Conscription already a reality in the US

The American war machine is so desperate for numbers it has resorted to a form of backdoor conscription.

A US solider has been jailed on criminal charges in Georgia for writing and recording a rap song that blasts the army and describes going on a shooting spree. Marc A Hall used music to vent his anger after being told he was not allowed to leave the army after four years this February as he had planned, and he would be forced to remain in the ranks for a year-long tour of Iraq starting in December 2009.

The 'stop-loss' policy is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty retaining them beyond their initial end of term of service. The policy originally dates from Vietnam, but was also used during the first Gulf War and the so called War on Terror. More than 185,000 U.S. troops have been forced to extend their time in the military since September 11. While there is a clause in recruitment contracts allowing involuntary extension to end of term service dates this clause has been subject to some legal challenge, interestingly on the basis that Congress never formerly declared war in the case of Gulf War II (Iraq). 'Involuntary' means it is a form of conscription in all but name.

One can see how soliders who ask to leave could be treated. "No, we will keep you here for another 12 months under stop-loss - if we can't think of a suitably 'brave' mission, I think the bomb disposal squad requires some more recruits" (read cannon fodder)

In 2007 Secretary of Defence Robert Gates ordered military bosses to minimise their use of mandatory tour extensions, and the military responded by increasing its use of stop-loss by 43%.

The Canadian Press reports:
Hall posted the song, called "Stop Loss," on his Web site. Klimaski said he also played it for many soldiers in his unit, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division. On the recording, Hall denounces the Army for the policy used to keep thousands of soldiers in the ranks beyond their scheduled dates to leave the military. He also raps about opening fire with his military-issue M-4 rifle.

"I got a (expletive) magazine with 30 rounds, on a three-round burst, ready to fire down," Hall raps on the recording. "Still against the wall, I grab my M-4, spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor. I bet you never stop-loss nobody no more, in your next lifetime of course. No remorse."

"They're saying it's a threat. We're saying it's a fantasy," said Jim Klimaski, a Washington civilian attorney who has talked to Hall about the case. "He's mad, but he's not stupid. He's not violent."

I can't help but recall the episode of Blackadder the Forth, set in the Western Front in 1917, where everyone was preparing to go 'over the top'. Blackadder recalled that the traditional way to get out of the fighting was to pretend to be mad, by putting underpants on your head, sticking two pencils up your nose and saying 'wibble'.

As Blackadder said as his final words "Who would notice a madman around here?". Quite.

Update: You can hear Marc Hall's rap here. Predictably the 'shooting spree' as described by the media is only one or two lines of the song.

Obama gets Nobbled with Nobels

Barack Obama got the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because he is not George W Bush. It is hard not to come to this conclusion given he was nominated for the award after only eleven days as President of the United States.

That was my immediate reaction. Yet if this was the case, would Hillary Clinton have been a shoe in had she won the Presidency? Would John McCain have received the prize for his patchy but mostly good record in legislating against torture? As there are some doubt as to the likelihood of these alternative scenarios, I no longer see my initial reaction as a sufficient explanation.

I suspect Obama gained his nomination based on his campaign for President, and the positive response of the American people to his message of 'hope'. Indeed the Norwegian Nobel committee pretty much cite his 'hope' campaign slogan.

"Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

The committee also congratulate Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons".

Obama's speech in Cairo may have been an important change in tone with regards to relations with the Middle East, and his abandonment of an unworkable 'missile defence shield' in Eastern Europe is welcome. That said it still feels like he received the award for his performance in the opening credits, when the major plotlines of his Presidency are still to be revealed.

Obama patently fails to meet one of the criteria set for the Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel wished to acknowledge the person who has done the most for 'the abolition or reduction of standing armies'. Obama has increased troop numbers in the war in Afghanistan and is currently considering a further increase, despite the many examples of unsuccessful 'conquest' of the country. Why send armies to defend Hamed Kazai's dodgy record of electoral fraud and legislation that appears to condone the rape of women within marriage?

A real peacemaker may have instigated a process that sought to bring the waring factions - even the Taliban - into a negotiated settlement, perhaps even a form of shared government, safe in the knowledge that not many guerrillas manage the transition into long term legislators, and can fade away as a result.

It is unfortunate for Obama that the 2009 Peace Prize is likely to be compared with the 1973 award which was controversially won by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for negotiating the ceasefire in the Vietnam war.

The ceasefire was signed on 23 January 1973, which would have been only a week before nominations would have closed for the Nobel award for that year. Like 2009, the 1973 award was also described as a work in progress. Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho refused the award on the grounds that peace had not really been restored in South Vietnam, and he was right - the ceasefire failed to hold and the war did not finally end until 1975. Le Duc Tho increased his standing by refusing the award, whereas Kissinger accepted with 'humility'.

Yet in the same year, Kissinger "helped" a military coup in Chile that violently removed a democratically elected government. Clearly the Peace Prize is for pieces, and not the whole of ones actions.

Given that Obama has said that he does not feel he deserves "to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize", I wonder if he may have done more to increase his standing had he refused it "at this time".

Many Americans have high expectations of Obama as President, as do many others across the globe. Many politicians are keen to keep in check the expectations of the electorate, yet I am coming to the conclusion Obama attempts to use high expectations to his advantage, even with the inherent political risks of disappointment.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has increased the stakes again.

The decline of the left in America

It was great to wake up this morning to hear Jim Flynn on National radio discussing his latest book. Listeners should be aware that Mr Flynn has a good sense of humour and sometimes delves in impish irony.

Emertius Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago, Flynn new book is called "Where have all the liberals gone? Race, class and ideals in America". He summarised some of his findings in an article in the NZ Herald yesterday.

"Does American liberalism have a future? The question has a simple answer: not as long as liberals allow their opponents to define political reality. Right-wing dominance of American politics is easy to understand: popularise a hysterical image of a dangerous world; devote surplus government revenue to ensure "national security"; thus evade a debate about domestic priorities that you might lose; thus leave a vacuum to be filled by trivia such as prayer and gay marriage. "

"It is hard to tell whether American liberals have lost their voice because they lack courage or because they half believe in the same picture of reality. That they have forfeited their tradition of social reform is shown by the paucity of their hopes for an Obama victory."

Some of this analysis could also be applied to the Labour party here, particularly Goff's proposal to "ban" gangs" and Labour's draconian anti-terror legislation. In New Zealand the vacuum was filled with the so called 'debate' over the so called anti-smaking bill. If Labour lack the will and/or perhaps the money for big social reforms the centre-left may struggle to maintain the Treasury benches in November. I will return to this issue in my next post.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear US Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden say during the debate last night that he believes the 2008 American election is the most important since 1932. Prior to Franklin D Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933, 32 out of the 48 states had closed their banks. I hope very much the Democrats are looking to resusitate Roosevelt - the current economic situation is making a new New Deal look like America's only hope right now.

Obama should put Hillary on the Supreme Court

Listening to National Radio early this morning I did enjoy the suggestion made by Jon Johansson that a President Obama should appoint Hilary Clinton to the Supreme Court. As Johansson points out this would mean all of Hilary's conservative detractors would have to put up with Hillary for as long as she lives!

Looking into this idea a little further, I found the American Family News Network made a compelling case for Hillary, even if they might not have meant to. A so-called "pro-family legal expert", Mat Staver hopes the the potential legacy of Clinton is something conservative voters will consider.

"That legacy will likely be whether or not we have abortion for the rest of our lives or whether we restore the sanctity of human life," he explains. "Whether we continue to have [traditional] marriage ... [w]hat kind of security, what kind of family values and religious freedom are we going to have in the next couple of generations," lists the attorney.

The American Taliban have spoken. Many people reading the above will take it as an ringing endorsement of a Clinton candidacy.

While Clinton does not have any judicial experience (she is a lawyer), non judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court before. In 1952 California Governor Earl Warren entered the court. He later became one of the highest regarded Chief Justices, playing a key role in the Brown vs Board of Education case in 1954 that ordered an end to school segregation.

Of course Obama can't simply appoint her - he needs to become President and a Justice needs to die. Perhaps he could appoint her Attorney General (or a similar role) in the meantime, which would give a clear hint of where she might be heading, and avoid any perceptions of the Clintons running the Obama White House.

Given a Republican majority on the Supreme Court voted on party lines to appoint George W Bush to the Presidency in 2000, the Republicans can not credibly complain about politicisation of the Supreme Court. In fact, Hillary would bring welcome balance to the currently conservative bench.

Concerns about the Server in the Sky

The Herald reports that New Zealand is to be part of an FBI-led consortium that plans a global database of personal biometric information to "catch criminals and terrorists".

Biometric details and measurements, such as iris scans, palm and fingerprints would be swapped between countries, namely the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As Iain Thompson points out, these five countries already co-operate in running Echelon, the global eavesdropping service that listens and records global telephone, radio and email communications. So while the public face may be in terms of police co-operation, its a fair bet the intelligence agencies will also be able to access this data. Perhaps the GCSB and the SIS see our participation as a way to gain greater access to US intelligence data in return.

While 'officials' in this country claim New Zealand is still considering whether to join the consortium, Police National Forensic Services Adviser Inspector John Walker said it was likely we would do so.

The FBI told the Guardian: "Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale. While it is currently in the concept and design stages, once complete it will provide a technical forum for member nations to submit biometric search requests to other nations. It will maintain a core holding of the world's 'worst of the worst' individuals. Any identifications of these people will be sent as a priority message to the requesting nation."
...
The FBI is proposing to establish three categories of suspects in the shared system: "internationally recognised terrorists and felons", those who are "major felons and suspected terrorists", and finally those who the subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links. Tom Bush, assistant director at the FBI's criminal justice information service, has said he hopes to see a pilot project for the programme up and running by the middle of the year.

The proposal to share information about subjects of terrorist suspects is the most concerning. Suspects are not criminals, and should not be treated like criminals unless you wish to throw out the entire principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is yet another example of governments using the excuse of 'anti-terrorism' to undermine core principles of the legal system for their own convenience.

Some elements of the police and security services in New Zealand have wished for a national biometric database of all citizens, whether they have committed a crime or not. This proposal has faced some resistance. But 'Server in the Sky' has the potential to implement this policy by default. The US now subjects all passengers, even those in transit to compulsory digital finger scans and photographs (which are also stored for an unknown period). Could the proposed consortium allow our police to import the finger scans of New Zealanders they are unable to legally obtain at home?

Even for those with criminal records the system could lead to some unjust outcomes. As a purely hypothetical example, supposing someone picked up a minor conviction in their teens. Years later they are wrongly implicated in a so called anti-terror operation. Due to their old record, their biometric information and criminal history could be spread about the world with little chance for correction.

I don't have so much of a problem with coppers sharing information about internationally active criminals convicted of serious crimes - but I suspect there are procedures in place for this already without the need for massive data sponge.

Interestingly, the US defence contractor linked with the proposed database, Northrop Grumman Corp, is the same company who created the IDENT1 database, an enhanced fingerprint identification system currently used by British police.

It is pleasing to see that the Server in the Sky proposal greeted with an element of scepticism in the UK media. This follows the embarrassing leak of detailed personal information on 40% of the British population late last year, and the case where an arrest for a terror offence by US investigators was based on a misidentified fingerprint match.

In the Guardian Nick Clegg is calling for the proposal to be treated with caution, as nothing, including biometrics, is fail safe. He highlights the importance of safeguards to ensure data collected under UK law remains subject to high data protection standards.
And once data is in the hands of the US authorities, there is no getting it back. We already send them massive amounts of information about air passengers, through a deal brokered by the European Commission, without any guarantee it will be properly safeguarded once it reaches the US. It would be foolhardy to start sharing further information without a simple guarantee: that data collected under UK law should continue to be protected even after it leaves Britain. We should share information when other countries can guarantee data protection standards that match, or exceed our own. Otherwise, who knows which one of us will be on the no-fly list next.

If the Government sign us up for Server in the Sky, at the very least they should be demanding this too. There also needs to be clear procedures to remove all traces of incorrect information. As the Zaoui case and the recent so called 'anti-terror raids' showed, both the SIS and our police are prone to bouts of Groupthink, where erroneous bullshit can only feed presumptions of guilt before innocence.

I hope we stay well clear of Server in the Sky. It can only fall down sometime.

A free trade deal with the US - at what price?

What concessions would New Zealand have to make to get a free trade deal with the United States? Any rational analysis of any proposal for a free trade agreement should consider this question, yet the media continue to pedal meaningless Pollyanna that there are only gains to be made. Quite frankly, it defies crediability to make a US FTA sound like a never ending gobstopper that will not lead to any tooth decay.

New Zealanders are very poorly served by their media when it comes to coverage of trade issues - I have written a little on this issue before.

Ironically the US publishes a report ever year on 'Foreign Trade Barriers' where it lists the laws and regulatory mechanisms of other countries the US Trade Representative considers 'significant barriers to US exports'. The 2007 report on New Zealand can be found here. So when those concerned about the negative impacts of free trade say they are concerned that the US has New Zealand's GE and other environmental legislation they have a credible source - a branch of the US Government itself. Apologies for the long quotes from the above document - but I think Uncle Sam makes an admirable case as to why a free trade agreement with the US is a bad idea, and even for those who support free trade, I think it shows it is a deal New Zealand could do without.

US-NZ FTA will weaken environmental laws
Despite New Zealand having far from a complete ban on genetically modified organisms, the US regards our current environmental protection laws, including the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) as a "trade barrier".
"ERMA...an independent body, reviews applications for the release of new organisms, including biotechnology products that contain living organisms. ERMA assesses applications on a case-by-case basis and can issue three types of approvals: contained field test, conditional release, and full, unconditional release. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) enforces compliance of field tests and conditional release approvals. To date, ERMA has only approved a small number of contained field tests. There have been no applications for either a conditional or a full release of products derived by the use of biotechnology in New Zealand.... Meeting New Zealand's biotechnology food labeling regulations can be extremely burdensome and is especially relevant for U.S. agricultural exporters who deal primarily in processed food."

The US is also complaining about our "Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures". These are regulations to minimise the risks to our agricultural industries of a disease being introduced that could lead to a widespread infection of New Zealand livestock or plants. I could be cheeky here and describe this as the US wanting to remove the 'trade barriers' on the introduction of mad cow disease!

A US-NZ FTA could even hit your ipod
In negotations for a free trade agreement, the US would aim to stop New Zealanders making a digital copy of music they have bought legitimately. I quote again.
"The U.S. music industry opposes a proposed amendment to the New Zealand Copyright Act that would legalize the duplication of sound recordings in other formats for a purchaser's private use."

US-NZ FTA means you will pay more for healthcare
The US also want to ensure New Zealanders pay more for their medications. The New Zealand drug buying agency Pharmac, which describes its primary role as "to improve the value of expenditure by DHBs on pharmaceuticals". Pharmac has been in the US sights for some years, as they regard the agency as a block on the ability of its pharmaceutical corporations to make even larger profits.
"The U.S. Government continued to raise concerns about New Zealand's support for innovation in the research and development of innovative pharmaceutical products. New Zealand's Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), a stand-alone Crown entity, administers a Pharmaceutical Schedule that lists medicines subsidized by the New Zealand government. The schedule also specifies conditions for prescribing a product listed for reimbursement.... New Zealand does not restrict the sale of non-subsidized pharmaceuticals in the country. However, private medical insurance companies will not cover the cost of non-subsidized medicines and doctors are often reluctant to prescribe them to patients who would have to pay the cost themselves. Thus, PHARMAC's decisions have a major impact on the availability and price of non-subsidized medicines and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to sell their products in the New Zealand market."

Even though its not explicitly stated above, one way to encourage the use of non-subsidised medications would be to remove or limit the subsidies. Greater privatisation of health care services would no doubt help too.

The US Trade Representative then talks about the efforts of Peter Dunne and United Future, during coalition negotiations with Labour in 2005, to make the world a safer place for the US drug multinationals.

Despite complaining about the monopolistic nature of the operation of Pharmac, the US also want to maintain and extend patents so their corporations can enjoy monopoly profits for longer.
"United States pharmaceutical companies have expressed concerns about a prohibition of patents for methods of medical treatment in New Zealand’s draft patents legislation. The industry also is concerned by the Cabinet's decision in mid-2004 to halt a study on the economic impact of extending patent terms for pharmaceuticals. The draft patents bill fails to address the issue of patent term restoration for pharmaceuticals."

Maintaining pharmaceutical patents for longer can only mean one thing - New Zealanders will pay significantly more for their health care while the US pharmaceutical corporations make larger profits.

US-NZ FTA means yet more American sitcoms
The US dislikes local content broadcast quotas either even when such quotas are voluntary. They clearly do not think we get enough of a dose of Americana on our TV screens. Perhaps the US wants to impose more reruns on Friends et al. Ironically one reason Labour could not introduce a mandatory quota as per their election pledge in 1999 was that this was contrary to a 'commitment' made under the General Agreement on Trade and Services by the National Government in 1994. Its a clear example of how so called trade liberalisation agreements can be profoundly undemocratic.

Despite New Zealand's laws on foreign investment in land and businesses being among the most liberal in the world, the US still regard any screening mechanism (even if it is a monkey with a rubber stamp) as a threat to its economic interests.

So next time you hear an activist marching down the street about how a free trade agreement with the US will written by US corporations, don't write it off as a conspiracy theory, go look up what the US Trade Representative is saying. It took me one simple Google search to find this - its a shame the mainstream media appear to be so hesitant to look up something so obvious.

The power of Guernica

I have been enjoying Simon Schama's BBC series The Power of Art, which has been screening in New Zealand late on Sunday nights.

Previously the history of art hasn't been a subject that has held my attention for very long, but I really appreciate the way Schama, a historian by trade, places the art in its historical context and explains how each of the works fits into the life of the artist.

Tonight he looked at Pablo Picasso, and the pinnacle of his artistic career, Guernica. This work was the reaction of a politically aware artist to the air bombing of the Basque town of Guenica by German and Italian fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War. The town had no obvious military targets - it was nothing more than an act of state terrorism, dropping bombs on a civilian population.

Picasso created the work to "clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death."

Despite a "polite" response at the time, the painting later came to be seen as a prophecy. Like Winston Churchill, Picasso gained a lot more credit for his stand against fascism after the horrors of World War II.

Schama also shows how Guernica gained an uncanny modern relevance in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Following Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations where he told a whole lot of lies on behalf of the Bush Administration, Powell and John Negroponte held a press conference where they made the case for war. At the last moment, someone noticed a reproduction of Guernica on the wall, and officials from the Bush Administration demanded the tapestry be covered up in order that it did not upset people. While they did not burn the work, the effect of the large blue curtain was the same.

Now why would the Bush Administration not want their warmongering associated with an image of screaming women and children? Perhaps the image was just little bit too apt, especially for a military caste which has created an ocean of pain and death.

For Schama this episode was a good example of the power of art. The most powerful country in the world cowered in the face of Picasso's masterpiece.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?

With all the recent talk about Iran resuming its nuclear programme it is a shame the West continues to undermine its own position with selective morality and obvious hypocrisy.

I find it amazing the Press can have so many articles about this issue yet fail to address the obvious question - 'for what reasons could Iran want nuclear weapons?'

As Simon Jenkins points out, the answer is as simple as looking at a map.
"I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?"

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the BBC that the West is partly to blame for the Iran nuclear crisis for allowing Israel to develop a nuclear arsenal. He said nuclear weapons benefited no-one, and called for a nuclear-free zone in the Gulf. It would be good to see al-Faisal get some strong support for this idea, as a WMD free Middle East ought to be the goal of any sane policy. Better still, no Security Council Resolution would be required to put such a ban in place, as it is already provided for under existing resolutions.

In 2003 George Bush and Tony Blair attempted to use Security Council resolution 687 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. While 687 provided no such authorisation, it did call for the elimination of Iraqi WMD and delivery systems as a step towards "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all other missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." (Article 14). So if 687 is really to be upheld, then pressure must be put on Israel to disarm.

A good start would be for the US and the UK to publicly recognise Israel's possession of nuclear weapons (as far as I know they have never officially recognised this) and ask Israel to agree to arms reduction talks. This would have the advantage of greatly increasing the diplomatic pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear programme, as it would be much more difficult for Tehran to claim they need nukes for defensive purposes. Many Arab states feel threatened by Israel's nuclear status, especially as Israeli nuclear armed submarines have been known to patrol the coasts of Iran and Pakistan.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims Iran 'does not need nuclear arms' and that his country is only asserting its right to peaceful nuclear technology, as allowed under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unfortunately, countries such as Israel made similar denials in the mid-1960s when they were developing nuclear weapons, so any such denials ought to be taken with a grain of salt, unless said country is happy for the IAEA to make unhinded inspection visits.

In Iran's case, Ahmadinejad needs to be asked why it is so essential for Iran to gain nuclear power stations when the country is sitting on one of the most plentiful gas supplies in the world.

If Iran is successful in developing nuclear arms - this will be yet another dismal failure for the foreign policy of George W Bush. North Korea is named in the 'axis of evil' speech, continues its nuclear weapons programme and withdraws from the NPT. Iran is named in the 'axis of evil' speech, and is now 'breaking the seals' on its three nuclear facilities. It worried U.N chief inspector Hans Blix that in invading Iraq, Bush may have sent precisely the wrong message - the US only attacks countries that cannot defend themselves.

And like most policy questions - it all comes down to who we want to help. Simon Jenkins again.
"All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help."
---
Edit 14/9/09: Despite this post being over three years old it continues to generate quite a few hits. It is pleasing to know so many people are asking the same basic question that motivated my post. I turned this post into a longer article for Peace Researcher, where I also looked at some of the arguments related to nuclear power. This was published in December 2007.

Reflections on the natural disasters of 2005 - rebuilding lives is more than just bricks

Looking back on 2005 in the future, the prominence of natural disasters over the past 12 months will be hard to ignore. Due to the sheer scale of these disasters, people will continue to struggle with the ongoing effects the Boxing Day Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Pakistani earthquake, well into the new year and beyond.

Denise Dorsey, president-elect of the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Center, said that for many, the devastation was beyond an ability to cope. "Looking down a street where it's house after house, and the garbage and the innards of the houses, there's something about it that people in general can't grasp," Dorsey said. "It's not within the realm of any experience anyone's ever had. Your ordinary American doesn't have that in their repertoire of experience."

I gained a new appreciation for the sheer scale of the disaster after reading David Helvarg's article in the latest issue of Multinational Monitor. "The Storm this Time: A Personal Account of Natural and Unnatural Disaster in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina" is a fine example of the 'make me see' school of journalism, and is well worth reading. I also really liked the irony of David's introduction.

"I'm flying to New Orleans and the Gulf Region by way of Ronald Reagan (Washington D.C) and George Bush (Houston) airports to see how "less government" functions in the wake of a coastal catastrophe. Actually, given that it's three weeks since Hurricane Katrina made landfall, we already know the answer."

When it comes to rebuilding the areas devastated by disaster, I can understand why there is an immediate focus on rebuilding houses and other infrastructure (especially in the remote areas of Pakistan where being left in cold conditions without shelter is a killer). But at the same time it concerns me so much focus is placed on the physical rebuilding because, in many cases, rebuilding the houses is the easy bit. The media also like the reassurance of the 'rebuilding' stories, and their implied message that the government and private donations are being put to a 'quantifiable' bricks and mortar use, when it is going to a great deal more to rebuild people's lives.

Earlier in the year I highlighted an article looking at the mental health impact of the Asian Tsunami. As hurricane evacuees now return to their homes in New Orleans it is good to see the US media also covering the mental health legacy of Katrina, even if the Herald Tribune story has a 'tabloid like' focus on the expected increase in the number of suicides.

While every suicide is tragic, a great many more people will continue to struggle with grief for the loss of loved ones, survivor guilt, depression and anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress.

I would like to see more coverage of this in the media, as this would help reinforce two things. Firstly, the need for ongoing assistance and aid to the affected areas, long after the houses have been rebuilt. Secondly, it would reinforce the scale of the "mental health disaster" and the need for public (and private) aid money to be spent on helping people cope psychologically with both the short term and long term effects of disaster.

Income inequality and the dominance of corporations

In the latest edition of Focus on the Corporation, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman collate some interesting facts demonstrating the inequality of the world, and how the gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

While they title their piece 'Economic Apartheid in America', many of the examples have a familar ring, perhaps demonstrating how US hegemony over the world economy has led to inequity becoming a significant (and unwelcome) export.

"Of the world's 100 largest economies, 47 are nations, and 53 are corporations. Seventy-five percent of major corporations hire a consultant to stop employees from forming a union."

"Top executives now make more in a day than the average worker makes in a year."
(I assume this is based on US figures)

The Washington monument is 555 feet tall. Imagine it signifies the 2003 average compensation for CEOs in the Fortune 500.
- Today the salary of the average worker would be only 16 inches tall
(a ratio of 419 to one)
- In 1965 the worker's monument was 13 feet six inches tall
(a ratio of 41 to one)

And in order to preempt the predictable defence that the wealthy deserve higher incomes because they 'work harder', Mokhiber and Weissman point out that forty-two percent of those listed on the Forbes 400 in the US, inherited sufficient wealth to make this list.

"J. Paul Getty Jr. inherited the oil fortune from his father. David Rockerfeller Sr ($2.5 billion) is the grandson of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller....."

They also include a nice quote from the Constitution of the Knights of Labour. Dating from 1869, it is a nice way to demonstrate the similarities between the so called modern 'global' economy and that of the 19th century.
"The alarming development and aggressiveness of great capitalists and corporations, unless checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hopeless degradation of the toiling masses. It is imperative, if we desire to enjoy the full blessings of life, that a check be placed upon unjust accumulations and the power for evil of aggravated wealth."
---
When modern so called free marketers like to associate their ideas with Adam Smith, the man who coined the term the 'invisible hand', it is worth noting that they often use Smith in a selective fashion. While Smith did not like governments (the bit right wingers love), he also hated what we now call corporations. Smith would have argued for the need to resist mergers and acquisitions and break up monopolistic firms like Microsoft or Telecom. Yet the call for stronger competition law is now more likely to come from the left, rather than the right.

Despite the hype, terrorism is in decline

A friend just emailed me a copy of Paul Robinson's article 'The good news about terrorism". While it was published in the Spectator in April, his commentary is still highly relevant and worth a read. Robinson is a Lecturer in Security Studies at the University of Hull in the UK.

"We are facing the gravest threat that this nation has ever faced.’ Elizabeth I, speaking of the Spanish Armada? Winston Churchill, in the aftermath of Dunkirk? No. Home Office minister Baroness Scotland on Newsnight, justifying the new Prevention of Terrorism Act by reference to the threat from al-Qa’eda."

‘Hang on,’ I said to myself on hearing the Baroness, ‘that can’t be right.’ My mum can remember lying in bed hearing bombs drop, and she once saw a V1 go over and heard the engine cut out as she watched.

Robinson argues that vested interests in the defence establishment have pulled off a confidence trick to convince us to live in fear, by in large to justify their own existence. "The collapse of the Warsaw Pact eliminated the need for 90 per cent of our armed forces" and a good deal other military spending to boot....

"Far from being more dangerous, the world is safer now than ever before; and far from being an ever-growing problem, terrorism has been in sharp decline for over a decade. This is not a matter of opinion. It is provable.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) and Canada’s Project Ploughshares both annually track the number of armed conflicts taking place worldwide. Sipri counts only those which result in 1,000 deaths or more in a given year, so its figures are slightly lower. Even so, it agrees with Project Ploughshares that the amount of fighting on the planet is declining. According to Sipri, there were only 19 conflicts in 2003, down from 33 in 1991. With its broader definition, Project Ploughshares reports a decline to 36 in 2003 from a peak of 44 in 1995.

More good news follows, I’m afraid. Battle-related deaths rose slightly from 15,000 in 2002 to 20,000 in 2003 because of the Iraq war, but even these figures are substantially down from the annual tolls of 40,000 to 100,000 during the Cold War. Global military expenditure also fell by 11 per cent in real terms between 1992 and 2000, and the Congressional Research Service in Washington notes that international arms sales fell from £22.8 billion in 2000 to £14.3 billion in 2003. In short, there are fewer wars, fewer arms sales and fewer people dying, each year, than at any time since the second world war.

Robinson also denies that global terrorism poses a new and unprecedented threat to our security. He uses figures from the Rand Corporation MIPT (Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism) database to show there was a big peak in terrorism in the late 1970s and early '80s, followed by a steady decline ever since. "During the 1980s, the number of international terrorist incidents worldwide averaged about 360 a year. By the year 2000, it was down to just 100....Bluntly, terrorism is a declining problem, despite our best efforts to provoke it."
---
It also should be pointed out that conservative Republicians attempted to whip up fears about international terrorism when Reagan took office in 1981. Libya became the official punching bag. Qaddafi may have been a thug, but most importantly he did not have the military capability to effectively fight back against US aggression. Unlike the USSR Qaddafi did not possess nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the worst failure of the current foreign policy of the Bush administration is that it is teaching Iraq, Iran and North Korea that possession of nuclear weapons and other WMDs represent the only defence that will prevent a US invasion. In those countries, fear is rebounding on the US.

Sundown towns: Just how deliberate was institutional racism in the US?

On the subject of the history of race relations in the US, The Washington Post carries an interesting review of a new book called 'Sundown Towns' by James W. Loewen. Loewen argues that thousands of American towns kept themselves 'whites only' through deliberate policies between 1890 and 1960, aiming to drive out any black population and discourage any potential citizens of the "wrong" colour. These measures included "legal" ordinances banning the hiring of blacks or renting/selling them homes, informal "visits" warning visiting African Americans that "they must not remain in the town".

Such towns often posted signs at their city limits, carrying warnings such as "Nigger, Don't Let The Sun Set On YOU in Hawthorne", as one California town did in the 1930s.

Around 50 towns used mob violence, with many more relying on the threat of violence Loewen reports.

I think this helps to demonstrate how racial segregation in the US was not just 'the way things always had been', but a deliberate policy to legalise outright racism in the first half of the twentieth century. If this is so, perhaps we should not be as hesitant to use words like 'apartheid' to describe the situation existing in the US at that time.

Categories: US, Politics, Segregation, Civil Rights, Sundown Towns

Thank you Rosa Parks

One December evening in 1955 one black woman in Montgomery, Alabama refused to give up her seat to a white man on a segregated bus (Hat tip NRT). This simple action led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the civil rights movement in the United States.

Rosa Parks died on Monday night (US time) aged 92.

Thanks to the work of Rosa and her legal team, Alabama's segregation laws were overturned by the Supreme Court. The bus boycott created a stage for a local preacher, Martin Luther King, who would later assemble the 'March on Washington' and demonstrate public support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a legal guarantee of equal rights to Americans of all races.

Despite the inspiration she provided to others, Rosa suffered personal hardship in the immediate aftermath of her arrest. She was found guilty of violating the segregation laws and fined $14. She lost her job, and her husband quit his job after his boss ordered that no mention be made of "Rosa" or the legal case. Concerned for the safety of supporters as well as themselves, following a number of death threats, the Parks moved to Detroit in 1957, where Rosa worked as an aide in a Democratic congressman's office.

"Rosa was a true giant of the civil rights movement," said U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), in whose office Parks worked for more than 20 years. "There are very few people who can say their actions and conduct changed the face of the nation, and Rosa Parks is one of those individuals."

Thank you Rosa for demonstrating the power of non-violent direct action. Thank you for standing up against injustice and making the world a better place for us all.

More at No Right Turn.

Update: Bayprairie at OurWord has complied some interesting background to the bus boycott. While Rosa was 'the spark that lit the fire', Bayprairie points out that the movement to desegregate the buses in Montgomery began earlier, largely instigated by Jo Ann Robinson, a black college professor.

PS: You may have to log in to see the Washington Post report. (its free)

Categories: US, Politics, Activism, Civil Rights, Rosa Parks

Could Watergate be uncovered today - some reflections on the media

Today I was interested to hear that Mark Felt, former deputy director of the FBI has confirmed he was 'Deep Throat', the inside source who leaked the secrets of the Watergate scandal and helped bring down President Nixon. Only last week I was watching 'All the Presidents Men' - the 1975 film which tells the story of how two junior Washington Post journalists uncovered Watergate. 'All the Presidents Men' is a top notch drama, and best of all, its all true.

Could journalists uncover a scandal like Watergate today? Would we see a major commercial newspaper dedicating two staff reporters to a story for more than two years? Somehow I doubt it, especially if such an investigation was seen to challenge the traditional powers that be. Advice to 'follow the money' now means something quite different in journalism - just ask Rupert Murdoch.

Would a genuine whistleblower be treated any better today, if they made themselves publicly known at the time? While it does depend on the attitude of individual countries to 'official secrets' and the provision of adequate legislation to protect genuine whistleblowers - the attitude they face is usually pretty hostile. Consider the case of GCHQ worker Katherine Gunn, who revealed that UK intelligence services were bugging the United Nations.

The modern media appear to place a higher value on an instant stream of new facts instead of hard slog investigative reporting and analysis. Similarly, scientists are encouraged to immediately find 'commercial applications' for their work, with lower 'value' attached to 'blue skies research'.

Sadly there appear to be few opportunities to be involved in genuine investigative reporting without doing years of inconsequential human interest stories. This, in a nutshell, is the reason I have not applied for journalism school.

Occasionally there are some notable and worthy exceptions, such as the recent series in the Press uncovering the dodgy Transpower cross border lease, but this investigation was not led by journalists within the newspaper. The key research for this story is due to work carried out by Sue Newberry as part of her role as a senior lecturer in accountancy at Canterbury University.

Everyone is making a buck off her

The New York Times reports that the parents of Terry Schiavo have sold a list of their supporters to a conservative direct mailing firm, Response Unlimited, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion, evangelical and conservative groups.

Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence.

"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."

Response Unlimited, who decline to comment, are asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father.

It has seemed pretty obvious to me that the fundumentalist American Right have been using the sad case of Terry Schiavo to stir up shit on so called 'moral issues', like they did during the last presidential campaign. This convieniently removes the political focus away from the many faults of the Bush Administration.

One thing I did not expect however, is that Terry Schiavo parents would allow themselves to be so clearly aligned with the opportunistic political campaign surrounding their daughter's case. If anyone had any sympathy for the Schindlers, now they have sold it.

(with a tip of the hat to Empire Notes where I found the link to the NYT story)

US locks up kids in Abu Ghraib

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union reveal the US is locking up children inside Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. A prison now infamous for the mistreatment and abuse of inmates. (Washington Post / AP article)

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates. One boy "looked like he was 8-years-old...He told me he was almost 12," Karpinski said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."

In an interview with Maj. Gen. George Fay, Karpinski said the Army began holding women and children in a high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib in the summer of 2003 because the facility was better than lockups in Baghdad where the youths had been held.

While one desperately hopes no 11 year olds were subjected to the highly degrading abuse, often with sexual themes, inflicted on adult prisoners, the released articles suggest well documented abuse of children did occur. Six witnesses report three interrogators and a civilian interrogator (in various states of drunkenness), forced a 17 year old girl to expose her breasts and kissed her. According to the documents, the perportrators went unpunished. Imagine the outcry if an American girl of a similar age was subject to such harassment?

In another case troops poured cold water and mud over the 17 year old son of an Iraqi General, in an attempt to break the General by letting him watch his son shiver in the cold. If there is some chilling consequentialist reasoning behind involving an inmate's children in an interrogation, it can only give simplistic consequentialism a very bad name.

Links and more background on this are available at Empire Notes

The United Nations and the world community needs to denounce these US crimes, committed by and/or overseeing, by the American military. Imagine the response of the US if any other country was responsible for such abuses? 'A few bad apples', remarkably timely attempts to discredit the UN and claims of 'anti-americanism' should be seen for what they are - the excuses of quislings* who out of conviction believe 'anything goes' in the War on Terror, the phony war that it is.

* 'Quisling' is based on the name of a Norwegian Nazi, and is used to describe the political forces within states attacked by Hitler who chose out of conviction rather than expediency to join their country's enemy.

Bush Administration: Historical parallels with 1930s Germany

Via About Town, No Right Turn cites a 'great article' by Jim Peron of the Institute for (classical) Liberal Values The Ugly Side of America. Peron is alarmed that his country has been taken over by fundumentalists and divided into competiting extremisms, and sees some historical parallels.

And although I've been proud to be an American for most of my life that pride is shattered. My friends will tell you that I annoyed them by telling them about all the great things about America. I loved the spirit of liberty that made up America and that is embodied in the Constitution. Today I fear that is all dead. It's been pushed aside because of a president who campaigns on fear. He terrorises people into supporting him. If "terrorism" isn't enough he has other bogey men to trot out - hence his campaign against gay people. His whole re-election strategy is built on fear. And when people are afraid - even people who love liberty - they start making excuses for tyranny.

That is what worries me about America. I go back historically to Weimar Germany and see the same type of polarisation and fear. The Weimar Germans were separated into warring camps of extremists. Extreme Left versus the Nationalist Right dominated Weimar politics. People were afraid. Each side feared the other and feared what would happen to their nation if something wasn't done. America is setting itself up for the same "solution" that the Weimar Germans sought.

While I share Jim Peron's concerns over the rise of fundamentalism in US politics and Bush's manipulation of the fear of terror for political ends, his example of Weimar Germany is a poor one.

The polarisation of German politics occurred because the previously prevailing liberal free market economics fundamentally failed. The key economic malaise during the 1920s and 1930s was unemployment and ‘Milton Friedman’ style economics consistently failed to address this problem. The continuation of such policies after the stock market crash simply made things worse. While free market ‘fundamentalists’ may argue this was due to the ideas of Saint Freidman (and the like) not being applied in full, this ignores the key point that during the 1930s economic liberalism was justifiably discredited.

In Germany people were looking for alternatives, and this explains the increase in support for the Nazis and the Communists, who both rejected, to varying degrees, the old liberal economic orthodoxy. In New Zealand the electorate dismissed the policies of the United/Reform government with the election of Labour in 1935. The free market remained in retreat for half a century. It is a sad irony that the ‘free market’ was resurrected as the ‘only alternative’ (sic) to deal with a similar depression during the 1980s and 1990s. The ‘intellectual façade’ of conservatism during the 1980s was a façade indeed – a central claim of the new right of ‘there is no alternative’ was a logical error and its prescriptions had already been demonstrated to be counterproductive during the 1930s depression.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary 'Fundumentalism' means 'the strict maintainence of the ancient or fundumental doctrines of any religion or ideology'. So while Peron is absolutely right to note the rise in religious fundumentalism in the state of America, it also could be said that the Institute for (classical) Liberal Values (ILV) demonstrates an ideological fundumentalism to free markets, in that it appears to believe such artifical creations can do no evil.

ILV, a thinly disgused cheer squad for a faction of the Act party, includes on its board such lumanaries such as Rodney Hide and Lindsey Mitchel. The later promotes himself as a campaigner for the abolution of the Domestic Purposes Benefit, an initiative that came from the development of the welfare state from 1935. So in a sense the ILV and their ideological buddies continue to oppose the policy framework that finally lifted the world from the 1930s depression.

Germany in 1933, after the Nazis gained power, offers a far better comparison with the polarisation and fear engineered by the Bush administration. Following the Reichstag fire, the Nazis claimed they needed new laws to deal to the ‘terrorists’. The Reichstag fire decree has an uncanny resemblance to the Patriot Act. Bush also appears to share the fascist rejection of reason in favour of ‘instinct and will’.

At present I am reading Eric Hobsbawn’s ‘Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century’. In attempting to explain how the capitalism of the US and the communism of the USSR became allies in the fight to defeat fascism, I think Hobsbawn comes up with a very interesting thesis. Both the “liberal democracies” (UK, US, France) and the USSR were founded on the ideals of the enlightenment and the French revolution. Fascism rejected these ideals in favour of an even more traditional order, and thus these ideals formed the basis for the anti-fascist alliance in World War II.