Thousands of contractors, both private Americans and non-Iraqi foreigners working in key roles for the United States in Iraq, will lose immunity and be subject to Iraqi law under new security arrangements, Bush administration officials say.

Pentagon and State Department officials notified companies that provide contract employees, like Blackwater Worldwide, Dyncorp International, Triple Canopy and KBR, of the changes on Thursday as the Iraqi parliament continues contentious debate on a security deal that will govern the presence of American forces in Iraq after January.

That so-called Status of Forces, or SOFA, agreement, which gives the Iraqi government only limited jurisdiction over U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians, excludes Defense Department contractors, two officials said.

The officials spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity after giving the same information to representatives of 172 invited contracting companies in two separate meetings earlier Thursday in Washington.

"Contractors and grantees can no longer expect that they will enjoy the wide range of immunity from Iraqi law that has been in effect since 2003," a State Department official said, reading from the text of a statement presented to the contractors.

Iraq will have "the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over" such workers, who are employed in various support roles for the U.S. military, including food service, transportation and sanitation, they said.

The agreement does not mention State Department contractors, who mainly provide security for U.S. diplomats in Iraq, but their immunity is expected to be revoked by the Iraqi government after the agreement takes effect pending Iraqi parliamentary approval, the officials said.

"In the future, contractors and grantees can expect to be fully subject to Iraqi criminal and civil laws and to the procedures of the Iraqi judicial system," the official said, adding that contractors faced similar situations in all other areas of the world, including in Afghanistan.

It was not immediately clear if any contractors would choose to stop working in Iraq because of the changes. The Pentagon official allowed that some contractors had expressed concern, but stressed that none so far had said specifically that: "If I lose immunity, I will walk."

The Pentagon employs some 163,000 contractors in Iraq. Of those, about 17 percent are U.S. citizens, 34 percent are third-country nationals and 49 percent are Iraqis. The State Department employees 5,500 contractors in Iraq, of which all but 1,000 are U.S. citizens. The U.S. Agency for International Development employees another 4,800 contractors. A breakdown of their nationalities was not immediately available.

Under existing rules that date from 2003 and the occupation government of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority non-Iraqi citizens working for companies under contracts to U.S. government agencies in Iraq are immune from Iraqi law.

That status has become increasingly controversial, particularly after a September 2007 incident in which private Blackwater security guards protecting a State Department convoy opened fire in a crowded Baghdad square, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and prompting a huge outcry in Iraq.

The State Department official said he expected the U.S. and Iraqi governments would be able to reach a separate understanding under which private security guards protecting American diplomats would be allowed to use "appropriate defensive force" if they were attacked. But, he could not say when that understanding might be reached.

US Uses Aid to Promote Non-Humanitarian Goals

Survey respondents say military objectives prioritized over humanitarian ones.

Wednesday 19 November 2008
by: Colum Lynch, The Washington Post

United Nations - The United States, the world's largest international aid donor, is among the worst at promoting the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian aid deliveries to needy populations, according to a survey by a Madrid-based nonprofit group that monitors donors' performance.
The Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) Humanitarian Response Index 2008 measures how effectively the world's 23 largest donors deliver aid. The United States ranked 15th in overall effectiveness and only 13th in the level of generosity measured by the size of its
But it ranked near the bottom, 22nd, when it came to adherence to principles and guidelines established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to ensure that political considerations don't exclude worthy recipients of aid.

DARA's findings reflect what it called the United States' use of humanitarian assistance to achieve military or political goals in eight crisis zones the group studied, including Afghanistan, Colombia and the Palestinian territories.

The "assessment challenges the view of the United States, deeply embedded in the American psyche and regularly reinforced in the rhetoric of public officials, as the world's pre-eminent humanitarian actor, the paragon of global compassion," Larry Minear, a retired professor at Tufts University, wrote in the report.

Silvia Hidalgo, DARA's executive director and co-founder, urged President-elect Barack Obama to improve the U.S. approach. "American leadership in the field of humanitarian relief would improve the perception that people around the world have of the United States and would also inspire other donor countries to do their best on behalf of the world's least fortunate," Hidalgo said.

DARA's survey is based on interviews with more than 350 humanitarian aid agencies in 11 crisis areas - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo,Nicaragua, the occupied Palestinian territories, Peru, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Sweden, Norway and Denmark were the highest performers, while France, Austria, Italy, Portugal, and Greece received the lowest marks.

The findings echo concerns by humanitarian aid workers that American strategy subordinates humanitarian considerations to the need to achieve military objectives. During the past decade, the Pentagon's share of the U.S. overseas development assistance budget has grown from 3.5 percent to 18 percent, said George Rupp, the president of the International Rescue Committee.

For instance, the United States and its NATO partners channel much of their aid dollars in Afghanistan through Provincial Reconstruction Teams(PRTs), military groups that oversee military and civilian activities in the country's conflict zones. The report said that placing NATO forces in charge of some relief and development operations has "blurred" the line between civilian and military activities, threatening to expose humanitarian aid workers to attacks by Taliban militants.

The United States and other aid donors say that it is essential to use humanitarian assistance to win over the hearts and minds of the population. They have criticized DARA's index, saying it relies too heavily on the perceptions of aid workers in the field. A call to the U.S. mission at the United Nations was not immediately returned.

Rupp said his organization has refused to participate in the PRT program in Afghanistan because it "decreases the security of our humanitarian workers on the ground." Rupp said his organization delivered assistance in the Afghan town of Gardez for more than 15 years without incident. But he said locals began to "call into question our impartiality" when they saw NATO military vehicles and soldiers distributing aid and rebuilding schools in the area.

Rupp said his organization also has declined U.S. funding in Colombia because it was channeled through an anti-narcotics programs that would have made it difficult to "observe our principle of impartiality. It puts you so clearly on one side of the divide," he said.

Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues


November 16, 2008

There is no Title to this post. I will let you make your own.

I am in a very strange kind of mood. I am listening to Tracy Chapman. I like that singer a lot. There is something very genuine about her. I guess she represents 1% of the American population. A 1% hope.

If I were a gambler, I would say that the odds are not in my favor. Not with a 1% for sure.

I still can't shake off that strange feeling off my shoulders...It must have been that interview with that young Afghani girl, who found her foot in tiny pieces whilst she was with other women in a garden, celebrating something. She said " I saw my foot lying next to me in pieces. My cousin was also laying dead right next to me...They (the Americans) saw that we were only a group of women, and they attacked us nonetheless. The Americans are animals. "

Notice she did not say the American soldiers or the American Pentagon, or the American army or the American administration or the American government, or the American neocons -- are animals. She said Americans are animals.

Yep, that is what she said - Americans are animals.

I don't blame her one bit. I would only add that animals are too kind compared to the Americans. And I would not forget to include the British either.

I receive many emails. A lot of them are pure crap. A lot of them preach to me about love and forgiveness. A lot of them are blaming the victim. A lot of them dictate to the victim what words, what feelings, what thoughts she must or must not have. A lot of them talk about the victim being an angry bitter hateful thing. But none of them, NONE of them acknowledge FULL responsibility. None.

This for me is the height of arrogance. The epitome of immorality. The ultimate lack of any form of ethics. This for me is a sign of a doomed, decadent, degenerate, intellectually, socially, politically, morally putrefied nations - called America and "great" Britain.

You know, I know quite a lot about your culture, your line of reasoning, the way you process your thoughts, the way you interact...I know YOU. I know you inside out, and I can understand that you hate that so much.

I have heard so many of you talk, debate, argue, express, think and rationalize...

When it comes to you, you are very meticulous about what your rights are. You are very articulate about your needs, wants and desires. You are very fastidious about what you believe is right and wrong. You demand to be heard. You request an audition. You press for answers. You seek solutions for you. You, you, you...

And above all you whine that you need to have it all VALIDATED.

And boy do you go on a roll by stating so affirmatively - My feelings are important. What I think is crucial. Hey I have rights here. I am an individual. This is not on. This is not acceptable. I will not tolerate that. This is wrong. This is...

You do that don't you ? Yes you do.

Because you think you matter so much. You think your life is so precious and you want to make the best out of it. You believe that you are entitled to some form of Justice. You will go to any length to get what is your due. From tribunals, to courts, to the police, to whatever authority you can lay your hands on.

Your issue can be small or big, it does not matter. You are entitled. It is my right you say to yourself.

You do that. I know you do. I KNOW YOU DO.

You are such a special individual aren't you ? So "charitable" when you need to be and so hard and pressing when necessary. You have your boundaries and limits. You have sign posts all over the place saying "don't trespass"...You are so civilized and so evolved compared to others, "lesser ones."

"Lesser ones" that you take to as objects of curiosity because you want to learn how the other thinks and feels. As long as the other does not trespass the limits you have imposed on him. As long as the other does not tell your truth to your face. As long as the other does not resist you and your ways.

Should the other dare to voice or complain, your dirty fingers are quick to point in his direction and your smelly moralistic tones are elevated.

You go and dig in your repertoire of do's and dont's, what is acceptable, what is not and you are shocked beyond belief that the other is not grateful to you.

You want someone in your own image. In fact you are the most fake hypocritical nations and peoples I have ever come across. And trust me, I have been around.

You can hate and oppress with impunity. You can brutalize, rape and torture with impunity. You can destroy and kill with impunity. You can ravage and ruin lives, millions of lives with impunity. You can contaminate generations to come with your acts...But you don't stop to think of your deeds. Yet you are so quick to point at the victims, at the receptacles of your own hatred, of your own injustice...

You are so good at doing that, but not with me. Not with me you motherfuckers. I know You so well. So damn well. And I know You hate it so much. And the more You hate it, the better I feel, because You are exposed to me.

You are naked in front of me. Totally naked. You stand naked with your thoughts and your deeds. Your collective thoughts and deeds. Your arrogance is there, your denial is there, your hatred is there, your crimes are there. You can't hide them from Me just as you could not hide them from this young Afghani girl. You can't hide them from the millions of Iraqis and Afghanis whose lives you have totally destroyed. TOTALLY DESTROYED.

But you want someone to validate your feelings ? Fuck you bastards. You will not get any validation from me.

You want to build bridges of understanding and forgiveness ? Fine, assholes.

Repair all the damage and bring back the innocent dead ones. Give us back our limbs, our eyes, our hands, our feet, our loved ones, our homes, our lives... Give them back WHOLE the way you took them and then we can talk about forgiveness and love.

But you can't. You will never be able to. You are only good at destroying. You are only good at wiping out what you can't have, can't possess or can't own.

No, you are not animals, you are less than animals. And if the title is not suitable for you, choose your own.


Book Art : Iraqi artist, Mohammed Al Shammarei - The Key of Baghdad.

PARIS - THE US dollar can no longer claim to be the sole world currency, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday before a weekend summit on the global financial crisis that has its roots in the United States.

'I leave for Washington tomorrow to explain that the dollar, which at the end of World War II was the only world currency, can no longer claim to be the sold world currency,' Mr Sarkozy said.

'The world changes. We are in the 21st century and the French view is that we cannot continue into the 21st century with a system (established) in the 20th century,' he said.

'What was true in 1945 cannot still be true today. It is not a question of courage, it is a matter of good sense to look at things as they really are.'

Leaders from the Group of 20 developed and developing countries meet in Washington on Saturday to discuss the financial crisis that has now begun to cut growth sharply worldwide.

Created in 1999, the G20 countries account for 85 per cent of the world economy and about two-thirds of its population, with its leaders hoping to hammer on Saturday out a common approach and understanding of the crisis.

Mr Sarkozy, who also holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, has said several times that the Washington meeting should tackle currency issues, alongside efforts to improve the transparency and regulation of the financial markets.

Since the end of World War II, the US dollar has effectively been the world's reserve currency, used across the board and thereby giving the United States immense influence in the global economic system. -- AFP

Source

What follows is a speech by delivered at the "Building a new world" conference at Radford University, Virginia, May 23, 2008 by William Blum, author of Killing Hope, a copy of which can be downloaded here.

My assignment here today, as I understand it, is to enlighten you all on how to quickly end the war in Iraq. And how to prevent the United States from attacking Iran. Or Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia. In short, how to put an end to the American empire.

Also, how to impeach Bush and Cheney.

And, while I'm at it, maybe, how to end poverty once and for all, how to save the environment, and how to legalize marijuana.

Well, good luck to us all.

Actually, as fanciful as all that sounds, I think that if the radical left had abundant access to the mass media, for a year or so, we could do it. It wouldn't even have to be sole access, just as much time on radio and TV networks as the conservatives and NPR-type centrists and liberals have.

As some of you may recall, two years ago Osama bin Laden, in one of his audio messages, recommended that Americans should read my book Rogue State. Within hours I was swamped by the media and soon appeared on many of the leading TV news shows, dozens of radio programs, and a long profile in the Washington Post. In the previous 10 years I had sent in dozens of letters to the Post mainly commenting on their less-than-ideal coverage of US foreign policy. Not one was printed. Now my photo was on page one.

A few people who called into the TV and radio programs I was on attacked me as if I and bin Laden were friends and I had asked him for the endorsement. I had to point out that he and I were not really friends; in fact, I hadn't spoken to him in months.

Some of the media hosts wanted me to say that I was repulsed by bin Laden's "endorsement". But I did not say I was repulsed, because I wasn't. What I said was: "There are two elements, involved here: On the one hand, I totally despise any kind of religious fundamentalism and the societies spawned by such, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm a member of a movement which has the very ambitious goal of slowing down, if not stopping, the American Empire, to keep it from continuing to go round the world doing things like bombings, invasions, overthrowing governments, and torture. To have any success, we need to reach the American people with our message. And to reach the American people we need to have access to the mass media. What has just happened has given me the opportunity to reach millions of people I would otherwise never reach. Why should I not be glad about that? How could I let such an opportunity go to waste?"

But many, perhaps most, of those who called in were not hostile. During a 45-minute interview on C-Span and on some radio programs, several people called in to say how delighted they were to hear views expressed that they had never heard before on that station, or had never heard anywhere. I received more than 1000 emails from people I had never been in contact with before, most of which were supportive. I estimate that I sold about 20,000 copies of my book because of my increased exposure.

In summary, I think that there's a very large audience of Americans out there just waiting for us to reach them. Many of them very much suspect that there are things seriously wrong with what the media, the White House, and the Pentagon tell them, but they don't know enough to really be sure or to try to influence others. And they're weighed down by the myths, the myths surrounding US foreign policy. I've gotten quite a few emails from people who tell me about friends and family who simply refuse to be swayed by the facts in my books or other sources. No matter how much these people are shown that what they believe is fallacious, they still refuse to reconsider their views. They say that the author must be quoting out of context or they simply don't care what the argument is.

Now why is that? Are these people just stupid? I think a better answer is that they have certain preconceptions; consciously or unconsciously, they have certain basic beliefs about US foreign policy, and if you don't deal with those basic beliefs you'll be talking to a stone wall. Here are what I think are eight of those basic beliefs, or they can as well be called "myths":

(1) US foreign policy "means well". American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may lie, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are honorable, if not divinely inspired. Of that most Americans are certain. They genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how benevolent and self-sacrificing America has been. The idea that the United States is seeking to dominate the world, and exploit it economically, and is prepared to use any means necessary, is not something that's easy for most Americans to swallow. They see our leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be called immoral or war criminals?

They have names like George and Dick and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah cut off an arm or a leg as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. We're too civilized for that. But we don't consider that people named George and Dick and Donald drop millions of cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child picks one up or steps on one of them and loses an arm or leg, sometimes worse.

I like to ask the question: What does US foreign policy have in common with Mae West, the Hollywood sexpot of the 1940s? The story is told of a visitor to her mansion, who looked around and said: "My goodness, what a beautiful home you have." And Mae West replied: "Goodness has nothing to do with it."

That's one of the important points you have to make about US foreign policy -- goodness has nothing to do with it.

If I were to write a book called The American Empire for Dummies, page one would say: Don't ever look for the moral factor. US foreign policy has no moral factor built into its DNA. Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes they feed us all.

So when American officials state or imply benevolent motivations behind their foreign policy, we should not let them get away with claiming such intentions. Supporters of US policies have that rationale profoundly embedded in their thinking, and I find it very useful in discussions with such people to raise moral questions about the government's motivations. These people are not used to hearing such an argument. The media almost never mentions it. It's almost disorienting for Americans. Or I sometimes ask them what the United States would have to do abroad to lose their support? What for them would be too much? Try that.

(2) The United States is really concerned with this thing called "democracy". Even though in the past 60 years, the US has attempted to overthrow literally dozens of democratically-elected governments, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, and grossly interfered in as many democratic elections in every corner of the world. Moreover, it would be difficult to name a brutal dictatorship of the second half of the 20th century that was not supported by the United States. Not just supported, but put into power, and kept in power, against the wishes of the population.

The question is: What do the Busheviks mean by "democracy"?

Well, the first thing they have in mind is making sure the country in question is hospitable to corporate globalization and American military bases; and if this means forcing a regime change, so be it. The last thing they have in mind is any kind of economic democracy, the closing of the gap between the desperate poor and those for whom too much is not enough.

(3) Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East comes from hatred of our alleged freedom and democracy, or our wealth, or our secular government, or our culture. George W. has declared this many times. But polls taken in many Middle East countries in recent years, by respected international polling organizations, show again and again that the great majority of those people really admire American society. There's no clash of civilizations. It's much simpler. What bothers them about the United States are the decades of appalling things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. That's what motivates anti-American terrorists. It's not the sex in American films and TV; it's the American bombs dropping on their homes and schools. It's not the alcohol and the miniskirts. It's the American invasions and occupations; American torture; support of Middle East dictators; unmitigated support of Israel.

It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long succession of Washington's awful policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. No one likes being invaded or bombed or tortured or having their government overthrown by a foreign power. Why should there be any doubt about this? But Americans have to be reminded of it.

I don't think, by the way, that poverty plays much of a role in creating terrorists. The 9-11 hijackers, or alleged hijackers, were not a bunch of poor peasants; they were largely middle and upper class, and educated. Bin Laden himself is, or was, a millionaire. So we shouldn't confuse terrorism with revolution.

(4) The United States has been pursuing a War on Terror. But the fact is the US is not actually against terrorism per se, they're against only those terrorists who are not allies of the American empire. For example, there is a lengthy and infamous history of Washington's support for numerous anti-Castro terrorists, even when their terrorist acts were committed in the United States. At this moment, Luis Posada Carriles remains protected by the US government in Florida, though he masterminded the blowing up of a Cuban airplane that killed 73 people. Venezuela, a key location in this murder plot, has asked Washington to return Posada to Caracas. But the US has refused. He's but one of hundreds of anti-Castro terrorists who've been given haven in the United States over the years along with many other terrorists from Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries.

The United States has also provided support of terrorists in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, including those with known connections to al Qaeda. All to further foreign policy goals more important than fighting terrorism. What's happened is that the War on Terror has served as a cover for the expansion of the empire.

Supporters of the War on Terror tell us that it's been a success because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US in the six -plus years since 9-11. Well, there wasn't a terrorist attack in the US in the six-plus years before 9-11 either. So what does that prove? More importantly, since the first American bombs fell on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have been scores of terrorist attacks against American institutions in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific -- military, civilian, Christian, and other targets associated with the United States, including two very major attacks in Indonesia with large loss of life.

But the worst failure of the War on Terror is that American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, including all the torture, have probably created thousands of new anti-American terrorists. We'll be hearing from them for a terribly long time.

(5) If Saddam Hussein had in fact possessed all the terrible weapons the US claimed he had, the invasion and occupation of Iraq would then have been justified. Of the numerous lies we've been told about the war in Iraq, this is the biggest one, this is the most insidious, the necessary foundation for all the other lies. Think about it -- What possible reason could Saddam Hussein have had for attacking the United States or Israel other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? Because that's what would have followed an Iraqi attack on the US or Israel -- if not a nuclear devastation of Iraq, then a non-nuclear devastation of Iraq. But if in fact Iraq was not a threat to attack the US or Israel, then all we've been told about the war, before it began, and afterwards, is totally meaningless; all the accusations and discussions about whether the intelligence was right or wrong about this or that, or whether the Democrats also believed the lies, all meaningless.

And keep in mind, the same question applies to Iran: What possible reason could Iran have for attacking the United States or Israel other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? Of course, what worries Tel Aviv and Washington is not so much the danger of such an attack, but the fact that some day Israel might not be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, a serious loss of their ability to dominate.

Sometimes, when I have a discussion with a person who supports the war in Iraq, and the person has no other argument left to defend US policy there he may say something like: "Well, just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein was overthrown?"

And I say "No".

And he says "No?"

And I say: Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone asked you afterward: Well, aren't you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? It's the same with the Iraqi people. They no longer have a Saddam Hussein problem. In general, the great majority of Iraqis had a much better life under Saddam Hussein than they've had under US occupation. That's been confirmed again and again.

(6) There are many who believe that invading and occupying Iraq has been a horrible mistake, but that doing the same in Afghanistan has been justified. Afghanistan has become "the good war". It was to revenge the deaths of September 11, 2001, was it not? Of course -- in a rational world -- revenge should be taken against those responsible for what happened on that infamous date. But of the tens of thousands of people killed by the US and its allies in Afghanistan the past six-plus years, how many, can it be said, had anything to do with the events of September 11? My rough estimate is ... none. So what kind of revenge is that?

Yes, Osama bin Laden had been living in Afghanistan and that's where the attack had been partially planned. But consider ... If Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the terrible bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, had not been quickly caught, would the government have bombed the state of Michigan or any of the other places McVeigh had called home and where he had planned his attack?

Whatever one thinks of the appalling society the Taliban created, they had not really been associated with terrorist acts, and the masses of Taliban supporters shouldn't have been held responsible if their leader, Mohammed Omar, one person, allowed foreign terrorists into the country, any more than I would want to be held responsible for all the Cuban terrorists in Miami. And most of the foreigners had probably come to Afghanistan in the 1990s to help the Taliban in their civil war -- a religious mission for them -- nothing the US government should have been concerned about. And remember, Mohammed Omar offered to turn bin Laden over to the United States if Washington presented proof of bin Laden's involvement in 9-11. The United States did not accept the offer.

(7) In the Cold War, the United States defeated what was known as the International Communist Conspiracy. The legacy of the Cold War is still with us; it keeps coming up, often used by conservatives in one way or another as an argument in support of the War on Terror.

Let me take you back a bit now. If you think what you have now is government lying and deceit, let me tell you that in my day, during the cold war, the big lie, the big huge lie they pounded into our heads from childhood on was that there was something out there called The International Communist Conspiracy, headquarters in Moscow, and active in every country of the world, looking to subvert everything that was decent and holy, looking to enslave us all. That's what they taught us, in our schools, our churches, on radio, TV, newspapers, in our comic books -- The Communist Menace, the red menace, more dangerous than al Qaeda is presented to us today.

The Communist Menace was international, you couldn't escape it. And almost every American believed this message unquestioningly. I was a good, loyal anti-communist until I was past the age of 30. In fact, in the 1960s I was working at the State Department planning on becoming a foreign service officer so I could join the battle against communism, until a thing called Vietnam came along and changed my mind, and my life.

It was all a con game. There was never any such animal as The International Communist Conspiracy. What there was, was people all over the Third World fighting for economic and political changes which didn't coincide with the needs of the American power elite, and so the US moved to crush those governments and those movements, even though the Soviet Union was playing hardly any role at all in those scenarios.

Washington officials of course couldn't say that they were intervening somewhere to block social change, so they called it fighting communism, fighting a communist conspiracy, and of course fighting for freedom and democracy. Just like now the White House can't say that it invaded Iraq to expand the empire, or for the oil, or for the corporations, or for Israel, so it says it's fighting terrorism.

Remember: The cold war ended in 1991 ... the International Communist Conspiracy was no more ... no more red threat ... and nothing changed in American foreign policy. Since that time the US has been intervening, bombing, and overthrowing governments just as often as during the cold war. What does that tell you? It tells me that the so-called "communist threat" was just a ploy, an excuse for American imperialism.

Keep this in mind:
Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991 -- after the cold war was ended -- the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.

Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.

Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.

This is not very subtle foreign policy. It's certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.

And that's the way the empire grows -- a base in every region, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. 63 years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; 55 years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.

(8) The last myth I'd like to mention has to do with the media, and it affects the political views of Americans as much as any of the previously mentioned myths. It's the idea that conservatives and liberals are ideological polar opposites. In actuality, conservatives, especially of the neo- kind, are far to the right on the political spectrum, while liberals are ever so slightly to the left of center. Yet, we are led to believe that a radio or TV talk show on foreign policy with a conservative and a liberal is offering a "balanced" point of view. But a more appropriate balance to a neo-conservative would be a left-wing radical or progressive. American liberals are typically closer to conservatives on foreign policy than they are to these groups on the left, and the educational value of such supposedly balanced media can be more harmful than beneficial as far as seeing through the empire's actions and motives. The listener thinks he's getting more or less a full range of opinion on the topic and doesn't realize that there's a whole world outside the narrow box he's being placed in.

The fundamental political difference between liberalism and Marxism is that liberalism sees a problem -- such as America's role as the world's bully -- simply as bad policy, while the Marxist sees it as something that flows out logically from US economic and military interests.

When a liberal sees a beggar, he says the system isn't working. When a Marxist sees a beggar, he says the system is working.

Ideology is a very important concept and I think that most people are rather confused by it, which is due in no small measure to the fact that the media are confused by it, or they at least pretend to be confused. The official ideology of the American media is that they don't have any ideology.

So all this I hope is ammunition you can use in trying to win over new recruits for the cause. And don't be shy about raising such points even when "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the converted". That's what speakers and writers are often scoffed at for doing -- saying the same old thing to the same old people, just spinning their wheels. That's what some would say I'm doing at this very moment. You are part of the choir, are you not?

But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign policy tells me it just ain't so. From the questions and comments I often get from my audiences, in person and via email, and from other people's audiences as well, I can plainly see that there are numerous significant information gaps and misconceptions in the choir's thinking, often leaving them unable to see through the newest government lie or propaganda scheme. They're unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that illuminates the present. Or they may know the facts but are unable to apply them at the appropriate moment. Or they're vulnerable to being confused by the next person who comes along with a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe. In short, the choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened.

So that's your assignment. Go out there and educate, and agitate, and subvert. There's no magical tactic, only persistence. As the Quakers are fond of saying: If not now, when? If not here, where? If not you, who?

I thank you very much.

3rd November 2008

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared.

The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father's body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.

As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India's economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.
Indian farmer

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years' earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on - they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless - as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.

Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.

As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. 'He was a loving and caring man,' she said, weeping quietly.

'But he couldn't take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.'

Shankara's crop had failed - twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India's ancient story.

But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.
Prince Charles has set up charity Bhumi Vardaan Foundation to address the plight of suicide farmers

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

The crisis, branded the 'GM Genocide' by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a 'global moral question' - and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.

Speaking by video link to a conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, he infuriated bio-tech leaders and some politicians by condemning 'the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming... from the failure of many GM crop varieties'.

Ranged against the Prince are powerful GM lobbyists and prominent politicians, who claim that genetically modified crops have transformed Indian agriculture, providing greater yields than ever before.

The rest of the world, they insist, should embrace 'the future' and follow suit.

So who is telling the truth? To find out, I travelled to the 'suicide belt' in Maharashtra state.

What I found was deeply disturbing - and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.

For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.

Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide - a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.

Pro-GM experts claim that it is rural poverty, alcoholism, drought and 'agrarian distress' that is the real reason for the horrific toll.

But, as I discovered during a four-day journey through the epicentre of the disaster, that is not the full story.
Death seeds: A Greenpeace protester sprays milk-based paint on a Monsanto research soybean field near Atlantic, Iowa

In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands - only to kill themselves as well.

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed - two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.

She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. 'He cries when he thinks of his mother,' said the dead woman's aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.

Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.

The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were 'magic seeds' - with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.

The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.

In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.

But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers' lives have slid back into the dark ages.

Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years - up to 17 million acres - many famers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.

Far from being 'magic seeds', GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

Take the case of Suresh Bhalasa, another farmer who was cremated this week, leaving a wife and two children.

As night fell after the ceremony, and neighbours squatted outside while sacred cows were brought in from the fields, his family had no doubt that their troubles stemmed from the moment they were encouraged to buy BT Cotton, a geneticallymodified plant created by Monsanto.

'We are ruined now,' said the dead man's 38-year-old wife. 'We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.'

Villagers bundled him into a rickshaw and headed to hospital along rutted farm roads. 'He cried out that he had taken the insecticide and he was sorry,' she said, as her family and neighbours crowded into her home to pay their respects. 'He was dead by the time they got to hospital.'

Asked if the dead man was a 'drunkard' or suffered from other 'social problems', as alleged by pro-GM officials, the quiet, dignified gathering erupted in anger. 'No! No!' one of the dead man's brothers exclaimed. 'Suresh was a good man. He sent his children to school and paid his taxes.

'He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.'

Monsanto has admitted that soaring debt was a 'factor in this tragedy'. But pointing out that cotton production had doubled in the past seven years, a spokesman added that there are other reasons for the recent crisis, such as 'untimely rain' or drought, and pointed out that suicides have always been part of rural Indian life.

Officials also point to surveys saying the majority of Indian farmers want GM seeds - no doubt encouraged to do so by aggressive marketing tactics.

During the course of my inquiries in Maharastra, I encountered three 'independent' surveyors scouring villages for information about suicides. They insisted that GM seeds were only 50 per cent more expensive - and then later admitted the difference was 1,000 per cent.

(A Monsanto spokesman later insisted their seed is 'only double' the price of 'official' non-GM seed - but admitted that the difference can be vast if cheaper traditional seeds are sold by 'unscrupulous' merchants, who often also sell 'fake' GM seeds which are prone to disease.)

With rumours of imminent government compensation to stem the wave of deaths, many farmers said they were desperate for any form of assistance. 'We just want to escape from our problems,' one said. 'We just want help to stop any more of us dying.'

Prince Charles is so distressed by the plight of the suicide farmers that he is setting up a charity, the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation, to help those affected and promote organic Indian crops instead of GM.

India's farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

This came too late for Shankara Mandauker, who was 80,000 rupees (about £1,000) in debt when he took his own life. 'I told him that we can survive,' his widow said, her children still by her side as darkness fell. 'I told him we could find a way out. He just said it was better to die.'

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children's schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

Cruelly, it's the young who are suffering most from the 'GM Genocide' - the very generation supposed to be lifted out of a life of hardship and misery by these 'magic seeds'.

Here in the suicide belt of India, the cost of the genetically modified future is murderously high.

Source

I am reprinting three of the comments here; there are 54 in all and can be found at the source. Many are quite interesting.

It is sad that someone who has visited rural India for just four days can claim to understand all the complexities of the problems of our farmers and attribute their plight to modern biotechnology. Mr. Malone, being an idiologist presents a completely inaccurate view on the situation. Had spent a few more days to understand the massive social benefits that have accrued to farmers in India due to the introduction of GM cotton seeds, would he realize that income of Indian cotton farmers has increased dramatically over the last 5 years, the education level of GM cotton farmer families has risen faster, their health and nutrition has improved vis - a - vis non GM farmers and the country has doubled cotton production to 30 million bales of cotton making it self sufficient and an exporter from an importer five years ago. This has a single leading reason why the 5 million odd people working in textiles still have jobs today.

- Shirish, India, 03/11/2008 14:16


Seems that India and it's poor farmers were chosen by the huge GM lobby as 'guinea-pigs' in the GM crops experiment. The GM salespeople, and anyone who helped them, are the lowest of the low.

The Indian government should protect its people by throwing Monserat and all the rest of them out of India, and confiscating any assets that they have in India. Locking them up in Indian jails would also be a good idea!

But then...how much have the Indian government had in 'bribes' from these company's?

Well done to Prince Charles for speaking out on this!

- Linda, Birmingham, 03/11/2008 14:08


Monsanto be warned: American Vulture style Capitalism is no longer acceptable in the world - your "dollars" no longer impress us! - your science does. Your swaggering Yankee Capitalistic attitude is passe! think communal global world even if it makes you feel sick to your greedy stomach! A softer joint venture with the individual farmer in the development of the use of your "magic seeds" is more in order, and Please! Wait until they make a profit before taking your share - greedy!
Americans at home will need a worm proof cabbage, a vine borer proof squash, a potato bug proof potato and cumber beetle proof cucumber to feed themselves in backyard veggie gardens during the coming Great Depression and devaluation of our net worth. please help feed the starving masses at home in the U.S.A.! P.S. The Chinese are soon to overtake your Science, so what you don't, they will!

- Uncle B, Lakefield, Canada, 03/11/2008 14:04

In an effort to create a dialogue with the new USA president Barack Obama, he will need some feedback from the internet on those issues the world feels most important for him to address.

Since this is an international forum, it is my hope that readers from all countries can respond here and this list can be sent off to Obama in the hopes it will have some effect on the future for all of us. Hope springs eternal.

Obama seems to have made good use of the internet to raise funds; perhaps now he will utilize this medium to raise the consciousness of his own people and administration. I will start with my little list.

1. Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't these people suffered enough for the USA greed to control oil resources?
2. Close down Guantanamo.....AND....make reparations to its victims and its victims' families; and by the way, an apology to the world would not be out of line.
3. Put Joe Biden on a short leash.
4. Rescind all Executive Orders from the Bush megalomaniacs and try to re-instate the Constitution for your people.
5. Think Keynes: try to build a sustainable economy that does not depend on exporting war and producing products to kill people.
6. Endict George Bush and his cronies for war crimes and treason; the world needs closure on the horrors these monsters have inflicted on so many, directly and indirectly.
7. Take the god dam check book away from the CIA.
8. Scrap the missile plan for Europe; and stop using NATO to create hostility between peaceful sovereign nations.
9. Have the White House de-loused and de-bugged before you move in.
10. Try to educate your people a little better: don't you think adult age voters should know just the tiniest bit about economics and world politics?

Please offer whatever comments or criticisms you like. This is our chance to speak up and I am sure I have left out the interests of many countries and people. Even a 'Ditto' is a strong message.

Thanks for your participation.

November 4th 2008
An Internet grass-roots campaign will this week deliver a copy of George Orwell's prophetic novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' to every Member of Parliament. The books will be inscribed with the words, 'This book was a warning, not a blueprint', and will arrive at Parliament on or before November 5th -- a date of well known historical significance for that building.

Outraged by the continual attack upon civil liberties within our nation, a fortnight ago the Libertarian Party proposed reminding those in Westminster who they were elected to serve, and in whose interests the laws that they pass are meant to function. Spread purely by word of mouth, a campaign to send each Member of Parliament their own copy of Orwell's dystopian classic met with overwhelming support on the Internet, with many more books pledged than the 646 required to ensure that every one of our elected representatives receive a personal copy.

The Libertarian Party contributed just 75 books itself, with the remainder coming (directly, or via campaign donations) from people of all political parties, and of none. The UK Libertarian Party leader, Ian Parker-Joseph, explained, "As the people of Britain become ever more spied upon and ever more heavily taxed, as the government attempts to control how much we should smoke, eat and drink, as the state legislates to regulate ever more the minutiae of our lives, the Libertarian Party want to remind people that we have the power, and that our elected representatives work for us.

"The Libertarian Party would like the people of Britain to remember that the state is the servant of the people, and not our master. Moreover, we wish to remind those in Westminster of this fact. "Many constituents of these MPs will be adding their own personal messages to the books that they are sending," added Mr Parker-Joseph, "and it is a sad reflection of how far towards Orwell's vision our country has already slipped that some members of the public have expressed fear at the potential consequences of simply sending their MP a 60 year old novel.

One correspondent wrote to me: I told my wife I was taking part in this campaign and her and the children’s answer was “don’t do it, you will get into trouble and have them after us”. I have been told on numerous occasions by my wife that you cannot win against the State so “why argue with them, why complain?” She believes that you cannot fight against the Government or powers that be and that if you do you will be watched and eventually “they” will come and get you so it is best not to complain, make waves etc. "What sort of society are we living in where people are so afraid of their government? Something is very, very wrong here" concluded Mr Parker-Joseph.


Source
Read the book or watch the movie here.
The 2 minute summary.
Background on the regulations provoking this action can be found:
Government black boxes will 'collect every email'