Sunday, May 31, 2009

KISSINGER'S CRIMES


At the end of every conflict the crimes of the defeated are prosecuted and the victors are absolved of their crimes. Those charged with prosecuting German and Japanese war criminals at the end of World War II sought to depart from that principle. What they got was a refined version of victor's justice, but while their fervent advocacy for a universal standard of justice never fully materialized, it did cause some notable embarrassments. There is no other way to describe the effect of the comments of American Gen. Telford Taylor, the U.S. chief of counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, to the American government. "To punish the foe — especially the vanquished foe — for conduct in which the enforcing nation has engaged," Gen. Taylor wrote in his 1971 book Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy "would be so grossly inequitable as to discredit the laws," before noting that if the standards used at the Nuremberg and Manila trials were in operation there was a strong chance that many senior American officials would face execution.

Included in this group is perhaps the world's greatest living criminal, a man whose crimes dwarf the combined offenses of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, al-Quadea leader Osama bin Laden, and Congolese warlord Laruent Nkunda, a man who enjoys a comfortable life in the U.S as a respected elder statesmen; Henry Kissinger. It is likely that Kissinger will never face trial for his crimes, that unlike the NAZI war criminals who continue to be vigorously pursued, Kissinger will continue to enjoy the impunity of rank. But calling for his trial is still important, producing an indictment of the principles that drove Kissinger, and continue to drive U.S policy, is easier and ultimately more important than producing a legal indictment of the man who was instrument of those principles.

Kissinger is a follower of Realpolitik, the belief that a person, or nation, should advance their own influence without regard to the effects on others. When John Steinbeck created such a character in his novel East of Eden critics of literature complained she was too evil to be realistic, when Henry Kissinger came into office defenders of human rights mourned just how realistic she had become.

Actually, Kissinger's first major crime predates his coming to office, in many ways it created an office for him to come into. While still a professor in the 1960's Kissinger became an influential consultant to the government. U.S ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge invited brought Kissinger to the nation several times as an adviser, but Kissinger had greater ambitions than being a foreign policy consultant. During the election of 1968 he joined on the Nixon campaign while simultaneously participating in the Paris peace talks on which Vice President Hubert Humphrey built his Presidential campaign. Kissinger, who was poised to take a high powered job if Nixon won the election, instructed the generals who ran South-Vietnam they would receive a better deal if the Republicans won the election. As a result the peace initiative, which almost succeeded in ending the conflict, fell apart when the South-Vietnamese began a boycott of the talks on the eve of the election. Nixon became President, Kissinger became National Security Adviser, and millions of people in southeast Asia died as a result. Treason was Kissinger's first crime.

Once in office Kissinger escalated the destruction of southeast Asia that he had earlier helped to prolong. In 1969 Kissinger transmitted an order from President Nixon to bomb Cambodia. "It's an order," he instructed military assistant Andrew Haig, "it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves." In the ensuing bombing campaign millions of Cambodian civilians were killed.

In 1971 West Pakistan launched Operation Searchlight, an extermination campaign in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) prompting Bangladesh to declare its independence with the assistance of India. In the war and accompanying genocide Kissinger and President Nixon provided Pakistan with political and diplomatic support. Kissinger recalled the senior American diplomat in Bangladesh, Consul General Archer Blood, after Blood accused Kissinger of supporting genocide and opposing democracy in a confidential State Department Telegram.

The same year that the Bangladesh Liberation War began Chile elected Salvador Allende to the Presidency. Kissinger had opposed the election of Allende, but when he failed in his attempts at subverting Chilean democracy he began plotting the overthrow of the new government. This began with the removal of senior Chilean military commanders who Kissinger believed would defend the elected government in the event of a coup. After two commanders of the armed forces had been removed, one by assassination, General Augusto Pinochet assumed the command of the military. On Sept. 11, 1973 he launched fascist coup in which Allende was killed. Pinochet reigned until 1990 with the staunch support of the U.S. His regime came to power because of Kissinger and it enjoyed the support of Kissinger in spite of its horrific human rights record. Almost all of Latin American was ruled at this time by right wing military dictatorships, and all of those regimes enjoyed the staunch and uncritical support of Kissinger, who offered military and political assistance to his Latin American proteges.

On December 7, 1979 another of Kissinger's proteges, Indonesian dictator Suharto, launched an invasion and genocide against former Portuguese colony East Timor. The invasion began hours after Kissinger and President Ford left Jakarta from a meeting with Suharto where they authorized him to attack East Timor. The CIA's ranking operation officer in Jakarta at the time, C Philip Liechty, reported:
"Suharto was given the green light by President Ford and Kissinger. There was discussion. . .about the problems that would be created for us if the public and Congress become aware of the level and type of military assistance. . .The decision was taken to get the stuff on the high seas before someone pulled the chain. Most of it went straight into East Timor and was used against non-combatants... 200,000 people died."

In Iraq Kissinger encouraged an uprising by the Kurds, sending them $16 million of military aid. Believing they finally had the support of the U.S in their quest for an independent state the Kurds revolted, but they were little more than a pawn in a U.S-Iranian move to improve relations with Iraq. When Kissinger's Iranian protege, the Shah, suggested that a Kurdish uprising would be a good negotiating chip with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Kissinger jumped at the opportunity. A later Congressional Inquiry into the affair, the Pike Report, found "that the US acted only as a guarantor that the insurgents would not be abandoned by the Shah," however Kissinger was as ready to betray the Kurds as the Shah was. On the same day the U.S, Iraq, and Iran concluded an arrangement ending disputes the U.S revoked its support for the Kurds, leaving them defenseless against attack by the Iraqi leader. The Kurdish leader pleader for Kissinger's assistance against the Iraqi operation, but Kissinger did not even respond because as the Pike Report state "[n]either the foreign head of state nor the president and Dr. Kissinger desired victory for our clients," the Kurds were nothing more than pawns to be tossed away when they were no longer of use. When hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees flednto Iran they receive no humanitarian aid, many were later expelled back into Iraq, and the U.S refused to admit even a single refugee. Kissinger defended the policy“[c]overt action,” he explained “should not be confused with missionary work.”

Kissinger's crimes extend far beyond this sampling, he is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes that would earn him immediate condemnation as the latest incarnation of Hitler if they were carried out by an official enemy, but instead a former American official Kissinger enjoys the plush lifestyle of a revered eledr statesman collecting $30,000 a lecture and running a high powered consulting group. Human rights and justice are universal concepts, they cannot be applied to some people and not to other. The U.S needs a Nuremberg style tribunal against those who are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Palestina On My Mind

From Nin's blog.
Palestina On My Mind
I'm 28 years old.

And I cannot remember precisely, when I first heard the word "Palestine". Perhaps it was at my elementary school, because I read too much then. I raised some eyebrows with an article about the collapse of the USSR for the school magazine.

I was raised as a Muslim, in the world's biggest Muslim country. As I child I remember someone, perhaps a teacher, saying something about Jews and Christians. Yes, there was a lot of racism inside our community too. We're good. They're bad. And sometimes minorities didn't receive the respect they should have.

I am glad I decided not to believe those stereotypes, that I can teach my children to treat others as the way they want to be treated.

When Rachel Corrie was killed it changed my worldview. More than the way she died, I was shocked by the hate towards her and her family by Israeli's supporters. In Indonesia, Palestine was always connected to our Muslims identity. And for some Islamophobics and Zionists, Palestine was always connected to terrorism. And the stereotyping continued. Jews and Israelis and Zionists are all the same. Just like Muslims and Al Qaeda and Terrorists are all the same thing.

When I read about Rachel Corrie, I thought: "Hey, she's an American girl. And she's not a Muslim. Almost the same age as me. And she's dead defending my brothers and sisters in Palestine."

After that I began to learn Breaking the Silence from Daniel Bunuel "Don't tell my mom that I'm in The Holy Land" on National geographic channel, October 2008. And then Courage to refuse, ISM, Machsom Watch and Jews Against the Occupation are some of the best sources.

While blogging and reading, I found great thoughts from great people around the world, including Israel. Chet, Julia, Leila El Saba, and Young Activist in the US. Bob Birch and Antony Loewenstein in Australia. Yarra in Israel. And some amazing blogs, from Gaza with love, Oranges and Olives, Jerusalem Syndrom, Raising Yousuf and Noor, Munich and A little bit of everything, Tikun Olam, Mondoweiss and Jews san frontieres. I read "From Beirut to Jerusalem"'s dr. Ang Swee Chai and Palestinian walks's Raja Shehadeh.

Too many to mention.

But from them I knew one thing for sure. That Palestine (or Palestina in Indonesian) was never about religion. It was about humanity. It was about peace, justice and freedom. No matter what your religion is.

Lets face it. This is something that some people here in Indonesia need to learn more about.

I would finish with some words from Remi Kanazi.

I envision Palestine in my mind
With the “chosen” frozen in time
To realize their morality’s blind
To take back generations of crime
And put an end to Apartheid

How many kids sit and wish
They could be labeled other than a terrorist
To exist is to resist!
Reads the graffiti in their cities

Give them chalk instead of rocks
They’ll use the blackboards
If you let them go to school

Give them chalk instead of rocks
Instead you bulldoze the block
Destroy their homes
Palestine is what you call the “no building zone”

But you can’t bulldoze our minds
Every time we’ll rise through ashes
Like Cassius Clay
We’ll bob and weave for infinity
There is no divinity
In bombing our cities
Setting up committees to treat us differently
We’re from Falasteen
The land where dreams are made

So just remember one thing
One day the bells of freedom will ring
And you’ll see me smiling
Loving life in Palestine



This post dedicated for Blog About Palestine day 2009

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

EZRA NAWI SET TO BEGIN PRISON SENTENCE IN JULY

"Whoever brings his head will be very highly regarded in the settlements,"
-Israeli attorney Yael Barda, commenting on human rights activist Ezra Nawi


Ezra Nawi does not fall neatly into any categories. His family comes from Iraq and he is fluent in Arabic, but he is a Jewish Israeli. He's also gay. For money he's a plumber, otherwise he's a human rights activist with the joint Jewish-Arab group Ta'ayush, and in July he is set to become a prisoner for "assaulting a policemen" in this 2007 incident.



Nawi's case is a perfect example of how repressive governments subordinate justice to politics. The video of the incident clearly shows criminal activity, but not on the part of Nawi who is attempting to defend a family from having their home demolish by Israeli soldiers who taunt both Nawi and the family, laughing at their suffering. This is the story of a prisoner of conscience, one man who is ready to sacrifice not only the privileges that come from being Jewish in a state that advantages one ethnic group against others, it is the story of a man who is ready to sacrifice even his freedom struggling against the existence of those privileges. Nawi repudiated his privileges to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, with the marginalized, and with the weak. Now the world must stand in solidarity with Nawi. The whole world, especially the United States, must know that Nawi is a political prisoner in his own nation, the Middle East's only democracy, for the crime of peacefully joining with the victims of militarism and racism.

For more about the campaign to help Nawi click here.

To view a Ha'aretz article about Nawi's human rights work near Hebron click here.

EAST TIMOR AND NONVIOLENCE

Seven years ago today, in one of the greatest victories for the human rights movement, East Timor's independence from Indonesia was finally formally recognized. Although the nation declared its independence after Portugal's renunciation of its claims to the territory in 1975 the colony was promptly invaded by American-backed Indonesia. For the next two and a half decades East Timor would be subjected to occupation, starvation, torture, military rule, repression and the largest proportional genocide since the Holocaust, a genocide that left over 100,000 people dead.

East Timor is a small nation of just over a million people, with 230,000,000 people Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation in the world. At independence East Timor had only 300 fighters in the field, the Indonesian military is one of the largest in the world, it has more men in arms than East Timor has people. When East Timor was invaded it had no friends in the international community beyond a small circle of human rights and solidarity activists. Indonesia's dictator Suharto has the unwavering support of the U.S and other western nations. The hopelessness of the Timorese cause makes its eventual success a symbol of hope for the repressed people of the world. But it is not enough to take hope from East Timor's liberation, for many stronger peoples have failed in their quest for survival, if the success of East Timor is to be replicated elsewhere then so to must the tactics of East Timor's pro-independence community.

Largely responsible for the independence of East Timor was José Ramos-Horta, the foreign minister of the pro-independence group and currently the President of East Timor. Horta did not believe in Gandhian principled nonviolence, the independence groups recognized that armed struggle was a legitimate tactic if violence was restrained to certain targets, however they judged the tactics available on the basis of what worked. And recognizing that there could be little competition with the Indonesian government militarily the independence groups sought another plane on which to wage their struggle. They recognized that no matter how horrible the atrocities of the occupiers western media would grant violence by the Timorese paramount attention.

So instead of responding to the atrocities of their opponents with violence they transformed the violence of the occupation into a weapon against the occupation. They used their foreign supporters to publicize the atrocities being inflicted upon them and gradually they were able to shift western public opinion, western policy, and ultimately Indonesian actions. They had a choice; they could seek revenge for the horrors inflicted upon them and polarize the opinion of the world against them, or they could seek an end to those horrors. They chose the latter and today East Timor is free as a result.

Particularly for the Palestinians East Timor's liberation is a model. Every situation is unique and require unique tactics, but there remains many relevant strategies. There are many differences though, Palestine is a larger country, its oppressor is smaller, Palestine has the support of the entire world, in the 1970's few people had even heard of East Timor, and Israel faces the pressures of a society that has extended the vote the its populace, or at least to a certain ethnic group. The Palestinians are in a stronger position today than East Timor was in 1975, but they have been in that situation for decades, and sadly the advantages of the Palestinians have not been appropriately exploited by their leadership.

For the sixty years of their dispossession the Palestinians have overwhelmingly embrace armed struggle. It is time for them to realize what their oppressors have known for years. Palestine will never be able to achieve freedom through the Kalashnikov. Israel has a near monopoly on violence, and as the Palestinians know they have no hesitancy to use it. What Palestinian violence can achieve is hostility towards the Palestinian cause in the western public opinion, the same public opinion that the Palestinians need the support of to pressure Israel into ending its occupation. Israeli violence is almost never reported in the west; Palestinian violence is covered extensively.

The Israelis have tried to prevent Palestinian non-violent resistance for decades, they have assassinated and kidnapped moderate leaders, they have devoted extensive resources to slandering leaders of non-violent resistance, and they have constantly tried to provoke Palestinian terrorism. They are afraid of this tactic for a reason; it works. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated:
"Even when they carry out terror, it is very difficult for us to persuade the world of the justice of our cause. We see this on a daily basis. All the more so when there is only one demand: an equal right to vote. The thought that the struggle against us will be headed by liberal Jewish organizations who shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa scares me."
It should. If the Palestinians were to transform Israeli atrocities from acts meriting revenge to a weapon to use in the battle of public opinion the prospect of liberal Jewish groups defecting to the Palestinian cause is great, and its inevitable results will be monumental both in the U.S and Israel and eventually in Palestine. The Israeli fear a single non-violent resistor more than an army of stone throwers. It is all that can defeat them.

Strategic non-violence does not involve cowardice or an end to confrontation, indeed it requires greater courage and discipline and it involves greater confrontation. Gandhi's grandson proposed that Palestinian refugees should stop waiting for a political settlement to allow them to return home and simply march home. "What would happen?" he asked if 50,000 refugees came streaming over the border "Maybe the Israeli army would shoot and kill several. They may kill 100. They may kill 200 men, women and children. And that would shock the world. The world will get up and say, 'What is going on?'. If Jewish and Arab peace activists marching arm and arm, living their conviction of what the future could look like, were massacred by the Israeli army westerners would be compelled to confront the issue. They would be forced to understand the refugee issue and they would forced to understand which side was driven by militarism and racism and which was driven by a vision of peace, and they would be forced to act, their government would be forced to act, the Israelis would be forced to act. People will be killed regardless of the nature of the struggle it would be better that something productive could come from those tragedies.

Non-violent resistance has already succeeded in creating links between Palestinians, Israelis, and westerners. In the past tax revolts have earned the respect and attention of westerners and Israelis. In the West Bank weekly joint Jewish-Arab demonstrations for peace are routinely attacked by the military, but they have brought people together and helped to lay the human infrastructure needed for an expanded campaign. Even where non-violent activists have been killed, such as Rachel Corrie or Tom Hurndall, they have offered great benefits to the perception of the Palestinian cause. However, to be truly effective non-violence must be expanded past fringe elements of the radical left. It must become a massive popular movement. It must be coordinated, it must be conducted in conjunction with Israeli and internationals. But once it is embraced it will be invincible. If it is confronted violently it will be a PR victory and if it is not confronted it will begin to dismantle the occupation.

Armed struggle is the rights of the Palestinians, and like in East Timor it can be an element of a broader strategy when its appropriate role is recognized. But armed struggle is a tactic not a goal, it must be done with contemplation and not out of anger. So long as the Palestinians wish to continue their struggle they will have the support of the world, they will be joined in by many heroic westerners and Israelis. Gratuitous violence is all that can shake that support, and violence is the strength of the Israelis, not the Palestinians. The strenght of the Palestinian cause lies in the brutality of their opponents, the courage of their people, the conscience of the world, and the justice of their cause. Those strengths are the tools with which the Palestinians will build a new nation. They must be embraced. For sixty years they have been neglected and for sixty years the Palestinians have suffered.

Monday, May 18, 2009

THE MYTH AND THE MASSACRES: JIMMY CARTER AND HUMAN RIGHTS


In the Prince Machiavelli argued that it was not in the interests of a good ruler to be moral, but it was in their interest to seem moral. During his Presidency and after Jimmy Carter has exemplified this rule, consistently described himself as a "human rights" minded President while ignoring that while his time in office he did make the human rights violations of official enemies like the Soviet Union a top priority he backed some of the world's most repressive regimes. After he left office he has cast himself as an advocate for democracy and human rights, monitoring elections in third world countries and portraying himself as an advocate of such causes as Palestinian self-determination and global dialogue, all the while pleading ignorance when confronted with his record. One of the most disgraceful episodes of the Carter administration began twenty-nine years ago today in a movement that is referred to by South Koreans simply as 518. It was South Korea's equivalent of Tienanmen Square, and it ended just as bloodily.

In the 1980's South Korea was under the ironfisted rule of Chun Doo-hwan, a brutal and corrupt military dictator who ran the nation as his personal fiefdom, looting billions of dollars from the nation's coffers and savagely dispatching political opponents. Chun's tyrannical administration was deeply resented by his people, it was deeply supported by the U.S government. Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter instructed U.S ambassador to South Korea William Gleysteen that the American objectives in South Korea were to achieve a “maximum US share of economic benefits from economic relations with increasingly prosperous South Korea.” In practice this meant backing a fascist military tyrant who was willing to give American corporations free range in exchange for vital U.S support for his dictatorship.

Those interests clashed most notably with the interests of the populace on May 18, 1980 when students launched in earnest what would eventually become a massive pro-democracy demonstration by over 100,000 people, the Gwangju Democratization Movement. On May 18 two hundred students defied government orders to protest the closing of their University. They were opposed by thirty paratroopers who attempted to break up the demonstration by charging the students, but by mid-afternoon the demonstration had grown to 2,000 participants and moved into downtown Geumnamno.

The military responded harshly beating and killing demonstrators and onlookers alike, but the brutality only further stoked the strong pro-democracy sentiment. Within two days over 100,000 people were on the streets demanding democratic reforms. Chun responded by slaughtering pro-democracy activists in the Gangju Massacre. Estimates of the number of people killed in the crackdown range from just under 200 to over 2,000. The soldiers killed more than scores of civilians, they killed the democratic spirit. The Gagnju Massacre was rated the greatest tragedy in Korean history since the end of World War II, surpassing even the Korean War, in a poll of South Koreans.

When questioned about U.S involvement in the massacre Richard Holbrooke commented that "[t]he idea that we would actively conspire with the Korean generals in a massacre of students is, frankly, bizarre; it's obscene and counter to every political value we articulated," sadly declassified U.S documents show that to be exactly what occurred. They show that on May 9, 1980 the U.S, which in addition to the tens of thousands of American troops had operational command of 80% of the South Korean Army, aware of the discontent, authorized Chun to use force to disperse pro-democracy demonstrations. On May 17, with U.S support Chun declared martial law and prepared to bring out his Special Warfare Command troops, which, according to declassified U.S documents, he had been training since the beginning of the year to suppress internal opposition.

On May 8 Ambassador Gleysteen met with Chun to determine how to handle demonstrations which had already began on a smaller scale across the country. Gleysteen gave Chun the greenlight to crush any demonstrations as he saw fit and arranged for elements of the Korean Army under joint command to be released to hte Korean dictator to crush the demonstrations. This plan was approved by Washington which cabled to Gleysteen saying [w]e agree that we should not oppose R.O.K. [government] contingency plans." Holbrooke made clear that the U.S should demonstrate to the Korean Generals that it was "in fact trying to be helpful to them provided they in turn carry out their commitments to [economic] liberalization." Holbrooke shared the concern of many policymakers that Korea could become "another Iran," this time the movement that could "lead to chaos or instability in a key American ally" was the movement for democracy. In his remarks Holbrooke preceded to belittle pro-democracy "Christian extremist dissidents" who defied the military's ban on meeting and instructed the Ambassador to make it clear the U.S opposed their peaceful defiance of martial law. The State Department later exonerated itself declaring
"[w]hen all the dust settles, Koreans killed Koreans, and the Americans didn't know what was going on and certainly didn't approve it." said one official adding that the U.S "has no moral responsibility for what happened in Kwangju." However, this account is directly contradicted by the declassified diplomatic cables to Seoul mentioned above. Commenting on the massacre one former official noted "[t]he way they [the South Korean dictatorship] handled law and order was rough," the official said. "But we had a way of tolerating it by that time. This was not an aberration or a sudden departure from the norm. It was the norm."

China's government has been so effective in its suppression of the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tienanmen Square that Chinese students do not recognize the iconic photo, famous around the world, of a demonstrator blocking a column of tanks. The U.S is not a closed society, but in its own way the nature and even the existence of the Gagnju Massacre have been purged from popular consciousness. In Korea Ambassador Gleyseen "did not intend to publicize our actions because we feared we would be charged with colluding with the martial law authorities and risk fanning anti-American sentiment in the Kwangju area," and in American the slaughter of "immature students and radical student leaders," the ambassador's description, is just as foreign to U.S students as the image of "counter-revolutionary" demonstrators in Tienanmen Square is to young Chinese.

Even though information is not blocked in the U.S the effect for those who do not actively seek it out is the same as in China. The Human Rights Administration is remembered as a noble group of idealists and its leader's moral authority is never questioned as he speaks out about the need for democracy and human rights, even though a cursory glance at his behavior in office would quickly dispel this misconception. That every American student is taught of the suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations by an official enemy, but has never heard of the equally brutal suppression of a much more significant demonstration of comparable size and with comparable casualties by an official ally conducted with official approval is a disgrace. In this respect the U.S's education system is just as concerned with indoctrination as China's. Resist and remember 518.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

SRI LANKA'S FUTURE


President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka has claimed victory in the island nation's twenty-six year civil war as rebel held territory has rapidly shrunk, senior figures in the separatist Tamil Tiger movement, including leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, are rumored to be dead, a spate of suicides has depleted Tiger fighters, and the group has acknowledged its defeat, offering a cease fire. As much as a military solution to the conflict is possible the Sri Lankan government has won, militarily the rebels are crushed. However, the war which has claimed 80,000 lives has its roots in a political, and not a military, conflict.

The future of Sri Lanka after the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers will hold lessons for the resolution of other conflicts, and it will rebuke the theories of those who believe that force is all that is needed in resolving conflict. The conditions that allowed for the Tigers to emerge, Sihnalese chauvinism and domination have not been ended with the defeat of the rebel group and if they are not ended there will be new Tigers. Perhaps they will be called by a different name, perhaps they will embrace a different ideology, perhaps they will embrace different tactics, perhaps they will not emerge immediately, but eventually there will be either a reconstituted resurgent LTTE or a new group. With the war ended the government has an opportunity to address those issues. The government no longer has an excuse to spurn moderate Tamil groups such as the Tamil National Alliance whose members it has previously assasinated.

If the government reaches out to reconcile with its Tamil minority and allay the ethnic nationalism of both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities then the island might be able to come together and move forward. But if nothing is changed from the time of the civil war when the government bombed hospitals and relentlessly killed civilians, if the government continues to treat the Tamil population as its enemy they will never cease to be an enemy. If Tamils are not brought into the government to have their grievances redressed the island will remain divided and the inevitability of large scale violence will persist. The Tamils will not be in a position to wage an all out war again for some time, but if their disillusionment with their situation continues it is highly likely some of them will be driven to extremism and also massive terrorism, something which will prove difficult for the state to defeat militarily.

Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads; the leaders of its minority communities and the government can embrace reconciliation and move down the difficult path towards unity together, or they can cling to their ethnic nationalism and regress back into civil war and strife, together. Whatever path they chose they will chose together and whatever fate comes to the island will come to all of its people, Sinhalese as well as Tamil. The Western nations need to do what they can to encourage reconciliation, but they also need to take note of what happens in the Indian Ocean island in the coming years and understand that the lessons of Sri Lanka will be equally applicable to their own conflicts.

Friday, May 15, 2009

INSULTING THE VICTIMS

The horse Incitatus, appointed by the Roman Emperor Caligula to be a Consul and a priest, and the American lawyer Elliott Abrams, formerly charged with overseeing the U.S government's human rights activities and presently a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council share the distinction of having received two of the most inappropriate political appointments in history.

Horses are generally not well qualified to hold public office and American officials are generally not well qualified to oversee anything related to human rights, but Abrams is not a typical American official. His behavior has been so inappropriate that his continuing affiliation with The Holocaust Memorial Council is an impediment to that organization's mandate and an insult to it constituents.

In his role as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, a role perhaps comparable to Sudan's Minister for Human Rights, Abrams was the chief apologist for the U.S's human rights record at a time when some of the worst atrocities of Lain America's dirty wars were taking place. The role was critical, public resentment over human rights abuses had to be mitigated if arms shipments and political support for Latin America's pro-American fascist regimes was to continue.

Abrams's first crisis came in early 1982 when reports of a massacre of a thousand civilians the previous December in the village of El Mozote by the Atlacatl Battalion, a U.S trained Salvadorian death squad, reignited the debate over military aid to El Salvador. Abrams, along with conservative groups such as Accuracy in Media (AIM), quickly declared reports of the massacre an politically motivated exaggeration of a firefight. Abrams was instrumental in lobbying Congress not to slash $100 million of military aid to El Salvador following the massacre declaring "[t]he Administration's record on El Salvador is one of fabulous achievement," he went on to deny that any massacre had taken place, and lavish praise on the Atlacatl Battalion its "discipline". Largely as a result of Abrams's damage control the "fabulous achievement" in El Salvador continued. 75,000 people would die before the war ended in 1992, 85% of them at the hands of U.S backed government forces.

Ten years later Abrams continued to defend his prior stance saying "If it had really been a massacre and not a firefight, why didn’t we hear right off from the FMLN? I mean, we didn’t start hearing about it until a month later." About the same time a U.N sanctioned Truth Commission found:

"There is full proof that on 11 December 1981, in the village of El Mozote, units of the Atlacatl Battalion deliberately and systematically killed a group of more than 200 men, women and children, constituting the entire civilian population that they had found there the previous day and had since been holding prisoner. . .

"there is [also] sufficient evidence that in the days preceding and following the El Mozote massacre, troops participating in "Operation Rescue" massacred the non-combatant civilian population in La Joya canton, in the villages of La Rancheria, Jocote Amatillo y Los Toriles, and in Cerro Pando canton."

El Salvador is only one of Abrams "fabulous accomplishments". Abrams frequently clashed with human rights groups over Guatemala as well. There the U.S trained, armed, and supported the military forces that terrorized that nation for decades. After the "civil war" ended in 1996 reports by the Archbishop's office for Human Rights and a UN sponsored Historical Clarification Commision implicated the U.S supported government forces in over 400 separate massacres, and over 90% of the conflict's atrocities. From the time the U.S overthrew Guatemala's democratic government in 1954 until the conflict's end in 1996 more than 200,000 people were killed, 93% of them victims of a genocide against the indigenous Mayan people.

One of the victims was Maria Rosario Godoy de Cuevas, a human rights activist, with the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo (GAM) the Mutual Support Group for relatives of the disappeared. On April 4, 1985 she was abducted, along with her brother and two year old son, in the parking lot of a shopping center. She was tortured along with her family members, raped, and then killed. The bodies of the three were found in their car, gently rolled into a ditch, the government and the U.S State Department claimed the group had died in a car accident. Her breasts displayed bite marks, her toddler's finger nails had been gouged out, and her underwear was stained with blood. When contacted about the murder by human rights groups Abrams replied that "there's no evidence other than that they died in a traffic accident. No official probe into the deaths was ever launched and the U.S continued with its support for the Guatemalan regime.

Ten years later Reagan's leading human rights official was still defending the Guatemalan generals, casting the massacre of peasant and the Mayan genocide as a cold war battle. When journalist Allan Nairn confronted Abrams about the Guatemalan civil war Abrams dismissed the accusation saying "[i]t is ludicrous, it is ludicrous to respond to that kind of stupidity. This guy thinks we were on the wrong side in the cold war. Maybe he personally was on the wrong side. I am one of the many
millions of Americans who..." before calling Nairn a crackpot.

Abrams was also involved with the Reagan administration's covert terrorist war in Nicaragua, he helped supply Contra forces and attempted to smuggle funds to the Contras through Brunei's government, though a clerical error sent $10 million in money intended for the rebels into the wrong Swiss bank account, Abrams later avoided prison time for the Iran-Contra scandal by pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was pardoned by President George Bush.

Abrams has consistently been an apologist for brutal Latin American military dictatorships, he has defended and denied some of the worst atrocities of the dirty wars, and his record should disqualify him from any public service. It is a disgrace and an insult to the memory of everyone whose human rights have been abused that a man charged with defending and denying the massacres of one totalitarian regime should be affiliated with an organization committed to remembering the victims of another. Out of respect for human rights and recognition of the organization's mission the United States Holocaust Memorial Council should immediately remove Elliot Abrams from his position. When the victims of genocides and massacres in Latin American needed an advocate Abrams's comments were worse than silence, silence is the most respectful thing he can offer the victims of the Holocaust.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO DEBATE THESE PREMISES

The internet has mad massive amounts of new information available. This information has helped many to better understand their views of issues, but it has also allowed people to avoid ideas they disagree with, it has created enclaves of opinion and undermined the need for dialouge between people with differing perspectives. That dialouge needs to be again opened and I hope that this blog can continue to fill that role in new ways. So here is my challenge: what follows are premises all of which I support that I would like to debate with someone who disagrees. If you are interested in debating one of these premises, or want to debate a premise that I have not listed, then please leave a comments and we can work out a word limit and any other necessary details. I'll explain my position, you explain yours, and I'll publish them together on my blog for everyone else to continue the discussion.

Columbus Day should not be a public holiday in the U.S.

U.S foreign policy is not motivated by noble ideals.

Israel is an apartheid state.

The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.

Nationalism is an ignoble ideology.

The Iraqi people have suffered from the U.S invasion and occupation.

Gay couples should be entitled to the same marriage rights as straight ones.

Popular sovereignty is as important a measure of legitimacy as democracy.

The mainstream American media is biased in favor of the U.S position if foreign affairs.

The U.S has engaged in and supported terrorism.

As used by U.S politicians and media the word 'terrorism' has no objective meaning.

The U.S was not motivated in its invasion of Iraq by a desire to spread democracy.

It is most important to criticize the human rights abuses caused by your own nation than those of others.

The U.S was wrong in its decision to use atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Cold War was primarily a traditional power struggle and not a conflict over ideology.

Marijuana should be legalized.


U.S military spending should be reduced.

Animal Rights activism is a frivolous use of resources.

The religious conflicts in the Muslim world are roughly comparable to those of the Christian reformation.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

THE NEW MCCARTHYISM


Anti-Semitism is a sensitive topic for Americans. The suffering it has created is remembered as the worst atrocity in modern times, but the lessons of the militarized racism of NAZI Germany have been tragically forgotten, instead of standing as a monument to the evils of intolerance the legacy of anti-Semitism has been exploited to justify the militarized racism of another nation. The cry "Never Again" has been transformed from a sacred obligation to a perverse joke. The memory and the fight against anti-Semitism have been hijacked by ideologues who exploit its rhetoric while assailing its principles.

This campaign of intimidation has been so successful, it has so permeated the mainstream that even Jewish intellectuals and activists, continuing in the most admirable tradition of their culture, are routinely denounced as "self-hating". Being accused of anti-Semitism is like being accused of witchcraft, it is difficult to disprove, but the absurdity of these allegations is well illustrated by the number of Jews who come under attack.

The latest victim is University of California, Santa Barbara Sociology Professor William I. Robinson who wrote an e-mail in January comparing certain aspects of Germany's suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of its Jewish minority and Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. In response to a complaint by a Zionist lobby group, StandWithUs, the University initiated a probe of the Jewish Professor for anti-Semitism.

The validity of comparisons between the Warsaw Uprising and the Intifada is a sensitive issue among Zionist groups. An Israeli general created a stir among Israeli leftists when he revealed in an interview that he was studying the report issued by the NAZI General who crushed the uprising for tactics on putting down the Intifada. Marek Edelman, who is the last surviving commander of the uprising, outraged many in Israel when he sent a letter to the Palestinian resistance condemning some of their strategies, but also hinting at certain similarities between their struggles. Edelman is too revered to be accused of anti-Semitism, but many of his likeminded coreligionists are not. In the words of Meir Kahane "those who can't debate defame". Leveling accusation of anti-Semitism at critics of Israeli policy, even when those critics are Jewish, has become the favored method of suppressing what little criticism Israel receives.

Leading the campaign is the Anti-Defamation League, once a respectable civil rights organization, with its vestigial rhetoric about fighting bigotry the ADL, much like McCarthy in the 1950's, has advanced a supremacist ideology while making those with a genuine interest in combating anti-Semitism appear silly. The ADL maintains defamatory files on human rights activists and intellectuals interested in the situation of the Palestinians which it feeds to its public advocates. When a dissident ADL employee mailed Noam Chomsky, himself a victim of anti-Semitism a copy of his file, it contained more than fifty pages of defamatory and libelous material. Not surprisingly he is routinely denounced as an anti-Semite.

Chomsky is far from the only "anti-Semitic" Jew who has come under attack from the ADL. British academic Tony Judt had a speech at a diplomatic mission canceled due to ADL pressure, Professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents survived the Holocaust, is routinely denounced, Heidi Epstein who survived the Holocaust herself has been dubbed anti-Semitic, among others. That the ADL can accuse Jews of being anti-Semitic and still retain its place as a respected organization is a testament both to the fear and normalcy of McCarthyisque allegation of anti-Semitism.

The targets of the smear campaign are unified by one trait; a courage to speak out against racism and its manifestations. Adam Shapiro was dubbed "the Jewish Taliban" for his role in co-founding the International Solidarity Movement, a joint Arab-Jewish-International organization that believes the solution to the conflict is human solidarity and non-violent resistance. Right wing Israeli demonstrators maligned journalist Arthur Nelsen, telling him they wished his parents had perished in the Holocaust, a jeer usually reserved for neo-Nazis, perhaps there is not much of an ideological difference between the two. In 2007 the South African Human Rights Commission was forced to address a complaint it received about the comments Jewish anti-apartheid activist Ronnie Kasrils "Mr Kasrils’ call for peaceful negotiations is not compatible with the interpretation that he is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel,"

Sadly, not all in the U.S understand that principle. After the 2006 Lebanon War Human Rights Watch's Jewish Director Kenneth Roth had to defend himself from accusations of anti-Semitism from NGO Watch, a report of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe concluded that anti-Semitism was everywhere, no wonder, they counted among the incidents the display of the Palestinian flag, the presence of a Palestinian scarf at the meeting of the Italian Communist Party, the invitation to Palestinian diplomats to deliver lectures, angry phone calls to Israeli embassies over massacres in Lebanon, and the distribution of pamphlets asking for a boycott of Israeli goods. It was reminiscent of the NAZI's accusation that any minority who refused to die quietly was anti-German. But there is a difference with anti-Semitism, and that is opponents of the NAZIs were not intimidated, they were never silenced by the fear that Hitler's propagandists would misconstrue their opposition to his racist ideology to sound insensitive to German suffering between the World Wars.

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic. It would be an insult to the victims of anti-Semitism to allow the memory of their suffering to legitimize the racism that has left another people dispossessed and brutalized. And silence is legitimization. “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious,” there is no new anti-Semitism, only a new McCarthyism. The emperor has no clothes the Palestinians have no rights.

R.I.P James Miller


James Miller had been a journalist for only a few years in 2003, but he had already distinguished himself, first as a freelance cameraman and later as a filmmaker and reporter. He worked for CNN and British media reporting from troublespots around the world before releasing his first film in 1999. Perhaps encouraged by the awards and acclaim for this first film, detailing a massacre in Kosovo, Miller traveled around the world to document other troubled regions. After travelling to Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Korea Miller arrived in Gaza to produce a documentary on the experiences of Israeli and Palestinian children growing up in a war zone.

The film opens in Palestine chronicling the daily struggles of two young boys, Ahmed and Mohammad. As the story progresses it becomes clear that the boys cope with the violence around them by embracing death as victory. In a religious society helplessly engulfed by the ubiquitous violence of an occupying arming whose soldiers kill with impunity death has become an escape. As the film shows the funeral of a young Palestinian killed in a confrontation with soldiers the two boys dream of the day when their parents may also celebrate their sauces at becoming martyrs.

Miller never had the opportunity to reflect on the experiences of Israeli children when death becomes the central them of his documentary. While filming the nighttime movements of Israeli soldiers near the boys' home he meets his own. 20 meters from the house and bearing a white flag Miller's group heard a shot from the soldiers. A second shot breaks thirteen seconds of silence, penetrated only by the plea not to shoot British journalists, and strikes Miller in the neck, killing him.

Although the film was never able to capture the viewpoint of Israeli children Miller's death offered the Israeli government the chance to showcase their views on the topic of civilians deaths at the hands of its occupying army in Palestine. Initially the IDF claimed Miller was hit in the back during crossfire, spokesman Captain Jacpn Dallal claimed "Our forces found a tunnel at the house in question, when an anti-tank missile was fired at them. They shot back at the source of the attack" before blaming Miller for his death, but when this story was contradicted by witnesses and the tape from Miller's camera the military retracted this story, but continued to insist that Miller was at fault for his death. In 2005 the IDF declined to issue an indictment for the incident saying the Israeli issued bullet found in Miller's neck could not be linked to one of its soldiers. When Miller's family finally accepted £1.5 million in blood money from the Israeli government in February it stated that the payment was "probably the closest (we) will get to an admission of guilt on the part of the Israelis," who continue to insist their army is without fault.

James Miller is only one of thousands of innocent people to be killed by a military that typically blames its victims for their suffering, but unlike other victims of the IDF he came to Gaza voluntarily to document for the world the human suffering caused by the conflict. The strength of journalists who report what they see in spite of the personal costs provides the link between the oppressed and the often unwitting oppressor that enables social change. While reflecting on Miller's death it is important to remember his work is not complete, it is only through the eyes of courageous reporters that others can come to understand the situation in the rest of the world.