By Jason Miller
Like wolves among sheep, America's Plutocracy preys on the weaker and less fortunate members of society. Since America's founding, they have leveraged their economic power to dominate the government and the media, the vehicles through which they advance their avaricious agenda. In early American history, they employed an imperialistic foreign policy to ensure the expansion of US boundaries and interests. Along the way, they virtually annihilated the Native American population. Once they had attained as much of the North American continent as they were able, they used “Manifest Destiny” and the “Communist threat” as rationalizations to invade other nations (i.e.The Philippines)and to support ruthless dictators in other nations (Augusto Pinochet in Chile) who have tortured and killed millions. Recently, legislation favoring corporations over workers and consumers has sharply diminished the power of labor unions and opportunities for small entrepreneurs, while historically, corporations have maimed and killed their employees and their customers with hazardous working conditions and unsafe products. The wealthy elite class has dominated American politics via dynasties like the Bush clan and the Kennedy family. The predominance of regressive over progressive taxes has virtually guaranteed that the majority of America's riches remains in the hands of the Plutocrats. Throughout American history, the Plutocracy has severely victimized black Americans, through enslavement and through ongoing gross social injustices. Latin American immigrants face open discrimination for their language and cultural differences while armed vigilantes calling themselves "Minute Men" now patrol the US-Mexican border. Other racial minorities, some religious groups, Gays and the disabled also face discrimination and suppression of rights at the hands of the "straight", "Christian" Plutocracy dominating the government and media in the United States.
Suffering in silence
Overshadowed and often forgotten is the plight of yet another minority group which has suffered tremendously at the hands of the ruling elite. The “Land of the Free” has not been particularly kind to the mentally ill. People with mental disorders have faced many forms of abuse and discrimination before and since our founders penned the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Most early colonists in America viewed the mentally ill as demon-possessed. Mental illness was considered to be a weakness of the spirit. Some thought the mentally ill were "magically" influenced by the moon, hence the term "lunacy". Acting on the primal emotions that drive most bigotry, early Americans banished "lunatics" from the community for life by confining them under deplorable conditions. Viewing people with mental illnesses as sub-human animals, their "keepers" had few reservations about abusing them physically and mentally, “straight-jacketing” them, and keeping them shackled almost all of their lives. Early treatments to "cure" the mentally ill involved such enlightened methods as dunking them in ice until they slipped from consciousness, inducing vomiting and "bleeding" patients. Draining the "bad blood" from the patient often killed the patient or left them incapacitated for life.
In the early 19th Century, Europe introduced more humane ways of dealing with those with mental illness. Patients in asylums (early mental hospitals) were viewed and treated as human beings. Facilities offering comfortable beds, artwork, landscaping, recreational activities and opportunities to work replaced the brutal conditions of the asylums’ predecessors. Unfortunately, this ray of sun for those with mental illness was short-lived in the United States. After the Civil War, America's state institutions were flooded with veterans suffering from what we know today as post traumatic stress disorder. Crushing over-population led to the return of ice baths and shackles, and the experimental use of opium as a drug treatment.
For a brief period in the late 19th Century, there was a vastly increased number of asylums and markedly improved care in the US. Unfortunately, asylums and institutions accepted virtually anyone, and many people abused the ease of entry as a means to get free food and shelter. This caused the asylum populations to sky-rocket beyond capacity. This renewed crisis of over-crowding was also exacerbated by people and communities institutionalizing their "unwanted". Once again, barbarism returned as shock baths and electro-convulsive therapy became the treatments of choice.
Horror masquerading as healing
In 1935, Antonio Moniz spawned one of the most savage, inhumane "medical procedures" in human history. He performed a type of psychosurgery which involved removing a portion of the frontal lobe of a patient's brain in an attempt to rid them of unwanted anxieties, neuroses, or psychoses. This notorious procedure, known as the lobotomy, usually resulted in impairment of the patient’s sex drive, spontaneity, impulse control, and problem-solving capacity, leaving them a mere shadow of their former selves. Despite the high risks and extremely disturbing after-effects associated with the treatment, the US medical profession raced to embrace the lobotomy as a technique to treat patients with serious illnesses.
Dr. Walter Freeman invented and popularized the Tran orbital lobotomy, which involved placing an ice pick just above the patient's tear duct, driving it into the frontal lobe with a rubber mallet, and wiggling it around to decimate the frontal lobe of the brain. Hailed as inexpensive, simple and non-invasive, US care-givers performed over 40,000 lobotomies between 1936 and 1950. Freeman traversed the country (in his van which he called his "lobotomobile") shamelessly touting his procedure. His advocacy for the "ice pick lobotomy" as a "cure all" even led to its use to manage misbehavior in children. Rosemary Kennedy represents a classic high profile case of the abuse of this twisted form of treatment. Her father, Joe Kennedy, patriarch of the Kennedy clan, authorized a lobotomy for his 23 year old daughter in 1941 to "cure" her mild mental problems. The ice pick lobotomy left her profoundly retarded. For the innovation of this human butchery, Moniz won a Nobel Prize in 1949. Family members of lobotomy victims have lobbied the Nobel Foundation to revoke his award, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Not without hope
Fortunately for the seriously mentally ill, in 1952 the medical community introduced a drug called Thorazine, which alleviated serious symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. While it was later discovered that Thorazine had significant side effects, it did enable seriously debilitated patients to gain a reasonable capacity to function on their own, and more importantly, opened the door to the field of psychopharmacology. Thorazine was the first of many psychotropic medicines which have greatly enhanced the lives of the mentally ill. New hope had dawned for those with mental illness to gain dignity, rights, and involvement in the community. Perhaps equally as significant was the fact that lobotomies were reduced to an ugly stain on the pages of human history.
Equally as fortunate for the mentally ill is that advocacy for their cause does exist. Clifford Beers, a Yale graduate from Connecticut, was institutionalized in 1900. In 1908, he wrote his autobiography called A Mind That Found Itself in which he exposed the abusive and incompetent nature of health care for the mentally ill. His work spawned a movement on behalf of the mentally ill to improve attitudes about mental illness and its victims, to improve care for the mentally ill, and to promote mental hygiene and health. By the mid Twentieth Century, a national organization known as the National Mental Health Association had grown into a powerful force for educating the public and advocating Congress on behalf of the mentally ill. In 1953, they created a symbol of hope and affirmation for those suffering from mental illness by casting a bell from metal restraints that had been used in psychiatric institutions across the country.
The bell’s inscription reads:
"Cast from shackles which bound them, this bell shall ring out hope for the mentally ill and victory over mental illness."
With a strong advocacy group, psychotropic medications to alleviate severe symptoms, the end of the lobotomy, and the end of the use of other barbaric tactics like shackling, the mentally ill had overcome many obstacles to their dignity and equality. However, new ones were quick to emerge.
Darkness abates, but deep shadows remain
Exercising misguided intentions, President Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act in 1963. His stated purpose was to integrate institutionalized individuals back into the population. From that day until 1980 when the law expired, the population in the nation's mental health institutions dropped by 70%. With inadequate numbers of community mental health centers, psychiatrists, and therapists to help the newly released mentally ill individuals integrate into the community, many of them wound up living on the street or in prisons.
"Increasingly, individuals with mental illnesses are left to fend for themselves on the streets, where they victimize others or, more frequently, are victimized themselves. Eventually, many wind up in prison, where the likelihood of treatment is nearly as remote."
---Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Congressional Record, July 12, 1999
In 2003, Human Rights Watch issued a study that showed that jails and prisons house three times as many mentally ill people as do psychiatric institutions. People with mental illnesses are 64% more likely to get arrested than those who are mentally healthy. The Los Angeles County jail system and Rikers Island act as the two largest inpatient institutions for the psychiatric patients in America, housing 3,400 and 3,000 respectively. The Justice Department itself has acknowledged that 16% of American jail and prison inmates (283,000) suffer from a serious mental illness. Sadly, the mentally ill residing in the penal system are often brutally abused by other inmates while their severe psychological maladies go virtually unattended. Perhaps Kennedy's move to de-institutionalize was not so altruistic after all. Now that prisons house more mentally ill than psychiatric institutions, the Plutocratic American government stands to profit from institutionalizing them. The prison industrial complex provides ridiculously cheap labor to major corporations, work for architectural firms and contractors to build new prisons, profits for suppliers of inmate necessities, and enables the existence of large corporations (i.e. CCA and Wackenhut) which governments contract for prison administration. Prevention and treatment of mental illness cost money, but it is imperative that a strong, enlightened and compassionate society absorb that cost rather than punishing those with an affliction and profiting from their suffering.
Of the 3.5 million homeless in America, an estimated 25% are mentally ill. Some need to be institutionalized. Others simply need community mental health centers to provide them with the necessary tools for coping. Some estimates show that 93% of the 875,000 mentally ill homeless could live independently and respectably if they had the proper government assistance. Instead, many are living under bridges and eating from garbage dumpsters in the world’s wealthiest nation. A government that spends $500 billion each year building armies and weapons (half of the military expenditures of the entire planet), and chooses not to increase funding which would provide a roof, food, and some human dignity to almost a million of its people reflects how morally bankrupt America's Plutocrats truly are.
Ignorance, fear, and bigotry fuel a struggle for equality
Discrimination is another bleak reality which the mentally ill face living in this "beacon of liberty" to the rest of the world. Insurance companies are the first in line to serve inequitable treatment to those with mental illness. Many insurance plans place restrictions on mental health benefits that do not exist with respect to physical maladies. For example, private insurers generally allot a limited number of days per year for inpatient mental health services while allowing virtually unlimited inpatient days for general health problems. Because mental illness often interferes with a person's capacity to work, many of the mentally ill are uninsured. Medicaid, the government stop gap for the uninsured, will not pay for stays in state psychiatric hospitals, motivating states to deny patients the institutional care they need. Since Medicaid was originated in 1965, the population of inpatients in state psychiatric hospitals diminished from 500,000 to 60,000 in 1999. If you remain unconvinced that insurance companies discriminate against people with mental conditions, consider the fact that under our current system, 66% of people with a diagnosable mental disorder do not get treatment, while only 5% of those with a serious disorder receive adequate treatment. Ultimately, a society is only as strong as its weakest members, and it is obvious that America is doing very little to strengthen the mentally ill.
Despite the fact that 25% of American families are affected by mental illness, and in a given year estimates show that about 20% of Americans over 18 are diagnosed with a mental illness, shameful social stigmas still dog the mentally ill. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became law in the early 1990's, has done little to improve the quality of life for the mentally ill, who qualify for protection under this federal law. Employers are often unwilling to hire or train the mentally ill due to stereotypes that they are incapable or dangerous. Ignoring federal mandates to tend to the employment needs of the mentally ill, state agencies have all but ignored them. Surveys indicate that the general public considers the mentally ill to be the least desirable segment of the disabled community, rating them below people with mental retardation and substance abuse problems. While statistics indicate that very few suffering from mental illness are violent, the media perpetuates the myth in the public mind that the mentally ill are dangerous by placing glaring spot-lights on those few who are (i.e. John Hinckley, Jr.)It would seem that American attitudes toward the mentally ill have not evolved all that much over the years. Much like the prejudice that exists against blacks and other minorities, bias against those with mental disorders become more covert because it is no longer "politically correct". Since bigotry and cowardice often go hand in hand, most of the grossly intolerant have gone undercover. While the bigotry may be hidden, it remains a powerful obstacle to individuals with mental illness.
The mentally ill also find their status as human beings diminished at the voting booth throughout much of America. While each of the 44 states prohibiting the mentally ill from voting has a different law, most of the prohibitions apply to individuals found to be "mentally incompetent" and placed under legal guardianship by the court. Collectively, these oppressive laws affect 1.2 million people. Many state constitutions use such denigrating terms as "idiots" and "insane" to describe those with mental illness. In two states, Massachusetts and Minnesota, all it takes to lose one's right to vote is to be placed under legal guardianship. With assistance in understanding the issues and balloting process, many of the "mentally incompetent" could vote. However, in 88% of the states of our nation, all men are not created equal. If we are to truly strive to embody the ideals of the two hallowed documents which forged our nation, we need to allow and empower the mentally ill to participate in the voting process.
Still more hindrances to mental wellness
Several factors coalesce to deter or discourage the mentally ill from seeking proper treatment. I have already discussed the barriers erected by social stigma and inadequate insurance coverage. Yet another barrier is false propaganda perpetrated against therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists. A myriad of groups, led prominently by the "Church" of Scientology, decry the mainstream treatment of mental illness as oppressive, a form of "quackery", abusive, and deceptive. Their complaints include that the diagnoses that mental health professionals use are fraudulent labels on existential life crises or alternate means of interpreting the world and that psychotropic medications prescribed by psychiatrists are "toxic" and have long-term detrimental effects on a patient's well-being. While historically the mental health profession had provided woefully inadequate and abusive treatment to the mentally ill (i.e. lobotomies), over the last 30 years, they have evolved into a humane, effective resource for the mentally ill to alleviate their suffering and to manage their conditions. Certainly there are unethical individuals working in the profession (as with any human endeavor), there are psychotropic drugs developed which have dangerous side effects, and the pharmaceutical industry is rife with corrupt ties with the Plutocracy governing the United States, but the negative aspects of the mental health industry do not negate the fact that many caregivers and medications provide the tools and relief that the mentally ill need to find the dignity, peace and capacity to move toward self actualization which they deserve. The mental health profession is not the only legitimate means of management and recovery available to the mentally ill. There is certainly room for them to incorporate self help activities and twelve step work into their spiritual/intellectual regimen for management and recovery along with the tools and medication they receive from mental health professionals. Unfortunately the false propaganda disseminated by entities like Scientology, a cult based on the "teachings" of a science fiction writer, deters some of the mentally ill from seeking help from a professional community made up of individuals who have spent years studying human behavior, the human mind, mental illness, therapeutic tools for coping with mental illness, and psychotropic medications to help alleviate the symptoms of mental maladies.
Means to minimize suffering are at hand
Increases in federal funding to allow for larger monthly stipends of SSI (the form of social security in place to assist the disabled) and food stamps (or Vision cards), expanded Medicaid benefits to include inpatient psychiatric treatment at state facilities, federal assistance to provide a more comprehensive community mental health system, less incarceration and more treatment for the mentally ill, stronger efforts to overcome the efforts of groups like Scientology by reaching out to the mentally ill to get them to engage with professional mental health care providers, and stronger enforcement of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) are necessary steps to integrate the mentally ill into our society as productive citizens rather than banishing them to the street or locking them into prisons. As a members of the human race, are our leaders too blind to see that diverting a fraction of the obscene amount spent on the military industrial complex to alleviate the suffering of the mentally ill in our nation is a moral imperative? It is unlikely that the moral issues concern them, but pragmatically, ignoring a problem which affects the 53 million Americans who suffer from mental illness (in some form) is bound to lead to a bitter harvest for the entire nation, including the Plutocrats, since they depend on their underlings to prop them up by laboring, paying taxes to feed the military industrial complex, and fighting their imperialistic wars
Guns get reloaded while butter gets the axe
Sadly, the reality is that under Bush's proposed budget for 2006, the mentally ill will suffer. As they have in many areas, the Plutocrats continue to turn back the clock on the social reforms of the Twentieth Century. Despite its inadequacies in some areas, Medicaid is still the largest source of public funding for the mentally health services. Bush has proposed $60 billion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years, which would dramatically reduce access to sorely needed services for the mentally ill. The axe is set to diminish the budget for the Center for Mental Health Services, which sponsors PATH (a program providing services to prevent homelessness amongst the mentally ill) and federal services aiding the mentally ill in asserting their rights. Programs mandated by the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law requiring states to implement special education services) will be significantly short-funded.
Chop, chop, chop…where will the axe fall next?
In spite of the Plutocratic call to patriotism, funding to the Veterans Administration will virtually assure a decline in mental health services provided to veterans. Assistance to the mentally ill in training for, finding and maintaining employment will diminish. Funding for housing for the disabled will be cut in half. While a majority of discrimination complaints filed with HUD and other fair housing enforcement agencies are filed by the disabled, the Plutocrats are ready to cut the funding for fair housing enforcement by 20%. A new federal law (The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act) to provide money to states to emphasize treatment over incarceration will receive no money under Bush's proposed budget. (Think IDEA, No Child Left Behind, rapacious Plutocrats, and appeasement of the masses….then look for a pattern) The Byrne Discretionary Grants, which provide money to states for crisis intervention and mental health courts, will become history. Juvenile justice programs, which can provide early intervention to prevent the mentally ill from becoming future victims of the prison industrial complex, will be cut by 46%. While the mentally ill find themselves staring at an austere federal assistance package, the plutocrats are increasing military spending and devoting 30.7% of government spending to the military (this figure includes military expenditures embedded in the budgets of the Departments of Justice and Energy and of NASA). Is this what “compassionate conservatism” looks like?
A nation in desperate need of soul-searching
As Matthew Rothschild (the editor of the Progressive) so aptly pointed out, it is important for vehement critics of America's Plutocracy to acknowledge that the United States is not responsible for all evil acts of humanity. I agree with him. I recognize that many other nations and societies throughout history have committed atrocities and contributed to the darker chapters of humanity. There are other nations and rulers in the world today perpetrating crimes against humanity. However, as an American with a conscience and a powerful desire for the proliferation of human rights and social justice, I will continue to invest a great deal of energy into helping to expose the evils perpetrated by our government, as most of them have been white-washed from mainstream books and media. The bloated, corrupt government of the United States of America spends $500 billion per year on its "glorious" military industrial complex to ensure that it our Plutocratic rulers maintain their possession of much of the world's wealth and domination over the world. When they do provide military or financial aid to other nations, it is with the covert (and sometimes overt) purpose of furthering the interests of the Plutocrats, and often results in suffering and death for many (i.e. “collateral damage” caused by the US military operations). Hypocrisy reigns as the world’s largest terrorist state perpetrates imperialistic wars like the one in Iraq under the banner of "moral superiority". That same "moral superiority enslaved a race of people and nearly decimated the indigenous population of North America. The sad part is that America could be the moral leader of the world. As a people, Americans need to find a way to meet our fellow citizens of the Earth as equals and to channel our vast resources toward bettering humanity and the planet on which we live. A great place to start would be to ensure the rights, dignity, and well-being of our own people, including the oft-forgotten mentally ill.
Jason Miller welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Preparing for a Shipwreck in the Middle East
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR newspaper in Beirut.
By Michael Young
Several months ago, when interviewing Walid Jumblatt, I was struck by how the Druze leader perused the news like a lookout on the Titanic. It was not long after elections in Iraq, and Jumblatt was carefully weighing whether Ahmad Chalabi would become defense minister. He worried that Chalabi's appointment would enhance Iraqi federalism, which could deeply affect communal relations in Lebanon.
I pictured Jumblatt anxiously scouring the horizon daily for infinite calamitous icebergs.If so, we should all engage in that exercise, as the Middle East has moved closer to the abyss than at any time since the end of the second Gulf war in 1991.
The American adventure in Iraq - creative, bold and potentially revolutionary - threatens to sink under the weight of a Sunni insurgency that has fed off the Bush administration's frequent incompetence in prosecuting postwar stabilization and rehabilitation. In the Palestinian areas, the Palestinian Authority is more than ever looking like a futile, corrupt artifact in front of Islamist parties that promise only violence and the suffocation of tolerant politics. In Syria, the kleptocratic regime of Bashar Assad is disintegrating, but its death may linger in the absence of alternatives. And in Iran, the situation has been complicated by the election as president of the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delaying the expansion of liberty in the society, even as the regime must shift its attention to Ahmadinejad's poor electorate - conservative by nature but potentially violent if its expectations are not met.
Gliding above this is the apocalyptic specter of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, whose latest exploits in London and Sharm al-Sheikh brought standard condemnations from representative institutions in the Arab and Muslim worlds, usually blended in with standard condemnations of Western behavior toward Arabs and Muslims. The effect was a cowardly canceling out of meaning; nonetheless, pro forma expressions of remorse often came across, intentionally or not, as precisely the opposite.
In truth, when it comes to fighting terrorism and expanding democracy in the Middle East, a global dialogue of the deaf prevails. The Arab world in particular hardly ever transcends its songs of lament to consider just how much it would suffer from the continuation of Al-Qaeda's attacks, Iraq's descent into civil war, the persistence of despotic and selfish regimes that endure solely because of a fear of chaos if they are removed, and the advances of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who feed off a shortsighted belief that armed resistance can bring victory and salvation.
There will be those protesting that one cannot speak of the "Arab world" or the "Muslim world" in such sweeping terms. They might add, maybe with justification, that one cannot consider half the problem, namely the maladies of the Arabs, without mentioning the other half: how the West, and particularly the United States, has exacerbated them. The reality is, however, that the Arab world usually speaks with a single, undiscerning voice of the West; rare are those avoiding the ritualistic dilution of indigenous Arab evils by casting them as foreign-imposed.
Yet it's the Arabs who will alone confront the impending hopelessness. In thriving for intellectual evenhandedness in the blame game, they miss an essential point: What the region faces in the near term is not intellectual; it is real, and it is deeply troubling.
At the heart of the breakdown is Iraq. Even the war's supporters (this writer included) cannot honestly say that the postwar plan, if indeed there was one, was commensurate with the profound importance of the project. From the moment of Baghdad's fall, the Bush administration made error after error, steadily diminishing prospects for success in its transformation of Iraq into a pluralistic society.
Success is still possible, thanks largely to the Iraqis, but hope is evaporating. The question is whether the U.S. still believes in Iraqi democracy, and the answer may be less and less.
Thinking is shifting toward such schemes as partition or loose confederalism, which are expedient but also potentially disastrous.
One wagers that many in the Arab world would be delighted with an American admission of failure. The more sensible would merely maintain: "I told you so"; countless others would say: "Good, it will teach Washington a lesson." But such reactions would only confirm the Arab world's predisposition toward self-marginalization. By accepting decade after decade of stultifying political, economic and cultural stalemate; by offering no alternatives to Saddam Hussein; by applauding him even as he perpetuated his most bestial crimes; by displaying considerable indifference toward the mass graves found after the overthrow of the Baath regime, many Arabs implicitly justified, even invited, outside interference in their affairs. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. However, when American involvement came (and, let's recall that it is still consistently demanded to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), there was no effort to exploit it for domestic reasons. Instead of seeing how they could benefit at home from sovereignty and democracy in Iraq, even if that meant pragmatically and momentarily buttressing American efforts there, a great many Arabs - Islamists, nationalists, liberals, and permutations thereof - fell back on a threadbare argument that the failure of the American venture would represent a defeat for arrogant pro-Israeli "neo-imperialism." Though the fallout of such "freedom" is likely to be carnage, it doesn't matter: the Americans will take the blame.
Only rarely does the Arab world offer a fresh narrative to confront its shortcomings. The 2002 Beirut Arab League declaration on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict was certainly an example, and was shot down by Israeli intransigence. However, such proactiveness is a rarity, and today, as Israel disengages from Gaza, all that Arab societies, and intellectuals, can do is recap that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan is designed to avoid final-status talks. It is, but it also represents an Israeli withdrawal from Arab land, and the only ones exploiting that fact are Islamists seeking to portray it as a military victory.
Politically, most other Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority are utterly unprepared for the aftermath. In fact the Arab world is utterly unprepared for all that lies ahead. It is unprepared to deal with a possible collapse in Iraq - though Arab states like Syria and Saudi Arabia continue to play sorcerer's apprentice there, as do Iran and Turkey.
The Arab world is unprepared to deal creatively with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to take advantage of the Gaza pullout. It is unprepared to deal with alternatives to dictatorship and regime corruption, or to deal with economic development and the myriad other requirements made routine in a world demanding more openness.
In Lebanon, we will acutely feel the repercussions of our surroundings. We will pay a price for breakdown in Iraq, as we will for Assad's efforts to cling to power and to punish us for our independence. We will pay for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' limitations, and for the Palestinians' desire to retain their weapons in Lebanon (didn't Sultan Abu al-Aynain, the Palestinian delegate to the Lebanese, say days ago that disarming the Palestinians meant disarming a "resistance," placing himself in the same trench as Hizbullah?). We will pay the price for Ahmadinejad's victory in Iran. We will pay the price for the compulsive distress of a Middle East that has become a headache to the world, because all it seems to generate with any consistency are angry young men and an uncanny resistance to amelioration.
Many of us will continue to dream of a liberal Arab world, because that's the only exit from a nightmare that has lasted for far too long. Iraq was to be the first step. But the plot is apparently much more complicated than anyone imagined, and the characters involved too mediocre. The region is heading toward a shipwreck: too few lookouts, too many icebergs.
By Michael Young
Several months ago, when interviewing Walid Jumblatt, I was struck by how the Druze leader perused the news like a lookout on the Titanic. It was not long after elections in Iraq, and Jumblatt was carefully weighing whether Ahmad Chalabi would become defense minister. He worried that Chalabi's appointment would enhance Iraqi federalism, which could deeply affect communal relations in Lebanon.
I pictured Jumblatt anxiously scouring the horizon daily for infinite calamitous icebergs.If so, we should all engage in that exercise, as the Middle East has moved closer to the abyss than at any time since the end of the second Gulf war in 1991.
The American adventure in Iraq - creative, bold and potentially revolutionary - threatens to sink under the weight of a Sunni insurgency that has fed off the Bush administration's frequent incompetence in prosecuting postwar stabilization and rehabilitation. In the Palestinian areas, the Palestinian Authority is more than ever looking like a futile, corrupt artifact in front of Islamist parties that promise only violence and the suffocation of tolerant politics. In Syria, the kleptocratic regime of Bashar Assad is disintegrating, but its death may linger in the absence of alternatives. And in Iran, the situation has been complicated by the election as president of the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delaying the expansion of liberty in the society, even as the regime must shift its attention to Ahmadinejad's poor electorate - conservative by nature but potentially violent if its expectations are not met.
Gliding above this is the apocalyptic specter of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, whose latest exploits in London and Sharm al-Sheikh brought standard condemnations from representative institutions in the Arab and Muslim worlds, usually blended in with standard condemnations of Western behavior toward Arabs and Muslims. The effect was a cowardly canceling out of meaning; nonetheless, pro forma expressions of remorse often came across, intentionally or not, as precisely the opposite.
In truth, when it comes to fighting terrorism and expanding democracy in the Middle East, a global dialogue of the deaf prevails. The Arab world in particular hardly ever transcends its songs of lament to consider just how much it would suffer from the continuation of Al-Qaeda's attacks, Iraq's descent into civil war, the persistence of despotic and selfish regimes that endure solely because of a fear of chaos if they are removed, and the advances of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who feed off a shortsighted belief that armed resistance can bring victory and salvation.
There will be those protesting that one cannot speak of the "Arab world" or the "Muslim world" in such sweeping terms. They might add, maybe with justification, that one cannot consider half the problem, namely the maladies of the Arabs, without mentioning the other half: how the West, and particularly the United States, has exacerbated them. The reality is, however, that the Arab world usually speaks with a single, undiscerning voice of the West; rare are those avoiding the ritualistic dilution of indigenous Arab evils by casting them as foreign-imposed.
Yet it's the Arabs who will alone confront the impending hopelessness. In thriving for intellectual evenhandedness in the blame game, they miss an essential point: What the region faces in the near term is not intellectual; it is real, and it is deeply troubling.
At the heart of the breakdown is Iraq. Even the war's supporters (this writer included) cannot honestly say that the postwar plan, if indeed there was one, was commensurate with the profound importance of the project. From the moment of Baghdad's fall, the Bush administration made error after error, steadily diminishing prospects for success in its transformation of Iraq into a pluralistic society.
Success is still possible, thanks largely to the Iraqis, but hope is evaporating. The question is whether the U.S. still believes in Iraqi democracy, and the answer may be less and less.
Thinking is shifting toward such schemes as partition or loose confederalism, which are expedient but also potentially disastrous.
One wagers that many in the Arab world would be delighted with an American admission of failure. The more sensible would merely maintain: "I told you so"; countless others would say: "Good, it will teach Washington a lesson." But such reactions would only confirm the Arab world's predisposition toward self-marginalization. By accepting decade after decade of stultifying political, economic and cultural stalemate; by offering no alternatives to Saddam Hussein; by applauding him even as he perpetuated his most bestial crimes; by displaying considerable indifference toward the mass graves found after the overthrow of the Baath regime, many Arabs implicitly justified, even invited, outside interference in their affairs. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. However, when American involvement came (and, let's recall that it is still consistently demanded to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), there was no effort to exploit it for domestic reasons. Instead of seeing how they could benefit at home from sovereignty and democracy in Iraq, even if that meant pragmatically and momentarily buttressing American efforts there, a great many Arabs - Islamists, nationalists, liberals, and permutations thereof - fell back on a threadbare argument that the failure of the American venture would represent a defeat for arrogant pro-Israeli "neo-imperialism." Though the fallout of such "freedom" is likely to be carnage, it doesn't matter: the Americans will take the blame.
Only rarely does the Arab world offer a fresh narrative to confront its shortcomings. The 2002 Beirut Arab League declaration on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict was certainly an example, and was shot down by Israeli intransigence. However, such proactiveness is a rarity, and today, as Israel disengages from Gaza, all that Arab societies, and intellectuals, can do is recap that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan is designed to avoid final-status talks. It is, but it also represents an Israeli withdrawal from Arab land, and the only ones exploiting that fact are Islamists seeking to portray it as a military victory.
Politically, most other Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority are utterly unprepared for the aftermath. In fact the Arab world is utterly unprepared for all that lies ahead. It is unprepared to deal with a possible collapse in Iraq - though Arab states like Syria and Saudi Arabia continue to play sorcerer's apprentice there, as do Iran and Turkey.
The Arab world is unprepared to deal creatively with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to take advantage of the Gaza pullout. It is unprepared to deal with alternatives to dictatorship and regime corruption, or to deal with economic development and the myriad other requirements made routine in a world demanding more openness.
In Lebanon, we will acutely feel the repercussions of our surroundings. We will pay a price for breakdown in Iraq, as we will for Assad's efforts to cling to power and to punish us for our independence. We will pay for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' limitations, and for the Palestinians' desire to retain their weapons in Lebanon (didn't Sultan Abu al-Aynain, the Palestinian delegate to the Lebanese, say days ago that disarming the Palestinians meant disarming a "resistance," placing himself in the same trench as Hizbullah?). We will pay the price for Ahmadinejad's victory in Iran. We will pay the price for the compulsive distress of a Middle East that has become a headache to the world, because all it seems to generate with any consistency are angry young men and an uncanny resistance to amelioration.
Many of us will continue to dream of a liberal Arab world, because that's the only exit from a nightmare that has lasted for far too long. Iraq was to be the first step. But the plot is apparently much more complicated than anyone imagined, and the characters involved too mediocre. The region is heading toward a shipwreck: too few lookouts, too many icebergs.
We Must Not Take The Bait
Rami G. Khouri is editor at large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper.
By Rami G. Khouri
Following the two consecutive transit system attacks in London earlier this month, the deadly bombings in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, on Saturday represent a particularly dangerous turn in what has become a global terror scourge. They must spark a qualitatively different, and more effective, political and police response than the ne that has prevailed to date in recent years.
It would be irresponsible, incompetent and morally vacuous leadership, verging on criminal negligence, for Egyptian, British, American or any other national leaders simply to say that security will be ensured, the terrorists will be beaten, we will go on with our lives and we will preserve our values.
Someone should tell the emperors that they are collectively wearing no clothes, and that continuing their policies will only perpetuate and exacerbate the global terror problem, rather than defeat it.
The Sharm el-Sheik bombings are particularly troubling, and politically significant, for several reasons. The most important one is that they affirm the depth, resiliency and determination of those terrorists who practice such savagery in the face of a very powerful and even more fierce and determined Arab state. The political iconography here is profound.
The Egyptian state has fought a ferocious battle against Islamist militants and terrorists since the early 1990s, and by the late 1990s had largely defeated them—but at a very high price. Thousands of suspects have been put in jail and remain there, and the fragile security achieved has brought with it the militarization of the state and its institutions. The almost absolute control of state and society has required the banning, neutralization or humiliating marginalization of all other possible civil political forces that could peacefully politically contest the ruling power of the combine of the armed forces and President Husni Mubarak's eternally incumbent National Democratic Party.
So now the ruling Egyptian elite is challenged by two home-grown forces at once. It is challenged peacefully by its own civil society and political opposition that have launched a growing campaign to retire Mubarak after his 24 years of rule. It is also challenged violently by a brazen, self-assertive new generation of Egyptian terrorists allied to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, who now attack the symbols of the Egyptian state head-on. This is in-your-face terrorism, by small groups of men who are not afraid of one of the mightiest Arab states that has been unable to respond to the challenge through any means other than police force—which only generates more angry, humiliated young men who become terrorists.
Sharm el-Sheik is not just a sparkling Red Sea tourist resort. It is the icon of everything Egypt wants to be in the region and the world. Sharm el-Sheik is where Egypt routinely hosts Arab-Arab and Arab-Israeli summits, global anti-terror summits with American presidents and other Western leaders, and other emergency gatherings of very important people. It is the showcase of Egyptian modernity, foreign investment, tourism expansion, foreign currency earnings, sound planning, and, above all, strict security ensured by the state and its hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers and police.
The Taba bombings some months ago in the northern part of the same Sinai Peninsula triggered a significant increase in security in all Sinai, along with the jailing of hundreds of suspects. Yet the terrorists Saturday still challenged the Egyptian state in its crown jewel, and bombed it almost at will. Someone should please tell the great leaders of the mighty Arabs and the Free World that the moral depravity and criminality of this terror deed is fully matched by its political audacity and symbolism; to condemn the crime without grasping its political implications, and underlying causes, would be the height of amateurism by any political leader.
But this is what Blair, Bush, Mubarak and most other leaders seem to be doing, stressing motives of religious extremism, distorted education, social alienation, poverty, historical yearnings, psychological traumas, mystical impulses and cultural angst as the primary causal detonators of suicide ombers. The leaders do not sufficiently acknowledge the complex, cumulative political processes and legacies that drive ordinary young men to become suicidal terrorists. The path from common citizen to criminal bomber is paved primarily with the consequences of the policies of many Arab, Western, Israeli and other governments, and not primarily the frailties or inclinations of individual human beings.
The combination of the London and Sharm el-Sheik bombings in such close proximity to one another also highlights the dangerous new trend of terror groups and movements decentralizing and localizing all over the world, while simultaneously using more lethal techniques and materials. Harder to track down and eliminate, these neighborhood killers also are not afraid to directly challenge the great and powerful states that are their nemeses, such as the United States, England and Egypt, among others.
Sharm el-Sheik highlights all this in a frightening way.Gravely, we have probably now passed the tipping point in the business of producing or deterring terrorists: the policies of the United States, Britain and most Arab governments now are promoting and fostering more terrorists than they are killing, capturing or deterring. The American- and British-led global war on terror, with its purported fulcrum in Iraq, may have started to produce a new generation of skilled, wily and localized killers operating throughout the world. Including Saturday in Sharm el-Sheik.
By Rami G. Khouri
Following the two consecutive transit system attacks in London earlier this month, the deadly bombings in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, on Saturday represent a particularly dangerous turn in what has become a global terror scourge. They must spark a qualitatively different, and more effective, political and police response than the ne that has prevailed to date in recent years.
It would be irresponsible, incompetent and morally vacuous leadership, verging on criminal negligence, for Egyptian, British, American or any other national leaders simply to say that security will be ensured, the terrorists will be beaten, we will go on with our lives and we will preserve our values.
Someone should tell the emperors that they are collectively wearing no clothes, and that continuing their policies will only perpetuate and exacerbate the global terror problem, rather than defeat it.
The Sharm el-Sheik bombings are particularly troubling, and politically significant, for several reasons. The most important one is that they affirm the depth, resiliency and determination of those terrorists who practice such savagery in the face of a very powerful and even more fierce and determined Arab state. The political iconography here is profound.
The Egyptian state has fought a ferocious battle against Islamist militants and terrorists since the early 1990s, and by the late 1990s had largely defeated them—but at a very high price. Thousands of suspects have been put in jail and remain there, and the fragile security achieved has brought with it the militarization of the state and its institutions. The almost absolute control of state and society has required the banning, neutralization or humiliating marginalization of all other possible civil political forces that could peacefully politically contest the ruling power of the combine of the armed forces and President Husni Mubarak's eternally incumbent National Democratic Party.
So now the ruling Egyptian elite is challenged by two home-grown forces at once. It is challenged peacefully by its own civil society and political opposition that have launched a growing campaign to retire Mubarak after his 24 years of rule. It is also challenged violently by a brazen, self-assertive new generation of Egyptian terrorists allied to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, who now attack the symbols of the Egyptian state head-on. This is in-your-face terrorism, by small groups of men who are not afraid of one of the mightiest Arab states that has been unable to respond to the challenge through any means other than police force—which only generates more angry, humiliated young men who become terrorists.
Sharm el-Sheik is not just a sparkling Red Sea tourist resort. It is the icon of everything Egypt wants to be in the region and the world. Sharm el-Sheik is where Egypt routinely hosts Arab-Arab and Arab-Israeli summits, global anti-terror summits with American presidents and other Western leaders, and other emergency gatherings of very important people. It is the showcase of Egyptian modernity, foreign investment, tourism expansion, foreign currency earnings, sound planning, and, above all, strict security ensured by the state and its hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers and police.
The Taba bombings some months ago in the northern part of the same Sinai Peninsula triggered a significant increase in security in all Sinai, along with the jailing of hundreds of suspects. Yet the terrorists Saturday still challenged the Egyptian state in its crown jewel, and bombed it almost at will. Someone should please tell the great leaders of the mighty Arabs and the Free World that the moral depravity and criminality of this terror deed is fully matched by its political audacity and symbolism; to condemn the crime without grasping its political implications, and underlying causes, would be the height of amateurism by any political leader.
But this is what Blair, Bush, Mubarak and most other leaders seem to be doing, stressing motives of religious extremism, distorted education, social alienation, poverty, historical yearnings, psychological traumas, mystical impulses and cultural angst as the primary causal detonators of suicide ombers. The leaders do not sufficiently acknowledge the complex, cumulative political processes and legacies that drive ordinary young men to become suicidal terrorists. The path from common citizen to criminal bomber is paved primarily with the consequences of the policies of many Arab, Western, Israeli and other governments, and not primarily the frailties or inclinations of individual human beings.
The combination of the London and Sharm el-Sheik bombings in such close proximity to one another also highlights the dangerous new trend of terror groups and movements decentralizing and localizing all over the world, while simultaneously using more lethal techniques and materials. Harder to track down and eliminate, these neighborhood killers also are not afraid to directly challenge the great and powerful states that are their nemeses, such as the United States, England and Egypt, among others.
Sharm el-Sheik highlights all this in a frightening way.Gravely, we have probably now passed the tipping point in the business of producing or deterring terrorists: the policies of the United States, Britain and most Arab governments now are promoting and fostering more terrorists than they are killing, capturing or deterring. The American- and British-led global war on terror, with its purported fulcrum in Iraq, may have started to produce a new generation of skilled, wily and localized killers operating throughout the world. Including Saturday in Sharm el-Sheik.
Delayed Justice
Following is an editorial from the Jordan Times in Amman.
Fortunately the eight-day hunger strike by 10 inmates at Swaqa prison ended rather peacefully and just one day after 10 other inmates at the Qafqafa correctional and rehabilitation centre halted their 12-day strike.
The detainees at both prisons were protesting the unusual delay in their trials or the severity of their sentences. Some were convicted of state security-related crimes but their appeals remain pending, which means their convictions are not yet final.
There is a well-established legal principle accepted across the globe that justice delayed is justice denied. The National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR) has repeatedly protested this delay in the legal proceedings and reiterated this complaint in its recent annual report.
There is no denying that persons who threaten the security of the country and commit or plan to commit crimes against the state must be apprehended and brought to justice. Likewise for persons who commit common crimes. But detentions pending a court process cannot be indefinite.
The issue here therefore is not about taking state security seriously or taking certain administrative measures to prevent the commission of common crimes, but rather the speed with which the judicial process is being conducted and to what extent such detentions are made subject to judicial reviews.
Previous reports issued by the NCHR and other human rights monitoring groups operating in the Kingdom have consistently found many detainees kept in prisons for extended periods without ever being taken to court for trial according to the due process of the law. The incidence of administrative detention is frequent and this system of detention is not subject to judicial scrutiny. The government has acted in part against this form of detention in the past and called on governors to resort to this form of detention conservatively.
Under the Crime Prevention legislation, Ministry of Interior officials can detain people for an extended period of time for fear that a crime would be committed if they are set free.
While comprehending and appreciating the reasons behind administrative detentions, the detentions should be subject to judicial review and not left to local governors alone to set the standards for their application. Caseloads on the courts are on the rise. With that in mind the judicial reform process slated for the country may benefit from a system of differentiated case management, where each case is processed not on a first- come first-serve basis but rather in accordance with the timeframe and judicial system resources required. The system means cases are moved more expeditiously and court resources, including personnel, are utilised more efficiently.
Fortunately the eight-day hunger strike by 10 inmates at Swaqa prison ended rather peacefully and just one day after 10 other inmates at the Qafqafa correctional and rehabilitation centre halted their 12-day strike.
The detainees at both prisons were protesting the unusual delay in their trials or the severity of their sentences. Some were convicted of state security-related crimes but their appeals remain pending, which means their convictions are not yet final.
There is a well-established legal principle accepted across the globe that justice delayed is justice denied. The National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR) has repeatedly protested this delay in the legal proceedings and reiterated this complaint in its recent annual report.
There is no denying that persons who threaten the security of the country and commit or plan to commit crimes against the state must be apprehended and brought to justice. Likewise for persons who commit common crimes. But detentions pending a court process cannot be indefinite.
The issue here therefore is not about taking state security seriously or taking certain administrative measures to prevent the commission of common crimes, but rather the speed with which the judicial process is being conducted and to what extent such detentions are made subject to judicial reviews.
Previous reports issued by the NCHR and other human rights monitoring groups operating in the Kingdom have consistently found many detainees kept in prisons for extended periods without ever being taken to court for trial according to the due process of the law. The incidence of administrative detention is frequent and this system of detention is not subject to judicial scrutiny. The government has acted in part against this form of detention in the past and called on governors to resort to this form of detention conservatively.
Under the Crime Prevention legislation, Ministry of Interior officials can detain people for an extended period of time for fear that a crime would be committed if they are set free.
While comprehending and appreciating the reasons behind administrative detentions, the detentions should be subject to judicial review and not left to local governors alone to set the standards for their application. Caseloads on the courts are on the rise. With that in mind the judicial reform process slated for the country may benefit from a system of differentiated case management, where each case is processed not on a first- come first-serve basis but rather in accordance with the timeframe and judicial system resources required. The system means cases are moved more expeditiously and court resources, including personnel, are utilised more efficiently.
Friday, July 29, 2005
MACK VS. VENEZUELA
By William Fisher
As some Latin American analysts complain that Washington has declared "electronic war" on Venezuela with a plan to target the country for special radio and television broadcasts, it remains uncertain whether the project will ever get off the ground.
If approved by a joint congressional committee, the broadcasts would be financed by the U.S. government and implemented through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the quasi-independent corporation established to carry out Washington's "public diplomacy" broadcasting programs worldwide.
"The BBG may want to start numerous new broadcast services, or revive VOA (Voice of America) services that have been canceled," said Adam Clayton Powell III, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy.
"But where is the money? Until the U.S. is prepared to commit resources to produce, transmit and market new services, this is moot," he said.
The broadcasts were approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2005, introduced by Republican Congressman Connie Mack of Florida.
The U.S. Senate has already passed its own version of the act that does not include the Mack proposal. The House and Senate must now meet in a joint conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the legislation before it goes to the president for signature.
It is unclear whether the Mack Amendment will survive the negotiations in the conference committee. The congressman was not available for comment.
The move came as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launched his own television network, called Telesur. According to officials, the station's goal is to promote South American regional integration with newscasts, films, documentaries and music by Latin American and Caribbean producers, and to provide a counterweight to existing programming from the United States.
Mack, a member of the International Relations Committee, has been an outspoken critic of Chavez and what he calls "his ongoing, radical shift toward socialism and the elimination of freedom for the Venezuelan people."
The congressman has charged that Telesur is "patterned after Al-Jazeera" and will "spread (Chavez's) anti-American, anti-freedom rhetoric".
Powell said there was another alternative to creating special broadcasts to counter Telesur.
"For a far lower investment, the U.S. government could make certain that its views are represented on Telesur by making certain government spokesmen are available for Telesur interview and discussion opportunities," he said.
Alvin Snyder, also a senior fellow at the Centre on Public Diplomacy, injected another note of caution.
He said, "Telesur is a pan-Latin American channel. To counter its influence, a U.S. channel should be targeted to all of Latin America, not solely to Venezuela."
"A sound business plan needs to be developed including due diligence stating the objectives of the enterprise with specifics on how those objectives will be achieved. A satellite TV channel must have a vibrant Internet presence, with additional distribution through the growing technologies such as mobile video cell phones and podcasting."
Mack has proposed a three-point plan regarding Venezuela. It involves "the creation of institutions that will foster a free press, the freedom of speech and religion, and free and fair elections for Venezuela; a Venezuelan Security Zone that will isolate Chavez and limit his ability to destabilize Latin America; and promotion of economic development in Venezuela through free markets, privatization, and other means that will create lasting prosperity and opportunity for all Venezuelans."
The U.S. House has earmarked nine million dollars for 2006 and another nine million for 2007 to support opposition political parties, media and civil society organizations in Venezuela.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan Congress was quick to approve a resolution opposing the House decision on broadcasting. The Venezuelan resolution passed with the votes of the ruling alliance, which holds a majority, and the center-left Movement to Socialism, an opposition party.
Telesur, a pan-Latin American station, is a Venezuelan government initiative undertaken in association with Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay. The governments of Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay have not commented on the bill passed by the U.S. House.
On Wednesday, Andrés Izarra, Venezuela's information minister, resigned his post to assume the presidency of Telesur, saying that he wanted to assure the public that the new continent-wide television channel would not suffer from any conflicts of interest.
.
Telesur drew the wrath of the U.S. even before it went on the air last Sunday. It began broadcasting from Caracas on Jul. 24, the anniversary of the birth of South American independence leader, Simón BolÃvar.
Pres. Chávez has called the Mack amendment "a preposterous imperialist idea that should not surprise us because we know what the U.S. government is capable of," and vowed to "take measures to neutralize the attempt."
Venezuelan critics of the Mack initiative contend that Washington is trying to repeat the failed initiatives of Radio and TV MartÃ, the U.S.-government funded stations created to broadcast programming and news aimed against the Cuban government.
Long before the broadcasting debate, it was clear that Bush and Chavez were on a collision course. There are many reasons, but the hubris of both men is high on the list. This confrontation is not only unnecessary; it is unproductive. The sour fruits of this approach can be seen in the enormous dividends Cuba and the U.S. have reaped over the years through their policies of non-engagement: in the U.S., getting Latino votes; in Cuba, getting tourists and investors from other countries.
Except for a few politicians, a lose-lose proposition if there ever was one!
As some Latin American analysts complain that Washington has declared "electronic war" on Venezuela with a plan to target the country for special radio and television broadcasts, it remains uncertain whether the project will ever get off the ground.
If approved by a joint congressional committee, the broadcasts would be financed by the U.S. government and implemented through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the quasi-independent corporation established to carry out Washington's "public diplomacy" broadcasting programs worldwide.
"The BBG may want to start numerous new broadcast services, or revive VOA (Voice of America) services that have been canceled," said Adam Clayton Powell III, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy.
"But where is the money? Until the U.S. is prepared to commit resources to produce, transmit and market new services, this is moot," he said.
The broadcasts were approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2005, introduced by Republican Congressman Connie Mack of Florida.
The U.S. Senate has already passed its own version of the act that does not include the Mack proposal. The House and Senate must now meet in a joint conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the legislation before it goes to the president for signature.
It is unclear whether the Mack Amendment will survive the negotiations in the conference committee. The congressman was not available for comment.
The move came as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launched his own television network, called Telesur. According to officials, the station's goal is to promote South American regional integration with newscasts, films, documentaries and music by Latin American and Caribbean producers, and to provide a counterweight to existing programming from the United States.
Mack, a member of the International Relations Committee, has been an outspoken critic of Chavez and what he calls "his ongoing, radical shift toward socialism and the elimination of freedom for the Venezuelan people."
The congressman has charged that Telesur is "patterned after Al-Jazeera" and will "spread (Chavez's) anti-American, anti-freedom rhetoric".
Powell said there was another alternative to creating special broadcasts to counter Telesur.
"For a far lower investment, the U.S. government could make certain that its views are represented on Telesur by making certain government spokesmen are available for Telesur interview and discussion opportunities," he said.
Alvin Snyder, also a senior fellow at the Centre on Public Diplomacy, injected another note of caution.
He said, "Telesur is a pan-Latin American channel. To counter its influence, a U.S. channel should be targeted to all of Latin America, not solely to Venezuela."
"A sound business plan needs to be developed including due diligence stating the objectives of the enterprise with specifics on how those objectives will be achieved. A satellite TV channel must have a vibrant Internet presence, with additional distribution through the growing technologies such as mobile video cell phones and podcasting."
Mack has proposed a three-point plan regarding Venezuela. It involves "the creation of institutions that will foster a free press, the freedom of speech and religion, and free and fair elections for Venezuela; a Venezuelan Security Zone that will isolate Chavez and limit his ability to destabilize Latin America; and promotion of economic development in Venezuela through free markets, privatization, and other means that will create lasting prosperity and opportunity for all Venezuelans."
The U.S. House has earmarked nine million dollars for 2006 and another nine million for 2007 to support opposition political parties, media and civil society organizations in Venezuela.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan Congress was quick to approve a resolution opposing the House decision on broadcasting. The Venezuelan resolution passed with the votes of the ruling alliance, which holds a majority, and the center-left Movement to Socialism, an opposition party.
Telesur, a pan-Latin American station, is a Venezuelan government initiative undertaken in association with Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay. The governments of Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay have not commented on the bill passed by the U.S. House.
On Wednesday, Andrés Izarra, Venezuela's information minister, resigned his post to assume the presidency of Telesur, saying that he wanted to assure the public that the new continent-wide television channel would not suffer from any conflicts of interest.
.
Telesur drew the wrath of the U.S. even before it went on the air last Sunday. It began broadcasting from Caracas on Jul. 24, the anniversary of the birth of South American independence leader, Simón BolÃvar.
Pres. Chávez has called the Mack amendment "a preposterous imperialist idea that should not surprise us because we know what the U.S. government is capable of," and vowed to "take measures to neutralize the attempt."
Venezuelan critics of the Mack initiative contend that Washington is trying to repeat the failed initiatives of Radio and TV MartÃ, the U.S.-government funded stations created to broadcast programming and news aimed against the Cuban government.
Long before the broadcasting debate, it was clear that Bush and Chavez were on a collision course. There are many reasons, but the hubris of both men is high on the list. This confrontation is not only unnecessary; it is unproductive. The sour fruits of this approach can be seen in the enormous dividends Cuba and the U.S. have reaped over the years through their policies of non-engagement: in the U.S., getting Latino votes; in Cuba, getting tourists and investors from other countries.
Except for a few politicians, a lose-lose proposition if there ever was one!
Thursday, July 28, 2005
THOSE RAGING GRANNIES
By William Fisher
The five elderly women stood in front of an Army recruiting office in Tucson, Arizona, and began to sing. To the tune of “There’s No Business Like Show Business”, they belted out the lyrics they wrote:
There’s no business like war business
The worst business we know
Never mind the homeless and the hungry,
Never mind the people without jobs
Nowhere can you get that special feeling
Than when you’re – piling up the bombs.
There’s no business like war business
The best business we know
Multinational profits going through the sky
They multiply while children die
The same amount buys food and clothes
For everyone all over the world.
The group, known as the Raging Grannies of Tucson (RGT), have been performing their ‘act’ outside the recruiting office every Wednesday for the past three years as a protest to the war in Iraq.
But this Wednesday was different. They decided to go inside the office – to enlist in the Army.
“We would rather offer ourselves up and have our grandchildren brought home out of harm’s way, ” said RGT spokesperson Pat Birnie.
“We were told protesters weren’t allowed on the premises but we said we were there to enlist,” she said.
"We went in saying we were here to enlist, but they didn't believe us. We read a statement, sang songs, and then we left."
Ms. Birnie, 75, said the protesters were well outside the recruiting office when police arrived and said they were trespassing, a criminal offence.
The group -- five ‘grannies’ and two journalists – were charged with trespass and appeared in court earlier this week. They entered not guilty pleas and told to appear an Aug. 19 pretrial hearing.
The women, who range from 55 to 81 years old, are decades older than the maximum allowable age for recruits.
Ms. Birney said the charge was an "overreaction", and that the grannies had been serious about joining the army.
Nancy Hutchinson, an Army spokeswoman in Arizona, told the Associated Press that those opposed to the Iraq war should contact their legislators rather than bother recruiters. "They need to direct their frustrations at people who have the power to change things," she said.
She added that the protesters were not serious about enlisting and were harassing recruiters.
Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at the University of California, warned that “Anti-war grannies could become a new target for FBI surveillance” He told IPS, “We can expect the authorities to deal more harshly in the legal system with the Grannies than the Pentagon has with soldiers in Iraq accused of murder who have gotten off scott free.”
The RGT are associated with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
The women are "pretty thoroughly anti-war; we're concerned about the environment and what's happening to civil liberties," said Ms. Birnie, who was with the women when they entered the recruiting center on July 13, but was not charged.
She said two recruiters told the group not to enter, but the women said they had come to enlist, read a statement and sang two protest songs. By the time they returned to the sidewalk outside, police had arrived.
The RGT members contend that recruits have been lied to, said Ms. Birnie. "We feel that our lives are pretty well used up and that the young people so many times are killed in battle or come home traumatized," she said.
The Raging Grannies was first initiated by Canadian activists 19 years ago. The idea has spread throughout the world, and can be traced on the Internet.
The mission of the Tucson Raging Grannies, according to its website, is to promote global peace, justice, and social and economic equality by raising public awareness through the medium of song and humor.
“Our goal is to challenge our audiences to work to bring about the social changes that are required in order to end economic oppression, particularly of women and children, and to end racial inequality, environmental destruction, human rights violations, and arms proliferation.”
An ‘indy-journalist’ (independent) who was with the Grannies when they entered the recruiting center wrote that they “were hoping the recruiters would have shown more humor with the activists. Instead, (the sergeant in charge) called Tucson police and had everyone cited.”
“The mood before the action was light and joyous. Protestors have been showing up in front of the military recruiting offices on Speedway each Wednesday morning since the pledge of resistance began over 3 years ago.
“Nearly 20 people lined the sidewalk this morning with signs and American flags with peace symbols. Most motorists honked and waived at the rally, which delights Granny Pat Birnie.
“They can hear the honks inside,” she said.
“At 9:00 am, the Grannies split off from the rally and made a plan of action.
The Grannies stood in front of the office and sang more songs, prompting (the sergeant) to close the door to his office.
“After a few minutes, they began to enter the office, stating that they wished to enlist. The recruiters tried to turn them away, saying that protestors are not allowed on their property, but the willful Grannies made their way in.
“After spending a few minutes reading a statement and singing a few more songs, the Sergeant told them that they must leave, and that charges were going to be pressed. Both recruiters seemed uncomfortable and were unwilling to confront the elderly choir, keeping their backs turned and pretending to do office work.”
According to an Army Battalion Commander from Phoenix, the charges were pressed by the landlord of the building, not the Army itself. He declined to give any other information about the incident.
“My sense is that it’s such an absurd charge that the judge will excuse it,”
Ms. Birney said.
The five elderly women stood in front of an Army recruiting office in Tucson, Arizona, and began to sing. To the tune of “There’s No Business Like Show Business”, they belted out the lyrics they wrote:
There’s no business like war business
The worst business we know
Never mind the homeless and the hungry,
Never mind the people without jobs
Nowhere can you get that special feeling
Than when you’re – piling up the bombs.
There’s no business like war business
The best business we know
Multinational profits going through the sky
They multiply while children die
The same amount buys food and clothes
For everyone all over the world.
The group, known as the Raging Grannies of Tucson (RGT), have been performing their ‘act’ outside the recruiting office every Wednesday for the past three years as a protest to the war in Iraq.
But this Wednesday was different. They decided to go inside the office – to enlist in the Army.
“We would rather offer ourselves up and have our grandchildren brought home out of harm’s way, ” said RGT spokesperson Pat Birnie.
“We were told protesters weren’t allowed on the premises but we said we were there to enlist,” she said.
"We went in saying we were here to enlist, but they didn't believe us. We read a statement, sang songs, and then we left."
Ms. Birnie, 75, said the protesters were well outside the recruiting office when police arrived and said they were trespassing, a criminal offence.
The group -- five ‘grannies’ and two journalists – were charged with trespass and appeared in court earlier this week. They entered not guilty pleas and told to appear an Aug. 19 pretrial hearing.
The women, who range from 55 to 81 years old, are decades older than the maximum allowable age for recruits.
Ms. Birney said the charge was an "overreaction", and that the grannies had been serious about joining the army.
Nancy Hutchinson, an Army spokeswoman in Arizona, told the Associated Press that those opposed to the Iraq war should contact their legislators rather than bother recruiters. "They need to direct their frustrations at people who have the power to change things," she said.
She added that the protesters were not serious about enlisting and were harassing recruiters.
Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at the University of California, warned that “Anti-war grannies could become a new target for FBI surveillance” He told IPS, “We can expect the authorities to deal more harshly in the legal system with the Grannies than the Pentagon has with soldiers in Iraq accused of murder who have gotten off scott free.”
The RGT are associated with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
The women are "pretty thoroughly anti-war; we're concerned about the environment and what's happening to civil liberties," said Ms. Birnie, who was with the women when they entered the recruiting center on July 13, but was not charged.
She said two recruiters told the group not to enter, but the women said they had come to enlist, read a statement and sang two protest songs. By the time they returned to the sidewalk outside, police had arrived.
The RGT members contend that recruits have been lied to, said Ms. Birnie. "We feel that our lives are pretty well used up and that the young people so many times are killed in battle or come home traumatized," she said.
The Raging Grannies was first initiated by Canadian activists 19 years ago. The idea has spread throughout the world, and can be traced on the Internet.
The mission of the Tucson Raging Grannies, according to its website, is to promote global peace, justice, and social and economic equality by raising public awareness through the medium of song and humor.
“Our goal is to challenge our audiences to work to bring about the social changes that are required in order to end economic oppression, particularly of women and children, and to end racial inequality, environmental destruction, human rights violations, and arms proliferation.”
An ‘indy-journalist’ (independent) who was with the Grannies when they entered the recruiting center wrote that they “were hoping the recruiters would have shown more humor with the activists. Instead, (the sergeant in charge) called Tucson police and had everyone cited.”
“The mood before the action was light and joyous. Protestors have been showing up in front of the military recruiting offices on Speedway each Wednesday morning since the pledge of resistance began over 3 years ago.
“Nearly 20 people lined the sidewalk this morning with signs and American flags with peace symbols. Most motorists honked and waived at the rally, which delights Granny Pat Birnie.
“They can hear the honks inside,” she said.
“At 9:00 am, the Grannies split off from the rally and made a plan of action.
The Grannies stood in front of the office and sang more songs, prompting (the sergeant) to close the door to his office.
“After a few minutes, they began to enter the office, stating that they wished to enlist. The recruiters tried to turn them away, saying that protestors are not allowed on their property, but the willful Grannies made their way in.
“After spending a few minutes reading a statement and singing a few more songs, the Sergeant told them that they must leave, and that charges were going to be pressed. Both recruiters seemed uncomfortable and were unwilling to confront the elderly choir, keeping their backs turned and pretending to do office work.”
According to an Army Battalion Commander from Phoenix, the charges were pressed by the landlord of the building, not the Army itself. He declined to give any other information about the incident.
“My sense is that it’s such an absurd charge that the judge will excuse it,”
Ms. Birney said.
SAUDI AND NIGERIA IN THE CROSSHAIRS
By William Fisher
Human Rights Watch is calling on Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to pardon three jailed advocates of peaceful reform and urging President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria to “show the world that he is serious about pursuing justice,” and “ensure that police torturers are held accountable for their crimes.”
In Saudi Arabia, an appellate court in Riyadh upheld harsh prison terms of between six and nine years for the three after they attempted to circulate a petition calling for a constitutional monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
HRW said, “The three men were among 12 petitioners arrested in March 2004. Over the following weeks, Saudi security forces pressured the detainees to sign a pledge to stop all future political petition activity in return for their release. The government released the nine detainees who signed the pledge, but continued with its prosecution of `Ali al-Dumaini, Dr. Matruk al-Falih and Dr. Abdullah al-Hamid because they refused.”
The advocacy group said the government prosecuted the men on charges “that had no legal basis”, and “denied the men basic due process rights.“ The court refused to grant the men their request for a public trial, insisting on holding all sessions behind closed doors.
It added that the general court judge denied the men access to counsel of their choice, and imprisoned the lead lawyer, Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, in November 2004 after he spoke on television about the case. He remains in jail without charge.
A pardon from the Crown Prince is the only legal remedy open to the imprisoned activists.
Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa director, said “Saudi judges seem unable or unwilling to protect Saudi citizens from arbitrary detention when they try to exercise basic rights like free speech. Instead, they have backed the government’s relentless repression of all peaceful political criticism.”
She charged that the verdict “did not specify which laws the defendants had violated, but found that they had “address[ed] the public and appeal[ed] to it in respect of critical issues concerning the system of rule” and engaged in “criticism of the people charged with authority in the Islamic regime” in a manner “contrary to the principle of mutual advice with the ruler.” None of these charges is codified as a punishable offense under Saudi law, which follows Islamic law, or shari`a.
“The government is relying on vaguely defined offenses that it can apply arbitrarily to silence citizens critical of the government,” Whitson said.
“The Saudi Foreign Minister publicly stated his view that Saudi Arabia would become a constitutional monarchy, but three months later the government jailed these ordinary citizens for advocating exactly this.”
On the Nigeria issue, Peter Takirambudde, executive director of HRW’s Africa Division, said that “Despite Nigeria’s progress on democratic reforms, Nigerian police routinely commit brutal acts of torture that have endured since the country’s era of military rule.
In a new report, HRW said, “For too long, the police in Nigeria have gotten away with murder and brutality."
It noted that “The United States and Britain have invested millions in police reform initiatives in Nigeria, but police practices have changed little since the end of military rule,” said Takirambudde. “Diplomatic relations have taken precedence over concern for human rights for too long. It’s time the British and the U.S. governments conditioned further aid to the police to measurable improvements in police conduct.”
The 76-page report, “‘Rest in Pieces’: Police Torture and Deaths in Custody in Nigeria,” said that “Across Nigeria, both senior and lower-level police officers routinely commit or order the torture and mistreatment of criminal suspects. Human Rights Watch urged foreign governments funding police reform in Nigeria to be more critical about police abuses, such as torture.
The report is based on over 50 interviews with victims and witnesses of torture and is the first comprehensive study on the subject. It documents brutal acts of torture and ill treatment in police custody, dozens of which resulted in death.
“If President Olusegun Obasanjo wants to show the world that he is serious about pursuing justice, he should ensure that police torturers are held accountable for their crimes,” HRW said.
It reported that most victims were arrested within the context of an aggressive government campaign against common crime and were tortured to obtain confessions. They were tortured in local and state police stations across Nigeria, often in interrogation rooms especially equipped for the purpose.
Forms of torture documented by Human Rights Watch include the tying of arms and legs behind the body, suspension by hands and legs from the ceiling, severe beatings with metal or wooden objects, spraying of tear gas in the eyes, shooting in the foot or leg, raping female detainees, and using pliers or electric shocks on the penis, the Report said.
In addition, HRW said that witnesses reported that dozens of deaths as a result of injuries and others were summarily executed in police custody.
The Report noted that the majority of the torture victims interviewed were ordinary criminal suspects whose cases were characterized by an absence of due process of law. Typically, suspects were not informed by the police of the reasons for arrest, received no legal representation, and were subjected to excessive periods of pretrial detention. Once the suspects were brought before a court, judges and magistrates often accepted confessions extracted under torture.
It noted that “Police torture in Nigeria is often socially accepted because it has been common for so long. A culture of impunity has protected the perpetrators. When victims and others have tried to attain accountability they have faced harassment, intimidation and obstruction by the police.”
It declared that the “absence of independent mechanisms to investigate police abuses and make referrals to the prosecutor has created a serious accountability vacuum. This has allowed the perpetrators to evade justice. In recent years, not a single police officer has been successfully prosecuted for committing torture in Nigeria.”
Human Rights Watch is calling on Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to pardon three jailed advocates of peaceful reform and urging President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria to “show the world that he is serious about pursuing justice,” and “ensure that police torturers are held accountable for their crimes.”
In Saudi Arabia, an appellate court in Riyadh upheld harsh prison terms of between six and nine years for the three after they attempted to circulate a petition calling for a constitutional monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
HRW said, “The three men were among 12 petitioners arrested in March 2004. Over the following weeks, Saudi security forces pressured the detainees to sign a pledge to stop all future political petition activity in return for their release. The government released the nine detainees who signed the pledge, but continued with its prosecution of `Ali al-Dumaini, Dr. Matruk al-Falih and Dr. Abdullah al-Hamid because they refused.”
The advocacy group said the government prosecuted the men on charges “that had no legal basis”, and “denied the men basic due process rights.“ The court refused to grant the men their request for a public trial, insisting on holding all sessions behind closed doors.
It added that the general court judge denied the men access to counsel of their choice, and imprisoned the lead lawyer, Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, in November 2004 after he spoke on television about the case. He remains in jail without charge.
A pardon from the Crown Prince is the only legal remedy open to the imprisoned activists.
Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa director, said “Saudi judges seem unable or unwilling to protect Saudi citizens from arbitrary detention when they try to exercise basic rights like free speech. Instead, they have backed the government’s relentless repression of all peaceful political criticism.”
She charged that the verdict “did not specify which laws the defendants had violated, but found that they had “address[ed] the public and appeal[ed] to it in respect of critical issues concerning the system of rule” and engaged in “criticism of the people charged with authority in the Islamic regime” in a manner “contrary to the principle of mutual advice with the ruler.” None of these charges is codified as a punishable offense under Saudi law, which follows Islamic law, or shari`a.
“The government is relying on vaguely defined offenses that it can apply arbitrarily to silence citizens critical of the government,” Whitson said.
“The Saudi Foreign Minister publicly stated his view that Saudi Arabia would become a constitutional monarchy, but three months later the government jailed these ordinary citizens for advocating exactly this.”
On the Nigeria issue, Peter Takirambudde, executive director of HRW’s Africa Division, said that “Despite Nigeria’s progress on democratic reforms, Nigerian police routinely commit brutal acts of torture that have endured since the country’s era of military rule.
In a new report, HRW said, “For too long, the police in Nigeria have gotten away with murder and brutality."
It noted that “The United States and Britain have invested millions in police reform initiatives in Nigeria, but police practices have changed little since the end of military rule,” said Takirambudde. “Diplomatic relations have taken precedence over concern for human rights for too long. It’s time the British and the U.S. governments conditioned further aid to the police to measurable improvements in police conduct.”
The 76-page report, “‘Rest in Pieces’: Police Torture and Deaths in Custody in Nigeria,” said that “Across Nigeria, both senior and lower-level police officers routinely commit or order the torture and mistreatment of criminal suspects. Human Rights Watch urged foreign governments funding police reform in Nigeria to be more critical about police abuses, such as torture.
The report is based on over 50 interviews with victims and witnesses of torture and is the first comprehensive study on the subject. It documents brutal acts of torture and ill treatment in police custody, dozens of which resulted in death.
“If President Olusegun Obasanjo wants to show the world that he is serious about pursuing justice, he should ensure that police torturers are held accountable for their crimes,” HRW said.
It reported that most victims were arrested within the context of an aggressive government campaign against common crime and were tortured to obtain confessions. They were tortured in local and state police stations across Nigeria, often in interrogation rooms especially equipped for the purpose.
Forms of torture documented by Human Rights Watch include the tying of arms and legs behind the body, suspension by hands and legs from the ceiling, severe beatings with metal or wooden objects, spraying of tear gas in the eyes, shooting in the foot or leg, raping female detainees, and using pliers or electric shocks on the penis, the Report said.
In addition, HRW said that witnesses reported that dozens of deaths as a result of injuries and others were summarily executed in police custody.
The Report noted that the majority of the torture victims interviewed were ordinary criminal suspects whose cases were characterized by an absence of due process of law. Typically, suspects were not informed by the police of the reasons for arrest, received no legal representation, and were subjected to excessive periods of pretrial detention. Once the suspects were brought before a court, judges and magistrates often accepted confessions extracted under torture.
It noted that “Police torture in Nigeria is often socially accepted because it has been common for so long. A culture of impunity has protected the perpetrators. When victims and others have tried to attain accountability they have faced harassment, intimidation and obstruction by the police.”
It declared that the “absence of independent mechanisms to investigate police abuses and make referrals to the prosecutor has created a serious accountability vacuum. This has allowed the perpetrators to evade justice. In recent years, not a single police officer has been successfully prosecuted for committing torture in Nigeria.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
