Friday, December 10, 2010

Democrats are no Better

Democrats frequently portray themselves as a progress party. True, they are marginally better than the Republicans, but not much. In spite of the rhetorical differences between the two, there exist only minor policy distinctions. Walter Mondale's campaign manager, Bob Beckel illustrated the point well on Fox News recently. Speaking about Julian Assange, Beckel declared "this guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Obviously, Beckel does not know what he is talking about. An Australian cannot be guilty of treason or being a traitor against the United States and that the Justice Department has so far failed in it extensive search to find a single American law Assange has broken. However, the more remarkable issue is that a prominent member of America's "progressive" party is openly calling for the murder of his political opponents.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Prisoner of Conscience


As a progressive Scandinavian country with liberal attitudes towards sexuality, Sweden is keen to promote condom use. The issue is taken so seriously, in fact, that if rumors of lack of use or of broken condoms reach Swedish prosecutors, you may be investigated for rape. And if you are, don't think of leaving the country! The prosecutors will want to interview, and offers of voluntary cooperation won't do. Only Interpol's list of most wanted international fugitives will do for someone suspected of such a grave crime. Once Interpol issues a red notice for you, you will most likely be arrested and denied bail. If you are sucesfully extradited, you will be held incommunicado in solitary confinement. Travelers beware!

The case of Julian Assange is tragically comic. As an effective dissident he has to be taken down. His lack of criminal behavior, however, proved problematic. Condoleezz Rice emphatically declared that Julian Assange has committed a crime. "It's up to the Justice Department to figure out exactly what crime it is," the former Secretary of State declared. The Europeans, at least for now, saved the Justice Department the humiliation of conducting a transparently political trial.

In the democratic west, Julian Assange is a political prisoner. WikiLeaks is under sustained attack. Its sites are under attack. Its accounts are being closed. Prominent American politicians are demanding it be declared a foreign terrorist organization. Julian Assange is the subject of death threats. The conflict over his fate is a conflict over the limits of democracy. If effective dissent becomes intolerable, free speech becomes meaningless. The war of the powerful on WikiLeaks must be resisted by everyone who values democracy and transparency.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Threat of Wikileaks

The thousands of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in recent days make interesting reading. The leak's most damning revelation, and one that is being systematically neglected, however, does not concern American foreign policy. This revelation is not even published on the group's website. No, the most damning revelation, the visceral and universal hatred of political elites for democracy, finds its airing in "respectable" news outlets.

Incoming House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King, himself a prominent supporter of genuine terrorists in Irealand, issued a call to the Secretary of State to designate Wikileaks a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Accusing the Australian national behind Wikileaks of treason against the United States, Sarah Palin called for him to be treated like al-Quadea. Not a surprising comment from an individual who thought Africa was a single country, isn't sure which Korea the U.S is allied with, and couldn't name the signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The former Republican Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee demmanded the execution of the leak's source. Others were even blunter in their blood lust. Tim Flanagan, an adviser to the Canadian government, said he would be pleased if Julian Assange disappeared, and called on President Obama to arrange his murder. Support for the murder of Assange is now a mainstream political opinion in the United States. Perhaps we should review the definition of terrorism.

The harsh reaction is hardly the exclusive province of the political right. The Obama Administration opened a criminal investigation into the group for actions which the Supreme Courts has previously ruled protected by the First Amendment. Australia, which has already confiscated Assange's passport, joined the search for a way to charge Assange. A legally flawed arrest warrant already exists stemming from dubious allegations from Sweden. Understandably, Assange is in hiding. Contrast the international support for arresting Assange with the widespread indignation at attempts to apprehend genuine criminals such as Tzipi Livni or Mahinda Rajapaksa. The priorities of power become clear.

The reaction seems less absurd after considering Wikileaks' impact. As Noam Chomsky has noted, "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." Wikileaks dramatically offers the public an insight into the operations of power. The former American Bar Association President, Dean of Harvard Law School, and U.S Solicitor General under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Erwin Griswold, wrote that "it quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considerable experience with classified material. . .that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment." An informed public endangers power and privilege. Wikileaks is a threat that must be eliminated.

As new details about the U.S establishment's hatred of democracy, its affinity for oppressive regimes, and its complete subordination of human rights to cynical real power objectives, is published for the American public to see, often for the first time, Wikileaks is condemned for endangering lives. There is no tone of irony as an array of officials dutifully issue somber condemnations of Wikileaks for having "blood on its hands." For such a serious threat, it seems odd that the U.S refused to assist the group in scrubbing sensitive details from leaked documents, or that no individuals have been harmed as a result of previous releases.

If the leaks mobilize public opposition to the government's foreign policy or the fear of future embarrassing revelations constrain its capacity to disregard human rights, then Wikileaks will save lives and promote democracy. In 2007, Assange wrote that he "cannot escape the sound of suffering. Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them." So far, the actions of Wikileaks have conformed to those sentiments.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Batttle for Ecuador


Originally this post was titled 'Battle for Democracy". That word, however, is too vague and emotionally laden to carry any meaning. Some political scientists, such as Robert Dahl have ceased using it entirely. Democracy is a spectrum, not a category. States are differentiated only by the relative degrees to which they reflect and resist the wishes of their populations.

Certainly the government of Rafeal Correa has done both. In his record on indigenous rights, environmental issues, and corruption there is much to be criticized. His brother received hundreds of millions of dollars of government contracts. In the past he has used strong-armed tactics against Congress. However, he also presides over the freest government in his nation's history, and that is what has alienated foreign and elite interests. Correa is not a saint, but it would make no difference if he were.

His government has repudiated the debt of Ecaudor's dictatorship, alienating it from foreign lenders, it has refused to renew the U.S's military base, earning Washington's ire, it has moved towards taking control of its oil resources away from multinational corporations and spending oil revenues on social programs for the poor, irking big business, and it has refused to block a $27 billion lawsuit against Chevron, concerning the company's disastrous environmental practices in the Amazon. Ecuador's Bhopal, the case is called.

These measures resonate with the public of a country tired of being bullied and exploited by outside interests. A poll in August pegged the President's approval rating at over 70%. This is not a defense of Correa, it is a defense of him against the alternatives, because, for all of his faults, his Presidency has seen more progress in the country than any of his predecessors.

Yesterday, renegades within the security services threatened that progress. The revolt by members of the police and air force was well coordinated. Congress was seized, the airport was blocked off, state tv came under attack, and President Correa was attacked, tear gassed, and trapped in a police hospital for over ten hours before the building was stormed by the military. Former President Lucio Gutiérrez is rumored to be involved, but thought it is evident who might benefit from Correa's overthrow it is unclear who organized the uprising.

Until more details emerge it is hard to gauge the security of the government. With over 30,000 members, the police, where the revolt began and appeared strongest, constitute a significant portion of the security services. It is unclear, however, how much support an attempt to overthrow the government would garner among the security services. Also unknown is the role, if any of the U.S. The American government quickly came out in support of President Correa, however many of the individuals involved in the uprising are rumored to have connections to U.S Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy. There is not enough information to draw conclusions or make accusations. If confirmed, however, this would implicate the U.S, two of whose diplomats have recently been expelled by Quito for allegedly meddling with the security services.

Any attempts at setting back Ecuador's social progress, regardless of their source, must be viewed with concern. President Correa deserves support, but that support must be critical, especially once this crisis has passed. Particularly if the government intends to exploit the situation to claim additional powers.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

The Open Veins of Latin America

The 1971 publication of Las venas abiertas de América Latina, the Open Veins of Latin America, earned Eduardo Galeano exile from Uruguay and entry into the pantheon of literary giants. Even in its English translation, the story of "five centuries of the pillage of a continent," as the book's subtitle describes the work, is almost pleasurable reading by way of Galeano's extraordinary eloquence.

The primary relevance of Open Veins, however, is a capacity for moral outrage and thoughtful analysis in its author commensurate with his literary abilities. Blending journalism, history, and economics with political and moral analyses, the book traces the roots of Latin America's misery to the exploitation and domination of the region, by Spain, other European powers, and eventually the United States, often in the company of local elites.

For five centuries, Latin America, among the richest of regions beneath the soil, has languished in an unnatrual poverty. Beginning with the Spanish conquest, the region has been looted, its great fortunes reserved for foreigners and their local collaborators, and toil and misery allotted to its people. Thought the details may be obscure, the plot is familiar.

The story of Open Veins is another familiar plot of obscure details. It gave voice to the marginalized and oppressed peoples of the region, who received it with enthusiasm. Isabel Allende refers simply to the book with the yellow cover that accompanied her into exile from Chile after the overthrow of democracy there. The military dictatorship of Chile was joined by those in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in banning the book.

Those regimes have collapsed, the books has outlived them. The continued popularity of Open Veins, however, must be seen in part as reflection of the continuation of the injustices it denounces. When Barak Obama received a copy of the book at a diplomatic conference he scoffed that just because he is given a copy of Peter Pan doesn't mean he will read it.

But Obama already knows the plot well. The month after comparing Galeano's masterpiece to Peter Pan the democratically elected government of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup. It is not known if the American government was involved in the coup, it is clear, however, that President Obama broke with the rest of the region and of the world in supporting and thus preserving the coup. A few months later he established a ring of new American military outposts in the region. So the pillage continues into a sixth century. Perhaps more Americans should read the book their President mocks.

Friday, August 20, 2010

A Palestinian's Plea

From a Palestinian friend who read George Will's editorial, Skip the lecture on Israel:

I grew up in America. I was born in Jerusalem, but born an Arab, I cannot enter the city of my birth. I know the suffering conflict has caused both sides. In his article Mr. Will also knows suffering, but, in recognizing only Israeli pain and Palestinian terrorism, Mr. Will sounds like German officials mourning Ernst Rath, the German diplomat whose murder gave pretext to Kristallnacht. This conflict killed 1,000 Israelis since 2000, the same proportion the U.S lost in Vietnam, Mr. Will notes. He neglects 6,000 Palestinians, the same proportion of U.S fatalities in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II, combined, keeping the comparison. In the latest round of heavy fighting three Israeli, and over a thousand Palestinian civilians died. Like many, perhaps most, Israelis and Palestinians I grieve the suffering of each victim on either side. One is too many.

Israel’s first Prime Minister declared if he were Arab he “ would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.” Some Palestinians share those sentiments, some do as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he would do if he were a Palestinian, and join terrorist organizations. Thankfully they are a minority.

In 2002 Arab nations joined the Palestinians in offering Israel recognition on its internationally acknowledged borders. In this drive for peace, Palestinians offered everything more we have to sacrifice, the dream of regaining the 78% of our homeland which was cleansed of Arabs to make way for Israel’s establishment. Like the Native American we need what sliver remains. The former Israeli defense and foreign minister Moshe Dayan told my people that “we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave.” But there is nowhere to go. What more we have to offer; our hand in friendship and forgiveness we hold out gladly, hopefully. Sadly, that hand has been left outstretched for eight years, by an Israeli government which refuses to even discuss this proposal.

Unlike Mr. Will, I hope my moderate Israeli friends who join me in yearning for peace may cease to be a powerless fringe. They are too rare in a country where “death to Arabs” was an election slogan of the government’s second largest party.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Cancer, Birth Defects Skyrocket in Fallujah


Sixty-five years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the American ambassador has finally appeared at the annual Peace Memorial Ceremony marking the events. New research in Fallujah, Iraq, however, finds increased levels of leukemia, infant mortality, and cancer, surpassing those caused by the bombing of Hiroshima. The survey, so far unmentioned in any major American media outlet, addresses the period following the American bombardment of the city in 2004 through 2009.

The findings, reported by Patrick Cockburn in the London Independent, dramatically confirm the suspicions of Iraqi doctors working in the region. Rates of leukemia, in particular, saw a 38-fold increase between 2005-2009, more than double the 1700% increase seen after the bombing of Hiroshima. Incidences of other genetic disorders also skyrocketed. Childhood cancer is up twelve-fold, cancer overall four-fold. Doctors complain of being inundated with serious birth defects, such as one girl born with two heads. The study found infant mortality rates of 80 per 1,000 births, four times greater than levels in Egypt, and eight times greater than those in neighboring Kuwait. The gender ratio at birth has also reached unnatural levels.

U.S commanders are accused of using indiscriminate and excessive violence in the bombardments of the city and have acknowledged deploying chemical weapons. What exactly caused the spike is unknown, but Dr. Chris Busby of the University of Ulster, who co-authored the study, suggests that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened." Without the cooperation of U.S military officials it is impossible to identify the specific munitions used, but the authors cite exposure to depleted uranium as a potential cause.

The study, entitled Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009, was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Neda and the Nameless


The videotaped death of twenty-seven year-old Neda Agha Soltan at the hands of Iranian security forces last June has come to symbolize the Islamic Republic's repressive nature.
"One moment, a young woman is standing on the sidewalk, watching the Iranian people stand up . . .A second later, she crumbles. . .blood pumping uselessly out of the gunshot wound in her chest. A faceless police sniper has. . .made her immortal," solemnly editorializes an indignant Washington Times. The entire western world joined the Iranian opposition in condemning her death. "No iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness," pined President Obama's speechwriters.

Neda. The word itself, which means voice in Farsi, has given a voice to opponents of Iran's government. The anniversary of her death occasioned a barrage of somber reflections from western observers. Neda is a worthy victim. She was killed without provocation by the security forces of a hostile state, and she was killed before a camera. That last part isn't entirely unusual, every few months peaceful protesters are shot dead in the villages of Bil'in and Nil'in while activists are filming. However, they are killed by the security forces of an ally, and are of little note. While anyone even loosely following the western media can recall the images of Neda's death, the name and images of Bassem Abu Rahem, and others like him, don't even merit passing mention.

No iron fist is strong enough to stop solemn western observers from bearing witness to the brutality of their enemies and no brutality is extreme enough to merit condemnation, when done in the service of national interests. Hence, there will be no reflections on the "heartbreaking" policy of U.S drone strikes on Pakistan, which killed sixty people three days after Neda's death. The same day Neda died the BBC reported that U.S officials conceded troops broke internal guidelines in a series of airstrikes which killed scores of Afghan civilians the month before, but major newspapers will feature no remembrances or calls for accountability.

Watching nothing but the Western media's Iranian coverage, one might be justified in assuming little more than outrage at injustice and a desire to see democracy prevail motivates U.S and European policy towards the Islamic republic. Iran might be a vibrant democracy compared to regional U.S allies, such as Saudi Arabia, but it does have serious issues. Democracy and human rights, however, have never been relevant in western policy towards Iran.

Iran had a liberal, democratic government once, in the 1950s. It was overthrown when the U.S and Britain installed a repressive, pro-American dictator who ruled with U.S backing until 1979. There were scant tears for the victims of the Shah's police state or calls for the restoration of democracy. The Shah was a useful dictator. The Ayatollahs who overthrew him were not, and with their rise to power came a renewed concern for human rights in Iran.

Sort of, at least. The new government was condemned for its repressive policies, but when Iraq invaded Iran, starting a war that killed millions of people, the U.S was supportive, and when Iraq deployed poison gas against civilians it took an approach of statutory neglect. Likewise, when the Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist organization suspected of being backed by the U.S, carries out attacks on Iranian targets, there is no concern among western commentators.

Even as U.S officials hail the "Green Revolution", they are embracing a man, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who was one of Iran's chief thugs as Prime Minister for eight years. But though he "has not always moved in liberal circles," as the BBC describes, Mousavi's aspirations suddenly coincide with western interests, and past infractions can be forgotten. Mousavi is thus transformed from fanatical thug to crusading reformer.

Though the goal of a democratic Iran that respects human rights is something that all people should aspire towards it has never been a major goal of the United States, nor is it something the U.S can help along, except perhaps by declining to subvert progress when it does occur. For those Americans seriously interested in promoting the values so frequently, and self-righteously, extolled in the press, the first place to start is with the flaws they can actually address, those in their own society.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Thugs and Hypocrites

Boaz Toporovsky, chairman of Israel's National Student Union, has a question he wants to ask activists attempting to bring humanitarian aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip, who according to the United Nations, are receiving only a fourth of the goods they need due to an Israeli-Egyptian siege. "Why [are] they. . .not talking about the Kurdish minority or the Armenians that were murdered [in Turkey] or many other problems? We want to expose the truth, this hypocrisy and the absurdity," he explains. The death of nine Turkish nationals in an Israeli terrorist attack last week elicited a harsh rhetorical response from Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, which gave many Israelis new appreciation for the suffering of the victims of human rights violations. Or at least of Turkish ones, Israeli crimes remain laudable acts of self-defense against terrorists plotting to throw Israelis into the sea. Even the rock band The Pixies have become "cultural terrorists".

Suddenly Turkey's human rights issues have become a serious issue for Israelis. Denying the Armenian genocide might have been fashionable when Israeli President Shimon Peres did it, but now that Turkish politicians are denouncing an Israeli atrocity that trend is out of vogue. And though the close connections the Israeli military has maintained with its Turkish counterpart is not a legitimate target for popular anger, the same cannot be said of the plight of Turkey's minorities at the hands of its security apparatus. The sincerity of this outrage can be tested by asking how these Israelis might behave if their true concern was human rights. It would be a remarkable coincidence for this new wave of concern for Turkey's oppressed to just happen to suddenly emerge at the same time as a serious diplomatic spat with the nation which has been Israel's second closest ally since 1956.

The same question, however, needs to be leveled at Prime Minister Erdogan, who has been trumpeting himself as the indefatigable champion of the downtrodden whilst presiding over one of the world's most repressive states and quietly maintaining military ties with Israel. Just because Turkey's human rights record has been the subject of a wave of self-righteous indignation does not mean there are not serious issues. During World War II, NAZI propagandists tirelessly crusaded against the crimes of the partisans. That criticism was illegitimate, but the crimes were still real.

In this latest crisis anyone genuinely concerned with human rights would be justified in asking the same question of Prime Minister Erdogan they put to the assembly of hypocrites in Israel. How might Erdogan behave if his true concern was human rights. Starting with the latest crisis, and assuming he has control over the armed forces, he might sever military ties with Israel. Then he would proceed to recognize the Armenian Genocide and make reparations to Turkey's disenfranchised minorities. He would offer equal rights and a referendum on meaningful autonomy to the Kurds. Thus begins a long list of reforms that will never be undertaken by the present AK government. Erdogan wants to reposition himself as a leader of the Muslim world, hence his tough rhetoric, while continuing to pursue his nation's cynical realpolitik objectives, hence his refusal to change policies. The spat between Turkey and Israel is a contest among thugs and hypocrites.

Friday, May 14, 2010

THE POLITICAL BRAIN

Emory psychology professor Drew Westen's book The Political Brain holds little scientific or intellectual interest. The overview of the psychology of political thought is interesting, but brief. Westen instead devotes himself to the creation of a political handbook for Democratic political candidates, interlaced with partisan venom and hypocrisy. As a scientific work this book merits no attention. A number of basic factual errors, such as describing House Minority Leader John Boehner as a Senator, coupled with an obviously blind partisan loyalty raise doubts about the credibility of Westen's work where it does take an intellectual nature.

Rather, this book, which has positive reviews from both Bill Clinton and Howard Dean, is a worthwhile read because of the insight it offers into the (not so) hidden considerations that drive political culture. The Democrat's problem at the polls, Westen argues, is that they assume voters are rational and therefore run campaigns based on issues. Democrats have unfairly projected their own rationality onto the voters they hope to win over with disastrous results.

The book proposes following the Republicans, who are characterized as either evil or incompetent in holding office, but highly gifted at running for office, in abandoning all focus on substantive issues. Instead, Democrats should concentrate on making voters feeling good and smearing the other side. They need to adopt a compelling narrative that defines their message. Intelligent arguments, they must realize, are comprehensible only to elites. The common people must be pandered to with know nothing politics. The children's story The Little Engine That Could is the correct model for talking to voters, who are either too dumb or too emotional to grasp political issues.

Westen's skills as a propagandist and insights into the minds' of voters are debatable. The unintentional insights his book offers into the cynical and self-justifying world of the partisan ideologues who choreograph American political culture are not, and they make the book worthwhile for anyone with the patience and energy to endure an endless, partisan rant.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Conflict Minerals Trade Act.

Join Amnesty International in urging the House of Representatives to pass the Conflict Minerals Trade Act.

From Amnesty International's website:

Background Information: The Conflict
Minerals Trade Act of 2009



The Conflict Minerals Trade Act (H.R. 4128), introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) on November 19, 2009 in the U.S. House of Representatives, seeks to improve transparency and reduce the trade in conflict minerals coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in order to promote the larger policy goal of supporting peace and security in the DRC.

The DRC is rich in natural resources, including large deposits of columbite-tantalite (known as coltan), cassiterite, wolframite and gold, which are used in everyday technology such as cell phones, laptops and digital video recorders and in jewelry. The mines from which these minerals are extracted are most often under the control of armed groups, especially in the volatile eastern part of the country, where conflict has been ongoing for many years despite the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping mission, MONUC.

The most recent report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the DRC found that armed groups in eastern DRC continue to control and profit from the extraction and trade of these minerals. Both the conflict and the mining of minerals itself have led to grave human rights abuses, including sexual violence, child and slave labor, and mass displacement.

If enacted into law, H.R. 4128 would mandate the production of a ?Congo Conflict Minerals Map,? which would map mines currently under the control of armed groups in the DRC. In addition, the bill would mandate the Secretaries of State and Commerce to work with interested parties, including commercial entities, to determine best practices to ensure due diligence and documentation on the origin and supply chain of potential conflict minerals. H.R. 4128 would specifically ensure that the minerals used by companies do not directly finance conflict, result in labor or human rights abuses, or damage the environment, by mandating the creation of a ?Potential Conflict Goods List? and the regular auditing of facilities that are engaged in the trade in minerals from the DRC.

Most importantly, H.R. 4128 would require that individuals or companies be subject to penalties if found guilty of entering conflict minerals into the United States by fraud, gross negligence or negligence. H.R. 4128 would greatly advance the goals of regulating and stemming the flow of conflict minerals, thereby limiting the ability of armed groups to benefit from conflict minerals and perpetuate the conflict.

Friday, April 16, 2010

WHAT A PLEASANT PERSON

"They hate us? We hate them. . .We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. . .Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention."
-Ann Coulter, [source]

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

THE AGONY OF HAITI

In January Haiti was devastated by a massive earthquake. In terms of casualties it was the tenth most catastrophic natural disaster in history. Much of the capital was destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives, and a tenth of the country lost their homes. Even the President was made homeless by the destruction of his official and personal residences. For the first time, much of the world took note of the agony of this small island nation. "Massive Earthquake Reveals Entire Island Civilization," quipped the Onion.

For Haitian, the 2010 earthquake which captured the world's sympathy was not a uniquely terrific shock, but one in a series. With a level of development on par with sub-Saharan Africa and a per-capita GDP one-sixtieth that of the United States Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Once upon a time it was that region's richest colony, France's "Pearl of the Antilles". This pearl's rich plantations made its French overlords wealthy, its people, however, were exterminated and replaced by African slaves.

Saint-Domingue, as the French called it, was first settled by Christopher Columbus in 1493, but as greater wealth was found elsewhere Spain lost interest and was gradually replaced by French colonists, first by pirates and later by equally thuggish planters. In 1697 Spain recognized what was to become Haiti as French territory.

This arrangement, whereby French planters grew rich off the forced labor of African slaves on land stolen from an exterminated indigenous population persisted for nearly a hundred years. Then, in 1791, inspired by the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity articulated by French revolutionaries Haiti's enslaved, nearly 90% of the population, revolted. Within a year, a third of the territory of the nation had been freed, but France would not let its former colony go easily. Independence would not come until 1804, after Napoleon had sent his armies to restore slavery and independence leader Toussaint L'Ouverture was kidnapped to a French dungeon where he died. Haiti had been liberated at the cost of a hundred-thousand dead civilians, but its agony was far from over.

The Revolution left the once vibrant economy in shambles. Embarrassed imperialists and nervous slaveholders resolved to keep it that way, so as to deter any imitations. Haiti became a pariah, unable to trade in international markets and fearful of a reinvasion. It was under this threat that French King Charles X offered recognition to Haiti in 1825- in exchange for an indemnity of 25 million gold Franks. It was a crippling debt, but one which Haiti had little choice but to pay, through high interest loans from foreign banks that would not be repaid until after the second World War. The resultant taxes severely retarded any hope of economic recovery.

Then, in 1915, the U.S succeeded France as Haiti's primary tormentor when the great idealist Woodrow Wilson, acted on the private idealism confined to his journal that:
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down … Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.
Wilson was eager to prevent the Hatian government from defaulting on its massive debt to U.S financial institution. He landed a detachment of marines in July. They quickly disbanded the Parliament at gunpoint, reinstituted forced labor, imposed a new Constitution, selected a pliant President, and seized control of custom houses, banks, and the National Treasury. 40% of the Haiti's GDP was then siphoned off towards debt repayments. From 1915 until its conclusion in 1934 the American occupation retained a veto power over all governmental decisions and staffed key administrative posts with American officials. Looking back on his experiences in Haiti and Latin America Gen. Smedley Butler reflected on the American mission:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. . . I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt, the author, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, of the American imposed Constitution, oversaw the withdrawal of American forces from an increasingly hostile Haiti under his 'Good Neighbor Policy'. The American troops were gone, but they left behind a battered nation, and a tiny, pro-American elite.

François "Papa Doc" Duvalier became a prominent member of that elite. In 1957 he became President, though initially hostile to U.S, relations improved as Duvalier positioned himself as a regional anti-Communist bulwark. His personal security service, the Tonton Macoutes, who were granted a blanket, preemptive pardon for all crimes, ravaged the nation, hunting down and killing, kidnapping, and torturing suspected opponents and Communists. The "immaterial being," as Duvailer styled himself, looted the National Treasury, while most Haitians languished in poverty and terror of the American backed security services. An estimated 30,000 people were liquidated during Duvailer's reign.

On his death Duvailer's nineteen year-old son Jean-Claude succeeded him as President for Life. Baby Doc was more playboy than politician, however, and left government affairs largely to family members and other associates who staffed the government with cronies. Those cronies continued to dominate Haitian politics even after Duvailer fled the country aboard an American military plane amidst a popular revolt in 1986.

Though the established elite maintained a tenuous grip on power following the collapse of the Duvailer dictatorship, Duvailerism without Duvailer, their influence was waning. By 1990 these pro-American elites were forced to hold a democratic election where Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic Priest whose political career began organizing the urban poor against repression, became Haiti's first democratically elected President with 67% of the vote.

His economic policies, however, diverged from the interests of the U.S and after seven months in office Aristide was deposed in a bloody coup, organized by elements of the security forces with strong ties to the United States. After three years of military rule the U.S government agreed to reinstate the ousted Haitian leader, but compelled him to accept the economic program of his defeated U.S backed opponent in the 1990 election, former World Bank official and Duvailer Finance Minister Marc Bazin. Haiti was forced to eliminate protective agricultural tariffs and import highly subsidized American rice, severely damaging the agricultural component of the economy, which employs two-thirds of the workforce. Anti-Aristide figures, such as CIA operative Emmanuel Constant, who formed the FRAPH death squad with the backing of the U.S Defense Intelligence Agency in 1993 to terrorize the President's supporters, were offered refuge in the U.S.

Aristide's term expired in 1996, but he returned to politics to compete in the 2000 Presidential election where voters awarded him another five-year mandate. In his second term Aristide returned to a populist agenda, proposing progressive economic and social reforms and demanding $21 billion of reparations from France for the extortion of 1825. That enraged powerful interests, and at a conference in Ottawa in 1993, France, Canada, and the United States, decided that Artistide had to go. A little over a year later an assortment of thugs, led by former death squad commander Guy Philippe and elements of the disbanded national army initiated a rebellion that quickly seized much of the national territory. On February 28, 2004 President Aristide was kidnapped aboard a U.S military plane and forced into exile in the Central Africa Republic.

An American backed regime, including a Prime Minister flown from the U.S for the occasion, took power following the coup. The new government's rule, according to Amnesty International, was marked by "[e]xcessive force and unlawful killings by police. . .political prisoners, no effective system to administer justice, uphold the rule of law and provide impartial protection of human rights," and a culture of impunity for officials accused of violations, all with the enthusiastic support of the U.S.

Despite the election of former Aristide ally René Préval to the Presidency in 2006 President Aristide had not been allowed to return to the country and his party continues to be banned from elections. The 2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti adds one more chapter to a tortured history authored largely by the U.S, France, and a repressive local elite.

Friday, February 5, 2010

CHEMICAL ALI'S JUSTICE

Chemical Ali is dead. Saddam Hussein's former spy chief and defense minister hanged last month after receiving death sentences for ordering the gassing of a Kurdish village, crushing a Shia uprising at the end of the Gulf War, liquidating Shiites from Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood in 1999, and presiding over the al-Anfal campaign in which upwards of 100,000 ethnic Kurds were massacred. Serious crimes, but not the one for which Ali hanged, a difference most immediately apparent in the treatment of his accomplice in the Al-Anfal campaign, Gen. Sultan Hashem Ahmad al-Ta.

A trusted subordinate of Saddam, Hashem was charged with implementing Ali's orders in the Al-Anfal campaign. He signed a report to the deposed Iraqi leader as "General, Sultan Hashen Ahmed, Leader of the Al-Anfal Operation." He personally directed the systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds before going on to become defense minister in 1995, a post he held until the American invasion. Hashem was Ali's co-defendant at the al-Anfal trial, the court sentenced him to die, and the government set an execution date; September 11, 2007. Hashem was never executed. The Americans refused to turn him over.

U.S officials who boast of bringing justice to Saddam's victims are typically remiss to mention Hashem publicly. David Petraeus was not. In a letter to the Iraqi General following the invasion, the American commander addressed him as "a man of honor and integrity," and reflected philosophically on the camaraderie and shared values linking such men. "Although we find ourselves on different sides of this war," mused Petraeus, "we do share common traits. As military men, we follow the orders of our superiors. We may not necessarily agree with the politics and bureaucracy, but we understand unity of command and supporting our leaders in a common and just cause." Hashem was an assecory to Saddam's crimes, but he also collaborated with the U.S authorities, who credit him with helping to prevent large scale resistance from the army. Sending a collaborator to the gallows would send a bad message. What is being judged, the act or the actor? The justice of the victor overlooks the crimes of his accomplices.

But there were many accomplices to Saddam's crimes. The same officials who deposed him after he became hostile to American interests embraced him when he served them, as he did for most of his carer. The connections run deep. At age twenty-two Saddam became a CIA operative and was tasked with liquidating Iraq's recalcitrant Prime Minister Abd al-Kassem Quassim. When the plot failed American operatives helped Saddam flee to Lebanon and later Egypt where the U.S government put him up in a hotel and provided training. Four years later the U.S succeeded in ousting Quassim, whom the Ba'ath Party replaced in power. The new government was inaugurated with blood. The CIA presented it a list of enemies to be liquidated; hundreds of doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals suspected of leftist sympathies. The exact toll of the killing spree, in which Saddam is thought to have participated, remains unknown.

In the 1960's the British embassy described Saddam as "the recognized heir-apparent,. . .a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business." By the time he formally assumed the Presidency in July, 1979 the West was more than ready to do business. Earlier that year a popular revolution in Iran overthrew the western backed dictatorship of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah, who had ruled with an iron fist since coming to power in a 1953 CIA coup against the elected government. When U.S policy makers failed to oust the new government they turned to Saddam for support. At the behest of the U.S Iraq launched a devastating eight year war on Iran. President Ronald Reagan quickly removed the nation from the list of states sponsoring terrorism, reestablished diplomatic relations, and offered economic aid, diplomatic support, security training, intelligence sharing, and military equipment. Saddam Hussein even became an honorary citizen of Detroit.

The support continued through the Iraqi leader's worst crimes. The Reagan and Bush administrations approved 80 direct sales to the Iraqi military. Donald Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad on two separate occasions as the President's special envoy to meet Saddam and supply him weapons and intelligence. When Iraq deployed poison gas against Kurdish civilians in the town of Halabja the State Department instructed its diplomats to falsely imply Iranian culpability and blocked international condemnation. Reflecting on U.S involvment in Iraq during this period journalist Ted Koppel noted "George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq." Then there was a problem; Saddam's first real crime.

Following the end of the Iran-Iraq war Saddam turned his attention westward towards the small oil rich emirate of Kuwait. Exploiting an ongoing border dispute, Saddam invaded and announced he had annexed Kuwait. The west was jittery. Saddam now added Kuwiat's oil fields to his control and the Saudi fields, just over the border, seemed vulnerable as well. Left unchecked, Saddam's control of these resources would give him tremendous leverage over U.S policy; an unacceptable scenario. In a move President Bush conceded was motivated by oil the U.S invaded and quickly crushed the Iraqi forces.

Believing the U.S would support them, Iraq's Shiite majority revolted. Without air support Saddam's forces would be powerless to prevent the rebellion from toppling his government, but the U.S still controlled Iraq's airspace and could block any move against the rebels. When the Iraqis approached U.S Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, whose father had been instrumental in overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953, to ask for permission though, he approved their operation. Saddam had disobeyed orders, but he was still preferable to a government that reflected the views of the Iraqi people. The rebels were quickly slaughtered.

Following the war the U.S severed relations with Saddam, but its torment of Iraq continued. Such disobedience had to be punished and the U.S and U.K imposed a devastating sanctions program which, according to a U.N report starved 500,000 children to death. The two heads of the U.N oil for food program both resigned in protest, describing the sanctions as "genocidal", infuriating the White House, which remained unconcerned by the humanitarian implications of their policy. When an interviewer told U.S Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima." and asked "is the price worth it?" Albright answered in the affirmative, "we think the price is worth it."

American officials are fond of gloating about the justice done to those monsters of the Ba'athist regime. There is an easy way to test the sincerity of these claims. How are American officials and their Iraqi collaborators such as Hashem judged for crimes in Iraq? Were Donald Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright, or George Bush tried and executed along Saddam? Of course not, no one who advances U.S interests is subject to judgment, and neither was Saddam when he was content presiding over an American satellite.