From bchang1 at wellesley.edu Fri Nov 2 03:16:14 2001 From: bchang1 at wellesley.edu (Bena W. Chang) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 16:46:14 -0500 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: National Longings - South Asian Film Series Message-ID: The Women's Studies Department, Committee on Lectures and Cultural Events, and the Department of Art, present National Longings: A South Asian Lens into Women A festival showcasing a variety of films and documentaries from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, India and Diaspora. All screenings are free and open to the public. Thursday, November 15th - Monday, November 19th 2001 at Collins Cinema, Wellesley College, MA For the detailed schedule, please visit the festival website at http://amphetamine.elation.nu/nl/schedule.html This Film Series is supported by: Davis Museum and Cultural Centre, the Treves Fund, Cinema and Media Studies, the Wellesley Association for South Asian Cultures (WASAC), and the Wellesley Pakistani Student's Association (PSA) Questions? contact: alakshmi at wellesley.edu; 781-283-4477 From rafael at csi.com Fri Nov 2 08:35:57 2001 From: rafael at csi.com (Rafael Lozano-Hemmer) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 22:05:57 -0500 Subject: [Reader-list] Life 4.0 cfp, deadline extended Message-ID: PLEASE NOTE DEADLINE EXTENDED LIFE 4.0 International Competition - Call for Participation Third edition of the international competition on "art and artificial life" sponsored by the Telefonica Foundation in Madrid. We are looking for artworks employing techniques and themes such as digital genetics, autonomous robotics, recursive chaotic algorithms, knowbots, computer viruses, avatars, evolving behaviours or virtual ecosystems. An international jury (Daniel Canogar, Machiko Kusahara, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Arlindo Machado, Sally Jane Norman and Nell Tenhaaf) will grant four cash awards totaling 20,000 US dollars. Previous winners include Ken Rinaldo, Willy LeMaitre / Eric Rosenzveig, Ken Feingold, Erwin Driessens / Maria Verstappen, Bill Vorn / Louis Philippe Demers, Scott Draves, Simon Penny / Jamieson Schulte, Asa Unander-Scharin, Troy Innocent, Marc Böhlen / Michael Mateas, Doris Vila, Diane Ludin / Ricardo Domínguez, Gerard Boyer, Jane Prophet / Gordon Selley / Mark Hurry, Hod Lipson / Jordan B. Pollack, Institute of Applied Autonomy, Paul Brown, Eduardo Kac, Christa Sommerer / Laurent Mignonneau, Roc Parés / Narcís Parés / Perry Hoberman, Linda Wallace and Naoko Tosa. The new deadline for submission is Monday, November 12, 2001. For further information and the application form, please see http://www.telefonica.es/fat/vida4 For questions concerning eligibility of entries: Nell Tenhaaf, Artistic Director -- -- From jimmychoi_kc at hotmail.com Fri Nov 2 16:11:44 2001 From: jimmychoi_kc at hotmail.com (Jimmy Choi Kam Chuen) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 10:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Woman filmmaker facing execution Message-ID: Please post the following message :A filmmaker's life is at stake. Thanks Jimmy Choi : Filmmaker Tahmineh Milani Faces Execution FIPRESCI informs FILMMAKER TAHMINEH MILANI FACES EXECUTION Fellow Filmmakers Express Solidarity with Her - International Group Includes Jamsheed Akrami, Francis Ford Coppola, Carlos Diegues, Ali Kazimi, Hanif Kureishi, Ang Lee, Raoul Peck, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, and Many Others. Iranian Filmmaker Tahmineh Milani, who was arrested then released on bail earlier this fall, faces execution if convicted in an upcoming trial in Tehran. Ms. Milani was arrested on the orders of Iran's Revolutionary Council as she was promoting the film The Hidden Half, which she wrote and directed. The Hidden Half depicts internal struggle within Iran soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ms. Milani has been charged with supporting factions waging war against God, and misusing the arts in support of counterrevolutionary and armed opposition groups. The Revolutionary Council has previously ordered the arrest of journalists and other cultural figures, but this is the first time it has taken direct action against a filmmaker. One of Iran's best-known filmmakers, Tahmineh Milani has written and directed films including The Legend of a Sigh (1991), What Else Is New? (1992), and Two Women (1999), in addition to The Hidden Half (2001). She is well-known for taking strong feminist positions in both films and public appearances. Mr. Mohammad Khatami, the President of Iran, personally supported Ms. Milani's release on bail. Like all domestically produced Iranian films, The Hidden Half went through intense censorship processes. It was then approved by the Ministry of Culture and released to theatres. For the director then to be arrested for the content of the film seemed, as Mr. Khatami himself put it at the time, unfair to say the least. Facets Multimedia of Chicago released a declaration of solidarity with Ms. Milani signed by dozens of filmmakers from around the world. The filmmakers who have signed include such eminent directors as Jamsheed Akrami, Hisham Bizri, John Boorman, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, Carlos Diegues, Ali Kazimi, Hanif Kureishi, Ang Lee, Spike Lee, Lucrecia Martel, Raoul Peck, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Oliver Stone, plus many other directors, producers, actors, and other filmmakers. The filmmakers come from across the Middle East, North America, Asia, Europe, and South America. The declaration has been sent to Mr. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Mr. Mohammad Khatami, the President of Iran; Mr. Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, the Head of the Judiciary; Mr. Masjed Jamee, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance; and many other dignitaries and interested parties. Facets Multimedia coordinated this declaration of solidarity because of long-time commitments to promoting and distributing Iranian cinema, to human rights, and to the freedom of artists. Other filmmakers, organizations, and individuals who would like to express their solidarity with Ms. Milani are invited to send faxes to His Excellency Mr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at 98 21 649 5886; His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, Minister of Justice, at 98 21 646 5242; His Excellency Mr. Masjed Jamee, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, at 98 21 391 3535; Mr. Mohebbi, President of the Farabi Cinema Foundation, at 98 21 670 8155; and Ray Privett of Facets Multimedia at 1 773 929 5437. They are also invited to sign the petition online at www.facets.org/petition.html, a website with links that will be updated as new information related to Ms. Tahmineh Milani's case becomes available. An article offering more information about Tahmineh Milani's case appeared in the October 26, 2001 edition of The Los Angeles Times. For further information, please contact Ray Privett at 1 800 331 6197 or ray at facets.org. The Declaration of Solidarity reads as follows: FILMMAKERS STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH TAHMINEH MILANI As fellow members of the film community we were outraged to learn of the recent arrest of Tahmineh Milani by the Islamic Government of Iran. This is the first time the current Iranian government has taken such action against a filmmaker. Although she has been released on bail, charges against her have not been dropped. We wish to express our solidarity with her. John Akomfrah, Jamsheed Akrami, Angela Alston, Roy Andersson, Ben Barenholtz, Alan Berliner, Hisham Bizri, Peter Bogdanovich, John Boorman, St. Clair Bourne, Geoff Bowie, Catherine Breillat, Alden Brigham, Charles Burnett, Laura Colella, Francis Ford Coppola, Sofia Coppola, Guillermo del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Dominique Deruddere, Carlos Diegues, Faye Dunaway, Morgan Evans, Leonard Farlinger, Harun Farocki, Ivan Fila, James Fotopoulos, William Friedkin, Richard Fung, John Gianvito, Jill Godmilow, Marina Goldovskaya, Gaylene Gould, Lina Gopaul, John Greyson, Rajko Grlic, Erik Gunneson, David Hare, Joseph Hillel, Agnieszka Holland, Ted Hope, Richard Horowitz, Magnus Isacsson, Sharifa Johka, Jennifer Jonas, Jon Jost, Peter Kaufman, Philip Kaufman, Kees Kasander, Lawrence Kasdan, Michael Kastenbaum, Ali Kazimi, Hanif Kureishi, Valerie Lalonde, David Lawson, Richard Leacock, Ang Lee, Helen Lee, Spike Lee, Nancy Lefkowitz, Mike Leigh, Joshua Leonard, Steven Lippman, Lech Majewski, Dusan Makavejev, Chris Marker, Loren Marsh, Lucrecia Martel, Pier Marton, Jim McKay, Nina Menkes, Joe Moulins, Jag Mohan Mundhra, Alice Nellis, Jan Nemec, Denise Ohio, Katrin Ottarsdottir, Raoul Peck, Robin Wright Penn, Sean Penn, Marguerite Pigott, Mark Rappaport, Pen-ek Ratanaruang, Julia Reichert, Francoise Romand, Shiva Rose, Ken Russell, Helma Sanders-Brahms, James Schamus, Richard Schenkman, Paul Schrader, Barbet Schroeder, Sandra Schulberg, Martin Scorsese, Peter Sellars, Franci Slak, Steven Soderbergh, Ines Sommer, Stanislav Stanojevic, Jos Stelling, Oliver Stone, Leslie Thornton, Blaine Thurier, Jacob Tierney, John Walker, Karen Walton, Elizabeth Westrate, Bellamy Young. --------------------- Forwarded by FIPRESCI Klaus Eder F??ation Internationale de la Presse Cin?atographique (FIPRESCI) Schleissheimer Str. 83 D-80797 Munich T +49 (89) 18 23 03 Cell +49 (172) 850 53 02 F +49 (89) 18 47 66 keder at fipresci.org __________________________________________ 51st Melbourne International Film Festival 24 JULY - 11 AUGUST 2002 PO Box 2206 Fitzroy Mail Centre 3065 Melbourne Australia Tel. +61 3 9417 2011 Fax. +61 3 9417 3804 miff at vicnet.net.au http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From soenke.zehle at web.de Fri Nov 2 17:29:16 2001 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 12:59:16 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Oil & Central Asia - Background Research Message-ID: NOTE: I didn't follow the Chomsky/Hitchens controversy in the US (if there actually was one), but I guess the material below would add to the "resource war" hypothesis. If this is old news, please forgive me, it's still a good summary. S/Z Drillbits & Tailings Volume 6, Number 7 October 31, 2001 Project Underground http://www.moles.org "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States." - US vice president Dick Cheney told the Cato Institute three years ago. HOW OIL INTERESTS PLAY OUT IN US BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN We have synthesized a number of current analyses into some key facts about how oil ties into the US government's long time involvement in Central Asia and its hopes of accessing the oil and gas riches of the area. Oil is clearly not the only force operating, and this is not a comprehensive analysis, but it is an important piece of a complicated political and economic struggle. The United States has yet to provide concrete evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, but has pursued a bombing campaign anyway against the Taliban and bin Laden with millions of innocent Afghanis caught in the middle. Some analysts are projecting a post-war Afghanistan where the US military is used as “pipeline police.” Following are some key points in how US oil interests play into the current so-called "war on terrorism." CENTRAL ASIA includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, parts of India and China. For a map of the area go to: http://www.askasia.org/image/maps/cntasia1.htm THE CASPIAN BASIN includes the Caspian Sea and surrounding countries, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Georgia. For a map of the area go to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html THE PERSIAN/ARABIAN GULF STATES include Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman. For a map of the area go to: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/reference/gulfregion.html *THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS AND THE CASPIAN BASIN ARE STAGGERINGLY RESOURCE WEALTHY: The Caspian Basin has an estimated US$5 trillion of oil and gas resources. (1) Central Asia has enormous quantities of undeveloped oil resources including 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. (2) Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the two major gas producers in Central Asia. Turkmenistan contains the world's third largest natural gas reserves. (3) *THE UNITED STATES IS RESOURCE POOR AND THE LARGEST CONSUMER OF OIL: The United States has only 3% of the world’s known oil reserves. (4) Imports accounts for 60% of America’s daily oil consumption, 13% of that comes from Persian/Arabian Gulf States which produce 18% of the world’s supply of oil. With less than 5% of the world’s population, the US accounts for over 25% of the world’s oil consumption (5). The United States would like to control Caspian Sea and Central Asian oil in order reduce dependency on oil from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. *PIPELINE ROUTES ARE KEY TO ACCESSING OIL AND GAS WEALTH FROM THE CASPIAN BASIN: "Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production," said energy expert James Dorian in Oil & Gas Journal on September 10, 2001. The only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. Investors in Caspian oil and gas are interested in building alternative pipelines to Turkey, Europe and Asia (6). Afghanistan occupies a strategic position between the Middle East, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent and lies squarely between Turkmenistan and the lucrative, desirable and growing markets of India, China and Japan. U.S. oil companies have been negotiating with the post-Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan for access to the Caspian Basin for years, but have made no progress because of the political instability in the region (7). The United States, Russia and US oil companies are currently struggling with each other to lay down pipeline routes that leverage control of the flow of oil and favor political and profit interests. "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multi-billion dollar oil and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan..." said a US government Energy Information fact sheet in September 2000. In 1996, a Unocal-led consortium won a contract to build a 1,005 mile oil pipeline and a companion 918-mile natural gas-pipeline, in addition to a tanker-loading terminal in Pakistan's Arabian Sea port of Gwadan. Annual projected income of the project was US2$ billion which in five years would have paid for its costs. The US government and the Unocal consortium feared that they could not build a pipeline as long as Afghanistan, which had been battered by war since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, was unstable. In 1998, Unocal shelved the project just after the US cruise missile strike against Bin Laden's Afghan camps (8). *THE BUSH-CHENEY OILIGARCHY HAS LONG REPRESENTED OIL INTERESTS IN THE CASPIAN REGION: “Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world’s other major source of oil - the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated to be worth US$4 trillion by US News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major US oil companies, called the Caspian region, ‘the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East,' according to Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in the Chicago Tribune, August 2000. Six US oil giants -- Unocal, Total, Chevron, Pennzoil, Amoco and Exxon -- have invested heavily in the massive oilfield potential in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The region's untapped oil reserves are estimated to be worth up to $2,000 billion. (9) The one serious drawback companies have faced is getting the supplies to the right market, the energy-hungry Asian Pacific economies. Afghanistan -- the only Central Asian country with very little oil -- is by far the best route to transport the oil to Asia. Enron, the biggest contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2000, conducted the feasibility study for a US$2.5 billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline which is being built under a joint venture agreement signed in February 1999 between Turkmenistan, Bechtel and General Electric Capital Services. In 1994, Cheney as CEO of Halliburton, a multi-billion oil and gas services company, helped to broker a deal between Chevron (now ChevronTexaco) and the state of Kazakhstan when he sat on the country’s Oil Advisory Board. (10) On behalf of oil companies, an array of former cabinet members from the Bush Sr. administration have been actively involved in negotiations with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. They include former secretary of state James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor, John Sununu, former chief of staff and Dick Cheney, former secretary of defense and now Vice President. (11) *EVERYONE WHO HAS OIL AND GAS INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA NEEDS STABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN: As one Russian newspaper described it, "Russia's worries are not hard to understand. They have to do with postwar arrangements in Afghanistan. Economic interests are paramount. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan need stability in Afghanistan so that they can transit their oil/gas independently." Russia has completed talks with the Tajiks on how to share gas revenues after the war is over. They're estimating it will take six years to achieve stability. (12) SOURCES: 1. "War On Terror Profitable, Same Old Names, Faces Primed to Make Big Buck off Tragedy," by Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, October 1, 2001; 2. ibid; 3.ibid; 4. “Fears Again of Oil Supplies at Risk,” by Neela Banerjee, New York Times, October 14, 2001; 5. World Petroleum Consumption, 1990-1999, Energy Information Administration/International Energy Annual 1999; 6.ibid; 7.Oil Omissions, Bush Sr., Cheney Have Big Stakes in Saudi Status Quo, WorkingforChange.com, October 18, 2001; 8. ibif; 9. “Prospect of oil riches speeds the wheels of war,” by Barry O’Kelly, Sunday Business Post, Ireland, October 28, 2001; 10. Oil Omissions, Bush Sr., Cheney Have Big Stakes in Saudi Status Quo, WorkingforChange.com, October 18, 2001; 11. War On Terror Profitable, Same Old Names, Faces Primed to Make Big Buck off Tragedy, Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, October 1, 2001; 12. “The God of Fossil Fuels," by James Ridgeway, The Village Voice, October 16, 2001. VITAL STATISTICS: Proposed Gas Pipelines from Turkmenistan 1. Enron/Wing Merril BOTAS/ Gama Guris: ROUTE: Turkmenistan – Azerbaijan – Turkey DETAILS: Under Caspian Sea COST: US$2.5 billion STATUS: Contract for a Turkmenistan-turkey pipeline under the Caspian Sea signed in 1999 by consortium made up of Bechtel Group and US General Electric. 2. Unocal, Delta Oil, Turkmenrosgaz ROUTE: Turkmenistan – Pakistan - Afghanistan DETAILS: 937 miles COST: US$2.5 billion STATUS: Suspended 3. Birdas – TAP ROUTE: Turkmenistan – Pakistan - Afghanistan DETAILS: 750 miles COST: US$2.5 billion STATUS: Suspended 4. Royal Dutch Shell, Gaz de France, Snamprogetti, Turkmenistan ROUTE: Turkmenistan – Iran – Turkey DETAILS: 1,875 miles COST: US$2 billion STATUS: Stalled 5. Mitsubishi, ExxonMobil, China, Turkmenistan ROUTE: Turkmenistan – Kazakhstan – China - Japan DETAILS: 5,000 miles COST: US$22 billion STATUS: Stalled 6. China – Iran – Turkmenistan ROUTE: Kazakhstan – Turkmenistan – Iran – Persian Gulf DETAILS: 1,500 miles COST: US$2.5 billion STATUS: Stalled 7. 120-mile-long gas pipeline connecting Iran-Turkmenistan opened in December 1997 SOURCE: Taliban; Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid, Yale University Press Books, 2001. Drillbits & Tailings is a monthly mining, oil and gas update published by Project Underground online in English and Spanish. Back-issues are archived on our web site . We welcome submissions or news items, however we cannot offer remuneration. Research assistance for Drillbits & Tailing is provided by ImpactResearch: A Program of the DataCenter. ImpactResearch serves environmental justice organizations by providing strategic research for campaigns. ImpactResearch is subsidized by foundation grants. For more information, please call 510-835-4692. VIA October 25, 2001 WTO: Enron: Washington's Number One Behind-the-Scenes-GATS Negotiator http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/wto/featured/2001/tclarke.html What do Enron and the General Agreement on Trade in Services have in common? A lot, according to Tony Clarke of the Polaris Institute. Enron, the largest multi-sector service provider in the world, has a huge stake in upcoming the WTO talks, which include negotiations on service trade. The corporate giant remains a heavy hitter in negotiations on the GATs, despite its current economic woes. This first article in our series on corporate influence on the WTO, looks at how Enron uses its clout to shape agreements on cross-border trade in services from healthcare and drinking water to telecommunications. This clear and thorough piece outlines all the overlapping relationships and organizational connections between big business, government and international trade organizations that ultimately threaten democracy on a global scale. NOTE: The one below old, but good :) S/Z "From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company." 1998 UNOCAL CORPORATION TESTIMONY ON HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: RE: OIL AND GAS RESOURCES IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN AND CASPIAN REGION TESTIMONY BY JOHN J. MARESCA VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS UNOCAL CORPORATION TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC FEBRUARY 12, 1998 - WASHINGTON, D.C. URL: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm From jeebesh at sarai.net Sat Nov 3 14:31:08 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:31:08 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Searching for contributors from India to GNU/Linux (fwd) Message-ID: <01110314310803.00598@pinki.sarai.kit> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: QUERY: Searching for Indian contributors to GNU/Linux (fwd) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 12:09:45 +0530 (IST) From: Frederick Noronha Dear Moderator, I would be grateful if you could kindly forward this message to members of your mailing list. Thank you very much. Frederick. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear friends, Continuing what I've been doing over the past few months -- on a rather unorganised basis, my plans are to now undertake a more intensive search for Indians who have been contributing to GNU/Linux projects. This work is to be conducted over the next year, and is being supported by a print media fellowship granted by Sarai, New Delhi (http://www.sarai.net). If you could offer some leads on how I could contact Indian programmers (both in India or abroad) who have contributed to the GNU/Linux decade-old project, I'd be very grateful. In particular I'm looking for success stories that could convincingly show that contributions (even if not widely noticed so far) have indeed come up. Some such examples have already come my way; and from a preliminary look it appears that the Indian contribution is much more than currently known or appreciated. Hopefully, a greater focus on this would prompt others in India to also contribute to this exciting project in collaborative networking and working together globally. Your help would be appreciated. As a journalist without any programming skills whatsoever, one feels that this is where one could contribute. Regards and best wishes, Frederick Noronha. PS: Will be visiting IT.com on Nov 4-5. If we could meet in Bangalore, do drop me a line with your contact number. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Frederick Noronha | Freelance Journalist | 784 Saligao 403511 Goa India Ph [0091] 832.409490 or 832.409783 Cell 9822 12.24.36 fred at bytesforall.org *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ------------------------------------------------------- From soenke.zehle at web.de Sat Nov 3 16:19:28 2001 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 11:49:28 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Int'l Law in Central Asia Message-ID: Dear all, I just saw this and wonder whether there are folks in Central Asian universities whose pubs we should research and circulate and support beyond the current crisis, since I noticed that even on listservs in other countries, many articles are from US alternative media, and awareness of criticism of the new Great Game Resource Competition from within Central Asia is pretty low (on my end, anyway). I don't have time at this moment but will return to the topic in a little while - meanwhile, anyone? I do recognize that NGOs & so-called "civil society actors" are all too often mere extensions of the state, providing researcg as well as legitimacy (remember the early role of AI and others in the Kosovo Crisis). And there's no doubt that there's a transnationalization of local and regional public spheres going on (i.e. much of the "civil society" activity is actually done by subsidiaries of major int'l NGOs). But there's a lot of good stuff out there, even if you don't buy the whole international civil society/humanitarianism stuff. S/Z http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/4dc394db5b54f3fa4125673900241f2f/6d4068913f5 368c0c1256a45002decfd?OpenDocument 31 March 2001 International Review of the Red Cross No. 841, 155-165 Promoting the teaching of international humanitarian law in universities: the ICRC's experience in Central Asia by Luisa Vierucci Luisa Vierucci was an ICRC delegate formerly in charge of promoting the teaching of international humanitarian law at the universities of Central Asia. She has a Master's degree in Studies in Legal Research from the University of Oxford (United Kingdom) and a Doctorate in International Law from the European University Institute of Florence (Italy). The ICRC is most visible in times of armed conflict, when it intervenes to protect and assist the victims in accordance with its mandate. Less well known are the activities which the ICRC carries out in time of peace (also referred to as preventive action). They include spreading knowledge of international humanitarian law among the civilian and military sectors of society, providing legal advice to state authorities on that branch of law and helping National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to develop their capacity. [1] Since the early 1990s the ICRC has been promoting the teaching of international humanitarian law in the universities of countries which, though not necessarily at war, need to train lawyers in that field. At present such programmes, under the direction of a dozen ICRC delegates and several local assistants, are being carried out in some 25 countries. The aim of the programme is both to improve knowledge of international humanitarian law among future decision- makers and to make the ICRC and its activities better known. One of the regions where the ICRC university programme has been strongly developed is the former Soviet Union, where the newly independent States, especially those of Central Asia, had little or no tradition in international law, let alone in international humanitarian law. [2] After the break-up of the USSR in 1991 and their accession to independence, the four countries examined here ‹ Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan ‹ had to train their own diplomats and increase their public officials' knowledge of international law. Under the circumstances, the ICRC offered to start developing the teaching of international humanitarian law at the universities of Central Asia [3]. The programme was first directed by the ICRC in Moscow and has been continued since 1996 by the ICRC's regional delegation in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. From alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in Sat Nov 3 20:34:27 2001 From: alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in (Dr. Alok Rai) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 20:34:27 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] request for information References: <200111030542.GAA06195@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <000601c16478$d6284120$4d01050a@x6o6l2> I read a moving piece by Barbara Kingsolver on 9/11 etc. - but I can't for the life of me recall anything more about it - and I can't find it! Can someone help? Alok Rai From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Sat Nov 3 21:32:31 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:02:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Reader-list] request for information In-Reply-To: <000601c16478$d6284120$4d01050a@x6o6l2> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Dr. Alok Rai wrote: > I read a moving piece by Barbara Kingsolver on 9/11 etc. - but I can't for > the life of me recall anything more about it - and I can't find it! Try the Holy Bible/Koran/etc. ;-) i.e., ZNet! It's here: http://www.zmag.org/kingsolver.htm From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 3 22:15:38 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 3 Nov 2001 16:45:38 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Naipaul's Kashmir and Mine-II Message-ID: <20011103164538.31389.qmail@mailFA4.rediffmail.com> ... It was a year before I could return again, by bus this time, in June 1995. I had changed, but the Valley had not: I had the familiar, eerie ineffably sad sensation I had felt too many times before, in Kathmandu, in Haiti, in Milwaukee, of coming home to a place I was only passing through. There was the Valley stretched before me, green and yellow and sky blue, as we came down into it from the Pir Panjal range. There in turn were the mountains immutable as ever in the distance as we rode along the straight, flat National Highway toward the town, poplars and rice fields on either side. And at last we were in Srinagar, and I was in first a motor rickshaw, then a shikara, then finally I had arrived at the houseboat and among the friends I felt I now knew so well. It was almost as though a long year dense with work and adventure and loss had not intervened. Haji and his servant welcomed me effusively with hugs and protestations of having waited anxiously these many months for me to return. The houseboat had the pleasant dry woody smell I remembered, though a few small changes bespoke the passage of time. There were new cushions on the balcony and new upholstery on the couches in the front room. This particular family had not suffered too badly this past year. The birds that had nested inside Haji's house were gone: the women had objected to the mess, and Haji's son had prevailed on him to keep them out for the sake of domestic tranquillity. The chicken whose life my companion had sentimentally saved the year before at Lidderwat, Lucky, was nowhere to be seen; she may not have been so lucky in the end. I didn't have the heart to ask. Nor did I want to visit Mr Bhat and Aziz again; I decided to leave them in peace to get on with their lives. Mr Bhat's health had greatly improved, I was told. The mullahs still moaned their haunting prayers at dusk, and the sunset across the lake was as unbearably beautiful as before. At the end of An Area of Darkness, Naipaul writes of India "slipping away" from him. Hav seeing it once again, realising not only with the mind but in the gut that life and death had been going on in my absence, I tried and failed to retrieve my earlier two visits from personal memory. Where does the time go? As I write, with my return to Kashmir now similarly irretrievable, I need no literary critic to explain to me the meaning of Naipaul's final sentence: "I felt it as something true which I could never adequately express and never seize again." One evening near the end of my last stay in Kashmir, I sat alone for a while on a wooden pier and watched the world go by on the lake between me and the typically stunning sunset. It came to me to what an extent my experience had hinged, very much for the better, on the kindness and friendship of one particular family and their relatives and close friends (the two categories not always easily distinguishable). Haji's citified elder son was back from Delhi, preparing to take a rare group of clients on a long trek, and other young relatives were about. Suddenly, I found myself on the verge of tears. But I challenged myself not to indulge in the sadness of leaving a place, pleasurable though I knew that to be. "Tears were running down his cheeks," writes Naipaul of his 1962 parting with Aziz. "Even at that moment I could not be sure that he had ever been mine." It was a Kashmiri trait, I now knew, to be finally inaccessible: I was to have a disturbing similar experience the morning I bade farewell to Haji. I wanted to say something that would last, that would insure my attachment to him through the next separation. He was polite as ever but distracted, perhaps thinking of his own worries. I would move on, I realised that evening on the pier, and life and death would go on in Kashmir as before. This was their life; it was only a slice of my varied, attenuated experience. I had no right to claim Kashmir, to feel sure that it was mine. I was not suffering and dying, I was not losing my livelihood. On the contrary, as a journalist I was quite literally ma fering. And in more important ways, I had been given more than I deserved or felt I could repay. Maybe the best I could do was to say, with a faith truer and more confident than I could have mustered a year earlier: We'll meet again, enshallah. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 3 22:37:45 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 3 Nov 2001 17:07:45 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Not so secret deals... Message-ID: <20011103170745.11690.qmail@mailFA11.rediffmail.com> Not so secret deals by Branka Magas Asked to comment on reports that Slobodan Milosevic is ‘planning to embarrass Britain and other Western governments by revealing at his war crimes trial at The Hague the secret deals which he claims propped up his regime during a decade of bloodshed in the Balkans’, a ‘senior Foreign Office official’ stated that ‘our hands are clean, we have nothing to hide’ (The Sunday Telegraph, 1 July). While the theory of ‘clean hands’ has rightly been questioned in sections of the British press, given Western politicians’ decade-long negotiations with a man engrossed in an orgy of destruction, the claim that ‘we have nothing to hide’ cannot be so easily dismissed. Secret diplomacy it may have been, but no one can deny that its results were made public - indeed, implemented in full view. One does not need to await Milosevic’s revelations, interesting as they will surely prove to be, to acquire evidence of Western complicity in Milosevic’s genocidal grand design. Such evidence already exists in the shape of Dayton Bosnia. The Dayton Accords are a settlement sui generis in the history of post-1945 Europe. They represent an agreement between key Western states to ratify the partition of the sovereign state of Bosnia-Herzegovina: in other words, to endorse the results of the war of aggression waged against that country by the leaders of Serbia and Croatia. The Accords consecrated racial segregation of Bosnia’s population, by reserving one half of the country for Serbs and dividing the other half between Croats and Bosniaks, and by ordaining that the principle of racial separation should shape the entire organisation of the Bosnian state. The arrangement was secured, moreover, by an active participation of the aggressor states in the negotiations which took place in Dayton. The Dayton Accords were signed, in addition to the hapless Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic, by the Croatian president Franjo Tudjman and by Slobodan Milosevic. Tudjman and Milosevic, with Western acquiescence, di , the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany proved willing to guarantee the outcome. It is true that the United States, by insisting that Bosnia’s international borders remain intact, prevented Britain and France from forging a new Munich. The Accords, nevertheless, legitimised a political solution based on ethnic cleansing, of which Republika Srpska is the most conspicuous demonstration. The continued affirmation of racial separation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the shape of Republika Srpska, remains an affront to democratic Europe. The deals which produced this finale are known only in part, while much remains to be learned. But the Accords themselves bear eloquent witness to their obnoxious nature. The Bosnian Serb leaders most responsible for the creation of Republika Srpska - Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic - have since been indicted for crimes against humanity. Nikola Koljevic, who signed the Accords on behalf of this entity, committed suicide (or was murdered) soon after. Milan Milutinovic, Serbia's current president, who as Milosevic’s foreign minister signed parts of the document, has also been charged with war crimes. Milosevic now faces trial for those he has committed, as yet only in connection with Kosovo: however, crimes committed in Croatia and Bosnia by forces under his effective command will soon be added to the list of charges against him. Tudjman died, thus avoiding being arraigned for war crimes. Where does this leave the Dayton Accords, whose premises those individuals created? If you ask people in the Foreign Office, they will tell you that the Accords constitute an international agreement, which can be changed only by unanimous will of those involved. Croatia has in fact indicated its desire for Bosnia’s reintegration, while Serbia - by delivering Milosevic to The Hague - has signalled its readiness to repudiate Milosevic’s legacy. Western diplomats, on the other hand, make it clear that there is no agreement among their leaders as to ome favour its outright division along the lines established at Dayton; others support its reintegration. Western governments have welcomed Milosevic’s transfer to The Hague. Moreover, they have invited the Serbian people to face up to the truth and to reject what Milosevic did in their name. At the same time, they themselves appear most reluctant to do likewise. But the truth is catching up with them too. In their desire to exculpate themselves, not just Milosevic but other Serb leaders are increasingly ready to speak about Western support for the policy of ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia. Dobrica Cosic, the evil genius of Serb nationalism who for a time acted as FRY president, has recently added his own testimony to this effect. Their refusal to go away quietly will encourage the lower echelons of willing and unwilling accomplices to speak up. Western capitals will soon find that they cannot afford to be seen as the last custodians of Milosevic’s barbarous inheritance. So it is necessary but not sufficient to ask individual Western governments to explain and account for the way in which (as The Observer put it on 1 July) ‘their clumsy and misguided diplomacy has contributed to the lethal decade in the Balkans’. It is necessary also to demand of them to undo what Milosevic has done. Milosevic has always treated Bosnia’s division as his greatest achievement. Bosnian reintegration consequently remains the greatest test of Western governments’ willingness finally to part with him. It is of the greatest importance to confront and remove all legislative arrangements that enshrine racial segregation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to replace them with ones befitting a democratic order of the kind that Western democracies like to call their birthright. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 3 22:43:57 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 3 Nov 2001 17:13:57 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Naipaul's Kashmir Message-ID: <20011103171357.8663.qmail@mailFA5.rediffmail.com> I forgot to add that this is an excerpt from the two part article by Ethan Casey,the editor of blueear.com.You can read the article at blueear.com. On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 abir bazaz wrote : > > > > ... > It was a year before I could return again, by bus this > time, in June 1995. I had changed, but the Valley had > not: I had the familiar, eerie ineffably sad sensation > I had felt too many times before, in Kathmandu, in > Haiti, in Milwaukee, of coming home to a place I was > only passing through. There was the Valley stretched > before me, green and yellow and sky blue, as we came > down into it from the Pir Panjal range. There in turn > were the mountains immutable as ever in the distance as > we rode along the straight, flat National Highway > toward the town, poplars and rice fields on either > side. And at last we were in Srinagar, and I was in > first a motor rickshaw, then a shikara, then finally I > had arrived at the houseboat and among the friends I > felt I now knew so well. It was almost as though a long > year dense with work and adventure and loss had not > intervened. > > Haji and his servant welcomed me effusively with hugs > and protestations of having waited anxiously these many > months for me to return. The houseboat had the pleasant > dry woody smell I remembered, though a few small > changes bespoke the passage of time. There were new > cushions on the balcony and new upholstery on the > couches in the front room. This particular family had > not suffered too badly this past year. The birds that > had nested inside Haji's house were gone: the women had > objected to the mess, and Haji's son had prevailed on > him to keep them out for the sake of domestic > tranquillity. The chicken whose life my companion had > sentimentally saved the year before at Lidderwat, Lucky, > was nowhere to be seen; she may not have been so lucky > in the end. I didn't have the heart to ask. Nor did I > want to visit Mr Bhat and Aziz agai em in peace to get on with their lives. Mr > Bhat's health had greatly improved, I was told. The > mullahs still moaned their hauntin! > g prayers at dusk, and the sunset across the lake was > as unbearably beautiful as before. > > At the end of An Area of Darkness, Naipaul writes of > India "slipping away" from him. Hav > seeing it once again, realising not only with the mind > but in the gut that life and death had been going on in > my absence, I tried and failed to retrieve my earlier > two visits from personal memory. Where does the time > go? As I write, with my return to Kashmir now similarly > irretrievable, I need no literary critic to explain to > me the meaning of Naipaul's final sentence: "I felt it > as something true which I could never adequately > express and never seize again." > > One evening near the end of my last stay in Kashmir, I > sat alone for a while on a wooden pier and watched the > world go by on the lake between me and the typically > stunning sunset. It came to me to what an extent my > experience had hinged, very much for the better, on the > kindness and friendship of one particular family and > their relatives and close friends (the two categories > not always easily distinguishable). Haji's citified > elder son was back from Delhi, preparing to take a rare > group of clients on a long trek, and other young > relatives were about. Suddenly, I found myself on the > verge of tears. But I challenged myself not to indulge > in the sadness of leaving a place, pleasurable though I > knew that to be. "Tears were running down his cheeks," > writes Naipaul of his 1962 parting with Aziz. "Even at > that moment I could not be sure that he had ever been > mine." It was a Kashmiri trait, I now knew, to be > finally inaccessible: I was to have a disturbing > similar experience the mor! > ning I bade farewell to Haji. I wanted to say > something that would last, that would insure my > attachment to him through the nex er but distracted, perhaps thinking of his > own worries. > > I would move on, I realised that evening on the pier, > and life and death would go on in Kashmir as before. > This was their life; it was only a slice of my varied, > attenuated experience. I had no right to claim Kashmir, > to feel sure that it was mine. I was not suffering and > dying, I was not losing my livelihood. On the contrary, > as a journalist I was quite literally ma > fering. And in more important ways, I had been given > more than I deserved or felt I could repay. Maybe the > best I could do was to say, with a faith truer and more > confident than I could have mustered a year earlier: > We'll meet again, enshallah. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Reader-list mailing list > Reader-list at sarai.net > http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 3 23:27:17 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 3 Nov 2001 17:57:17 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Jean Genet's Palestine:The memory of Sabra-Shattila Message-ID: <20011103175717.29840.qmail@mailFA7.rediffmail.com> Ismailia Festival for Short and Documentary Films An infinite requiem Youssef Rakha visits the graveyards The 5th Ismailia Film Festival pays tribute to the Palestinian cause both in and outside the official competition. In all, eight Palestinian productions are scheduled, which is not to mention films about Palestine, scattered across the so called "Panorama" and "special programme" screenings. Rashid Mashharawi's Bath Mubashir (Live Broadcast) and the Lebanese filmmaker May Masri's Ahlam Al-Manfa (Exile Dreams) may be among the official competition's highlights, but of all the Palestine-inspired fare, no gesture in the direction of the ongoing Intifada could have hit the nail on the head with greater precision than the Swiss filmmaker Richard Dino's Genet à Chatila, a Panorama screening. The film is a long, audiovisual document of Jean Genet's experience of the Palestinian revolution in Lebanon and Jordan in the early and mid-1970s, and again in 1982, when the aging Genet, already a well- known supporter of the Palestinian cause and now accompanied to Beirut by Leila Shahid (the Palestinian ambassador to France, then a university student in Paris), witnessed the immediate aftermath of the Chatila massacre just outside Beirut. The Lebanese Phalangist militia, under the direction of the Israeli army, had undertaken a "barbaric feast," and Genet couldn't help but revel in it in his way: "A photograph can't capture the flies," he states, "nor the thick white smell of death, nor can it show how you have to jump when you go from one body to another." This was, so Shahid tells us, a phenomenal encounter, which compelled Genet to start writing after almost 20 years of reticence. The pages Genet worked on in silence in Beirut, just after his four-hour stroll through the Chatila camp, were to grow into Prisoner of Love, his last book, from which Dino's work takes its cue. Reviewing, in merciless detail, the excellent work General Sharon (otherwise known as the current Israeli prime minister) achieved in efugee camps of Sabra and Chatila, Genet à Chatila moves back in time, into the minds and houses of the feda'iyeen lurking in the Jordanian desert, further away from the facts of the resistance (of which no trace remains at the time of filming), and deeper into the realm of Genet's poetic genius, to which the book bears ample testimony: "These trees come back to me," he recalls, referring to his two-year stay with the feda'iyeen, while an empty expanse of desert, punctuated by the trees in question, implants its likeness into the mind of the viewer. The words are more than evocative: their power of suggestion is such they imbue the images with a larger-than-life, not-as-boring-as-it-seems, multi-dimensional reality. "I haven't said enough of their fragility. Everything was trees." At the time of writing, Genet listened constantly to Mozart's (ultimately unfinished) Requiem, which provides a large part of the soundtrack, then he too died while correcting the proofs, Shahid supplies meaningfully. She is standing in a typically nondescript hotel room in Paris, which was Genet's last home. He died, as he so often described himself, a stranger among strangers, terminally tired of hunting down the superficially trivial memories from which he forged his own mythology. In one of many passages recited, with a dogged repetitiveness, through the journey, Genet wonders offhandedly, "Why talk about this revolution? It too resembles a long drawn out burial, with me following the funeral procession from afar." And yet revolution "is the happiest time of life," the viewer is persuasively informed. "The feda'iyeen didn't want power, they had freedom," and "the death of a favourite fada'iye" paradoxically seemed to cheer them up, give them more determination. Their life, "in a Muslim country, where the woman is far away," was an almost indelible "celebration." Reflecting on the subsequent fate of his doomed companions, Genet insists, "It must be stated... that hundreds of years are not enough for the final destruction of current affairs, this is a salutary assertion indeed. So much for affirmation: even here, Genet cannot help being subversive; and his position as a lone European among Palestinians is perpetually brought into focus. It was as if, living in a dark dungeon, the feda'iyeen's heart's desire was merely to intensify the darkness, to sink deeper and deeper into despair. Helpless and without hope: this is how Genet seems to like his Palestinians; that, in being part of the revolution he felt he was living "in his own memory" is the core of his sympathy, unconditional and ultimately of no use. He was a Frenchman, he says, but he could only find himself "amongst the oppressed risen against the whites." The struggle of the Palestinians was "right," not necessarily good or objectively justified. They were right simply because he loved them, and he wonders whether such love would have been possible had injustice not turned them into nomads. It is this distance, his self-awareness, that makes Genet's account of the revolution so relevant: neither patriotism nor reason is brought into play; only the "incredible fact" of his being among them, like a shadow, colours his awareness of their suffering. In reenacting his journey -- at first she appears to be impersonating the young Shahid, but eventually she seeks out Genet's surviving friends or their relations, spends a night in the desert with a cheerful band of former feda'iyeen, reads and recites Prisoner of Love, listens to the Requiem and steps pointlessly into the scene of the massacres, the killings, the simple acts of courage and kindness that enthralled Genet -- Mounia Raoui, a young Algerian Frenchwoman, seems to be underlining the emptiness to which Genet alludes. It is true that her conversations with survivors and other Palestinians illuminate their plight in an incomparably immediate way -- such, many would say, is the mark of a successful documentary -- but it is her outrage at the lack of any record, in present-day reality, of what Genet reported, that m nia is Dino's counterpart for Genet's writing, "the silent face" that makes up his account of the revolution: "So many words to say this is my Palestinian revolution," which, to Genet at least, is not quite the same thing. Yet no one, "nothing, no narrative [or, by extension, cinematic] technique could ever describe" the real Palestinian revolution. It has been buried, along with Mozart and Genet; and, like the graves of Chatila's victims, its burying places have never been marked with tombstones. Genet was right, however, for, even as General- Prime Minister Sharon's broad grin gives off the thick white smell of death, we know the final destruction of the Palestinian people is not nearly about to take place. From alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in Sun Nov 4 00:37:49 2001 From: alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in (Prof.Alok Rai) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 00:37:49 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Reader-list] request for information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks a lot - this was the one. I'm posting my gratitude and the information that occasions it so that others might read this. AR On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Boud Roukema wrote: > On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Dr. Alok Rai wrote: > > > I read a moving piece by Barbara Kingsolver on 9/11 etc. - but I can't for > > the life of me recall anything more about it - and I can't find it! > > Try the Holy Bible/Koran/etc. ;-) i.e., ZNet! > > It's here: > http://www.zmag.org/kingsolver.htm > > From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Nov 4 12:37:43 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 4 Nov 2001 07:07:43 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Chomsky:US is a leading terrorist state Message-ID: <20011104070743.17663.qmail@mailweb14.rediffmail.com> Chomsky in an interview with David Barsamiaan Q:There is rage, anger and bewilderment in the U.S. since the September 11 events. There have been murders, attacks on mosques, and even a Sikh temple. The University of Colorado, which is located here in Boulder, a town which has a liberal reputation, has graffiti saying, “Go home, Arabs, Bomb Afghanistan, and Go Home, Sand Niggers.” What’s your perspective on what has evolved since the terrorist attacks? A: It’s mixed. What you’re describing certainly exists. On the other hand, countercurrents exist. I know they do where I have direct contacts, and hear the same from others. In this morning’s New York Times there’s a report on the mood in New York, including places where the memorials are for the victims of the terrorist attack. It points out that peace signs and calls for restraint vastly outnumbered calls for retaliation and that the mood of the people they could see was very mixed and in fact generally opposed to violent action. That’s another kind of current, also supportive of people who are being targeted here because they look dark or have a funny name. So there are countercurrents. The question is, what can we do to make the right ones prevail? Q: The media have been noticeably lacking in providing a context and a background for the attacks on New York and Washington. What might be some useful information that you could provide? A: There are two categories of information that are particularly useful because there are two distinct, though related, sources for the attack. Let’s assume that the attack was rooted somehow in the bin Laden network. That sounds plausible, at least, so letsay it’s right. If that’s right, there are two categories of information and of populations that we should be concerned with, linked but not identical. One is the bin Laden network. That’s a category by itself. Another is the population of the region. They’re not the same thing, although there are links. What ought to be in the forefront is discussion of both of th than the CIA, since they were instrumental in helping construct it. This is a network whose development started in 1979, if you can believe President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he was just bragging, that in mid–1979 he had instigated secret support for Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an “Afghan trap,” a phrase worth remembering. He’s very proud of the fact that they did fall into the Afghan trap by sending military forces to support the government six months later, with consequences that we know. The U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They’re called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from elsewhere. Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians. And they did. They fought a holy war against the Russians. They carried terror into Russian territory. They may have delayed the Russian withdrawal, a number of analysts believe, but they did win the war and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, groups based in that same network assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been instrumental in setting it up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe with connections to the same networks, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued. By 1989, they had succeeded in their holy war in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from s was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That’s what they want to overthrow, what they call the un–Islamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East and North Africa. And it continued. In 1997, they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist industry. And they’ve been carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East, for years. That’s one group. And that is an outgrowth of the U.S. wars of the 1980s and, if you can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the “Afghan trap.” There’s a lot more to say about them, but that’s one part. Another is the people of the region. They’re connected, of course. The bin Laden network and others like them draw a lot of their support from the desperation and anger and resentment of the people of the region, which ranges from rich to poor, secular to radical Islamist. The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, has run a couple of articles on attitudes of wealthy Muslims, the people who most interest them: businessmen, bankers, professionals, and others through the Middle East region who are very frank about their grievances. They put it more politely than the poor people in the slums and the streets, but it’s clear. Everybody knows what they are. For one thing, they’re very angry about U.S. support for undemocratic, repressive regimes in the region and U.S. insistence on blocking any efforts towards democratic openings. You just heard on the news, it sounded like the BBC, a report that the Algerian government is now interested in getting involved in this war. The announcer said that there had been plenty of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, which is true, but he didn’t tell the other part of the story, which is that a lot of the terrorism is apparently state terrorism pretty strong evidence for that. The government of course is interested in enhancing its repression, and will welcome U.S. assistance in this. In fact, that government is in office because it blocked the democratic election in which it would have lost to mainly Islamic–based groups. That set off the current fighting. Similar things go on throughout the region. The “moneyed Muslims” interviewed by the Journal also complained that the U.S. has blocked independent economic development by “propping up oppressive regimes,” that’s the phrase they used. But the prime concern stressed in the Wall Street Journal articles and by everybody who knows anything about the region, the prime concern of the “moneyed Muslims”—basically pro–American, incidentally—is the dual U.S. policies, which contrast very sharply in their eyes, towards Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, for the last ten years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it’s a high price but we’re willing to pay it, doesn’t sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if a half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile they’re strengthening Saddam Hussein. So that’s one aspect of the dual policy. The other aspect is that the U.S. is the prime supporter of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, now in its thirty–fifth year. It’s been harsh and brutal from the beginning, extremely repressive. Most of this hasn’t been discussed here, and the U.S. role has been virtually suppressed. It goes back twenty–five years of blocking diplomatic initiatives. Even simple facts are not reported. For example, as soon as the current fighting began last September 30, Israel immediately, the next day, began using U.S. helicopters (they can’t produce helicopters) to attack civilian targets. In the next couple of days they killed several dozen people in apartment complexes and elsewhere. The fight Palestinian fire. The Palestinians were using stones. So this is people throwing stones against occupiers in a military occupation, legitimate resistance by world standards, insofar as the targets are military. On October 3, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters to Israel. That continued the next couple of months. That wasn’t even reported, still isn’t reported, as far as I’m aware. But the people there know it, even if they don’t read the Israeli press (where it was immediately reported). They look in the sky and see attack helicopters coming and they know they’re U.S. attack helicopters sent with the understanding that that is how they will be used. From the very start U.S. officials made it clear that there were no conditions on their use, which was by then already well known. A couple of weeks later Israel started using them for assassinations. The U.S. issued some reprimands but sent more helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Meanwhile the settlement policies, which have taken over substantial parts of the territories and are designed to make it virtually impossible for a viable independent state to develop, are supported by the U.S. The U.S. provides the funding, the diplomatic support. It’s the only country that’s blocked the overwhelming international consensus on condemning all this under the Geneva conventions. The victims, and others in the region, know all of this. All along this has been an extremely harsh military occupation. Q: Is there anything else you want to add? A: There’s a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster conti treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about. Let’s take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didn’t ask for U.S. support, just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden. New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the “strikingly unanimous view” of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an “iron–fisted Iraqi junta” that would hold Iraq together just as Saddam’s “iron fist” had done was preferable to a popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the U.S. bombing. Maybe people here don’t want to look, but that was all over the front pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. That’s just one example. These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic development. Q: Talk about the relationship between ends and means. Let’s say you have a noble goal. You want to bring perpetrators of horrendous terrorist crimes to justice. What about the means to reach those ends? A: Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They’re guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There’s a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of tho y never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near–unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That’s the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody’s going to block it. That’s what they’re being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies. Remember, the governments in the Middle East and North Africa, like the terrorist Algerian government, which is one of the most vicious of all, would be happy to join the U.S. in opposing terrorist networks which are attacking them. They’re the prime targets. But they have been asking for some evidence, and they want to do it in a framework of at least minimal commitment to international law. The Egyptian position is complex. They’re part of the primary system that organized the bin Laden network. They were the first victims of it when Sadat was assassinated. They’ve been major victims of it since. They’d like to crush it, but they say, only after some evidence is presented about who’s involved and within the framework of the UN Charter, under the aegis of the Security Council. That’s a way to proceed. Q: Do you think it’s more than problematic to engage in alliances with those whom are called avory characters,” drug traffickers and assassins, in order to achieve what is said to be a noble end? A: Remember that among the most unsavory characters are the governments of the region, our own government and its allies. If we’re serious, we also have to ask, What is a noble end? Was it a noble end to drive the Russians into an Afghan trap in 1979, as Brzezinski claims he did? Supporting resistance against the Russian invasion is one thing. But organizing a terrorist army of Islamic fanatics for your own purposes is a different thing. The question we should be asking now is: What about the alliance that’s being formed, that the U.S. is trying to put together? We should not forget that the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state. What about the alliance between the U.S., Russia, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, all of whom are delighted to see an international system develop, sponsored by the U.S., which will authorize them to carry out their own terrorist atrocities? Russia, for example, would be very happy to have U.S. backing for its murderous war in Chechnya. You have the same Afghanis fighting against Russia, also probably carrying out terrorist acts within Russia. As would perhaps India, in Kashmir. Indonesia would be delighted to have support for its massacres in Aceh. Algeria, as just announced on the broadcast we heard, would be delighted to have authorization to extend its own state terrorism. The same with China, fighting against separatist forces in its Western provinces, including those “Afghanis” whom China and Iran had organized to fight the war against the Russians, beginning maybe as early as 1978, some reports indicate. And that runs through the world. Q: Your comment that the U.S. is a “leading terrorist state” might stun many Americans. Could you elaborate on that? A: I just gave one example, Nicaragua. The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe inte . It continues international terrorism. That example’s the least of it. And there are also what are in comparison, minor examples. Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut. I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret. I don’t know what name you give to the attack that’s killed maybe a million civilians in Iraq and maybe a half a million children, which is the price the Secretary of State says we’re willing to pay. Is there a name for that? Supporting Israeli atrocities is another one. Supporting Turkey’s crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton Administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms, escalating as atrocities increased, is another. Or take the bombing of the Sudan, one little footnote, so small that it is casually mentioned in passing in reports on the background to the Sept. 11 crimes. How would the same commentators react if the bin Laden network blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? Or Israel? Or any country where people “matter”? Although that’s not a fair analogy, because the U.S. target is a poor country which had few enough drugs and vaccines to begin with and can’t replenish them. Nobody knows how many thousands or tens of thousands of deaths resulted from that single atrocity, and bringing up that death toll is considered scandalous. If somebody did that to the U.S. or its allies, can you imagine the reaction? In this case we say, Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let’s go on to the next topic. Other people in e that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even with people who despise and fear him, and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric. Or to return to “our own little region over here,” as Henry Stimson called it, take Cuba. After many years of terror beginning in late 1959, including very serious atrocities, Cuba should have the right to resort to violence against the U.S. according to U.S. doctrine that is scarcely questioned. It is, unfortunately, all too easy to continue, not only with regard to the U.S. but also other terrorist states. Q: In your book Culture of Terrorism, you write that “the cultural scene is illuminated with particular clarity by the thinking of the liberal doves, who set the limits for respectable dissent.” How have they been performing since the events of September 11? A: Since I don’t like to generalize, let’s take a concrete example. On September 16, the New York Times reported that the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan cut off food aid to Afghanistan. That had already been hinted before, but here it was stated flat out. Among other demands Washington issued to Pakistan, it also “demanded the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population”—the food that is keeping probably millions of people just this side of starvation (John Burns, Islamabad, NYT). What does that mean? That means that unknown numbers of people, maybe millions, of starving Afghans will die. Are these Taliban? No, they’re victims of the Taliban. Many of them are internal refugees kept from leaving. But here’s a statement saying, OK, let’s proceed to kill unknown numbers, maybe millions, of starving Afghans who are victims of the Taliban. What was the reaction? I spent almost the entire day afterwards on radio and television around the world. I kept bringing it up. Nobody in Europe or the U.S. could think of one word of reaction. Elsewhere in the world there was plenty of reaction, e ve reacted to this? Suppose some power was strong enough to say, Let’s do something that will cause a million Americans to die of starvation. Would you think it’s a serious problem? And again, it’s not a fair analogy. In the case of Afghanistan, left to rot after it had been exploited for Washington’s war, much of the country is in ruins and its people are desperate, already one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Q: National Public Radio, which in the 1980s was denounced by the Reagan Administration as “Radio Managua on the Potomac,” is also considered out there on the liberal end of respectable debate. Noah Adams, the host of “All Things Considered,” asked these questions on September 17. Should assassinations be allowed? Should the CIA be given more operating leeway? A: The CIA should not be permitted to carry out assassinations, but that’s the least of it. Should the CIA be permitted to organize a car bombing in Beirut like the one I described? Not a secret, incidentally; prominently reported in the mainstream media, though easily forgotten. That didn’t violate any laws. And it’s not just the CIA. Should they have been permitted to organize in Nicaragua a terrorist army which had the official task, straight out of the mouth of the State Department, to attack “soft targets,” meaning undefended agricultural cooperatives and health clinics? What’s the name for that? Or to set up something like the bin Laden network, not him himself, but the background networks? Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? That’s not the CIA. That’s the Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported. Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the doctrinal system? A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manu terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And that’s official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. It’s simply part of state action, not just the U.S. of course. Furthermore, all of these things should be well known. It’s shameful that they’re not. Anybody who wants to find out about them can begin by reading a collection of essays published ten years ago by a major publisher called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George (Routledge, 1991), which runs through lots and lots of cases. These are things people need to know if they want to understand anything about themselves. They are known by the victims, of course, but the perpetrators prefer to look elsewhere. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Nov 4 12:41:05 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 4 Nov 2001 07:11:05 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Fidel Castro on Terrorism Message-ID: <20011104071105.13504.qmail@mailweb25.rediffmail.com> Terrorism and the War Crisis: Fidel Castro This is the text of a speech delivered by Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana, September 22, 2001. The editors thank Victor Wallis for his help with translating the text. Whatever might be terrorism’s deep origins, whatever the economic and political factors involved in it, and whoever might be most responsible for bringing it into the world, no one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which must be eradicated. The unanimous anger caused by the human and psychological damage inflicted on the American people by the unexpected and shocking deaths of thousands of innocent people, whose images have shaken the world, is perfectly understandable. But who have been the beneficiaries? The extreme right, the most backward and right–wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice, and a great crime, whoever they are who organized or are responsible for this action. However, the tragedy should not be used recklessly to start a war that could actually unleash an endless carnage of innocent people in the name of justice and under the peculiar and bizarre slogan of “Infinite Justice.” In the last few days we have seen the hasty establishment of the basis, the concept, the true purposes, the spirit, and the conditions for such a war. No one can affirm that it was not something thought out well in advance, something that was just waiting for its chance to materialize. Those who after the so–called end of the Cold War continued arming themselves to the teeth and developing the most sophisticated means to kill and exterminate human beings knew very well that the investment of enormous sums in military expenditures would give them the privilege of imposing a complete and total domination over the other peoples of the world. The ideologues of the imperialist system knew very well what they were doing and why they were doing it. After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by all the peoples on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologues and the most belligerent hawks, already set in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world, whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous; by contrast, its tendencies toward equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restraint are minimal. This combination of elements including the complicity and common privileges of other rich and powerful countries, along with the prevailing opportunism, confusion, and panic, make it almost impossible to avoid a bloody and unpredictable outcome. The first victims of whatever military actions are undertaken will be the billions of people living in the poor and underdeveloped world, with their unbelievable economic and social problems: their unpayable debts, and the ruinous prices of their basic commodities; their growing natural and ecological catastrophes, their hunger and misery, the massive undernourishment of their children, teenagers and adults; their terrible AIDS epidemic, their malaria, their tuberculosis, and their infectious diseases that threaten whole nations with extermination. The severe global economic crisis was already a real and undeniable fact affecting absolutely every one of the big economic power centers. Such a crisis will inevitably grow deeper under the new circumstances, and when it becomes unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will bring chaos, rebellion, and ungovernability all over the world. The price will also be unpayable for the rich countries. For years to come it would be impossible to give proper attention to the environment and ecology—to speak about ideas and research done and tested, or about projects for the protection of Nature—because that space and possibility would be taken up ary actions, war, and crimes as infinite as “Infinite Justice,” which is the name given to the war operation to be unleashed. Can there be any hope left after listening, hardly thirty–six hours ago, to the speech made the President before the U.S. Congress? I will avoid the use of adjectives, qualifiers or offensive words toward the author of that speech. They would be totally unnecessary and inappropriate when the tensions and seriousness of the moment require thoughtfulness and equanimity. I will limit myself to underlining some short phrases that say it all: We will use every necessary weapon of war. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. I’ve called the armed forces to alert and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act and you will make us proud. This is the world’s fight, this is civilization’s fight. I ask for your patience [ ] in what will be a long struggle. The great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depend on us. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. [...] And we know that God is not neutral. I ask our fellow countrymen to meditate deeply and calmly on the ideas contained in several of the above–mentioned phrases: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. No nation of the world has been left out of the dilemma, not even the big and powerful states; none has escaped the threat of war or attacks. We will use any weapon. No procedure has been excluded, regardless of its ethical implications, nor any threat, however murderous whether nuclear, chemical, biological or any other. It will not be short combat but a lengthy war, lasting many years, unparalleled in history. It is the world’s fight; it is civilization’s fight. The achievements of our times and the hope of every time, now depend on us. Finally, an unheard–of ion in a political speech, on the eve of a war and in an epoch of apocalyptic risks: The course of this conflict is not known; yet its outcome is certain. And we know that God is not neutral. This is an amazing assertion. When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it impossible to say on which side fanaticism is stronger. On Thursday, before the United States Congress, the idea was put forward of a worldwide military dictatorship based exclusively on force, without international laws or institutions of any kind. The United Nations, simply ignored in the present crisis, would have no authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, only one law. We have all been ordered to ally either with the United States government or with terrorism. Cuba, with the moral authority derived from being the country that has suffered the most and the longest from terrorist actions, and whose people are not afraid of anything because there is no threat or power in the world that can intimidate it, proclaims that it is opposed to terrorism and opposed to war. Although the possibilities are now slim, Cuba reaffirms the need to avert a war of unpredictable consequences whose very authors have admitted that they do not have the least idea of how the events will unfold. Likewise, Cuba reiterates its willingness to cooperate with all other countries in the total eradication of terrorism. An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated, and inaccessible places, like a fight against phantoms, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, nor whether the people they kill are or are not responsible for the deaths of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States. Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the American people, of that people which today is subjected to an unprecedented campaign at sings to peace has been banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make that music its own, and even our children will sing their songs to peace as long as the announced bloody war goes on. Whatever happens, the territory of Cuba will never be used for terrorist actions against the American people, and we will do everything within our power to prevent such actions against that people. Today we are expressing our solidarity while urging peace and calm. One day they will admit that we were right. Our independence, our principles, and our social achievements we will defend with honor to the last drop of blood, if we are attacked! It will not be easy to fabricate pretexts to do that. And now that they are talking about a war using all kinds of weapons, it is good to recall that not even that would be a new experience for us. Almost four decades ago, hundreds of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were aimed at Cuba, and nobody remembers a single one of our countrymen sleepless over that. We are the same sons and daughters of that heroic people, with a patriotic and revolutionary consciousness that is higher than ever. It is a time for serenity and courage. The world will understand the terrible drama that is threatening it and which it is about to suffer, and will raise its voice against it. For Cubans, this is the precise moment to proclaim, more proudly and resolutely than ever: Socialism or death! Homeland or death! We shall overcome! From joy at sarai.net Mon Nov 5 15:42:33 2001 From: joy at sarai.net (Joy Chatterjee) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:42:33 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Chomsky @ NDTV Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011105154029.00a194e0@mail.sarai.net> US is a leading terrorist state: Noam Chomsky http://ndtv.com/exclusive/showexclusive.asp?id=718 Sreenivasan Jain As America launches attacks on Afghanistan, the question all over the world is, 'Where are the voices of dissent in America?' At a time like this we are fortunate enough to be joined in India by Prof Noam Chomsky, who some describe as the fiercest critics of American foreign policy. He teaches linguistics at MIT, Boston. His writings and lectures on international affairs, US foreign policy and his constant exposé of media manipulation that have won him a huge world-wide following. America says that it is fighting a war against terrorism. I take it that you have problems with all the terms of that definition. Well, I am quite happy to accept the definition of terrorism -- the official definition that one finds in the US code and in Army manuals. In fact for 20 years I have been writing on international terrorism and I constantly use that definition. I think it’s the right definition. Terrorism is defined officially as the "calculated use of violence typically against civilians for the purpose of intimidation and coercion to attain political, religious, ideological or other ends." That's a good definition. I agree with it. There are terrorist states, there are non-state terrorist actors and in fact the State Department has a list of terrorist states. Well, that definition can't be applied and can't be used because it is the literal definition. There are two reasons why it can't be applied. One is that it’s a virtual paraphrase of official US doctrine, which is called counter-insurgency or low intensity conflict. If you look at army manuals, you find that's defined in approximately the same way. But that's official policy. Now the second reason why it can't be applied is that if you do apply it, it very quickly turns out that the United States is a leading terrorist state exactly as you would expect of the most powerful state in the world. I mean, it’s a great analytical error to describe terrorism as a weapon of the weak. Like most weapons, its primarily a weapon of the strong and always has been. Elaborate on that Prof Chomsky, because that's also been the subject of one of your recent books Rogue States, in which you have forcefully argued that America emerges, looking at the history of its foreign policy interventions as a rogue state, in contradiction to the other countries that America has classified as "rogue" -- whether it's Iran or Afghanistan. Well, I don't think it's in contrast. In fact it's generally the case that the most powerful states are the most brutal and the ones that are able to act as rogue states. A rogue state is after all a state that acts as it chooses in defiance of international law and international opinion and other constraints. And who is able to do that? Well, the most powerful states. If you go back to the 19th century, Britain was one of the major rogue states. In the latter part of the 20th century, the United States is supreme in these respects and not surprisingly it behaves like the others. I mean Andorra would be a rogue state if it could get away with it, but it can't. The record is extremely clear on that. We can take a case that is totally uncontroversial because we can appeal to the decisions of the highest international authorities -- the International Court of Justice and the Security Council of the United Nations. So this is an uncontroversial case. The world court has condemned one state for international terrorism, namely the United States. The victim -- Nicaragua. This was not a minor act of terrorism. This left tens of thousands of people killed and the country virtually destroyed. It may not recover. Nicaragua took the case to the world court. They won at the world court. The United States dismissed the decision with total contempt. The US was ordered to desist from terrorism and it reacted by immediately escalating the war. But some would argue that no country, least of all a superpower like America would take an attack like the one on September 11, lying down, without any retaliation. Where do you think America has gone wrong in the manner in which it has retaliated? Well, you could say the same about Nicaragua. And Nicaragua is by no means that worst case. In fact, far from it. I mentioned it because it's an uncontroversial case, given the decisions of the highest authorities. So how should Nicaragua have reacted when it was under terrorist attack that practically destroyed the country and killed tens of thousands of people? Well, the way it didn't react is the way it was supposed to react. It couldn't get anywhere because it was confronting a rogue state, which happens to be a dominant rogue state. If the US pursued that course, nobody would block it. There would be, in fact in this particular case it is kind of striking, because the US could have gotten a Security Council resolution -- not for very pretty reasons, but it could have. The reason is that the five states would veto. They are however all terrorist states -- strong, powerful and violent terrorist states. And for their own reasons, they would have supported the US in order to gain US support for their own terrorism. I mean Britain follows the US reflexively; France wouldn't raise any objections. Russia is delighted to have US support for its massacres and atrocities in Chechnya. China would be quite happy, in fact is happy to have US support for its violent repressions of Muslims in western China. There wouldn't have been any veto. But the US didn't want a Security Council resolution because it didn't want to act like a rogue state. It wanted to act without authorization. So there is a way to proceed. I mean I wouldn't have approved of that Security Council resolution because of the reasons for which it would have been passed. But would there have been another way, which is perhaps not the air strikes, not the Security Council resolution, which as you say comes replete with its own hypocrisies. Is there another alternative that the US could have pursued? Yes. You do what you do when a crime takes place. No matter whether it’s a small crime or a huge crime. Whether it’s a robbery on the streets or an attack on another country like the terrorist attack on Nicaragua. You try to find the perpetrators, you present evidence against them and you bring them to justice. Actually, that's what Nicaragua did. It had no difficulty in finding the perpetrators and finding evidence. The US could do the same thing. It chose to do something different. Namely, not to attack the perpetrators. The people killed in Afghanistan are not terrorists. They are the population of Afghanistan. There's a lot of concentration on what they call collateral damage, that people will get killed if a bomb goes in the wrong place. That's bad. But the reason there's concentration on it is because it's very small, it's a trivial part of the atrocities. The main atrocities that have been well understood and have been known since the beginning are imposing a conscious and purposeful imposition of mass starvation on huge numbers of people. It may be millions of people. That was the initial decision instantly these people are going to die of starvation and already are. They are not the Taliban and not supporters of the Taliban, but most probably the victims of the Taliban. To those of us watching from India the kind of views that you are voicing are completely invisible in the American mainstream media -- just as invisible as they were during the Gulf war. Has there been any change in the way that mainstream American media networks or newspapers are reporting this war? They are a little bit more open than they used to be in the past. So for example, take the Vietnam war. I mean at that time there was not a word of criticism permitted, it was totally closed. It's the 1960s that changed the society as it became a much more open and many ways a civilized society. That affected the media and they have become somewhat more open. But in this particular case, for example, it's the first time in my memory of 50 years of activism that there has been any opening to the media at all -- not to the national media, so not to in the US sense liberal media meaning social democrat, not national public radio, not the New York Times. But when you move out of that domain, yes there is some opening and a fair amount of discussion. Why is that? What do you think has changed this time? A number of things. For one thing people are, contrary to the headlines, the population is frightened, angry of course, perplexed, confused, concerned about the background, they want to hear about the issues that have been swept under the rug and have never been discussed. When you move to say the business press like the Wall Street Journal, they have from immediately after September 11 been running pretty serious articles on the attitudes in the Muslim world towards US foreign policy, recognizing that that's a part of the background. It isn't just the terrorists but it is part of the reservoir of at least tacit support on which they grow terrorists, grow from some kind of basis of support. Otherwise they wouldn't survive. Now the terrorist groups themselves have a different story and nobody knows them better than the CIA. The CIA helped them and in fact nurtured them for 10 years. It's not just the CIA but the British intelligence, the French intelligence, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan organized the huge mercenary army. Only after the best killers they could find who happened to be the extreme, radical Islamists that they could round up in north Africa and Saudi Arabia and so on. They armed them, they trained them, they nurtured them. The point was to harass the Russian as much as possible. You know, they didn't care about Afghanistan. In fact they left it a wreck. These people were following their own agenda from the beginning, it wasn't secret. I mean they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt 20 years ago and the record of terrorism ever since. They were fine as long as their terrorist actions and hatreds and fanaticisms could be used for US purposes. It has changed later. In fact how little it changed is pretty astonishing. I mean this attack on the World Trade Center, remember is the second. There was another one in 1993. It almost worked. It came pretty close and they had much bigger plans -- blowing up the UN building, tunnels, FBI building. One of the people who is now in jail for that terrorist attack is an Egyptian cleric who was brought into the United States just three years before that over the objection of the Immigration and National Service by the intervention of the CIA because he was one of their people. They wanted him in. He was under indictment in Egypt for terrorism, they let him in. But coming back to the point we were talking about earlier. These contradictions do exist. You say they are finding greater voice in the American media but Not in the media so much but in the general population, yes. And to some extent in the media. What the rest of the world is watching, especially on major American television networks, is now what has become a familiar choreography of war reportage. You see planes taking off, you see State Department briefings and so on. That kind of questioning, the kind of contradictions you are pointing out still continue to be absent. As in every country I don't know of a historical exception. Do you know of a case of a country that was using violence and its own national media was exposing that. It doesn't happen. The United States is not different from other states. I mean I have actually spent a lot of time since September 11. I have been doing almost nothing but either giving talks or having radio television interviews around the world. The differences are quite striking. As for example, take the Irish Sea. An interview on Irish national radio or television and British national radio and television are quite different. And the assumptions that are made and you can understand why. It depends who has been holding the lash for 500 years and who has been under the lash for 500 years. It gives you a different picture of the world and the same is true around the world but a criticism of one's own state and its own violence is extremely rare historically. It's actually a debate that we confronted with here in India when a few years ago we fought a kind of mini-war with Pakistan, the Kargil war as you know and a lot of these same questions came up. National interest, media, the extent to which we could criticize our government for intelligence failure, for perhaps not acting swiftly enough. How about criticizing the government for outright terrorism. Say for example the major international human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reams of material on Indian state terrorism in Kashmir and in fact elsewhere. And these issues are reported in the mainstream media. Perhaps not as much as they should be but they are? Very little. You hear very little about India as a terrorist state and a sponsor of terrorism because it established terrorist paramilitary groups. For that matter take India's support of the Northern Alliance that's public. What's Northern Alliance? That's a group of warlords who were in control of Afghanistan in fact in the early 1990s and Human Rights Watch describes that as the worst period in Afghanistan's history. I mean they killed about 50,000 people, conducting mass rapes and in fact they were so horrendous that the Taliban were actually welcomed when they came in and drove them out. So yes, India is like Russia. And now the United States is supporting that terrorist organisation. That's by no means the only case. These are the topics that ought to be in the forefront of attention in every country. No matter what country you are or who you are. I mean in personal life too, you should be concerned with what you are doing. It is easy to condemn someone else's crimes but first look in the mirror. You find a lot when you look there. In the case of right in front of your eyes what we see in that the United States, Britain, India happen to be supporting a massive atrocity against civilians right now. Huge atrocities. Not the collateral damage, not the bombing of a hospital but just imposing, purposefully imposing, purposely because they know all about it -- imposing massive starvation. I mean, the country was already on the verge of disaster. Even before the bombing there was an estimate of maybe five or six million people just on the edge of starvation, surviving on food aid. When the threat of bombing came that became much worse, the aid agencies withdrew, food was withdrawn, people fled and so on and became much worse. With the bombing it became much more serious. In fact even the New York Times estimated that the number of people facing starvation increased by about 50 per cent from 5 million to 7.5 million. That's two-and-a-half million people that they are adding to their expectation of starvation. It's worse than that. The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations announced, it wasn't reported in the United States, but they announced that not only is there a humanitarian catastrophe impending because of the cutbacks but also the bombing has disrupted the planting of 80 per cent of the crops, meaning will be an even worse famine next year. These are purposeful, conscious acts. They are acts of massive violence and terror. None of that justifies the atrocities of September 11. They were an enormous atrocity too but it happens that the twenty-first century is beginning with two huge atrocities and we are involved in one of them. Are you worried, Professor Chomsky, when you address audiences within America or you travel all over the world and you give lectures and interviews that to some extent you are preaching to the converted. That the sort of people who come and listen to you are the ones who already share those views. And those who are taking those policy decisions that you question aren't? I hope that's true because the audiences are immense. I mean just before I came I gave talks in the city where I live which had an audience of two or three thousand people with overflows and so on. In Boston? Yes. And over the internet and many more. I was on for the first time ever on national cable television. That's the mass popular medium for a question and answer programme with a live audience. Almost every question was serious. I wouldn’t say I agreed with him when I would expect him to but serious questions, thoughtful questions, the right questions, I thought good interchange. If that’s the converted then an awful lot are converted out there and everyone else who's involved as I am finds the same thing. So, in context of your earlier writings where you, to use your own phrase, you talked about a secular priesthood within the American intelligence that in a way builds public opinion or shapes public opinion Tries to. Or tries to shape public opinion? Tries to. There is a big difference between trying to and succeeding. It typically does not succeed. It doesn’t happen to matter very much because the country is; it's an elite run system. Technically, it’s a democracy but the public is mostly marginalized. So, there is a narrower sector of decision-making but if you look, for years they have been very separate from public. Take the Vietnam war, a huge issue. For about 30 years now, there have been regular detailed polls on public attitude towards the Vietnam war. Consistently, about 2/3rd to 70 per cent when asked what they think about the war they say, fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. There's virtually no one in the intelligence who says that. This figure of 70 per cent is astonishing because every one of those people made it up for themselves. They didn’t read it anywhere; they didn’t hear it anywhere unless they are part of the activist movement. The most critical that you can be in the mainstream, this includes left intellectuals, is that the war began, well to quote the most left wing commentator in the New York times, Anthony Louis, the war began with blundering efforts to do good but by 1969 after south Vietnam was wiped out practically, it was clear that it was a mistake, it was too costly to ourselves. Now, that’s the intelligentsia view, the general population's is totally different. Do you see that happening again with this war where the secular priesthood is trying to manufacture consent? Yes, trying. In fact, everything I've just said to you, you'll never find in the mainstream discussion including the respectable left liberal press, liberal in the US sense, kind of social democratic. So, there is just a word necessarily. The population is, I wouldn’t say the population just agrees, they're just confused. For example, very little of the population can be aware of the fact that the target of the war is Afghan civilians. To know that you have to find out what is being said by the aid agencies, by the Red Cross, by the World Food Programme, by the special reporter for food in the United Nations, by Mary Robinson and I find in the press. So, Mary Robinson for example, the High Commissioner of Human Rights, her plea literally received three sentences in the entire US press, three scattered sentences. How can anybody know? Lastly, Professor Chomsky, as someone who has always challenged institutions, are you worried about becoming somewhat of an institution yourself? No, I don’t think there's too much danger there. I'm not unique by any means. There are many people who live the same kind of life as I do and have for many years, many before I got started and younger ones. Well, you are being modest because the New York Times has called you arguably one of the most important intellectuals alive. People often quote that sentence but they don’t quote the next sentence, which was, how can you say such terrible things about the US foreign policy. But it’s the same everywhere. I mean, I don’t know of any country where there isn’t an articulate group of dissident critics who are marginalized naturally because they oppose power systems, often have a good deal of resonant interaction with the general public. But who you won't find them in the mainstream. So, you are in the wrong country, maybe somewhere else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011105/cf122737/attachment.html From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 5 16:32:38 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 5 Nov 2001 11:02:38 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Edward Said : A Vision... Message-ID: <20011105110238.31409.qmail@mailweb32.rediffmail.com> A vision to lift the spirit With the bombs and missiles falling on Afghanistan in the high-altitude US destruction that is Operation Enduring Freedom, the Palestine question may seem tangential to the altogether more urgent events in Central Asia. It would be a mistake to think so -- and not just because Osama Bin Laden and his followers (no one knows how many there are, in theory or in practice) have tried to capture Palestine as a rhetorical part of their unconscionable campaign of terror; for so too has Israel, for its own purposes. With the killing of Cabinet Minister Rahavam Zeevi on 17 October as retaliation by the PFLP for the assassination of its leader by Israel last August, General Sharon's sustained campaign against the Palestine Authority as Israel's Bin Laden has risen to a new, semi- hysterical pitch. Israel has been assassinating Palestinian leaders and militants (over 60 of them to date) for the past several months, and can't have been surprised that its illegal methods would sooner or later prompt Palestinian retaliation in kind. But why one set of killings should be acceptable and others not is a question Israel and its supporters are unable to answer. So the violence goes on, with Israel's occupation the more deadly, and the vastly more destructive, causing huge civilian suffering: in the period between 18 and 21 October, six Palestinian towns re-occupied by Israeli forces; five more Palestinian activists assassinated plus 21 civilians killed and 160 injured; curfews imposed everywhere -- and all this Israel has the gall to compare with the US war against Afghanistan and terrorism. Thus, the frustration and subsequent impasse in pressing the claims of a people dispossessed for 53 years and militarily occupied for 34 have definitively gone beyond the main arena of struggle and are willy-nilly tied in all sorts of ways to the global war against terrorism. Israel and its supporters worry that the US will sell them out, all the while protesting contradictorily that Israel isn't the issue s, Arabs and Muslims generally have felt either uneasiness or a creeping guilt by association that attaches to them in the public realm, despite efforts by political leaders to keep dissociating Bin Laden from Islam and the Arabs: but they, too, keep referring to Palestine as the great symbolic nexus of their disaffection. In official Washington, however, George Bush and Colin Powell have more than once revealed unambiguously that Palestinian self-determination is an important, perhaps even a central issue. The turbulence of war and its unknown dimensions and complications (its consequences in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are likely to be dramatic, if as yet unknown) have stirred up the whole Middle East in striking ways, so that the need for some genuinely positive change in the status of the seven million stateless Palestinians is sure to grow in importance, even though a number of quite dispiriting things about its present impasse are evident enough now. The main problem is whether or not the US and the parties are going to resort only to the stopgap measures that brought us the disastrous Oslo agreement. The immediate experience of the Al-Aqsa Intifada has universalised Arab and Muslim powerlessness and exasperation to a degree never before magnified as it is now. The Western media hasn't at all conveyed the crushing pain and humiliation imposed on Palestinians by Israel's collective punishment, its house demolitions, its invasions of Palestinian areas, its air bombings and killings, as have the nightly broadcasts by Al- Jazeera satellite television, or admirable daily reporting in Ha'aretz by the Israeli journalist Amira Hass and commentators like her. At the same time, I think, there is widespread understanding among Arabs that the Palestinians (and, by extension, the other Arabs) have been traduced and hopelessly misled by their leaders. An abyss visibly separates nattily suited negotiators who make declarations in luxurious surroundings and the dusty hell of the streets of Nablus, Jenin, Hebr equate; unemployment and poverty rates have climbed to alarming heights; anxiety and insecurity fill the atmosphere, with governments unable or unwilling to stop either the rise of Islamic extremism or an astonishingly flagrant corruption at the very top. Above all, the brave secularists who protest at human rights abuses, fight clerical tyranny, and try to speak and act on behalf of a new modern democratic Arab order are pretty much left alone in their fight, unassisted by the official culture, their books and careers sometimes thrown as a sop to mounting Islamic fury. A huge dank cloud of mediocrity and incompetence hangs over everyone, and this in turn has given rise to magical thinking and/or a cult of death that is more prevalent than ever. I know it is often argued that suicide bombings are either the result of frustration and desperation, or that they emerge from the criminal pathology of deranged religious fanatics. But these are inadequate explanations. The New York and Washington suicide terrorists were middle-class, far from illiterate men, perfectly capable of modern planning, audacious as well as terrifyingly deliberate destruction. The young men sent out by Hamas and Islamic Jihad do what they are told with a conviction that suggests clarity of purpose, if not of much else. The real culprit is a system of primary education that is woefully piecemeal, cobbled together out of the Qur'an, rote exercises based on outdated 50-year-old textbooks, hopelessly large classes, woefully ill-equipped teachers, and a nearly total inability to think critically. Along with the oversized Arab armies -- all of them burdened with unusable military hardware and no record of any positive achievement -- this antiquated educational apparatus has produced the bizarre failures in logic, moral reasoning, and appreciation of human life that lead either to leaps of religious enthusiasm of the worst kind or to a servile worship of power. Similar failures in vision and logic operate on the Israeli side. How it has come to ifiable, for Israel to maintain and defend its 34-year occupation fairly boggles the mind, but even Israeli "peace" intellectuals remain fixated on the supposed absence of a Palestinian peace camp, forgetting that a people under occupation doesn't have the same luxury as the occupier to decide whether or not an interlocutor exists. In the process, military occupation is taken as an acceptable given and is scarcely mentioned; Palestinian terrorism becomes the cause, not the effect, of violence, even though one side possesses a modern military arsenal (unconditionally supplied by the US), while the other is stateless, virtually defenceless, savagely persecuted at will, herded inside 160 little cantons, schools closed, life made impossible. Worst of all, the daily killing and wounding of Palestinians is accompanied by the growth of Israeli settlements and the 400,000 settlers who dot the Palestinian landscape without respite. A recent report issued by Peace Now in Israel states the following: 1. At the end of June 2001 there were 6,593 housing units in different stages of active construction in settlements. 2. During the Barak administration, 6,045 housing units were begun in settlements. In fact, settlement building in the year 2000 reached the highest since 1992, with 4,499 starts. 3. When the Oslo agreements were signed there were 32,750 housing units in the settlements. Since the signing of the Oslo agreements 20,371 housing units have been constructed, representing an increase of 62 per cent in settlements units. The essence of the Israeli position is its total irreconcilability with what the "Jewish state" wants -- peace and security, even though everything it does assures neither one nor the other. The US has underwritten Israel's intransigence and brutality: there are no two ways about it -- $92 billion and unending political support, for all the world to see. Ironically, this was far truer during, rather than either before or after, the Oslo process. The plain truth of the matter is that - Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world is tied directly to the US's behaviour, lecturing the world on democracy and justice while openly supporting their exact opposites. There also is an undoubted ignorance about the United States in the Arab and Islamic worlds, and there has been far too great a tendency to use rhetorical tirades and sweeping general condemnation instead of rational analysis and critical understanding of America. The same is true of Arab attitudes to Israel. Both the Arab governments and the intellectuals have failed in important ways on this matter. Governments have failed to devote any time or resources to an aggressive cultural policy that puts across an adequate representation of culture, tradition and contemporary society, with the result that these things are unknown in the West, leaving unchallenged pictures of Arabs and Muslims as violent, over-sexed fanatics. The intellectual failure is no less great. It is simply inadequate to keep repeating clichés about struggle and resistance that imply a military programme of action when none is either possible or really desirable. Our defence against unjust policies is a moral one, and we must first occupy the moral high ground and then promote understanding of that position in Israel and the US, something we have never done. We have refused interaction and debate, disparagingly calling them only normalisation and collaboration. Refusing to compromise in putting forth our just position (which is what I am calling for) cannot possibly be construed as a concession, especially when it is made directly and forcefully to the occupier or the author of unjust policies of occupation and reprisal. Why do we fear confronting our oppressors directly, humanely, persuasively, and why do we keep believing in precisely the vague ideological promises of redemptive violence that are little different from the poison spewed by Bin Laden and the Islamists? The answer to our needs is in principled resistance, well-organised civil disobedience against military educational programme that promotes coexistence, citizenship and the worth of human life. But we are now in an intolerable impasse, requiring more than ever a genuine return to the all- but-abandoned bases of peace that were proclaimed at Madrid in 1991: UN Resolutions 242 and 332, land for peace. There can be no peace without pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and -- as the Mitchell report affirmed -- to dismantle its settlements. This can obviously be done in a phased way, with some sort of immediate emergency protection for undefended Palestinians, but the great failing of Oslo must be remedied now, at the start: a clearly articulated end to occupation, the establishment of a viable, genuinely independent Palestinian state, and the existence of peace through mutual recognition. These goals have to be stated as the objective of negotiations, a beacon shining at the end of the tunnel. Palestinian negotiators have to be firm about this, and not use the re-opening of talks -- if any should now begin, in this atmosphere of harsh Israeli war on the Palestinian people -- as an excuse simply to return to Oslo. In the end, though, only the US can restore negotiations, with European, Islamic, Arab, and African support; but this must be done through the United Nations, which must be the essential sponsor of the effort. And since the Palestinian-Israeli struggle has been so humanly impoverishing I would suggest that important symbolic gestures of recognition and responsibility, undertaken perhaps under the auspices of a Mandela or a panel of impeccably credentialed peace-makers, should try to establish justice and compassion as crucial elements in the proceedings. Unfortunately, it is perhaps true that neither Arafat nor Sharon are suited to so high an enterprise. The Palestinian political scene must absolutely be overhauled to represent seamlessly what every Palestinian longs for -- peace with dignity and justice and, most important, decent, equal coexistence with I the undignified shenanigans, the disgraceful backing and filling of a leader who hasn't in a long time come anywhere near the sacrifices of his long- suffering people. The same is true of Israelis, who are led abysmally by the likes of General Sharon. What we need is a vision that can lift the much abused spirit beyond the sordid present, something that will not fail when presented unwaveringly as what people need to aspire to. From refertofriend at reply.yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 23:51:30 2001 From: refertofriend at reply.yahoo.com (Yahoo! UK & Ireland) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:21:30 GMT Subject: [Reader-list] Yahoo! UK & Ireland - Story - Author Rushdie says Islam is paranoid Message-ID: <200111031821.fA3ILUQ35594@mf2.lng.yahoo.com> aditya sarkar (bhochka_81 at yahoo.co.uk) has sent you a news article ------------------------------------------------------------ Personal message text: i just cannot believe that this is the same man who wrote `the jaguar smile'. over 3 million afghans are facing starvation right now, and this is all he has to say? Author Rushdie says Islam is paranoid http://uk.news.yahoo.com/011103/80/ceat3.html From anjalimody at hotmail.com Sun Nov 4 09:12:15 2001 From: anjalimody at hotmail.com (anjali mody) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 03:42:15 +0000 Subject: [Reader-list] PUDR meeting notice Message-ID: >From: "Harish Dhawan" Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) invites you to the 15th Dr. Ramanadham Memorial Meeting on The Right to Relief Speakers: Jean Dreze, Delhi School of Economics Bikash Das, Committee for Legal Aid to the Poor, Orissa Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001 Time: 4 p.m. Venue: Constitution Club, V.P. House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi Please share this with others on your mail list _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From qureshio at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 06:55:54 2001 From: qureshio at earthlink.net (Omar Qureshi) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:25:54 -0500 Subject: [Reader-list] RE: Reader-list -- confirmation of subscription -- request 677046 In-Reply-To: <200111050113.CAA26492@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: reader-list-admin at sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-admin at sarai.net]On Behalf Of reader-list-request at sarai.net Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 8:14 PM To: qureshio at earthlink.net Subject: Reader-list -- confirmation of subscription -- request 677046 Reader-list -- confirmation of subscription -- request 677046 We have received a request from 165.121.65.212 for subscription of your email address, , to the reader-list at sarai.net mailing list. To confirm the request, please send a message to reader-list-request at sarai.net, and either: - maintain the subject line as is (the reply's additional "Re:" is ok), - or include the following line - and only the following line - in the message body: confirm 677046 (Simply sending a 'reply' to this message should work from most email interfaces, since that usually leaves the subject line in the right form.) If you do not wish to subscribe to this list, please simply disregard this message. Send questions to reader-list-admin at sarai.net. From ragu at asianetonline.net Mon Nov 5 18:45:56 2001 From: ragu at asianetonline.net (Raghavendra Bhat) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:45:56 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Chomsky @ MIT Tech & Culture Forum Message-ID: <20011105184556.A2799@gnuhead> The New War Against Terror Noam Chomsky The Technology And Culture Forum At MIT http://web.mit.edu/tac/www/ Everyone knows it's the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I just got orders that I'm supposed to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at this forum was on a light pleasant topic. It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So this time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror. Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more horrible as we proceed. I'm going to assume 2 conditions for this talk. The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in history, outside of war. The second assumption has to do with the goals. I'm assuming that our goal is that we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they are against us or against someone else. If you don't accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not be addressed to you. If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a good deal of thought. One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very common assumption that what happened on September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history. I tend to agree with that. I think it's true. It was a historic event and the question we should be asking is exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the title, The War Against Terrorism. Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what is terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has to do with the origins of the crimes of September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to talk a little about is what policy options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing with the situations that led to it. I'll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in discussion and don't hesitate to bring up other questions. These are ones that come to my mind as prominent but you may easily and plausibly have other choices. Well let's start with right now. I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I'll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes right after September.....around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine. The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by far, were able to resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began to resume at a lower level, resume food shipments. They don't have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They then resumed but at a lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US airdrops, condemning them as propaganda tools which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to be quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue. After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to * of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I'm aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can't find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir. Well we could easily go on....but all of that....first of all indicates to us what's happening. Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks....very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that's just kind of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact not even in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish press or the press in Scotland...that close, reactions are very different. Well that's what's happening now. What's happening now is very much under our control. We can do a lot to affect what's happening. And that's roughly it. Alright let's turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course, their victims. Let's go back...turn to the question of the historic event that took place on September 11th. As I said, I think that's correct. It was a historic event. Not unfortunately because of its scale, unpleasant to think about, but in terms of the scale it's not that unusual. I did say it's the worst...probably the worst instant human toll of any crime. And that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more drawn out that are more extreme, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it's a historic event because there was a change. The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That's new. Radically new. So, take US history. The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack, or for that matter, even threatened was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There have been many...it was common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that's not a good analogy. The Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US colonies not the national territory; colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in not a very pretty way. This is the national territory that's been attacked on a large scale, you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique. During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the indigenous population, that's many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried out depredations all over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several 100,000 Filipinos in the process. Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the world in ways I don't have to describe. But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else, it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory. In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because its history is even more horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically. For hundreds of years, Europe has been casually slaughtering people all over the world. That's how they conquered the world, not by handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did suffer murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another. The main sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The only reason that it came to an end in 1945, was....it had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war with each other and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that everyone understood that the next time they play the game it was going to be the end for the world. Because the Europeans, including us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction that that game just have to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In the 17th century, about probably 40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out in one war. But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans slaughtering each other, and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn't attack Belgium, India didn't attack England, Algeria didn't attack France. It's uniform. There are again small exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The first time that the guns have been pointed the other way. And in my opinion that's probably why you see such different reactions on the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides. The world looks very different depending on whether you are holding the lash or whether you are being whipped by it for hundreds of years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe and its offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a historic event but regrettably not in scale, in something else and a reason why the rest of the world...most of the rest of the world looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or being horrified by them, that's almost uniform, but viewing it from a different perspective. Something we might want to understand. Well, let's go to the third question, 'What is the war against terrorism?' and a side question, 'What's terrorism?'. The war against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of civilization itself." That's a feeling that I share. The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago. Those are...that's President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that the war against international terrorism would be the core of our foreign policy....describing it in terms of the kind I just mentioned and others. And it was the core of our foreign policy. The Reagan administration responded to this plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself by creating an extraordinary international terrorist network, totally unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily....well, partly nearby, but not only there. I won't run through the record, you're all educated people, so I'm sure you learned about it in High School. [crowd laughter] But I'll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial. It's uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities the International Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that. And now I'll leave you an exercise. You can estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And it's a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond to...did respond in fact to international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme than the events of September 11th. I'm talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery. Nicaragua did respond. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the...condemned what they called the "unlawful use of force," which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don't work in a world that is ruled by force. This case is uncontroversial but it's by no means the most extreme. We gain a lot of insight into our own culture and society and what's happening now by asking 'how much we know about all this? How much we talk about it? How much you learn about it in school? How much it's all over the front pages?' And this is only the beginning. The United States responded to the World Court and the Security Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly, that was a bipartisan decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also changed. For the first time there were official orders given...official orders to the terrorist army to attack what are called "soft targets," meaning undefended civilian targets, and to keep away from the Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the United States had total control of the air over Nicaragua and the mercenary army was supplied with advanced communication equipment, it wasn't a guerilla army in the normal sense and could get instructions about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces so they could attack agricultural collectives, health clinics, and so on...soft targets with impunity. Those were the official orders. What was the reaction? It was known. There was a reaction to it. The policy was regarded as sensible by left liberal opinion. So Michael Kinsley who represents the left in mainstream discussion, wrote an article in which he said that we shouldn't be too quick to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch had just done. He said a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost benefit analysis" -- that is, I'm quoting now, that is the analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end." Democracy as the US understands the term, which is graphically illustrated in the surrounding countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United States, US elites, have the right to conduct the analysis and to pursue the project if it passes their tests. And it did pass their tests. It worked. When Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower assault, commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success of the methods that were adopted and described them accurately. So I'll quote Time Magazine just to pick one. They lauded the success of the methods adopted: "to wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves," with a cost to us that is "minimal," and leaving the victims "with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," and thus providing the US candidate with a "winning issue": "ending the impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." The New York Times had a headline saying "Americans United in Joy" at this outcome. That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn't do this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that are being used. So it's not just that the Nazis did it. It's that it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western civilization, that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I'd be interested in seeing it. Well, an interesting indication of the nature of our culture, our high culture, is the way in which all of this is regarded. One way it's regarded is just suppressing it. So almost nobody has ever heard of it. And the power of American propaganda and doctrine is so strong that even among the victims it's barely known. I mean, when you talk about this to people in Argentina, you have to remind them. Oh, yeah, that happened, we forgot about it. It's deeply suppressed. The sheer consequences of the monopoly of violence can be very powerful in ideological and other terms. Well, one illuminating aspect of our own attitude toward terrorism is the reaction to the idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself. Actually I went through this in some detail with database searches and that sort of thing. The idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself was considered outrageous. There is virtually nothing in mainstream commentary indicating that Nicaragua might have that right. And that fact was exploited by the Reagan administration and its propaganda in an interesting way. Those of you who were around in that time will remember that they periodically floated rumors that the Nicaraguans were getting MIG jets, jets from Russia. At that point the hawks and the doves split. The hawks said, 'ok, let's bomb 'em.' The doves said, `wait a minute, let's see if the rumors are true. And if the rumors are true, then let's bomb them. Because they are a threat to the United States.' Why, incidentally were they getting MIGs. Well they tried to get jet planes from European countries but the United States put pressure on its allies so that it wouldn't send them means of defense because they wanted them to turn to the Russians. That's good for propaganda purposes. Then they become a threat to us. Remember, they were just 2 days march from Harlingen, Texas. We actually declared a national emergency in 1985 to protect the country from the threat of Nicaragua. And it stayed in force. So it was much better for them to get arms from the Russians. Why would they want jet planes? Well, for the reasons I already mentioned. The United States had total control over their airspace, was over flying it and using that to provide instructions to the terrorist army to enable them to attack soft targets without running into the army that might defend them. Everyone knew that that was the reason. They are not going to use their jet planes for anything else. But the idea that Nicaragua should be permitted to defend its airspace against a superpower attack that is directing terrorist forces to attack undefended civilian targets, that was considered in the United States as outrageous and uniformly so. Exceptions are so slight, you know I can practically list them. I don't suggest that you take my word for this. Have a look. That includes our own senators, incidentally. Another illustration of how we regard terrorism is happening right now. The US has just appointed an ambassador to the United Nations to lead the war against terrorism a couple weeks ago. Who is he? Well, his name is John Negroponte. He was the US ambassador in the fiefdom, which is what it is, of Honduras in the early 1980's. There was a little fuss made about the fact that he must have been aware, as he certainly was, of the large-scale murders and other atrocities that were being carried out by the security forces in Honduras that we were supporting. But that's a small part of it. As proconsul of Honduras, as he was called there, he was the local supervisor for the terrorist war based in Honduras, for which his government was condemned by the world court and then the Security Council in a vetoed resolution. And he was just appointed as the UN Ambassador to lead the war against terror. Another small experiment you can do is check and see what the reaction was to this. Well, I will tell you what you are going to find, but find it for yourself. Now that tells us a lot about the war against terrorism and a lot about ourselves. After the United States took over the country again under the conditions that were so graphically described by the press, the country was pretty much destroyed in the 1980's, but it has totally collapsed since in every respect just about. Economically it has declined sharply since the US take over, democratically and in every other respect. It's now the second poorest country in the Hemisphere. I should say....I'm not going to talk about it, but I mentioned that I picked up Nicaragua because it is an uncontroversial case. If you look at the other states in the region, the state terror was far more extreme and it again traces back to Washington and that's by no means all. It was happening elsewhere in the world too, take say Africa. During the Reagan years alone, South African attacks, backed by the United States and Britain, US/UK-backed South African attacks against the neighboring countries killed about a million and a half people and left 60 billion dollars in damage and countries destroyed. And if we go around the world, we can add more examples. Now that was the first war against terror of which I've given a small sample. Are we supposed to pay attention to that? Or kind of think that that might be relevant? After all it's not exactly ancient history. Well, evidently not as you can tell by looking at the current discussion of the war on terror which has been the leading topic for the last month. I mentioned that Nicaragua has now become the 2nd poorest country in the hemisphere. What's the poorest country? Well that's of course Haiti which also happens to be the victim of most US intervention in the 20th century by a long shot. We left it totally devastated. It's the poorest country. Nicaragua is second ranked in degree of US intervention in the 20th century. It is the 2nd poorest. Actually, it is vying with Guatemala. They interchange every year or two as to who's the second poorest. And they also vie as to who is the leading target of US military intervention. We're supposed to think that all of this is some sort of accident. That is has nothing to do with anything that happened in history. Maybe. The worst human rights violator in the 1990's is Colombia, by a long shot. It's also the, by far, the leading recipient of US military aid in the 1990's maintaining the terror and human rights violations. In 1999, Colombia replaced Turkey as the leading recipient of US arms worldwide, that is excluding Israel and Egypt which are a separate category. And that tells us a lot more about the war on terror right now, in fact. Why was Turkey getting such a huge flow of US arms? Well if you take a look at the flow of US arms to Turkey, Turkey always got a lot of US arms. It's strategically placed, a member of NATO, and so on. But the arms flow to Turkey went up very sharply in 1984. It didn't have anything to do with the cold war. I mean Russian was collapsing. And it stayed high from 1984 to 1999 when it reduced and it was replaced in the lead by Colombia. What happened from 1984 to 1999? Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist war against Kurds in southeastern Turkey. And that's when US aid went up, military aid. And this was not pistols. This was jet planes, tanks, military training, and so on. And it stayed high as the atrocities escalated through the 1990's. Aid followed it. The peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid to Turkey was more than in the entire period 1950 to 1983, that is the cold war period, which is an indication of how much the cold war has affected policy. And the results were awesome. This led to 2-3 million refugees. Some of the worst ethnic cleansing of the late 1990's. Tens of thousands of people killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed, way more than Kosovo, even under NATO bombs. And the United States was providing 80% of the arms, increasing as the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997. It declined in 1999 because, once again, terror worked as it usually does when carried out by its major agents, mainly the powerful. So by 1999, Turkish terror, called of course counter-terror, but as I said, that's universal, it worked. Therefore Turkey was replaced by Colombia which had not yet succeeded in its terrorist war. And therefore had to move into first place as recipient of US arms. Well, what makes this all particularly striking is that all of this was taking place right in the midst of a huge flood of self-congratulation on the part of Western intellectuals which probably has no counterpart in history. I mean you all remember it. It was just a couple years ago. Massive self-adulation about how for the first time in history we are so magnificent; that we are standing up for principles and values; dedicated to ending inhumanity everywhere in the new era of this-and-that, and so-on-and-so-forth. And we certainly can't tolerate atrocities right near the borders of NATO. That was repeated over and over. Only within the borders of NATO where we can not only can tolerate much worse atrocities but contribute to them. Another insight into Western civilization and our own, is how often was this brought up? Try to look. I won't repeat it. But it's instructive. It's a pretty impressive feat for a propaganda system to carry this off in a free society. It's pretty amazing. I don't think you could do this in a totalitarian state. And Turkey is very grateful. Just a few days ago, Prime Minister Ecevit announced that Turkey would join the coalition against terror, very enthusiastically, even more so than others. In fact, he said they would contribute troops which others have not willing to do. And he explained why. He said, We owe a debt of gratitude to the United States because the United States was the only country that was willing to contribute so massively to our own, in his words "counter-terrorist" war, that is to our own massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities and terror. Other countries helped a little, but they stayed back. The United States, on the other hand, contributed enthusiastically and decisively and was able to do so because of the silence, servility might be the right word, of the educated classes who could easily find out about it. It's a free country after all. You can read human rights reports. You can read all sorts of stuff. But we chose to contribute to the atrocities and Turkey is very happy, they owe us a debt of gratitude for that and therefore will contribute troops just as during the war in Serbia. Turkey was very much praised for using its F-16's which we supplied it to bomb Serbia exactly as it had been doing with the same planes against its own population up until the time when it finally succeeded in crushing internal terror as they called it. And as usual, as always, resistance does include terror. Its true of the American Revolution. That's true of every case I know. Just as its true that those who have a monopoly of violence talk about themselves as carrying out counter terror. Now that's pretty impressive and that has to do with the coalition that is now being organized to fight the war against terror. And it's very interesting to see how that coalition is being described. So have a look at this morning's Christian Science Monitor. That's a good newspaper. One of the best international newspapers, with real coverage of the world. The lead story, the front-page story, is about how the United States, you know people used to dislike the United States but now they are beginning to respect it, and they are very happy about the way that the US is leading the war against terror. And the prime example, well in fact the only serious example, the others are a joke, is Algeria. Turns out that Algeria is very enthusiastic about the US war against terror. The person who wrote the article is an expert on Africa. He must know that Algeria is one of the most vicious terrorist states in the world and has been carrying out horrendous terror against its own population in the past couple of years, in fact. For a while, this was under wraps. But it was finally exposed in France by defectors from the Algerian army. It's all over the place there and in England and so on. But here, we're very proud because one of the worst terrorist states in the world is now enthusiastically welcoming the US war on terror and in fact is cheering on the United States to lead the war. That shows how popular we are getting. And if you look at the coalition that is being formed against terror it tells you a lot more. A leading member of the coalition is Russia which is delighted to have the United States support its murderous terrorist war in Chechnya instead of occasionally criticizing it in the background. China is joining enthusiastically. It's delighted to have support for the atrocities it's carrying out in western China against, what it called, Muslim secessionists. Turkey, as I mentioned, is very happy with the war against terror. They are experts. Algeria, Indonesia delighted to have even more US support for atrocities it is carrying out in Ache and elsewhere. Now we can run through the list, the list of the states that have joined the coalition against terror is quite impressive. They have a characteristic in common. They are certainly among the leading terrorist states in the world. And they happen to be led by the world champion. Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it. But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences. There are some other problems. Some of them came up in December 1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that's when the furor over the plague was peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country, Honduras abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States and Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against a major resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a reason. There is one paragraph in that long resolution which says that nothing in this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and Israel can't accept that. The main reason that they couldn't at the time was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally, officially called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It was called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist force officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly couldn't support actions by a terrorist group struggling against a racist regime. That would be impossible. And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli occupied territories, now going into its 35th year. Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And you can't have that. There is another one at the time. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being combated by what the US calls a terrorist force, Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon. And we can't allow anyone to struggle against a military occupation when it is one that we support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote against the major UN resolution on terrorism. And I mentioned before that a US vote against...is essentially a veto. Which is only half the story. It also vetoes it from history. So none of this was every reported and none of it appeared in the annals of terrorism. If you look at the scholarly work on terrorism and so on, nothing that I just mentioned appears. The reason is that it has got the wrong people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone the definitions and the scholarship and so on so that you come out with the right conclusions; otherwise it is not respectable scholarship and honorable journalism. Well, these are some of problems that are hampering the effort to develop a comprehensive treaty against terrorism. Maybe we should have an academic conference or something to try to see if we can figure out a way of defining terrorism so that it comes out with just the right answers, not the wrong answers. That won't be easy. Well, let's drop that and turn to the 4th question, What are the origins of the September 11 crimes? Here we have to make a distinction between 2 categories which shouldn't be run together. One is the actual agents of the crime, the other is kind of a reservoir of at least sympathy, sometimes support that they appeal to even among people who very much oppose the criminals and the actions. And those are 2 different things. Well, with regard to the perpetrators, in a certain sense we are not really clear. The United States either is unable or unwilling to provide any evidence, any meaningful evidence. There was a sort of a play a week or two ago when Tony Blair was set up to try to present it. I don't exactly know what the purpose of this was. Maybe so that the US could look as though it's holding back on some secret evidence that it can't reveal or that Tony Blair could strike proper Churchillian poses or something or other. Whatever the PR [public relations] reasons were, he gave a presentation which was in serious circles considered so absurd that it was barely even mentioned. So the Wall Street Journal, for example, one of the more serious papers had a small story on page 12, I think, in which they pointed out that there was not much evidence and then they quoted some high US official as saying that it didn't matter whether there was any evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So why bother with the evidence? The more ideological press, like the New York Times and others, they had big front-page headlines. But the Wall Street Journal reaction was reasonable and if you look at the so-called evidence you can see why. But let's assume that it's true. It is astonishing to me how weak the evidence was. I sort of thought you could do better than that without any intelligence service [audience laughter]. In fact, remember this was after weeks of the most intensive investigation in history of all the intelligence services of the western world working overtime trying to put something together. And it was a prima facie, it was a very strong case even before you had anything. And it ended up about where it started, with a prima facie case. So let's assume that it is true. So let's assume that, it looked obvious the first day, still does, that the actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part. Whether they were involved or not nobody knows. It doesn't really matter much. That's the background, those networks. Well, where do they come from? We know all about that. Nobody knows about that better than the CIA because it helped organize them and it nurtured them for a long time. They were brought together in the 1980's actually by the CIA and its associates elsewhere: Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved, they may have been involved a little bit earlier, maybe by 1978. The idea was to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy. According to President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the US support for the mojahedin fighting against the government began 6 months earlier. He is very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the mojahedin, getting them to invade, getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together the best killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from around North Africa, Saudi Arabia....anywhere they could find them. They were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. Whether Brzezinski is telling the truth or not, I don't know. He may have been bragging, he is apparently very proud of it, knowing the consequences incidentally. But maybe it's true. We'll know someday if the documents are ever released. Anyway, that's his perception. By January 1980 it is not even in doubt that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive military force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion. But the US intervention was not helping the Afghans. In fact, it helped destroy the country and much more. The Afghanis, so called, had their own...it did force the Russians to withdrew, finally. Although many analysts believe that it probably delayed their withdrawal because they were trying to get out of it. Anyway, whatever, they did withdraw. Meanwhile, the terrorist forces that the CIA was organizing, arming, and training were pursuing their own agenda, right away. It was no secret. One of the first acts was in 1981 when they assassinated the President of Egypt, who was one of the most enthusiastic of their creators. In 1983, one suicide bomber, who may or may not have been connected, it's pretty shadowy, nobody knows. But one suicide bomber drove the US army-military out of Lebanon. And it continued. They have their own agenda. The US was happy to mobilize them to fight its cause but meanwhile they are doing their own thing. They were clear very about it. After 1989, when the Russians had withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere. Since then they have been fighting in Chechnya, Western China, Bosnia, Kashmir, South East Asia, North Africa, all over the place. They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants to silence the one free television channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes of the Arab world that try to shut it up. But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's worth it. There is plenty of interviews. And there are plenty of interviews by leading Western reporters, if you don't want to listen to his own voice, Robert Fisk and others. And what he has been saying is pretty consistent for a long time. He's not the only one but maybe he is the most eloquent. It's not only consistent over a long time, it is consistent with their actions. So there is every reason to take it seriously. Their prime enemy is what they call the corrupt and oppressive authoritarian brutal regimes of the Arab world and when the say that they get quite a resonance in the region. They also want to defend and they want to replace them by properly Islamist governments. That's where they lose the people of the region. But up till then, they are with them. From their point of view, even Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, I suppose, short of the Taliban, which is an offshoot, even that's not Islamist enough for them. Ok, at that point, they get very little support, but up until that point they get plenty of support. Also they want to defend Muslims elsewhere. They hate the Russians like poison, but as soon as the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, they stopped carrying out terrorist acts in Russia as they had been doing with CIA backing before that within Russia, not just in Afghanistan. They did move over to Chechnya. But there they are defending Muslims against a Russian invasion. Same with all the other places I mentioned. From their point of view, they are defending the Muslims against the infidels. And they are very clear about it and that is what they have been doing. Now why did they turn against the United States? Well that had to do with what they call the US invasion of Saudi Arabia. In 1990, the US established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia which from their point of view is comparable to a Russian invasion of Afghanistan except that Saudi Arabia is way more important. That's the home of the holiest sites of Islam. And that is when their activities turned against the Unites States. If you recall, in 1993 they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Got part of the way, but not the whole way and that was only part of it. The plans were to blow up the UN building, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the FBI building. I think there were others on the list. Well, they sort of got part way, but not all the way. One person who is jailed for that, finally, among the people who were jailed, was a Egyptian cleric who had been brought into the United States over the objections of the Immigration Service, thanks to the intervention of the CIA which wanted to help out their friend. A couple years later he was blowing up the World Trade Center. And this has been going on all over. I'm not going to run through the list but it's, if you want to understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent picture. It's described in words. It's revealed in practice for 20 years. There is no reason not to take it seriously. That's the first category, the likely perpetrators. What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find out what that is. One of the good things that has happened since September 11 is that some of the press and some of the discussion has begun to open up to some of these things. The best one to my knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away began to run, within a couple of days, serious reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why the people of the region, even though they hate bin Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless support him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are not surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their friends: bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen tied to the United States, people who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American clothes. That's the people they are interviewing because they want to find out what their attitudes are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very clear and in many ways consonant with the message of bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed. Ok, those are the reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people recognize it and support it. Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has been all over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not done a real study but I think right wing opinion has generally been more honest. But if you look at say at the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran by Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they hate us? This is the same day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because we champion a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism, and democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions of bankers, professionals, international lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because you are blocking democracy, you are preventing economic development, you are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist regimes and you are doing these horrible things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way out on the left, explained that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions, he says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs to join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that, everything we do is irrelevant. Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting. It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are. It enables us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a couple of defects. One is it is at total variance with everything we know. And another defect is that it is a perfect way to ensure that you escalate the cycle of violence. If you want to live with your head buried in the sand and pretend they hate us because they're opposed to globalization, that's why they killed Sadat 20 years ago, and fought the Russians, tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. And these are all people who are in the midst of ... corporate globalization but if you want to believe that, yeh...comforting. And it is a great way to make sure that violence escalates. That's tribal violence. You did something to me, I'll do something worse to you. I don't care what the reasons are. We just keep going that way. And that's a way to do it. Pretty much straight, left-liberal opinion. What are the policy options? Well, there are a number. A narrow policy option from the beginning was to follow the advice of really far out radicals like the Pope [audience laughter]. The Vatican immediately said look it's a horrible terrorist crime. In the case of crime, you try to find the perpetrators, you bring them to justice, you try them. You don't kill innocent civilians. Like if somebody robs my house and I think the guy who did it is probably in the neighborhood across the street, I don't go out with an assault rifle and kill everyone in that neighborhood. That's not the way you deal with crime, whether it's a small crime like this one or really massive one like the US terrorist war against Nicaragua, even worse ones and others in between. And there are plenty of precedents for that. In fact, I mentioned a precedent, Nicaragua, a lawful, a law abiding state, that's why presumably we had to destroy it, which followed the right principles. Now of course, it didn't get anywhere because it was running up against a power that wouldn't allow lawful procedures to be followed. But if the United States tried to pursue them, nobody would stop them. In fact, everyone would applaud. And there are plenty of other precedents. When the IRA set off bombs in London, which is pretty serious business, Britain could have, apart from the fact that it was unfeasible, let's put that aside, one possible response would have been to destroy Boston which is the source of most of the financing. And of course to wipe out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the feasibility, it would have been criminal idiocy. The way to deal with it was pretty much what they did. You know, find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. Because these things don't come out of nowhere. They come from something. Whether it is a crime in the streets or a monstrous terrorist crime or anything else. There's reasons. And usually if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime, they ought to be addressed because they are legitimate. And that's the way to deal with it. There are many such examples. But there are problems with that. One problem is that the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of international institutions. So it can't go to them. It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court. It has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court. It is powerful enough to set up a new court if it wants so that wouldn't stop anything. But there is a problem with any kind of a court, mainly you need evidence. You go to any kind of court, you need some kind of evidence. Not Tony Blair talking about it on television. And that's very hard. It may be impossible to find. You know, it could be that the people who did it, killed themselves. Nobody knows this better than the CIA. These are decentralized, nonhierarchic networks. They follow a principle that is called Leaderless Resistance. That's the principle that has been developed by the Christian Right terrorists in the United States. It's called Leaderless Resistance. You have small groups that do things. They don't talk to anybody else. There is a kind of general background of assumptions and then you do it. Actually people in the anti war movement are very familiar with it. We used to call it affinity groups. If you assume correctly that whatever group you are in is being penetrated by the FBI, when something serious is happening, you don't do it in a meeting. You do it with some people you know and trust, an affinity group and then it doesn't get penetrated. That's one of the reasons why the FBI has never been able to figure out what's going on in any of the popular movements. And other intelligence agencies are the same. They can't. That's leaderless resistance or affinity groups, and decentralized networks are extremely hard to penetrate. And it's quite possible that they just don't know. When Osama bin Laden claims he wasn't involved, that's entirely possible. In fact, it's pretty hard to imagine how a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, who doesn't even have a radio or a telephone could have planned a highly sophisticated operation like that. Chances are it's part of the background. You know, like other leaderless resistance terrorist groups. Which means it's going to be extremely difficult to find evidence. And the US doesn't want to present evidence because it wants to be able to do it, to act without evidence. That's a crucial part of the reaction. You will notice that the US did not ask for Security Council authorization which they probably could have gotten this time, not for pretty reasons, but because the other permanent members of the Security Council are also terrorist states. They are happy to join a coalition against what they call terror, namely in support of their own terror. Like Russia wasn't going to veto, they love it. So the US probably could have gotten Security Council authorization but it didn't want it. And it didn't want it because it follows a long-standing principle which is not George Bush, it was explicit in the Clinton administration, articulated and goes back much further and that is that we have the right to act unilaterally. We don't want international authorization because we act unilaterally and therefore we don't want it. We don't care about evidence. We don't care about negotiation. We don't care about treaties. We are the strongest guy around; the toughest thug on the block. We do what we want. Authorization is a bad thing and therefore must be avoided. There is even a name for it in the technical literature. It's called establishing credibility. You have to establish credibility. That's an important factor in many policies. It was the official reason given for the war in the Balkans and the most plausible reason. You want to know what credibility means, ask your favorite Mafia Don. He'll explain to you what credibility means. And it's the same in international affairs, except it's talked about in universities using big words, and that sort of thing. But it's basically the same principle. And it makes sense. And it usually works. The main historian who has written about this in the last couple years is Charles Tilly with a book called Coercion, Capital, and European States. He points out that violence has been the leading principle of Europe for hundreds of years and the reason is because it works. You know, it's very reasonable. It almost always works. When you have an overwhelming predominance of violence and a culture of violence behind it. So therefore it makes sense to follow it. Well, those are all problems in pursuing lawful paths. And if you did try to follow them you'd really open some very dangerous doors. Like the US is demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden. And they are responding in a way which is regarded as totally absurd and outlandish in the west, namely they are saying, Ok, but first give us some evidence. In the west, that is considered ludicrous. It's a sign of their criminality. How can they ask for evidence? I mean if somebody asked us to hand someone over, we'd do it tomorrow. We wouldn't ask for any evidence. [crowd laughter]. In fact it is easy to prove that. We don't have to make up cases. So for example, for the last several years, Haiti has been requesting the United States to extradite Emmanuel Constant. He is a major killer. He is one of the leading figures in the slaughter of maybe 4000 or 5000 people in the years in the mid 1990's, under the military junta, which incidentally was being, not so tacitly, supported by the Bush and the Clinton administrations contrary to illusions. Anyway he is a leading killer. They have plenty of evidence. No problem about evidence. He has already been brought to trial and sentenced in Haiti and they are asking the United States to turn him over. Well, I mean do your own research. See how much discussion there has been of that. Actually Haiti renewed the request a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't even mentioned. Why should we turn over a convicted killer who was largely responsible for killing 4000 or 5000 people a couple of years ago. In fact, if we do turn him over, who knows what he would say. Maybe he'll say that he was being funded and helped by the CIA, which is probably true. We don't want to open that door. And he is not he only one. I mean, for the last about 15 years, Costa Rica which is the democratic prize, has been trying to get the United States to hand over a John Hull, a US land owner in Costa Rica, who they charge with terrorist crimes. He was using his land, they claim with good evidence as a base for the US war against Nicaragua, which is not a controversial conclusion, remember. There is the World Court and Security Council behind it. So they have been trying to get the United States to hand him over. Hear about that one ? No. They did actually confiscate the land of another American landholder, John Hamilton. Paid compensation, offered compensation. The US refused. Turned his land over into a national park because his land was also being used as a base for the US attack against Nicaragua. Costa Rica was punished for that one. They were punished by withholding aid. We don't accept that kind of insubordination from allies. And we can go on. If you open the door to questions about extradition it leads in very unpleasant directions. So that can't be done. Well, what about the reactions in Afghanistan. The initial proposal, the initial rhetoric was for a massive assault which would kill many people visibly and also an attack on other countries in the region. Well the Bush administration wisely backed off from that. They were being told by every foreign leader, NATO, everyone else, every specialist, I suppose, their own intelligence agencies that that would be the stupidest thing they could possibly do. It would simply be like opening recruiting offices for bin Laden all over the region. That's exactly what he wants. And it would be extremely harmful to their own interests. So they backed off that one. And they are turning to what I described earlier which is a kind of silent genocide. It's a.... well, I already said what I think about it. I don't think anything more has to be said. You can figure it out if you do the arithmetic. A sensible proposal which is kind of on the verge of being considered, but it has been sensible all along, and it is being raised, called for by expatriate Afghans and allegedly tribal leaders internally, is for a UN initiative, which would keep the Russians and Americans out of it, totally. These are the 2 countries that have practically wiped the country out in the last 20 years. They should be out of it. They should provide massive reparations. But that's their only role. A UN initiative to bring together elements within Afghanistan that would try to construct something from the wreckage. It's conceivable that that could work, with plenty of support and no interference. If the US insists on running it, we might as well quit. We have a historical record on that one. You will notice that the name of this operation....remember that at first it was going to be a Crusade but they backed off that because PR (public relations) agents told them that that wouldn't work [audience laughter]. And then it was going to be Infinite Justice, but the PR agents said, wait a minute, you are sounding like you are divinity. So that wouldn't work. And then it was changed to enduring freedom. We know what that means. But nobody has yet pointed out, fortunately, that there is an ambiguity there. To endure means to suffer. [audience laughter]. And a there are plenty of people around the world who have endured what we call freedom. Again, fortunately we have a very well-behaved educated class so nobody has yet pointed out this ambiguity. But if its done there will be another problem to deal with. But if we can back off enough so that some more or less independent agency, maybe the UN, maybe credible NGO's (non governmental organizations) can take the lead in trying to reconstruct something from the wreckage, with plenty of assistance and we owe it to them. Them maybe something would come out. Beyond that, there are other problems. We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level of terror enormously. But that you can't discuss. Well we ought to make it possible to discuss it. So that's one easy way to reduce the level of terror. Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan is not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. That has effects. We're seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is one. Rethink it. Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of support. Exactly what the bankers, lawyers and so on are saying in places like Saudi Arabia. On the streets it's much more bitter, as you can imagine. That's possible. You know, those policies aren't graven in stone. And further more there are opportunities. It's hard to find many rays of light in the last couple of weeks but one of them is that there is an increased openness. Lots of issues are open for discussion, even in elite circles, certainly among the general public, that were not a couple of weeks ago. That's dramatically the case. I mean, if a newspaper like USA Today can run a very good article, a serious article, on life in the Gaza Strip...there has been a change. The things I mentioned in the Wall Street Journal...that's change. And among the general public, I think there is much more openness and willingness to think about things that were under the rug and so on. These are opportunities and they should be used, at least by people who accept the goal of trying to reduce the level of violence and terror, including potential threats that are extremely severe and could make even September 11th pale into insignificance. Thanks. -- ragOO, VU2RGU http://gnuhead.net.dhis.org/ GPG: 1024D/F1624A6E Helping to keep the Air-Waves FREE Amateur Radio Helping to keep your Software FREE the GNU Project Helping to keep the W W W FREE Debian GNU/${kernel} From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 5 21:55:07 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 5 Nov 2001 16:25:07 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] MUSELMANNER:Muslim from Auschwitz to Afghanistan Message-ID: <20011105162507.22565.qmail@mailweb14.rediffmail.com> Musselmanner Musselmanner (Moslems) was Auschwitz slang for people near death from starvation and privation. (Lifton, p.38; Levi, Survival, p. 88). The exact derivation of the phrase is not known, but it was common to all concentration camps. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 5 22:54:29 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 5 Nov 2001 17:24:29 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] An Appeal for Peace Message-ID: <20011105172429.16469.qmail@mailweb20.rediffmail.com> EMMANUEL LEVINAS With the appearance of the human - and this is my entire philosophy - there is something more important than my life, and that is the life of the other. That is unreasonable. Man is an unreasonable animal. 'The Paradox of Morality' Interview, 1986 From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Mon Nov 5 22:57:30 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:27:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Reader-list] Chomsky in India/Pak Nov 2001 Message-ID: From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:14:44 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 5 Nov 2001 17:44:44 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] The lessons from the Armenian Genocide Message-ID: <20011105174444.14862.qmail@mailweb31.rediffmail.com> What are the goals of the campaign for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide? What can actually be achieved? WEREN'T THERE MASSACRES BY OUR SOLDIERS IN KASHMIR? GOWKADAL,ZAKURA,BIJBEHARA,HANDWARA,HAWAL,BURZALLA BYPASS... The U.S. government has justified its refusal to recognize the Genocide by invoking the strategic significance of Turkey. But, in fact, "considerations of domestic political economy have loomed large." THERE CAN BE four principal purposes of recognition: "(1) recognition as a vehicle for the return of historic Armenian lands to their rightful owners; (2) recognition to heal the individual and collective emotional wounds of the survivors and the nation as a whole; (3) recognition for pecuniary compensation; and (4) recognition to secure official legitimacy for purposes of public policy regarding the subject of the Armenian Genocide." The case must be made that "Turkey’s hostility to Armenians and the Genocide taboo are obstacles on the road to democratic progress and regional security." Then, the European Union could adopt "much of the Armenian analysis of regional relations, and press upon Turkey to improve its relations with its tiny northern neighbor." IS THERE A KASHMIRI ANALYSIS OF SOUTH ASIAN RELATIONS? TOMORROW MAYBE.AT AUSCHWITZ,"TOMORROW" MAYBE USED TO MEAN IN THE CAMP SLANG-NEVER. From arunmehtain at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 23:24:29 2001 From: arunmehtain at yahoo.com (Arun Mehta) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 23:24:29 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] indataportal.com Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011105224904.02c0a358@imap.satyam.net.in> I hope you will pay a visit to indataportal.com, which is an attempt at what I call technology activism -- using technology as a means to solve problems of developing countries. From 11-26 Nov, I will be in California. While it is always a pleasure to meet old friends, I do also hope to make some progress on these projects as well, so if you can suggest who else might be interested and knowledgeable in them, that would be terrific. As you will see at the indataportal site, my interest is in: 1) distance learning, which is critical if quality education is to reach large numbers of people -- there simply aren't enough good teachers in emerging areas, and they certainly don't want to live away from the big cities 2)Radio, being the only telecom device the poorest can afford. But using this involves running rings around a restrictive government, as well as making intelligent use of cable networks and the Internet (where we have now set up a virtual recording studio). 3) wireless community networks, based on 802.11b technology, as the fastest and cheapest way of bringing last-mile access to hospitals, educational institutions, villages, etc. 4) embedded computers running Linux -- as a means of energy saving, higher safety, and, for many applications, low-cost computing. 5) with Vickram Crishna, as part of Radiophony, I'm working on a communicator for Professor Stephen Hawking, which we are also seeking to adapt to Indian languages, and the needs of people with different kinds of handicap 6) I have been in the forefront of demands that the hidden-camera tapes used by tehelka.com, to expose corruption in defense deals, be forensically examined, as there are serious grounds to suggest that they have been tampered with, e.g. inserting audio afterwards, see http://www.indataportal.com/tehelka/tampering.htm If you are likely to be in California during this time, and would have time for us to meet, do let me have your phone nos. Please mail me at delhirasta at yahoo.com, and do feel free to forward this to individuals or organisations that might be interested in a meeting or any of these subjects. Arun Arun Mehta, B-69, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi -- 110024, India. Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103. http://www.radiophony.com mehta at vsnl.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Tue Nov 6 22:30:09 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 6 Nov 2001 17:00:09 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] November 6, 1947 Message-ID: <20011106170009.3139.qmail@mailweb30.rediffmail.com> November 6 witnessed the worst communal riots in divided Jammu...just as across the Pir Panjal range Kashmiris waged their lonely battle against the schizophrenia of Partition...November 6, December 6...days to be remembered to be forgotten... What happened to the Resettlement Bill that Sheikh Abdullah passed that rejected Partition and hoped to resettle those who had migrated to Pakistan from Jammu? Why is the Bill gathering dust in the Supreme Court? Abir Bazaz From ravis at sarai.net Wed Nov 7 05:02:28 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:32:28 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] anti- us feeling (Nytimes) Message-ID: <200111062332.AAA05224@mail.intra.waag.org> Given the overall censorship of the global media - this story is interesting, it would not have appeared a few weeks ago: November 4, 2001 More and More, War Is Viewed as America's By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. PARIS, Nov. 3 � Whatever doubts the world's intellectuals and politicians may raise about America's war on terror, the world's people do not seem to be voting with raised fists � yet. Despite a war in Afghanistan that has dropped thousands of bombs and killed some civilians, there have been no devastating anti-American riots; there is forbearance, as sympathy for the victims of Sept. 11 still lingers. However, if the people follow where intellectuals and editorialists are leading, that will change soon. Portraits of the United States as a lonely, self-absorbed bully taking out its rage on defenseless Afghanistan are on the rise. More and more, the war is being seen abroad as "America against Osama," not, as the Bush administration would prefer, "All of us against terrorism." The intense Sept. 12 rush of "We are all Americans" seems to have faded in the breasts of all but Tony Blair, the prime minister of Britain, who continues to jet around the globe more actively than American leaders themselves to recruit support for the cause. T-shirts lionizing Osama bin Laden are hits with those who feel themselves the world's dispossessed and see the terrorists striking a blow against an overweening superpower: in Algerian-populated suburbs of Paris and the Cape Flats of South Africa, in the streets of Cairo and Jakarta. Newspapers in the Arab world have been full of references to America's "Zionist- controlled press" and to the common rumors that no Jews died on Sept. 11 and that America thinks Afghanistan has oil. But there are also calmer, more considered Muslim voices, pondering the wisdom and consequences of America's actions now. In the Egyptian newspaper Al Gomhuria, Samir Ragab, who is said to be close to President Hosni Mubarak, asked: "Where are the Americans now? We all thought they were superhuman, equipped with invincible power, wealth and the ability to manipulate." Because Americans bomb while being unable to catch Mr. bin Laden, he said, "innocent civilians in Afghanistan who complain that they have not tasted beef for three years are suffering most of the casualties." A Turkish editor and a Saudi royal counselor agreed that the bombing was hurting America more than the Taliban. "As long as the U.S. keeps killing civilians, it will not differ from the organizations it is fighting against � the only difference is that the U.S. apologizes," said Ismet Berkan, editor of Radikal. Ihsahn Ali Bu-Hulaiga, a Saudi adviser, said 99 percent of the Afghans were innocents, and added: "We watch what happens in Afghanistan and we feel bad, and the following item in any newscast is that the Israelis killed X number of Palestinians or destroyed so many houses. It sends the message to us Arabs." Because no other country has had a huge terrorist attack, because the hundreds of overseas envelopes that spilled powder have turned out � so far � to be hoaxes, not anthrax, the fear so widely felt in the United States has not spread elsewhere in the world. Instead, scrutiny of American actions, past and present, is on the rise. While Americans compare Sept. 11 to Pearl Harbor � forgetting perhaps that the world was already primed to hate the Axis powers by their invasions of Poland, France, Korea, Manchuria and Ethiopia � a stronger sense of "What does this mean for me?" has emerged. Kenyans, who lost 207 people in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Nairobi, which is attributed to Mr. bin Laden, wonder what took America so long. But other Africans are dismayed that the world seems to have lost interest in AIDS, which will kill 25 million, not 5,000. Russians see parallels to Chechnya and are ready to see America strike as brutally as they do there. The Japanese agonize over whether to send troops. The Chinese, who have a border with Afghanistan, seem strangely silent. While no one speaks so forcefully for America as Mr. Blair, presidents of countries usually skeptical of American militarism have played along. Vicente Fox of Mexico has offered America more oil, lamented the Mexicans who died, and said "we consider this problem our problem," although 62 percent of his people, in one poll, endorsed neutrality. Jacques Chirac of France offered troops, though cynics here say he used the nationalist card to make his opponent in next year's presidential elections look like a cranky Old Left naysayer. However, in newspapers around the world, the backlash is under way. The American notion that anger at America is simply resentment of its culture, that foreigners are unhappy because McBurgers outsell escargots or Stallone outsells Truffaut, is seen overseas as just more American smugness. When foreign writers complain about America now, their complaints are quite specific, and foreign-policy oriented: America should not silently let the Israelis commit assassinations, bulldoze houses and colonize Palestinian land; America should pay attention to Muslim fury that American troops occupy the land of the Prophet Muhammad; America should not bomb dirt-poor Afghan cities with no antiaircraft defenses. When old sores are scratched, they are usually about American foreign policies: Alfredo Pita, a Peruvian writer, recalled that the 1973 coup encouraged by Richard Nixon that killed Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, also began on Sept. 11. Eduardo Galeano, a Mexican journalist, asked why 5,000 New York deaths were televised, but not the deaths of 200,000 Guatemalans "sacrificed not by Muslim fanatics but by terrorist militias supported by the successive American governments." A commentary in Britain's left- leaning Guardian newspaper said the United States had been "training terrorists" in its Fort Benning, Ga., school for Latin American soldiers and police officers for 55 years and suggested that the British bomb Georgia and also drop packages of nan and curry stamped with the Afghan flag. America's newest "traditional friends" may be Eastern Europeans. Poles, firmly pro-American, understand that civilians die in every war and are dismayed only that Mr. bin Laden is proving hard to catch, said Bronislaw Geremek, a former foreign minister. A Romanian newspaper, Evenimentul Zilei, ran a stirring editorial, "Ode to America," that circled the globe by e-mail and was read to American soldiers. It celebrated American multiracial unity, its rush to help victims and its flag-flying, and described a charity concert of Hollywood stars as "the heavy artillery of the American soul." Africa has its hands full with poverty and AIDS. Among intellectuals, hard feelings linger over America's refusal to attend the United Nations racism summit meeting, over high AIDS drug prices and, historically, over slavery. Ethnic rioting in the continent's most populous country, Nigeria, took a strange twist after Sept. 11. Thousands have died in Muslim-Christian clashes in the last two years; now, Christians have taken to wearing American flags as war decor. In South Africa, the issue "has polarized this country on racial lines, with whites supporting America, and anti-American feeling very strong among blacks," said Bongani Sibeko, 40, a black advertising executive who has lived in New York. He suggested that frustration with American policy in the Middle East reverberated far beyond the Arab world. "I worked in the World Trade Center and the anger and fury I felt will never wane � but this is against the background of the U.S. role in the Middle East," Mr. Sibeko said. "It's very difficult to balance images of Israeli tanks and images of those planes crashing." The angriest are the country's Muslims � mixed-race descendants of 17th- century Malay slaves. One radio poll found that 85 percent "sympathized" with American victims but 70 percent thought American policies were to blame and 60 percent thought Mr. bin Laden's guilt had not been proved. "Of course we feel sorry for the innocent victims, but don't you think CNN is dragging this out to the hilt?" asked Aeysha Adams, manager of a nonprofit journalism training program, and a Muslim. "I guess they think they're the only country that gets bombed or where people die." Exactly the same comment could be heard in Switzerland, one of the world's richest countries, with a very small Muslim population. "The U.S. is not used to attacks on its soil," said Claude Monnier, the former editor of The Geneva Journal. "But 5,000 people � if you compare this to the world wars, or to Rwanda, there is a kind of imbalance. People are beginning to be angry here. They were moved by Sept. 11, but feel that the U.S. is being overbearing. Normally, the Swiss are pro-American, but in Afghanistan, we see a small and powerless country being trashed out by the U.S. As a small country, we have some sympathy." From rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 15:22:53 2001 From: rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:52:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] Our war aims - in general Message-ID: <20011107095253.73471.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Our war aims - in general http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,588446,00.html AL Kennedy Tuesday November 6, 2001 The Guardian And now our daily news report from Washington - your other national capital. Today, in our series of Clean Cut Americans - General Elmer Coyote, former commander of Gamma Force: So, General, how can you help the tiny minority who are feeling wobbly to understand the sad necessity of our War Against Badness, as currently conducted by our wise and restrained leaders? Thank you kindly, I'd be glad. First off, I'd have to say that anyone who is, as we put it in military circles, a real live normal human being will, by their very God-given nature, accept that everything we're doing over in Afghanistan and on the home front is absolutely for the best. As you know, the United States, and your United Kingdom never interfere with foreign powers, but once we are roused, we act. The way may be stony, still our will is strong and our war aims are absolutely clear, although subject to the secrecy which must inevitably arise in matters of virtuous defence. You couldn't give us a teeny clue about them, though? We seek not to overthrow the Taliban, but to overthrow the Taliban, which may take a while, or not that long at all, if you compare it to Vietnam - not that you ever, ever should - and after victory we will allow the Afghan people to elect a new government, or we will allow them to elect the new government provided, which will be based, or not based, around the Northern Alliance which is either a really keen bunch of patriots, or a rabble of camel-jockey terrorists slightly less well-equipped than the Taliban, and we will find Bin Laden and we will kill him, or bring him to justice in another deadly way resulting in his law-abiding and perfectly reasonable death when vengeance will be ours, but not in a vengeful way. And when this is all over, Afghanistan will be a happy land, full of merry, hopping children - hopping, mind you, not because they are amputees, but because they are living in an earthly paradise of recognisable banking and investment systems. We are fighting to defend our way of life and don't you forget it. Amen. And could you expand a little on the qualities that make our way of life so very, very good? I had the honour to teach the current commander of the US forces when he was a student at the College of Death Studies and he is a fine, warm man. I think of him now, because often we would sit up nights and discuss what made our way of life so precious. And it's, quite simply, this: cowards, terrorists, communists and Muslims, they kill civilians on purpose, whereas we in the west kill civilians as a sad necessity. We don't enjoy it. Some lunatics and subversives would say that, either way, you still end up with innocent casualties, mutilated babies and so forth. That is war and war is hell. And if they're so innocent, what are they doing in Afghanistan, anyway - the place is a shithole. And if, for example, a mother knows we decapitated her daughter with the very best of intentions, really as a kind of accident, it will surely make all the difference to her. And I know your prime minister agrees. That's part of what makes the special relationship so special. Yes, what about that special relationship? It's special. It's full of specialness and it's really a relationship. Which means? That Britain and the Britishers, above all others, understand that UK politicians should be able to come stateside and pretend they have more influence than a bucket of hog piss over the most powerful country in the world. And you also understand that, when all's said and done, we're going to do what we damn well like, because our interests are the finest interests in the world, but you can come along for the ride and peripheral dividends. And we could get a little sickened by all this whining about grenades that look like bandage rolls and "won't people get confused?" and "why keep bombing Red Cross stations?" And the rumours that all US infantrymen who enter Afghanistan carry a length of pipe with instructions to connect and lay them in the direction of the Caspian? Whatever this war is about, it is not about control of the vast Caspian sea oil deposits. The United States has never had any interest in oil. President Bush has never had any interest in oil. Neither the United States or the United Kingdom have ever cynically exploited a conflict for their own commercial advantage, or made a profit out of death. So no worries there, then. Thanks. Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com From pmandal at wellesley.edu Thu Nov 8 05:11:14 2001 From: pmandal at wellesley.edu (Purnima Mandal) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 18:41:14 -0500 Subject: [Reader-list] South Asia Film Festival Message-ID: The Women's Studies Department, Committee on Lectures and Cultural Events, and the Department of Art at Wellesley College, present National Longings: A South Asian Lens into Women Thurs, Nov 15th - Mon, Nov 19th 2001 at Collins Cinema, Wellesley College, MA A festival showcasing a variety of films and documentaries from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, India and Diaspora. All screenings are free and open to the public. Please visit the festival website at http://amphetamine.elation.nu/nl This Film Series is supported by: Davis Museum and Cultural Centre, the Treves Fund, Cinema and Media Studies, the Wellesley Association for South Asian Cultures (WASAC), and the Wellesley Pakistani Student's Association (PSA) Questions? contact: alakshmi at wellesley.edu; 781-283-4477 Schedule of the Film Festival Thurs, Nov 15 5 p.m. - Opening reception 6:00 p.m. - Death on a Full Moon Day - Prasanna Vithanage - 89 min - Sri Lanka 7:30 p.m. - The Census - Robert Crusz - 26 min - Sri Lanka 8:00 p.m. - In Between - Robert Crusz - 40 min - Sri Lanka 8:45 p.m. - Q&A session with Filmmaker Robert Crusz Fri, Nov 16 6:00 p.m. - India Cabaret - Mira Nair - 60 min - India 7:15 p.m. - Saroja - Somaratne Dissanayake -110 min - Sri Lanka 9:30 p.m. - Seven Hours to Burn - Shanti Thakur - 9 min - Diaspora 9:45 p.m. - In Between - Robert Crusz - 40 min - Sri Lanka 10:50 p.m. - Surviving Sabu - Ian Iqbal Rashid -15 min -England Sat, Nov 17 11:30 a.m. - Summer in my Veins - Nish Saran - 26 min- USA 12:00 p.m. - The Census - Robert Crusz - 26 min - Sri Lanka 12:45 p.m. - Surviving Sabu - Ian Iqbal Rashid - 15 min- England 1:15 p.m. - A Letter Home - Buboo Kakati - 6 min- Diaspora 1:30 p.m. - This is My Moon - Asoka Handagama - 104 min- Sri Lanka 4:00 p.m. - Three Women and a Camera - Sabeena Gadihoke - 56 min- India 5:15 p.m. - The Children We Sacrifice - Grace Poore - 61 min- Sri Lanka 6:30 p.m. - Skin Deep - Reena Mohan - 83 min- India 8:00 p.m. - 36 Chowringhee Lane - Aparna Sen - 122 min- India 10:15 p.m. - Duhshomoy -Yasmin Kabir - 26 min- Bangladesh Sun, Nov 18 11:30 a.m. - Lunch Reception 12:30 p.m. - Panel Discussion - 90 min 2:10 p.m. - The Children We Sacrifice - Grace Poore - 61 min -Sri Lanka 3: 15 p.m. - Q&A session with Filmmaker Grace Poore 3:45 p.m. - Don't Ask Why - Sahiba Sumar - 58 min - Pakistan 5:00 p.m. - Duhshomoy - Yasmin Kabir - 26 min- Bangladesh 5:45 p.m. - Seven Hours to Burn - Shanti Thakur - 9 min - Diaspora 6:00 p.m. - Saroja - Somaratne Dissanayake -110 min - Sri Lanka 8:15 p.m. - The Terrorist - Santosh Sivan - 95 min - India Mon, Nov 19 6 p.m. - Voices of Dissent: A Dance of Passion - Noorkhan Bawa - 22 min - Pakistan 6:30 p.m. - Jibon - Altaf Mazid - 56 min - India 7:30 p.m. - The Terrorist - Santosh Sivan - 95 min - India From cyberravisri at yahoo.co.in Thu Nov 8 13:35:54 2001 From: cyberravisri at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?ravi=20sri?=) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:05:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] Public Good-Language&Media Message-ID: <20011108080554.78382.qmail@web8102.in.yahoo.com> May I invite your attention to an interesting and important book Not For Sale : In Defense of Public Goods (Eds) Anatole Anton,Milton Fisk, Nancy Holmstrom-2000- Westview Press (www.westviewpress.com) Pp468+xxiv ISBN 0-8133-6618-6 paperback $25 This book has an impressive list of contributors like Nancy Folbre, Angela Davis, Stanley Arnovitz and is a good resource to understand and contest the neoliberal discourse that promotes markets and privatisation as the solution. Two chapters listed below deal with language and media. Language as a Public Good Under Threat : The Private Ownership of Brand Name: Michael H.Goldhaber 'Little seems as obvious as the thought that language is intrinsically a public good.Yet today more and more of common meanings have to with what in fact are trademarked names, part of the private, permanent, intellectual property of large corporations, who are all the more eager to protect their nww turf because it has become essential to their profitability.Inevitably, this threatens the common ownership of semantic space and therefore the possibility of discourse itself'. Communication as a Public Good: Robert W.McChesney 'I chronicle the concentration of media ownership in the United States and the debilitating effects of this has upon the practice of journalism. If media are to provide the basis for a viable democracy, it will be necessary to enact major structural reform of the media industries' James Boyle, Herbert Schiller and Dan Schiller are some of the academics who have voiced similar concerns in books and articles written by them. k.ravi srinivas http://in.geocities.com/ravisrinivasin/Ravi'sPage.html http://in.geocities.com/ravisrinivasin/krspub.txt ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your Celforce phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html From shuddha at sarai.net Thu Nov 8 15:06:56 2001 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:06:56 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Call for Submission to Sarai Reader 02 Message-ID: <01110815065600.01493@sweety.sarai.kit> Call for Submission to Sarai Reader 02 Word Limit : 2000-4000 words Last date of Submission - 5th December, 2001 Respond with ideas, immediately, to : shuddha at sarai.net TO ALL PEOPLE IN THE SARAI READER LIST COMMUNITY (READERS/WRITERS/LURKERS) Dear Readers, As you may be aware, this list grew out of a need for a forum to discuss the contents of the Sarai Reader 01;The Public Domain, published in February 2001. One of the key factors that will ensure that the list continues to have an active life will be the publication of the Sarai Reader 02. We, at Sarai would like to invite you all to contribute to the content of the second Sarai Reader. Just as this list grew out of the first Reader, we would like the second (and subsequent) Reader/s, to grow, in large measure, out of the list. This time, the reader will focus on the theme of 'City:Space/Flow'. This thematic focus has been chosen to highlight Sarai's engagement with urban space,media,culture & politics. We choose to characterize city spaces, not just as metropolitan agglomerates, but as circuits and concentrations of people, built forms, data, media practices, transports, regulations and transgressions around space and habitation, and as sites of resistance and invention as well as provocations for the explorations of visible and invisible social realities. THEMES We are interested in the way cities connect to each other in global space, in migrations and sites of marginality, in histories of neighbourhoods and in investigations of urban cultural practices, city ecologies and in accounts or analyses of media/technological forms that arise and thrive in city spaces. We are particularly interested in accounts of spaces where media forms and urban life intersect - such as cinema halls, cybercafes, video game parlours, electronic goods markets, and entertainment/leisure districts in cities. We are also looking for : evocative reports of everyday city life from across the globe. What is it like to wake up in Mexico city, what are the fears stalking the subways of New York in the wake of 9/11, what does the din of construction sound like in Shanghai, and what are the narratives of war that collect in the Afghan refugee settlements in Peshawar or Karachi? Writing of quality and passion on questions such as these will find acceptance in the second Sarai Reader We are interested in : first person accounts, or in-depth conversations with city folk - say an interview with a call centre worker in New Delhi, or the first person narrative of a day trader in Singapore or Mumbai. in debates around media practices, surveillance, intellectual property rights, free software and forms of cultural and technological intervention that challenge dominant media practices. in 'little histories' - of radio, of interventions on the internet, of film posters, of street photography, and film viewing. We are also interested in publishing brief (1000-1500) word profiles of new media/urban culture practice and research spaces like Sarai elsewhere in the world. GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSIONS Submissions may be scholarly, journalistic, or literary - or a mix of these, in the form of essays, papers, interviews or diary entries. All submission, unless specifically, solicited must be in English only. Word Limit : 1500 - 4000 words Submissions must be sent by e mail in rich text format (rtf) or star-office documents. Articles may be accompanied by black and white photographs or drawings submitted in a jpeg format. We urge all writers, to follow the Chicago Manual of Style, (CMS) in terms of footnotes, annotations and references, for more details about the CMS, please see the Florida State University web page on CMS style documentation at http://www.fsu.edu/~library/guides/chicago.html All contributions should be accompanied by a three - four line text introducing the author. All submissions will be read by the editorial collective of the Sarai Reader 02 before the final selection is made. The editorial collective reserves the right not to publish any material sent to it for publication in the Sarai Reader on stylistic or editorial grounds. All contributors will be informed of the decisions of the editorial collective vis a vis their contribution by December 15, 2001. Copyright for all accepted contributions will remain with the authors, but Sarai reserves indefinitely, the right to place any of the material accepted for publication on the public domain in print or electronic forms, and on the internet. Accepted submissions will not be paid for, in order help keep the public domain free of commerce, but authors are guaranteed a wide international readership. The Reader will be published in print, distributed in India and internationally, and will also be uploaded in a pdf form on to the Sarai website. All contributors whose work has been accepted for publication will receive two copies of the Reader. Word Limit : 1500 - 4000 words Last date for submission - December 5th 2001. (but please write as soon as possible to shuddha at sarai.net with a brief outline of what you want to write about - this helps in designing the content of the reader) We expect to have the reader published by mid February 2002. please send in your responses to : shuddha at sarai.net From bonozyt at yahoo.co.in Thu Nov 8 15:11:37 2001 From: bonozyt at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?bonojit=20hussain?=) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:41:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] statement read out at Chomsky meeting in D.U Message-ID: <20011108094137.48794.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com> There was a very well attended open air public lecture by Prof. Chomsky on November 5 at the Delhi School of Economics for which students from different colleges had worked extremely hard putting up banners, making poster exhibitions and learning songs and singing. During the meeting the following statement on behalf of a number of students was also read out. I feel incredibly, though nervously happy, Prof. Chomsky, Jean Dreze, Aruna Roy and Arundhati Roy, to be standing here addressing such a huge gathering of alerts minds. I feel in fact overawed. But I will still try to say my little bit because I feel it MUST be said. I would like to make it clear that I speak on behalf of many students from different colleges and across departments of this university. There is no time to recite before you the full-length of that beautifully crafted, heart-rending cry from the soul of Faiz Ahmad Faiz in 'subah-e-aazaadi' or the 'Dawn of Freedom'(August, 1947). But a few lines simply have to be...... Ye dagh dagh ujala, ye shab-gazida sahar, Vo intizar tha jis-ka, ye vo sahar to nahin, Ye vo sahar to nahin jis-ki arzu lekar chale the yar ke mil-ja egi kahin na kahin Falak ke dasht men taron ki akhiri manzil, kahin to hoga shab-e sust mauj ka sahil, Kahin to jake rukega safina-e-gham-e-dil...... .......Kahan se ai nigar-e-saba, kidhar ko gai? Abhi charagh-e-sar-e-rah ko kuchh khabar hi nahin; Abhi girani-e-shab men kami nahin ai, Najat-e-dida-o-dil ki ghari nahin ai, Chale-chalo ke vo manzil abhi nahin ai. The stain-covered daybreak, this night-bitten dawn, This is not that dawn of which there was expectation; This is not that dawn with longing for which The friends set out, (convinced) that somewhere there would be met with, In the desert of the shy, the final destination of the stars, Somewhere there would be the shore of the sluggish wave of night, Somewhere would go and halt the boat of the grief of pain...... ......Whence came that darling of a morning breeze, whither has it gone? The lamp beside the road has still no knowledge of it; In the heaviness of night there has still come no lessening, The hour of the deliverence of eye and heart has not arrived. Come, come on, for that goal has still not arrived. These lines were recited before you not only because, subtly, overpoweringly they take us down with them into an abyss and invest us with the strength to survive, come out, and carry on searching for the light that is yet to be; but also because this poem reminds us of Eqbal Ahmad, who died suddenly at Islamabad in the summer of 1999. Eqbal Ahmad loved Faiz Ahmad Fiaz amongst all Urdu poets and 'Subah-e-aazaadi' happened to be one of his favourite poems. I would like to, with your permission, remember Eqbal today in your midst. Of course, because, in Prof. Chomsky's words Eqbal Ahmad was his " old, close and treasured friend, trusted comrade in many struggles over the years, counselor and teacher", but mainly because some of us barely out of school were fortunate enough to meet with him in Feb' 99 at Ramjas college where he was invited by the History Society to speak on the ' Crisis of Sate and Society in Pakistan'. It was a brief meeting, but for those of us who met him, the beginning of a journey that still carries on. When Eqbal Saheb died in May 1999, just three months after we had met him, we knew we HAD to go to Pakistan. In January 2000, when relations between the Governments of India and Pakistan had touched their lowest point in many years and showed no signs of improving, some of us from Ramjas History journeyed into Pakistan. We went to Lahore, Islamabad, Taxila and Peshawar. We travelled by train, hopped in and out of buses, slept cheaply, ate as best as we could with the little money in our pockets, bummed around in bazaars, hung out in monuments and met a variety of people. By mid-January at the end of nine days in Pakistan we were back in Delhi. There was of course a lot that we had not seen, and not all that we had experienced had been rosy; but most importantly for us, we knew within ourselves that we had begun to question stereotypes of the EVIL Pakistan and the GOOD India; that something that had seemed so difficult to do, a border that had seemed virtually impossible to cross, had in fact been so easily crossable. It was as if a slice of the world that had been closed to us had suddenly opened up, enriching us no end and filling us up with hope. Now it was not just Pakistan that we wanted to go to, but a new dream was born. Borders began to dissolve within our imaginations, the pull of the Khyber and the world beyond that pass, the call of place names - Samarkand, Bokhara, Tashkent and the Farghana valley - began to sound and feel irresistible. We still have not made it to Central Asia, but the dream remains. But for Eqbal Saheb and the manner in which he urged us to travel into Pakistan lots of us most probably would have sat in our homes and classrooms, experientially poorer, twiddling our thumbs, maligning Muslims, and after Sept. 11th of this year, rubbing our hands in perverse glee at the prospect of not just Afghanistan, but an entire undifferentiated mass of the so-called barbaric Muslim world, being bombed out of existence, in the unabashedly unjustifiable, vicious, cruel and illegal war against the Afghan people in the name of fighting international terrorism. Eqbal Saheb would never have defended the carnage of Sept. 11, but lots of you may have wept if, soon after the WTC tragedy, you were to have read what he had to say back in 1998. He was appealing, almost pleading with the American state, to take stock, look inwards and stop committing atrocities against people in large parts of the world, especially in West Asia. It was almost as if he could see Sept. 11 coming and the world being driven to the brink of a disaster from which there may be no return. Eqbal would most certainly have said NO to all kinds of terror and an even more resounding NO to the present war with all its dreadful implications for international communalism, the attack on civil liberties and democratic rights and the prospect of nuclear apocalypse. He would also most certainly have urged us to do whatever we can in our own little and big ways, including continuing our travels to and from Pakistan, in search of "that promised dawn". These are the reasons why we remember him in your midst today. Remembering Eqbal, and in appreciation of the work that you have been doing, Prof. Chomsky, I wish to present you with a synopsis of presentations written by history students at Ramjas College, University of Delhi, for a meeting called "Terror, Counter-terror, War, and our Lives" held at Ramjas College on September 25, 2001. Other meetings have been held at various colleges during the last few days. We will forward you synopses of student presentations made at these meetings as soon as they are compiled. Thank You, Banajit Hussain. (3rd year, history hons.) Ramjas College November 5, 2001 University of Delhi. ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your Celforce phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 22:54:54 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:24:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney Message-ID: <20011108172454.61301.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney By: Rehan Ansari November 8,2001 I was talking to an Indian friend about how American influence can overwhelm. I don't think any Indian has experienced the transformation of their city under American money. It seems like so many statistics that there were a few hundred heroin addicts in Karachi before the Americans bankrolled the first Afghan War and then a million three years into it. That the billions of dollars that came in to seed, plant and nourish drug and arms networks that were the Afghan jihad developed certain mafia elites and transformed public culture in Karachi. To the Indian I was trying to convey that if New Delhi wanted American attention, and sure that can mean money for some Indians, be warned. Imagine someone like Zia ul Haq and his values underwritten by the Americans. ---- I.H Burney used to tell a story about Zia ul Haq. Burney was a journalist who ran an independent weekly from Karachi in the early 60s' called Outlook. He attacked Field Marshal Ayub Khan for being an American client. His criticisms of Ayub's sham democracy (a model of "local bodies elections" that has subsequently been brought out of the closet by General Zia ul Haq and now General Musharraf) are exactly relevant today. Outlook was strangled by Ayub Khan's Secretary of Information, a particularly efficient Goebbels, Altaf Gauhar. In the early 70s, with the general elections, Outlook opened again. This time Burney went after Bhutto and accused him of being a fascist. He was harsh about Bhutto's relationship with the Nixon White House and found lots in common between Nixon and Bhutto, every week. Bhutto is on record for saying that Outlook has gone too far. It was shut down. Oxford University Press has published Burney's editorials from the two lives of Outlook, 1962-1964 and 1972-1974, in 1996 the year of his death. The book is called�'No Illusions, Some Hope and No Fears'. Now here is the Zia story I promised. Burney welcomed Zia's coup. Anything is better than Bhutto, he said. Zia invited Burney to be Member of the Election Commission (Zia promised elections in 90 days) and to author 'The White Paper' on Bhutto. Burney said he went to a meeting with Zia. Some other people were in the room. On the table was a book. It was the Koran. This puzzled Burney. Sometime during the small talk over the course of the meeting, Zia said, let us, the Faithful, rise up to say our prayers. Burney commented that he raised his hands in prayer only when he has the flu. "Jab bukhaar charhta hai tab dua kay liyay haath uthtay hehn." He did not pray with Zia. Nor meet him again. 'Yay tau aur bhi zaleel nikla', he said. Burney never wrote again. Zia found an opportunity to become an American client much like Musharraf has today. Zia rode the whirlwind for 10 years. In those years of living through Zia's time I developed a simple mindedness. A cultivated ignorance towards people and the subject that they were referring to, who said Islam Islam too much. So that if Zia instituted a Majlis e Shuura, instead of a National Assembly, the fields of meaning indicated by majlis, shuraa, and democracy became empty. A collection of Zia-appointed pious-looking men brought together to form an "advisory council," whose deliberations became prime time television programming for the better part of a decade made barren more concepts of civil life than I care listing. As a preteen I have a memory of Iqbal Burney from 1980. It is the only image I have of a "Writer" from when I was growing up (He was the only writer friend of my father). He was sitting in his living room, in the dark, the only illumination was the light from the adjoining dining room. He had deep set eyes so that even in the clear light of day I had to strain to find his eyes in the shadows of his eye sockets. He was sunk into his armchair so that I could not tell if there was a body beneath the kurta. He had caverns for eyes. Behind him in the shelves of his library, all his books were in the dark. When Arundhati Roy talks of the laying to waste of the world by American foreign policy I don't multiply in my head the sightings of heroin addicts or Kalashnikov-toting mercenaries on Karachi streets. I remember Iqbal Burney. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Thu Nov 8 15:01:43 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:01:43 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] INTRODUCTION TO FILM STUDIES - A New Short Term Course Message-ID: <000501c16874$eda393e0$8e74c8cb@shohini> INTRODUCTION TO FILM STUDIES A Short Course Offered By The AJK Mass Communication Research Center (MCRC) Jamia Milia Islamia , New Delhi What is the cinema? How is it different from photography and the other arts? What are the different ways in which we can understand the power and value of the cinema? These are some of the many questions that will be addressed in this short course. The course is designed to offer an intensive learning experience that will initiate students into a deeper understanding of cinematic images. It will offer both a historical overview of different international film movements as well as a range of methodologies and techniques deployed to classify, read and understand the cinema. Course Duration: January 5 to March 5, 2002 Classes will be held between 5.30 8.30 pm (Mon, Tue, Wed) while screenings of films will be held on Saturdays. Teaching Team Shohini Ghosh (Faculty Supervisor) Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia Millia Islamia Ranjani Mazumdar (Course Co-ordinator and Principal Instructor) Independent filmmaker & Scholar Ashis Nandy Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, CSDS Ravi Vasudevan SARAI, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies Rashmi Doraiswamy Executive Editor Cinemaya and lecturer at Jamia Millia Islamia Ira Bhaskar English Department at Gargi College, Delhi University Patricia Uberoi Institute for Economic Growth, Delhi University Eligibility: Graduation or proven experience of having worked or studied in the area of film studies, cultural studies and/or experience in media practice or film society activity. All applicants have to write a one-page statement of purpose explaining why they would like to do the course. The course is for scholars, practitioners, academics, mid career professionals and all keen enthusiasts who satisfy the eligibility criteria. For registration enquiries and fees, contact: Ranjani Mazumdar at 2723764, 2724413, rmazumdar at mantraonline.com or Shohini Ghosh at shohini at vsnl.com Registration Schedule -10th November to 25th December. Forms available with Abdul Fahim (room 104) at MCRC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011108/c140b167/attachment.html From naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Fri Nov 9 01:03:40 2001 From: naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (NAGRAJ ADVE) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 01:03:40 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Message-ID: <20011108200500.0051641350@nda.vsnl.net.in> WOMEN OPPOSE WAR "AS A WOMAN I HAVE NO COUNTRY. AS A WOMAN, MY COUNTRY IS THE WHOLE WORLD." With most of the world, we the undersigned women's organisations, condemn both the tragic events of September 11 and the war unleashed by the US on the people of Afghanistan as deplorable acts of terrorism. We condemn the slaughter of thousands of Afghans, the destruction of cities, the bombing of hospitals and old people's homes, and most of all the trauma, horror and suffering caused by this war to ostensibly avenge the crimes committed by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Victimising thousands of poor ordinary people who have already suffered 23 years of the destruction and devastation of war in no way can wipe out the roots of terrorism. It is common knowledge that the terrorist groups the US is trying to eliminate were its own creation. In addition, the US has trained, supported, and supplied with arms various groups, invasions, and dictators all over the world. The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, in Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the 200,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank, the millions who died in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama - are all victims of such state terrorism. Nor has the US been alone in this, for in Afghanistan, if the killing squads were financed by the US, the Russian occupation too was responsible for colossal death and destruction. And it is well known too that wherever fundamentalism has taken root, women are among its first victims. In Afghanistan, after the Taliban came back to power with CIA support, it unleashed a reign of terror whose fist victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, and enforced Shariat laws under which women deemed to be "immoral" are stoned to death, and widows assumed to be guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. OPPOSE RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM ACROSS THE GLOBE Religious fundamentalism and military aggression are two sides of patriarchy, that aim to seek control and wield power over women and other oppressed sections. The struggle for abortion rights by women in the US and other parts of the western world is a struggle against such fundamentalist governments and policies. The denial of education to women in Afghanistan, acid throwing attacks on young women to impose the burkha in Kashmir, the attacks by the Hindu Right in India on films depicting lesbian love or the travails of widowhood are all part of the same orchestrated campaign of religious fundamentalists to terrorise and control women. The women's movement opposes the forces of religious fundamentalism whether they are from the US or Afghanistan or from India or Pakistan because fundamentalist forces in essence trample upon all democratic and women's rights and seek to reverse the gains made by women's liberation movements. WAR IS PATRIARCHY We see the violence, death and destruction caused by wars as an extension of the violence we confront daily within the family, in the community, and by the state. We have seen the aftermath of war and related crimes; thousands of women have lived through the burden of bearing the "honour" of the community and nation in war after war. Bruised minds and battered bodies: that is all war achieves. In 1992, more than 20,000 women and girls were raped in the Balkans followed by 15,700 in Rwanda. The disruption of normal life in military situations adds additional burdens and dangers to women's continuing responsibility for subsistence and household provisioning. The militarisation of our societies has made brutalisation a way of life. War films, war toys and video games, and daily violence in films and on television have created a militaristic chauvinistic macho culture. For women, this means an increase in violence within the home and by the "custodians of law". As women, we are deeply concerned about the increased regional hostility, fanning of communal hatred and violence, and the deepening of inequality and prejudices being caused by this war. THE POLITICS OF MILITARISATION The increasing communalisation of politics can lead to more violence and war and in both India and Pakistan. In the name of 'security', the state is already becoming more repressive and intolerant of dissent in both these countries. National security is being used as an excuse for both Pakistan and India to increase their levels of militarisation. National and religious chauvinism built on mutual hostility becomes the binding force to maintain the nation state. It becomes possible, even commendable, to kill, humiliate, maim and threaten citizens of another country, religious or ethnic group, or nationality in the name of preserving the unity of one's own country. The existence of any manufacturing base for armament production in India creates a demand for more and more wars and lays the material basis for Indian dominance in the South Asian region. In the 1980s, India's defence expenditure shot up from Rs 4, 329 cores to 14, 500 crores in 1989-90. It is 66,382 crores (2000-2001) today, which is more than what the central government spends on health, education, women and child "welfare" and other social services put together!! This is also 89% higher than the entire country's expenditure on primary education!! The doubling of the defence expenditure in just the last 5 years in India, the biggest ever increase since independence, shows the priorities of our war mongers in a country in which people continue to die of starvation deaths. The global arms export market is valued at 54.2 billion dollars of which US controls 50% while Britain, France together control 30%. Russia, China, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Belgium etc control the rest. Only because weapons of war, huge military machines exist everywhere that genocides/war take place. If organised violence, terror, genocide, wars have to end, the military establishment and also the monstrously big police and torturing apparatuses have to be abolished from the face of this. But can one hear even faintly about any such measures from the US and other big powers or any states anywhere? WHOSE FREEDOM, WHOSE JUSTICE, WHOSE DEMOCRACY ? While claiming to fight for freedom, justice and democracy, the USA is itself behaving in the most unjust and undemocratic manner. Their President has the audacity to threaten the world at large with the words, "If you are not with us, you are against us." No nation, organization, or individual has the freedom to even express a contrary opinion, let alone act on it. The USA seeks to avenge the tragic loss of 5,000 lives through bombing Afghanistan. But if the rest of the world were to live by the same logic, then who shall we destroy for the 16,000 who perished at the hands of the US multinational Union Carbide in Bhopal, the 500,000 Iraqi children who died due to US sanctions, the thousands killed in Vietnam by the US military....? Even after victory was already assured for US in the 2nd World War they dropped the horrific nuclear bombs on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate their awesome killing power to the world. Generations bear the torture and the scars of such irreparable damage. And yet, if this were a concern about peace and democracy, it should start by destroying its own monstrous stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. All peace loving people will welcome such a move. But in spite of tens of millions of people around the world, especially in western Europe demanding total nuclear disarmament, the US and other nuclear countries have turned a deaf ear to this. Western powers and US have used every violent means to keep their stranglehold over all resources of the world, particularly oil. Often they have used the weapon of economic blockade to starve people to death, to strangulate them economically. This is almost like a permanent class war waged by the rich and the powerful against the poor and the powerless. Hundreds of millions died and are dying in just over five decades after the 2nd WW due to hunger, disease, wars, genocide, violence and due to the poisoning of the biosphere and ecological disasters. Large sections of the media everywhere are of course part of the apparatus to manufacture and force consent for the war in the name of democracy, to spread misinformation, to wage campaigns for the rulers, to whip up war hysteria, rabid nationalism, and hatred of the 'OTHER'. To speak the truth is to invite the wrath of the local global rulers. We believe that armed conflict can never be and will never be a substitute for dialogue. The failure to pursue democratic dialogue is to betray the aspirations of millions, to jeopardies the future and to put into question the very existence of democratic institutions and mechanisms. If we want to end terrorism we need to address all the structured sources of injustices that are increasingly widening the gap between the rich and the poor, men and women, nature and humans and create the pauperization and hopelessness that leads to terrorism. The women's movement seeks to challenge the structures of oppression that people all over daily face: * the fear of domestic violence within the home * persistent poverty and the desperation it leads to such as to the sale of body and life organs * the loss of our children to a culture of violence and to all kinds of conflicts and wars * the loss of jobs, home, homeland, family and community and becoming a refugee * the invisibility and violation that comes along with being lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered in a predominantly homophobic and patriarchal society * the fear of enforced prostitution as a means of survival * the fear of living in a society where rape, molestation, female infanticide, widow burning and witch hunting are daily realities * the authoritarianism of having our voices silenced when ever we dare to protest THIS IS NOT OUR WAR. WE REJECT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THIS WAR FOR IT SNATCHES AWAY FROM US THE MOST BASIC RIGHT: THE RIGHT TO LIVE. We represent forces that are engaged in struggles and processes based on respect for human life, on yearnings, desires, and dreams for a pluralistic peaceful egalitarian world. We raise our voice for peace and freedom against repression, war, terrorism, and pogromist politics to make the world a better place to live in. We are protesting against this war along with thousands and thousands from the US, Britain, France, Germany, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Korea, Japan and India. FOR LOVE PEACE FREEDOM EGALITARIAN VALUES AGAINST DEATH, TERROR AND WAR!!! ANKUR, ACTION INDIA, CALERI, FORUM AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT (D.U.), JAGORI, KALI FOR WOMEN, SAHELI, SANGINI, STREE ADHIKAR SANGATHAN From zamrooda at sarai.net Fri Nov 9 13:56:17 2001 From: zamrooda at sarai.net (zamrooda) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:56:17 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] POTO Message-ID: <01110913561702.00984@legal.sarai.kit> TADA with a human face is how one may rationalise the new Anti- Terrorist Bill-POTO.This bill has given rise to a lot of debate and unrest, and rightly so. The bill as in the TADA leaves the defination of Terrorist, terrorist organisations members and gangs vague and undefined. Credit to the bill that the term disruptive activities has been done away with which was an integral part of the TADA. The Indian Penal Code states that a confession in police custody or a confession given to a police man is not admissible in the court of law. The POTO Bill disagreeing with this clause goes on to allow such confessions. The only relief it provides is that the confession is to be made in front of a high ranking office. Does the Rank make a difference is the point to be understood. All would be aware of the fact that most of the arrests under the TADA Act were in liaison with the State Government! Another notably addition is section 61 of the Bill. This section give the Government the power to make new rules in accordance to the demands of the situation . Another words to make rules and regulations to suit its own needs. What more could the ruling agencies want? Its a perfect blanket cover. The Indian Penal Court allows one and all to the Right to Defense. Yet the Bill gives an adverse meaning to this same right. A person found withholding information could be convicted under this Bill, and it is of no significance weather he/she was withholding the information for his/her right to defense. One of the safe guards mentioned in this Bill is that a person arrested has to be presented in front of the judiciary within 48hrs. But at the same time it also allows for the judiciary to remand the person back to the police custody and not for one, two or three days but for 30 days.......What kind of a safe guard is this only the drafting committee can explain. And may be this along with other controversies may be the reason why this Bill was not presented to the NHRC for its comments. By now one may be wondering where the idea or the justification of this kind of Bill comes from; especially when a similar Act TADA has been recently banned ? One did not have to think too Far, we conveniently go back to where all our laws come from The United Kingdom. Isn't it ironical that almost 60 years into our freedom from that country yet we justify our laws on their system. Media and in particular Journalist are seen attacking this Bill tooth and nail. Take a look at section 3(8), and one would realise the precarious position that the press and media has been put forth by this Bill. In simpler words it says that it is mandatory for the press to reveal its sources of information. Which is simply hitting the ethics of journalism. At this point of time one thought that comes to ones mind is that if India is really keen on putting an end to terrorist activities then why has it not ratified and become a part of the International Criminal Court. Could it be something to do with Article 7 of the Crime Against Humanity Act which brings in both officials and non officials under its preview. One of the most important things to my mind after all the debate on this Bill is the Question that do we really need this kind of an Act ? India with its longest written constitution in the world; does it have no provisions for such crimes against Humanity and State ? Or is it simply the will of the political parties to go on suppressing its people? ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011109/9c25096c/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Fri Nov 9 11:38:00 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:38:00 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] For making announcements Message-ID: Dear All, Now that the list has more than 250 people, there are a number of postings being made which are basically announcements of events, or classes, or other such things which are happening in different cities. So, Reader List announces a new feature!! >> announcements at sarai.net Anyone who wishes to make an announcement on the list may please send the email to the above email address, and all announcements will reach the Reader List once a day. In this way, all Readers will know where to turn to read announcements. Looking forward to everyone's co-operation. Monica Narula List Administrator -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au Fri Nov 9 12:22:25 2001 From: netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au (][s][.Urge.Protect.][or][) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 17:52:25 +1100 Subject: [Reader-list] Announcement regarding the new _arc.hive_ mailing list Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011109175204.02352320@pop.hotkey.net.au> At 05:15 PM 11/9/2001 +1100, you wrote: > > - > > For some time now, various hierarchically-dependant entities > > have been cauterizing net/web-based activities [including email- > > lists] in an effort 2 streamline and contain > > the netwurk in all its varied formulations. [Net.art] Lists > > that have previously embraced expressive/communicative > > tendencies of all types are now dying [heavily] > > moderated and flame-driven deaths, with the survivors either > > hanging on for dear text or abandoning the status-quo-seeking > > shells in static swarms. > > > > _arc[texture.eyes].hive_ seeks to fill the gap > > left by those lists previously devoted to the evolution, > > discussion, practice, & slippage of all actions > > oriented around the net/web. _arc[texture.eyes].hive_ will try > > to jab at buttoned boundaries and recreate a space where > > experimentation and debate > > regarding any label you care to stick on/over creative practices > > involving the network [ie new media art, code poetry, net.art, > > e.literature, content alteration poetry, web > > art, electronic art, hackerese, digital projects, net.wurks, > > programmer writing, spam art, incremental texts, theory/hybrid > > factions, software art, performative > > interactions, werdwurk, calls for applications and submissions, > > gamer rhetoric, technical information/details, net-linked announcements > > etc etc] is to be expected and encouraged. > > > > We [mez & ftr - the moderators] see the _arc[texture.eyes].hive_ list as a > > dissemination/node point for all things geared for/towards/in the > > net/web, including the active creation of > > net.wurks via the list mechanism. > > - > > > > > > We'd love to see you there. > > > > Go to: > > http://lm.va.com.au/mailman/listinfo/_arc.hive_ > > if you'd care to join. > > > > ][mez][ & ftr > > > > > > > > . . .... ..... > > net.wurker][mez][ > > .circ][e][uitry..n.struments..go.here. > > xXXx > > ./. > > www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker > > .... . .??? ....... > > > > From monica at sarai.net Fri Nov 9 12:27:20 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:27:20 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Vignettes of the World Message-ID: Dated, somewhat, but quite timeless nevertheless. (Thankyou to the User licence of the test version of Nato.055...) ========= |||||| matters to consider Blacks and whites in the U.S. are victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 82% of prisoners executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a white person. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998 USA Human Rights Report, Amnesty International. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1998, the global starvation rate among children reached its 600 year peak. Source: UNICEF, State of the World's Children, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Over 3,000 drugs are withdrawn annually due to unforeseen side effects in humans, which do not appear in animal tests. Source: U.S. National Institute of Health, Report on Animal Testing, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Responses to 1972 and 1999 Gallup polls asking, Do you have a great deal of trust in: 1972 1997 The US Congress 13% 6% The US mass media 18% 10% Candidates for US political office 7% 5% Source: Gallup News Services, Poll Releases, 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1997, the US maintained 13,750 nuclear warheads, 5,546 of them on ballistic missiles. Source: US Department of Defense, 1997 Annual Defense Report; Natural Resources Defense Council, "Nuclear Weapons Databook Project," 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Since 1995, the U.S. has designated 2,500 targets for its nuclear ballistic missiles. Source : The Brookings Institution, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An estimated 100 million landmines laid in 68 countries kill or maim over 26,000 people a year, 90% of them civilians. Source: United Nations Secretary General, 1996. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il Sung." - US General Colin Powell Source: Defense News, April 8, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The impact of the average US citizen on the environment is approximately 3 times that of the average Italian, 13 times that of the average Brazilian, 35 times that of the average Indian, 140 times that of the average Bangladeshi, and 250 times that of the average sub-Saharan African. Source: UNICEF, The State of the World's Children, 1994. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The typical US citizen is exposed to between 50 and 100 advertisements each morning before nine o'clock. American teenagers are typically exposed to 3 to 4 hours of TV advertisements a week, adding up to at least 100,000 ads between birth and high school graduation. Source: World Watch Institute, State of the World Report, 1991. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime, a 3-fold increase in the last 50 years. Source: National Cancer Institute, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Television was our chief tool in selling our policy." - Richard Hass US National Security Council, on the US war with Iraq. Source: New York Times, Nov. 5, 1991, p. B3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all!" - US President George Bush, on the success of shaping public opinion for the US-Iraq War. Source: Newsweek, March 11, 1991. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Annually, 600,000 women, 99% in developing countries, die from complications during pregnancy or childbirth. Source: World Health Organization, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 25% of women living in developing nations suffer from pregnancy-related disabilities. Source: World Health Organization, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Half of the world's 1 billion reproductive-age women are anaemic and malnourished. Source: World Health Organization, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The first 15 days of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia cost the U.S. an estimated 500 million dollars. Source: CNN News, April 22, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The average NATO jet incurs direct costs of about $10,000 per sortie. From March 24 to April 20, NATO flew more than 4300 bombing sorties over Yugoslavia. Source: Center for Strategic and Bedgetary Assessments, April 22, 1999. Costs from 1997 figures in General Accounting Office (GAO), Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign, June 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1992, the U.S. government spent only 7% of its drug-control budget on treatment, the remaining 93% of its budget went to programs of source control, interdiction and law-enforcement. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., (1994), Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army, Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND, p. 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "We shall demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade . . . and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure . . . . We shall relentlessly grind them down and it will continue as long as it takes to accomplish our objectives." - US General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, on the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia Source: International Herald Tribune, March 26 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From 1980 to 1997, the US federal government reduced spending on education by more than one-third. Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, December 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- About 1 in every 20 Americans is expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison, March 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." -NATO Strategic Concept, North Atlantic Council, April 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An estimated 11% of drug users in the US are black; however, blacks constitute 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations, and 60% of those in state prisons for drug felonies. Sources: SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1996, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1997); Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997); Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997), ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ``What we are in effect seeing is that war-making has become the tool of peacemaking. In the NATO bombing . . . large numbers of civilians have been incontestably killed, civilian installations have been targeted on the basis that they are, or could be, of military application. And NATO remains the sole judge of what is or is not acceptable to bomb.'' -- U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, at press conference, Geneva, April 30,1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1997, US states spent $29 billion in state funds on corrections, and $14 billion on social welfare for the poor. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). 1997 State Expenditure Report, Washington, DC: NASBO (May 1998), pgs. 50, 80. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The demonization of Milosevic is necessary to maintain the air attacks." Source: US State Department, San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 1999, p A10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Every dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army, Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND (1994). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 21% of US children live in poverty. Source: US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Surveys, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Worldwide, 115 million women, have had their genitals mutilated. Source: United Nations Population Fund, 1998.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense dedicated 6,000 employees and $450 million to promote U.S. arms sales overseas. Source: World Policy Insitute, Arms Trade Report, 1996. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of the world's petroleum. Sources: Population Reference Bureau, World Population Datasheet, 1997. British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- During the Gulf War, the United States suffered 148 soldiers killed in action, and 458 wounded. The U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Source: U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, 1992. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Farm animals slaughtered in the US during 1998: # slaughtered Cows 35.6 million Calves 1.50 million Hogs 101 million Sheep 3.86 million Eggs 79.7 billion Chicken 7.76 billion Turkeys 284 million Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1998 Summary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1998 CEOs earned an average 36% more than in 1997. White collar workers during the same period, 4% more. Blue collar workers, 3% more. Source: Business Week, ^Executive Pay Survey, April 19, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More than 70% of the US grain harvest is fed to farmed animals, as is 33% of the entire worlds grain harvest. Source: US Department of Agriculture, World Cereals Used for Feed, 1997; Worldwatch Institute, State of the World, 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1965, CEOs earned on average 44 times more than factory workers. In 1998, CEOs earned on average 326 times more than factory workers. In 1999, CEOs earned on average 419 times more than factory workers. Source: Business Week, Executive Pay Survey, April 19, 1999; Business Week, April 20, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the US, more than 200 million handguns, rifles, shotguns and high-powered weapons are currently in circulation. Source: Amnesty International, 1998 Report on the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Women and minorities comprise 57% of the US workforce and 3% of US CEOs. Source: US Dept. of Labor, Glass Ceiling Commission 1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Weapon manufacturers' stock price increases since the initiation of the Yugoslavia war on March 24 1999: Rockwell International: +48% (manufacturer of the Lancer B-1 bomber, etc.) Boeing Aircraft: +30% (manufacturer of the B-52 Stratofortress, KC-135 Stratotanker, etc.) Raytheon Systems: +37% (manufacturer of the Tomahawk cruise missile, AGM-88 HARM Missile, etc.) Lockheed Martin: +18% (manufacturer of the F-117A Nighthawk, F-16 Falcon, etc.) Northrop Grumman: +16% (manufacturer of the B-2 bomber, EA-6B Prowler, etc.) Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, May 26, 1999. New York Stock Exchange, daily historical data, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1998, more than 400,000 personnel from US Armed Forces occupied foreign countries, more than one-third of all US Armed Forces personnel. Source: US Department of Defense, Defense 98. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't see this as a long-term operation. I think that this is . . . achievable within a relatively short period of time." - U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, March 24, 1999. "We never expected this to be over quickly." - U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, April 19, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From milkbar at milkbar.com.au Sat Nov 10 16:15:12 2001 From: milkbar at milkbar.com.au (Craig Bellamy) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:45:12 +1100 Subject: [Reader-list] matters to consider In-Reply-To: <200111100543.GAA15779@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011110212147.00a741d0@mail.milkbar.com.au> Hi, Thanks for this Monica, I always like these things, but when you take these figures out of any historical or socio-political context, they don't really mean that much. This is just anti-American rhetoric, if we are going to be critical of this political entity, lets be a little more sophisticated. The world is unequal, yes, but take for example this one fact that you circulated. In 1998, the global starvation rate among children reached its 600 year peak. Source: UNICEF, State of the World's Children, 1998. The obvious questions here is what was the world's population 600 years ago, indeed what was India's population at the end the start of the 1950's? How has life expectancy lifted in India in this time, or in Western countries? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I certainly can't reduce 600 years of global history to two sentences and one fact. I am interested in all sorts of global perspectives, this is what I study, I am politically minded, but am more interested in searching for the truth. The US is an easy target, and yes it has many social fractures. But how does this intersect with the equally disturbing problems with distribution of wealth in India? I would be interested on your opinion of this, how do the networks of power work, how are they transferred? best regards, Craig Bellamy Melbourne, Australia. >========= >|||||| matters to consider > >Blacks and whites in the U.S. >are victims of murder in almost equal >numbers, yet 82% of prisoners executed >since 1977 were convicted of >the murder of a white person. > >Source: U.S. Department of Justice, >Bureau of Justice Statistics. >1998 USA Human Rights Report, >Amnesty International. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1998, the global starvation rate >among children reached its 600 year peak. > >Source: UNICEF, >State of the World's Children, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Over 3,000 drugs are withdrawn annually >due to unforeseen side effects in humans, >which do not appear in animal tests. > >Source: U.S. National Institute of Health, >Report on Animal Testing, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Responses to 1972 and 1999 Gallup polls asking, >Do you have a great deal of trust in: > > 1972 1997 > >The US Congress 13% 6% >The US mass media 18% 10% >Candidates for US political office 7% 5% > >Source: Gallup News Services, >Poll Releases, 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1997, the US maintained 13,750 nuclear warheads, >5,546 of them on ballistic missiles. > >Source: US Department of Defense, >1997 Annual Defense Report; >Natural Resources Defense Council, >"Nuclear Weapons Databook Project," 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Since 1995, the U.S. has designated >2,500 targets for its nuclear ballistic >missiles. > >Source : The Brookings Institution, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >An estimated 100 million landmines >laid in 68 countries >kill or maim over 26,000 people a year, >90% of them civilians. > >Source: United Nations Secretary General, 1996. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I'm running out of demons. >I'm running out of villains. >I'm down to Castro and Kim Il Sung." > >- US General Colin Powell > >Source: Defense News, April 8, 1991 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The impact of the average US citizen >on the environment is approximately >3 times that of the average Italian, >13 times that of the average Brazilian, >35 times that of the average Indian, >140 times that of the average Bangladeshi, and >250 times that of the average sub-Saharan African. > >Source: UNICEF, The State of the World's Children, 1994. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The typical US citizen is exposed to between 50 >and 100 advertisements each morning before nine >o'clock. American teenagers are typically exposed >to 3 to 4 hours of TV advertisements a week, >adding up to at least 100,000 ads between birth >and high school graduation. > >Source: World Watch Institute, >State of the World Report, 1991. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >1 in 8 women will develop >breast cancer in their lifetime, >a 3-fold increase in the last 50 years. > >Source: National Cancer Institute, 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"Television was our chief tool >in selling our policy." > >- Richard Hass >US National Security Council, >on the US war with Iraq. >Source: New York Times, >Nov. 5, 1991, p. B3. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome >once and for all!" > >- US President George Bush, >on the success of shaping public >opinion for the US-Iraq War. >Source: Newsweek, March 11, 1991. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Annually, 600,000 women, >99% in developing countries, >die from complications during >pregnancy or childbirth. > >Source: World Health Organization, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >25% of women living in developing nations >suffer from pregnancy-related disabilities. > >Source: World Health Organization, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Half of the world's 1 billion >reproductive-age women are >anaemic and malnourished. > >Source: World Health Organization, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The first 15 days of NATO bombing >in Yugoslavia cost the U.S. an estimated >500 million dollars. > >Source: CNN News, April 22, 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The average NATO jet incurs direct >costs of about $10,000 per sortie. > From March 24 to April 20, NATO flew >more than 4300 bombing sorties over >Yugoslavia. > >Source: Center for Strategic and >Bedgetary Assessments, April 22, 1999. > >Costs from 1997 figures in >General Accounting Office (GAO), >Operation Desert Storm: >Evaluation of the Air Campaign, June 1997 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1992, the U.S. government spent only 7% of its >drug-control budget on treatment, the remaining 93% of >its budget went to programs of source control, >interdiction and law-enforcement. > >Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., (1994), >Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of >National Drug Control Policy and the >United States Army, Santa Monica, CA: >Drug Policy Research Center, RAND, p. 5. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"We shall demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade . . . >and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure . . . . >We shall relentlessly grind them down and it will continue >as long as it takes to accomplish our objectives." > >- US General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, >on the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia > >Source: International Herald Tribune, March 26 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From 1980 to 1997, the US federal government >reduced spending on education >by more than one-third. > >Source: US Department of Education, >National Center for Education Statistics, >December 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >About 1 in every 20 Americans is expected to serve >time in prison during their lifetime. >For African-American men, the number is greater than >1 in 4. > >Source: U.S. Department of Justice, >Bureau of Justice Statistics, >Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison, >March 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"The United Nations Security Council has the primary >responsibility for the maintenance of international >peace and security." > >-NATO Strategic Concept, North Atlantic Council, April 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >An estimated 11% of drug users >in the US are black; >however, blacks constitute >37% of those arrested for drug violations, >42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations, >and 60% of those in state prisons for drug felonies. > >Sources: SubstanceAbuse and Mental >Health Services Administration, >National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: >Population Estimates 1996, Rockville, MD: >Substance Abuse and Mental Health >Services Administration (1997); >Bureau of Justice Statistics, >Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996, >Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997); >Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996, >Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997), > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >``What we are in effect seeing is that war-making >has become the tool of peacemaking. In the NATO >bombing . . . large numbers of civilians have been >incontestably killed, civilian installations have >been targeted on the basis that they are, or could be, >of military application. And NATO remains the sole >judge of what is or is not acceptable to bomb.'' > >-- U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, >at press conference, Geneva, April 30,1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1997, US states spent $29 billion >in state funds on corrections, >and $14 billion on social welfare for the poor. > >Source: National Association of State Budget >Officers (NASBO). 1997 State Expenditure Report, >Washington, DC: NASBO (May 1998), pgs. 50, 80. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"The demonization of Milosevic is necessary to maintain >the air attacks." > >Source: US State Department, San Francisco Chronicle, >March 30, 1999, p A10. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Every dollar invested in substance >abuse treatment saves taxpayers >$7.46 in societal costs. > >Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, >Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and >the United States Army, Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND >(1994). > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >21% of US children live in poverty. > >Source: US Bureau of the Census, >Current Population Surveys, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Worldwide, 115 million women, >have had their genitals mutilated. > >Source: United Nations Population Fund, 1998.. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense >dedicated 6,000 employees and $450 million >to promote U.S. arms sales overseas. > >Source: World Policy Insitute, >Arms Trade Report, 1996. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The United States, with less than >5 percent of the world's >population, consumes 25 percent >of the world's petroleum. > >Sources: Population Reference Bureau, >World Population Datasheet, 1997. >British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review of >World Energy, 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >During the Gulf War, the United States >suffered 148 soldiers killed in action, >and 458 wounded. > >The U.S. estimated that more than >100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, >300,000 were wounded, >150,000 deserted, and >60,000 were taken prisoner. > >Source: U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, 1992. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Farm animals slaughtered in the US during 1998: > > # slaughtered >Cows 35.6 million >Calves 1.50 million >Hogs 101 million >Sheep 3.86 million >Eggs 79.7 billion >Chicken 7.76 billion >Turkeys 284 million > >Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural >Statistics Service, 1998 Summary. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1998 CEOs earned an average 36% more than in 1997. >White collar workers during the same period, 4% more. >Blue collar workers, 3% more. > >Source: Business Week, ^Executive Pay Survey, >April 19, 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >More than 70% of the US grain harvest is fed to farmed >animals, as is 33% of the entire worlds grain harvest. > >Source: US Department of Agriculture, >World Cereals Used for Feed, 1997; >Worldwatch Institute, State of the World, 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1965, CEOs earned on average > 44 times more than factory workers. >In 1998, CEOs earned on average > 326 times more than factory workers. >In 1999, CEOs earned on average > 419 times more than factory workers. > >Source: Business Week, Executive Pay Survey, >April 19, 1999; Business Week, April 20, 1998. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In the US, more than 200 million handguns, rifles, >shotguns and high-powered weapons are currently in >circulation. > >Source: Amnesty International, 1998 Report on the US. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Women and minorities comprise 57% of the US >workforce and 3% of US CEOs. > >Source: US Dept. of Labor, Glass Ceiling Commission 1997. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Weapon manufacturers' stock price increases since the initiation of the >Yugoslavia war on March 24 1999: > >Rockwell International: +48% (manufacturer of the Lancer B-1 bomber, etc.) > >Boeing Aircraft: +30% (manufacturer of the B-52 Stratofortress, KC-135 >Stratotanker, etc.) > >Raytheon Systems: +37% (manufacturer of the Tomahawk cruise missile, AGM-88 >HARM Missile, etc.) > >Lockheed Martin: +18% (manufacturer of the F-117A Nighthawk, F-16 Falcon, >etc.) > >Northrop Grumman: +16% (manufacturer of the B-2 bomber, EA-6B Prowler, etc.) > >Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, May 26, 1999. New York Stock Exchange, >daily historical data, 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In 1998, more than 400,000 personnel from US Armed >Forces occupied foreign countries, more than one-third >of all US Armed Forces personnel. > >Source: US Department of Defense, Defense 98. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"I don't see this as a long-term operation. I think that this is . . . >achievable within a relatively short period of time." - U.S. Secretary of >State Madeleine Albright, March 24, 1999. > >"We never expected this to be over quickly." >- U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, April 19, 1999. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-- >Monica Narula >Sarai:The New Media Initiative >29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 >www.sarai.net > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Reader-list mailing list >Reader-list at sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > > >End of Reader-list Digest -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011110/77967854/attachment.html From patrice at xs4all.nl Sat Nov 10 17:24:43 2001 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:54:43 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Shaping the Network Society Symposium, Seattle, USA, May 2002 Message-ID: <20011110125443.A27603@xs4all.nl> Doug Shuler asks me to forward you this, with emphasis on attracting interest and participation from people in S.Asia. Apologies for possible cross-posting! cheers, patrice & Diiiino! ----- Forwarded message from Doug Schuler ----- Reminder! Please forward to any colleagues who are interested in the continuing development of information and communication systems -- of ALL types -- that address human needs. The power of this project will be realized only through its diversity. Thanks! SHAPING THE NETWORK SOCIETY Patterns for Participation, Action, and Change DIAC-02 Symposium; Seattle, Washington USA. May 16-19, 2002 http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/diac02 Researchers, community workers, social activists, educators and students, journalists, artists, policy-makers, and citizens are all concerned about the shape that the new information and communication infrastructure will take. Will it meet the needs of all people? Will it help people address current and future issues? Will it promote democracy, social justice, sustainability? Will the appropriate research be conducted? Will equitable policies be enacted? The Shaping the Network Society symposium -- sponsored by the Public Sphere Project of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and the National Communication Association Task Force on the Digital Divide -- will provide a forum and a platform for these critical issues. And through the exploration of "patterns" we hope that this symposium will help spur the evolution of an information and communication infrastructure that truly meets today's urgent needs. Please join us in Seattle in May 2002 for this exceptional event! To promote bridge-building between theory and practice, across economic, cultural, geographical, and disciplinary chasms, we are soliciting "patterns," instead of abstracts, and accepted patterns will be developed into full papers for this symposium. Based on the insights of Christopher Alexander and his colleagues, a "pattern" is a careful description of a solution or suggestion for remedying an identified problem in a given context that can be used to help develop and harness communication and information technology in ways that affirm human values. The information contained in patterns is similar to that in traditional abstracts or papers, but it is arranged in a common structure in order to inspire scholars and practitioners to think about their work in terms of social implications and actual social engagement and to build networks that include research, practice, and advocacy. The most important outcome may be allowing people to see their patterns in a large yet coherent network of patterns, a "pattern language." + Patterns are SOLUTIONS to PROBLEMS in a given CONTEXT + Patterns can be observable actions, empirical findings, hypotheses, theories, or "best practices" + Patterns exist at all levels; they can be "global" as well as "local;" theoretical as well as practical. + Patterns are the springboard for discussion, research, and activism Patterns can be submitted for consideration for presentation at the symposium and/or published on the web site as a contribution to the evolving pattern language. (The submitted patterns will be made public in early 2002.) Patterns accepted for presentation will be developed into full papers and will appear in the Conference Proceedings. The best papers will be selected for an edited book. A pattern language book / web site is also planned. We believe that the "pattern" orientation will be useful and inspiring for all participants. If you're tempted to submit a pattern (or multiple patterns!) we encourage you to do so. Although this approach may require slightly different thinking we believe that it will be worth the extra effort. Remember: you can submit patterns whether or not you come to the symposium. Complete details on pattern submission, including example patterns, are available at the web site: http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/diac02/. The preferred way to submit patterns is through the pattern intake site (http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/diac02/pattern.cgi). If you cannot access the site, please send your pattern(s) as email text (no attachments) to docrod99 at hotmail.com. If you lack email access, you may submit your pattern(s) via surface mail to be received by December 1, 2001 to: Rod Carveth, School of Mass Communications, Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 43082, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. Please see the patterns page for more explanation about patterns (including examples) and the author's advice page to assist potential contributors. Important Dates August 1, 2001 Patterns can be entered via web page November 15, 2001 Web registration available December 1, 2001 Patterns due for conference consideration January 15, 2002 Feedback to conference pattern submitters (accept/reject decision) March 15, 2002 Full papers (based on accepted patterns) due April 15, 2002 Last day to submit pattern abstracts for database inclusion only May 16 - 19, 2002 Shaping the Network Society Symposium; Seattle, Washington US Program Committee Abdul Alkalimet (US), Alain Ambrosi (Canada), Ann Bishop (US), Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong (Ghana), Rod Carveth (US), Andrew Clement (Canada), Fiorella de Cindio (Italy), Peter Day (UK), Susana Finquelievich (Argentina), Mike Gurstein (Canada), Harry Hochheiser (US), Toru Ishida (Japan), Susan Kretchmer (US), Brian Loader (UK), Geert Lovink (Netherlands, Australia), Richard Lowenberg (US), Peter Mambrey (Germany), Peter Miller (US), Kenneth Pigg (US), Scott Robinson (Mexico), Partha Pratim Sarker (Bangladesh), Doug Schuler (US), David Silver (US), Sergei Stafeev (Russia), Erik Stolterman (Sweden) and Peter Van den Besselaar (Netherlands). Other invaluable assistance Christopher Alexander (inspiration and advice), Steve Berczuk (patterns), Susan Kretchmer and Rod Carveth (NCA Task Force on the Digital Divide liaisons), Noriko Okazaki (graphics), Robin Oppenheimer (advisor), Lorraine Pozzi (communications), Scott Rose (web technology). Nancy White (advisor). For more information please contact symposium coordinator Doug Schuler, douglas at scn.org. ----- End forwarded message ----- From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 10 20:33:27 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 10 Nov 2001 15:03:27 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Slavoj Zizek lecture Message-ID: <20011110150327.25433.qmail@mailFA11.rediffmail.com> PASSIONS OF THE REAL: VIOLENCE IN THE XXth CENTURY - November 14, 7 p.m. at Jack Tilton Gallery 47-49 Greene St. New York, NY 10013 From bhrigu at sarai.net Tue Nov 13 23:56:35 2001 From: bhrigu at sarai.net (Bhrigu) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:56:35 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Dr.Veena Das on WTC Message-ID: <01111323563501.02072@janta7.sarai.kit> I would like to post a short and extremely interesting essay by Dr.Veena Das on the WTC events and the aftermath. The essay raises important questions - simultaenously theoretical and political, while addressing the dilemma of moral/political committment in contemporary social theory. The essay also comments usefully on the ways in which language is being deployed in relation to what is now known as "Sept. 11", to build a larger set of claims. The Citation is: Forthcoming in Anthropological Quarterly, Special section on War and terror, Vol 75, No.1, January 2002 Bhrigu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Violence and Translation.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011113/447f475e/attachment.obj From bhrigu at sarai.net Wed Nov 14 01:32:26 2001 From: bhrigu at sarai.net (Bhrigu) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:32:26 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Dr.Veena Das on WTC Message-ID: <01111401322602.02072@janta7.sarai.kit> For those who were not able to open the essay as an attachment because of incompatability of format or any other problem, i am re-sending the essay as part of the mail. Violence and Translation Veena Das My writing on the events of September 11th is on two registers– the public event of spectacular destruction in New York and the private events made up of countless stories of grief, fear, and anticipationi. I hope I can speak responsibly to both, neither trivializing the suffering of the victims of the September11th attack and those in mourning for them, as in the rhetoric of “deserved suffering” (as if nations and individuals were painlessly substitutable) – nor obscuring the unspeakable suffering of wars and genocides in other parts of the world that framed these events. A recasting of these events into conflicting genealogies by the politics of mourning in the public sphere raises the issue of translation between different formulations through which these events were interpreted and indeed, experienced. There are two opposed perspectives on cultural difference that we can discern today- one that emphasizes the antagonism of human cultures as in some version of the thesis on “clash of civilizations” and the second that underlines the production of identities through circulation and hence the blurring of boundaries. Both, however, are based on the assumption that human cultures are translatable. Indeed, without some power of self-translatability that makes it possible for one to imagine oneself using the categories of the other, human cultures would not be able to live on any register of the imaginary. The stark denial of this translatability on both sides of the present conflict concerns me most though I note that this is not to espouse a vision of justice that is somehow even- handed in distributing blame. My concern is of a different kind - I fear that classical concepts in anthropological and sociological theory provide scaffolding to this picture of untranslatability despite our commitment to the understanding of diversity. There are obviously specific issues at stake in this particular event of destruction, its time and its space, and the response casting it as a matter of war rather than, say, one concerning crime. But it seems to me that there is a deeper grammar that is at work here that invites us to investigate the conditions of possibility for this kind of declaration of war – as a genre of speech - to take place. One of the tenets of postmodern theorization is that the concrete and finite expressions of multiplicity cannot be referred back to a transcendental center –the grounds for judgment cannot be located in either the faculty of reason or in common corporeal experience. Although postmodern theory does not suggest that diversity must be valued for itself – indeed, it is part of its struggle to provide for conversation and recognition of otherness without any predetermined criteria for the evaluation of divergent claims - it does raise important questions about the withdrawal of recognition to the other. I have suggested elsewhere that difference when it is cast as non-criterial, becomes untranslatable precisely because it ceases to allow for a mutual future in language.ii The shadowing of this into skepticism in which trust in categories is completely destroyed and our access to context is removed transforms forms of life into forms of death. Some such issue is at stake here in the Taliban’s brutality against women on behalf of a pure Islam on the one hand, and a war waged on behalf of “Western civilization” on the other. After all it is the United States that spawned the very forces it is fighting as a defence against communism – the then enemy of freedom and values of Western democracyiii. There are no innocents in the present war at the level of collectivities despite the powerful deployment of the figure of the “innocent” killed on both sides of the divide. Elsewhere I have questioned the purity of the concepts that are put in play when claims are made on behalf of tradition, religious autonomy, modernity, or human rights. The translation of these concepts is not a matter of something external to culture but something internal to it. It is when a particular vision both refuses pluralism as internal to its culture and claims finality for itself in some avatar of an end of history that a struggle for cultural rights and the necessity to protect “our way of life” turns into violence and oppression. Allow me to take the pronouncements on events of September 11th, that the attack on the World Trade Center in New York was an attack on civilization or on values of freedom. I take these as statements in ordinary language propelled into a global public sphere from which there is no flight - for they function, it seems to me, as anthropological language. What these statements conjure is the idea of the United States (herewith America, not illegitimately I think) as embodying these values - not contingently, not as a horizon in relation to struggles within its borders against, say, slavery, racism, or the destruction of native American populations, but as if a teleology has particularly privileged it to embody these values. This is why the issues cannot be framed by the bearer of these utterances in terms of American interests but as of values that America embodies (not merely expresses) in its nation state. So the point of view of totality exists in these utterances not in the divine whose reason is not accessible to us, but in the body of the American nation in which the gap between the particular and the universal, the contingent and the necessary is indeed sought to be cancellediv. Now it may surprise one that in the country that has given so much political and public space to multiculturalism, and when much effort has gone into signaling that this conflict is not a modern replay of the crusades (despite slips of tongue)– political language slides into the idea of America as the privileged site of universal values. It is from this perspective that one can speculate why the talk is not of the many terrorisms with which several countries have lived now for more than thirty years, but with one grand terrorism – Islamic terrorism. In the same vein the world is said to have changed after September 11th. What could this mean except that while terrorist forms of warfare in other spaces in Africa, Asia, or Middle East were against forms of particularism, the attack on America is seen as an attack on humanity itself. The point about many terrorisms versus a single grand terrorism that threatens American values that are seen to embody the force of history – teleology and eschatology – is indeed significant. As is well known, the last three decades have seen a transformation in the idea of war. While there is a monopoly over high technology of destruction, the low technologies have proliferated freely, encouraged and abetted by geopolitical interests. The social actors engaged in this warfare in Africa, or in parts of the Middle East or Asia are neither modern states, nor traditional polities but new kinds of actors (sometimes called warlords) created by the configuration of global and local forces.vFurther it is the very length of these wars – some lasting for more than thirty years that allows for the constantly changing formations – slippage between the categories of warlords, terrorists, insurgents, and freedom fighters reflects the uncertainty around these social actors. It is thus the reconfiguration of terrorism as a grand single global force – Islamic terrorism – that simultaneously cancels out other forms of terrorism and creates the enemy as a totality that has to be vanquished in the interests of a universalism that is embodied in the American nation. There is a mirroring of this discourse in the Taliban who also reconfigure themselves as historically destined to embody (not only represent) Islamic destiny. Ironically the clash of civilization thesis is repeated in the pronouncements of the Taliban leadership. The tremendous loss of life and the style of killing in the present wars – call them terrorism (including state terrorism), call them insurgency, call them wars of liberation, all raise the issue of theodicy. Yet, while in many other countries the wounds inflicted through such violence are acknowledged as attesting to the vulnerability of human life – in the case of American society there is an inability to acknowledge this vulnerability. Or rather the vulnerability to which we, as embodied beings are subject, the powerlessness, is recast in terms of strength. And thereby the representations of the American nation manage to obscure from view, the experiences of those within its body politics who were never safe even before September 11th. While many have heard arrogance in these statements - to my ears they are signs of the inability to address pain. Consider the following passage in Nietzsche on the moment of the production of ressentiment to deaden, by means of a more violent emotion of any kind, a tormenting secret pain that is becoming unendurable, and to drive it out of consciousness at least for the moment: for that one requires an affect, as savage an affect as possible, and, in order to excite that any pretext at allvi. I am obviously not suggesting any conspiracy theory, or that a pretext was needed for subsequent bombing of Afghanistan but pointing to the deep need to show the tattered body of the “enemy” as a rational response to the September 11th attacks. In the first instance, it seemed to me that this was the site of punishment as spectacle. Michel Foucault claimed that “ justice no longer takes public responsibility for that violence that is bound up with its practice”vii, but here we find an emphasis on visible intensity through which justice is to be theatrically displayed pointing to the ways in which Foucault might have overstated the case for disciplinary power as the dominant mode for production of normality under the regime of modernity. On further reflection though, it appears to me that theatrical display of sovereign power is only part of the story. It is the further need to replace the pain of the nagging questions posed to American citizens about what relation their pain bears to the pain of the others - what kind of responsibility is theirs when successive regimes elected by them have supported military regimes, brutal dictatorships and warlords mired in corruption with no space for the exercise of critical monitoring of politics in the Middle East? If violence has replaced politics in the present globalized spaces in this regions, then surely it is only by acknowledging that pain as “ours” that a global civil society could respond. Instead of replacing the pain with another more violent and savage affect, it would have to engage in a different way with the pain inflicted on it. What are the obstacles in acknowledging this pain? Collective identities are not only a product of desires for recognition – they are equally forged by our relation to death. Yet it is in the classical theories of society that we learn that the “other” is not part of human society because she has a totally different relation to death. Consider the contrast between altruistic suicide and egoistic suicide in Emile Durkheim’s classic analysis – I suggest that this is the site at which a radical untraslatability of other cultures seeps into sociological analysis. It is no accident that it is in defining the subject’s relation to death that Durkheim finds himself positing the kind of subjectivity to the other that domesticates the threat of their forms of dying to the self-understanding of the modern subject. Consider the following passage in which he spells out the distinction between altruistic suicide and egoistic suicide. The weight of society is thus brought to bear upon him to lead him to destroy himself. To be sure society intervenes in egotistic suicide as well, but its intervention differs in the two cases. In one case it speaks the sentence of death; in the other it forbids the choice of death. In the case of egotistic suicide it suggests or counsels at most; in the other case it compels and it is the author of conditions and circumstances making this obligation coercive (emphasis supplied).viii India was the classic soil for this kind of suicide for Durkheim. But he makes a broader contrast between the “crude morality” and the “refined ethics” of societies with altruistic and egoistic suicide - the former sets no value on human life while the latter sets human personality on so high a pedestal that it can no longer be subordinated to anything. As he says, “Where altruistic suicide is prevalent, man is always ready to give his life; however, at the same time, he sets no more value on that of another.” In contrast, “A broader sympathy for human suffering succeeds the fanatical devotions of primitive times.”ix Now I am not going to argue that the making of the subject whose mode of dying is to kill him or herself in the service of killing others for a greater cause is transparent. I will suggest though that the way language is deployed to render some forms of dying as fanatical (e.g. by terrorists) and others as representing the supreme value of sacrificing oneself (e.g. as in values of patriotism) blocks any road to understanding when and under what circumstances individual life ceases to hold value. It is not that in one case society compels where as in the other case it counsels, but that by recasting desperate acts as those which close all conversations, there is an invitation to violence that raises the stakes - it leaves no other way of giving recognition except in the negativities through which more violence is created. It is not accidental that even a language of war is not sustained in the political pronouncements of American leaders for war has become transformed into a hunt thereby using the rhetoric strategy of animalizing the other. Hence there is the preponderance of such verbs as “smoking them out” or “getting them out of their holes”. Instead of Manichean battles between good and evil, there would be greater room for a tolerable peace if it was possible to attend to the violences of everyday life, to acknowledge the fallibility and the vulnerability to which we are all subject, and to acknowledge that the conflict is over interests, and further that these need to be renegotiated. It is not over uncompromising values. Most people in the world learn to live as vulnerable beings to the dangers that human cultures pose to each other. Between that vulnerabilityx and the desperation that seeks to annihilate the other, there is a terrible gap. In other words it is to the picture of transfiguration of violence rather than to its elimination or eradication in a war- like mode, that I draw attention. Different, even new ways of being Muslim are tied up to the creation of democratic spaces just as modern democracies would be deepened by the full participation of those who have been excluded from the public spheres in the West. Might we be able to mourn with the survivors of September 11th without the necessity of appropriating their grief for other grander projects? Whether conditions for this possibility exist when the languages of division are so virulent in the public sphere– I am pessimist, but I pray that I am wrong. From monica at sarai.net Mon Nov 12 15:13:04 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:13:04 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] matters to consider In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011110212147.00a741d0@mail.milkbar.com.au> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011110212147.00a741d0@mail.milkbar.com.au> Message-ID: Good call Craig - and strangely enough this is the one figure that i was discussing with a friend - how in the world do they know such detailed data for the last 600 years - how can this be real?? what are the measuring indices?... However, a thing I find fascinating is the litany of numbers that quantify the quality of social life - and how that becomes necessary as a category in a world which is driven and given meaning by numbers. The discourse of progress, too, is weighted by these wars of numbers. Does anyone even take seriously now a non-numerical evocation of the quality of life? And these numbers are so closely linked to maps... It is true that many of those figures are of/from USA, but interspersed amongst those are others non-north american. For me, it was not an anti US exercise, but much more a kind of numerical tract on the world, which by its "factual" juxtapositions created new meanings. The distribution of wealth in India is as awry, if not more, than in other parts of the world - no matter how much we may speak of the burgeoning (in absolute numbers) of the middle class. And as far as i know, the spending by the govt. on armaments here is as askew as the U.S.. I make no defence of one nation state amongst others. Perhaps the 'anti-U.S.' feeling (a kind of in-opposition to...) seems to come across strong in view of the events of the world today... best Monica At 9:45 PM +1100 10/11/01, Craig Bellamy wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks for this Monica, I always like these things, but when you >take these figures out of any historical or socio-political context, >they don't really mean that much. This is just anti-American >rhetoric, if we are going to be critical of this political entity, >lets be a little more sophisticated. The world is unequal, yes, but >take for example this one fact that you circulated. > >In 1998, the global starvation rate >among children reached its 600 year peak. > >Source: UNICEF, >State of the World's Children, 1998. > >The obvious questions here is what was the world's population 600 >years ago, indeed what was India's population at the end the start >of the 1950's? How has life expectancy lifted in India in this time, >or in Western countries? I don't know the answers to these >questions, but I certainly can't reduce 600 years of global history >to two sentences and one fact. I am interested in all sorts of >global perspectives, this is what I study, I am politically minded, >but am more interested in searching for the truth. The US is an easy >target, and yes it has many social fractures. But how does this >intersect with the equally disturbing problems with distribution of >wealth in India? I would be interested on your opinion of this, how >do the networks of power work, how are they transferred? > >best regards, > >Craig Bellamy >Melbourne, Australia. > -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in Mon Nov 12 17:20:47 2001 From: alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in (Dr. Alok Rai) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:20:47 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Cowboy Bush and the Carlyle Connection References: <200111100543.GAA15779@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <007c01c16b70$4599c8a0$4f01050a@x6o6l2> Shd be of interest - and worth further exploration: The following links to articles about the Carlyle Group was put together by a journalist in Oakland. This list has been published on a number of journalism lists, including a list that is read by Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor. The Bush administration is war profiteering. Not only indirectly, such as the 15 years of retroactive tax reimbursements to corporations (plus 100% tax deductions for offshoring their profits,) but also directly: Bush's father is employed by the Carlyle Group and Bush Jr., as his heir, will inherit those profits. Back in January when the administration was new, the Washington Monthly noted (2nd last item) the Bush family business: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/tilting/2001/0104.tilting.html The NYT ran a front-page photo of former President Bush with Saudi King Fahd on a trip to Saudi Arabia as part of his work for the Carlyle Group. The ice-breaking story by Leslie Wayne quoted Charles Lewis: "In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html Judicial Watch commented that the senior Bush's association with the Carlyle Group was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia." Judicial Watch called on the President's father to resign. Without saying 'revolving door, it was noted that the former FCC chair was joining the telecom and media section at Carlyle: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/business/02KENN.html On May 7, European Venture Capital Journal identified the Carlyle Group as heavy hitters with "an all-star roster of professionals (that) just got stronger": http://www.evcj.com/evcj/ZZZW91V8LKC.html On May 13 when another conservative world leader cashed in his chips and traded on his former government insider status and knowledge of the regulatory system, the BBC ran a story headlined: Major to chair private equity house The London Times followed on May 26, noting that "The employment of Bush Sr has attracted attention, mainly because his son is ultimately responsible for awarding US arms contracts": http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,37-2001180089,00.html In late September The Wall Street Journal touched on salient aspects of the story last month by highlighting the bin Laden family investments in the Carlyle Group, then dropped it like a hot 'tater. "Bin Laden Family Could Profit >From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank," by Daniel Golden, James Bandler, and Marcus Walker, The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/01 After the WSJ story, Judicial Watch spokesman Larry Klayman posted a release uppping the ante. He was again ignored by the mainstream when he said, "This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President's father, an ex- president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group." A down under paper picked it up: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/10/28/FFX262DBATC.html The confluence of Bush and bin Laden family interests was noted briefly in the last item at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.whoswho.html Along with others in the world press, India and Pakistani newspapers have either either reported or copied aspects of the perceived conflicts: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/280901/dLAME27.asp http://news.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1197180992 There's been a little but not much editorial comment: http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml and indignation at the Center for Public Integrity, which was then strangely attacked by a Washington Post columnist. http://www.public-i.org/story_01_103100.htm http://www.public-i.org/commentary_01_042001.htm http://www.public-i.org/story_01_021201.htm Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity discusses the revolving door of the Carlyle Group. (audio, Democracy, Now!, Pacifica Radio, March 6) The WSJ story had legs. For a few weeks in October, the mainstream, including LAT and the Chicago Tribune among others, turned up the heat on Saudi Arabia, so much so that President Bush felt compelled to call the Saudi Prince to thank him for "cooperating" with the investigation to find the perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers. On October 25, the NY Times' Elaine Sciolino and Neil MacFarquhar told of the delicate dance: Naming of Hijackers as Saudis May Further Erode Ties to U.S. The story ran with a photograph of Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with President Bush in the Oval Office, noting that "the Saudis value such personal contacts highly." The engine at govexec.com presents and searches tables that sort and order defense contractors. Among many tables that establish the Carlyle Group as the 11th and sometimes 12th leading defense contractor, depending on which branch of the armed forces is the purchasing agent, there's one table that establishes President Bush's family business as the 12th largest missile defense contractor: http://www.govexec.com/top200/01top/catmissiles.htm But only 32nd in defense contracting of electronics and communications: http://www.govexec.com/top200/01top/catelectronic.htm The defense angle was covered by Defense News in August: http://www.veritascapital.com/view_news.asp?ID=14 After 9 11, the Carlyle Group pulled the plug on its Web pages, which are still visible in Google's cache but won't be for a lot longer. Bush AND "Carlyle Group" is one possible search term. Some U.S. editors are ignoring or downplaying the story while the U.K. and other international press are interested. A topical example from a recent week: A buried one liner in a U.S. newspaper notes with no elaboration the revolving door relationship between the administration and the Carlyle Group: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14990-2001Oct30.html Forty-five days after the dive-bombing at the Twin Towers, another buried one liner confides that the bin Laden family will no longer be doing business with the Bush family within the Carlyle Group: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59924-2001Oct26.html Part of the larger picture is explored at The Ex-President's Club at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html If this Guardian story is true, then there was not, as was widely reported, a massive U.S. intelligence failure leading to 9 11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html Sydney Morning rewrote the above story, crediting the BBC: Before 9 11, Bush told agents to back off bin Ladin family http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html Reminiscent of Catch-22, right? Milo Minderbinder as President. Happy hunting, Alok Rai From klak at giasbm01.vsnl.net.in Mon Nov 12 21:27:53 2001 From: klak at giasbm01.vsnl.net.in (Khuzaima A. Lakdawala) Date: 12 Nov 2001 21:27:53 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Cowboy Bush and the Carlyle Connection In-Reply-To: <007c01c16b70$4599c8a0$4f01050a@x6o6l2> References: <200111100543.GAA15779@mail.intra.waag.org> <007c01c16b70$4599c8a0$4f01050a@x6o6l2> Message-ID: <86pu6oj81q.fsf@home.this-is-not-a-domain.in> "Dr. Alok Rai" writes: > Shd be of interest - and worth further exploration: > > The following links to articles about the Carlyle Group was put together by > a journalist in Oakland. This list has been published on a number of > journalism lists, including a list that is read by Karl Rove, Bush's > political advisor. Almost all of that and much more can be found on a single site: http://nomorefakenews.com/ Unfortunately, the site has no search facility so one has to sift through individual scrolls to find something. It is primarily "designed" for daily reading. -- Khuzaima A. Lakdawala From akeenan23 at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 01:58:04 2001 From: akeenan23 at earthlink.net (Alan Keenan) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:28:04 +0500 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: Veena Das talk In-Reply-To: <200111130540.GAA02397@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20011113012804.0087b840@mail.earthlink.net> Bhrigu: Thanks for making the Veena Das presentation available. If you know, can you tell us where it was that she spoke or published these remarks originally? With appreciation, Alan Keenan From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 13 15:34:53 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:34:53 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Ibarat: #01 (an inscription, a write-up) Message-ID: <01111315345302.00594@pinki.sarai.kit> Ibarat is a wall magazine taken out by the CyberMohalla Project. Its eight participants range from 14 to 20, and they plan to print it once every two months. This month it was pasted up in almost 25 places in their neighbourhood - LNJP Colony, which is near Ajmeri gate in New Delhi. CyberMohalla is part of the Outreach programme of Sarai to help shape processes of reflection and expression in the local community. Along with Ankur, an NGO which runs an experimental education project, CyberMohalla has set up a tactical media lab on free software, which is now dubbed "CompuGhar" (ComputerHouse). ++++++++++++++ Ibarat: # 01 (an inscription, a write-up) Oral histories are all that colonies like ours have. Till the occurrence of a "significant" incident, an accident, we lie outside of newspaper headlines, anonymous. Our LNJP colony, for example. We've never seen it discussed in any forum. What happens inside the colony, however, is a different story altogether. Residents invariably recount old stories on occassions of marriage, when working, when quarrelling or sharing with one another love and happy moments. And if the event happens to be special, almost every one gets involved: every street corner, every tea shop, park and people awaiting their turn to fill water from a tap saturate and brim over with tales. Stories old and new. Stories of daily toil, as also of dreams and hopes. And even if it's no special occasion, these stories find life in every day talk... our very own gossip columns!! So you'll find these stories lying around every where. Pick them up on your way if you feel like it. That's just what we have done. Met the elderly, spoken with our sisters in the colony, spent some time thinking about the names floating around in daily conversations. And it's amazing what we found. Just like humans and roads, streets and lanes also have many many names. And these keep changing with time. Some however are really obstinate. They stick, refusing to budge. Take Connaught place, for instance. Our government can hang huge boards announcing its rechristening. But who calls C.P. Rajiv Chowk? Our lanes... our lanes have no name plates as identity markers. And they are named after names, things and personalities we are familiar with, close to. And that, friends, surely works! So here it is, our first presentation to you of one of the ways of seeing our colony. In here are some stories, some poems -- familiar and new. Some photographs that we took. Some pictures we drew. And all of this has been possible because of the love and suport of the elders of the colony. Some we've been able to name in this issue, some we couldn't. But our heartfelt thanks go out to all of them. Thank you. This is a small attempt by our CompuGhar (ComputerHouse). And it'll mean so much to us if you could let us know what you think of the issue. We take your leave till next time. Salaam! Ibarat team: Azrah, Mehrunisa, Shamsher, Suraj Rai, Shahjahan, Nilofer, Yashodha and Bobby. The first issue of Ibarat: In memory of Ayesha xxxxxxxxxx Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Basti: (a old poem about our basti) People kept coming, the journey began, A forest there was of junk A thicket of chir, kikar and bushes. In the stunned silence of the graveyard That is where no people lived. Scorpions and chameleons by the dozens would appear And kaan khajuras to sing in our ears. The land was cleared in '55 There appeared houses for our many leaders. And then when leaders took off All that remained were their broken down flats. People carried away the doors Door frames, pipes as well as windows. Piles of garbage in every home Everything into a ruin tranformed. Someone brought along a cot And also some people - one or two, that's all. Houses of wood, mud and bricks Were created atop garbage hills. There was neither water, electricity nor No drain pipes or toilets to speak of. Water was bought from the market And at night earthen lamps were lit. Nearby was a playground here Passing messages not a simple affair. There was a store house for our waste And a shop that Jugru ran. This is what our happiness consisted of Rest was a morbid, unhappy state of affairs. The colony, oh, it had no name And no school to which no one came. But people came, they came and came And the colony, it was lain. Now here are houses two-storeyed Taps in every street there be. The fruits of everyone's labour have borne Facilities now in every home. A curfew in eighty four, there was When riots had broken out in Delhi. Rules prohibited venturing out Forbidden was playing out of doors. Destroyed it was, the Minto Road colony Where our relations, friends, players lived. Strewn across, to far away lands Without schools, water, electricity. Everything happened, save chaos No one in the name of religion fought. Together we celebrate holi-eid Diwali, Moharram, and Bakr-eid. xxxxxxxxxxxxx What all we passed through: a passage to our lanes. There is in our colony a web of lanes. Every lane has its own quirks and habits, its own uniqueness and speciality, its own share of problems. Here we present to you some of them... Nana's (grandfather's) lane Nana's lane is well known from before. Nana loved kids, and the kids, him. The young and the old alike call him Nana ever since he came here. Nana owns a sweet shop. Newcomers, when they hear the chant 'nana nana' wonder who this is, and neighbours then tell them about our dear nana. Barber's lane. This barber's been around for long now. He has two sons. One works. The other, who can't speak, has been missing now for three years. This is the only barber's shop in the colony and every one comes here for a trim. Chacha Papdi's lane. Chacha Papdi is the name of a man. In the lane there is a pole. Chacha Papdi's house is near that pole. His mother has grown old now. She can't walk. Her husband died long ago. Now she lives with her son. She's been living in this colony for many many years. We've heard she was the first person to start living in this colony. The lane with the Masjid There are many houses around the masjid. There are among these houses several shops. People stop to pray in the masjid. This lane is quite broad, while the other lanes in the colony are quite narrow. It's so broad, a bus could easily be driven in. Near the masjid is a doctor's shop. The doctor is famous as 'the doctor from near the masjid'. Whenever someone brings medicines and we ask them where they got the medicines from, they say, from the one near the masjid. And the other thing is that whenever someone gives directions to their house, using the doctor's house as a reference point makes finding the way much simpler. Liyaqat's lane. Liyaqat's full name is Choudhary Liyaqat Ali. Liyaqat is an electrician. He has power faliure sometimes. Liyaqat contested elections. The lane of the Temple. This temple is very old. People pray here. Right next to it is a doctor's shop who is known by the name of 'doctor from near the temple'. This doctor has also been here many years. Now only very few people come to take medicine from him. In all, there are five doctors' shops in the colony. Lane of Video Games Playing here is a new occurrence. Earlier the video games were played near the masjid. Then they shifted to the lane next to Chacha Papdi's lane. Children used to come here earlier, and they come here now. All 15 yards of the room used to be filled with children. Children of all ages, old and young. But one day Hamid, the man who used to run the show, got arrested by the police. And the children who were playing there were beaten up and were told to concentrate on their studies. No one plays here any more. The lane is in search of a new name. Chawwa's lane. In the lane is Chawwa's shop that sells meat. Chawwa is the name of a man. He sells the meat in the shop. The shop is very old now. Mostly, people buy meat from him. In all, there are two meat shops in the colony; one is Zakir's, and one Chawwa's. Chawwa's shop is older than Zakir's. Each and every child in the colony knows Chawwa. Chawwa! how strange the name sounds, doesn't it! His real name is Hussainuddin. The lane with the Latrine. The lane with the latrine is near Shabana baajee's house. It has four toilets. There are 51 houses in the lane. 11 of these are on the first floor. 47 houses are made of bricks and 4 of wood. Both men and women use these toilets. The toilets are always dirty. The street is always smelly. In all there are four toilets in the colony. Some people have constructed toilets in their own homes. A sweeper comes to clean the toilets every day. Still, they remain dirty. It is the people who use them who keep them dirty. Bismillah's lane. Bismillah is a woman's name. She is old now. She owns a vegetable shop. She has had it from the beginning. Whenever people buy vegetables from her, they take Bismillah's name. There is another vegetable shop opposite her's. The owner of that shop is also known as Bismillah. Bismillah has now opened a hotel. When people are passing by, they stop to buy vegetables, and some people eat there itself. As a result whoever comes from outside asks where Bismillah's lane is. Shaukat's lane Shaukat's lane is named after Shaukat. Shaukat owns a tea shop. He stays in the tiny shop. There are five to six tea shops in the colony, so his earnings are low. One of these other tea shops is right opposite Shaukat's shop. The Road-lane The road-lane passes through many lanes. Where there are many roads. Where occur many accidents. Several cars run on this road. And pollution is aplenty. And lots of smoke can be sourced to this very road. People who live by the road must be sick and tired of all the noise. Mohataram's lane Mohataram's house is in the first lane. It's been six months since Mohataram opened his shop here. He has four brothers. All four look after the shop. Mohataram also owns a factory. Where they make labourers work. Kallu's lane The ration-shop guy. The ration guy Kallu's shop used to be in our colony earlier. The lane in which he used to live is named after him. Kallu gets ticked off when children sing the song "Kallu mama" in front of his house. Bridegroom's lane. Bridegroom's lane is very old. This lane is known as the lane of the bridegroom because many years ago, a man got married and came here and opened a shop of sweets. Everyone started calling it the bridegroom's lane. Whenever anyone brought anything from this shop, they'd say they'd purchased it from the bridegroom's shop. Soon enough everyone, young and old, started calling it by that name. The bridegroom died a year ago, and his wife, six to seven months after that. But the lane continues by the same name. Allah Rakhi's lane. Allah Rakhi's husband used to be a dahi-bada vendor. Then, as his business turned profitable, he set up a shop selling sweets. Maula also owns a shop in the same lane, but because Allah Rakhi's shop is famous, the lane got named after her. She's around 40 years old. Naeem's lane Naeem's lane is five years old. There is a shop in the lane from where people make their purchases. There is no other shop apart from this one for quite a distance. Sunil's lane There is a shop in Sunil's lane. The shop keeper's name is Sunil. Sunil's shop mostly sells bread and butter. People who stay there buy their breakfast supplies from this shop. There is no other shop apart from this one for quite a distance. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx An interview with brother Mohataram It was Saturday. The date, 8/9/2001. Time, 11:30. I went to Mohataram bhai's house to interview him. Before going there, I sat down and framed a few questions to ask him. I left the centre with a pen and notebook. I was observing my surroundings as I walked. On the way to his house from the centre, there is a shop that sells meat, a doctor's shop, a masjid, Nabeel's shop, a shop that sells bottles and curd, two shops selling vegetables. You see maximum number of people at the vegetables' shop. Some just stand around, not meaning to buy anything. Then there are those who who come to buy vegetables and some who can be seen strolling around the masjid. I was watching them all as i moved. But in my head were buzzing the questions i had to ask brother Mohataram. I was wondering if i'd be able to catch him this time around. Because the last two times i went to his house, he wasn't there. These were my thoughts as I reached his house. In front of his house is a small shop that he himself owns. And by its side is a tiny path leading upto the house. And from it rises a ladder that you have to climb, bending forward a little. When I reached the shop i saw Mohataram's brother Subhan sitting there (fair, small eyes, short, dark blue trousers, sky blue shirt). I asked him, is brother Mohataram around? Subhan (turning towards me): He's not in. I asked if he could be located somewhere nearby, then maybe someone could fetch him. Subhan said he didn't know. But if there was some work to be done, then he could be of help. I said I wanted to interview him. (I was standing on the street. I looked around.) Subhan said, take my interview. (he laughed). I said, yes, if he wanted, I could ask him the questions. Subhan said, what all will you ask? I said, the same as I would have asked brother Mohataram. Some about the street, some about brother Mohataram. Subhan said, okay, go ahead. (as soon as he said this, I took out my notebook and the list of questions.) I said, fine, so should I begin? (As soon as I said this, he looked frightened). Subhan immediately said, I won't give an interview. I asked why? Subhan said, no. What if I say something wrong? I said, no. There's going to be no such problem. I'm not going to ask you any question that could frighten you. But once again, almost immediately, he refused. I looked around and thought today was not going to be my day, yet again. Upset, I allowed my gaze to wander. Suddenly I saw brother Mohataram approaching us and I immediately said, here comes brother Mohataram. Now I can interview him. He was wearing a shirt the shade of almonds and brown pants, a face on which the dust of the day had settled. Once he was near us, I asked him where he was coming from. He said he'd just stepped out for a bit. Then I told him why I was there, and what all I wanted to speak with him about. Anyway, here is the conversation, as it happened: Azrah (opening her notebook): What is your age? Mohataram: Must be around 34 years (he looked up as he said this). Azrah: When did you come to this colony? Mohataram: It's been 16 years now. (He looked around). Azrah: This lane is called Mohataram's lane now. What was it called before you came here? (I asked this question because we were talking of his arrival here.) Mohataram: Before I came, this lane had no name. Because not too many people lived here. Yes, if someone set shop here, or sold something, then there would be that recognition. The name came after I did. Azrah: So how did you come to be recognised? Mohataram: When I first came here, I used to paint. Earlier I had to go asking for work. But then people started approaching me with work. So, slowly, the lane became known by my name. Azrah: How does it feel to hear every one say "Mohataram's lane"? Mohataram: Initially there was the exhilaration of having become famous. But now I'm used to it. Azrah: What other work do you do? Mohataram: I've done various things. Worked in handicrafts' factories, in shoes, and even with nawab sahib. Azrah: You probably got to know many people through all the work you've done. You probably know everything about those people. Mohataram: Yes, I know every one here very well. Azrah: Is getting to know people an interest you have cultivated, or is it something you just enjoy? Mohataram: It's an interest I enjoy. Azrah: Do you like any sport? Mohataram: Nothing in particular. I play ludo sometimes. Azrah: Where do lanes get their names from? Mohataram: Many lanes here are named after people. Like Liyaqat's lane. He's known in the colony because he is one of its chiefs. That is why the lane's name was changed from 'the lane of the temple' to 'Liyaqat's lane'. Similarly, lanes get named after shopkeepers or tutors of multiplication tables : Aunt Zaibun's lane, the lane with the latrines. Then, names change as well. Sometimes, lanes can have more than one name. Chawwa's lane: Donkey herders' lane. (Earlier donkeys used to be tied up in a park here. Horses stopped coming here after a house was constructed. Chawwa opened a meat shop nearby. Since then the lane came to be associated with his name.) Kallu, the ration guy's lane: The lane with the tap. (Video) game lane: Papaya lane. Sunil's lane: Naeem's lane. Aunt Zubain's lane: Lane of the Biharis. Dogs' lane: This lane has two more names: Lane with the latrines and the chhola lane. Earlier there were three toilets in this lane. Hence the name. Then, the first house to be built here was that of the chhole waala, so the name changed. And then here came a bitch who bit everyone who stayed in the lane. That was her claim to fame. She gave birth to three pups who have all grown up now. The whole lane is now 'dog-infested'. So, it's called the Dogs' lane. Centre/ Tea/ Masjid Lane: There is but one masjid in this colony. Everyone goes here to read their namaz. That's why the name 'the lane of the masjid'. On this lane is a two-storeyed house (in it is our Ankur Centre) that everyone calls 'building'. So it's also called the 'lane with the building'. There is a famous tea shop here. No one knows his name. So it's called the Tea Lane. This lane has more shops than it has houses. So, we also call it the Shop Lane. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks: Brother Mohataram from the colony, for the interview. Ankur Children's Education Section Sarai Cybermohalla Project Translation: Shveta Sharda (shveta at sarai.net) ------------------------------------------------------- From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:54:00 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 13 Nov 2001 17:24:00 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] FIGHT TERROR WITH TERROR: OUR LESSONS FROM KASHMIR Message-ID: <20011113172400.13018.qmail@mailweb18.rediffmail.com> Ikhwan-ul-Muslimoon: Our fight against terrorism Who are the Ikhwan? What have they accomplished in all these years ? I excerpt a Human Rights watch Report on the Ikhwan .Forget the rights bit,the excerpt offers us further clues to fight terror with terror.Now we should help the Northern Alliance with lessons in urban intimidation...after all what will they do sitting idle in Kabul as they have no plans to take on the Pashtuns,terrorists, in the South. Human Rights Watch Report INDIA'S SECRET ARMY IN KASHMIR New Patterns of Abuse Emerge in the Conflict While attempting to reassure the international community that they have taken steps to curb human rights abuses in Kashmir, Indian forces have in effect subcontracted some of their abusive tactics to groups with no official accountability. The extrajudicial killings, abductions and assaults committed by these groups against suspected militants are instead described as resulting from "intergroup rivalries." But civilians have been their victims, and the militia groups have singled out journalists, human rights activists and medical workers for attack. They have been given free rein to patrol major hospitals in Srinagar, particularly the Soura Institute, the Sri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) hospital and the Bone and Joint Hospital. They have murdered, threatened, beaten and detained hospital ... They have also removed patients from hospitals. In some cases, attacks by these paramilitary groups appear to have been carried out on orders from security officers; in other cases, the groups appear to operate on their own, within broadly defined limits to their discretionary powers and the full expectation on the part of the security forces that they will use their discretion to take initiatives within the overall counterinsurgency strategy of fighting terror with terror. Their actions are taken with the knowledge and complicity of official security forces. When arrested by local police, members of these groups have been released on orders of the s es. From ravis at sarai.net Wed Nov 14 05:58:06 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:58:06 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Negi and Hardt's Empire on Ascii Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011114055542.00ae8df0@mail.sarai.net> this is fascinating: from http://textz.com: we are glad to announce that we have finally released the first plain ascii version ever of empire by antonio negri and michael hardt, abfall fuer alle by rainald goetz and to have done with the judgement of god by antonin artaud. there is of course much more, and even more is obviously missing. to contribute a text to our engine, all you have to do is mail it to inbox at textz.com michael hardt / antonio negri: empire http://textz.com/index.php3?text=hardt+negri+empire -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011114/168a290f/attachment.html From aiindex at mnet.fr Wed Nov 14 22:56:44 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:26:44 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: Urgent Action Alert: include Afghan women in transition processes Message-ID: >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:15:16 +0000 >From: WLUML >Subject: Urgent Action Alert: include Afghan women in transition processes > >Dear friends, > >Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) has been trying to ensure that the >voices of Afghan women are heard by as broad an audience as possible. We >are doing this by making available their understanding and articulation, as >women, of what is happening, the impact that this is having and their demands. > >WLUML believes that international efforts for the reconstruction of >Afghanistan must promote a process guided by the Afghan people. Afghan >women are half of the Afghan people - a fact too often and too easily >forgotten. It is not enough to call merely for the representation of >various ethnic communities and/or factions in the decision making and >transition processes around Afghanistan. The presence of Afghan civil >society, most particularly women, at the negotiation table and decision >making of any peace process is vital. > >More than fifty Afghan women from different NGOs and organisations met at >the call of the Afghan Women's Network on 7 November 2001 in Peshawar, >Pakistan. We attach below the appeal they drafted addressed to the >concerned warring parties and countries. They would like the endorsement >and support of other organisations for the demands in the appeal. > >We call upon the UN, that is better-positioned than any other entity, to >support and facilitate Afghan women's involvement in the decision-making >and transition processes in the coming months. We appreciate that the >Special Representative of the Secretary General for Afghanistan, Mr Lakhdar >Brahimi, has been specifically interacting with Afghan women's groups to >discuss ways of including women in the transition processes led by the UN. > >We therefore urge you to endorse the statement and write to the following >people involved in the UN transition and peace processes. > >In solidarity, > >WLUML > >--- >7 November, 2001 > >For more then two decades the Afghan nation has been passing through the most >difficult experiences of war, human rights violations and brutality. While we >struggle to survive, we are scared for life, losing our dear ones, seeing our >children traumatized, our neighbors killed, our husbands disabled by a war >fought under different banners but yet with the same tragic consequences. In >whatever name the war might be fought, jihad, justice, terrorism etc. We >ask you to stop it. > >The waging and continuation of the war affects us more deeply every passing >day by hearing that someone else has been added to the list of victims. > >Perhaps a million Afghans are in movement facing closed borders, a hostile >reception and already jammed camps with the most miserable conditions of life. > >Stop this war in the name of the Afghan child, the Afghan mother and a >nation who >have sacrificed more than enough. The continuation of war will not only be >adding >to the existing misery of the Afghan nation, but will hinder the chances of a >peaceful solution in the future. We call upon the international community and >the countries and groups involved in this war to support us by listening to us >and ensuring our rights as citizens of the world are respected. Help us in >seeking our right to survival. > >We request the following: > >* The military action in Afghanistan be stopped immediately. > >* The anti-terrorism campaign should not be fought at the expense of >restricting or violating human rights of Afghans. It should be dealt with in >accordance with international law and procedures by an international tribunal. > >* The neighboring countries of Afghanistan should open their borders to >Afghan families fleeing the war. > >* Afghans should be supported in the peace process and nation building effort >in such a way, which ensures the respect of its diverse ethnic groups and >religious sects, women and children. > >* Afghan women's participation in the peace process must be assured. > >WRITE TO: > >Lakhdar Brahimi >Special Representative of the Secretary General for Afghanistan >Tel: +1 212 963 1386 >Fax: +1 212 963 0616 > >Kamal Hossain >UN Special Rapporteur for Afghanistan >Fax: +880 29564953 >Email: khossain at citecho.net > >Carolyn McAskie >Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator >Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs >Fax: +1 212 963 1312 > >The office of Hina Jilani, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights >Defenders >Martine Anstett >Email: manstett.hchr at unog.ch > >The office of Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings >Henrik Stenman >Email: Hstenman.hchr at unog.ch >WLUML - international solidarity network >Email: wluml at wluml.org >WWW: www.wluml.org -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Nov 15 04:10:27 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:40:27 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Fighting Against Far Right in Russia Message-ID: The Moscow Times Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001. Page 13 Fighting Against Far Right By Boris Kagarlitsky The recent pogrom organized by neo-fascists in Tsaritsyno had at least one positive consequence: Politicians and the media started to discuss the far-right threat. The Russian establishment has talked about Russian fascism quite frequently in the past but has always reduced the problem to anti-Semitism. In particular, media interest was roused by the anti-Semitic inclinations of the Communist Party leadership. As a result, a lot has been said and written about fascism, but all in a rather superficial manner. In fact, the extreme right in Russia today is first and foremost anti-Caucasian rather than anti-Semitic. This is not to say that one should deduce that those running rascist organizations have suddenly been overcome with sympathy for Jewish people. They have simply changed their priorities. Muslims, or so-called chyorny, are enemy No. 1. And to give them their due, Russian skinheads are perfectly in step with their Western counterparts: In Germany, the pogroms of recent years have also been targeted against Muslims rather than Jews. In Western publications, information appeared that Moscow skinheads had originally planned to head for Tverskaya Ulitsa and beat up the anti-globalists, but when it turned out that there were no anti-globalists to beat up they changed their plans and headed for Tsaritsyno. This version, however, does not seem entirely convincing, as the pogrom in Tsaritsyno was well organized and must have been planned well in advance. There is a certain symbolism in what happened. The police were out in force on Tverskaya to protect expensive shopwindows from leftwing radicals, who did not exist in reality. At the same time on the other side of the city, rightwing extremists were smashing people up unimpeded. Both city and federal authorities had to vindicate themselves. It was not simply a matter of the powerlessness of the law enforcement agencies but also that the authorities' own propaganda had prepared the ground for the pogroms. The police for some years now have been doing all they can to terrorize "persons of Caucasian nationality" on the streets -- blatantly trying to demonstrate to us all that they are second-class people and undesirable elements in Moscow. The image of the Muslim terrorist and the Caucasian bandit has been systematically cultivated and fostered by the mass media. We may remember that the president himself made an appeal not to stand upon ceremony with his very public promise to "wipe them out in the outhouse." Where is the presumption of innocence? Where are the equal rights for all citizens? After the Tsaritsyno pogrom, the authorities became somewhat more guarded in expressing themselves. Also, the public was deluged by statements about how racism and nationalism represent a threat for Russia, facilitating the country's disintegration. This is, of course, true. However, the question that enters my mind is: If they were not threats to state unity, would it then be all right to be a racist or anti-Semite? Fascism has not only ideological but also social roots. Those involved in the pogroms were mainly from poor suburbs. They are young people from low-income families with dismal prospects. These are people whom the widely publicized economic growth of the past couple of years has passed by. These people are embittered and acutely feel their low social position, but unlike trade-union activists or leftwing organizations, they do not feel any strong group affiliation and have a very unclear understanding of their own interests. While the better educated leftwing radicals channel their anger against the system as a whole, these youths need a specific and visible embodiment of evil. Traders of foreign extraction turn out to be the ideal target. The next stage is that far right groups start to carry out specific orders, attacking leftwing organizations, trade union activists, liberal journalists etc. Rightwing nationalists are essentially conservative. The status quo suits them down to the ground. Discontent is mainly caused by hair color, nose-shape etc. of one's neighbor. If the battle against right-wing extremism is to be undertaken seriously, then strengthening the police force is not the answer. Resolving social problems is. There are only two tried and tested means of battling extremism: good employment opportunities and good-quality education accessible to all. Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Nov 15 18:38:10 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:08:10 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] TAHMINEH MILANI UPDATE Message-ID: FACETS MULTIMEDIA TAHMINEH MILANI UPDATE Ms. Milani's Status Over Fifteen Hundred Signatures to Declaration of Solidarity Solidarity Expressed by Women Filmmakers Institutions Endorse Declaration Continued High-Profile Press Coverage What You Can Do For Immediate Release November 6, 2001 For further information, please contact Ray Privett at 1 800 331 6197 or ray at facets.org. As part of its continuing campaign in defense of Ms. Tahmineh Milani, the Iranian filmmaker detained in Iran in late August and released on bail soon thereafter, Facets Multimedia issues the following statement concerning Ms. Milani's status, additional signatures to the statement of solidarity with Ms. Milani, continued press coverage of the situation, and about what other parties can do. Ms. Milani's Status In the words of Mohammad Nikbin, Tahmineh Milani's husband, producer, and translator, "our case is in the same situation as before." This means that the charges of supporting those waging war against god and misusing the arts in support of counterrevolutionary and armed opposition groups have not been dropped. Those crimes are potentially punishable by execution under Islamic law in Iran. In late August, Tahmineh Milani was arrested and detained for several days, during which time she was interrogated and items were confiscated from her home. After being held for several days, she was released on bail following the intervention of Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Facets Multimedia has repeatedly attempted to clarify the situation, and to follow the best course of action. A statement of solidarity by filmmakers was written and started by Los Angeles-based writer and translator Dorna Khazeni at the suggestion of French filmmaker Catherine Breillat. Prior to expanding the declaration and actively soliciting the participation of other filmmakers, Facets consulted with Mr. Nikbin and others. Mr. Nikbin has expressed repeated thanks to all those who have signed the declaration, saying "all the pressure and publicity will help to get the case closed." Ms. Milani's ability to travel abroad has not been hampered. She and Mr. Nikbin traveled recently to Cairo, Egypt, for a film festival, and will travel to Boston, in the United States, on November 9, 2001. They will then travel to California on November 15, and be back on the U.S. East Coast by the end of November. At some point they may stopover in Chicago. Thereafter they will return to Iran. The charges against Tahmineh Milani remain pending. She has not been cleared and the charges have not been dropped. Facets' ultimate goal in this campaign is for those charges to be dropped. Over Fifteen Hundred Signatures to Declaration of Solidarity Since releasing an initial declaration of solidarity with Ms. Tahmineh Milani on October 26, 2001, a declaration signed by 108 filmmakers, the declaration has grown to bear now the signatures of over 1500 people. Several hundred of these are filmmakers; many others are film world professionals; many others have no direct involvement with the film world. Facets has not tracked the nationalities of all of the signatories, however it is clear that they come from every continent on Earth, and dozens if not hundreds of countries. Among the signatories are numerous women filmmakers, including Allison Anders, Catherine Breillat, Michelle Citron, Sofia Coppola, Faye Dunaway, Su Friedrich, Marina Goldovskaya, Mary Harron, Agnieszka Holland, Sarah Jacobson, Lucrecia Martel, Alice Nellis, Yvonne Rainer, Molly Ringwald, Greta Schiller, Cauleen Smith, Susan Sontag, Amy Taubin, and many others. The petition has also received institutional endorsements from over seventy-five institutions, including the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, the Black Filmmaker Foundation, the Canadian Film Institute, the Directors' Guild of Canada, Zeitgeist Films, film festivals in Greece, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and the United States, and many others. Facets plans to send an updated copy of the petition with all its current signatories to representatives within Iran shortly. Continued High-Profile Press Coverage Coverage of the situation has appeared in numerous press outlets. These include the newspapers The Guardian and Hayate-No; the entertainment trade paper Variety; the internet film magazines filmfestivals.com, indieWIRE, and Film Threat; and radio stations and programs including Norwegian Broadcasting, Democracy Now! (U.S.), and Cinema Scene (Melbourne, Australia). Articles are in development at numerous other newspapers and magazines, including many extremely high-profile papers. What You Can Do Other filmmakers, organizations, and individuals who would like to express their solidarity with Ms. Milani are invited to send faxes to His Excellency Mr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at 98 21 649 5880; His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, Minister of Justice, at 98 21 646 5242; His Excellency Mr. Masjed Jamee, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, at 98 21 391 3535; Mr. Mohebbi, President of the Farabi Cinema Foundation, at 98 21 670 8155; and Ray Privett of Facets Multimedia at 1 773 929 5437. They are also invited to sign the petition online at www.facets.org/petition.html, a website with links that will be updated as new information related to Ms. Tahmineh Milani's case becomes available. Facets Multimedia 1517 West Fullerton Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 USA 1 800 331 6197 www.facets.org -- From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Thu Nov 15 01:04:41 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:04:41 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Keep Security Censorship Away From Linux Message-ID: <3BF2C751.F963AE5F@linux-delhi.org> Opponents of vulnerability disclosure may have a surprise ally in Linux's second-in-command By Jon Lasser Nov 6 2001 11:00PM PT October was a bad month for proponents of full disclosure. First, Microsoft's Scott Culp argued in an essay that security researchers shouldn't reveal the nature of security holes in software. Then Culp may have found an unexpected ally in his war against full disclosure: Linux's second-in-command, Alan Cox. Cox's decision to delete security-related material from the Linux kernel changelog seems almost to honor Culp's request that we suppress information useful to attackers. While at least some of the security changes made in the prerelease of the 2.2.20 Linux kernel have already been discussed elsewhere, Cox claims that describing these changes might be in violation of the same anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) used to prosecute Russian programmer Dmitri Sklyarov, and cited by Professor Felten in his initial decision not to publish a paper describing weaknesses in SDMI. Cox may be making a broader political statement by his decision, but it could have unintended consequences. If Cox's self-censorship is taken as precedent by other developers, exploit researchers who choose to publish their code may become more vulnerable to prosecution. Not only will those developers appear conspicuous in their contrast to Cox, but opponents of full disclosure could argue that Cox's decision reflects a broad understanding of the limitations imposed by the DMCA, and that security researchers who take a different route are willfully flaunting those restrictions. 'If Cox's self-censorship is taken as precedent by other developers, exploit researchers who choose to publish their code may become more vulnerable to prosecution. ' While I believe there may be unintended consequences to Cox's decision, I don't doubt his sincerity. Many in the community complain that Cox is just trying to make a point about the DMCA, and is hurting U.S.-based Linux developers in the process. But the Felten and Sklyarov cases demonstrate that developers are in genuine legal peril. Is it likely that Cox or Linux kernel overlord Torvalds would be prosecuted for posting an accurate changelog? Absolutely not. Is it certain that they would not be prosecuted? No. Regardless of his position on the DMCA, Alan Cox says he is in favor of full disclosure when a vendor is not responsive, or if knowledge of a vulnerability is already widespread in the computer underground. "Just waiting for vendors sadly doesn't work," he wrote me in an email. Which is all the more reason he should be wary of inadvertently supporting the efforts of Microsoft, and other enemies of disclosure. Elias Levy wrote an eloquent rebuttal to the Microsoft essay. But I'd like to zero on in one particularly egregious claim Culp makes in his argument: that an administrator "doesn't need to know how a vulnerability works in order to understand how to protect against it." On smaller or more tightly-controlled networks, it may be true that full disclosure does not directly serve the needs of system administrators. But network administrators at medium and large sites must have access to exploit code in order to ensure the security of their networks. Unless one administrator has access to every single device on his or her network, there are times when the only way to test for a vulnerability is to attempt an exploit against a server. Although commercial tools are available that scan for vulnerabilities, the lag time between development of the exploit and the next periodic update to security scanning packages is too long for many enterprises. In checking for vulnerable systems, speed is of the utmost importance. In some cases, running a live exploit may be the only way to root out all vulnerable systems on a network with widely-dispersed controls. Of course, administrators shouldn't run an exploit unless it's authorized by a policy formally approved by management, and should only run them under close supervision from a manager. Otherwise, they risk being fired or prosecuted. Even with management approval, attempting an exploit against one's own network is a technique of last resort, and can be dangerous in the best of circumstances. Some exploits have been trojaned, so as to provide the original author of the code a back door onto the system. Worse, on a production server, a successful or partially-successful use of an exploit can crash the server, causing an outage or even data loss. Despite this, Culp's arrogant assumption that he knows what system administrators need in order to do their job is astounding. The idea that any one vendor will look out for users' best interests has not been borne out by the history of the industry, nor will a responsible system administrator rely on such an assertion. Jon Lasser is the author of Think Unix (2000, Que), an introduction to Linux and Unix for power users. Jon has been involved with Linux and Unix since 1993 and is project coordinator for Bastille Linux, a security hardening package for various Linux distributions. He is a computer security consultant in Baltimore, MD.Support by industry for the DMCA, and repeated attempts to suppress full disclosure of security vulnerabilities, are further evidence that users need to look out for themselves. That's one of the reasons Linux, with its open source ethic, has always been such a great choice for security. Let's hope it stays that way. -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs. From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Thu Nov 15 08:26:54 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:26:54 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Shocking News Message-ID: <000401c16d81$69895060$d074c8cb@shohini> Bush to Subject Terrorism Suspects to Military Trials November 14, 2001 By ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - President Bush signed an order today allowing special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. A senior administration official said that any such trials would "not necessarily" be public and that the American tribunals might operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the same time, the Justice Department has asked law enforcement authorities across the country to pick up and question 5,000 men, most from Middle Eastern countries, who entered the country legally in the last two years. Both actions are part of a sweeping government effort to expand the investigation into Al Qaeda's network and clear the way for the more aggressive prosecution of anyone charged with terrorism. Mr. Bush signed the order allowing for the military tribunals shortly before leaving this afternoon for his ranch in Crawford, Tex. White House officials said the order did not create a military tribunal or a list of terrorists to be tried. Instead, they said, it was an "option" that the president would have should Osama bin Laden or his associates in Al Qaeda be captured. If the tribunals were created, it would be the first time since World War II that such an approach was used, officials said. Under the order, the president himself is to determine who is an accused terrorist and therefore subject to trial by the tribunal. The order states that the president may "determine from time to time in writing that there is reason to believe" that an individual is a member of Al Qaeda, has engaged in acts of international terrorism or has "knowingly harbored" a terrorist. In order to make such a finding, the president needs information, and obtaining information about Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist acts is the goal of the Justice Department's effort to find and interview the 5,000 men, department officials said. The people being sought are not believed to be terrorism suspects, and they will not be placed under arrest, the officials said. The interviews are intended to be voluntary. Nonetheless, officials at the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the Justice Department effort, as well as the executive order allowing military tribunals. Steven Shapiro, the national legal director of the A.C.L.U., called the effort to interview the 5,000 men a "dragnet approach that is likely to magnify concerns of racial and ethnic profiling." Laura W. Murphy, the director of the A.C.L.U. Washington National Office, described the order regarding tribunals as "deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy." White House officials said the tribunals were necessary to protect potential American jurors from the danger of passing judgment on accused terrorists. They also said the tribunals would prevent the disclosure of government intelligence methods, which normally would be public in civilian courts. "We have looked at this war very unconventionally," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, "and the conventional way of bringing people to justice doesn't apply to these times." The idea of using tribunals has been suggested by some lawyers outside the government as well. "It's the most pragmatic way and it's the most legally correct way to adjudicate terrorist war crimes," said Spencer J. Crona, a Denver probate lawyer and the co-author of a 1996 article in the Oklahoma City University Law Journal arguing the merits of military tribunals to try terrorists. Mr. Crona and his co-author, Neal A. Richardson, a deputy district attorney in Denver, have continued to promote the idea, most recently in an opinion article in September in The Los Angeles Times. Mr. Crona added that terrorists are not "mere criminals" but enemy agents engaged in war crimes against Americans. But experts in military law said the tribunals would severely limit the rights of any defendant even beyond those in military trials. The tribunals, they said, did not provide for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and would not require strict rules of evidence like those in military and civilian courts. "The accused in such a court would have dramatically fewer rights than a person would in a court- martial," said Eugene R. Fidell, the president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Mr. Fidell said he expected the order to be challenged in court, adding, "It establishes a court that departs in important respects from core aspects of American criminal justice." Mindy Tucker, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said tribunals would not "preclude any Justice Department options" but would be an "additional tool." "These are obviously extraordinary times and the president needs to have as many options as possible," Ms. Tucker said. In signing the military order, a highly unusual act by a president, Mr. Bush invoked his constitutional authority as commander in chief as well as the resolution authorizing military force passed by Congress on Sept. 15. Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, and military law experts said one was not necessary for Mr. Bush's order. White House officials said that there was precedent for the military tribunals and that they had been approved by the Supreme Court, first in 1801. Those accused of plotting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were also tried and convicted by a military court, Bush administration officials said. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, White House officials said, had German saboteurs tried by a military court in World War II; six of them were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding, saying that people who entered the United States to wage war were combatants who could be tried in a military court. "What would you do if you caught bin Laden?" one administration official said tonight. "This is an additional option that is being provided by this order." Administration officials said a long, public trial might turn Mr. bin Laden into a martyr, and could cause further terrorism in his name. The names of the 5,000 people that the Justice Department wants to interview were compiled from immigration and State Department records of people who entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2000, on tourist, student or business visas. Only men aged 18 to 33 with these visas who are living in the United States are on the list. The names of the countries whose citizens have been placed on the list were not made public, but most are Middle Eastern nations thought to have harbored followers of Mr. bin Laden or to have been used by Al Qaeda as a staging base for activities in the United States. Ms. Tucker, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said she hoped some of the men would help the government thwart further attacks. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic advocacy group based in Washington, expressed concern about the plan and said the government should publish guidelines for these interviews, including the right of those being interviewed to have legal representation. "This type of sweeping investigation carries with it the potential to create the impression that interviewees are being singled out because of their race, ethnicity or religion," said Nihad Awad, the group's executive director. On Capitol Hill, the issue of who is entering the country illegally was in the forefront today, with senators sharply questioning a senior official of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who acknowledged that immigration agents were not required to conduct criminal background checks on immigrants caught crossing the border illegally. The official, Michael A. Pearson, the executive associate commissioner for field operations, said agents could use their discretion as to whether such a person should be detained or let go pending further action. Mr. Pearson said that 12,338 undocumented immigrants were arrested for illegal entry along the nation's northern border in the last fiscal year, and that two-thirds of them agreed to return voluntarily to their home countries. But he was not able to account for the 4,400 people who did not choose to return home voluntarily. Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations, responded, "I find that disturbing, to put it mildly." Questioned by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, Mr. Pearson said it was true that the I.N.S. had no ability to verify that illegal immigrants who were let go but told to leave the country actually did leave. Ms. Collins replied, "If there's no system for checking if the individual has actually left in the 30 days as promised, isn't it likely they are not leaving?" Mr. Pearson said, "That could certainly be the case." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011115/54629f44/attachment.html From kshekhar at bol.net.in Fri Nov 16 15:15:55 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Mumbai Study Group) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:15:55 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] 24.11.2001: Women Rag-Pickers Message-ID: Dear Friends: With warm greetings to all of you for a happy and prosperous Diwali, in our next meeting we welcome Ms JYOTI MHAPSEKAR, who will narrate her experiences of organising women rag-pickers, their role in the city's economy, and related issues of environment and solid waste management in Mumbai. Ms Mhapsekar is a playwright, activist, and works as the Head Librarian of the Rachana Sansad, Mumbai. She is one of the founder members of Stree Mukti Sanghatana, Mumbai, and for the last three years she has been organising women rag-pickers in several wards of Mumbai for their overall social upliftment and empowerment, to generate revenue and providing employment for themselves, and to relate their situation to larger environmental concerns in the city, such as vermiculture projects at the Deonar Dumping Grounds. This session will be on SATURDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2001, at 10.00 A.M., on the SECOND FLOOR, Rachna Sansad, 278, Shankar Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, next to Ravindra Natya Mandir. Phone: 4301024, 4310807, 4229969; Station: Elphinstone Road (Western Railway); BEST Bus: 35, 88, 151, 161, 162, 171, 355, 357, 363, to Ravindra Natya Mandir, 91 Ltd, 305 Ltd, A1 and A4 to Prabhadevi. MUMBAI STUDY GROUP SESSIONS, 2001-2002 8 DECEMBER 2001 "Critical Publicity/Public Criticism: Reflections on Fieldwork in the Bombay Advertising World" by Dr William Mazzarella, University of Chicago Dept of Anthropology, U.S.A. 22 DECEMBER 2001 "Shanghai and Mumbai: Sustainability of Development in a Globalizing World" by Dr Tapati Mukhopadhyay, Siddharth College Dept of Geography, Mumbai 12 JANUARY 2002 Harini Narayanan, University of Illinois Dept of Urban Geography, Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A. 26 JANUARY 2002 "Food Security in Mumbai and Thane: A Study of the Rationing Kruti Samiti" by Mayank Bhatt, Journalist and Research Associate, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K. 9 FEBRUARY 2002 "Party Politics in Mumbai: A Panel Discussion on the Eve of the Civic Elections" Participants To Be Announced 23 FEBRUARY 2002 To Be Announced 9 MARCH 2002 Film Screening of "Jari-Mari: Of Cloth and Other Stories" with Surabhi Sharma, Producer and Director 23 MARCH 2002 To Be Announced 13 APRIL 2002 "Gender and Space in Mumbai" by Shilpa Phadke, Visiting Lecturer in Sociology, Nirmala Niketan School of Social Work, Mumbai and Neera Adarkar, Architect, Adarkar Associates, Mumbai 27 APRIL 2002 To Be Announced ABOUT the MUMBAI STUDY GROUP The MUMBAI STUDY GROUP meets on the second and fourth Saturdays of every month, at the Rachana Sansad, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, at 10.00 A.M. Our conversations continue through the support extended by Shri Pradip Amberkar, Principal of the Academy of Architecture, and Prof S.H. Wandrekar, Trustee of the Rachana Sansad. Conceived as an inclusive and non-partisan forum to foster dialogue on urban issues, we have since September 2000 held conversations about various historical, political, cultural, social and spatial aspects of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Our discussions are open and public, no previous membership or affiliation is required. We encourage the participation of urban researchers and practitioners, experts and non-experts, researchers and students, and all individuals, groups and associations in Mumbai to join our conversations about the the city.The format we have evolved is to host individual presentations or panel discussions in various fields of urban theory and practice, and have a moderated and focussed discussion from our many practical and professional perspectives: whether as architects or planners, lawyers or journalists, artists or film-makers, academics or activists.Through such a forum, we hope to foster an open community of urban citizens, which clearly situates Mumbai in the theories and practices of urbanism globally. Previous sessions have hosted presentations by the following individuals: Kalpana Sharma, Associate Editor of The Hindu; Kedar Ghorpade, Senior Planner at the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority; Dr Marina Pinto, Professor of Public Administration, retired from Mumbai University; Dr K. Sita, Professor of Geography, retired from Mumbai University, and former Garware Chair Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences; Dr Arjun Appadurai, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, Director of Partners for Urban Knowledge Action & Research (PUKAR), Mumbai; Rahul Srivastava, Lecturer in Sociology at Wilson College; Sandeep Yeole, General Secretary of the All-India Pheriwala Vikas Mahasangh; Dr Anjali Monteiro, Professor and Head, and K.P. Jayashankar, Reader, from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences Unit for Media and Communications; Dr Sujata Patel, Professor and Head, Department of Sociology, University of Pune; Dr Mariam Dossal, Head, Department of History, Mumbai University; Sucheta Dalal, business journalist and Consulting Editor, Financial Express; Dr Arvind Rajagopal, Associate Professor of Culture and Communications at New York University; Dr Gyan Prakash, Professor of History at Princeton University, and member of the Subaltern Studies Editorial Collective; Dr Sudha Deshpande, Reader in Demography, retired from the Department of Economics, Mumbai University and former consultant for the World Bank, International Labour Organisation, and Bombay Municipal Corporation; Sulakshana Mahajan, doctoral candidate at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., and former Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, Rachana Sansad; Dr Rohin Hensman, of the Union Research Group, Mumbai. Previous panel discussions have comprised of the following individuals: S.S. Tinaikar, former Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, Sheela Patel, Director of the Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC), and Bhanu Desai of the Citizens' Forum for the Protection of Public Spaces (Citispace) on urban policy making and housing; Shirish Patel, civil engineer and urban planner, Pramod Sahasrabuddhe and Abhay Godbole, structural engineers on earthquakes and the built form of the city; B. Rajaram, Managing Director of Konkan Railway Corporation, and Dr P.G. Patankar, from Tata Consultancy Services, and former Chairman of the Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) on mass public transport alternatives; Ved Segan, Vikas Dilawari, and Pankaj Joshi, conservation architects, on the social relevance of heritage and conservation architecture; Debi Goenka, of the Bombay Environmental Action Group, Professor Sudha Srivastava, Dr Geeta Kewalramani, and Dr Dipti Mukherji, of the University of Mumbai Department of Geography, on the politics of land use, the city's salt pan lands, and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Act; Nikhil Rao, of the University of Chicago Dept of History, Anirudh Paul and Prasad Shetty of the Kamala Raheja Vidyanidhi Insitute of Architecture, and members of the various residents associations and citizens groups of the Dadar-Matunga, on the history, architecture, and formation of middle-class communities in these historic neighbourhoods, the first suburbs of Bombay. CONTACT US We invite all urban researchers, practitioners, students, and other interested individuals to join us in our fortnightly conversations, and suggest topics for presentation and discussion. For any more information, kindly contact one of the Joint Convenors of the Mumbai Study Group: ARVIND ADARKAR, Architect, Researcher and Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, Phone 2051834, ; DARRYL D'MONTE, Journalist and Writer, 6427088 ; SHEKHAR KRISHNAN, Coordinator-Associate, Partners for Urban Knowledge Action & Research (PUKAR), 4462728, ; PANKAJ JOSHI, Conservation Architect, Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, and PUKAR Associate, 8230625, . From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Nov 16 19:13:10 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:43:10 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Zizek : about subjectivity, multiculturalism, sex & unfreedom after 11 September Message-ID: Spiked November 15 http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C4.htm 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other' by Sabine Reul and Thomas Deichmann The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek has gained something of a cult following for his many writings - including The Ticklish Subject, a playful critique of the intellectual assault upon human subjectivity (1). At the prestigious Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2001, he talked to Sabine Reul and Thomas Deichmann about subjectivity, multiculturalism, sex and unfreedom after 11 September. Has 11 September thrown new light on your diagnosis of what is happening to the world? Slavoj Zizek: One of the endlessly repeated phrases we heard in recent weeks is that nothing will be the same after 11 September. I wonder if there really is such a substantial change. Certainly, there is change at the level of perception or publicity, but I don't think we can yet speak of some fundamental break. Existing attitudes and fears were confirmed, and what the media were telling us about terrorism has now really happened. In my work, I place strong emphasis on what is usually referred to as the virtualisation or digitalisation of our environment. We know that 60 percent of the people on this Earth have not even made a phone call in their life. But still, 30 percent of us live in a digitalised universe that is artificially constructed, manipulated and no longer some natural or traditional one. At all levels of our life we seem to live more and more with the thing deprived of its substance. You get beer without alcohol, meat without fat, coffee without caffeine...and even virtual sex without sex. Virtual reality to me is the climax of this process: you now get reality without reality...or a totally regulated reality. But there is another side to this. Throughout the entire twentieth century, I see a counter-tendency, for which my good philosopher friend Alain Badiou invented a nice name: 'La passion du réel', the passion of the real. That is to say, precisely because the universe in which we live is somehow a universe of dead conventions and artificiality, the only authentic real experience must be some extremely violent, shattering experience. And this we experience as a sense that now we are back in real life. Do you think that is what we are seeing now? Slavoj Zizek: I think this may be what defined the twentieth century, which really began with the First World War. We all remember the war reports by Ernst Jünger, in which he praises this eye-to-eye combat experience as the authentic one. Or at the level of sex, the archetypal film of the twentieth century would be Nagisa Oshima's Ai No Corrida (In The Realm Of The Senses), where the idea again is that you become truly radical, and go to the end in a sexual encounter, when you practically torture each other to death. There must be extreme violence for that encounter to be authentic. Another emblematic figure in this sense to me is the so-called 'cutter'- a widespread pathological phenomenon in the USA. There are two million of them, mostly women, but also men, who cut themselves with razors. Why? It has nothing to do with masochism or suicide. It's simply that they don't feel real as persons and the idea is: it's only through this pain and when you feel warm blood that you feel reconnected again. So I think that this tension is the background against which one should appreciate the effect of the act. Does that relate to your observations about the demise of subjectivity in The Ticklish Subject? You say the problem is what you call 'foreclosure'- that the real or the articulation of the subject is foreclosed by the way society has evolved in recent years. Slavoj Zizek: The starting point of my book on the subject is that almost all philosophical orientations today, even if they strongly oppose each other, agree on some kind of basic anti-subjectivist stance. For example, Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida would both agree that the Cartesian subject had to be deconstructed, or, in the case of Habermas, embedded in a larger inter-subjective dialectics. Cognitivists, Hegelians - everybody is in agreement here. I am tempted to say that we must return to the subject - though not a purely rational Cartesian one. My idea is that the subject is inherently political, in the sense that 'subject', to me, denotes a piece of freedom - where you are no longer rooted in some firm substance, you are in an open situation. Today we can no longer simply apply old rules. We are engaged in paradoxes, which offer no immediate way out. In this sense, subjectivity is political. But this kind of political subjectivity seems to have disappeared. In your books you speak of a post-political world. Slavoj Zizek: When I say we live in a post-political world, I refer to a wrong ideological impression. We don't really live in such a world, but the existing universe presents itself as post-political in the sense that there is some kind of a basic social pact that elementary social decisions are no longer discussed as political decisions. They are turned into simple decisions of gesture and of administration. And the remaining conflicts are mostly conflicts about different cultures. We have the present form of global capitalism plus some kind of tolerant democracy as the ultimate form of that idea. And, paradoxically, only very few are ready to question this world. So, what's wrong with that? Slavoj Zizek: This post-political world still seems to retain the tension between what we usually refer to as tolerant liberalism versus multiculturalism. But for me - though I never liked Friedrich Nietzsche - if there is a definition that really fits, it is Nietzsche's old opposition between active and passive nihilism. Active nihilism, in the sense of wanting nothing itself, is this active self-destruction which would be precisely the passion of the real - the idea that, in order to live fully and authentically, you must engage in self-destruction. On the other hand, there is passive nihilism, what Nietzsche called 'The last man' - just living a stupid, self-satisfied life without great passions. The problem with a post-political universe is that we have these two sides which are engaged in kind of mortal dialectics. My idea is that, to break out of this vicious cycle, subjectivity must be reinvented. You also say that the elites in our Western world are losing their nerve. They want to throw out all old concepts like humanism or subjectivity. Against that, you say it is important to look at what there is in the old that may be worth retaining. Slavoj Zizek: Of course, I am not against the new. I am, indeed, almost tempted to repeat Virginia Woolf. I think it was in 1914 when she said it was as though eternal human nature had changed. To be a man no longer means the same thing. One should not, for example, underestimate the inter-subjective social impact of cyberspace. What we are witnessing today is a radical redefinition of what it means to be a human being. Almost all philosophical orientations today agree on some kind of basic anti-subjectivist stanceTake strange phenomena, like what we see on the internet. There are so-called 'cam' websites where people expose to an anonymous public their innermost secrets down to the most vulgar level. You have websites today - even I, with all my decadent tastes, was shocked to learn this - where people put a video-camera in their toilets, so you can observe them defecating. This a totally new constellation. It is not private, but also it is also not public. It is not the old exhibitionist gesture. Be that as it may, something radical is happening. Now, a number of new terms are proposed to us to describe that. The one most commonly used is paradigm shift, denoting that we live in an epoch of shifting paradigm. So New Age people tell us that we no longer have a Cartesian, mechanistic individualism, but a new universal mind. In sociology, the theorists of second modernity say similar things. And psychoanalytical theorists tell us that we no longer have the Oedipus complex, but live in an era of universalised perversion. My point is not that we should stick to the old. But these answers are wrong and do not really register the break that is taking place. If we measure what is happening now by the standard of the old, we can grasp the abyss of the new that is emerging. Here I would refer to Blaise Pascal. Pascal's problem was also confrontation with modernity and modern science. His difficulty was that he wanted to remain an old, orthodox Christian in this new, modern age. It is interesting that his results were much more radical and interesting for us today than the results of superficial English liberal philosophers, who simply accepted modernity. You see the same thing in cinema history, if we look at the impact of sound. Okay, 'what's the problem?', you might say. By adding the sound to the image we simply get a more realistic rendering of reality. But that is not at all true. Interestingly enough, the movie directors who were most sensitive to what the introduction of sound really meant were generally conservatives, those who looked at it with scepticism, like Charlie Chaplin (up to a point), and Fritz Lang. Fritz Lang's Das Testament des Dr Mabuse, in a wonderful way, rendered this spectral ghost-like dimension of the voice, realising that voice never simply belongs to the body. This is just another example of how a conservative, as if he were afraid of the new medium, has a much better grasp of its uncanny radical potentials. The same applies today. Some people simply say: 'What's the problem? Let's throw ourselves into the digital world, into the internet, or whateverŠ.' They really miss what is going on here. So why do people want to declare a new epoch every five minutes? Slavoj Zizek: It is precisely a desperate attempt to avoid the trauma of the new. It is a deeply conservative gesture. The true conservatives today are the people of new paradigms. They try desperately to avoid confronting what is really changing. Let me return to my example. In Charlie Chaplain's film The Great Dictator, he satirises Hitler as Hinkel. The voice is perceived as something obscene. There is a wonderful scene where Hinkel gives a big speech and speaks totally meaningless, obscene words. Only from time to time you recognise some everyday vulgar German word like 'Wienerschnitzel' or 'Kartoffelstrudel'. And this was an ingenious insight; how voice is like a kind of a spectral ghost. All this became apparent to those conservatives who were sensitive for the break of the new. The most dangerous thing today is just to flow with thingsIn fact, all big breaks were done in such a way. Nietzsche was in this sense a conservative, and, indeed, I am ready to claim that Marx was a conservative in this sense, too. Marx always emphasised that we can learn more from intelligent conservatives than from simple liberals. Today, more than ever, we should stick to this attitude. When you are surprised and shocked, you don't simply accept it. You should not say: 'Okay, fine, let's play digital games.' We should not forget the ability to be properly surprised. I think, the most dangerous thing today is just to flow with things. Then let's return to some of the things that have been surprising us. In a recent article, you made the point that the terrorists mirror our civilisation. They are not out there, but mirror our own Western world. Can you elaborate on that some more? Slavoj Zizek: This, of course, is my answer to this popular thesis by Samuel P Huntington and others that there is a so-called clash of civilisations. I don't buy this thesis, for a number of reasons. Today's racism is precisely this racism of cultural difference. It no longer says: 'I am more than you.' It says: 'I want my culture, you can have yours.' Today, every right-winger says just that. These people can be very postmodern. They acknowledge that there is no natural tradition, that every culture is artificially constructed. In France, for example, you have a neo-fascist right that refers to the deconstructionists, saying: 'Yes, the lesson of deconstructionism against universalism is that there are only particular identities. So, if blacks can have their culture, why should we not have ours?' We should also consider the first reaction of the American 'moral majority', specifically Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to the 11 September attacks. Pat Robertson is a bit eccentric, but Jerry Falwell is a mainstream figure, who endorsed Reagan and is part of the mainstream, not an eccentric freak. Now, their reaction was the same as the Arabs', though he did retract a couple of days later. Falwell said the World Trade Centre bombings were a sign that God no longer protects the USA, because the USA had chosen a path of evil, homosexuality and promiscuity. According to the FBI, there are now at least two million so-called radical right-wingers in the USA. Some are quite violent, killing abortion doctors, not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing. To me, this shows that the same anti-liberal, violent attitude also grows in our own civilisation. I see that as proof that this terrorism is an aspect of our time. We cannot link it to a particular civilisation. Regarding Islam, we should look at history. In fact, I think it is very interesting in this regard to look at ex-Yugoslavia. Why was Sarajevo and Bosnia the place of violent conflict? Because it was ethnically the most mixed republic of ex-Yugoslavia. Why? Because it was Muslim-dominated, and historically they were definitely the most tolerant. We Slovenes, on the other hand, and the Croats, both Catholics, threw them out several hundred years ago. This proves that there is nothing inherently intolerant about Islam. We must rather ask why this terrorist aspect of Islam arises now. The tension between tolerance and fundamentalist violence is within a civilisation. Take another example: on CNN we saw President Bush present a letter of a seven-year-old girl whose father is a pilot and now around Afghanistan. In the letter she said that she loves her father, but if her country needs his death, she is ready to give her father for her country. President Bush described this as American patriotism. Now, do a simple mental experiment - imagine the same event with an Afghan girl saying that. We would immediately say: 'What cynicism, what fundamentalism, what manipulation of small children.' So there is already something in our perception. But what shocks us in others we ourselves also do in a way. So multiculturalism and fundamentalism could be two sides of the same coin? Slavoj Zizek: There is nothing to be said against tolerance. But when you buy this multiculturalist tolerance, you buy many other things with it. Isn't it symptomatic that multiculturalism exploded at the very historic moment when the last traces of working-class politics disappeared from political space? For many former leftists, this multiculturalism is a kind of ersatz working-class politics. We don't even know whether the working class still exists, so let's talk about exploitation of others. This notion of tolerance effectively masks its opposite: intoleranceThere may be nothing wrong with that as such. But there is a danger that issues of economic exploitation are converted into problems of cultural tolerance. And then you have only to make one step further, that of Julia Kristeva in her essay 'Etrangers à nous mêmes', and say we cannot tolerate others because we cannot tolerate otherness in ourselves. Here we have a pure pseudo-psychoanalytic cultural reductionism. Isn't it sad and tragic that the only relatively strong - not fringe - political movement that still directly addresses the working class is made up of right-wing populists? They are the only ones. Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, for example. I was shocked when I saw him three years ago at a congress of the Front National. He brought a black Frenchman, an Algerian and a Jew on the podium, embraced them and said: 'They are no less French than I am. Only the international cosmopolitan companies who neglect French patriotic interests are my enemy.' So the price is that only right-wingers still talk about economic exploitation. The second thing I find wrong with this multiculturalist tolerance is that it is often hypocritical in the sense that the other whom they tolerate is already a reduced other. The other is okay in so far as this other is only a question of food, of culture, of dances. What about clitoridectomy? What about my friends who say: 'We must respect Hindus.' Okay, but what about one of the old Hindu customs which, as we know, is that when a husband dies, the wife is burned. Now, do we respect that? Problems arise here. An even more important problem is that this notion of tolerance effectively masks its opposite: intolerance. It is a recurring theme in all my books that, from this liberal perspective, the basic perception of another human being is always as something that may in some way hurt you. Are you referring to what we call victim culture? Slavoj Zizek: The discourse of victimisation is almost the predominant discourse today. You can be a victim of the environment, of smoking, of sexual harassment. I find this reduction of the subject to a victim sad. In what sense? There is an extremely narcissistic notion of personality here. And, indeed, an intolerant one, insofar as what it means is that we can no longer tolerate violent encounters with others - and these encounters are always violent. Let me briefly address sexual harassment for a moment. Of course I am opposed to it, but let's be frank. Say I am passionately attached, in love, or whatever, to another human being and I declare my love, my passion for him or her. There is always something shocking, violent in it. This may sound like a joke, but it isn't - you cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms. There is a moment of violence, when you say: 'I love you, I want you.' In no way can you bypass this violent aspect. So I even think that the fear of sexual harassment in a way includes this aspect, a fear of a too violent, too open encounter with another human being. Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting. In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other. You cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct termsFor me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes. When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children. In your book on the subject you talk of a 'true universalism' as an opposite of this false sense of global harmony. What do you mean by that? Slavoj Zizek: Here I need to ask myself a simple Habermasian question: how can we ground universality in our experience? Naturally, I don't accept this postmodern game that each of us inhabits his or her particular universe. I believe there is universality. But I don't believe in some a priori universality of fundamental rules or universal notions. The only true universality we have access to is political universality. Which is not solidarity in some abstract idealist sense, but solidarity in struggle. If we are engaged in the same struggle, if we discover that - and this for me is the authentic moment of solidarity - being feminists and ecologists, or feminists and workers, we all of a sudden have this insight: 'My God, but our struggle is ultimately the same!' This political universality would be the only authentic universality. And this, of course, is what is missing today, because politics today is increasingly a politics of merely negotiating compromises between different positions. The post-political subverts the freedom that has been talked about so much in recent weeks. Is that what you are saying? Slavoj Zizek: I do claim that what is sold to us today as freedom is something from which this more radical dimension of freedom and democracy has been removed - in other words, the belief that basic decisions about social development are discussed or brought about involving as many as possible, a majority. In this sense, we do not have an actual experience of freedom today. Our freedoms are increasingly reduced to the freedom to choose your lifestyle. You can even choose your ethnic identity up to a point. But this new world of freedom described by people like Ulrich Beck, who say everything is a matter of reflective negotiation, of choice, can include new unfreedom. My favourite example is this, and here we have ideology at its purest: we know that it is very difficult today in more and more professional domains to get a long-term job. Academics or journalists, for example, now often live on a two- or three-year contract, that you then have to renegotiate. Of course, most of us experience this as something traumatising, shocking, where you can never be sure. But then, along comes the postmodern ideologist: 'Oh, but this is just a new freedom, you can reinvent yourself every two years!' The problem for me is how unfreedom is hidden, concealed in precisely what is presented to us as new freedoms. I think that the explosion of these new freedoms, which fall under the domain of what Michel Foucault called 'care of the self', involves greater social unfreedom. Twenty or 30 years ago there was still discussion as to whether the future would be fascist, socialist, communist or capitalist. Today, nobody even discusses this. These fundamental social choices are simply no longer perceived as a matter to decide. A certain domain of radical social questions has simply been depoliticised. I find it very sad that, precisely in an era in which tremendous changes are taking place and, indeed entire social coordinates are transformed, we don't experience this as something about which we decided freely. So, let's return to the aftermath of 11 September. We now experience a strange kind of war that we are told will not end for a long time. What do you think of this turn of events? Slavoj Zizek: I don't quite agree with those who claim that this World Trade Centre explosion was the start of the first war of the twenty-first century. I think it was a war of the twentieth century, in the sense that it was still a singular, spectacular event. The new wars would be precisely as you mentioned - it will not even be clear whether it is a war or not. Somehow life will go on and we will learn that we are at war, as we are now. The explosion of these new freedoms involves greater social unfreedomWhat worries me is how many Americans perceived these bombings as something that made them into innocents: as if to say, until now, we had problems, Vietnam, and so on. Now we are victims, and this somehow justifies us in fully identifying with American patriotism. That's a risky gesture. The big choice for Americans is whether they retreat into this patriotism - or, as my friend Ariel Dorfman wrote recently: 'America has the chance to become a member of the community of nations. America always behaves as though it were special. It should use this attack as an opportunity to admit that it is not special, but simply and truly part of this world.' That's the big choice. There is something so disturbingly tragic in this idea of the wealthiest country in the world bombing one of the poorest countries. It reminds me of the well-known joke about the idiot who loses a key in the dark and looks for it beneath the light. When asked why, he says: 'I know I lost it over there, but it's easier to look for it here.' But at the same time I must confess that the left also deeply disappointed me. Falling back into this safe pacifist attitude - violence never stops violence, give peace a chance - is abstract and doesn't work here. First, because this is not a universal rule. I always ask my leftist friends who repeat that mantra: What would you have said in 1941 with Hitler. Would you also say: 'We shouldn't resist, because violence never helps?' It is simply a fact that at some point you have to fight. You have to return violence with violence. The problem is not that for me, but that this war can never be a solution. It is also false and misleading to perceive these bombings as some kind of third world working-class response to American imperialism. In that case, the American fundamentalists we already discussed, are also a working-class response, which they clearly are not. We face a challenge to rethink our coordinates and I hope that this will be a good result of this tragic event. That we will not just use it to do more of the same but to think about what is really changing in our world. Dr Slavoj Zizek is professor of philosophy at University Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is currently a member of the Directors' Board at Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen, Germany. Sabine Reul is sub-editor and Thomas Deichmann is chief editor of Novo, spiked's partner magazine in Germany. See the Novo website, where the full interview is published in German. (1) Buy The Ticklish Subject from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA) To respond to what you've read, send a letter by clicking here What is spiked? spiked is a website for those who want to see some change in the real world as well as the virtual one. If you think that the power of the internet could be used for something more than shopping and pseudo-sex, get spiked. spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP -- From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Fri Nov 16 21:55:41 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 16 Nov 2001 16:25:41 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] The Levinas Interlude Message-ID: <20011116162541.27525.qmail@mailweb19.rediffmail.com> ALTERITY AND OBLIGATION TO AND FOR THE OTHER Alterity, the otherness of the other, gives obligation. Alterity, in the face of the disappearance of God, now traces itself across the face of the other person. Divine inversion has now produced a work of human inversion, a reversal of each ego's relationship to itself, so that now each self, having lost its ties to the origin, finds itself only other and utterly alien. It is this for it is only what it is by being other and not itself. This is by no means a Hegelian self-difference that calls out to identity, but an absolute difference, an identity whose identity is difference. Now, when all identity is difference, the self cannot lodge within itself, finding there a restful space of introspection. One finds, now, that the inner is the outer. The other, no longer transcendent, is the seat of the psyche. Therefore now, expenditure, which is the gift of creation, has no other direction than toward the other. This obligation to the other is the first and most absolute responsibility and, since this predeeds eternally any conscious decision, it simply is. It is the body of matter itself. From patrice at xs4all.nl Sat Nov 17 17:14:37 2001 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:44:37 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Alan Cox & Linux Security (comments from a hippie...) Message-ID: <20011117124437.A28607@xs4all.nl> (from the Hippies from Hell discussion list) ----- Forwarded message from Russell Coker ----- Subject: Re: Alan Cox's Linux Security Holes Blues... (fwd) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:08:01 +0100 On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:35, Patrice Riemens wrote: > Bwo the Sarai Reader-list. 10 days old, but sufficiently shocking. Sorry > if you knew it all already, you slashdot punkos! That article is so lame, I'm wondering whether the author is a village idiot from a particularly inbred village or whether they are a plain moron who's trying to write irony. Alan is totally against the DMCA. His stand on refusing to give security information to US citizens because of it is an act designed to provoke further opposition to that stupid law. Anyway it had been well published before Alan's statement anyway, refusing to tell us something we already know doesn't mean much practically. ;) People who publish exploits are no more vulnerable now than they were before. Alan's actions change nothing unless they get enough Americans to complain about the stupid laws and get them changed. A simpler solution for people who are bothered about stupid US laws is just to avoid the place. With all the new security issues it's not as nice a place for a holiday as it used to be so there's no need to ever go there. Also while we're on this topic, avoid buying American products when products from other countries will do. Economic pressure is the best way to get changes in stupid American policies. > ----- Forwarded message from Jaswinder Singh Kohli > ----- > > Subject: [Reader-list] Keep Security Censorship Away From Linux > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:04:41 +0530 > > > > Opponents of vulnerability disclosure may have a surprise ally in > Linux's second-in-command > By Jon Lasser > Nov 6 2001 11:00PM PT ----- End forwarded message ----- From anjali_mahendra at hotmail.com Sat Nov 17 19:04:45 2001 From: anjali_mahendra at hotmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:04:45 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Please unsubscribe me. Message-ID: Hi I would like this email address to be unsubscribed from the reader-list please. Thanks. Anjali. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anjali Mahendra Graduate Student [Master of City Planning] Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology E-Mail: anjalim at mit.edu Address: 305, Memorial Drive Cambridge MA-02139. U.S.A. Phone: (617)225-9126 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 17 22:55:47 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 17 Nov 2001 17:25:47 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] In Dialogue: Ernesto Laclau and Judith Butler Message-ID: <20011117172547.18551.qmail@mailweb12.rediffmail.com> DIACRITICS ERNESTO LACLAU & JUDITH BUTLER The following exchange between Judith Butler (who at the time was in Irvine, California) and Ernesto Laclau (in Essex, England) took place during the months of May and June of 1995. Ernesto Laclau, born in Argentina, is well known for his Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, published in 1985 in collaboration with Chantal Mouffe. The work starts off by critically examining the concept of "hegemony" within a Marxist tradition, and it ends by proposing a socialist strategy that not only takes into account the criticism posited against the Marxist tradition of the last three decades, but also the emergence of new social and political fronts. Hegemony manifests a motive that is felt in the background of the following discussion: a politics of "radical democracy" (a term introduced in the book) should aspire to preserve the conflictive character of all social processes if it intends to avoid becoming a totalitarian system. In other words, a politics of a "radical democracy" should remain faithful to the dictum stated by the German poet Paul Celan: "build on inconsistencies." It is evident that Laclau and Judith Butler, the North American author of Gender Trouble (1990) and its sequel, Bodies That Matter (1993), share this position. In these works, Butler advocates the reactivation of the concept of "interpellation" in order to expose the ways in which any given subject is "engendered." The performative constitution of a subject, according to Butler, is defined through a reiterative convocation or "interpellation," which continuously exhorts the subject to adhere to a gender norm. Not all sequences and efforts at interpellation, however, are completely successful; hence the need for notions of "deviations" in contrast to the norm. This theoretical standpoint facilitated a deconstruction of social gender norms and addressed issues raised by the gay and lesbian communities. In Bodies That Matter, however, a growing emphasis was placed on the articulation of th broader field of the democratic claims of minorities. Here, references to Mouffe and Laclau and to the concepts of "articulation" and "hegemony" were increasingly necessary. The link between Butler and Laclau was extended by the dialogue that follows. An example of this is the notion that all identities constitute themselves by differentiation. However, differentiation immediately implies antagonism. Identities exist because there are differences in strength, antagonism, and finally, in hegemony. According to both Butler and Laclau, the social constitutes itself as the space in which hegemonic relations unfold. Nevertheless, it is characteristic of any hegemonic position to never gain stability: any hegemonic position is always exposed to the risk of being subverted. Thus the recurrence of two issues that play a role in the following discussion: the existence of hegemonic relations and, hence, exclusion, found in the social domain. But since no particular exclusion is based on "the nature of things," or can be ultimately justified, no exclusion can be definite, and no politics can achieve a final form. It is within the gap between the recognition that exclusion always exists in the social domain, and the rupture it provokes--that is to say, between the affirmation that no situation is purely structured and that no structure formation is ever complete--that perhaps the program of radical democracy unfolds. Equality, as a signifier and as a thing--if it exists--was the topic proposed to Butler and Laclau: their dialogue exceeds our original expectations. Reinaldo Laddaga What's the political value, today, of the use of the signifier "equality"? Considering the poststructuralist elaboration of "difference," how does "equality" work today in gender and/or race politics? "Difference" has been, for more than a decade, the key word for a certain number of programs related to radical democracy. Certainly, "difference" has given space to the constitution of new types of social solidarity. Recently, how eservations on the extension of the term have been published. Chantal Mouffe--in her introduction to Dimensions of Radical Democracy--has stated that "all differences cannot be accepted" in order "for pluralism to be made compatible with the struggle against inequality." Mouffe doesn't clarify, in this particular text, the criteria with which to discriminate between "acceptable" and "nonacceptable" (or, maybe, "pertinent" and "nonpertinent") differences, neither does she give a nonequivocal definition of "equality." Both are tasks that seem crucial for the project of a radical democracy. On his part, Alain Badiou has written that "aujourd'hui, le concept de liberté n'a pas de valeur immédiate de saisie, parce qu'il est captif du liberalisme, de la doctrine des libertés parlamentaires et commerciales," such that "le vieux mot de l'égalité est aujourd'hui le meilleur" for "une politique d'émancipation post-marxiste-léniniste." Would you agree with Badiou's affirmation? I understand, on my part, that "equality" has received in radical democratic theory, and in recent gay/lesbian and race theory, a treatment much less detailed than "freedom" or even "fraternity" (in the form of the problem of the constitution of counterhegemonic types of community). How do you interpret this fact? What sense can we make of "equality" in the context of progressive politics today? RL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ernesto, Sorry to begin this a day late, but too many interruptions happened yesterday. Ernesto, I'm very pleased to be in touch, and hope all is well there (I tried to call you when I was last in England but got a recording from a business that was trying to sell telephones . . . struck me as a telephonic mise en abyme). We are asked to begin a conversation on equality, and on the problem of acceptable and unacceptable differences. I hardly know where to begin, and think that you would probably join me in the sense of unease that follows from b e included in an ideal polity, and what kinds of differences undermine the very possibility of polity, perhaps even the very ideality without which no democratic notion of polity can proceed. I am a bit perplexed as well by the question of whether or not the notion of inclusion and exclusion, which I know has occupied your work for some time now, is strictly correlated to the notion of equality. So perhaps I will start by offering a set of distinctions between "inclusiveness" and "equality." It seems to me that inclusiveness is an ideal, an ideal that is impossible to realize, but whose unrealizability nevertheless governs the way in which a radical democratic project proceeds. I gather that one of the reasons, or the key reason, why inclusiveness is bound to fail is precisely because the various differences that are to be included within the polity are not given in advance. They are, crucially, in the process of being formulated and elaborated, and that there is no way to circumscribe in advance the form that an ideal of inclusiveness would take. This openness or incompleteness that constitutes the ideal of inclusion is precisely an effect of the unrealized status of what is or will be the content of what is to be included. In this sense, then, inclusion as an ideal must be constituted by its [End Page 4] own impossibility; indeed, it must be committed to its own impossibility in order to proceed along the path of realization. Equality is, of course, a strange concept when thought in relation to this model (a model that I take to be derived from your thinking on this issue, as well as Chantal Mouffe's). Equality would not be the equalization of given differences. That formulation suggests that differences are to be understood as tantamount to specificities or particularities. And the point of a futural re-elaboration of the notion of equality would be to hold out the possibility that we do not yet know who or what might make a claim to equality, where and when the doctrine of equality might apply, and th ther given nor closed. The volatility of the Equal Protection Clause in the US Constitution gives evidence of this in an interesting way. Is it the case that those who are addressed by "hate speech" are deprived of their abilities to participate equally in the public sphere? Some feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, argue that pornography ought to be opposed because it produces an epistemic atmosphere in which women are not entitled to exercise their rights of equal treatment and participation. Although I oppose MacKinnon's view (and her understanding of the performative operation of representation), I do appreciate the way in which the doctrine of equality becomes a site of contestation within recent US constitutional debates. It suggests that we do not yet know when and where the claim to equality might emerge, and it holds out the possibility for a futural articulation of that doctrine. So, in one sense, then, it seems that the notion of equality would proceed undemocratically if we claim to know in advance who might make use of its claim, and what kinds of issues fall within its purview. And this relates to the ideal of an impossible inclusiveness: who is included among those who might make the claim to equality? What kinds of issues undermine the very possibility of certain groups making such a claim? But this then raises a different question, namely, are exclusions always to be overcome, and are there certain kinds of exclusions without which no polity can proceed? How might we enumerate such excluded possibilities? Certainly, some kinds of crimes are and ought to be punishable, excluded from the realm of the acceptable, and certainly there are taboos--foreclosures in the Lacanian sense--without which no subject can function as a subject. The "inclusion" of all excluded possibilities would lead to psychosis, to a radically unlivable life, and to the destruction of polity as we understand it. So if we accept, as I think we both do, that there is no polity, no sociality, no field of the political, having already been made--constitutive exclusions that produce a constitutive outside to any ideal of inclusiveness--that does not mean that we accept all sorts of exclusions as legitimate. It would be unwarranted to conclude that just because some exclusions are inevitable all exclusions are justified. But that then gets us into the tricky territory of the problem of justifying exclusions. And here I am compelled to turn the conversation over to you. . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Judith, Thank you, Judith. I largely agree with you. Let me complement your analysis with three remarks. The first concerns the relationship between equality and difference. Not only do I think that these two notions are not incompatible but I would even add that the proliferation of differences is the precondition for the expansion of the logic of equality. To say that two things are equal--i.e., equivalent to each other in some respects--presupposes that they are different from each other in some other respects (otherwise there would be no equality but identity). In the political field equality is a type of discourse which tries to deal with differences; it is a way of organizing them, if you want. To assert, for instance, the right of all national minorities to self-determination is to assert that these [End Page 5] minorities are equivalent (or equal) to each other. As a general rule I would say that the more fragmented a social identity is, the less it overlaps with the community as a whole, and the more it will have to negotiate its location within that community in terms of rights (i.e., in terms of a discourse of equality which transcends the group in question). That is why I think that a politics of pure particularism is self-defeating. On the other hand I think it is necessary to differentiate those situations in which an anti-egalitarian politics takes place through the imposition of a dominant and uniform canon (this is the situation confronted tod l struggles in the Anglo-Saxon world) from those in which the discrimination takes place by violently asserting differences, as in the idea of "separate developments" which constituted the core of apartheid. This means that, depending on the circumstances, equality can lead to a reinforcement of the weakening of differences. My second remark concerns the question of exclusion. I agree with you that the ideal of total equality is unreachable and, also, that a society without any kind of exclusion would be a psychotic universe. What I would like to add is that the need for exclusion is inscribed in the structure of all decision making. As I have tried to show elsewhere, a decision, in order to be a decision, has to be taken in a structurally undecidable terrain--otherwise, if the decision was predetermined by the structure it would not be my decision. The precondition of a decision is that actual choice is not algorithmically prefigured. But in that case, if the decision is its own ground, the discarded alternatives have been simply put aside, that is, excluded. If we pass from individual to collective decisions this is even more clear, for the excluded alternative could have been preferred by certain groups of people, and so exclusion shows a dimension of repression which was concealed in the individual decision. I would add that a society without exclusions is impossible for more basic reasons than being an empirically unreachable ideal: it is also logically impossible as far as the social is constructed through decisions taken in an undecidable terrain. We can deal as democratically as possible with exclusion (for instance, through the principle of majority, or through the protection of minorities), but this cannot conceal the fact that politics is, to a large extent, a series of negotiations around the principle of exclusion which is always there as the ineradicable terrain of the social. As usual, determinatio est negatio. This leads me to my third remark. We have been asked for a criterion to determin able from those which are not. Now, this can be interpreted in various ways. It could involve, for instance, the request for a strict ethical criterion, independent of any context. If it was so, the only possible answer would be that no such criterion could be given. It could also be a question about social ethics--namely, what differences are compatible with the actual workings of a society. This would be a more pertinent question because it makes possible a historicist answer. The gist of my answer would be to say that the very criterion of what is acceptable or not is the locus of a multiplicity of social struggles and that it is wrong to try to give any kind of decontextualized response. Obviously this is not an answer to the question "how would you draw the frontier between the acceptable and the not acceptable in Western European societies today?," but it allows us to at least discriminate between pertinent and nonpertinent questions. Ernesto -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ernesto, Thanks for your response. I would like to concentrate on the last two points you made, one concerning exclusion and its role in any decision making, and the other, concerning how [End Page 6] one might decide what kinds of exclusions must be made for equality to remain an active ideal. I think that these two are linked in an interesting way, and the link is suggested to me by your focus on making "decisions" in both contexts. I think that you are right in claiming that no decision can be a decision if it is determined in advance by a structure of some kind. For there to be a decision means that there must be some contingency, which is not the same as saying that there must be radical contingency. I take it that the relative determination of structure is what differentiates a position such as yours from a more existentialist or conventionally liberal individualist view on decision making. Indeed, is it not possible to elaborate a notion of "context"--inv in your response to the question of how best to decide what ought and ought not to be included in a polity and the inadmissibility of certain "differences"? It seems clear that a decontextualized answer to the question of what ought not to be included is impossible, and I think that the effort to elaborate principles that are radically context-free, as some "proceduralists" seek to do, is simply to embed the context in the principle, and then to rarify the principle so that its embedded context is no longer legible. And yet, this still leaves us with a quandary, since I would imagine that you find the Derridean questions raised in "Signature, Event, Context" about the "illimitability" of contexts to be persuasive, as I do. I think that contexts are in some ways produced by decisions, that is, that there is a certain redoubling of decision making in the situation (the context?) in which one is asked to decide what kinds of differences ought not to be included in a given polity. There is first the decision to mark or delimit the context in which such a decision will be made, and then there is the marking off of certain kinds of differences as inadmissible. The first decision is not itself without a context, but it would be subject to the same infinite regression as the second, since there would be no original or defining context that is not at once delimited by a decision of some kind. I think it is a mistake to think that we might be able to list "kinds of differences" that are inadmissible, not only because you and I do not have the power to make such decisions, but because the form of the question misreads both what a decision is, and what we might mean by "differences." If there is, as you say, no decision without exclusion, without something being foreclosed, and a set of possibilities being framed, brought into relief through that foreclosure, then exclusion, as you say, makes decision-making possible. So perhaps the question is, what kinds of exclusions make decision-making possible, and is making a "de ain kinds of exclusions ought to remain constitutive exclusions? This reminds me of Nietzsche's question: how does man become an animal capable of making promises? How do any of us become (through a certain kind of constitutive foreclosure) the kinds of beings who can and do make decisions? I don't mean to bypass entirely the question posed to us, about the inadmissibility of certain "differences," but I continue to have a difficult time reading the question. I wonder whether it is a question of "differences," understood as particular kinds of identities or group formations, or whether what we want to do is to keep the field of differences at play, in contestation, and that what is referred to under the rubric of "inadmissible differences" is really something which puts a freeze on the play of differences. I look forward to your further thoughts. Judith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Judith and Ernesto, Thank you for your comments. One very brief remark. When I mentioned Mouffe's statement it was not my intention to force you to decide which differences would be acceptable (a demand that would be manifestly nonpertinent) but to point to a certain [End Page 7] indetermination--an indetermination that could even be considered desirable--in the uses of "equality" in the context of radical democratic theory. I would prefer my question to be read in this sense: how to freeze the play of differences--to use Judith's terms--and still maintain "equality" as an "active ideal." How do we conceive a political identity which doesn't put a freeze on (which doesn't homogenize) the play of differences internal to itself? And, finally, do we have (and, more fundamentally, do we need) a definition of "equality" that is not "conventionally liberal"? You have already begun to answer these questions, I think . . . RL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Judith, Let me first answer some of the message, which can serve as an introduction to my reactions to your comments. First, I think that the play of differences is at the same time an opening and a freezing of that play. I say this, because I do not think that something such as an unrestricted play of differences can be maintained, not even as an active ideal. I can only open up the terrain of some historical possibilities by closing others. This is equivalent to saying that it is politics, rather than the notion of uncontaminated presence, that organizes social relations. On the other hand, I do not understand what a "play of differences 'internal' to itself" could be. If identity means difference, then the idea of a "play of differences" internal to difference is something I do not fully grasp. Instead, I think that the play of differences subverts any rigid frontier between the internal and the external. This leads me to a terrain within which I approach the last two questions from Reinaldo. I would locate the notion of equality--from the point of view of the latter's constitutive structuration--within the field of what I have called the "logic of equivalence"; that is, a process by which the differential nature of all identity is at the same time asserted and subverted. Now, a chain of equivalences is by its very definition constitutively open; there is no way of establishing its boundaries in a decontextualized universe. (Trying to do the latter would be, quoting Quine, something like asking how many points in Ohio are starting points.) Politics is, in this respect, a double operation of breaking and extending chains of equivalence. Any determinate political process in a concrete context is, precisely, an attempt to partially extend equivalences and to partially limit their indefinite expansion. I see liberalism as an attempt to fix the meaning of equality within definite parameters (individualism, and the rigid distinction between public/private, etc.) which are historically limited and in many respects superseded--and not always in a progressiv ics. How to deconstruct the basic liberal distinctions while keeping a democratic potential is, as I see it, the task of radical democratic politics. I come now, Judith, to your reactions to my comments. I am glad to find that we are in agreement on most issues. Let us make, at the start, a point of clarification. I certainly agree with you that "radical contingency" is an unacceptable notion if we understand by it some kind of abyss which creates a total lack of structuration. What we are speaking of as the course of contingency is, rather, a failed structuration. Thus, contingency--if it is properly contextualized--should be reinscribed within the most primary field of the distinction necessary (contextual necessity, of course, not logical or causal necessity)/contingent. However, having constructed contingency in this way, I would still say that it is radical in the sense that within the limits of a partially destructured context it can only appeal to itself as its own source. Would you buy this? This leads me to the important issues that you raise, starting with your critique of "proceduralism"--a critique which I subscribe to. I think that the questions that Derrida [End Page 8] poses in "Signature, Event, Context" need to be answered and to be very attentive to the double dimension that they open. On the one hand, he is saying that it is not possible to, strictly speaking, attribute closed boundaries to a context. However, as his is not an argument for a return to a Platonic, decontextualized meaning, the very impossibility of delimiting contexts are all we are left with. They have to be defined by their limits, and yet these limits are impossible. Everything here turns around this evanescent object, the "limit," which is something like the presence of an absence. Or, to put it in Kantian terms, an object which shows itself through the impossibility of an adequate representation. Now, my own view is that if this limit is impossible but also necessary--something like Lacan's "objet petit a"--it will into the field of representation. But as it is necessary yet also impossible its representation will be constitutively inadequate. A particular difference within the limits will always have to assume the role of limit and, in this way, to fix (to close within itself) a transient context. This relation of fixity/unfixity by which an "ontic" content assumes the "ontological" function of constituting a transient context is, as you know, what I call a hegemonic relation. As you see, it involves the Derridean critique of boundaries, but it attempts to prolong it with a notion of the dialectic between impossibility/necessity which makes possible the construction of hegemonic contexts. This gives me a starting point to begin some sort of response to the questions involved in our exchange. What differences are acceptable or nonacceptable? We both agree that the question cannot be answered outside any context and, also, that the notion of context is far from being an unproblematic one. If contexts, however, are constituted the way I suggest, you have various advantages: (1) you can make compatible the ultimate instability of limits with actual limitations; (2) you have certain rules to decide what will count as a valid inclusion or exclusion, it will depend on the actual hegemonic configuration of certain community; (3) this hegemonic configuration is not a simple datum but the result of the transient articulation between concrete content and universalization of the community through the construction of a limit which has no necessary link to that content; that hegemonic configuration is always open to contestation and change. In this way we can reach a more democratic view than in the case in which the hegemonic configuration depended on a noncontingent link between context-limiting/constitution function and actual content playing that role of limit; (4) finally, the unevenness that hegemonic games introduce within differential social identities allows us to solve some of the aporias connected to the "play of differe hrough which those differences are constituted in our actual political world. I wait for your reaction. Best, Ernesto -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ernesto, There is much in your last text to think about, and I hope to be able to probe some of the questions raised in what follows. I very much agree with your formulation of the logic of equivalence, namely, as a "process by which the differential nature of all identity is at the same time asserted and subverted." And I wonder whether thinking about equivalence does not significantly alter the kinds of quandaries brought up by the question of equality. It always seemed to me that you and Chantal Mouffe were trying to underscore a structural openness (and, hence, a "poststructuralism") in the problem of identity that would at once honor the place of identity in contemporary political formations and yet dishonor its foundational or "ontological" claim. I gather that the point about contingency that you raise in the [End Page 9] subsequent paragraph speaks to the question of identity and equivalence as well: to the extent that all identities fail to be fully structured, they are each equally (although not substantively or "ontically") formed through the same constitutive failure. This "same-ness" is interesting since it is not to be rigorously understood in terms of a given "content" of identity. On the contrary, it is what guarantees the failure of any given "content" to successfully lay claim to the status of the ontological or what I call the "foundational." I understand that you seek recourse to Lacan to explain this lack or failure, and that is probably where I would differ with you, a difference in emphasis, since I think that the failure of any subject formation is an effect of its iterability, its having to be formed in time, again and again. One might say, via Althusser, that the ritual through which subjects are formed is always subject to a rerouting or a lapse by virtue of thi hether failure, for both of us, does not become a kind of universal condition (and limit) of subject formation; a way in which we still seek to assert a common condition which assumes a transcendental status in relation to particular differences. To the extent that, no matter what our "difference," we are always only partially constituted as ourselves (and this, as a result of our being constituted within a field of differentiations), and to what extent are we also bound together through this "failure"? How does the limitation on subject constitution become, oddly, a new source of community or collectivity or a presumed condition of universality? I would like to know more about how a contextual necessity is established. Is there a background or context that forms the tenuous yet necessary horizon of what we call "context"? Would the context that is also partially destructured, that does not yet fully assume the status of the ontological, also have a necessity that, strictly speaking, isn't a logical or causal necessity, but perhaps a historical necessity of some kind? Is it a spatialized historical necessity (Benjamin thought that post-teleology history would have to be read in a landscape)? And what are the conditions under which such a necessity becomes readable to us as such? I gather that in your notion of democratic hegemony, there will always be a radical incommensurability between content and universalization, but that the two will also always engender one another in some way. The democratic task would be to keep any given universalization of content from becoming a final one, that is, from shutting down the temporal horizon, the futural horizon of universalization itself. If I understand this correctly, then I agree with it wholeheartedly. I wonder, then, whether we might conclude our conversation by turning to the question of the "Americas," a term that figures in the rubric under which our conversation takes place. I ask it because it is so interesting to see, for instance, in "American Studies, tates, how the borders of the Americas are drawn. It is often the case that the borders become synonymous with the United States, at which point the border of the epistemological object, "Americas," encodes and dissimulates a history of colonialism. Or when it is restricted to the continent of North America, excluding South America and the islands in between, there are certain stories one cannot tell about trade, slavery, and colonial expansion. What becomes interesting is how we might think about equality under this rubric, where the "subject" at hand is not exactly an identity, but a political imaginary, where the very boundaries of what is meant by a pluralized "Americas" remain importantly uncertain. Clearly the question of equality or, indeed, of equivalence, cannot be asked of an entity, "the Americas," if the very delimitation of that phenomenon remains to be known. Or is there a way of posing the question of equality without claiming to know, in advance, in what this phenomenon consists? Or even more importantly, is there a way of posing the question of equality that opens up the question of what the "Americas" are, what they are to become? How does one press the futural [End Page 10] possibility wihin the ontic articulation in order to ward off its foreclosure as the ontological? Best, Judith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Judith, The problems that you raise in your last text would, indeed, require more thought and space than the limits of this exchange allow me to give. Let me, however, address some of your basic points. 1. You say, concerning my notion of democratic hegemony, that if you understand it correctly, then you agree with it wholeheartedly. As a matter of fact, you have perfectly understood it, so there is no quarrel between us about this central point of my argument. 2. On our difference of emphasis concerning the failure of any given content to lay claim to the status of the "foundational," let me say the fo ubject formation yields is an effect of its iterability." This formulation presents, however, an ambiguity. For it is perfectly possible to think of this iterability as something whose recurrence--or, rather, linearity--cancels the ontological difference, i.e., whose movement is at any stage incomplete (and in that sense a failure), but which as a system does not leave anything outside itself. In that case we would be in the realm of Hegel's Greater Logic: the failure of each single stage cannot be represented as such, because its "for itself" is a higher stage and, ergo, there is never constitutive failure, no ultimate deadlock. The insistence of Being through its various manifestations is nothing beyond the sequence of the latter. What, however, if the logic of the failure/iteration is not the logic of the Aufgehoben, if what insists in iteration is the contingency of the series, the hopelessness of its attempt at an ultimate closure? In that case, this moment of failure, of hopelessness, cannot elude the field of representation. The variety of the insistence, the presence of the absence of the object which sustains any possible iteration has to have some form of discursive presence. The failure of the ontological absorption of all ontic content opens the way to a constitutive "ontological difference" that makes power, politics, hegemony, and democracy possible. Now, you think that this involves, as far as I'm concerned, taking a Lacanian viewpoint. I am not entirely sure about that. What I am trying to do is to detect the multiplicity of discursive surfaces in which this irreducible "ontological difference" shows itself in modern and postmodern philosophy and political theory. Lacan's theory is certainly one of those surfaces. But I would not claim that it is the main--let alone the only--one. 3. Finally, "America." As you point out, "America" is some sort of empty ambiguous signifier: it can mean both South and North America, but it can also mean only the latter. This means that (North) American functions ffixes that construct the mark of the South involves, in its succession, a whole history of imperialist domination. America without distinctions was the discourse of subordination of the South to the North: the Monroe doctrine. "Hispano-America," the name of an older colonialism; "Ibero-America," the widening of the latter to include Portugal. Finally, "Latin America" was an invention of French colonialism, at the time of the Maximilian empire in Mexico, to legitimize an intervention which could cut the links with both the Iberic past and a rising (North) American imperialism. The fact that French intervention in the continent had no future made "Latin-" an innocuous enough prefix for it to function as a political frontier separating the South from the imperialist interventions of the North. [End Page 11] The question, however, which remains to be answered is this: has the signifier "America" without distinctions, without separation of the South from the North, any positive role to play as far as the Latin American peoples are concerned? My answer is no, I do not think there is any political gain for Latin America in playing around with the possibility of a community of destiny with the Anglo-American peoples. However, what about the Afro-American and the Hispanic minorities in North America: is there, for them, any language game to play around the ambiguities, the floating character of the signifier "America"? The answer, in this case, has to be different. It would be definitely wrong to think that the signifier "America" is, for those groups, once and forever fixed to the narrow history represented by the white Anglo-American tradition. Enlargement of the discourse of rights, of pluralist discourses which recognize the demands of ethnic, national, and sexual groups can be presented as a widening of freedoms and rights to equality which were contained in the (North) American political imaginary from its inception, but which were restricted to limited sections of the population. This multicultural and free "A iguous and open significations, but it is this openness and ambiguity which gives its meaning to a democratic political culture. Best, Ernesto Judith Butler teaches in the Department of Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley. Ernesto Laclau teaches in the Department of Government at the University of Essex in England. Works Cited Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter. On the Discursive Limits of "Sex." New York: Routledge, 1993. ________. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 1990. Derrida, Jacques. "Signature, Event, Context." Limited Inc. Trans. Samuel Weber. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1988. 1-23. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Trans. Winston Moore and Paul Cammack. London: Verso, 1985. Mouffe, Chantal, ed. Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London: Verso, 1992. From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 23:15:46 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:45:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] Don't Make Biryani At Home Message-ID: <20011117174546.81137.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> The New York Times November 17, 2001 PENNSYLVANIA RAID U.S. Agents Were Doing 'Their Jobs,' 3 Men Say By SARA RIMER Beverly Schaefer for The New York Times Dr. Masood Shaikh, left, and his brother, Dr. Irshad Shaikh, health officials in Chester, Pa., whose home was raided by the F.B.I. HESTER, Pa., Nov. 16 � Dr. Irshad Shaikh, this city's health commissioner, who is from Pakistan, says he loves America. He says he understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was just doing its job when its agents broke down his door on Tuesday and entered his house with guns drawn, followed by members of a hazardous materials team in moon suits and gas masks. He says he is not angry that the F.B.I., acting on a tip related to its so-far fruitless anthrax investigation, carried out its raid in the middle of the day on Tuesday, with neighbors gawking and television cameras running, or that among the items the agents confiscated were his computer and his mother's teddy bears. Dr. Shaikh, 39, who was trained as a radiologist in his country and holds master's and doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins University, appears similarly unruffled about the several hours of questioning endured by him and his brother Masood, the manager of the city's program to reduce lead hazards for children. "The F.B.I. can search my house any time," Dr. Irshad Shaikh said in an interview at City Hall today with his brother, who lives with him. The two are both legal immigrants and are eager to become citizens. Dr. Masood Shaikh, 40, who was trained as a psychiatrist in Pakistan and holds a master's degree in public health from Johns Hopkins, is so eager to accommodate the F.B.I. that he offered to turn over his passport, said the brothers' lawyer, Anthony F. List, who was present for the interview today. Three days after the raid at the brothers' home and at the home of their friend, Asif Kazi, a city accountant who was born in Pakistan and is now an American citizen, the F.B.I. has charged none of the men. Nor has it provided any detail on what led to the raid, other than to say agents were acting on credible information that they had spent more than two weeks checking out. The search warrant and supporting affidavits are sealed. But interviews with the brothers and Mr. Kazi indicate that at least some of the F.B.I.'s attention was focused on a pot the brothers carried to Mr. Kazi's house so his wife could prepare a traditional Pakistani chicken and rice dish. Linda Vizi, a spokeswoman for the F.B.I., said the raid on Tuesday was "not haphazard in any way." "It was given thoughtful consideration based on the information we had," she said. The Shaikh brothers and Mr. Kazi, who say they will appear before a federal grand jury on Dec. 20, have denied any wrongdoing. Mayor Dominic F. Pileggi has been effusive in his support of them, as have other city officials. Like the Shaikh brothers, Mr. Kazi, had only praise for the F.B.I. But he did not hide his distress over what had happened. "I'm still in trauma," he said. "I cannot sleep properly. I cannot eat. You are worried of the fear of the unknown. What's going to happen tomorrow?" Mr. Kazi said he had been at work, and his wife, Palwasha, 38, had been home alone Tuesday morning, cooking rice for his lunch in her nightgown, when she saw the armed agents running toward the house. "They broke the door," he said. "They kept her sitting at gunpoint, in the dining room on a chair. That's the standard procedure. I am not complaining." Mr. Kazi said the agents questioned him about some Cipro that they had confiscated from his house. Cipro is one of the antibiotics used to treat anthrax. Mr. Kazi said that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for his wife, to treat repeated bladder infections. Mr. Kazi said the F.B.I. also questioned him about a cloudy liquid that he was reportedly seen dumping on the ground behind his home. He said it was soapy water from the washing machine that had backed up into the adjacent sink. "My wife is a maniac as far as washing is concerned," he said. He said agents had also asked about a large silver-colored canister that the Shaikh brothers, who have been his friends for more than 20 years, were seen putting into their car and unloading at his house. The canister, Mr. Kazi and the Shaikh brothers said, was a large silver pot that they had brought for Mrs. Kazi to use for her prized chicken and rice dish. "We are only two," Mr. Kazi said. "We use small pots. She told them, `Bring a big pot from your house so I can cook for you in quantity.' " The F.B.I.'s search also focused on a health clinic, which will serve AIDS patients and others, that is to open in Dr. Shaikh's house in January. The clinic will occupy the first floor and the basement, which were previously used as medical offices. Dr. Howell Strauss, a dentist who runs the nonprofit AIDS group that will operate the clinic, said that renovations on the space began in July, and in the last several weeks contractors have been changing the radiators, and often working into the evening. Dr. Strauss said the F.B.I. had searched the clinic's space, questioned a carpenter working there, and seized, among other items, a Gatorade bottle filled with glue that Dr. Strauss said had been used to build shelves. Mr. Kazi, who was hired as city accountant last year, said he had been working on his first city budget when the F.B.I. agents arrived in his office. "I just want to excel in my career," he said. Mr. Kazi said that he had never been in trouble, and had only gotten his first parking ticket on Thursday, when he went to his lawyer, Mr. List's, office, in Media, Pa., and did not have enough coins for the meter. "If, God forbid, I've done something wrong, hang me in the middle of the road. If not, leave me alone." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com From reader-list at sarai.net Fri Nov 16 22:37:39 2001 From: reader-list at sarai.net (reader-list at sarai.net) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:07:39 -0800 Subject: [Reader-list] News from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire Message-ID: <200111161707.JAA15674@stallman.indymedia.org> --------------------------------------------------------------- Story from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire Checkout independent media coverage of politics, protest, and life at: http://www.indymedia.org:8081 This message was sent to you by: a Comments: --------------------------------------------------------------- Article by: epidemiologist Friday 16 Nov 2001 Email: action at 9-11peace.org Summary:The UN SC wants to set up an ethnically balanced government in Afghanistan. Why not a gender balanced government? Half of Afghans are women. Weblink: http://www.wluml.org Reference at indymedia website: http://www.indymedia.org:8081//front.php3?article_id=90713 Article: SUGGESTED TEXT OF APPEAL: We, the undersigned, insist that 50% of any new broad-based government of Afghanistan must consist of women, with equal positions of power to the men. Anything less would betray the principles of the United Nations. BACKGROUND: The United Nations Security Council and the UN special representative Lakhdar Brahimi want to set up an ethnically balanced government in Afghanistan. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011114/wl/attack_afghan_un_dc_12.html This is going to be a tough business, and mainstream newspapers will do their best to try to make the public feel happy as long as any sort of mix between so-called ethnic groups can be included in any new Afghan government. But why the fuck do they say nothing about having 50% women in the new government? > The resolution said any new Afghan government > should be broad-based and multi-ethnic, respect > human rights of all people regardless of gender or > religion, and combat terrorism and illicit drug > trafficking. There\'s talk of saying that any future government must \"respect human rights ... regardless of gender\". Fine in principle. But how the hell will women\'s rights be respected if they have to grovel on their knees and kiss the feet of a bunch of men? No matter what ethnic mix the men may come from, the only practical way to establish women\'s rights is by having women as 50% of the new interim (and long term) government. (This is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for the Afghan situation.) Don\'t complain about this being an artificial \"quota\" system or cultural imperialism: what the hell has the US done by bombing and cutting off food supplies if not imperialism? So the US/UN might as well go all the way and impose gender equality as well. Much more civilised than cluster bombs and daisy cutters. And you don\'t need to be an expert on Central Asian ethnic culture or Islam to know the gender balance in Afghanistan. It\'s pretty bloody close to 50%, give or take 1% or 2% or so. > The first step, however, is to organize an all-Afghan > meeting among the country\'s many factions. > Diplomats said the coalition of rebel groups, the > Northern Alliance, had put some preconditions on > their attendance, which Brahimi rejected. How about the \"many\" (two) gender factions? Is the RAWA http://www.rawa.org (plus any other Afghan women\'s associations) included in these \"all-Afghan\" meetings as representing 50% of the Afghan population? Or are Afghan women not typical Afghans? > At the same time, an emergency Loya Jirga, or > grand assembly of tribal elders, would convene to > approve security arrangements and help write a > constitution. A second Loya Jirga would approve > the constitution to create a government for > Afghanistan, Brahimi said. Are half the tribal elders women? If not, this is a recipe for disaster. ******************************************************** ACTIONS TO TAKE: ******************************************************** Who hasn\'t received several email chain letters in favour of Afghan women over the last few years? Now is the time to act! This is possibly the simplest and most powerful possible e-appeal that neither Western authorities nor Muslim leaders will be able to deny. Chain letters are bad style and clog the internet, web-based appeals are best (though of course you can and should use email to circulate appeals to sign web-based petitions!). I\'m not a petition organiser, but please anyone who can help, reproduce this appeal, discuss the suggested text and find a better one if possible, organise petitions, put pressure on newspapers, etc. etc., just do it! meta-list of petitioning sites: http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=90640 9-11 petitions: http://www.thePetitionSite.com/takeaction/224622495 http://home.uchicago.edu/~dhpicker/petition http://www.9-11peace.org email of petition organisers: action at 9-11peace.org SUGGESTED TEXT OF APPEAL: We, the undersigned, insist that 50% of any new broad-based government of Afghanistan must consist of women, with equal positions of power to the men. Anything less would betray the principles of the United Nations. FINAL WORD: Half of us are women. Half the Afghan government must be women. That\'s all there is to it. No ifs and buts. From geert at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 18 14:20:03 2001 From: geert at xs4all.nl (geert lovink) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 19:50:03 +1100 Subject: [Reader-list] itrainonline.org Message-ID: <062f01c1700e$37215930$bade3dca@geert> from: --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *APCNews, the monthly newsletter of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)* - APCNewsFlash November/December 2001 - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (via bytesforall) November 29: The Launch of "itrainonline.org": An Online Resource for Learners and Trainers in the Development Community Although the World Wide Web offers many Internet and ICTs-related training materials, it is often difficult to find relevant, high-quality resources targeted at NGOs, development organizations, and other civil society groups. The APC "Online Resource Centre" project is supporting the creation of an interactive, multilingual Website of Internet training materials to support and promote the strategic use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for development and social justice. At the centre of the APC Online Resource Centre's activities is the Itrainonline Website, developed in partnership among six organizations with extensive experience in training in a development context: APC, Bellanet, the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD), the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) and OneWorld. Drawing on the extensive training experience of APC members and the other Itrainonline partners, this site offers materials and annotated links to high-quality resources in English, Spanish, and other languages, on topics ranging from computer and Internet basics to highly technical areas and the ways that civil society and development organizations can increase their impact using these tools. Itrainonline: http://www.itrainonline.org From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 20 12:26:24 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:26:24 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Thesis on Amsterdam's Digital City: "Rise and Fall of DDS" Message-ID: <01112012262401.00594@pinki.sarai.kit> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:35:01 +0100 From: ReindeR Rustema To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net Geert asked me to post an announcement here that I wrote a thesis on DDS. You can download it in 5 different formats at http://reinder.rustema.nl/dds/ ranging in size from 1MB for RTF to 96Kb as doc for your Palm handheld. The thesis is an historical study in combination with an evaluation. The history of DDS is cut in four periods: the experimental 10 weeks in 1994, the transformation into an institution in 1995, the competition with the internet in 1996-2000 and finally the commercialisation. You should know that DDS became an ordinary discount ISP a few months ago and completely dropped any commitment to the public domain. The 4 periods are evaluated in relation to four themes: social cohesion, third place, freedom of information and democratisation. That is 'third place' indeed, and not public place or public sphere a la Habermas. A minor but hopefully interesting difference. What I have learned from writing this whole thing is that it is incredibly difficult to institutionalise whatever collaborative 'space' in cyberspace if you want to do justice to the beautiful internet culture. You know, the old fashioned one, with a gift-economy etcetera. If you want to do this you can at best make sure that the protocols and software licenses you use are open, free and compatible and decisions are made on the internet itself in discussions. The problems really start when you come up with interfaces nobody but some central authority can alter. Like in the case of DDS and their WWW interface. An on-line community also should not grow to big. At best it should have a few hundred members, but once you want to become as big as possible (why should you? to attract advertisers?) the whole community falls apart. Anyway, that's what I learned from this study but if you read it yourself you probably will get lots of other and/or interesting ideas. I tried to avoid difficult words as much as possible (English is not even my first language, so that helps as a crap filter) and there are some entertaining parts. I hope. It's 77 pages to print from the PDF, but if you leave out appendix 5 and 6 (which are in Dutch) you need only 60 pages. I don't know how the difference translates into dead trees. About me: I am somebody. In the beginning of 2001 I launched the idea to buy DDS as inhabitants in order to resue it. This resulted in an association with the name Open Domein (Open Domain) which is now trying to live up to the old DDS ideals. One day something interesting might grow out of it I think. -- ReindeR From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 20 12:43:44 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:43:44 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Summary / TOC - The Rise and Fall of DDS Message-ID: <01112012434402.00594@pinki.sarai.kit> http://reinder.rustema.nl/dds/rise_and_fall_dds.html The Rise and Fall of DDS evaluating the ambitions of Amsterdam's Digital City ReindeR Rustema reinder at rustema.nl Summary In this research project the intentions with which Amsterdam's Digital City was built are evaluated, based on a historical account. The Digital City has been a virtual city in Amsterdam between February 1994 and July 2001. It was inspired by the Community Networks movement in the US and Canada and functioned as a Free-Net in the Netherlands, but has attracted international interest for the design it had chosen: it used the metaphor of a city to structure the information and communication in cyberspace and made the users into 'inhabitants'. The history of this virtual city is described in four distinct periods which are each put in the perspective of four themes that are important for the Community Network movement: social cohesion, third places, freedom of information and democracy. The experience with DDS suggests that the free and open information and communication space can hardly be institutionalised. Compared with the success of the internet in this regard we can see that open standards and protocols that respect the gift economy in cyberspace are important to achieve this. DDS might not have been open enough because of its institutionalisation and the closed design of the interface which did not allow improvement by the users. It intended to become a broadcaster and mass communicator more than becoming a community. This eventually made the users passive paying consumers of a telecommunication service. In spite of efforts to 'design' an on-line community, the major achievement of DDS has been more that it contributed computing power, disk space and connectivity to the internet for public use, much like the academic and research institutes have done in the early years of the internet. Table of Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Community Networks 7 1.2 Theme 1: Social cohesion 8 1.3 Theme 2: 'Third places' 10 1.4 Theme 3: Freedom of information 13 1.5 Theme 4: Democracy 14 2 DDS, a ten week experiment in 1994 16 2.1 All inclusive 17 2.2 DDS as a third place 19 2.3 Government information on-line 20 2.4 Democracy on-line 21 3 Institutionalisation of DDS in 1995 23 3.1 Popularity 24 3.2 Designing the public domain 25 3.3 No politics 28 3.4 No democracy 29 4 Competition from internet in 1996-2000 31 4.1 Internet as a public or a commercial domain 32 4.2 no 'DDS community' 33 4.3 Information left DDS 35 4.4 No discussions 37 5 Commercialisation in 2000 39 5.1 Sponsored by DDS 40 5.2 DDS brand-name 41 5.3 Communities moved out 42 5.4 Democracy revisited 44 6 Conclusion 46 6.1 Community versus 'group' 48 6.2 Public protocols, commercial interfaces 49 Bibliography 50 Appendix 1 organisations present in DDS 52 Appendix 2 USENET newsgroups in DDS 55 Appendix 3 statutes of the DDS foundation 57 Appendix 4 list of squares in DDS 60 Appendix 5 Metro logfile 61 Appendix 6 Hypertext discussions in DDS 76 From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 20 13:11:05 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:11:05 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Online SAGE journals - free acces for November & December Message-ID: <01112013110505.00594@pinki.sarai.kit> Subject: Free Access to all SAGE Electronic Journals during November and D--ecember 2001 From: bernie.folan at sagepub.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:23:51 -0000 X-Message-Number: 1 Press Release For immediate release: 25th October 2001 Free Access to all SAGE Electronic Journals during November andDecember 2001 SAGE is providing free access to over 250 electronic journals during November and December. This includes full text files for the 2001 subscription year, as well as back files for 2000 and 1999 (where available). "This offer is part of SAGE's on-going commitment to providing electronic access to the academic community," says SAGE's Marketing Director, Ian Eastment. "With this two month offer we are aiming to give even more people the opportunity to try out our full range of electronic journals before subscribing." Full details about how to access SAGE's journals for free are available on SAGE's website: www.sagepub.co.uk/freeaccess . Electronic access is being provided through the intermediary, ingenta. Since making their journals available electronically through OCLC FirstSearch ECO in 1998, SAGE has now reached agreements with six hosting intermediaries (Ebsco Online, RoweCom Information Quest, SwetsnetNavigator, ingenta and recently Minerva) ensuring their journals are easily accessible to the library market through a route of the library's own choice. SAGE provides online access to all institutional subscribers as part of their subscription and access is available for all members of the subscribing site. The subscription fee includes both permanent electronic access rights to the volume subscribed and temporary rights to articles from previous volumes (where available) as long as a current subscription is maintained . The right for subscribing sites to download articles and make copies for coursepacks and electronic reserve collections, without payment of a fee or seeking prior permission, is also included as part of the institutional subscription price. Ends About SAGE SAGE Publications, one of the world's leading international journal publishers, is a privately-owned company dedicated to the global dissemination of information. SAGE currently publishes 300 journals across a wide range of disciplines and professions from their London, California and New Delhi offices and will be adding a further 25 journals to their publishing programme over the next year. For further information contact: Jane Makoff, Head of Journals Marketing, SAGE Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU, UK Tel: +020 7374 0645 Fax: +020 7374 8741 Email: jane.makoff at sagepub.co.uk >www.sagepublications.com < Internal at mail.sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/internal ------------------------------------------------------- From monica at sarai.net Tue Nov 20 13:04:43 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:04:43 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Art of the Future Message-ID: When the website anthology-of-art.net began to ask the following question, Nancy Adjania replied with the essay below. "What is, in the context of contemporary art, your vision of a future Art?" Take the Fast with the Slow Nancy Adajania, editor ArtIndia Magazine (www.anthology-of-art.net) In an age of fatal de-sensitisation, when the horrific and the terrible are routine, it is almost inevitable that I should choose to start with an apocalyptic vision of the future: this vision will be less of a celebration and more of a cautionary tale. In the future, I suspect, art will undergo a comprehensive process of 'de-matting'. I am employing this financial metaphor, drawing it from the realm of stocks and shares, to push to the extreme the idea of a de-materialised and de-localised art of the future. In the scenario that I will outline here, such conventional art institutions as galleries and museums will perhaps become defunct (as the cyber-artist Jeffrey Shaw notes playfully, discussing his installation, 'The Virtual Museum', the telematic living room of the future will be occupied by "sedentary travellers in a simulated world" with world-ranging access to art holdings at their cybernetic fingertips). Theoretically, at least, technology will ensure that the process of production, access and reception of art will be fully democratised. Art, therefore, will be vehiculated through telematics: this will transform not only its form, but also its content, in radical ways. 'De-mat art', as I will call this telematics-based art of the future, will function in a constantly changing virtual landscape that is trans-time and trans-space. Rapid advances in the field of telematics (especially the increasing use of computer systems in the former Third World) will ensure the sustenance of such a de-materialised art, and also facilitate the entry into this new space of art of impulses that were not formerly regarded as 'art-worthy': we will have a further democratization here, an opening-up of the terrain of art-making to constituencies that were not formerly regarded as art-makers, or whose experiences have not been recognised by formal art institutions as a valid basis for art. The monopoly of academy-trained artists will be challenged by citizens at large, empowered by cybernetics. Correspondingly, with the dismantling of the conventional art infrastructure (or, at least, its marginalisation in favour of telematics-based art venues), the users of de-mat art will no longer belong to the traditional community of art-gallery viewers. New constituencies of users -- let us call them cybernauts -- would emerge. Here comes the caveat, however: even as the process of art-viewing becomes de-hierarchised, art may run the risk of becoming indistinguishable from entertainment, sharing a hyphenated relationship with fashion and commerce, it will always be topical. We must reflect on whether it would not, in its very novelty, cease to have a determinate bearing on the textures and directions of our lives, if it is constantly ephemeral, spasmodic, if it scintillates briefly before our eyes and is gone? This momentariness of the new de-mat art experience will, perhaps, negate the values of more conventional art-works: those of contemplative energy, poised presence, critical subversion and robust affirmation. Will de-mat art sacrifice substance to speed? Discussing the harmful effects of speed and movement in a telematic environment, in Popular Defense and Ecological Struggles, the cultural theorist Paul Virilio asks, "And what if the primary goal of travel was not to 'go' somewhere, but simply to no longer be where one is? What if the aim of movement has become like that of military invasions or sports records: to go faster while going nowhere, in other words to disappear?" This phenomenon of "going fast, but going nowhere" can be described, in the context of virtual art, as the art of the fast lane (as against the slow lane of conventional art, based on the display of physical art-works). In a speed-saturated virtual art scenario, artistic expressions would become even more aleatory and fractal than today. At the culmination of de-mat art there would be a total disintegration of the image. Let us, polemically, accentuate this alarmist vision of the art of the fast lane. Here, technology augments the role of human agency so that the mind-body functions through prostheses. With so much free play on offer, the possibility of aleation, coupled with the sheer availability of visual and textual content, makes the viewers/users forget what they were looking for in the first place. When the viewer/user is clicking/jumping from one hypertext to another, s/he is always on the move, but motion is not movement, just as speed is not a guarantee of arrival, or even of discovery. Motion and speed become goals in themselves, and this is a dangerous development. Eventually, this situation would lead to an atrophy of the senses. The producers and receivers of art will no longer function as autonomous beings within their mind-bodies; they would be handicapped without their machines. And now, with advances in biotechnology that may change our faculties through implants rather than prostheses, the enslavement to technology, and especially to telematics, would be complete, insidious, and binding. In this, dromomanic environment (in Virilio's phrase; the word comes from the Greek 'dromos', meaning a race, a pursuit of speed) we may become a superhuman species, but we would lose the possibilities of wonderment that go with being human. Telematics, a product of globalisation, is no longer just an option: it is a condition. Speaking for my own country, India, it has been estimated that there will be 4 million Internet users by 2003, to be followed by an exponential growth in their numbers. Already, after the opening-up of the Indian economy through the 'liberalisation' policies determined by the International Monetary Fund, we have witnessed the installation of several thousand roadside cybercafés across the country. Dromology has changed the pace, space and architecture of the Indian street, and the emergence of a cyber-community cutting across traditional boundaries of class, caste, gender, region. Two Indian cities, Hyderabad and Bangalore, are considered the dream-destinations of the software industry. Consider Hyderabad, for instance: it was once the feudal capital of the Nizami kingdom and it became the capital of the province of Andhra Pradesh after independence. Today, it has been transformed by software dromomania into a postmodern city of virtual finance, high technology, spectacular entertainment and accelerated consumption. Not surprisingly, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, is a dedicated Netizen. Recently, a popular magazine ran a story about his administration willing to respond to citizens' grievances sent by email. But what of the illiterate, the disempowered, those without access even to the usual channels of justice, leave alone a PC terminal or a lease-line? How do these people (who number in the millions) reach the Chief Minister at his email address? In rural Andhra Pradesh, outside the capital Hyderabad, poverty and undernourishment are endemic conditions. Impoverished weavers, broken by the failure of the cotton crop and the lack of insurance, continue to commit suicide. Maoist guerrillas continue their armed struggle for the rights of the impoverished peasantry, and are engaged in a brutal war with the police, but Chief Minister Naidu would not embellish his website with such details: the website, like the entire image of techno-savvy, is driven by the redemptive vision of global capital; it is meant to attract foreign investment to the province. One need not spell out, therefore, that cyber-access has become a simulation of democracy in this case: an ersatz advertisement selling technological progress as democratic progress! Neither cyber-access nor a nascent cyber-community translates automatically into emancipation. Commenting on the unequal geography of access in electronic space, Saskia Sassen talks of a new "geography of centrality and one of marginality." ("The Topoi of e space: Global Cities and Global Value Chains", posted on Nettime, 28 October 1996, also available in the Sarai Reader 01, and at www.sarai.net/journal.reader1.html) Can the dromological architecture of cyberspace be made truly democratic? Can it become a virtual venue for artistic and political activism? This is where artists can, in the future, work as ethical and political agents of change by setting up counter-republics in virtual space, dynamising the dispersed cyber-community of the present into a coherent public force. So that speed does not result in an implosion of space, these republics should aspire to being truly res publica, "things of the people". Take the fast with the slow, galvanise speed towards action and not passive reception. We should not allow technology to shape us. We should shape its contours and make it more humane. If we do not want technology to take over public spaces of protest and resistance, we will have to alter the dromological architecture of telematic space. Artists will have to explode the one-way lanes of image-consumption and articulate broader political and social needs through artistic strategies that enter public debates laterally. Artists will, perhaps, have to form alliances with activists, architects, scientists and cultural theorists. They would have to set up multiple interfaces, getting out of even the singular interface between the gallery and street which fascinates so many artists today: already, it has become played out, become an aestheticised act without political edge. In formal terms, artists can use the device of interruption, which, as Virilio put it (in conversation with Sylvere Lotringer, in 'Pure War'), acts as punctuation to the existent dromomania: "Interruption is the change of speed". When art becomes dromomanic, as we have seen, the image, which is an irreducible unit of all art-works, becomes less dynamic, and gets dispersed and fragmented. Fast-lane art has yet a few things to learn from the old-fashioned slow-lane art: the image in the slow lane, by reason of its slowness, can develop substance, assert ethical weight and determinacy. Being a physical entity, to be approached in space and time, it provides within itself a pause for reflection, revelation and contemplative attention to the art-object. What it lacks in terms of reflecting the accelerated momentum and dizzying transformations of the telematic age, it makes up for in these ways. The lesson that the slow lane offers the fast is this: the freedom promised by telematics will be realised only if there is actual material empowerment: telematic freedom must be positioned within a robust understanding of the political economy, or else it is doomed to being mere fantasy-play. Salvation lies neither in speed nor in inertia, then, but in their creative re-working. The art of the future will be modulated between the slow and the fast lanes, especially for former Third World countries; for us, indeed, such a modulation will be far saner than a plunge into the no-holds-barred, no-upper-limit traffic of the fast lane, enticing as it is. After all, artistic freedom without responsibility is like driving blind. And finally, so that art does not become a 'no-exit' situation, we should embrace the Gandhian model of political resistance. Art, whether material or de-mat, should be inspired by the strategy that Mahatma Gandhi described as satyagraha, a truth-offering, resistance that gives the self autonomy, not by isolating it within ideological judgements, but by inviting the world to share in the experiment of dialogue. -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From geert at desk.nl Wed Nov 21 05:59:57 2001 From: geert at desk.nl (geert lovink) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Reader-list] friedman doin' india: it is wednesday so this must be delhi Message-ID: <02b101c17224$2bf9e0f0$97de3dca@geert> FOREIGN AFFAIRS Today's News Quiz By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN NEW DELHI -- So, class, time for a news quiz: Name the second-largest Muslim community in the world. Iran? Wrong. Pakistan? Wrong. Saudi Arabia? Wrong. Time's up - you lose. Answer: India. That's right: India, with nearly 150 million Muslims, is believed to have more Muslim citizens than Pakistan or Bangladesh, and is second only to Indonesia. Which brings up another question that I've been asking here in New Delhi: Why is it you don't hear about Indian Muslims - who are a minority in this vast Hindu-dominated land - blaming America for all their problems or wanting to fly suicide planes into the Indian Parliament? Answer: Multi-ethnic, pluralistic, free-market democracy. To be sure, Indian Muslims have their frustrations, and have squared off over the years in violent clashes with Hindus, as has every other minority in India. But they live in a noisy, messy democracy, where opportunities and a political voice are open to them, and that makes a huge difference. "I'll give you a quiz question: Which is the only large Muslim community to enjoy sustained democracy for the last 50 years? The Muslims of India," remarked M. J. Akbar, the Muslim editor of Asian Age, a national Indian English-language daily funded by non-Muslim Indians. "I am not going to exaggerate Muslim good fortune in India. There are tensions, economic discrimination and provocations, like the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya. But the fact is, the Indian Constitution is secular and provides a real opportunity for the economic advancement of any community that can offer talent. That's why a growing Muslim middle class here is moving up and, generally, doesn't manifest the strands of deep anger you find in many non-democratic Muslim states." In other words, for all the talk about Islam and Islamic rage, the real issue is: Islam in what context? Where Islam is imbedded in authoritarian societies it tends to become the vehicle of angry protest, because religion and the mosque are the only places people can organize against autocratic leaders. And when those leaders are seen as being propped up by America, America also becomes the target of Muslim rage. But where Islam is imbedded in a pluralistic, democratic society, it thrives like any other religion. Two of India's presidents have been Muslims; a Muslim woman sits on India's supreme court. The architect of India's missile program, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim. Indian Muslims, including women, have been governors of many Indian states, and the wealthiest man in India, the info-tech whiz Azim Premji, is a Muslim. The other day the Indian Muslim film star and parliamentarian Shabana Azmi lashed out at the imam of New Delhi's biggest mosque. She criticized him for putting Islam in a bad light and suggested he go join the Taliban in Kandahar. In a democracy, liberal Muslims, particularly women, are not afraid to take on rigid mullahs. Followed Bangladesh lately? It has almost as many Muslims as Pakistan. Over the last 10 years, though, without the world noticing, Bangladesh has had three democratic transfers of power, in two of which - are you ready? - Muslim women were elected prime ministers. Result: All the economic and social indicators in Bangladesh have been pointing upward lately, and Bangladeshis are not preoccupied hating America. Meanwhile in Pakistan, trapped in the circle of bin Ladenism - military dictatorship, poverty and anti-modernist Islamic schools, all reinforcing each other - the social indicators are all pointing down and hostility to America is rife. Hello? Hello? There's a message here: It's democracy, stupid! Those who argue that we needn't press for democracy in Arab-Muslim states, and can rely on repressive regimes, have it all wrong. If we cut off every other avenue for non-revolutionary social change, pressure for change will burst out anyway - as Muslim rage and anti-Americanism. If America wants to break the bin Laden circles across the Arab-Muslim world, then, "it needs to find role models that are succeeding as pluralistic, democratic, modernizing societies, like India - which is constantly being challenged by religious extremists of all hues - and support them," argues Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor of The Hindu newspaper. So true. For Muslim societies to achieve their full potential today, democracy may not be sufficient, but it sure is necessary. And we, and they, fool ourselves to think otherwise. Copyright NY Times 11/20/01 From reader-list at sarai.net Wed Nov 21 02:56:48 2001 From: reader-list at sarai.net (reader-list at sarai.net) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:26:48 -0800 Subject: [Reader-list] News from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire Message-ID: <200111202126.NAA15674@stallman.indymedia.org> --------------------------------------------------------------- Story from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire Checkout independent media coverage of politics, protest, and life at: http://www.indymedia.org:8081 This message was sent to you by: m Comments: --------------------------------------------------------------- Article by: Rosalind Russell, Reuters - Repost Chicago I Tuesday 20 Nov 2001 Summary:KABUL, Afghanistan - Shedding their head-to-toe burqas, hundreds of women gathered in the Afghan capital on Tuesday to demand their rights after five years of stifling Taliban rule. But military police of the Northern Alliance, who seized control of Kabul from the Taliban a week ago, said they had been given no warning and postponed the march for a week. Reference at indymedia website: http://www.indymedia.org:8081//front.php3?article_id=92948 Article: Women of Kabul Gather for Faltering First March By Rosalind Russell - Reuters KABUL, Afghanistan - Shedding their head-to-toe burqas, hundreds of women gathered in the Afghan capital on Tuesday to demand their rights after five years of stifling Taliban rule. On a bright, crisp day in a Kabul suburb, women in leather jackets, skirts and flowered headscarves met to call for the right to work, education for their daughters, and a political voice. Led by former politician Saraya Parlika, the plan was to march to the United Nations office in the center of city. But military police of the Northern Alliance, who seized control of Kabul from the Taliban a week ago, said they had been given no warning and postponed the march for a week. It was a faltering start, but still an important moment for the women who just seven days ago could not leave the house unaccompanied, let alone show their faces. ``They say it was a security problem but we\'ll do it again next week,\'\' said Parlika, as men hung out of their apartment windows, amazed at the spectacle beneath. Former teachers, doctors and civil servants chatted and laughed in the winter sunshine. They had all been sacked from their jobs by the Taliban, who banned women from working in their strict interpretation of Islamic rule. ``I came here to demand an education for my daughter,\'\' said 43-year-old Roya Sherzad. ``I was a teacher, I am a literate, educated woman, but my daughter has barely been to school.\'\' The Taliban banned mixed classes and said they did not have the resources to open separate boys\' and girls\' schools. Most of the women had similar thoughts on their mind. ``I don\'t think we are asking for much. We want a government that gives our children an education and allows us to work and live our lives in peace,\'\' said Shukria, a former administrator. ``I need to support my family. This isn\'t about politics, it\'s just about a normal life.\'\' FINDING A VOICE But Parlika, chairwoman of the 100-member General Coalition of Women, a human rights organization that has operated in secret since 1996, had more ambitious plans. ``We met yesterday to draw up our short-term agenda,\'\' she said. ``We decided we should shed our burqas and march to the U.N. to demand our political voice.\'\' Parlika is pushing for women to be represented at a meeting of Afghan groups to discuss the shape of a future government that the U.N. is working to convene. But despite the concern to ensure all Afghanistan\'s ethnic groups are fairly represented in the new government, the rights of women seem to have been left behind. U.N. special envoy Francesc Vendrell has held meetings in recent days with the exclusively male Northern Alliance and other political leaders, but not with Afghan women. Even before the Taliban took power, Afghanistan was a male-dominated society. ``Now we have to start the women\'s struggle all over again,\'\' said Parlika, a senior member of Afghanistan\'s communist party in the 1980s, who says she is finished with hard-line politics. ``We need a voice, that is all. We want to be at that meeting.\'\' From shuddha at sarai.net Wed Nov 21 12:30:01 2001 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:30:01 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Art of the Future Message-ID: <01112112300100.01450@sweety.sarai.kit> Thanks Monica for posting Nancy Adajania's text on Art for the Future and the Future of Art. As a response I am sending in my text which was published on the same website - www.anthology-of-art.net - The ANTHOLOGY OF ART.NET project is an ongoing online collection of artwork and writing on the future of art ,edited by Jochen Gerz and published by the Braunschweig School of Art The text is in the form of an answer to the following question, which was asked of all the people who were asked to contribute texts to the website ________________________________________________________________ Q : What is, in the context of contemporary art, your vision of a future art? A : I see making or doing art as an argument between desire and reality. This presupposes that I take seriously the reality of my desires. Desire is predicated on the future. One desires something "to happen", one desires "to become" someone, one desires "to have or hold on to" something, "to be" somewhere, or"to do" something. The "to happen" , "to become", "to have or hold on to", "to be" , and "to do" parts of this sentence means that the thing or situation desired is always just beyond the reach of the present moment. Art, which we might call the process by which desire, and its corollary, imagination encounter the real, is at present held hostage to a framework of institutional practices , canons and histories. These serve primarily to separate art, or the domain of the aesthetic from the ethical, from the everyday, from the domain of dealing with the day to day fact of making meaning in difficult times. The future of art will depend on how far those who work with art are prepared to go in terms of restoring to art its function of being that which involves a desire "to do' something with life, and the world. The ransom (which might free art) involves a transaction by which we give up the indices of our attachments to the sensible, rational ways of dealing with an insane world that we inhabit at present, for the sake of the slim chances of the transformation of the terms of everyday life in the future. To my mind, this is a wager worth taking up for consideration, and any person who makes art, or lives with art, or has visions, epileptic fits, nightmares and hangovers about art has to place bets, cut deals and count their chances along these lines. To do this is to say "...yes, in a world where terror is the breath of the real, I will imagine that it is still possible to participate in the creation or transmission of objects and situations of relentless and unforgiving beauty, by the clarity or confusion with which they change the way I look at life, that by their very force, will bring to bear another reality upon the world". This is the reason for art to be what it can be, and this reason comes to us from the territories of imagined futures. Which, if not better, are desired as being markedly different from the world of the present. Art can speak to us and state that the 'here and now' of this world (war, terror, lies, money, power) can be something other than what it is. That when our circumstances are imprisoned by the reason for things to continue to be what they are, for the future to be "more" of the present, it becomes all the more necessary to claim for ourselves another future, in and through art. Art can then be the restlessness of the desire for the future to be 'present' in the present. It is the insertion, of the desired future into the present, of locating an empty space and filling that with meaning. Even by absence, art invokes the necessary reality of utopia. It is as if the spray paint of potential experience, were to mark the walls of the city of the present, enabling life to teach passers by, the citizens of the present, the grammar and the lexicon of a new language for talking about the everyday-ness of the future. It is to say - "here, take your passport, your newspaper, your identity card, your work permit, your electoral register, your health record, your social security number, your x ray, your bank statement, your doctors prescription, your inheritance, your insurance, your wage bill, your shopping list, your debt, your balance sheet, your inventory, your fear, your anxiety, your boredom, your humiliation - and see what happens if you were to wet them, make them into paste and fashion a papier mache object out of them, like you did once with waste paper in primary school. Recall, for once the joy of watching certainties being mashed into pulp. Watch how the glistening laminate of the passport cover can run and melt when torched, see the figures in the bank statement and the wage bill dance, watch the decimals explode, witness fear dissolving..." To make art for the future is to add substance to this speculation. To enact it, to perform it, as one would a rite, is to change reality by making another reality occur. To be witness to that art is to listen to whispers from the future, to decode signed and unsigned messages. These messages can be laments, prophecies, or calls for celebration, or puzzles and enigmas, but they will all ask us to turn away from the present moment on to some unmapped and immediate tomorrow, which is not merely an "accumulation of todays". All revolutionaries must learn to be artists, even if all artists need not be revolutionaries. What kind of artists can prepare us for the future. Artist who are willing to hold in abeyance the barriers between a work and world, who can say "there is no boundary behind which my work needs to be, of authorship, or patronage, or curatorial frames within which it needs to be protected in order to survive" Artists who are willing to be generous with themselves and be demanding of life - artists who will give away their work, share their work, collaborate and quarrel with others in the making of work and who will freely take from life and from culture whatever is up for grabs. Artists who are not bothered by either the pressure to be original or by the need to belong, artists whose daily lives may be works in progress, and who can create ways of being and working with others that are pleasurable and provocative. Artists for whom there is no need to fetishize style, or manner, or technologies, or practices, even while they evolve styles, take on manners, push the borders of technologies and transform practices. Artists who, even if they sell in the marketplace, know that the market only measures the vanity of the buyer, not the worth of the artwork. Such people, whether or not they are recognised as artists, or choose to call themselves as such, may choose to be nameless, may be comfortable in ensembles and coalitions, might perform different identities for different purposes, and find themselves more often in a fairground, on the street, in a picket line,or on web site than they might be in a gallery, a museum or a studio. For me, the future of art, and the art of the future, hinges on the recognition of these realities, and on artists, on all those who work with art, choosing to create those ways in which they can work in the present that anticipate imagined futures. Shuddhabrata Sengupta, October 2001, New Delhi From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Nov 22 06:10:34 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:40:34 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] TECHSPLOITATION: Network Admin Blues Message-ID: Alternet.org TECHSPLOITATION: Network Admin Blues Annalee Newitz, AlterNet November 20, 2001 It all started years ago, like so many things in Brian's life, in the permacloud of pot smoke that hung over the dorm room he shared with Jeff for nine memorable months in college. Sophomore year they were enjoying the delights of a new ceramic bong molded in the shape of Bart Simpson's head and talking about Jeff's new love: Linux. It was this kickass operating system kind of like UNIX, he told Brian. Jeff pointed to a stack of roughly a hundred floppies sitting on his desk. "There it is," he beamed. "Linux." Brian was still halfway undeclared and halfway applying to get into the College of Engineering. All he knew was he wanted to break things, take them apart, put them together again. When Brian was seven, he'd played around with the wiring in a cable box near his house until he figured out how to get free HBO in his room. That was what floated vaguely in his mind when he imagined his future: endless days of experimentation that would result in slightly illegal -- but inarguably pleasurable -- results. So the Linux thing was intriguing, especially when Jeff started talking about how a whole bunch of engineers were pounding on it and adding to it all the time. "OK, so show me what this damn thing does," Brian challenged, launching himself at Jeff's desk in a burst of ill-coordinated enthusiasm. He barely understood how a file system worked, and when Jeff started talking about compiling kernels, he definitely found himself in "bullshit and feign knowledge" territory. Gradually he became fascinated. Jeff walked him through the file tree and the basic tools, and suddenly Brian could picture a whole, vast network of machines, running this operating system or some other UNIX-like setup, working together at his root-privileged commands. It felt like ... free cable. And so Brian became a computer science major. He learned to program in C and build a motherboard, but he never strayed far from his original passion: networks. He graduated about the time the whole dot-com bubble was swelling, but he wasn't drawn to any of the strange little startups with names like FireFrog and SphinxPop. He dated a chick who worked for one called All Natural, and it sounded like all they ever did was take ecstasy and sling HTML. Plus, their network sucked ass. When he visited his girlfriend once at All Natural, he actually overheard the CEO telling their senior network guy that he wanted all the wires to be color coordinated to match the company logo. Color coordinated! For the past five years he'd been working his way to the top of a hardcore team of network engineers at one of the gigantic corporations in Silicon Valley. It was a beautiful network, highly organized, whose servers ran Solaris and SuSE Linux and OpenBSD. Jeff had gotten a job with him last year, doing security, and they had long, late-night sessions where they assaulted the network, looking for security holes and imagining the ultimate BSD toolbox. Then things started changing. He and Jeff's requests for a new server were turned down, and they were told to "make do with what you have." As various network admins quit, they weren't replaced; he and Jeff were required to do things like help the managers with their e-mail programs. Brian felt less like a devious mastermind and more like a plumber everyday. He noticed a subtle change in personnel, too. More and more of his team was female, a situation that would have seemed impossible two years ago. The women did just fine -- it wasn't like they were stupider than the guys had been -- but he knew for a fact that they weren't getting paid nearly as much. He remembered his '70s-feminist mom telling him that women were always over-represented in low-paying professional jobs. The pink-collar ghetto, she called it. Was he stuck in the pink-collar ghetto? "I wouldn't be surprised if the VPs asked us to fix the coffeemaker and serve them lattes next," Brian griped to Jeff, who was looking for job leads online. The glamour had gone out of being a network admin. He was doing maintenance, keeping the old machines chugging along, making sure the VPs could run PowerPoint presentations and open Excel spreadsheets remotely. That free-cable feeling had died. At the USENIX conference for network geeks, it seemed like everyone except the exceptional celebrity geeks were in the same boat. They felt like digital janitors. For the first time in his life Brian wondered what it was like to form a union, back in the 1930s when things were really hardcore. Then he turned back to his monitor, where he was reading an article from LinuxToday.com, and imagined starting a new open source project. He would call it Janitor. Annalee Newitz (janitor at techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd with a chip on her shoulder. Her column also appears in Metro, Silicon Valley's weekly newspaper. -- From joy at sarai.net Thu Nov 22 17:36:08 2001 From: joy at sarai.net (Joy Chatterjee) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:36:08 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Quote Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011122173323.009ed140@mail.sarai.net> " Today, I went to a bangladeshi food store to buy some rui and ilish fish. In that store I found my favourite dry fish, chepa shuTki and loiTTa shuTki.. , they were in a chokchoke jhokjhoke lovely packet, inported from Bangladesh. Do you know what is written in the packet? HALAL seafish. I am expecting to find Halal rice, HAlAl pickle --halal amer achar, halal dal, halal dhone pata next time. " Taslima Nasrin @ Mukto-Mona Mailing List From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Nov 23 03:41:59 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:11:59 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Exit the Taliban, enter James Bond and Iranian soaps Message-ID: The Christian Science Monitor. from the November 23, 2001 edition SALES: A Kabul electronics vendor is back in business. SCOTT PETERSON/GETTY IMAGES Exit the Taliban, enter James Bond and Iranian soaps By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - Shahgholam Hairat and two of his friends were channel surfing between Al Jazeera (the Arab news channel) and Iranian soap operas. Suddenly the Taliban cultural police burst into their apartment last year. Arrested for "immoral" acts by the Taliban Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the students spent three months in jail. Yesterday, Mr. Hariat was unrepentantly shopping. "We want to see the world's television," he said, flashing a Cheshire cat smile, as he bought a new satellite dish from a street vendor. It will replace one he has kept hidden on his balcony, behind a stack of cartons. Afghans such as Hairat are at the cutting edge of a pop-culture renaissance here, as the Taliban-built walls of isolation come tumbling down. From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Nov 23 03:48:48 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:18:48 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Interview / Iranian filmmaker Tahmineh Milani Message-ID: The Christian Science Monitor November 23, 2001 edition 'HIDDEN HALF': The daring film by Tahmineh Milani questions the place of women in today's Iranian society. The hit film has provoked the ire of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Council. PHOTOS COURTESY OF MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON Threat of execution doesn't faze director By Bill Kirtz | Special to The Christian Science Monitor Iranian filmmaker Tahmineh Milani calls the threat that she might be executed a mere "misunderstanding." Once it's cleared up, she hopes to continue making internationally acclaimed, socially conscious movies on budgets that would hardly cover the coffee breaks for the crew on a Hollywood film. In a possible test case of the level of artistic freedom in Iran, the director-scriptwriter has been accused of "exploiting art as a tool to promote the ominous aims of counter-revolutionary groups." Ms. Milani's latest battle with her country's censors comes across over her just-released film "The Hidden Half," which traces political and feminist struggles after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It has won film festival awards and played to overflow audiences in Tehran, Iran. But after Milani criticized the state-run television network for not advertising it and commented on one of its main themes - the thousands killed and jailed after the 1979 revolution - she was arrested twice and the picture taken off Iranian screens. Moviemakers from around the world - including such Hollywood figures as Sean Penn, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Spike Lee - are among the more than 1,500 who have petitioned Iran to drop the charges. Now out on bail on the personal recognizance of a high government official, she and her husband and co-producer, "Hidden Half" co-star Muhammad Nikbin, plan to return to Tehran to make more films. While democratically elected moderate President Mohammad Khatami supported Milani's release on bail, the fundamentalist Islamic Revolutionary Council, under the control of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been regularly arresting cultural figures who question the council's values. Mr. Nikbin says the council took this direct action against a filmmaker to cow other directors who he and his wife hope will join them in exploring controversial issues. Though her films may not strike Western audiences as daring, they have regularly offended Islamic values. Milani, with her husband translating her words, says fundamentalists "think I make Iranian women very aggressive and rude." Milani's international breakthrough came with the 1991 "Legend of a Sigh," which explored the experience of four women from various social classes. Her 1999 film "Two Women" contrasts a university graduate who decides her own fate with one forced into an arranged marriage. An instant box-office hit in Iran, the film wasn't promoted on state-run television because it contained shots of the Tehran University dormitory, a site of student unrest. Milani hopes "The Hidden Half" will begin the exploration of a part of Iran's history that the country's artists haven't dared to touch - the repression of ideas after the revolution. The film's heroine wonders whether "all revolutionaries of the world look like us" - dressed in head scarves and figure-concealing clothes. She declares that she's "sick and tired of revolutionary cliches." Twenty years later, as a demure housewife, she discloses her activist and romantic past to her husband, a judge, hoping he will be lenient with a woman condemned to death for political activities. Milani had to couch that "confession" in the form of a long letter, since she says no Iranian woman would mention such things to her husband's face. Milani, who began her film career as a researcher just after the revolution, adeptly plays her country's rigorous censorship game. Her idea for a film about children's environmental consciousness was thwarted because her 8-year-old heroine wasn't wearing a head scarf. Until a few years ago, Iranian films couldn't show women running, singing, dancing, or in close-up. In Iran, if filmmakers' plans survive the idea stage, they must then submit a short outline of their project. If this is approved, they must do the same with the screenplay, and then hope their cast and crew is politically sound enough to obtain work permits. After a film is shot, officials can mandate revisions and then "grade" it on its level of ideological purity. And, as Milani's case shows, the Revolutionary Council can stop distribution and arrest the director even after she cleared all the official hurdles. Why don't Milani and her husband make films in another country? Because, he explains, they can shoot them in Iran for only $200,000 to $300,000 by controlling their own production facilities. And Milani feels more productive in her homeland, where she finds that women in particular appreciate her concern with their problems. Not that she's complacent about her achievements. "As an artist, you can't be a political person - you have to be apolitical and keep a very wide perspective," she says. "We need to talk, to have a dialogue, to explore hatred. Unfortunately, a small part of society didn't appreciate that. I hope my small step will continue." For further information: * The Hidden Half Movie Review Query Engine http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?isindex=The+Hidden+Half * Tahmineh Reza'i Milani: Possible Prisoner of Conscience/Fear for Safety Amnesty International http://www.amnesty-usa.org/urgent/action/iran08312001.html * Thorn in their side: Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/friday_review/story/0,3605,584749,00.html Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. Copyright © 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Nov 23 04:51:43 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:21:43 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools Message-ID: Associated Press Wednesday November 21, 2001 FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools By Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer Washington - The FBI is going to new lengths to eavesdrop, building software to monitor computer use and urging phone companies to help make wiretaps more reliable. The FBI's "Magic Lantern" technology would allow investigators, via the Internet, to secretly install powerful software that records every keystroke on a person's computer, according to people familiar with the effort. The software is similar to "Trojan horse" programs already used by some hackers and corporate spies. The FBI envisions using Magic Lantern, part of a broad FBI project called "Cyber Knight," to record the secret key a person might use to encrypt messages or computer files. The bureau has been largely frustrated in efforts to break open such messages by trying random combinations, and officials are increasingly concerned about their inability to read encrypted messages in criminal or terrorist investigations. The FBI said in a statement Wednesday that it can not discuss details of its technical surveillance efforts, though it noted that "encryption can pose potentially insurmountable challenges to law enforcement when used in conjunction with communication or plans for executing serious terrorist and criminal acts." The FBI added that its research is "always mindful of constitutional, privacy and commercial equities," and that its use of new technology can be challenged in court and in Congress. The FBI's existing monitoring technology, called the "Key Logger System," has required investigators to sneak into a target's home or business and attach the device to a computer. Magic Lantern could be installed over the Internet by tricking a person into opening an e-mail attachment or by exploiting the same weaknesses in popular software that allow hackers to break into computers. It's unclear whether Magic Lantern would transmit the keystrokes it records back to the FBI over the Internet or store the information to be seized later in a raid. The existence of Magic Lantern was first disclosed by MSNBC. "If they are using this kind of program, it would be a highly effective way to bypass any encryption problems," said James E. Gordon, who heads the information technology practice for Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Inc. "Once they have the keys to the kingdom, they have complete access to anything that individual is doing." People familiar with the project, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the package is being developed at the FBI's electronic tools laboratory, the same outfit that built the bureau's "Carnivore" Internet surveillance technology. The former head of the lab, Donald M. Kerr, became head of the CIA's science and technology unit in August. Some experts said Magic Lantern raises important legal questions, such as whether the FBI would need a wiretap order from a judge to use it. The government has previously argued that the FBI can capture a person's computer keystrokes under the authority of a traditional search warrant, which involves less oversight by the courts. "It's an open question whether the covert installation of something on a computer without a physical entry requires a search warrant," said David Sobel, a lawyer with the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group. Earlier this month the FBI urged some of the nation's largest telephone companies to change their networks so that investigators can reliably eavesdrop on conversations using new data technology. At a conference Nov. 6 in Tucson, Ariz. - and in a 32-page follow-up letter sent about two weeks ago - the FBI told leading telecommunications officials that increasing use of Internet-style data technology to transmit voice calls is frustrating FBI wiretap efforts. Although Carnivore can be used to capture electronic messages, it can't record voice messages sent over data networks for a variety of technical reasons. The bureau's access to voice calls using traditional technology is guaranteed under the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, but it exempted "information services." The FBI said Wednesday it is not seeking to broaden the 1994 law to cover modern data technology; industry officials say the changes being sought by the FBI could take years to make. The FBI told companies that it will need access to voice calls sent over data networks "within a few hours" in some emergency situations, and that any interference caused by a wiretap "should not be perceptible" to avoid tipping off a person that his calls might be monitored. From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Fri Nov 23 08:27:22 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:27:22 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Announcement: Gender and History Workshop Message-ID: <002c01c173ca$940db980$b877c8cb@shohini> Programme for the Workshop on Gender and History 29th Nov 2001 Morning Session 9. 30 a.m to 1 p.m. Dr Uma Chakravarti, Miranda House No-conflict Zone: Interest, Emotion, and the Family in Early India, Ms Jaya Tyagi, Sri Venkatesvara College The Extent of the Householder's Control in the Grha: Brahmanical Ideology on the Ritual Role of the grhapati in the early Grhya Sutras. Ms Ranjita Dutta, Lady Shri Ram College The Politics of Religious Identity: the Case of the Muslim Goddess in Srivaisnavism. Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Ms Ramya Sreenivasan, JNU Alauddin Khalji Remembered: Conquest and Gender in Medieval Rajput Narratives. Prof. Shireen Moosvi, AMU Women Labourers During the Mughal Period. Prof. Dilbagh Singh, JNU Aspects of Gender Disputes in late medieval Rajasthan. 30th Nov 2001 Morning Session 9.30 am to 1 p.m. Dr Anshu Malhotra, Venkatesvara College The Emergence of Bazaar Literature: Jhuggras, Kissas and Reforms in early 20th century Punjab. Dr Radhika Singha, AMU Finding and Losing a Female Subject: Women and Order in Colonial Law Dr P.K. Dutta, Venkatesvara College Abductions and Love Across Communities: Conflicts and Their Representations in Early 20th century Bengal. Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Dr Chitra Joshi, Indraprastha College Revisiting the Male Breadwinner Debate: Reflections on Gender and Domesticity in 20th Century India. Prof. Monica Juneja, Delhi University Visual Representations of Women in 19th Century France. Concluding Session 4 to 6 p.m. Feedback. KumkumdiProgramme for the Workshop on Gender and History 29th Nov 2001 Morning Session 9. 30 a.m to 1 p.m. Dr Uma Chakravarti, Miranda House No-conflict Zone: Interest, Emotion, and the Family in Early India, Ms Jaya Tyagi, Sri Venkatesvara College The Extent of the Householder's Control in the Grha: Brahmanical Ideology on the Ritual Role of the grhapati in the early Grhya Sutras. Ms Ranjita Dutta, Lady Shri Ram College The Politics of Religious Identity: the Case of the Muslim Goddess in Srivaisnavism. Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Ms Ramya Sreenivasan, JNU Alauddin Khalji Remembered: Conquest and Gender in Medieval Rajput Narratives. Prof. Shireen Moosvi, AMU Women Labourers During the Mughal Period. Prof. Dilbagh Singh, JNU Aspects of Gender Disputes in late medieval Rajasthan. 30th Nov 2001 Morning Session 9.30 am to 1 p.m. Dr Anshu Malhotra, Venkatesvara College The Emergence of Bazaar Literature: Jhuggras, Kissas and Reforms in early 20th century Punjab. Dr Radhika Singha, AMU Finding and Losing a Female Subject: Women and Order in Colonial Law Dr P.K. Dutta, Venkatesvara College Abductions and Love Across Communities: Conflicts and Their Representations in Early 20th century Bengal. Afternoon Session 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Dr Chitra Joshi, Indraprastha College Revisiting the Male Breadwinner Debate: Reflections on Gender and Domesticity in 20th Century India. Prof. Monica Juneja, Delhi University Visual Representations of Women in 19th Century France. Concluding Session 4 to 6 p.m. Feedback. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011123/ab79d393/attachment.html From ravis at sarai.net Sat Nov 24 11:47:35 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:47:35 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Uncocal and the Taliban Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011124114522.00a9aae0@mail.sarai.net> Interesting Story of how a sleazy US firm pushed the Taliban.. Ravi Strange Boardfellows by ERIC SCIGLIANO , Nation What goes down comes around. Amidst all the attention to United Airlines' post-September 11 woes, no one noticed the ringing irony of its tapping John W. Creighton Jr. as the new CEO to pull it out of a downward spiral. John Creighton is best known as the Weyerhaeuser president who turned the timber giant around in the early 1990s, but he's held another position closer to the events that sent one United jet crashing into the World Trade Center and another into the Pennsylvania countryside two months ago. Creighton has sat on the board of the California-based oil multinational Unocal since 1995--the period in which Unocal became the main American corporate suitor seeking to do business with the Taliban. When it comes to building in war zones and dealing with unsavory regimes, Unocal has long been renowned as what Burma democracy activist Larry Dohrs calls "the bottom feeder of the oil business." It completed a billion-dollar gas pipeline in Burma even after Texaco and Arco bowed to environmental and human rights protests. And in 1995, during the scramble for Central Asia's newly opened oil and gas bonanza, it conceived an audacious plan: a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. It enlisted Saudi, Pakistani, Japanese, Korean and Indonesian partners. And it embarked on a fossil-fuel version of the Great Game against the Argentine firm Bridas, which also sought the pipeline franchise. In December 1997 Unocal hosted Taliban delegates in Texas and even took them to the beach. It also gave nearly $1 million to a job-training program in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, out of up to $20 million it spent on the pipeline effort. It hired former US ambassador to Pakistan Robert Oakley to press its case; hired special ambassador John J. Maresca to, in Unocal spokesman Barry Lane's words, "look at corporate responsibility globally"; and hired Henry Kissinger to cap the Turkmenistan side of the deal. "We didn't focus on the Taliban," Lane insists. "We also sponsored a training program in Northern Afghanistan," and hosted some of the warlords now in the Northern Alliance. But with the Taliban gaining, and controlling the pipeline's southern route, the focus was inevitable. "If the Taliban leads to stability and international recognition," Unocal executive vice president Chris Taggart declared after the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, "then it's positive." That merely mirrored the US government's complacent, fumbling Afghan dealings; Lane claims, and Ahmed Rashid confirms, in his book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, that Unocal even disadvantaged itself against Bridas by admonishing the Taliban on human rights. But the company hung in even after women's groups protested, after Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Taliban practices "despicable" in 1997 and after Taliban guest Osama bin Laden declared a fatwa against the United States in 1998. After the summer 1998 embassy bombings and US missile reprisals, Unocal had to pull out of Afghanistan. In December 1998 it formally withdrew from the project. Jack Creighton became Unocal board chairman in 2001 but stepped down on August 31. Unocal spokespeople will say only that this resignation was prompted by his United Airlines appointment. His new office at United will say only that "Any inquiries regarding Unocal or its business practices--past, present or future--should properly be directed to the Unocal Corporation." Creighton remains on Unocal's board. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Nov 24 23:33:44 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 24 Nov 2001 18:03:44 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] The Rediff Chomsky Interview Message-ID: <20011124180344.18795.qmail@mailweb11.rediffmail.com> Has September 11 changed history? It has changed history because guns have been turned against the United States. Indeed, the September 11 attack on the US was a terrible atrocity. But the incident was not unusual. Much of the world has been subjected to much worse atrocities over the years. The US is now destroying Afghanistan because the Taleban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden unless the Bush administration gave some evidence [of his involvement in the attacks]. The US refused to provide any evidence. The US and Europe are supposed to attack and destroy others, but they are not supposed to be attacked themselves. It is the first time in the history of the USA and in fact the first time in the history of Europe that guns have been turned in their direction. That is a dramatic change in history. So far, Europe and USA have countered the world in a grimly brutal fashion, by massive extermination of peoples across the world. So far, Europe and USA have been immune to any attacks and retaliation from outside. So you can understand the shock and impact of September 11. You mean the US should not have attacked Afghanistan without offering evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 tragedy? There is no justification for the US war in Afghanistan because it is being carried out to suit American interests. The US has not cared to show the world any hard evidence to prove that a particular person or a country is behind the September 11 attacks. What method then do you suggest the Bush administration should have embarked on before bombing Afghanistan? The US has no right to kill thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan in the name of catching one person called Osama bin Laden. Instead, it should have pondered deep into the background of the September 11 attacks. It should have offered evidence, accepted the Taleban offer of negotiations, and asked for bin Laden. But has the US been practising what it is preaching? No. In the US, there is a Haitian leader -- Emmanuel Co nvicted in Haiti for murdering over 5,000 people. But the US won't hand him over because of its complicity in the incident. It is not even reported in the US media. I do feel the US is now carrying out terrorism in Afghanistan because its war is killing thousands of innocents. What do you mean by US terrorism? The US leads the pack of rich and powerful nations that carry out international terrorism on smaller nations. The US is the only country in the world that has been criticised by the International Court of Justice for perpetuating terrorism in Nicaragua. Who nurtured the Islamic terrorist organisations in the world? It is the Central Intelligence Agency that has been aiding and abetting terrorist outfits across the world, all for the diplomatic, strategic and economic advantages of the US. So Osama bin Laden, for whom the US has been bombing a poor country like Afghanistan, has been the creation of the US. The US is not alone in this war. There are a number of powerful supporters to the US cause in Afghanistan for their own strategic interests, not for wiping out terrorism and for the betterment of the world. India and Pakistan have been trying to win over the US, all because of Kashmir. The United Kingdom supports the US in all the crimes. Russia is eager to support the US action because it wants the Bush administration's tacit approval in Chechnya. China wants to legitimise the massacre of Muslims in western China. So all these powerful nations are in the same league. They all are setting up terrorist groups and training them. So how can the US call it a global fight against terrorism? How do you think the world should fight terrorism? Should the United Nations take the initiative? The biggest problem is that the world's most powerful country, the US, behaves like a mafia head. The US has completely disregarded the United Nations because it wants to carry out its policy of terror across the world. There cannot be any global fight against terrorism unless and until the US changes its pol g the Cold War, the two superpowers -- US and Russia -- carried out atrocities in their own domain. In the case of Russia, it was Afghanistan and Chechnya. In the case of the US, it was all over the world. Both sides claimed that the actions were against the other superpower. But the Cold War policies have changed. Not at all. The Cold War may be over. But these days, the policies remain the same, only the pretexts have changed. It is another reason why the US military budgets have been increasing year after year. It is not a defence against Russia anymore. It is against the technological sophistication of the Third World. The US believes that globalisation has deeply polarised the handful of rich and the poor worldwide. To keep the poor nations in control, you need new military systems. Do you think the September 11 attacks were the result of a clash of civilisations? It is US propaganda that the current war against terrorism is the result of a clash of civilisations. It is complete nonsense. There is no clash of civilisations in the current war. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was necessary for the US to invent new pretexts to carry out the same policies. And one of the pretexts, terms invented by the academic world, is the clash of civilisations. So, before, the US was fighting communism. Now it is fighting the civilisation of Islam or whatever. You know, it is all nonsense. If you look at the alignment of the world, you see that there is not simply any clash of civilisations. The most fundamentalist Islamic state in the world is Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is the favourite country of the US. The biggest Muslim state in the world is Indonesia, which is one of the most favoured nations by the US. An Indonesian general in 1965 carried out a huge massacre, killing over a million people, mostly peasants, and destroyed the only mass-based communist party in the country. Since then Indonesia has been in the US favour. So the US has been carrying out policies for its own strategic benefi Many people these days term the current war in different terms. Some call it the clash of civilisations. Others say it is all because of globalisation. How do you describe the impact of globalisation? The term globalisation is very seriously misused in contemporary ideology. Globalisation just means international integration. That is a fine thing. So everyone is in favour of globalisation. But the term is now used in a special way. It is used to refer to a specific form of international economic integration that has been imposed in the past 25 years by a small sector of wealthy and powerful nations, the international financial and corporate sectors they control. The power of Western nations and institutions is so enormous that their notion of globalisation has become the common term. So when we talk about globalisation we should be careful to make clear that we are referring to a specific doctrine of construction related to concentrated power. The impact of globalisation on education and employment is harmful. Has the current form of globalisation been harming the economies of many nations? Yes, globalisation is harming the economies of many poor and even rich nations, contrary to the propaganda you hear. The world economy or its rate of growth has declined significantly in the last 25 years. For instance, in the United States, the rate of the growth of the economy or productivity has slowed considerably and for most of its population it has been an extremely poor period in terms of income, working hours and so on. There has been enormous concentration of wealth and power in various sectors. But general economic growth has slowed considerably under globalisation. Surprisingly, even trade has slowed down in the last 25 years. In general, it is a pretty gloomy period for most of the world under globalisation. One of the crucial aspects of globalisation is to undermine democratic functioning, to move decisions from the public democratic arena, to move decisions to private hands, to the unac ces away from education and it has taken resources away from the public, and transformed them into unaccountable private hands. The average wages in the US are now lower for 70 per cent of the population if you compare with the situation 20 years ago. Meanwhile, working hours have increased dramatically. An average family in the US works about a month and half in a year more than they did 10 years ago. But their security of life has been very sharply reduced. People do not know whether they are going to have a job or not. That is similar in Europe and other developed nations. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Nov 25 20:26:00 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 25 Nov 2001 14:56:00 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Article axed Message-ID: <20011125145600.9537.qmail@mailFA2.rediffmail.com> Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians Robin McKie, science editor Sunday November 25, 2001 The Observer A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal. Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away. Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma. 'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.' British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?' The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board. Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'. The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East. In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support lly distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited. Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude. But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article. Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal. He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps. 'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said. 'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.' In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness. One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one is is a very sad business.' From ravikant at sarai.net Mon Nov 26 11:54:37 2001 From: ravikant at sarai.net (Ravikant) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:54:37 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: After Sept 11 website Message-ID: <01112611543701.01072@jadu.sarai.kit> With apologies to those who already have access to this resource. ravikant ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: After Sept 11 website Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:31:12 -0500 From: info at ssrc.org To: ravikant at sarai.net The Social Science Research Council announces a new website featuring a collection of essays called “After September 11: Perspectives from the Social Sciences.” Leading social scientists from around the world and across the social science disciplines have contributed their expertise to the project. The collection, which can be accessed at http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/, aims to move beyond the discourse of Op-Ed pieces by bringing theoretical perspectives and empirical knowledge to bear on the questions ra sed by September 11. More than 50 social scientists have committed to write essays for the project. Contributors to the site include Olivier Roy, France’s leading expert on political Islam, writing on neo-fundamentalism; Barry Eichengreen, a noted economic historian, assessing the impact of September 11 on global finance and financial institutions; and leading political scientist Seyla Benhabib, addressing how recent terror networks challenge the boundaries of democratic states. The website is intended as a resource for teachers – especially college and university instructors, but those at the secondary level as well – who want to address unfolding events in their courses from the perspectives of the social sciences. It is can also prove a useful tool for journalists who seek a wider set of viewpoints and solid analytical thinking on the issues at hand. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be removed from this mailing list click on the link below http://www.ssrc.org/mail/mail.cgi?ravikant at sarai.net ------------------------------------------------------- From ravis at sarai.net Mon Nov 26 14:18:05 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:18:05 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Good Muslim, Bad Muslim An African Perspective Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011126141625.00a92458@pop3.norton.antivirus> I got this from the Social Science Research Council website (http://www.ssrc.org/sept11), which has set up a collection of essays on Sept 11. Ravi Good Muslim, Bad Muslim An African Perspective Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Anthropology, Columbia University Ever since September 11, there has been a growing media interest in Islam. What is the link, many seem to ask, between Islam and terrorism? The Spectator, a British weekly, carried a lead article a few weeks ago that argued that the link was not with all of Islam, but with a very literal interpretation of it. This version, Wahhabi Islam, it warned, was dominant in Saudi Arabia, from where it had been exported both to Afghanistan and the US. This argument was echoed widely in many circles, more recently in the New York Times. This article is born of dissatisfaction with the new wisdom that we must tell apart the Good Muslim from the Bad Muslim. Culture Talk Is our world really divided into two, so that one part makes culture and the other is a prisoner of culture? Are there really two meanings of culture? Does culture stand for creativity, for what being human is all about, in one part of the world? But in the other part of the world, it stands for habit, for some kind of instinctive activity, whose rules are inscribed in early founding texts, usually religious, and museumized in early artifacts? When I read of Islam in the papers these days, I often feel I am reading of museumized peoples. I feel I am reading of people who are said not to make culture, except at the beginning of creation, as some extraordinary, prophetic, act. After that, it seems they just conform to culture. Their culture seems to have no history, no politics, and no debates. It seems just to have petrified into a lifeless custom. Even more, these people seem incapable of transforming their culture, the way they seem incapable of growing their own food. The implication is that their only salvation lies, as always, in philanthropy, in being saved from the outside. When I read this, or something like this, I wonder if this world of ours is after all divided into two: on the one hand, savages who must be saved before they destroy us all and, on the other, the civilized whose burden it is to save all? We are now told to give serious attention to culture. It is said that culture is now a matter of life and death. But is it really true that people's public behavior, specifically their political behavior, can be read from their religion? Could it be that a person who takes his or her religion literally is a potential terrorist? And only someone who thinks of the text as not literal, but as metaphorical or figurative, is better suited to civic life and the tolerance it calls for? How, one may ask, does the literal reading of religious texts translate into hijacking, murder, and terrorism? Some may object that I am presenting a caricature of what we read in the press. After all, is there not less and less talk of the clash of civilizations, and more and more talk of the clash inside civilizations? Is that not the point of the articles I referred to earlier, those in The Spectator and The New York Times? After all, we are now told to distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims. Mind you, not between good and bad persons, nor between criminals and civic citizens, who both happen to be Muslims, but between good Muslims and bad Muslims. We are told that there is a fault line running through Islam, a line that divides moderate Islam, called genuine Islam, and extremist political Islam. The terrorists of September 11, we are told, did not just hijack planes; it is said that they also hijacked Islam, meaning genuine Islam! Here is one version of the argument that the clash is inside and not between civilizations. It is my own construction, but it is not a fabrication. I think of it as an enlightened version, because it does not just speak of the other, but also of self. It has little trace of ethnocentrism. This is how it goes. Islam and Christianity have one thing in common. Both share a deeply messianic orientation. Each has a conviction that it possesses the truth. Both have a sense of mission to civilize the world. Both consider the world beyond a sea of ignorance, one that needs to be redeemed. Think, for example, of the Arabic word al-Jahaliya, which I have always known to mean the domain of ignorance. This conviction is so deep-seated that it is even found in its secular version, as in the old colonial notion of "a civilizing mission," or in its more racialized version, "the White Man's Burden." Or simply, in the 19th century American conviction of a "manifest destiny." In both cultures, Christian and Muslim, these notions have been the subject of prolonged debates. Even if you should claim to know what is good for humanity, how do you proceed? By persuasion or force? Do you convince others of the validity of your truth or do you proceed by imposing it on them? The first alternative gives you reason and evangelism; the second gives you the Crusades. Take the example of Islam, and the notion of Jihad, which roughly translated means struggle. A student of mine gave me a series of articles written by the Pakistani academic and journalist, Eqbal Ahmed, in the Karachi-based newspaper, Dawn. In one of these articles, Eqbal distinguished between two broad traditions in the understanding of Jihad. The first, called "little Jihad," thinks of Jihad as a struggle against external enemies of Islam. It is an Islamic version of the Christian notion of "just war". The second, called "big Jihad," thinks of Jihad as more of a spiritual struggle against the self in a contaminated world. All of this is true, but I don't think it explains terrorism. I remain deeply skeptical that we can read people's political behavior from their religion, or from their culture. Remember, it was not so long ago that some claimed that the behavior of others could be read from their genes. Could it be true that an orthodox Muslim is a potential terrorist? Or, the same thing, that an Orthodox Jew is a potential terrorist and only a Reform Jew is capable of being tolerant of those who do not share his convictions? I am aware that this does not exhaust the question of culture and politics. How do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? Take, for example the politics of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, both of whom claim to be waging a Jihad, a just war against the enemies of Islam? How do we make sense of this? I want to suggest that we turn the cultural theory of politics on its head. Rather than see this politics as the outcome of an archaic culture, I suggest we see neither the culture not the politics as archaic, but both as very contemporary outcomes of equally contemporary conditions, relations and conflicts. Instead of dismissing history and politics as does culture talk, I suggest we place cultural debates in historical and political contexts. Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. Even when it tries to harness one or another aspect of tradition and culture, it puts this at the service of a modern project. In what follows, I would like to offer you a perspective on contemporary terrorism from an African vantage point. An African Perspective on Contemporary Terrorism Eqbal Ahmed writes of a television image from 1985, of Ronald Reagan meeting a group of turbaned men, all Afghani, all leaders of the Mujaheddin. After the meeting, Reagan brought them out into the White House lawn, and introduced them to the media in these words: "These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers." This was the moment when official America tried to harness one version of Islam in a struggle against the Soviet Union. Before exploring the politics of it, let me clarify the historical moment. 1975 was the year of American defeat in Indochina. 1975 was also the year the Portuguese empire collapsed in Africa. It was the year the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa. The question was: who would pick up the pieces of the Portuguese empire, the US or the Soviet Union? As the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted, from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa, there was also a shift in US strategy. The Nixon Doctrine had been forged towards the closing years of the Vietnam War but could not be implemented at that late stage the doctrine that "Asian boys must fight Asian wars" was really put into practice in Southern Africa. In practice, it translated into a US decision to harness, or even to cultivate, terrorism in the struggle against regimes it considered pro-Soviet. In Southern Africa, the immediate result was a partnership between the US and apartheid South Africa, accused by the UN of perpetrating "a crime against humanity." Reagan termed this new partnership "constructive engagement." South Africa became both conduit and partner of the US in the hot war against those governments in the region considered pro-Soviet. This partnership bolstered a number of terrorist movements: Renamo in Mozambique, and Unita in Angola. Their terrorism was of a type Africa had never seen before. It was not simply that they were willing to tolerate a higher level of civilian casualties in military confrontations what official America nowadays calls collateral damage. The new thing was that these terrorist movements specifically targeted civilians. It sought specifically to kill and maim civilians, but not all of them. Always, the idea was to leave a few to go and tell the story, to spread fear. The object of spreading fear was to paralyze government. In another decade, the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted to Central America, to Nicaragua and El Salvador. And so did the center of gravity of US-sponsored terrorism. The Contras were not only tolerated and shielded by official America; they were actively nurtured and directly assisted, as in the mining of harbors. The shifting center of gravity of the Cold War was the major context in which Afghanistan policy was framed. But it was not the only context. The minor context was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Ayatullah Khomeini anointed official America as the "Great Satan," and official Islam as "American Islam." But instead of also addressing the issues the sources of resentment against official America the Reagan administration hoped to create a pro-American Islamic lobby. The grand plan of the Reagan administration was two-pronged. First, it drooled at the prospect of uniting a billion Muslims around a holy war, a Crusade, against the evil empire. I use the word Crusade, not Jihad, because only the notion of Crusade can accurately convey the frame of mind in which this initiative was taken. Second, the Reagan administration hoped to turn a religious schism inside Islam, between minority Shia and majority Sunni, into a political schism. Thereby, it hoped to contain the influence of the Iranian Revolution as a minority Shia affair. This is the context in which an American/Saudi/Pakistani alliance was forged, and religious madresas turned into political schools for training cadres. The Islamic world had not seen an armed Jihad for centuries. But now the CIA was determined to create one. It was determined to put a version of tradition at the service of politics. We are told that the CIA looked for a Saudi Prince to lead this Crusade. It could not find a Prince. But it settled for the next best, the son of an illustrious family closely connected to the royal family. This was not a backwater family steeped in pre-modernity, but a cosmopolitan family. The Bin Laden family is a patron of scholarship. It endows programs at universities like Harvard and Yale. The CIA created the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden as alternatives to secular nationalism. Just as, in another context, the Israeli intelligence created Hamas as an alternative to the secular PLO. Contemporary "fundamentalism" is a modern project, not a traditional leftover. When the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, this terror was unleashed on Afghanistan in the name of liberation. As different factions fought over the liberated country the Northern Alliance against the Taliban they shelled and destroyed their own cities with artillery. The Question of Responsibility To understand the question of who bears responsibility for the present situation, it will help to contrast two situations, that after the Second World War and that after the Cold War, and compare how the question of responsibility was understood and addressed in two different contexts. In spite of Pearl Harbor, World War Two was fought in Europe and Asia, not in the US. It was not the US which faced physical and civic destruction at the end of the war. The question of responsibility for postwar reconstruction did not just arise as a moral question; it arose as a political question. In Europe, its urgency was underlined by the changing political situation in Yugoslavia, Albania, and particularly, Greece. This is the context in which the US accepted responsibility for restoring conditions for decent life in noncommunist Europe. That initiative was called the Marshall Plan. The Cold War was not fought in Europe, but in Southeast Asia, in Southern Africa, and in Central America. Should we, ordinary humanity, hold official America responsible for its actions during the Cold War? Should official America be held responsible for napalm bombing and spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam? Should it be held responsible for cultivating terrorist movements in Southern Africa and Central America? Perhaps no other society paid a higher price for the defeat of the Soviet Union than did Afghanistan. Out of a population of roughly 15 million, a million died, another million and a half were maimed, and another five million became refugees. Afghanistan was a brutalized society even before the present war began. After the Cold War and right up to September 10 of this year, the US and Britain compelled African countries to reconcile with terrorist movements. The demand was that governments must share power with terrorist organizations in the name of reconciliation as in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone, and in Angola. If terrorism was an official American Cold War brew, it was turned into a local Sierra Leonean or Angolan or Mozambican or Afghani brew after the Cold War. Whose responsibility is it? Like Afghanistan, are these countries hosting terrorism, or are they also hostage to terrorism? I think both. Official America has a habit of not taking responsibility for its own actions. Instead, it habitually looks for a high moral pretext for inaction. I was in Durban at the World Congress Against Racism (WCAR) when the US walked out of it. The Durban conference was about major crimes of the past, about racism, and xenophobia, and related crimes. I returned from Durban to listen to Condoleeza Rice talk about the need to forget slavery because, she said, the pursuit of civilized life requires that we forget the past. It is true that, unless we learn to forget, life will turn into revenge-seeking. Each of us will have nothing but a catalogue of wrongs done to a long line of ancestors. But civilization cannot be built on just forgetting. We must not only learn to forget, we must also not forget to learn. We must also memorialize, particularly monumental crimes. America was built on two monumental crimes: the genocide of the Native American and the enslavement of the African American. The tendency of official America is to memorialize other peoples' crimes and to forget its own to seek a high moral ground as a pretext to ignore real issues. Conclusion I would like to conclude with the question of responsibility. It is a human tendency to look for others in times of adversity. We seek friends and allies in times of danger. But in times of prosperity, the short-sighted tend to walk away from others. This is why prosperity, and not adversity, is the real litmus test of how we define community. The contemporary history of Southern Africa, Central America, and Afghanistan testifies to this tendency. Modernity in politics is about moving from exclusion to inclusion, from repression to incorporation. By including those previously excluded, we give those previously alienated a stake in things. By doing so, we broaden the bounds of lived community, and of lived humanity. That perhaps is the real challenge today. It is the recognition that the good life cannot be lived in isolation. I think of civilization as a constant creation whereby we gradually expand the boundaries of community, the boundaries of those with whom we share the world this is why it is so grotesque to see bombs and food parcels raining on the defenseless people of Afghanistan from the same source. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011126/3b01ece9/attachment.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Nov 26 14:44:46 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:44:46 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: copyrights Message-ID: <01112614444605.00784@pinki.sarai.kit> Apologies for cross posting. But i really enjoyed this text! and cannot resist it being logged onto this list.. cheers, jeebesh Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:07:11 +0100 From: matthew fuller To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net Copyrights This material is a contribution to a designated copyright grey area. No laws of any territory yet constituted shall be deemed particularly applicable in governing its ownership, nor does it infringe on rights deemed to be granted in their commission to (i) store this material on servers; (ii) distribute it through web sites and through email lists; and (iii) reproduce, publish, perform, display, adapt, distribute or otherwise make available this material in web sites, books, CD-ROMs, religious visions, semaphore, Chinese whispers or any other form or medium whatsoever, whether now known or as may hereafter be developed. The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid only in the subordinate domains in which bourgeois law exercises its authority. This text may be stored, retrieved, copied and read only in media systems which existed prior to or are developed after the existence of bourgeois law. All material covered by this declaration is produced under conditions which make the ascription of its development to one individual, group, network or institution impossible. It has already disappeared as a separate element with identifiable boundaries and is being recomposed by the storage systems, display devices and other protocols by which its circulation is affected. Every user of this material is responsible for correcting any errors of fact, interpretation, parsability, scansion and the law that may arise in its storage, transmission or interpretation. The persons hitherto known as the author, publisher, producer and distributor, or any other titles which exist, have existed or are heretofore invented in order to name them or the functions which they carry out or may be deemed to have fulfilled, hereby revoke any claims to copyright, and any moral financial or cultural rights which may thereby accrue as a result of the publication of this text. It makes us sick. Take it away and burn it. Permission is granted to store, copy, alter, and distribute this material by any means. We cannot i) pay for a lawyer. You may rewrite or adapt any or all elements of this material on the understanding that i) such a condition is imposed on all subsequent versions of the material, ii) what constitutes a valid, functional, and aesthetically-pleasing version, is iii) peer-pressure optimised, by a committee of version inspectors who are governed ultimately by one over-worked but sulkily good-looking functionary. This text is a collection of citations strung together by a handful of received ideas published in a journal that no library, institution, company or individual subscribes to, and which no-one but those cited is aware of, but which upon publication will guarantee the tenure of the author in an academic institution of no real interest, the appointment to which position the author will: a) rail against for the rest of his miserable life. This material is being held from publication until such a time as it will fully benefit from submission to the cleansing rigour of the market economy. The copyright holders will protect their intellectual property rights by all means at their disposal in order to i) prevent others profiting from their hard work and extensive IP redeployment potential research, ii) assure the most beneficial market profile via comprehensive coverage of all territorial, delivery platform, merchandising and remediation licensing options, iii) have the option of deleting it from our list should something more interesting become available. This text cannot exist in a context in which copyright is deemed to be applicable. It has therefore been erased in order to allow readers the chance to examine and admire the elegance, and comprehensive robustness of the series of clauses which preclude its existence. This text may be freely distributed (i) stored on servers; (ii) distributed through web sites and through email lists; and (iii) reproduced, published, performed, displayed, adapted, distributed or otherwise made available in any form or medium whatsoever, whether now known or as may hereafter be developed with the proviso that every copy introduces a variation of the received test by one letter, and one letter only, and that such a condition be imposed on every subsequent usur. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net ------------------------------------------------------- From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Wed Nov 21 22:11:57 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:11:57 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] A Cryptanalysis of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System Message-ID: <3BFBD955.1D24C827@linux-delhi.org> A Cryptanalysis of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System http://nunce.org/hdcp/hdcp111901.htm -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs. From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Wed Nov 21 22:21:01 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:21:01 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Bill to Linus: You Owe Me. Message-ID: <3BFBDB75.9BFF6F63@linux-delhi.org> Bill to Linus: You Owe Me. Did Bill Gates Invent Open Source Software? No, But He'll Take Credit For It, Anyway By Robert X. Cringely Thanksgiving week is always difficult for me. PBS wants my column early, of course, but the real problem is that much of what I write is often lost to readers, obscured by the effects of whatever that chemical is in turkey meat that makes us fall asleep. People simply don't remember what I write that week, which is of course, this week. I have to work all the harder to shock them out of their holiday stupor. So the shocking questions for this week are 1) Is Bill Gates really the father of the Open Source software movement? and; 2) If Bill isn't the father of Open Source, did he violate a crucial IBM nondisclosure agreement and ought to pay billions in damages to Big Blue as a result? It is hard to imagine Bill Gates claiming to have started -- or even helped to start -- the Open Source movement, especially since he has been widely quoted as once describing it as communism. But claiming paternity he kinda, sorta did at Microsoft's recent annual meeting while answering questions from shareholders. Here is the fateful question: "It appears to me that the open source movement is gaining momentum, and as I understand it, the key to success of a software product involves efficiently building an ecosystem of developers and users, resellers, and so forth. Isn't the open source model a more efficient paradigm for building such a community around your products, and isn't perhaps Microsoft maybe on the wrong side of that trend of long-term?" And here is the answer from Bill Gates, or at least the first part of it (the complete answer, which is quite long and circuitous, can be found under one of the "I Like It" links on this page): "Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the BIOS of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that..." I guess we can forget, then, about MITS giving to the world the S-100 bus, Gary Kildall inventing the ROM-BIOS for his CP/M operating system, and Steve Wozniak creating the Apple II as an open architecture with millions of users. Microsoft even made CP/M cards that could be installed in Apple IIs. And all this was years before the IBM PC and PC-DOS were introduced in 1981. The gist of Bill's argument is that Open Source requires a large pre-installed base of genetically identical computers, and that base was provided by DOS and Windows. Okay, maybe we can buy that. But then Bill goes on to claim that the BIOS -- the Basic Input-Output System that sits between the operating system and the computer hardware -- "should be open to everybody to use." Tell that one to IBM, which somehow thought the IBM PC BIOS was their property. They held a copyright on it, after all. Compaq Computer spent over $1 million reverse-engineering the IBM PC BIOS to create the first IBM PC clone. If Microsoft had been working so hard to open up that BIOS, Compaq could have saved their money. What WAS Microsoft's role in opening-up the PC BIOS? If they were, indeed, pioneers in this effort, then they were, as one of my canny readers suggested, violating an IBM non-disclosure agreement, and would have been subject to billions in penalties. That was long ago, and the statute of limitations has expired, so Bill might well be telling the truth, admitting that he had deliberately undermined his old partner, the company that made Microsoft what it is today. Or Bill could be bending the truth a bit, though I can't imagine why. Frankly, neither answer makes Microsoft look very good. I needed another source to help me converge on the truth, so I e-mailed Jack Sams in Florida. Jack was the guy from IBM who was sent to Seattle to meet with Microsoft back in 1980, and tell them about the still-secret IBM PC. Jack was also the guy who mistook Gates for an office boy at the start of that meeting. And Jack had a lot to say on this subject: "Bill responded like a true politician by switching the question from Open Source to Freeware (ugh), then to Open Architecture (read de facto standards), which he claims to have prompted IBM to adopt for the PC," said Sams. "Bill did, in fact, influence the IBM PC interface architecture, but our "open architecture" decision was ab initio. "Your (reader) challenged Gates' claim by noting that the (IBM BIOS CHIP) is highly proprietary. He didn't distinguish the copyrighted chip from the interface architecture it implements. The chip is indeed copyrighted and could be infringed. The open architecture it supports was extended by Paul Allen's DOS 2.1 to actually support dynamic addition of features and capabilities at run time. This (DOS +BIOS) open architecture has been public domain since it first shipped ( Byzantine, but open). "So, everyone is more or less right. Bill remains an artful dodger and a selective rememberer, but, aren't we all? "Here's the open architecture/BIOS history as I saw it during 1980. "IBM's (August 1980) product development plan for the PC assumed almost from day one that we would have to rely on a number of independent, third party hardware and software developers to respond to the demands of a mass market. (think programming languages, word processors, games, spreadsheets, joysticks and classroom drill, a million machines and a three year program)... We consciously intended to host other vendors independently developed software, and we were almost completely dependent on third party peripheral devices (color video, disk, tape, printer, communications) because our own available I/O was hardwired for EBCDIC date encoding. "The product strategy demanded a reliably defined interface that allowed other vendors' hardware to physically and logically attach to the PC bus and for other vendors' software to access all system services. The assembler source code that implemented this "BIOS" was written by David Bradley, of IBM, in Seattle, in consultation with Microsoft. Its design was limited by three givens: 1) Microsoft's 8086 version of ROM BASIC. 2) The 8 bit I/O bus and device control architecture inherited from the IBM Datamaster (a failed earlier attempt to build an IBM PC). 3) The existing 8088 motherboard design that was planned as an upgrade for the Datamaster. "These hardware "bootstraps" were never acknowledged in the "official histories" by IBM, and may well have been concealed from Bill Gates until early 1981... hence his claim to have persuaded us to use a 16-bit chip. Somebody nodded wisely and said "good idea", but the 8088 prototypes were already running in August with IBM 8-bit I/O. "The BIOS code was written very early (in September/October 1980), during the first (consulting) agreement we negotiated with Microsoft in August 1980. It established the infamous 640K memory boundary and other simplifying conventions to allow the system to be run entirely from ROM. IBM copyrighted the CHIP and published the interfaces at first customer shipment. (I'm sure there were arguments against publishing until the last minute, and Bill would certainly have had an input; but that's just my opinion, I was out of the loop after November 1980) "At this level, Bill Gates can certainly claim to have "influenced" the open architecture strategy. He was our consultant, he had practical experience interfacing BASIC to a succession of systems with a variety of ASCII I/O devices and device controllers, and he was the first, we expected, of many vendors whose products would become replaceable parts in PC systems. "However, the "open architecture" strategy was entirely deliberate on IBM's part. We expected to defend our own hardware market: 1) By being the lowest cost producer of the core system, and 2) By asserting copyright protection for the bios chip(s). 3) By quickly offering a series of cheaper, faster, better upward compatible systems and upgrades. 4) By staying out of the PC software development business. "All were relatively successful strategies through the PC, PC/XT, and PC/AT, although our reliance on overseas suppliers set the stage for the PC/AT clone takeover as soon as there was a reliable source of reverse engineered BIOS chips. "When the PC Division began to plan an 80386/AT in 1983, the IBM Corporate Management Committee took the business back from Don Estridge and directed its new management to redevelop the PC as a proprietary IBM product with "normal" profit margins and a full range of proprietary software and I/O. "So sad." Bill dodges another one. Those interested in slightly more recent computer history might want to know about next week's celebration of the first 10 years of QuickTime, Apple's extensible multimedia technology. The amazing thing about Quicktime is that there was nothing like it before, and everything has been like it since. Look at the guts of Real Player or Windows Media Player, and you'll see structural copies of QuickTime. It is very hard to be an original, to be the first, and to still survive a decade later, but Quicktime does all that. And it might even get the last laugh. Apple is rumored to be preparing an MPEG-4 player for Quicktime (the Quicktime file format is already used by MPEG-4), which ought to give the system perpetual legs and a real advantage against more proprietary solutions from Real and Microsoft. Back in 1990 when Apple first conceived of QuickTime, the world of "multimedia" was one of laserdiscs. A multimedia application was a Hypercard stack connected bya serial cable to a Macintosh. The stack let you navigate to a particular clip. The video was then played on a TV screen. In 1991, the big step forward was to display that video on the computer screen... but you still needed the laserdisc. And when Apple management announced QuickTime in 1990, the idea was very much about perpetuating and supporting that model. The QuickTime team subverted that whole system by saying that every PC (Mac!) should be able to play video on its own... no special hardware. So they developed software only video and audio that scaled itself to match the users machine. Constrast this to the PC industry which in 1992 was obsessed with multimedia PC, which was basically just a sound card plugged into a stock PC. Miles apart. The QuickTime work put in the foundation for ground breaking titles like MYST and Peter Gabriel's XPLORA 1, and set the model that was later followed for MPEG-4 and DVD. Work on QuickTime 1.0 was completed on December 2, 1991, with a product launch at the San Francisco MacWorld show in January 1992. There will be a party, of course, held on December 1st in San Francisco to celebrate the anniversary. Proceeds are earmarked to raise funds for a permanent QuickTime museum exhibit. And all this is because a nonprofit, all-volunteer organization called Friends of Time is determined to secure the place of QuickTime in technology history. Their web site is listed among the "I Like It" links. Now if only there was a similar group called Friends of Bob. -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs. From jaganshah at vsnl.com Sun Nov 11 19:32:49 2001 From: jaganshah at vsnl.com (jagan shah) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 19:32:49 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] response to Shuddha Message-ID: <3BEE8508.CD6D9B03@vsnl.com> Dear reader-list, If in the future, there is such a world as Shuddhabrata Sengupta envisions, then please make out a gate-pass for me. I want in. I am not so sure, however, if I will be traveling to another place, another space or an other world, that I have been promised, that still needs to be imagined. Perhaps I will remain where I am, in the current world, as it becomes forever contemporary. If the artist's life is to be the material that the artist will work into the products of his/her art, if the 'content' of their art is existence itself, and even if the 'form' is completely subject to their desires and realities, if that art will be self-expression itself, a perpetual work-in-progress, then we will have to let the word 'art' make a discreet exit from our lexicon. But we know how once admitted, the word has no exit. 'Art' is always already a trace of things and words from another time. Other desires, other realities. Mr. Sengupta's desires are the stuff of revolution, and to that extent must resonate in many hearts on this mailing-list. He describes a dream of human beings sharing the elusive joys of existence, the efflorescence of the spirit that they all desire but seldom experience. A good dream to dream. I see the point about the crisis of art today, held hostage by institutions, separated from everyday life. I agree that the cloistering of art and art practises has not helped the world any. I vehemently support the restoring to art its power to transform into the sublime, the horrors and joys of the world. But if the artist is not to be in conflict with corporeal and spiritual realities, if his "attachments to the sensible, rational ways of dealing with an insane world that we inhabit at present" are forever severed, then would not the artist, as artist, find himself redundant? Will the artist become a tripper in paradise, rendering with stylus or pen or brush or whathaveyou, reveling in the bountiful pleasures of being? I once asked MF Hussain why people make art, and he said because art is everywhere, it is in the spoon, in the kerchief, the chair and the walking stick. Perhaps he was recalling that same modern vision that could see the sun shine even in a coffee spoon. But I could not get him to shine a light on his self, to engage with himself. His art and his being are sans all conflict. No irony, no doubt. Imagine that, at the auction of a vulgar black and red painting dedicated for those who suffered the Gujarat earthquake. I trust that Mr. Sengupta, desiring a close relationship between revolution and art, will have no patience for Hussain. If ever the technologies at hand today create the informed and free world that they promise oh-so-much, and if human beings retain the ability to think, feel and act, then I hope that their art will indeed be in their spoons. But I hope that they will not need the category of art to recognize a good spoon. Or an artist to make one. The future holds even greater self-reflection and analysis than before. When after the human genome has yielded its secrets, and for the decades before it does, we will become hyper-aware of our human condition. In such times, artists will still be speaking in tongues, blurring boundaries and testing limits. For the limitless is still only a vision, as is the vision of art without limits. If the artist had no constraints, then the artist would have little to do, I think. For, like poetry, art also reveals, exposes and analyses the conditions of our existence. The artist (regardless of pedigree, fame, skill and other things that we discard in the egalitarian future) is both maker and theorist, worker and philosopher, perfomer and audience. As we understand it today, art is a conscious engagement with the world. Let the artist remain as adversary of his/her time and place. Let the critical function of art remain. Let the artist be different from the manager. We need both. The artist-manager and manager-artist. The revolutionary artist and the artist revolutionary. Let not art be a matter of desire, but a consequence of habit. Imagine a world where the conflict between aesthetics and ethics is not erased, for neither can do without the other. Imagine where the languages that are spoken by the artist are comprehended by all, not just by a fluffy gaggle of gregarious aesthetes. I believe that future art is already upon us. In a world where nipple-piercing enjoys an interpretive community and where Mozart plays in the subways, we are finding only more and more works of art and more artists. Yet we still desire something else, maybe to see art more at work in the world than as a subject in a curriculum. We feel a lack, perceive a crisis. Why? Is it because we have indeed metamorphosed into numbers, into abstract entities from a positivist's daydream? I should think not, as member of a virtual community, connected through thought and little else (just ones and zeros). Our commitment and ability to talk about art in every new medium that comes our way is evidence enough of its dissemination. We are as never before, rational beings. But we are only just beginning to accommodate within our totalitarian designs on reality the sketchy outlines of the unreal, the unhomely and the infinite. As we expand our sense of being human, and understand the boundaries of sanity, we are locating art everywhere yet feel it is most missing. After the purveyors of crafted commodities and the exotic are done with their mass production, we recognize Nature as the next-biggest producer of art. Culture for us has become an ecstatic propagation of the transient. All is for consumption and consumption is for all. Yet we talk about art. Is it the art that we learnt in school? The Art of Living? The art of motorcycle maintenance? The art of cooking? What is this thing called art, and what will it become in the future? What uplifts us, what makes us more human, is changing. As we come to love, consume and preserve our bodies in new ways, we also do the mind. Consumption, reflection, maybe even theoria, will occupy us more in the future, as we are more able to guarantee physical wellbeing. Will art engage our minds equally well as it is does today? Or will it tend towards music and dance, and a Cubist descent down a staircase will be an actual experience, not just a strange thing for a nude to do and for a painter to paint. Jagan Shah From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Wed Nov 21 22:28:30 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:28:30 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Copied Audio CD that can blow ure speakers Message-ID: <3BFBDD36.3B623E6E@linux-delhi.org> CD anti-piracy system can nuke hi-fi kit By Tony Smith Posted: 03/08/2001 at 10:27 GMT Sony's Music Entertainment division has been testing an anti-piracy technology that at best renders illegally copied CDs unlistenable and at worse blows listeners' speakers. The anti-piracy system, called Cactus Data Shield, was developed by Israeli technology company Midbar Tech. Research conducted by New Scientist magazine and reported in this week's issue shows how Cactus works. Like Macrovision's SafeAudio, Cactus adds noise to the music data stored on the CD. Unlike SafeAudio, Cactus flags the noise as control information. On playback, this is ignored, but on duplication - even with consumer CD-to-CD systems, which are not disabled by SafeAudio - the noise disrupts the copier's error correction system. The result: a CD-R full of noise, not music. Worse, the generated waveform is of kind to which hi-fi and loudspeaker circuitry is particularly sensitive. Play the noise-filled disc back at too high a volume and - bang - your speakers are toast. Frighteningly, the ability to damage equipment can be effectively switched on or off by the CD mastering company by changing the characteristics of the noise and thus the soundwave generated by players' error correction systems. Sony's Cactus tests, carried out, claims New Scientist, in Slovakia and the Czech Republic were not set to nuke hi-fi equipment, but they easily could have been it seems. It will make an interesting test case when a punter sues Sony for blowing up their loudspeakers after playing an allegedly pirate CD, particularly if the music industry and consumer electronics companies haven't issued warnings that pirate CDs can seriously damage your equipment. Midbar's technique, like Macrovision's SafeAudio, also plays fast and loose with listeners' rights to make copies of discs for their own personal use. Both companies claim the inserted noise does not affect the listening experience. -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs. From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Wed Nov 21 22:31:40 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:31:40 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] The US government is pulling back on previously.... Message-ID: <3BFBDDF4.9D032F8D@linux-delhi.org> >From LA TImes Rising Fears That What We Do Know Can Hurt Us Information: shared data to keep it from aiding terrorists. WASHINGTON -- The document seemed innocuous enough: a survey of government data on reservoirs and dams on CD-ROM. But then came last month's federal directive to U.S. libraries: "Destroy the report." So a Syracuse University library clerk broke the disc into pieces, saving a single shard to prove that the deed was done. The unusual order from the Government Printing Office reflects one of the hidden casualties of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: the public's shrinking access to information that many once took for granted. Want to find out whether there are any hazardous waste sites near the local day-care center? What safety controls are in place at nuclear power plants? Or how many people are incarcerated in terrorist-related probes? Since Sept. 11, it has become much harder to get such information from the federal government, a growing number of states and public libraries as heightened concern about national security has often trumped the public's "right to know:" * At least 15 federal agencies have yanked potentially sensitive information off the Internet, or removed Web sites altogether, for fear that terrorists could exploit the government data. The excised material ranges from information on chemical reactors and risk-management programs to airport data and mapping of oil pipelines. * Several states have followed the federal government's lead. California, for example, has removed information on dams and aqueducts, state officials said. * Members of the public who want to use reading rooms at federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service must now make an appointment and be escorted by an employee to ensure that information is not misused. * The Government Printing Office has begun ordering about 1,300 libraries nationwide that serve as federal depositories to destroy government records that federal agencies say could be too sensitive for public consumption. * Federal agencies are imposing a stricter standard in reviewing hundreds of thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests from the public each year; officials no longer have to show that disclosure would cause "substantial harm" before rejecting a request. Watchdog groups say they have already started to see rejections of requests that likely would have been granted before. The trend reverses a decades-long shift toward greater public access to information, even highly sensitive documents such as the Pentagon Papers or unconventional manifestos such as "The Anarchist's Cookbook," a compilation of recipes for making bombs. The popularity of the Internet has made sensitive information even easier to come by in recent years, but the events of Sept. 11 are now fueling a new debate in Washington: How much do Americans need to know? Attacks Place Internet Content in New Light The swinging of the pendulum away from open records, supporters of the trend say, is a necessary safeguard against terrorists who could use sensitive public information to attack airports, water treatment plants, nuclear reactors and more. In an Oct. 12 memo announcing the new Freedom of Information Act policies, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft said that, while "a well-informed citizenry" is essential to government accountability, national security should be a priority. "The tragic events of Sept. 11 have compelled us to carefully review all of the information we make available to the public over the Internet in a new light," Elaine Stanley, an Environmental Protection Agency official, told a House subcommittee earlier this month. But academicians, public interest groups, media representatives and others warn of an overreaction. "Do you pull all the Rand McNally atlases from the libraries? I mean, how far do you go?" asked Julia Wallace, head of the government publications library at the University of Minnesota. "I'm certainly worried by what I've seen," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group in Washington that monitors the Office of Management and Budget and advocates greater access to government data on environmental and other issues. "In an open society such as ours, you always run the risk that someone is going to use information in a bad way," Bass said. "You have to take every step to minimize those risks without undermining our democratic principles. You can't just shut down the flow of information." It's a fine line acknowledged by Stanley. "[The] EPA is aware that we need a balance between protecting sensitive information in the interest of national security and maintaining access to the information that citizens can use to protect their health and the environment in their communities." The Sept. 11 hijackers, using readily accessible tools like box cutters, the Internet and Boeing flight manuals, hatched a plot too brazen for many to fathom. It forced authorities to consider whether a range of public sites and sensitive facilities was much more vulnerable than they had realized--and whether public records could provide a playbook for targeting them. Officials acknowledge that there are very few examples of terrorists actually using public records to glean sensitive information, but they say that the terrorist attacks prove the need for extraordinary caution. The first directive by the Government Printing Office, made last month at the request of the U.S. Geological Survey, ordered libraries to destroy a water resources guide. While documents have been pulled before because they contained mistakes or were outdated, this was the first time in memory that documents were destroyed because of security concerns, said Francis Buckley, superintendent of documents for the printing office. Because the water survey was published and owned by the U.S. Geological Survey, the libraries that participate in the depository program said they had little choice but to comply. Some librarians asked if they could simply pull the CD from shelves and put it in a secure place, but federal officials told them it had to be destroyed. "I hate to do it," said Christine Gladish, government information librarian at Cal State Los Angeles, which has pulled the water survey from its collection and is preparing to destroy it. "Libraries don't like to censor information. Freedom of information is a professional tenet." Peter Graham, university librarian at Syracuse University, said: "Destruction seems to be the least desirable option to me. . . . We're all waiting for the other shoe to drop. Are we going to see a lot more withdrawals [of documents]? That's my fear." In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing publications that it has made available through the Government Printing Office, Buckley said, and it is almost certain to ask for the destruction of some of its titles. Some have resisted the push to limit access, even on such nerve-rattling subjects as anthrax. The American Society for Microbiology's Web site--an extensive collection of research articles, news releases and expert testimony--includes information about antibiotic-resistant anthrax. After anthrax-laced letters contaminated the nation's mail system, members of the society debated whether a determined individual could find and misuse the information on its site. "We . . . decided not to remove it," said Dr. Ronald Atlas, president-elect of the scientific organization. "The principle right now is one of openness in science. . . . If someone wants to publish [a legitimate research paper], we're not going to be the censor." But that position has drawn scorn from some of Atlas' colleagues. "We have to get away from the ethos that knowledge is good, knowledge should be publicly available, that information will liberate us," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "Information will kill us in the techno-terrorist age, and I think it's nuts to put that stuff on Web sites." The debate about sensitive information is not a new one. A quarter of a century ago, Princeton University undergraduate John Phillips pointed out the dangers of nuclear weapons when he was able to use publicly available sources to design a crude but functional nuclear bomb. Phillips, who now heads a political consulting firm in Washington, said in a recent interview that cutting off the flow of information after Sept. 11 is merely a "cosmetic" change when what is really needed are better means of securing access to nuclear and chemical facilities and supplies. Members of the public will be the ones to suffer, he said. "Restricting information may make us feel good, but terrorists aren't dumb. They'll still be able to get at this information somehow." In the past, it has taken a tragedy to buck the trend toward more and greater public access. That's what happened in California in 1989 after actress Rebecca Schaeffer was shot to death at her Los Angeles home by an obsessed fan who used publicly available motor vehicle records to find out where she lived. The state quickly cut off public access to such records. Indeed, chemical and water industry groups are lobbying the Bush administration to curtail regulations providing public access to the operations of public facilities, data that environmentalists say are critical to ensuring safety. And nongovernment entities such as the Federation of American Scientists have begun curtailing information. Group Clears Pages From its Web Site The group recently pulled 200 pages from its Web site with information on nuclear storage facilities and other government sites. For a group known for promoting open information, it was "an awkward decision," concedes Steven Aftergood, director of the federation's government secrecy project. "But Sept. 11 involved attacks on buildings, and we realized some of the information we had up [on the Web] seemed unnecessarily detailed, including floor plans and certain photographs that didn't seem to add much to public policy debate and conceivably could introduce some new vulnerabilities," he said. "Everyone is now groping toward a new equilibrium," Aftergood said. "TherX-Mozilla-Status: 0009ing pressures that cannot easily be reconciled. The critics of disclosure are saying that we are exposing our vulnerabilities to terrorists. The proponents of disclosure say that it's only by identifying our vulnerabilities that we have any hope of correcting them. I suspect that both things are true." -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs. From shuddha at sarai.net Mon Nov 26 16:40:08 2001 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:40:08 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] response to Shuddha In-Reply-To: <3BEE8508.CD6D9B03@vsnl.com> References: <3BEE8508.CD6D9B03@vsnl.com> Message-ID: <01112616400800.07239@sweety.sarai.kit> Dear Jagan, and reader-list, Than you Jagan for your thoughtful response to my text on the future of art Heres my two pice worth, in response to the response. I hope that this will be more than a two way dialogue, and that other voices, delighted or concerned at the abolition of art and other such matters, will join the joust. Cheers Shuddha _____________________________________________________________ Jagan : > If in the future, there is such a world as Shuddhabrata Sengupta > envisions, then please make out a gate-pass for me. I want in. Shuddha: Such a world, or whatever shadow of it as might be in existence in the present, since it does or would locate itself in the public domain, would require no gate pass. So do consider yourself welcome at all times. We need more people in the future that waits embedded in the present. Jagan : > I am not so sure, however, if I will be traveling to another place, > another space or an other world, that I have been promised, that still > needs to be imagined. Perhaps I will remain where I am, in the current > world, as it becomes forever contemporary. Shuddha : Precisely, the point is to act and exist always in a way that anticipates the future in the present, rather to act as if the future were always already present. This is because, as I suggested in the posting, I feel that we should treat the imagined as being real. Not because we ought to be enacting some fantasy, but because, the fact that we desire something automatically creates the necessary, but not sufficient conditions for their realization in the world. It remains to be acted upon , but the verey acknowledgement of the desire is the first possible action. For instance, I desire a borderless, stateless world. Each instance of my articulating such a desire in a public way, (through speech, writing or artwork) communicates my desire to other people, perhaps to people I dont even know. They in turn might communicate and amplify the same desire - so articulation, at least articulation, can always take us inches towards the realization of the imagined in the realm of the real. Sometimes articulation, expression and the forms of expression also add up to more. For instance, a work (visual, aural, textual, hypertextual, whatever) that also carries with it a tag that encourages people to treat it not as a commodity but as a gift is also immediately a subversion of the prevailing relations of commodity in cultural production. One might argue that each article of 'fee culture' always changes the configuration of cultural production slightly. If through accumulation of free cultural goods, the quality and quantity of free goods were to outweigh the quality and quantity of no free goods then the future that Jagan says I am pointing towards would be immediately realized. I am not the only one who takes this seriously (nor are others who are active within the free culture/free software movement). If oyu see how rigorously the music industry battled the somewhat weak free culture model of napster then you will realize that the threat of the realization of the future is felt most strongly not by us "airhead radical types" but by men in suits in corporate offices. They take the reality of our desires very very seriously. Jagan : > If the artist's life is to be the material that the artist will work > into > the products of his/her art, if the 'content' of their art is > existence itself, and even if the 'form' is completely subject to their > desires and realities, if that art will be self-expression itself, a > perpetual > work-in-progress, then we will have to let the word 'art' make a > discreet exit from our lexicon. But we know how once admitted, the word > has no exit. 'Art' is always already a trace of things and words from > another time. Other desires, other realities. Shuddha : I have no hesitation in endorsing any move that takes the word "art" out of our lexicon, nor do i have any hesitation in endorsing the abolition of the artist, simply because I see it as part of the general movement for the abolition of work, by workers (including art and culture workers like my self) This is a very old goal of the international working class movement which leftists the world over have forgotten. What this means is an ushering in of ways of doing things that blur the distinction between labour, play, learning and leisure that can only happen if we either abolish or ignore the domination of capital in our lives. if more and more people acted at least for part of each working day as if capital had no existence, then I think the accumulation of these dispersed moments of the boycott of capital would force it into a terminal crisis. If more people (for the moment let us continue to call them artists) acted at least for a part of their working time as if they were not producing for the art market, for galleries and commissions, for curators and catalogues, but merely creating objects of beauty and un commodifiable value for themselves, for their friends and for the public domain, then the market in art and culture and intellectual property relations in art and culture would be seriously threatened. This too would anticipate a different future. Jagan > Mr. Sengupta's desires are the stuff of revolution... I never said that they were otherwise. Also, since I am more interested in revolutionaries becoming (provisionally) artists rather than in convincing artists to be revolutionaries - the desire needs to be seen in perspective. It is as much a cll to art as it si to revolution. But the revolution that I foresee is not a spectacular commandeering of the barricades, but the formation of a critical mass of events, and everyday practices, that render capitalism, and the state, irrelevant, and boring. For those interested in following up further on the previous discussion on this list along this line of thinking - I would refer them to two postings in June and July this year. 1. [Reader-list] new rules for the new actonomy by Florian Schneider & Geert Lovink forwarded on to the Reader List from Nettime by Jeebesh Bagchi on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:46:08 +0530 http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2001-June/000189.html and 2. [Reader-list] Re: New Rules for the New Actonomy, response to the Schneider and Lovink text , posted by Shuddhabrata Sengupta on Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:28:46 -0700 (PDT) http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2001-July/000193.html both are available from the Reader List online archive at http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/ As for the rest of Jagan's posting. I could not but agree with his sentiments, although, I have to say the role of the artist-manager, or the manager-artist does leave me with serious doubts. And finally, on a somewhat different note, Jagan : > What uplifts us, what makes us more human, is changing. As we come to > love, consume and preserve our bodies in new ways, we also do the mind. > Consumption, reflection, maybe even theoria, will occupy us more in the > future, as we are more able to guarantee physical wellbeing. Will art > engage our minds equally well as it is does today? Or will it tend towards > music and dance, and a Cubist descent down a staircase will be an actual > experience, not just a strange thing for a nude to do and for a painter to > paint. Shuddha: There is no reason for music and dance not to engage our minds, and following from this there is no reason for that which engages our minds not to be stuff that can be danced to. As an anarchist thinker I respect greatly, once said when asked to join a party that advocated, ahem, revolution "if there ain't no dancing, its not my kinda party" Or, to contradict what that great grave digger of revolution, and artist of contradictions, the venerable Mao Xe Dong (Peace Be Upon Him) said, let us insist that - "A revolutions is, first and foremost, a dinner party" and so, may the little arts of cooking, entertaining, enlightening and subversion, blossom and mingle in our anticipations of the future, artfully and artlessly, as the case may be. Cheers Shuddha From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 26 20:44:23 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 26 Nov 2001 15:14:23 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] News from Kashmir Message-ID: <20011126151423.17042.qmail@mailweb21.rediffmail.com> KASHMIR NEWS House in Srinagar sealed under POTO In what may be the first action under the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance and for the first time since the eruption of militancy in Kashmir, a house in downtown Srinagar has been sealed by the Jammu and Kashmir police for providing a "safe hideout" to militants, official sources said on Monday. Student or bus traveller, a Kashmiri bears brunt of post WTC Kashmir Times Post September 11 terror attacks on Amerca have led to a ‘hate campaign’ against Kashmiris in several parts of the country. Kashmiri people are subject to severe harassment and humiliation in New Delhi,Punjab and other parts of north India. Students and businessmen are the worst victims of this campaign. Reports reaching here reveal that police and other law enforcing agencies are targeting Kashmiris traveling to and fro from Kashmir and New Delhi. Hotel owners do not allow Kashmiris to stay in their hotels at New Delhi. "Being a Kashmiri is a sin outside Kashmir. You cannot check in a hotel of your choice. You cannot move freely. Watchful eyes are monitoring your movement. In Delhi the situation is much worse. Kashmiri people are being suspected for being terrorist. Worst of all, no body listens to logic", said Adil Ahmad, who faced a lot of hardships in New Delhi during his recent tour. Students are the worst victim of this onslaught. In several colleges across the country, police swoops are common during night and they pick up Kashmir students for questioning. Though they are let free, it is enough to create suspicion in the minds of others against Kashmiris. People traveling by bus are subjected to worst humiliation at different places in Punjab and Haryana. Punjab police stop buses at different places,segregates Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris and then harasses Kashmiri people on different pretexts. "Punjab police has unleashed a reign of terror. Any Kashmiri traveling by bus to Delhi is being questioned. He is being released after greasing the pal become a routine norm. If anyone raises voice against such practice, he is being threatened of dire consequences and sometimes dubbed as terrorist", said a trader, who had to pay huge sum to cops in Punjab. Hizbul Mujahideen distances itself from foreign militants in Kashmir Hizb plans to float political party Pakistan-backed militant group Hizbul Mujahideen has indicated that it would float a political party of its own even as it expressed its willingness for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue. "Hizbul Mujahideen is seriously considering to form a political organisation in the state," its spokesman Asad Yazdani told two local news agencies. He, however, did not elaborate when the new party will be formed. "We are in favour of peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue at a politicallevel. We no doubt carry Kalanashkov (rifles) on one hand but we carry olive branch on the other," he said. POTO AND KASHMIR Excerpt from Kashmir Observer Editorial The Kashmir card and the threat from across the border have consistently been used by the ruling parties to gag the opposition. The din of the Kashmir rhetoric invariably drowns sane and genuine voices. BJP leaders have already started harping on the favourite Kashmir tunes to win support for the controversial ordinance. The opposition parties need to realise that the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir has already been brought under similar laws and ordinances. The security forces in the state have blanket powers to combat militancy. They have the powers to cordon, search, kill and even to destroy private and public property on mere suspicion. The ordinance seems targeted at opposition and minorities in the country, and appears to be a part of the BJP's hidden agenda. The minority and Dalit leaders in the country need to understand the latent dimensions of the new ordinance. Like TADA, the ordinance can be used against genuine minority voices in the country. The Congress opposition can thwart the passage of the bill replacing the ordinance in not enjoy a majority. It needs to be cautious not to be swayed by the "Kashmir and cross border" sentiment. The BJP leaders have to realize that passing of such bills is no solution to the problems faced by the country. Instead of passing bills like POTO and playing up to peoples' parochial sentiments, the government needs to address issues like that of Kashmir with an open mind. The best security is in the constant correction of abuses. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:19:49 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 26 Nov 2001 16:49:49 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Kashmir for Beginnners Message-ID: <20011126164949.7233.qmail@mailweb17.rediffmail.com> KASHMIR FOR BEGINNERS Abir Bazaz ‘Kashmir problem’ is quite complex yet not as vexed as experts would have us believe. What we need is a thorough critical, understanding of Kashmir before we hastily attempt any solutions.This attempt hopes to provide some historical background to the "Kashmir problem". What is this ‘Kashmir problem’ ? Depends on whether you look at it from the POV of India ,Pakistan or Kashmiris. Very simply, the political problem that goes back to 1947 and Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession of the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to India. Ever since then both India and Pakistan have put forth claims to Muslim majority J&K which remains divided between India and Pakistan. Is it true that some of J&K is with China ? Yes. China occupied Aksai Chin, the region that borders Ladakh in 1959. This territory was ceded to China by Pakistan under the Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement and includes a part of the beautiful Hunza valley. Who is Maharaja Hari Singh ? The Dogra ruler of the erstwhile Princely State. Maharaja desperately sought to preserve his autocratic power. All the Princely States of India were supposed to either join India or Pakistan. Faced with a democratic, popular Kashmiri uprising and the pressure to choose between India and Pakistan, the Maharaja vacillated long enough to precipitate the crisis. Kashmir’s invasion by the tribes of Pakistan’s North West further complicated the situation. Weren't Dogras the rulers of Kashmir ? Yes. The Dogras had helped the British against the Sikh Empire. The British transferred Kashmir and adjoining areas of the Sikh Empire to the then Dogra ruler Gulab Singh for 75 lakh nanakshahi rupees under what came to be known as the Treaty of Amritsar on March 16, 1846. Then the Sikhs ruled Kashmir ? From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:19:53 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 26 Nov 2001 16:49:53 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Kashmir for Beginnners Message-ID: <20011126164953.7411.qmail@mailweb17.rediffmail.com> KASHMIR FOR BEGINNERS Abir Bazaz ‘Kashmir problem’ is quite complex yet not as vexed as experts would have us believe. What we need is a thorough critical, understanding of Kashmir before we hastily attempt any solutions.This attempt hopes to provide some historical background to the "Kashmir problem". What is this ‘Kashmir problem’ ? Depends on whether you look at it from the POV of India ,Pakistan or Kashmiris. Very simply, the political problem that goes back to 1947 and Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession of the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to India. Ever since then both India and Pakistan have put forth claims to Muslim majority J&K which remains divided between India and Pakistan. Is it true that some of J&K is with China ? Yes. China occupied Aksai Chin, the region that borders Ladakh in 1959. This territory was ceded to China by Pakistan under the Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement and includes a part of the beautiful Hunza valley. Who is Maharaja Hari Singh ? The Dogra ruler of the erstwhile Princely State. Maharaja desperately sought to preserve his autocratic power. All the Princely States of India were supposed to either join India or Pakistan. Faced with a democratic, popular Kashmiri uprising and the pressure to choose between India and Pakistan, the Maharaja vacillated long enough to precipitate the crisis. Kashmir’s invasion by the tribes of Pakistan’s North West further complicated the situation. Weren't Dogras the rulers of Kashmir ? Yes. The Dogras had helped the British against the Sikh Empire. The British transferred Kashmir and adjoining areas of the Sikh Empire to the then Dogra ruler Gulab Singh for 75 lakh nanakshahi rupees under what came to be known as the Treaty of Amritsar on March 16, 1846. Then the Sikhs ruled Kashmir ? From aiindex at mnet.fr Tue Nov 27 00:23:38 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:53:38 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Bugaboo Message-ID: Bugaboo A feature film in English, 82 minutes Directed by Sujit Saraf Synopsis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BUGABOO is a Silicon Valley film. It has been produced by people who live and work in Silicon Valley and who have prospered with the high-tech boom of the nineties. The Internet and the personal computer, while creating Silicon Valley, have also created armies of well-paid Indian professionals who lead a curious existence: as professionals they constitute the epicenter of America's recent growth binge, but as individuals they continue to stay inside cocooned, secure Indian communities which are quite divorced from all things American. A group of such engineers defies the even flow of this existence by introducing "random disturbances" into their lives. These deviations from normal routine punctuate the film until they finally lead to a "grand deviance", unthinkable for sober, law-abiding engineers from India. It is then, at the end of the film, that they discover simple solutions to seemingly complex problems in their lives. BUGABOO does not belittle or ridicule the achievements of Indian professionals in Silicon Valley. It questions the worth of those achievements. It wonders aloud if Utopia is really quite dull. BUGABOO is the first film of its kind. It has been made by, for and about Silicon Valley engineers. It should also have a wider appeal among expatriate Indians and Indians in the urban centers of India. The film was shot on location in the San Francisco Bay Area during the months of February and March 1999 and was released in July 1999. Naatak Films http://www.naatak.com/ and Pygmy Mammoth Productions http://www.kilima.com/pygmymammoth -- From bhrigu at sarai.net Thu Nov 29 03:13:57 2001 From: bhrigu at sarai.net (Bhrigu) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 03:13:57 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Post-march release from London Message-ID: <01112903135704.00839@janta7.sarai.kit> Just Peace post-march release Sun Nov 18th 2001, London 100,000 people were reported by Anti-War protest organisers to have marched through London to voice their opposition to the US war on Afghanistan, and at the UK government collusion in military action. The sheer numbers attending the march underlines that there is a growing body of opinion that is not accepting the extreme militarism of the Bush / Blair coalition, and their bomb first, policy. The diversity of the marchers showed that all kinds of Britons are showing their moral fibre by refusing to accept that it is ok for the richest country in the world to obliterate the poorest. The Government are consistently playing down estimates of the growing number of people who oppose the indiscriminate military action, and weeks of endless bombing, killing innocent people. This policy of misinformation was evident in police statements that 15,000 people attended. This showed the shameless misinformation that the government is prepared to spread amongst the public. The march commenced at Marble Arch and finished with a rally in Trafalgar Sq. So great were the numbers marching that the back of the march arrived in Trafalgar Sq 1.5hrs after the head of the march. The march organised by the Stop the War coalition and supported by a wide range of peace and political organisations, community groups, trades unions and individuals (including CND, Labour MPs, RMT, ASLEF, the Muslim Parliament, the National Civil Rights Movement, the Newham Monitoring Project, the London Council of Mosques, Labour Against the War, Media Workers Against the War, Lawyers Against the War, Artists Against the War and Just Peace - (Muslims for Justice and Peace). Speakers united in their opposition to the war included MPs Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway and former labour stalwart Tony Benn. Well known author and Journalist, Tariq Ali raised the question of the notable absence of any Muslim MPs, and who they were representing if they were not standing up for the majority of British Muslim people, who are opposed to the war. The Adhaan (a call to prayer), which was beautifully rendered and observed, then echoed around Trafalgar Sq. This signalled the breaking of the fast for Muslims and some non-Muslims who had fasted as a sign of unity. Maghrib prayers were then held in the square before the crowd departed peacefully with not a single arrest. Just Peace intend to continue working within the Stop the War coalition, and to keep representing a Muslim agenda in the organisation of the campaign InshaAllah. Just Peace (Muslims for Justice and Peace) email: justpeace_uk at yahoo.co.uk www.4justpeace.com From saumya at sarai.net Tue Nov 27 12:37:17 2001 From: saumya at sarai.net (Saumya Gupta) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:07:17 GMT Subject: [Reader-list] Reflections on the University Message-ID: <20011127.7071700@saumya.sarai.kit> University in the City / Sarai Reader 02 The city and the University share a strange relationship. At an obvious level, the two are inextricably tied. The whole economy of services around everyday needs - dhabas, tiffins, rented flats, neighbourhood shopping locales, cinema halls etc. - and the everyday physical flow of the city into the University (particularly DU which has no formal walls defining it as a 'campus'). Add to that the fact that DU is spread practically all over Delhi in the form of its numerous colleges. The students, in particular the Day Scholars, dependent on the public transport live with the city in a more intimate way than the hostellers who perhaps constitute a rather self-sufficient lot. These self sufficient hostel students - migrants from other cities - along with other groups resident in the University, teachers living in-campus, karamcharies etc., form a self sufficient community largely cut off in their day to day interactions with the City. Then there are issues that emerge out of the specific University politics - the students, teachers and karmacharis have their plates full all the time - elections, wages, exams, apart from the regular compulsions of disciplines and courseworks that perennially claim attention. So, in an equally obvious way, the University space is also a relatively insular space within the city. There is so much happening and with such immediacy that it seems at times that the part does not belong to the whole at all. Of course the two meet both inside and outside, on the Parliament street or the Vivekanand Statue in moments of struggle. When there is crisis. That may range from an eve teasing of a student that takes place on her way to the college, to, a Pokharan that needs to be publicly condemned, or a Babri Masjid demolition that shakes the University, along with the city, to its very core. Or, when there is a fight in the hostel, or nearby residential area, when the insulated world of the university has to engage with the big, bad wide world of the city, with its police, goons, dalals and politicians. And since the city of Delhi is hardly read or taught formally as a subject, or the University reflected upon, we thought it would be a good idea to create an occasion for the students, teachers and scholars to reflect about their relationship with the university and the city. It can be a memoir or an article, anecdotal or academic, personal or institutional, past or present. Content may vary, as the opening paragraph shows, but we would be inclined towards more reflective or analytical attempts to think through aspects of university life - the University and political culture, the university within and as a city space, reflections on a particular experience or set of experiences related perhaps to a particular college, or even a more academic examination of a particular 'discipline' as it manifests itself in the curricular life of the university. Physical proximity dictates that perhaps more attention will be paid to Delhi University, but contributions relating to JNU and Jamia, or any other universities, or comparing life in two or more universities are equally welcome. Please feel free to be as unorthodox as you like in terms of the form of your contribution. An discussion between 2 or more people (preferably conducted over the Sarai Reader List), an interview, a short biography of an unusual person or group of people, snippets from a conversation and any other innovation will be as welcome as an academic/literary/ journalistic essay. The only stipulations are a) the word limit [3000 words for the essays/articles, 500-1000 words for short discussions over the readerlist] and b) the slightly rushed deadline - December 9th for all contributions to Sarai Reader 02. We look forward to your responses! Bhrigu, Ravikant, Saumya Saumya Gupta The Sarai Programme Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054 Tel: 3960040, 3951190 Fax: 3928391, 3943450 www.sarai.net From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Tue Nov 27 22:30:33 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 27 Nov 2001 17:00:33 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Zizek on Tarkovsky Message-ID: <20011127170033.4745.qmail@mailweb23.rediffmail.com> There's been some discussion on art on the List.I thought this article by Zizek might be relevant.Here is hoping this to stimulate more discussion: The Thing from Inner Space by Slavoj Zizek JACQUES LACAN DEFINES ART itself with regard to the Thing: in his Seminar on the Ethics of Psychoanalysis, he claims that art as such is always organized around the central Void of the impossible-real Thing - a statement which, perhaps, should be read as a variation on Rilke's old thesis that "Beauty is the last veil that covers the Horrible" (1). Lacan gives some hints about how this surrounding of the Void functions in the visual arts and in architecture; what we shall do here is not provide an account of how, in cinematic art, the field of the visible, of representations, involves reference to some central and structural Void, to the impossibility attached to it - ultimately, therein resides the point of the notion of suture in cinema theory. What I propose to do is something much more naive and abrupt: to analyze the way the motif of the Thing appears within the diegetic space of cinematic narrative - in short, to speak about films whose narrative deals with some impossible/traumatic Thing, like the Alien Thing in science-fiction horror films. What better proof of the fact that this Thing comes from Inner Space than the very first scene of Star Wars? At first, all we see is the void - the infinite dark sky, the ominously silent abyss of the universe, with dispersed twinkling stars which are not so much material objects as abstract points, markers of space coordinates, virtual objects; then, all of a sudden, in Dolby stereo, we hear a thundering sound coming from behind our backs, from our innermost background, later rejoined by the visual object, the source of this sound - a gigantic space ship, a kind of space version of Titanic - which triumphantly enters the frame of screen-reality. The object-Thing is thus clearly rendered as a part of ourselves that we eject into reality... This intrusion of the m seems to bring relief, canceling the horror vacui of staring at the infinite void of the universe - however, what if its actual effect is the exact opposite? What if the true horror is that of Something - the intrusion of some excessive massive Real - where we expect Nothing? This experience of "Something (the stain of the Real) instead of Nothing" is perhaps at the root of the metaphysical question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I want to focus on the specific version of this Thing: the Thing as the Space (the sacred/forbidden Zone) in which the gap between the Symbolic and the Real is closed, i.e. in which, to put it somewhat bluntly, our desires are directly materialized (or, to put it in the precise terms of Kant's transcendental idealism, the Zone in which our intuition becomes directly productive - the state of things which, according to Kant, characterizes only infinite divine Reason). This notion of Thing as an Id-Machine, a mechanism that directly materializes our unacknowledged fantasies, possesses a long, if not always respectable, pedigree. In cinema, it all began with Fred Wilcox's The Forbidden Planet (1956), which transposed onto a distant planet the story-skeleton of Shakespeare's The Tempest: a father living alone with his daughter (who has never met another man) on an island have their peace disturbed by the arrival of a group of space-travelers. Strange attacks by an invisible monster soon start to occur, and, at the film's end, it becomes clear that this monster is nothing but the materialization of the father's destructive impulses against the intruders who disturbed his incestuous peace. (Retroactively, we can thus read the tempest itself from Shakespeare's play as the materialization of the raging of the paternal superego...). The Id-Machine that, unbeknownst to the father, generates the destructive monster is a gigantic mechanism beneath the surface of this distant planet, the mysterious remnants of some past civilization that succeeded in developing such a machine f oughts and thus destroyed itself... Here, the Id-Machine is firmly set in a Freudian libidinal context: the monsters it generates are the realizations of the primordial father's incestuous destructive impulses against other men who might threaten his symbiosis with the daughter. The ultimate variation of this motif of the Id-Machine is arguably Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris, based on Stanislaw Lem's novel, in which this Thing is also related to the deadlocks of sexual relationship. Solaris is the story of a space agency psychologist, Kelvin, sent to a half-abandoned spaceship above a newly-discovered planet, Solaris, where, recently, strange things have been taking place (scientists going mad, hallucinating and killing themselves). Solaris is a planet with an oceanic fluid surface which moves incessantly and, from time to time, imitates recognizable forms, not only elaborate geometric structures, but also gigantic children's bodies or human buildings; although all attempts to communicate with the planet fail, scientists entertain the hypothesis that Solaris is a gigantic brain which somehow reads our minds. Soon after his arrival, Kelvin finds at his side in his bed his dead wife, Harey, who, years ago on Earth, killed herself after he had abandoned her. He is unable to shake Harey off, all attempts to get rid of her miserably fail (after he sends her into space with a rocket, she rematerializes the next day); analysis of her tissue demonstrates that she is not composed of atoms like normal human beings - beneath a certain micro-level, there is nothing, just void. Finally, Kelvin grasps that Harey is a materialization of his own innermost traumatic fantasies. This accounts for the enigma of strange gaps in Harey's memory - of course she doesn't know everything a real person is supposed to know, because she is not such a person, but a mere materialization of HIS fantasmatic image of her in all its inconsistency. The problem is that, precisely because Harey has no substantial identity of her own, she acquires the returns to its place: like fire in Lynch's films, she forever "walks with the hero", sticks to him, never lets him go. Harey, this fragile specter, pure semblance, cannot ever be erased - she is "undead", eternally recurring in the space between the two deaths. Are we thus not back at the standard Weiningerian anti-feminist notion of the woman as a symptom of man, a materialization of his guilt, his fall into sin, who can only deliver him (and herself) by her suicide? Solaris relies on science-fiction rules to enact in reality itself, to present as a material fact, the notion that woman merely materializes a male fantasy: the tragic position of Harey is that she becomes aware that she is deprived of all substantial identity, that she is Nothing in herself, since she only exists as the Other's dream, insofar as the Other's fantasies turn around her - it is this predicament that imposes suicide as her ultimate ethical act: becoming aware of how he suffers on account of her permanent presence, Harey finally destroys herself by swallowing a chemical stuff that will prevent her recomposition. (The ultimate horror scene of the movie takes place when the spectral Harey reawakens from her first failed suicide attempt on Solaris: after ingesting liquid oxygen, she lies on the floor, deeply frozen; then, all of a sudden, she starts to move, her body twitching in a mixture of erotic beauty and abject horror, sustaining unbearable pain - is there anything more tragic than such a scene of failed self-erasure, when we are reduced to the obscene slime which, against our will, persists in the picture?) At the novel's end, we see Kelvin alone on the spaceship, staring into the mysterious surface of the Solaris ocean... In her reading of the Hegelian dialectics of Lord and Bondsman, Judith Butler focuses on the hidden contract between the two: "the imperative to the bondsman consists in the following formulation: you be my body for me, but do not let me know that the body that you are is my body".(2) The disavowal on the part disavows his own body, he postures as a disembodied desire and compels the bondsman to act as his body; secondly, the bondsman has to disavow that he acts merely as the Lord's body and act as an autonomous agent, as if the bondsman's bodily laboring for the lord is not imposed on him but is his autonomous activity. This structure of double (and thereby self-effacing) disavowal also reveals the patriarchal matrix of the relationship between man and woman: in a first move, woman is posited as a mere projection/reflection of man, his insubstantial shadow, hysterically imitating but never able really to acquire the moral stature of a fully constituted self-identical subjectivity; however, this status of a mere reflection itself has to be disavowed and the woman provided with a false autonomy, as if she acts the way she does within the logic of patriarchy on account of her own autonomous logic (women are "by nature" submissive, compassionate, self-sacrificing...). The paradox not to be missed here is that the bondsman (servant) is all the more the servant, the more he (mis)perceives his position as that of an autonomous agent; and the same goes for woman - the ultimate form of her servitude is to (mis)perceive herself, when she acts in a "feminine" submissive-compassionate way, as an autonomous agent. For that reason, the Weiningerian ontological denigration of woman as a mere "symptom" of man - as the embodiment of male fantasy, as the hysterical imitation of true male subjectivity - is, when openly admitted and fully assumed, far more subversive than the false direct assertion of feminine autonomy - perhaps, the ultimate feminist statement is to proclaim openly "I do not exist in myself, I am merely the Other's fantasy embodied"... What we have in are thus Harey's TWO suicides: the first one (in her earlier earthly "real" existence, as Kelvin's wife), and then her second suicide, the heroic act of the self-erasure of her very spectral undead existence: while the first suicidal act was a simple escape from the bu act. In other words, if the first Harey, before her suicide on Earth, was a "normal human being", the second one is a Subject in the most radical sense of the term, precisely insofar as she is deprived of the last vestiges of her substantial identity (as she says in the film: "No, it's not me... It's not me... I'm not Harey. /.../ Tell me... tell me... Do you find me disgusting because of what I am?"). The difference between Harey who appears to Kelvin and the "monstrous Aphrodite" who appears to Gibarian, one of Kelvin's colleagues on the spaceship (in the novel, not in the film: in the film, Tarkovsky replaced her by a small innocent blonde girl), is that Gibarian's apparition does not come from "real life" memory, but from pure fantasy: "A giant Negress was coming silently towards me with a smooth, rolling gait. I caught a gleam from the whites of her eyes and heard the soft slapping of her bare feet. She was wearing nothing but a yellow skirt of plaited straw; her enormous breasts swung freely and her black arms were as thick as thighs".(3) Unable to sustain confrontation with his primordial maternal fantasmatic apparition, Gibarian dies of shame. Is the planet around which the story turns, composed of the mysterious matter which seems to think, i.e. which in a way is the direct materialization of Thought itself, not an exemplary case of the Lacanian Thing as the "Obscene Jelly" (4), the traumatic Real, the point at which symbolic distance collapses, the point at which there is no need for speech, for signs, since, in it, thought directly intervenes in the Real? This gigantic Brain, this Other-Thing, involves a kind of psychotic short-circuit: in short-circuiting the dialectic of question and answer, of demand and its satisfaction, it provides - or, rather, imposes on us - the answer before we even raise the question, directly materializing our innermost fantasies which support our desire. Solaris is a machine that generates/materializes, in reality itself, my ultimate fantasmatic objectal supplement/par n reality, although my entire psychic life turns around it. Jacques-Alain Miller (5) draws the distinction between the woman who assumes her non-existence, her constitutive lack ("castration"), i.e. the void of subjectivity in her very heart, and what he calls la femme à postiche, the fake, phony woman. This femme à postiche is not what commonsense conservative wisdom would tell us (a woman who distrusts her natural charm and abandons her vocation of rearing children, serving her husband, taking care of the household, etc., and indulges in the extravaganzas of fashionable dressing and make-up, of decadent promiscuity, of career, etc.), but almost its exact opposite: the woman who takes refuge from the void in the very heart of her subjectivity, from the "not-having-it" which marks her being, in the phony certitude of "having it" (of serving as the stable support of family life, of rearing children, her true possession, etc.) - this woman gives the impression (and has the false satisfaction) of a firmly anchored being, of a self-enclosed, satisfied circuit of everyday life (her man has to run around wildly, while she leads a calm life and serves as the safe protective rock or save haven to which her man can always return...). (The most elementary form of "having it" for a woman is, of course, having a child, which is why, for Lacan, there is an ultimate antagonism between Woman and Mother: in contrast to woman who "n'existe pas", mother definitely does exist). The interesting feature to be noted here is that, contrary to the commonsensical expectation, it is the woman who "has it", the self-satisfied femme à postiche disavowing her lack, who not only does not pose any threat to the patriarchal male identity, but even serves as its protective shield and support, while, in contrast to her, it is the woman who flaunts her lack ("castration"), who poses as a hysterical composite of semblances covering a Void, who poses a serious threat to male identity. In other words, the paradox is that the more the woman is den nd insubstantial composite of semblances around a Void, the more she threatens the firm male substantial self-identity (Otto Weininger's entire work centers on this paradox); and, on the other hand, the more the woman is a firm, self-enclosed Substance, the more she supports male identity. This opposition, a key constituent of Tarkovsky's universe, finds its clearest expression in his Nostalgia, whose hero, the Russian writer wandering around northern Italy in search of manuscripts of a 19th-century Russian composer who lived there, is split between Eugenia, the hysterical woman, a being-of-lack trying desperately to seduce him in order to get sexual satisfaction, and his memory of the maternal figure of the Russian wife he has left behind. Tarkovsky's universe is intensely male-centered, oriented on the opposition woman/mother: the sexually active, provocative woman (whose attraction is signaled by a series of coded signals, like the dispersed long hair of Eugenia in Nostalgia) is rejected as an inauthentic hysterical creature, and contrasted to the maternal figure with closely knit and kept hair. For Tarkovsky, the moment a woman accepts the role of being sexually desirable, she sacrifices what is most precious in her, the spiritual essence of her being, and thus devalues herself, turning into a sterile mode of existence: Tarkovsky's universe is permeated by a barely concealed disgust for a provocative woman; to this figure, prone to hysterical incertitudes, he prefers the mother's assuring and stable presence. This disgust is clearly discernible in the hero's (and director's) attitude towards Eugenia's long, hysterical outburst of accusations against him which precedes her act of abandoning him. It is against this background that one should account for Tarkovsky's recourse to static long shots (or shots which allow only a slow panning or tracking movement); these shots can work in two opposite ways, both of them exemplarily at work in Nostalgia: they either rely on a harmonious relationship with their iritual Reconciliation found not in Elevation from the gravitational force of the Earth but in a full surrender to its inertia (like the longest shot in Tarkovsky's entire opus, the Russian hero's extremely slow passage through the empty cracked pool with a lit candle as the path to his salvation; significantly, at the end, when, after a failed attempt, he does reach the other border of the pool, he collapses in death, fully satisfied and reconciled), or, even more interestingly, they rely on a contrast between form and content, like the long shot of Eugenia's hysterical outburst against the hero, a mixture of sexually provocative seductive gestures with contemptuous dismissing remarks. In this shot, it is as if Eugenia protests not only against the hero's tired indifference, but, in a way, also against the calm indifference of the long static shot itself which does not let itself be disturbed by her outburst - Tarkovsky is here at the very opposite extreme to Cassavetes, in whose masterpieces the (feminine) hysterical outbursts are shot by a hand-held camera from an over-proximity, as if the camera itself was drawn into the dynamic hysterical outburst, strangely deforming the enraged faces and thereby losing the stability of its own point-of-view... Solaris nonetheless supplements this standard, although disavowed, male scenario with a key feature: this structure of woman as a symptom of man can be operative only insofar as the man is confronted with his Other Thing, a decentered opaque machine which "reads" his deepest dreams and returns them to him as his symptom, as his own message in its true form that the subject is not ready to acknowledge. It is here that one should reject the Jungian reading of Solaris: the point of Solaris is not simply projection, materialization of the (male) subject's disavowed inner impetuses; what is much more crucial is that if this "projection" is to take place, the impenetrable Other Thing must already be here - the true enigma is the presence of this Thing. The problem with s for the Jungian reading, according to which the external journey is merely the externalization and/or projection of the inner journey into the depth of one's psyche. Apropos of Solaris, he stated in an interview: "Maybe, effectively, the mission of Kelvin on Solaris has only one goal: to show that love of the other is indispensable to all life. A man without love is no longer a man. . . . "(6) In clear contrast to this, Lem's novel focuses on the inert external presence of the planet Solaris, of this "Thing which thinks" (to use Kant's expression, which is fully appropriate here): the point of the novel is precisely that Solaris remains an impenetrable Other with no possible communication with us - true, it returns us to our innermost disavowed fantasies, but the "Que vuoi?" beneath this act remains thoroughly impenetrable (Why does It do it? As a purely mechanical response? To play demonic games with us? To help us - or compel us - to confront our disavowed truth?). It would thus be interesting to put Tarkovsky in the series of Hollywood commercial rewritings of novels which have served as the base for a movie: Tarkovsky does exactly the same as the lowest Hollywood producer, reinscribing the enigmatic encounter with Otherness into the framework of the production of the couple... Nowhere is this gap between the novel and the film more perceptible than in their different endings: at the novel's end, we see Kelvin alone on the spaceship, staring into the mysterious surface of the Solaris ocean, while the film ends with the archetypal Tarkovskian fantasy of combining within the same shot the Otherness into which the hero is thrown (the chaotic surface of Solaris) and the object of his nostalgic longing, the home dacha (Russian wooden countryhouse) to which he longs to return, the house whose contours are encircled by the malleable slime of Solaris' surface - within the radical Otherness, we discover the lost object of our innermost longing. More precisely, the sequence is shot in an ambiguous way: just prior ues on the space station tells Chris (the hero) that it is perhaps time for him to return home. After a couple of Tarkovskian shots of green weeds in water, we then see Chris at his dacha reconciled with his father - however, the camera then slowly pulls back and upwards, and gradually it becomes clear that what we have just witnessed was probably not the actual return home but still a vision manufactured by Solaris: the dacha and the grass surrounding it appear as a lone island in the midst of the chaotic Solaris surface, as yet another materialized vision produced by it . . . The same fantasmatic staging concludes Tarkovsky's Nostalgia: in the midst of the Italian countryside encircled by the fragments of a cathedral in ruins, i.e. in the midst of the place in which the hero is adrift, cut from his roots, there stands an element totally out of place, the Russian dacha, the stuff of the hero's dreams; here, also, the shot begins with a close up of only the recumbent hero in front of his dacha, so that, for a moment, it may seem as if he has effectively returned home; the camera then slowly pulls back to divulge the properly fantasmatic setting of the dacha in the midst of the Italian countryside. Since this scene follows the hero's successful accomplishment of the sacrificial-compulsive gesture of carrying the burning candle across the pool (after which he collapses and drops dead - or so we are led to believe), one is tempted to take the last shot of Nostalgia not only as the hero's dream, but as an uncanny scene which, since it follows his decease, stands for his death: the moment of the impossible combination of Italian countryside in which the hero is adrift with the object of his longing is the moment of death. (This deadly impossible synthesis is announced in a previous dream sequence in which Eugenia appears in a solidaric embrace with the hero's Russian maternal wife-figure.) What we have here is a phenomenon, a scene, a dream experience, which can no longer be subjectivized, i.e. a kind of non-subje onger a dream of anyone, a dream which can emerge only after its subject ceases to be... This concluding fantasy is thus an artificial condensation of opposed, incompatible perspectives, somehow like the standard optician's test in which we see through one eye a cage, through the other eye a parrot, and, if our two eyes are well coordinated in their axes, when we open both eyes, we should see the parrot in the cage.(7) Tarkovsky added not only this final scene, but also a new beginning: while the novel starts with Kelanvin's space travel to Solaris, the movie's first half hour takes place in the standard Tarkovskian Russian countryside, in which Kelvin takes a stroll, gets soaked by rain and immersed into humid earth... As we have already emphasized, in clear contrast to the film's fantasmatic resolution, the novel ends with the lone Kelvin contemplating the surface of Solaris, aware more than ever that he has encountered here an Otherness with which no contact is possible. The planet Solaris has thus to be conceived in strictly Kantian terms, as the impossible apparition of the Thought (the Thinking Substance) as a Thing-in-itself, a noumenal object. Crucial for the Solaris-Thing is thus the coincidence of utter Otherness with excessive, absolute proximity: the Solaris-Thing is even more "ourselves", our own inaccessible kernel, than the Unconscious, since it is an Otherness which directly "is" ourselves, staging the "objectively-subjective" fantasmatic core of our being. Communication with the Solaris-Thing thus fails not because Solaris is too alien, the harbinger of an Intellect infinitely surpassing our limited abilities, playing some perverse games with us whose rationale remains forever outside our grasp, but because it brings us too close to what, in ourselves, must remain at a distance if we are to sustain the consistency of our symbolic universe - in its very Otherness. Solaris generates spectral phenomena that obey our innermost idiosyncratic whims, i.e. if there is a stage-master who pulls the str is, it is ourselves, "the Thing that thinks" in our heart. The fundamental lesson here is the opposition, antagonism even, between the big Other (the symbolic Order) and the Other qua Thing. The big Other is "barred", it is the virtual order of symbolic rules that provides the frame for communication, while in the Solaris-Thing, the big Other is no longer "barred", purely virtual; in it, the Symbolic collapses into the Real, language comes to exist as a Real Thing. Tarkovsky's other science-fiction masterpiece, Stalker, provides the counterpoint to this all-too-present Thing: the void of a forbidden Zone. An anonymous bleak country, an area known as the Zone was visited 20 years before by some mysterious foreign entity (meteorite, aliens...) which left behind debris. People are supposed to disappear in this deadly Zone, which is isolated and guarded by army personnel. Stalkers are adventurous individuals who, for a proper payment, lead people to the Zone and to the mysterious Room at the heart of the Zone where your deepest wishes are allegedly granted. The film tells the story of one such stalker, an ordinary man with a wife and a crippled daughter with the magic capacity of moving objects, who takes to the Zone two intellectuals, a Writer and a Scientist. When they finally reach the Room, they fail to pronounce their wishes because of their lack of faith, while Stalker himself seems to receive an answer to his wish that his daughter would get better. As in the case of Solaris, Tarkovsky inverses the point of a novel: in the Strugatsky brothers' novel The Roadside Picnic, on which the film is based, the Zones - there are six of them - are the debris of a "roadside picnic", i.e. of a short stay on our planet by some alien visitors who quickly left it, finding us uninteresting; Stalkers themselves are also presented in a more adventurous way, not as dedicated individuals on a tormenting spiritual search, but as deft scavengers organizing robbing expeditions, somehow like the proverbial Arabs organizing rai (another Zone, for wealthy Westerners; are Pyramids not in effect, according to popular science literature, traces of an alien wisdom?). The Zone is thus not a purely mental fantasmatic space in which one encounters (or onto which one projects) the truth about oneself, but (like Solaris in Lem's novel) the material presence, the Real of an absolute Otherness incompatible with the rules and laws of our universe. (Because of this, at the novel's end, the hero himself, when confronted with the "Golden Sphere" - as the film's Room in which desires are realized is called in the novel -, does undergo a kind of spiritual conversion, but this experience is much closer to what Lacan called "subjective destitution", a sudden awareness of the utter meaningless of our social links, the dissolution of our attachment to reality itself - all of a sudden, other people are derealized, reality itself is experienced as a confused whirlpool of shapes and sounds, so that we are no longer able to formulate our desire...). In Stalker as well as in Solaris, Tarkovsky's "idealist mystification" is that he shrinks from confronting this radical Otherness of the meaningless Thing, reducing/retranslating the encounter with the Thing to the "inner journey" towards one's Truth. It is to this incompatibility between our own and the Alien universe that the novel's title refers: the strange objects found in the Zone which fascinate humans are in all probability simply the debris, the garbage, left behind after aliens have briefly stayed on our planet, comparable to the rubbish a group of humans leaves behind after a picnic in a forest near a main road... So the typical Tarkovskian landscape (of decaying human debris half reclaimed by nature) is in the novel precisely what characterizes the Zone itself from the (impossible) standpoint of the visiting aliens: what is to us a Miracle, an encounter with a wondrous universe beyond our grasp, is just everyday debris to the Aliens... Is it then, perhaps, possible to draw the Brechtian conclusion that t ent in decay reclaimed by nature) involves a view of our universe from an imagined Alien standpoint? The picnic is thus here at the opposite extreme to that at the Hanging Rock: it is not us who encroach upon the Zone while on a Sunday picnic, it is the Zone itself which results from the Alien's picnic... For a citizen of the defunct Soviet Union, the notion of a forbidden Zone gives rise to (at least) five associations: Zone is (1) Gulag, i.e. a separated prison territory; (2) a territory poisoned or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by some technological (biochemical, nuclear...) catastrophe, like Chernobyl; (3) the secluded domain in which the nomenklatura lives; (4) foreign territory to which access is prohibited (like the enclosed West Berlin in the midst of the GDR); (5) a territory where a meteorite struck (like Tunguska in Siberia). The point, of course, is that the question "So which is the true meaning of the Zone?" is false and misleading: the very indeterminacy of what lies beyond the Limit is primary, and different positive contents fill in this preceding gap. Stalker perfectly exemplifies this paradoxical logic of the Limit which separates our everyday reality from the fantasmatic space. In Stalker, this fantasmatic space is the mysterious "zone", the forbidden territory in which the impossible occurs, in which secret desires are realized, in which one can find technological gadgets not yet invented in our everyday reality, etc. Only criminals and adventurers are ready to take the risk and enter this domain of fantasmatic Otherness. What one should insist on in a materialist reading of Tarkovsky is the constitutive role of the Limit itself: this mysterious Zone is effectively the same as our common reality; what confers on it the aura of mystery is the Limit itself, i.e. the fact that the Zone is designated as inaccessible, as prohibited. (No wonder that, when the heroes finally enter the mysterious Room, they become aware that there is nothing special or outstanding in it - the Stalker implo the people outside the Zone, so that they do not lose their gratifying illusions...) In short, the obscurantist mystification consists here in the act of inverting the true order of causality: the Zone is not prohibited because it has certain properties which are "too strong" for our everyday sense of reality, it displays these properties because it is posited as prohibited. What comes first is the formal gesture of excluding a part of the real from our everyday reality and of proclaiming it the prohibited Zone. Or, to quote Tarkovsky himself: "I am often asked what does this Zone stand for. There is only one possible answer: the Zone doesn't exist. Stalker himself invented his Zone. He created it, so that he would be able to bring there some very unhappy persons and impose on them the idea of hope. The room of desires is equally Stalker's creation, yet another provocation in the face of the material world. This provocation, formed in Stalker's mind, corresponds to an act of faith".(8) Hegel emphasized that, in the suprasensible realm beyond the veil of appearances, there is nothing, just what the subject itself puts there when he takes a look at it... In what, then, does the opposition between the Zone (in Stalker) and the planet Solaris consist? In Lacanian terms, of course, their opposition is easy to specify: it is the opposition between the two excesses, the excess of Stuff over symbolic network (the Thing for which there is no place in this network, which eludes its grasp), and the excess of an (empty) Place over stuff, over the elements which fill it in (the Zone is a pure structural void constituted/defined by a symbolic Barrier: beyond this barrier, in the Zone, there is nothing and/or exactly the same things as outside the Zone). This opposition stands for the opposition between drive and desire: Solaris is the Thing, the blind libido embodied, while the Zone is the void which sustains desire. This opposition also accounts for the different way the Zone and Solaris relate to the subject's libidinal the "chamber of desires", the place in which, if the subject penetrates it, his desire-wish is fulfilled, while what the Thing-Solaris returns to subjects who approach it is not their desire but the traumatic kernel of their fantasy, the sinthom which encapsulates their relation to jouissance and which they resist in their daily lives. The blockage in Stalker is thus opposed to the blockage in Solaris: in Stalker, the blockage concerns the impossibility (for us, corrupted, reflected, non-believing modern men) of achieving the state of pure belief, of desiring directly - the Room in the midst of the Zone has to remain empty; when you enter it, you are not able to formulate your wish. In contrast to it, the problem of Solaris is over-satisfaction: your wishes are realized/materialized before you even think of them. In Stalker, you never arrive at, reach, the level of pure, innocent wish/belief, while in Solaris, your dreams/fantasies are realized in advance in the psychotic structure of the answer which precedes the question. For this reason, Stalker focuses on the problem of belief/faith: the Chamber does fulfill desires, but only to those who believe with direct immediacy - which is why, when the three adventurers finally reach the threshold of the room, they are afraid to enter it, since they are not sure what their true desires/wishes are (as one of them says, the problem with the Room is that it does not fulfill what you think you wish, but the effective wish of which you may be unaware). As such, Stalker points towards the basic problem of Tarkovsky's two last films, Nostalgia and Sacrifice: the problem of how, through what ordeal or sacrifice, might it be possible, today, to attain the innocence of pure belief. The hero of Sacrifice, Alexander, lives with his large family in a remote cottage in the Swedish countryside (another version of the very Russian dacha which obsesses Tarkovsky's heroes). The celebrations of his birthday are marred by the terrifying news that low-flying jet planes have signaled th wers. In his despair, Alexander turns himself in prayer to God, offering him everything that is most precious to him to have the war not have happened at all. The war is "undone" and, at the film's end, Alexander, in a sacrificial gesture, burns his beloved cottage and is taken to a lunatic asylum... This motif of a pure, senseless act that restores meaning to our terrestrial life is the focus of Tarkovsky's last two films, shot abroad; the act is both times accomplished by the same actor (Erland Josephson) who, as the old fool Domenico, burns himself publicly in Nostalgia, and as the hero of Sacrifice, burns his house, his most precious belonging, what is "in him more than himself". To this gesture of senseless sacrifice, one should give all the weight of an obsessional-neurotic compulsive act: if I accomplish THIS (sacrificial gesture), THE Catastrophy (in Sacrifice, literally the end of the world in an atomic war) will not occur or will be undone - the well-known compulsive gesture of "If I do not do this (jump two times over that stone, cross my hands in this way, etc.) something bad will occur". (The childish nature of this compulsion to sacrifice is clear in Nostalgia where the hero, following the injunction of the dead Domenico, crosses the half-dry pool with the burning candle in order to save the world...) As we know from psychoanalysis, this catastrophic X whose outbreak we fear is none other than jouissance itself. Tarkovsky is well aware that a sacrifice, in order to work and to be efficient, must be in a way "meaningless", a gesture of "irrational", useless expenditure or ritual (like traversing the empty pool with a lit candle or burning one's own house); the idea is that only such a gesture of just "doing it" spontaneously, a gesture not covered by any rational consideration, can restore the immediate faith that will deliver us and heal us from the modern spiritual malaise. The Tarkovskian subject here literally offers his own castration (renunciation of reason and domination, voluntary red ion to a senseless ritual) as the instrument to deliver the big Other: it is as if only by accomplishing an act which is totally senseless and "irrational" that the subject can save the deeper global Meaning of the universe as such. One is even tempted here to formulate this Tarkovskian logic of the meaningless sacrifice in the terms of a Heideggerian inversion: the ultimate Meaning of sacrifice is the sacrifice of Meaning itself. The crucial point here is that the object sacrificed (burned) at the end of Sacrifice is the ultimate object of Tarkovskian fantasmatic space, the wooden dacha standing for the safety and authentic rural roots of the Home - for this reason alone, Sacrifice is appropriately Tarkovsky's last film. Does this mean that we encounter here nonetheless a kind of Tarkovskian "traversing of the fantasy", the renunciation to the central element whose magic appearance in the midst of the strange countryside (planet's surface, Italy) at the end of Solaris and Nostalgia provided the very formula of the final fantasmatic unity? No, because this renunciation is functionalized in the service of the big Other, as the redemptive act destined to restore spiritual Meaning to Life. What elevates Tarkovsky above cheap religious obscurantism is the fact that he deprives this sacrificial act of any pathetic and solemn "greatness", rendering it as a bungled, ridiculous act (in Nostalgia, Domenico has difficulties in lighting the fire which will kill him, the passers-by ignore his body in flames; Sacrifice ends with a comic ballet of men from the infirmary running after the hero to take him to the asylum - the scene is shot as a children's game of catching). It would be all too simple to read this ridiculous and bungled aspect of the sacrifice as an indication of how it has to appear as such to everyday people immersed in their run of things and unable to appreciate the tragic greatness of the act. Rather, Tarkovsky follows here the long Russian tradition whose exemplary case is Dostoevsky's "idiot" from pical that Tarkovsky, whose films are otherwise totally deprived of humor and jokes, reserves mockery and satire precisely for scenes depicting the most sacred gesture of supreme sacrifice (already the famous scene of Crucifixion in Andrei Roublev is shot in such a way: transposed into the Russian winter countryside, with bad actors playing it with ridiculous pathos, with tears flowing).(9) So, again, does this indicate that, to use Althusserian terms, there is a dimension in which Tarkovsky's cinematic texture undermines his own explicit ideological project, or at least introduces a distance towards it, renders visible its inherent impossibility and failure? In Nostalgia, there is a scene which contains a Pascalean reference: in a church, Eugenia witnesses the procession of simple peasant women in honor of Madonna del Parto - they are addressing to the saint their plea to become mothers, i.e. their prayer concerns the fertility of their marriage. When the perplexed Eugenia, who admits that she is unable to comprehend the attraction of motherhood, asks the priest who also observes the procession how one becomes a believer, he answers: "You should begin by kneeling down" - a clear reference to Pascal's famous "Kneel down and that act will render you feeble-minded" (i.e. it will deprive you of false intellectual pride). (Interestingly, Eugenia tries, but stops half-way: she is unable even to perform the external gesture of kneeling.) Here we encounter the deadlock of the Tarkovskian hero: is it possible for today's intellectual (whose exemplary case is Gortchakov, the hero of Nostalgia), separated from naive spiritual certainty by the gap of nostalgia, to return to immediate religious immersion, to recapture its certainty by asphyxiating existential despair? In other words, does the need of unconditional Faith, its redemptive power, not lead to a typically modern result, to the decisionist act of formal Faith indifferent towards its particular content, i.e. to a kind of religious counterpoint of Schmittean poli believe takes precedence over WHAT we believe in? Or, even worse, doesn't this logic of unconditional faith ultimately lead to the paradox of love exploited by the notorious Reverend Moon? As is well known, Reverend Moon arbitrarily chooses the conjugal partners for the unmarried members of his sect: legitimizing his decision by means of his privileged insight into the working of the divine Cosmic Order, he claims to be able to identify the mate who was predestined for me in the eternal Order of Things, and simply informs by letter a member of his sect who is the unknown person (as a rule from another part of the globe) he is to marry - Slovenes are thus marrying Koreans, Americans are marrying Indians, etc. The true miracle, of course, is that this bluff works: if there is an unconditional trust and faith, the contingent decision of an external authority can produce a loving couple connected by the most intimate passionate link - why? Since love is "blind", contingent, grounded in no clearly observable properties, that unfathomable je ne sais quoi which decides when am I to fall in love can also be totally externalized in the decision of an unfathomable authority. So what is false in the Tarkovskian sacrifice? More fundamentally, what IS sacrifice? The most elementary notion of sacrifice relies on the notion of exchange: I offer to the Other something precious to me in order get back from the Other something even more vital to me (the "primitive" tribes sacrifice animals or even humans so that God will repay them by sending enough rainfall, military victory, etc.) The next, already more intricate level is to conceive sacrifice as a gesture which does not directly aim at some profitable exchange with the Other to whom we sacrifice: its more basic aim is rather to ascertain that there IS some Other out there who is able to reply (or not) to our sacrificial entreaties. Even if the Other does not grant my wish, I can at least be assured that there IS an Other who, maybe, next time will respond differently: the ies that may befall me, is not a meaningless blind machinery, but a partner in a possible dialogue, so that even a catastrophic outcome is to be read as a meaningful response, not as a kingdom of blind chance. How, then, are sacrifice and the Thing related? The very title of Claude Lefort's essay on Orwell's 1984, "The Interposed Corps",(10) provides the clue to this link. Lefort focuses on the famous scene in which Winston is subjected to the rat-torture - why are rats so traumatic for poor Winston? The point is that they are clearly a fantasmatic stand-in for Winston himself (as a small child, Winston behaved like a rat, ransacking refuse dumps for remainders of food). So, when he desperately shouts "Do it to Julia!", he interposes a corps between himself and his fantasmatic kernel, and thus prevents being swallowed by the traumatic Ding... Therein consists the primordial sense of sacrifice: to interpose an object between ourselves and the Thing. Sacrifice is a stratagem enabling us to maintain a minimal distance towards the Thing. We can see, now, why the motif of the Id-Machine has to lead to the motif of sacrifice: insofar as the paradigmatic case of this Thing is the Id-Machine that directly materializes our desires, the ultimate aim of the sacrifice is, paradoxically, precisely to prevent the realization of our desires... In other words, the aim of the sacrificial gesture is NOT to bring us close to the Thing, but to maintain and guarantee a proper distance towards it; in this sense, the notion of sacrifice is inherently ideological. Ideology is the narrative of "why did things go wrong", it objectivizes the primordial loss/impossibility, i.e. ideology translates the inherent impossibility into an external obstacle which can in principle be overcome (in contrast to the standard Marxist notion according to which ideology "eternalizes" and "absolutizes" contingent historical obstacles). So the key element of ideology is not only the image of the full Unity to be achieved, but, even more, the elaboration at prevents its achievement - ideology sets in motion our social activity by giving rise to the illusion that, if only we were to get rid of Them (Jews, the class enemy...), everything would be OK... Against this background, one can measure the ideologico-critical impact of Kafka's The Trial or The Castle. The standard ideological procedure transposes an inherent impossibility into an external obstacle or prohibition (say, the Fascist dream of a harmonious social body is not inherently false - it will become reality once one eliminates Jews, who plot against it; or, in sexuality, I will be able fully to enjoy once the paternal prohibition is suspended). What Kafka achieves is to traverse the same path in the OPPOSITE direction, i.e. to (re)translate external obstacles/prohibition into inherent impossibility - in short, Kafka's achievement resides precisely in what the standard ideologico-critical gaze perceives as his ideological limitation and mystification, i.e. in his elevation of (the state bureaucracy as) a positive social institution that prevents us, concrete individuals, from becoming free, into a metaphysical Limit that cannot ever be overcome. What nonetheless redeems Tarkovsky is his cinematic materialism, the direct physical impact of the texture of his films: this texture renders a stance of Gelassenheit, of pacified disengagement that suspends the very urgency of any kind of Quest. What pervades Tarkovsky's films is the heavy gravity of Earth that seems to exert its pressure on time itself, generating an effect of temporal anamorphosis that extends time well beyond what we perceive as justified by the requirements of narrative movement (one should confer here on the term "Earth" all the resonance it acquired in the late Heidegger) - perhaps, Tarkovsky is the clearest example of what Deleuze called the time-image replacing the movement-image. This time of the Real is neither the symbolic time of the diegetic space nor the time of the reality of our (the spectator's) viewing the film, but an inter erhaps the protracted stains which "are" the yellow sky in late van Gogh or the water or grass in Munch: this uncanny "massiveness" pertains neither to the direct materiality of the color stains nor to the materiality of the depicted objects - it dwells in the kind of intermediate spectral domain of what Schelling called "geistige Koerperlichkeit", spiritual corporeality. From the Lacanian perspective, it is easy to identify this "spiritual corporeality" as materialized jouissance, "jouissance which turned into flesh". This inert insistence of time as Real, rendered paradigmatically in Tarkovsky's famous five minute slow tracking or crane shots, is what makes Tarkovsky so interesting for a materialist reading: without this inert texture, he would be just another Russian religious obscurantist. That is to say, in our standard ideological tradition, the approach to Spirit is perceived as Elevation, as getting rid of the burden of weight, of the gravitating force which binds us to earth, as cutting links with material inertia and starting to "float freely"; in contrast to this, in Tarkovsky's universe, we enter the spiritual dimension only via intense direct physical contact with the humid heaviness of earth (or stale water) - the ultimate Tarkovskian spiritual experience takes place when a subject is lying stretched out on the earth's surface, half submerged in stale water; Tarkovsy's heroes do not pray on their knees, with their heads turned upwards, towards heaven; instead they listen intensely to the silent palpitation of the humid earth... One can see, now, why Lem's novel had to exert such an attraction on Tarkovsky: the planet Solaris seems to provide the ultimate embodiment of the Tarkovskian notion of a heavy humid stuff (earth) which, far from functioning as the opposite of spirituality, serves as its very medium; this gigantic "material Thing which thinks" literally gives body to the direct coincidence of Matter and Spirit. In a homologous way, Tarkovsky displaces the common notion of dreaming, of ent e subject enters the domain of dreams not when he loses contact with the sensual material reality around him, but, on the contrary, when he abandons the hold of his intellect and engages in an intense relationship with material reality. The typical stance of the Tarkovskian hero on the threshold of a dream is to be on the lookout for something, with the attention of his senses fully focused; then, all of a sudden, as if through a magic transsubstantiation, this most intense contact with material reality changes it into a dreamscape.(11) One is thus tempted to claim that Tarkovsky stands for the attempt, perhaps unique in the history of cinema, to develop the attitude of a materialist theology, a deep spiritual stance which draws its strength from its very abandonment of intellect and from an immersion in material reality. If Stalker is Tarkovsky's masterpiece, it is above all because of the direct physical impact of its texture: the physical background (what T.S.Eliot would have called the objective correlative) to its metaphysical quest, the landscape of the Zone, is a post-industrial wasteland with wild vegetation growing over abandoned factories, concrete tunnels and railroads full of stale water, and wild overgrowth in which stray cats and dogs wander. Nature and industrial civilization here again overlap, through their common decay - civilization in decay is in the process of again being reclaimed (not by idealized harmonious Nature, but) by nature in decomposition. The ultimate Tarkovskian landscape is that of a humid nature, river or pool close to some forest, full of the debris of human artifices (old concrete blocks or pieces of rotten metal). The actors' faces themselves, especially Stalker's, are unique in their blend of ordinary ruggedness, small wounds, dark or white spots and other signs of decay, as if they were all exposed to some poisonous chemical or radioactive substance, as well as irradiating a fundamental naive goodness and trust. Here we can see the different effects of censorship: no less stringent than the infamous Hayes Production Code in Hollywood, it nonetheless allowed a movie so bleak in its visual material that it would never pass the Production Code test. Recall, as an example of Hollywood material censorship, the representation of dying from an illness in The Dark Victory with Bette Davis: upper-middle class surroundings, painless death... the process is deprived of its material inertia and transubstantiated in an ethereal reality free of bad smells and tastes. It was the same with slums - recall Goldwyn's famous quip when a reviewer complained that slums in one of his films look too nice, without real dirt: "They better look nice, since they cost us so much!" Hayes Office censorship was extremely sensitive to this point: when slums were depicted, it explicitly demanded that the set of the slum be constructed so that it not evoke real dirt and bad smell. At the most elementary level of the sensuous materiality of the real, censorship was thus much stronger in Hollywood than in the Soviet Union. Tarkovsky is to be opposed here to the ultimate American paranoiac fantasy, that of an individual living in a small idyllic Californian city, a consumer paradise, who suddenly starts to suspect that the world he lives in is a fake, a spectacle staged to convince him that he lives in a real world, while all the people around him are effectively actors and extras in a gigantic show. The most recent example of this is Peter Weir's The Truman Show (1998), with Jim Carrey playing the small town clerk who gradually discovers the truth that he is the hero of a 24-hours permanent TV show: his hometown is constructed on a gigantic studio set, with cameras following him permanently. Among the predecessors of The Truman Show, it is worth mentioning Phillip Dick's Time Out of Joint (1959), in which a hero living a modest daily life in a small idyllic Californian city of the late 50s, gradually discovers that the whole town is a fake staged to keep him satisfied... The underlying experience of Time the late capitalist consumerist Californian paradise is, in its very hyper-reality, in a way IRREAL, substance-less, deprived of material inertia. So it is not only that Hollywood stages a semblance of real life deprived of the weight and inertia of materiality ­ in late capitalist consumer society, "real social life" itself somehow acquires the features of a staged fake, with our neighbors behaving in "real" life like stage actors and extras... Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist utilitarian de-spiritualized universe is the de-materialization of "real life" itself, its reversal into a spectral show. It is only now that we confront the crucial dilemma of any interpretation of Tarkovsky's films: is there a distance between his ideological project (of sustaining Meaning, of generating a new spirituality through an act of meaningless sacrifice) and his cinematic materialism? Does his cinematic materialism effectively provide the adequate "objective correlative" for his narrative of spiritual quest and sacrifice, or does it secretly subvert this narrative? There are, of course, good arguments for the first option: in the long obscurantist-spiritualist tradition reaching up to the figure of Yoda in Lucas's The Empire Strikes Back, the wise dwarf who lives in a dark swamp, rotting nature in decay is posited as the "objective correlative" of spiritual wisdom (the wise man accepts nature the way it is, renouncing all attempts at aggressive domination and exploitation, any imposition of artificial order upon it...). On the other hand, what happens if we read Tarkovsky's cinematic materialism as it were in the opposite direction, what if we interpret the Tarkovskian sacrificial gesture as the very elementary ideological operation of overcoming the unbearable Otherness of meaningless cosmic contingency through a gesture that is itself excessively meaningless? This dilemma is discernible down to the ambiguous way in which Tarkovsky uses the natural sounds of the environs(12); their status is ontologically undeci the "spontaneous" texture of non-intentional natural sounds, and simultaneously already somehow "musical", displaying a deeper spiritual structuring principle. It seems as if Nature itself miraculously starts to speak, the confused and chaotic symphony of its murmurs imperceptibly passing over into Music proper. These magic moments, in which Nature itself seems to coincide with art, lend themselves, of course, to the obscurantist reading (the mystical Art of Spirit discernible in Nature itself), but also to the opposite, materialist reading (the genesis of Meaning out of natural contingency).(13) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) See Chapter XVIII of Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, London: Routledge 1992. (2) Judith Butler, The Psychic Life of Power, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1997, p. 47. (3) Stanislaw Lem, Solaris, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company 1978, p. 30. (4) The formula of Tonya Howe (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) on whose excellent seminar paper "Solaris and the Obscenity of Presence" I rely here. (5) See Jacques-Alain Miller, "Des semblants dans la relation entre les sexes", in La Cause freudienne 36, Paris 1997, p. 7-15. (6) Quoted from Antoine de Vaecque, Andrei Tarkovski, Cahiers du Cinema 1989, p. 108. (7) Is not the exemplary case of such a fantasmatic formation combining heterogeneous and inconsistent elements the mythical Kingdom (or Dukedom) of Ruritania, situated in an imaginary Eastern European space combining Catholic central Europe with the Balkans, the Central European noble feudal conservative tradition with the Balkan wilderness, modernity (train) with primitive peasantry, the "primitive" wilderness of Montenegro with the "civilized" Czech space (examples abound, from the notorious Prisoner of Zenda onwards)? (8) de Vaecque, op.cit., p. 110. (9) See de Vaecque, op.cit., p. 98. (10) See Claude Lefort, Écrire. A l'epreuve du politique, Paris: Calmann-Levy 1992, p. 32-33. (1 . 81. (12) I rely here on Michel Chion, Le son, Paris: Editions Nathan 1998, p. 191. (13) Therein resides also the ambiguity of the role of chance in Kieslowski's universe: does it point towards a deeper Fate secretly regulating our lives, or is the notion of Fate itself a desperate stratagem to cope with the utter contingency of life? From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Tue Nov 27 22:39:24 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 27 Nov 2001 17:09:24 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Will the last person to leave the country please turn out all the lights Message-ID: <20011127170924.28193.qmail@mailweb22.rediffmail.com> From aiindex at mnet.fr Tue Nov 27 22:41:53 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:11:53 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Dorothy Denning - "geo-encryption" Message-ID: Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011126-184999,00.html Keeping The Hackers At Bay BY RHETT BUTLER AND ANDREW GOLDSTEIN Monday, Nov. 26, 2001 When it comes to cyberwarfare, America has a secret weapon: Georgetown University professor Dorothy Denning. Battles in cyberspace are high-tech brain races: you win by being the first to recognize the weaknesses of a new technology--often hacking it yourself--and then figuring out how to protect it. This is what Denning has been doing for nearly three decades. In the 1970s, when most people thought information security meant locking your file cabinets, Denning devised a way for federal agencies such as the IRS to release vital information while keeping its most sensitive data secure. As computer systems became more complex, she discovered a system now widely used for detecting intruders in real time, rather than combing through log-in records after the fact. And now she's pioneering a new field she calls geo-encryption. Working with industry, Denning has developed a way to keep information undecipherable until it reaches its location, as determined by GPS satellites. Movie studios, for example, have been afraid to release films digitally for the same reasons record companies hate Napster: once loose on the Internet, there's little to stop someone from posting the latest blockbuster DVD on the Web for all to see and download. With Denning's system, however, only subscribers in specified locations--such as movie theaters--would be able to unscramble the data. The technology works as well for national security as it does for Harry Potter. Coded messages that the State Department sends its embassies, for example, could only be deciphered in the embassy buildings themselves, greatly reducing the risk of interception. For now, Denning says, terrorists "may want to bring down the power grid or the finance system, but it's still easier to blow up a building." If she's right, it's due in large part to her. ------ [A paper from 1996 by Dorothy Denning and Peter F. MacDoran: "Location-Based Authentication: Grounding Cyberspace for Better Security" http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/Grounding.txt ] -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Tue Nov 27 22:44:56 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:14:56 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Ashcroft's Global Internet Power-Grab Message-ID: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/39 Ashcroft's Global Internet Power-Grab A little-noticed provision in the new anti-terrorism act imposes U.S. cyber crime laws on other nations, whether they like it or not By Mark Rasch Nov 25 2001 11:00PM PT Much has been written about the new anti-terrorism legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, particularly as it respects the ability of the government to conduct surveillance on email, voice-mail, and other electronic communications. However, too little attention has been paid to other provisions of the legislation, particularly a significant change to the definition of the types of computers protected under federal law. An amendment to the definition of a "protected computer" for the first time explicitly enables U.S. law enforcement to prosecute computer hackers outside the United States in cases where neither the hackers nor their victims are in the U.S., provided only that packets related to that activity traveled through U.S. computers or routers. This remarkable amendment is to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to prohibit conduct that damages a "Federal interest computer," defined at the time as "a computer owned or used by the United States Government or a financial institution," or, "one of two or more computers used in committing the offense, not all of which are located in the same State." Evolution of the 'Protected Computer' Under that initial definition, if a hacker in the U.S. broke into a computer in a foreign country (or vice versa), because the computers were not all located in the same state, a federal offense would have been committed. If, however, the victim computer and the hacker's computer were both located in the same state, this would be a purely "intrastate" offense, punishable by the state or local government. (A purely intrastate offense could also be prosecuted federally if the victim computer was used by the federal government or a federally insured institution, or if any computer involved in the offense was located in another state.) 'A prosecutor in Boise may go after a Norwegian hacker for hacking a computer in Oslo, if the packets 'affected' interstate commerce, and the prosecutor thinks it 'appropriate.'' This limitation represented a conscious effort by the U.S. Congress to limit the scope of federal crimes to those with a truly interstate reach. In 1994, Congress replaced the term "Federal interest computer" with the phrase "computer used in interstate commerce or communication." In 1996, Congress amended the law once again, defining a new term, "protected computer," and concomitantly expanding the number of computers that the statute "protected." The 1996 amendments defined a protected computer as one that is "exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication." In the new anti-terrorism legislation, Congress once again expanded the scope of federal jurisdiction over computer crimes. Section 814 of the PATRIOT bill added to the definition of a protected computer an explicit provision stating that federal law precludes activities involving "a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States." Congress did not require that the effect on interstate or foreign commerce or communication be substantial, or even, for that matter, measurable. Almost immediately after the legislation was signed, the Department of Justice issued a guidance paper to instruct thousands of federal prosecutors how to use the new statute. The guidance noted that: Because of the interdependency and availability of global computer networks, hackers from within the United States are increasingly targeting systems located entirely outside of this country. The [previous] statute did not explicitly allow for prosecution of such hackers. In addition, individuals in foreign countries frequently route communications through the United States, even as they hack from one foreign country to another. In such cases, their hope may be that the lack of any U.S. victim would either prevent or discourage U.S. law enforcement agencies from assisting in any foreign investigation or prosecution. ... Section 814 of the Act amends the definition of "protected computer" to make clear that this term includes computers outside of the United States so long as they affect "interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B). By clarifying the fact that a domestic offense exists, the United States can now use speedier domestic procedures to join in international hacker investigations. As these crimes often involve investigators and victims in more than one country, fostering international law enforcement cooperation is essential. In addition, the amendment creates the option, where appropriate, of prosecuting such criminals in the United States. Since the U.S. is urging other countries to ensure that they can vindicate the interests of U.S. victims for computer crimes that originate in their nations, this provision will allow the U.S. to provide reciprocal coverage. The Department of Justice therefore views the amendment as more than a mere clarification of existing law, but as an expansion of U.S. jurisdiction to permit, for the first time, the United States to prosecute cases where both the attacker and the victim are located outside the United States, and to apply U.S. substantive and procedural law to such international activity. International Law Computer crime in general, and computer hacking in particular, has always been recognized as a uniquely trans-national offense. Hackers from anywhere in the world can engage in activities that will affect computers outside of the country from which they originate. Moreover, computer viruses, worms and other malicious code do not respect international boundaries, and can damage information or computers located in countries far remote from those where the hacker is located. Interestingly, when a hacker in Singapore released the "I Love You" virus affecting computers all over the world, only the U.S. FBI traveled to Singapore to investigate. When the "Melissa" virus swept across the planet, no foreign law enforcement officials descended on New Jersey to prosecute David Smith, the author of the virus, nor were any such officials publicly invited to participate. Nevertheless, these cases demonstrate an important principle of international law -- the so-called "protective principle." Every nation has the right to extend the scope of its law beyond its borders to protect the rights and property of its own nationals. An attack on a U.S. citizen abroad may violate U.S. law. A gunshot from Canada that kills a person in the United States may properly be prosecuted in the United States. A hacker who attacks a computer in the United States from a foreign country violates U.S. law, and it is entirely appropriate that the United States should have the authority to protect itself from such attacks. Whether the U.S. will take the lead in such investigations or not will depend not so much on law, but on international politics. The recent Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty encourages countries to make computer crime an offense within their own borders, and to cooperate on international investigations of computer crime. In its interpretation of the need for the unprecedented expansion of U.S. sovereignty, the Department of Justice asserts that U.S. law enforcement agencies would not investigate cases of computer crime where the victim and targets are located outside the United States, not because of the lack of any authority to do so, but because, of a lack of will. In fact, there is much truth to this assertion. Many law enforcement agencies see no reason to assist foreign governments' investigations where there is no likelihood that they will obtain a conviction within the country. However, the appropriate response to this reluctance is to encourage domestic law enforcement agencies to assist their foreign brethren voluntarily, not to expand the scope of domestic law to permit prosecution within the United States of what is essentially a foreign offense. When Reach Exceeds Grasp Congress' authority to criminalize conduct generally is derived from Article I of the Constitution, which, among other things allows the legislature to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The statute is broad and allows the protection of the instrumentalities and channels of interstate or foreign commerce. In 1995 the Supreme Court noted that Congress' power was limited though to regulate those activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce and not merely those where the affect is tangential. The distinction is crucial. Clearly if a U.S. computer or computer network is shut down, attacked, penetrated, or prevented from properly functioning as a result of foreign hacking activity, the protective principle of international law should properly permit a U.S. prosecution. Where the affect on U.S. computer networks is slight -- to the point of non-existence -- the U.S. should not impose its law on the activity. The new statute requires no threshold of damage or even effect on U.S. computers to trigger U.S. sovereignty. The vast majority of Internet traffic travels through the United States, with more than half of the traffic traveling through Northern Virginia alone. The mere fact that packets relating to the criminal activity travel through the United States should not be enough to trigger U.S. jurisdiction, even though such traffic would "affect" international commerce, albeit infinitesimally. The expanded statute, and the DOJ policy guidance, would permit the U.S. to impose its law on the Internet generally, without the need to show damage or trespass to a U.S. computer, merely on the basis of packets being inadvertently routed through U.S. computers. This represents and unwarranted and dangerous expansion of U.S. sovereignty, and will invariably result in more turf battles with foreign law enforcement agencies, rather than fewer. Under the Department of Justice's interpretation of this legislation, a computer hacker in Frankfurt Germany who hacks into a computer in Cologne Germany could be prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria if the packet of related to the attack traveled through America Online's computers. Moreover, the United States would reserve the right to demand that the extradition of the hacker even if the conduct would not have violated German law, or to, as it has in other kinds of cases, simply remove the offender forcibly for trial. What is perhaps the most troubling about this legislation, in addition to the lack of any debate or focus on it, is the fact that the Department of Justice manual simply says that this unprecedented power will be used in "appropriate cases." The Department of Justice provides no guidance to prosecutors or citizens of the world what kinds of cases it will deem to be "appropriate" for the expanded jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has no procedures in place to mandate high-level DOJ review before such power can be used. A prosecutor in Boise may therefore decide to go after a Norwegian hacker for hacking a computer in Oslo, if the packets "affected" interstate commerce, and the prosecutor thinks it "appropriate." Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is the Vice President for Cyberlaw at Predictive Systems Inc. in Reston, Virginia, a computer security and network design consulting firm. Prior to joining Predictive Systems, Mr. Rasch was the head of the U.S. Department of Justice Computer Crime Unit and prosecuted a series of high profile computer crime cases from 1984 to 1991.Every country has the right to protect its own citizens, property and interests. No country has the right to impose its will, its values, its mores or laws on conduct that occurs outside its borders even if they may have a tangential effect on that country. The new legislation permits the U.S. government to do just that, and is unwise and unwarranted. -- From bonozyt at yahoo.co.in Wed Nov 28 16:29:07 2001 From: bonozyt at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?bonojit=20hussain?=) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:59:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] from mukul Message-ID: <20011128105907.32142.qmail@web8105.in.yahoo.com> Please forward this notice as soon as possible on reader mailing list. love Mukul P.S- notice attached. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MANISH1.DOC.rtf Type: text/richtext Size: 3237 bytes Desc: MANISH1.DOC.rtf Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011128/d15d623d/attachment.rtx From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Nov 28 22:04:43 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 28 Nov 2001 16:34:43 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Understanding Afghanistan with... Message-ID: <20011128163443.31662.qmail@mailweb25.rediffmail.com> Understanding Afghanistan with Ivan Klima from Waiting for Darkness,Waiting for Light The single most important thing was to recognize in time that the old game had ended and a new one had begun... The streets were like a graveyard.Graveyards remind us of the vanity of all human endeavour... An animal might seem to know when his life or his freedom is threatened, but do people? They think they're running towards freedom when infact they're running headlong into a trap. P.S : Is it only the Taliban which sees itself as a spiritual adventure ? And the West??? From bea at nungu.com Fri Nov 30 00:37:16 2001 From: bea at nungu.com (::bea:) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:07:16 -0800 Subject: [Reader-list] :>>:.;::>....;>:.view...:::::::::::source;:>>>:..;;.<::>:> Message-ID: www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com www.nungu.com viewsouce is nungu's resume, embedded in its html code. nungu is a digital entity - a human / a cyborg / a piece of codework / a mutating virus - with its own peculiar characteristics, whims, contradicitons, ambitions. its resume is a first person piece of code[text]work and details nungu's characteristics alongside those of its creators. nungu is the interface, the [authors] remain in the background, they are the source code. [SURFACE] nungu's entry/index pages are chosen at random from an ever expanding selection, by a script. They alert the user to the multiple identities of nungu. clicking through the intial pages the user comes to the directory page in which all works are listed plus the prompt ':>>:.;::>....;>:.view...:::::::::::source;:>>>:..;;.<::>:>' [SUBLIMINAL] as object orientated programming creates its object and defines its properties, when nungu's source code changes its interface mutates: different avatars, plays with identity, disguises - the real identity is underneath the inter[sur]face, at the source, the code. even this identity though, is not static, static in appearance unlike the interface, but not static in its definition, it is an evolving manifesto, a mutating virus as authors, identifying ourselves with the source code signals the desire to be sovereign, autonomous, underground and undetectable. as code we are free from visual surveillance at the level of data and yet directly participating in it. the code does not partake in the spectacle but functions invisibly, performs subversively and avoids the transparent. From jeebesh at sarai.net Thu Nov 29 13:25:24 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:25:24 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] The Dressing Station Message-ID: <01112913252400.00596@pinki.sarai.kit> Yesterday night after work ennui i was indulging in some purposeless channel surf-ering. A sentence from a calm looking man in an dramatically lit studio caught my attentions - "hospital heirarchy in ordered society just did not go with me...". Over the interview one realised that he was a surgeon who has seen and felt physical suffering, death and dying in ways that few people would have ever dared to experience. One story that shaped his life: A friend of his, also a doctor, once told him that he was told to resusticate a victim of torture so that more information could be extracted from him. His friend was an army doctor who thought healing and caring for the wounded amidst sustained violence may remind others of our humanity. But this experience changed this perception for ever. I am enclosing some reviews of the book `The Dressing Station` written by this doctor - Jonathan Kaplan. If anyone has read the book please do write in your comments to the list. jeebesh -------------- The Dressing Station A Surgeon's Chronicle of War and Medicine Jonathan Kaplan ( http://www.pgw.com/catalog/Winter2002/groveatlantic/0802117074.html) From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Thu Nov 29 20:19:13 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 29 Nov 2001 14:49:13 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Catholic Mac versus Protestant DOS Message-ID: <20011129144913.744.qmail@mailweb26.rediffmail.com> My apologies to those already familiar with this popular text from Eco. UMBERTO ECO ...."Insufficient consideration has been given to the new underground religious war which is modifying the modern world. It's an old idea of mine, but I find that whenever I tell people about it they immediately agree with me. "The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the 'ratio studiorum' of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach--if not the Kingdom of Heaven--the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation. "DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revellers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment. "You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions; when it comes down to it, you can decide to allow women and gays to be ministers if you want to. "And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic..." From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Thu Nov 29 20:54:19 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 29 Nov 2001 15:24:19 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Multimedia Arcade Project Message-ID: <20011129152419.26540.qmail@mailweb15.rediffmail.com> Umberto Eco in an interview with Lee Marshall. Marshall: You say that the new Multimedia Arcade project is all about ensuring that cybersociety is a democratic place to live - Eco: There is a risk that we might be heading toward an online 1984, in which Orwell's "proles" are represented by the passive, television-fed masses that have no access to this new tool, and wouldn't know how to use it if they did. Above them, of course, there'll be a petite bourgeoisie of passive users - office workers, airline clerks. And finally we'll see the masters of the game, the nomenklatura - in the Soviet sense of the term. This has nothing to do with class in the traditional, Marxist sense - the nomenklatura are just as likely to be inner-city hackers as rich executives. But they will have one thing in common: the knowledge that brings control. We have to create a nomenklatura of the masses. We know that state-of-the art modems, an ISDN connection, and up-to-date hardware are beyond the means of most potential users - especially when you need to upgrade every six months. So let's give people access free, or at least for the price of the necessary phone connection. Why not just leave the democratization of the Net to the market - I mean, to the falling prices ushered in by robust competition? Look at it this way: when Benz and others invented the automobile, they had no idea that one day the mass market would be opened up by Henry Ford's Model T - that came only 40 years later. So how do you persuade people to start using a means of transport that was beyond the means of all but the very rich? Easy: you rent by the minute, with a driver, and you call the result a taxi. It was this which gave people access to the new technology, but it was also this which allowed the industry to expand to the point where the Model T Ford was conceivable. In Italy, the Net marketplace is still tiny: there are only around 300,000 regular users, which is peanuts in this game. But if you have a network of municipal access points - each s a commitment to provide the most powerful, up-to-date systems for its users - then you're talking about a respectable turnover, which can be ploughed back into giving the masses Model T hardware, connections, and bandwidth. Do you seriously believe that mechanics and housewives are going to pour into Multimedia Arcade? No, not straight away. When Gutenberg invented his printing press, the working classes did not immediately sign up for copies of the 42-Line Bible; but they were reading it a century later. And don't forget Luther. Despite widespread illiteracy, his translation of the New Testament circulated through all sections of 16th-century German society. What we need is a Luther of the Net. But what's so special about Multimedia Arcade? Isn't it just a state-run cybercafé? You don't want to turn the whole thing into the waiting room of an Italian government ministry, that's for sure. But we have the advantage here of being in a Mediterranean culture. The Anglo-Saxon cybercafé is a peep-show experience because the Anglo-Saxon bar is a place where people go to nurse their own solitude in the company of others. In New York, you might say "Hi - lovely day!" to the person on the next barstool - but then you go back to brooding over the woman who just left you. The model for Multimedia Arcade, on the other hand, is that of the Mediterranean osteria. This should be reflected by the structure of the place - it would be nice to have a giant communal screen, for example, where the individual navigators could post interesting sites that they've just discovered. I don't see the point of having 80 million people online if all they are doing in the end is talking to ghosts in the suburbs. This will be one of the main functions of Multimedia Arcade: to get people out of the house and - why not? - even into each other's arms. Perhaps we could call it "Plug 'n' Fuck" instead of Multimedia Arcade. Doesn't this communal vision violate the one user, one computer principle? I'm a user and I own ns to the rule. In Leonardo's day, remember, the rule was one user, one painting. Ditto when the first gramophones were produced. Are we short of communal opportunities to look at paintings today, or to listen to recorded music? Give it time. Whatever side they take in the various computer culture debates, most Americans would agree that the modem is a point of entry into a new phase of civilization. Europeans seem to see it more as a desirable household appliance, on a level with the dishwasher or the electric razor. There seems to be an "enthusiasm gap" between the two continents. Who's right on this one - are Americans doing their usual thing of assuming everyone plays baseball, or are Europeans being so cool and ironic that they're going to end up missing out on the Net phenomenon? The same thing happened with television, which reached a critical mass in the States a good few years before it took off over here. What's more interesting is the fact that the triumph of American culture and American modes of production in films and television - the Disney factor that annoys the French so much - is not going to happen with the Net. Up to a year ago, there were very few non-English sites. Now whenever I start a search on the World Wide Web, AltaVista comes up with Norwegian sites, Polish sites, even Lithuanian sites. And this is going to have a curious effect. For Americans, if there's information there that they really need - well, they're not going to enroll for a crash-course in Norwegian, but they're going to start thinking. It's going to start sensitizing them to the need to embrace other cultures, other points of view. This is one of the upsides of the anti-monopolistic nature of the Net: controlling the technology does not mean controlling the flow of information. As for the "enthusiasm gap" - I'm not even sure there is one. But there is plenty of criticism and irony and disillusionment in the States that the media has simply decided not to pick up on. The problem is that we get to hear on nte and the other ayatollahs of the Net. You publicly supported Italy's new center-left coalition government when it was campaigning for election in April 1996. After the victory, it was rumored in the Italian press that your payoff was the new post of Minister of Culture - but you turned down the job before it was even offered. Why? Because before you start talking about a Minister of Culture you have to decide what you mean by "culture." If it refers to the aesthetic products of the past - beautiful paintings, old buildings, medieval manuscripts - then I'm all in favor of state protection; but that job is already taken care of by the Heritage Ministry. So that leaves "culture" in the sense of ongoing creative work - and I'm afraid that I can't support a body that attempts to encourage and subsidize this. Creativity can only be anarchic, capitalist, Darwinian. In 1967 you wrote an influential essay called "Towards a Semiological Guerrilla Warfare" in which you argued that the important objective for any committed cultural guerrilla was not the TV studio, but the armchairs of the people watching. In other words: if you can give people tools that help them to criticize the messages they are receiving, these messages lose their potency as subliminal political levers. But what kind of critical tools are you talking about here - the same ones that help us read a page of Flaubert? We're talking about a range of simple skills. After years of practice, I can walk into a bookstore and understand its layout in a few seconds. I can glance at the spine of a book and make a good guess at its content from a number of signs. If I see the words Harvard University Press, I know it's probably not going to be a cheap romance. I go onto the Net and I don't have those skills. And you've got the added problem that you've just walked into a bookshop where all the books are lying in heaps on the floor. Exactly. So how do I make sense of the mess? I try to learn some basic labels. But there are RL that ends with .indiana.edu I think, Ah - this must have something to do with the University of Indiana. Like hell it does: the signpost is deceptive, since there are people using that domain to post all kinds of stuff, most of which has little or nothing to do with education. You have to grope your way through the signs. You have to recycle the semiological skills that allow you to distinguish a pastoral poem from a satirical skit, and apply them to the problem, for example, of weeding out the serious philosophical sites from the lunatic ravings. I was looking through neo-Nazi sites the other day. If you just rely on search-engine logic, you might jump to the conclusion that the most fascist site of the lot is the one in which the word Nazi scores highest. But in fact this turns out to belong to an antifascist watchdog group. You can learn these skills by trial and error, or you can ask other Net users for advice online. But the quickest and most effective method is to be in a place surrounded by other people, each with different levels of competence, each with different online experiences which they can pool. It's like the freshman who turns up on day one. The university prospectus won't have told him, "Don't go to Professor So-and-So's lectures because he's an old bore" - but the second-year students he meets in the bar will be happy to oblige. Modernism seems to have ground to a halt - in the novel at least. Are people getting their experimental kicks from other sources, such as the Net? Maybe if Joyce had been able to surf the Web he would have written Gone with the Wind rather than Finnegans Wake? No - I see it the other way round. If Margaret Mitchell had been able to surf the Web, she would probably have written Finnegans Wake. And in any case, Joyce was always online. He never came off. But hasn't the experience of writing changed in the age of hypertext? Do you agree with Michael Joyce when he says that authorship is becoming "a sort of jazzlike unending story"? Not real shift in the way a professional writer commits his thoughts to paper. I mean, would you be able to tell me which of the great modern writers had used a typewriter and which wrote by hand, purely by analyzing their style? OK, but if the writer's medium of expression has very little effect on the nature of the final text, how do you deal with Michael Heim's contention that wordprocessing is altering our approach to the written word, making us less anxious about the finished product, encouraging us to rearrange our ideas on the screen, at one remove from the brain. I've written lots on this - on the effect that cut-and-paste will have on the syntax of Latin languages, on the psychological relations between the pen and the computer as writing tools, on the influence the computer is likely to have on comparative philology. Well, if you were to use a computer to generate your next novel, how would you go about it? The best way to answer that is to quote from an essay I wrote recently for the anthology Come si scrive un romanzo (How to write a novel), published by Bompiani: "I would scan into the computer around a hundred novels, as many scientific texts, the Bible, the Koran, a few telephone directories (great for names). Say around a hundred, a hundred and twenty thousand pages. Then I'd use a simple, random program to mix them all up, and make a few changes - such as taking all the A's out. That way I'd have a novel which was also a lipogram. Next step would be to print it all out and read it through carefully a few times, underlining the important passages. Then I'd load it all onto a truck and take it to the nearest incinerator. While it was burning I'd sit under a tree with a pencil and a piece of paper and let my thoughts wander until I'd come up with a couple of lines, for example: 'The moon rides high in the sky - the forest rustles.'" At first, of course, it wouldn't be a novel so much as a haiku. But that doesn't matter. The important thing is to make a start. What's your take on s an overrated metaphor, as "the real problem of an electronic community is solitude." Do you feel that McLuhan's philosophy is too lightweight to justify the cult that has been dedicated to him? McLuhan wasn't a philosopher - he was a sociologist with a flair for trend-spotting. If he were alive today he would probably be writing books contradicting what he said 30 or 40 years ago. As it was, he came up with the global village prophecy, which has turned out to be at least partly true, the "end of the book" prophecy, which has turned out to be totally false, and a great slogan - "The medium is the message" - which works a lot better for television than it does for the Internet. OK, maybe at the beginning you play around, you use your search engine to look for "shit" and then for "Aquinas" and then for "shit AND Aquinas," and in that case the medium certainly is the message. But when you start to use the Net seriously, it does not reduce everything to the fact of its own existence, as television tends to. There is an objective difference between downloading the works of Chaucer and goggling at the Playmate of the Month. It comes down to a question of attention: it's difficult to use the Net distractedly, unlike the television or the radio. I can zap among Web sites, but I'm not going to do it as casually as I do with the television, simply because it takes a lot longer to get back to where I was before, and I'm paying for the delay. In your closing address to a recent symposium on the future of the book, you pointed out that McLuhan's "end of the Gutenberg galaxy" is a restatement of the doom-laden prophecy in Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, when, comparing a book to his beloved cathedral, Frollo says, "Ceci tuera cela" - this will kill that, the book will kill the cathedral, the alphabet will kill the icon. Did it? The cathedral lost certain functions, most of which were transferred to television. But it has taken on others. I've written elsewhere about how photography took over on main functions of painting: setting down people's images. But it certainly didn't kill painting - far from it. It freed it up, allowed it to take risks. And painters can still do portraits if they want. Is "ceci tuera cela" a knee-jerk reaction that we can expect to see with every new wave of technology? It's a bad habit that people will probably never shake. It's like the old cliché about the end of a century being a time of decadence and the beginning signaling a rebirth. It's just a way of organizing history to fit a story we want to tell. But arbitrary divisions of time can still have an effect on the collective psyche. You've studied the fear of the end that pervaded the 10th century. Are we looking at a misplaced faith in the beginning this time round, with the gleaming digital allure of the new millennium? Centuries and millennia are always arbitrary: you don't need to be a medievalist to know that. However, it's true that syndromes of decadence or rebirth can form around such symbolic divisions of time. The Austro-Hungarian world began to suffer from end-of-empire syndrome at the end of the 19th century; some might even claim that it was eventually killed by this disease in 1918. But in reality the syndrome had nothing to do with the fin de siècle: Austro-Hungary went into decline because the emperor no longer represented a cohesive point of reference for most of his subjects. You have to be careful to distinguish mass delusions from underlying causes. And how about your own sense of time? If you had the chance to travel in time, would you go backward or forward - and by how many years? And you, sir, if you had the chance to ask someone else that question, who would you ask? Joking aside, I already travel in the past: haven't you read my novels? And as for the future - haven't you read this interview? From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Thu Nov 29 21:40:04 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 29 Nov 2001 16:10:04 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Internet and Psychoanalysis Message-ID: <20011129161004.31101.qmail@mailweb25.rediffmail.com> PSYCHOANALYSIS AND/OF THE INTERNET by Robert M. Young As my title indicates, I want to speak about the relevance of the internet to psychoanalysis and to make some analytic comments on its labour process. At the most mundane level, there are email forums (sometimes called lists, symposia or conferences) concerned with psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, counselling, group therapy psychoanalysis of organisations, psychological study of the arts, cultural studies, social dreaming, practically any disorder you care to name, e.g., eating disorders, trauma, depression, sexual disorders, substance abuse. In fact, there is an email forum on practically anything you can think of, and if there isn't, you can easily start one. I have one list of lists with over 8000 email forums listed and another with about half that many. There are other lists of lists and directories that I have not seen, but I have recently discovered a site which will search through more than 24,000 lists to find those which cater for any interest you specify. I have founded two lists and helped with another. One has the title of the annual 'Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere' conference, has about 240 subscribers and is designed to extend our deliberations throughout the year and to provide a repository for our papers and a space for ongoing discussion of them and other extended pieces which anyone interested in the broader and deeper relations of psychoanalysis wishes to make available for discussion. It is also a place where articles under consideration for Free Associations can be posted for constructive comment prior to revision for publishing in the printed version of the journal. There is a parallel list for the other journal I edit, Science as Culture. That list attracted over three hundred subscribers in the first week after it came on-line at the beginning of November. A related email forum is called Psychoanalytic Studies has about 200 subscribers. It is concerned with the academic, scholarly discussion of psychoanalysis and re approaches. Its primary constituency is the people concerned with the dozen or so academic courses in psychoanalytic studies which have sprung up since the first one at Kent in 1988. It is also designed to cater for the community of scholars concerned with psychoanalytic matters. It is associated with a new journal of the same name which will appear in electronic and print versions. It has already attracted an editorial board of distinguished scholars and one so undistinguished that I have resigned from the board. Beyond these matters, the internet has hundreds of forums, electronic journals and web sites of interest to people who are concerned with the human sciences and the helping professions. There is a list for every approach, practically every philosopher and philosophical persuasion, including the Frankfurt School, French feminism, Postmodernism, cultural studies. Web sites and electronic journals provide a way of disseminating and debating knowledge which is as cheap as a local phone-call, and revisions are nearly free. You can find and download practically anything, search bibliographies and databases anywhere in the world and often find the writings of great authors or not so great ones gratis. Most classics are there. So, increasingly, are other people's writings. I have about forty articles at my web site, along with about the same number of reading lists on various topics in psychoanalytic theory. People look me up, open the list of writings, click an item, and the article or list is instantly in their computer. They can read it on screen, print it out or throw it away after a glance. If you type into a web search engine the words psychoanalysis and cinema or Barry Richards or Gordon Lawrence, the reply may be 'Nothing found' or 4000 entries. Do you want the first 10?'. I could go on at considerable length. For example, in addition to the email forums and web sites I have mentioned, there are support groups for any disorder you can imagine, e.g., parents of children with leukaemia, families o disabilities. And, notoriously, there are bulletin boards for posting your sexual requirement, thoughts, and fantasies. (I should have mentioned in my exposition of email forums that there are also ones for sexual disorders, discussion of sexual needs and intellectual discussion of sexuality of all sorts.) When you subscribe or go to any of these sites, you are under no obligation to take part. The bulletin boards have tables of contents, and you only open what interests you. Things posted to the forums go to all subscribers, but you can ignore them, delete them, receive periodic digests or sign off for a time. Most members of forums don't join in the discussions. They are called 'lurkers'. You don't even need to open the letters (called 'postings'). You can archive them or delete them on the spot. I save some of the ongoing discussions (called 'strings') for future perusal. At the moment I have files called 'humanism', 'sexuality', early experience, postmodernism, projective identification, Lacan, Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis (nearly exclusive to IPA members), psychotherapy. You can get software which will filter things straight into files or do so after you have had time to check the topics. It's a bit like having a clippings service with the added feature that you can enter into a dialogue with the writer of the clipping if you like. Beginning next month I will be conducting seminars on psychoanalytic theory to people who will be in the same electronic classroom but sitting at Macs or PCs all round the world. There are other courses in psycho-pharmacology, etc., offered by the Group for the Advancement of Professional Development, in which I am a partner. There are already electronic 'faculty lounges' of psychotherapists meeting every Thursday evening. Very soon these will be complemented by picture contact (the equipment, called 'see you-see me' costs about £100). Beginning next autumn, three of the MA programmes at this centre will be available by distance learning (both print ver t versions): Psychoanalytic Studies, Psychiatry, Philosophy and Society and Disability Studies. This means that psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, disabled people or anyone interested who meets the entry requirements can join in these programmes without having to be in Sheffield over the two year programmes. People whose professional or family commitments (or both) prevent them from doing the residential course can earn these degrees, as they have been able to do with Open University and similar programmes for some time. (Herriott-Watt University offers an MA in Business Studies which has 12,000 students.) There are about 875 institutions of higher learning offering internet distance learning degrees of various sorts and there is an internet forum for discussing this work. The internet makes communication much, much easier. This centre, along with a few other universities, is willing to offer doctorates by distance learning. The students will come to Sheffield for weekend courses three times per year. It is said that complete virtual universities will be on-line very soon, employing eminent scholars and teachers who need not be located anywhere in particular. The faculty, like the students, can be widely dispersed. I know that some of you will be excited by what I am saying and some will be appalled, some perhaps both. I am more excited than appalled. I was computer phobic until three years ago. I would turn on the Amstrad; it asked the time; I was told I got it wrong, and I would wander off for a few more months before repeating the humiliation. Then, amidst great anxiety, I managed to write most of a book on it. But then Joe Berke said get a Mac, and my life and productivity were transformed. Point and click replaced all those xq back slash asterix typed commands which I could never get right. Microsoft Word allows you to alter and move passages and lots more with great and easily-acquired dexterity. I became a proficient word processor, writer, correspondent and list-maker and storer of information. rally like a stroke. Much was not recovered, and what was lost its labels. It was awful. Although it occurred over a year ago I have not completely recovered. I have since bought some software which backs up everything every two days. The next step was getting onto email. This required a modem. Getting that on line took months, largely because I rarely had the time to hang on long enough to get through to the help line. Then I couldn't get the fax in my computer to work. Then I had no idea how to use email, much less get onto the World Wide Web. All of this took months of despairing and trying again. It is all much easier now, but it still takes time and quite a lot of getting advice from a supplier, a help line, a friend (usually Mark Alexander). If you do not have the luxury of a university connection or also want to be on-line at home, you have to be prepared to persevere and ask foolish questions. I am not a technically proficient person and certainly not a nerd, but I have got through the hurdles and benefit tremendously from my Mac, my modem, email and the web. It puts me in touch with people and colleagues all over the world. Members of one of my forums are in 29 countries, though, largely of course, in the US and UK. I am in contact with debates with which I would otherwise have no contact (or perhaps no knowledge) by other means, for example about the efficacy of various forms of therapy, about whether or not early experience importantly influences adult behaviour (a question I would have though not worth asking three months ago). I have also got into relationships with decent and thoughtful and, in some instances, profound people which I greatly value. I have been helped and have helped dozens, perhaps hundreds of people. I have gained new contacts and potential students for this centre and new audiences for the journals I edit and have fostered, for Process Press, for Kleinian psychoanalysis, for social constructivism, for trying to build a better world. I am part of a community of enquiring, g wide range of disciplines and orientations. You can be, too. I turn now to the topic of psychoanalysis of the internet. Sherry Turkle wrote a book in 1984 about this entitled The Second Self. I have only lately fathomed that title, but it is true that my computer is a version of me and that it is a self. Without it I am lost, out of touch. When it crashes, as I've said, it is like having a stroke. With it I am rich in communication and knowledge. It is nearly like being omniscient, in the sense that one is a few seconds away from so much information and so much supportive contact, e.g., huge bibliographic databases. I suffer withdrawal symptoms when I go away. I did manage it, though, for periods of weeks during the summer when I was in New York and on holiday in Sheffield and do so every Friday during term. It is also important to make a distinction between the computer and the internet. Turkle was writing about computers before the internet embraced a wide public. I can testify that the computer itself made a large difference to my life. For example, it transformed my chaotic non-filing system into a semblance of order. It also increased my productivity many-fold and led me to do my own correspondence. Getting onto the internet, however, introduced a whole set of new dimensions - the ones I am exploring here. (I gather that Sherry Turkle has also moved on and has written a book about the internet.) There are also horrid things about communication on the internet, some of which I have experienced, some I have read about. Norman Holland (1995), the moderator of a very interesting email forum on the Psychological Study of the Arts, has written about what he calls 'internet regression'. People are more immediately intimate and more foul-mouthed and unrestrained on the net. There are exchanges called 'flames' where people say things they wouldn't in other media. Flames sometimes consist of sending the offender lots and lots of messages so as to flood his computer. This is a way of chastising someone who has by posting something commercial. Sometimes it involves exceedingly aggressive exchanges out of the blue. I joined a forum about the Philosophy of Literature. Soon there was a posting asking about the mechanism of evil. I offered a quote from Melanie Klein about what she called 'the prototype of all aggressive object relations'. There came back a message from a Toronto science museum manager: 'Gee, Dad, a psychoanalyst. I didn't know there were any of those any more. Can I touch him? Will he get my friend addicted to cocaine?' and so on for a longish posting. In a later exchange involving the Harvard philosopher Willard Quine, he was more succinct: 'Doo doo on Quine.' I eventually posted a commentary on an imagined conversation overheard on a net street corner: 'Let's talk ideas.' 'Right: Plato.' 'Naa, dead.' 'Freud. Naa, junkie.' 'Quine. Doo-doo on Quine.' 'Okay, that's enough culture for today; let's go have a beer.' The germ of truth in this story, aside from my having actually seen all the quotes on the net, is that the threshold for getting on is low, and philistines, bigots and ignoramuses turn up on open forums But so do admirable autodidacts. I want to quote part of a letter I received last week. I was in correspondence with Harriet Meek, who'd read about the conference on Psychosis in Colchester this coming September sent a paper on the net for the planning committee to consider. We've done so and invited her to give a version it at the conference She also told me about the group on net dynamics and mentioned a subscriber to it who had commented appreciatively on my writings. I wrote to him and asked who he was. He said, 'Harriet and I are both part of NetDynam, a group looking at the dynamics of listserv interaction. She has been dragging me kicking and screaming into the world of Bion, Klein and Freudian psychology. Upon her recommendation I dropped in on your web page and grabbed some papers. I read "Benign and Virulent Projective Identification in Groups and Institution," 'Mental Space in Group R three were delightfully written and provided me with a sort of down to earth understanding of the relationship between Bion, Klein, groups, and the various non-psychological perspectives on interpersonal dynamics. I intend to drop in on your page for more, and would particularly like to read what you have to say about Darwin. He continued, 'I am a bit unsure what to say about me. I am currently a warehouseman in Portland, Oregon. I am an alcoholic beginning my fifth year of sobriety. In the past I have been a cartoonist, teacher, bookseller, and even a lawyer, all professions that I was either not very good at or eventually got kicked out of. Now I try to contain my activities to manipulating things rather than people and everyone is much happier as a consequence. I fuss around on the internet and in email groups a fair amount, and have a reasonably comfortable home and family here in Portland.' That made my day. The wall between academia and the wider community simply vanishes, along with the barriers of distance. On the not so lovely side of net writing, here is a quote offered by Professor Holland. A journalist who had written sympathetically about Bill Gates, the head of Microsoft, received this from a fellow-journalist: 'Crave THIS, asshole Listen, you toadying dipshit scumbag... remove your head from your rectum long enough to look around and notice that real reporters don't fawn over their subjects, pretend that their subjects are making some sort of special contact with them, or, worse, curry favor by TELLING their subjects how great the ass-licking profile is going to turn out and then brag in print about doing it. Forward this to Mom. Copy Tina [the new, much despised new editor of The New Yorker, where the offending article appeared] and tell her the mag is fast turning to compost. One good worm deserves another' (The last phrase is a threat of sending a computer virus to him.) (quoted in Holland, 1995, pp. 1-2). Here is the conclusion of a long flame between two people ostensibly discussing n their correspondent's messages - which are indicated by > signs - and intersperse their comments.) '> and the floor is now all yours with no further rebuttal from >me....' 'I'm glad you're done. It's nice to know that a self-centred, pompous, arrogant, horse's ass isn't going to have the last word.' Sometimes this goes on for a long time; then it's called a 'flame war'. I have observed a couple and been in another. It is a much-feared phenomenon, and instructions sent to you when you join a forum often have precise recommendations about how to avoid flame wars. It is sometimes necessary to remove people from the forum (which can prompt another flame war over censorship, which, in one instance I witnessed, can lead the forum leader to resign.) I have heard that lists have closed over this phenomenon of flaming. Then there is 'spamming', the blanket posting of commercial material to lists. This is usually prevented by having lists closed so that only subscribers can post to them, and the forum leader usually has the code for adding and removing subscribers. It is pretty obvious that these group phenomena would repay thinking about in terms of Bion's concept of basic assumption: fight or flight, something which no one has yet done, as far as I know. On the other hand, as I've said, there is now a forum on net dynamics which I have recently joined. I think one explanation for internet regression is that communication on the net is so immediate that one can react without the sort of delay for pondering associated with letters. There is also an important absence of cues. These are the nuances of communication which occur in modulation and tone of voice on the telephone. For starters, the other person can interrupt or put the phone down, making your continued utterances redundant. On the net you have the advantage of almost immediate communication but without the signals of tonality which convey what is in your interlocutor's mind. Nor can he or she hang up in your face, though I suppose they can bin yo out opening it. Curiosity makes this unlikely. An attempt has been made to overcome this with a new language called 'smileys', whereby the keyboard is used to make simple pictures conveying that the writer is smiling, ironic, sorry, glad, kidding and so on (Godin, 1993). Here are some examples: :-) smiling grinning ;-) winking joking :-( frowning/sad Laughing :-& tongue-tied Smiling :-S incoherent :-D laughing :-0 yawning/snoring :-@ Screaming :-P sticking tongue out :'-( crying :'-) crying for joy :-> sarcastic <:-> devilish 0:-) angelic {} a hug (usually in multiples) {{{{}}}}} {initials} to hug a specific person --<--@ a rose 12X--<--@ a dozen roses This is charming, but I'm a little puzzled that it is felt to be needed, since novelists manage to convey these nuances, but perhaps few netters have those novelistic skills. Some people positively value the absence of visual and auditory cues and the relative anonymity of communications. I read the following defence of net communication two days ago: 'For me, a pleasure of the Internet is to have some choice and some control over who I think you see/read. Why on earth should I reveal education, avocation, create an envelope into which to stuff myself? I do that f2f all the time! I very much enjoy watching how I am electronically understood. I like to use a quotation in a .sig to reveal. I was startled the first time a net friend suggested a f2f meeting. It seemed to deny the authenticity of what we had created, not to enhance it....' Another unusual feature of net dynamics which I have personally experienced to a small extent is heightened sexuality, something you might not anticipate in computer-to-computer communication between intellectuals (though it is notoriously a feature of other parts of the internet, where there are innumerable chat-lines and contact bulletin boards catering for every imaginable taste and fetishism). Holland reports a high incidence of net. People make explicit sexual proposals to women they do not know and in forums where this is, to say the least, inappropriate. He tells of a man who temporarily changed his name to that of a woman, received lots of smutty messages, and changed it back, whence they stopped. People who had harassed him and knew that he had changed his gender and changed it back went on writing to him as if nothing untoward had occurred. I said I had experienced it only to a small extent. I have had no sexually explicit exchanges, but women who I had only just met and only on the net have written to me in very personal terms about their lives, feelings, insecurities, needs and plans. I have found myself replying in the same terms. One explanation is that one is alone in one's study, a safe, intimate space. There are only the screen and the keyboard in the room. Not having to get out an envelope, address and stamp it and take it to a post-box allows one to feel that it's all in the mind. Inhibitions slip away, while fantasised idealisations (and diabolisations) come easily to mind. One man wrote to me at length in utterly intimate and unguarded terms and suggested that he come from America to work with me straightaway. You might think that it is important to keep these relationships inside the box, so to speak, but I saw something this summer which proves this wrong. In the spring I got into contact with a consortium of about fifty email forums in the mental health field called Inter-Psych. It turned out that it had been founded by a person with a Sheffield University address, so I wrote to him and suggested a meeting. He turned out to be a mature student undergraduate, 35 years old. He was friendly and supportive and gave me the advice and confidence which led to much of what I and a number of my colleagues have done on the net. Some months later it turned out that Inter-Psych was in turmoil over the role of someone who had come in as a volunteer administrator and wormed his way to being in control of the server and muc ying to stop this and eventually got the usurper voted out of office. Those who lost the vote then mounted a coup, which threatened the whole organisation. It was suggested that interested people should meet in New York, where many would be present anyway for the annual conference of the American Psychological Association. My student friend is a shy person face to face (though not on the net) He approached me and asked me to accompany him to this summit. What happened there is not the point of my story; there was a major confrontation in which I played a part which pleases me a lot, the good people won, and the organisation is back in the control of the forum leaders. The point of this story, thought, is that until that day I was the only person associated with InterPsych who had met its founder, and almost none of the board or forum leaders had met one other until that point. Indeed, the present chair of the constitutional convention is a professor in Alaska, and she has not met any of us. However, when we came together in the hospitality suite which we were allowed to use at the Sheraton, there were hugs and tears and wonderful, feelings. More recently I met another member of the board - an Oxford psychology research student - who had been central to the conflict mentioned above. He came for a meal; we had a lovely time; I am the only IP person he has ever met The point of this story is that strong bonds had been formed over the net which we confirmed in face to face meetings. On the other hand, one person involved in these deliberations had already drawn the following conclusion about another: 'From my initial e-mail contacts with him I had a strange feeling of communicating with an infobot rather than with a person (I thought after receiving a particularly dry communication from him, "This guy would flunk a 'Turing test"). . . It made me wonder if he had a problem in the schizophrenic spectrum'. He went on to comment on the person in question's internet ambitions and concluded, 'I can be grandiose at time ase you don't know what a Turing Test is, it distinguishes whether what's at the other end is a computer or a person.) This brings me to a painful aspect of the net. We hear a lot about 'nerds' and anoraks and enthusiasm for the net being the post-railway age's equivalent to train-spotting. I think there is some truth in this. In particular, I think that along with the advantages of access and cheapness, there is, for many, the advantage of communication without the gaze. Lest you think I have forgotten my age and am aspiring to the rhetoric of forms of feminist and cultural studies which are beyond my reach, I will reassure you that I am referring to an aspect of the fact that it is all done, for the present, by typing. This, it sees to me, makes it peculiarly attractive to people who split off their emotional parts from their intellectual and imaginative ones, i.e., people with schizoid personalities or tendencies. It also attracts people with grandiosity in their make-up. You can build huge castles in cyberspace without the refractoriness of any concrete (or even much of an economic) reality impinging on you. Moreover, if you can get people to join in your fantasies, you can convert them into successful projects. That is, you can start a magazine or business selling advice or supervision or a network of associated forums, and if people buy and join in, it is real. The thing which distinguishes this from business in the mundane world is that overheads on the net are relatively speaking negligible once you have your computer, a modem, software (mostly free), a connection to the net and the wherewithal to pay your phone bill. (I should mention that in America local phonecalls are free, so on-line time is free.) I think this attracts fantasists and people who are ill at ease with real face to face encounters. I do not want you to think I think I have got very far with analysing the net. There are problems about frames and boundaries which we have not begun to understand. One can feel oneself moving between ween agoraphobia and the domain of cosy transitional objects. There is also the phenomenon of net addiction - a phrase which is not hyperbole. It refers to something real. I think I have a mild version of it. I keep saying that not much of interest has come in on a given day but can still spend all the time at my disposal on the net. I hope and believe that this will abate, but it has shown no signs of doing so. I am reminded of our family's first television set, a consumer durable we were the last among my parents' friends to acquire. I was an undergraduate, and I could not cease to marvel at the idea of free movies. I still can't. You should see my video cassette collection (or my audio cassette collection, come to that). The only sense I can make of my own case is that there is some semblance of order on the net, while my study is a mass of unsorted boxes. An increment of effort leads one to feel (probably unrealistically) that an increment of accomplishment has occurred. One also has the feeling of communicating effectively with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people at once. When I send out an announcement of the new issue of a journal or a conference or something exciting, I can do so to literally thousands of people in a few minutes by posting it to all the groups to which I belong or have access. And, as a publisher who has done admirable things and nearly gone under financially, doing so for the price of a local phone call is delicious. Putting my writings on a web site makes them available to large numbers of people, as well, and some do actually respond. Those who are appreciative seem to have a lower threshold of writing than people who read things in a learned journal or book. It is easy to dash off a note. Everyone is on first name terms. spelling doesn't matter. A quick thought goes out to all those people. It is widespread but ephemeral enough not to have the internal backlash of making a fool of oneself that hard copy publishing and the long period of waiting for proofs and publication can in is that many people are terribly put off by the very thought of the internet. I have had friends respond as if they were in danger of being dropped into a huge drowning pool, something like a mega-version of the large group at a group relations conference, about which Pierre Turquet wrote in his essay on 'Threats to Identity in the Large Group'. One can feel like a drop in the ocean, disintegrating, an un-person, one among thirty-three million (three million in Britain), growing at a rate of twelve per cent a month. Some respond by becoming inconspicuous (computer or net phobics, 'lurkers'); others, like me, by trying omnipotently to encompass the whole. Far from experiencing it as a potentially collegial community, I have had people say that they could not bear it for so many people have access to the inside of their computer (= head). In anticipation, there is the certainty that one will be overwhelmed. I am not such a person, but I will say that before I got a version of email software which can sort out messages with filters, I had over 12,000 unread and unsorted email messages with the prospect of throwing them away (We are not good at that in the Young family. My sister was a pack-rat; I am merely an inhabitant of large amounts of clutter) or opening and filing them one by one, a procedure I got down to about twenty seconds (i.e., sixty-six hours of filing work). Now they go where I have programmed them to go, but the queue of 12,000 was properly daunting. I have colleagues and friends who could not bear even to hear that story. The truth is that it is creeping up again and currently stands at about 8000 email messages in an old file and a current one has about 2000, but I know I can file or discard them presto with my Eudora Pro software. Then there is technophobia. I do not think of myself as technologically dextrous. I am forever having to have my hand held and be talked through how to do things on my Mac and on the net. But I have learned to persevere. People are very patient and I have become go attempted yet, for example, bulletin boards, moos, movie clips. You could say there is a divide at about the point where one can or cannot learn to program a video recorder. I am well on the competent side of that line but unable to take my motorbike apart, much less program a computer or follow the instructions that come with computer software. I should add that this is quite common, and the instruction books allow for it, and most programs have 'Help' files built in and telephone help lines available, if under-staffed. Then there is the remarkable generosity of others on the net, including especially the people who create the software who usually give their email address and invite you to ask them things and give feedback. There are even forums devoted exclusively to helping people. The man who invented AddMail, the software which transfers messages from my server, Demon, to my Eudora software is a dentist in Romford who has given me several hours of his time. Of course, Bill Gates and the Mac people will make all this easier and easier and user-friendly (with glitches like Microsoft Windows 95 and fierce competition), just as the Netscape people have produced software that makes web searching a relatively simple task. Before Netscape, the World Wide Web was invented by CERN workers who presciently saw that the end of the Cold War spelled the end of the nuclear physics gravy train. New dimensions of user-friendliness are announced in every issue of the monthly fanzine .Net (pronounced 'dot net'). As I said, I was cured from my info-tech phobia by the Mac, which Joseph Berke persuaded me to buy; it was an almost religious experience. Indeed, I recently saw an article by Umberto Eco on the net which said (shades of Zamiatin's Fordist dystopia, We) that the world's future will be divided by essentially two religions, one based on the Mac, the other on the PC. Mac people are beneficiaries of a Catholic dispensation, with a programming priesthood forgiving them, smoothing the way and making life bearable. P ntalists; they quote the Law of the Old Testament and the intricate abominations of Leviticus and are required to work out their own path to God and salvation. Windows is like Anglicanism, putting a forgiving front end on a basically Protestant liturgy. I feel sure that there is an internet in your future. I believe that it is a boon to humankind and that mental health workers stand to gain tremendously, but so does the rest of culture, something which is increasingly at our fingertips. Unless you are an Adorno and believe that mass culture is a threat and waters down civilization, I suggest you go with it. Creating forums, bulletin boards, web sites and home pages for institutions and individuals is becoming increasingly easy. This raised large questions, among them quality control and commercialism (about which I have essayed elsewhere: Young, 1993, 1995, in press ), but these are problems within an exciting and fundamentally accessible and democratic technology which I believe will fundamentally solve the problems of rising publishing costs and access to knowledge, information and education. I was told as a child that if God had wanted me to smoke he would have put a chimney in me. I have benefited from an unbroken line of miraculous electronic devices from the telephone and radio and Saturday movie to the wire recorder, electric typewriter, stereo hi-fi, tape recorder, walkman, disc, discman and computer. (One day I intend to write my electronic autobiography. See draft: Young, 1996) I am old enough for ice and milk to have been delivered to my home by horse-drawn carts and for the washing to be done over a wood fire in a cast iron pot in the back yard. Near where I grew up, rural electrification came late, and people who had carried water from a stream and tended wood stoves on which they heated irons which burned their hands and arms - these people named their boys Lyndon after the Congressman who brought electricity to their homes (Caro, 1983). I believe that we will one day look back at the invent reduction, Ray Dolby, and the people who brought us computing, the PC and Mac and the net as we do to James Clerk Maxwell and Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Alva Edison. And we will bless the day their ingenuity brought knowledge and communication to all. Now we have to get that electrification and its sequellae to the whole world Ñ a political task the solution of which I expect the internet to facilitate. REFERENCES Caro, Robert (1983) 'The Sad Irons', in The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Vol. 1, The Path to Power. N. Y. : Knopf, 1983, pp. 502-15 Eco, Umberto Godin, Seth (1993) The Smiley Dictionary: Cool Things to do with Your Keyboard. Berkeley: Peachpit Press. Holland, Norman H. (1995) 'The Internet Regression' (internet paper) Turkle, Sherry (1984) The Second Self: The Computer and the Human Spirit. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. Turquet, Pierre (1975) 'Threats to Identity in the Large Group', in L. Kreeger, ed., The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. Constable; reprinted Maresfield., pp. 87-144. Young, Robert M. (1993) 'What Scientists Have to Learn', paper presented to conference on the 'Changing Image of Science: The Role of the Media and Education', sponsored by the British Universities Film and Video Council in association with the Wellcome Trust, at the Wellcome Building, London. ______ (1995) 'A Place for Critique in the Mass Media', paper presented to the programme in Science, Society and the Media at the University of the West of England. ______ (in press) 'We Don't Need Them to Make Culture - or to Share It', Science as Culture. ______ (1996) 'Electronic Autobiography' (draft). From netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au Fri Nov 30 02:27:59 2001 From: netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au (][D(NA).fence][) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:57:59 +1100 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: (ad) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130075754.0388f8d0@pop.hotkey.net.au> .read.transitive.DOC.scr:: . at m = bad transitive male.err][or][ . at mm = bad ][trans][missives ma][shed up N groupie][le.err][ors][ .pay.load][ings][ = c.rash][ed N ruby red][ing computer .w][tid][a][l][+ a.lite.ting yr text with ][key][stroked n.tent .Da.][screened][mage][s scream in static fury][ = memory residing + triggered e.vent][u.alities][ + ][I][N.][the silicon ][crypt.ing + poly.][wants a cracked Outlook][morphically perverse .D.grading & ][cod(ual)e][ perfor][ations][mance = s l o ][thish][ w i n g s .D.l][ites in][ete.ing = f][@mm][iles .Geo][phtical][spatial di][e][.stri][p][][(a)bution(s) = high ][on the ][ g.][lingual][lob][es][al threat + medi][a][um + low][ings of the virus literate][ (localized or non-wild threat). .In.][af][fect.ion l][str][ength = s][r][izing up the viral c][pr][o][grammatic][de .La][nguage of the ciph(destroy)er][rge scale e-mailing = massed p][l][ayloading by the s][ vitriolic v][endor emails + a][b][ccess.ing local][e][ add.res][t][s books . . .... ..... net.wurker][mez][ .U.phoric.magn.et][h][ic.moments.go.here. xXXx ./. www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker .... . .??? ....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011130/f40eed7f/attachment.html From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Nov 30 05:28:53 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:58:53 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] McAfee Virus Software Opens Your Computer to Feds Message-ID: Wired News http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,48648,00.html Privacy Matters 2:00 p.m. Nov. 29, 2001 PST 'Lantern' Backdoor Flap Rages By Declan McCullagh 8:25 a.m. Nov. 27, 2001 PST WASHINGTON -- Network Associates has been snared in a web of accusations over whether it will place backdoors for the U.S. government in its security software. Since Network Associates (NETA) makes popular security products, including McAfee anti-virus software and Pretty Good Privacy encryption software, reports of a special arrangement with the U.S. government have drawn protests and threats of a boycott. The flap started last week, when news reports began to appear about an FBI project code-named "Magic Lantern." Details are sketchy, but Magic Lantern reportedly works by masquerading as an innocent e-mail attachment that will insert FBI spyware inside your computer. In the past, the FBI has said publicly that agents have been flummoxed by suspects using encryption, something that software such as Magic Lantern could circumvent by secretly recording a passphrase and secret encryption key, then forwarding the confidential data to the feds. An Associated Press article then reported that "at least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI ... to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal suspect." Condemnation from security mavens was quick and fierce. Columnist Brett Glass echoed the Slashdot crowd when he said: "Network Associates has shown that it is willing to compromise its integrity by selling intentionally faulty products. For this reason, it is no longer appropriate or wise for those concerned about the security of their networks, systems or confidential data to use them." Other security mavens pointed to free software projects such as openvirus.org as more trustworthy alternatives to Network Associates' McAfee anti-virus products, and GPG as a replacement for Network Associates' PGP encryption software. The criticism raised a well-known point in security circles: Security software, including PGP and anti-virus products ware, is either looking out for your interests or those of the government. It can't do both. But on Monday, Network Associates denied contacting the FBI. In a statement released late in the day, a spokeswoman for the company made four points: "1. Network Associates/McAfee.com Corporation has not contacted the FBI, nor has the FBI contacted NAI/McAfee.com Corp. regarding Magic Lantern. 2. We do not expect the FBI to contact Network Associates/McAfee.com Corporation regarding Magic Lantern." The statement continued: "3. Network Associates/McAfee.com Corp. is not going to speculate on Magic Lantern as it's (sic) existence has not even been confirmed by the FBI or any government agency. 4. Network Associates/McAfee.com Corporation does and will continue to comply with any and all U.S. laws and legislation." Sharp-eyed critics pointed to the narrowness of Network Associates' denial: It did not rule out the possibility of conversations with the White House, the Justice Department or even conversations with the FBI about a product with identical capabilities that was not called Magic Lantern. Network Associates also did not pledge to reject future pleas from the FBI done in the absence of legislation making backdoors mandatory. In an e-mail, Network Associates was asked to clarify with this question: "Can you assure ... that Network Associates/McAfee has not had any contact with any law enforcement or intelligence agencies or other government entities including Congress or the White House about Magic Lantern or a product with capabilities it is reported to have?" Tony Thompson, a spokesman for the company, replied: "You are correct. We have not." Thompson also rejected the possibility of any conversations with the government between Network Associates or other anti-virus vendors taking place informally through trade associations in Washington. For his part, Ted Bridis, a veteran reporter for the Associated Press, says he stands by his story from last week that reported the link between the FBI and Network Associates. Bridis wrote in an e-mail message Monday afternoon, "I stand by my reporting for the AP. This information came from a senior company officer. I won't identify this person in this post because I've been unable to reach this person by phone or e-mail since the flap erupted." "I can't resolve what McAfee told me last week and today's contradictory statement except to note the critical public response against McAfee that emerged over the holiday weekend," Bridis added. In a well-documented incident that was tried in court in New Jersey, the FBI sneaked into an alleged mobster's office to implant PGP password-sniffing software in his Windows computer. Since that approach requires physical breaking and entering, FBI agents seem to want to be able to bypass encryption without leaving their desks. The feds have worked with technology companies in the past to insert backdoors for surveillance and eavesdropping. To gain an export license, IBM's Lotus subsidiary weakened the encryption used in its Lotus Notes program so the U.S. government could readily penetrate it. (All versions of Notes use 64-bit keys, but export versions of Notes gave a portion of the key to the U.S. government, allowing federal agencies to decode Notes-encrypted files in real-time.) In his 1982 book The Puzzle Palace, author James Bamford recounted how the National Security Agency's predecessor coerced Western Union, RCA, and ITT Communications to turn over telegraph traffic to the feds in 1945. "Cooperation may be expected for the complete intercept coverage of this material," an internal agency memo said. ITT and RCA gave the government full access, while Western Union limited the number of messages it handed over. The arrangement, according to Bamford, lasted at least two decades. In 1995, The Baltimore Sun reported that for decades the NSA had rigged the encryption products of Crypto, a Swiss firm, so U.S. eavesdroppers could easily break their codes. The six-part story, based on interviews with former employees and company documents, said Crypto sold its security products to some 120 countries, including prime U.S. intelligence targets such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia. Crypto disputed the allegation. -- From rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 13:45:10 2001 From: rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:15:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] A piece of advice: Put your money in biometrics! $$$! Message-ID: <20011130081510.62841.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> It's always interesting to watch how new technologies of society or industry fight for legitimacy under the various rubrics of 'progress' (safety, convenience, etc), sometimes successfully, sometimes not so. The genetically-modified food industry, while presenting its new products as merely the next stage in an age-old history of selection and breeding, has still not managed to achieve such legitimacy in much of the world. Food is one domain in which people wish their connection to the natural not to be broken, and though the concept of "the natural" may have been been stretched very far, genetically-modified foods still seem to lie outside it for many people. BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and over-rapid developments in other areas of biotechnology have all served to ruin the GMO people's PR exercise that aimed to show that the influence of science on food is unquestionably benign. Another area where this fight for legitimacy is going on is in the area of biometric systems, and here current affairs have given a massive boost to the PR campaign. Since September 11th the companies operating in this sector have been all over CNN and CNBC and analysts have been multiplying their forecasts for the size of the industry by 10 times. At the moment the biometric industry is small, and analysts' reports have for the most part voiced concerns about its future in the light of public resistance to its products. But as a recent CNN report said, their prospects have brightened: "Biometric companies, which sell devices that authenticate individuals by scanning unique identifiers such as fingerprints or retinas, are also expected to do well. The uphill public-relations battle that before Sept. 11 afflicted such outfits as Visionics (VSNX ), which makes controversial facial-recognition software, is easing. Visionics stock has skyrocketed nearly 150% since Sept. 11. But while the upside for this industry is huge, the dollar figures remain small. By 2006, the entire sector is expected to deliver sales of $520 million, according to Cahner's In-Stat. The key will be selling large orders to government agencies and transport hubs such as airports and train stations." (I saw a CNN report on the industry last Thursday which gave 2006 sales estimates of several billion dollars.) The Chairman of Visionics, Dr. Joseph J. Atick, an accomplished scientist himself, said, "I say this is a paradigm shift in the world of security, because there is a paradigm shift in the world of war and terror." The three basic areas of innovation are in fingerprinting scanning, face recognition, and iris scanning. Companies like Visionics have also brought out networking technologies that help companies link all their scanners and cameras into a central database. A recent analyst report: "Finger biometrics will become the most pervasive of the biometrics technologies because it's moderately cheaper ($100 to $300 per unit) than either face-recognition technology ($125to $400) or iris scanning ($750 to $1,000), and it's more practical for small devices like cell phones. Investors interested in picking up the stock of a company that's quickly establishing a leadership position in finger biometrics should consider Identix, a maker of hardware and software." Clearly, encountering such technologies for the first time will be an anxious experience for most people, and PR will be crucial. The International Biometric Industry Association (IBIA), an industry association founded in 1998 in Washington DC, aims to assure the public and the political system of the ethical commitments of the industry, while also ensuring that concerns about privacy do not lead to 'rash' oversights in policy: "[The growth of the industry] could be severely constricted ... by misinformation as well as a lack of public awareness about biometrics. In particular, concerns about privacy can lead to ill-informed regulations that unreasonably restrict the use of biometrics on identity documents, in financial commerce, benefits administration, and other important consumer applications. In the absence of common and clearly articulated industry positions on issues such as safety, privacy, and standards, governments will react rashly to uninformed and even unfounded assertions about the function and use of biometric technology." Of course the image of the ultimate object of these technologies, the violent individual who seems to be just like everyone else but is not so, is crucial to the rationale for these technologies, and September 11th has been helpful in spawning all kinds of such images. The Visionics website is like a hi-tech De Chirico world of eery spaces, long shadows and, on the products page, a pernicious looking woman who is shown from the perspective of a notional camera and whose insidious glance is highlighted and transformed in the graphic into 0s and 1s that flow out towards us - registered, reassuringly, in the Visionics system (http://www.visionics.com/techsys/). As these companies find the legimacy they need - a regretful but necessary part of the security and progress of a modern society - their business will quickly become just that - business - and the Orwellian overtones of the technologies will disappear. How could one have imagined that a PIN number was enough to ensure the security of an ATM card? - ATM machines need face recognition too. And then, suddenly - NEW! The PINless ATM card that goes entirely by face recognition. Remember all those times you couldn't remember your PIN? Now all you need is you. We don't treat our customers as a number - we never forget a face! Just yesterday Visionics issued a press release announcing its partnership with "ARINC Incorporated, the leader in mission-critical communications and information-processing systems for the aviation industry" - a partnership in which ARINC will sell Visionics FaceIt� system as part of all its other airport systems: "Michael V. Picco, staff vice president of ARINC Airport Systems, stated, "Aviation security is a major area of focus for our systems integration efforts. We are committed to providing the best solutions to the myriad of security challenges that the airlines and airports face today. A key component of these solutions is facial recognition, and our alliance with Visionics gives us access not only to the best-of-breed biometric technology in this area, but also to a scalable platform on which to deliver it." The alliance will focus on meeting the broad security needs of the airline industry, a market segment in which ARINC is well established. ARINC is owned by a consortium of leading airlines, aircraft makers and operators based in the United States and around the world, including United Airlines, American Airlines, Boeing, FedEx, British Airways, Lufthansa, and Raytheon." The same press release goes on to talk about the way in which Visionics has joined IATA's "Simplifying Passenger Travel" initiative, sidestepping public concern about privacy completely to locate its technology under the rubric of convenience: "International Air Transport Association (IATA) special interest group on simplifying passenger travel -- called SPT--of which ARINC is also a member. SPT is a worldwide, forward-looking initiative consisting of airlines, airports, government authorities, system integrators, and vendors who recognize that today\'s airports are not built to handle the massive throughput of travelers. SPT has outlined the vision of a future system that takes into account technological advances that can simplify passenger travel and make it more secure. As such, facial recognition is poised to play a major role, particularly since it has already been endorsed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as the most suitable biometric for air travel." These skillful maneuverings of a young and still small company (Visionics only made $30 million in 2000-2001 financial year - it's about a thousandth of the size of the major aerospace companies) within groups of vast corporations who have suddenly seen a new role and future for biometrics are an interesting guide to the way in which these technologies will become banal - part of the happy paraphernalia of travel or the caring solidity of banks. What role such aggressive companies can play in affecting the social imagination - in establishing the threat for which their products are the solution as an overriding social concern - remains to be seen. As does the great number of incidental uses that will arise from the sudden availability of this new kind of data. R __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 From shuddha at sarai.net Fri Nov 30 18:11:37 2001 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:11:37 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Walk the Big Walk Message-ID: <01113018113702.01124@sweety.sarai.kit> Dear all on Readers List, At last, hope is at hand. Some of you may have walked against the WTO Many of you will have walked against communalism Most of you will have walked against War Many of you will have walked against big dams And some of you will have walked for reasosn that you can't really remember, but what the hell, it felt good to walk... Now is your chance to step out and take a stand in favour of the one thing that made all those memorable demonstrations possible. Now is your chance to Take Part in the Walk for Capitalism ! Coming sunday, December 2 is the International Day in Defence of Capitalism and International Capitalism will be Defended in the Streets of Delhi. (and ewlsewhere in the world) . For more details of this mementous event, log on to http://www.geocities.com/CapitalismDelhi/index.htm Finally, all those who have been dreaming of the decline and fall of International Capitalism can now relax and take it easy. We can have a real party. And all this because, the partisans of Capitalism all over the world, have now decided to stage marches, issue manifestoes, stand with banners and placards and form human chains, stage street plays, and sing songs of solidarity and protest and hand out pamphlets... At last, we don't have to do these things any more, which means, that some of us, finally have the opportunity, from now onwards, of refraining from making an exhibitiion of themselves, and an embarrassement to the general cause of revolutionary transformation... when the capitalist class takes to the streets, the rest should just sit back, fold their hands, and rest, and the rest of history might just begin to take care of itself... This is the best news I have heard in years. It gives a really good reason to be lazy on Sunday, December 2. Cheers Shuddha From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Fri Nov 30 20:19:35 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:49:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Reader-list] Walk the Big Walk In-Reply-To: <01113018113702.01124@sweety.sarai.kit> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Shuddhabrata Sengupta wrote: > Now is your chance to Take Part in the Walk for Capitalism ! ... > http://www.geocities.com/CapitalismDelhi/index.htm The site is hilarious, that's the best laugh I've had in ages. :-) :-) It took me ages to decide if it's a spoof or genuine. And I'm convinced it's both: it's genuine, *and* it's an unintentional auto-spoof... These are true believers who don't realise their own ridiculousness. From kshekhar at bol.net.in Fri Nov 30 16:04:31 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Mumbai Study Group) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:04:31 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] 8.12.2001: Advertising Bombay Message-ID: Dear Friends: In our next session, we welcome Dr WILLIAM MAZZARELLA, Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, U.S.A., who will speak on "Critical Publicity/Public Criticism: Reflections on Fieldwork in the Bombay Ad World". He will offer a series of reflections based on his experience of conducting anthropological fieldwork on the Bombay advertising business. He will examine the ethical and practical contradictions of this kind of research project, as well as those contradictions internal to the business itself. The overall aim will be to move towards a form of critical engagement that understands consumer goods advertising as a crucial form of public cultural intervention. Dr William Mazzarella has previously taught at Harvard University, and at the University of California at Berkeley, where he completed his Ph.D. in 2000 in Socio-Cultural Anthropology, which was titled "Shovelling Smoke: The Production of Advertising and the Cultural Politics of Globalization in Contemporary India". He is the author of several essays and papers, and a forthcoming monograph from Duke University Press, on the cultural politics of globalization and the advertising industry in South Asia. This session will be on SATURDAY 8 DECEMBER 2001, at 10.00 A.M., on the SECOND FLOOR, Rachna Sansad, 278, Shankar Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, next to Ravindra Natya Mandir. Phone: 4301024, 4310807, 4229969; Station: Elphinstone Road (Western Railway); BEST Bus: 35, 88, 151, 161, 162, 171, 355, 357, 363, to Ravindra Natya Mandir, 91 Ltd, 305 Ltd, A1 and A4 to Prabhadevi. MUMBAI STUDY GROUP SESSIONS, 2001-2002 22 DECEMBER 2001 "Shanghai and Mumbai: Sustainability of Development in a Globalizing World" by Dr Tapati Mukhopadhyay, Siddharth College Dept of Geography, Mumbai 12 JANUARY 2002 "Manufacturing Space: Textile Policy and the Politics of Industrial Location in Mumbai" by Harini Narayanan, University of Illinois Dept of Urban Geography, Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A. 26 JANUARY 2002 "Food Security in Mumbai and Thane: A Study of the Rationing Kruti Samiti" by Mayank Bhatt, Journalist and Research Associate, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K. 9 FEBRUARY 2002 "Party Politics in Mumbai: A Panel Discussion on the Eve of the Civic Elections" Participants to be Announced 23 FEBRUARY 2002 "Mumbai Modern" by Dr Carol Breckenridge, University of Chicago Dept of History, Chicago, U.S.A. 9 MARCH 2002 Film Screening of "Jari-Mari: Of Cloth and Other Stories" Discussion with Surabhi Sharma, Producer and Director 23 MARCH 2002 "Girangaon: The Past, Present and Future of Mumbai's Textile Mills and Mill Workers" Participants to be Announced 13 APRIL 2002 "Gender and Space in Mumbai" by Shilpa Phadke, Visiting Lecturer in Sociology, Nirmala Niketan School of Social Work, Mumbai and Neera Adarkar, Architect, Adarkar Associates, Mumbai ABOUT the MUMBAI STUDY GROUP The MUMBAI STUDY GROUP meets on the second and fourth Saturdays of every month, at the Rachana Sansad, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, at 10.00 A.M. Our conversations continue through the support extended by Shri Pradip Amberkar, Principal of the Academy of Architecture, and Prof S.H. Wandrekar, Trustee of the Rachana Sansad. Conceived as an inclusive and non-partisan forum to foster dialogue on urban issues, we have since September 2000 held conversations about various historical, political, cultural, social and spatial aspects of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Our discussions are open and public, no previous membership or affiliation is required. We encourage the participation of urban researchers and practitioners, experts and non-experts, researchers and students, and all individuals, groups and associations in Mumbai to join our conversations about the the city.The format we have evolved is to host individual presentations or panel discussions in various fields of urban theory and practice, and have a moderated and focussed discussion from our many practical and professional perspectives: whether as architects or planners, lawyers or journalists, artists or film-makers, academics or activists.Through such a forum, we hope to foster an open community of urban citizens, which clearly situates Mumbai in the theories and practices of urbanism globally. Previous sessions have hosted presentations by the following individuals: Kalpana Sharma, Associate Editor of The Hindu; Kedar Ghorpade, Senior Planner at the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority; Dr Marina Pinto, Professor of Public Administration, retired from Mumbai University; Dr K. Sita, Professor of Geography, retired from Mumbai University, and former Garware Chair Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences; Dr Arjun Appadurai, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, Director of Partners for Urban Knowledge Action & Research (PUKAR), Mumbai; Rahul Srivastava, Lecturer in Sociology at Wilson College; Sandeep Yeole, General Secretary of the All-India Pheriwala Vikas Mahasangh; Dr Anjali Monteiro, Professor and Head, and K.P. Jayashankar, Reader, from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences Unit for Media and Communications; Dr Sujata Patel, Professor and Head, Department of Sociology, University of Pune; Dr Mariam Dossal, Head, Department of History, Mumbai University; Sucheta Dalal, business journalist and Consulting Editor, Financial Express; Dr Arvind Rajagopal, Associate Professor of Culture and Communications at New York University; Dr Gyan Prakash, Professor of History at Princeton University, and member of the Subaltern Studies Editorial Collective; Dr Sudha Deshpande, Reader in Demography, retired from the Department of Economics, Mumbai University and former consultant for the World Bank, International Labour Organisation, and Bombay Municipal Corporation; Sulakshana Mahajan, doctoral candidate at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., and former Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, Rachana Sansad; Dr Rohini Hensman, of the Union Research Group, Mumbai; Mrs Jyoti Mhapsekar, Head Librarian, Rachana Sansad and Member, Stree Mukti Sanghatana. Previous panel discussions have comprised of the following individuals: S.S. Tinaikar, former Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, Sheela Patel, Director of the Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC), and Bhanu Desai of the Citizens' Forum for the Protection of Public Spaces (Citispace) on urban policy making and housing; Shirish Patel, civil engineer and urban planner, Pramod Sahasrabuddhe and Abhay Godbole, structural engineers on earthquakes and the built form of the city; B. Rajaram, Managing Director of Konkan Railway Corporation, and Dr P.G. Patankar, from Tata Consultancy Services, and former Chairman of the Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) on mass public transport alternatives; Ved Segan, Vikas Dilawari, and Pankaj Joshi, conservation architects, on the social relevance of heritage and conservation architecture; Debi Goenka, of the Bombay Environmental Action Group, Professor Sudha Srivastava, Dr Geeta Kewalramani, and Dr Dipti Mukherji, of the University of Mumbai Department of Geography, on the politics of land use, the city's salt pan lands, and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Act; Nikhil Rao, of the University of Chicago Dept of History, Anirudh Paul and Prasad Shetty of the Kamala Raheja Vidyanidhi Insitute of Architecture, and members of the various residents associations and citizens groups of the Dadar-Matunga, on the history, architecture, and formation of middle-class communities in these historic neighbourhoods, the first suburbs of Bombay. CONTACT US We invite all urban researchers, practitioners, students, and other interested individuals to join us in our fortnightly conversations, and suggest topics for presentation and discussion. For any more information, kindly contact one of the Joint Convenors of the Mumbai Study Group: ARVIND ADARKAR, Architect, Researcher and Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, Phone 2051834, ; DARRYL D'MONTE, Journalist and Writer, 6427088 ; SHEKHAR KRISHNAN, Coordinator-Associate, Partners for Urban Knowledge Action & Research (PUKAR), 4462728, ; PANKAJ JOSHI, Conservation Architect, Lecturer, Academy of Architecture, and PUKAR Associate, 8230625, . From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Fri Nov 30 17:02:03 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:02:03 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] FC: Federal judge throws out EFF-Felten lawsuit challenging DMCA Message-ID: <3C076E33.104767BE@linux-delhi.org> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:20:34 -0500 To: politech at politechbot.com Subject: FC: Federal judge throws out EFF-Felten lawsuit challenging DMCA From: Declan McCullagh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background: "Ed Felten and researchers sue RIAA, DOJ over right to publish" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02110.html Felten legal archive: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=felten Digital Millennium Copyright Act archive: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=dmca --- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:55:25 -0800 From: Will Doherty Subject: EFF: Judge Denies Scientists' Free Speech Rights in Digital Music Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Precedence: list Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: November 28, 2001 Contacts: Robin Gross Intellectual Property Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation robin at eff.org +1 415-637-5310 (cell) Cindy Cohn Legal Director Electronic Frontier Foundation cindy at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office) Judge Denies Scientists' Free Speech Rights Electronic Frontier Foundation Argues Digital Music Case Trenton, NJ - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today represented a team led by Princeton Professor Ed Felten in the first skirmish of a case challenging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Without addressing important First Amendment considerations and after less than 25 minutes of debate, a plainly hostile Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, dismissed the case. EFF intends to appeal. "This judge apparently believes that the fact that hundreds of scientists are currently afraid to publish their work and that scientific conferences are relocating overseas isn't a problem," noted Robin Gross, EFF Intellectual Property Attorney. "This decision is clearly contrary to settled First Amendment law, and we're confident that the 3rd Circuit Court will reverse it on appeal." The court granted two separate motions to dismiss the case, one brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the second by private defendants led by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "Since the government and industry could not even agree on what the DMCA means, it is not surprising that scientists and researchers are deciding not to publish research for fear of prosecution under the DMCA," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Scientists should not have to ask permission from the entertainment industry before publishing their work." Professor Felten and a team of researchers from Princeton University, Rice University, and Xerox discovered that digital watermark technology under development to protect music sold by the recording industry has significant security vulnerabilities. The recording industry, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) Foundation, threatened to file suit in April 2001 if Felten and his team published their research at a conference. They subsequently issued a press release denying having threatened the researchers. On behalf of the research team, EFF then filed a lawsuit seeking a clear determination that publication and presentation of this and other related research is speech protected under the US Constitution both at this conference and at other conferences in the future. Together with USENIX, an association of over 10,000 technologists that publishes such scientific research, Princeton Professor Edward Felten and his research team had asked the court to declare that they have a First Amendment right to discuss and publish their work, even if it may discuss weaknesses in the technological systems used to control digital music. The DMCA, passed in 1998, outlaws providing technology and information that can be used to gain access to a copyrighted work. For all of the motions and declarations in the case: http://www.eff.org/sc/felten/ About EFF: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world: http://www.eff.org/ - end - -- Regards Jaswinder Singh Kohli jskohli at fig.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination. In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs.