlier this year, Paraguayan lawmakers granted US troops total immunity and have given the Pentagon access to the Estigarribia base, which was built by US technicians in the 1980s and is larger than Paraguay’s international airport in AsunciĂłn, the country’s capital.

In addition to the military activity, the FBI also has plans for Paraguay. On October 26, FBI Director Robert Mueller arrived in the country to “check on preparations for the installation of a permanent FBI office in AsunciĂłn…to cooperate with security organizations to fight international crime, drug traffic and kidnapping.”

Bruce Kleiner, US press attaché in Asunción, quoted in In These Times, said that joint exercises between the US and Paraguayan military have been going on since 1943. He said the current exercises usually involve less than 50 personnel, and last for two weeks at a time. According to Kleiner, there are no US military personnel at Estigarribia.

“I don’t believe in the arguments being put forth by the Secretary of Defense or the Embassy in Asuncion,” responded Jorge Ramon de la Quintana, a former Bolivian military officer and current political analyst. “The military presence in Paraguay reflects a series of perceived threats by US Southern Command… this is the return of the Domino Theory.”

Orlando Castillo, a Paraguayan activist involved in the struggle against the US military presence in his country through the human rights group Service, Peace and Justice, said the goal of the US military in Paraguay is to secure the region’s vast water reserves, “debilitate the southern bloc, to set up offices of US security agencies primarily to monitor the region, and from Paraguay be able to destabilize the region’s governments, especially if Evo Morales wins the elections in Bolivia.”

Paraguayan and US officials contend that much of the recent military collaborations focus on health and humanitarian efforts. However, a recent Washington Times article reported that “of the 13 military exercises at the base in Mariscal, only two involved medical training.”

State Department reports do not mention any funding for health works in Paraguay. They do mention that funding for the Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP) in the country doubled for 2005. The report explained that “bilateral relations between the US and Paraguay are strong, with Paraguay providing excellent cooperation in the fight against terrorism… CTFP provided funds for Paraguayans to attend courses on the dynamics of international terrorism, and the importance and application of intelligence in combating terrorism.”

Terrorists in the Triple Border Region?

Milda Rivarola, a Paraguayan political analyst, told AlterNet the US operations in Paraguay are focused on “getting closer to the Triple Border, which the U.S. believes is involved in terrorism.”

Allegations of terrorist activity in the region were backed up on November 19, when prosecutors identified Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a member of the Islamic militant group Hezbollah, as being the suicide bomber who blew up a Jewish community centre in Argentina in 1994, killing 85 people. Alberto Nisman, a prosecutor in the case, said investigators believe the attacker entered Argentina via the Triple Border area. The announcement came after years of investigations by Argentine intelligence and the FBI. Hezbollah has denied the charges.

In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, US-backed police operations swept up roughly 20 terrorist suspects in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, a city on the Triple Border. They also investigated $22 million in over 40 accounts suspected of links to terrorist groups, according to a report from the Washington Post.

Gustavo Moussa, a spokesperson for the Islamic Organization of Argentina in Buenos Aires, said that many South American Muslims feel Washington has unfairly labeled the Triple Border as a terrorist haven. “They made those claims without evidence,” he was quoted by AlterNet.

Luiz Moniz Bandeira, a Brazilian-US foreign affairs analyst, told the Washington Times: “I wouldn’t dismiss the hypothesis that US agents plant stories in the media about Arab terrorists in the Triple Frontier to provoke terrorism and justify their military presence.”

In an interview with Brazilian television, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the Bush administration is using its war on terrorism as a pretext to suppress popular movements in the region.

Bolivian Elections

US military operations in Paraguay have raised controversy in the Bolivian presidential race. Bolivian Workers’ Union leader Jaime Solares has warned of US plans for a military coup to frustrate the elections. Solares told Prensa Latina the US Embassy backs right-wing Jorge Quiroga in his bid for office, and will go as far as necessary to prevent any other candidate’s victory.

Jim Shultz, the director of the Democracy Center, and activist organization in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba, reports on the group’s website that a “source of mine here claims that the US government has been carefully cultivating relationships with ‘anti-Evo’ forces in the Bolivian military, presumably for some sort of U.S.-backed coup down the road.”

The top two contenders in the presidential race are Evo Morales and Jorge Quiroga, a conservative businessman with close ties to the former Hugo Banzer dictatorship, and whose platform includes the privatization of the country’s gas reserves and a hard line against leftist protestors.

There are eight candidates in the race, and Morales is currently in the lead with 32% support in the polls, and Quiroga trailing behind with 27%. The Bolivian constitution requires that the winner receive more than 50% of the votes in order to secure the presidency. If not, congress decides between the top two contenders.

If Quiroga doesn’t win a majority he said he’ll drop out. If Morales wins a majority by even one vote, he’s said he’s prepared to lead protests demanding that congress ratify his victory. Even if Quiroga wins outright, protests against his presidency and subsequent policies are expected to ensue.

The socialist Morales is unpopular among international investors, and when he ran for president in 2002, the US ambassador to Bolivia warned that Washington might cut economic ties if he won. The result was a sharp increase in support among voters which drove him to second place, just 1.5% behind the winner, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada.

Morales has referred to the US-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas as “an agreement to legalize the colonization of the Americas.” He’s not interested in protecting US interests, because he believes that “they have failed to resolve the problems of the majority in our country.” Morales says the US war on drugs in Bolivia is a pretext, and that what the U.S. really wants is Bolivia’s gas reserves, which are the second largest in Latin America. As president, he would work to decriminalize the cultivation of coca and move to nationalize the country’s gas.

If he wins, Morales will join the growing ranks of left-of-center Latin American leaders who, instead of bowing to the interests of foreign corporations, the International Monetary Fund and the Bush administration, have a priority of addressing the needs of the people with social programs in education, agrarian reform and health care.

During an interview with Morales, this reporter asked him about the pressure he may receive from the US government if he is elected president. “We, the indigenous people, after 500 years of resistance, are retaking the power,” he said. “We are changing presidents, economic models and politics. We are convinced that capitalism is the enemy of the earth, of humanity and of culture. The US government does not understand our way of life and our philosophy. But we will defend our proposals, our way of life and our demands with the participation of the Bolivian people.”
——

Benjamin Dangl has traveled and worked as a journalist in Bolivia and Paraguay and is the editor of Upside Down World, an online magazine covering activism and politics in Latin America.

This story originally appeared in Upside Down World, Nov. 16
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/116/1/

SOURCES:

“US Military in Paraguay Prepares to Spread Democracy,” by Benjamin Dang, Upside Down World, Sept. 15, 2005
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/47/44/

“Patrolling America’s Backyard?” by Kelly Hearn, AlterNet.org, Nov. 4, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/27775/

“FBI Sets Up Permanent Office in Paraguay, 8th in Latin America,” Prensa Latina, Oct. 26, 2005
http://www.plenglish.com/Article.asp?ID=%7B8A45F3E0-4BC7-
4CDE-87E4-92F824C355DD%7D&language=EN

“US Military Eyes Paraguay,” by Adam Saytanides, In These Times, Nov. 10, 2005
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/2381/

Interview with Orlando Castillo, by Benjamin Dangl, Upside Down World, Oct. 16
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/48/1/

“U.S. Inroads Raise Alarm,” by Kenneth Rapoza, Washington Times, Oct. 25, 2005
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051024-103422-6510r.htm

“Foreign Military Training,” Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, US Department of State, May 2005
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rpt/fmtrpt/2005/45677.htm

“Hezbollah ID’d in 1994 Argentina attack, CNN, Nov. 9, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/09/argentina.bombing.ap/

“Buenos Aires bomber ‘identified’,” BBC, Nov. 10, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4423612.stm

“US Encouraging Military Coup in Bolivia,” Prensa Latina Sept. 13, 2005
http://www.plenglish.com.mx/article.asp?ID={5FC4E7C4-49A3
-4BCD-A796-08441FD72BEE}&language=EN

Jim Shultz, Democracy Center’s Blog From Bolivia, Oct. 22, 2005
http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/2005/10/rumors.html

See also our last update:

Paraguay: indigenous march
/node/1169

———————–
Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Dec. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingPARAGUAY: THE PENTAGON’S NEW LATIN BEACHHEAD 

WAR ON TRUTH AT GUANTANAMO

Detainees Launch Non-Violent Resistance Behind Pentagon’s Iron Veil

by Tanya Theriault

The veil of secrecy at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when tugged at, continues to reveal the inhumane treatment of detainees held there. Since January 2002, the US has been imprisoning men (at present 505) from some 30 to 40 countries—but primarily Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen—indefinitely, without legal process, as “enemy combatants,” so as to dodge the requirements of the Geneva Conventions on torture. Reports of torture and abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo continue to come from a variety of sources. Amnesty International has called the detention of the inmates “unlawful and arbitrary,” and found conditions at the prison to be “cruel, inhumane and degrading.” The International Committee of the Red Cross took the rare, bold step of making public the abuse and mental deterioration of inmates as a result of their indefinite and often solitary imprisonment, calling interminable detention of prisoners “tantamount to torture.” What is hidden about the detention camp at Guantanamo should terrify us, as what we know now to be true makes us tremble in shame.

In a mounting effort to address their abusive treatment and detention without charge or trial, many of the prisoners have engaged in hunger strikes. The Department of Defense (DOD) has maintained sole control of who can enter the camps and under what conditions—including restricting legal access—and what those who do enter can hear or say about it. For this reason, the existence of such protests by prisoners has been little known. With the recent release of internal DOD memos and FBI interviews with detainees (obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under freedom of information legislation), as well as statements from former detainees and accounts from prisoners’ counsel, it is now evident that detainees have been protesting their detention by hunger strikes and in other ways since 2002.

Using these resources, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued a report in September, “The Guantanamo Prisoner Hunger Strikes and Protests,” detailing the history of prisoners’ acts of protest. CCR is a New York-based, non-profit legal organization representing 40 of the prisoners. Over a year and a half has passed since the US Supreme Court, in Rasul vs. Bush (argued by CCR), decided that detainees can challenge their detention and the conditions of their imprisonment in federal court. It is evident by the increasing intensity of the hunger strikes, that prisoners’ frustrations and despair has grown as the government has stalled any legal progress.

According to the report, one or more hunger strikes occurred in early 2002 over the desecration of the Qu’ran by a military police officer (MP). For Catholics, the analogous act is mistreatment of the Eucharist. British citizen and released detainee, Rhuhel Ahmed recalled one incident, “I saw a guard walked into a detainee’s cell, searched through the Koran and dropped it on the floor. The detainee told him to pick it up and put it in its holder. I remember the guard looked at the Koran on the floor and said ‘this’ and then kicked it. Everyone started shouting and banging the doors. The guard ran out of the cell and the entire camp was on lockdown for half a day. On that day there was a hunger strike [that lasted] for three days.”

The report states, “A former interrogator at Guantanamo also confirmed the released detainees’ accounts of such hunger strike and the military’s public apology over the handling of the Qu’ran.”

Later that year, up to 194 detainees were participating in rolling hunger strikes over a two-month period to protest what military officials acknowledged as “their murky future.” Three detainees were given IV fluids forcibly. Beginning a pattern, the military downplayed the significance and gravity of the hunger strikes. In a prepared statement for the Guantanamo Joint Task Force, Marine Maj. Steve Cox asserted that “by no means is this an organized, concerted effort by the camp’s detainee population but merely a demonstration of some of the detainees’ displeasure over the uncertainty of their future.”

A June/July 2005 hunger strike was made public on July 20th by two former Afghan prisoners. According to attorneys from the DC-based law firm Sherman and Sterling, which represents forty prisoners, in addition “to starvation until death,” the protesters planned to boycott showers, recreation time, and called for “no violence, by hand or even words, to anyone, including the guards.” The military acknowledges 52 men were involved in the strike, but lawyers put the number closer to 200. While US Senators were getting summer show tours of the camp, CCR reports that close to 50 men were on IV hydration and that, overwhelmed, medics ceased regular medical visits.

The strike ended on July 28 after the prisoners were promised better access to books, bottled drinking water and a prisoner grievance committee. The committee was soon after dissolved. In a statement given to his lawyer, Binyam Mohammed, a British prisoner, said: “The administration promised that if we gave them ten days, they would bring the prison into compliance with the Geneva Conventions… It is now August 11. They have betrayed our trust (again). Hisham from Tunisia was savagely beaten in his interrogation and they publicly desecrated the Qu’ran (again). Saad from Kuwait was ERF’d (visited by the Extreme Reaction Force) for refusing to go to interrogation because the female interrogator had sexually humiliated him… Therefore, the strike must go on.”

By mid-September of this year, lawyers for the prisoners reported that as many as 210 prisoners, nearly half, were involved in a hunger strike that began in early August. At that point, the Washington Post (Sept. 13) reported that eighteen were hospitalized; thirteen were being force-fed by nasal tubes and five by IV hydration. The strike had spread throughout all five camps within the detention center. Initially, the Army responded with the claim that only 76 prisoners were on a hunger strike, then increased that number to 130 the following week. A Reuters report issued on Sept. 21 relayed that the US military’s count of hunger strikers dropped to 36 from 130 the following week; prisoners’ lawyers found that hard to believe.

The World Medical Association (WMA), of which the American Medical Association is a member, declared in 1991 that hunger strikers, mentally competent as determined by the attending physician, and informed of all medical consequences regarding long-term withdrawal from food and hydration, cannot be force-fed. The physician is morally obligated to interview the hunger striker daily and to inform the striker’s family. According to The Guardian of Sept. 9, a military spokesperson stated: “They are being held in the same standards as US prison standards… [T]hey don’t allow people to kill themselves via starvation.” A military spokesperson claimed that prisoners are monitored 24 hours a day. If that is true, the military has been aware of these life-threatening strikes and has failed to inform the families of detainees or their lawyers.

Hunger strikers are refusing to sign refusal-of-food/water waiver forms. There have been reports of prisoners pulling out their IVs and nasal tubes—and consequently restrained beyond leg shackles and handcuffs. In a statement given to his lawyer (quoted in The Guardian), Binyam Mohammed said, “I do not plan to stop until I either die or we are respected. People will definitely die. Bobby Sands petitioned the British government to stop the illegitimate internment of Irishmen without trial. He had the courage of his convictions and he starved himself to death. Nobody should believe for one moment that my brothers here have less courage.” The NY Times reported Sept. 17: “A senior military official…speaking on the condition of anonymity, described the situation as greatly troublesome for the camp’s authorities and said they had tried several ways to end the hunger strike, without success.”

The detention camp at Guantanamo is the jewel of the US military’s semantic effort to distort the truth. There had been 350 reported suicide attempts in the first year and a half of its operation. That number slowed remarkably when the US began distinguishing between what is a “suicide attempt” and what they call “manipulative, self-injurious behavior.” The military’s definition of a hunger striker is one who has refused to take at least nine consecutive meals in 72 hours, which is one reason why the lawyers’ count of hunger strikers and the military’s differ so dramatically. The term “force-feeding” has been replaced by “assisted feeding.” By narrowing definitions, potential problems no longer exist.

Clive Stafford-Smith, a British human rights lawyer, offered a statement from his client, a British refugee and Guantanamo prisoner, in an Oct. 1 article in The Nation. “I am dying a slow death in this solitary prison cell,” said his client Omar Deghayes, “I have no rights, no hope. So why not take my destiny into my own hands, and die for a principle?”

In the face of this torture and the prisoners’ desperation, the silence of US citizens, especially that of the US clergy and other moral leaders, is shocking. As people of faith, we are called to witness to the truth, and the truth is that the people held in Guantanamo Bay are being tortured by our military, and our government is trying to hide it. Do we have the strength and courage to make this end?
——

This story originally appeared in the December 2005 issue The Catholic Worker, newspaper of the New York City branch of the Catholic Worker movement, 36 East 1st St., New York, NY 10003

RESOURCES:

CCR Guantanamo Action Center
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/gac

CCR report, “The Guantanamo Prisoner Hunger Strikes and Protests,” Setember 2005
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9eoNDN08S3MJ:www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/septem
ber_11th/docs/Gitmo_Hunger_Strike_Report_Sept_2005.pdf+%22prisoner+hunger+strike
s+and+protests%22&hl=en

From our weblog:

Hunger strikers pledge to die in Gitmo
/node/1069

Pentagon admits Koran desecration
/node/524

Minors held, beaten at Gitmo?
/node/618

Gonzales may face war crimes charges in Germany
/node/167

Rasul v Bush: one year later
/node/625

———————–
Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Dec. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingWAR ON TRUTH AT GUANTANAMO 

THE POLITICS OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

And the Intractable Dilemma of International ANSWER

by Bill Weinberg

The Sept. 24 anti-war protest in Washington DC was hailed as a revival of a movement which had become somewhat moribund even as the quagmire in Iraq deepens with horrifying rapidity. The march brought out 300,000, by organizers’ estimates—making it the largest since the start of the US invasion in March 2003. After a summer in which Cindy Sheehan’s campaign to demand personal accountability from the vacationing George Bush had riveted the nation, the march brought out record numbers of military veterans and grieving families—giving the movement an unassailable moral credibility.

But it is significant that this credibility arose from the rank-and-file marchers—while that very credibility may have been actually undermined by elements of the organizational leadership.

Since the prelude to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the large, visible anti-war protests in the US—especially the marches in Washington, New York and San Francisco—have been led by two organizations, which have at times cooperated but have frequently been at odds: United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and International ANSWER (for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). In the Sept. 24 march, they agreed to cooperate; they divided the stage time equally, with different speakers and different banners, although ANSWER actually held the permit.

Both UFPJ and ANSWER have been criticized by some activists as top-down and insufficiently democratic. But concerns are growing over ANSWER’s links to a doctrinaire neo-Stalinist organization called the Workers World Party (WWP), which has a history of seeking to dominate coalitions, and has some embarrassing ultra-hardline positions.

Steve Ault, a gay activist in New York City since 1970, served as UFPJ’s logistics coordinator for the historic pre-war mobilization of Feb. 15, 2003, last summer’s Republican National Convention protests and the May 1, 2005 march for nuclear disarmament. He charges that ANSWER is a front group for the WWP. Speaking as an individual—not on behalf of UFPJ—he decries what he sees as an imbalance between the two major anti-war formations: “One small sectarian group has equal power with a genuine coalition. We aren’t going to be able to have a real movement until they are called out on the carpet for it.”

Ault says he has for 20 years witnessed WWP use “stacking meetings and undemocratic tactics” to control left coalitions. “When Workers World forms a so-called coalition, its not a coalition at all, its a vehicle to attempt to amplify their power and control. Its not a genuine coalition like UFPJ which has no controlling faction—it has communists, Greens, pacifists, anarchists.”

International ANSWER formed after 9-11 around the core of the International Action Center (IAC), itself formed by the WWP after former US attorney general Ramsey Clark joined with the party’s leaders to oppose the 1991 attack on Iraq in a surprising alliance. ANSWER’s most visible spokespersons have almost invariably been longtime IAC/WWP adherents. WWP is so orthodox that it supported the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and—more recently—former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic in his battle against war crimes charges at The Hague. And its current stance on Iraq’s armed insurgents has been a key source of tension with UFPJ and other groups in the movement.

Many in the movement are unaware of WWP’s past problematic positions. On the seventh anniversary of the Tiananmen Square events in 1996, the Workers World newspaper ran an article charging that the protesters had launched “violent attacks on the soldiers,” prompting the Chinese government to declare the movement “a counter-revolutionary rebellion.” It protested that “There was immediately a worldwide media campaign condemning China and characterizing the events as a massacre.”

In April 2002, the Workers World paper covered the celebrations of the 90th birthday of the late North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung in glorifying terms. And repeatedly, throughout the Bosnian war in the 1990s, Workers World portrayed reports of atrocities and mass rape by the Serb forces as “imperialist lies.” Ramsey Clark, the visible leader of the International Action Center, is a founder of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, and has also provided legal representation for some accused of participating in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. He has more recently volunteered for Saddam Hussein’s legal team.

Merely providing legal representation, even for mass murders, is legitimate. But Clark has gone beyond legal work to political advocacy, and has consistently followed the Workers World party line in both. In the ’90s, he repeatedly traveled to Bosnia to meet with Serb rebel leader Radovan Karadzic, today a fugitive from war crimes charges. In September 2002, in Baghdad for meetings with high-level figures in Saddam’s regime, he was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about his public support for Iraq’s refusal to allow UN inspectors back in. When Blitzer noted that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people at the 1988 attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja, Clark responded dismissively: “Wolf, that’s pretty tired, you know. People have worked that for years and years…”

Workers World itself has undergone a recent factional split, with a breakaway group apparently taking most of ANSWER with it. This has led the IAC and the faction that still calls itself Workers World to help found a new coalition, Troops Out Now! Both Troops Out Now! and ANSWER continue to take positions many activists feel uncomfortable with.

On May 1, 2005, both UFPJ and Troops Out Now! held separate marches in New York City, with Troops Out Now! rejecting UFPJ’s pro-disarmament theme. Dustin Langley, a spokesperson for Troops Out Now! and member of the IAC, told journalist Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice: “Personally I think to talk about global disarmament misses the point of who has weapons and who they are being used against. We say Iran and North Korea have a right to get any kind of weapon they need to defend themselves against the largest military machine on the planet. Considering that Bush has listed them as two potential targets, they have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country.”

This division was also evident during the March 2004 rally in New York commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion, which ANSWER and UFPJ co-organized in an uneasy alliance. As in the recent Washington rally, they divided the stage time. During ANSWER’s half of the rally, someone taped a photo to the speakers’ platform of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was accused of peddling nuclear materials to North Korea and Libya. No move was made to remove it.

History of Dissension

For some veteran activists, the persistent division brings back bad memories of the movement to oppose the first attack on Iraq in 1991, when WWP provoked a split by refusing to condemn Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. This resulted in two separate national marches on Washington, just days apart—one by the WWP-led National Coalition Against US Intervention in the Middle East, the other by the Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, a coalition consisting of War Resisters League, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, and other traditional peace groups.

This division even goes back to the 1960s, when the WWP-led Youth Against War & Fascism (YAWF) was posed against the more mainstream National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam.

WWP’s origins actually trace to a split in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) over the Soviet invasion of Hungary to put down a workers’ insurrection in 1956. The Trotskyist SWP opposed the invasion; a breakaway faction around Sam Marcy supported it, arguing that the Hungarian workers were “counter-revolutionary” (the same line WWP would take on the Tiananmen Square protesters a generation later). Breaking from the SWP, the Marcy group founded Workers World, which moved in a more Stalinist direction. Marcy remained the ideological leader of the party until his death in 1998.

The recent split doesn’t seem to have been about anything substantive, but the tactical question of whether to support WWP’s presidential ticket last year or to acquiesce to the left’s “anybody but Bush” (meaning pro-Kerry) position. Behind this question seems to be a turf war between WPP cadre in New York and San Francisco, the party’s two principal power bases. The breakaway faction, based mostly in San Francisco, is calling itself the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Brian Becker, a longtime IAC/WWP leader who is national coordinator of ANSWER, is now with the breakaway party. Troops Out Now!, which endorsed the Sept. 24 march despite the split, remains based at the International Action Center’s New York address (39 West 14th St. #206). Its visible leaders such as Larry Holmes are also longtime IAC/WWP figures.

The fundamental issue which has led to tensions with UFPJ was not a factor in the split: WWP’s refusal to countenance any criticism of the Iraqi “resistance.” Troops Out Now! comes closest to taking an open stance in support of the armed insurgents, calling in their literature for the anti-war movement to “acknowledge the absolute and unconditional right of the Iraqi people to resist the occupation of their country without passing judgement on their methods of resistance.”

This seems to ignore the reality that the armed insurgents in Iraq are increasingly blowing up civilians—not US troops. The targets of their attacks are more and more perceived ethnic and religious enemies, and in their areas of control they are enforcing harsh shariah law and radically repealing women’s basic rights.

These inconsistencies provide easy ammo for those who wish to dismiss the anti-war movement as deluded and hypocritical. For instance, they allowed the born-again interventionist Christopher Hitchens to write for Slate magazine after the Sept. 24 march a piece entitled “Anti-War, My Foot: The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington.” Hitchens decried the central position of “‘International ANSWER,’ the group run by the ‘Worker’s World’ party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the ‘resistance’ in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the genocidaires in Rwanda… ‘International ANSWER’ [is] a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.”

Palestine: the New “Wedge Issue”

But Steve Ault argues that some controversial positions have actually been useful to ANSWER. “They come up with a wedge issue to use against the other coalition, and they scream ‘racism,'” he says. “And they do it very well.”

The question of Palestine is currently ANSWER’s principal “wedge issue.” UFPJ’s own hedging on “linkage” of the struggles in Palestine and Iraq has served ANSWER well. In the prelude to the March 2004 rally in New York, ANSWER insisted on making an end to the occupation of Palestine a central demand of the demonstration. UFPJ balked, stating that while they agreed it was important to address Palestine, the main purpose of the march was to express broad opposition to the war in Iraq. ANSWER responded by circulating a letter on-line, signed by numerous Arab and Muslim groups, charging that it was “racist” of the anti-war movement not to give the Palestinian cause equal footing.

UFPJ’s member groups have “agreed to disagree” on how to achieve peace in the Middle East, taking no stance, for instance, on a right of return for Palestinian refugees—a demand embraced by ANSWER. And unlike ANSWER, UFPJ has put out a position criticizing all attacks on civilians—whether by the Israeli military or Palestinian militants.

Some have perceived UFPJ’s “agree-to-disagree” position as an equivocation which has rendered the coalition vulnerable on this “wedge issue.” In any case, ANSWER has proved itself adept at building coalitions with Arab and Muslim groups.

Ibrahim Ramey, national disarmament coordinator for the faith-based pacifist organization Fellowship of Reconciliation, says: “ANSWER has done much more organizing in pro-Palestinian Islamic communities. Activists need to have a debate over this difficult issue: the question of Zionism, and I use the term deliberately. There is no principled discussion on it.”

Ramey recognizes the contradiction that some of the same figures now pushing the Palestine question in the movement are also sympathetic to Milosevic, who is accused of genocide against Muslims. “I don’t believe despots and mass murderers need to be lauded because they occasionally wave the banner of opposition to the United States. Milosevic was not a great hero because he happened to bombed by NATO war planes.”

And Ramey admits that IAC’s “position on Milosevic isn’t something there is a lot of awareness of in the Muslim communities where ANSWER has been successful in organizing.”

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, which works with ANSWER while not being an official member of the coalition, is aware of it, and makes no bones about his disagreement. “I don’t support that line. I think Milosevic was a genocidal butcher. But we can work with people we have disagreements with.”

Bray credits ANSWER with “forcing the debate on Palestine within the movement. That was healthy and necessary. You cannot discuss peace in the Middle East region without discussing the occupation of Palestine.” And he sees the question of which issues get prioritized as linked to the broader tendency of “a paternalistic and elitist attitude within the movement.”

“Why is it that we can mobilize thousands of people and you don’t see many African Americans?” he asks. “You’ve got myself and few others onstage, but you don’t see that many in the crowd. Is it that African Americans aren’t concerned about their sons over in Iraq? Or does it have to do with our organizing methods? Neither UFPJ or ANSWER has addressed this issue well, and it is a bigger issue than the factional splits within the movement.”

Liberal versus Radical Critique

Complicating the situation is that many of the commentators speaking out against ANSWER’s problematic role in the anti-war movement have offered a liberal rather than radical critique. In addition to the Palestine question, ANSWER has been repeatedly criticized for espousing the cause of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the journalist and former Black Panther on Death Row in Pennsylvania after an evidently wrongful conviction. In the October issue of Rolling Stone, writer Tim Dickinson quotes Paul Rieckhoff, director of the Iraq veterans group Operation Truth, which boycotted the Sept. 24 march. “When some guy gets up there and rails about Palestine, Karl Rove is kicking back in his chair, saying, ‘Please continue,'” said Rieckhoff. “It’s not about Palestine, it’s not about Mumia—it’s about one focused message: Let’s find a way to end this war. If you really want to push back against the administration, you’ve got to get your shit together. Right now they don’t.”

Similarly, Marc Cooper warned in the LA Weekly in 2002 that “the new anti-war movement would be…doomed if the shrill rhetoric of the Workers World…loonies would dominate. Fronting for Saddam Hussein (and Slobodan Milosevic) as self-appointed peace leader Ramsey Clark has and exhorting the peace protesters to defend convicted cop killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown as Workers World does…was hardly the way to win over the millions we need to stop Bush.”

From a purely tactical standpoint, there may be some logic to de-emphasizing unpopular issues in the interests of building a broad front around a single issue (Iraq). But from a moral standpoint, attacking ANSWER’s positions on Palestine and Mumia rather than (or even in addition to) Milosevic and Tiananmen Square dangerously muddies the water. The prior two causes may be unpopular, but they are perfectly legitimate; in contrast, the Workers World positions on Bosnia and Tiananmen Square constitute defense of the indefensible.

Christopher Hitchens (who can no longer be said to be on the left) commits a similar error, in his list of foreign strongmen WWP supports: he indiscriminately lumps Fidel Castro in with the far more sinister Milosevic and Kim Jong Il.

Writer Todd Gitlin also “fumed” to Rolling Stone’s Dickinson against the inclusion of “US out of the Philippines!” among ANSWER’s demands at the Sept. 24 rally. Shortly after 9-11, the Pentagon dispatched hundreds of Special Forces troops to the Philippines to help oversee the counter-insurgency war on the Muslim-majority island of Mindanao. US forces in Mindanao have already engaged in direct combat with Islamic guerillas. Why is this not a legitimate issue?

Such rhetoric allows ANSWER to assume a lefter-than-thou high ground, and plays into the liberal-baiting strategy. Steve Ault recognizes this danger. “I work with communists, and I have no problem doing so,” he says. “My real problem with ANSWER is their process, or lack of it. Workers World gives communism a bad name. They use the charge of red-baiting to silence criticism in an unprincipled way. And much of the criticism against them comes from people arguably further to the left than they are.”

One person who might fall into this category is Mahmood Ketabchi, an exiled follower of the Worker Communist Party of Iran now living in New Jersey and active in support work for workers’ and women’s movements in Iraq. “ANSWER is part of a long tradition of supporting anyone who picks up a gun and shoots at an American soldier, regardless of their politics,” he says.

Ketabchi sees this as a paradoxical “nationalist leftist position that puts the US at the center of the world. That’s a bogus position. What is the Iraqi quote-unquote resistance fighting for? What kind of future do they envision? Do these groups defend women’s rights? Are they socialist? This is a position the left in Iran took 25 years ago, when we thought we could have a united front with Khomeini against the Shah. So the American left is 25 years behind us.”

Which Way Forward?

Even among activists who see ANSWER as problematic, there is little consensus on how to address the issue.

Joanne Sheehan, who chairs the New England office of War Resisters League in Norwich, CT, says “ANSWER does not foster grassroots activism. It is totally hierarchical, and I don’t think it empowers people. ANSWER is not the answer.”

Speaking on WWP’s controversial positions, she says, “They do what the Administration they criticize does—here are the ‘good guys’ and here are the ‘bad guys.’ They have this view left over from the Cold War that my-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend, and that’s a very narrow way of thinking.”

But she also feels the intrigues of national movement leadership have drained vital energies. “We put too much emphasis on these big demonstrations and not enough on grassroots strategy, which is where we should emphasize. After the big demo, there is always a sense of ‘now what?’ Do we just wait for the next big demo? I guess we have to have them to be visible, but there has to be a bigger strategy.”

Sheehan explicitly does not fault ANSWER for emphasizing issues such as Palestine and Mumia Abu-Jamal. “My criticism is not that they toss too many issues together. I think it is important to help people understand how the issues are connected. But we need to do that in our grassroots work—not from a podium.”

Ibrahim Ramey says that while “ANSWER is problematic in areas of both politics and organizing style for some organizations in the broad anti-war movement,” he still believes that “principled cooperation in a united front that understands its political differences is possible. That is my hope, that we can do that.” But he also stresses that this can only happen if there is “broad democratic debate, and I recognize that there are major obstacles.”

Steve Ault takes the hardest line on the question: “Everyone says unity, unity, unity. Sure, making the argument for not working with ANSWER is problematic. But I think they need to be exposed for what they are. There needs to be a full-blown discussion on this if we are going to build an effective movement.”
——

This story, in abridged form, first appeared in the December issue of The Nonviolent Activist, magazine of the War Resisters League.

RESOURCES:

United for Peace & Justice
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

International ANSWER
http://www.internationalanswer.org/

Troops Out Now!
http://www.troopsoutnow.org/

Workers World Party
http://www.workers.org/

Party for Socialism and Liberation
http://socialismandliberation.org/

International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/

“China’s Tiananmen Square: History Clarifies What Happened in 1989,” Workers World, June 20, 1989
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

“North Korea: Celebrations display popular unity against Bush’s threats,” Workers World, April 25, 2002
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php

Ramsey Clark quoted on the Halabja massacre, WW4 REPORT #49
http://www.ww3report.com/49.html#iraq7

“Anti-War, My Foot: The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington,” by Christopher Hitchens, Slate, Sept. 26
http://slate.msn.com/id/2126913/?nav=navoa

“Give Peace a Chance: Is the anti-war movement too fractured to be effective?” by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, October 2005
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7683877?rnd=1128836489849&has-pl
ayer=true&version=6.0.12.1059

“Our Peace Movement, Not Theirs,” by Marc Cooper, LA Weekly, Dec. 13-19, 2002
http://laweekly.com/ink/03/04/dissonance-cooper.php

“What you should know about ANSWER, the Workers World Party and the International Action Center,” an exposĂ© from Infoshop.org
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html

“The Mysterious Ramsey Clark: Stalinist Dupe or Ruling-Class Spook?” by Manny Goldstein, The Shadow, 2001
http://extra.shadowpress.org/sin001/clark.htm

“Bombs Away: Global Activists Gather in New York to Revive Nuclear Disarmament Call,” by Sarah Ferguson, WW4 REPORT, May 2005
/node/458
———————–
Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Dec. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingTHE POLITICS OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT 

EASTERN ANATOLIA: IRAQ’S NEXT DOMINO

“Greater Kurdistan” Ambitions Could Spark Regional War

by Sarkis Pogossian

It is now the Sunni insurgency in central and western Iraq that is drawing blood and media attention in Iraq, but the situation in the northern region of Iraqi Kurdistan, at present the most peaceful part of the country, is waiting to explode—and holds far greater potential to internationalize the conflict. The Kurdish people, numbering some 20 million, were left off the map when the victorious allies carved new states out of the ruins of the Turkish Ottoman Empire after World War I. They are now divided mostly between Iraq and Turkey, with smaller populations in Iran and Syria. The emergence of a highly autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq has re-ignited ambitions for a “Greater Kurdistan” which would unite Kurdish lands across the borders of these four nation-states.

Jalal Talabani and Masoud Barzani, the two long-ruling rival strongmen of the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq, have arrived at a power-sharing deal at the behest of the US occupation. With the formation of an ostensibly independent Iraqi government earlier this year, Talabani became Iraq’s president while Barzani was elected president of Kurdistan Regional Government, the newly-unified northern autonomous zone. The Kurdish militia armies controlled by these two strongmen, the peshmerga, openly collaborated with US Special Forces units in the campaign against Saddam’s regime in 2003.

Yet these two apparent clients of US imperialism appear to have forged at least a de-facto alliance with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Kurdish separatist guerilla organization which for over 20 years has been fighting for the liberation of Eastern Anatolia from the rule of Turkey. The PKK is officially recognized as a “terrorist organization” by the US State Department. The war which ensued after it took up arms in 1984, espousing a Maoist-influenced radical Kurdish nationalism, cost over 30,000 lives. The PKK was thought to be in decline since the arrest of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan (code name “Apo”), in 1999. But it now shows signs of a resurgence—and activity in Iran and Syria as well as Turkey and Iraq.

Turkey is one of the United States’ most strategic allies, a NATO member bordering both Iraq and the ex-Soviet Union. It was instrumental in policing and encircling both the Soviets and Saddam, and today protects two key pipelines which deliver the oil resources of the post-Soviet Caspian Basin and post-Saddam Iraq to global markets under Washington-led development initiatves: the Baku-Ceyhan and Kirkuk-Ceyhan lines, both terminating at the Turkish port of Ceyhan and crossing hundreds of miles of Turkish territory. This very territory is where the Turkish state is today repressing the cultural rights and national aspirations of the Kurds and other ethnic minorities, and where the declining Ottomans carried out the genocide of over 1 million Armenians in the World War I. It would be an irony of this region, Eastern Anatolia, proved the key to a wider internationalized war, as an unintended consequence of George Bush’s drive to forge a new order in the Middle East.

Turkish Hegemonism and the PKK Resurgence

One Oct. 6, the PKK announced an end to its “unilateral ceasefire” against the Turkish government. The one-month ceasefire had been extended until Oct. 3, the date Turkey started accession talks into the European Union.

“With the start of the negotiations the Kurdish problem is no longer just Turkey’s problem, it is now a basic problem of the EU,” the PKK statement said. “It is certain that the Kurdish people will use their legitimate right of active defense and democratic resistance to protect themselves and their national honor against the increasing operations of destruction by the Turkish state. The lack of any mention in the EU’s negotiation framework agreement of a solution to the Kurdish problem, or even a single word about the continuing low-intensity war, is an endorsement of the Turkish state’s policy of denial.”

Turkey’s pending entry into the EU could bring a long-simmering ethno-nationalist struggle of the Middle East to the European stage. The PKK is officially recognized as a “terrorist organization” by the EU as well as the US. In September, Germany banned the PKK’s paper, Ozgur Politika, and news agencies, which exiled supporters of the guerilla organization had long maintained there. However, the organization continues to maintain its Denmark-based radio station.

Despite the supposed prohibition on dealing with “official” terrorists, the CIA is apparently seeking contacts with the PKK. On Oct. 2, the French daily Le Monde reported that US Central Intelligence Agency officials had carried out talks with “former” PKK leader Nizamettin Tas to discuss the potential for disarmament of the organization. This certainly indicates awareness in Washington of the organization’s growing power, and the criticality of the Kurdish question for the entire region.

In a speech in the Eastern Anatolian city of Diyarbakir in August, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, “People are asking me what we are planning to do about the ‘Kurdish problem.'” His answer was “more democracy”—widely perceived as a significant overture for peace.

But local Kurds are increasingly skeptical. The Washington Post reported Oct. 7 that a newly-forming Kurdish political party, the Democratic Society Movement, “appears intent on associating itself with the PKK and its imprisoned founder, Abdullah Ocalan. The new party’s most prominent organizer, former legislator Leyla Zana, made headlines by publicly kissing the hand of Ocalan’s sister. Political professionals argue that, at the grass roots, Ocalan’s abiding potency as a symbol of resistance counts for more in Kurdish politics than the disdain he inspires even among many who wish the Kurds well.”

“There are a lot of people here who feel not only sympathy with him but blood—their brothers’, their sisters’, their sons’,” Mahmut Simsek, an aide to the mayor of Diyarbakir, told the Post. “When you talk about 35,000 dead, 30,000 of them were from the Kurdish side.”

After his 1999 capture in Nairobi by Turkish elite forces acting on a CIA tip, Ocalan was videotaped telling his captors: “I have a hunch I can be of service to the Turkish people and the Kurdish people. My mother is a Turk.” The insurgency ebbed as the PKK seemed to undergo a series of name-changes and factional splits. At the urging of the EU, Turkey began to rethink its rigid intolerance to Kurdish cultural rights. In 2002 its parliament legalized Kurdish-language education and radio broadcasts.

But human-rights groups say Turkey has a long way to go. Reports of torture continue, and have mounted since the PKK resumed armed activities this year. The guerrillas say they returned to arms out of frustration at receiving no acceptable offer of an amnesty, and at the slow and tentative pace of even limited restoration of cultural rights.

Debate on the history of the Kurdish conflict, as well as the Armenian genocide, remains harshly proscribed. On Oct. 9, EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn met with Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk at his home in Istanbul ahead of the writer’s December trial for “insulting the Turkish identity.” The 301st paragraph of the new Turkish penal code says “a person who insults Turkishness, the Republic or the Turkish parliament will be punished with imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.” A case was opened against Pamuk after he told a Swiss newspaper in February, “30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it.”

This same clause was also used earlier this year to convict an Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink, who received a six-month suspended sentence. The EU has pledged to closely watch these cases.

In September, the European Commission also condemned a Turkish court ruling that ordered the cancellation of an academic conference on the World War I-era massacres of Armenians. “We strongly deplore this new attempt to prevent Turkish society from freely discussing its history,” said EU representative Krisztina Nagy. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan also condemned the court’s decision. But Turkey’s government has fought hard to counter an international Armenian campaign to have the wave of massacres recognized as genocide. Numerous countries around the world have passed resolutions officially recognizing the Armenian genocide—although not the United States.

If the atmosphere remains this intolerant in cosmopolitan Istanbul, it is certainly worse in remote Eastern Anatolia—and the PKK clearly exploits the inevitable backlash. A five-year truce declared by the PKK after Ocalan’s capture officially ended in June 2004, and eastern Turkey has since seen a series of bombings and skirmishes. The truce came in response to Turkish commitments to respect Kurdish language and cultural rights. But there are now signs that recent progress in this area is being reversed. While Kurdish is still not allowed to be taught in state schools (even in Kurdish-majority regions), under the 2002 reform it can be taught in private schools. But in August the directors of Turkey’s eight privately-owned Kurdish-language schools announced that they were closing them due to bureaucratic hurdles, and in response to popular Kurdish demands for the language to be part of the regular curriculum at state schools in the region.

“We took this decision because of…the request for education in the mother tongue at schools,” Suleyman Yilmaz, Kurdish school director in Diyarbakir, told the Kurdish new service Dozame. He said the price of private schools, which receive no government support, put them beyond the means of most students. He also said that while it takes two or three months for most private schools to obtain government permits, it can take up to 18 months for the government to grant permits for Kurdish-language schools. As recently as 1991 it was illegal to even speak Kurdish.

In another sign of growing polarization, Ridvan Kizgin, chairman of the Human Rights Association (IHD) in the province of Bingol, was fined 1,112 lira (US$800) by the Bingol Governorship for using “Cewlik,” the Kurdish name for the province, in an official document. Kizgin had written a letter to the Bingol governor and the Interior Ministry on June 29, discussing the issue of ongoing military operations in the area. He signed it on behalf of “The IHD Bingol (Cewlik) Office.” Kizgin was charged with breaking paragraph 31 of the “Associations Law,” which mandates that all documents from official associations must be written in Turkish. Kizgin is challenging the fine before the courts.

Signs of popular unrest are growing. In May 2003, when a 6.4 earthquake centered in Bingol left thousands homeless, over 125 dead and at least a thousand more missing, hundreds of local Kurds, angered by slow and inadequate aid efforts, took to the streets, hurling stones at army troops, who fired into the air to disperse crowds. In September 2003, over 10,000 Kurds, many chanting “Peace!” rallied in Diyarbakir, urging the Turkish government to make peace with the PKK.

Armed actions are being carried out with greater frequency in both in Eastern Anatolia and western Turkey. This July, a bomb tore apart a minibus in the popular Aegean beach resort town of Kusadasi, killing at least five, although it was uncertain if this was the work of the PKK or Islamic militants. Earlier that month, a bomb hidden in a soda can wounded 21 people, including three foreign tourists, in the resort town Cesme, north of Kusadasi. In April, a bomb in a cassette player killed a police officer and wounded four other people in Kusadasi. The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons Organization claimed responsibility for those bombings, warning that it would keep up attacks against tourist areas. The Falcons were said to be a hard-line breakaway faction of the PKK.

When the new one-month PKK ceasefire ended Oct. 6, violence immediately flared again. On Oct. 9, a landmine went off on a road between between Seydibey and Akcagul in Eastern Anatolia, injuring seven passengers of a minibus.

At least 200 Turkish soldiers have been reportedly killed in clashes with the PKK this year.

Northern Iraq: “Southern Kurdistan”?

The July 14 attack in Kusadasi came one day after Erdogan asserted the right to intervene in northern Iraqi, where an estimated 4,500 PKK fighters have taken refuge.

“There are certain things that international law allows. When necessary, one can carry out cross-border operations… This can be done when the conditions require… We hope that such conditions will not emerge,” Erdogan proclaimed.

Erdogan also renewed his criticism of the US for failing to attack PKK camps in Iraq. A rewrite of an AFP account of his speech on Kurdish Media, a website maintained by independent Kurdish activists in England, tellingly refers to northern Iraq as “Southern Kurdistan.” Notes the rewrite: “Recent calls to the U.S. by Turkey to target the PKK have been ignored by Washington which has its hands full in central Iraq with an insurgency. The US is also unlikely to endanger its strong relationship with Kurds of South Kurdistan by opening a new front against hardened PKK guerrillas in a region administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government.”

The PKK is apparently building a visible presence in northern Iraq. Turkish nationalist politicians have reacted angrily to the opening of a PKK office in Kirkuk, which is said to be flying the flag of the guerilla organization. Mehmet Agar of Turkey’s True Path Party (DYP) called nearly explicitly for unilateral Turkish military intervention in Iraq in comments this summer that invoked Kemal Ataturk, father of Turkish nationalism and founder of the modern Turkish state: “In a globalized world, with an expression inspired by the great Ataturk, the field of defense has now become the entire region. No sensible person can abandon the security of the country to the fine-tuning policies of his friends.”

The PKK has reacted to this bellicose rhetoric in kind. In a June statement, the organization threatened to turn northern Iraq into a “quagmire” for the Turkish army if it launches cross-border operations to rout guerrilla camps there. “We are prepared for a possible attack… We will make it fail and turn [northern Iraq] into a quagmire for the forces that will carry it out,” said the statement, published on the Internet site of the Germany-based MHA news agency, said to be close to the guerilla movement.

Iraqi Internal Minister Bayan Jabr, on a visit to Istanbul in July, insisted that any Turkish cross-border operations would have to receive prior approval of the Iraqi Parliament. Jabr told Turkey’s NTV: “We are ready for cooperation against the Kurdish Workers’ Party or any other terrorist organization. We need to help each other on the issue. However, there is a government and parliament elected in Iraq. [Turkey] is bound to the parliament’s decision.” Jabr also noted that Kurdish peshmerga (militia) have control over the Turkish border.

Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous zone emerged in after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when the imposition of a “no-fly zone” in northern Iraq effectively ended Saddam Hussein’s ability to carry out counter-insurgency operations there. Kurdish leaders were naturally suspicious of US intentions—the White House had been openly “tilting” to Saddam when he carried out his brutal “Anfal” (plunder) offensive against the Kurds in 1988, which reached its horrific climax in the genocidal gas attack on the city of Halabja, that left 5,000 dead. But the victory over Saddam’s forces was followed by a 1994-1997 Kurdish civil war between the rival factions led by Barzani and Talabani. While Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has generally assumed a more leftist posture than Barzani’s more “traditionalist” Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the real differences are regional and ethnic. The PUK, with its capital at Sulaymaniya, is made up of speakers of the Surani dialect of Kurdish; the KDP, with its capital at Arbil, claims the loyalty of those who speak the Kurmanji dialect. The civil war was a bitter one, with Barzani even cutting a deal with Saddam at one point for a joint offensive with the Iraqi army against the PUK.

The new PUK-KDP peace and the consolidation of a unified Kurdistan Regional Government is openly seen as a step towards actual separatism. In January 2005, as Iraq’s first post-Saddam elections were held, the Kurds also held their own non-binding referendum on secession, which was approved overwhelmingly. It is only the dictates of the White House and the threat of Turkish intervention which restrain the Kurdish autonomous zone from announcing its independence. There are also open designs to annex territory to this autonomous zone.

The new Kurdish unity may presage escalated violence between Kurds and other groups in northern Iraq’s ethnic patchwork. Most pivotal are the Turkmen—who are closely related to the Turks, and whose interests Turkey claims to protect. Kirkuk, the center of northern Iraq’s oil industry, is now the center of this struggle.

Kirkuk, where the PKK has established an office, lies outside the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq, but the city’s Arab and Turkmen residents fear the Kurdish parties seek to annex it and establish it as their regional capital. Under Saddam Hussein, both Kurds and Turkmen were forced from Kirkuk, and their lands and homes redistributed to Arabs who were encouraged to settle there. Since Saddam’s fall, many Kurds and Turkmen have started to return and demand their properties back—sparking a tense three-way rivalry between the ethnic groups. In February 2004, when the Kirkuk offices of the Iraqi Turkmen Front were ransacked by a crowd of Kurds said to be led by PUK militants, the Turkmen Front demanded international peacekeepers be sent into the city. In December 2003, three were killed and dozens wounded when Kurdish gunmen—again said to be from the PUK—opened fire on a protest march of Arabs and Turkmen who chanted anti-Kurdish slogans. In August 2003, a clash between Shi’ite Turkmen and Sunni Kurds for control of a shrine at Tuz Khurmatu resulted in the shrine’s dome—recently rebuilt after having been destroyed by the Saddam regime—being destroyed anew by a rocket-propelled grenade. In subsequent days, US helicopters and armored vehicles broke up Kurd-Turkmen riots in Kirkuk, in which shooting broke out and a police station was torched.

Kirkuk had actually been taken by PUK peshmerga forces in April 2003 (presumably with the aid of US Special Forces). Kurdish Media reported that Turkmen militias in Kirkuk killed fifteen Kurds celebrating the downfall of the Saddam Husein regime April 11. Turkmen also reportedly looted Kurdish homes and shops after peshmerga forces withdrew from the city at US behest.

Many Kurds feel that protecting the Turkmen could become Turkey’s rationale for military intervention. Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote this October: “The Turkish government has bankrolled the Iraqi Turkmen Front… As Kurds, long displaced from Kirkuk migrated back to the city, the Turkish military, egged on by the Iraqi Turkmen Front, threatened violence. Many Kurds point to the July 2003 infiltration of a Turkish Special Forces team, allegedly on a mission to assassinate Kurdish politicians in Kirkuk, as a sign of malicious Turkish intentions.”

In April 2003, when US Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FLA), senior member of the House International Relations Committee and co-chair of the Caucus on US-Turkish Relations, met with leading politicians in Istanbul, MP Onur Oymen reportedly protested to him that the sign at the Iraqi border reads “Welcome to Kurdistan” rather than “Welcome to Iraq”—and demanded that US forces change it. Turkish officials also protest that Kurdish authorities in Iraq have issued their own passport stamps reading “Kurdistan.”

Iran: Kurdish Unrest and the Shadow of Mahabad

The PKK also seems to be expanding its operations into Iran, which has seen an outbreak of Kurdish unrest in recent months.

Iran’s Interior Ministry blamed the PKK for a July 26 ambush on an army patrol near the northwestern town of Oshnoviyeh, which left four soldiers dead. A civilian woman caught in the crossfire and one of the assailants were also killed, authorities said. “It was terrorists from the PKK who carried out the ambush,” a ministry spokesman said, adding that the Iranian soldiers who died were “martyred.” Local officials said the attack was carried out the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), said to be the Iranian arm of the PKK.

Tehran and Ankara are linked by an accord calling for cooperation to combat the PKK and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO), an armed Iranian opposition group based in Iraq. But Turkey has accused Iran recently of not doing enough to secure the border.

Provincial deputy governor Abbas Khorshidi said the tensions could be linked to recent events in the nearby Kurdish city of Mahabad, where a young Kurdish man was shot and killed by police in July. Subsequent clashes between residents and police left one police officer dead and resulted in dozens of arrests. “If regional security is upset and there is disorder, we will act very strongly against troublemakers,” Khorshidi warned.

Mahabad has great symbolic significance for the Kurds. Located in northwest Iran’s West Azerbaijan province, it was established in 1946 as the capital of the first and only Kurdish state in history, with Soviet encouragement. However, the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad was put down later the same year. The Mahabad Republic’s military leader was Mustafa Barzani, father of Masoud Barzani, leader of Iraq’s KDP.

The July incident in Mahabad would indeed mean “disorder.” On Aug. 3, the city exploded into rebellion, and the uprising quickly spread to other cities in the region, including Sanandaj, Sardasht, Piranshahr, Marivan, Oshnavieh, Baneh and Divan Darreh. Thousands took to the streets of Saqez, capital of Iran’s Kurdistan province.

The regime dispatched hundreds of special anti-riot units to the region. Backed by helicopter gun-ships, security forces in Saqez fired tear gas into the crowd and began shooting in the air. Young people broke in groups and engaged in hit-and-run skirmishes with the police, building street barricades and burning tires. Chanting “long live freedom,” “death to Khamenei” and “down with the mullahs,” the demonstrators hurled rocks and attacked police stations, government offices and the Revolutionary Guards headquarters, inflicting heavy damage. Several protesters were wounded and at least 30 arrested. Security forces and intelligence agents raided homes in Sanandaj and arrested at least 400.

The MKO’s exiled leader Maryam Rajavi hailed the uprising and urged residents in other areas of Iran to rise in solidarity. “The day is not far when the Iranian nation’s uprising will uproot the religious theocracy under the banner of Islam and herald democracy and popular sovereignty in Iran,” she said.

The uprising was put down within a week. Iranian press reports in the wake of the violence said that authorities had acknowledged 11 dead in the Saqez violence. Iranian authorities said the unrest was not ethnically motivated, but Kurdish leaders disagree. Authorities also said PJAK guerrillas released four police officers they were holding as hostages. But guerilla violence continued.

Turkey’s Zaman Online reported Aug. 23 that dozens of soldiers and guerillas alike had been killed in fighting in Iran in recent days. Zaman charged the US was actually encouraging PKK incursions into Iran from its bases in Iraq, pointing to a supposed PKK statement released in June that said: “As much as the US increases the conflict process against Iran, Kurds will have a much more important position and place in this fight. The US cannot win its struggle against Iran without gaining the support of the Kurds.”

Zaman also cited a quote (not given verbatim) from PJAK leader Haji Ahmadi to the Mesopotamia News Agency (MNA), the press organ of his organization, “that the US operation in Iraq plays an important role in the conflicts in Iran.”

Syria: A Classic Case of “Blowback”

Syria as well is experiencing both Kurdish unrest and signs of PKK activity. This carries a special irony for the Damascus regime, as longtime Syrian strongman Hafez Assad had been a patron of the PKK in a strategy to weaken US ally Turkey. In recent years, the Syrian authorities have clamped down on the group as relations with Turkey have improved. It was outlawed in Syria in 1998, and its leaders expelled. Cooperation with Turkey increased after Hafez Assad died in 2000 and his son Bashar Assad assumed the reins of power. But the cynical strategy of sponsoring the PKK in Turkey while crushing Kurdish ambitions at home in Syria is now resulting in a “blowback” problem for the regime.

In mid-August, just as Iranian Kurdistan was exploding into rebellion, violent clashes between Kurds and police erupted in the north Syrian town of Ein al-Arab. Cars were burned, and stones hurled at police who responded by firing tear gas and making several arrests. Reports said the violence broke out after police halted a march in support of the PKK.

Earlier in the year, the killing of Muhammad Mashouk al-Khaznawi, a Syrian Kurdish leader, provided another occasion for local unrest.

A July account of the case on the website of the Kurdistan Bloggers Union referred to northern Syria as “West Kurdistan”:

“A Kurdish Sunni Muslim cleric in Syria who was reported missing last month has died after being tortured… Sheikh Mohammed Maashuq al-Khaznawi had not been heard from since May 10 and was believed to have been detained by Syrian police. The cleric ‘was killed at the hands of Syrian authorities,’ a spokesman for the Kurdish Yakiti party said a statement received by AFP in Beirut. An official from the Kurdish Democratic Party in Syria, Nazir Mustapha, told AFP that doctors in Damascus reported ‘traces of torture’ on Khaznawi’s body. The sheikh was widely popular in Syria and Kurdistan, and was known for teaching that Islam and democracy are compatible. News of his disappearance led to massive demonstrations in Syrian Kurdistan last month. The Kurds in West-Kurdistan and Syria are fighting to have their language, culture and political rights recognised. More news will follow later. Currently the Kurds are getting his body from Damascus.”

A July 2 New York Times account took note of growing tensions in Syrian Kurdistan, and how the tactics the Assad regime has employed there mirror those of Saddam Hussein in their intent if not their brutality.

Tensions “reached new levels” in July after the body of al-Khaznawi was found halfway between Damascus and the Kurdish city of Qamishli, the Times reported. Protesters calling for an international investigation of the killing clashed with security forces, who beat women and fired at demonstrators, Kurdish politicians charged. One police officer was killed, several protesters wounded and dozens more arrested, and Kurdish businesses were looted, they said. Just after the violence, Syria’s governing Baath Party passed on calls to grant Kurds greater rights at its 10th Congress—but the meeting ended with no resolutions on the Kurdish question.

“There is a kind of anxiety and restlessness now,” the Times quoted Hassan Salih, secretary general of the Yekiti Kurdish party based in Qamishli. “We are disappointed with all the unfulfilled promises.”

Syria’s 1.5 million Kurds are the country’s largest ethnic minority, but many have been officially stateless since 1962, when a government census left out tens of thousands of Kurds. They and their children, now hundreds of thousands, were left without citizenship, denied the right to work government jobs or own property. They carry red identification cards labeled “foreigner.”

Syria’s Baath Party is using precisely the same strategy that has resulted in an explosive situation in Iraq’s Kirkuk, according to the Times account: “The government also resettled thousands of Arabs from other parts of the country into areas along the border to build a buffer with Kurdish areas in neighboring Iran, Iraq and Turkey, pitting Kurds against Arabs. A long-running drought has not helped, as many in the farming region, especially Arab sharecroppers, have seen their incomes and tolerance for one another plummet.”

A July 12 analysis of the Baath Party meeting from Lebanon’s Daily Star made clear the dilemma of the Syrian Kurds. The fact that they are disenfranchised by the Damascus regime makes them a convenient football for White House hawks. And their demands for basic political rights are all too likely to be used as a lever for ‘neoliberal’ reform: privatization, austerity and the rest. Or, if tensions finally explode in Syria’s corner of Kurdistan, for actual ‘regime change’ in Damascus. Wrote the Daily Star:

“The regime of President Bashar Assad knows that the Kurds, if they choose to collaborate with the policies of the United States, can seriously threaten the regime’s authority. Under Assad, Syria has seen the introduction of some economic reforms and a modest, though sporadic, loosening of political controls, even as genuine and broad liberalization has yet to materialize. While the Baath conference promised to resolve the issue of the stateless Kurds, estimated at 150,000-200,000 from a total Syrian Kurdish population of some 1.5 million, there remains a possibility that little real change will occur… Free from the grip of Saddam Hussein and thanks to years of self-rule and prosperity, Iraq’s Kurds have gained a new prominence. They became virtual kingmakers after the Iraqi elections in January… Meanwhile, Syrian Kurds continue to face decades-long restrictions, including on the use of their language… Syria had for some time sought to form an ‘Arab belt’ between its Kurds and those in Iraq and Turkey, mindful of the cross-border influence between the communities. However, this desire was considerably undermined by the influence of Kurds from Iraq, so the Syrian Kurds are today increasingly feeling encouraged to demand more rights… If unchecked, the developing situation regarding the Kurds has the potential to provoke a severe backlash. Will Bashar Assad’s regime be able to lower Kurdish expectations and dodge another bullet?”

In addition to the more than 150,000 officially stateless Syrian Kurds, another 75,000 or so are simply unregistered, and are known as maktoumeen, or “concealed,” having almost no civil rights. The article also noted rioting in Qamishli in March 2004 at a football match.

Radical Multiculturalism or Ethnic War?

Even as the organization expands into neighboring states, key to the PKK’s future is whether accommodations can be reached in the organization’s heartland of Eastern Anatolia.

The Economist, writing on Prime Minister Erdogan’s historic visit to Diyarbakir in its Aug. 18-25 issue, noted that he became the first Turkish leader ever to admit that Turkey had mishandled the Kurdish rebellion. Like all great nations, declared Erdogan, Turkey needed to face up to its past.

Erdogan’s visit to the largest city in the Kurdish region followed ground-breaking talks with a group of Turkish intellectuals, seen by some as mouthpieces for the outlawed PKK guerillas (“terrorist group,” said The Economist, accepting the US-EU official designation). In these talks, Erdogan pledged that, despite a renewed wave of PKK attacks, there would be no going back on his reforms. The Kurdish problem, he said, could not be solved through purely military means.

Of course, the opposition is crying treason. “This will inevitably lead to bargaining with the PKK,” fumed Deniz Baykal, leader of the Republican People’s Party. Nationalists within Erdogan’s own Justice and Development party have also responded angrily. The army has so far kept silent, even though some retired generals have called for re-imposing emergency rule in the Kurdish provinces.

Orhan Dogan, another Kurdish leader, fueled the nationalist backlash when he told a newspaper that Turkey would have to negotiate with the PKK and that the group’s imprisoned leader, Ocalan, would walk free one day.

Within hours of returning from Diyarbakir, Erdogan urged media supervisors to allow regional radio and TV stations to broadcast in Kurdish. But the Kurdish provinces remain impoverished, and hundreds of thousands remain displaced by the army’s scorched-earth campaigns against the PKK. The Turkish interior ministry revealed the same week as Erdogan’s Diyarbakir appearance that only 5,239 of a total 104,734 victims who had applied under a new law for compensation had been considered, and only 1,190 were to be paid anything. With the deadline for applications past, the program “is a complete fiasco,” declared Mesut Deger, an opposition Kurdish deputy, who is pressing for an extension.

The Economist warned that “more needs to be done if Turkey’s Kurds are not to be infected by calls for independence by Iraq’s powerful Kurds next door.” The magazine (breaking now with the State Department line) stated that “Mr Erdogan must find a way of giving an amnesty to 5,000 rebels, entrenched in the mountains of south-east Turkey and northern Iraq, that is acceptable to Turks and Kurds alike.”

On Aug. 27, days after Erdogan’s Diyarbakir speech, a clash erupted between Turkish security forces and PKK fighters in rural area of Besiri township of Batman province, leaving three PKK militants dead and another captured. Two days later, one man was killed and five officers were injured during clashes between Kurdish protesters and police in the city of Batman. The violence erupted after some 1,000 Kurds marched to demand the release of the bodies of six men accused of being guerillas killed in recent fighting.

Fighting in Eastern Anatolia this year has at times threatened to spill into Iraq. In mid-April, at least 20 PKK fighters were killed in an assualt by Turkish army troops backed up by US-made Cobra attack helicopters near the Iraq borde. Three Turkish soldiers and a village guardsman were also killed in the fighting in Siirt and Sirnak provinces. Turkish authorities said the guerillas infiltrated Turkish territory from Iraq. It was the largest battle between Turkish forces and the PKK since the five-year truce was called off the previous June.

On April 4, an AFP report on the Kurdish Media website stated that a congress of the guerilla group’s leaders, meeting in “the mountains of Kurdistan,” had officially agreed to change the name of the organization back to PKK after a period of calling themselves KADEK (Congress for Democracy and Freedom in Kurdistan) and KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan People’s Congress) following the arrest of Ocalan in 1999. The earlier name changes coincided with a retreat from a separatist position. The name change back to PKK, following the expiring of the ceasefire, appears a tilt back in a hard-line direction. April 4 was chosen for the congress because it is the birthday of Ocalan, now serving a life sentence in a top-security Turkish prison.

Official Turkish response to the PKK resurgence points to lingering official intolerance, despite Ankara’s supposed new attitude. Prime Minister Erdogan, speaking in Oslo after the April gun-battle, said: “The PKK cannot speak on behalf of the Kurds, it cannot represent them. The Kurdish problem is imaginary… Turkish citizenship is our common denominator. This is our upper identity.”

The Kurdish problem is by no means imaginary, but it is part of a larger problem of ethnic politics and local autonomy in Eastern Anatolia. The region is home not only to Kurds and Turks, but to an abundance of other smaller groups, including Armenians, Assyrians, Laz, Yazidis and Alevi Sufis (who can be either Kurdish or Turkish, but have a distinct identity by virtue of their spiritual affiliation). Recently, the Zaza (known to the Turks as the Qizilbashi), formerly assumed by ethnographers to be a Kurdish sub-group, are asserting their separate identity and demanding an autonomous homeland in the region of Dersim, to be called Zazaistan.

Many of these smaller groups are equally suspicious of the Turkish state and the PKK, which they feel are both predicated on denying their existence in order to assert the supremacy of their own ethno-nationalist vision. A Kurdish-Armenian alliance against the Ottomans briefly existed in the early days of World War I. But it ended when the Ottoman state successfully played an Islamic card to pit the Kurds against the Christian Armenians, resulting in Kurdish collaboration with the Ottoman army’s massacres. Istanbul played the Kurds and Armenians off against each other—then crushed them both. Despite this shared experience of oppression, the alliance has never been effectively rebuilt.

The stakes in Eastern Anatolia are extremely high. It is one of the most ethnically diverse regions of the world, despite the official fiction that the population is entirely “Turkish.” It borders both the Caucasus and Iraq, as well as Iran, which the US openly seeks to destabilize—and where the CIA doubtless endeavors to exploit local ethnic grievances to make trouble for Tehran. Turkish ethno-nationalist hegemony in Eastern Anatolia is building a backlash—just as a backlash against official Sunni Arab ethno-nationalism has now brought Iraq to the brink of civil war (or perhaps over it). The vying claims of Eastern Anatolia and Greater Kurdistan alike—Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian‚ Iranian, Arab—could help tilt the balance towards a devastating war that would draw in the neighboring powers and potentially engulf both the Middle East and Caucasus. Or, if the various ethnicities of this region can work out some kind of decentralized pluralistic federalism that respects cultural rights and survival for all—and take the radical demand of extending this ethic in defiance of state borders—it could provide a model of autonomous co-existence for a dangerously polarizing, highly geo-strategic part of the world.
——

RESOURCES:

PKK ends ‘unilateral’ ceasefire, Journal of Turkish Weekly, Oct. 7
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=20528

“Le Monde: CIA Contacts with PKK,” Zaman, Oct. 3
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20051004&hn=24802

“Are Turkish Kurds ready for democracy?” Washington Post, Oct. 7
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002545196_turkey07.html

“EU enlargement chief meets with Orhan Pamuk,” AP, Oct. 9
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/09/64761.html

“UN condemns Turkey’s cancellation of conference on massacre of Armenians
during Ottoman Empire,” AP, Sept. 23
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/09/23/63565.html

“Kurds dream of secession but acknowledge realities of Iraq,” Financial Times, Sept. 8, via Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)
http://www.unpo.org/news_detail.php?arg=34&par=2945

“Iraq: Democracy, Civil War, or Chaos?” by Michael Rubin, The One Republic, Oct. 30 http://www.theonerepublic.com

Previous reports from our weblog:

Turkish government threats halt conference on Armenian genocide
/node/523

Turkish intolerance fuels PKK resurgence
/node/901

Terror in Turkey
/node/787

PKK expands presence in Iraq–and Iran?
/node/900

Uprisings rock western Iran
/node/896

More Kurdish unrest in Syria, Iran
/node/950

Kurdish leader assassinated in Syria
/node/706

Syria’s Kurds: pawns or actors?
/node/782

PKK ceasefire in Turkey, new attacks in Iran
/node/990

Kurds clash with Turkish police, one dead
/node/1007

PKK resurgence in Turkish Kurdistan
/node/404

Next: Free Zazaistan?
/node/1122

Updates on Kurdish self-determination struggle:

Kurdistan Referendum Movement
http://www.kurdistanreferendum.org/

———————–

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Nov. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingEASTERN ANATOLIA: IRAQ’S NEXT DOMINO 

ALGERIA’S AMNESTY AND THE KABYLIA QUESTION

Berber Boycott in Restive Region Signals Continued Struggle

by Zighen Aym

After more 200,000 people dead, 10,000 missing and over 100,000 displaced, the North African country of Algeria held a referendum vote on a reconciliation peace plan on Sept. 29, 2005. The plan—officially dubbed the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation—was proposed by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, a political oligarch from the country’s first post-independence government. It not only grants amnesty to thousands Islamic militants but also exonerates the security forces of any of human rights abuses committed during the last fifteen years.

Although Algerian government official reports indicated that an overwhelming 97% of the voters approved the plan, many independent news sources failed to back up these numbers. Instead, they reported the trickling of voters to the polling places, contradicting the 80% participation claimed by the Interior Minister, Nourredine Zerhouni, a former ambassador to the USA.

But there is a cultural and regional dimension to the question which has generally been overlooked in media accounts—that of the Berbers, who make up some 30% of Algeria’s population. The Berbers, known to be the first inhabitants of North Africa, are ethnically and linguistically distinct from the Arab majority, and have been carrying out an intermittent civil struggle for the past generation for official recognition of their cultural rights. Their heartland in Algeria is Kabylia, a mountainous region located about 60 miles west of the capital. Its main cities are Tizi-Ouzou and Bejaia, on the Mediterranean coast. The inhabitants call themselves Kabyls, and their identity has been perceived as a threat by both sides in the civil war that tore Algeria apart in the 1990s: the military regime and the Islamist guerillas alike.

Hocine Ait-Ahmed, the leader of the Front of the Socialist Forces (FFS), a Berber-based opposition party, himself a veteran revolutionary leader from the war of independence from France, denounced the vote as a “Totalitarian Tusnami,” and criticized France for claiming the vote was democratic.

Said Saadi, the leader of the other Berber-based political party, the Rally for Democracy and Culture (RCD) called the vote a farce from the beginning to the end. He charged that the vote results were multiplied by four and that electoral fraud has been virtually continuous in Algeria since independence in 1962. He also charged that in Kabylia people from other regions were bussed in to local schools where the voting was taking place to inflate the poll return numbers from.

In total three parties—the FFS, RCD, and Movement for Society and Democracy (MSD)—called for the boycott of the referendum. They accused the president of seeking to consolidate a new dictatorship, and a future plebiscite that will allow him to modify the constitution and remain in power for a third time after 2009. As a result of the boycott, the abstentionism rate was near 90% in Kabylia. Participation levels as low as 7% in Bejaia and 9% in Tizi-Ouzou were reported in the French newspaper Liberation.

In France, where more 700,000 Algerians are eligible to vote, Khaled Sid Mohand of Free Speech Radio News reported no rush to cast ballots. He interviewed an Algerian resident who provided an explanation for the vote: “To forgive the Power in general.” The Power—le Pouvoir—is popular shorthand for the ruling political elite in Algiers, generally ensconced in the military.

The question also remains of whether the vote for the charter will protect Algeria’s rulers and generals from being judged by International Tribunal at The Hague in the years to come.

Several independent newspapers in Algeria called for public debate on the matter. In contrast, government-owned newspapers, TV stations and airwaves were in full campaign swing for the Yes vote. And so was the president’s political alliance, made up of the long-ruling National Liberation Front (FLN), the National Rally for Democracy (RND, an offshoot of the FLN which won a parliamentary majority in 1997, three months after its creation), and the Society of Peace Movement (MSP), a pro-government Islamist party.

Opposition party members and human rights groups denounced the restraints on public debate of the pending charter. The National Association of the Families of the Disappeared was not allowed to campaign against the charter in Algeria and was therefore forced to do so in France. The French paper Liberation reported that a 75 year-old man, Mouloud Arab, the father of one of the disappeared, was arrested and accused of “distributing illegal tracts” for hanging out a brochure that was critical of the charter.

Since the vote, the Algerian government has continued its intimidation and attempts to silence the families of the disappeared, who have been protesting to demand accountability since 1998. The Oran office of SOS Disparus, another advocacy group for the families of the “disappeared,” was reportedly searched Sept. 17 by three police officers who did not show a search warrant. The organization’s leader Fatima Nekrouf has been receiving threatening phone calls warning her to leave Algeria.

Confusing Voters

The vote comes six years after the Project for Civil Concord, also reported to have been approved by 98% of the voters, which gave partial amnesty to the members of armed Islamic groups. This 2005 charter seals it the amnesty definitively. In addition, under the new charter any person or group attempting to bring charges for crimes committed by either fundamentalists groups or the security forces can henceforth be accused of “threatening peace and national security.” The penalties for this crime are to be determined by legislation.

When interviewed by reporters, citizens seem to have misunderstood what they were voting for; many apparently believed they were being asked simply whether they were for or against peace. The details of the charter were generally not addressed in the public debate permitted by the government.

The charter seems to close a dark chapter of Algeria’s post-independence history. But it also asks the still-grieving families to forgive the murders of their family members, the rapes of their daughters and mothers, andthe destruction of their lives. In contrast to the situation in post-apartheid South Africa, the perpetrators have not come forward to ask for forgiveness; they remain unknown and will remain unknown. They are effectively vindicated by being granted immunity.

Critics ask what would prevent them from repeating the same actions in the future? To forgive, it is necessary to know whom you are forgiving. The referendum sought to sweep under the rug the barbaric atrocities committed against Algerian civilians over the past 15 years. Not returning bodies of the disappeared to their families does not bring their grief to an end. It just prolongs it.

Kabylia and its Challenges

Since the “Berber Spring” of 1980, the year the Amazigh (Berber) culture became a popular issue in Kabylia, several obstacles to open political life in the region have been removed. Long gone are the days when the gendarmerie—the paramiltary rural police—could enter a high school and look for Berber inscriptions inside students’ notebooks as they did in 1976 at the Technical High School of Dellys, a coastal city north of Tizi-Ouzou. Several of my follow students were arrested that day. One of them we never saw again.

Long gone are the days when people were arrested for owning Berber-language books, which were only printed at a Berber Academy in Paris. This happened to my neighbor, Ferhat S., in my village in Kabylia. He jumped from the moving military jeep, and got away. He hid for a week in a nearby orchard. His grand-father, a village elder, contacted the gendarmes and promised that his grandson would stop reading or writing in the Berber language. When Ferhat showed up a few days later, his face and arms were covered with wounds and scratches, probably by his fall from the moving jeep onto the gravel road.

The Movement for Berber Culture (MCB), which started out as an underground movement in the early 1970s, was brought into the open with the events of 1980—which began in April with widespread protests after the government prevented Mouloud Mammeri, a renowned Algerian anthropologist and writer, from travelling to Kabylia to deliver a lecture on ancient Amazigh poetry at Tizi Ouzou University. He was stopped at a roadblock and sent back to Algiers.

The political opening in Algeria in the early 1990s saw the creation of the RCD among other opposition parties. But internal divisions weakened the movement for cultural rights in Kabylia. Two RCD leaders affiliated with the Berber Cultural Movement (MCB), Ferhat M’henni and Said Saadi, proclaimed the RCD to be the sole representative of the Berber demands. This was contested by Hocine Ait Ahmed’s Front of Socialist Forces (FFS), Algeria’s oldest opposition party, which broke with the regime shortly after independence. The MCB split into two groups in 1992. The RCD sympathizers in the MCB formed a faction called the MCB-National Coordination. Those politically close to the FFS, formed the MCB-National Commissions. Four years later, Ferhat M’henni left the RCD and created his own MCB faction known as the MCB-National Rally.

Since then, Kabylia has endured series of a year-long of school boycott in 1994, in protest of the government’s refusal to recognize the Berber language, Tamazight, as one of Algeria’s official languages. In 1998 came the assassination of Lounes Matoub, the legendary Berber folksinger who had become a symbol of the cultural struggle—nobody was brought to justice for the slaying, and it remains uncertain if it was carried out by government agents or Islamist guerillas, who had kidnapped him four years earlier. Finally, April 2001 saw a sequel of the events of Berber Spring, with a wave of protests following the death of a Berber youth at the hands of the police in Tizi-Ouzou. Again, the protests were harshly put down. This time, the death toll was more than 100 dead and over 3,000 injured.

These events saw the birth of a popular movement called the Arouch—the plural of Arch, a Berber word referring to a traditional Kabyle form of village-based democratic assemblies. The revitalized movement also saw the drafting of the 15-demand El Kseur Platform. These demands included the full withdrawal of the gendarmerie from Kabylia, compensation to the victims for the behavior of the authorities during the protest marches, awarding the status of “martyr” to the victims, clarification about the crimes committed by the security forces during these events, the drawing up of a regional program for the economic and social development of Kabylia, and official recognition of the Tamazight language.

Under international pressure for the killing of unarmed demonstrators, the government requested an investigation by Mohand Issad, an Algerian Berber who is a respected expert in international law. When he handed in his report, Professor Issad found that the security forces’ version of the deaths were “not satisfactory,” and blamed the gendarmerie units for their use of excessive force against the peaceful demonstrations. No charges were brought against any member of the security forces; instead the government proposed financial indemnities to the families of victims and detainees.

Economic Difficulties and Political Games

The increase of poverty in Kabylia adds to discontent over the Algerian government’s continued refusal to deal with the Berber cultural and language demands. As a result, Kabylia seems set to remain a permanent power-keg that can be easily lit by security agents—serving the political games played the nomenclature in power in Algiers. Unfortunately, the RCD, the FFS, and the recently-created Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylia, headed by Ferhat M’henni, instead of uniting forces, seem to fall into that game.

In the past, when the FFS would participate in legislative, local or presidential elections, the RCD would boycott. And when the RCD would participate, the FFS would boycott—as if they were getting asynchronous orders from the higher-ups in the le Pouvoir in Algiers.

President Boutelfika made Tamazight a “national” language in 2002, allowing its use in media and broadcasting, but refuses to cede to demands that it become an “official” langauge, equal with Arabic, allowing its use in public education. The fifteen demands have yet to be fulfilled. The economic situation in Kabylia has deteriorated, and with the lack of employment, many young Kabyls continue to seek opportunities outside of their native region. France, Canada, and the USA became their dream destination. In France, the number of illegal young Kabyls has been estimated at 100,000. Many perceive that Kabylia is being purposely deconstructed, and its strong community ties torn by this surge in emigration.

During a visit to Algeria in the summer of 2002, I was impressed by a modest youth center that had opened a year earlier in my hometown. I visited the center the next day and found about ten children in a classroom attending a Tamazight summer class. On the second floor, I saw a rehearsal of a theater play in Tamazight. The next day, the chorus group improvised a performance and sang several songs about exile that brought tears to my eyes. When I returned two years later, the building was still there—but the center had closed. Instead, I learned that several wine and beer places had opened, and alcohol was widely available for consumption. The antagonism between the FFS and RCD had entered village life, pitting fellow villagers against each other.

Now, poverty, alcohol, and emigration all add to Kabylia’s troubles. Since the official return to democracy in 1995 after three years of direct military rule, the Algerian government has held 11 elections and plebiscites–but the same political elite centered around the military has held power for the last 40 years. The new charter reinforces this entrenched system rather than breaking it up. Despite the government’s claims, it represents progress neither for Kabylia’s special dilemmas or Algerian democracy generally.

RESOURCES:

“North African Berbers and Kabylia’s Berber Citizens’ Movement,” by Mohand
Salah Tahi, Tamazgha.fr, June 2001
http://www.tamazgha.fr/article.php3?id_article=225,

“‘The Rebel is Dead. Long Live the Martyr!’: Kabyle Mobilization and the
Assassination of LounĂšs Matoub,” by Paul A. Silverstein, Middle East
Report, Fall 1998
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer208/silver.htm

“Armed Violence and Poverty in Kabylia,” by Meredith Turshen, Centre for
International Cooperation and Security, November 2004
http://info.brad.ac.uk/acad/cics/publications/avpi/AVPI_Algeria.pdf

Algeria Watch on threats against SOS Disparus
http://www.algeria-watch.de/fr/mrv/mrvrepr/membres_sos_disparus.htm

Related story, this issue:

“Algeria: Will Referendum Wipe the Slate Clean?” by Rene Wadlow
/node/1236

From our weblog:

Al-Qaeda announces Algeria franchise
/node/520

See also our review of Zighen Aym’s book, Still Moments: A Story About Faded Dreams & Forbidden Pictures
/node/753

———————–

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Nov. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingALGERIA’S AMNESTY AND THE KABYLIA QUESTION 

CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ: ALREADY HERE?

by Bill Weinberg

The most recent attack came Sept. 30 at a vegetable market in Hilla, a Shi’ite town south of Baghdad. With a modest toll of eight dead and 41 wounded, the car bomb only rated a story at the bottom of page eight in the New York Times. The previous day’s triple truck bomb attack at Balad—again on a crowded market frequented by Shi’ites—racked up a more impressive 102 deaths, including 18 children, and at least rated a slim one column on the front page of Times. The entity calling itself “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” claimed responsibility in an Internet communique. The group’s leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has pledged “all out war” on Iraq’s Shi’ites.

This nearly metronomic ritual of serial mass murder is now hardly newsworthy. And it is but the most obvious sign of Iraq’s disintegration. US commander in Iraq Gen. George Casey told senators in Washington Sept. 30 that the new Iraqi army is in disarray, with the number of “combat effective” battalions—those that can operate without US assistance—having fallen from three to one in recent weeks. As Sunni insurgents seize control in towns along the Syrian border, Shi’ite militias increasingly control the south and even much of the capital. On Aug. 9, one such militia, the Badr Brigades, stormed Baghdad’s municipal building, ousted the mayor at gunpoint and installed one of their own, Hussein al-Tahaan, in his place. On Sept. 18, a Kurdish MP, Faris Nasir Hussein of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, was assassinated by insurgents north of the capital. That same day, 24 bodies were found in the Tigris River—the apparent fruit of a dialectic of assassination by Sunni and Shi’ite death squads. The Shi’ites themselves are violently divided. In Basra, the Badr Brigades and rival Sadr militia have been shooting it out in street skirmishes in recent weeks. In his Senate testimony, Gen. Casey retreated from his July assessment that US forces in Iraq could see “fairly substantial” reductions in 2006.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabi’s foreign minister, warned Sept. 22 that Iraq is headed towards disintegration. “There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together,” he warned reporters at the Saudi embassy in Washington. “All the dynamics are pulling the country apart.” He urged that he was trying to get this message out “to everyone who will listen” in the Bush administration. He warned that the fracturing of Iraq along religious and ethnic lines would “bring other countries in the region into the conflict.” He concluded gravely: “This is a very threatening situation.”

One who doesn’t appear worried is British left-wing journalist Robert Fisk. He wrote for The Independent Sept. 15: “There will not be a civil war in Iraq. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. In 1920, Lloyd George warned of civil war if the British Army left. Just as the Americans now threaten the Iraqis with civil war if they leave. As early as 2003, American spokesmen warned that there would be a civil war if US forces left.”

If his point is that the US has pitted Iraq’s religious and ethnic groups against each other, it’s an obvious one. If it is that the US military presence is actually playing a destabilizing role, it is an arguable one. But his opening sentence is one of simply bewildering denial.

How interesting that Fisk actually agrees with the sanguine statements of Bush. “The terrorists will fail,” Bush told a Rose Garden press conference Sept. 28. “See, the Iraqis want to be free.” He also, of course, said that “the terrorists” will “do everything in their power to try to stop the march of freedom,” which is why more troops are headed to Iraq ahead of this month’s referendum on the new constitution.

So both the anti-war left and the White House have something invested in denying the reality in Iraq. For the left, the admission of imminent civil war would be a concession to an argument for the continuing occupation. For the White House, it would be an admission of defeat and error. But nothing is to be gained by willful blindness. By any objective standard, there is already a civil war in Iraq.

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE—FOR ENTROPY

The new constitution, approved by parliament Aug. 29 despite its rejection by Sunni Arab negotiators and MPs, goes before the voters Oct. 15, and everyone is expecting an increase in violence before then. If two-thirds of the voters in any three out of 18 governorates reject the charter in the referendum, it will be defeated. The Sunni Arabs, who appear to almost universally oppose it, make up 20% of Iraq’s 27 million people, and form a majority in at least four governorates.

Behind the Sunni rejection of the constitution’s call for federalism is the question of control over Iraq’s oil wealth. It is articles 109 and 110 that address this issue directly:

Article 109: Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people in all the regions and provinces.

Article 110: 1st. The federal government will administer oil and gas extracted from current fields in cooperation with the governments of the producing regions and provinces on condition that the revenues will be distributed fairly in a manner compatible with the demographical distribution all over the country. A quota should be defined for a specified time for affected regions that were deprived in an unfair way by the former regime or later on, in a way to ensure balanced development in different parts of the country. This should be regulated by law.

2nd. The federal government and the governments of the producing regions and provinces together will draw up the necessary strategic policies to develop oil and gas wealth to bring the greatest benefit for the Iraqi people, relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment.

This seemingly innocuous language masks a nearly irreconcilable struggle. The language about correcting the discriminatory policies of “the former regime” clearly means not only that the Sunni center will lose its role as the favored region, but also that the formerly disfavored regions will receive a disproportionate share of oil revenues for a while. Corrective measures may be warranted, but this can only be seen as threatening by a Sunni Arab population already facing economic agony. And the new system could also be subject to abuses. For instance, the Kurdish north was certainly “deprived in an unfair way” under Saddam. But today it is the most prosperous part of the country—because it was effectively independent throughout the years of sanctions (while still receiving aid under the oil-for-food program), and was spared bombardment by the US. The Sunni center, meanwhile, faces 70% unemployment.

So if the constitution is blocked, Iraq will remain divided. And if it passes, the Sunni insurgency is likely to grow.

The constitutional dilemma also fuels the Sadr-Badr violence in the Shi’ite south. Militant Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr rejects the constitution, and opposes the occupation. The rival Badr Brigades are the armed wing of one of the principal groups in the current Iraq government, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and favor the constitution. Behind this split is the question of Iran’s influence in Iraq: SCIRI is backed by Tehran, while al-Sadr is a Shi’ite Arab nationalist. Al-Sadr fears that federalism could lead to a Shi’ite statelet in the south falling into Iran’s orbit.

And there is plenty of “deep politics” behind the struggle for oil wealth. Kurds and Shi’ites remember massacres and atrocities as well as discrimination at the hands of Sunni Arab-dominated regimes—most recently Saddam’s. The Sunni Arabs, in turn, recall how what is now Iraq was 1,200 years ago the seat of the most powerful Islamic Caliphate, the Abbasids—only to spend the ensuing centuries under foreign rule. As the Shi’ite Safavid dynasty in Iran vied with the Ottoman empire in Turkey, the border between the two shifted back and forth across contemporary Iraq. Ottoman rule was followed by British until independence in 1932. Today, faced with the unlikely of alliance of the pro-Iran SCIRI holding seats in the US-backed Baghdad government, many Sunnis look to the insurgents as the defenders of Arab self-rule.

A second issue is the role of Islam in the constitution. The pending document overturns Iraq’s 1959 “personal status” law which directed cases concerning divorce, custody and inheritance to secular courts. The new document assigns such cases to different shariah courts—Shi’ite or Sunni—depending on the sectarian affiliation of the litigants. This is protested most fiercely by women’s rights advocates, who note that neither version would afford much protection. This debate reveals another fault line—between secularists and fundamentalists of either the Shi’ite or Sunni variety.

Yanar Mohammed of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), which opposes both the constitution and the occupation, blames the US for acceding to this policy, and making common cause with fundamentalists. She writes: “Since the beginning of the occupation, the US administration has recognized Iraqis according to their ethnic/nationalist and religious identities. This predetermined polarization of the society around its most reactionary forces has resulted [in] a most lethal weapon, which is a government of division and inequality—a potential time-bomb for a civil war that has already started.”

THE REAL RESISTANCE?

However legitimate the fears and grievances of the Sunni Arabs, the armed insurgents are seemingly the most reactionary forces in Iraq. While they appear not to have any unified leadership, their most extreme exponent is apparently behind the serial mass murder of Shi’ites. In Qaim and other villages along the Syrian border where insurgents seized power early last month, prompting brutal US air-strikes, they declared an “Islamic kingdom.” Presumed Sunni insurgents blew up a gathering of Sufis outside Baghdad in June, killing ten. In the areas they have “liberated from occupation,” Taliban-style interpretations of shariah are being enforced.

Throughout Iraq, women who dare to walk the streets unveiled are having acid thrown at them—even in Baghdad. In Baghdad and Basra, liquor stores and beauty parlors are fire-bombed. These are certainly not icons of liberation, but neither should the penalty for owning or patronizing one be death.

For all their enmity, the Sunni and Shi’ite militants share this harsh cultural agenda. Both Sadr and Badr militiamen are enforcing shariah in the streets of Basra. In April 2004, when the Sadr militia was making headlines by fighting US forces, it wiped out a Roma (“Gypsy”) village, torching homes and forcing residents to flee. Local Shi’ite government authorities applauded the Sadr militia for “cleansing the town,” which had been a hotbed of such “un-Islamic” activities as music and dance.

While these armed insurgents are too frequently referred to as “the resistance,” they are not the only resistance in occupied Iraq. OWFI helped coordinate a campaign that led to a shariah measure being defeated in the interim constitution, and is organizing opposition to the similar measure in the new charter. The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI) opposes the constitution and the occupation, and is organizing for workers’ self-management in factories from Basra in the south to Mosul in the north. Its affiliated Union of the Unemployed in Iraq is demanding jobs and restitution for the thousands thrown out of work in the chaos since the US invasion. The Oil and Gas Workers union succeeded through work actions in getting the Halliburton subsidiary KBR kicked out of the installations of Iraq’s Southern Oil Company, where it had been granted a no-bid contract by the occupation authority.

All the leaders of these organizations are under threat of assassination by death squads linked to the regime and insurgents alike. OWFI’s Yanar Mohammed has remained in Iraq in defiance of numerous death threats.

This is the resistance that seeks a democratic, secular future for Iraq, free from either imperialist domination or rule by what they call “political Islam”—reactionary fundamentalism. They oppose sectarianism and the fragmenting of Iraq. It is axiomatic that they receive no aid from Western governments. Unfortunately, too many in the so-called “anti-war” movement in the West are cheering on their deadliest enemies.

LEFTIST DENIAL

The US group Troops Out Now comes closest to taking an open stance in support of the armed insurgents, calling in their literature for the anti-war movement to “acknowledge the absolute and unconditional right of the Iraqi people to resist the occupation of their country without passing judgement on their methods of resistance.”

Does this include truck bombs designed to kill the maximum number of Shi’ite civilians? Posing the question in terms of the abstract “right to resist” is an obfuscation. At a certain point you have to look at the question of who is actually wielding the guns and bombs, and at whom. In this case, the criminal tactics of mass murder are directly tied to the totalitarian ideology of “political Islam.” These are the very forces which seek to exterminate Iraq’s secular left, along with their perceived ethno-religious enemies.

The jihadi insurgents—presumably aided by some remnant Baathists—are aiming their guns and bombs at Shi’ite, Kurdish or secular civilians far more often than at US troops these days. Groups such as Troops Out Now are actually supporting civil war in Iraq.

These groups play a cynical numbers game in order to hide the grim reality of Iraq’s insurgents. For instance, Paul D’Amato of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), another US group supporting the insurgents, has a piece on the group’s wesbite cheering on the Iraqi “resistance” and attempting to absolve it of massively targeting civilians. The piece is favorably cited by the journal Left Hook in an article entitled “Does the Resistance Target Civilians? According to US Intel, Not Really.”

D’Amato’s piece touts the findings of Anthony Cordesman, top wonk at Washington’s elite Center for Strategic and International Studies, who assembled a report from Pentagon data, “The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at End—2004.” But the ISO picks from the data selectively to make its case. The sleight-of-hand relies on an obfuscatory distinction between “targeting” and “killing” civilians. Table 1 in the Cordesman report indicates more than 3,000 attacks in which coalition forces were the target and only 180 in which civilians were the target—but it also indicates around 2,000 civilians killed and nearly 3,500 wounded, with only around 450 coalition forces killed and 1,000 wounded in the same period. D’Amato doesn’t mention these numbers.

So the insurgents are given a pass for exactly the kind of insensitivity to “collateral damage” that we rightly decry in US military tactics. And D’Amato’s piece ran in the March-April issue of the ISO’s journal International Socialist Review—after the insurgents had adopted the tactic of mass murder of Shi’ites, something not reflected in Cordesman’s 2004 figures.

In July, the team that maintains the website Iraq Body Count made a minor media splash when they announced that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths they had arrived at through media monitoring since the US invasion had passed the 25,000 mark. This figure is now used by the anti-war movement to imply 25,000 dead at hands of US forces. (So, often, is the 100,000 figure published in the Lancet medical journal last year, based on the far less cautious findings of a team from Johns Hopkins and Columbia universities that conducted interviews with Iraqi doctors.) However, the Iraq Body Count website states that its toll “includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order…” In other words, this figure includes deaths at the hands of the insurgents.

Thirty percent of those 25,000 deaths occurred during the March-May 2003 “major combat” phase of US operations. This is not surprising, as aerial bombardment is a very effective way to kill large numbers of people, even as “collateral damage.” But since then, the majority of the deaths is attributed to criminal and insurgent violence, with the insurgents claiming an ever-growing share.

So those who cite this figure as representing directly US-inflicted casualties while simultaneously cheering on the Iraqi “resistance” engage in the most disingenuous of numbers tricks—actually attributing deaths by the forces they support to the forces they oppose.

Equally dishonest is the pretension that what is happening in Iraq is anything other than a civil war—a delusion that the anti-war left shares with its enemies in the White House. Amnesty International recently noted that the armed conflict in Colombia—which nobody hesitates to call a civil war—has claimed 70,000 lives over the past 20 years. Obviously, if the current rate of slaughter continues to obtain, the figure in Iraq 20 years hence will be around 200,000. When do we admit this is a civil war?

U.S. LEFT BETRAYS IRAQI LEFT

Behind these intellectual subterfuges is a fundamental betrayal of Iraq’s secular left by the anti-war forces in the US. Whether the US stays in Iraq or leaves, whether the current regime remains in power or is toppled by the insurgents, those fighting for women’s rights, labor rights and other basic liberties in Iraq are going to need our support. And we have a special responsibility to loan that support, as it is our government’s intervention which has plunged Iraq into civil war.

Too much of the anti-war movement seems to assume that once we achieve our aim of a US withdrawal we can wash our hands Pilate-like and walk away. Any notion that we owe Iraqis our support is dismissed with words like “patronizing” and “passing judgement”—as if it were impossible to distinguish between imperialist meddling and citizen-to-citizen solidarity.

The hard-left elements of the anti-war movement—groups like ISO and Troops Out Now—affirm the abstract right of the Iraqi people to resist the occupation, but fail to grapple with the realities of Iraq’s actually-existing armed resistance. The more moderate elements, like United for Peace and Justice, simply dodge the question entirely. They are both oblivious to an active left opposition in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the regime it protects and the jihadi and Baathist “resistance” alike. It is this besieged opposition, under threat of assassination and persecution, which is fighting to keep alive the same elementary freedoms that we fight for against the forces of authoritarianism and fundamentalism here in the US. For all the incessant factional splits in the US anti-war movement, providing this real, progressive Iraqi resistance concrete solidarity is not even on the agenda.

The foremost responsibility of the anti-war forces in the US is to loaning a voice to our natural allies in Iraq, this secular left opposition, the legitimate resistance—and this responsibility is being utterly betrayed.

It is too late to avoid civil war in Iraq. The civil war has arrived. But the question of how disastrous it will be is directly related to that of whether this civil democratic opposition is completely silenced—or crushed—by utterly ruthless armed actors. History has seen these sorts of betrayals before—for instance, in Spain in 1939. We can expect no better of Great Power politics. But what explains the willful blindness on the left?

——

RESOURCES:

Text of the pending Iraqi constitution, online at the Salt Lake Tribune website http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2 973485

Robert Fisk, “Why is it that we and America wish civil war on Iraq?” The Independent, Sept. 15 http://www.selvesandothers.org/article11523.html

Sarah Ferguson quotes Troops Out Now on the Iraqi “resistance,” Village Voice, March 17 http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0512,ferguson1,62240,5.html

Paul D’Amato, “The Shape of the Iraqi Resistance,” International Socialist Journal, March-April http://www.isreview.org/issues/40/shapeofresistance.shtml

M. Junaid Aam, “Does the Resistance Target Civilians? According to US Intel, Not Really,” Left Hook, undated http://lefthook.org/Politics/Alam041605.html

Anthony Cordesman, “The Developing Iraqi Insurgency: Status at End—2004,” Center for Strategic and International Studies
http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_deviraqinsurgency.pdf

“25,000 civilians killed since Iraq invasion, says report,” The Guardian, July 19 http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5242694-103550,00.html

Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Yanar Mohammed of OWFI on the new constitution
/node/946

“Islamic Kingdom” declared on Syrian border
/node/1062

Iraq “resistance” blows up Sufis
/node/558

Acid attacks on “immodest” women
/node/727

David Bacon, “Iraqi Unions Resist Occupation and Assassination,” WW4 REPORT #113
/node/1026

See also:

Bill Weinberg, “Iraq: Memogate and the Comforts of Vindication,” WW4 REPORT #111
/node/745

———————–

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Oct. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingCIVIL WAR IN IRAQ: ALREADY HERE? 

HOLY LAND OR LIVING HELL?

Pollution, Apartheid and Protest in Occupied Palestine

by Ethan Ganor

From the Jordan River Valley and Dead Sea Basin, through the central highlands comprising the West Bank’s populated core to the fertile western hills bordering Israel, recent reports from occupied Palestine reveal a worsening environmental crisis. A labyrinth of settlements, industrial zones, dumps, military camps, fortified roads, electrified fences and a massive concrete wall—all of it installed by Israel in the West Bank since 1967 and intensified since 2000—are draining the life from this ancient land.

Destructive actions by settlers and soldiers, waste from factories and settlements, land confiscations to expand settlements and roads, the plunder of water, the mass uprooting or burning of trees, and the snaking, sunset-eclipsing structure known to Palestinians as the “Apartheid Wall” are causing the West Bank’s once-green ecology to deteriorate. The cumulative impact on the land’s hydrology, topsoil, biodiversity, food security and natural beauty is severe. No longer recognizable as a “Holy Land” bountifully “flowing with milk and honey,” as inscribed in religious texts and memories, Palestine’s environment has become a weapon of war, deliberately designed to turn its inhabitants’ lives into a living hell.

Israel’s much-touted “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip, while proof that decolonization is possible, is also a smokescreen, distracting attention from the escalation of violence in the West Bank. Fully chronicling the current devastation in Palestine could fill several volumes; what follows is only a few snapshots.

Poisoning the Land

In late March, shepherds from Tuwani and Mufakara, Palestinian villages near Hebron in the southern West Bank, discovered strange, blue pellets littering their grazing fields. Suspecting these seeds as a possible cause of the mysterious deaths of dozens of goats and sheep during the previous week, villagers had them analyzed. The tests confirmed their hunch: The pellets were barley laced with fluoroacetamide, a rodenticide produced only in Israel and illegal in many other countries due to its acute toxicity.

Not just livestock, but also wild gazelles, migratory birds, snakes and other animals had been poisoned. Palestinian farmers were forced to quarantine their flocks and stop selling or using their milk, cheese and meat. On April 8, a new poison—pink pellets tainted by brodifacoum, another highly toxic, anti-coagulant rodenticide—was found at a hillside grazing area near Tuwani. Later that month, Amnesty International issued a press release condemning Israeli authorities for failing to clean up the toxic chemicals from affected areas and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Local Palestinians blame Israeli settlers from nearby Maon and Havat Maon, two small outposts south of Hebron, whose male members are notorious for assaulting Tuwani children as they walk past the settlements to school. Solidarity activists videotaped one Maon security official admitting that he knew that Havat Maon settlers had planted the poisons.

Despite this admission, no arrests were made, and the poisoning has spread. In mid-April, in Yasouf, a Palestinian village south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, large quantities of wheat seeds boiled in brodifacoum were found.

Industrial Pollution and Dumps

While such poisonings may seem to be isolated attacks by rogue settlers, other forms of pollution in the West Bank are systemic and permanent. The landscape is blotched with Israeli factories. Based mainly on hilltops at Israeli settlements and border-area industrial zones, the factories manufacture products ranging from aluminum, plastic and fiberglass to batteries, detergents, pesticides and military items.

Because Israel’s own, generally stringent, environmental laws regulating industrial processes and waste discharge are not enforced inside the Occupied Territories, the West Bank has become a sacrifice zone. Many of the factories have no environmental safeguards and unleash solid waste burned in open air, wastewater that flows into watersheds, or hazardous waste dumped and buried at outdoor sites. Lands near the foothills of industrial zones are especially vulnerable. One of the largest zones, Barqan, near Nablus, encompasses 80 factories and generates 810,000 cubic meters of wastewater per year. The wastewater flows into a wadi (a watercourse that is dry except during the rainy season) and pollutes the agricultural lands of three Palestinian villages.

On July 5, International Solidarity Movement activists joined Palestinians to demonstrate against Geshuri Industries, an Israeli-owned manufacturer of pesticides and fertilizers. Originally located in the town Kfar Saba, in Israel—until citizens obtained a court order shutting it down for pollution violations—Geshuri moved to its current site at the edge of the Palestinian town Tulkarem in 1987. Pollution from the plant has damaged citrus trees, tarnished soil and groundwater, provoked respiratory ailments among neighboring residents, and contributed to Tulkarem having Palestine’s highest cancer rates. This Spring, a new wall (which annexed vast swaths of agricultural land) was constructed around the complex. Wearing blue surgical masks to avoid inhaling factory fumes, the protesters held signs and painted messages on the wall: “Remove the death factory,” “Get your poison away from our children” and “This is terror!”

Illegal dumps are another chronic problem. On April 11, more than 200 people from Anarchists Against the Wall, Green Action Israel and the Palestinian village of Deir Sharaf blocked Israeli garbage trucks from transporting trash onto the grounds of Abu Shusha, the West Bank’s largest quarry. In 2002, during its “Operation Defensive Shield” invasion, the Israeli army seized this site from its Palestinian owners. Since then, thousands of tons of waste have been moved covertly into the quarry, which is in close proximity to four wells and only 250 yards from the aquifer that provides Nablus with its drinking water.

An investigation by the Palestinian Hydrology Group confirmed that runoff from the dump “has killed medicinal and wild plants in the valley. It has affected the biodiversity and aesthetics of the area. Most importantly, the land is no longer fit to grow olive trees.”

After three years of silence, international outrage finally erupted in early April, when Israeli journalists exposed the scheme. With tacit government approval but no official permit, settlers were churning profits from the dump by selling their trash-transport services to Israeli cities. Environmental justice scored a rare victory in July, when an Israeli court passed an injunction shutting down the dump. Yet the reservoir of refuse remains, and dozens of other dumps throughout the West Bank remain in operation. Nor has a factory above the quarry been shut down, and it continues to pump streams of foul-smelling black sludge into the olive groves below.

Sustainable Apartheid?

While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s right-wing government and extremist Israeli settlers are the immediate agents of this ecocide, a global system that benefits from and sustains the Occupation is also culpable. The US supplies the military firepower and diplomatic muscle that makes it possible; Caterpillar provides bulldozers that raze homes, trees and fields to build the wall; and financial institutions like the World Bank bestow essential economic lubricants.

In 2004, the World Bank published two reports outlining a sick version of “sustainable development” for Palestine, which accepts the reality of the wall rather than its illegality. As the wall carves its path through the West Bank, isolating communities and annexing cropland, the livelihood of tens of thousands of Palestinian families is destroyed and unemployment becomes endemic. In line with Israeli objectives, the World Bank proposes to solve this artificial problem by establishing new “industrial estates” alongside the wall, where cheap Palestinian labor, working for one-fourth Israel’s minimum wage, will be exploited to produce goods for export into the globalized economy.

Already, one such estate is under construction in Tulkarem, on Palestinian land that has been annexed behind the wall. In addition, the World Bank has helped Israel raise funds to create a more “secure,” “efficient” and “growth-orientated” apartheid: upgraded, high-tech checkpoints and prison gates, “smart fences,” watchtowers, border crossings with radioactive “naked spy” machines that look through people’s clothing, and underground tunnels to facilitate full Israeli control over Palestinian travel and a continuing monopoly on the land’s natural resources. Under the apartheid regime, travel between any of the West Bank’s eight population districts—Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilia, Tulkarem, Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron—is barred without special permission, and Jerusalem is completely cut off by the wall. Rather than end this matrix of segregation and dispossession, the World Bank wants Israel to “ease internal closures and restore the predictable flow of goods across borders.”

This normalization of apartheid not only shreds the basic human rights of Palestinians by confining them to ghettos and sweatshops, it also perpetuates the ecological devastation of the land. True sustainability can be based only upon the July 9, 2004, decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requiring Israel to tear down the wall. The decision mandates the international community “not to recognize the illegal situation created by the construction of the wall, and not to render any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by it.”

Grassroots Resistance to the Wall

With international powers unwilling to enforce the ICJ ruling and the United Nations resolutions calling for an end to occupation, Palestinian communities are mobilizing to defend their lands from annexation and destruction. Since September 2002, when Israel began building the wall’s first ring to enclose the then-wealthy agricultural town of Qalqilya, the Palestinian Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations Network has coordinated the Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (AAWC). AAWC is rooted in nonviolent direct action, organized by Popular Committees Against the Wall in dozens of communities that are directly threatened by the wall’s path.

Budrus is a small village of 1,300 people, located 20 miles west of Ramallah, where two years of fierce resistance have yielded the first case of a community successfully blocking erection of the wall on its land. Mass rallies united the whole town, as everyone from toddlers to elders converged in targeted fields and olive groves, swarming construction crews with peaceful discipline and raising enough ruckus to prompt Israel’s Supreme Court to alter the wall’s route. In March, after Israeli forces stormed a local wedding, opened fire and arrested a teenager, villagers spontaneously tore down 1,000 feet of a barbed-wire fence erected in lieu of the wall. Yet the cost has been high: six village residents have been killed and hundreds wounded by army retaliation against the nonviolent struggle.

Current resistance is most active in Bil’in, a village of 1,600 also near Ramallah, where almost-daily demonstrations since February have opposed Israeli plans to annex 60% of the community’s 1,000 acres via the wall. With support from international and Israeli solidarity activists, villagers have been employing Earth First!-style tactics. On May 4, protesters chained themselves to olive trees to obstruct the razing of an orchard situated in the wall’s path. On June 1, they locked themselves into a mock wall in front of bulldozers, forcing soldiers to symbolically dismantle the wall before they could remove the activists. These actions and other creative visual stunts have generated extensive media attention but also prompted a brutal military crackdown. Tear gas, rubber-coated metal bullets, shock grenades and a new device called “the Scream”—a huge loudspeaker that emits painful sound waves—are commonly used to disperse the demonstrators, who have not yet halted the wall’s construction.

About one-third of the planned 420-mile wall is finished; 80% of it penetrates into the West Bank. Construction is occurring now in the Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron regions, as well as around the Ariel bloc of settlements deep inside the northern West Bank. If completed there and along the Jordan Valley, the wall stands to annex around 46% of the West Bank. More than 400,000 olive trees, which comprise 40% of Palestine’s cultivated land and are the staple crop of rural communities, are estimated to have been uprooted during the last five years.

This Fall promises to be another season of intense grassroots resistance. Palestine’s annual olive harvest peaks in October and November, and international activists will once again be present to challenge Israeli settler and army actions that deny Palestinians access to their land and the right to harvest their crops.

——

Ethan Ganor is an anti-Zionist, eco-anarchist Jew, a graduate from the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Israel and the founder of the Trees Not Walls Network. He owes a debt to forests for providing refuge to his grandfather for two years in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust. Contact him at: treesnotwalls@riseup.net

This story originally appeared in the Mabon (September) issue of Earth First! Journal http://earthfirstjournal.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=11

RESOURCES:

International Solidarity Movement
http://www.palsolidarity.org

Stop the Wall
http://www.stopthewall.org

See also our previous coverage of Tulkarem (Tul Karm)

WW4 REPORT #80: http://www.ww3report.com/80.html#palestine1
WW4 REPORT #73: /73.html#palestine3
WW4 REPORT #51: http://ww3report.com/51.html#palestine3

Our last report on Bi’lin:
/node/1060

And on Tuwani (Twane):
http://www.ww3report.com/cave.html

Our coverage of the World Court decision against the Apartheid Wall:
http://ww3report.com/hague.html

——————–

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Oct. 1, 2005
Note: Reprinting of this story by permission of original source only

Continue ReadingHOLY LAND OR LIVING HELL? 

PERU’S CAMISEA GAS PROJECT: ONE YEAR LATER

Indigenous, Campesinos and Civil Society Stand Up to Pipeline Politics

by Yeidy Rosa

The Camisea gas extraction and pipeline project—extolled by the government of Peru, the companies building it, and the banks financing it, as an important contribution to Peru’s economic development, creating jobs and significantly increasing the country’s standard of living—is starting to appear more like the social and ecological disaster that civil society and environmental groups had warned of. And this after only one year of operations.

On Sept. 17, massive ruptures along the Camisea pipeline caused the evacuation of the Andean town of Toccate in Ayacucho region, reported the Lima daily El Comercio. Three hundred cubic meters, or 4,000 barrels, of natural gas liquids spilled into the soil and water of Toccate—an area considered to be one of three where the year-old pipeline is in danger of collapsing. It was the second spill near Toccate, in Ayacucho’s La Mar province, in two weeks. Omar Quezada, regional president of Ayacucho, told Reuters on Sept. 23 that Ayacucho would in fact seek legal action, on both penal and civil counts, to ensure reparations for the environmental and health hazards inflicted upon the residents of the region by the construction and operation of the project.

This has been the third Camisea gas spill since December 2004 along the pipeline, operated for an international consortium by Transportadora de Gas del Peru (TGP), in turn controlled by Techint of Argentina. On December 22, 2004, a major spill at kilometer eight of the Camisea pipeline leaked liquid natural gas into Kemariato Ravine, near the gasfields in the Peruvian Amazon.

Toccate is also the site where, in June 2003, 71 employees of the Techint Group were kidnapped by a group of armed individuals who President Alejandro Toledo termed as “remnants” of Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), reported the BBC on June 11, 2003. Peru’s La Republica reported on June 16, 2003, that ex-hostages indicated that the kidnappers called themselves “Nuevo Sendero,” a group fighting for social justice. The group’s demands included food, antibiotics, and that jobs are given to local residents rather than Argentines, with equal pay and benefits as foreign workers. John Ferriter, a spokesperson from the office of external relations of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the project’s main financer, states: “We are concerned about the spill and are closely monitoring the situation and are awaiting a full report from company and Peruvian authorities. We are confident the necessary measures will be taken to enhance pipeline security and safety and will work with the company and the Peruvian authorities to assist in carrying out such measures. The primary responsibility for pipeline security, as with construction of the pipeline, rests with the project company, Transportada de Gas del PerĂș (TGP). However, the IDB is committed to monitoring and evaluation as well as providing assistance in all aspects of the project.”

Nadia Martinez from the Institute of Policy Studies takes a harsher view: “The spills that have occurred demonstrate the lack of planning and attention dedicated by the operating companies in order to minimize the impacts of the project. It is not surprising that after so many problems in the stages of construction with erosion and other technical problems, that the companies are not prepared to handle this kind of disaster.” Martinez, who works with Peruvian civil society groups monitoring the Camisea project, charges that a worker was killed in the December 2004 blast on the pipeline—a fact which has never been officially acknowledged.

The Camisea Gas Project was heralded under the official slogan “Something Good is Arriving” in the summer 2004, as gas from the Camisea Basin in the Peruvian Amazon began to arrive at the Pacific coast near Lima via parallel trans-Andean pipelines. The IADB’s abstract on the (to date) $2.7 billion project hails it as in the host country’s “national interest,” saying it is “expected to greatly contribute to the economic development of Peru.” The Peruvian government says it will add a projected 0.8% to the county’s GDP growth for each year of the 33-year concession. Moreover, the pipeline is predicted to save Peru $4 billion in energy costs over the life of the project, and to earn it billions more in export earnings.

Yet, an independent monitoring report—drawn up by the local Machiguenga Council of the Urubamba River (COMARU) with Amazon Watch and the Amazon Alliance—describes the project as being “the most damaging project in the Amazon Basin,” representing a “considerable threat to the environment, rights, and health of several indigenous peoples in the location of the gas wells and along the pipeline route.”

One year after going on-line, Camisea gas reaches only 41 businesses and 600 homes in Lima, a city of over 8 million. The project continues to be cited as the cause of irreversible destruction to some of the world’s most diverse and threatened ecosystems. Reports continue of violations to the internationally-recognized rights of indigenous groups living in voluntary isolation in the rainforest near the Camisea gas field. Concerns are also raised about the health and safety of all communities located along the 800-kilometer pipeline route.

Anatomy of the Consortia

On September 19, while attending the UN World Summit in New York, President Alejandro Toledo, Peru’s first native Qechua-speaking national leader, said in an interview with Reuters that the Camisea Basin has much more than the 40-year reserves accessible today. In the 1980s, oil companies such as the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and the Mobil Corporation established a presence in the Camisea Basin, located in the Lower Urubamba River Valley of eastern Peru. These companies abandoned plans for major development in Camisea after the government of Peru rejected Shell and Mobil’s demand for a distribution monopoly and the right to set prices, as reported by the New York Times on July 17, 1998.

Current extraction wells, providing access to an estimated 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 600 million barrels of liquid petroleum gas, are located in the area known as Block 88—two thirds of which is located within the Nahua-Kugapakori Reserve for Indigenous Peoples. Home to at least four distinct indigenous groups (the Nahua/Yora, Nanti, Kugapakori, and the Machiguenga/Kirineri), this reserve is one of five created in 1990 to safeguard the rights of indigenous groups living in voluntary isolations or in initial stages of contact with national society.

The Camisea Gas Project consists of three components: the exploration and extraction of the non-renewable resource at four drilling platforms in the Urubamba Valley (the “Upstream Project”), two pipelines to transport the gas from the Urubamba Valley to the coast of Peru (the “Downstream Project”), and two processing and distribution systems on the coast near Lima (the “Distribution Project”). One of these coastal facilities, a gas processing plant, is being built within the buffer zone of the National Reserve of Paracas, a marine refuge of international significance recognized by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 1971, ratified by Peru in 1992, which states: “Under the Convention there is a general obligation for the Contracting Parties to include wetland conservation considerations in their national land-use planning.”

Ownership the Camisea Project, awarded in 2000, is shared by two overlapping consortia, one for gas production and another for gas transportation and distribution. The Upstream Consortium is formed by Texas-based Hunt Oil, Pluspetrol (Argentina), SK Corporation (South Korea), and Tecpetro, owned by Techint Argentina.

The Downstream Project is formed by Texas-based Hunt Oil (22.2%), Tecgas N.V. (Argentina, 23.4%), Pluspetrol (Argentina, 22.2%), SK Corporation (South Korea, 11.1%), Sonatrach (Algeria, 11.1%), Tractebel (Argentina, 8%), and Graña y Montero, the sole Peruvian company, with 2% of the ultimate ownership. The Distribution Project was assigned to Tractabel (Argentina) by Transportadora de Gas del PerĂș (TGP). Construction of the Paracas gas processing plant is contracted to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ray Hunt, chief executive officer of Hunt Oil, sits on the board of Halliburton and has been a major donor to the Bush campaign.

While the government of Peru has repeatedly pointed out the benefits of Camisea gas being used in Peruvian homes and businesses, the focus of project proposals is in making Peru a net exporter of gas—with plans to sell gas to Mexico, Chile, Argentina and the West Coast of the United States as soon as 2007. President Toledo has stated that Camisea gas will unify South America, yet Amazon Watch reports that half of all Camisea gas is intended to be exported to the western United States by 2009. When asked about the planned Camisea gas exports, President Toledo told the Miami Herald on July 12: “Let the free market operate.”

Initially intended to be mainly financed by loans from the Inter-American Development Bank and the US Export-Import Bank—both tax-payer backed institutions—the latter rejected a request for a $214 million loan for the Camisea consortium, citing environmental concerns. The IADB—in which the US government holds 30% of the voting power—delayed consideration of the project on two occasions due to outstanding concerns and pressure from lawmakers in Congress, environmental and human rights groups. Of main concern was the bank’s violation of its own environmental and social standards, which the Bush administration had played a key role in tightening. A likely reason for the Bush administration’s interest in tightening environmental standards is that it allows President Bush to negotiate an agreement requiring countries to offer greater market access if a violation occurs. Monetarily fining violators also benefits the US, as trade is not disrupted as with sanctions.

In September 2003, the US abstained in a vote on the project, and a $135 million loan was approved. Had the US voted a clear “no,” other member countries may have been swayed to oppose the loan as well. Critics consider the approval of the loan a breach of both modern industry standards and international environmental guidelines.

It is interesting to note that the World Bank and the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) kept their distance from the Camisea Project due to its failure to meet international social and environmental protection measures, citing the consortium companies’ inexperience and poor records. Other banks involved in the financing of the project include SACE (Italy, $20 million), the Andean Development Corporation ($50 million), Ducroire (Belgium, $170 million investment insurance), and BNDES (Brazil) and BICE (Argentina) with a combined $125 million. Citigroup serves as the consortium’s financial advisor.

Ethnocidal Impacts

The recent spill in Toccate is only the most recent of disasters caused by the oil and gas companies involved in the Camisea Basin. In the 1980s, the presence of the Shell Group directly contributed to the death of over half of the Yora/Nahua indigenous population living in voluntary isolation. The isolated Nahua had no immune defenses to common sicknesses such as the flu, gastro-intestinal and respiratory illnesses brought to the area by Shell employees and the loggers and missionaries that used Shell access roads to gain entry into the area. Today, illnesses within isolated indigenous groups are on the rise along the Rio Urubamba, as are reports of forced contact by the Camisea companies’ workers. The project also threatens the livelihood of indigenous peoples through water contamination, deforestation and erosion.

There are some 30 voluntarily isolated peoples in the Peruvian Amazon, exercising their internationally-recognized right to choose the moment and manner in which they make contact with national society. From the initial stages of the Camisea Project, this right has been violated. Amazon Alliance, an NGO focusing on the indigenous and traditional peoples of the Amazon Basin, reports that other subcontractors have left items such as machetes, clothing, knives, and mattresses along seismic lines; items which carry a potentially catastrophic disease threat. There have also been reports that TGP has allowed their helicopters to be used by missionaries in order to force contact with voluntarily isolated groups for religious purposes. These abuses are outlined in an August 2003 statement against the project by the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP).

The Bank Information Center has records of forced contact by Camisea member companies dating back to August 2002, when Pluspetrol anthropologist Jose Luis Cabral openly admitted that groups of Pluspetrol representatives, accompanied by a Machiguenga guide, approached isolated groups by announcing their presence through a loud speaker. A separate incident, reported by anthropologist Kacper Swierk in July 2002, involved forced contact with a settlement of Shiateni by Pluspetrol personnel. The group was reportedly forced to leave their homes, threatened with arrest by the army as “terrorists,” and told that disease would kill them if they did not abandon the area. Workers from the subcontracted Canadian company Veritas forced contact with an isolated Kirineri settlement, telling the settlers to relocate in order for seismic testing to take place. Though a Peruvian government agency for indigenous peoples, the National Commission of Andean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Peoples (CONAPA), was created in 2001 to address such issues, it has yet to develop and implement a plan to protect isolated indigenous peoples from contact. Instead, it provides guidelines for company workers as to what to say and do in the event of contact.

The issue of forced contact is particularly worrisome, considering the flawed compensation negotiations which have taken advantage of the lack of community experience in calculating monetary value in regards to their land and natural resources. Coupled with weak government oversight, the companies have taken to causing damages beyond the scope of agreements and then returning to the unprepared community to negotiate minimal compensation. In a summary of findings from June 2003 Investigative Mission to Indigenous Communities Affected by the Camisea Project, it is reported that in the village of ShimĂĄa, consortium companies led the community to believe that outstanding compensation agreements will not be fulfilled unless the community agrees to additional construction.

The Washington Post website featured the Machiguenga community living in the village of ShimĂĄa in a video documenting a landslide caused by the pipeline, as well as resulting erosion, water contamination, and the effects of construction noise on the group’s hunting, on August 19, 2003.

Irreparable impacts resulting from massive landslides and soil erosion caused by the pipelines’ steep route are directly linked to the health and safety of the local population. As heavy rains wash thousands of tons of soil and vegetation into local rivers, groups find themselves without the fish and clean water their survival depends on. Noise and pollution from river and air traffic has scared away game for groups that depend on hunting. Deficient local diets due to such severe declines pose immediate health dangers, while the erosion of traditional subsistence practices could have long-term effects on the cultural identity of the group. All of the above violate the minimum standards on the rights of indigenous peoples as set in the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169, ratified by Peru in 1993, particularly the right of prior consultation regarding any project on indigenous territories.

Also feared are waves of loggers and developers in the wake of the oil companies–the usual pattern–causing further deforestation, environmental degradation, social pressures, and resource conflicts.

Civil Society and Camisea

The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP), Peru’s main advocacy group for the region’s indigenous peoples, demands complete abandonment of the project and immediate withdrawal from indigenous lands. However, many of the Peru’s civil society bodies have expressed a commitment to the development of the Camisea Project within the parameters of social and environmental safeguards.

Mobilization around the issue of the Camisea Project by Peruvian civil society, environmental, and indigenous groups has been the largest the country has ever seen. Over twenty organizations have united to demand full participation in the negotiations regarding the project. The Peruvian constitution states that all natural resources belong to all Peruvians, and any private party that exploits them must pay a “gas canon fee” equaling 50% of the total income that the state earns through taxes and royalties for the use of any resource. This distribution is one of the rights demanded by civil society groups, in a “Positions and Recommendations” document submitted to the IADB in July 2003. Other demands include continuous monitoring of the consortia, independent health and environmental monitoring, and relocation of the plant near the Paracas Marine Reserve. They also demand that the rights of the indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation are guaranteed, that no right-of-way routes be constructed, that the project be transparent, that affected communities have a say throughout the life of the project, and that a Camisea Project Ombudsman serve the communities throughout the life of the project.

The government of Peru, however, passed law #28455, which allocates 40% of the royalties from the project into a special fund to buy arms for the military and national police force. Moreover, no fund has been created to mitigate the impacts of the project on the communities and ecosystems affected. Regarding this law, Nadia Martinez states that, “It is truly unthinkable that funds that should be used for the ‘development’ of the country, especially for the development of the affected communities on the local level, be used to buy arms and maintain armed forces. The conditions that the IADB demanded included a development fund that would utilize 7% of the profits. As far as I know, this requirement has not been fulfilled. Yet 40% has been allocated for arms without consequence.”

While the IADB has agreed to a series of public meetings with civil society and non-governmental organizations, community members have complained that these do not represent a real exchange, but rather presentations of the consortiums’ plans and visions. The affected groups have gone as far as to boycott the meetings, stating that they are un-transparent, undemocratic, and that they are not allowed time to speak.

At a meeting in Lima regarding an expansion of the project into Blocks 56 and 76, referred to as Camisea II, community members stated that they were not presented the details of the project in a comprehensible form, and that the communities were given only one month to read the 4,000-page document and prepare their comments.

Such unfair negotiations have marked the project since its inception, critics charge. The Nahua, in a rare communication with national society, sent an advocate to publicly voice their rejection of such an expansion.

Asked via e-mail if the recent spills would affect their decision on financing an expansion of the Camisea Project, Ferriter of the Inter-American Development Bank states: “Involvement of the IDB in any future expansion of the project will depend on a number of complex factors, among them the environmental and social issues.”

Asked what impact the mishaps will have on expansion of the project, Nadia Martinez of the Institute for Public Policy says: “I would say that surely it will delay it for a bit, but it will not stop it. In December there was an explosion that left one dead, and just days later the IADB disbursed the loan to the consortium, which goes to show that this kind of disaster is considered part of the expected impacts and is not taken seriously enough for there to be serious consequences for the operating companies or the government.”

Asked if the Camisea Project could be carried out from this point forward in a socially and environmentally responsible way, Martinez answers: “It is too late. The damage is done… The IADB claims to be concerned about the poor in Latin America, yet they support devastating projects like Camisea that benefit primarily foreign oil companies and a few elites in the Peruvian government.”

Martinez says the next challenge facing the IADB will be whether to fund the expansion of the project. “If the IADB has learned anything from the disastrous Camisea experience, they will not go near the expansion project known as Camisea II. But if they do, we’ll be there to make sure they remember all they did wrong in the first one.”

——

RESOURCES:

For an extensive list of resources in English and Spanish regarding the Camisea Gas Project, including articles, contacts, official documents, civil society analysis and meeting minutes, and useful websites, please visit The Bank Information Center at:

http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/camisea_natural_gas_project_peru/index.php

Amazon Alliance summary of independent monitoring report “Summary of Findings from June 2003 Investigative Mission to Upper and Lower Urubamba River Valley, Peru”
http://www.amazonalliance.org/camisea.html

Amazon Watch, “Peru: Camisea Natural Gas Project”
http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/PE/camisea/

Declaration of Indigenous Peoples in Defense of Life, Territory and the Environment, AIDESEP, Lima, Aug. 25, 2003 http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/AIDESEP_camisea_statement_25.08.03.pdf

Proyecto Camisea
http://www.camisea.com.pe/project.asp

IADB Sector Department page on the Camisea Project http://www.iadb.org/pri/english/dbase/projectSummary.cfm?ProjectNumber=PE0222

ECA Watch: International NGO Campaign on Export Credit Agencies http://www.eca-watch.org/problems/americas/peru/2001_01_25_sace.html

Halliburton Watch on Hunt Oil
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/board_political_donations.html

Washington Post, Aug. 19, 2003, “Pipeline Problems: Shimaa, Peru” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/photo/081903-1v.htm

BBC, Aug. 10, 2004, “Peru prepares for the gas age”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3543060.stm

See also our last report on the Camisea Project:
/peru2.html

——————–

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Oct. 1, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingPERU’S CAMISEA GAS PROJECT: ONE YEAR LATER