From ravis at sarai.net Mon Oct 1 00:32:05 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:32:05 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] The Algebra Of Infinite Justice - Arundhati Roy Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011001003128.00a8d898@mail.sarai.net> The Algebra Of Infinite Justice So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the 'massacre of innocent people' or, if you like, 'a clash of civilisations' and 'collateral damage'. The sophistry and fastidious algebra of Infinite Justice... Free Speech Arundhati Roy In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, an American newscaster said: "Good and Evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know, massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Then he broke down and wept. Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know (because they don't appear much on TV). Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "International Coalition Against Terror", mobilised its army, its airforce, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle. The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place. What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country, reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself, America's streamlined warships, its Cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show up in baggage checks. Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same day, President George W. Bush said: "We know exactly who these people are and which governments are supporting them." It sounds as though the President knows something that the FBI and the American public don't. In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush called the enemies of America "Enemies of Freedom" "Americans are asking why do they hate us?" he said. "They hate our freedomsour freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." People are being asked to make two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support that either. For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for the US government to persuade the American public that America's commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it's an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were true, it's reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's economic and military dominancethe World Trade Center and the Pentagonwere chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite thingsto military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)? It must be hard for ordinary Americans so recently bereaved to look up at the world with their eyes full of tears and encounter what might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired wisdom of knowing that what goes around, eventually comes around. American people ought to know that it is not them, but their government's policies that are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. All of us have been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary office-goers in the days and weeks that followed the attacks. America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an opportunity to try and understand why September 11 happened, Americans use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced. The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no political messages, no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural human instinct for survival or any desire to be remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the world as we know it. In the absence of information, politicians, political commentators, writers (like myself) will invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the attacks took place, can only be a good thing. But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said, must be said quickly. Before America places itself at the helm of the "international coalition against terror", before it invites (and coerces) countries to actively participate in its almost godlike missionOperation Infinite Justiceit would help if some small clarifications are made. For example, Infinite Justice for whom? Is this America's War against Terror in America or against Terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of 5 million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 5,00,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that all things considered, "we think the price is worth it." Madeleine Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die. So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the 'massacre of innocent people' or, if you like, 'a clash of civilisations' and 'collateral damage'. The sophistry and fastidious algebra of Infinite Justice. How many dead Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for every dead man? How many dead mujahideen for each dead investment banker? As we watch mesmerised, Operation Infinite Justice unfolds on TV monitors across the world. A coalition of the world's superpowers is closing in on Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged, war-torn countries in the world, whose ruling Taliban government is sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man being held responsible for the September 11 attacks. The only thing in Afghanistan that could possibly count as collateral value is its citizenry. (Among them, half a million maimed orphans. There are accounts of hobbling stampedes that occur when artificial limbs are airdropped into remote, inaccessible villages.) Afghanistan's economy is in a shambles. In fact, the problem for an invading army is that Afghanistan has no conventional coordinates or signposts to plot on a military mapno big cities, no highways, no industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned into mass graves. The countryside is littered with landmines10 million is the most recent estimate. The American army would first have to clear the mines and build roads in order to take its soldiers in. Fearing an attack from America, one million citizens have fled from their homes and arrived at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. As supplies run outfood and aid agencies have been asked to leavethe BBC reports that one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times has begun to unfold. Witness the Infinite Justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death, while they're waiting to be killed. By contributing to the killing of Afghan civilians, the US government will only end up helping the Taliban cause. In America there has been rough talk of "bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age". Someone please break the news that Afghanistan is already there. And if it's any consolation, America played no small part in helping it on its way. The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run on maps of Afghanistan), but the US government and Afghanistan are old friends. In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jehad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the Communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, the CIA funded and recruited almost 1,00,000 radical mujahideen from 40 Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the mujahideen were unaware that their jehad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam.(The irony is that America was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against itself). By 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation reduced to rubble. Civil war in Afghanistan raged on. The jehad spread to Chechnya, Kosovo and eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and more money was needed. The mujahideen ordered farmers to plant opium as 'revolutionary tax'. The ISI set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of heroin in the world, and the single biggest source on American streets. The annual profits, said to be between 100 and 200 billion dollars, were ploughed back into training and arming militants. In 1995, the Talibanthen a marginal sect of dangerous, hardline fundamentalistsfought its way to power in Afghanistan. It was funded by the ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many political parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror. Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, enforced Sharia laws in which women deemed to be 'immoral' are stoned to death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. Given the Taliban government's human rights track record, it seems unlikely that it will in any way be intimidated or swerved from its purpose by the prospect of war, or the threat to the lives of its civilians. After all that has happened, can there be anything more ironic than Russia and America joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The question is, can you destroy destruction? Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead. The desolate landscape of Afghanistan was the burial ground of Soviet Communism and the springboard of a unipolar world dominated by America. It made the space for neo-capitalism and corporate globalisation, again dominated by America. And now Afghanistan is poised to be the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won this war for America. And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts grew from zero to one and a half million. There are three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalisation's Structural Adjustment programmes and drug lords are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrassas, sown like dragon's teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, who the Pakistan government has supported, funded and propped up for years, has material and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties. Now the US government is asking (asking?) Pakistan to garrot the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years. President Musharraf, having pledged his support to the US, could well find he has something resembling civil war on his hands. India, thanks in part to its geography, and in part to the vision of its former leaders, has so far been fortunate enough to be left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it's more than likely that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than Pakistan. Having had this ringside view of Pakistan's sordid fate, it isn't just odd, it's unthinkable that India should want to do this. Any Third World country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower like America in (whether it says it's staying or just passing through) would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen. In the media blitz that followed the September 11 events, no mainstream TV station thought it fit to tell the story of America's involvement with Afghanistan. So, to those unfamiliar with the story, the coverage of the attacks could have been moving, disturbing and perhaps to cynics, self-indulgent. However, to those of us who are familiar with Afghanistan's recent history, American television coverage and the rhetoric of the "International Coalition Against Terror" is just plain insulting. America's 'free press' like its 'free market' has a lot to account for. Operation Infinite Justice is ostensibly being fought to uphold the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it completely. It will spawn more anger and more terror across the world. For ordinary people in America, it will mean lives lived in a climate of sickening uncertainty: will my child be safe in school? Will there be nerve gas in the subway? A bomb in the cinema hall? Will my love come home tonight? Already CNN is warning people against the possibility of biological warfaresmall pox, bubonic plague, anthraxbeing waged by innocuous crop duster aircraft. Being picked off a few at a time may end up being worse than being annihilated all at once by a nuclear bomb. The US government, and no doubt governments all over the world, will use the climate of war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, deny free speech, lay off workers, harass ethnic and religious minorities, cut back on public spending and divert huge amounts of money to the defence industry. To what purpose? President George Bush can no more "rid the world of evil-doers" than he can stock it with saints. It's absurd for the US government to even toy with the notion that it can stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression. Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It's transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their 'factories' from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multinationals. Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be contained, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other nations, with other human beings, who, even if they are not on TV, have loves and griefs and stories and songs and sorrows and, for heaven's sake, rights. Instead, when Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, was asked what he would call a victory in America's New War, he said that if he could convince the world that Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life, he would consider it a victory. The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Osama bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America's old wars. The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when Israelbacked by the USinvaded Lebanon in 1982, the 2,00,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators and genocidists who the American government supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a comprehensive list. For a country involved in so much warfare and conflict, the American people have been extremely fortunate. The strikes on September 11 were only the second on American soil in over a century. The first was Pearl Harbour. The reprisal for this took a long route, but ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This time the world waits with bated breath for the horrors to come. Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But, in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jehadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced operations. Osama bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight, he has been promoted from Suspect, to Prime Suspect, and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to being "wanted dead or alive". From all accounts, it will be impossible to produce evidence (of the sort that would stand scrutiny in a court of law) to link Osama bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. So far, it appears that the most incriminating piece of evidence against him is the fact that he has not condemned them. From what is known about the location and the living conditions from which Osama bin Laden operates, it's entirely possible that he did not personally plan and carry out the attacksthat he is the inspirational figure, 'the CEO of the Holding Company'. The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Osama bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: Produce the evidence, we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is "non-negotiable". (While talks are on for the extradition of CEOscan India put in a side-request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the USA? He was Chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?) But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American President's dark doppelganger. The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America's foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full spectrum dominance", its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think. Now that the family secret has been spilled, the twins are blurring into one another and gradually becoming interchangeable. Their guns, bombs, money and drugs have been going around in the loop for a while. (The Stinger missiles that will greet US helicopters were supplied by the CIA. The heroin used by America's drug-addicts comes from Afghanistan. The Bush administration recently gave Afghanistan a $43 million subsidy for a "war on drugs"...) Now they've even begun to borrow each other's rhetoric. Each refers to the other as 'the head of the snake'. Both invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of Good and Evil as their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political crimes. Both are dangerously armedone with the nuclear arsenal of the obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power of the utterly hopeless. The fireball and the ice pick. The bludgeon and the axe. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an acceptable alternative to the other. President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world"If you're not with us, you're against us"is a piece of presumptuous arrogance. It's not a choice that people want to, need to, or should have to make. From menso at r4k.net Mon Oct 1 07:11:18 2001 From: menso at r4k.net (Menso Heus) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:41:18 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] Amsterdam: anti-war demonstration Message-ID: <20011001034117.M43547@r4k.net> Today I went to an Anti-war demonstration in Amsterdam. I have taken pictures and put them online at: http://www.r4k.net/~menso/anti-war/ Enjoy, Menso -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip of sticky tape across his mouth. -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery --------------------------------------------------------------------- From reyhanchaudhuri at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 13:00:18 2001 From: reyhanchaudhuri at hotmail.com (Dr. Reyhan Chaudhuri) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:30:18 +0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Musings on Aftrmath of Black Tuesday Message-ID: Musings on the Aftermath of Black Tuesday What I�m writing about may not be as crucial for the big picture or in terms of the future .As political policy/war enactment/Alliance pacts�may count more in long term critical measures. However smaller things get more important to ordinary people as they more immediately affect them by becoming a personal encounter in daily life. This Racial �Profiling and Hate Violence is disheartening. Although it may not immediately affect us or those sitting in India(unless there are NRI�s from the family/circle/neigbourhood) it does make one quite disaffected with the human race. As you know communal riots/caste riots are quite rampant and spasmodic in the Indian subcontinent. One always gets to hear explanations that it�s the lower classes who indulge in them due to economics and educational levels.Or rather the lack of it.The ancient civilization is very much intact and the common civilities inherent It is just that they get submerged due to no reading & writing/no food stocks in the kitchen and no stable roof(read housing) over the head.To add to this is the horrific weather most of the year�which drains your mind and body for the most trivial tasks. However here we have America,(which most people would agree):Affluent atleast in the terms of basic needs of living and for minimum quality of life.A n absence of illiterates ,housing with uninterrupted supply of electricity ,flushed toilets, drinking water& constant running water from the taps.Entertaintment gadgets ubiquitous(eg:T.V, Music Boxes..) ,lots of airconditioned cars,heated or cooled shopping malls�.Generally life pretty good; Yet there were people killed &assaulted ,also plenty of other varieties of abuse. And if there was no curbing or cracking down it would have continued unabated�� So does that mean unlike most primates(who are actually very moral- code bound and gentle, as most animal behavioural scientists tell us) Man contains very primitive brutal instincts.All that talk of love& peace,the potential of goodness is just a thin veneer of wispy varnish.The deep genuine emotions are actually really negative. It actually has nothing to do with under- development or backward Asians or Africans��. Some serious investigation ought to be done on this malignant matter. Yours Sincerrely, R.Chaudhuri. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From ravis at sarai.net Mon Oct 1 16:42:38 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:42:38 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] German Surveillance moves (new york times) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011001164058.00add028@pop3.norton.antivirus> October 1, 2001 Shocked Germany Weakens Cherished Protections By STEVEN ERLANGER BERLIN, Sept. 30 — Last week, Berlin's prestigious Humboldt University reluctantly confirmed that it had given information on 23 Arab students to the German government. While the university hastened to say that it had told the students of the questions asked about them, the disclosure of what would have been private information only a few weeks ago represents an important change here. Personal data is particularly well protected in Germany after the experience of Nazism and the East German secret police. But these safeguards are now being loosened as Germany becomes a locus of the investigations into the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which were carried out in part by Arab students who had lived quietly on German soil. The secrecy of telephone, banking, employment and university records is being newly examined and the draft of a more liberal immigration law has been scrapped. The government has also moved to centralize oversight of intelligence agencies that had been largely run by the states and to improve cooperation with the local police. Germany, shocked and embarrassed by its use as a haven for Islamic terrorists, has moved quickly to increase its surveillance of suspected groups, even at the price of some of the privacy protections the country has held so dear. There are serious discussions about tightening laws that regulate freedom of movement, requiring fingerprints in identity cards and passports and removing some of the protection religious groups have had. Already Parliament has approved legislation that allows German authorities to prosecute people charged with terrorism in other countries, tightens airport security and, most important, removes a constitutional provision forbidding the government from banning any group, even one advocating terrorism, that describes itself as religious or faith-based. At Humboldt and other universities, the security services and the police are seeking information for a new wave of what is known here as "profiling" — looking for other potential terrorists by examining records for racial and national origin, travel movements and financial transactions. That effort will increase on Monday, with a police operation nationwide aimed at cracking down on suspected criminals and terrorists, including searches without warrants of homes and apartments. In an interview published today, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said, "I would have nothing against the idea of introducing regular questioning" of foreigners seeking to become naturalized German citizens by the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, a rough equivalent of the F.B.I. Senior German intelligence officials say they have no real idea how many terrorist sleeper cells could be planted on German soil, like the Arab men in Hamburg who used the efficiency, easy travel, good communications and multiethnic character of a large German city to plan their attacks. But German laws that protect the individual from the state are another important factor, the officials say. For example, a senior German intelligence officer pointed out, the police here cannot, as in the United States, detain a material witness to even a terrorism inquiry without firm evidence connecting that person to a crime. The new actions and proposals have prompted concern among civil liberties groups and important members of the Green Party, which is in the governing coalition. Cem Ozdemir, an ethnic Turk who is the Green's parliamentary spokesman on domestic affairs, said any changes in privacy laws must be examined carefully first to see if they will be effective in fighting terrorism. Mr. Schröder was even forced this weekend to deny talk that the coalition itself could collapse over the strains produced by the Sept. 11 attacks, and that the Greens might be replaced by the always-flexible Free Democratic Party. The disagreements are so strong about a new immigration law, for instance, that senior government officials say they may not be able to come up with a satisfactory compromise before federal elections next year. There is a new mood, however, reflected in a vote last week in the city-state of Hamburg to get tough on crime. A local judge, Ronald Schill, won more than 19 percent of the vote with a new party committed to cracking down hard on criminals, foreigners and illegal immigrants. Mr. Schill's performance was aided by the disclosures that Hamburg had harbored at least five of the men accused of taking part in or plotting the terror attacks. The government has already introduced $1.4 billion in new taxes on cigarettes and insurance policies to pay for increased security screening of airport employees and will propose tougher sentences for serious cases of tax evasion if they are connected to the financing of terrorist activities. Interior Minister Otto Schily, who once was the defense lawyer for members of the Red Army Faction terrorist group, said he was preparing a new package of security measures, including a formal check with domestic intelligence agencies before granting residence visas. Mr. Schily would also like to limit the age at which minors can join their parents in Germany to 12. Fighting terrorism requires "the extremely serious, determined application of aggressive measures," Mr. Schily said. "Data protection is fine, but it must not handicap the prevention of crime or of terrorism." Mr. Schily is also proposing European-wide changes, including centralized registration centers in European Union countries, greater standardization and more access to visa data and legal clarification in issues surrounding profiling. Profiling was used widely in Germany in the 1970's against the domestic terrorists Mr. Schily sometimes defended. The Red Army Faction, sometimes known as the Baader-Meinhof group, kidnapped and murdered bankers and industrialists. Mr. Schröder also supports the urgent loosening of Germany's banking laws in order to disrupt the financing of terrorism. "I understand that very many people see bank secrecy as a sort of Magna Carta of internal security, but that is not the case," he said. Ernst Welteke, who heads the Bundesbank, said that he approved. "I find it very difficult to understand when investigations of tax evasion, drug trafficking or terrorism run up against a brick wall with the words `bank secrecy begins here' written on it," he said. Germany has a federal commissioner for data protection, whose agency monitors the government. So far, says Peter Büttgen, the spokesman, Germans should not be unduly concerned. "We're remaining watchful that some of the strident words used in the aftermath of the attacks are not followed by deeds," he said. "We're in a good position by international comparison," he added, noting that much of the European Union's guidelines on data protection are based on Germany's laws. From mdaniels at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 1 17:20:23 2001 From: mdaniels at rediffmail.com (Matthew Daniels) Date: 1 Oct 2001 11:50:23 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: the south asian way? Message-ID: <20011001115023.15404.qmail@mailweb16.rediffmail.com> Dear Suchi, I realize this will open me up to all sorts of criticism, but: does this not ring true? Hindu, Muslim and Indian friends each complain to me that their life is made difficult by members of these other groups. I tell them, it's not because you're different that they treat you this way; it's because you're all Indian. Matt Daniels Hyderabad > From: "Suchita Vemuri" > To: > Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:49:26 +0530 > Subject: [Reader-list] the south asian way? > > comment from sept 21 new york times... > > "Failing to create strong governments at home, India > and Pakistan have > resorted to searching for security by stoking ethnic > discord across each > other's borders. That is the South Asian way: If you > can't be strong at > home, at least make trouble for your neighbors. > Pakistan has aided the = > Sikh > and Muslim rebellions in India. India helped the > bengalis turn East = > Pakistan > into Bangladesh..." > > anyone have any comments? -- suchita=20 From inke at snafu.de Mon Oct 1 23:25:03 2001 From: inke at snafu.de (Inke Arns) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:55:03 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] textz.com newsletter october 2001 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20011001195503.00ae68e0@pop.snafu.de> [strongly recommended ... greetings, inke] From: "textz.com" Subject: [rohrpost] textz.com newsletter october 2001 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:00:10 +0200 ___________________________________________ textz.com newsletter october 2001 ___________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 of our september 11 textz ---------------------------------------------------------------- hakim bey: millennium http://textz.com/index.php3?text=bey+millennium hermann l. gremliza: bedeutende ernte http://textz.com/index.php3?text=gremliza+ernte robert kurz: totalitäre ökonomie und paranoia des terrors http://textz.com/index.php3?text=kurz+paranoia brian massumi: everywhere you want to be http://textz.com/index.php3?text=massumi+everywhere yann moulier boutang: apocalypse gênes http://textz.com/index.php3?text=boutang+apocalypse gianfranco sanguinetti: remedy for everything http://textz.com/index.php3?text=sanguinetti+french georg seeßlen: die blendung http://textz.com/index.php3?text=seesslen+blendung klaus theweleit: twin towers http://textz.com/index.php3?text=theweleit+towers leo trotzki: über den terror http://textz.com/index.php3?text=trotzki+terror raoul vaneigem: terrorism or revolution http://textz.com/index.php3?text=vaneigem+terrorism ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 of our most popular textz ---------------------------------------------------------------- douglas adams: the hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy trilogy http://textz.com/index.php3?text=adams+guide kathy acker: the language of the body http://textz.com/index.php3?text=acker+language nanni balestrini: gli invisibili http://textz.com/index.php3?text=balestrini+invisibili a.s.ambulanzen: feminists like us http://textz.com/index.php3?text=ambulanzen+feminists charles baudelaire: les fleurs du mal http://textz.com/index.php3?text=baudelaire+fleurs george orwell: 1984 http://textz.com/index.php3?text=orwell+1984 oscar wilde: the picture of dorian gray http://textz.com/index.php3?text=wilde+picture central intelligence agency: psychological operations ... http://textz.com/index.php3?text=agency+operations william s. burroughs: the electronic revolution http://textz.com/index.php3?text=burroughs+revolution adilkno: cracking the movement http://textz.com/index.php3?text=adilkno+movement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 of our most recommended textz ---------------------------------------------------------------- antonin artaud: le pèse-nerfs http://textz.com/index.php3?text=artaud+pese-nerfs mike davis: beyond blade runner http://textz.com/index.php3?text=davis+beyond guy debord: la societé du spectacle http://textz.com/index.php3?text=debord+societe gilles deleuze: postscript on the societies of control http://textz.com/index.php3?text=deleuze+postscript thomas frank: the conquest of cool http://textz.com/index.php3?text=frank+cool matthew fuller: it looks like you're writing a letter ... http://textz.com/index.php3?text=fuller+letter jean-luc godard: allemagne neuf zéro http://textz.com/index.php3?text=godard+allemagne michael hardt / antonio negri: empire http://textz.com/index.php3?text=hardt+empire courtney love: music and piracy http://textz.com/index.php3?text=love+music daniel r. white: augustine of epcot - the city of disney http://textz.com/index.php3?text=white+augustine ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 of our most recent textz ---------------------------------------------------------------- peter greenaway: a walk through h http://textz.com/index.php3?text=greenaway+walk theodor w. adorno / max horkheimer: tierpsychologie http://textz.com/index.php3?text=adorno+tierpsychologie wilhelm reich: die aufhebung der familie http://textz.com/index.php3?text=reich+familie ulrike meinhof: warenhausbrandstiftung http://textz.com/index.php3?text=meinhof+warenhausbrandstiftung mckenzie wark: hacker manifesto 2.0 http://textz.com/index.php3?text=wark+hacker maurice blanchot: death sentence http://textz.com/index.php3?text=blanchot+death michel serres: scientific ethics http://textz.com/index.php3?text=serres+ethics maurizio lazzarato: new forms of production and circulation ... http://textz.com/index.php3?text=lazzarato+forms vilém flusser: the bag http://textz.com/index.php3?text=flusser+bag hans-christian dany: die acht schönsten fahrten durch rio http://textz.com/index.php3?text=dany+rio ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 of our largest textz ---------------------------------------------------------------- leo tolstoy: war and peace http://textz.com/index.php3?text=tolstoy+war james joyce: ulysses http://textz.com/index.php3?text=joyce+ulysses charles baudelaire: curiosités esthétiques http://textz.com/index.php3?text=baudelaire+curiosites kevin kelly: out of control http://textz.com/index.php3?text=kelly+control herman melville: moby dick http://textz.com/index.php3?text=melville+moby georg wilhelm friedrich hegel: phänomenologie des geistes http://textz.com/index.php3?text=hegel+phaenomenologie fyodor dostoyevsky: crime and punishment http://textz.com/index.php3?text=dostoyevsky+crime franz kafka: tagebücher http://textz.com/index.php3?text=kafka+tagebuecher neal stephenson: snow crash http://textz.com/index.php3?text=stephenson+snow marcel proust: le temps retrouvé http://textz.com/index.php3?text=proust+temps ___________________________________________ http://textz.com - we are the & in copy & paste ___________________________________________ - http://www.v2.nl/~arns/ From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Tue Oct 2 00:26:55 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Reader-list] SAS soldier talks about training Afghan soldiers Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Menso Heus wrote: > > > > > SAS soldier speaks up on training the Afghans: apparently these guys > > > > ... > > > > > The lucky ones died instantly. The unlucky ones were chopped to > > > > > pieces in the aftermath. In the Hindu Kush, don't expect to > > > > > appeal to the Geneva convention." ... Menso, > The way you compare doesn't seem to be correct to me. I doubt if you > have read the entire article, most of the people who did and whom I've > discussed this with took the line in the exact same way. It's true I didn't read the full article - my apologies. My comments were based on what you quoted. > you know it I'm suddenly pro-war, anti-humanrights and many more things > which I am not. Well, now I know you're not any of that, so let's see if we can understand each other. (BTW, thanks for the report on the Amsterdam demo.) OK, the full article to me seems anti-war (showing how ineffective a war against Afghanistan would be), and the question of the Geneva conventions is a secondary point, not the main point of your original post. Am I following you better this time? Given that we got into a "secondary" point, it seems to me it is still worth trying to understand our different arguments. My guess is that there are two main viewpoints here: (1) A war, at least in this case (USA vs Afghan), is absurd. So, to put pressure on the USA to follow the Geneva conventions and other international human rights law is a diversion from trying to stop the war totally. (2) For tactical reasons, e.g. due to historical belief in the need for war and to the propaganda barrage in the USA, independently of trying to put pressure on the USA not to start a war, it is an efficient action to insist that the USA go through the Security Council, follow the Geneva conventions, etc. Hence, it is not a good idea to suggest that the Geneva conventions can be ignored. I think you were trying to argue for (1). Is this right? My point is (2). I certainly agree that we should do all we can to stop the war starting at all, but I also feel that (2) is important. No matter how big the anti-war movement gets, and how quickly it becomes big, chances are we might still get a real hot war. In which case we don't want the USA saying that "collateral damage" is OK. Working in the long term, even conservative organisations like Amnesty International can use stuff like the Geneva conventions and other human rights law to publicly state that NATO has carried out war crimes: http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/EUR700252000?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\YUGOSLAVIA http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/EUR700302000?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\YUGOSLAVIA Some of us do not need to read an Amnesty report in order to be convinced of NATO war crimes. But as Michael Albert says, we need to continue building the movement to people around us, in which case, step-by-step arguments and evidence, from sources which a wide spectrum of people are willing to accept as reliable, have a role to play. http://www.lbbs.org/whatsgoing.htm > But what to do? > Handing out leaflets, arguing against war with a co-worker, urging > a relative to think twice about our own role in international > terrorism, going to a demonstration, sitting in, doing civil > disobedience, or even building movements to do all these things > collectively, may all seem momentarily insignificant in light of the > calamity that could befall Afghanistan and the world in coming > weeks. But the fact is, these are the acts that can accumulate into a > firestorm of informed protest that curtails Afghani starvation, that > derails the war on terrorism, and that even raises the cost of > profiteering so high that the institutions breeding such behavior > start to buckle. > War, whether it is waged with kamikaze planes, fleets of missiles and > bombers, or starvation food policies, is a horrendous crime against > humanity. It invariably rends apart life and justice and civility. It > benefits no one other than the Masters of War. War in all its forms is > an orchestrated atrocity that mandates our militant, unswerving > opposition. But we should also remember that even after we curb Bush?s > rush to violence and forestall his starvation scenarios, the on-going > day-to day grievances and injustices of our world will still need > attention. Ultimately, our opposition must transcend current > events. Alienation, poverty, disease, starvation, death squads, and > terror-these and other atrocities stem from basic institutions. The > institutions must become our lasting target. Humbly hoping to be acquitted of pocockism, ;-) Boud From geert at desk.nl Tue Oct 2 02:36:25 2001 From: geert at desk.nl (geert) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 07:06:25 +1000 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: the south asian way? References: <20011001115023.15404.qmail@mailweb16.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <00f901c14ac2$e9034120$c900000a@bigpond.com> Matt wrote: > I realize this will open me up to all sorts of criticism, but: does this not ring true? Hindu, Muslim and Indian friends each complain to me that their life is made difficult by members of these other groups. I tell them, it's not because you're different that they treat you this way; it's because you're all Indian. So what the problem then of being Indian? From PATRICK.LAMENTINI at diplomatie.gouv.fr Tue Oct 2 15:01:12 2001 From: PATRICK.LAMENTINI at diplomatie.gouv.fr (PATRICK.LAMENTINI at diplomatie.gouv.fr) Date: 02 Oct 2001 11:31:12 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] ms. arundhati roy's article Message-ID: <"1002092743-ms. arundhati roy's article"@MHS> I have read with gret interest Ms Arundhati Roy 'article,The Algebra Of Infinite Justice, and would like to circulate it unfortunately the copy which has reached me is distorted and difficult to read could you tell me if this has been published in a paper which could be reached electronically, or send me a fresh copy please Many anticipated thanks Patrick lamentini ========================= Patrick Lamentini Charge de mission Méditerrane-Moyen orient Centre d'analyse et de prevision Ministere des affaires étrangeres bureau 706 37 quai d'Orsay 75007 Paris tel : 33/1/43174124 fax: 33/1/43175820 patrick.lamentini at diplomatie.gouv.fr From naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Tue Oct 2 15:11:36 2001 From: naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (NAGRAJ ADVE) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:11:36 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] a leaflet from Workers' Solidarity Message-ID: <20011002093218.D33CC42166@nda.vsnl.net.in> Jeebesh, I'm posting a leaflet that Workers' Solidarity came out with a few days ago. It focuses on US aggression over the years, seeking to question the rhetoric that Bush has been spouting these past days. I'm sending it both as an attachment and as text pasted below. Please circulate it as widely as possible, and feel free to use it/reproduce it/ use any of the info it contains it in case anyone finds it useful. Nagraj Leaflet follows. I'm also sending it as an attachment. STOP THE WAR "War cannot be humanized; it can only be abolished." - Albert Einstein, 1932 We condemn the attack that took place on 11 September 2001 in the US. Nothing justifies the killing of ordinary people in such attacks. But if anybody is responsible for the deaths of over 6,000 people, it is the successive US governments and their foreign policies that have killed millions over the years and have now made the American public so vulnerable to violence within the US itself. We cannot arrive at a sane, balanced response to these attacks without understanding the context in which they have taken place. There exists a widespread feeling of resentment and hatred of the way in which the US - its ideology, policies, and interventions - has over the years harmed people of the Third World, riding roughshod over any opposition. This domination increased in the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the imposition of new economic policies the world over. We are publishing a list of US aggression and intervention in other countries since 1945. It clearly shows that the US has been the biggest threat to democracy in the world. And now, Afghanistan will be added to this list. The US is using the attack of 11 September to install a pliant regime to further its economic and strategic interests in the region. Is It A War "For Democracy"? Bush has said the US response will be a "war for democracy", that it is a "civilizational conflict", in which we can be either on the side of the US or with terrorism. Given the history of US aggression, and the consequences of war for ordinary people, the only way we can strengthen democracy and support humanity today is by opposing the impending war. In 1962, the US Secretary of State (foreign minister) submitted to a senate committee a list of 103 interventions the US had carried out in other countries between 1798 and 1945. The US has supported fascist regimes: in the 1930s, it supplied oil to fascist Italy even after Mussolini invaded Ethiopia; it halted aid to the Republican government in Spain in its civil war against General Franco. It has backed military coups, toppling elected governments, such as in Syria in 1949; Iran in 1953; Chile in 1973, when Salvador Allende was killed. It has unsuccessfully tried to kill other heads of state, notably Fidel Castro repeatedly, the Iraqi leader Abdul Qassim in the 1960s, and others. It has supported repressive leaders, who have killed innumerable people, political opponents, and leftists, such as white racist governments in South Africa, Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Manuel Noriega in Panama, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, Idi Amin of Uganda, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Duarte in El Salvador in the 1980s. The crimes the US either carried out or supported are horrendous and endless. In 1965, the Indonesian regime killed over one million members and sympathizers of the Communist Party: in many cases, US military advisers based in Indonesia supplied the names of activists and sympathizers. It also supplied names to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, which killed numerous communists in 1963. The biggest supporter, funder and supplier of arms to Israel for over 35 years, the US approved the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in which 17,500 people were killed. The endless killings in Palestine go on. It also armed, funded and supported Sadaam Hussein during the 1980s in the war against Iran, even while Sadaam was killing Kurds. Is It A War "Against Fundamentalism"? The US has supported the most fundamentalist elements when it suited their interests, and sidelined or targeted them when those interests dictated otherwise. The US government had itself armed and funded Osama Bin Laden, during the 'cold war' against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It provided $6 billion to other fundamentalist elements in Afghanistan. Direct military aid was stepped by Reagan in the 1980s with the objective of forcing the Soviet troops to withdraw. Today, when those same fundamentalist forces are running the country but have slipped out of US control, the US wants to replace this regime by another regime who will be more subservient. Already over one million ordinary Afghans have died in the big power games in their impoverished country; Further lakhs of Afghans will die or have to flee their homes in the war that will follow. The Profits of War Economic interests have always been the driving force of US foreign policy: be it the invasions of Panama, and neighbouring countries to control the Panama Canal Zone in the 1900s; or the two world wars. In Guatemala, the US dethroned the government after it nationalized estates of the American United Fruit Co. In Vietnam, besides containing communism, the US basically wanted control over South-east Asia's rubber, tin and jute reserves. Its Middle East policy of propping up client states (who Nixon called America's "local police") is driven by the desire to control the huge oil reserves of the region: its support for Saudi Arabia; deposing the government in Iran in 1953, following oil nationalization, and its support for Sadaam Hussein through Iraq's war with Iran. In the current conflict, many calculations are at play. The US establishment is using this to topple unfriendly regimes such as Sadaam Hussein's. It seeks control of Afghanistan, which is strategically placed close to China, Russia and the subcontinent. Oil is certainly again a major reason, access to huge Central Asian oil and gas reserves just north of Afghanistan. The US seeks to install a puppet regime in place of the Taliban that will provide a favourable climate for US corporations. In particular, one US company Unocal has for long been vying for a multibillion dollar contract to build a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan. Control over oil is not just economically advantageous; control over energy resources gives the country a tremendous edge in world politics. The events of 11 September are the outcome of the brazenly aggressive US foreign policy over the years. The roots of the impending war lies in the economic control by large corporations and strategic domination by the United States. We express our solidarity with the people of Afghanistan who, already suffering under the oppressive regime of the fundamentalist Taliban, are facing the horror of an imminent war. Let us join our voices to oppose this war that threatens democracy and people's rights the world over. TABLE: A Select History of US Interventions, 1945 to the Present In strict confidence, I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one. - Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to a friend, just before the US invasion of Cuba, 1898 Year Country Details 1946 Iran Nuclear threats against Soviet troops to leave Iranian Azerbaijan. 1950 Puerto Rico Crushes an independent rebellion. 1951-3 Korea Sends troops against North Korea; threatens to use nuclear bombs; 2 million killed. 1953 Iran CIA topples Mossadeq government, which nationalized British oil co. 1958 Lebanon Troops intervene to "preserve stability" against rebels. 1958 China Threatened with nuclear arms not to move into Taiwan. 1961 Cuba The CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion to topple Fidel Castro. 1960-75 Vietnam 1-2 killed; more bombs were dropped in the region than in Europe during WW2. 1964 Panama Killed several civilians who demanded return of the Panama Canal. 1969-75 Cambodia 2 million die from 'carpet bombing', and from starvation. 1971-3 Laos I million die from 'carpet' bombing. US directs South Vietnamese invasion of Laos. 1976-92 Angola CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels. 1973 Iraq Supports Kurd rebels, but denies them refuge when Iraq reaches an agreement with Iran. 1979-88 Afghanistan Begins covert aid to Mujahideen, providing several billion dollars over the next decade; I million have died, so far. 1980s Nicaragua Despite deemed illegal by Congress, the administration sold arms to Iran and gave that money to the Contras fighting the left-wing Nicaraguan government. US marines plant harbour mines. 1980-8 Iraq-Iran Provided arms in Sadaam's invasion of Iran, and sent in its Navy later. Yet, gets Israel to provide arms to Iran. US secretly gives arms directly to Iran after 1985. Steps up economic ties with Iraq even after Sadaam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. 1981-92 El Salvador US military troops helped the regime kill 75,000 people. 1983 Palestine Silent when Israel kills 1,800 in refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila. 1983 Lebanon Approves Israel's invasion of Lebanon that killed 17,500. 1983 Grenada Bombs Grenada following a revolution. 1986 Libya In response to the killing of two US soldiers in West Berlin, US planes attack the capital Tripoli. The 100 dead were mostly civilians. 1989-90 Panama US sends in troops to oust government, bombs part of Panama city. 1992-4 Yugoslavia Leads NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. 1990- Iraq Targets civilian infrastructure killing 200,000 Iraqis during the Gulf war. Followed by the illegal imposition of no-flight zones in Northern and Southern Iraq; and an economic embargo that includes medicines, etc. By 1995, 1 million had died, including half-a-million children. 1995 Croatia Attacked Serb airfields in Krajina before Croatia attacked. 1998 Afghanistan Attacked population (with cluster bombs and depleted uranium) to destabilize government. 1998 Iraq The US and UK bomb Iraq even though the UN Security Council was to discuss the matter of weapons inspections. 1998 Sudan Accusing it of manufacturing chemical weapons, the US bombed a pharmaceutical factory, destroying half the medicinal production of this poor country. Nearly 10,000 died in this attack. 1999 Yugoslavia Bombed Serbs for three months to get them out of Kosovo. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/mac-binhex40 Size: 63632 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011002/23d082a2/attachment.hqx From naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Tue Oct 2 15:10:57 2001 From: naga at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (NAGRAJ ADVE) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:10:57 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign Message-ID: <20011002093217.A0854420EC@nda.vsnl.net.in> Jeebesh, and others, The anti-war collective, Jang Roko Abhiyan, which comprises student groups, unions, women's groups and various academics and others, will be meeting on Thursday, 4 Oct at 5 p.m. on the Constitution Club lawns (Vithalbhai PAtel House), Rafi MArg. The agenda of the meeting is to openly discuss what we can all do collectively over the next few days and weeks. The attempt is to make the anti-war campaign as wide as possible. The agenda is completely open. Please do attend and pass around the info about the meeting. Nagraj Adve From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Tue Oct 2 17:41:08 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:11:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Reader-list] ms. arundhati roy's article In-Reply-To: <"1002092743-ms. arundhati roy's article"@MHS> Message-ID: On 2 Oct 2001 PATRICK.LAMENTINI at diplomatie.gouv.fr wrote: > I have read with gret interest Ms Arundhati Roy 'article,The Algebra Of > Infinite Justice, and would like to circulate it > > unfortunately the copy which has reached me is distorted and difficult to > read > could you tell me if this has been published in a paper which could be > reached electronically, or send me a fresh copy please Cher Patrick, We appreciate your courage in participating in a non-hierarchical, threaded, archived, discussion list! Que le minist� des affaires �ang�s choissise de d�ndre les droits humains plut�ue de s'y opposer... Here is a copy of Ms Roy's article: http://www.lbbs.org/roycalam.htm But as I'm sure you have very good web access, you really should start thoroughly reading the documents at: http://www.lbbs.org/reactionscalam.htm In France there is hypocritical confusion about Chomsky, so feel free to read all the articles, but excluding the ones by Chomsky - Chomsky is not a god, so ignore Chomsky and you'll still find lots of useful material. Et tu trouveras plein d'infos utiles sur l'asie occidentale (� moyen orient �) ici : http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/meastwat.htm Bonne lecture! Boud From menso at r4k.net Tue Oct 2 18:06:58 2001 From: menso at r4k.net (Menso Heus) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:36:58 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] SAS soldier talks about training Afghan soldiers In-Reply-To: ; from boud_roukema@camk.edu.pl on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20011002143658.C7350@r4k.net> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Menso Heus wrote: > > > > > > SAS soldier speaks up on training the Afghans: apparently these guys > > > > > ... > > > > > > The lucky ones died instantly. The unlucky ones were chopped to > > > > > > pieces in the aftermath. In the Hindu Kush, don't expect to > > > > > > appeal to the Geneva convention." > ... > > Menso, > > > The way you compare doesn't seem to be correct to me. I doubt if you > > have read the entire article, most of the people who did and whom I've > > discussed this with took the line in the exact same way. > > It's true I didn't read the full article - my apologies. My comments > were based on what you quoted. > > > you know it I'm suddenly pro-war, anti-humanrights and many more things > > which I am not. > > Well, now I know you're not any of that, so let's see if we can > understand each other. (BTW, thanks for the report on the Amsterdam > demo.) > > OK, the full article to me seems anti-war (showing how ineffective a > war against Afghanistan would be), and the question of the Geneva > conventions is a secondary point, not the main point of your original > post. Am I following you better this time? > > Given that we got into a "secondary" point, it seems to me it is > still worth trying to understand our different arguments. > > My guess is that there are two main viewpoints here: > > (1) A war, at least in this case (USA vs Afghan), is absurd. So, to > put pressure on the USA to follow the Geneva conventions and other > international human rights law is a diversion from trying to stop the > war totally. > > (2) For tactical reasons, e.g. due to historical belief in the need > for war and to the propaganda barrage in the USA, independently of > trying to put pressure on the USA not to start a war, it is an > efficient action to insist that the USA go through the Security > Council, follow the Geneva conventions, etc. Hence, it is not a good > idea to suggest that the Geneva conventions can be ignored. > > I think you were trying to argue for (1). Is this right? I wans't trying to argue for anything, actually :) Good to see your reaction though, thanks. Menso -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip of sticky tape across his mouth. -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery --------------------------------------------------------------------- From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Tue Oct 2 19:10:01 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:40:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign In-Reply-To: <20011002093217.A0854420EC@nda.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: Dear Nagraj, Mona, Jeebesh, > The anti-war collective, Jang Roko Abhiyan, which > comprises student groups, unions, women's groups > and various academics and others, will be meeting > on Thursday, 4 Oct at 5 p.m. on the Constitution > Club lawns (Vithalbhai PAtel House), Rafi > MArg. The agenda of the meeting is to openly > discuss what we can all do collectively over the > next few days and weeks. The attempt is to make > the anti-war campaign as wide as possible. The > agenda is completely open. Please do attend and > pass around the info about the meeting. > > Nagraj Adve Could I urge you to dedicate a part of this meeting to an Indymedia discussion? While media activities should not replace other activities, they can clearly amplify the effects. It would also be very useful for the Western (in particular USA) public to be able to see Indians reporting news and debating, disagreeing, compromising, constructing, listening to each other, etc. If you have never been in the West you may find it hard to believe how ignorant many of us (Westerners) are. I think that Arundhati Roy has hit on a crucial element of US public opinion: > an American newscaster said: "Good and evil rarely > manifest themselves as clearly as they did last > Tuesday. People who we don't know massacred people > who we do." Indymedia seems to me an important element for Indian activists to become "people we know" by US activists - and others. It is also clear that US activists could learn a lot from Indian experiments in activism and democracy. As you know, india.indymedia.org already exists technically, but it will only be made "official" if there are local people who are committed to providing content and participating in running the site in the long term. You clearly have a diverse mix of local groups in Delhi. If you printed off the documents at - http://newimc.indymedia.org - http://process.indymedia.org/faq.php3 and a few of the ones at - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-india/2001-August/thread.html - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-india/2001-September/thread.html and circulated these at the meeting, then it would be sufficient to: (1) submit the web-form at http://newimc.indymedia.org (2) email to newimc at lists.indymedia.org a copy of the draft membership criteria - with responses ! - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000155.html (3) email to newimc at lists.indymedia.org whether or not you are happy with the "draft principles of unity" - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000160.html (4) email to newimc at lists.indymedia.org a free-form essay (it doesn't have to be long) about why you want to form the Indymedia site, what your plans, hopes, etc. for it are. It would be a good idea to cross-post each of these to imc-india at lists.indymedia.org. There would then be a one-week delay until the site could be officially accepted. Boud From jotarun at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 2 22:33:13 2001 From: jotarun at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=20and=20Tarun?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:03:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] Reactions to Workers' Solidarity leaflet In-Reply-To: <200110021051.MAA25909@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <20011002170313.95542.qmail@web9107.mail.yahoo.com> Reaction to Workers' Solidarity pamphlet and some general comments I, like most of our comrades on the left side of the political divide, have been critical of Amerika and its imperial antics. The tragedy of September 11 has not yet shaken my belief in the inequities of Pax-American. I am not going to thus celebrate the present American response. But I am not also going to indulge in spurious argumentation like that offered by Workers' Solidarity. To quote "We condemn the attack that took place on 11 September 2001 in the US Nothing justifies the killing of ordinary people in such attacks. But if anybody is responsible for the deaths of over 6,000(bigger number) people, it is the successive US governments and their foreign policies that have killed millions over the years and have now made the American public so vulnerable to violence within the US itself..." This is explanation masquerading as justification. The initial condemnation which the pamphlet offers is reduced to just words, because this 'USpolicyresponsibleetc' is just legitimising the attacks. That is to say, that those 'unlucky' victims of Sep 11 deserved what they got because of what their govt. did to people around the world over the years. I can think of similar arguments for justifying Hiroshima bombing. For example: " We condemn the attack that took place on 11 September 2001(REPLACE BY HIROSHIMA BOMBING DATE) in the US (JAPAN). Nothing justifies the killing of ordinary people in such attacks. But if anybody is responsible for the deaths of over 6,000(BIGGER NUMBER) people, it is the successive US (JAPANESE) governments and their foreign policies that have killed millions over the years and have now made the American(JAPANESE) public so vulnerable to violence within the US itself. We cannot arrive at a sane, balanced response to these attacks without understanding the context in which they have taken place. There exists a widespread feeling of resentment and hatred of the way in which the US(JAPANESE)- its ideology, policies, and interventions - has over the years harmed people of the Third World(ASIA), riding roughshod over any opposition. AND THEN A LIST OF JAPANESE ATROCITIES" As progressives we have to arrive at a 'sane' response which takes into account both the perpetrators of this tragedy and the context of Pax Americana. Just the plain old anti-Americanism wont do. I can understand, the OLD LEFT longings of a red & white world, but I don't think such a world exists. It did not exist even when the other empire, namely Soviet Union was in existence. And comrades when have we progressives shirked away from confronting a complex world? So apart from America we have to also face up to the ideologies of hate being manufactured in our poor third world backyards, Hindutva, Taliban etc. Only because, they are handcrafted in our world doesn't make them familiar and friendly. It is we who have to create distinctions between variants of Islam, not USofA. It is we who have to defend the victims of obscurantism. The quick response which USofA's actions evokes in us has to also happen when the third-worldist tyrants oppress their own people. And we have to have, also an internationalist perspective on interventions against tyranny. As leftists we should not have a history of double standards. Our historians condemn Britain and allies for not intervening in favour of Spanish Republicans and appeasing Hitler, but would we now appeal to USofA and its allies to intervene in Afghanistan? I will obviously not want an American led intervention, but internationalist intervention -should we condemn it? Let us not just express empty solidarity like Worker's Solidarity... " We express our solidarity with the people of Afghanistan who, already suffering under the oppressive regime of the fundamentalist Taliban, are facing the horror of an imminent war. Let us join our voices to oppose this war that threatens democracy and people's rights the world over. " We should use this opportunity to go beyond our own left-wing clichés, and fashion a new language of hope rooted in a politics of honest consistency. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get your free Yahoo! address at Yahoo! Mail: UK or IE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011002/1a6f0bf2/attachment.html From arunmehtain at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 12:37:53 2001 From: arunmehtain at yahoo.com (A Mehta) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:37:53 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Global Learn Day 5 on Sunday Oct 7 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011003121817.02048478@pop.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I'm a keynote speaker for this event, see www.bfranklin.edu -- we also hope to show it live on Gyan Darshan, the educational TV channel of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, 1-2pm Indian Time, 7:30AM GMT. I would appreciate your comments on my short speech, which is at www.necaindia.com/GLD5.htm , and hope that you can participate in the 24-hour event. Here is what John Hibbs, who organizes this every year, has to say about this: "We think putting on a non stop 24 hour event that features exceptional people undertaking extraordinary activities from 24 time zones is something no one else even attempts, much less will have done for five years in a row. Free to anyone with an Internet connection. Or in some cases a radio. Made possible by volunteers who provide the fuel for a Voyage that begins on the left hand edge of the date line, in Fiji, and ends on its right hand side, somewhere in the Cooks...or is it the Marriana's? We think few would dare to have on the same agenda scientists talking to the audience by ham radio from Antactica; and Africans talking from solar powered telecenters in Nigeria. We think it's pretty unusual that while in the South Pacific our friends there will carry our broadcasts by satellite to people who are scattered over an expanse as wide as all Russia. We think the subject of Conflict Resolution is extremely important. Which is why we had long ago scheduled a stop in Burundi to visit with those close to the agonies of Rwanda. We think our stops in the UAE, Oman, Cairo and Karachi will give insights valuable to those who are far more than an ocean apart. And both our keynotes and our stops in New Delhi, Sao Paolo and Belfast will make clear the role of the radio. We think our stop in Chicago to view recycling of old computers bound for Mexican e-learning centers in Baja will add to the example of some award winning South Americans who took 600 tired machines from America and turned them into 100 plus learning centers in outback Peru. Not to mention their work with Hispanics all over the American mid-West. We think our stop in New Zealand with a young mother who makes her living on the Net and our stop in Australia about "A Development Vehicle in Remote Aboriginal Australia" are just different sides of the same coin. We think that Alfred Bork and Terry Redding are on to something when one writes intensively about very substantial reductions in costs and the other is passionate about the imperatives of lifelong learning. We think Guy Bensusan is blazing a trail where the learners are the ones out front. That more might be accomplished by working with those under twenty than by those over fifty. We think the tools we use to make this event the most interactive conference of all time are not just the finest on the planet; but also the most affordable; and the best integrated. We think our conference is the model of the future, not so much because of it's global reach or innovative technology, but because so much of the content is available in advance and all of it available from the archives. We think that the purpose of any real time meeting is as much to stimulate interest and excitement as it is for dialogue and debate. That while critical thinking comes best from quiet reading and deep reflection, nothing quite concentrates the mind like preparing for an event. And that you don't need to be belly up to the bar to have fun; or meet new friends with something compelling to say. Or learn about an activity worth listening to. We also think that when our very long day is completed, a whole lot of people will better understand the prime message of GLD5 - that education is about convergence - radio, telecenters, e-education, e-training and e-jobs. That there is no single "solution". And, that even with cataclysmic events, changes in long held habits and long held practices is always slow, incremental and fragmentary. Finally this. We hope to make clear our solid understanding of a message sent to us by one of our strongest supporters, Blaine Berger: It reads: "Most people overestimate what can be done in one year; and underestimate what can be done in ten." Global Learn Day5 is halfway to Ten. Is it really possible we will turn our dream to make Global Learn Day as big as Earth Day? That maybe, just maybe, others with deep pockets and great reach will (someday) join us to help prove our vision that Earth Day and Global Learn Day are also different sides of the same (planetary) coin? Please forward this message. That is if you think GLD5 is exceptional. And please forgive duplicates. It is a small world." Arun Arun Mehta, moderator india-gii. To join a list which discusses India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway, mail india-gii-subscribe at cpsr.org http://members.tripod.com/india_gii is our neglected website. To reassure yourself as to the quality of content and volume of mail, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-gii/messages _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From shuddha at sarai.net Wed Oct 3 13:42:07 2001 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:42:07 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] on the word "imperialism" Message-ID: <01100313420700.01523@sweety.sarai.kit> Dear readers, here are few thoughts on the word "imperialism" which has appeared with increasing frequency on the reader-list in the last few days. Apologies for the rambling length of this piece , and its tendency to get astray into the backwaters of our recent past. Shuddha _______________________________________________ In the din of messages about war, there is an increasing tendency to reduce what is going on to an easy classification of the world along "national" lines. This is the playing out of the familiar script of - the - " BigBad US Imperialists and us poor third world victims" Drama. We have seen this play before. I want to make one categorical statement before I go on to write the rest of what I am going to say. No ruling power , existing, in waiting, or potential, in any part of the world is deserving of any sympathy or support, simply on the basis of a dispassionate reading of the history of the twentieth century. The record of the twentieth century is ample illustration of how yesterday's victims, turn into tomorrow's aggressors. All terrorists are state terrorists. They act in the name of existing or desired states. Conversely, I would also aggree that all states are terrorist states. The reference given by Jo and Tarun to the case of Japan is salutary. Imperail japan deployed the slogan of Anti Imperialism with great aplomb when it talked about the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which in operation meant little more than death camps for erstwhile indentured labourers in south east asia. In the nineteen thirties and forties in India, there were many progressive and left wing intellectuals and activists, who were more than sympathetic to the death camps of Japanese anti - imperialism. Some even recruited ex prisoners of war to police the same death camps along the burma-siam railroad. But I dont want to elaborate on their argument, only to state that I completely agree with their call for caution in applauding the slogan of anti-imperialsim when it comes to the USA and conveniently forgetting the big, little and miniscule imperial aspirations of every gang of armed thugs, or pious non-violent satyagrahis, that flies the flag of national liberation. This is not a defence or an apology for any state and its actions. If anyone reads this as an apology for the violence of the Imperialism that some have called American then there is little that I can say, I am only writing this to caution those who are rushing to join the chorus against Imperialism to step back and think about whether they too are being goaded to join armies that they might otherwise be reluctant to be foot soldiers for. If we examine any movements of national liberation in any part of the world at any time in the last three hundred years, we will see how quickly erstwhile victims become oppressors. Even the american war of independence was once the national struggle of an oppressed colony against an imperial power located in london. And the freedom fighters of the Stern Gang in British administered palestine, who then went on to found the militarist state of Israel, were also in their day, saluted by the left as vanguards of the anti-colonialist struggle. It did not take long for the Stern Gang to be denounced as Zionist Imperialists and for the mantle of freedom fighters to fall on the Palestinians, and so on... it is ironical that in the strange twists of contemporary history, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which is a coalition of erstwhile CIA funded mujahedin (identical to the Taliban) and erstwhile Soviet Army supported Khalqis and Parchamis (for those unfamiliar with the intercenine details of Afghan politics, Khalquis and Parchamis were bitter rival factions of the PDPA - the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan - aka the Soviet style apparatchik party of Afghanistan- whose internal squabbles led to the fraternal invitation to the Red Army -to settle what was a 'family quarrel' within the Afghan left) are now being bankrolled by the United States. The US is today arming many of those it spent money and raised Osama bin Laden to dethrone. In itself this is not surprising, it is little known that the Viet-Minh for instance, during the second world war, when it was fighting Japanese (and Vichy French) as opposed to American Imperialism in Vietnam, was once privy to covert support from the OSS (precursor to the CIA). The Vietnam War followed a few decades after. To see "leftists" in the third world denounce the Northern Alliance (which continues to comprise of PDPA elements) because they are US puppets (which they no doubt are) is to also witness an increasing smog of "progressives" caught in the trap of fluctuating 'nationalist" myopias. I am not for a moment suggesting that we try and weigh whether the Taliban or the Northern Alliance are preferable to each other. Or whether Saddam Hussain (who massacred all the leftists of Iraq even as they sang his praises) can be considered as an ally against imperialism.They are all shades of each other, just as, in my opinion the Minisitry of Home Affairs of the Republic of India and the controlling organs of the freedom fighters/terrorists fighting for the self determination of 'x' or 'y' people (Naga, Kashmiri etc.) are shades of each other. Each is fighting for territory it either has or wants to have. The point is not to distinguish between "greater and lesser" evils in terms of who for the moment is tailing behind which power, but to realise that all the armed factions, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, ex PDPA kommissars (the Dostum gang) , ex Mujahedin of the Rabbani or the Hekmatyar factions, the Iran supported Hazara Shia militias, or the geriatric and long forgotten and now resurrected King Zahir Shah are all responsible for the tragedy of Afghanistan. For Afghanistan, also read the Balkans, or Iraq-Iran-Turkey-Kurdistan or Israel-Palestine, or India-Kashmir-Northeast, or China-Tibet, and the picture is more or less the same with greater and lesser degrees of farce and bloodshed. It might be salutary to recall at this time, that even as early as at the time of the first world war, it was possible for many people on the left to declare that there cannot be a question of taking sides, or of choosing "lesser" or "greater" evils, or of trying to see justifications of acts of "violence inspired by feelings of national humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers" . This is what marked the crucial distinction between those on the left who voted for war credits to their respective governments and those who caled for revolutionary defeatism. Let ti be remembered that the Social Democratic Part of Germany, the part of Engles and lassalle, sined support to the war effort because it felt that it could not bear to see the Austor Hungarian Empire weakened by Serbain Terrorists. The Socialists of France, the party of Lafargue, voted for war credits to the French government because it wanted to support the cause of national liberation and democracy inthe blakans and the ottoman empire. In each of the major european powers, socialists murdered fellow working class militiants who refused to sing to the tune of the patriotism that surrounded them. This is what marked the difference between Rosa Luxemburg, for instance, and the Leftists who also assasinated her. Only a tiny minority, took a consistently anti-patriotic position. The same arguments, pro and anti imperialism, prevailed then, as they do now. The same rush to conclusions, the same sigining of orchestrated petitions denouncing this or that variety of Imerialism in the name of this or that struggle for self determination in this or that corner of the world. Capital demands wars, and violence on a global scale, just as much as it desires the peace and quiet of the graveyard. In the confusion of fluttering national flags, flags of faith, and flags of states aborted and still born, let us not lose sight of the cold calcualations of money and profit that are made on all sides in times of war and peace (is there a difference any longer anyway). Let us not forget that those who declare "Jehad" also run construction companies, or that the erstwhile comrades of Che Guevara in the Congo now profit from the world trade in tantalum which is a substance refined from coltan and used in the manufacture of semiconductor chips. Coltan is a a rare earth mineral which is mined using slave labour - overseen by rival national liberation movements and regimes in the heart of central africa, The miltiants of national liberation, and jehadis, are just as happy to milk the global financial system by speculating on the stock market. as are the managing directors of Exxon corporation. On occasion, they even do business and set up joint ventures with men in suits who can be seen on television in finance programmes and heading the boards of respectable transnational corporations and public sector monopolies. No national liberation movement anywhere, no jehadi group known to human history has ever been heard to call for an abolition of wages, or of capitalism, or of the market or of the state. They want their market, their state, and the ability to determine wages for work on their terms. They want to overthrow evil jewish-christian- hindu- muslim-black-white-brown-yellow regimes and replace them with their own jewsih-christian-hindu-sikh-black-white- brown-yellow regimes. Sometimes, these expectations are based on unrealistic or laughably miniscule terms, like the desire to control a population that actually lives in refugee camps rather than in territories, and the desire to honour the stateless with the distinction of statehood. And leftists everywhere will sign petitions in their behalf and congratulate themselves on the impeccability of their anti-imperialist credentials. And then leftists everywhere will rot in the prisons of their own making. Perhaps it is time we all returned to a dispassionate examination of capital,and remember an old man sitting in London who once wrote on the margins of the "patriotic" Gotha Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany the following pithy comment - about the citizenship of the graveyard "The workers of the world have but one country - and that is two feet under the ground" Perhaps it is time to reflect on this phrase yet again, and to transpose funeral pyres for graves and see how the phrase reads today. "The workers of the world have but one country and that is made of the ash of the aftermath of explosions" We can enter this country anywhere, we can see its citizens in the ash covered survivors of September 11, in the to-be-reduced-to-ashes people of Afghanistan, in the ashen sullenness of children in Iraq and in the blood and ashes inKashmir. We can see the ashes falling like flakes in front of our eyes. It makes us sick and tired and humiliated, everywhere. Let us not weigh today the fragile chance of solidarity of all those who are humuliated, of those who have no estate, anywhere, be it in Jackson Heights or in Jalalabad - against the questionable record of the naton state in human history. Is it time, then, for the last international ? And time to leave our dreams and nightmares of statehood behind. And time to conceive of "Internationalism" not as the alliance of nations, but the coming together of people who find themselves, outside, the mind frame of the nation state or of civilisational and cultural certainties. I From jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Oct 3 16:03:02 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:03:02 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign In-Reply-To: <20011002093217.A0854420EC@nda.vsnl.net.in> References: <20011002093217.A0854420EC@nda.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: <01100316030200.02063@sweety.sarai.kit> Thank you Naga for the postings. Felt confused by the text. Some comments: October 1984 was listening to a radio commentary of a cricket match between India and Pakistan. I remember Sandeep Patil playing very well. Suddenly the commentary stopped and one realized that the then prime minister had been shot by two of her bodyguards. Over a period of 6 hours the city was gripped by an unfathomable terror. The next few days the city burnt and thousands of people belonging to a specific community (4000?) were butchered. The then ruling dispensation rationalized it as `when a big tree falls the earth shakes`. The suffering of those few days continues and few understand the trajectories of those wounds and scars. 1991 A friend came home shaking in terror. "Bombing has started in the deserts. It's being telecast live on CNN`. Those days the streets around my college had large numbers of Saddam Hussein being sold. Slowly, with time, images disappeared from the TV and the streets. No new images of the dead, the dying or would-be dying appeared. Few years later another friend suffered a nervous breakdown. He was trying to help riot victims in camps in (the then) Bombay. The suffering inflicted then continues today. Three films made after the events: Machis; Fiza; Mission Kashmir. What do these films tell us about the making of young men with hardened souls, seething anger, and a monocular vision? They are transformed by events that occur in their vicinity, it happens to them, to their near and dear ones. These were all victims of local events but linked to a larger play of power's cynical manipulation of `past suffering` and `present hardship`. Convulsions and hardship are an everyday occurrence. They have their victims and perpetrators. New victims and new perpetrators. And endless permutations and combinations in which sometimes it is difficult to figure out who is what. An endless loop. But in the process we have stronger and lengthier barded wire fences, more earnest patrolling and waving of insignias of supposed identification. Balance barabar kabhi nahin hota hai (perfect balance will never be achieved). One death is never revenged by another death. It needs a higher quantum to compensate for the time of suffering and thus the spiral is upward and fiercer. In difficult times it becomes important to ask questions that can cut into this endless loop of destruction and death. States are fairly cold-blooded `organisms-machines-rationalities` with very little respect for hospitality. Their `outward look` is motivated by self-interest, ambition and suspicion. Their inner gaze is equally suspicious and obsessed with control and monitoring. Sometimes the `looks` collide and, at times, get interlocked. Depending on the military power of the states the `human cost` is factored in. Cynical times. Saddam Hussein uses dying children to justify his power and Bush and his global allies are using the 6000 dead as a rationale for his military action. An impoverished man in a poster all around Delhi stares at us and the byline reads `no actors, all victims` (it's an ad for a television programme). The line keeps returning to my mind. Every power today wants to portray themselves as victims. No actors, and thus no question of responsibility and no ethical questioning of action or utterance. Two words or phrases seem to have become common to explain the present juncture: - `international terrorism` and `US foreign policy`. Both are gathering an emotional shell and are capable of unleashing a reign of terror. These are political categories and do not help us to understand the complexity, contradictions and confusion of the present time. Amidst present `moral fuzziness` these concepts will create an emotional universe where any or every thing or people can be targets of assault either by states or by proto-state organizations with a stake in state power. The global configuration of `Empire` is layered, contradictory and complicatedly mediated through states and institutions, and the histories of its formation are bathed in blood. We need to address this configuration with concepts that cut through the fog and the eternal loop of `action-reaction`, 'victim-perpetrator". This is the time to build solidarities and accelerate resistance. Time to think about suffering and imagine possible ways of living and thinking that speaks a different vocabulary. Let us think about the everyday suspicions and brutalities that people live with. Otherwise a time will come when all of us will go so against each other that we will sing our way to our graves. Someone commented a century ago that the fall of capital would be a thousand times more barbaric than the fall of Rome. Maybe he was correct! best Jeebesh From joy at sarai.net Wed Oct 3 18:58:01 2001 From: joy at sarai.net (Joy Chatterjee) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:58:01 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: anti-war campaign Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011003185414.00a50cb0@mail.sarai.net> In the context of the present thread I think Rushdie's comments will add up to the discussion. I like the last paragraph the most! Joy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fighting the Forces of Invisibility By Salman Rushdie Washington Post, Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page A25 NEW YORK -- In January 2000 I wrote in a newspaper column that "the defining struggle of the new age would be between Terrorism and Security," and fretted that to live by the security experts' worst-case scenarios might be to surrender too many of our liberties to the invisible shadow-warriors of the secret world. Democracy requires visibility, I argued, and in the struggle between security and freedom we must always err on the side of freedom. On Tuesday, Sept. 11, however, the worst-case scenario came true. They broke our city. I'm among the newest of New Yorkers, but even people who have never set foot in Manhattan have felt its wounds deeply, because New York is the beating heart of the visible world, tough-talking, spirit-dazzling, Walt Whitman's "city of orgies, walks and joys," his "proud and passionate city -- mettlesome, mad, extravagant city!" To this bright capital of the visible, the forces of invisibility have dealt a dreadful blow. No need to say how dreadful; we all saw it, are all changed by it. Now we must ensure that the wound is not mortal, that the world of what is seen triumphs over what is cloaked, what is perceptible only through the effects of its awful deeds. In making free societies safe -- safer -- from terrorism, our civil liberties will inevitably be compromised. But in return for freedom's partial erosion, we have a right to expect that our cities, water, planes and children really will be better protected than they have been. The West's response to the Sept. 11 attacks will be judged in large measure by whether people begin to feel safe once again in their homes, their workplaces, their daily lives. This is the confidence we have lost, and must regain. Next: the question of the counterattack. Yes, we must send our shadow-warriors against theirs, and hope that ours prevail. But this secret war alone cannot bring victory. We will also need a public, political and diplomatic offensive whose aim must be the early resolution of some of the world's thorniest problems: above all the battle between Israel and the Palestinian people for space, dignity, recognition and survival. Better judgment will be required on all sides in future. No more Sudanese aspirin factories to be bombed, please. And now that wise American heads appear to have understood that it would be wrong to bomb the impoverished, oppressed Afghan people in retaliation for their tyrannous masters' misdeeds, they might apply that wisdom, retrospectively, to what was done to the impoverished, oppressed people of Iraq. It's time to stop making enemies and start making friends. To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by sections of the left that has been among the most unpleasant consequences of the terrorists' attacks on the United States. "The problem with Americans is . . . " -- "What America needs to understand . . . " There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens' deaths. ("Did we deserve this, sir?" a bewildered worker at "ground zero" asked a visiting British journalist recently. I find the grave courtesy of that "sir" quite astonishing.) Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions. Furthermore, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means. The terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true motives. Whatever the killers were trying to achieve, it seems improbable that building a better world was part of it. The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the West needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its bin Ladens.) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for? The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them. How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared. Salman Rushdie is a British novelist and essayist. © 2001 The Washington Post Company From fatimazehrarizvi at hotmail.com Wed Oct 3 21:20:38 2001 From: fatimazehrarizvi at hotmail.com (zehra rizvi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Reader-list] Robert Fisk:Just who are our allies in Afghanistan? Message-ID: Robert Fisk: Just who are our allies in Afghanistan? The Independent 03 October 2001 "America's New War," is what they call it on CNN. And of course, as usual, they've got it wrong. Because in our desire to "bring to justice" � let's remember those words in the coming days � the vicious men who planned the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington last month, we're hiring some well-known rapists and murderers to work for us. Yes, it's an old war, a dreary routine that we've seen employed around the world for the past three decades. In Vietnam, the Americans wanted to avoid further casualties; so they re-armed and re-trained the South Vietnamese army to be their foot-soldiers. In southern Lebanon, the Israelis used their Lebanese militia thugs to combat the Palestinians and the Hizbollah. The Phalange and the so-called "South Lebanon Army" were supposed to be Israel's foot-soldiers. They failed, but that is in the nature of wars-by-proxy. In Kosovo, we kept our well-armed Nato troops safely out of harm's way while the KLA acted as our foot-soldiers. And now, without a blush or a swallow of embarrassment, we're about to sign up the so-called "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan. America's newspapers are saying � without a hint of irony � that they, too, will be our "foot-soldiers" in our war to hunt down/bring to justice/smoke out/eradicate/liquidate Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. US officials � who know full well the whole bloody, rapacious track record of the killers in the "Alliance" � are suggesting in good faith that these are the men who will help us bring democracy to Afghanistan and drive the Taliban and the terrorists out of the country. In fact, we're ready to hire one gang of terrorists � our terrorists � to rid ourselves of another gang of terrorists. What, I wonder, would the dead of New York and Washington think of this? But first, let's keep the record straight. The atrocities of 11 September were a crime against humanity. The evil men who planned this mass-murder should (repeat: should) be brought to justice. And if that means the end of the Taliban � with their limb-chopping and execution of women and their repressive, obscurantist Saudi-style "justice" � fair enough. The Northern Alliance, the confederacy of warlords, patriots, rapists and torturers who control a northern sliver of Afghanistan, have very definitely not (repeat: not) massacred more than 7,000 innocent civilians in the United States. No, the murderers among them have done their massacres on home turf, in Afghanistan. Just like the Taliban. Even as the World Trade Centre collapsed in blood and dust, the world mourned the assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood, the courageous and patriotic Lion of Panjshir whose leadership of the Northern Alliance remained the one obstacle to overall Taliban power. Perhaps he was murdered in advance of the slaughter in America, to emasculate America's potential allies in advance of US retaliation. Either way, his proconsulship allowed us to forget the gangs he led. It permitted us, for example, to ignore Abdul Rashid Dustum, one of the most powerful Alliance gangsters, whose men looted and raped their way through the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages, murdered their families, all under the eyes of Masood. Dustum had a habit of changing sides, joining the Taliban for bribes and indulging in massacres alongside the Wahhabi gangsters who formed the government of Afghanistan, then returning to the Alliance weeks later. Then there's Rasoul Sayaf, a Pashtun who originally ran the "Islamic Union for the Freedom of Afghanistan", but whose gunmen tortured Shia families and used their women as sex slaves in a series of human rights abuses between 1992 and 1996. Sure, he's just one of 15 leaders in the Alliance, but the terrified people of Kabul are chilled to the bone at the thought that these criminals are to be among America's new foot-soldiers. Urged on by the Americans, the Alliance boys have been meeting with the elderly and sick ex-King Mohamed Zahir Shah, whose claim to have no interest in the monarchy is almost certainly honourable � but whose ambitious grandson may have other plans for Afghanistan. A "loya jerga", we are told, will bring together alll tribal groups to elect a transitional government after the formation of a "Supreme Council for the National Unity of Afghanistan". And the old king will be freighted in as a symbol of national unity, a reminder of the good old days before democracy collapsed and communism destroyed the country. And we'll have to forget that King Zahir Shah � though personally likeable, and a saint compared to the Taliban � was no great democrat. What Afghanistan needs is an international force � not a bunch of ethnic gangs steeped in blood � to re-establish some kind of order. It doesn't have to be a UN force, but it could have Western troops and should be supported by surrounding Muslim nations � though, please God, not the Saudis � and able to restore roads, food supplies and telecommunications. There are still well-educated academics and civil servants inAfghanistan who could help to re-establish the infrastructure of government. In this context, the old king might just be a temporary symbol of unity before a genuinely inter-ethnic government could be created. But that's not what we're planning. More than 7,000 innocents have been murdered in the USA, and the two million Afghans who have been killed since 1980 don't amount to a hill of beans beside that. Whether or not we send in humanitarian aid, we're pouring more weapons into this starving land, to arm a bunch of gangsters in the hope they'll destroy the Taliban and let us grab bin Laden cost-free. I have a dark premonition about all this. The "Northern Alliance" will work for us. They'll die for us. And, while they're doing that, we'll try to split the Taliban and cut a deal with their less murderous cronies, offering them a seat in a future government alongside their Alliance enemies. The other Taliban � the guys who won't take the Queen's shilling or Mr Bush's dollar � will snipe at our men from the mountainside and shoot at our jets and threaten more attacks on the West, with or without bin Laden. And at some point � always supposing we've installed a puppet government to our liking in Kabul � the Alliance will fall apart and turn against its ethnic enemies or, if we should still be around, against us. Because the Alliance knows that we're not giving them money and guns because we love Afghanistan, or because we want to bring peace to the land, or because we are particularly interested in establishing democracy in south-west Asia. The West is demonstrating its largesse because it wants to destroy America's enemies. Just remember what happened in 1980 when we backed the brave, ruthless, cruel mujahedin against the Soviet Union. We gave them money and weapons and promised them political support once the Russians left. There was much talk, I recall, of "loya jergas", and even a proposal that the then less elderly king might be trucked back to Afghanistan. And now this is exactly what we are offering once again. And, dare I ask, how many bin Ladens are serving now among our new and willing foot-soldiers? America's "new war", indeed. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From gauthams at vsnl.com Wed Oct 3 21:36:05 2001 From: gauthams at vsnl.com (S.Gautham) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 00:06:05 +0800 Subject: [Reader-list] excellent LRB issue. best so far Message-ID: <3BBB376C.52A188C7@vsnl.com> I have been an avid reader of all that is being said and contested on the list and ths is my first posting. It is a Brilliant article by Anatol Lieven from the LRB. Best thing I've read on the whole fiasco yet... G "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism Friday September 28, 2001 Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world. Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world. Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested. This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless. Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support. It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government. The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general. On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups. As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post: "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell." If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times: "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends." A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does. Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity: "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth." Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration. No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein. Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism." Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist. But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid. There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere. Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two. This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West. All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance. An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years. The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy. Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques. In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle. The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world. The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives. The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff). The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least. How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia. The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower. Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran. In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients. The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them. There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago. This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism. · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC. AND Thought this might be of interest - I thought it was All love and see you soon Camilla -----Original Message----- From: black.milk at virgin.net [mailto:black.milk at virgin.net] Sent: 25 September 2001 09:14 To: Camilla Lowther Subject: FW: chomsky interview fyi. noam chomsky: Interviewing Chomsky Radio B92, Belgrade Q: Why do you think these attacks happened? Chomksy: To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London_Independent_), who has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" (_London Times_ correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These "Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against Muslims. The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines. Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts. The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the_New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power. It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases. Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American self reception? Chomsky: US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity. As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well. Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the world? Chomsky: The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course. Q: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too? Chomsky: Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale. The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents. If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society. Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent. Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so? Chomsky: The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture. It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more humane and honorable course. From rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 13:03:51 2001 From: rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign In-Reply-To: <01100316030200.02063@sweety.sarai.kit> Message-ID: <20011004073351.83382.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Jeebesh for great posting. The discourse about this conflict seems to fall naturally into the kind of binary oppositions that the US is often blamed for ("are you with us or are you with Bin Laden?"). --there are pacifists and humanists that think powerful nation states should not engage in force and emphasise the deleterious effects of US imperialism. --there are those who think that nothing is an excuse for terrorism and call for punishment for the hatred and cruelty inherent in the attack. causation is simplistic in both models. the former is more credible to me just because its model of causation is bigger and more historical. but by giving all power to the US - even in creating its own nemesis - it erases lots of other histories, and is therefore a characteristically american approach. we need to complicate such appeals to first movers that are held to explain everything. i think the zizek essay (attached) is one attempt to do this which is of great relevance to the current moment. he says (with respect to kosovo): >However, what if one should reject this double >blackmail (if you are against NATO strikes, you are >for Milosevic's proto-Fascist regime of ethnic >cleansing, and if you are against Milosevic, you >support the global capitalist New World Order)? What >if this very opposition between enlightened >international intervention against ethnic >fundamentalists, and the heroic last pockets of >resistance against the New World Order, is a false >one? enjoy, and comment. R ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ Slavoj Zizek: AGAINST THE DOUBLE BLACKMAIL (You can also catch this at http://www.lacan.com/kosovo.htm) The top winner in the contest for the greatest blunder of 1998 was a Latin-American patriotic terrorist who sent a bomb letter to a US consulate in order to protest against the American interfering into the local politics. As a conscientious citizen, he wrote on the envelope his return address; however, he did not put enough stamps on it, so that the post returned the letter to him. Forgetting what he put in it, he opened it and blew himself to death - a perfect example of how, ultimately, a letter always arrives at its destination. And is not something quite similar happening to the Slobodan Milosevic regime with the recent NATO bombing? It is interesting to watch in the last days the Serbian satellite state TV which targets foreign public: no reports on atrocities in Kosovo, refugees are mentioned only as people fleeing NATO bombing, so that the overall idea is that Serbia, the island of peace, the only place in ex-Yugoslavia that was not touched by the war raging all around it, is not irrationally attacked by the NATO madmen destroying bridges and hospitals... For years, Milosevic was sending bomb letters to his neighbors, from the Albanians to Croatia and Bosnia, keeping himself out of the conflict while igniting fire all around Serbia - finally, his last letter returned to him. Let us hope that the result of the NATO intervention will be that Milosevic will be proclaimed the political blunderer of the year. And there is a kind of poetic justice in the fact that the West finally intervened apropos of Kosovo - let us not forget that it was there that it all began with the ascension to power of Milosevic: this ascension was legitimized by the promise to amend the underprivileged situation of Serbia within the Yugoslav federation, especially with regard to the Albanian "separatism." Albanians were Milosevic's first target; afterwards, he shifted his wrath onto other Yugoslav republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia), until, finally, the focus of the conflict returned to Kosovo - as in a closed loop of Destiny, the arrow returned to the one who lanced it by way of setting free the spectre of ethnic passions. This is the key point worth remembering: Yugoslavia did not start to disintegrate when the Slovene "secession" triggered the domino-effect (first Croatia, then Bosnia, Macedonia...); it was already at the moment of Milosevic's constitutional reforms in 1987, depriving Kosovo and Vojvodina of their limited autonomy, that the fragile balance on which Yugoslavia rested was irretrievably disturbed. From that moment onwards, Yugoslavia continued to live only because it didn't yet notice it was already dead - it was like the proverbial cat in the cartoons walking over the precipice, floating in the air, and falling down only when it becomes aware that it has no ground under its feet... From Milosevic's seizure of power in Serbia onwards, the only actual chance for Yugoslavia to survive was to reinvent its formula: either Yugoslavia under Serb domination or some form of radical decentralization, from a loose confederacy to the full sovereignty of its units. It is thus easy to praise the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as the first case of an intervention - not into the confused situation of a civil war, but - into a country with full sovereign power. Is it not comforting to see the NATO forces intervene not for any specific economico-strategic interests, but simply because a country is cruelly violating the elementary human rights of an ethnic group? Is not this the only hope in our global era - to see some internationally acknowledged force as a guarantee that all countries will respect a certain minimum of ethical (and, hopefully, also health, social, ecological) standards? However, the situation is more complex, and this complexity is indicated already in the way NATO justifies its intervention: the violation of human rights is always accompanied by the vague, but ominous reference to "strategic interests." The story of NATO as the enforcer of the respect for human rights is thus only one of the two coherent stories that can be told about the recent bombings of Yugoslavia, and the problem is that each story has its own rationale. The second story concerns the other side of the much-praised new global ethical politics in which one is allowed to violate the state sovereignty on behalf of the violation of human rights. The first glimpse into this other side is provided by the way the big Western media selectively elevate some local "warlord" or dictator into the embodiment of Evil: Sadam Hussein, Milosevic, up to the unfortunate (now forgotten) Aidid in Somalia - at every point, it is or was "the community of civilized nations against...". And on what criteria does this selection rely? Why Albanians in Serbia and not also Palestinians in Israel, Kurds in Turkey, etc.etc? Here, of course, we enter the shady world of international capital and its strategic interests. According to the "Project CENSORED," the top censored story of 1998 was that of a half-secret international agreement in working, called MAI (the Multilateral Agreement on Investment). The primary goal of MAI will be to protect the foreign interests of multinational companies. The agreement will basically undermine the sovereignty of nations by assigning power to the corporations almost equal to those of the countries in which these corporations are located. Governments will no longer be able to treat their domestic firms more favorably than foreign firms. Furthermore, countries that do not relax their environmental, land-use and health and labor standards to meet the demands of foreign firms may be accused of acting illegally. Corporations will be able to sue sovereign state if they will impose too severe ecological or other standards - under NAFTA (whic is the main model for MAI), Ethyl Corporation is already suing Canada for banning the use of its gasoline additive MMT. The greatest threat is, of course, to the developing nations which will be pressured into depleting their natural resources for commercial exploitation. Renato Ruggerio, director of the World Trade Organization, the sponsor of MAI, is already hailing this project, elaborated and discussed in a clandestine manner, with almost no public discussion and media attention, as the "constitution for a new global economy." And, in the same way in which, already for Marx, market relations provided the true foundation for the notion of individual freedoms and rights, THIS is also the obverse of the much-praised new global morality celebrated even by some neoliberal philosophers as signalling the beginning of the new era in which international community will establish and enforce some minimal code preventing sovereign state to engage in crimes against humanity even within its own territory. And the recent catastrophic economic situation in Russia, far from being the heritage of old Socialist mismanagement, is a direct result of this global capitalist logic embodied in MAI. This other story also has its ominous military side. The ultimate lesson of the last American military interventions, from the Operation Desert Fox against Iraq at the end of 1998 to the present bombing of Yugoslavia, is that they signal a new era in military history - battles in which the attacking force operates under the constraint that it can sustain no casualties. When the first stealth-fighter fell down in Serbia, the emphasis of the American media was that there were no casualties - the pilot was SAVED! (This concept of "war without casualties" was elaborated by General Collin Powell.) And was not the counterpoint to it the almost surreal way CNN reported on the war: not only was it presented as a TV event, but the Iraqi themselves seem to treat it this way - during the day, Bagdad was a "normal" city, with people going around and following their business, as if war and bombardment was an irreal nightmarish spectre that occurred only during the night and did not take place in effective reality? Let us recall what went on in the final American assault on the Iraqi lines during the Gulf War: no photos, no reports, just rumours that tanks with bulldozer like shields in front of them rolled over Iraqi trenches, simply burying thousands of troops in earth and sand - what went on was allegedly considered too cruel in its shere mechanical efficiency, too different from the standard notion of a heroic face to face combat, so that images would perturb too much the public opinion and a total censorship black-out was stritly imposed. Here we have the two aspects joined together: the new notion of war as a purely technological event, taking place behind radar and computer screens, with no casualties, AND the extreme physical cruelty too unbearable for the gaze of the media - not the crippled children and raped women, victims of caricaturized local ethnic "fundamentalist warlords," but thousands of nameless soldiers, victims of nameless efficient technological warfare. When Jean Baudrillard made the claim that the Gulf War did not take place, this statement could also be read in the sense that such traumatic pictures that stand for the Real of this war were totally censured... How, then, are we to think these two stories together, without sacrificing the truth of each of them? What we have here is a political example of the famous drawing in which we recognize the contours either of a rabbit head or of a goose head, depending on our mental focus. If we look at the situation in a certain way, we see the international community enforcing minimal human rights standards on a nationalist neo-Communist leader engaged in ethnic cleansing, ready to ruin his own nation just to retain power. If we shift the focus, we see NATO, the armed hand of the new capitalist global order, defending the strategic interests of the capital in the guise of a disgusting travesty, posing as a disinterested enforcer of human rights, attacking a sovereign country which, in spite of the problematic nature of its regime, nonetheless acts as an obstacle to the unbriddled assertion of the New World Order. However, what if one should reject this double blackmail (if you are against NATO strikes, you are for Milosevic's proto-Fascist regime of ethnic cleansing, and if you are against Milosevic, you support the global capitalist New World Order)? What if this very opposition between enlightened international intervention against ethnic fundamentalists, and the heroic last pockets of resistance against the New World Order, is a false one? What if phenomena like the Milosevic regime are not the opposite to the New World Order, but rather its SYMPTOM, the place at which the hidden TRUTH of the New World Order emerges? Recently, one of the American negotiators said that Milosevic is not only part of the problem, but rather THE problem itself. However, was this not clear FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? Why, then, the interminable procrastination of the Western powers, playing for years into Milosevic's hands, acknowledging him as a key factor of stability in the region, misreading clear cases of Serb aggression as civil or even tribal warfare, initially putting the blame on those who immediately saw what Milosevic stands for and, for that reason, desperately wanted to escape his grasp (see James Baker's public endorsement of a "limited military intervention" against Slovene secession), supporting the last Yugoslav prime minister Ante Markovic, whose program was, in an incredible case of political blindness, seriously considered as the last chance for a democratic market-oriented unified Yugoslavia, etc.etc.? When the West fights Milosevic, it is NOT fighting its enemy, one of the last points of resistance against the liberal-democratic New World Order; it is rather fighting its own creature, a monster that grew as the result of the compromises and inconsistencies of the Western politics itself. (And, incidentally, it is the same as with Iraq: its strong position is also the result of the American strategy of containing Iran.) In the last decade, the West followed a Hamlet-like procrastination towards Balkan, and the present bombardment has effectively all the signs of Hamlet's final murderous outburst in which a lot of people unnecessarily die (not only the King, his true target, but also his mother, Laertius, Hamlet himelf...), because Hamlet acted too late, when the proper moment was already missed. We are clearly dealing with a hysterical acting out, with an escape into activity, with a gesture that, instead of trying to achieve a well-defined goal, rather bears witness to the fact that there is no such goal, that the agent is caught in a web of conflicting goals. So the West, in the present intervention which displays all the signs of a violent outburst of impotent aggressivity without a clear political goal, is now paying the price for the years of entertaining illusions that one can make a deal with Milosevic: with the recent hesitations about the ground intervention in Kosovo, the Serbian regime is, under the pretext of war, launching the final assault on Kosovo and purge it of most of the Albanians, cynically accepting bombardments as the price to be paid. When the Western powers repeat all the time that they are not fighting the Serb people, but only their corrupted leaders, they rely on the (typically liberal) wrong premise that Serbs are victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, manipulated by him. The painful fact is that the Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support of the large majority of the population - no, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the nationalist spell. On the other hand, this misperception is accompanied by the apparently contradictory notion according to which, Balkan people are living in the past, fighting again and again old battles, perceiving recent situation through old myths... One is tempted to say that these two cliches should be precisely TURNED AROUND: not only are people not "good," since they let themselves be manipulated with obscene pleasure; there are also no "old myths" which we need to study if we are really to understand the complex situation, just the PRESENT outburst of racist nationalism which, according to its needs, opportunistically resuscitates old myths. To paraphrase the old Clintonian motto: no, it's not the old myths and ethnic hatreds, it's the POLITICAL POWER STRUGGLE, stupid! So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to Clinton not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our...), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social life... And the Western counterpoint to this obscenity is the more and more openly racist tone of its reporting: when the three American soldiers were taken prisoners, CNN dedicated the first 10 minutes of the News to their predicament (although everyone knew that NOTHING will happen to them!), and only then reported on the tens of thousands of refugees, burned villages and Pristina turning into a ghost town. Where is the so-much-praised Serb "democratic opposition" to protest THIS horror taking place in their own backyard, not only the - till now, at least, bombardments with relatively very low casualties? The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnivalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying heroes (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets). Although it may fascinate some confused pseudo-Leftists, this obscene carnivalization of the social life is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: while in Belgrade people defiantly dance on the streets, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place. It is interesting to watch in the last days the Serb satellite state TV which targets foreign public: no reports on atrocities in Kosovo, refugees are mentioned only as people fleeing the NATO bombing; the overall idea is that Serbia, the island of peace, the only place in ex-Yugoslavia that was not touched by the war raging all around it, is attacked by the NATO madmen destroying bridges and hospitals... So when, in the nightime, crowds are camping out on the Belgrade bridges, participating in pop and ethnic music concerts held there in a defiantly festive mood, offering their bodies as the live shield to prevent the bridges from being bombed, the answer to this faked pathetic gesture should be a very simple one: why don't you go to Kosovo and make a rock carnival in the Albanian parts of Pristina? In the recent struggle of the so-called "democratic opposition" in Serbia against the Milosevic's regime, the truly touchy topic is the stance towards Kosovo: as to this topic, the large majority of the "democratic opposition" unconditionally endorses Milosevic's anti-Albanian nationalist agenda, even accusing him of making compromises with the West and "betraying" Serb national interests in Kosovo. In the course of the student demonstrations against the Milosevic's Socialist Party falsification of the election results in the Winter of 1996, the Western media who closely followed the events and praised the revived democratic spirit in Serbia, rarely mentioned the fact that one of the regular slogans of the demonstrators against the special police forces was "Instead of kicking us, go to Kosovo and kick out the Albanians!". In today's Serbia, the absolute sine qua non of an authentic political act would thus be to unconditionally reject the ideological topos of the "Albanian threat to Serbia." In the last years, the Serb propaganda is promoting the identification of Serbia as the second Israel, with Serbs as the chosen nation, and Kosovo as their West Bank where they fight, in the guise of "Albanian terrorists," their own intifada. Thew went as far as repeating the old Israeli complaint against the Arabs: "We will pardon you for what you did to us, but we will never pardon you for forcing us to do to YOU the horrible things we had to do in order to defend ourselves!" The hilariously-mocking Serb apology for shooting down the stealth bomber was: "Sorry, we didn't know you are invisible!" One is tempted to say that the answer to Serb complaints about the "irrational barbaric bombing" of their country should be: "Sorry, we didn't know you are a chosen nation!" One thing is for sure: the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia will change the global geopolitic coordinates. The unwritten pact of peaceful coexistence (the respect of each state's full sovereignty, i.e. non-interference in internal affairs, even in the case of the grave violation of human rights) is over. However, the very first act of the new global police force usurping the right to punish sovereign states for their wrongdoings already signals its end, its own undermining, since it immediately became clear that this universality of human rights as its legitimization is false, i.e. that the attacks on selective targets protect particular interests. The NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia also signal the end of any serious role of UN and Security Council: it is NATO under US guidance that effectively pulls the strings. Furthermore, the silent pact with Russia that held till now is broken: in the terms of this pact, Russia was publicly treated as a superpower, allowed to maintain the appearance of being one, on condition that it did not effectively act as one. Now Russia's humiliation is open, any pretense of dignity is unmasked: Russia can only openly resist or openly comply with Western pressure. The further logical result of this new situation will be, of course, the renewed rise of anti-Western resistance from Eastern Europe to the Third World, with the sad consequence that criminal figures like Milosevic will be elevated into the model fighters against the New World Order. So the lesson is that the alternative between the New World Order and the neoracist nationalists opposing it is a false one: these are the two sides of the same coin - the New World Order itself breeds monstrosities that it fights. Which is why the protests against bombing from the reformed Communist parties all around Europe, inclusive of PDS, are totally misdirected: these false protesters against the NATO bombardment of Serbia are like the caricaturized pseudo-Leftists who oppose the trial against a drug dealer, claiming that his crime is the result of social pathology of the capitalist system. The way to fight the capitalist New World Order is not by supporting local proto-Fascist resistances to it, but to focus on the only serious question today: how to build TRANSNATIONAL political movements and institutions strong enough to seriously constraint the unlimited rule of the capital, and to render visible and politically relevant the fact that the local fundamentalist resistances against the New World Order, from Milosevic to le Pen and the extreme Right in Europe, are part of it? What all this means is that the impasse of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia is not simply the result of some particular failure of strategic reasoning, but depends on the fundamental inconsistency of the very notion of which this intervention relies. The problem with NATO acting in Yugoslavia as an agent of "militaristic humanism" or even "militaristic pacifism" (Ulrich Beck) is not that this term is an Orwellian oxymorom (reminding us of "Peace is war" slogans from his 1984) which, as such, directly belies the truth of its position (against this obvious pacifist-liberal criticism, I rather think that it is the pacifist position - "more bombs and killing never brings piece" - which is a fake, and that one should heroically ENDORSE the paradox of militaristic pacifism); it is neither that, obviously, the targets of bombardment are not chosen out of pure moral consideration, but selectively, depending on unadmitted geopolitic and economic strategic interests (the obvious Marxist-style criticism). The problem is rather that this purely humanitarian-ethic legitimization (again) thoroughly DEPOLITICIZES the military intervention, changing it into an intervention into humanitarian catastrophy, grounded in purely moral reasons, not an intervention into a well-defined political struggle. Furthermore, what we are witnessing today is the strange phenomenon of the blurred line of separation between private and public in the political discourse: say, when the German defense minister Rudolph Scharping tried to justify the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, he did not present his stance as something grounded in a clear cold decision, but went deep into rendering public his inner turmoil, openly evoking his doubts, his moral dilemmas apropos of this difficult decision, etc. So, if this tendency will catch on, we shall no longer have politicians who, in public, will speak the cold impersonal official language, following the ritual of public declarations, but will share with the public their inner turmoils and doubts in a unique display of "sincerity." Here, however, the mystery begins: one would expect this "sincere" sharing of private dilemmas to act as a counter-measure to the predominant cynicism of those in power: is not the ultimate cynicist a politician who, in his public discourse, speaks in a cold dignified language about the high politics, while privately, he entertains a distance towards his statements, well aware of particular pragmatic considerations that lay behind these high principled public statements? It thus may seem that the natural counterpoint to cynicism is the "dignified" public discourse - however, a closer look soon reveals that the "sincere" revealing of inner turmoils is the ultimate, highest form of cynicism. The impersonal "dignified" public speech counts on the gap between public and private - we are well aware that, when a politician speaks in the official dignified tone, he speaks as the stand-in for the Institution, not as a psychological individual (i.e. the Institution speaks THROUGH him), and therefore nobody expects him to be "sincere," since that is simply NOT THE POINT (in the same way a judge who passses a sentence is not expected to be "sincere," but simply to follow and apply the law, whatever his sentiments). On the other hand, the public sharing of the inner turmoils, the coincidence between public and private, even and especially when it is psychologically "sincere," is cynical - not because such a public display of private doubts and uncertainties is faked, concealing the true privacy: what this display conceals is the OBJECTIVE socio-political and ideological dimension of the decisions, so the more this display is psychologicaly "sincere," the more it is "objectively" cynical in that it mystifies the true social meaning and effect of these decisions. The crucial feature of the postmodern ethnic fundamentalism is thus double: on the one hand, it is "reflexive" nationalism, a reflexively CHOSEN one, no longer the immediate relating to a national substance; on the other hand, it does designate the return to absolute immediacy - but, as Hegel would have put it, as the result of a long process of mediation - say, the stupid skinhead who beats up foreigners just for the fun of it IS the restored immediacy, the result of the total reflexivization of our daily lives. The ultimate paradox of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is thus not the one about which Western pacifists complain (by bombing Yugoslavia in order to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, NATO effectively triggered a large-scale cleansing and thus created the very humanitarian catastrophy it wanted to prevent), but a deeper paradox involved in the ideology of victimization: the key aspect to take note of if NATO's privileging of the now discredited "moderate" Kosovar faction of Ibrahim Rugova against the "radical" Kosovo Liberation Army (not only does KLA get no help, but even its financial assets are blocked, so that they cannot buy the arms and are thus exposed to the onslaught of much better equipped Serb army and slowly decimated). What this means is that NATO is actively blocking the only and obvious alternative to the ground intervention of Western military forces: the full-scale armed resistance of the Albanians themselves. (The moment this option is mentioned, fears start to circulate: KLA is not really an army, just a bunch of untrained fighters; we should not trust KLA, since it is involved in drug trafficking and/or is a Maoist group whose victory would led to a Khmer Rouge or Taliban regime in Kosovo...) In short, while NATO is intervening in order to protect the Kosovar victims, it is at the same time well taking care that THEY WILL REMAIN VICTIMS, not an active politico-military force capable of defending itself: even if NATO will eventually occupy the entire Kosovo, it will be a devastated country with victimized population, not a strong political subject. What we encounter here is again the paradox of victimization: the Other to be protected is good INSOFAR AS IT REMAINS A VICTIM (which is why we are bombarded with pictures of helpless Kosovar mothers, children and elder people, telling moving stories of their suffering); the moment it no longer behaves as a victim, but wants to strike back on its own, it all of a sudden magically turns into a terrorist/fundamentalist/drug-trafficking Other... A report by Steven Erlanger on the suffering of the Kosovo Albanians in The New York Times (May 12 1999, page A 13) renders perfectly this logic of victimization. Already its title is tell-taling: "In One Kosovo Woman, An Emblem of Suffering" - the subject to be protected (by the NATO intervention) is from the outset identified as a powerless victim of circumstances, deprived of all political identity, reduced to the bare suffering. Her basic stance is that of excessive suffering, of traumatic experience that blurs all differences: "She's seen too much, Meli said. She wants a rest. She wants it to be over." As such, she is beyond any political recrimination - an independent Kosovo is not on her agenda, she just wants the horror over: "Does she favor an independent Kosovo? 'You know, I don't care if it's this or that,' Meli said. 'I just want all this to end, and to feel good again, to feel good in my place and my house with my friends and family.'" Her support of the foreign (NATO) intervention is grounded in her wish for all this horror to be over: "She wants a settlement that brings foreigners here 'with some force behind them.' She is indifferent about who the foreigners are." Consequently, she sympathizes with all the sides in an all-embracing humanist stance: "There is tragedy enough for everyone, she says. 'I feel sorry for the Serbs who've been bombed and died, and I feel sorry for my own people. But maybe now there will be a conclusion, a settlement for good. That would be great." - Here we have the ideological construction of the ideal subject-victim to whose aid NATO intervenes: not a political subject with a clear agenda, but a subject of helpless suffering, sympathizing with all suffering sides in the conflict, caught in the madness of a local clash that can only be pacified by the intervention of a benevolent foreign power, a subject whose innermost desire is reduced to the almost animal craving to "feel good again"... Therein resides the falsity of the otherwise admirable Tariq Ali's essay on the NATO interventionin Yugoslavia: "The claim that it is all Milosevic's fault is one-sided and erroneous, indulging those Slovenian, Croatian and Western politicians who allowed him to succeed. It could be argued, for instance, that it was Slovene egoism, throwing the Bosnians and Albanians, as well as non-nationalist Serbs and Croats, to the wolves, that was a decisive factor in triggering the whole disaster of disintegration." The correct insight and the incredible naivety are here closely intermingled. It certainly is true that the main responsibility of others for Milosevic's success resides in their "allowing him to succeed," in their readiness to accept him as a "factor of stability" and tolerate his "excesses" with the hope of striking a deal with him; and it is true that such a stance was clearly discernible among Slovene, Croat and Western politicians (for example, there certainly are grounds to suspect that the relatively smooth path to Slovene independence involved a silent informal pact between Slovene leadership and Milosevic, whose project of a "greater Serbia" had no need for Slovenia). However, two things are to be added here. First, this argument itself asserts that the responsibility of others is of a fundamentally different nature than that of Milosevic: the point is not that "they were all equally guilty, participating in nationalist madness," but that others were guilty of not being harsh enough towards Milosevic, of not unconditionally opposing him at any price. Secondly, what this argument overlooks is how the same reproach of "egoism" can be applied to ALL actors, inclusive of Muslims, the greatest victims of the (first phase of the) war: when Slovenia proclaimed independence, the Bosnisn leadership OPENLY SUPPORTED the Yugoslav intervention in Slovenia instead of risking confrontation at that early date, and thus contributed to their later sad fate. So the Muslim strategy in the first year of the conflict was also not without opportunism: its hidden reasoning was "let the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs bleed each other to exhaustion, so that, in the aftermath of their conflict, we shall gain for no great price an independent Bosnia"... (It is one of the ironies of the Yugoslav-Croat war that the legendary Bosnian commander who successfully defended the besieged Bihac region against the Yugoslav army, commanded two years ago the Yugoslav army units which were laying a siege to the Croat coast city Zadar!). There is, however, a more crucial problem that one should confront here: the uncanny detail that cannot but strike the eye in the quote from Tariq Ali is the unexpected recourse, in the midst of a political analysis, to a psychological category: "Slovene egoism" - why the need for this reference that clearly sticks out? On what ground can one claim that Serbs, Muslims and Croats acted LESS "egotistically" in the course of Yugoslavia's disintegration? The underlying premise is here that Slovenes, when they saw the (Yugoslav) house falling apart, "egotistically" seized the opportunity and fled away, instead of - what? Heroically throwing THEMSELVES ALSO to the wolves? Slovenes are thus imputed to start it all, to set in motion the process of disintegration (by being the first to leave Yugoslavia) and, on the top of it, being allowed to escape without proper penalty, suffering no serious damage. Hidden beneath this perception is a whole nest of pseudo-Leftist prejudices and dogmas: the secret belief in the viability of Yugoslav self-management socialism, the notion that small nations like Slovenia cannot effectively function like modern democracies, but necessarily regress to a proto-Fascist "closed" community... So what should the Serb "democratic opposition" do? Let us recall Freud's late book on Moses and Monotheism: how did he react to the Nazi anti-Semitic threat? Not by joining the ranks of the beleaguered Jews in the defense of their legacy, but by targetting its own people, the most precious part of the Jewish legacy, the founding figure of Moses, i.e. by endeavouring to deprive Jews of this figure, proving that Moses was not a Jew at all - this way, he effectively undermined the very unconscious foundation of the anti-Semitism. And is it not that Serbs should today risk a similar act with regard to Kosovo as their precious object-treasure, the craddle of their civilization, that which matters to them more than everything else and which they are never able to renounce? Therein resides the final limit of the large majority of the so-called "democratic opposition" to the Milosevic regime: they unconditionally endorse Milosevic's anti-Albanian nationalist agenda, even accusing him of making compromises with the West and "betraying" Serb national interests in Kosovo. For this very reason, the sine qua non of an authentic act in Serbia today would be precisely to RENOUNCE the claim to Kosovo, to sacrifice the substantial attachment to the privileged object. (What we have here is thus a nice case of the political dialectic of democracy: although democracy is the ultimate goal, in today's Serbia, any direct advocacy of democracy which leaves uncontested nationalistic claims about Kosovo is doomed to fail - THE issue apropos of which the struggle for democracy will be decided is that of Kosovo.) In NATO-Yugoslav war, we thus have a double Realitaetsverleugnung: on the one hand, NATO fantasy of war without casualties, surgical operation; on the other hand, the faked carnivalization totally disconnected from the reality of what goes on down in Kosovo. When the Western powers repeat all the time that they are not fighting the Serb people, but only their corrupted regime, they rely on the typically liberal wrong premise that the Serbian people are just victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, manipulated by him. The painful fact is that Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support of the large majority of the population - no, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the bad nationalist spell. More precisely, the misperception of the West is double: this notion of the bad leadership manipulating the good people is accompanied by the apparently contradictory notion according to which, Balkan people are living in the past, fighting again old battles, perceiving recent situation through old myths... One is tempted to say that these two notions should be precisely TURNED AROUND: not only are people not "good," since they let themselves be manipulated with obscene pleasure; there are also no "old myths" which we need to study if we are really to understand the situation, just the PRESENT outburst of racist nationalism which, according to its needs, opportunistically resuscitates old myths... So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to Clinton not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our...), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnavalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With poetry and music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying heroes (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets and that, consequently, they are safe!). This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social life... This pseudo-authentic spectacle, although it may fascinate some confused Leftists, is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: in Belgrade people are defiantly dancing on the streets while, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place... And the Western counterpoint to this obscenity is the more and more openly racist tone of its reporting: when the three American soldiers were taken prisoners, CNN dedicated the first 10 minutes of the News to their predicament (although everyone knew that NOTHING will happen to them!), and only then reported on the tens of thousands of refugees, burned villages and Pristina turning into a ghost town. Where is the so-much-praised Serb "democratic opposition" to protest THIS horror taking place in their own backyard, not only the - till now, at least, bombardments with relatively very low casualties? In the recent struggle of the so-called "democratic opposition" in Serbia against the Milosevic's regime, the truly touchy topic is the stance towards Kosovo: as to this topic, the large majority of the "democratic opposition" unconditionally endorses Milosevic's anti-Albanian nationalist agenda, even accusing him of making compromises with the West and "betraying" Serb national interests in Kosovo. In the course of the student demonstrations against the Milosevic's Socialist Party falsification of the election results in the Winter of 1996, the Western media who closely followed the events and praised the revived democratic spirit in Serbia, rarely mentioned the fact that one of the regular slogans of the demonstrators against the special police forces was "Instead of kicking us, go to Kosovo and kick out the Albanians!". In today's Serbia, the absolute sine qua non of an authentic political act would thus be to unconditionally reject the ideological topos of the "Albanian threat to Serbia." One thing is for sure: the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia will change the global geopolitic coordinates. The unwritten pact of peaceful coexistence (the respect of each state's full sovereignty, i.e. non-interference in internal affairs, even in the case of the grave violation of human rights) is over. However, the very first act of the new global police force usurping the right to punish sovereign states for their wrongdoings already signals its end, its own undermining, since it immediately became clear that this universality of human rights as its legitimization is false, i.e. that the attacks on selective targets protect particular interests. The NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia also signal the end of any serious role of UN and Security Council: it is NATO under US guidance that effectively pulls the strings. Furthermore, the silent pact with Russia that held till now is broken: in the terms of this pact, Russia was publicly treated as a superpower, allowed to maintain the appearance of being one, on condition that it did not effectively act as one. Now Russia's humiliation is open, any pretense of dignity is unmasked: Russia can only openly resist or openly comply with Western pressure. The further logical result of this new situation will be, of course, the renewed rise of anti-Western resistance from Eastern Europe to the Third World, with the sad consequence that criminal figures like Milosevic will be elevated into the model fighters against the New World Order. So the lesson is that the alternative between the New World Order and the neoracist nationalists opposing it is a false one: these are the two sides of the same coin - the New World Order itself breeds monstrosities that it fights. Which is why the protests against bombing from the reformed Communist parties all around Europe, inclusive of PDS, are totally misdirected: these false protesters against the NATO bombardment of Serbia are like the caricaturized pseudo-Leftists who oppose the trial against a drug dealer, claiming that his crime is the result of social pathology of the capitalist system. The way to fight the capitalist New World Order is not by supporting local proto-Fascist resistances to it, but to focus on the only serious question today: how to build TRANSNATIONAL political movements and institutions strong enough to seriously constraint the unlimited rule of the capital, and to render visible and politically relevant the fact that the local fundamentalist resistances against the New World Order, from Milosevic to le Pen and the extreme Right in Europe, are part of it? SORRY, WE DID NOT KNOW YOU ARE THE CHOSEN NATION! CARNIVAL IN THE EYE OF THE STORM The standard topic of critical psychiatry is that a "madman" is not in himself mad, but rather functions as a kind of focal point in which the pathological tension which permeates the entire group (family) to which he belongs finds its outlet. The "madman" is the product of the group pathology, the symptomatic point in which the global pathology becomes visible - one can say that all other members of the group succeed in retaining (the appearance of) their sanity by condensing their patholoogy in (or by projecting it onto) the sacrificial figure of the madman, this exception who grounds the global order of group sanity. However, more interesting that this is the opposite case, exemplified by the life of Bertrand Russell: he lived till his death in his late 90s a long normal life, full of creativity and "healthy" sexual satisfactions, yet all people around him, all members of his larger family, seemed to be afflicted with some kind of madness - he had love affairs with most of the wives of his sons, and most of his sons and other close relatives committed suicide. It is thus as if, in a kind of inversion of the standard logic of group sanity guaranteed by the exclusion of the "madman," here, we have the central figure who retained (the appearance of) his sanity by way of spreading his madness all around him, onto all his close relatives. The task of a critical analysis is here, of course, to demonstrate how the TRUE point of madness of this social network is precisely the only point which appears "sane," its central paternal figure who perceives madness everywhere around himself, but is unable to recognize IN HIMSELF its true source. And does the same not hold for the predominant way the Serbs perceive their role today? On the one hand, one can argue that, for the West, Serbia is a symptomal point in which the repressed truth of a more global situation violently breaks out. On the other hand, within ex-Yugoslavia, Serbs behaves as an island of sanity in the sea of nationalist/secessionist madness all around them, refusing to acknowledge even a part of responsibility. It is eye-opening to watch in the last days the Serb satellite state TV which targets foreign public: no reports on atrocities in Kosovo, refugees are mentioned only as people fleeing the NATO bombing; the overall idea is that Serbia, the island of peace, the only place in ex-Yugoslavia that was not touched by the war raging all around it, is attacked by the NATO madmen destroying bridges and hospitals... No wonder, then, that the atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnivalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying victims (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets). Although it may fascinate some confused pseudo-Leftists, this obscene carnivalization of the social life is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: while in Belgrade people defiantly dance on the streets, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place. So when, in the nightime, crowds are camping out on the Belgrade bridges, participating in pop and ethnic music concerts held there in a defiantly festive mood, offering their bodies as the live shield to prevent the bridges from being bombed, the answer to this faked pathetic gesture should be a very simple one: why don't you go to Kosovo and make a rock carnival in the Albanian parts of Pristina? And when people are wearing papers with a "target" sign printed on them, the obscene falsity of this gesture cannot but strike the eye: can one imagine the REAL targets years ago in Sarajevo or now in Kosovo wearing such signs? In what is this almost psychotic refusal to perceive one's responsibility grounded? During a recent visit to Israel, a friend told me a hilarious joke about Clinton visiting Bibi Netanyahu: when, in Bibi's office, Clinton saw a mysterious blue phone, he asked Bibi what this phone is, and Bibi answered that it allows him to dial Him up there in the sky. Upon his return to the States, the envious Clinton demanded of his secret service to provide him such a phone at any cost. In two weeks, they deliver it and it works, but the phone bill is exorbitant - two million dollars for a one minute talk with Him up there. So Clinton furiously calls Bibi and complains: "How can you afford such a phone, if even we, who support you financially, cannot? Is this how you spend our money?" Bibi calmly answers: "No, it's not that - you see, for us, Jews, that call counts as a local call!" The problem with Serbs is that, in their self-perception, they tend more and more to imitate Jews and identify themselves as the people for whom the phone call to God counts as a local call... When the Western powers repeat all the time that they are not fighting the Serb people, but only their corrupted leaders, they rely on the (typically liberal) wrong premise that Serbs are victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, manipulated by him. The painful fact is that the Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support of the large majority of the population - no, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the nationalist spell. On the other hand, this misperception is accompanied by the apparently contradictory notion according to which, Balkan people are living in the past, fighting again and again old battles, perceiving recent situation through old myths... I am tempted to say that these two cliches should be precisely TURNED AROUND: not only are people not "good," since they let themselves be manipulated with obscene pleasure; there are also no "old myths" which we need to study if we are really to understand the complex situation, just the PRESENT outburst of racist nationalism which, according to its needs, opportunistically resuscitates old myths. To paraphrase the old Clintonian motto: no, it's not the old myths and ethnic hatreds, it's the POLITICAL POWER STRUGGLE, stupid! So where, in all this, is the much praised Serb "democratic opposition"? One shouldn't be too harsh of them: in the present situation of Serbia, of course, any attempt at public disagreement would probably trigger direct death threats. On the other hand, one should nonetheless notice that there was a certain limit that, as far as I know, even the most radical Serb democratic opposition was never able to trespass: the farthest they can go is to admit the monstrous nature of Serb nationalism and ethnic cleansing, but nonetheless to insist that Milosevic is ultimately just on in the series of the nationalist leaders who are to be blamed for the violence of the last decade: Milosevic, Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Kucan, they are ultimately all the same... I am not claiming, agains such a vision, that one should put all the blame on Serbs - my point is just that, instead of such pathetic-apolitical generalizations ("they are all mad, all to blame"), one should, more than ever, insist on a CONCRETE POLITICAL ANALYSIS of the power struggles that triggered the catastrophe. And it is the rejection of such an analysis that accounts for the ultimate hypocrisy of the pacifist attitude towards the Kosovo war: "the true victims are women and children on all sides, so stop the bombing, more violence never helped to end violence, it just pushes us deeper into the vortex..." There is nonetheless another, more disturbing aspect to be discerned in this false carnivalization of the war in the Serb media. The usual Serb complaint is that, instead of confronting them face to face, as it befits brave soldiers, NATO are cowardly bombing them from distant ships and planes. And, effectively, the lesson here is that it is thoroughly false to claim that war is made less traumatic if it is no longer experienced by the soldiers (or presented) as an actual encounter with another human being to be killed, but as an abstract activity in fron of a screen or behind a gun far from the explosion, like guiding a missile on a war ship hundreds of miles away from where it will hit its target. While such a procedure makes the soldier less guilty, it is open to question if it effectively causes less anxiety - one way to explain the strange fact that soldiers often fantasize about killing the enemy in a face to face confrontation, looking him into the eyes before stabbing him with a bayonet (in a kind of military version of the sexual False Memory Syndrome, they even often "remember" such encounters when they never took place). There is a long literary tradition of elevating such face to face encounters as an authentic war experience (see the writings of Ernst Juenger, who praised them in his memoirs of the trench attacks in World War I). So what if the truly traumatic feature is NOT the awareness that I am killing another human being (to be obliterated through the "dehumanization" and "objectivization" of war into a technical procedure), but, on the contrary, this very "objectivization," which then generates the need to supplement it by the fantasies of authentic personal encounters with the enemy? It is thus not the fantasy of a purely aseptic war run as a video game behind computer screens that protects us from the reality of the face to face killing of another person; it is, on the opposite, this fantasy of a face to face encounter with an enemy killed in a bloody confrontation that we construct in order to escape the trauma of the depersonalized war turned into an anonymous technological apparatus. So is not the Serb carnivalization of the daily life also ein Abwehr-Mechanismus gegen die Kriegsmachinerie? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 4 14:47:17 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:17:17 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Aliens R Us Message-ID: Aliens R Us Aliens / Us Ý(not to mention U.S.) Peter Waterman (Global Solidarity Dialogue http://groups/yahoo.com/group/GloSoDia ) Back in the days of the 'War Against Communism' in Vietnam, a US cartoon character called, I think, Pogo, said, 'I have seen the enemy and he is us'. Why does Pogo have no monument in Washington DC? Because the enemy always is, or has to be imagined to be, a not-us. And, for the US, a not-US. In this case 'we' are those who salute the flag, become Hyphenated-USAmericans, worship the Golden Calf and eat it, minced, spiced and grilled, under the Golden Arches. 'We' have our names on a beautiful monument to the thousands of our dead, designed by a Hyphenated-USAmerican, a monument that fails to record the millions of their dead, the fact that 'we' were the invaders and 'we' (or some weak-kneed un-American wimps amongst us) lost the war. On TV and cinema screens across what passes for the Civilised World (or, wherever, so long as they worship and eat the same calf as we do) we are increasingly confronted with the aliens so beloved of the US media industry ñ and the passive, thrill-seeking, public it both feeds and creates. The US media is devoted to the genres of threat, disaster, the serial killer/bomber, violence from 'aliens' (whether within or without). USAmerican pages on the World Wide Web are devoted to the Black Helicopters of ñ guess? ñ the New World Order and the United Nations (a zillion entries on Google. I stopped, exhausted, at 835)! These Non-White Helicopters are, the sites scream, threatening to turn us into slaves or zombies - as if the sponsors of this populist and nativist myth do not bear the traits of both. All this must be due to an underlying and unacknowledged sense of insecurity or inferiority, if not of collective hubris and nemesis (Overweening Pride inviting Overwhelming Fall). Somewhere within the national psyche, and that of Western Civilisation As We Know It, there is a nerve that twitches, telling us we are living with risk, creating dangers, and that we are thus tempting an unmentionable fate. Also an unimaginable fate, actually, because in the movie, there was only one Towering Inferno. Maybe this is a more general expression of the social relations of individualization, dog-eat-dog, rat-race competition, and fanatical Progress Through Technology that accompanies the development of capitalism. After all, the genre goes back to at least H.G. Wells and The War of the Worlds. Or to John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids. The latter provided me with some strange sense of familiarity and comfort as I read it in Prague during the sleepless night following the Invasion of the Soviet Triffids, August 20, 1968. In the good old, innocent, days of the genre, the Aliens were, I seem to recall, eventually affected by some banal Earth disease, to which we had fortunately become immune. Civilisation, As Only We Know It, continued its usual course, if somewhat chastened. Occasionally these alien forces get political names: 'The Yellow Peril', 'The Evil Empire', 'The Backward, Envious, Devious and Irrational Islamic Fundamentalist' (who has the added advantage of looking like a Jew out of an illustrated version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). But the enduring figure, outlasting the rise and fall of mere politicians, states and blocs, is that of the Other-Worldly Alien (Alien I, II and so ad infinitum). In Ecuador, following one of a series of 'Indian Invasions' in its capital (briefly their capital), a book about the matter was entitled The Martian at the Corner. Here a parenthesis is in order: 1) Indians, Dear Columbus, are a couple of oceans away, going East from Europe; 2) Quito is in the middle of the Andes, full of Andin at s, some working at computers, whilst expressing their quite irrational disregard of back-to-front-baseball-hat-wearing Triffids, by displaying long plaits and traditional Quechua traje; 3) Manhattan is not only in the USA, but also in Johannesburg, Bombay and even in that most-isolated and poverty-stricken of Latin American cities, La Paz (where, provocatively, it can be seen, literally downtown, from the slums a half kilometer above). Therefore (or however), I have to declare, in solidarity with Pogo, that I have seen the Alien - and he is quite indubitably us. The Alien is equipped with the most advanced technology. He is warlike and imperial. He has a devious intelligence. He has no familiar human emotions. He wishes to either destroy us or to bring us the benefits of his superior civilization: failure to recognize and accept this is punishable by the most-advanced electronic or chemical means of incineration or vaporisation. He considers others as means to his own ends. He is, in appearance, both recognizably human and frighteningly foreign. He can suck out of us or otherwise transfer to himself our bodies, hearts and minds (alien Hearts 'n' Minds are things which We, in the West of our imagination, only wish to win over). There is, fortunately, nowadays, a Saviour at hand. He is not noticeably either meek or mild and bears an enormous phallic weapon of punishment rather than a cross of reconciliation. He is, as you may have guessed, the Identikit WASP, but either one who has had all his brains transferred to his bipodial-vacular-truceps, with the latter pumped up to ¸bermensch proportions, or a clone, or a cyborg, who nonetheless has the same warm feeling for us weakly earthlings (earthly weaklings) as a series of square-jawed Presidents (Nixon, the second-hand car salesman who proves the rule, must, surely, have been of Levantine descent?). Alienation - the deprival or denial of human capacity and potential ñ was related by the somewhat eurocentric Marx not to the 'nations without history' at the periphery but to the dynamic and internationally-expanding capitalism at the centre. (Marx had, perhaps, not heard the widespread African saying that 'I am who I am because of other people' but would surely have considered it superior to the liberal capitalist notion that 'I am who I am despite other people'). Alienation was the condition, prototypically, of the modern wage-worker rather than the craftsman or peasant (who were presumed, at that time, to still have some property over the means of work and livelihood). Psychology and philosophy have generalized this as the human condition under modernization/ westernization. Alienation was related by Marx to the replacement of all earlier and other human sentiments and ties by the cash nexus. This is a vision of the Other in terms only of individualized competition, of profit and loss. Man's estrangement was, thus, also from his fellow (working) men - not to speak of women. September 21 (WTC+10), I heard an alien speak on the BBC World Service. He had adopted the voice of a commentator from the ultra-right (I hope) US journal, National Review. He declared that the cause and responsibility for the September 11 Outrage rested with Islamic Fundamentalism, envious of the US because it was Rich, Powerful and Good. This, it appears is the Holy Trinity of the Masters of the Universe (who until recently viewed the rest of us from the secure and distant heights of the World Trade Centre). This new Three-in-One is, apparently, GloboMan's alternative to the French Revolution's Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (we would nowadays say Solidarity). The logic and morality of this Alien American's message to the increasing number of the world's Others is somewhat puzzling to myself (in my perverse Pogo propensity to see things from the standpoint of the Other). Which came first, the chickens (Riches and Power) or the egg (Goodness)? Or are they dialectically inter-related, mutually dependent and self-evidently inalienable >from USAmericanism? In so far as Riches and the Power are relative, and therefore dependent (increasingly under International Monetary Fundamentalism) to the poverty and powerlessness of the Other, has all Goodness been sucked out of the Other, too? Has it been privatised, copyrighted, registered and deposited in Fort Knox?Ý ©Virtue IncÆ? I note that the relationship between Liberty, Equality and Solidarity is one of mutual dependence, in that each is part of the meaning of the others. Also that this secular trinity is universalistic (except for the Fraternity bit) and therefore in principle universalisable - at no Other's expense! I can find no such universalism or mutually-determining relation between Wealth, Power and Virtue, since the first two must, of their nature, be unequally spread. And how could Goodness be considered - in anything other than the self-serving PR morality of the greedy and hegemonic - to be concentrated amongst the Rich and Powerful? (If you don't know either, take out a subscription to National Review). My Masters of the Universe come from Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of >the Vanities. This is a savage satire on New York, on Wall Street wheeler-dealers, on WASP privilege and superiority over the streets, the slums, and those who live in or on them. His anti-hero is alienation on limo wheels ñ alienated from everyone outside his ethnic-class (also within it), from his work (which he cannot explain even to himself though it nets him millions) and particularly from those who live in the Jungle. This is his word for the underworld of New York ñ 'underworld' not as in crime, but as in a place inhabited by animals, or untermenschen. (I guess some of them would have flipped hamburgers or cleaned floors in the WTC, as one of them cleaned shoes in Sherman's office). The people of this particular abyss are, of course, quite alien to Sherman McCoy, until he gets lost in the Jungle, is involved in the death of one of its Black inhabitants, and is hauled in front of a venal criminal justice system and flayed by a trivializing and sensationalist media. Tom Wolfe's satire and ridicule runs out of the required wit and spleen when Sherman is finally reduced to jeans, sneakers and prison. Not being much aware of the French Revolution, Sherman's sense of human solidarity is not markedly touched by the leveling down, particularly since his fellow prisoners appear to share certain vengeful features with less-secular communities of the humiliated and dispossessed. At this moment class, race and breeding tell: confronted by the multi-coloured mob (not, again, of the particularly criminal kind), Sherman, uncaring of life or death, confronts them with his bare, if shackled, fists. Out of the jaws of anti-heroism, Wolfe snatchesÖa hero!Öan Anglo-Saxon one, confronting the Wogs and the Fuzzy-Wuzzies. Here the genre becomes that of the 19th century British Boy's Own adventure yarn. The crowd retreats before his righteous anger. Sherman is no longer Rich and Powerful. But he is still, or now, Good. The Real McCoy. If the thesis is hubris and the anti-thesis nemesis, there is no sign here of an integrating and surpassing synthesis. Humanism? Compassion? Forgedaboudit! So is the alien really out there? Is he only around us, in place, space, and ether? Or is it we, in here, who are alienated from our Others and our Selves? Or at least from our possible Other Selves, who could live in a relationship of increasing dialogue, cooperation and trust with Them? The Martians are at the corner, armed now with neither arrows nor nuclear devices, but with the instruments we have fashioned for our daily work, travel, residence and pleasure, taking advantage of the freedom that commoditisation and capital accumulation require, using the morality of the Old Testament. And the Old West: 'Dead or Alive, Dead or Alive' says George bin Bush, Cowboy President of the Universe. These barbarians are determined, it seems, to add to their Good some of our Wealth and Power. Though most of them would be grateful for any significant reduction of poverty and powerlessness made available to them. Recognising that Aliens "R" Us, that We Are the Enemy, could, surely, be a first step toward surpassing our own alienation, and the self-isolating and - today - self-destructive idea that we only know who we are as the enemy of our very own self-created alien. The Hague 25.9.01 From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 4 14:52:36 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:22:36 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] London Socialist Historians Group: Call for papers - Bringing It All Back Home Message-ID: Call for papers Bringing It All Back Home Precursors to Seattle: A history of mass movements against capitalism. A Conference to be held at the Institute of Historical Research, 11th May 2002 The "Teamsters and Turtles" protest against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in November 1999 sparked off a huge wave of anti-capitalist demonstrations across the world. Yet this is not the first time that mass movements have rocked capitalism. The events of 1968 and after, particularly in France and Italy, can be seen as a precursor to Seattle, as can the Great Unrest of 1911 in Britain. The Seattle movement has many roots and inspirations. They include the theories generated by socialist, environmental and anarchist thinkers, the mass strikes of the early twentieth century, the revolutionary moments of Russia in 1917 and Barcelona in 1936, as well as the organisations which remembered these inspirations in quieter times. Some historians have sought to trivialise the scale of these movements by focusing on the culture and style of the rebellion, rather than the challenge they represented to capital. The aim of this conference is to give the current anti-capitalist movement its own history back, both from obscurity and from trivialisers. Papers are invited which focus on mass movements against capitalism, in America, Europe or the Third World, the ideas that inspired the movements and the activists that organised them. Proposals for papers together with a 600 word précis should be sent by 1st December 2001 to Keith Flett, 38 Mitchley Road, Tottenham, London N17 9HG or email: conference2002 at LondonSocialistHistorians.org Organised by the London Socialist Historians Group -- From patrice at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 4 18:00:04 2001 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:30:04 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] [patrice@xs4all.nl: [multitudes_l] Fwd: Show of Solidarity with Muslim women on Oct 8th.] Message-ID: <20011004143004.A25332@xs4all.nl> ----- Forwarded message from Patrice Riemens ----- ----- Forwarded message from Liz Turner ----- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:05:09 +0200 From: Liz Turner To: hippies Subject: Fwd: Show of Solidarity on October 8th I've recieved a couple of messages like this, proposing Monday as Headscarf Day. I'm not sure if it's going to change anyone's mind, but I'm always up for a fashion statement, and this looks like a good one! I know Karin's already appeared in print in the hijab, and very dignified she looked too. Anyone else up for this? liz ===8<==============Original message text=============== Please share this with everyone you know...organizations (you can get email addresses online), teachers/educational faculty, press, peace groups, religious groups, celebrities, people everywhere, people anywhere, anyone you can think of! Visit www.interfaithpeace.org for more information: Please wear a scarf on the 8th! "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead It's simple to do. Women, regardless of their faith, across the United States will wear a scarf or hat covering their hair on October 8, 2001. Like friends who shave their heads in solidarity with cancer patients, women everywhere will wear the hijab. To protect Muslim women who have been afraid to leave their houses because of ignorant hatred, we will dress piously. The hijab (scarf) is worn outwardly to show the inner hijab of compassion, honesty and love, which is carried in the hearts and souls of Islamic men and women alike. Make flyers, call your politicians, or simply cover your hair for a day. It's simple. Show the world we are truly ONE NATION! Questions, contact: jennifer at interfaithpeace at yahoo.com or debmarst at aol.com Participants are asked to keep a journal of their day, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and send it to interfaithpeace at yahoo.com The purpose of the Scarves for Solidarity Campaign is simply to show our support of our Muslim sisters, and to foster discussion with the people you come into contact with during your everyday lives, who obviously know that you are not Muslim....it is not meant to be a political symbol in any way, just a symbol of love. ----- End forwarded message ----- From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Thu Oct 4 18:50:22 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:20:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Reader-list] Re: anti-war campaign In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011003185414.00a50cb0@mail.sarai.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Joy Chatterjee wrote: > In the context of the present thread I think Rushdie's comments will add up > to the discussion. I like the last paragraph the most! > Joy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, I like a lot of the Rushdie essay, but I was disappointed that he confuses: (1a) understanding the WTC attacks with (1b) justifying (excusing) the WTC attacks > To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by sections of > the left that has been among the most unpleasant consequences of the > terrorists' attacks on the United States. "The problem with Americans is . > . . " -- "What America needs to understand . . . " There has been a lot of > sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually prefaced by such ... > was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government > policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are and that he confuses (2a) hoping that "our" USA/UK military forces prevail with (2b) suggesting that the USA/UK military forces will weaken islamic fundamentalism. As well, his belief that compromising civil liberties will help (2b) to weaken islamic fundamentalism seems hopelessly naive to me. > In making free societies safe -- safer -- from terrorism, our civil > liberties will inevitably be compromised. But in return for freedom's Surely free speech, open, publicly readable, threaded archives of mailing lists are much more effective to fighting islamic fundamentalism than military actions carried out in violation of international law. And will "detaining" people of West/Central/South Asian background/passport indefinitely, giving them delayed or no access to lawyer, family, doctor of their own choosing, [without access to lawyer/doctor/family, the risks of torture go up rapidly] really help to discourage fundamentalists? Check out the FAQ on S11 and it's clear that those arguing for (1a) do *not* argue for (1b): http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=12431 Check out Bush Jr's 20/09/01 speech and you'll see that he's *not* opposed to the human rights violations of the Taliban regime: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Bush_transcript010920.html : And tonight the United States of America makes the following : demands on the Taliban. : : Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Quaeda : who hide in your land. : : Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have : unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid : workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every : terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist : and every person and their support structure to appropriate : authorities. : : Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we : can make sure they are no longer operating. : : These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. : The Taliban must act and act immediately. : They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. Nothing about giving women the right to work, the right to vote, the right to not wear a veil, the elimination of the death penalty, the right to be homosexual, the teaching of evolution theory in schools. The Northern Alliance now being presented as the equivalent of the Kurds in northern Iraq don't seem to have a terribly good record on these criteria either. > The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. > Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a > multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable > government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, > short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are > tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to Was Rushdie born yesterday? Surely he realises that George Bush Jr and the Republicrat regime are against nearly every element of the same list? (Exceptions being Jews, short skirts, dancing and beardlessness.) Are Christian fundamentalists going to oppose Islamic fundamentalists? > they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the West needs to > understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its bin McVeigh said he became how he was from being trained in the Gulf War against Iraq. How many more McVeighs are being trained now? Despite my above criticisms, where I'm very much disappointed that someone whose literature I admire can be so confused, some bits are very good, such as the following: > The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, > he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic > indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We > must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, > disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more > equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of > thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by > the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them. > > How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your > life. Even if you are scared. Boud From rmazumdar at mantraonline.com Thu Oct 4 19:46:05 2001 From: rmazumdar at mantraonline.com (Ranjani Mazumdar) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 19:46:05 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Jameson on Sept 11 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011004194548.01a26da0@del1.mantraonline.com> Fredric Jameson North Carolina I have been reluctant to comment on the recent 'events' because the event in question, as history, is incomplete and one can even say that it has not yet fully happened. Obviously there are immediate comments one can make, in particular on the nauseating media reception, whose cheap pathos seemed unconsciously dictated by a White House intent on smothering the situation in sentiment in order to demonstrate the undemonstrable: namely, that 'Americans are united as never before since Pearl Harbor.' I suppose this means that they are united by the fear of saying anything that contradicts this completely spurious media consensus. Historical events, however, are not punctual, but extend in a before and after of time which only gradually reveal themselves. It has, to be sure, been pointed out that the Americans created bin Laden during the Cold War (and in particular during the Soviet war in Afghanistan), and that this is therefore a textbook example of dialectical reversal. But the seeds of the event are buried deeper than that. They are to be found in the wholesale massacres of the Left systematically encouraged and directed by the Americans in an even earlier period. The physical extermination of the Iraqi and the Indonesian Communist Parties, although now historically repressed and forgotten, were crimes as abominable as any contemporary genocide. It is, however, only now that the results are working their way out into actuality, for the resultant absence of any Left alternative means that popular revolt and resistance in the Third World have nowhere to go but into religious and 'fundamentalist' forms. As for the future, no one (presumably including our own Government) has any idea what the promised and threatened 'war on terrorism' might look like. But until we know that, we can have no satisfactory picture of the 'events' we imagine to have taken place on a single day in September. Despite this uncertainty, however, it is permitted to feel that the future holds nothing good for either side. From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 4 22:09:30 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:39:30 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Propaganda Machines Go Into Overdrive During Times of Strife Message-ID: Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 in the Toronto Star The Art of Persuasion Propaganda Machines Go Into Overdrive During Times of Strife by Vinay Menon Propaganda - most simply, information used to persuade a group - is as old as civilization. The Aztecs used it to rationalize human sacrifice. Alexander the Great understood its symbolic power and had his image etched on coins. But propaganda has always been most crucial during periods of conflict and war. So today, with advertising and other forms of modern persuasion ubiquitous, how do leaders slice through the muddled cacophony and target citizens with messages? "The whole notion of propaganda now is up for grabs," says Robert Thompson, a professor at Syracuse University. "In this age of 24-hour news and spin, where there is constant coverage, propaganda has come out of the closet and it really lives among us every day." If Thompson is right, what does this mean to the "War Against Terrorism," which seems to be moving toward a more active phase in Afghanistan this week? Unlike past military efforts, the White House has warned the new war will unfold with "unprecedented secrecy." Though it's now a cliché, it is important to remember truth is often the first casualty of war. Ironically, says Thomas DeLuca, a political science professor at Fordham University in New York, the sheer magnitude of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks created a temporary "propaganda-free zone" because people were simply horrified by the visceral images. For days there were no television commercials. Almost all news coverage was devoted to the story. The entire world seemed to collapse into the deepening tragedy. "This is an unprecedented event in U.S. history," DeLuca says. "There has never been an attack like this. Concentration on this event is highly focused. People want the president to have a plan, to reassure them, to be straightforward. "So George Bush will have an enormous benefit as his words cut through the propaganda that is usually around us." Anthony Pratkanis, professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Cruz, and author of Age Of Propaganda: The Everyday Use And Abuse Of Persuasion, agrees. But he says in the weeks ahead, as collective shock begins to ebb, Bush will be faced with a number of daunting challenges. "If Bush wants to maintain and sustain the effort, the emotional propaganda will be okay for a short war, but in the long term he needs to deliver persuasion. He needs to form consensus and argue with substance, not slogan." That seemed to be the case recently, as Bush addressed U.S. Congress. As cameras rolled and politicians and lawmakers frequently wobbled to their feet, and to thundering applause, Bush delivered a rousing, evocative speech. But the raw emotion and patriotism that has since bloomed atop the rubble in New York and Washington is not necessarily beneficial to anybody in the long run, says Nancy Snow, assistant director with the Center for Communications and Community at UCLA. "A `war mentality' needs to be decontextualized. It needs to be very clear, black and white, good guys versus bad guys," says Snow, author of Propaganda Inc.: Selling America's Culture To The World. "So you end up with a single enemy, with slogans like `Wanted: Dead or Alive,' ones that simplify the issues. Bush is using an `everyman' approach to what is actually a very complex problem, burdensome in a historical and economic context." And this simplification, whether deliberate or not, can cloud fundamental issues. In times of conflict, things are not always as they appear. Before the Persian Gulf War, for example, the world gasped with reports that Iraqi troops were yanking sick babies from hospital incubators and leaving them to die on the floor during the invasion of Kuwait. The "dead babies" account was repeated hundreds of times, in the media and in speeches by U.S. leaders, who were now clearly on a war footing. Other reports - that Iraq had amassed thousands of troops along the Saudi Arabia border - were also used to convince the public that military action was necessary. Both of those reports proved incorrect, but not until the war was over. Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, says the Persian Gulf War took traditional propaganda to a new level as U.S. authorities controlled the flow of information in the media and expanded the lexicon of military euphemisms. Cruise missiles. Smart bombs. Collateral damage. Safe bunkers. Hard targets. Hit ratios. Surgical strikes. To western television viewers, the war must have appeared essentially bloodless. John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine and author of Second Front: Censorship And Propaganda In The Gulf War, says he believes the war on terrorism will unfold with even more secrecy and censorship. "Already we have a kind of `ahistoricality' setting in," he explains. "Nobody here is talking about some very important issues. You're simply not allowed to discuss the history of American foreign policy." Such discussions are seen as unseemly, morally ambiguous, and steeped in preposterous and offensive anti-Americanism. The issue, to many, is simple good versus evil. Says Jacobs: "The whole notion of propaganda raises a larger question: How do you control and manage press reports and the information that is reaching the general public?" During the uprising in Germany, as the Nazis gained power, Josef Goebbels was able to impart nationalist rhetoric and manufacture consent through selective advertising, state-produced films, and elaborate, orchestrated public events. (Adolf Hitler also asked Leni Reifenstahl to film the Nazi Party's annual rally in Nuremburg. Her film, Triumph Of The Will, is now considered a seminal exercise in fascist propaganda.) Decades later, Slobodan Milosevic created "demo networks" - ragtag groups of unemployed youth that would optically boost the size at rallies held for Serbian nationalism. More recently, Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile U.S. Authorities are calling the prime suspect in the recent attacks, has filmed several training videos. As tools of propaganda, the grainy, disjointed footage is used to mollify moderates and recruit new soldiers for the Holy War. (During its bloody war with Russia, Afghan rebels were given camcorders to record their triumphs.) In totalitarian states, persuasion is straightforward. Citizens are simply told what to believe and how to behave. But in democratic nations, governance has nuance, inextricably tethered to divergent principles of individual freedom and mass control. As scholar Noam Chomsky says: "Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to totalitarianism." In this context, says Pratkanis, where propaganda is concerned, governments realize the importance of the media. "The mass media is now the primary place where we have political discussions. So one of the keys to effective political leadership is being able to control the news media's agenda. That agenda is not necessarily how you are talking about something, but what you are talking about." In the war against terrorism, he says, there have been a number of examples where U.S. Authorities announced, "they were planning to release" certain information in the future. This allows the media to run a story about the "future release" of information, rather than the information itself. "This war will be a challenge for democracy itself," Pratkanis predicts. "Because democracy thrives when everything is in the light of day. Now democracy in the United States will require a high degree of trust." And trust is a commodity in rapid decline. The Internet, decades of independent research, and the rapid evolution of alternative media has created a population that is much more sophisticated in its ability to recognize and decipher propaganda - irrespective of the source. "Audiences throughout the world are constantly becoming more exposed to the latest in international mass media entertainment, they are better trained, more aware, often more cynical," notes Oliver Thomson, author of Easily Led: A History of Propaganda. Randall Bytwerk, a professor of communication at Calvin College in Michigan, author and a foremost expert in propaganda, says: "Propaganda, and the control of public opinion, becomes harder when you lack control over the images." This proved to be the case in Vietnam, where public support suddenly dipped as the horrifying images of war were broadcast back home. "Vietnam was a turning point because there were reporters all over the place," Bytwerk says. In the stormy, post-Vietnam years, the U.S. has taken a cautious approach to war. (In fact, the number of firefighters and police offices who died during rescue efforts at the World Trade Center is more than the total military personnel who have fallen in combat since the 1983 invasion of Grenada.) Given the global scope of the new war, and the potential repercussions, Garth Jowett, a communication professor at University of Houston, says Bush has to be very careful in the propaganda he uses. "I fully expected a propaganda onslaught that was going to be totally irrational. But as I understand it, there was an internal conflict within the Bush administration in terms of what kind of message to give the American public." Jowett says many people have compared the attacks with Pearl Harbor. But the analogy is problematic. In that case, there was a clear nation-state enemy. And it's important to remember, he adds, that most Americans did not see footage of the Japanese attack for almost a year. "In terms of propaganda, those visual images (of planes striking the World Trade Center) could not be matched by any other imaginable images," says John Lampe, chair of the Department of History at the University of Maryland. "In fact, if there is any propaganda campaign at play at all, it is to prevent the violent, stereotypical response we have seen domestically in the past." Lampe is referring to the threats and attacks that have been leveled at Arab-Americans and Muslims throughout North America. The violence, including suspected murder, has raised the specter of the Japanese internment camps during World War II. As Jowett notes: "Bush has to maintain the public's confidence that the government will actually do something. But he also doesn't want to get the public so riled up so that they are running out murdering their own citizens." And as Bush said during his speech to Congress: "I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends." First Lady Laura Bush went on 60 Minutes recently to discuss the importance of solidarity and urge Americans to not attack their fellow citizens. And during the recent celebrity telethon, America: A Tribute To Heroes, a number of stars, including Will Smith and Muhammad Ali, urged tolerance. Similarly, this week, U.S. Authorities have scrambled with messages about the safety of air travel - even though Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has remained closed (it will open partially tomorrow). And a number of experts have also started appearing on television telling Americans their country is prepared for any biological attack, even though other non-government sources warn the opposite is true. "We are an action oriented culture," Snow says. "We are not an introspective culture. ``And that's where the sloganeering and jingoism comes into play. ``We are almost given a script and walking papers in terms of how we are supposed to respond." Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited -- From bijoyinic at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 22:02:02 2001 From: bijoyinic at yahoo.com (Bijoyini Chatterjee) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Short piece on Buster Keaton's life from nytimes Message-ID: <20011004163202.13201.qmail@web13706.mail.yahoo.com> On Oct 4, 1895, Buster Keaton was born. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1004.html (Note - Need a free account with the nytimes to access this article) --Bijoyini ----------------------------------------------------- Buster Keaton, 70, Dies on Coast; Poker-Faced Comedian of Films By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ollywood, Feb. 1--Buster Keaton, the poker-faced comic whose studies in exquisite frustration amused two generations of movie audiences, died of lung cancer today at his home in suburban Woodland Hills. His age was 70. Someone once remarked of Buster Keaton that he looked like the kind of man that dogs kick. A mournful little fellow sad-faced as a basset, usually wearing a saucer-brimmed porkpie hat, oversized suit and floppy bow tie, Joseph Francis Keaton stood with Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd as one of the three great clowns of the silent screen. In 30 or more films, mostly two-reelers, filled with pratfalls and custard pie slapstick, Buster Keaton established an unforgettable character--the sad and silent loner who persevered stoically against a mechanized world. Unlike Mr. Chaplin, he was never sentimental and he never resorted to maudlin pathos. He turned a granite face to the wildly comic and nightmarish cries that befell him--and he always prevailed over impending doom. His strength was his ability to survive. He displayed that perseverance not only in his comic characterizations but also in his private activities. For his life was marked by periods of triumph and frustration--wealth, a descent into poverty and alcoholism, and then, in his twilight years, a return to riches, recognition and contentment. His period of greatest productivity was in the early and mid-1920's. In those light-tax days, Buster's salary soared to $3,500 a week, and he built a $300,000 house in Beverly Hills. A great pantomimist, the equal of Mr. Chaplin in comic inventiveness, he was held even superior to "the little tramp" in acrobatic grace. Mr. Keaton never used a double. His ability to take a violent fall without breaking a bone was the marvel of the day. Most of Mr. Keaton's films were made without a script. "Two or three writers and I would start with an idea and then we'd work out a strong finish and let the middle take care of itself, as it always does," Mr. Keaton recalled in an interview two years ago. "Sometimes, we'd work out a gag in advance; other times, it would work itself out as we went along. In those days we didn't use miniatures or process shots. The way a thing looked on the screen was the way you'd done it." When the movies began talking, Buster Keaton dropped out of sight. The public wanted voices, and Buster's pantomime technique failed to hold up. Hard times and marital troubles piled up. After 11 years of marriage (and two sons), he and Natalie Talmadge, sister of the beautiful actresses Norma and Constance, were divorced in 1932. His second marriage, to Mae Scribbens, ended in divorce in 1935. In 1934, filing for bankruptcy, Buster listed assets of $12,000 and liabilities of $303,832. Mr. Keaton was down but never quite out. Just when life seemed as hostile as a paranoid's nightmare, things began to look up. His third marriage, to Eleanor Norris, a 21-year-old dancer, in 1940, brought stability. She survives him, as do his two sons. Video Star in Britain British television rescued him from obscurity in the early 1950's. It brought him fresh fame, a comfortable income and a new public. He appeared on most major television shows in London and was paid from $1,000 to $2,500 for each performance. In 1956 Paramount paid him $50,000 for the rights to "The Keaton Story," a film tracing Mr. Keaton's rise from vaudeville to Hollywood stardom, with Donald O'Connor playing the title role. Mr. Keaton used the money to buy a ranch-type house and an acre and a half of farmland in the San Fernando Valley. He kept busy, making several filmed television shows in Hollywood and appearing in several acting engagements. Reissued "The General" But it was his old silent movies that brought in the gold. Mr. Keaton had had his own producing company in the 1920's and he retained ownership of his old films. He had the film quality restored and a sound track of music added. The pantomime remained intact and the old subtitles were kept. The first reissue was of "The General"--a slapstick classic of a bumbling Civil War spy-- in 1962. It played all over Europe. People laughed harder than they did in 1927, when the film first came out. Mr. Keaton wrote the story and continuity of "The General," directed it, cut it and played the leading role. It was shot in 18 weeks at a cost of $330,000. It contained one of the great chases in movie history: Mr. Keaton's attempt to tame a runaway train during the Civil War. Mr. Keaton's renaissance reached an artistic peak last October at the Venice Film Festival, when "Film," an arty 22-minute silent he made in New York in 1964, was accorded a five-minute standing ovation. Fighting back tears, Mr. Keaton told a correspondent: "This is the first time I've been invited to a film festival, but I hope it won't be the last." Critics differed on "Film," Samuel Beckett's first screenplay, a story of an old, obsessed man who shuts himself up in a room to thwart fate. But there was no dissension over the wonderfully comic image Mr. Keaton gave the world in his old two-reelers such as: "The Cameraman," "Steamboat Bill Jr.," "The Passionate Plumber," "Sherlock Jr." and in a full-length classic, "The Navigator." "The Navigator" contained the unforgettable scene of Mr. Keaton trying to shuffle stuck- together cards. And then there was the memorable sequence when he launches a ship: he stood at attention on deck, resplendent in admiral's uniform, riding it down the ways, never blinking or wavering as it sank slowly out of sight. Early in his career Buster Keaton learned that a stoic countenance drew laughs. He was born to the stage. His parents, Joseph and Myron Keaton, were appearing in a tent show with Harry Houdini, the magician, when the future comedian arrived on October 4, 1895, while the show was playing Piqua, Kan. It was Houdini who coined the nickname. "What a buster!" Houdini is supposed to have exclaimed when the six-month-old baby fell downstairs. That was only the first of countless pratfalls. In the family act, which became one of the roughest knockabout low-comedy turns in vaudeville, Buster was tossed around by Pop with murderous abandon while Mom, oblivious to the chaos, essayed a saxophone solo downstage. It was around that time that Buster perfected his stoic mask while still a child performer. Hit on the face with a broom, he would wait five or six seconds without moving a facial muscle, and then say "Ouch." It always brought down the house. The Keatons did their last variety turn at the Palace in 1917. They were signed by the Schuberts for "The Passing Show of 1917" but Buster was sidetracked by Roscoe (Fatty) Arbuckle, who talked young Keaton into taking a supporting role in a two-reeler called "The Butcher Boy." In this opus Buster was dumped in molasses, bitten by a dog and hit with an apple pie. Soon Buster became an expert on the composition of slapstick pies. "First, you had to make it with a double crust on the bottom, so you could get a good hold on it without your fingers going through," he once recalled. "Then you made the filling of the pie out of flour and water uncooked, so it would be sticky and stringy, and you topped it off with, say, blueberries and whipped cream, or perhaps a nice meringue. I never threw a pie in any of my feature-length pictures. By then we thought pies were pretty silly." In recent years Buster took great satisfaction in the knowledge that a new generation was finding his old films funnier than ever. And although he still refused to smile when a camera was on him, he had to concede that life hadn't been too bad. He was making better than $100,000 a year from commercials alone. "I can't feel sorry for myself," he said in Venice last fall. "It all goes to show that if you stay on the merry-go-round long enough you'll get another chance at the brass ring. Luckily, I stayed on." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 22:07:32 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Whitman's World (from Midday) Message-ID: <20011004163732.19024.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Whitman�s world!--> By: Rehan Ansari October 3,2001 "I am with you men and women of a generation, or ever so many generations hence. Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt". I read this inscription, a quote from Walt Whitman's poem 'Leaves of Grass', on a building near the Brooklyn Promenade. The building looks like a warehouse and a fortress and used to house The Brooklyn Eagle, a powerful newspaper of the middle late 19th century. The young Walt Whitman was its editor, 1846-1848. The inscription also said that Whitman, for his stand against slavery, was fired by the owner. A short walk took me to the promenade of Brooklyn Heights. Brooklyn Heights is an upper middle class neighbourhood and the promenade was full, that sunset, of exclusively white professionals out in mourning, lighting candles and feeling vulnerable. Several hundred wealthy people in one place. The kind of people who usually look through you. The most successful people in the world. In the same neighbourhood the bookstores have, displayed in the windows, books by Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. Their politics are liberal, or fashionably liberal. I cannot tell the difference these days. I say this because from the well-to-do and liberal New York commentators I have heard so much about Iraqi women and children these days. Even Salman Rushdie, who is living in New York, upper eastside no doubt, remembers Iraqi women and children, after the WTC bombing. (Have we all run out of time?) A 20-minute walk takes me to exclusively black Fulton Mall, where it seems as if nothing is amiss: young men are laughing and joking and people are walking in and out of shops. Around the corner, on Flatbush Avenue, lurk the Army, Marine and Navy recruiting centres. A block away is Atlantic Avenue where Osama bin Laden's operatives used to run a recruiting centre for the Afghan Jihad in the early '80s. The only relief to be had from this black and white picture of who is going to war and who is not, against an enemy who was once was an ally is that I still have Walt Whitman in mind. Resigned to death Lissa Richardson is a friend of mine and teaches English at a community college next to the military base Fort Hood in Texas. She wrote me: Were you in Brooklyn on the 11th? What was it like? I sincerely hope you have not experienced any racism because of this. White Americans are being very ugly. A news story circulated about a Pakistani man from San Antonio who tried to fly home to his brother's wedding but the pilot of his plane refused to fly until he disembarked. I've personally seen the racism in subtle ways. A student of mine (Lebanese) told me that a classmate made a joke that he was responsible for the World Trade Center attacks. I felt totally inadequate as to know how to respond, but it made me furious. Working next to Ft Hood gives me first hand insight into the mobilisation Bush speaks of. All last week it took me two hours to get to work (it's a 45 minute commute normally) because all cars going on post were being searched completely. I had to sit in the traffic until I could turn in to the college. Some of my students are preparing for deployment. They are missing classes because they have to get their shots, prepare power of attorney, etc. They have no idea where or when they will be leaving, or for how long. They don't know if they are being sent on combat duty (extra pay, no set return date) or not. They do know they could be gone within a week or within a month. It's very nebulous and frightening. I see tanks and men with guns every day now, patrolling the entrances to post. Until this time in my life, I have never been face to face with so many people who are soldiers, which means that I have never had to confront so many people who may soon have to fight or die. This is the worst case scenario, but I fear that many people agree with me, even the soldiers, who are resigned and not sounding very patriotic. There will be a peace march in Austin next Saturday. I will go. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. Yahoo! by Phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011004/a85472ab/attachment.html From jotarun at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 4 23:05:04 2001 From: jotarun at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=20and=20Tarun?=) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:35:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] Anti Imperial Struggles - a sceptical response In-Reply-To: <200110041550.RAA02743@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <20011004173504.20965.qmail@web9104.mail.yahoo.com> Anti Imperialist Struggles - a sceptical response I was little worried about my mail about the Workers' Solidarity leaflet. I was ready to be cast aside by comrades as another 'right deviationist' or an apologist for America. So, I put in as many qualifications I could possibly insert. But Shuddhabrata Sengupta's comments came as a relief (although I could see a similar attempt at groping through a maze of qualifications). So some further ramblings, or what else can I do- away from Delhi - a place of petitions and nomenclatures. In the spectacle of terror and intended counter-terror, where do we stand, we with our banners of anti war, peace, US deserved it? Sometimes I think our banners are like those last stories in a TV news programmes called soft stories (my TV past catches me), they exist to justify their irrelevance, because at no point they radically rupture the overwhelming presence and logic of Hard-core political stories. They are there to act like conscience of the corporate greed. Similarly, we (I am sure of exceptions) with our radical postures and slogans are just the conscience (i am sure we are) of the politics as usual. Our attempt is to steer the spectacle in a direction which we consider correct. Show that the dissent exists, show that every story has two sides. But two sides of a coin is after all, only a unity of the coin.' Spectacle' of Imperialism and its anti-imperialist counter are usually two sides of the same coin of Nationalism. (See Shuddhabrata's mail). Let me give site an example from the part of the world I live in. North east India has always been at the forefront of Anti Indian Imperialist struggles. One of the most common sites here is Gun toting Indian state militia. You can't escape them. Their behaviour smacks of all the nightmarish humanrightviolation stuff. But then the resistance to this big brother is not all that exciting and freedom loving. Dress codes, musical taste arbitration, whom you can love, whom you can't and all the familiar anti-imperialist chauvinisms. What should I oppose and what should I defend? It is not as easy as a Democratic right pamphlet on semi-colonial, semi-feudal Indian state behaviour. Should I just make a choice between little and big nationalism, greater and lesser evil. Sometimes I feel a radical quietism is the best alternative (see the appending of the term radical). The choice after 11/9/2001 is no longer red & white (as if it ever was), maybe we are being forced to consider some other colour, say black & red. Tarun Bhartiya splitENDS media co-op (these comments are of Tarun in Jo & Tarun ) --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get your free Yahoo! address at Yahoo! Mail: UK or IE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011004/1ef1d80c/attachment.html From suchita at del6.vsnl.net.in Thu Oct 4 19:54:12 2001 From: suchita at del6.vsnl.net.in (Suchita Vemuri) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:54:12 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign References: <20011002093217.A0854420EC@nda.vsnl.net.in> <01100316030200.02063@sweety.sarai.kit> Message-ID: <000201c14cff$509fb5a0$6675c8cb@such> excellent commentary (jeebesh's) on the present. taking his comment forward -- what thoughts on methods to take solidarity forward? i've been listening to people "ask" for this, but together, the overwhelming majority refuse to accept a minimum common platform, instead want all their "pure" messages incorporated so that only a handful of the "pure" can possibly be part of the solidarity. -- recently some people had a peace vigil at the raj ghat in delhi -- 200 attended and they were all very pleased with themselves that "so many" had come and what a "good" demonstration it was!! 200 in a city of 13 million !! what shocks me is how blind the "pure" are -- so, once again, any thoughts on how to get a solidarity move going? -- the danger (and, fear) of communal strife in india is more awful / fearful today than it has been in a long time -- maybe as bad or worse han it was at the time of the ayodhya demolition and the bbay riots after -- s ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeebesh Bagchi To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign > Thank you Naga for the postings. Felt confused by the text. > > Some comments: > > October 1984 was listening to a radio commentary of a cricket match > between India and Pakistan. I remember Sandeep Patil playing very well. > Suddenly the commentary stopped and one realized that the then prime > minister had been shot by two of her bodyguards. Over a period of 6 hours > the city was gripped by an unfathomable terror. The next few days the city > burnt and thousands of people belonging to a specific community (4000?) > were butchered. The then ruling dispensation rationalized it as `when a big > tree falls the earth shakes`. The suffering of those few days continues and > few understand the trajectories of those wounds and scars. > > 1991 A friend came home shaking in terror. "Bombing has started in the > deserts. It's being telecast live on CNN`. Those days the streets around my > college had large numbers of Saddam Hussein being sold. Slowly, with time, > images disappeared from the TV and the streets. No new images of the dead, > the dying or would-be dying appeared. > > Few years later another friend suffered a nervous breakdown. He was trying > to help riot victims in camps in (the then) Bombay. The suffering inflicted > then continues today. > > Three films made after the events: Machis; Fiza; Mission Kashmir. What do > these films tell us about the making of young men with hardened souls, > seething anger, and a monocular vision? They are transformed by events that > occur in their vicinity, it happens to them, to their near and dear ones. > These were all victims of local events but linked to a larger play of > power's cynical manipulation of `past suffering` and `present hardship`. > > Convulsions and hardship are an everyday occurrence. They have their > victims and perpetrators. New victims and new perpetrators. And endless > permutations and combinations in which sometimes it is difficult to figure > out who is what. An endless loop. But in the process we have stronger and > lengthier barded wire fences, more earnest patrolling and waving of > insignias of supposed identification. Balance barabar kabhi nahin hota hai > (perfect balance will never be achieved). One death is never revenged by > another death. It needs a higher quantum to compensate for the time of > suffering and thus the spiral is upward and fiercer. > > In difficult times it becomes important to ask questions that can cut into > this endless loop of destruction and death. > > States are fairly cold-blooded `organisms-machines-rationalities` with very > little respect for hospitality. Their `outward look` is motivated by > self-interest, ambition and suspicion. Their inner gaze is equally > suspicious and obsessed with control and monitoring. Sometimes the `looks` > collide and, at times, get interlocked. Depending on the military power of > the states the `human cost` is factored in. Cynical times. Saddam Hussein > uses dying children to justify his power and Bush and his global allies are > using the 6000 dead as a rationale for his military action. > > An impoverished man in a poster all around Delhi stares at us and the > byline reads `no actors, all victims` (it's an ad for a television > programme). The line keeps returning to my mind. Every power today wants to > portray themselves as victims. No actors, and thus no question of > responsibility and no ethical questioning of action or utterance. > > Two words or phrases seem to have become common to explain the present > juncture: - `international terrorism` and `US foreign policy`. Both are > gathering an emotional shell and are capable of unleashing a reign of > terror. These are political categories and do not help us to understand the > complexity, contradictions and confusion of the present time. Amidst > present `moral fuzziness` these concepts will create an emotional universe > where any or every thing or people can be targets of assault either by > states or by proto-state organizations with a stake in state power. > > The global configuration of `Empire` is layered, contradictory and > complicatedly mediated through states and institutions, and the histories > of its formation are bathed in blood. We need to address this configuration > with concepts that cut through the fog and the eternal loop of > `action-reaction`, 'victim-perpetrator". > > This is the time to build solidarities and accelerate resistance. Time to > think about suffering and imagine possible ways of living and thinking that > speaks a different vocabulary. > > Let us think about the everyday suspicions and brutalities that people live > with. Otherwise a time will come when all of us will go so against each > other that we will sing our way to our graves. Someone commented a century > ago that the fall of capital would be a thousand times more barbaric than > the fall of Rome. Maybe he was correct! > > best > Jeebesh > _______________________________________________ > Reader-list mailing list > Reader-list at sarai.net > http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Fri Oct 5 00:54:39 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:24:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Reader-list] anti-war campaign In-Reply-To: <000201c14cff$509fb5a0$6675c8cb@such> Message-ID: [this is a cross-post to imc-india & reader-list] Jeebesh wrote: > This is the time to build solidarities and accelerate > resistance. Time to think about suffering and imagine possible ways > of living and thinking that speaks a different vocabulary. On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Suchita Vemuri wrote: > excellent commentary (jeebesh's) on the present. taking his comment > forward -- what thoughts on methods to take solidarity forward? i've been > listening to people "ask" for this, but together, the overwhelming majority > refuse to accept a minimum common platform, instead want all their "pure" > messages incorporated so that only a handful of the "pure" can possibly be > part of the solidarity. -- recently some people had a peace vigil at the raj > ghat in delhi -- 200 attended and they were all very pleased with themselves > that "so many" had come and what a "good" demonstration it was!! 200 in a > city of 13 million !! > > what shocks me is how blind the "pure" are -- so, once again, any thoughts > on how to get a solidarity move going? -- the danger (and, fear) of communal > strife in india is more awful / fearful today than it has been in a long > time -- maybe as bad or worse han it was at the time of the ayodhya > demolition and the bbay riots after -- s Jeebesh, Suchita, I think electronic fora like reader-list clearly have a role in getting different "purists" to listen to each other and to understand each other. However, reader-list is not intended to be a news agency (as I understand it) - it's for wide ranging discussion. Although e-connected activists in Delhi are presumably a tiny minority, you can surely still help coordinate things. One possibility would be another mailing list deliberately dedicated to agreeing on "minimum common platforms" for specific events/actions. Another key element of building solidarity and accelerating resistance would surely be getting India.Indymedia off the ground. Its role is different and complementary to that of reader-list. And also different and complementary to a list specifically for agreeing/debating on activist type actions. See the FAQ on indymedia: - http://process.indymedia.org/faq.php3 My impression of Indymedia sites around the world is that they have helped different activist groups who would normally be fighting over "purism" to at least coordinate their actions in terms of reporting news events, and to actions such as street demonstrations, or even more importantly, to occasional letter-writing/telephoning/faxing campaigns to members of parliaments. Indymedia should certainly *not* replace other actions. On the contrary, to have an Indymedia site accepted, diverse groups (e.g. socialists, anarchists, greens) already involved in grass-roots actions have to talk to each other and accept to cooperate in supporting and running the site. If, as a by-product, they also decide on common, non-violent street actions, so much the better! > From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta ... > But I dont want to elaborate on their argument, only to state that I > completely agree with their call for caution in applauding the > slogan of anti-imperialsim when it comes to the USA and conveniently > forgetting the big, little and miniscule imperial aspirations of > every gang of armed thugs, or pious non-violent satyagrahis, that > flies the flag of national liberation. By the nature of its software, and by the agreed upon socio-political principles of non-hierarchy, open meetings, etc, an (or some) Indian Indymedia sites would contribute to preventing the creation or limiting the dictatorial or lethal power of any "anti-imperialist empires" that anti-imperialists might want to create. At the same time it would help limit existing imperialism, whether Western-imposed or indigenous... So, how about some action on Indymedia? Did anyone here participate in an Indymedia discussion at the Delhi anti-war meeting this evening (Thu 4 Oct)? Or how about the splintENDS group in Shillong? Have you got some groups together? More on Indymedia: - http://newimc.indymedia.org - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-india/2001-August/thread.html - http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-india/2001-September/thread.html plus the sites themselves: http://www.indymedia.org http://india.indymedia.org (unofficial) Boud (Indymedia volunteer) From jotarun at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 5 18:35:20 2001 From: jotarun at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=20and=20Tarun?=) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:05:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] Some solidarity ideas apart from head scarf day In-Reply-To: <200110041550.RAA02743@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <20011005130520.18620.qmail@web9106.mail.yahoo.com> I was pretty taken in by the Head Scarf Day idea, and am suggesting some more for your comradely/sisterly and all the lys consideration 1. Ghoonghat day - all of us put on ghoonghat as it is about purity and shame for hindu woman 2. Woman not out in market day - solidarity with women whose proper place is home 3. Arranged marriage day - This is what easterners are supposed to do 4. Upper caste not touching the lower caste day - Caste system is the corner stone of Hinduism 5. Man never cooks (every)day- to show solidarity with the traditional men who feel alienated from the new(?) man 6. Moral Police day - we hit every woman/man whose morals we don't like, with a stick, 1 feet 11 inches long. 7. Sacred Thread day - All of us wear sacred thread except for non-brahmins, women, non-hindus, and proclaim the sacred duties of Brahmin to legislate for the whole world 8.. Liberal hearts bleeding day - we go along with everything oppressive only because they are non-western or traditional or anti-secular or anti modern or anti-american If luther blisset is reading this, then mr. blisset your idea of having no hizab day is completely stupid and reactionary, prepare for intellectual siberia for this radical crime. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get your free Yahoo! address at Yahoo! Mail: UK or IE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011005/3930c3ef/attachment.html From ravis at sarai.net Fri Oct 5 19:07:05 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 19:07:05 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Edward Said in Al-Ahram Weekly (cairo) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011005190611.00ab9188@mail.sarai.net> Backlash and backtrack Edward Said Al-Ahram Weekly Online 27 Sep. - 3 Oct. 2001 Issue No.553 For the seven million Americans who are Muslims (only two million of them Arab) and have lived through the catastrophe and backlash of 11 September, it's been a harrowing, especially unpleasant time. In addition to the fact that there have been several Arab and Muslim innocent casualties of the atrocities, there is an almost palpable air of hatred directed at the group as a whole that has taken many forms. George W Bush immediately seemed to align America and God with each other, declaring war on the "folks" -- who are now, as he says, wanted dead or alive -- who perpetrated the horrible deeds. And this means, as no one needs any further reminding, that Osama Bin Laden, the elusive Muslim fanatic who represents Islam to the vast majority of Americans, has taken centre stage. TV and radio have run file pictures and potted accounts of the shadowy (former playboy, they say) extremist almost incessantly, as they have of the Palestinian women and children caught "celebrating" America's tragedy. Pundits and hosts refer non-stop to "our" war with Islam, and words like "jihad" and "terror" have aggravated the understandable fear and anger that seem widespread all over the country. Two people (one a Sikh) have already been killed by enraged citizens who seem to have been encouraged by remarks like Defence Department official Paul Wolfowitz's to literally think in terms of "ending countries" and nuking our enemies. Hundreds of Muslim and Arab shopkeepers, students, hijab-ed women and ordinary citizens have had insults hurled at them, while posters and graffiti announcing their imminent death spring up all over the place. The director of the leading Arab-American organisation told me this morning that he averages 10 messages an hour of insult, threat, bloodcurdling verbal attack. A Gallup poll released yesterday states that 49 per cent of the American people said yes (49 per cent no) to the idea that Arabs, including those who are American citizens, should carry special identification; 58 per cent demand (41 per cent don't) that Arabs, including those who are Americans, should undergo special, more intense security checks in general. Then, the official bellicosity slowly diminishes as George W discovers that his allies are not quite as unrestrained as he is, as (undoubtedly) some of his advisers, chief among them the altogether more sensible-seeming Colin Powell, suggest that invading Afghanistan is not quite as simple as sending in the Texas militias might have been, even as the enormously confused reality forced on him and his staff dissipates the simple Manichean imagery of good versus evil that he has been maintaining on behalf of his people. A noticeable de-escalation sets in, even though reports of police and FBI harassment of Arabs and Muslim continue to flood in. Bush visits a Washington mosque; he calls on community leaders and the Congress to damp down hate speech; he starts trying to make at least rhetorical distinctions between "our" Arab and Muslim friends (the usual ones -- Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) and the still undisclosed terrorists. In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Bush did say that the US is not at war with Islam, but said regrettably nothing about the rising wave of both incidents and rhetoric that has assailed Muslims, Arabs and people resembling Middle Easterners all across the country. Powell here and there expresses displeasure with Israel and Sharon for exploiting the crisis by oppressing Palestinians still more, but the general impression is that US policy is still on the same course it has always been on -- only now a huge war seems to be in the making. But there is little positive knowledge of the Arabs and Islam in the public sphere to fall back on and balance the extremely negative images that float around: the stereotypes of lustful, vengeful, violent, irrational, fanatical people persist anyway. Palestine as a cause has not yet gripped the imagination here, especially not after the Durban conference. Even my own university, justly famous for its intellectual diversity and the heterogeneity of its students and staff, rarely offers a course on the Qur'an. Philip Hitti's History of the Arabs, by far the best modern, one-volume book in English on the subject, is out of print. Most of what is available is polemical and adversarial: the Arabs and Islam are occasions for controversy, not cultural and religious subjects like others. Film and TV are packed with horrendously unattractive, bloody- minded Arab terrorists; they were there, alas, before the terrorists of the World Trade Center and Pentagon hijacked the planes and turned them into instruments of a mass slaughter that reeks of criminal pathology much more than of any religion. There seems to be a minor campaign in the print media to hammer home the thesis that "we are all Israelis now," and that what has occasionally occurred in the way of Palestinian suicide bombs is more or less exactly the same as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. In the process, of course, Palestinian dispossession and oppression are simply erased from memory; also erased are the many Palestinian condemnations of suicide bombing, including my own. The overall result is that any attempt to place the horrors of what occurred on 11 September in a context that includes US actions and rhetoric is either attacked or dismissed as somehow condoning the terrorist bombardment. Intellectually, morally, politically such an attitude is disastrous since the equation between understanding and condoning is profoundly wrong, and very far from being true. What most Americans find difficult to believe is that in the Middle East and Arab world US actions as a state -- unconditional support for Israel, the sanctions against Iraq that have spared Saddam Hussein and condemned hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis to death, disease, malnutrition, the bombing of Sudan, the US "green light" for Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (during which almost 20,000 civilians lost their lives, in addition to the massacres of Sabra and Shatila), the use of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf generally as a private US fiefdom, the support of repressive Arab and Islamic regimes -- are deeply resented and, not incorrectly, are seen as being done in the name of the American people. There is an enormous gap between what the average American citizen is aware of and the often unjust and heartless policies that, whether or not he/she is conscious of them, are undertaken abroad. Every US veto of a UN Security resolution condemning Israel for settlements, the bombing of civilians, and so forth, may be brushed aside by, say, the residents of Iowa or Nebraska as unimportant events and probably correct, whereas to an Egyptian, Palestinian or Lebanese citizen these things are wounding in the extreme, and remembered very precisely. In other words, there is a dialectic between specific US actions on the one hand and consequent attitudes towards America on the other hand that has literally very little to do with jealousy or hatred of America's prosperity, freedom, and all-round success in the world. On the contrary, every Arab or Muslim that I have ever spoken to expressed mystification as to why so extraordinarily rich and admirable a place as America (and so likeable a group of individuals as Americans) has behaved internationally with such callous obliviousness of lesser peoples. Surely also, many Arabs and Muslims are aware of the hold on US policy of the pro-Israeli lobby and the dreadful racism and fulminations of pro-Israeli publications like The New Republic or Commentary, to say nothing of bloodthirsty columnists like Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, George Will, Norman Podhoretz, and A M Rosenthal, whose columns regularly express hatred and hostility towards Arabs and Muslims. These are usually to be found in the mainstream media (e.g., the editorial pages of The Washington Post) where everyone can read them as such, rather than being buried in the back pages of marginal publications. So we are living through a period of turbulent, volatile emotion and deep apprehension, with the promise of more violence and terrorism dominating consciousness, especially in New York and Washington, where the terrible atrocities of 11 September are still very much alive in the public awareness. I certainly feel it, as does everyone around me. But what is nevertheless encouraging, despite the appalling general media performance, is the slow emergence of dissent, petitions for peaceful resolution and action, a gradually spreading, if still very spotty, relatively small demand for alternatives to more bombing and destruction. This kind of thoughtfulness has been very remarkable, in my opinion. First of all, there have been very widely expressed concerns about what may be the erosion of civil liberties and individual privacy as the government demands, and seems to be getting, the powers to wire-tap telephones, to arrest and detain Middle Eastern people on suspicion of terrorism, and generally to induce a state of alarm, suspicion, and mobilisation that could amount to paranoia resembling McCarthyism. Depending on how one reads it, the American habit of flying the flag everywhere can seem patriotic of course, but patriotism can also lead to intolerance, hate crimes, and all sorts of unpleasant collective passion. Numerous commentators have warned about this and, as I said earlier, even the president in his speech said that "we" are not at war with Islam or Muslim people. But the danger is there, and has been duly noted by other commentators, I am happy to say. Second, there have been many calls and meetings to address the whole matter of military action, which according to a recent poll, 92 per cent of the American people seem to want. Because, however, the administration hasn't exactly specified what the aims of this war are ("eradicating terrorism" is more metaphysical than it is actual), nor the means, nor the plan, there is considerable uncertainty as to where we may be going militarily. But generally speaking the rhetoric has become less apocalyptic and religious -- the idea of a crusade has disappeared almost completely -- and more focused on what might be necessary beyond general words like "sacrifice" and "a long war, unlike any others." In universities, colleges, churches and meeting-houses there are a great many debates on what the country should be doing in response; I have even heard that families of the innocent victims have said in public that they do not believe military revenge is an appropriate response. The point is that there is considerable reflection at large as to what the US should be doing, but I am sorry to report that the time for a critical examination of US policies in the Middle East and Islamic worlds has not yet arrived. I hope that it will. If only more Americans and others can grasp that the main long-range hope for the world is this community of conscience and understanding, that whether in the protection of constitutional rights, or in reaching out to the innocent victims of American power (as in Iraq), or in relying on understanding and rational analysis "we" can do a great deal better than we have so far done. Of course this won't lead directly to changed policies on Palestine, or a less skewed defence budget, or more enlightened environmental and energy attitudes: but where else but in this sort of decent back-tracking is there room for hope? Perhaps this constituency may grow in the United States, but speaking as a Palestinian, I must also hope that a similar constituency should be emerging in the Arab and Muslim world. We must start thinking about ourselves as responsible for the poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, and repression that have come to dominate our societies, evils that we have allowed to grow despite our complaints about Zionism and imperialism. How many of us, for example, have openly and honestly stood up for secular politics and have condemned the use of religion in the Islamic world as roundly and as earnestly as we have denounced the manipulation of Judaism and Christianity in Israel and the West? How many of us have denounced all suicidal missions as immoral and wrong, even though we have suffered the ravages of colonial settlers and inhuman collective punishment? We can no longer hide behind the injustices done to us, anymore than we can passively bewail the American support for our unpopular leaders. A new secular Arab politics must now make itself known, without for a moment condoning or supporting the militancy (it is madness) of people willing to kill indiscriminately. There can be no more ambiguity on that score. I have been arguing for years that our main weapons as Arabs today are not military but moral, and that one reason why, unlike the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinian struggle for self- determination against Israeli oppression has not caught the world's imagination is that we cannot seem to be clear about our goals and our methods, and we have not stated unambiguously enough that our purpose is coexistence and inclusion, not exclusivism and a return to some idyllic and mythical past. The time has come for us to be forthright and to start immediately to examine, re-examine and reflect on our own policies as so many Americans and Europeans are now doing. We should expect no less of ourselves than we should of others. Would that all people took the time to try to see where our leaders seem to be taking us, and for what reason. Scepticism and re- evaluation are necessities, not luxuries. From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Sat Oct 6 16:32:09 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 16:32:09 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Here I come Peer to peer sharing networks---RIAA Message-ID: <3BBEE4B1.F8FA40AF@linux-delhi.org> Dotcom Scoop Exclusive Internal Memos Outline RIAA's Strategy To Launch Offensive Against Peer-To-Peer Networks Recording industry eyes battle as RIAA Chief tries to rally troops RIAA files lawsuit against three file sharing networks (see Update section at bottom) RIAA memo citing strategy & analysis to battle P2P networks Letter from RIAA President & CEO to industry leaders By Ben Silverman Editor, Dotcom Scoop Wednesday October 3, 2001 @ 12:01 A.M. EDT (Updated 3:10 a.m. EDT) As the battle between the music industry and Napster nears an end, the major record labels are preparing to launch a new offensive aimed at wiping out the new breed of peer-to-peer file sharing services, and it may include help from inside the beast itself. In a memo prepared by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), exclusively obtained by Dotcom Scoop, the lobbying organization for the music industry outlines its strategy and findings to combat services that have quickly replaced Napster as the vehicle of choice for file sharing. "We have solid claims against FastTrack, MusicCity, and Grokster of secondary liability for copyright infringement. The claims are not as strong as those against Napster, but they are also not so remote as to be wishful," reads an excerpt from the memo distributed on September 25, 2001 internally and eventually to some of the organization's member companies. FastTrack, a Netherlands-based company, is the leading force in the post-Napster file swapping frenzy. The company has launched the KaZaA service and licensed its code to MusicCity and Grokster. MusicCity is a Nashville outfit that's backed by Timberline Venture Partners, an affiliate of respected VC firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Grokster has incorporated in the tiny Caribbean island of Nevis. The RIAA's strategy calls for litigation against FastTrack, MusicCity and Grokster, and possibly against Timberline Venture Partners. But the RIAA believes it has found a potential ally in FastTrack. The memo states that FastTrack representatives are willing to sit down with the record labels and discuss alternatives to litigation. The RIAA recommendation is that after litigation is filed against the three companies, they enter in discussions with FastTrack. "Immediately thereafter [ed. note; filing a lawsuit] initiating discussions with FastTrack about resolving our claims in a way that will provide us with useful information and testimony against MusicCity, and if possible obtain FastTrack's cooperation in shutting down or converting MusicCity and Grokster," states the memo. The memo notes that the RIAA believes MusicCity is awaiting litigation and would like the RIAA to file a lawsuit. A source close to the RIAA told Dotcom Scoop that the RIAA will be joined by The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in litigation against the peer-to-peer networks. But the source warned that the RIAA's case is weak and the association will need cooperation from FastTrack if it wants to win. "This scenario is very different from the challenge the industry faced with Napster," the source told Dotcom Scoop. "[The RIAA] will be dealing with companies that are more rogue in nature and that have a better grasp of technology that masks actions and skirts copyright laws. They will need FastTrack in their corner. FastTrack controls the code that enables these three networks." The RIAA has been working with Los Angeles-based network security solutions firm Vidius to study how peer-to-peer networks operate. The RIAA states in the memo that more information about how the FastTrack code utilizes supernodes, high-bandwidth computers that connect multiple "peers," is needed. "Our claims would likely be strengthened by learning more about the designation of supernodes and the content of communications within the system. However, the encryption of this communication precludes further learning absent cooperation from one of these companies or court ordered discovery," the memo states. According to the RIAA's findings, the supernodes effectively act as search agents for peers, or users, looking for specific data files. Computers designating as supernodes have been found at IP addresses linked to major universities and even NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Because these peer-to-peer networks tap into the computing power of the users, it has been difficult to argue that the companies are directly breaking copyright laws. However, the memo states that the RIAA has been able to link a supernode directly to Grokster and that all three companies maintain log-in servers which facilitate file sharing. In a separate letter, also exclusively obtained by Dotcom Scoop, distributed on September 25, RIAA President and CEO Hilary Rosen implores online music industry leaders to sit down and talk about the issue at hand. "It is time to get coordinated and aggressive with the new round of peer to peer services. The amount of music being downloaded is, as you know, reaching unprecedented levels. Since college started last week Morpheus traffic was up to 19 million downloads per day. AND THAT'S JUST MORPHEUS. With the imminent launch of legitimate subscription services we have to get our customers back," Rosen told executives at various major labels, Yahoo, Real Networks, Microsoft and AOL in an email. "I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued. Rosen called on the executives to attend a meeting at RIAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. in the very near future. At the meeting Rosen hopes to discuss how to "spoof" the new file sharing technologies, how to promote existing services on legitimate file sharing services, a public relations campaign and general legal strategies and options. She asked that only people in the capacity to make decisions and "commit to spending" attend and that other parties would eventually be brought in to provide input. Dotcom Scoop contacted the RIAA and at their request, forwarded the association unedited copies of the memos. "We are not confirming whether these are real emails. But if anyone thinks that the music community is sitting idly by while these services threaten our industry and our technology partners they are wrong," a spokesperson for the RIAA told Dotcom Scoop. Last week Napster came to terms with music publishers, agreeing to pay out $26 million in damages. An October 10 court date to hear new motions in the case the RIAA has filed against Napster is on the docket. Napster is now backed by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, which is attempting to legitimize the service. A number of industry-backed online music and video on demand services are being prepared for launch. MusicNet, a joint venture between streaming media firm Real Networks, AOL Time Warner's Warner Music, Bertelsmann’s BMG Music, EMI Group and Zomba Music, is set to launch in the next sixty days. MusicNet will utilize Real Network's streaming media applications. Meanwhile, Sony Music and Vivendi's Universal Music are preparing to launch pressplay with help from Microsoft's MSN, Yahoo and Vivendi's MP3.com. The pressplay service will use Microsoft's Windows Media Player software. On Tuesday EMI broke ranks with its competitors and said it had licensed its catalog to pressplay, a move more likely engineered to quell antitrust fears. Bertelsmann is preparing to re-launch the Napster service, which has been suspended since early this summer. Napster's CEO Konrad Hilbers has said the subscription service will cost $5 per month. Pricing for the other services has yet to be announced. Bertlesmann has also acquired online file storage firm myplay. Vivendi has created an online music network by acquiring MP3.com, eMusic and GetMusic since the beginning of the year. Yahoo recently stepped into the fray with its acquisition of Launch Media. In the past six weeks, all of the major motion picture and television production studios have entered into joint ventures with one another to provide online video-on-demand services. The peer-to-peer file sharing services are some of the most popular downloads available online. The free softwares are used mostly to exchange digital music and movies files, with the vast majority being in violation of international copyright laws. Representatives from MusicCity and Timberline Venture Partners did not return calls seeking comment. UPDATE Late on Tuesday, the RIAA and MPAA filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against FastTrack, MusicCity and Grokster. "We cannot sit idly by while these services continue to operate illegally, especially at a time when new legitimate services are being launched," Rosen said in a statement, according to CNET News.com. The article does not specify the content of the lawsuit. -- 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 aiindex at mnet.fr Sat Oct 6 23:05:38 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:35:38 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance Message-ID: The New York Times | Magazine October 7, 2001 BEING WATCHED A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance By JEFFREY ROSEN PHOTO: Stephen Gill for The New York Times Caption: Stolen Kiss Surveillance cameras like this one in London capture criminals and noncriminals alike. A week after the attacks of Sept. 11, as the value of most American stocks plummeted, a few companies, with products particularly well suited for a new and anxious age, soared in value. One of the fastest growing stocks was Visionics, whose price more than tripled. The New Jersey company is an industry leader in the fledgling science of biometrics, a method of identifying people by scanning and quantifying their unique physical characteristics -- their facial structures, for example, or their retinal patterns. Visionics manufactures a face-recognition technology called FaceIt, which creates identification codes for individuals based on 80 unique aspects of their facial structures, like the width of the nose and the location of the temples. FaceIt can instantly compare an image of any individual's face with a database of the faces of suspected terrorists, or anyone else. Visionics was quick to understand that the terrorist attacks represented not only a tragedy but also a business opportunity. On the afternoon of Sept. 11, the company sent out an e-mail message to reporters, announcing that its founder and C.E.O., Joseph Atick, ''has been speaking worldwide about the need for biometric systems to catch known terrorists and wanted criminals.'' On Sept. 20, Atick testified before a special government committee appointed by the secretary of transportation, Norman Mineta. Atick's message -- that security in airports and embassies could be improved using face-recognition technology as part of a comprehensive national surveillance plan that he called Operation Noble Shield -- was greeted enthusiastically by members of the committee, which seemed ready to endorse his recommendations. ''In the war against terrorism, especially when it comes to the homeland defense,'' Atick told me, describing his testimony, ''the cornerstone of this is going to be our ability to identify the enemy before he or she enters into areas where public safety could be at risk.' Atick proposes to wire up Reagan National Airport in Washington and other vulnerable airports throughout the country with more than 300 cameras each. Cameras would scan the faces of passengers standing in line, and biometric technology would be used to analyze their faces and make sure they are not on an international terrorist ''watch list.'' More cameras unobtrusively installed throughout the airport could identify passengers as they walk through metal detectors and public areas. And a final scan could ensure that no suspected terrorist boards a plane. ''We have created a biometric network platform that turns every camera into a Web browser submitting images to a database in Washington, querying for matches,'' Atick said. ''If a match occurs, it will set off an alarm in Washington, and someone will make a decision to wire the image to marshals at the airport.'' Of course, protecting airports is only one aspect of homeland security: a terrorist could be lurking on any corner in America. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Howard Safir, the former New York police commissioner, recommended the installation of 100 biometric surveillance cameras in Times Square to scan the faces of pedestrians and compare them with a database of suspected terrorists. Atick told me that since the attacks he has been approached by local and federal authorities from across the country about the possibility of installing biometric surveillance cameras in stadiums and subway systems and near national monuments. ''The Office of Homeland Security might be the overall umbrella that will coordinate with local police forces'' to install cameras linked to a biometric network throughout American cities, Atick told me. ''How can we be alerted when someone is entering the subway? How can we be sure when someone is entering Madison Square Garden? How can we protect monuments? We need to create an invisible fence, an invisible shield.'' Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity. But in fact, over the past decade, this precise state of affairs has materialized, not in the United States but in the United Kingdom. At the beginning of September, as it happened, I was in Britain, observing what now looks like a glimpse of the American future. I had gone to Britain to answer a question that seems far more pertinent today than it did early last month: why would a free and flourishing Western democracy wire itself up with so many closed-circuit television cameras that it resembles the set of ''The Real World'' or ''The Truman Show''? The answer, I discovered, was fear of terrorism. In 1993 and 1994, two terrorist bombs planted by the I.R.A. exploded in London's financial district, a historic and densely packed square mile known as the City of London. In response to widespread public anxiety about terrorism, the government decided to install a ''ring of steel'' -- a network of closed-circuit television cameras mounted on the eight official entry gates that control access to the City. Anxiety about terrorism didn't go away, and the cameras in Britain continued to multiply. In 1994, a 2-year-old boy named Jamie Bulger was kidnapped and murdered by two 10-year-old schoolboys, and surveillance cameras captured a grainy shot of the killers leading their victim out of a shopping center. Bulger's assailants couldn't, in fact, be identified on camera -- they were caught because they talked to their friends -- but the video footage, replayed over and over again on television, shook the country to its core. Riding a wave of enthusiasm for closed-circuit television, or CCTV, created by the attacks, John Major's Conservative government decided to devote more than three-quarters of its crime-prevention budget to encourage local authorities to install CCTV. The promise of cameras as a magic bullet against crime and terrorism inspired one of Major's most successful campaign slogans: ''If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.'' Instead of being perceived as an Orwellian intrusion, the cameras in Britain proved to be extremely popular. They were hailed as the people's technology, a friendly eye in the sky, not Big Brother at all but a kindly and watchful uncle or aunt. Local governments couldn't get enough of them; each hamlet and fen in the British countryside wanted its own CCTV surveillance system, even when the most serious threat to public safety was coming from mad cows. In 1994, 79 city centers had surveillance networks; by 1998, 440 city centers were wired. By the late 1990's, as part of its Clintonian, center-left campaign to be tough on crime, Tony Blair's New Labor government decided to support the cameras with a vengeance. There are now so many cameras attached to so many different surveillance systems in the U.K. that people have stopped counting. According to one estimate, there are 2.5 million surveillance cameras in Britain, and in fact there may be far more. As I filed through customs at Heathrow Airport, there were cameras concealed in domes in the ceiling. There were cameras pointing at the ticket counters, at the escalators and at the tracks as I waited for the Heathrow express to Paddington Station. When I got out at Paddington, there were cameras on the platform and cameras on the pillars in the main terminal. Cameras followed me as I walked from the main station to the underground, and there were cameras at each of the stations on the way to King's Cross. Outside King's Cross, there were cameras trained on the bus stand and the taxi stand and the sidewalk, and still more cameras in the station. There were cameras on the backs of buses to record people who crossed into the wrong traffic lane. Throughout Britain today, there are speed cameras and red-light cameras, cameras in lobbies and elevators, in hotels and restaurants, in nursery schools and high schools. There are even cameras in hospitals. (After a raft of ''baby thefts'' in the early 1990's, the government gave hospitals money to install cameras in waiting rooms, maternity wards and operating rooms.) And everywhere there are warning signs, announcing the presence of cameras with a jumble of different icons, slogans and exhortations, from the bland ''CCTV in operation'' to the peppy ''CCTV: Watching for You!'' By one estimate, the average Briton is now photographed by 300 separate cameras in a single day. Britain's experience under the watchful eye of the CCTV cameras is a vision of what Americans can expect if we choose to go down the same road in our efforts to achieve ''homeland security.'' Although the cameras in Britain were initially justified as a way of combating terrorism, they soon came to serve a very different function. The cameras are designed not to produce arrests but to make people feel that they are being watched at all times. Instead of keeping terrorists off planes, biometric surveillance is being used to keep punks out of shopping malls. The people behind the live video screens are zooming in on unconventional behavior in public that in fact has nothing to do with terrorism. And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid. The dream of a biometric surveillance system that can identify people's faces in public places and separate the innocent from the guilty is not new. Clive Norris, a criminologist at the University of Hull, is Britain's leading authority on the social effects of CCTV. In his definitive study, ''The Maximum Surveillance Society: the Rise of CCTV,'' Norris notes that in the 19th century, police forces in England and France began to focus on how to distinguish the casual offender from the ''habitual criminal'' who might evade detection by moving from town to town. In the 1870's, Alphonse Bertillon, a records clerk at the prefecture of police in Paris, used his knowledge of statistics and anthropomorphic measurements to create a system for comparing the thousands of photographs of arrested suspects in Parisian police stations. He took a series of measurements -- of skull size, for example, and the distance between the ear and chin -- and created a unique code for every suspect whom the police had photographed. Photographs were then grouped according to the codes, and a new suspect could be compared only with the photos that had similar measurements, instead of with the entire portfolio. Though Bertillon's system was often difficult for unskilled clerks to administer, a procedure that had taken hours or days was now reduced to a few minutes. It wasn't until the 1980's, with the development of computerized biometric and other face-recognition systems, that Bertillon's dream became feasible on a broad scale. In the course of studying how biometric scanning could be used to authenticate the identities of people who sought admission to secure buildings, innovators like Joseph Atick realized that the same technology could be used to pick suspects or license plates out of a crowd. It's the license-plate technology that the London police have found most attractive, because it tends to be more reliable. (A test of the best face-recognition systems last year by the U.S. Department of Defense found that they failed to identify matches a third of the time.) Soon after arriving in London, I visited the CCTV monitoring room in the City of London police station, where the British war against terrorism began. I was met by the press officer, Tim Parsons, and led up to the control station, a modest-size installation that looks like an air-traffic-control room, with uniformed officers manning two rows of monitors. Although installed to catch terrorists, the cameras in the City of London spend most of their time following car thieves and traffic offenders. ''The technology here is geared up to terrorism,'' Parsons told me. ''The fact that we're getting ordinary people -- burglars stealing cars -- as a result of it is sort of a bonus.'' Have you caught any terrorists? I asked. ''No, not using this technology, no,'' he replied. As we watched the monitors, rows of slow-moving cars filed through the gates into the City, and cameras recorded their license-plate numbers and the faces of their drivers. After several minutes, one monitor set off a soft, pinging alarm. We had a match! But no, it was a false alarm. The license plate that set off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was 8670amc. After a few more mismatches, the machine finally found an offender, though not a serious one. A red van had gone through a speed camera, and the local authority that issued the ticket couldn't identify the driver. An alert went out on the central police national computer, and it set off the alarm when the van entered the City. ''We're not going to do anything about it because it's not a desperately important call,'' said the sergeant. Because the cameras on the ring of steel take clear pictures of each driver's face, I asked whether the City used the biometric facial recognition technology that American airports are now being urged to adopt. ''We're experimenting with it to see if we could pick faces out of the crowd, but the technology is not sufficiently good enough,'' Parsons said. ''The system that I saw demonstrated two or three years ago, a lot of the time it couldn't differentiate between a man and a woman.'' (In a recent documentary about CCTV, Monty Python's John Cleese foiled a Visionics face-recognition system that had been set up in the London borough of Newham by wearing earrings and a beard.) Nevertheless, Parsons insisted that the technology will become more accurate. ''It's just a matter of time. Then we can use it to detect the presence of criminals on foot in the city,'' he said. In the future, as face-recognition technology becomes more accurate, it will become even more intrusive, because of pressures to expand the biometric database. I mentioned to Joseph Atick of Visionics that the City of London was thinking about using his technology to establish a database that would include not only terrorists but also all British citizens whose faces were registered with the national driver's license bureau. If that occurs, every citizen who walks the streets of the City could be instantly identified by the police and evaluated in light of his past misdeeds, no matter how trivial. With the impatience of a rationalist, Atick dismissed the possibility. ''Technically, they won't be able to do it without coming back to me,'' he said. ''They will have to justify it to me.'' Atick struck me as a refined and thoughtful man (he is the former director of the computational neuroscience laboratory at Rockefeller University), but it seems odd to put the liberties of a democracy in the hands of one unelected scientist. Atick says that his technology is an enlightened alternative to racial and ethnic profiling, and if the faces in the biometric database were, in fact, restricted to known terrorists, he would be on to something. Instead of stopping all passengers who appear to be Middle Eastern and victimizing thousands of innocent people, the system would focus with laserlike precision on a tiny handful of the guilty. (This assumes that the terrorists aren't cunning enough to disguise themselves.) But when I asked whether any of the existing biometric databases in England or America are limited to suspected terrorists, Atick confessed that they aren't. There is a simple reason for this: few terrorists are suspected in advance of their crimes. For this reason, cities in England and elsewhere have tried to justify their investment in face-recognition systems by filling their databases with those troublemakers whom the authorities can easily identify: local criminals. When FaceIt technology was used to scan the faces of the thousands of fans entering the Super Bowl in Tampa last January, the matches produced by the database weren't terrorists. They were low-level ticket scalpers and pickpockets. Biometrics is a feel-good technology that is being marketed based on a false promise -- that the database will be limited to suspected terrorists. But the FaceIt technology, as it's now being used in England, isn't really intended to catch terrorists at all. It's intended to scare local hoodlums into thinking they might be setting off alarms even when the cameras are turned off. I came to understand this ''Wizard of Oz'' aspect of the technology when I visited Bob Lack's monitoring station in the London borough of Newham. A former London police officer, Lack attracted national attention -- including a visit from Tony Blair -- by pioneering the use of face-recognition technology before other people were convinced that it was entirely reliable. What Lack grasped early on was that reliability was in many ways beside the point. Lack installed his first CCTV system in 1997, and he intentionally exaggerated its powers from the beginning. ''We put one camera out and 12 signs'' announcing the presence of cameras, Lack told me. ''We reduced crime by 60 percent in the area where we posted the signs. Then word on the street went out that we had dummy cameras.'' So Lack turned his attention to face-recognition technology and tried to create the impression that far more people's faces were in the database than actually are. ''We've designed a poster now about making Newham a safe place for a family,'' he said. ''And we're telling the criminal we have this information on him: we know his name, we know his address, we know what crimes he commits.'' It's not true, Lack admits, ''but then, we're entitled to disinform some people, aren't we?'' So you're telling the criminal that you know his name even though you don't, I asked? ''Right,'' Lack replied. ''Pretty much that's about advertising, isn't it?'' Lack was elusive when I asked him who, exactly, is in his database. ''I don't know,'' he replied, noting that the local police chief decides who goes into the database. He would only make an ''educated guess'' that the database contains 100 ''violent street robbers'' under the age of 18. ''You have to have been convicted of a crime -- nobody suspected goes on, unless they're a suspected murderer -- and there has to be sufficient police intelligence to say you are committing those crimes and have been so in the last 12 weeks.'' When I asked for the written standards that determined who, precisely, was put in the database, and what crimes they had to have committed, Lack promised to send them, but he never did. From Lack's point of view, it doesn't matter who is in his database, because his system isn't designed to catch terrorists or violent criminals. In the three years that the system has been up and running, it hasn't resulted in a single arrest. ''I'm not in the business of having people arrested,'' Lack said. ''The deterrent value has far exceeded anything you imagine.'' He told me that the alarms went off an average of three times a day during the month of August, but the only people he would conclusively identify were local youths who had volunteered to be put in the database as part of an ''intensive surveillance supervision program,'' as an alternative to serving a custodial sentence. ''The public statements about the efficacy of the Newham facial-recognition system bear little relationship to its actual operational capabilities, which are rather weak and poor,'' says Clive Norris of the University of Hull. ''They want everyone to believe that they are potentially under scrutiny. Its effectiveness, perhaps, is based on a lie.'' This lie has a venerable place in the philosophy of surveillance. In his preface to ''Panopticon,'' Jeremy Bentham imagined the social benefits of a ring-shaped ''inspection-house,'' in which prisoners, students, orphans or paupers could be subject to constant surveillance. In the center of the courtyard would be an inspection tower with windows facing the inner wall of the ring. Supervisors in the central tower could observe every movement of the inhabitants of the cells, who were illuminated by natural lighting, but Venetian blinds would ensure that the supervisors could not be seen by the inhabitants. The uncertainty about whether or not they were being surveilled would deter the inhabitants from antisocial behavior. Michel Foucault described the purpose of the Panopticon -- to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.'' Foucault predicted that this condition of visible, unverifiable power, in which individuals have internalized the idea that they may always be under surveillance, would be the defining characteristic of the modern age. Britain, at the moment, is not quite the Panopticon, because its various camera networks aren't linked and there aren't enough operators to watch all the cameras. But over the next few years, that seems likely to change, as Britain moves toward the kind of integrated Web-based surveillance system that Visionics has now proposed for American airports and subway systems. At the moment, for example, the surveillance systems for the London underground and the British police feed into separate control rooms, but Sergio Velastin, a computer-vision scientist, says he believes the two systems will eventually be linked, using digital technology. Velastin is working on behavioral-recognition technology for the London underground that can look for unusual movements in crowds, setting off an alarm, for example, when people appear to be fighting or trying to jump on the tracks. (Because human CCTV operators are easily bored and distracted, automatic alarms are viewed as the wave of the future.) ''Imagine you see a piece of unattended baggage which might contain a bomb,'' Velastin told me. ''You can back-drag on the image and locate the person who left it there. You can say where did that person come from and where is that person now? You can conceive in the future that you might be able to do that for every person in every place in the system.'' Of course, Velastin admitted, ''if you don't have social agreement about how you're going to operate that, it could get out of control.'' Once thousands of cameras from hundreds of separate CCTV systems are able to feed their digital images to a central monitoring station, and the images can be analyzed with face- and behavioral-recognition software to identify unusual patterns, then the possibilities of the Panopticon will suddenly become very real. And few people doubt that connectivity is around the corner; it is, in fact, the next step. ''CCTV will become the fifth utility: after gas, electricity, sewage and telecommunications,'' says Jason Ditton, a criminologist at the University of Sheffield who is critical of the technology's expansion. ''We will come to accept its ubiquitousness.'' At the moment, there is only one fully integrated CCTV in Britain: it transmits digital images over a broadband wireless network, like the one Joseph Atick has proposed for American airports, rather than relying on traditional video cameras that are chained to dedicated cables. And so, for a still clearer vision of the interconnected future of surveillance, I set off for Hull, Britain's leading timber port, about three hours northeast of London. Hull has traditionally been associated not with dystopian fantasies but with fantasies of a more basic sort: for hundreds of years, it has been the prostitution capital of northeastern Britain. Six years ago, a heroin epidemic created an influx of addicted young women who took to streetwalking to sustain their drug habit. Nearly two years ago, the residents' association of a low-income housing project called Goodwin Center hired a likable and enterprising young civil engineer named John Marshall to address the problem of under-age prostitutes having sex on people's windowsills. Marshall, who is now 33, met me at the Hull railway station carrying a CCTV warning sign. Armed with more than a million dollars in public financing from the European Union, Marshall decided to build what he calls the world's first Ethernet-based, wireless CCTV system. Initially, Marshall put up 27 cameras around the housing project. The cameras didn't bother the prostitutes, who in fact felt safer working under CCTV. Instead, they scared the johns -- especially after the police recorded their license numbers, banged on their doors and threatened to publish their names in the newspapers. Business plummeted, and the prostitutes moved indoors or across town to the traditional red-light district, where the city decided to tolerate their presence in limited numbers. But Marshall soon realized that he had bigger fish to fry than displacing prostitutes from one part of Hull to another. His innovative network of linked cameras attracted national attention, which led, a few months ago, to $20 million in grant money from various levels of government to expand the surveillance network throughout the city of Hull. ''In a year and a half,'' Marshall says, ''there'll be a digital connection to every household in the city. As far as cameras go, I can imagine that, in 10 years' time, the whole city will be covered. That's the speed that CCTV is growing.'' In the world that Marshall imagines, every household in Hull will be linked to a central network that can access cameras trained inside and outside every building in the city. ''Imagine a situation where you've got an elderly relative who lives on the other side of the city,'' Marshall says. ''You ring her up, there's no answer on the telephone, you think she collapsed -- so you go to the Internet and you look at the camera in the lounge and you see that she's making a cup of tea and she's taken her hearing aid out or something.'' The person who controls access to this network of intimate images will be a very powerful person indeed. And so I was eager to meet the monitors of the Panopticon for myself. On a side street of Hull, near the Star and Garter Pub and the city morgue, the Goodwin Center's monitoring station is housed inside a ramshackle private security firm called Sentry Alarms Ltd. The sign over the door reads THE GUARD HOUSE. The monitoring station is locked behind a thick, black vault-style door, but it looks like a college computer center, with an Alicia Silverstone pinup near the door. Instead of an impressive video wall, there are only two small desktop computers, which receive all the signals from the Goodwin Center network. And the digital, Web-based images -- unlike traditional video -- are surprisingly fuzzy and jerky, like streaming video transmitted over a slow modem. During my time in the control room, from 9 p.m. to midnight, I experienced firsthand a phenomenon that critics of CCTV surveillance have often described: when you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens and allow them to zoom in on whatever happens to catch their eyes, they tend to spend a fair amount of time leering at women. ''What catches the eye is groups of young men and attractive, young women,'' I was told by Clive Norris, the Hull criminologist. ''It's what we call a sense of the obvious.'' There are plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on the walls. In Hull, this temptation is magnified by the fact that part of the operators' job is to keep an eye on prostitutes. As it got late, though, there weren't enough prostitutes to keep us entertained, so we kept ourselves awake by scanning the streets in search of the purely consensual activities of boyfriends and girlfriends making out in cars. ''She had her legs wrapped around his waist a minute ago,'' one of the operators said appreciatively as we watched two teenagers go at it. ''You'll be able to do an article on how reserved the British are, won't you?'' he joked. Norris also found that operators, in addition to focusing on attractive young women, tend to focus on young men, especially those with dark skin. And those young men know they are being watched: CCTV is far less popular among black men than among British men as a whole. In Hull and elsewhere, rather than eliminating prejudicial surveillance and racial profiling, CCTV surveillance has tended to amplify it. After returning from the digital city of Hull, I had a clearer understanding of how, precisely, the spread of CCTV cameras is transforming British society and why I think it's important for America to resist going down the same path. ''I actually don't think the cameras have had much effect on crime rates,'' says Jason Ditton, the criminologist, whose evaluation of the effect of the cameras in Glasgow found no clear reduction in violent crime. ''We've had a fall in crime in the last 10 years, and CCTV proponents say it's because of the cameras. I'd say it's because we had a boom economy in the last seven years and a fall in unemployment.'' Ditton notes that the cameras can sometimes be useful in investigating terrorist attacks -- like the Brixton nail-bomber case in 1999 -- but there is no evidence that they prevent terrorism or other serious crime. Last year, Britain's violent crime rates actually increased by 4.3 percent, even though the cameras continued to proliferate. But CCTV cameras have a mysterious knack for justifying themselves regardless of what happens to crime. When crime goes up the cameras get the credit for detecting it, and when crime goes down, they get the credit for preventing it. If the creation of a surveillance society in Britain hasn't prevented terrorist attacks, it has had subtle but far-reaching social costs. The handful of privacy advocates in Britain have tried to enumerate those costs by arguing that the cameras invade privacy. People behave in self-conscious ways under the cameras, ostentatiously trying to demonstrate their innocence or bristling at the implication of guilt. Inside a monitoring room near Runnymede, the birthplace of the Magna Carta, I saw a group of teenagers who noticed that a camera was pivoting around to follow them; they made an obscene gesture toward it and looked back over their shoulders as they tried to escape its gaze. The cameras are also a powerful inducement toward social conformity for citizens who can't be sure whether they are being watched. ''I am gay and I might want to kiss my boyfriend in Victoria Square at 2 in the morning,'' a supporter of the cameras in Hull told me. ''I would not kiss my boyfriend now. I am aware that it has altered the way I might behave. Something like that might be regarded as an offense against public decency. This isn't San Francisco.'' Nevertheless, the man insisted that the benefits of the cameras outweighed the costs, because ''thousands of people feel safer.'' There is, in the end, a powerfully American reason to resist the establishment of a national surveillance network: the cameras are not consistent with the values of an open society. They are technologies of classification and exclusion. They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their opportunities. I came to appreciate the exclusionary potential of the surveillance technology in a relatively low-tech way when I visited a shopping center in Uxbridge, a suburb of London. The manager of the center explained that people who are observed to be misbehaving in the mall can be banned from the premises. The banning process isn't very complicated. ''Because this isn't public property, we have the right to refuse entry, and if there's a wrongdoer, we give them a note or a letter, or simply tell them you're banned.'' In America, this would provoke anyone who was banned to call Alan Dershowitz and sue for discrimination. But the British are far less litigious and more willing to defer to authority. Banning people from shopping malls is only the beginning. A couple of days before I was in London, Borders Books announced the installation of a biometric face-recognition surveillance system in its flagship store on Charing Cross Road. Borders' scheme meant that that anyone who had shoplifted in the past was permanently branded as a shoplifter in the future. In response to howls of protest from America, Borders dismantled the system, but it may well be resurrected in a post-Sept. 11 world. Perhaps the reason that Britain has embraced the new technologies of surveillance, while America, at least before Sept. 11, had strenuously resisted them, is that British society is far more accepting of social classifications than we are. The British desire to put people in their place is the central focus of British literature, from Dickens to John Osborne and Alan Bennett. The work of George Orwell that casts the most light on Britain's swooning embrace of CCTV is not ''1984.'' It is Orwell's earlier book ''The English People.'' ''Exaggerated class distinctions have been diminishing,'' Orwell wrote, but ''the great majority of the people can still be 'placed' in an instant by their manners, clothes and general appearance'' and above all, their accents. Class distinctions are less hardened today than they were when I was a student at Oxford at the height of the Thatcher-era ''Brideshead Revisited'' chic. But it's no surprise that a society long accustomed to the idea that people should know their place didn't hesitate to embrace a technology designed to ensure that people stay in their assigned places. Will America be able to resist the pressure to follow the British example and wire itself up with surveillance cameras? Before Sept. 11, I was confident that we would. Like Germany and France, which are squeamish about CCTV because of their experience with 20th-century totalitarianism, Americans are less willing than the British to trust the government and defer to authority. After Sept. 11, however, everything has changed. A New York Times/CBS news poll at the end of September found that 8 in 10 Americans believe they will have to give up some of their personal freedoms to make the country safe from terrorist attacks. Of course there are some liberties that should be sacrificed in times of national emergency if they give us greater security. But Britain's experience in the fight against terrorism suggests that people may give up liberties without experiencing a corresponding increase in security. And if we meekly accede in the construction of vast feel-good architectures of surveillance that have far-reaching social costs and few discernible social benefits, we may find, in calmer times, that they are impossible to dismantle. It's important to be precise about the choice we are facing. No one is threatening at the moment to turn America into Orwell's Big Brother. And Britain hasn't yet been turned into Big Brother, either. Many of the CCTV monitors and camera operators and policemen and entrepreneurs who took the time to meet with me were models of the British sense of fair play and respect for the rules. In many ways, the closed-circuit television cameras have only exaggerated the qualities of the British national character that Orwell identified in his less famous book: the acceptance of social hierarchy combined with the gentleness that leads people to wait in orderly lines at taxi stands; a deference to authority combined with an appealing tolerance of hypocrisy. These English qualities have their charms, but they are not American qualities. The promise of America is a promise that we can escape from the Old World, a world where people know their place. When we say we are fighting for an open society, we don't mean a transparent society -- one where neighbors can peer into each other's windows using the joysticks on their laptops. We mean a society open to the possibility that people can redefine and reinvent themselves every day; a society in which people can travel from place to place without showing their papers and being encumbered by their past; a society that respects privacy and constantly reshuffles social hierarchy. The ideal of America has from the beginning been an insistence that your opportunities shouldn't be limited by your background or your database; that no doors should be permanently closed to anyone who has the wrong smart card. If the 21st century proves to be a time when this ideal is abandoned -- a time of surveillance cameras and creepy biometric face scanning in Times Square -- then Osama bin Laden will have inflicted an even more terrible blow than we now imagine. Jeffrey Rosen is an associate professor at George Washington University Law School and the legal affairs editor of The New Republic. He writes frequently on law for The Times Magazine. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 7 05:20:33 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 00:50:33 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] LABOR AGAINST WAR - Petition Message-ID: PLEASE FORWARD TO OTHERS Trade unionists, regardless of geographic location, are invited to endorse the NYC Labor Against War statement below. (If you are not a trade unionist, please forward this to union members.) Endorsers will be listed by city and/or country. (All affiliations and titles will be "for identification only," unless otherwise requested.) A hard-copy sign-up form and latest list of signers can be downloaded from To list your name (current list of signers below), please e-mail your name and union affiliation/position to LaborAgainstWar at yahoogroups.com, letwin at alaa.org, or fill in the blanks below, and fax this page to 212.343.0966. Name: Union/Position: E-mail: City: ------------------------------------------------ NEW YORK CITY LABOR AGAINST WAR September 27, 2001 September 11 has brought indescribable suffering to New York City's working people. We have lost friends, family members and coworkers of all colors, nationalities and religions--a thousand of them union members. An estimated one hundred thousand New Yorkers will lose their jobs. We condemn this crime against humanity and mourn those who perished. We are proud of the rescuers and the outpouring of labor support for victims' families. We want justice for the dead and safety for the living. And we believe that George Bush's war is not the answer. No one should suffer what we experienced on September 11. Yet war will inevitably harm countless innocent civilians, strengthen American alliances with brutal dictatorships and deepen global poverty--just as the United States and its allies have already inflicted widespread suffering on innocent people in such places as Iraq, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Territories, the former Yugoslavia and Latin America. War will also take a heavy toll on us. For Americans in uniform--the overwhelming number of whom are workers and people of color--it will be another Vietnam. It will generate further terror in this country against Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, people of color and immigrants, and erode our civil liberties. It will redirect billions to the military and corporate executives, while draining such essential domestic programs as education, health care and the social security trust. In New York City and elsewhere, it will be a pretext for imposing "austerity" on labor and poor people under the guise of "national unity." War will play into the hands of religious fanatics--from Osama bin Laden to Jerry Falwell--and provoke further terrorism in major urban centers like New York. Therefore, the undersigned New York City metro-area trade unionists believe a just and effective response to September 11 demands: *NO WAR. It is wrong to punish any nation or people for the crimes of individuals--peace requires global social and economic justice. *JUSTICE, NOT VENGEANCE. An independent international tribunal to impartially investigate, apprehend and try those responsible for the September 11 attack. *OPPOSITION TO RACISM *DEFENSE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. Stop terror, racial profiling and legal restrictions against people of color and immigrants, and defend democratic rights. *AID FOR THE NEEDY, NOT THE GREEDY. Government aid for the victims' families and displaced workers--not the wealthy. Rebuild New York City with union labor, union pay, and with special concern for new threats to worker health and safety. *NO LABOR "AUSTERITY." The cost of September 11 must not be borne by working and poor New Yorkers. No surrender of workers' living standards, programs or other rights. SIGNERS (List in formation: Rev. October 5, 2001 17:36) ALL AFFILIATIONS AND TITLES LISTED FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PRESIDENTS (9) *Larry Adams, National Postal Mail Handlers Union Local 300 *Barbara Bowen, Professional Staff Congress-CUNY/AFT Local 2334 *Arthur Cheliotes, CWA Local 1180 *Michael Letwin, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325 *Jill Levy, Council of Supervisors and Administrators (CSA), NYS Federation of School Administrators, AFSA Local 1 *Maida Rosenstein, UAW Local 2110 *Joel Schwartz, CSEA Local 446, AFSCME *Brenda Stokely, AFSCME Local 215, DC 1707 *Jonathan Tasini, National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981 OTHER MEMBERS (168) *Jayma Abdoo, Joint Council Delegate, UAW Local 2110 *Ervand Abrahanian, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Tristin Adie, Shop Steward, CWA Local 1109 *Marilyn Albert, RN, SEIU Local 1199 *George Albro, Sec'y-Treasurer, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Tom Anderson, Vice-Chairperson, OSA *Anthony Arnove, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Sylvia Aron, Human Serv. Providers Adv. Cttee., NYC Central Labor Rehab. Council; Past President, AAUP, Adelphi Chapter *Stanley Aronowitz, University-Wide Officer & Executive Council, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Daniel Ashworth, Delegate, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Harold Bahr III, Chair, GLTGC, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Ellen Baker, Assistant Professor of History, Columbia University; AAUP *Thomas Barton, Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 768, DC 37 *Nicholas K. Bedell, Grievance Representative, CWE/UFT *Dorothee Benz, Communications Director, CWA Local 1180 *Carl Biers, Executive Director, AUD *Peter Blum, Acting Vice-President/CAB, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Robert Bomersbach, OSA *Ian Brand, UNITE! Local 169 *Caroline N. Brown, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Bill Bradley, Delegate, SEIU Local 32B-J *Renate Bridenthal, Chair, International Committee, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Rachel Burd, labor consultant, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Chris Butters, AFSCME Local 1070, DC 37 *Barbara H. Chasin, officer, AFT Local 1904, Montclair State University *A.B. Chitty, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334; USN 65-9 VN, 66-7 68, NY/VVAW *Maria J. Chiu, JRD-Queens, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Kimberly Christensen, UUP *Patricia Clough, Queens College Chapter Officer, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Antonia Codling, Chair, ACLA, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Hillel Cohen, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199 *Catherine Cook, Joint Council Delegate, UAW Local 2110 *Sandi E Cooper, Prof. of Hist., College of SI & Grad. Sch.-CUNY, frm. chair, Univ. Fac. Senate; PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Thelma C. Correll, SEIU Local 1199, Retirees Chapter Executive Cttee.; AUD Adv. Bd.; PHANYC *Lillian Cozzarelli, CWA Local 1180 *Claire Crosby, GSEU/UAW Local 2110 *Jackie DiSalvo, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Robert E. Dow, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Bryce Dowd, Organizer, SEIU Local 1199 *Steve Downs, Executive Board, TWU Local 100 *Phyllis Eckhaus, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Madeleine M. Egger, CWA Local 1101 *Hester Eisenstein, Queens College Chapter, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Toby Emmer, Director, UAW Region 9A Education Fund *Hugh English, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Hillary Exter, LSSA/UAW Local 2320 *Samuel Farber, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Kate Fitzer, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Geoffrey Fox, NY Local Steering Committee, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Josh Fraidstern, TWU Local 100 *Richard W. Franke, Executive Board, AFT Local 1904, Montclair State University *Lew Friedman, UFT *Eric Fruman, AFT *Nanette Funk, Brooklyn College Chapter, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Pam Galpern, Shop Steward, CWA Local 1101 *Gary Goff, Recording Sec'y, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Marty Goodman, Executive Board, TWU Local 100 *Winston A. Gordon, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Mark Grashow, former Chapter Chairperson, UFT *Shirley Gray, Grievance Representative, OSA *Mike Grimbel, AFSCME Local 375, DC 37; Delegate, NYC Central Labor Council *George Gulifield, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Larry Hanley, City College Delegate, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Elon Harpaz, Delegate, CAB, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Bill Henning, Vice-President, CWA Local 1180 *Lucy Herschel, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199, Legal Aid Society Chapter *Ed Hilbrich, SSA/SEIU Local 693 *Carol Hochberg, Vice-President/JRD, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Norman Hodgett, AFSCME Local 371, DC 37 *Nina Howes, RN, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199 *Dean Hubbard, union attorney, Labor & Employment Committee, National Steering Committee, National Lawyers Guild *Carolyn Hughes, UFT *Lisa Jessup, Organizer, UAW Local 2110 *Christine Karatnytsky, Executive Board, New York Public Library Guild, AFSCME Local 1930; Editor, Local 1930 Update *Danny Katch, Teamsters Local 805 *Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz, Director, Queens College Worker Education Extension Center; PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *David Kazanjian, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Dian Killian, Organizer, Journalism Division, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Terry Klug, Sec'y-Treasurer, TWU Local 241 *Lisa Maya Knauer, GSOC/UAW Local 2110 *John Korber, IWW-NYC; UFT *Daniella Korotzer, Alternate Vice-President/CDD-Brooklyn, Health & Safety Representative, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Kitty Krupat, Bargaining Team, GSOC/UAW Local 2110 *Ray Laforest, Staff Representative, DC 1707, AFSCME *Jane Latour, Dir., Women's Proj., AUD; Man. Ed., Hardhat Mag.; NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Tatiana Lemon, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199, Legal Aid Society Chapter *Robert Lesko, Vice-President, AFT Local 3882 *Eileen A. McCann, Alternate Delegate, Civil-SI, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Patrick McCreery, GSOC/UAW Local 2110 *Miguel Maldonado, President, Immigrant Worker's Association *Julius Margolin, IATSE Local 52 *Barton Meyers, Chair, Grievance Policy Committee, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Aaron Micheau, CAB, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Charlene Mitchell, Assistant to the President, AFSCME Local 371, DC 37 *Chuck Mohan, President, Guyanese-American Workers United; Staff Representative, AFSCME DC 1707 *Charles Molesworth, Acting Chair, Queens College Chapter, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Kim Moody, NWU/UAW Local 1981; Labor Notes Policy Committee *Florence Morgan, CDD-Queens, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Susan Olivia Morris, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Amy Muldoon, CWA Local 1106 *Ken Nash, Building Bridges: Your Community and Labor Report in Exile *Marcia Newfield, BMCC Chapter Officer, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Catherine Newton, Alternate Delegate, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Daniel Nichols, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Matt Noyes, Education Coordinator, AUD; NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Tony O'Brien, Delegate, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Susan O'Malley, Executive Council, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Dennis O'Neil, Legislative Director, NY Metro Area Postal Union, APWU *Richard L. Oeser, IATSE Local 52; Cornell Labor Studies; National Labor College *Greg Pason, NJ Steering Committee, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *J.P. Patafio, New Directions Caucus & Executive Board, TWU Local 100 *Paul Peloquin, Delegate, LSSA/UAW 2320 *Andy Piascik, Program Coordinator, AUD; NWU/UAW Local 1981 *John Pietaro, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199, Health Systems Division *Pride at Work, NY *Jim Provost, LSSA/UAW 2320 *Mike Quinn, High School Delegate, UFT *Gloria E. Quiñones, former member, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Peter Ranis, Executive Council, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Shirley Rausher, BMCC Delegate, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Amie Ravitz, union labor attorney; former delegate and Executive Board, LSSA/UAW 2320 *Dominic Renda, CWA Local 1105 *Sally Ridgeway, AAUP, Adelphi Chapter *Cicely Rodway, Queens College Chapter Officer, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Adolph Reed, Jr. NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Nancy Romer, Executive Council, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Mimi Rosenberg, Delegate, Civil-BNO, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Andrew Rowe, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Cathy Ruckelshaus, Litigation Director, National Employment Law Project *Trudy Rudnick, Organizer, AFT Local 3882 *Michael Ruscigno, IBT Local 802 *Jay Schaffner, Supervisor, National Contracts Dept., AFM Local 802 *Tim Schermerhorn, Vice President, RTO, TWU Local 100 *Jose Schiffino, Organizer, UNITE! Local 169 *Jason Schulman, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Wendy Scribner, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Hasan Shafiqullah, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Ryan Shanahan, JRD-Queens, 1199/SEIU, Legal Aid Society chapter *George Snedeker, Disability Rights Committee, UUP *Soo Kyung Nam, UAW Local 2320 *Joyce Soso, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Ann Sparanese, Shop Steward, RWDSU Local 29 *Claudette R. Spencer, CDD, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Rob Spencer, Director of Media Services, OSA *Michael Sullivan, Organizer, UNITE! *Gibb Surette, Delegate, LSSA/UAW 2320 *Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Labor Studies *Kyle Talbert, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *John Talbutt, AFSCME SSEU/Local 371, DC 37 *Terry Taylor, IBEW Local 827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice *Steve Terry, Alternate Delegate, CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Miriam Thompson, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Azalia Torres, Alternate Vice-President/CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Juliet Ucelli, UFT *Mark Ungar, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 *Lise Vogel, AAUP/CBC *Marilyn Vogt-Downey, UFT *Kit Wainer, UFT *Michael Ware, Shop Steward, CWA Local 1109 *Ron Washington, IBEW Local 827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice *Steve Weiner, Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 *Edlyn Willer, Delegate, CAB, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Corinne Willinger, PEF *JoAnn Wypijewski, TNGNY/CWA *Ethan Young, NWU/UAW Local 1981 *Naomi Zauderer, National Employment Law Project; UAW Local 2320 and UAW Local 1981 *Milton Zelermyer, Delegate, PRP, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 *Robert Zuss, Vice-President/CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 GLOSSARY AAUP. American Association of University Professors ACLA. Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid AFM. American Federation of Musicians AFSA. American Federation of School Administrators AFT. American Federation of Teachers AFSCME. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ALAA. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys APWU. American Postal Workers Union AUD. Association for Union Democracy CAB. Criminal Appeals Bureau, Legal Aid Society CDD. Criminal Defense Division, Legal Aid Society CSEA. Civil Service Employees Association CUNY. City University of New York CWA. Communication Workers of America CWE. Consortium for Worker Education GLTGC. Gay, Lesbian, Trans-Gender Caucus GSEU. Graduate Student Employees United GSOC. Graduate Student Organizing Committee IATSE. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees IBEW. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers IBT. International Brotherhood of Teamsters IWW. Industrial Workers of the World JRD. Juvenile Rights Division, Legal Aid Society LSSA. Legal Services Staff Association NWU. National Writers Union OSA. Office of Staff Analysts PEF. Public Employees Federation PRP. Prisoners Rights Project, Legal Aid Society PSC. Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York RWDSU. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union SEIU. Service Employees International Union SSEU. Social Service Employees Union TWU. Transport Workers Union UAW. United Auto Workers UFT. United Federation of Teachers UNITE! Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees UUP. United University Professions VVAW. Vietnam Veterans Against the War From netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au Mon Oct 8 07:09:35 2001 From: netwurker at pop.hotkey.net.au (][c.o.!.a.x.(ing)][) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:39:35 +1000 Subject: [Reader-list] .*.s.*.c.*.ream.*.i.*.n.*.g.*. Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20011008113935.010ed950@pop.hotkey.net.au> .*. .*.s.*.c.*.ream.*.i.*.n.*.g.*. .*. .*. .*. .*.m.ask][me][: ][s][c][r][a][tch][r doors aqua-plane.ing .*.m.as][jid][k: drummage hearts r cau][terize][ght .*.masque.1: redneckian I][D][gnaw.ants welts .tan my flesque .*.masqu.e][rror raid][.2: refracted ][de][bor][d][edom stench .*.masque.2: phobia ][news][ x.posure .*.masque.2*1: dinner in a dwell.point & syn][dicated][.][l][apses halt .*.ma][o][sque.2*3: a banished ][com][pre][hensive][tense .*.masque.3*4: slide pointing in2 t][wa][r.auma .*.masque.3*3: cabl][abia][e con.duct.tor][id][s .*.m][b][asque.1: burnt-spide][human co][r][pse][ dream ru][i][nnings .*. .*. .missile*screaming. .*.basic point defense missile system::silo][xane][ strands of heated g][ui][l][t][oat-stretches red N snapping .*.BASIC cognitive process::beds of snailed l][ang][u][i][sh N media][.tion][ snagging .*. .*. .*. .*. . . .... ..... net.wurker][mez][ .antithetical..n.struments..go.here. xXXx ./. www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker .... . .??? ....... From ravis at sarai.net Mon Oct 8 17:35:44 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:35:44 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] The smell of war Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011008173517.00aadcb0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Finally, the bombs have fallen on Afghanistan. Everyone knew this was coming and when the bombing actually began, there was a surreal sense of a madness we are falling into I cannot think of any country in the region that will remain unaffected. As the multibillion dollar planes (one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion to build) and missiles drop their deadly cargo on Afghanistan, daily life in South Asia is fraught with tension. In Delhi police are everywhere, with more roadblocks, more security checks of ordinary people (or, anyone with a beard). The security state has been formalised. Today the Delhi policy took out a large advertisement in the newspapers effectively banning all demonstrations without police permission. The media, particularly the television channels are an interesting case to watch during times of crisis. There have been many emails on this list on the CNN footage during the crisis, but it will be interesting to look at our own version of the media empires. Take the main English television news channel the Murdoch-owned Star. This channel stood out for its shrill support to the regime during the Kargil war and the Pokhran bomb blast. After September 11th, the channel feted the views of the political/cultural elite, which is aggressively anti-Pakistan and pro-US, only to revert to a confused, resignation of the new scenario (where Pakistan is now a front-line state with the US). But wait. Once the anti war demonstrations pick up, you shall see yesterday's liberal television hosts aggressively attacking dissent, skimming over the massive repression going on in the country under the pretext of the ban on SIMI. During times of crisis the division between the media empires and the regime evaporate, the 'national' interest takes charge. As I write, a friend tells me that three student activists were arrested in Delhi for distributing anti-war leaflets. Remember, Bush promised a long and painful war. From ravis at sarai.net Mon Oct 8 17:37:29 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:37:29 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Media war (from the guardian, london) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011008173623.00ae5200@pop3.norton.antivirus> This war is a festival of lies and they will only get worse Anything we see of the impact of US strikes will be strictly controlled. Peter Preston Monday October 8, 2001 The Guardian So it begins. The flashes of light in the night sky, the distant explosions, the appearance of a "relentless" George Bush talking command and control. We slowly remember what war is like; but we need to remember, too, that truth is the first casualty of conflict, that the briefers, bureaucrats and politicians who act as reasonably "reliable sources" in peace are operating now under different house rules. That they have become wholly unreliable by design. Sit back and apply commonsense to the tales of the first 26 days. Troops massing at this or that frontier post. Air strikes "imminent" (three weeks ago) or "within 48 hours" (eight days ago). SAS teams already staging search-and-destroy missions inside Afghanistan. Commonsense asks a difficult question. Would anyone with braid on his shoulders, anyone who really knows, tell a journalist such things if they were true? Why not send Osama bin Laden a postcard instead? Those of us who yomped through the Ministry of Defence in the Falklands soon got the changed hang of things. Top chaps in dark suits would summon up the full authority of their office and lie like troopers. Who, on reflection, could blame them? General Galtieri took the Guardian and the Telegraph on subscription. If journalists needed scoops, they'd better be fed some duff ones. The Falklands war was more than a distant side-show. It hugely impressed the Pentagon. Ensure that reporters are cooped up on aircraft carriers or minded by MoD male nurses far from the front and, as long as you keep decent clamps on back at the political ranch, there is total information control. Grenada and Panama proved the point and the Gulf was its apotheosis, war watched from afar by video screen. Globalisation meant being further away from, not nearer, the action. More space, less truth. How, then, will this latest, very curious conflict be played out? Pull down the handbooks from their dusty shelves and start pondering. For we are going by the book. The start of the horror - the destruction of the twin towers - was uncontrolled disaster: for the thousands of innocents who died, for dreams of security and illusions of intelligence. The world watched in stunned fascination. The world was out of control. One task in the days since September 11 has been to regain equilibrium. The building of this fabled international coalition against terrorism may or may not prove vital in the end. But, shuttling from summit to summit, it has certainly filled in the time while the military mammoths got their lugubrious act together. There's been a Gulf-style pause. Now, as bombing begins, we can begin to sense a pattern. Would Galtieri pull his troops off the Falklands as the task force sailed ever closer? He had that chance. He failed to take it. Would Saddam quit Kuwait as billions of dollars rolled into the desert? He had the chance. Will the Taliban give up Bin Laden and save their regime? That, obviously, has been the descant of the past couple of weeks. The answer is now written in the night over Kabul. Meanwhile the control freaks have had their thinking caps on. The world's correspondents (one factor) are there in force and deployed: Uzbekistan, Quetta, Peshawar, and the Afghan enclave where the Northern Alliance rules. But, save for the deeply unfortunate Ms Ridley and a handful of Afghan agency reporters, they aren't in Taliban country, let alone camped outside Bin Laden's rural retreat. Suicidal peril and impossibility co-joined. Better still, the Taliban themselves seem to be PR mutts. They can't field a Tariq Aziz figure looking grave, just a deputy ambassador in Islamabad looking perplexed. They have already (losing Bin Laden, then miraculously finding him again) blown what credibility they had. In their self-imposed isolation, they won't be able to take western camera teams to inspect any civilian casualties of air attack. No wrecked Baghdad hospitals; no Serbian buses burned on a bridge. They are sitting, silent targets. That won't stop protest waves round the Arab world today, nor will it necessarily catch Bin Laden. But it does mean that the only clear TV evidence of effectiveness, however carefully selected, will come from the Americans and the Brits. Happenstance has played to the handbook rules. What can go wrong? Plenty, naturally - even apart from bombs gone astray. Bin Laden himself, as yesterday's television interview showed, has a malign gift for PR. He could stage a dismaying series of catch-me-if-you-can for the cameras. Proof of his death or capture will need to be absolute before the briefers celebrate. More terrorist onslaughts are high on the agenda. More American lives in places like Saudi Arabia lie on the line. Hostage-taking (as Jimmy Carter might add) could wreck every equation. Even so, because restraint equals thinking time, a measure of control has returned. The war of perception, vital after September 11, is on a more even keel. The perception is that governments still govern and can seem to call the shots. The HQ hope must be that some finite battle in an unseen field far away will soon be enough to end any shooting war and, with a little help from the Pakistani secret service, leave al-Qaida headless. But then the dissonances of difference begin to impinge. The FBI and CIA, caught ludicrously short by 19 men with penknives, are obliged to exalt the potency of Bin Laden's network. Poison gas, germ warfare, nukes? Some or all of these visions may have a sliver of reality to them, but they also conveniently turn a low-tech enemy into a Bond villain like Ernst Stavro Blofeld. (Indeed, yesterday's Sunday Times did just that.) You may call this reacting to a challenge, and so it is. But it is also, in the nature of spin, the inflation of the adversary who wounded you. Warnings of risk from Scotland Yard become as fearsome as Met Office gale forecasts after 1987. No danger knowingly under stressed. No briefer, by training or profession, is more usually unreliable than a secret agent covering his back, and the tale he tells is likely to be self-serving tosh. The trouble is that, even as the jets go in, this is also an amorphous war of jaw-jaw. The braided ones, clutching their handbook, may have devised a scenario they have a prospect of commanding and controlling. We will be, as we were last night, distant spectators of this enterprise. We can only hope it succeeds, and hope as well that we can maintain a decent perspective, a balance of understanding. But that needs thought and fact as well as cheers. Keep calm, or at least, calmer. But believe nothing implicitly, especially from the Blofeld blowhards. Travel carefully and carry a big waste basket. From aiindex at mnet.fr Tue Oct 9 15:39:48 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:09:48 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Wartime Lies: A Consumer's Guide to the Bombing Message-ID: New Haven Advocate October 8, 2001 Wartime Lies: A Consumer's Guide to the Bombing Paul Bass "George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where." - CBS News anchor Dan Rather, after the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center Here come "surgical strikes"! Check out that "laser-guided" "pinpoint precision." "Collateral damage"? Hardly any. It's a glorious war, a noble cause, the only solution to a world crisisŠ. So we heard in the Gulf War. So we hear at the onset of the Afghan war. Many of the same characters who ran and propagandized the last war - Colin Powell and Dan Rather, for instance - have returned to our living rooms. Last time, it turned out there was more to the story. In the first days of CNN-fueled war hysteria, we couldn't know the truth about whom we bombed, or to what end. It's the same this week as our bombs began raining on Afghanistan. It's hard to know the truth about what's happening - and therefore impossible to judge whether the action is justified. We can assume only this: Right or wrong, the government is lying to us. And the media is repeating and magnifying those lies in order to convince us to put our brains on hold and yell for blood behind a waving pennant of the stars and stripes. They did it last time. Last Time's Lies Consider ABC News' Sam Donaldson. He helped convince the nation that Star Wars works, through his live coverage of the Persian Gulf War. On Jan. 22, 1991, ABC showed a bright object flashing through the sky. Another bright object raced toward it. Donaldson told viewers that one of Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles was heading toward Saudi Arabia. But here came a good old U.S.-made Patriot missile to the rescue. "Bull's-eye!" Donaldson proclaimed. "No more Scud!" Such media accounts - and parroting of government claims that Patriot missiles hit almost every Scud they aimed at - led to a public celebration of the Patriot missile. We weren't powerless. America was strong! We could stop enemy weapons. That November, Congress boosted the budget for the "Star Wars" anti-missile shield from $3.1 billion to $4.15 billion. The following year, as Columbia Journalism Review would report ("Patriot Games," July/August 1992), that film clip showed up at a Congressional hearing concerning inflated military claims. Pointing to the same clip Donaldson had narrated, a former nuclear weapons analyst pointed out that the Scud passed through whatever explosion appeared on the screen - and that Patriots were a "total failure" in the Gulf War. Some other examples of Gulf War lies (courtesy of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting): -After the war, The New York Times retracted a story, repeated by other major news outlets, that Iraqi soldiers had killed 300 premature babies by removing them from incubators. -60 Minutes featured an interview with "Captain Karim," a supposed former Saddam bodyguard, spinning fearful tales about the Iraqi dictator. Karim turned out to be a fraud. -The Times, CNN, Time and others supported then-President Bush's attacks on Iraqi radio by reporting that a broadcaster named "Baghdad Betty" had told U.S. troops to return home because "Robert Redford is dating your girlfiendŠ Bart Simpson is making love to your wife." In fact, the media was repeating a Johnny Carson Tonight Show gag. (Or misquoting. Johnny said Homer, not Bart.) What to Watch Out For While we rely on government and CNN, CBS, et al for our first torrent of war news, history gives us some advice in filtering the noise: -Don't assume any fact to be true. Especially about the success and human toll of our military actions. -Watch the videotape. Just because they say something blew something else up, judge for yourself. -Read next-day or on-line full transcripts of speeches. For instance, some national media characterized Osama bin Laden's first statement as in effect acknowledging he authorized the Sept. 11 attack. It didn't. Also, some accounts played up bin Laden's threat that peace must "reign in Palestine" before Americans have peace - but left out his next statement that "the army of infidels [must] depart the land of Muhammad," historically his primary gripe. -Don't take depictions of "allies" at face value. Remember that we helped put the Taliban in power (to destabilize the old Soviet Union), along with Saddam Hussein. Remember that Pakistan's government and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance have horrid human rights records. -Pay attention to questions on which the media or officials remain silent. So counsels Normon Solomon, a media watchdog and syndicated columnist: "Newsday after the Gulf War quoted somebody in the Pentagon saying, 'We lie by not telling you things.' The starvation issue, for instance: Bush was talking about [our airlifting] 37,000 kits of food and medicine. This is in contrast to several million people who are on the verge of going into starvation [because of U.S. military action]. This fact that serves as a lie is window dressing. A crime against humanity is dressed up as humanitarian action." -Read and listen to the alternative press! But don't necessarily just believe us, either. From aiindex at mnet.fr Tue Oct 9 15:49:33 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:19:33 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Voices of Sanity - Reaching Out for Peace Message-ID: Folks on this list should order copies and help distribute this volume. see details below best Harsh Kapoor ========== Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 09:58:09 +0530 From: Kamla Bhasin Subject: [Fwd: Voices of sanity] Dear [Š] As you perhaps know (through al the emails flying around) many of us in South Asia have been alarmed by the recent talk and action of war, in response o the attacks in the US. We have been mobilising pubic opinion through vigils for "Restraint and Reflection for "Peace not War". Our songs, slogans and banners have been repeating "War is no answer", "Countering terror with terror, will be a grave error a crime against humanity", "Are you with death or with life" etc. Some of us gave a call for a Global Peace Vigil on October 2, Mahatma Gandhi's Birthday. In spite of the short notice the response was very good and most encouraging from different parts of the world. If the movement for peace and justice gets strengthened after the tragedy and the subsequent jingoism, everything will not be lost. We are most encouraged to see all the writings for peace, against war and violence. As a next step in our actions for peace Smitu Kothari, Bindia Thapar and I are putting together a book entitled "Voices of Sanity" It is 174 page book to be shared with all those working/demanding peace. It has about 40 illustrations/short poems to go beyond the mind. The contents of the book are given below. The blurb of the book says "Voices of Sanity presents a diversity of voices encompassing a myriad of written expression-analysis, emotion, anger, revulsion, hope. These voices range from Arundhati Roy to Eduardo Galeona, two of the world's most politically committed writers to the reflections of Edward Said and Susan Sontag; from statements of activists who have been at the forefront of the struggles against developmental destruction to those who have experienced life in the trenches of conflict; from celebrated journalists, like John Pigler and Praful Bidwai to Jonathan Schell, from Fidel Castro to Jose Ramos-Horta; and from s[ome] many friends all over the world grappling to come to terms with the violence of September and its aftermath." The book is a non-commercial venture. We have tried to keep the cost low. The contributory price will be INR 100 but for orders above 50, we will give it for INR 60 per copy. Jagori and Lokayan are publishing it, but do not have money for this. So we are depending on bulk orders from organisations like yours, who will make them available to their networks with the suggestion that peace work be enhanced. Articles in the book (by Vandana Shiva, Indira Jaising and statements by women’s organisations) also speak about violence against nature, industrial violence and of course violence against women. Knowing of your perspective and concern for peace and justice, we are hoping that you will be able to take 100, 200 or more copies for distribution to your network. We will send the books wherever you want them sent (cost for sending will be additional). I would be grateful if you could please let me know today or tomorrow how many copies you will be able to take and distribute. As our print run depends on your order, please write soon. The book will be released on October 11, a month after September 11. In solidarity and peace Kamla (Bhasin), Smitu (Kothari) and Bindia (Thapar) Voices of Sanity Reaching Out for Peace Edited by Kamla Bhasin Smitu Kothari Bindia Thapar Contents Voices of Sanity The Algebra of Infinite Justice The Theatre of Good and Evil – Eduardo Galeano Ghosts and Echoes Robin Morgan Inevitable Ring to the Unimaginable-John Pigler Black Tuesday: The View from Islamabad-Pervez Hoodbhoy Endless war?-Walden Bello The US, The West and the Rest of the World-Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fisher Between Reality and Self-righteousness-Susan Sontag Conversations with Noam Chomsky Dear Civilised People-Sahir Ludhyanwi Reflections on September 11, 2001- Arjun Makhijani Then, I Have Nothing to say to You-Sarveshwar Dayal Saxena America’s unlimited war-Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen Put Out No Flags-Katha Pollit To My Seven Year Old-Kavita Ramdas All of a Sudden our Names have Become our Liability-A.H.Jaffor Ulah Unilateral US Military Action Against Terrorism Bodes Ill for the World:Counter Terror Wont Work-Praful Bidwai Cloud Over New York-Indira Jaising US Aggression Would Be Counter-Productive-Maulana Wahiduddin Kha A View From the Ground-Rina Saeed Khan An Interview With Robert Fisk-Edward Said Solidarity Against All Forms of Terrorism-Vandana Shiva Peace Movements prospects-Michael Albert What Hope For the Future-Mary Kaldor and David Held Speech by Fidel Castro The Deeper Wound-Deepak Chopra A Call to the Churches and the Nation-Rev.Tom E.Driver In Memoriam Speech to Oxfam-Community Aid Abroad National Conference-Jose Ramos-Horta Collective Voices From ravis at sarai.net Tue Oct 9 15:10:55 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:10:55 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] arrests in delhi Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011009150721.00ac54d0@pop3.norton.antivirus> This is a report of the arrests in Delhi yesterday, a fairly standard campaign that was going on against the war. Gives a sense of the national security paranoia now gripping the local police. Better reports in the Delhi edition of the Hindu and the Indian express (alas, not on-line) The arrested are now in Tihar jail. Ravi 6 HELD IN CITY FOR ANTI-US PROTESTS (Asian Age) New Delhi, Oct. 8 Six persons, Sunil, Gurmeet, Naveen, Sunil, Shehzad and Jeeban were arrested by the northeast district police on charges of protesting against the US attacks in Afghanistan, the banning of the Students Islamic Movement of India and for allegedly making anti-India slogans on Monday. All of them are students. It is learnt that three of arrested are students of Delhi University. It is learnt that six persons were allegedly arrested by the Bhajanpura police around 11 am, reports our correspondent. The arrested persons claimed to be members of the All-India People's Resistance Forum and Democratic Students' Forum. They were arrested by the police for distributing pamphlets opposing the ban on the Students' Islamic Movement of India and the aggression by the United States on Afghanistan on Monday in north Delhi. Police sources said that the accused persons assimilated in a small group near Bhajanpura flouting banners, pamphlets and placards. They also allegedly distributed the pamphlets among the passers-by. The AIPF is a civil rights' organisation in Andhra Pradesh and the members of the organisation had come to Delhi to hold protests. Around 50-60 people belonging to the organisation were distributing pamphlets when the local police took them into custody. It is reported that earlier they were booked under preventive detention for breach of peace. The charges under which they were detained earlier were Section 107/ 155 of the CRPC. Police sources revealed that legal experts were contacted and all of them were formally arrested. A case under Sections 153 A/ 155 B of the IPC were registered against the persons for promoting animosity amongst different communities and anti national activities. From ravis at sarai.net Tue Oct 9 14:55:44 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:55:44 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Media war update Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011009145409.00ac6ae0@pop3.norton.antivirus> An interesting if 'nationalist' analysis of the media.... More ink flows for US war than Kargil ANURADHA RAMAN (Indian Express) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 8: FIGURES supplied by the Centre for Media Studies (CMS) show that major Indian dailies — The Indian Express, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Asian Age and The Hindu — spent 50 per cent of their editorial space to reporting on the war against terrorism between September 11 and September 29. Problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue followed closely with 30 and 20 per cent respectively. Compared to this, for the first 20 days of the Gulf War which lasted over a month, Indian newspapers had spent 20 per cent of their column space to the war waged by the US against Iraq. These two figures, which were of foreign wars, can be compared with the Kargil war where India was directly involved. For a week into the war, newspapers devoted 33 per cent of their space to the conflict between Pakistan and India. ‘‘This is a media war being waged by the US and being reported by the Indian press,’’ said Bhaskara Rao of the CMS, commenting on the war reporting in India. And this time, the CMS said, local politics and economic issues took a back seat. In the same period period, six per cent of the available space was devoted to Tamil Nadu — more specifically former chief minister Jayalalithaa — and UP politics. Individual issues like the CNG crisis and the ban on SIMI grabbed nearly seven per cent space in the press. Cricket has been confined to the sports pages of the major dailies so far. The downside of the ongoing war is that while Indian news channels, such as Star News, Zee News and Aaj Tak, raked in about Rs 2 crore from advertisements, newspapers after September 11 have not got more advertisements. ‘‘The War’’, however, continues to hold sway in print. From ravis at sarai.net Tue Oct 9 23:46:04 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 23:46:04 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Q & A on Afghanistan Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011009234255.00a91bc0@mail.sarai.net> This version is courtesy Tariq Ali, our retired Trotskyist militant turned novelist, in www.counterpunch.org . It's useful and old-fashioned at the same time.... Ravi ------------------ Questions and Answers About War in Afghanistan By Tariq Ali 1. How can one analyse the evolution of Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion and the victory of the Taliban? The PDPA (---the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan----Afghan Communist Party) which had a strong base in the army and air force carried out a coup d'etat in 1978, toppling the corrupt regime of Daoud. The people welcomed the change. The PDPA was initially popular. It pledged important social reforms and democracy. But the latter promise was never upheld even though important educational reforms were pushed through such as free education and schools for girls. In the cities girls and boys began to attend the same schools. Medical care was improved as well, but a bitter factional struggle led to the victory of a Pol-Pot faction led by Hafizullah Amin, who embarked on a campaign massive repression. Meanwhile the United States decided to destabilise the regime by arming the ultra-religious tribes and using the Pakistan Army as a conduit to help the religious extremists. The Americans were laying a bear-trap and the Soviet leadership fell into it. They sent the Red Army to topple Amin and sustain the PDPA regime by force. This further exacerbated the crisis and the United States gave the call for a jihad against communism. The Pakistani military thought it would help the jihad if a Saudi prince came to lead the struggle, but volunteers from that quarter were not forthcoming. Instead the Saudi regime suggested Osama Bin Laden to the CIA. He was approved, recruited, trained and sent to Afghanistan where he fought well. In one action Bin Laden led his men to attack a mixed school (boys and girls) and kill all the teachers. The US watched this approvingly. The rest is history. The Soviet Union was defeated and withdrew its forces in 1989. A civil war followed and a coalition government consisting of forces loyal to Iran, Tajikistan and Pakistan came to power. Instability reigned. Then Pakistan hurled the Taliban (students) it had trained in special seminaries into the battle with open support from the Pakistan Army. Kabul was captured and gradually the regime extended its rule to the rest of the country. American think-tanks until just a few months ago were talking of using the Taliban to further destabilise the Central Asian Republics! Now the US and Pakistan are waging war to topple a regime they created. Who said that history had ceased to be ironical? 2. What is specific about the Islamism of the Taliban? It is a virulent, sectarian, ultra-puritanical strain heavily influenced by Wahhabism---the official state religion of Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi religious instructors who trained the Taliban. They believe in a permanent jihad against infidels and other Muslims (especially the Shias). Bin Laden, too, is a staunch Wahhabi. They would like a return to what they imagine was Islam in the 7th century, during the leadership of Mohammed. What they don't understand is that Mohammed was a very flexible prophet-politician as Maxime Rodinson explains in his excellent biography. 3. What was the strategic aim of the United States in basing themselves on the most hard-line wing of the Islamic resistance to the USSR, and more generally groups such as that of Bin Laden in the Arab-Muslim world? Throughout the Cold War the United States used Islam as a bulwark against communism and revolution. Everywhere in the Islamic world, not just in South Asia. So we can say that the Islamism we witness is a product of imperialism and modernity. 4. The key to what will happen in the region is Pakistan. What sort of regime is it, what are its goals and what are the contradictions it faces? It is a military regime, but not a vicious one like its predecessor. It is a regime which wants to supervise neo-liberalism in Pakistan. The Army, of course, is divided, but the exact strength of pro-Taliban currents inside the Army is a matter of dispute. It could be anything between 15--30 percent. The Islamists are very weak in Pakistani society as a whole. Its important to understand this fact. In successive elections, fewer people have voted for zealotry in Pakistan than in Israel. That's why the Pakistan Taliban decided to make 'entryism' inside the Army. If the United States spills too much blood in Afghanistan then the consequences could be dire within the Pakistan Army in a year's time. 5. For the moment President Musharraf seems to want to line up alongside the US. Is it possible that Pakistan would be a logistical support to an American intervention against Afghanistan? Pakistan has agreed to give logistical support. In fact the Pakistan Army is necessary for the whole operation. The United States planes and troops will be stationed in the Gwadur base in Baluchistan which they built during the Cold War. Don't forget that Pakistan was a cold war ally of the United States from 1954-1992. Both sides know each other well. The Pakistani elite is delighted that the country's debt (36 billion dollars) has been canceled and more money has been pledged. In return for this they are prepared to see the Taliban defeated and disarmed. Trouble will begin if too many bearded men are killed. In my opinion one reason for the delay in action is that the Pakistan Army is trying to make sure that the Taliban do not resist the United States. The advice being given to the faithful is: shave your beards and keep your powder dry. The West will go away and then we'll see. Islamabad detests the Northern Alliance which it defeated via the Taliban when it took Kabul. I cannot stress enough that the Taliban is sustained on every level by Pakistan. What is switched on can also be switched off. The problem for Pakistan is that a wing of the Taliban defected to Bin Laden and his praetorian guard of Arab anarcho-Islamists. These guys will probably fight back whatever the odds. 6. If the conflict becomes regional what effects would this have on the situation in the region and the attitude of countries like India, China and Russia? All three countries are delighted by the 'war against terrorism'. They are all Americans now! India wants to crush the opposition in Kashmir, The Turkish military wants to a final solution to the 'Kurdish problem', Putin has already destroyed Chechnya, China has the green light to do what it wants. So it suits them all, but a great deal depends on how this adventure ends. Are we witnessing yet another boost to and acceptance of US world hegemony or is the Empire about to triumph itself to death? Tariq Ali is the author of The Stone Woman. He lives in London. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011009/6693bb6e/attachment.html From ravis at sarai.net Wed Oct 10 00:03:02 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:03:02 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Talal Asad interview Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011009234916.00a94820@mail.sarai.net> Talal Asad is the author of the well-regarded, "Genealogies of Religion : Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam" Johns Hopkins Univ Pr; 1993, This is a longish and dense interview with him , somewhat academic, but a reflexive piece in this time where Islam which has a rich diverse history of contradictory practices has been reduced to the image of terror and intolerance. The interview took place a few years ago, but remains useful even today. Another wonderful resource on the history of Islam is Marshall Hodgson classic 3 vol Venture of Islam (University of Chicago Press) Ravi interview Talal Asad modern power and the reconfiguration of religious traditions Saba Mahmood Contemporary politico-religious movements, such as Islamism, are often understood by social scientists as expressions of tradition hampering the progress of modernity. But given the recent intellectual challenges posed against dualistic and static conceptions of modernity/tradition, and calls for parochializing Western European experiences of modernity, do you think the religio-political movements (such as Islamism) force us to rethink our conceptions of modernity? If so, how? Well, I think they should force us to rethink many things. There has been a certain amount of response from people in Western universities who are interested in analyzing these movements. But many of them still make assumptions that prevent them from questioning aspects of Western modernity. For example, they call these movements "reactionary" or "invented," making the assumption that Western modernity is not only the standard by which all contemporary developments must be judged, but also the only authentic trajectory for every tradition. One of the things the existence of such movements ought to bring into question is the old opposition between modernity and tradition, which is still fashionable. For example, many writers describe the movements in Iran and Egypt as only partly modern and suggest that their mixing of tradition and modernity that accounts for their "pathological" character. This kind of description paints Islamic movements as being somehow inauthentically traditional on the assumption that "real tradition" is unchanging, repetitive, and non-rational. In this way, these movements cannot be understood on their own terms as being at once modern and traditional, both authentic and creative at the same time. The development of politico-religious movements ought to force people to rethink the uniquely Western model of secular modernity. One may want to challenge aspects of these movements, but this ought to be done on specific grounds. It won't do to measure everything by grand conceptions of authentic modernity. But that's precisely the kind of a priori thinking that many people indulge in when analyzing contemporary religious movements. It seems that you are using the term tradition differently here than it is commonly understood in the humanities and social sciences. Even the idea of "hybrid societies/cultures," which has gained ascendancy in certain intellectual circles, implies a coexistence of modern and traditional elements without necessarily decentering the normative meaning of these concepts. Yes, many writers do describe certain societies as hybrids, part modern and part traditional. I don't agree with them, however. I think that one needs to recognize that when one talks about tradition, one should be talking about, in a sense, a dimension of social life and not a stage of social development. In an important sense, tradition and modernity are not really two mutually exclusive states of a culture or society but different aspects of historicity. Many of the things that are thought of as modern belong to traditions which have their roots in Western history. A changing tradition is often developing rapidly but a tradition nevertheless. When people talk about liberalism as a tradition, they recognize that it is a tradition in which there are possibilities of argument, reformulation, and encounter with other traditions, that there is a possibility of addressing contemporary problems through the liberal tradition. So one thinks of liberalism as a tradition central to modernity. How is it that one has something that is a tradition but that is also central to modernity? Clearly, liberalism is not a mixture of the traditional and the modern. It is a tradition that defines one central aspect of Western modernity. It is no less modern by virtue of being a tradition than anything else is modern. It has its critics, both within the West and outside, but it is perhaps the dominant tradition of political and moral thought and practice. And yet this is not the way in which most social scientists have talked about so-called "traditional" societies/cultures in the non-European world generally, and in the Islamic world in particular. So this is partly what I mean when I say that we must rethink the concept of tradition. In this sense, I think, we can regard the contemporary Islamic revival as consisting of attempts at articulating Islamic traditions that are adequate to the modern condition as experienced in the Muslim world, but also as attempts at formulating encounters with Western as well as Islamic history. This doesn't mean that they succeed. But at least they try in different ways. In discussing different historical experiences of modernity, are you suggesting that there are also different kinds of modernities? There is a certain centrality to the project of modernity that scholars like Foucault have described and analyzed. How does one reconcile the European model of modernity, that modernization theorists and their critics alike pose, with different historical and cultural experiences of modernity? In the first place, given that we are situated in contemporary Western society, and given that we are in a world in which "the West" is hegemonic, the term modernity already possesses a certain positive valence. Many of its opponents-- for example, the so-called postmodernists--to some extent have a defensive strategy towards what they think of as the central values of modernity. Very few postmodernist critics of modernity would be willing to argue against social equality, free speech, or individual self-fashioning. In fact, the very term "postmodernity" incorporates "modernity" as a stage in a distinct trajectory. So it may be a tactical matter in some cases to argue that there are multiple forms of modernity rather than contrasting modernity itself with something else. In other words, the equation of a specific Western history (which is specific and particular by definition) with something that at the same time claims to be universal and has become globalized is something that to my mind isn't sufficiently well thought out. An ideological weight is given to modernity as a universal model, even when it is merely a form of Westernization. I think that at one level there is the problem of conceptualizing modernity as a term that refers to a whole set of disparate tendencies, attitudes, traditions, structures, and practices--some of which may be integrally related and some not. At times, people think of modernity as a certain kind of social structure (industrialization, secularization, democracy, etc.), and sometimes as a psychological experience (e.g., Simmel on "The Metropolis and Modern Life"), or as an aesthetic posture (e.g., Baudelaire on "The Painter of Modern Life"). Sometimes modernity is thought of as a certain kind of a philosophical project (in the Habermasian sense) and sometimes as a post-Kantian universal ethics. Do they all necessarily hang together? There is an implicit assumption that they do--that just because certain aspects of "modernity" ("modern" science, politics, ethics, etc.) have gone together historically in parts of Europe, all of these things must and should go together in the rest of the world as well. A curious kind of functionalism is actually at work in this assumption. Whereas in other contexts social scientists have become skeptical of functionalism, this doesn't seem to be the case here. Part of the problem is deciding whether "modernity" is a single tradition, a singular structure, or an integrated set of practical knowledges. And if things go together, then does this mean that what we have is a moral imperative or a pragmatic fit? In other words: what criteria are we using when we call a person, a way of life, or a society, "modern"? Where do these criteria come from? Are they simply descriptive or normative? And if they are descriptive, then do they relate to some immutable essence? If they are normative, then on what authority? Such questions need to be worked through before we can decide meaningfully whether there are varieties of modernity and, if there is only one kind of modernity, then whether it is separable from Westernization or not. I have not encountered a satisfactory answer to this question, either by social scientists or philosophers. Now, when Foucault talks about modernity, he is speaking quite specifically about a development in Western history. He is really not interested in the history of the non-Western world, of the West's encounter with that heterogeneous world. And he is not interested in different traditions. As you know, his emphasis is on breaks rather than continuities. It is possible to think of these breaks, of course, as occurring in certain kinds of continuities, and to some extent Foucault understood that. Otherwise, he would not have pushed his investigation into modernity back to early Christian and Greek beliefs and practices. This inquiry brought him to a conception of the Western tradition, with all its ruptures and breaks, although he didn't think systematically about "tradition" as such. You also argue in your book Genealogies of Religion that modernity, by definition, is a teleological project in its desire to remake history, the nation, and the future. You argue that "actions seeking to maintain the local status quo are therefore always resisting the future." Could you please speak to what you meant by this? I meant that ironically, of course. I think what I said was that actions that only maintain the status quo--to conserve daily life--are not thought of as "making history," however long such efforts take. And movements which could be branded as "reactionary" were by definition trying "to resist the future" or "to turn the clock back." The point is that the advocates and defenders of Western modernity are explicitly committed to a certain kind of historicity, a temporal movement of social life in which "the future" pulls us forward. The idea is that, in some measure, "the future" represents something that can be anticipated and should be desired, and that at least the direction of that desirable future is known. The "future" becomes a kind of moral magnet, out there, pulling us toward itself. On the one hand, humans are thought of as having the freedom to shape their own (collective) destiny. On the other hand, "history," as an autonomous movement, has its own momentum, and those who act on a different assumption are thought of as being either morally blameworthy or practically self-defeating--or both. The concept of history-making relates to this grand and somewhat contradictory idea. And all societies--including non- Western ones--are judged by the phrases you quote. I briefly mentioned the frequent derogatory references to the situation in what has happened and is happening in Iran, to cargo cults, etc. My point is not that one should not criticize--or even denounce--what has happened and is happening in Iran, say. My point is that most people who do so are also employing a very peculiar notion of "history" and "history-making." In discussing the relationship between Western and non-Western experiences of modernity, two different traditions of argument come to mind: the school of dependency theory in the 1970s and post-colonial theory more recently, of which the Subaltern Studies project from South Asia is an important part. It seems that whereas the dependency theorists had emphasized how Western modernity had effected and arrested the development of non-Western societies, post-colonial theorists (like Chatterjee, Prakash, and Chakrabarty) focus on the cultural and historical specificity of non-Western experiences of modernity. Chatterjee, for example, makes the point that privileging the Western-European liberal experience often occludes conceptions of polity and community that are an integral part of non-Western societies but remain untheorized in both radical and liberal analyses of modernity. How do you see the relationship between these two traditions of thought and their implications for understanding culturally and historically specific experiences of modernity? Well, of course, the West is what it is in large part because of its relationship to the non-West, and vice versa. And if by Western modernity one means the economies, politics, and knowledges characteristic of European countries, then much of this is incomprehensible without reference to Europe's links with the non-European world. In its own way, this point was made by the so-called dependency theorists concerned with Third-World development. But one must not exaggerate this point. What I mean is that there are certain experiences that have nothing to do with the West/non-West relationship. After all, the term "non-West" is simply a negative term. It's important to keep this relationship in mind, but in itself it tells us very little about all the things it covers. There are experiences that have to do with other kinds of relationships, such as the relationship of a given people to a distinctive past. I think whether certain societies can or cannot develop economically was an argument that was carried on by dependency theorists on the basis of certain economic models that had certain indicators, so that one was clear what the aim was supposed to be. So, many of the people who argued against modernization theorists said that economic development was not possible in the peripheral countries given their links with the core capitalist countries. People who belonged to the dependency tradition tended to argue over whether it made sense to try to break those links, skip the capitalist stage, and go straight for socialist development, or to make a strategic alliance with national capitalists, which was necessary for full economic development. (This was a repeat, of course, of the old Bolshevik/Menshivik dispute.) But the argument, anyway, was not about where all the countries should end up. The common assumption was that there were several roads to Rome but there was, of course, only one Rome. When one got to moral and cultural issues, this assumption became more difficult to sustain. Whereas in the West political debate about liberal-democratic states more or less takes for granted where things are now, discussion about the Third World tends to be about where politics and morality ought to be heading. This is what needs to be noticed. Even when it is agreed that there are all kinds of changes that would improve conditions in Western societies (urban poverty, racism, etc.), it is usually assumed that this is the best of all possible political systems. The claim seems to be: yes, we do have racism, but where isn't there racism? At least we in the West have a system in which some kind of political fight for racial equality is possible, whereas other political systems don't allow this. The assumption, you see, is that even if the changes needed to eliminate the massive poverty, institutionalized racism, international power-play, etc. were effected, it would still be the same political system. And if a radically new future is desired, it is assumed that this is reachable only through the present Western "modern" system. Western "modernity" is, therefore, thought to be pregnant with positive futures in a way that no other cultural condition is. That wasn't explicit in the old argument about dependency, because the focus there was on the conditions for a productive industrial economy, which would, therefore, increase the possibilities of general wealth and material welfare. That was what "modernity" meant to dependency theorists (or to those who deliberately used this concept). Now it tends to mean a system of government (representative democracy, periodic elections, parliamentary pressure groups, continuous polls, controlled media presentations, etc.) and individualism in morality, law, aesthetics, etc. The emphasis on the individual as voter, moral personality, and consumer--whether of state or market goods--is certainly central to the liberal version of modernity. But so, too, is a faith in a boundless future. (That is not, by the way, the same thing as saying "a faith in limitless growth," which is not fashionable anymore.) Chatterjee is absolutely right in pointing out that liberal modernity doesn't pay adequate attention to the idea of community. That has been the complaint of socialists (and of conservatives, of course). Even some liberals who were influenced by Hegel argued against unfettered contractarian individualism (Green and Bosanquet, for example). But I think we need to historicize the idea of community. At any rate, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be locked into the binary "individualism versus communitarianism" argument. This confrontation of principles sounds fundamental only because the language of liberalism has already acquired a hegemonic status. Are different options really possible in this matter? Or will today's powerful countries force the rest of the world to adopt the only "sensible" and "decent" model--i.e., political, economic, and moral liberalism? I don't know. It's one thing to say that we ought not to accept their definition of "modernity" as binding on us. It's another thing to claim that we possess the material and moral resources to resist effectively and to create our own options--regardless of whether we wish to call these options "modern" or not. In studying specific cultures, you have emphasized the necessity of using theoretical concepts that are relevant to the practices and assumptions of those cultures. Your work on religion, in this regard, is similar to the subalternist historian Dipesh Chakrabarty's work on Indian working-class movements, insofar he has criticized the concept of class consciousness in its inability to account for non-liberal solidarities and alliances that are not hegemonically structured by the ideology of liberal-humanism. To what extent do you think the task of analyzing politico-religious movements (such as Islamism) is hampered by a similar problem of deploying inadequate conceptual categories? One of the valuable things that post-modernism has done is to help us be skeptical of "grand narratives." Once we get out of the habit of seeing everything in relation to the universal path to the future which the West has supposedly discovered, then it may be possible to describe things in their own terms. This is an eminently anthropological enterprise, too. The anthropologist must describe ways of life in appropriate terms. To begin with, at least, this means terms intrinsic to the social practices, beliefs, movements, and traditions of the people being referred to and not in relation to some supposed future the people are moving towards. These "intrinsic terms" are not the only ones that can be used-- of course not. But the concepts of people themselves must be taken as central in any adequate understanding of their life. This is why Chakrabarty rightly criticizes the use of categories, such as class-consciousness, where they don't make sense to the people themselves. I repeat: That's not to say that we should never employ terms that don't immediately make sense to the people being studied. The trouble with using notions like "class-consciousness" for explanatory purposes is that you take for granted that a particular kind of historical change is normative. Political opposition, political activity is "more developed" if it is organized in terms of class-consciousness and "less developed" if it is not. Marxism tends to see class politics as essential to modernity and "modernity" as the most developed form of civilized society. Once we set that grand narrative, that normative history, aside, we can start by asking not, "What should such-and-such a people be doing?" but, "What do they aim at doing? And why?". We can learn to elaborate that question in historically specific terms. This certainly applies to our attempts to understand politico-religious movements, especially Islamic movements. It is foolish, I think, to ask: "Why are these movements not moving in the direction History requires them to?". But that is precisely what is being asked when scholars say: "What leads the people in these movements to behave so irrationally, in such a reactionary manner?". Given our discussion about polity and community, in what ways do you think the contemporary Islamist movements represent a vision of polity that is distinct from regnant conceptions of the nation, political debate, and consensus? A different vision of polity. That is an aspect of Islamist thinking that requires much more original work. I feel that there is a need to rethink the nature of the political in a far more radical way than Islamic movements seem to have done. To a great extent, there has been an acceptance of the modernizing state (and the model of the Western state) and a translation of its projects into Islamist terms. Often Islamists simply subscribe to the parameters of the modern nation- state, adding only that it be controlled by a virtuous body of Muslims. A much more radical idea is needed before we can say that Islamists have a vision of a distinctive kind of polity. However, I don't want to exaggerate the homogeneity of these movements. There have been some interesting schematic attempts at rethinking. For example, the Tunisian Islamic leader Ghannushi, who is banned from Tunis, has recently argued for the political institutionalization of multiple interpretations of the founding texts. In one sense, the institutionalization of divergent interpretations is already a part of the Islamic tradition (both Sunni and Shi`a). But, if I understand him correctly, Ghannushi is trying to politicize that traditional arrangement and make it more fluid, more open to negotiation. Starting from the classic distinction between the essential body of the text, on the one hand, and its commentaries (i.e., "consequences"--what follows), on the other, he argues that the latter be brought into the political arena. This would involve the electorate being asked to vote for or against the policies that flow from given interpretations--and always having the option of changing its mind about them. In other words, the political implications of an interpretation (not all "the meanings" of the text itself) would be open to acceptance or rejection like any other proposed legislation or project. This clearly needs to be much more elaborately developed and clarified if it is to make political sense. Are elements of this kind of thinking part of the Islamic discursive tradition? I certainly think they are. That's what ijtihad, the principle of original reasoning from within the tradition, is all about. There is a lot of talk about ijtihad nowadays among Muslims, but too often it's used as a device to bring Islamic tradition in line with modern liberal values for no good reason. I believe it ought to be used to argue with other Muslims within the tradition and to try to formulate solutions to problems that are recognized as problems for the tradition by other Muslims. You discuss in your work the practice of nasiha in Saudi Arabia, as an example of public critique within the Islamic tradition, which is quite distinct from the liberal notion of public criticism. Can you speak to that, given your comments on the limits and possibilities of specific traditions of thought? Yes, nasiha is different from liberal notions of public criticism. For example, it doesn't constitute a right to criticize the monarch and/or political regime but an obligation. Similarly, the business of criticism is not restricted only to those expressly qualified--the educated and enlightened few. It's something that every Muslim has the duty to undertake, and whose theory the `ulama must continually reconsider and discuss for each time and place. It is, therefore, a form of criticism that is internal to a tradition. That is to say, only someone who has been educated in that tradition, who has been taught what "appropriate Islamic practices" are, can undertake it properly. This is not a criticism that anyone coming from the outside, a total stranger, say, armed with a fine sense of logical argument and a set of universal moral principles, can carry out. So it is quite different from the notion of abstract and generalized criticism that has to be confined to the enlightened, literate members of a polity. So are you suggesting that there are traditions that can continue their own trajectory of debate, without necessarily coming into conversation with other parallel traditions--in this case the Western-liberal tradition of political and public critique? No, that is not what I'm saying. My point, first of all, is that nasiha, in the way that I described it in my book, is a form of criticism that can only be mounted if the critic is familiar with the relevant tradition that provides the standards defining Islamic practices and also with the specific social conditions in which those standards are to be applied. But when social conditions change, the standards often have to be extended or modified. In the case I discuss, this process is closely connected with the development of the modern Saudi state. Many of the practices in that state are modeled on the practices of the modern nation-state. This also applies to various aspects of "private life." In other words, the new social conditions are beginning to include aspects of Western political traditions. Wahhabi religious discourse is, therefore, involved in a complex process of appropriating and rejecting parts of those traditions. Thus, even though the principles of nasiha still remain distinctive, and quite different from Enlightenment principles, the scope and objective of nasiha has changed very significantly. That's not exactly what I would call a "conversation" with another tradition, but it is certainly an engagement with it. I can't see how any non-Western tradition today can escape some sort of an engagement with Western modernity. Because aspects of Western modernity have come to be embodied in the life of non-European societies. Do you think that the post-Reformation Protestant conception of religion, as an internal belief system that has little to do with arranging political and social life, influenced or transformed the character of Islamic debates in this century? If so, in what ways? Well, I think to some extent they have--where Islamic reform movements have adopted standards of rationality from modern Western discourses or even where Muslim apologists claim that Islam does quite well when properly measured by Western standards of justice and decency. This influence is also evident whenever the shari`a is made compatible with Western law and practice and is subjected to institutions of the modern state. And the modern state gives rise to two quite distinct movements--those for whom religious faith is something that fits into "private space" (in both the legal and the psychological sense), and those for whom the "public functions" of the modern state must be captured by men with religious faith. It has often been argued that the tradition of liberalism is based upon principles of pluralism and tolerance in ways that Islamic tradition is not, and that the concept of plurality remains foreign to Islam. How would you respond to that? Well, I would say that it is certainly not a modern, liberal invention. The plurality of individual interests is what the liberal tradition has theorized best of all. On the other hand, the attempt to get some kind of representation for ethnic groups and minorities in Western countries has been difficult for liberalism to theorize. Liberalism has theories of tolerance by which spaces can be created for individuals to do what they wish, so long as they don't obstruct the ability of others to do likewise. But these aren't theories of pluralism in the sense we are beginning to understand the term today. Liberalism has theories of multiple "interests," interests which can be equalized, aggregated, and calculated through the electoral process and then negotiated in the process of formulating and applying governmental policies. But that is a very different kind of pluralism from the different ways of life which are (a) the preconditions and not the objects of individual interests, and which are, (b) in the final analysis, incommensurable. Now the Islamic tradition, like many other non-liberal traditions, is based on the notion of plural social groupings and plural religious traditions--especially (but not only) of the Abrahamic traditions [ahl al-kitab]. And, of course, it has always accommodated a plurality of scriptural interpretations. There is a well- known dictum in the shari`a: ikhtilaf al-umma rahma [difference within the Islamic tradition is a blessing]. This is where the notions of ijtihad and ijm`a come in. As modes of developing and sustaining the Islamic tradition, they authorize the construction of coherent differences, not the imposition of homogeneity. Of course there are always limits to difference if coherence is to be aimed at. If tolerance is not merely another name for indifference, there comes a point in every tradition beyond which difference cannot be tolerated. That simply means that there are differences which can't be accommodated within the tradition without threatening its very coherence. But there are, of course, many moments and conditions of such intolerance. One must not, therefore, equate intolerance with violence and cruelty. On the whole, Muslim societies in the past have been much more accommodating of pluralism in the sense I have tried to outline than have European societies. It does not follow that they are therefore necessarily better. And I certainly don't wish to imply that Muslim rulers and populations were never prejudiced, that they never persecuted non-Muslims in their midst. My point is only that "the concept of plurality," as you put it, is not foreign to Islam. Talking of pluralities of interpretations within the Islamic tradition, some scholars make a distinction between the Sufi [mystical] and Salafi [reformist] tradition within Islam. You have criticized the ways in which these two traditions are often mapped onto rural/urban, folk/elite, and oral/scriptural dichotomies, respectively. Yet it is hard to deny the substantial differences between Sufi and Salafi thought. How can one fruitfully engage with these differences without falling into simplistic dichotomies? Unfortunately, people continue to make these simplistic contrasts. It is true that for some sections of the Islamic tradition, such as the Hanbali tradition that is officially dominant in Saudi Arabia today, Sufism is thought to be quite different from what is defined as the central Islamic tradition. But the definition of the central Islamic tradition according to Saudi Hanbalis is not, strictly speaking, a Salafi one either. Wahhabi Islam has a specific connection with a particular state--even when it constitutes a contemporary language of opposition to the regime. This is a complicated question, and I don't want to get into details here. All I want to say here is that it's not as if there were only two options in Islam-- Sufi or Salafi. For reformers like Muhammad `Abduh, these were not mutually exclusive categories. `Abduh, one of the founders of the Salafiyya [reform] movement, always accepted the Sufi tradition. Certain aspects of his relationship with Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, including the Sufi language of love in which they sometimes communicated, can only be explained in terms of their familiarity with Sufism. `Abduh thought that certain kinds of reform were necessary for contemporary Islam, but he regarded these as compatible with Sufi thought and values. This was not a new attitude. The great medieval reformer, Imam Ghazali, was at once a scripturalist (an elitist, if you like) and a Sufi. I think that most Salafi reformers would be critical of Sufism when it transgressed one of the basic doctrines of Islam: the separation between God and human beings. I've heard criticism of Sufi practices that seemed to imply the possibility of complete union with God as opposed to the possibility of complete openness to God. I think that that is the crucial point for many people who are critical of Sufism. There is, incidentally, an interesting debate that occurred in the eighteenth century between Muhammad `Abd al-Wahhab (the Arabian reformer) and the chief qadi of Tunisia (whose name escapes me) about the so-called worship of saints' tombs which some reformers see as a feature of the Sufi tradition. The argument is over whether the frequenting of tombs and the invoking of saintly blessing constitutes `ibada [worship] or ziyara [visitation]. The qadi argues that this is not a case of `ibada, for the very reason that visitation to the Prophet's tomb at Mecca is not `ibada. The Prophet, after all, can't be worshipped (worship is reserved for God alone), but visiting his tomb is an act of piety that elicits blessing. I don't think that `Abd al-Wahab was persuaded by this argument, but there was an argument. The denunciation by some sections of the Islamic movement of other Muslims as kufar [infidels; sing. kafir] is, of course, a termination of argument. Even worse, it is a quasi-legal judgment which carries serious penalties. It is curious that those in Islamic movements who declare other Muslims to be kufar are also the ones who argue that the door of ijtihad [exercise of independent judgment in a theological question] is open in Islam. Yet the entire idea of ijtihad, as an exercise in debate and reconsideration of scholarly argument, seems to contradict the kind of closure entailed in declaring someone a kafir. Many Muslims would not accept, of course, that ijtihad is open to the introduction of new interpretations. Incidentally, among Sunnis, ijtihad is much more a central part of traditional Hanabli doctrine than of other schools-- for them the gate of ijtihad was never closed. But although they are open to the principle of ijtihad, they are hostile to what they regard as its arbitrary use. They are similar, in some ways, to the Khawarij in the seventh century who were prepared to call other Muslims kufar, even to make war on them. They decided that certain things were open to ijtihad and others were not. To talk about some things in the light of ijtihad was simply to open the door to kufr [infidelity]. So it is a question of where you draw the conceptual boundaries, and what action follows from the way you draw those boundaries. In examining world traditions, theorists of religion have often contrasted deistic religiosity with a "traditional" sensibility that emphasizes, for example, correct bodily practices, literal understandings of texts, etc. Deism, on the other hand, is associated with an abstract understanding of the idea of divinity, sacred texts, and general principles of a religious doctrine. Evolutionary models of religious theory associate deism with a post-Enlightenment conception of religion, of which Post-Reformation Christianity is considered paradigmatic, and Islam, Hinduism, and certain forms of Judaism are associated with a literalist understanding of religion. Even if we reject an evolutionary model of religious development in history, there are obvious differences in the focus on correct bodily practices in some of these religious traditions. Given your emphasis on historicizing the concept of religion, and on the inimical relationship between religious discourse and bodily practices (particularly in medieval Christianity), what do you suggest are some ways to engage with this characterization of religious traditions as deist and/or literalist? I think this is a false opposition, because abstract principles and ideas are also integral to various Islamic, Judaic, and pre-Reformation Christian traditions. Abstract ideas are relevant not only for theology, they are important also for programs aiming to teach embodied practices. I talk about these programs in Genealogies of Religion. In this sense abstract ideas are not opposed to embodied practices. This point applies to the way Christian virtues are developed in the monastic context, and it applies equally to the way nasiha constitutes an embodied practice, as I try to show in my book. The point is that, in contemporary Protestant Christianity (and other religions now modeled on it), it is more important to have the right belief than to carry out specific prescribed practices. It is not that belief in every sense of the word was irrelevant in the Christian past, or irrelevant to Islamic tradition. It is that belief has now become a purely inner, private state of mind, a particular state of mind detached from everyday practices. But although it is in this sense "internal," belief has also become the object of systematic discourse, such that the system of statements about belief is now held to constitute the essence of "religion," a construction that makes it possible to compare and evaluate different "religions." These systematic statements, these texts, are now the real public form of "religion." So I think the contrast one should make is between the development of prescribed moral-religious capabilities, which involve the cultivation of certain bodily attitudes (including emotions), the disciplined cultivation of habits, aspirations, desires, on one hand, and on the other hand, a more abstracted set of belief-statements, "texts" that contain meanings and define the core of the religion. Now, insofar as certain modern forms of religiosity have been identified with sets of abstracted belief-statements which have barely anything to do with people's actual lives, you get the curious phenomenon of Christians, non- Christians, and atheists allegedly believing in or rejecting religion, but living the same kind of life. Now, if this is the case, then clearly it is different from embodied practices of various kinds. I think the important contrast to bear in mind is the difference between this kind of intellectualized abstracted system of doctrines that has no direct bearing on or relationship to forms of embodied practices, and lives that are organized around gradually learning and perfecting correct moral and religious practices. The former kind of religiosity is much more a feature of modern religion in Europe and, indeed, a part of what religion is defined to be: a set of belief-statements that makes it possible to compare one religion to another and to judge the validity--even the sense--of such abstract statements. This state of affairs is radically opposed to one in which correct practice is essential to the development of religious virtues and is itself an essential religious virtue. After all, while you can talk about certain belief- statements as being credible or non-credible, true or false, rational or irrational, you can't really talk like that about embodied practices. Practices aren't statements. As Austin pointed out in How to Do Things with Words, they are performatives and not constatives. We do not say of performatives that they are believable or unbelievable. We inquire, instead, as to whether they are well done or badly done; effectively done or ineffectively done. So different kinds of questions arise in these two contexts. That is the opposition one has to bear in mind, and that is partly what my two chapters on monastic discipline are about. In Islam, this is what matters, and if Muslims simply argue about whether or not a particular doctrine is "true Islam," and if the answer to that question makes no difference to how they learn to live, how they develop distinctive Islamic virtues, then it makes no difference whether that doctrine is the same as Christianity or not, because the way in which they live is the same, or pretty much the same. That is the point one has to bear in mind. The crucial question, it seems to me, is this: Are there practical rules and principles aimed at developing a distinctive set of virtues (articulated by din [religion]) which relate to how one structures one's life? That is what I mean by embodied practices. Since you mostly focus on medieval Christianity in your book, I am curious if you think that this sense of embodied practice also exists in parts of the contemporary Islamic world, where the cultivation of correct bodily practices actually modifies the way people live on a daily basis? Yes, I think it does in some areas. I tried to describe some aspects of that in the context of the Wahhabi concept and practice of morality, as opposed to post-Kantian conceptions of morality. In varying degrees, you continue to have this sense of morality in parts of the Muslim world, although it is gradually becoming eroded there as elsewhere. I think that, in a way, the recent Islamist movements have a sense that the pursuit of correct bodily practices is important and has to be somehow reinstituted where it has eroded, and protected wherever it exists. Unfortunately, Islamists often tend to link the maintenance of these practices to the demand for a modernizing Islamic state. This seems to me very problematic for all sorts of reasons. Anyway, the learning of these moral capabilities did not originally depend on the existence of a modernizing state. Yet now most Islamic movements are concerned to capture the center that the modern state represents, instead of trying to cut across or dissolve it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011010/c89f2d1c/attachment.html From jotarun at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 10 08:13:58 2001 From: jotarun at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=20and=20Tarun?=) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:43:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] An Iraqi Dissident Viewpoint In-Reply-To: <200110091844.UAA10817@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <20011010024358.10786.qmail@web9102.mail.yahoo.com> Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya Kanan Makiya Sunday October 7, 2001 The Observer The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world. I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility. Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes. Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden. However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions. Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built. From jotarun at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 10 08:15:15 2001 From: jotarun at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=20and=20Tarun?=) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:45:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] Iraqi Dissident Voice In-Reply-To: <200110091844.UAA10817@mail.intra.waag.org> Message-ID: <20011010024515.10895.qmail@web9102.mail.yahoo.com> Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya Kanan Makiya Sunday October 7, 2001 The Observer The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world. I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility. Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes. Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden. However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions. Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built. From alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in Wed Oct 10 04:31:31 2001 From: alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in (Alok Rai) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 04:31:31 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] more from Ahmed Rashid Message-ID: <000901c15116$563c3040$2802640a@i.i.t.d> You might want to put this on the list: 10/09/2001 The Guardian Copyright (C) 2001 The Guardian; Source: World Reporter (TM) Tony Blair's plans for post-Taliban Afghanistan are heavily influenced by a book that argues that the country's stability lies in a multi-tribal government in which bordering states do not seek predominant influence. The book - Taliban, Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid - is being read not just by the prime minister but by his personal assistant, Anji Hunter, and the director of communications, Alastair Campbell, a man not normally taken with such tomes. The book is an account of the bewildering complexity of Afghan politics, its deadly overspill into bordering countries and the malign influence of Osama bin Laden. Mr Rashid, a contributor to the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Wall Street Journal, briefly met Blair aides in Islamabad last week. His book concludes, as does Downing Street, that the Taliban is incapable of reform, and that, in the current crisis, it might implode due to defections. "The Taliban movement is essentially caught between a tribal society, which they try to ignore, and the need for a state structure which they refuse to establish," Mr Rashid writes. He is convinced that the Northern Alliance, which ruled the country from 1992 to 1996, cannot dominate again, a view with which Downing Street concurs. The Alliance is in effect run by Persian-speaking Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Mr Blair is determined that the Pashtun tribes dominant in southern Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan are not excluded. Mr Rashid warns: "The fear of fragmentation in Afghanistan is forever present and the lines have been well drawn since 1996 - a Pashtun south and a non-Pashtun north divided by the Hindu Kush mountains, leaving Kabul contested by the two sides." He suggests that the best solution lies in the regional states surrounding Afghanistan accepting only limited areas of influence inside the country, rather than continuing to push for their proxies to rule the entire country. Tony Blair and his aides are reading Ahmed Rashid's text From shammi_nanda at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 19:10:37 2001 From: shammi_nanda at yahoo.com (Shammi Nanda) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Ban on SIMI/arrests of students in Delhi Message-ID: <20011010134037.20620.qmail@web10502.mail.yahoo.com> Sometime back a friend was commenting that the condition of BJP was quite bad and they might loose in the UP elections, unless there is a war. So it seems that they have beautifully created a sense of paranoia and are pretending as our saviours, and are tying so hard, today some two people who were from UP and Muslims, were arrested near Advani's house, the newspaper says that they have visited Saudi at some point, one still cant figure out what their crime was and if going to Saudi is a crime MrJaswant Singh had gone to Kandhar and even met the Taliban people. The day SIMI was banned lot of people were heard asking- as to what is SIMI, because the goverment and media hadn't really painted them as villains till then, they had to their credit some protests against the screening of film Gadar(which i personally think was for wrong reasons but that doesn't matter at this moment),they were arrested all over Maharashtra and there crime was that they raised slogans, tore posters,etc, which we have seen so many times done by shiv sena and bajrang dal, probably it is beleived by some people(especially Mr.Advani) that only a few agencies have a right to do such patriotic acts. Earlier i remember some police officer commenting about their involvement in Coimbatore blasts, in a news paper, had said that there is no clear evidence but he wouldn't be SURPRISED if they are involved in it, well in that case i wont be surprised to know that Osama Bin Laden is still getting funding from american government.... The words used by News papers for the arrest of SIMI activists were, midnight crackdown, swooped- as if some major confrontation was expected, they also said that some 'literature' was seized it was about an article which the police beleived would hurt sentiments of Buddhists, now this angle is a smart manipulation because it will make it difficult for samjwadi party, which has been fighting for the muslims, to protest as they have a large base amongst the Buddhists and if i am not wrong the ban came on a friday, one wonders if that has any significance(was the goverment trying to provoke violence?). One doesnt even know what SIMI is but one does know what RSS, Shiv sena,BJP and bajrang dal are and how and when their actions have led to so many riots and their leaders are proud to have given inflamatory speeches so many times. The other day i saw a full dress rehearsal or an enactent of demolition of babri masjid in an RSS shakha in Jaipur: There were kids running around in khaki shorts and were basically divided in two groups, one group was throwing mud at them and a 'guruji' was teaching them how to throw it and other 'guruji' was teaching the other group as to how to save themselves by covering their heads with their hands, they had to then climb a rope which was tied between two poles and do a monkey walk(cross from one end to the other), while one set of boys tried to hit them with sticks from below(as police would do) and they had to stay up to save themslves and keep moving. Therafter they had to climb a wooden ladder while a fire tender from Fire Department was throwing a water cannon on them and they(even I) were realising that the best way to face it was to turn your back against it, after getting down the ladder they had to run towards a bamboo pole, and one of the guys sccesfully climbed it with a saffron flag, fixed it on the top of the pole, while the band(basically drums) played loudly and in a euphoria, and some amongst them were bursting crackers and throwing them in the air and it was falling on some of them and the ones who were injured (burnt with fire crackers) were casually taken to an ambulance parked nearby and the show went on. There bodies were all wet,they were shouting and howling, it was real madness and then they all sang a song, led by the 'Guruji', 'chun chun ke badala lena hai, maidanon mein aana hai....in Mughalon se...'(thats all i remember). One had read somewhere that Bjrang dal is also giving arms training to its cadres. The point is that we dont know what SIMI is but we do know what other hindu organisations are doing and they should be banned before the goverment even thinks of banning any other organisation. The arrests of students in delhi was quite expected, one wouldn't be surprised if Sarai is also banned in a few days. If they do it one would feel proud of it. Shammi PS: RSS people do their job all over the country from 6.00 a.m. to 8 am when most of us are sleeping. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From bhochka at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 10 19:20:26 2001 From: bhochka at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?aditya=20sarkar?=) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:50:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Reader-list] demonstrations against police repression. Message-ID: <20011010135026.812.qmail@web20710.mail.yahoo.com> As we know, a couple of days back several student activists were arrested in Delhi for distributing anti-war pamphlets. This is a clear indication that the levels of acceptable dissent, as defined by the Indian government, have narrowed down massively. The students have been remanded to judicial custody till the 17th for exercising a fundamental democratic right, on charges of `sedition.' In protest against this, two peace demonstrations have been organized by various groups this week. On the 11th of October ( Thursday ) there is a protest meeting outside the police station at ITO. The demonstrators are to gather outside Pyare Lal Bhavan at 10:45 am, from where the protest will move to the police station. On Friday, the 12th of October, there is to be another rally, beginning at 11:30 a.m at the Mandi House roundabout. It is very important that these demonstrations are seen to be a success, since what is at stake is the right to freedom of expression, a right that can no longer be taken for granted in this country. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 10 22:01:52 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 10 Oct 2001 16:31:52 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] THIRD VERSION-Slavoj Zizek on WTC bombings Message-ID: <20011010163152.15240.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com> Welcome To The Desert Of The Real Reflections on WTC - third version - by Slavoj Zizek Alain Badiou identified as the key feature of the XXth century the “passion of the Real /la passion du reel/”1: in contrast to the XIXth century of the utopian or “scientific” projects and ideals, plans about the future, the XXth century aimed at delivering the thing itself, at directly realizing the longer-for New Order. The ultimate and defining experience of the XXth century was the direct experience of the Real as opposed to the everyday social reality - the Real in its extreme violence as the price to be paid for peeling off the deceiving layers of reality. Already in the trenches of the World War I, Carl Schmitt was celebrating the face to face combat as the authentic intersubjective encounter: authenticity resides in the act of violent transgression, from the Lacanian Real - the Thing Antigone confronts when he violates the order of the City - to the Bataillean excess. As Badiou demonstrated apropos of the Stalinist show trials, this violent effort to distill the pure Real from the elusive reality necessarily ends up in its opposite, in the obsession with pure appearance: in the Stalinist universe, the passion of the Real (ruthless enforcement of the Socialist development) thus culminates in ritualistic stagings of a theatrical spectacle in the truth of which no one believes. The key to this reversal resides in the ultimate impossibility to draw a clear distinction between deceptive reality and some firm positive kernel of the Real: every positive bit of reality is a priori suspicious, since (as we know from Lacan) the Real Thing is ultimately another name for the Void. The pursuit of the Real thus equals total annihilation, a (self)destructive fury within which the only way to trace the distinction between the semblance and the Real is, precisely, to STAGE it in a fake spectacle. The fundamental illusion is here that, once the violent work of purification is done, the New Man will emerge ex nihilo, freed from the n. Within this horizon, “really-existing men” are reduced to the stock of raw material which can be ruthlessly exploited for the construction of the new - the Stalinist revolutionary definition of man is a circular one: “man is what is to be crushed, stamped on, mercilessly worked over, in order to produce a new man.” We have here the tension between the series of “ordinary” elements (“ordinary” men as the “material” of history) and the exceptional “empty” element (the socialist “New Man,” which is at first nothing but an empty place to be filled up with positive content through the revolutionary turmoil). In a revolution, there is no a priori positive determination of this New Man: a revolution is not legitimized by the positive notion of what Man’s essence, “alienated” in present conditions and to be realized through the revolutionary process, is - the only legitimization of a revolution is negative, a will to break with the Past. One should formulate here things in a very precise way: the reason why the Stalinist fury of purification is so destructive resides in the very fact that it is sustained by the belief that, after the destructive work of purification will be accomplished, SOMETHING WILL REMAIN, the sublime “indivisible remainder,” the paragon of the New. It is in order to conceal the fact that there is nothing beyond that, in a strictly perverse way, the revolutionary has to cling to violence as the only index of his authenticity, and it is as this level that the critics of Stalinism as a rule misperceive the cause of the Communist’s attachment to the Party. Say, when, in 1939-1941 pro-Soviet Communists twice had to change their Party line overnight (after the Soviet-German pact, it was imperialism, not, Fascism, which was elevated to the role of the main enemy; from June 22 1941, when Germany attacked Soviet Union, it was again the popular front against the Fascist beast), the brutality of the imposed changes of position was what attracted them. Along the same lines, the purges themselves exerted an u ination, especially on intellectuals: their “irrational” cruelty served as a kind of ontological proof, bearing witness to the fact that we are dealing with the Real, not just with empty plans - the Party is ruthlessly brutal, so it means business... So, if the passion of the Real ends up with the pure semblance of the political theater, then, in an exact inversion, the “postmodern” passion of the semblance of the Last Men ends up in a kind of Real. Recall the phenomenon of “cutters” (mostly women who experience an irresistible urge to cut themselves with razors or otherwise hurt themselves), strictly correlative to the virtualization of our environs: it stands for a desperate strategy to return to the real of the body. As such, cutting is to be contrasted with the standard tattoo inscriptions on the body, which guarantee the subject’s inclusion in the (virtual) symbolic order - with the cutters, the problem is the opposite one, namely the assertion of reality itself. Far from being suicidal, far from signalling a desire for self-annihilation, cutting is a radical attempt to (re)gain a stronghold in reality, or (another aspect of the same phenomenon) to firmly ground our ego in our bodily reality, against the unbearable anxiety of perceiving oneself as non-existing. The standard report of cutters is that, after seeing the red warm blood flowing out of the self-inflicted wound, the feel alive again, firmly rooted in reality. So, although, of course, cutting is a pathological phenomenon, it is nonetheless a pathological attempt at regaining some kind of normalcy, at avoiding a total psychotic breakdown. On today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like t real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. However, at the end of this process of virtualization, the inevitable Benthamian conclusion awaits us: reality is its own best semblance. And was the bombing of the WTC with regard to the Hollywood catastrophe movies not like the snuff pornography versus ordinary sado-maso porno movies? This is the element of truth in Karl-Heinz Stockhausen’s provocative statement that the planes hitting the WTC towers was the ultimate work of art: one can effectively perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climactic conclusion of the XXth century art’s “passion of the real” - the “terrorists” themselves did it not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but FOR THE SPECTACULAR EFFECT OF IT. The authentic XXth century passion to penetrate the Real Thing (ultimately, the destructive Void) through the cobweb of semblances which constitute our reality thus culminates in the thrill of the Real as the ultimate “effect,” sought after from digitalized special effects through reality TV and amateur pornography up to snuff movies. Snuff movies which deliver the “real thing” are perhaps the ultimate truth of virtual reality. There is an intimate connection between virtualization of reality and the emergence of an infinite and infinitized bodily pain, much stronger that the usual one: do biogenetics and Virtual Reality combined not open up new “enhanced” possibilities of TORTURE, new and unheard-of horizons of extending our ability to endure pain (through widening our sensory capacity to sustain pain, through inventing new forms of inflicting it)? Perhaps, the ultimate Sadean image on an “undead” victim of the torture who can sustain endless pain without having at his/her disposal the escape into death, also waits to become reality. The ultimate American paranoiac fantasy is that of an individual living in a small idyllic Californian city, a consumerist paradise, who suddenly starts to suspect that the world he lives in is a fake, a spectacle staged that he lives in a real world, while all 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 its predecessors, it is worth mentioning Philip 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 Out of Joint and of The Truman Show is that the late capitalist consumerist Californian paradise is, in its very hyper-reality, in a way IRREAL, substanceless, deprived of the material inertia. And the same “derealization” of the horror went on after the WTC bombings: while the number of 6000 victims is repeated all the time, it is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see - no dismembered bodies, no blood, no desperate faces of the dying people... in clear contrast to the reporting from the Third World catastrophies where the whole point was to produce a scoop of some gruesome detail: Somalis dying of hunger, raped Bosnian women, men with throats cut. These shots were always accompanied with the advance-warning that “some of the images you will see are extremely graphic and may hurt children” - a warning which we NEVER heard in the reports on the WTC collapse. Is this not yet another proof of how, even in this tragic moments, the distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens THERE, not HERE? /”2 So it is not only that Hollywood stages a semblance of real life deprived of the weight and inertia of materiality - in the late capitalist consumerist society, “real social life” itself somehow acquires the features of a staged fake, with our neighbors behaving tors and extras... Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist utilitarian de-spiritualized universe is the de-materialization of the “real life” itself, its reversal into a spectral show. Among others, Christopher Isherwood gave expression to this unreality of the American daily life, exemplified in the motel room: “American motels are unreal! /.../ they are deliberately designed to be unreal. /.../ The Europeans hate us because we’ve retired to live inside our advertisements, like hermits going into caves to contemplate.” Peter Sloterdijk’s notion of the “sphere” is here literally realized, as the gigantic metal sphere that envelopes and isolates the entire city. Years ago, a series of science-fiction films like Zardoz or Logan’s Run forecasted today’s postmodern predicament by extending this fantasy to the community itself: the isolated group living an aseptic life in a secluded area longs for the experience of the real world of material decay. Is the endlessly repeated shot of the plane approaching and hitting the second WTC tower not the real-life version of the famous scene from Hitchcock’s Birds, superbly analyzed by Raymond Bellour, in which Melanie approaches the Bodega Bay pier after crossing the bay on the small boat? When, while approaching the wharf, she waves to her (future) lover, a single bird (first perceived as an undistinguished dark blot) unexpectedly enters the frame from above right and hits her head.3 Was the plane which hit the WTC tower not literally the ultimate Hitchcockian blot, the anamorphic stain which denaturalized the idyllic well-known New York landscape? The Wachowski brothers’ hit Matrix (1999) brought this logic to its climax: the material reality we all experience and see around us is a virtual one, generated and coordinated by a gigantic mega-computer to which we are all attached; when the hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens into the “real reality,” he sees a desolate landscape littered with burned ruins - what remained of Chicago after a global war. The resistance leade e ironic greeting: “Welcome to the desert of the real.” Was it not something of the similar order that took place in New York on September 11? Its citizens were introduced to the “desert of the real” - to us, corrupted by Hollywood, the landscape and the shots we saw of the collapsing towers could not but remind us of the most breathtaking scenes in the catastrophe big productions. When we hear how the bombings were a totally unexpected shock, how the unimaginable Impossible happened, one should recall the other defining catastrophe from the beginning of the XXth century, that of Titanic: it was also a shock, but the space for it was already prepared in ideological fantasizing, since Titanic was the symbol of the might of the XIXth century industrial civilization. Does the same not hold also for these bombings? Not only were the media bombarding us all the time with the talk about the terrorist threat; this threat was also obviously libidinally invested - just recall the series of movies from Escape From New York to Independence Day. Therein resides the rationale of the often-mentioned association of the attacks with the Hollywood disaster movies: the unthinkable which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about, and this was the greatest surprise. One should therefore turn around the standard reading according to which, the WTC explosions were the intrusion of the Real which shattered our illusory Sphere: quite on the contrary, it is prior to the WTC collapse than we lived in our reality, perceiving the Third World horrors as something which is not effectively part of our social reality, as something which exists (for us) as a spectral apparition on the (TV) screen - and what happened on September 11 is that this screen fantasmatic apparition entered our reality. It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality (i.e., the symbolic coordinates which determine what we experience as reality). The fact that, after September 11, uster” movies with scenes which bear a resemblance to the WTC collapse (large buildings on fire or under attack, terrorist actions...) was postponed (or the films were even shelved), is thus to be read as the “repression” of the fantasmatic background responsible for the impact of the WTC collapse. Of course, the point is not to play a pseudo-postmodern game of reducing the WTC collapse to just another media spectacle, reading it as a catastrophy version of the snuff porno movies; the question we should have asked ourselves when we stared at the TV screens on September 11 is simply: WHERE DID WE ALREADY SEE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN? It is precisely now, when we are dealing with the raw Real of a catastrophe, that we should bear in mind the ideological and fantasmatic coordinates which determine its perception. If there is any symbolism in the collapse of the WTC towers, it is not so much the old-fashioned notion of the “center of financial capitalism,” but, rather, the notion that the two WTC towers stood for the center of the VIRTUAL capitalism, of financial speculations disconnected from the sphere of material production. The shattering impact of the bombings can only be accounted for only against the background of the borderline which today separates the digitalized First World from the Third World “desert of the Real.” It is the awareness that we live in an insulated artificial universe which generates the notion that some ominous agent is threatening us all the time with total destruction. Is, consequently, Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the bombings, not the real-life counterpart of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the master-criminal in most of the James Bond films, involved in the acts of global destruction. What one should recall here is that the only place in Hollywood films where we see the production process in all its intensity is when James Bond penetrates the master-criminal’s secret domain and locates there the site of intense labor (distilling and packaging the drugs, constru stroy New York...). When the master-criminal, after capturing Bond, usually takes him on a tour of his illegal factory, is this not the closest Hollywood comes to the socialist-realist proud presentation of the production in a factory? And the function of Bond’s intervention, of course, is to explode in firecraks this site of production, allowing us to return to the daily semblance of our existence in a world with the “disappearing working class.” Is it not that, in the exploding WTC towers, this violence directed at the threatening Outside turned back at us? The safe Sphere in which Americans live is experienced as under threat from the Outside of terrorist attackers who are ruthlessly self-sacrificing AND cowards, cunningly intelligent AND primitive barbarians. The letters of the deceased attackers are quoted as “chilling documents” - why? Are they not exactly what one would expect from dedicated fighters on a suicidal mission? If one takes away references to Koran, in what do they differ from, say, the CIA special manuals? Were the CIA manuals for the Nicaraguan contras with detailed descriptions on how to perturb the daily life, up to how to clog the water toilets, not of the same order - if anything, MORE cowardly? When, on September 25, 2001, the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar appealed to Americans to use their own judgement in responding to the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon rather than blindly following their government’s policy to attack his country (“You accept everything your government says, whether it is true or false. /.../ Don’t you have your own thinking? /.../ So it will be better for you to use your sense and understanding.”), were these statements, taken in a literal-abstract, decontextualized, sense, not quite appropriate? Today, more than ever, one should bear in mind that the large majority of Arabs are not fanaticized dark crowds, but scared, uncertain, aware of their fragile status - witness the anxiety the bombings caused in Egypt. Whenever we enco utside, we should gather the courage to endorse the Hegelian lesson: in this pure Outside, we should recognize the distilled version of our own essence. For the last five centuries, the (relative) prosperity and peace of the “civilized” West was bought by the export of ruthless violence and destruction into the “barbarian” Outside: the long story from the conquest of America to the slaughter in Congo. Cruel and indifferent as it may sound, we should also, now more than ever, bear in mind that the actual effect of these bombings is much more symbolic than real: in Africa, EVERY SINGLE DAY more people die of AIDS than all the victims of the WTC collapse, and their death could have been easily cut back with relatively small financial means. The US just got the taste of what goes on around the world on a daily basis, from Sarajevo to Grozny, from Ruanda and Congo to Sierra Leone. If one adds to the situation in New York rapist gangs and a dozen or so snipers blindly targeting people who walk along the streets, one gets an idea about what Sarajevo was a decade ago. When, days after September 11 2001, our gaze was transfixed by the images of the plane hitting one of the WTC towers, all of us were forced to experience what the “compulsion to repeat” ans jouissance beyond the pleasure principle are: we wanted to see it again and again, the same shots were repeated ad nauseam, and the uncanny satisfaction we got from it was jouissance at its purest. It is when we watched on TV screen the two WTC towers collapsing, that it became possible to experience the falsity of the “reality TV shows”: even if these shows are “for real,” people still act in them - they simply play themselves. The standard disclaimer in a novel (“characters in this text are a fiction, every resemblance with the real life characters is purely contingent”) holds also for the participants of the reality soaps: what we see there are fictional characters, even if they play themselves for the real. Of course, the “return to the Real” can be given different hears some conservatives claim that what made us so vulnerable is our very openness - with the inevitable conclusion lurking in the background that, if we are to protect our “way of life,” we will have to sacrifice some of our freedoms which were “misused” by the enemies of freedom. This logic should be rejected tout court: is it not a fact that our First World “open” countries are the most controlled countries in the entire history of humanity? In the United Kingdom, all public spaces, from buses to shopping malls, are constantly videotaped, not to mention the almost total control of all forms of digital communication. Along the same lines, Rightist commentators like George Will also immediately proclaimed the end of the American “holiday from history” - the impact of reality shattering the isolated tower of the liberal tolerant attitude and the Cultural Studies focus on textuality. Now, we are forced to strike back, to deal with real enemies in the real world... However, WHOM to strike? Whatever the response, it will never hit the RIGHT target, bringing us full satisfaction. The ridicule of America attacking Afghanistan cannot but strike the eye: if the greatest power in the world will destroy one of the poorest countries in which peasant barely survive on barren hills, will this not be the ultimate case of the impotent acting out? Afghanistan is otherwise an ideal target: a country ALREADY reduced to rubble, with no infrastructure, repeatedly destroyed by war for the last two decades... one cannot avoid the surmise that the choice of Afghanistan will be also determined by economic considerations: is it not the best procedure to act out one’s anger at a country for which no one cares and where there is nothing to destroy? Unfortunately, the possible choice of Afghanistan recalls the anecdote about the madman who searches for the lost key beneath a street light; when asked why there when he lost the key in a dark corner backwards, he answers: “But it is easier to search under strong light!” Is not the ultimat f Kabul already looks like downtown Manhattan? To succumb to the urge to act now and retaliate means precisely to avoid confronting the true dimensions of what occurred on September 11 - it means an act whose true aim is to lull us into the secure conviction that nothing has REALLY changed. The true long-term threat are further acts of mass terror in comparison to which the memory of the WTC collapse will pale - acts less spectacular, but much more horrifying. What about bacteriological warfare, what about the use of lethal gas, what about the prospect of the DNA terrorism (developing poisons which will affect only people who share a determinate genome)? In contrast to Marx who relied on the notion of fetish as a solid object whose stable presence obfuscates its social mediation, one should assert that fetishism reaches its acme precisely when the fetish itself is “dematerialized,” turned into a fluid “immaterial” virtual entity; money fetishism will culminate with the passage to its electronic form, when the last traces of its materiality will disappear - it is only at this stage that it will assume the form of an indestructible spectral presence: I owe you 1000 $, and no matter how many material notes I burn, I still owe you 1000 $, the debt is inscribed somewhere in the virtual digital space... Does the same not hold also for warfare? Far from pointing towards the XXIth century warfare, the WTC twin towers explosion and collapse in September 2001 were rather the last spectacular cry of the XXth century warfare. What awaits us is something much more uncanny: the specter of an “immaterial” war where the attack is invisible - viruses, poisons which can be anywhere and nowhere. At the level of visible material reality, nothing happens, no big explosions, and yet the known universe starts to collapse, life disintegrates... We are entering a new era of paranoiac warfare in which the biggest task will be to identify the enemy and his weapons. Instead of a quick acting out, one should confront these difficult questi XXIst century? Who will be “them,” if they are, clearly, neither states nor criminal gangs? One cannot resist the temptation to recall here the Freudian opposition of the public Law and its obscene superego double: are, along the same line, the “international terrorist organizations” not the obscene double of the big multinational corporations - the ultimate rhizomatic machine, all-present, although with no clear territorial base? Are they not the form in which nationalist and/or religious “fundamentalism” accommodated itself to global capitalism? Do they not embody the ultimate contrafiction, with their particular/exclusive content and their global dynamic functioning? There is a partial truth in the notion of the “clash of civilizations” attested here - witness the surprise of the average American: “How is it possible that these people display and practice such a disregard for their own lives?” Is the obverse of this surprise not the rather sad fact that we, in the First World countries, find it more and more difficult even to imagine a public or universal Cause for which one would be ready to sacrifice one’s life? When, after the bombings, even the Taliban foreign minister said that he can “feel the pain” of the American children, did he not thereby confirm the hegemonic ideological role of this Bill Clinton’s trademark phrase? It effectively appears as if the split between First World and Third World runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one’s life to some transcendent Cause. Two philosophical references immediately impose themselves apropos this ideological antagonism between the Western consummerist way of life and the Muslim radicalism: Hegel and Nietzsche. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called “passive” and “active” nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the up to their self-destruction. (One cannot but note the significant role of the stock exchange in the bombings: the ultimate proof of their traumatic impact was that the New York Stock Exchange was closed for four days, and its opening the following Monday was presented as the key sign of things returning to normal.) Furthermore, if one perceives this opposition through the lenses of the Hegelian struggle between Master and Servant, one cannot avoid noting the paradox: although we in the West are perceived as exploiting masters, it is us who occupy the position of the Servant who, since he clings to life and its pleasures, is unable to risk his life (recall Colin Powell’s notion of a high-tech war with no human casualties), while the poor Muslim radicals are Masters ready to risk their life... However, this notion of the “clash of civilizations” has to be thoroughly rejected: what we are witnessing today are rather clashes WITHIN each civilization. Furthermore, a brief look at the comparative history of Islam and Christianity tells us that the “human rights record” of Islam (to use this anachronistic term) is much better than that of Christianity: in the past centuries, Islam was significantly more tolerant towards other religions than Christianity. NOW it is also the time to remember that it was through the Arabs that, in the Middle Ages, we in the Western Europe regained access to our Ancient Greek legacy. While in no way excusing today’s horror acts, these facts nonetheless clearly demonstrate that we are not dealing with a feature inscribed into Islam “as such,” but with the outcome of modern socio-political conditions. On a closer look, what IS this “clash of civilizations” effectively about? Are all real-life “clashes” not clearly related to global capitalism? The Muslim “fundamentalist” target is not only global capitalism’s corroding impact on social life, but ALSO the corrupted “traditionalist” regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. The most horrifying slaughters (those in Ruanda, Kongo, and Sierra Leo ly took place - and are taking place - within the SAME “civilization,” but are also clearly related to the interplay of global economic interests. Even in the few cases which would vaguely fit the definition of the “clash of civilisations” (Bosnia and Kosovo, south of Sudan, etc.), the shadow of other interests is easily discernible. Every feature attributed to the Other is already present in the very heart of the US: murderous fanaticism? There are today in the US itself more than two millions of the Rightist populist “fundamentalists” who also practice the terror of their own, legitimized by (their understanding of) Christianity. Since America is in a way “harboring” them, should the US Army have punished the US themselves after the Oklashoma bombing? And what about the way Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson reacted to the bombings, perceiving them as a sign that God lifted up its protection of the US because of the sinful lives of the Americans, putting the blame on hedonist materialism, liberalism, and rampant sexuality, and claiming that America got what it deserved? The fact that very same condemnation of the “liberal” America as the one from the Muslim Other came from the very heart of the Amerique profonde should give as to think. America as a safe haven? When a New Yorker commented on how, after the bombings, one can no longer walk safely on the city’s streets, the irony of it was that, well before the bombings, the streets of New York were well-known for the dangers of being attacked or, at least, mugged - if anything, the bombings gave rise to a new sense of solidarity, with the scenes of young African-Americans helping an old Jewish gentlemen to cross the street, scenes unimaginable a couple of days ago. Now, in the days immediately following the bombings, it is as if we dwell in the unique time between a traumatic event and its symbolic impact, like in those brief moment after we are deeply cut, and before the full extent of the pain strikes us - it is open how the events will be symbolized, what th y will be, what acts they will be evoked to justify. If nothing else, one can clearly experience yet again the limitation of our democracy: decisions are being made which will affect the fate of all of us, and all of us just wait, aware that we are utterly powerless. Even here, in these moments of utmost tension, this link is not automatic but contingent. There are already the first bad omens, like the sudden resurrection, in the public discourse, of the old Cold war term “free world”: the struggle is now the one between the “free world” and the forces of darkness and terror. The question to be asked here is, of course: who then belongs to the UNFREE world? Are, say, China or Egypt part of this free world? The actual message is, of course, that the old division between the Western liberal-democratic countries and all the others is again enforced. The day after the bombing, I got a message from a journal which was just about to publish a longer text of mine on Lenin, telling me that they decided to postpone its publication - they considered inopportune to publish a text on Lenin immediately after the bombing. Does this not points towards the ominous ideological rearticulations which will follow, with a new Berufsverbot (prohibition to employ radicals) much stronger and more widespread than the one in the Germany of the 70s? These days, one often hears the phrase that the struggle is now the one for democracy - true, but not quite in the way this phrase is usually meant. Already, some Leftist friends of mine wrote me that, in these difficult moments, it is better to keep one’s head down and not push forward with our agenda. Against this temptation to duck out the crisis, one should insist that NOW the Left should provide a better analysis - otherwise, it concedes in advance its political AND ethical defeat in the face of the acts of quite genuine ordinary people heroism (like the passengers who, in a model of rational ethical act, overtook the kidnappers and provokes the early crush of the plane: if one is condem strength and die in such a way as to prevent other people dying). When, in the aftermath of September 11, the Americans en masse rediscovered their American pride, displaying flags and singing together in the public, one should emphasize more than ever that there is nothing “innocent” in this rediscovery of the American innocence, in getting rid of the sense of historical guilt or irony which prevented many of them to fully assume being American. What this gesture amounted to was to “objectively” assume the burden of all that being “American” stood for in the past - an exemplary case of ideological interpellation, of fully assuming one’s symbolic mandate, which enters the stage after the perplexity caused by some historical trauma. In the traumatic aftermath of September 11, when the old security seemed momentarily shattered, what more “natural” gesture than to take refuge in the innocence of the firm ideological identification? 4 However, it is precisely such moments of transparent innocence, of “return to basics,” when the gesture of identification seems “natural,” that are, from the standpoint of the critique of ideology, the most obscure one’s, even, in a certain way, obscurity itself. Let us recall another such innocently-transparent moment, the endlessly reproduced video-shot from Beijing’s Avenue of Eternal Piece at the height of the “troubles” in 1989, of a tiny young man with a can who, alone, stands in front of an advancing gigantic tank, and courageously tries to prevent its advance, so that, when the tank tries to bypass him by turning right or left, them man also moves aside, again standing in its way: “The representation is so powerful that it demolishes all other understandings. This streetscene, this time and this event, have come to constitute the compass point for virtually all Western journeys into the interior of the contemporary political and cultural life of China.”5 And, again, this very moment of transparent clarity (things are rendered at their utmost naked: a single man against th raw force of the State) is, for our Western gaze, sustained by a cobweb of ideological implications, embodying a series of oppositions: individual versus state, peaceful resistance versus state violence, man versus machine, the inner force of a tiny individual versus the impotence of the powerful machine... These implications, against the background of which the shot exerts its full direct impact, these “mediations” which sustain the shot’s immediate impact, are NOT present for a Chinese observer, since the above-mentioned series of oppositions is inherent to the European ideological legacy. And the same ideological background also overdetermines, say, our perception of the horrifying images of tiny individuals jumping from the burning WTC tower into certain death. So what about the phrase which reverberates everywhere, “Nothing will be the same after September 11”? Significantly, this phrase is never further elaborated - it just an empty gesture of saying something “deep” without really knowing what we want to say. So our first reaction to it should be: Really? Is it, rather, not that the only thing that effectively changed was that America was forced to realize the kind of world it was part of? On the other hand, such changes in perception are never without consequences, since the way we perceive our situation determines the way we act in it. Recall the processes of collapse of a political regime, say, the collapse of the Communist regimes in the Eastern Europe in 1990: at a certain moment, people all of a sudden became aware that the game is over, that the Communists are lost. The break was purely symbolic, nothing changed “in reality” - and, nonetheless, from this moment on, the final collapse of the regime was just a question of days... What if something of the same order DID occur on September 11? We don’t yet know what consequences in economy, ideology, politics, war, this event will have, but one thing is sure: the US, which, till now, perceived itself as an island exempted from this kind of violence, things only from the safe distance of the TV screen, is now directly involved. So the alternative is: will Americans decide to fortify further their “sphere,” or to risk stepping out of it? Either America will persist in, strengthen even, the deeply immoral attitude of “Why should this happen to us? Things like this don’t happen HERE!”, leading to more aggressivity towards the threatening Outside, in short: to a paranoiac acting out. Or America will finally risk stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World, accepting its arrival into the Real world, making the long-overdued move from “A thing like this should not happen HERE!” to “A thing like this should not happen ANYWHERE!”. Therein resides the true lesson of the bombings: the only way to ensure that it will not happen HERE again is to prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE. In short, America should learn to humbly accept its own vulnerability as part of this world, enacting the punishment of those responsible as a sad duty, not as an exhilarating retaliation. The WTC bombings again confront us with the necessity to resist the temptation of a double blackmail. If one simply, only and unconditionally condemns it, one cannot but appear to endorse the blatantly ideological position of the American innocence under attack by the Third World Evil; if one draws attention to the deeper socio-political causes of the Arab extremism, one cannot but appear to blame the victim which ultimately got what it deserved... The only consequent solution is here to reject this very opposition and to adopt both positions simultaneously, which can only be done if one resorts to the dialectical category of totality: there is no choice between these two positions, each one is one-sided and false. Far from offering a case apropos of which one can adopt a clear ethical stance, we encounter here the limit of moral reasoning: from the moral standpoint, the victims are innocent, the act was an abominable crime; however, this very innocence is not innocent - to osition in today’s global capitalist universe is in itself a false abstraction. The same goes for the more ideological clash of interpretations: one can claim that the attack on the WTC was an attack on what is worth fighting for in democratic freedoms - the decadent Western way of life condemned by Muslim and other fundamentalists is the universe of women’s rights and multiculturalist tolerance; however, one can also claim that it was an attack on the very center and symbol of global financial capitalism. This, of course, in no way entails the compromise notion of shared guilt (terrorists are to blame, but, partially, also Americans are also to blame...) - the point is, rather, that the two sides are not really opposed, that they belong to the same field. The fact that global capitalism is a totality means that it is the dialectical unity of itself and of its other, of the forces which resist it on “fundamentalist” ideological grounds. Consequently, of the two main stories which emerged after September 11, both are worse, as Stalin would have put it. The American patriotic narrative - the innocence under siege, the surge of patriotic pride - is, of course, vain; however, is the Leftist narrative (with its Schadenfreude: the US got what they deserved, what they were for decades doing to others) really any better? The predominant reaction of European, but also American, Leftists was nothing less than scandalous: all imaginable stupidities were said and written, up to the “feminist” point that the WTC towers were two phallic symbols, waiting to be destroyed (“castrated”). Was there not something petty and miserable in the mathematics reminding one of the holocaust revisionism (what are the 6000 dead against millions in Ruanda, Kongo, etc.)? And what about the fact that CIA (co)created Taliban and Bin Laden, financing and helping them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? Why was this fact quoted as an argument AGAINST attacking them? Would it not be much more logical to claim that it is precisely their duty to get ted? The moment one thinks in the terms of “yes, the WTC collapse was a tragedy, but one should not fully solidarize with the victims, since this would mean supporting US imperialism,” the ethical catastrophy is already here: the only appropriate stance is the unconditional solidarity will ALL victims. The ethical stance proper is here replaced with the moralizing mathematics of guilt and horror which misses the key point: the terrifying death of each individual is absolute and incomparable. In short, let us make a simple mental experiment: if you detect in yourself any restraint to fully empathize with the victims of the WTC collapse, if you feel the urge to qualify your empathy with “yes, but what about the millions who suffer in Africa...”, you are not demonstrating your Third World sympathize, but merely the mauvaise foi which bears witness to your implicit patronizing racist attitude towards the Third World victims. (More precisely, the problem with such comparative statements is that they are necessary and inadmissible: one HAS to make them, one HAS to make the point that much worse horrors are taken place around the world on a daily basis - but one has to do it without getting involved in the obscene mathematics of guilt.) It must be said that, within the scope of these two extremes (the violent retaliatory act versus the new reflection about the global situation and America’s role in it), the reaction of the Western powers till now was surprisingly considerate (no wonder it caused the violent anti-American outburst of Ariel Sharon!). Perhaps the greatest irony of the situation is that the main “collateral damage” of the Western reaction is the focus on the plight of the Afghani refugees, and, more generally, on the catastrophic food and health situation in Afghanistan, so that, sometimes, military action against Taliban is almost presented as a means to guarantee the safe delivery of the humanitarian aid - as Tony Blair said, perhaps, we will have to bomb Taliban in order to secure the food transportati course, such large-scale publicized humanitarian actions are in themselves ideologically charged, involving the debilitating degradation of the Afghani people to helpless victims, and reducing the Taliban to a parasite terrorizing them, it is significant to acknowledge that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan presents a much larger catastrophy than the WTC bombings. Another way in which the Left miserably failed is that, in the weeks after the bombing, it reverted to the old mantra “Give peace a chance! War does not stop violence!” - a true case of hysterical precipitation, reacting to something which will not even happen in the expected form. Instead of the concrete analysis of the new complex situation after the bombings, of the chances it gives to the Left to propose its own interpretation of the events, we got the blind ritualistic chant “No war!”, which fails to address even the elementary fact, de facto acknowledged by the US government itself (through its postponing of the retaliatory action), that this is not a war like others, that the bombing of Afghanistan is not a solution. A sad situation, in which George Bush showed more power of reflection than most of the Left! No wonder that anti-Americanism was most discernible in “big” European nations, especially France and Germany: it is part of their resistance to globalization. One often hears the complaint that the recent trend of globalization threatens the sovereignty of the Nation-States; here, however, one should qualify this statement: WHICH states are most exposed to this threat? It is not the small states, but the second-rang (ex-)world powers, countries like United Kingdom, Germany and France: what they fear is that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global Empire, they will be reduced at the same level as, say, Austria, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The refusal of “Americanization” in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, is thus ultimately the refusal to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic of this refusal are often comical - at a recent philosophical colloquium, a French Leftist philosopher complained how, apart from him, there are now practically no French philosophers in France: Derrida is sold to American deconstructionism, the academia is overwhelmed by Anglo-Saxon cognitivism... A simple mental experiment is indicative here: let us imagine someone from Serbia claiming that he is the only remaining truly Serb philosopher - he would have been immediately denounced and ridiculed as a nationalist. The levelling of weight between larger and smaller Nation-States should thus be counted among the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath the contemptuous deriding of the new Eastern European post-Communist states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded Narcissism of the European “great nations.” Here, a good dose of Lenin’s sensitivity for the small nations (recall his insistence that, in the relationship between large and small nations, one should always allow for a greater degree of the “small” nationalism) would be helpful. Interestingly, the same matrix was reproduced within ex-Yugoslavia: not only for the Serbs, but even for the majority of the Western powers, Serbia was self-evidently perceived as the only ethnic group with enough substance to form its own state. Throughout the 90s, even the radical democratic critics of Milosevic who rejected Serb nationalism, acted on the presupposition that, among the ex-Yugoslav republics, it is only Serbia which has democratic potential: after overthrowing Milosevic, Serbia alone can turn into a thriving democratic state, while other ex-Yugoslav nations are too “provincial” to sustain their own democratic State... is this not the echo of Friedrich Engels’ well-known scathing remarks about how the small Balkan nations are politically reactionary since their very existence is a reaction, a survival of the past? America’s “holiday from history” was a fake: America’s peace was bought by the catastrophes going on elsewhere. These days, the predom hat of an innocent gaze confronting unspeakable Evil which stroke from the Outside - and, again, apropos this gaze, one should gather the strength and apply to it also Hegel’s well-known dictum that the Evil resides (also) in the innocent gaze itself which perceives Evil all around itself. There is thus an element of truth even in the most constricted Moral Majority vision of the depraved America dedicated to mindless pleasures, in the conservative horror at this netherworld of sexploitation and pathological violence: what they don’t get is merely the Hegelian speculative identity between this netherworld and their own position of fake purity - the fact that so many fundamentalist preachers turned out to be secret sexual perverts is more than a contingent empirical fact. When the infamous Jimmy Swaggart claimed that the fact that he visited prostitutes only gave additional strength to his preaching (he knew from intimate struggle what he was preaching against), although undoubtedly hypocritical at the immediate subjective level, is nonetheless objectively true. Can one imagine a greater irony than the fact that the first codename for the US operation against terrorists was “Infinite Justice” (later changed in response to the reproach of the American Islam clerics that only God can exert infinite justice)? Taken seriously, this name is profoundly ambiguous: either it means that the Americans have the right to ruthlessly destroy not only all terrorists but also all who gave then material, moral, ideological etc. support (and this process will be by definition endless in the precise sense of the Hegelian “bad infinity” - the work will never be really accomplished, there will always remain some other terrorist threat...); or it means that the justice exerted must be truly infinite in the strict Hegelian sense, i.e., that, in relating to others, it has to relate to itself - in short, that it has to ask the question of how we ourselves who exert justice are involved in what we are fighting against. When, on September or Adorno award, he referred in his speech to the WTC bombings: “My unconditional compassion, addressed at the victims of the September 11, does not prevent me to say it loudly: with regard to this crime, I do not believe that anyone is politically guiltless.” This self-relating, this inclusion of oneself into the picture, is the only true “infinite justice.” In the electoral campaign, President Bush named as the most important person in his life Jesus Christ. Now he has a unique chance to prove that he meant it seriously: for him, as for all Americans today, “Love thy neighbor!” means “Love the Muslims!” OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL. 1. See Alain Badiou, Le siecle, forthcoming from Editions du Seuil, Paris. back up 2. Another case of ideological censorship: when fireworkers’ widows were interviewed on CNN, most of them gave the expected performance: tears, prayers... all except one of them who, without a tear, said that she does not pray for her deceived husband, because she knows that prayer will not get him back. When asked if she dreams of revenge, she calmly said that that would be the true betrayal of her husband: if he were to survive, he would insist that the worst thing to do is to succumb to the urge to retaliate... useless to add that this fragment was shown only once and then disappeared from the repetitions of the same block. back up 3. See Chapter III in Raymond Bellour, The Analysis of Film, Bloomington: Indiana University Press 2000. back up 4. I rely here on my critical elaboration of Althusser’s notion of interpellation in chapter 3 of Metastases of Enjoyment, London: Verso Books 1995. back up 5. Michael Dutton, Streetlife China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998, p. 17. back up From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 10 22:10:54 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 10 Oct 2001 16:40:54 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Excerpts from an Interview with Jacques Alain Miller Message-ID: <20011010164054.19981.qmail@mailweb33.rediffmail.com> Lacanian Press Agency Paris, Monday, September 24 2001, 15:00 What is your opinion ? I don't know yet! I am slower. I am also handicapped by the fact that I don't watch TV, and lately I don't have the time to read the press. I know only what I am told, particularly by my patients. There I notice a positive therapeutic reaction, obviously short-lived: "What are my little miseries compared to Š ,etc." This effect was already noticed by Freud: at times of war or catastrophe, neurotics improve. Conversely, these same events are likely to cause delusions, even to trigger psychoses, but only in subjects affected by this clinical structure: "wanting to be crazy is not enough", used to say Lacan. As to perverts, the event is likely to satisfy sadism of the strictest observance. There is, if I may say so, blood, voluptuousness, and death (a title of Maurice Barres that Montherlant laughed at). But at the level of the drive, we are all sadists. The great statements about horror usually volunteered at times of catastrophe are a rite made to hide the unconscious, illicit, morally inadmissible, satisfaction that the event elicits in the subject. Furthermore, we are all survivors, so we are all happy. You will be blamed for that sentence! What is the need for psychoanalysts, as Heidegger and Jean-Francois Revel almost say, at these times of distress, if they say what everybody says so well? The unconscious, the fact that there is the unconscious, means that everybody lies. Psychoanalysts should do that a bit less. "We are happy", unconsciously, no doubt, means also, as Abel Fainstein pointed, that even thousands of kilometres away, we are all victims of the New York and Washington attacks. The media, by spreading them, spread terror. They make it fleetingly eternal in a suspended time, that of the phantasm. This what Lacan called "between-two-deaths": physical death has taken place, but before memory fades away and the event becomes reabsorbed in the immutable order of nature where nothing ever happened, in tha al we extract from the event which we consciously condemn, its unconscious surplus jouissance. September 11 made the Universal definitely present, effective, wirklich. The whole world (almost, because TV does not reach everywhere, the depths of Africa or my home, for example) spoke of the same thing at the same time. There it is, the Global Show Society, brilliantly anticipated in the sixties by Guy Debord following the thought of his teacher Henri Lefebvre, an original kind of marxist. This is the planetary Puppet Theatre, echoed by the compelling wailing of the tragic chorus : Horror ! Desolation ! Dismay ! Television, in particular, installs hypnosis in homes, as Eric Laurent notes. After having summoned a crusade of good against evil which indicated an identification with the aggressor, the President of the grand nation mourning made a fortunate appearance at a mosque. Bravo! In the U.S. there is a powerful movement of enlightened opinion opposing obscure, war mongering sectors. Their obscene sadism often finds open expression : they discuss the vitrifaction of Afghanistan. This will remind members of my generation of General Curtis Le May vowing "to bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age". We know the end of the story. We also know, from his Memories, the subjective drama of Robert Mc Namara, maddened by the body-count. The ways of reason must be explored beyond hate, horror and dismay. The sons of Freud will not be intimidated by the good consciences of all observations proclaiming their abjectness. The nervous system of the masses, as Nietzsche put it, is today disintegrated by what he called "the collective delusion of those raving mad with death", whose atrocious call "Evviva la morte" he stigmatised, and in whom he saw the result of "training in penitence and redemption" (Genealogy of Morals, III, 21, p. 331 of the NRF edition, 1971). Public welfare, I weigh my words, requires today the revolt of intellectuals. I call "intellectuals" those who make an effort "to think by themselves" (Kant), and wil manipulated by opposing cliques of "ascetic priests" working hard to assemble the masses and lead them to carnage in order to satisfy by their sacrifice the jouissance of some obscure Moloch. Remember the Iran-Irak war. Basic "anti-death" Committees are needed. And you, what will you do ? At the beginning, little, because I am starting from nil. I am thinking of a monthly journal, which would be one of the organs of this necessary revolt I am talking about, the clarifier of the New Enlightenment. I shall proceed further on if this initiative should find an echo in the enlightened opinion to which I address myself in priority. I will mobilise my friends, and also those who are not. I count on the aid of the editorial house editing Lacan since 1966, Editions du Seuil. Lacan is not being edited so faithfully for such a long time without a feeling of emergency. American intellectuals are manifesting. We read in Le Monde Susan Sontag, the great Barthes scholar beyond the Atlantic. That is good. Long live America! From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 10 22:22:32 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 10 Oct 2001 16:52:32 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Excerpts from an interview with Jacques Alain Miller Message-ID: <20011010165232.7458.qmail@mailweb11.rediffmail.com> Lacanian Press Agency Paris, Monday, September 24 2001, 15:00 What is your opinion ? I don't know yet! I am slower. I am also handicapped by the fact that I don't watch TV, and lately I don't have the time to read the press. I know only what I am told, particularly by my patients. There I notice a positive therapeutic reaction, obviously short-lived: "What are my little miseries compared to Š ,etc." This effect was already noticed by Freud: at times of war or catastrophe, neurotics improve. Conversely, these same events are likely to cause delusions, even to trigger psychoses, but only in subjects affected by this clinical structure: "wanting to be crazy is not enough", used to say Lacan. As to perverts, the event is likely to satisfy sadism of the strictest observance. There is, if I may say so, blood, voluptuousness, and death (a title of Maurice Barres that Montherlant laughed at). But at the level of the drive, we are all sadists. The great statements about horror usually volunteered at times of catastrophe are a rite made to hide the unconscious, illicit, morally inadmissible, satisfaction that the event elicits in the subject. Furthermore, we are all survivors, so we are all happy. You will be blamed for that sentence! What is the need for psychoanalysts, as Heidegger and Jean-Francois Revel almost say, at these times of distress, if they say what everybody says so well? The unconscious, the fact that there is the unconscious, means that everybody lies. Psychoanalysts should do that a bit less. "We are happy", unconsciously, no doubt, means also, as Abel Fainstein pointed, that even thousands of kilometres away, we are all victims of the New York and Washington attacks. The media, by spreading them, spread terror. They make it fleetingly eternal in a suspended time, that of the phantasm. This what Lacan called "between-two-deaths": physical death has taken place, but before memory fades away and the event becomes reabsorbed in the immutable order of nature where nothing ever happened, in erval we extract from the event which we consciously condemn, its unconscious surplus jouissance. September 11 made the Universal definitely present, effective, wirklich. The whole world (almost, because TV does not reach everywhere, the depths of Africa or my home, for example) spoke of the same thing at the same time. There it is, the Global Show Society, brilliantly anticipated in the sixties by Guy Debord following the thought of his teacher Henri Lefebvre, an original kind of marxist. This is the planetary Puppet Theatre, echoed by the compelling wailing of the tragic chorus : Horror ! Desolation ! Dismay ! Television, in particular, installs hypnosis in homes, as Eric Laurent notes. After having summoned a crusade of good against evil which indicated an identification with the aggressor, the President of the grand nation mourning made a fortunate appearance at a mosque. Bravo! In the U.S. there is a powerful movement of enlightened opinion opposing obscure, war mongering sectors. Their obscene sadism often finds open expression : they discuss the vitrifaction of Afghanistan. This will remind members of my generation of General Curtis Le May vowing "to bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age". We know the end of the story. We also know, from his Memories, the subjective drama of Robert Mc Namara, maddened by the body-count. The ways of reason must be explored beyond hate, horror and dismay. The sons of Freud will not be intimidated by the good consciences of all observations proclaiming their abjectness. The nervous system of the masses, as Nietzsche put it, is today disintegrated by what he called "the collective delusion of those raving mad with death", whose atrocious call "Evviva la morte" he stigmatised, and in whom he saw the result of "training in penitence and redemption" (Genealogy of Morals, III, 21, p. 331 of the NRF edition, 1971). Public welfare, I weigh my words, requires today the revolt of intellectuals. I call "intellectuals" those who make an effort "to think by themselves" (Kant), a to be manipulated by opposing cliques of "ascetic priests" working hard to assemble the masses and lead them to carnage in order to satisfy by their sacrifice the jouissance of some obscure Moloch. Remember the Iran-Irak war. Basic "anti-death" Committees are needed. And you, what will you do ? At the beginning, little, because I am starting from nil. I am thinking of a monthly journal, which would be one of the organs of this necessary revolt I am talking about, the clarifier of the New Enlightenment. I shall proceed further on if this initiative should find an echo in the enlightened opinion to which I address myself in priority. I will mobilise my friends, and also those who are not. I count on the aid of the editorial house editing Lacan since 1966, Editions du Seuil. Lacan is not being edited so faithfully for such a long time without a feeling of emergency. American intellectuals are manifesting. We read in Le Monde Susan Sontag, the great Barthes scholar beyond the Atlantic. That is good. Long live America! From kshekhar at bol.net.in Wed Oct 10 22:52:49 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Shekhar Krishnan) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:52:49 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] THIRD VERSION-Slavoj Zizek on WTC bombings In-Reply-To: <20011010163152.15240.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com> References: <20011010163152.15240.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Abir and others: This text of the essay of Zizek's is completely garbled. Could someone please re-post it without all the ACII speed breakers, or direct us to the source? Best S.K. _____ Shekhar Krishnan 9, Supriya, 2nd Floor Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road No.4 Dadar, Bombay 400014 India From chaiyah at hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 17:40:16 2001 From: chaiyah at hotmail.com (m emily cragg) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:40:16 Subject: [Reader-list] Who's benefitting from this war, anyway? Message-ID: The following is an excerpt from a 'Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel' article entitled, "Republican-controlled Carlyle Group poses serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun ignores it.' The article, written by Alice Cherbonnier, deals with the world's largest private equity firm, The Carlyle Group, a company that links George Bush Sr. and the family of Osama bin Laden. [START of EXCERPT] Copyright � 2001 'The Baltimore Chronicle and the SENTINEL' "AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, 'Who benefits?' "In the case of a war, the answers to this question become of paramount importance. Suppose, for example, that profits from military contracting were to go in the pockets of a former U.S. President whose son (and a presumed future heir) is now President? Suppose further that such profits escalate in times of conflict. Wouldn�t this be of concern to the public? Wouldn�t you expect the media to be all over such an important ethical (not to mention moral, and maybe legal) angle? > "Though described by the Industry Standard as 'the world�s largest private equity firm,' with over $12 billion under management, chances are readers haven�t ever heard of The Carlyle Group. Isn�t that a little odd, considering it is run by a veritable who's who of former Republican political leaders. Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle�s chairman and managing director (who, by the way, was college roommate of the current Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld). And that partners in this mammoth venture include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George H.W. Bush�s campaign manager, forced to resign when it was revealed he was Nixon�s 'Jew counter'), and 'presumably' George H.W. Bush? > "We say 'presumably' because the privately-held Carlyle doesn�t have to reveal information about its partners or investments to the SEC or to anyone else. Our former President is reported to be active in seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from the Asian market, and word is he�s paid between $80,000 to $100,000 per presentation. > "All told, Carlyle has about 420 partners all over the globe, from Saudi princes to the former president of the Philippines. Its investments run heavily in the defense sector; they make money from military conflicts and weapons spending." > >[END of EXCERPT] excerpt from http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml >3 October 2001, 'Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel' article by Alice Cherbonnier > >= = = = = = = = = = = = >Further Reading >= = = = = = = = = = 'Bushladen': the first article in the series about Bush and bin Laden family partnership in the Carlyle Group 'defense' business at: http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan' by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser at: http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm 'NATO Buildup in the Balkans: Part of a Deadly Game' by Jared Israel at: http://emperors-clothes.com/news/farish.htm 'Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic to Surrender?' By Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser at: [Emperor's Clothes note: The following is an excerpt from a 'Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel' article entitled, "Republican-controlled Carlyle Group poses serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun ignores it.' The article, written by Alice Cherbonnier, deals with the world's largest private equity firm, The Carlyle Group, a company that links George Bush Sr. and the family of Osama bin Laden. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From ravis at sarai.net Wed Oct 10 23:15:16 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:15:16 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Media War 1.3 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011010231115.00a8ffb8@mail.sarai.net> Todays Indian Express suddenly reported on the Al-Jazeera bureau in Delhi, (it opened quite some time ago, no one reported it then), following US attacks on that channel. This is a piece by Robert Fiske one of the few critical voices in the media. Ravi Sundaram Robert Fisk: Lost in the rhetorical fog of war 'The Taliban have kept reporters out; does that mean we have to balance this distorted picture with our own half-truths?' 09 October 2001 A few months ago, my old friend Tom Friedman set off for the small Gulf emirate of Qatar, from where, in one of his messianic columns for The New York Times, he informed us that the tiny state's Al-Jazeera satellite channel was a welcome sign that democracy might be coming to the Middle East. Al-Jazeera had been upsetting some of the local Arab dictators President Mubarak of Egypt for one and Tom thought this a good idea. So do I. But hold everything. The story is being rewritten. Last week, US Secretary of State Colin Powell rapped the Emir of Qatar over the knuckles because so he claimed Al-Jazeera was "inciting anti-Americanism''. So, goodbye democracy. The Americans want the emir to close down the channel's office in Kabul, which is scooping the world with tape of the US bombardments and more to the point with televised statements by Osama bin Laden. The most wanted man in the whole world has been suggesting that he's angry about the deaths of Iraqi children under sanctions, about the corruption of pro-western Arab regimes, about Israel's attacks on the Palestinian territory, about the need for US forces to leave the Middle East. And after insisting that bin Laden is a "mindless terrorist'' that there is no connection between US policy in the Middle East and the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington the Americans need to close down Al-Jazeera's coverage. Needless to say, this tomfoolery by Colin Powell has not been given much coverage in the Western media, who know that they do not have a single correspondent in the Taliban area of Afghanistan. Al-Jazeera does. But why are we journalists falling back on the same sheep-like conformity that we adopted in the 1991 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo war? For here we go again. The BBC was yesterday broadcasting an American officer talking about the dangers of "collateral damage'' without the slightest hint of the immorality of this phrase. Tony Blair boasts of Britain's involvement in the US bombardment by talking about our "assets'', and by yesterday morning the BBC were using the same soldier-speak. Is there some kind of rhetorical fog that envelops us every time we bomb someone? As usual, the first reports of the US missile attacks were covered without the slightest suggestion that innocents were about to die in the country we plan to "save''. Whether the Taliban are lying or telling the truth about 30 dead in Kabul, do we reporters really think that all our bombs fall on the guilty and not the innocent? Do we think that all the food we are reported to be dropping is going to fall around the innocent and not the Taliban? I am beginning to wonder whether we have not convinced ourselves that wars our wars are movies. The only Hollywood film ever made about Afghanistan was a Rambo epic in which Sylvester Stallone taught the Afghan mujahedin how to fight the Russian occupation, help to defeat Soviet troops and won the admiration of an Afghan boy. Are the Americans, I wonder, somehow trying to actualise the movie? But look at the questions we're not asking. Back in 1991 we dumped the cost of the Gulf War billions of dollars of it on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But the Saudis and Kuwaitis are not going to fund our bombing this time round. So who's going to pay? When? How much will it cost us and I mean us? The first night of bombing cost, so we are told, at least $2m, I suspect much more. Let us not ask how many Afghans that would have fed but do let's ask how much of our money is going towards the war and how much towards humanitarian aid. Bin Laden's propaganda is pretty basic. He films his own statements and sends one of his henchmen off to the Al-Jazeera office in Kabul. No vigorous questioning of course, just a sermon. So far we've not seen any video clips of destroyed Taliban equipment, the ancient Migs and even older Warsaw Pact tanks that have been rusting across Afghanistan for years. Only a sequence of pictures apparently real of bomb damage in a civilian area of Kabul. The Taliban have kept reporters out. But does that mean we have to balance this distorted picture with our own half-truths? So hard did a colleague of mine try, in a radio interview the other day, to unlink the bin Laden phenomenon from the West's baleful history in the Middle East that he seriously suggested that the attacks were timed to fall on the anniversary of the defeat of Muslim forces at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Unfortunately, the Poles won their battle against the Turks on 12, not 11, September. But when the terrifying details of the hijacker Mohamed Atta's will were published last week, dated April 1996, no one could think of any event that month that might have propelled Atta to his murderous behaviour. Not the Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon, nor the Qana massacre by Israeli artillery of 106 Lebanese civilians in a UN base, more than half of them children. For that's what happened in April, 1996. No, of course that slaughter is not excuse for the crimes against humanity in the United States last month. But isn't it worth just a little mention, just a tiny observation, that an Egyptian mass-murderer-to-be wrote a will of chilling suicidal finality in the month when the massacre in Lebanon enraged Arabs across the Middle East? Instead of that, we're getting Second World War commentaries about western military morale. On the BBC we had to listen to how it was "a perfect moonless night for the air armada'' to bomb Afghanistan. Pardon me? Are the Germans back at Cap Gris Nez? Are our fighter squadrons back in the skies of Kent, fighting off the Dorniers and Heinkels? Yesterday, we were told on one satellite channel of the "air combat'' over Afghanistan. A lie, of course. The Taliban had none of their ageing Migs aloft. There was no combat. Of course, I know the moral question. After the atrocities in New York, we can't "play fair" between the ruthless bin Laden and the West; we can't make an equivalence between the mass-murderer's innocence and the American and British forces who are trying to destroy the Taliban. But that's not the point. It's our viewers and readers we've got to "play fair" with. Must we, because of our rage at the massacre of the innocents in America, because of our desire to cowtow to the elderly "terrorism experts", must we lose all our critical faculties? Why at least not tell us how these "terrorism experts" came to be so expert? And what are their connections with dubious intelligence services? In some cases, in America, the men giving us their advice on screen are the very same operatives who steered the CIA and the FBI into the greatest intelligence failure in modern history: the inability to uncover the plot, four years in the making, to destroy the lives of almost 6,000 people. President Bush says this is a war between good and evil. You are either with us or against us. But that's exactly what bin Laden says. Isn't it worth pointing this out and asking where it leads? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011010/1d2e51a2/attachment.html From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 10 23:20:33 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 10 Oct 2001 17:50:33 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] THIRD VERSION-Slavoj Zizek on WTC bombings Message-ID: <20011010175033.5753.qmail@mailFA2.rediffmail.com> Dear Shekhar, The text is available at Lacan.com.The site is dedicated to lacanian psychoanalysis ...you'll find many texts by Zizek and Jacques Alain Miller.Also check out the discussion between Paul Murphy and Slavoj Zizek. On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shekhar Krishnan wrote : > Dear Abir and others: > > This text of the essay of Zizek's is completely > garbled. Could > someone please re-post it without all the ACII speed > breakers, or > direct us to the source? > > Best > > > S.K. > _____ > > Shekhar Krishnan > 9, Supriya, 2nd Floor > Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road No.4 > Dadar, Bombay 400014 > India From aizura at onlinecide.org Thu Oct 11 17:35:33 2001 From: aizura at onlinecide.org (::aizura::) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:05:33 +1000 Subject: [Reader-list] slow news is no news Message-ID: Reflections on the bombings in Afghanistan from Australia Aizura Hankin Tuesday, October 09, 2001 "Slow news is no news."‹an anonymous journalist, quoted by Paul Virilio So the bombings have begun. Actually, I¹m over 24 hours behind with that statement, but we¹ll address that later. As someone on the reader list commented, everyone knew they were coming. It was only a matter of when and how. But there¹s a moment of surprise you experience, I think, when the long-expected and long-dreaded finally takes place. A moment of shock. And maybe that¹s why I¹ve been unable to sleep properly for two nights, have been waking at strange hours with sudden, unaccountable migraines, obsessing about the least-important things. I haven¹t been keeping track of the war this time. When I say Œthis time¹, in one sense I mean the last time this happened was the Gulf War. At sixteen, I had far more time to watch the media event unfold, although I probably made far less sense of it than now during what CNN is calling ŒAmerica¹s New War¹. (Sorry, no, today it¹s called ŒAmerica Strikes Back¹. Why bother to make Star Wars comparisons when they can do it themselves?) But there¹s another sense in which I mean Œthis time¹, which is of course 9/11 itself. What really bugs me, or makes me extra-sad and extra-depressed, is that no-one on the street really seems to care. It¹s not terrifying or earth-shaking in the way that the WTC crash itself was. Of course there are a variety of different power-effects going on to produce that‹especially in Australia where the rhetoric of ŒWe are also Americans¹ seems to have been swallowed almost unconsciously by the public at large. My housemates and I watched the World Trade Centre collapse live, one of the few activities we¹d done together as a household in months. We spent days analysing, talking, watching television. And yet when I got home last night only one of them was awake, watching Star Trek. When I said, ŒSo, they¹ve started bombing,¹ expecting a shared indignant exchange, he merely grunted. As if the event¹s inevitability rendered it insignificant. I was asked to write an essay on Œcraft¹ in media activist practice recently. I didn¹t end up writing the article, but thinking about how difficult it is to craft media in a considered fashion opened up a whole range of ideas about the distinctions between 'fast' and 'slow' media. I¹ve also been reading The Information Bomb by Paul Virilio, probably the best-known writer on the topic of speed. When I try connecting up the various strands of this sprawling idea-web, I get this: that mass public emotional response to a media event is almost entirely produced by shock and through the speed of its distribution. The WTC was shocking because it happened in America, but it was doubly shocking (and worthy of public discourse) because of the speed of its development as a media-event and the obvious realtime dispersal of images which almost everyone saw. That image of the plane crashing into the tower is exactly like the Zapruder film, except that everyone watched it live. The bombing of Afghanistan, on the other hand, has been Œabout to happen¹ for so long, in media nanoseconds, that it has effectively already happened‹and this war, we know, will be happening for quite some time. It¹s Œslow news¹: maybe not to the corporate media itself, busily constructing the narratives of attack and retreat, but definitely to people on the ground. Worse, I suspect that the geographical and cultural distance of ŒAfghanistan¹ dulls people to the bombs detonating there. Even here in Oz, where Afghanistan is much closer to us than New York, so embedded in the corporate spectacular imagination. What do we do, then, in these dark and crazy times? What do I do? I am helped a little by the understanding that what I respond to is a media event. I have a choice of watching/listening/reading made available by the enormous (hope-giving) mobilisation of independent and alternative commentary on the WTC attacks, which are transforming into commentary about events in Afghanistan and the media¹s treatment of war. And even if I can¹t watch them, I can still think about the people on the ground. Who are as innocent, if anyone can be said to be innocent, as the civilians killed in New York a month ago. ___________________________________________________ 'Maybe I'm not the robot, and everyone else is.' ‹Doom Patrol (Grant Morrison) The Secret History of Rosa Deluxembourg: http://www.barbelith.com/collective/rosa From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 11 23:57:02 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:27:02 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] McCarthyism Again? : FBI after Women in Black Message-ID: Kpfa 94.1fm / Bekerley USA (http://www.flashpoints.net/) the below URL is an audio segment of Ronnie Gilbert speaking about WIB under investigation by WIB http://www.flashpoints.net/cgi-bin/ra.pl?date=20011005&start=10:50 ======================== FBI Investigates Peace Group McCarthyism Again? This is a letter to the editor by Ronnie Gilbert, famous as a member of the folk group "The Weavers" who brought all kinds of songs into popularity. One of the original members, Pete Seeger is still on the road. The group "Women in Black" that she refers to is a group of women from Isreal and Palestine that hold peace vigils dressed stylishly in black and who work to end the occupation of Palestinian territory, through cooperation between the two peoples. There are women throughout the world who have decided to start "Women in Black" vigils, including the one in San Francisco that Ronnie Gilbert is a member of. The letter is about the FBI's scrutiny, apparently of peace groups. Please relay it on. This could be important. ***************************************************** Dear Editor: For the second time in my life - at least - a group that I belong to is being investigated by the FBI. The first was the Weavers. The Weavers were a recording industry phenomenon. In 1950 we recorded a couple of songs from our American/World folk music repertoire, Leadbelly's "Goodnight Irene" and (ironically) the Israeli "Tzena, Tzena, Tzena" and sold millions of records for the almost-defunct record label. Folk music entered the mainstream, and the Weavers were stars. By 1952 it was over. The record company dropped us, eager television producers stopped knocking on our door. The Weavers were on a private yet well-publicized roster of suspected entertainment industry reds. The FBI came a-calling. This week, I just found out that Women in Black, another group of peace activists I belong to, is the subject of an FBI investigation. Women in Black is a loosely knit international network of women who vigil against violence, often silently, each group autonomous, each group focused on the particular problems of personal and state violence in its part of the world. Because my group is composed mostly of Jewish women, we focus on the Middle East, protesting the cycle of violence and revenge in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The FBI is threatening my group with a Grand Jury investigation. Of what? That we publicly call the Israeli military's occupation of the mandated Palestine lands illegal? So does the World Court and the United Nations. That destroying hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians' olive and fruit trees, blocking roads and demolishing homes promotes hatred and terrorism in the Middle East? Even President Bush and Colin Powell have gotten around to saying so. So what is to investigate? That some of us are in contact with activist Palestinian peace groups? This is bad? The Jewish Women in Black of Jerusalem have stood vigil every Friday for 13 years in protest against the Occupation; Muslim women from Palestinian peace groups stand with them at every opportunity. We praise and honor them, these Jewish and Arab women who endure hatred and frequent abuse from extremists on both sides for what they do. We are not alone in our admiration. Jerusalem Women in Black is a nominee for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, along with the Bosnia Women in Black, now ten years old. If the FBI cannot or will not distinguish between groups who collude in hatred and terrorism, and peace activists who struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism, we are in serious trouble. I have seen such trouble before in my lifetime. It was called McCarthyism. In the hysterical atmosphere of the early Cold War, anyone who had signed a peace petition, who had joined an organization opposing violence or racism or had tried to raise money for the refugee children of the Spanish Civil War, in other words who had openly advocated what was not popular at the time, was fair game. In my case, the FBI visited The Weavers' booking agent, the recording company, my neighbors, my dentist husband's patients, my friends. In the waning of our career, the Weavers were followed down the street, accosted onstage by drunken "patriots," warned by friendly hotel employees to keep the door open if we rehearsed in anyone's room so as not to become targets for the vice squad. It was nasty. Every two-bit local wannabe G-man joined the dragnet searching out and identifying "communist spies." In all those self-debasing years how many spies were pulled in by that dragnet? Nary a one. Instead it pulled down thousands of teachers, union members, scientists, journalists, actors, entertainers like us, who saw our lives disrupted, our jobs, careers go down the drain, our standing in the community lost, even our children harrassed. A scared population soon shut their mouths up tight. Thus came the silence of the 1950s and early 60s, when no notable voice of reason was heard to say,"Hey, wait a minute. Look what we're doing to ourselves, to the land of the free and the home of the brave," when not one dissenting intelligence was allowed a public voice to warn against zealous foreign policies we1d later come to regret, would be regretting now, if our leaders were honest. Today, in the wake of the worst hate crime of the millennium, a dragnet is out for "terrorists" and we are told that certain civil liberties may have to be curtailed for our own security. Which ones? I'm curious to know. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press? The right of people peaceably to assemble? Suddenly, deja vu - haven't I been here before? Hysterical neo-McCarthyism does not equal security, never will. The bitter lesson September 11's horrific tragedy should have taught us and our government is that only an honest re-evaluation of our foreign policies and careful, focused and intelligent intelligence work can hope to combat operations like the one that robbed all of us and their families of 6,000 decent working people. We owe the dead that, at least. As for Women in Black, we intend to keep on keeping on. Ronnie Gilbert From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Oct 12 00:14:21 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:44:21 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] CORRECTED VERSION McCarthyism Again? : FBI after Women in Black Message-ID: Kpfa 94.1 fm / Bekerley USA (http://www.flashpoints.net/) the below URL is an audio segment of Ronnie Gilbert speaking about WIB under investigation by FBI http://www.flashpoints.net/cgi-bin/ra.pl?date=20011005&start=10:50 The text corresponding to the audio is posted below Please relay this Harsh Kapoor ======================== FBI Investigates Peace Group McCarthyism Again? This is a letter to the editor by Ronnie Gilbert, famous as a member of the folk group "The Weavers" who brought all kinds of songs into popularity. One of the original members, Pete Seeger is still on the road. The group "Women in Black" that she refers to is a group of women from Isreal and Palestine that hold peace vigils dressed stylishly in black and who work to end the occupation of Palestinian territory, through cooperation between the two peoples. There are women throughout the world who have decided to start "Women in Black" vigils, including the one in San Francisco that Ronnie Gilbert is a member of. The letter is about the FBI's scrutiny, apparently of peace groups. Please relay it on. This could be important. ***************************************************** Dear Editor: For the second time in my life - at least - a group that I belong to is being investigated by the FBI. The first was the Weavers. The Weavers were a recording industry phenomenon. In 1950 we recorded a couple of songs from our American/World folk music repertoire, Leadbelly's "Goodnight Irene" and (ironically) the Israeli "Tzena, Tzena, Tzena" and sold millions of records for the almost-defunct record label. Folk music entered the mainstream, and the Weavers were stars. By 1952 it was over. The record company dropped us, eager television producers stopped knocking on our door. The Weavers were on a private yet well-publicized roster of suspected entertainment industry reds. The FBI came a-calling. This week, I just found out that Women in Black, another group of peace activists I belong to, is the subject of an FBI investigation. Women in Black is a loosely knit international network of women who vigil against violence, often silently, each group autonomous, each group focused on the particular problems of personal and state violence in its part of the world. Because my group is composed mostly of Jewish women, we focus on the Middle East, protesting the cycle of violence and revenge in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The FBI is threatening my group with a Grand Jury investigation. Of what? That we publicly call the Israeli military's occupation of the mandated Palestine lands illegal? So does the World Court and the United Nations. That destroying hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians' olive and fruit trees, blocking roads and demolishing homes promotes hatred and terrorism in the Middle East? Even President Bush and Colin Powell have gotten around to saying so. So what is to investigate? That some of us are in contact with activist Palestinian peace groups? This is bad? The Jewish Women in Black of Jerusalem have stood vigil every Friday for 13 years in protest against the Occupation; Muslim women from Palestinian peace groups stand with them at every opportunity. We praise and honor them, these Jewish and Arab women who endure hatred and frequent abuse from extremists on both sides for what they do. We are not alone in our admiration. Jerusalem Women in Black is a nominee for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, along with the Bosnia Women in Black, now ten years old. If the FBI cannot or will not distinguish between groups who collude in hatred and terrorism, and peace activists who struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism, we are in serious trouble. I have seen such trouble before in my lifetime. It was called McCarthyism. In the hysterical atmosphere of the early Cold War, anyone who had signed a peace petition, who had joined an organization opposing violence or racism or had tried to raise money for the refugee children of the Spanish Civil War, in other words who had openly advocated what was not popular at the time, was fair game. In my case, the FBI visited The Weavers' booking agent, the recording company, my neighbors, my dentist husband's patients, my friends. In the waning of our career, the Weavers were followed down the street, accosted onstage by drunken "patriots," warned by friendly hotel employees to keep the door open if we rehearsed in anyone's room so as not to become targets for the vice squad. It was nasty. Every two-bit local wannabe G-man joined the dragnet searching out and identifying "communist spies." In all those self-debasing years how many spies were pulled in by that dragnet? Nary a one. Instead it pulled down thousands of teachers, union members, scientists, journalists, actors, entertainers like us, who saw our lives disrupted, our jobs, careers go down the drain, our standing in the community lost, even our children harrassed. A scared population soon shut their mouths up tight. Thus came the silence of the 1950s and early 60s, when no notable voice of reason was heard to say,"Hey, wait a minute. Look what we're doing to ourselves, to the land of the free and the home of the brave," when not one dissenting intelligence was allowed a public voice to warn against zealous foreign policies we1d later come to regret, would be regretting now, if our leaders were honest. Today, in the wake of the worst hate crime of the millennium, a dragnet is out for "terrorists" and we are told that certain civil liberties may have to be curtailed for our own security. Which ones? I'm curious to know. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press? The right of people peaceably to assemble? Suddenly, deja vu - haven't I been here before? Hysterical neo-McCarthyism does not equal security, never will. The bitter lesson September 11's horrific tragedy should have taught us and our government is that only an honest re-evaluation of our foreign policies and careful, focused and intelligent intelligence work can hope to combat operations like the one that robbed all of us and their families of 6,000 decent working people. We owe the dead that, at least. As for Women in Black, we intend to keep on keeping on. Ronnie Gilbert From aiindex at mnet.fr Fri Oct 12 00:53:07 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:23:07 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Mohsen Makhmalbaf : World's indifference to the Afghans (June 2001) Message-ID: Heres the full text of a long paper by on Afghanistan by the widely acclaimed Iranian Film maker Mohsen Makhmalbaf. It might interest people on this list best Harsh o o o o The Iranian June 20, 2001 LIMBS OF NO BODY WORLD'S INDIFFERENCE TO THE AFGHAN TRAGEDY By Mohsen Makhmalbaf If you read my article in full, It will take about an hour of your time. In this hour, 14 more people will have died in Afghanistan of war and hunger and 60 others will have become refugees in other countries. This article is intended to describe the reasons for this mortality and emigration. If this bitter subject is irrelevant to your sweet life, please don't read it. Afghanistan in the eyes of the world Last year I attended the Pusan Film Festival in South Korea where I was asked about the subject of my next film. I would respond, Afghanistan. Immediately I would be asked, "What is Afghanistan?" Why is it so? Why should a country be so obsolete that the people of another Asian country such as South Korea have not even heard of it? The reason is clear. Afghanistan does not have a role in today's world. It is neither a country remembered for a certain commodity nor for its scientific advancement or as a nation that has achieved artistic honors. In the United States, Europe and the Middle East, however, the situation is different and Afghanistan is recognized as a peculiar country. This strangeness, however, does not have a positive connotation. Those who recognize the name Afghanistan immediately associate it with smuggling, the Taliban, Islamic fundamentalism, war with Russia, a long-time civil war, famine and high mortality. In this subjective portrait there is no trace of peace and stability or development. Thus, no desire is created for tourists to travel to or businessmen to invest in Afghanistan. So why should it not be left to oblivion? The defamation is such that one might soon write in dictionaries that Afghanistan can be described as a drug producing country with rough, aggressive and fundamentalist people who hide their women under veils with no openings. Add to all of that the destruction of the largest known statue of Buddha that recently spurred the sympathy of the entire world and led all supporters of art and culture to defend the doomed statue. But why didn't anybody except UN High Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans as a result of severe famine? Why doesn't anybody speak of the reasons for this mortality? Why is everyone crying aloud over the demolition of the Buddha statue while nothing is heard about preventing the death of hungry Afghans? Are statues more cherished than humans in the modern-day world? I have traveled within Afghanistan and witnessed the reality of life in that nation. As a filmmaker I produced two feature films on Afghanistan with a 13-year interval ("The Cyclist", 1988 and "Kandahar", 2001). In doing that I have studied about 10,000 pages of various books and documents to collect data for the films. Consequently I know of a different image of Afghanistan than that of the rest of the world. It is a more complicated, different and tragic picture, yet sharper and more positive. It is an image that needs attention rather than forgetfulness and suppression. But where is Sa'di to see this tragedy-the Sa'di whose poem "All people are limbs of one body" is above the portal to the United Nations? Afghanistan in the minds of the Iranian people The Iranian people's impression of Afghanistan is based on the same image as that of the American, European and Middle Eastern people. The only difference is that the focus is at a closer range. Iranian workers, people of southern Tehran and working class residents of Iranian towns do not look kindly on Afghans and view them as competitors for employment. By pressuring the Ministry of Labor, they demanded the Afghans be returned to their homeland. See photo essay The Iranian middle class however, finds Afghans quite trustworthy at care-taking and janitorial jobs. Building contractors believe Afghans are better workers than their Iranian counterparts and command lower wages. Anti-drug authorities recognize them as key elements in drug trafficking and suggest that crushing the smugglers and deporting all Afghans would put and end to drug problems once and for all. Doctors view them as the cause for some epidemic diseases such as the "Afghan flu" that was nonexistent in Iran. They offer immunization from within Afghanistan and in so doing, have born the costs of polio vaccination for the people of Afghanistan as well. The world's view of Afghanistan News headlines matching a country's name must always be checked. The image of a country depicted to the world through the media is a combination of facts about that country and an imaginary notion that the people of the world are supposed to have of that place. If some countries of the world are supposed to be covetous of a place, it is necessary that grounds be provided through the news. What I've perceived is that unfortunately in today's Afghanistan except for poppy seeds, there is almost nothing to spark desire. Thus Afghanistan has little or no share in world news, and the resolution of its problems in the near future is far-fetched. If like Kuwait, Afghanistan had oil and surplus oil income, it could also have been taken back in three days by the Americans and the cost of the American army could have been covered by that surplus income. When the Soviet Union existed, Afghans received Western media attention for fighting against the Eastern Bloc and being witnesses to communist oppression. With the Soviet retreat and later disintegration, why is the United States, who supports human rights, not taking any serious actions for 10 million women deprived of education and social activities or for the eradication of poverty and famine that is taking the lives of so many people? The answer is because Afghanistan offers nothing to long for. Afghanistan is not a beautiful girl who raises the heartbeat of her thousand lovers. Unfortunately, today she resembles an old woman. Whoever desires to get close to her will only be saddled with the expenses of a moribund and we know that our time is not the time of Sa'di when "All people are limbs of one body". The tragedy of Afghanistan in statistics There has been no rigorous collection of statistics in Afghanistan in the past two decades. Hence, all data and numbers are relative and approximate. According to these figures, Afghanistan had a population of 20 million in 1992. During the past 20 years and since the Russian occupation, about 2.5 million Afghans have died as a direct or indirect result of the war-army assaults, famine or lack of medical attention. In other words, every year 125,000 or about 340 people a day or 14 people every hour or one in about every five minutes have been either killed or died because of this tragedy. This is a world wherein the crew of that unfortunate Russian submarine was facing death some months ago and satellite news was reporting every minute of the incident. It is a world that reported non-stop the demolition of the Buddha statue. Yet nobody speaks of the tragic death of Afghans every five minutes for the past 20 years. The number of Afghan refugees is even more tragic. According to more precise statistics the number of Afghan refugees outside of Afghanistan living in Iran and Pakistan is 6.3 million. If this figure is divided by the year, day, hour and minute, in the past 20 years, one person has become a refugee every minute. The number does not include those who run from north to south and vice versa to survive the civil war. I personally do not recollect any nation whose population was reduced by 10 percent via mortality and 30 percent through migration and yet faced so much indifference from the world. The total number of people killed and refugees in Afghanistan equals the entire Palestinian population but even us Iranians' share of sympathy for Afghanistan does not reach 10 percent of that for Palestine or Bosnia, despite the fact that we have a common language and border. When crossing the border at the Dogharoon customs to enter Afghanistan, I saw a sign that warned visitors of strange looking items. These were mines. It read: "Every 24 hours seven people step on mines in Afghanistan. Be careful not to be one of them today and tomorrow." I came across more hard figures in one of the Red Cross camps. The Canadian group that had come to defuse mines found the tragedy simply too vast, lost hope and returned. Based on these same figures, over the next 50 years the people of Afghanistan must step on mines in groups to make their land safe and livable. The reason is because every group or sect has strewn mines against the other without a map or plan for later collection. The mines are not set in military fashion as in war and collected in peace. This means that a nation has placed mines against itself. And when it rains hard, surface waters reposition these devices turning once safe remote roads into dangerous paths. These statistics reveal the extent of the unsafe living environment in Afghanistan that leads to continuous emigration. Afghans perceive their situation as dangerous. There's constant fear of hunger and death. Why shouldn't Afghans emigrate? A nation with an emigration rate of 30 percent certainly feels hopeless about its future. Of the 70 percent remaining, 10 percent have been killed or died and the rest or 60 percent were not able to cross the borders or if they did, they were sent back by the neighboring countries. This perilous situation has also been an impediment to any foreign presence in Afghanistan. A businessman would never risk investing there unless he is a drug dealer and political experts prefer to fly directly to Western countries. This makes it difficult to resolve the crisis that Afghanistan is faced with. At present, due to UN sanctions and safety concerns, with the exception of only three countries (officially) and two others (unofficially), there are no political experts in Afghanistan. There are only political suppositions offered from a distance. This adds to the ambiguity of crisis in a country burdened with such an enormous scope of tragedy and ignorance on the part of the world. I witnessed about 20,000 men, women and children around the city of Herat starving to death. They couldn't walk and were scattered on the ground awaiting the inevitable. This was the result of the recent famine. That same day the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Japan's Sadako Ogato, also visited these same people and promised that the world would help them. Three months later, I heard on Iranian radio that Madame Ogata gave the number of Afghans dying of hunger to be a million nationwide. I reached the conclusion that the statue of Buddha was not demolished by anybody; it crumbled out of shame. Out of shame for the world's ignorance towards Afghanistan. It broke down knowing its greatness didn't do any good. In Dushanbeh in Tajikestan I saw a scene where 100,000 Afghans were running from south to north, on foot. It looked like doomsday. These scenes are never shown in the media anywhere in the world. The war-stricken and hungry children had run for miles and miles barefoot. Later on the same fleeing crowd was attacked by internal enemies and was also refused asylum in Tajikestan. In the thousands, they died and died in a no-man's land between Afghanistan and Tajikestan and neither you found out nor anybody else. As Mrs. Golrokhsar, the renowned Tajik poet put it: "It is not strange if someone in the world dies for so much sorrow that Afghanistan has. What's strange is that why nobody dies of this grief." Afghanistan, a country with no images Afghanistan is a country with no images, for various reasons. Afghan women are faceless which means 10 million out of the 20 million population don't get a chance to be seen. A nation, half of which is not even seen by its own women, is a nation without an image. During the last few years there has been no television broadcasting. There are only a few two-page newspapers by the names of Shariat, Heevad and Anise that have only text and no pictures. This is the sum total of the media in Afghanistan. Painting and photography have also been prohibited in the name of religion. In addition, no journalists are allowed to enter Afghanistan, let alone take pictures. In the dawn of the 21st century there are no film productions or movie theatres in Afghanistan. Previously there were 14 cinemas that showed Indian movies and film studios had small productions imitating Indian movies but that too has vanished. In the world of cinema where thousands of films are made every year, nothing is forthcoming from Afghanistan. Hollywood, however, produced "Rambo" about war in Afghanistan. The whole movie was filmed in Hollywood and not one Afghan was included. The only authentic scene was Rambo's presence in Peshawar, Pakistan, thanks to the art of back projection! It was merely employed for action sequences and creating excitement. Is this Hollywood's image of a country where 10 percent of the people have been decimated and 30 percent have become refugees and where currently one million are dying of hunger? The Russians produced two films concerning the memoirs of Russian soldiers during the occupation of Afghanistan. The Mujahedin made a few films after the Russian retreat, which are essentially propaganda movies and not a real image of the situation of the past or present-day Afghanistan. They are basically a heroic picture of a few Afghans fighting in the deserts. Two feature films have been produced in Iran on the situation of Afghan immigrants, "Friday" and "Rain". I made two films "The Cyclist" and "Kandahar". This is the entire catalogue of images about Afghans in the Iranian and world media. Even in TV productions worldwide there are a limited number of documentaries. Perhaps, it is an external and internal conspiracy or universal ignorance that maintains Afghanistan as a country without an image. The historical image of an imageless country Afghanistan emerged when it separated from Iran. It used to be an Iranian province some 250 years ago and part of Greater Khorasan province in the era of Nadir Shah. Returning from India, one midnight, Nadir Shah was murdered in Ghoochan. Ahmad Abdali, an Afghan commander in Nadir Shah's army fled with a regiment of 4,000 soldiers. He declared independence from Iran and thus Afghanistan was created. In those days it was comprised of farmers and overwhelmingly ruled by tribes. Since Ahmad Abdali belonged to the Pashtoon tribe, naturally, he could not have been accepted as the absolute authority by other tribes such as the Tajik, Hazareh and Uzbek. Thus, it was agreed that each tribe would be governed by its own leaders. The rulers collectively formed a tribal federalism known as the "Loya Jirga". Since then until the present, a more just and appropriate form of governing has not emerged in Afghanistan. The Loya Jirga system reveals that not only has Afghanistan never evolved economically from an agricultural existence, it has never moved beyond tribal rule and failed to achieve a sense of nationalism. An Afghan does not regard himself an Afghan until he leaves his homeland. He is regarded with pity or suffers humiliation. In Afghanistan each Afghan is a Pashtoon, Hazareh, Uzbek or Tajik. In Iran, perhaps except in the province Kurdistan, we are all Iranians first. Nationalism is the first aspect of our perception of a common identity. But in Afghanistan all are primarily members of a tribe. Tribalism is the first aspect of their identity. This is the most obvious difference between the spirit of an Iranian with that of an Afghan. Even in presidential elections in Iran, the candidate's ethnicity has no national significance and draws no special vote. In Afghanistan since the era of Ahmad Abdali until today as the Taliban rule over 95 percent of the country, the main leaders have always been from the Pashtoon tribe. (Except for the nine months of Habiballah Galehkani's rule known as Bacheh Sagha and the two years of the Tajik Burhannuddin Rabbani respectively, Tajiks have not otherwise held power.) The people of Afghanistan, however, since the time of Ahmad Abdali, have always been content with tribal federalism. What does this indicate in comparison to the situation in Iran? Under Reza Shah, tribalism was weakened and replaced by nationalism. In Afghanistan that did not happen. Even the Mujahedin of Afghanistan never fought foreign enemies in a unified manner, rather each tribe warred with foreign enemies in their own regions. During the making of Kanadahar while I was in the refugee camps at the border of Iran and Afghanistan, I realized that even those Afghan refugees who have lived in difficult camp conditions, did not accept their Afghan national identity. They still had conflicts over being Tajik, Hazareh or Pashtoon. Inter-tribal marriages still do not take place among Afghans neither is there any business conducted between them. And with the most minor conflict, the danger of mass bloodshed prevails. I once witnessed one tribal member killed by someone from another in revenge for curring in a bread line. In the Niatak refugee camp (border of Iran-Afghanistan) that accommodates 5,000 residents, it is not easy for Pashtoon and Hazareh children to play with each other. This sometimes leads to mutual aggression. Tajiks and Hazarehs find Pashtoons their greatest enemy on earth and vice versa. None of them are even willing to attend each other's mosques for prayers. We had difficulty seating their children next to each other to watch a movie. They offered a compromise wherein Hazareh and Pashtoon children took turns watching. Many diseases were prevalent in this camp and there were no doctors. When a doctor was brought in from the city, the camp residents didn't give priority to treating those who were most ill. Only a tribal order was accepted. They appointed a day for Hazareh patients and another for Pashtoons. In addition, class distinctions among the Pashtoons prevented them from coming to the clinic on the same day. In shooting scenes that needed extras, we had to decide to choose from among either Hazarehs or Pashtoons, though all of them were refugees and both suffered the same misery. Yet, tribal disposition came first in any decisions. Of course, the majority were unfamiliar with cinema. Like my grandmother, they thanked God for not having stepped foot inside a movie theatre. The reason for Afghanistan's perpetual tribalism rests with its agrarian economics. Each Afghan tribe is trapped in a valley with geographical walls and is a natural prisoner of a culture stemming from a mountainous environment and farming economy. Cultural tribalism is the product of farming conditions rooted in the deep valleys of Afghanistan. Belief in tribalism is as deep as those valleys. The topography of Afghanistan is 75 percent mountainous of which only 7 percent is suitable for farming. It lacks any semblance of industry. The country is solely dependent on farming, as grasslands (in non-drought years) are the only resources for economic continuity. Again, farming is the foundation of this tribalism that in turn is the basis for deep internal conflicts. This not only stops Afghanistan from becoming a modern country it also prevents this would-be nation from achieving a national identity. There is no intrinsic popular belief in what is called Afghanistan and Afghans. Afghans are not yet ready to be absorbed into a bigger collective identity called the people of Afghanistan. Contrary to the misnomer of religious war, the origin of disputes lies with tribal conflicts. The Tajiks who fight the Taliban today are both Muslim and Sunni-as are the Taliban. The intelligence of Ahmad Abdali is yet to be appreciated for having creating the notion of tribal federalism. He was smarter than those who fancy the ruling of one tribe over all others or one individual over a nation-when tribalism and the economic infrastructure was still intact. Pashtoons with a population of about six million make up Afghanistan's largest tribe. Next are Tajiks with about four million people and third and fourth are Hazarehs and Uzbeks with populations of about four million and one to two million respectively. The rest are small tribes such as the Imagh, Fars, Balouch, Turkman and Qezelbash. The Pashtoons are mostly in the south, the Tajiks in the north and the Hazarehs in the central regions. This geographical concentration in different regions will lead either to complete and final disintegration or the continued connection from the head of the tribe through the Loya Jirga system. The only alternative to these two scenarios necessitates changes in the economic infrastructure and the replacement of a tribal idenity with a national one. If we can elect a president in Iran today, free from issues of ethnicity, it is because of the economic transformation resulting from oil, at least in the last century. The question is not the quality or quantity of oil in the Iranian economy. The point is that when oil enters the economy of a country such as Iran that was basically agricultural, it changes the economic infrastructure and the role of Iran becomes significant in political interactions. It becomes an exporter of a valued raw material and in return receives the surplus productions of industrial countries. This transformation changes the socio-economic infrastructure that in turn breaks the traditional culture and creates a more modern one, exporting oil and consuming the products of industrialized countries. If we omit money as the symbolic medium, then we have given oil in exchange for consumer products. But Afghanistan has nothing but drugs to exchange in the world market. Therefore, it has turned back on itself and become isolated. Perhaps, if Afghanistan had not separated from Iran 250 years ago, it would have had a different fate based on its share of oil revenues. The amount of opium that I will elaborate on later is far too insignificant to be compared to Iranian oil. In 2000 Iran's surplus income from the oil price windfall went over $10 billion. Total sales of opium in Afghanistan remained at $500 million. We have played our role in the world economy and by consuming the products of others, have understood that we have choices and have thus become somewhat more modern. But for the Afghan farmer his world is his valleys and his profession is farming when drought spares him. Meanwhile a tribal system resolves his social problems. Given that, he cannot have a share in the world economy. How are grounds for his economic and cultural transition to be provided to let him have a share? In addition, $80 billion in the global drug turnover depends on Afghanistan remaining in its present situation without change because if change prevails, that $80 billion is the first thing to be threatened. Hence, Afghanistan is not supposed to realize a considerable profit since that itself may yield change for Afghanistan. Although Iran and Afghanistan shared the same history some 250 years ago due to oil, the history of Iran took a turn that is impossible for Afghanistan to take for a very long time. Opium is the only product that Afghanistan offers to the world. Yet both because of the nature of this product and the insignificant amount of this tainted national wealth, it cannot be compared to oil. If we add the $500 million income from the sale of opium to the $300 million from the sale of northern Afghanistan's gas, and divide the total by the 20 million population, the result is $40 per capita annual income. If we further divide that figure by 365 days each Afghan would earn about 10 cents a day or the equivalent of the price a loaf of bread on normal days. But, the country's annual earnings belong to the government and the domestic mafia and it doesn't get divided fairly. This revenue, therefore, is both insufficient to meet the needs of people and too low to bring about significant change in the economic, social, political and cultural infrastructure. Why have 30 percent of the population emigrated? Livestock breeders habitually move to resolve their living problems. Urban residents and agricultural farmers are less likely to move often. The main reason for the Afghan livestock breeders' mobility is related to the farming seasons. They constantly move to green and warm areas to avoid dry lands and cold weather. Movement is a natural reflex for livestock farmers. The second reason is lack of a fixed occupation. Afghans migrate to avoid death from unemployment. The Afghans' daily earnings depend on working in other countries. Upon waking up each day, an Afghan has four burdens to consider. First is his livestock and this depends on drought not being an obstacle. Fighting for a group or sect is his second concern and generally because of employment he enters the army. Earning a living to support his family is another reason why he moves and if all else fails, he enters the drug business. The extent of this last option is limited and the labor options of a nation of 20 million people cannot really be measured with a $500 million account accrued from cultivating poppy seeds. Thus, characterizing the people of Afghanistan as opium smugglers is unreal and applies only to a very limited number. Afghan culture immunized against modernism Amanullah Khan who ruled in Afghanistan from 1919-1928, was a contemporary of Reza Shah and Kemal Ataturk. On a personal level he was inclined towards modernism. In 1924, Amanullah traveled to Europe, returned with a Rolls Royce and made known his reform program. The plan included a change in attire. He told his wife to unveil herself and asked men to forego their Afghan costumes for Western suits. Contrary to Afghan male custom, he prohibited polygamy. Traditionalists immediately begin opposing Amanullah's modernising. None of the agrarian tribes submitted to these changes and rioting ensued against him. Here, clearly modernism without a socio-economic basis, is but a non-homogeneous imposition of culture on a tribal society economically dependent on farming; lacking any industry, agriculture or even preliminary means of exploiting its resources, not to mention prohibition of inter-tribal marriages. This superficial, formalistic and petty modernism served only as an antibody to stimulate traditional Afghan culture, making Afghanistan so immune to it that even in the following decades, modernism could not penetrate the culture in a more rational form. Even today, the premis for modernism that includes exploiting resources and presenting cheap raw materials in exchange for goods, have not been created. The most advanced people in Afghanistan still believe that Afghan society is not yet ready for female suffrage. When the most progressive sect involved in the civil war, finds it too early for women to vote, it is obvious that the most conservative will prohibit schooling and social activities to them. It follows naturally that 10 million women are held captive under their burqas (veil). This is Afghan society 70 years after Amanullah's modernism that aimed to impose monogamy on a male dominated Afghanistan, whose only perception of family is the harem. In 2001, polygamy is still an accepted fact by women even in refugee camps on the border of Iran/Afghanistan. I attended two weddings among the Pashtoon and Hazareh tribes and heard them wishing for more prosperous weddings for the groom. At first I thought it was a joke. In another case the bride's family said: "If the groom can afford it, up to four wives is indeed very good and it is a religious tradition as well as helping a bunch of hungry people." When I went to the camp in Saveh to record the wedding music for "Kandahar", I saw a two-year-old girl being wedded to a seven-year-old boy. I never understood the meaning of this. Neither could that boy or that little girl, who was sucking on a pacifier, have made the choice. Given this portrait of traditional society, Amanullah's modernism seemed an overwhelming imitation of another country. Of course, some people believe if a woman changes her burgha into a less concealing veil, she may be struck by God's wrath and turned into a black stone. Perhaps, someone has to forcibly rid her of the burgha so she'll realize that the assumption is untrue and she can choose for herself. There is another biased viewpoint to Amanullah's modernism. In traditional societies, the culture of hypocricy is a form of class camouflage. In Iranian society wealthy traditional families decorate the interior of their home like a castle but keep the exterior looking like a shack, out of fear from the poor. In other words, that aristocratic nucleus needs to have a poor rustic shell. Opposition to modernism is not necessarily expressed by traditional organizations. Sometimes it is a reaction by the poor against the rich. For the poor society in Amanullah's time, while having horses as opposed to mules was a symbol of honor and nobility, a Rolls Royce was an insult to the poor. The war between tradition and modernism is primarily the same as the battle of the Rolls Royce and the mule. It is a war between poverty and wealth. Today, in Afghanistan the only modern objects are weapons. The ubiquitous civil war that has created jobs in addition to being a political/military action has also become a market for modern weapons. Afghanistan can no longer fight with knives and daggers even though it lags behind the contemporary age. The consumption of weapons is a serious matter. Stinger missiles next to long beards and burghas are still symbols of profound modernism that are proportionate to consumption and modern culture. For the Afghan Mujahed, weapons have an economic basis that creates jobs. If all weapons are removed from Afghanistan, the war ends and all accept that there will be no more assaults on anyone, given the sub zero economic conditions all of today's mujahedin will join the refugees in other countries. The issue of tradition and modernism, war and peace, tribalism and nationalism in Afghanistan must be analyzed with an eye to the economic situation and employment crisis. It has to be understood that there is no immediate solution for the economic crisis in Afghanistan. A long-term resolution is contingent on an economic miracle and not on a nationwide military attack from north to south or vice versa. Have these miracles not happened time and again? Was the Soviet retreat not a miracle? Was the sovereignty of the Mujahedin not a miracle on their part? Was the sudden conquest of the Taliban not a miracle of its kind? Then why do problems remain? Modernism under discussion here faces two fundamental problems. One is rooted in economics and the second is immunization of Afghan traditional culture against premature modernism. Geographical situation and its consequences Afghanistan has an area of 700,000 square kilometers. Mountains account for 75 percent of the land. People live in cavernous valleys surrounded by towering mountains. These elevations not only attest to a rough nature, difficult passage and impediments to business, but are also viewed as cultural and spiritual fortresses among Afghan tribes. It is obvious why Afghanistan lacks inter-state routes. The shortage of roads not only creates obstacles for the fighters who seek to occupy Afghanistan, it stops businessmen whose prosperity may become a means of economic growth. To the same degree that these mountains obstruct foreign intrusion, they block interference of other cultures and commercial activities. A country that is 75 percent mountains has problems creating consumer markets in its potential industrial cities and in exporting agriculture products to the cities. Despite the use of modern weapons, wars take longer and find no conclusion. In the past Afghanistan was a passageway for caravans on the Silk Road traversing China through Balkh and India through Kandahar. The discovery of waterways and then airways in the last century, changed Afghanistan from being an ancient commercial route into a dead-end. The old Silk Road was a passage of camels and horses and didn't have the characteristics of a modern road. Through the same winding roads Nadir Shah, Alexander, Timur and Mahmmod Ghaznavi went to India. Given the mountainous character of these roads, there used to be primitive wooden bridges that have been badly damaged in the past 20 years of war. Perhaps today, after two decades of foreign and civil war the people want the strongest party to win and give a single direction to Afghanistan's historical fate, no matter what. These same mountains, however, are a hindrance. Perhaps, the true fighters of Afghanistan are not its hungry people but the high mountains that don't surrender. The Tajik resistance led by Ahmad Shah Massoud owes its survival to the Panjshir valley. Conceivably, if Afghanistan was not mountainous, the Soviets could have easily conquered it; or it could have been prey for the Americans to hunt down like the plains of Kuwait, and bring it closer to the Central Asian markets. Being mountainous increases both the cost of war and reconstruction after peace. If Afghanistan was not so rugged it would have had a different economical, military, political and cultural fate. Is this a geographical misfortune? Imagine a fighter who has to constantly climb up and down mountains. Suppose he conquered all of Afghanistan. He then has to constantly conquer the peaks to provide for his army. These mountains have been sufficient to save Afghanistan from foreign enemies and domestic friends. When you look at the Soviet-Afghan war, you see a nation's resistance but when on the inside, you realize that each tribe has defended the valley it was trapped in. When the enemy left, again, everyone saw their valley as the center of the world. And again, the same mountains have made agriculture very difficult. Only 15 percent of the land is suited for agriculture and practically just half of this is actually cultivated. The reason for livestock farming is that the grasslands are on the mountainsides or its environs. It can be said that Afghanistan is a victim of her own topography. There are no routes in the mountains and road construction is expensive. The roads if any, are either military or narrow paths for smugglers. The only trunk road passes around the borders. How can a border road function like a primary artery in the body of Afghanistan to resolve problems of social, cultural and economic communications? The few interstate roads that existed were destroyed in the war. To whose advantage is it to pay for the costs of drilling these tough and elevated mountains? For which potential profit should this exorbitant cost be borne? It is said that Afghanistan is full of unexplored mines. From what route are these possibly exploitable resources supposed to reach their destinations? Who will be the first to invest in mines that will generate profits in an uncertain future? Has the lack of roads been a sufficient disincentive for the Soviets and Afghans not to think of excavating the mines? On the other hand, Afghanistan is a land of eternal hidden paths that are quite efficient for smuggling drugs. There are as many winding roads as you want for smuggling but for crushing the smugglers, you need straight ones that don't exist. You can't know the infinite number of paths and you can't attack a path every day. At the most, you can await a caravan at a junction. A smuggler was arrested around the city of Semnan in Iran who had walked barefoot from Kandahar carrying a sack of drugs. He had no skin on his soles when arrested, but kept on walking. In the mountains of Afghanistan water is more of a calamity than a blessing. In winter it is freezing. It floods in spring and in the summer its shortage yields drought. This is the property of mountains without dams. Uncontrolled waters and hard soil reduce agricultural possibility. This is the geographical picture of Afghanistan: Arduous to cross, incapable of cultivation and mines impossible to exploit due to transport costs. The fact that some find Afghanistan as a museum of tribes, races and languages is because of its geography and sheer difficulty. Every tradition in this country has remained intact because of isolation and lack of interference. It is only natural for this rough and dry country (with only 7 percent of its land being used for agriculture of which half is threatened by drought) to turn to cultivation of poppy seeds to support its people. If the conditions are normal and the price of bread does not increase, from all this poppy wealth, a single loaf of bread is what every Afghan receives. In its present state the economy of Afghanistan can keep its people half full without any economic development. Wealth though, rests with the domestic mafia or gets spent on unstable Afghan regimes and the people don't get a share of it. The basic question then comes to mind as to how the Afghan people are supported? It is either through construction work in Iran, participation in political wars or becoming theology students in the Taliban schools. According to statistics over 2,500 schools of the Taliban with a capacity between 300 to 1,000 students, attract hungry orphans. In these schools anybody can have a piece of bread and a bowl of soup, read the Quran and memorize prayers and later join the Taliban forces. This is the only remaining option for employment. It is the result of this geography that emigration, smuggling and war remain as occupations and I'm wondering how Massoud is going to meet the needs of the people after possible victory over the Taliban? Will it be through continued war or development of poppy seeds or prayer for rain? On the Iranian border the UN pays 20 dollars to any Afghan volunteering to return to Afghanistan. They are taken by bus to the first cities inside Afghanistan or dropped around the borders. Interestingly, due to lack of jobs in Afghanistan, the Afghans quickly come back and if not recognized, go in line again to get another 20 dollars. The jobless Afghans turn every solution into an occupation. And as much as war may be a profession, few Afghan leaders have died pursuing it. Continued war provides opportunity for the U.S., the Soviets and the six neighboring countries to give aid to forces loyal to them. This largness is normally aimed at continuing a war or balancing power but in the case of Afghanistan it merely creates jobs. Let's not forget that there's been a two-year drought and livestock have died as a result. The mortality as announced by the UN is predicted at one million within the next few months. The war has nothing to do with this. It is poverty and famine. Whenever farming has been threatened by shortage of water, emigration has increased and wars have worsened. The average life expectancy of an Afghan has been calculated at 41.5 years and the mortality rate for children under two years of age was between 182 to 200 deaths per 1,000 kids. The average longevity was 34 years in 1960 and in 2000 was pegged at 41. The reality however is that in recent years it has gone down to even lower than what it was in 1960. I never forget those nights of filming Kanadahar. While our team searched the deserts with flashlights, we would see dying refuges like herds of sheep left in the desert. When we took those that we thought were dying of cholera to hospitals in Zabol, we realized that they were dying of hunger. Since those days and nights of seeing so many people starving to death, I haven't been able to forgive myself for eating any meals. The Afghans between 1986 to 1989 had about 22 million sheep. That is one sheep per person. This has traditionally been the main wealth of a farming nation such as Afghanistan. This wealth was lost in the recent famine. Imagine the situation of a farming nation without livestock. The original tragedy of Afghanistan today is poverty and the only way to resolve the problems is through economic rehabilitation. If I had gone to support the mujahedin instead of the true freedom fighters who are ordinary people struggling to stay alive, I would have come back. If I were president of a neighboring country, I would encourage economic relations with Afghanistan in lieu of political-military interventions. God forbid if I was in the place of God, I would bless Afghanistan with something else that would benefit this forgotten nation. And I write this without believing it will have any impact in this era very different than that of Sa'di's time when, "all men are limbs of one body". Dr. Kamal Hossein, the UN Humanitarian Adviser for Afghanistan affairs from Bangladesh, visited our office in the summer of 2000 and told us that he had been reporting quite futilely to the UN for 10 years. He had come to assist me in making a movie that perhaps would awaken the world. I said: "I'm looking for that which will affect." It must be added that Afghanistan has not so much suffered from foreign interference as it has from indifference. Again if Afghanistan were Kuwait with a surplus of oil income, the story would have been different. But Afghanistan has no oil and the neighboring countries deport its underpaid laborers. It's only natural when options of occupation fail-as explained earlier in the text-the only remaining choices are smuggling, joining the Taliban or falling down in a corner in Herat, Bamian, Kabul or Kanadahar and dying for the world's ignorance. Once, I happened to be in a camp around Zabol that was filled with illegal immigrants. I wasn't sure if it was a camp or a prison. The Afghans who had fled home because of famine or Taliban assaults were refused asylum and waiting to be returned to Afghanistan. It all seemed legal and rational to that point. People, who for any reason enter a country illegally and are afterward refused, get deported. But these particular people were dying of hunger. We had ended up there to choose extras for my film. I asked the authorities and found out that the camp could not afford to feed so many people and they hadn't eaten for a week. They had only water to drink. We offered to provide meals. They wished we'd go there every day. We brought food for 400 Afghans ranging from one-month old babies to 80-year old men. Most of them were little kids who had fainted of hunger in their mothers' arms. For an hour, we were crying and distributing bread and fruits. The authorities expressed grief and regret and said that it took a long time for budget approvals and kept saying that the flow of hungry refugees was far greater than what they could manage. This is the story of a country that's been ravaged by its own nature, history, economy, politics and the unkindness of its neighbors. An Afghan poet who was being deported from Iran back to Afghanistan expressed his feelings in a poem and left: I came on foot, I'll leave on foot. The stranger who had no piggy bank, will leave. And the child who had no dolls, will leave. The spell on my exile will be broken tonight. And the table that had been empty will be folded. In suffering, I wandered around the horizons. It is me who everyone has seen in wandering. What I do not have I'll lay down and leave. I came on foot, I'll leave on foot. The ratio of drug consumption in the world to its production in Afghanistan In modern day economy, every supply is based on a demand. The production of drugs everywhere meets the need for its consumption. This universal market includes both poor and advanced countries such as India, the Netherlands, the U.S., etc. According to UN reporting in 2000, in the late 90's about 180 million people worldwide were using drugs. Based on the same report 90% of illegal opium is produced in two countries of which one is Afghanistan as well as 80 % of heroin. Again, 50 % of all narcotic drugs is produced in Afghanistan. You may think if that 50 % equals half a billion dollars then the total value of drugs reaches one billion globally but that's not the case. Why? Although Afghanistan earns half a billion from drug production the actual turnover is only 80 billion dollars. In transit to the rest of the world, the mark-up stretches 160 times. Who gets the 80 billion dollars? For example, heroin enters Tajikistan at one price and exits at twice that much. The same goes for Uzbekistan. By the time drugs reach consumers in the Netherlands, they cost 160 to 200 times the original price. The money ends up with the various mafias who also manipulate the politics of those countries en route. The secret budget of many Central Asian countries is supplied through drug traffic, otherwise, how can smugglers who walk all the way from Kandahar for example, be the prime beneficiaries of this wealth? How can we at all consider them the true smugglers of drugs? If it weren't for the extremely high drug profits, Iran for example, could have ordered a half a billion-dollars worth of wheat to Afghanistan as an incentive to stop planting poppy seeds. Yet the 79.5 billion-dollar profit is far too valuable for the mob and its allied forces to dispose of poppy seeds. Ironically, the Afghan drug producer is not himself a consumer. Drug use is prohibited but its production is legitimate. Its religious justification is sending deadly poisons to the enemies of Islam in Europe and America. This reasoning is nicely paradoxical given the economic significance of drugs on the governmental budget of Afghanistan. The total drug turnover in the world is 400 billion dollars and Afghans are the victims of this market. Why is Afghanistan's share only 1/800th? Whatever the answer, the market needs a place with little to contribute civilly but which is a cornucopia of drug production.. If there were roads in Afghanistan instead of obscure paths, or the war ceased and the economy flourished and other incentives replaced the half a billion dollars, then what would happen to the 400 billion dollar market? In September of 2000 when I was returning from Kandahar, I saw the governor of Khorasan on the way to Tehran. He said that when opium cost 50 dollars in Herat, it was 250 dollars in Mashad. And when the fight against smugglers intensified, instead of getting more expensive, opium got cheaper. For example, if in Mashad it reached 500 dollars, it cost 75 dollars in Herat. The reason was due to extreme poverty and famine. The Afghan sheep that used to cost 20 dollars a head is now sold at one dollar at the border but since they are sick, there is no market and the borders are controlled for sheep smuggling into Iran. Although poppy seed does not have the fundamental importance of oil as a source of Afghanistan's wealth it is somehow the equivalent of oil. More importantly, the secret budget of Central Asian countries is supplied through drugs. That explains the strong incentive for the world to remain indifferent towards Afghanistan's chronic economic condition. Why should Afghanistan become stable? How could it possibly compensate for the 80 billion dollars directly generated from its soil? Drugs are an interesting business for many. Just a few months ago when I was in Afghanistan, it was said that every day an airplane full of drugs flies directly from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf states. In 1986, when I was doing research for the making of The Cyclist, I took a road trip from Mirjaveh in Pakistan to Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan. It took me a few days. When I entered Mirjaveh, I got on a colorful bus of the same kind that you might have seen in The Cyclist. The bus was filled with all kinds of strange people. People with long thin beards, turbans on the head and long dresses. At first, I wasn't aware that the bus roof was filled with drugs. The bus drove across dirt expanses without roads. Everywhere was filled with dust and the wheels would sink into the soft soil. We arrived at a surreal gate like the ones in Dali's paintings. It was a gate that neither separated nor connected anything from or to anything. It was just an imaginary gate erected in the middle of the desert. The bus stopped at the gate. There then appeared a group of bikers who asked our driver to step down. They talked a little and then brought a sack of money and counted it with the driver. Two of the bikers came and took our bus. Our driver and his assistant took the money and left on the bikes. The new driver announced that he was now the owner of the bus and everything in it. We then found out that together with the bus we had been sold. This transaction was repeated every few hours and we were sold to several smugglers. We found out that a particular party controlled each leg of the route and every time the bus was sold, the price increased. First it was one sack of money then it went up to two and three towards the end. There were also caravans that carried Dushka heavy machineguns on the back of their camels. If you eliminated our bus and the arms on camel back, you were in the primitive depths of history. Again we would arrive in places where they sold arms. Bullets were sold in bags as if they were beans. Kilos of bullets were weighed on scales and exchanged. Well, how would the world's drug trade take place if such premises didn't exist? I had gone to Khorasan and along the border was looking for a site for filming. By sunset the villages near the border would be evacuated. The villagers would flee to other cities for fear of smugglers. They also encouraged us to take flight. Rumors of insecurity were so widespread that few cars passed after sundown. In the darkness of the night, the roads were ready for the passage of smuggling caravans. The caravans according to witnesses are comprised of groups of five to a 100 people. Their ages range from 12 to 30 years. Each carries a sack of drugs on their backs and some carry hand-held rocket launchers and Kalashnikovs to protect the caravan. If drugs are not flown by airplane, they go in containers and if otherwise, they are carried by human mules. Imagine the enormity of events these caravans pass through from one country to another until for example, they reach Amsterdam. Again, imagine what fear and horror they create among the people in different regions to maintain that 80 billion-dollar trade. I asked an official in Taibad about the number of killings committed by the smugglers. The figures say 105 were either killed or kidnapped in two years. Over 80 have been returned. I quickly divided 105 by the 104 weeks of the two years. It equals one person per week. I reckoned that if these numbers render a region so unsafe that people prefer not to stay in their own villages and flee to other cities by night, how do we expect the people of Afghanistan to stay put? In the past 20 years, they have had one killing every five minutes. Should they stay in Afghanistan and not migrate to our country? How can we think that if we deport them, the lack of safety in Afghanistan will not bring them back? I inquired of the officials stationed on the roads about the causes for kidnappings and killings. Apparently, the caravans on the Iranian side of the border deal with the villagers. When an Iranian smuggler does not pay money on time, he or one of his family members is kidnapped and they are returned once the money is exchanged. Again, I realize that this aggression also has an economic basis. Near the Dogharoon border the customs agents were saying that the region had been unsafe for eight years but the papers had been reporting about it for only two years. The reason for the relative wave of openness is related to the new situation of newspapers in Iran. Emigration and its consequences Except for seasonal movement with his livestock, the emigrant Afghan farmer never traveled abroad until about two decades ago. For this reason, every trip, even a limited one, has left serious marks on the fate of Afghans. For example, Amanullah Khan and a group of students that had traveled to the West for studying, became the pioneers of Afghanistan's unsuccessful experiment with modernism. The few officers who went to Russia, later provided the grist for a communist coup d'etat. The emigration of 30% of Afghanistan's population in the recent decades however, has not been for academic pursuits. War and poverty forced them to leave and now, their large population has exhausted their hosts. The emigration of 2.5 million Afghans to Iran and 3 million to Pakistan has created grave concerns for both countries. When I objected to officials in charge of deporting Afghans that they were our guests, the reply I heard was that this 20-year party had gone on too long. If it continued in Khorasan and Sistan & Baluchestan provinces, our national identity would be threatened in the said regions and we would face even more intense crises such as demands for independence of those areas or even increased insecurity at the borders. Unlike Pakistan that prepared schools to train Islamic mujaheds (Taliban), Iranian society did not anticipate any schools to train Afghans. During the making of The Cyclist, I used to go to Afghan neighborhoods to find actors. At that time, one of the Afghan officials told me that they expected the Iranian universities to accept Afghan students so that if Russia left Afghanistan, they would have ministers with at least bachelor degrees. Otherwise, with a bunch of fighters you can wage war but not govern the country. Later on, a few Afghans were accepted in Iranian universities but none of them are willing to return home today. They state their reasons as being insecurity and hunger. One of them mentioned that the highest level of living in Afghanistan is lower than the lowest level in Iran. I heard in Herat that the monthly salary of Herat's governor (in 2000) was $15 per month. That's 50 cents a day or 4,000 Iranian rials. Because of widespread Afghan emigration, human smuggling has become a new occupation for Iranian smugglers. Afghan families that reach the borders have to go a long way to arrive in Tehran and since their arrest is likely in Zabol, Zahedan, Kerman or any other city en route, they leave their fate in the hands of pickup-driving smugglers. The smugglers request 1,000,000 rials for every refugee hauled to Tehran. Since in 99% of the cases, the Afghan family lacks this much money, a couple of 13-14 year old girls are taken hostage and the rest of the family is secreted into Tehran through back roads. The girls are kept until their family finds jobs and pays the debt. In most cases the money is never provided. A ten-member family with a 10,000,000 rial debt has to pay the interest as well after three months. Consequently, a great many Afghan girls are either kept as hostages around the borders or become the personal belonging of the smugglers. An official in the region related secretly related that the number of girl hostages in just one of those cities has been approximated at 24,000. A friend of mine who was building a house in Tehran told me about his Afghan workers. He had noticed that two Iranian men showed up once in while and got most of their money. When asked, the Afghans said that they were brought for free on the condition that they pay the smugglers later. They also saved a part of their money to take back to their families in Afghanistan in case they were deported. The situation is a bit different for refugees in Pakistan. Those who come to Iran are Hazarehs. These people are Farsi speaking Shiites. The common language and religion inclines them towards Iran. Their misfortune is their distinctive appearance. Their Mongol features subject them to quick recognition among Iranians. The Pashtoon who goes to Pakistan, however, blends in with Pakistanis because of common language, religion and ethnicity. Although the Shiite Hazarehs find Pakistan more liberal than Iran, job opportunities in Iran are more appealing to them than the freedom in Pakistan. It means that bread has priority over freedom. You must first have food in order to search for freedom. Have the Iranians who are seeking liberty today, passed a hunger crisis? As a result of not finding a suitable occupation, a hungry Sunni/Pashtoon Afghan is immediately attracted to the theological schools ready to offer food and shelter. In fact, contrary to Iran that never dealt with Afghan refugees in an organized manner, Pakistan promoted, organized and put into play the Taliban government for a variety of reasons. The first is the Durand line. Before Pakistani independence from India, Afghanistan shared borders with India and serious disputes ensued between the two over the Pashtoonestan region. The British drew the Durand line and divided the region between the two countries, on the condition that after 100 years, Afghanistan regain control over the Indian part of Pashtoonestan as well. Later on, when Pakistan declared independence from India that Indian half of Pashtoonestan became half of Pakistan. Since some six years ago, Pakistan, according to international law was supposed to cede Pashtoonestan back to Afghanistan. How would Pakistan that still has claims over Kashmir agree to give half of its land area to Afghanistan? The best solution was to raise hungry Afghan mujaheds to control Afghanistan. The Pakistan trained Taliban would naturally no longer harbor ambitions of recovering Pashtoonestan from their patron. No wonder the Taliban appeared just as the 100-year deadline drew to a close. From a distance, Taliban appear to be irrational and dangerous fundamentalists. When you look at them closely, you see hungry Pashtoon orphans whose occupation is that of a theology student and whose impetus for attending school is hunger. When you review the appearance of the Taliban you see the national political interests of Pakistan. If fundamentalism was the reason for the independence of Pakistan from Gandhi's democratic India, the same applies for Pakistan's survival and expansion at the expense of Afghanistan. At the same time, Pakistan's significance for the world prior to disintegration of the Soviet Union was based on its being the first defensive stronghold of the West against the communist East. With Soviet disintegration, to the same degree that the Afghan fighter lost his heroic position in the western media, Pakistan also lost its strategic importance and came face-to-face with an employment crisis. According to the rules of sociology, every organization buys and sells something. Given this definition, armies sell their military services to their own or other nations and governments. What was Pakistan's national occupation in the world in relation to the West? Playing the role of an apparently eastern army but being possessed of a western internal conviction and selling military services to the United States. With Soviet disintegration, the demand for Pakistan's military services for the West also diminished. To which market then was Pakistan to present its military services and maintain this vital national occupation? That is why Pakistan created the Taliban: to have covert control of Afghanistan and stop the Afghans from demanding the cession of Pashtoonestan. The fact that Pakistan, first and foremost, faces an employment crisis, is rooted in this reasoning. If as a filmmaker I cannot make my films in my homeland, I'll go elsewhere for my occupation. Armies are the same way. For any big war effort, enormous reserves of a nation's energy are directed towards forming military organizations that dispense military services. Once the war is over, these units look for other markets to maintain their services. If they can't find a market, they become discouraged and either stage a coup d'etat or transform into economic foundations. Examples of the latter are found in countries that have used their military organizations to control traffic or help with agriculture or road construction. In the broader world, every once in a while, wars are fomented to create demands for military materiel and take government purchase orders. Let's go back to the issue of emigration. Unlike Iran, Pakistan used Afghan refugees as religio-political students and founded the Taliban army. Before the Soviet invasion, an Afghan was a farmer. With the Soviet attack, each Afghan turned into a mujahed to defend his valley. Organizations and parties were formed. With the Soviet retreat, the Afghans didn't go back to farming. The new occupation seemed more appealing and prosperous. Every sect or group began fighting another. Six neighboring countries, the U.S. and Russia each sought their own mercenaries among the military groups. As a result, a new wave of employment came into existence. The civil war intensified so much that in two years, the damages were greater than in the longer period of the Russian presence. People were fed up with civil war and when Pakistan dispatched the army of the Taliban holding white flags with the motto of public disarmament and peace, people welcomed them. In a short time, the Taliban had control over most of Afghanistan. It was then that the Taliban's Pakistani roots went on display. The Taliban have always been criticized for their fundamentalism but little has been said about the reasons for their appearance. Although the Herati poet who had come to Iran on foot, returned to Afghanistan on foot, the orphan who had walked to Peshawar in Pakistan, returned to conquer Afghanistan driving Toyotas offered by the Arab countries. How could Pakistan, who had subsistence problems with its own people, afford to feed, train and equip the Taliban? With the help of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates-who as Iran's competitors had previously created tensions in Mecca-looked for a religious power compatible with Iran. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates who once felt their modern interests were threatened by the motto of return to Islam, thought that if there is to be any return to Islam, why not return to a more regressive Islam like that of the Taliban. If there's a contest for returning and the winner is one who regresses the most, why not go back to the most primitive state namely Talibanism!. In modern times, emigration is a measurable issue in cultural, political and economic planning. For example, Turks migrated to Germany and worked in professions refused by the Germans. Unlike the Germans who had no incentive for reproduction, the Turks went on producing children and now it is predicted that in the next few decades the Turks will make up the majority of Germany's population. Based on this premise, Germany will soon have a Turkish identity and considering the role of elections, we can imagine that perhaps in 30 years, a Turk will become the German chancellor. This means that the need for Turk workers will gradually change the national identity of Germany. This is history's satire. The same applies to Asian and African emigration to the United States. At first European emigrants marked the national identity of America. Asian and Africans, however, migrated to America because of revolutions or in pursuit of intellectual and financial achievements. Unlike the European emigrants to America, Asians and Africans increased their population through reproduction. Gradually the semi-European American identity will change to an Asian-African identity. Inter-racial conflicts are then likely to arise as a result. If the American society welcomes the `Dialogue of Civilizations' paradigm, it is because of concerns over future racial conflicts in American society. Unlike what Iranians think, in the American context, it is not a proposal for exchange between cultures rather dialogue is a domestic American issue among its own cultures. But why can't the Iranian intellect that suggests strategic solutions for other continents, find ways to utilize the emigration of Afghans to its own advantage? The reason is that Iranians, unlike the Pakistanis who regard Afghanistan as an opportunity, have always considered it more of a threat than an opportunity. Iranians have always perceived Afghans as smugglers or fundamentalists. Iranian investors have never considered the large number of hungry Afghan workers to be potentially profitable in situ. The have never mulled over the sort of investment that would make Afghanistan a consumer of their goods or use cheap Afghan labor and perhaps export the surplus production. Afghans have been unfortunate both with the geographical situation of their country and in political relations with their neighbors. Years ago, there was a big question about Franco, the Spanish dictator. Although Spain's neighbors had democratic governments, Franco operated a dictatorship. Influenced by its neighbors, Spain later also became more democratic, to the extent that today, it is a vital member of the EEC. The meaning of the fate of Spain is that better living is possible if one is destined to have neighbors. Afghanistan is stuck with neighbors who see it as threat or find it an opportunity for resolution of their own political-military problems. If Afghanistan had more democratic neighbors who viewed it as an economical-cultural opportunity it would have been in better shape by now. Fascist Spain became democratic due to the fortunate adjacency to democratic European countries while Afghanistan of the would-be progressive Amanullah Khan, because of unfortunate circumstances of neighborhood, turned into the redoubt of the Taliban. An Arabic proverb well describes the situation: "First the neighbor, then the house". Who are the Taliban? According to sociologists, the nations' demand for security from their governments is greater than any other consideration. Welfare, development and freedom come next. After the Soviet retreat, the outbreak of intense civil war created nationwide insecurity and the country was placed in extremely perilous straits. Each group aimed at providing its own security through continuous fighting. None of them however were able to provide safety for the nation. The mocking irony of this period was that every one tried to insure security by making the country unsafe. The strategy of disarmament and dispatch of the religious Taliban claiming to be harbingers of peace quickly succeeded in winning popular consent. The unsuccessful efforts of other groups were centered on offering war and insecurity. Although the people of Herat speak Farsi and the Taliban speak Pashtoon, when in Herat, I inquired about the Taliban, the reply I heard from the shopkeepers was that prior to the Taliban, their shops were robbed daily by armed and hungry men. Even those who opposed the Taliban were happy with the security they brought. Security was established for two reasons. One was the disarmament of the public and the other the severe punishments such as cutting the hands of thieves. These punishments are so harsh, intolerable and quick that if the 20,000 hungry Afghans in Herat saw a piece of bread before them, nobody would dare take it. I saw truck drivers who had traveled to and from Afghanistan for two years and had never locked their vehicles. Nothing was ever stolen from them either. Not only were the Afghans in need of financial security but practical safety and freedom from harassment have always been a concern. I heard different stories about how prior to the Taliban people's lives and chastity were violated by other tribes and sects. Disarmament and execution by stoning, however, have reduced the number of such violations. So we have 20 million hungry people before us 30% of who have emigrated, 10% of who have died and the remaining 60% who are starving to death. According to UN reports, one million Afghans will die of hunger within the next few months. Today, when you enter Afghanistan, you see people lying around on street corners. Nobody has energy to move and no arms to fight with. Fear of punishment stops them from committing crimes. The only remedy is to stay and die while humanity is overtaken by indifference. This is not Sa'di's time of "all men are limbs of one body". The only one whose heart had not turned to stone yet, was the Buddha statue of Bamian. With all his grandeur, he felt humiliated by the enormity of this tragedy and broke down. Buddha's state of needlessness and calmness became ashamed before a nation in need of bread and it fell. Buddha shattered to inform the world of all this poverty, ignorance, oppression and mortality. But negligent humanity only heard about the demolition of the Buddha statue. A Chinese proverb says: "You point your finger at the moon, the fool stares at your finger." Nobody saw the dying nation that Buddha was pointing to. Are we supposed to stare at all the different means of communication rather than at what they are intended to convey? Is the ignorance of the Taliban or their fundamentalism deeper than the earth's ignorance towards the ominous fate of a nation such as Afghanistan? For filming the starving Afghans, I called Dr. Kamal Hussein, the UN representative from Bangladesh. I told him I wanted to get permission to go to north Afghanistan (controlled by Ahmad Shah Massoud) and Kandahar (controlled by the Taliban). It was decided that a small group would go and eventually just two of us (my son and I) received approval to travel with only a small video camera. We were to be permitted to go to Islamabad (Pakistan) and take a small 10-passenger UN airplane that flew once a week to the north and once a week to the south. It took two weeks for the UN office to call and inquire when it was convenient for us to depart. We were ready but they said that it would take another month. "Since it will get colder in a month and more people will be dying, it would make your film more interesting", they said. They recommended February. I asked, "More interesting?" They replied that perhaps it would provoke the conscience of the world. I didn't know what to say. We were silent for a while. Then I asked whether or not we could go to both north and south. The Taliban didn't agree. They are not too fond of journalists. I made a promise to only film those dying of hunger. Again the Taliban do not approve. I told them I need another invitation from the UN to re-enter Pakistan. Later, I received a facsimile stating that I had to go to the Embassy of Pakistan in Tehran. I was happy because before I had gotten a visa to Pakistan from the embassy to bring costumes for Kandahar from Peshawar. I referred to the Embassy of Pakistan. At first, I am not received warmly. A little while passes and I'm called. A very respectable lady and a gentleman direct me to a room. Of the 20 minutes that I am in that room, for 15 minutes they talk about my daughter Samira and her international success in cinema. They avoid the main issue and in between words, I am asked why I applied through the UN to get a visa and informed that it would have been better if I referred directly to them. In addition they don't favor a film that misrepresents the Taliban government. They prefer I go to Pakistan not Afghanistan. I feel like I am in the embassy of the Taliban. I ask if they have seen The Cyclist and tell them I made a part of it in Peshawar and that it is not a political film. I tell them that my intentions are humanitarian and I want to help the Afghans especially with regards to hunger. I tell them that my film is about the crisis of employment and hunger. They say that we have 2.5 million Afghans in Iran. Why not film them? It is useless to continue the discussion. They keep my passport and I am kindly asked to leave. A few days later, I receive my passport with a statement saying that if I want to go to Pakistan as a tourist, the visa can be issued but not for filming or going to Afghanistan. When I leave the embassy, all of what I have read or heard about the Taliban passes before my eyes. I remember a Taliban school in Peshawar where I was escorted out as soon as my Iranian identity became known. And I remember a day when in Peshawar for filming The Cyclist, I was arrested and handcuffed. I don't know why every time I intend to make a film about Afghanistan I end up in Pakistan! People tell me to be careful. There is always the threat of kidnapping or terrorism at the borders. The Taliban are reputed to assassinate suspected opponents en route between Zahedan and Zabol. I keep saying my subject is humanitarian not political. Eventually, one day when we are finished filming near the border, as I am walking around, I come across a group that have come to either kill or kidnap me. They ask me about Makhmalbaf. I am sporting a long thin beard and wearing Afghan dress. A Massoudi hat with a shawl covering it and half of my face makes me look like an Afghan. I send them the other way and begin running while I cannot figure out whether they have been dispatched by a political group or smugglers have sent them to extort money. Let me go back to the issue of security. The Taliban, under the auspices of public disarmament and implementation of punishments such as amputation of the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers and execution of opponents have brought an apparent security to Afghanistan. When you listen to Shariat radio (Voice of Taliban) that only has a two-hour program daily, even if there is fighting somewhere, they don't announce it just to maintain a sense of national security. They say for example, that the people of Takhar, welcomed the Taliban and you know it means that the Taliban attacked and conquered Takhar. The rest is just news about Friday prayer or the amputation of the hand of some bandit in Bamian, the stoning to death of a young adulterer in Kandahar or punishment of some barbers who've cut a few teenagers' hair in the western style of infidels. Whatever it is, with all the punishments and propaganda, a sense of national security suffuses Afghanistan. Afghanistan, however, lacks the economic strength for the Taliban to create public welfare, yet the Taliban are the only government that can bring security to the country. Those who fight the Taliban bring threats to security and those who support them reason that Afghans must rule in Afghanistan. Whoever is to become the ruler of Afghanistan must first bring security to the nation. Any kind of war gives way to insecurity and because Afghanistan is inclined towards tribalism, with the coming of anybody to power, security is again threatened. It is better to first recognize whoever aims to rule Afghanistan, so that he can save Afghanistan from its hunger crisis and then move on. The same group finds criticism of the Taliban irrelevant to the lack of freedom in Afghanistan, because an insecure and famished nation seeks welfare more than freedom and development. In reply to the question of what the Taliban are, it must be said that politically, the Taliban are an instrument for government supported by Pakistan. Individually, they are starving youth turned students and trained in crusader-breeding schools in Pakistan. They first entered the premises for a loaf of bread and later exited to occupy political-military positions in Afghanistan. The Taliban as viewed by one political group, are protagonists of fundamentalism in the region and from the viewpoint of another political group, are the same Pashtoons who have been the only rulers of Afghanistan since the time of Ahmad Abdali. Today, they have reasserted 250-years of their power after an era of internal chaos. They claim that in the past quarter millennium, except for a 9-month period that the Tajiks ruled and another two-years that the Tajik Rabbani governed, the Pashtoons have always had control and Afghanistan needs their experience in governing. I hardly understand these issues. My job is to make films and if I have delved into these matters, it is because I want to write my script based on a more precise analysis. The further I go though I find the case more complicated. I keep asking people that when the U.S. found it necessary, it retook Kuwait from Iraq in three days. Why, however, with all its touting of modernism, does it not initiate an action to save the 10 million women who have no schools or social presence and are trapped under the burqa? Why doesn't it stop this primitiveness that has emerged in modern times? Does it not have the power or does it lack the incentive? I have already found the answer. Afghanistan has no precious resources such as oil and it does not have a surplus oil income like Kuwait. I hear another answer too. If the United States supports the Taliban for a few more years, the ugly image that will be portrayed to the world of an eastern ideology, will make everyone immune to it like modernism in Afghanistan. If the revolutionary and reformative interpretations of Islam are equated with Taliban's regressive interpretation, then the world will become forever immune to the expansion of Islam. Some people find this analysis too shabby a cliché. They tell me to let go and I will. Who is Molla Omar? In my seemingly endless trip to Kandahar, everywhere there is talk of Molla Omar. His title is Amir-al-M'omenin (Commander of the Faithful). Some Iranian politicians believe that he was created to compete with the Iranian government but nobody really knows much about his background. Some say he is 40 years old and blind in one eye but there's no photograph of him to prove or disprove this. How does a nation choose a half-blind man overnight to lead them, whereas not even a picture has been seen of him? I get tempted to make a film about Molla Omar. For political reasons I avoid it but my curiosity isn't satisfied. If Pakistan prepares a precise script for the war-stricken people of Afghanistan under the title of disarmament, and receives a positive welcome by what analysis do they plan for a leader called Molla Omar who has no prior image? Someone who's nobody or has not been seen by anybody, becomes the leader of a country in which each tribe or sect has its own leader. Perhaps this is where the secret lies. If a known person were appointed leader to Afghanistan, then every one would have an excuse to oppose him. I hear a joke near the border about a teahouse. "A teahouse hosted Afghan customers on a regular basis. There was a TV set in this teahouse equipped with a windshield wiper so if necessary, the owner could spray some water on the screen and wipe clean any stains. The owner was asked about this feature and he said that whenever there was a TV program about the mujahedin that was visible in the border areas, their opponents spit on the TV and since the customers used snuff their secretions were colored. After a while the TV screen became unusable so he invented the wiper." When the image of Afghan leaders is so deeply criticized and satirized, yet they are needed to rule Afghanistan, the best way is to design an imageless leadership that can't be criticized for its form or background and yet be able to free near-the-border television sets from wipers! If I weren't ashamed of Buddha's shamefulness, I would title this article "Afghanistan, a country without an image". Every one I ask about Molla Omar says he is a representative of God on earth who instead of human laws brought the Qur'an as the country's constitution. He is extremely devout, as are his followers. His wages are as paltry as the Herat's governor's $15 and he lives like the poor people that are dying in the streets. I realize that the image of this imageless man is complete and appealing because in the East, nobody expects leaders to be updated and specialized or possess a national and universal insight. If only the leaders seem a little like the ordinary, it's enough to satisfy the people. An Afghan expressed the idea that if he was starving, he was happy that Molla Omar was always fasting too and that they were like each other. He thanked God for such a leader. In Herat I am speaking to a medical student. He is hesitant to be seen talking to me. I ask him if he knows the total number of college students in Afghanistan. While he keeps walking and looking directly ahead, he says: "A thousand". "In what major?" I ask. He says: "Only medicine and engineering." "Which one are you studying", I ask and he says: "Theoretical medicine." I asked what it meant and he said that Molla Omar thinks human dissection is a sin. I asked if he had ever seen Molla Omar's picture. He said no and left. Among the Pashtoo speaking refugees, I ran across some whom although they hadn't seen Molla Omar knew of people who did. I even met Iranian politicians who believe Molla Omar does really exist and that he is also handsome. A group of Afghans who sleep in Iran at night and cross the border in the day to sell dates in Afghanistan happen to be fascinated by Molla Omar. They tell me that he is an ordinary monk who dreamed of Mohammad, the prophet one night and the prophet commissioned him to save Afghanistan. Since God was with him, he was able to conquer Afghanistan in one month. The role of international organizations in Afghanistan It is believed that some 180 international organizations are active in Afghanistan. They too avoid my non-political questions. Finally, I find out that they are in charge of a few tasks. One job is to distribute bread among the starving. A second is the struggle for exchanging of north-south prisoners and a third is to make artificial hands and legs for land mine victims. Forgetting the insignificant role of the international organizations, I become fascinated by the young people who have come here through the Red Cross. I meet a 19-year old British girl who says the reason she has come "is to be useful". It is in Afghanistan that she can make several artificial hands and legs for people each day. She says that she can't get a job in England that offers so much satisfaction. Since she came, a few hundred people have been able to walk with the artificial limbs she has made. I have a feeling that the role of international organizations is to remedy the deep and extensive wounds of this nation in a limited way and nothing more. Dr. Kamal Hossein, who is probably embarrassed about the visa to Pakistan, isn't calling me anymore. I remember his words the day he came to our office expressing how he felt his job and efforts were in vain and he wanted to become my assistant. And even now that I've finished making Kandahar, I feel vain about my profession. I don't believe that the little flame of knowledge kindled by a report or a film can part the deep ocean of human ignorance. And I don't believe that a country whose people in the next 50 years will loose their hands and legs to anti-personnel devices will be saved by a 19-year old British girl. Why does she go to Afghanistan? Why does Dr. Kamal Hossein with all his despair, still report to the UN? Why did I make that film or write this note? I don't know, but as Pascal put it: "The heart has reasons that the mind is unaware of." The Afghan woman, the most imprisoned woman in the world Afghan society is a male-dominant society. It can even be claimed that the rights of 10 million Afghan women who make up half of the populution in Afghanistan, are less than the weakest unknown Afghan tribe. No tribe is an exception in this regard. The fact that Afghan women even as viewed by the Tajiks, don't have the right to vote in elections is the least that can be said about them. With the coming of the Taliban girls' schools were closed and for a long time, women were not allowed in the streets. More tragically, even before the Taliban one out of every 20 women were able to read and write. This statistic indicates that the Afghan culture had practically deprived 95% of women from schooling and the Taliban deprived the remaining 5%. Then why shouldn't we more realistically ask whether the culture of Afghanistan is affected by the Taliban or was it the cause for the Taliban's appearance? When I was in Afghanistan, I saw women with burqas on their head begging in the streets or shopping in second hand stores. What caught my attention were the ladies who brought out their hands from under the burqas and asked little peddler boys to polish their nails. For a long time, I wondered why they didn't buy nail polish to use at home? Later I found out it was the cheapest way to do it. Buying nail polish was more expensive than a one-time use. I told myself again that this is a good sign that women under burqas still like living and despite their poverty, care about their beauty to that extent. Later on, however, I reached the conclusion that it is not fair to isolate and imprison a woman in an environment or a certain costume and be content that she still puts on make up. An Afghan woman has to maintain herself so that she won't be forgotten in the competition with her rivals. Polygamy is quite common among young men too, and has turned many Afghan homes into harems. Although the marriage allowance is so high that getting married means buying a woman, I saw old men, while filming, give away 10-year old girls and with the marriage price that they received, considered marrying other 10-year old girls for them selves. It seems that limited capital is exchanged from one hand to the other to replace girls from one house to the other. Among them there are women who have an age difference of 30 to 50 years with their husbands. These women mostly live in the same house or even the same room and not only have they surrendered but they have also gotten used to these customs. I had brought a lot of dresses and burqas from Afghanistan and Pakistan for my film. Many of the women who agreed to be in the film as extras after strenuous and lengthy persuasion, requested that we gave them burqas instead of money. One of them wanted a burqa for her daughter's wedding, and I, fearing that burqas may become popular in Iran, didn't give any to anyone. Once when we had asked some Afghan women to be in the film, their husband told us that he was too chaste to show his women. I told him that we would film his women with their burqas on but he said that the viewers watching the movie know that it is a woman under the burqa and that would contradict chastity. Time and again I asked myself, did the Taliban bring the burqas or did the burqas bring the Taliban? Do politics affect change in culture or does culture bring politics? In Niatak camp in Iran, the Aghans themselves closed down the public bathhouse reasoning that anyone who passes along the walls knowing that the opposite sex is naked behind those walls, is engaged in a sin. At present there are no woman doctors in Afghanistan and if a woman wants to refer to a doctor she has to bring her son or husband or father and through them talk to the doctor. As far as marriage, the father or the brother, not the bride, say yes. Afghan aggression According to Freud human aggression stems from human animalism and civilizations only cover this animalism with a thin veneer. This thin skin splits at the snap of a finger. Violence exists in both East and West what is different is the style not the reality of its existence. What's the difference between death by decapitation using knives, daggers or swords or dying by bullets, grenades, mines and missiles? In most cases, criticism of aggression is really the disapproval of the means of aggression. The death of one million Afghans as a result of injustice in the world is not regarded by the world as aggression. The death of 10% of the Afghan population by civil war and war with Russia is not perceived as aggression but the decapitation of someone with a sword will long be the main headline of satellite TV news. It is naturally fearsome and horrible to see a person being decapitated but why doesn't the death of people every day by land mines give us the same feeling? Why are knives aggressive but not mines? What's criticized in the modern West of Afghan aggression, is form and not substance. The West can create a tragic story for a statue but for death by millions, it suffices with statistics. As Stalin put it: "The death of one person is tragedy, but the death of one million is only a statistic." Afghanistan is a country inclined to tribalism and a tribal order dominates it. These tribes aggressively resisted against foreign dominance, yet benefited from the conflict of interest among its tribes. Although Afghanistan is called the museum of races and clans, tourists have never visited this museum. If anyone passed through Afghanistan, it was either Nadir Shah intending to conquer India or the Soviets seeking to reach warm waters. Thus, the rough Afghan besides what he has learned from the harshness of nature, has always been faced with foreign aggression as well. The consequences of war in Afghanistan Afghanistan became independent from Iran about 250 years ago and about 150 or according to other sources about 82 years ago, its borders were determined by the Durand line. It encountered a premature modernism about 77 years ago. Some 20 years ago it was invaded by the Soviets and it has been involved in a civil war for the past 10 years. About 40% of Afghanistan's population have been tragically killed or become refugees. Nevertheless, this country and its people have either been neglected or considered as threats or they have been used as a means of threat against others. When I was crossing the border, I saw Iranian cannons pointed towards Afghanistan and when I entered Afghanistan, I saw cannons pointing to Iran. These cannon indicated that both countries regard each other as threats. On the other side of the border I heard the region's military commander had called the Iranian consul and told him that their homes were made of clay so what did the Iranian cannons aim to target? He had said, "The worst is that you bombard our houses and when it rains well take the wet mud and build our homes anew again. Don't you find it a pity if our cannons destroy your beautiful homes? You can't make glass and iron and ceramics with rain. Why don't you come and build the road to Herat for us?" When I ride to Herat from Dogharoon, I feel like I'm sailing on a turbulent sea. I remember a time when I got trapped in a storm in the Persian Gulf while filming. The waves would take our small boat up for several meters and bang us back on the water's surface. The boatman told us if the craft turned over, it was goodbye. And now I see those waves again, but they are waves of dirt. At the beginning of the road the car goes downhill and comes back up the hill and in the middle of the trip the car beats against the dirt waves. Although this area is flat and includes the non-mountainous part of Afghanistan, the road is worse than the winding roads of Iran. Above the height of each wave, shovel-holding men and boys stand for eternity. As far as the eye can see, these shovel-holding men are visible. As soon as our car gets close to them, they start filling up the ditches with dirt and while throwing worthless Afghan paper currency to them, we see them in the dust the same way that we saw the dance of leaves in Once Upon A Time Cinema. It is a scene of shovel-holding men who disappear in the dust and have created an occupation for themselves out of nothing. This is the most surreal scene that I see in Afghanistan. I ask the driver how many cars pass this road every day. He says: "About 30." I ask if these thousands of shovel-holding men gather for only 30 cars, but the driver is paying attention to driving and he is not in the mood to answer me. Slowly, I turn on the radio. It's been years since I quit listening to the radio or watching TV and I haven't read any papers for months. It is September 23rd of 2001 the 2:00 o'clock Iranian news is on. It makes me cry to hear that two million Iranian kids have gone to first grade today. I don't know if it is out of joy for the children who are going to school or out of sorrow for those who don't go to school in Afghanistan. I look at the road and I feel like I'm watching a movie. The driver tells me that in some of these houses girls schools are established secretly and some girls study at home. I keep thinking here is a subject for a film. I arrive in Herat and see women polishing their nails from under the burqas. I tell myself here is another film subject. I see the 19-year old British girl who has come to dangerous Afghanistan to be useful. I tell myself again, here is another subject. I see loads of lame men who've lost their legs to mines. One of them, instead of an artificial leg, has tied a shovel to the left side of his body and walks with it. I tell myself, here is yet another subject. I arrive in Herat and see dying people covering the streets like carpets. I no longer see it as another subject. I feel like quitting cinema and seeking another occupation. When Massoud, Afghanistan's top military chief was asked what he wished for his children to become, he replied, "politicians". It means that war as a solution has reached a dead-end in the mind of the commander. He thinks that the solution to Afghanistan's salvation is more political than military. In my opinion, the only solution for Afghanistan is a rigorous scientific identification of its problems and presentation of a real image of a nation that has remained obscure and imageless both for itself and for others. Resolution of employment crisis Once the industrial countries saturated their internal markets with their products, they went after international markets. In paying the price for their consumption, the non-industrial countries each offered a product and others, cheap labor. In this game, Afghanistan, due to mountainous geography and lack of roads was unable to exploit its raw materials cost-effectively. Due to mismanagement, dispersion of population-arisen from the farming period-and disunion which is a quality of the tribes, Afghanistan did not have the potential to offer its labor force to the world in exchange for other goods or services. Thus, Afghanistan stayed away from the global game of subsistence and lived on by its insignificant wealth from the grasslands. The entrance of the Soviet Union resulted in a nationwide reaction and the farmers turned to fighters. With the Soviet retreat, these fighters would not consent to going back to farming. On one hand the civil war spread because of a power struggle. Since then insecurity and emigration increased. The 30% of Afghan emigrants probably experienced better living in other cities and did not want to be dependent on grasslands for a living, especially, since they would be threatened by periodic drought. Afghans desired a more civil share of life. This means that Afghanistan with all its historical tardiness has announced its need to enter world trade. What is the most immediate wealth, however, that can be offered to enter the world of production-consumption or vice versa? Doubtlessly, the answer is Afghanistan's cheap labor. Labor is more obtainable than exploiting raw materials in the roadless mountainous Afghanistan. The dominant outlook on Afghanistan should cast aside its military-political prism. It should be replaced with an economic direction perspective. If employment is taken both as the root and final solution for the present crisis, through national management, Afghanistan can also enter world trade and the circle of international subsistence. It can achieve its real share and pay for its cost which is to offer labor, consumer products and take advantage of present-day civilization and modernism. This was well experienced in Mao's China, Gandhi's India and quite successfully accomplished in diligent Japan. Viewed from this the point of vantage the illness of Afghans is not a disaster. It is a market for Afghan doctors. The lack of specialist physicians is not a disaster, It is a market to teach medical assistants with a few months of education. Hunger is not a disaster. It is a market for consumption of bread. Lack of bread is not a disaster. It is a market for wheat. Lack of wheat is not a disaster. It is a market for harnessing wasted waters. Waters harnessed by labor mean dams. Dams built by labor mean wheat. Wheat is bread. Bread is satiation. Beyond satiation, it is surplus. Surplus satiation is development. Development is civilization. Stalin had said, "The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of one million is a mere statistic." Since the day I saw a little Afghan girl 12 years of age, the same age as my own daughter Hanna-fluttering in my arms of hunger-I've tried to bring forth the tragedy of this hunger, but I always ended up giving statistics. Oh God! Why have I become so powerless, like Afghanistan? I feel like going to that same poem, to that same vagrancy and like that Herati poet, get lost somewhere, or collapse out of shame like the Buddha of Bamian. I came on foot, I'll leave on foot The same stranger who had no piggy bank, will leave. And the child who had no dolls, will leave. The spell on my exile will be broken tonight. And the table that had been empty, will be folded. In suffering, I wandered around the horizons. It is me, who everyone has seen in wandering. what I do not have, I'll lay and leave. I came on foot, I'll leave on foot. Copyright © Iranian.com All Rights Reserved. Legal Terms for more information contact: times at iranian.com From kshekhar at bol.net.in Thu Oct 11 23:59:00 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Shekhar Krishnan) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:59:00 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Michael Moore Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011011/0c90f856/attachment.html From hansathap1 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 09:24:40 2001 From: hansathap1 at hotmail.com (hansa thapliyal) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:24:40 Subject: [Reader-list] Ban on SIMI/arrests of students in Delhi Message-ID: remembered from the ps in shammis article- about the rss guys working when we are sleeping- the sounds of prabhat pheris- i think they are- the morning procession- in bareilly- early in the morning- the cymbal and song insiduously crawling into your half asleep mind also on the planting of flag- that thrilling activity which is taught as achievement- remember the photograpjhs on everest, on the moon- outside bombay is the dumping ground of deonar- where much of mumbais garbage is dumped- it was 1993, early in the year and two of us communication students had gone to take pictures for a av we were making on environmental degradation- the landscape was such a vast waste that it took away some of the sense of coming to a place where the garbage of a megapolis was distributed- ie- the garbage dumps- where one could see the differentiated garbage- the peel and pad and paper and plastic- were more to one side- the rest looked like land- till you went closer and you saw that much of it was like a mass that had digested the garbage but was still bubbling with acid and suggesting innards of frightening viscous filth- a grid of walkable area had been created(how? i wonder) on which barefooted children ran, close to where some yellow ooze was bubbling( i do not think i exaggerate- i myslef sank ankle deep into god knows what slush till a friend pulled me out. in this place in corners were small ragged huts- and on one of those huts fluttering i remember seeing the shivsena orange flag- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From ruine-kuenste.berlin at snafu.de Mon Oct 8 11:14:47 2001 From: ruine-kuenste.berlin at snafu.de (Ruine der Kuenste Berlin) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:44:47 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] Self-Less (by Wolf Kahlen), more actual than ever... Message-ID: <004201c14fbc$5e6974e0$774649d5@taivun> Net artist WOLF KAHLEN is dissolving pixel by pixel, user by user in the net. On a first page. On the second you see and hear your personal pixel, the one, you activated to disappear, solely on the empty page. And on the third page you see all the 'lost' pixels arriving back and shaping a new WOLF KAHLEN. Look, hear and have the triptych printed out, signed and numbered, the way you, only you see the process taking shape, nobody else has seen this moment of the RITUAL DEATH. An exiting piece and a very conceptual one, media concerned and at the same time sensual. The RUINE DER KUENSTE BERLIN presents it to collectors as a present, which WOLF KAHLEN gave them at his 60th birthday. The URL for the piece is www.wolf-kahlen.de More about us: www.snafu.de/~ruine-kuenste.berlin AND SORRY FOR EVENTUAL CROSSPOSTINGS NetSoundArt for Tibetans, Chinese and Japanese: A threefold internet art piece by Wolf Kahlen in Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese language is online since today. Live and interactive the visitor of the page www.tu-berlin.de/~arch_net_art/2.html may hear a piece of world literature of these countries, the first page at least. If he is patient enough to find out on a blank page, with the mouse in motion, the sound of the words hidden in the background like on a book page. This automatically turns out to be a game, since any move of the mouse touches another word. Until the underlying structure has been found out, a number of audio events have happened, words' sounds have overlapped or entangled at random. Who stirs with the mouse produces a concert like a DJ. The presented world's classics are by Tibet's greatest poet Milarepa (11./12. Century), the Chinese Tang-Dynasty poet Li Bo (6.- 9. Century) or the alphabet-poem attributed to Kukai of Japan. It is of political delicacy that Wolf Kahlen, who did a number of documentaries in Tibet and Mongolia since 1985, parallels Tibet with China. Possibly the first Tibetan language internet site to listen to, probably frequented joyfully by the world spread Tibetans and the few with access in Lhasa and other parts of the Snowland. Who has entered the site either reads Tibatan, Chinese or Japanese or has been attracted by the curious writings, since all three titles are of course in original characters. Another way to support the cultures in their differences. The hearing experience of the pieces, roughly translated as Sorry, Milarepa / Excuse me, Kukai / I beg your pardon, Li Bo, spans the whole spectrum between playful chaotic sounds, own word combinations and listening to a fluently spoken classical piece: all democratic ways of using words. Words as material per se. And since these words bump into each other in most cases other than as a structered classical piece, Wolf Kahlen asks the authors for excuse in the titles already beforehand. As a side effect the net is swept blank off the overload of images. And the sound of the 'bush drums' is heard again. These three pieces continue the former realized three ones in English, German and Spanish language Sorry, Mister Joyce / Verzeihung, Herr von Goethe / Perdone, Don Cervantes on www.tu-berlin.de/~arch_net_art/1.html More pieces in a great number of world languages are under construction. They kind of point out on the polarisation of the numb and speechless making psycho esthetic feedbacks of the net 'culture'. The texts are usually read by native artists. Li Bo read by Zhao Zhao Kukai by Masuko Iso, Milarepa by Tsewang Norbu, Goethe by Wolf Kahlen, Joyce by David Allen, Cervantes by Argine Erginas. Stay tuned. Edition Ruine der Kuenste Berlin http://home.snafu.de/ruine-kuenste.berlin ruine-kuenste.berlin at snafu.de Contact Wolf Kahlen wolf.kahlen at tu-berlin.de From kshekhar at bol.net.in Tue Oct 9 17:59:42 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Mumbai Study Group) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:59:42 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] 13.10.2001: Globalisation and Urban Employment Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011009/169900ff/attachment.html From arunmehtain at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 09:56:38 2001 From: arunmehtain at yahoo.com (Arun Mehta) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:56:38 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: Phone tone sequence copyright In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009135650.00aa33d0@202.54.12.17> References: <002701c15096$90d550e0$3b0110ac@rediff.co.in> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009180257.076b3b60@imap.satyam.net.in> Hilarious story! Bravo, Helyer and Drummond! (Thanks for the pointer, Zaki!) _____ Copyright: your number's up By FERGUS SHIEL Thursday 4 October 2001 [] Tonal: Jon Drummond, left, and Nigel Helyer. Listen up, they've got your number. Australian composers Nigel Helyer, aka Dr Sonique, and Jon Drummond have copyrighted 100,000,000,000 telephone tone sequences. You might not know it but every time you dial a number, you play a short melody. With the aid of a computer, Helyer and Drummond have notated the tones of every imaginable phone number combination and, in turn, claimed the melodies as their own. Next time you make a phone call, therefore, chances are you'll be in breach of international copyright law. If business can claim ownership over the elemental building blocks of human life, the composers say it's only fitting that artists lay claim to the "DNA" of business and are paid for it. "We're saying to (big business), 'Okay guys, the boot is on the other foot. If you really believe in copyright, you've got to pay'," Helyer says. "I think Mr Howard will be high on the list. Universities. Lots of corporations. We'll go for it." The composers say their Magnus-Opus is a playful way of lampooning copyright laws that protect big business rather than artists. You can check your home, work, mobile, fax or modem number against their compositional database by logging on to www.magnus-opus.com. If your number is matched, the melody will be played, the notes scored and a direction given to complete the licence agreement supplied online as soon as possible. Helyer and Drummond, who've only just launched the website, say they've had one offer of payment already. "An American guy tired of direct sales people calling him has told us he'd like to purchase the copyright for his number so that he can stop them," Helyer says. The website explains in greater detail how the composers went about their creation by throwing 16 tone pairs into an algorithmic generation to produce countless melodies. "The whole telecommunications system is entirely musicalised," Helyer says. •Magnus-Opuswill be installed at the Adelaide Festival of the Arts next year. " _________ Such a lovely piece, and in the spirit of the article, I had to violate copyright and cite it in its entirity! It is said, in the French revolution, that one of the leaders looking out the window saw a mob rushing past. He ran out, saying, "There go my people. I better find out where they are headed, so I can lead them there." That is sensible behaviour as a "leader" in a revolution! In my view, the law cannot lag seriously behind the way people vote with their feet. Copyright is nonsense when it is so blatantly being violated, and at least for 26 years now -- that's when the xerox machine came seriously into my life. Which of these music executives that sued Napster never xeroxed a newspaper article? Or faxed a report? Wasn't that equally a copyright violation? Or is audio, somewhat holier than print? For that matter, neither can business lag seriously behind in adapting to technology, for there are fortunes to be won and lost here. The question really is: in light of the world of Napster, does the conventional music business have a future? Of course it does, in nurturing and marketing talent. But no longer will that be as profitable as it used to be. And who knows? Soon there will be marketing agents specializing in pushing music through Morpheus -- people who are more sharing than the current crop of music companies. Maybe there are people who can nurture musical talent through the Net -- people kinder than the music industry. Can the music industry learn to live with the Internet? I guess a similar question could be asked of telecom, radio, newspapers, books,... they all have to adapt to the new realities, be able to provide value of the kind that the Internet cannot, else watch their profits shrink. Arun At 01:16 PM 10/9/01, Zaki Ansari wrote: >>Australian composers Nigel Helyer and Jon Drummond have copyrighted >>100,000,000,000 telephone tone sequences (that make up most dialled >>numbers). > >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 shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Thu Oct 11 12:05:28 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:35:28 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] CIA Trained Pakistanis to Nab Terrorist but Military Coup Put an End to 1999 Plot Message-ID: <000301c15267$68be5de0$6777c8cb@shohini> CIA Trained Pakistanis to Nab Terrorist but Military Coup Put an End to 1999 Plot By Bob Woodward and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01 In 1999, the CIA secretly trained and equipped approximately 60 commandos from the Pakistani intelligence agency to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, according to people familiar with the operation. The operation was arranged by then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his chief of intelligence with the Clinton administration, which in turn promised to lift sanctions on Pakistan and provide an economic aid package. The plan was aborted later that year when Sharif was ousted in a military coup. The plan was set in motion less than 12 months after U.S. cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan that Clinton administration officials believe narrowly missed hitting the exiled Saudi militant. The clandestine operation was part of a more robust effort by the United States to get bin Laden than has been previously reported, including consideration of broader military action, such as massive bombing raids and Special Forces assaults. It is a record of missed opportunities that has provided President Bush and his administration with some valuable lessons as well as a framework for action as they draw up plans for their own war against bin Laden and his al Qaeda network in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The Pakistani commando team was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999, a former official said. "It was an enterprise," the official said. "It was proceeding." Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said. The operation was aborted on Oct. 12, 1999, however, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it. Musharraf, now Pakistan's president, has emerged as a key ally in the Bush administration's efforts to track down bin Laden and destroy his terrorist network. The record of the CIA's aborted relationship with Pakistan two years ago illustrates the value -- and the pitfalls -- of such an alliance in targeting bin Laden. Pakistan and its intelligence service have valuable information about what is occurring inside Afghanistan, a country that remains closed to most of the world. But a former U.S. official said joint operations with the Pakistani service are always dicey, because the Taliban militia that rules most of Afghanistan has penetrated Pakistani intelligence. "You never know who you're dealing with," the former senior official said. "You're always dealing with shadows." 'We Were at War' In addition to the Pakistan operation, President Bill Clinton the year before had approved additional covert action for the CIA to work with groups inside Afghanistan and with other foreign intelligence services to capture or kill bin Laden. The most dramatic attempt to kill bin Laden occurred in August 1998, when Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on bin Laden's suspected training camps in Afghanistan in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. At the time, the Pentagon informed the president that far more ambitious and riskier military actions could be undertaken, according to officials involved in the decision. The options included a clandestine helicopter-borne night assault with small U.S. special operations units; a massive bombing raid on the southeastern Afghan city of Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban and a place frequently visited by bin Laden and his followers; and a larger air- and sea-launched missile and bombing raid on the bin Laden camps in eastern Afghanistan. Clinton approved the cruise missile attack recommended by his advisers, and on Aug. 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles rained down on the training camps. An additional 13 missiles were fired at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that the Clinton administration believed was a chemical weapons factory associated with bin Laden. Clinton's decision to attack with unmanned Tomahawk cruise missiles meant that no American lives were put in jeopardy. The decision was supported by his top national security team, which included Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, officials said. In the aftermath of last month's attacks on the United States, which the Bush administration has tied to bin Laden, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. "I wish we'd recognized it then," that the United States was at war with bin Laden, said a senior Defense official, "and started the campaign then that we've started now. That's my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war." Outside experts are even more pointed. "I think that raid really helped elevate bin Laden's reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world," said Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero." Senior officials involved in the decision to limit the attack to unmanned cruise missiles cite four concerns that in many ways are similar to those the Bush administration is confronting now. One was worry that the intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts was sketchy. Reports at the time said he was supposed to be at a gathering of terrorists, perhaps 100 or more, but it was not clear how reliable that information was. "There was little doubt there was going to be a conference," a source said. "It was not certain that bin Laden would be there, but it was thought to be the case." The source added, "It was all driven by intelligence. . . . The intelligence turned out to be off." A second concern was about killing innocent people, especially in Kandahar, a city already devastated by the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Large loss of civilian life, the thinking went, could have cost the United States the moral high ground in its efforts against terrorism, especially in the Muslim world. The risks of conducting a long-range helicopter assault, which would require aerial refueling at night, were another factor. The helicopters might have had to fly 900 miles, an official said. Administration officials especially wanted to avoid a repeat of the disastrous 1980 Desert One operation to rescue American hostages in Iran. During that operation, ordered by President Jimmy Carter, a refueling aircraft collided with a helicopter in the Iranian desert, killing eight soldiers. A final element was the lack of permission for bombers to cross the airspace of an adjoining nation, such as Pakistan, or for helicopters to land at a staging ground on foreign soil. Since Sept. 11, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have offered the United States use of bases and airspace for any new strike against bin Laden. Bin Laden, 44, a member of an extended wealthy Saudi family, was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 and stripped of his citizenship three years later. In early 1996, the CIA set up a special bin Laden unit, largely because of evidence linking him to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. At the time, he was living in Sudan, but he was expelled from that country in May 1996 after the CIA failed to persuade the Saudis to accept a Sudanese offer to turn him over. After his subsequent move to Afghanistan, bin Laden became a major focus of U.S. military and intelligence efforts in February 1998, when he issued a fatwa, or religious order, calling for the killing of Americans. "That really got us spun up," recalled retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who was then the chief of the Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. When two truck bombs killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of that year, and the U.S. government developed evidence that bin Laden was behind both attacks, the question was not whether the United States should counterattack, but how and when. And when depended on information about his whereabouts. Two weeks later, intelligence arrived in Washington indicating that bin Laden would be attending a meeting in eastern Afghanistan. Much turned on the quality of the intelligence provided by CIA Director George J. Tenet, recalled a senior official who had firsthand knowledge of the administration's debate on how to respond. "Some days George was good," the official said, "but some days he was not so good. One day he would be categorical and say this is the best we will get . . . and then two days later or a week later, he would say he was not so sure." 'It Was a Sustained Effort' The quality of the intelligence behooved restraint in planning the raid. Hitting bin Laden with a cruise missile "was a long shot, very iffy," recalled Zinni, the former Central Command chief. "The intelligence wasn't that solid." At the same time, new information surfaced suggesting that bin Laden might be planning another major attack. Top Clinton officials felt it was essential to act. At best, they calculated, bin Laden would be killed. And at a minimum, he might be knocked off balance and forced to devote more of his energy to hiding from U.S. forces. "He felt he was safe in Afghanistan, in the mountains, inside landlocked airspace," Zinni said. "So at least we could send the message that we could reach him." In all, 66 cruise missiles were launched from Navy ships in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Pakistan into the camps in Afghanistan. Pakistan had not been warned in advance, but Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, then the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Pakistani officials at the precise time of the launch to tell them of the operation. He also assured them that Pakistan was not under surprise attack from India, a potential misapprehension that could have led to war. At least one missile lost power and crashed in Pakistan, but the rest flew into Afghanistan and slammed into suspected terrorist training camps outside Khost, a small town near the Afghan-Pakistani border. Most of the cruise missiles were carrying loads of anti-personnel cluster bomblets, with the intention of killing as many people as possible. Reports from the scene were inconclusive. Most said that the raid killed about 30 people, but not bin Laden. Intelligence that reached top Clinton administration officials after the raid said that bin Laden had left the camp two or three hours before the missiles struck. Other reports said he might have left as many as 10 or 12 hours before they landed. Sources in the U.S. military said the launch time was adjusted some to coordinate it with the Sudan attack and to launch after sundown to minimize detection of the missiles. This had the effect of delaying the launch time by several hours. An earlier launch might have caught bin Laden, two sources said. Cohen came to suspect that bin Laden escaped because he was tipped off that the strike was coming. Four days before the operation, the State Department issued a public warning about a "very serious threat" and ordered hundreds of nonessential U.S. personnel and dependents out of Pakistan. Some U.S. officials believe word could have been passed to bin Laden by the Taliban on a tip from Pakistani intelligence services. Several other former officials disputed the notion of a security breach, saying bin Laden had plenty of notice that the United States intended to retaliate. There also is dispute about the follow-up to the 1998 raid, specifically about whether the Clinton administration, having tried and failed to kill bin Laden, stopped paying attention. There were attempts. Special Forces troops and helicopter gunships were kept on alert in the region, ready to launch a raid if solid intelligence pinpointed bin Laden's whereabouts. Also, twice in 1999, information arrived indicating that bin Laden might possibly be in a certain village in Afghanistan at a certain time, officials recalled. There was discussion of destroying the village, but the intelligence was not deemed credible enough to warrant the potential slaughter of civilians. In addition, the CIA that year launched its clandestine operation with Pakistani intelligence to train Pakistani commandos for operations against bin Laden. "It was a sustained effort," Cohen said recently. "There was not a week that went by when the issue wasn't seriously addressed by the national security team." Berger said, "Al Qaeda and bin Laden were the number one security threat to America after 1998. It was the highest priority, and a range of appropriate actions were taken." But never again did definitive information arrive that might have permitted another attempt to get bin Laden, officials said. "I can't tell you how many times we got a call saying, 'We have information, and we have to hold a secret meeting about whether to launch a military action,' " said Walter Slocombe, the former undersecretary of defense for policy. "Maybe we were too cautious. I don't think so." Researcher Jeff Himmelman contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011010/9009ca23/attachment.html From jskohli at linux-delhi.org Thu Oct 11 15:50:02 2001 From: jskohli at linux-delhi.org (Jaswinder Singh Kohli) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:50:02 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Anti-terrorism bill to go to House Message-ID: <3BC57252.DDA53A53@linux-delhi.org> Anti-terrorism bill to go to House By Robert Lemos ZDNet News October 2, 2001 4:39 AM PT U.S. lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday that could greatly expand the electronic surveillance powers of police and ratchet up penalties relating to certain computer crimes. Known as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act, the bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., and John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and is expected to be debated in committee Wednesday afternoon. "It's incredibly likely to make it through," said an aide to the House Committee on the Judiciary. An earlier version of the bill, known as the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), was held up over civil rights concerns last week. The members of the House Judiciary Committee worked through the weekend and late Monday to draft the new PATRIOT Act, said a staffer. If enacted, the new bill would add to the powers of law enforcement and intelligence communities, allowing them to gather and share information, detain immigrants, pursue those who cooperate with suspected terrorists, and freeze the bank accounts and financial networks of terrorist organizations. The bill was modified to include a narrower definition of "terrorism" that could limit some powers granted in the previous draft highlighted by civil rights advocates. Those powers include near-blanket rights to wiretap any communications device used by a person in any way connected to a suspected terrorist; the power to detain indefinitely an immigrant connected to an act of terrorism; and the classification of any computer hacking crime as a terrorist offense. "McCarthy all over again" Despite that change, the newest bill still falls short of clearly defining what crimes should be considered terrorist acts, said Michael Erbschloe, vice president and analyst at technology market researcher Computer Economics. The bill lists more than 40 criminal offenses, including computer intrusion and damaging a computer, and defines those offenses as terrorism if they are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion...or to retaliate against government conduct." Erbschloe, the author of "Information Warfare: How to Survive Cyber Attacks," said that left a lot of leeway. "It could be McCarthy all over again," he said, referring to the political witch-hunts carried out a half-century ago by the House Committee on Un-American Activities under Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose hearings on the "Communist threat" led to the jailing and blacklisting of a number of Americans. "We need to more clearly define what a terrorist is." Suicide hijackers on Sept. 11 used commercial jets to ram the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, leaving some 6,000 people missing and assumed dead, and sparking the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history. Congress last week approved a $343 billion defense package, diverting some funds from missile defense to counter-terrorism. More than 500 people already have been detained by the FBI in the terrorist dragnet. The manhunt has thrown a spotlight on law enforcement surveillance powers, including the potential expansion of eavesdropping technology on the Internet. Several Internet service providers said they were asked to install a wiretap device known as Carnivore after the attacks. Carnivore, since renamed DCS1000, has the ability to capture the contents of e-mail messages and other data. Hasty passage Attorney General John Ashcroft has taken a hard line on the need for new legislation to assist police in their investigations, calling for hasty passage of anti-terrorism legislation that continued this weekend. "Talk does not stop terrorism," Reuters quoted him as saying. In comments last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he asked for better "tools" to help the FBI chase terrorists, likening the agency's current situation to "sending our troops into the modern field of battle with antique weapons." "Technology has dramatically outpaced our statutes," he said. "Law enforcement tools created decades ago were crafted for rotary telephones--not e-mail, the Internet, mobile communications and voice mail." Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, have cautioned against expanding surveillance powers unnecessarily, arguing that there is little evidence that tougher surveillance laws could have prevented last month's tragedy. A previous anti-terrorism bill was flawed, they said, because it would declare hackers and online vandals "terrorists" and broaden the FBI's ability to wiretap the Internet. The latest House version of the bill steps back from completely allowing intelligence and FBI officials to trade surveillance information on Americans. Because of the controversy over the anti-terrorism bill, the measures ran into a congressional wall last week, when key senators and representatives refused to sign off on certain provisions of the package. This past weekend, the members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees met behind closed doors for repeated sessions with the Bush administration and Department of Justice officials to hammer out a compromise. While the House Judiciary Committee will use the latest draft as a foundation for its discussions, the Senate is moving more deliberately on the legislation. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., postponed a Tuesday Judiciary Committee hearing on its version of the bill so that members could concentrate on rewriting problem sections. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been increasing pressure on Congress to get the legislation passed. Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly told Republican senators that the president wanted legislation to sign by the end of the week. Reuters contributed to this report. -- 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 kshekhar at bol.net.in Thu Oct 11 23:59:00 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Shekhar Krishnan) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:59:00 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] World Bank Report on 9.11 Message-ID: From: Subject: WB Institutional Release: POVERTY TO RISE IN WAKE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN US Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:03:57 -0400 POVERTY TO RISE IN WAKE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN US Millions more people condemned to poverty in 2002 News Release No. 2002/093/S Contact: Caroline Anstey (202) 473-1800 Cell: (202) 345-3387, canstey at worldbank.org Available online at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/news/pressrelease.nsf/673fa6c5a2d50a67852565e200692a79/76a14ccf66fab73885256ad8004661f0?OpenDocument WASHINGTON, October 1, 2001?The September 11 terrorist attacks in the US will hurt economic growth in developing countries worldwide in 2001 and 2002, condemning as many as 10 million more people to live in poverty next year, and hampering the fight against childhood diseases and malnutrition, the World Bank says in a preliminary economic assessment released today. Before September 11, the Bank expected developing country growth to fall from 5.5 percent in 2000 to 2.9 percent in 2001 as a result of slowdowns in the US, Japan and Europe, and then rebound to 4.3 percent in 2002. But because the attacks will delay the rich countries' recovery into 2002, the Bank now warns that developing countries' growth could be lower by 0.5-0.75 percentage points in 2002. "We have seen the human toll the recent attacks wrought in the US, with citizens from some 80 nations perishing in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," says World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn. "But there is another human toll that is largely unseen and one that will be felt in all parts of the developing world, especially Africa. We estimate that tens of thousands more children will die worldwide and some 10 million more people are likely to be living below the poverty line of $1 a day because of the terrorist attacks. This is simply from loss of income. Many, many more people will be thrown into poverty if development strategies are disrupted." Ripples Felt Throughout World Prior to the crisis, the Bank estimated that the US and other OECD countries would grow by 1.1 percent in 2001 and recover to 2.2 percent in 2002. But now, GDP growth rates in the OECD could be lower by 0.75-1.25 percentage points in 2002. This assumes that business returns to normal by mid-2002, that consumers eventually respond to lower interest rates as they have in the past recession, and that no new events shock the global economy. Already, there are signs that higher costs and reduced economic activity are putting a damper on global trade. Insurance and security costs and delays at customs clearance are among the main factors pushing up the costs of trade. Major shipping lines, for example, have increased freight rates to India by 10 to 15 percent. Tourism related trade flows are being hit exceptionally hard. The immediate impact in the Caribbean is such that 65 percent of the holidays booked for the Caribbean have been cancelled . The Middle East is also likely to suffer a sharp decline in tourism revenues during the coming winter. The fallout from the September 11 attacks will affect different groups of developing countries in different ways, reflecting their particular vulnerabilities. For the poorest countries that stall or fall into recession as a result of a decline in exports, tourism, commodity prices, or foreign investment, the number of people living below $1 a day will rise. In countries that experience positive but slower growth, fewer people will be able to climb out of poverty than otherwise would have been the case. The slower growth and recessions will hit the most vulnerable people in developing countries the hardest. The Bank estimates that an additional 20,000 - 40,000 children under five years old could die from the economic consequences of the September 11 attack as poverty worsens. As investors flee to safer havens, the already weak flow of capital to developing countries will decline further and be increasingly concentrated in countries that are considered to be relatively immune from the crisis. The pattern established in the 1990s of private capital flows accounting for a much greater share of developing countries' financing needs is expected to be reversed in the near term as both equity and lending activities contract in lower risk countries. This will require greater support from bilateral and multilateral official sources if the financing needs of a growing number of developing countries are to be met. Outside of the US and OECD countries, the ripples from the September 11 attacks will be felt across all of the world's regions, particularly in countries dependent on tourism, remittances from populations living overseas, and foreign investment. The worst hit area will be Africa, where in addition to the possible increases in poverty of 2-3 million people as a result of lower growth and incomes, a further 2 million people may be condemned to living below $1 a day due to the effects of falling commodity prices. Commodity prices were forecast to fall 7.4 percent on average this year, and are likely to fall even more as a result of the events of September 11. Farmers, rural laborers, and others tied to agriculture will bear a major portion of the burden. Travel and tourism represent almost 10 percent of merchandise exports for the region and are also likely to be disrupted. The 300 million poor in Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable because most countries have little or no safety nets, and poor households have minimal savings to cushion bad times. About half the additional child deaths worldwide are likely to be in Africa. Oil prices are now at $22/bbl, $5/bbl lower than just before September 11, after a brief upward spike following the attacks. Prices of non-oil commodities have also declined. Many agricultural futures have declined by 5 percent since the attacks. These declines are likely to set the stage for lower commodity prices, that are lower by 3 percent for agriculture and 5 percent for metals next year. These prices have never recovered the levels seen prior to the East Asia crisis of 1997-98, and now find themselves buffeted by yet another global downturn. For economies that are dependent on commodity exports, particularly for cotton and beverage exporters, this portends a potentially large terms of trade shock over and above the impacts of slower growth in GDP. Aid, Trade and Policies Key to Sustaining Poverty Fight The Bank's assessment is subject to revision in coming weeks and depends on how events unfold. But World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern stresses that both rich and developing countries must be vigorous and vigilant to ensure that the global rebound occurs next year and continues strongly into 2003. "Policy responses have to be swift and somewhat bolder in rich and poor countries because of the heightened level of risk to the global economy?and they have to be vigilant because the uncertainties associated with future political and military events are unusually large," says Stern. "Maintaining world trade is more important than ever, especially in the face of an economic slowdown which is often accompanied by pressures for increased protectionism." Several steps are crucial in sustaining the global fight against poverty in the wake of September 11: · Boost Foreign Aid ? Private capital flows to developing countries are going down sharply, reversing the trend of the last decade. They are estimated to fall from $240 billion last year to an estimated $160 billion this year. This makes it even more imperative that governments increase official assistance to fill the financing gap. Currently, aid claims only 0.22 percent of GNP of the OECD countries, far short of the 0.7 percent goal agreed to by the international community. The evidence from the Bank's work on aid effectiveness demonstrates that well-directed aid, combined with strong reform efforts, can greatly reduce poverty, and can also mitigate particular effects of crises, such as terms of trade shocks. · Reduce Trade Barriers ?Now more than ever, the WTO summit must go ahead, and it must be a development round, one that is motivated primarily by a desire to use trade as a tool for poverty reduction and development. Substantial trade liberalization such as this would provide an additional cumulative income in developing countries of some $1.5 trillion over a decade. · More Coordination ? The major industrial countries are likely to have a greater positive impact if their policies move in the same direction as they did immediately after the attacks. Building additional coordination into the conduct of economic policy, particularly monetary policy, could help counteract large shocks in the global financial system. Beyond reliance on all-important automatic stabilizers, fiscal policy may have to be better targeted in the coming months, particularly in providing assistance to low income groups and to affected regions, which are most likely to feel the immediate brunt of a slowdown and disruption. · Building Social Consensus for Continued Reforms ? Only a limited number of developing countries can adopt counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies. Most countries are too small to counteract imported shocks, and many face limited financing capabilities. For these countries, accelerating reforms to improve the investment climate may help encourage foreign and domestic investment during this time of heightened uncertainty. Additional financing from the international financial institutions may help implement pro-poor programs and leverage directly or indirectly more private investment. World Bank Group Support The World Bank stands ready to do its part. Managers and staff?many of whom are stationed in the field?have been in contact with high-level officials in all client countries to assure them of the Bank's continued commitment to deliver on previously agreed programs, and to offer help in minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts from the heightened uncertainty, risk, and volatility in the current global economic environment. Work is currently underway to assess needs on a country-by-country basis. Particular attention is being paid to Africa, given the extreme poverty and vulnerability to declining commodity prices of so many countries there. The IDA program, including possible additional debt relief under the HIPC Initiative, is being reviewed, and IFC is paying particular attention to its programs there. Countries in other parts of the world?especially those directly affected by an increased influx of refugees or a downturn in tourist receipts?also are getting special attention. At the same time, the Bank is reviewing its lending instruments and financial resources to see how they might be best deployed in current circumstances. The menu of responses is likely to include quick disbursing policy-based adjustment lending, emergency recovery loans/credits, and supplements to existing loans/credits designed to protect essential programs. New investment lending and portfolio restructurings designed to target assistance to newly emerging priorities and to protect pro-poor programs also are being considered. _____ Shekhar Krishnan 9, Supriya, 2nd Floor Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road No.4 Dadar, Bombay 400014 India From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Fri Oct 12 20:26:10 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:56:10 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] Let Us Now Praise Famous Men Message-ID: <000201c1537f$4ccaddc0$e775c8cb@shohini> Just a reminder that Naipaul had supported the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the rise of the Hindu Right - apart from making homophobic statements about E.M. Forster recently. Of course, this does not take away from the fact that A House for Mr Biswas is one of the most moving novels I have ever read. Shohini Ghosh *EM Forster Derided As "Nasty Homosexual" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naeem_news/message/523 *Naipaul Accused Of Demonising Homosexuality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naeem_news/message/522 *Edward Said: An intellectual catastrophe An intellectual catastrophe Edward W. Said http://web.ahram.org.eg/weekly/1998/389/cu1.htm The strange fascination with Islam in the West continues. Most recently, the originally Trinidadian but now British author V S. Naipaul has brought out a massive volume about his travels in four Islamic countries -- all of them non-Arab -- as a sequel to a book he wrote on the same four places about 18 years ago. The first book was called Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey; the new one is Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples. In the meantime Naipaul has become Sir V S Naipaul, an extremely famous and, it must be said, very talented writer whose novels and non-fiction (mostly travel books) have established his reputation as one of the truly celebrated, justly well-known figures in world literature today. In Paris, for example, Sonia Rykiel's fancy showrooms on windows on the Boulevard St Germain are filled with copies of the French translation of Beyond Belief, intermixed with the scarves, belts and handbags. This of course is one kind of tribute, although Naipaul may not be very pleased about it. On the other hand, the book has been reviewed everywhere in the prestige English and American press, paid tribute to as the work of a great master of shrewd observation and telling detail, the kind of demystifying, thorough exposé of Islam for which Western readers seem to have a bottomless appetite. No one today would write a similar kind of book about Christianity or Judaism. Islam on the other hand is fair game, even though the expert may not know the languages or much about the subject. Naipaul's, however, is a special case. He is neither a professional Orientalist nor a thrill seeker. He is a man of the Third World who sends back dispatches from the Third World to an implied audience of disenchanted Western liberals who can never hear bad enough things about all the Third World myths -- national liberation movements, revolutionary goals, the evils of colonialism -- which in Naipaul's opinion do nothing to explain the sorry state of African and Asian countries who are sinking under poverty, native impotence, badly learned, unabsorbed Western ideas like industrialisation and modernisation. These are people, Naipaul says in one of his books, who know how to use a telephone but can neither fix nor invent one. Naipaul can now be cited as an exemplary figure from the Third World. Born in Trinidad he is originally of Hindu Indian stock; he emigrated to Britain in the l950s, has become a senior member of the British establishment and is always spoken of as a candidate for the Nobel Prize -- someone who can be relied on always to tell the truth about the Third World. Naipaul is "free of any romantic moonshine about the moral claims of primitives," said one reviewer in l979, and he does this without "a trace in him of Western condescension or nostalgia for colonialism." Still, even for Naipaul, Islam is worse than most other problems of the Third World. Feeling his Hindu origins, he recently has said that the worst calamity in India's history was the advent and later presence of Islam which disfigured the country's history. Unlike most writers he makes not one but two journeys to "Islam" in order to confirm his deep antipathy to the religion, its people, and its ideas. Ironically, Beyond Belief is dedicated to his Muslim wife Nadira whose ideas or feelings are not referred to. In the first book he does not learn anything -- they, the Muslims, prove what he already knows. Prove what? That the retreat to Islam is "stupefaction". In Malaysia, Naipaul is asked "what is the purpose of your writing? Is it to tell people what it's all about?" He replies, "Yes, I would say comprehension." "Is it not for money?" "Yes. But the nature of the work is important." Thus he travels among Muslims and writes about it, is well paid by his publisher and by the magazines that run extracts of his books, because it is important, not because he likes doing it. Muslims provide him with stories, which he records as instances of "Islam." There is very little pleasure and only a very little affection recorded in these two books. In the earlier book, its funny moments are at the expense of Muslims, who are "wogs" after all as seen by Naipaul's British and American readers, potential fanatics and terrorists, who cannot spell, be coherent, sound right to a worldly-wise, somewhat jaded judge from the West. Every time they show their Islamic weaknesses, Naipaul the Third World witness appears promptly. A Muslim lapse occurs, some resentment against the West is expressed by an Iranian, and then Naipaul explains that "this is the confusion of a people of high medieval culture awakening to oil and money, a sense of power and violation and a knowledge of a great new encircling civilization [the West]. It was to be rejected; at the same time it was to be depended on." Remember that last sentence and a half, for it is Naipaul's thesis as well as the platform from which he addresses the world: The West is the world of knowledge, criticism, technical know-how and functioning institutions, Islam is its fearfully enraged and retarded dependent, awakening to a new, barely controllable power. The West provides Islam with good things from the outside, because "the life that had come to Islam had not come from within." Thus the existence of one billion Muslims is summed up in a phrase and dismissed. Islam's flaw was at "its origins -- the flaw that ran through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it offered no political or practical solution. It offered only the faith. It offered only the Prophet, who would settle everything -- but who had ceased to exist. This political Islam was rage, anarchy." All the examples Naipaul gives, all the people he speaks to tend to align themselves under the Islam vs. The West opposition he is determined to find everywhere. It's all very tiresome and repetitious. Why then does he return to write an equally long and boring book two decades later? The only answer I can give is that he now thinks he has an important new insight about Islam. And that insight is if you are not an Arab -- Islam being a religion of the Arabs -- then you are a convert. As converts to Islam, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Iranians, and Indonesians necessarily suffer the fate of the inauthentic. For them Islam is an acquired religion which cuts them off from their traditions, leaving them neither here nor there. What Naipaul attempts to document in his new book is the fate of the converted, people who have lost their own past but have gained little from their new religion except more confusion, more unhappiness, more (for the Western reader) comic incompetence, all of it the result of conversion to Islam. This ridiculous argument would suggest by extension that only a native of Rome can be a good Roman Catholic; other Catholic Italians, Spaniards, Latin Americans, Philipinos who are converts are inauthentic and cut off from their traditions. According to Naipaul, then, Anglicans who are not British are only converts and they too, like the Malysian or Iranian Muslim, are doomed to a life of imitation and incompetence since they are converts. In effect, the 400-page Beyond Belief is based on nothing more than this rather idiotic and insulting theory. The question isn't whether it is true or not but how could a man of such intelligence and gifts as V S Naipaul write so stupid and so boring a book, full of story after story illustrating the same primitive, rudimentary, unsatisfactory and reductive thesis, that most Muslims are converts and must suffer the same fate wherever they are. Never mind history, politics, philosophy, geography: Muslims who are not Arabs are inauthentic converts, doomed to this wretched false destiny. Somewhere along the way Naipaul, in my opinion, himself suffered a serious intellectual accident. His obsession with Islam caused him somehow to stop thinking, to become instead a kind of mental suicide compelled to repeat the same formula over and over. This is what I would call an intellectual catastrophe of the first order. The pity of it is that so much is now lost on Naipaul. His writing has become repetitive and uninteresting. His gifts have been squandered. He can no longer make sense. He lives on his great reputation which has gulled his reviewers into thinking that they are still dealing with a great writer, whereas he has become a ghost. The greater pity is that Naipaul's latest book on Islam will be considered a major interpretation of a great religion, and more Muslims will suffer and be insulted. And the gap between them and the West will increase and deepen. No one will benefit except the publishers who will probably sell a lot of books, and Naipaul, who will make a lot of money. ..Meanwhile, Mr. V.S. Naipaul has reacted to Mr. Rushdie's new novel saying: ``It might one day come to me. I will not pursue it.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011012/f7d0de19/attachment.html From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 21:31:46 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Osama, The high Priest (!) Message-ID: <20011012160146.62078.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Osama - the high priest!--> By: Rehan Ansari October 11,2001 Before the fortress like walls of a monastery in Manhattan, a Rastafarian was chanting O-sama, O-sama... Only the two desis in the lineup of tourists laughed at the sight. The Cloisters is an unused monastery on the northern tip of Manhattan, around 200th street. It is open to the public as a park and a museum. It seems a brainchild of an American capitalist from the pages of P G Wodehouse. Buy a British castle and have it transported brick by brick to New York. It is most authentic, and together with the herb gardens, gives the feeling of Europe and old civilisation. From the heights of the monastery you can see the Hudson valley and in the other direction New York. From ravis at sarai.net Fri Oct 12 22:25:09 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:25:09 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] A Senator's Lonely Privacy Fight( Fwd) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011012222424.00a9c168@mail.sarai.net> [The Senate this evening overwhelmingly rejected all three of Feingold's amendments (he chose not to offer the fourth). --Declan] --- Details on Feingold's four amendments: http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/11/1430203 --- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47490,00.html A Senator's Lonely Privacy Fight By Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com) 6:08 a.m. Oct. 11, 2001 PDT WASHINGTON -- Russ Feingold is fighting a lonely battle for privacy in the U.S. Senate. The 48-year-old Wisconsin Democrat is singlehandedly trying to add pro-privacy changes to an eavesdropping bill that would hand police unprecedented surveillance powers. His stand has been causing friction with his own party: This week Feingold refused to bow to a request from Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) for an immediate vote on the complex, 243-page bill. Daschle had asked senators to agree unanimously that it was time to move onto the anti-terrorism measure that was drafted in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, insisted the former Rhodes Scholar-turned-politico, senators should have a chance to carefully consider the USA Act (PDF) before voting on it. Said Feingold: "I can't quite understand why we can't have just a few hours of debate." When the USA Act, which has broad support from his colleagues and the White House, goes to the Senate floor as early as midday Thursday, Feingold plans to offer four amendments to it. According to a draft, the amendments would: * Still allow police to perform "roving wiretaps" and listen in on any telephone that a subject of an investigation might use. But they would only be permitted to eavesdrop when that person is the one using the phone. * Preserve the privacy of sensitive records -- such as medical or educational data -- by requiring police to convince a judge that viewing them is necessary. Without that amendment, the USA Act would expand police's ability to access any type of stored or "tangible" information. * Bar police from obtaining a court order, sneaking into a suspect's home and not notifiying that person they had been there. The "secret search" section currently is part of the USA Act -- and is something the Justice Department has wanted at least since 1999, when it unsuccessfully asked Congress for that power. * Clarify that universities, libraries and employers may only snoop on people who use their computers in narrow circumstances. Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators may monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser." [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Fri Oct 12 23:57:34 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 12 Oct 2001 18:27:34 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Edward Said "The Clash of Ignorance" Message-ID: <20011012182734.24720.qmail@mailweb23.rediffmail.com> The Clash of Ignorance by Edward W. Said Samuel Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?" appeared in theSummer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, where it immediately attracted a surprising amount of attention and reaction. Because the article was intended to supply Americans with an original thesis about "a new phase"in world politics after the end of the cold war, Huntington's terms ofargument seemed compellingly large, bold, even visionary. He very clearly had his eye on rivals in the policy-making ranks, theorists such as Francis Fukuyama and his "end of history" ideas, as well as the legions who had celebrated the onset of globalism, tribalism and the dissipation of the state. But they, he allowed, had understood only some aspects of this new period. He was about to announce the "crucial, indeed a central,aspect" of what "global politics is likely to be in the coming years."Unhesitatingly he pressed on: "It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this newworld will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." Most of the argument in the pages that followed relied on a vague notionof something Huntington called "civilization identity" and "the interactions among seven or eight [sic] major civilizations," of which the conflict between two of them, Islam and the West, gets the lion's share of his attention. In this belligerent kind of thought, he relies heavily on a 1990 article by the veteran Orientalist Bernard Lewis, whose ideologicalcolors are manifest in its title, "The Roots of Muslim Rage." In both articles, the personification of enormous entities ca icated matters like identity and culture existed in a cartoonlike world where Popeye and Bluto bash each other mercilessly, with one always more virtuous pugilist getting the upper hand over his adversary. Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture,or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization. No, the West is the West, and Islam Islam.The challenge for Western policy-makers, says Huntington, is to make sure that the West gets stronger and fends off all the others, Islam inparticular. More troubling is Huntington's assumption that hisperspective, which is to survey the entire world from a perch outside all ordinary attachments and hidden loyalties, is the correct one, as if everyone else were scurrying around looking for the answers that he has already found. In fact, Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make "civilizations" and "identities" into what they are not: shut-down,sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and constricted warfare that "the clash of civilizations" argues is the reality. When he published his book by the same title in 1996, Huntington tried to give his argument a little more subtlety and many, many more footnotes; all he did, however, was confusehimself and demonstrate what a clumsy writer and inelegant thinker he was. The basic paradigm of West versus the rest (the cold war opposition reformulated) remaine and this is what has persisted, often insidiously and implicitly, in discussion since the terrible events of September 11. The carefully planned and horrendous, pathologically motivated suicide attack and mass slaughter by a small group of deranged militants has been turned into proof of Huntington's thesis. Instead of seeing it for what it is--the capture of big ideas (I use the word loosely) by a tiny band of crazed fanatics for criminal purposes--international luminaries from former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have pontificated about Islam's troubles, and in the latter's case have used Huntington's ideas to rant on about the West's superiority, how "we" have Mozart and Michelangelo and they don't. (Berlusconi has since made a halfhearted apology for his insult to "Islam.") From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Fri Oct 12 23:58:11 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 12 Oct 2001 18:28:11 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Edward Said "The Clash of Ignorance" Message-ID: <20011012182811.30396.qmail@mailweb18.rediffmail.com> The Clash of Ignorance by Edward W. Said Samuel Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?" appeared in theSummer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, where it immediately attracted a surprising amount of attention and reaction. Because the article was intended to supply Americans with an original thesis about "a new phase"in world politics after the end of the cold war, Huntington's terms ofargument seemed compellingly large, bold, even visionary. He very clearly had his eye on rivals in the policy-making ranks, theorists such as Francis Fukuyama and his "end of history" ideas, as well as the legions who had celebrated the onset of globalism, tribalism and the dissipation of the state. But they, he allowed, had understood only some aspects of this new period. He was about to announce the "crucial, indeed a central,aspect" of what "global politics is likely to be in the coming years."Unhesitatingly he pressed on: "It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this newworld will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." Most of the argument in the pages that followed relied on a vague notionof something Huntington called "civilization identity" and "the interactions among seven or eight [sic] major civilizations," of which the conflict between two of them, Islam and the West, gets the lion's share of his attention. In this belligerent kind of thought, he relies heavily on a 1990 article by the veteran Orientalist Bernard Lewis, whose ideologicalcolors are manifest in its title, "The Roots of Muslim Rage." In both articles, the personification of enormous entities ca icated matters like identity and culture existed in a cartoonlike world where Popeye and Bluto bash each other mercilessly, with one always more virtuous pugilist getting the upper hand over his adversary. Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture,or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization. No, the West is the West, and Islam Islam.The challenge for Western policy-makers, says Huntington, is to make sure that the West gets stronger and fends off all the others, Islam inparticular. More troubling is Huntington's assumption that hisperspective, which is to survey the entire world from a perch outside all ordinary attachments and hidden loyalties, is the correct one, as if everyone else were scurrying around looking for the answers that he has already found. In fact, Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make "civilizations" and "identities" into what they are not: shut-down,sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing. This far less visible history is ignored in the rush to highlight the ludicrously compressed and constricted warfare that "the clash of civilizations" argues is the reality. When he published his book by the same title in 1996, Huntington tried to give his argument a little more subtlety and many, many more footnotes; all he did, however, was confusehimself and demonstrate what a clumsy writer and inelegant thinker he was. The basic paradigm of West versus the rest (the cold war opposition reformulated) remaine and this is what has persisted, often insidiously and implicitly, in discussion since the terrible events of September 11. The carefully planned and horrendous, pathologically motivated suicide attack and mass slaughter by a small group of deranged militants has been turned into proof of Huntington's thesis. Instead of seeing it for what it is--the capture of big ideas (I use the word loosely) by a tiny band of crazed fanatics for criminal purposes--international luminaries from former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have pontificated about Islam's troubles, and in the latter's case have used Huntington's ideas to rant on about the West's superiority, how "we" have Mozart and Michelangelo and they don't. (Berlusconi has since made a halfhearted apology for his insult to "Islam.") But why not instead see parallels, admittedly less spectacular in their destructiveness, for Osama bin Laden and his followers in cults like the Branch Davidians or the disciples of the Rev. Jim Jones at Guyana or the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo? Even the normally sober British weekly The Economist, in its issue of September 22-28, can't resist reaching for the vast generalization, praising Huntington extravagantly for his "cruel and sweeping, but nonetheless acute" observations about Islam. "Today," the journal says with unseemly solemnity, Huntington writes that "the world's billion or so Muslims are 'convinced of the superiority of their culture,and obsessed with the inferiority of their power.'" Did he canvas 100 Indonesians, 200 Moroccans, 500 Egyptians and fifty Bosnians? Even if he did, what sort of sample is that? Uncountable are the editorials in every American and European newspaper and magazine of note adding to this vocabulary of gigantism and apocalypse, each use of which is plainly designed not to edify but to inflame the reader's indignant passion as a member of the "West," and what we need to do. Churchillian rhetoric is used inappropriately by self-appointed c n the West's, and especially America's, war against its haters, despoilers, destroyers, with scant attention to complex histories that defy such reductiveness and have seeped from one territory into another, in the process overriding the boundaries that are supposed to separate us all into divided armed camps. This is the problem with unedifying labels like Islam and the West: They mislead and confuse the mind, which is trying to make sense of a disorderly reality that won't be pigeonholed or strapped down as easily as all that. I remember interrupting a man who, after a lecture I had given at a West Bank university in 1994, rose from the audience and started to attack my ideas as "Western," as opposed to the strict Islamic ones he espoused. "Why are you wearing a suit and tie?" was the first retort that came to mind. "They're Western too." He sat down with an embarrassed smile on his face, but I recalled the incident when information on the September 11 terrorists started to come in: how they had mastered all the technical details required to inflict their homicidal evil on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the aircraft they had commandeered. Where does one draw the line between "Western" technology and, as Berlusconi declared, "Islam's" inability to be a part of "modernity"?One cannot easily do so, of course. How finally inadequate are the labels,generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level,for instance,primitive passions and sophisticated know-how converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between "West" and "Islam" but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate. A unilateral decision made to draw lines in the sand, to undertake crusades, to oppose their evil with our good, to extirpate terrorism and, in Paul Wolfowitz's nihilistic vocabulary, to end nations entirely, doesn't make the supposed entities any easier to see;rather, it speak h simpler it is to make bellicose statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions than to reflect,examine, sort out what it is we are dealing with in reality, the interconnectedness of innumerable lives, "ours" as well as "theirs." In a remarkable series of three articles published between January and March 1999 in Dawn, Pakistan's most respected weekly, the late Eqbal Ahmad, writing for a Muslim audience, analyzed what he called the roots of the religious right, coming down very harshly on the mutilations of Islam by absolutists and fanatical tyrants whose obsession with regulating personal behavior promotes "an Islamic order reduced to a penal code,stripped of its humanism, aesthetics, intellectual quests, and spiritual devotion." And this "entails an absolute assertion of one, generally de-contextualized, aspect of religion and a total disregard of another.The phenomenon distorts religion, debases tradition, and twists the political process wherever it unfolds." As a timely instance of this debasement, Ahmad proceeds first to present the rich, complex, pluralist meaning of the word jihad and then goes on to show that in the word'scurrent confinement to indiscriminate war against presumed enemies, it is impossible "to recognize the Islamic--religion, society, culture, history or politics--as lived and experienced by Muslims through the ages." The modern Islamists, Ahmad concludes,are "concerned with power,not with the soul; with the mobilization of people for political purposes rather than with sharing and alleviating theirsufferings and aspirations.Theirs is a very limited and time-bound political agenda." What has made matters worse is that similar distortions and zealotry occur in the "Jewish" and "Christian" universes of discourse. It was Conrad, more powerfully than any of his readers at the end of the nineteenth century could have imagined, who understood that the distinctions between civilized London and "the heart of darkness" quickly collapsed in extreme situations, and th most barbarous practices without preparation or transition. And it was Conrad also, in The Secret Agent (1907), who described terrorism's affinity for abstractions like "pure science" (and by extension for "Islam" or "the West"), as well as the terrorist's ultimate moral degradation. For there are closer ties between apparently warring civilizations thanmost of us would like to believe; both Freud and Nietzsche showed how thetraffic across carefully maintained, even policed boundaries moves withoften terrifying ease. But then such fluid ideas, full of ambiguity andskepticism about notions that we hold on to, scarcely furnish us withsuitable, practical guidelines for situations such as the one we face now.Hence the altogether more reassuring battle orders (a crusade, good versus evil, freedom against fear, etc.) drawn out of Huntington's alleged opposition between Islam and the West, from which official discourse drew its vocabulary in the first days after the September 11 attacks. There's since been a noticeable de-escalation in that discourse, but to judge from the steady amount of hate speech and actions, plus reports of law enforcement efforts directed against Arabs, Muslims and Indians all over the country, the paradigm stays on. One further reason for its persistence is the increased presence of Muslims all over Europe and the United States. Think of the populations today of France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Britain, America, even Sweden, andyou must concede that Islam is no longer on the fringes of the West but at its center. But what is so threatening about that presence? Buried in the collective culture are memories of the first great Arab-Islamic conquests,which began in the seventh century and which, as the celebrated Belgian historian Henri Pirenne wrote in his landmark book Mohammed and Charlemagne (1939), shattered once and for all the ancient unity of the Mediterranean, destroyed the Christian-Roman synthesis and gave rise to a new civilization dominated by northern powers (Germany d Carolingian France) whose mission, he seemed to be saying, is to resume defense of the "West" against its historical-cultural enemies. What Pirenne left out,alas, is that in the creation of this new line of defense the West drewon the humanism, science, philosophy, sociology and historiography ofIslam, which had already interposed itself between Charlemagne's world and classical antiquity. Islam is inside from the start, as even Dante, greatenemy of Mohammed, had to concede when he placed the Prophet at the very heart of his Inferno. Then there is the persisting legacy of monotheism itself, the Abrahamicreligions, as Louis Massignon aptly called them. Beginning with Judaism and Christianity, each is a successor haunted by what came before; for Muslims, Islam fulfills and ends the line of prophecy. There is still no decent history or demystification of the many-sided contest among these three followers--not one of them by any means a monolithic, unified camp--of the most jealous of all gods, even though the bloody modern convergence on Palestine furnishes a rich secular instance of what has been so tragically irreconcilable about them. Not surprisingly, then,Muslims and Christians speak readily of crusades and jihads, both of them eliding the Judaic presence with often sublime insouciance. Such an agenda, says Eqbal Ahmad, is "very reassuring to the men and women who arestranded in the middle of the ford, between the deep waters of tradition and modernity." But we are all swimming in those waters, Westerners and Muslims and othersalike. And since the waters are part of the ocean of history, trying to plow or divide them with barriers is futile. These are tense times, but it is better to think in terms of powerful and powerless communities, the secular politics of reason and ignorance, and universal principles of justice and injustice, than to wander off in search of vast abstractions that may give momentary satisfaction but little self-knowledge or informed analysis. "The Clash of Civilizations is a gimmick like "The War of the Worlds," better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time. From aiindex at mnet.fr Sat Oct 13 01:54:14 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:24:14 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Full text of the USA Act 2001 Message-ID: You can find the full text of the USA Act v2.0 (Uniting and Strengthening America Act or USA Act2001) here: http://www.house.gov/rules/sensen_028.pdf (525 KB) From geeta.patel at verizon.net Sat Oct 13 09:12:33 2001 From: geeta.patel at verizon.net (Geeta Patel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:42:33 -0400 Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: McCarthyism Again? : FBI after Women in Black Message-ID: <006101c15399$1d614460$6401a8c0@inteva> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 6:49 PM Subject: Fw: McCarthyism Again? : FBI after Women in Black > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > [ Original Source for this report missing] > > > the below URL is an audio segment of Ronnie Gilbert speaking about > > > WIB under investigation by WIB > > > http://www.flashpoints.net/cgi-bin/ra.pl?date=20011005&start=10:50 > > > > > > ======================== > > > > > > FBI Investigates Peace Group > > > > > > > > > McCarthyism Again? > > > > > > This is a letter to the editor by Ronnie Gilbert, famous > > > as a member of the folk group "The Weavers" who brought > > > all kinds of songs into popularity. One of the original > > > members, Pete Seeger is still on the road. > > > > > > The group "Women in Black" that she refers to is a group > > > of women from Isreal and Palestine that hold peace vigils > > > dressed stylishly in black and who work to end the > > > occupation of Palestinian territory, through cooperation > > > between the two peoples. There are women throughout > > > the world who have decided to start "Women in Black" > > > vigils, including the one in San Francisco that Ronnie > > > Gilbert is a member of. > > > > > > The letter is about the FBI's scrutiny, apparently of > > > peace groups. > > > > > > Please relay it on. This could be important. > > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > Dear Editor: > > > > > > For the second time in my life - at least - a group > > > that I belong to is being investigated by the FBI. > > > > > > The first was the Weavers. The Weavers were a recording > > > industry phenomenon. In 1950 we recorded a couple of songs > > > from our American/World folk music repertoire, Leadbelly's > > > "Goodnight Irene" and (ironically) the Israeli > > > "Tzena, Tzena, Tzena" and sold millions of records for the > > > almost-defunct record label. Folk music entered the mainstream, > > > and the Weavers were stars. By 1952 it was over. The record > > > company dropped us, eager television producers stopped knocking > > > on our door. The Weavers were on a private yet well-publicized > > > roster of suspected entertainment industry reds. The FBI came > > > a-calling. This week, I just found out that Women in Black, > > > another group of peace activists I belong to, is the subject of > > > an FBI investigation. > > > > > > Women in Black is a loosely knit international network of women > > > who vigil against violence, often silently, each group > > > autonomous, each group focused on the particular problems of > > > personal and state violence in its part of the world. Because > > > my group is composed mostly of Jewish women, we focus on the > > > Middle East, protesting the cycle of violence and revenge in > > > Israel and the Palestinian Territories. > > > > > > The FBI is threatening my group with a Grand Jury investigation. > > > Of what? That we publicly call the Israeli military's occupation > > > of the mandated Palestine lands illegal? So does the World Court > > > and the United Nations. That destroying hundreds of thousands of > > > the Palestinians' olive and fruit trees, blocking roads and > > > demolishing homes promotes hatred and terrorism in the Middle > > > East? Even President Bush and Colin Powell have gotten around > > > to saying so. So what is to investigate? That some of us are > > > in contact with activist Palestinian peace groups? This is bad? > > > > > > The Jewish Women in Black of Jerusalem have stood vigil every > > > Friday for 13 years in protest against the Occupation; Muslim > > > women from Palestinian peace groups stand with them at every > > > opportunity. We praise and honor them, these Jewish and Arab > > > women who endure hatred and frequent abuse from extremists on > > > both sides for what they do. We are not alone in our admiration. > > > > > > Jerusalem Women in Black is a nominee for the 2001 Nobel Peace > > > Prize, along with the Bosnia Women in Black, now ten years old. > > > > > > If the FBI cannot or will not distinguish between groups who > > > collude in hatred and terrorism, and peace activists who > > > struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism, > > > we are in serious trouble. > > > > > > I have seen such trouble before in my lifetime. It was called > > > McCarthyism. In the hysterical atmosphere of the early Cold War, > > > anyone who had signed a peace petition, who had joined an > > > organization opposing violence or racism or had tried to raise > > > money for the refugee children of the Spanish Civil War, in other > > > words who had openly advocated what was not popular at the time, > > > was fair game. > > > > > > In my case, the FBI visited The Weavers' booking agent, the > > > recording company, my neighbors, my dentist husband's patients, > > > my friends. In the waning of our career, the Weavers were > > > followed down the street, accosted onstage by drunken "patriots," > > > warned by friendly hotel employees to keep the door open if we > > > rehearsed in anyone's room so as not to become targets for the > > > vice squad. It was nasty. Every two-bit local wannabe G-man > > > joined the dragnet searching out and identifying "communist spies." > > > > > > In all those self-debasing years how many spies were pulled in by > > > that dragnet? Nary a one. Instead it pulled down thousands of > > > teachers, union members, scientists, journalists, actors, entertainers > > > like us, who saw our lives disrupted, our jobs, careers go down the > > > drain, our standing in the community lost, even our children > > > harrassed. A scared population soon shut their mouths up tight. > > > > > > Thus came the silence of the 1950s and early 60s, when no notable > > > voice of reason was heard to say,"Hey, wait a minute. Look what > > > we're doing to ourselves, to the land of the free and the home of the > > > brave," when not one dissenting intelligence was allowed a public > > > voice to warn against zealous foreign policies we1d later come to > > > regret, would be regretting now, if our leaders were honest. > > > > > > Today, in the wake of the worst hate crime of the millennium, a > > > dragnet is out for "terrorists" and we are told that certain civil > > > liberties may have to be curtailed for our own security. Which ones? > > > I'm curious to know. > > > > > > The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech or of the press? > > > The right of people peaceably to assemble? Suddenly, deja vu - > > > haven't I been here before? > > > > > > Hysterical neo-McCarthyism does not equal security, never will. The > > > bitter lesson September 11's horrific tragedy should have taught us > > > and our government is that only an honest re-evaluation of our > > > foreign policies and careful, focused and intelligent intelligence > > > work can hope to combat operations like the one that robbed all of > > > us and their families of 6,000 decent working people. We owe the dead > > > that, at least. > > > > > > As for Women in Black, we intend to keep on keeping on. > > > > > > Ronnie Gilbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Oct 13 21:50:07 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 13 Oct 2001 16:20:07 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Tariq Ali on Kashmir Message-ID: <20011013162007.24371.qmail@mailFA11.rediffmail.com> Bitter Chill of Winter Tariq Ali One evening a few months ago when Clinton was still President, I found myself in a dive on Eighth Avenue between 41st and 42nd Street. A Democratic Congressman, 'a friend of the people of Kashmir', was addressing a meeting of Kashmiri Muslims. Recently returned from a visit to the country, he had been 'deeply moved' by the suffering he had witnessed and was now convinced that 'the moral leadership of the world must take up this issue.' The beards nodded vigorously. They recalled no doubt the help the 'moral leadership' had given in Kabul and Kosovo. The Congressman paused; he didn't want to mislead these people: what was on offer was not a 'humanitarian war' but an informal Camp David. 'It needn't even be the United States,' he continued. 'It could be a great man. It could be Nelson Mandela . . . or Bill Clinton.' The beards were unimpressed. One of the few beardless men in the audience rose to his feet and addressed the Congressman: 'Please answer honestly to our worries,' he said. 'In Afghanistan we helped you defeat the Red Army. You needed us then and we were very much loyal to you. Now you have abandoned us for India. Mr Clinton supports India, not human rights in Kashmir. Is this a good way to treat very old friends?' The Congressman made sympathetic noises, even promising to tick Clinton off for not being 'more vigorous on human rights in Kashmir'. He needn't have bothered. A beard rose to ask why the US Government had betrayed them. The repetition irritated the Congressman. He took the offensive, complaining about this being an all-male meeting. Why were these men's wives and daughters not present? The bearded faces remained impassive. As I went up the stairs the Congressman had changed tack again, and was speaking about the wondrous beauty of the valley of Kashmir. 'The buildings of Kashmir are all of wood,' the Mughal Emperor Jehangir wrote in his memoirs in March 1622. 'They make them two, three and four-storeyed, and covering the roofs with earth, they p f the black tulip, which blooms year after year with the arrival of spring and is exceedingly beautiful. This custom is peculiar to the people of Kashmir. This year, in the little garden of the palace and on the roof of the largest mosque, the tulips blossomed luxuriantly . . . The flowers that are seen in the territories of Kashmir are beyond all calculation.' Surveying the lakes and waterfalls, roses, irises and jasmine, he described the valley as 'a page that the painter of destiny had drawn with the pencil of creation'. The first Muslim invasion of Kashmir took place in the eighth century and was defeated by the Himalayas. The soldiers of the Prophet found it impossible to move beyond the mountains' southern slopes. Victory came unexpectedly five centuries later, as a result of a palace coup. Rinchana, the Buddhist chief from neighbouring Ladakh who carried out the coup, had sought refuge in Kashmir and embraced Islam under the guidance of a sufi with the pleasing name of Bulbul ('nightingale') Shah. Rinchana's conversion would have been neither here nor there had it not been for the Turkish mercenaries who made up the ruler's elite guard and were only too pleased to switch their allegiance to a co-religionist. But they swore to obey only the new ruler, not his descendants, so when Rinchana died, the leader of the mercenaries, Shah Mir, took control and founded the first Muslim dynasty to rule Kashmir. It lasted for seven hundred years. The population, however, was not easily swayed and despite a policy of forced conversions it wasn't until the end of the reign of Zain-al-Abidin in the late 15th century that a majority of Kashmiris embraced Islam. In fact, Zain-al-Abidin, an inspired ruler, ended the forced conversion of Hindus and decreed that those who had been converted in this fashion be allowed to return to their own faith. He even provided Hindus with subsidies enabling them to rebuild the temples his father had destroyed. The different ethnic and religious groups still weren't allowed to intermar side amicably enough. Zain-al-Abidin organised visits to Iran and Central Asia so that his subjects could learn bookbinding and woodcarving and how to make carpets and shawls, thereby laying the foundations for the shawl-making for which Kashmir is famous. By the end of his reign a large majority of the population had converted voluntarily to Islam and the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims - 85 to 15 - has remained fairly constant ever since. The dynasty went into a decline after Zain-al-Abidin's death. Disputes over the succession, unfit rulers and endless intrigues among the nobility paved the way for new invasions. In the end the Mughal conquest in the late 16th century probably came as a relief to most people. The landlords were replaced by Mughal civil servants who administered the country rather more efficiently, reorganising its trade, its shawl-making and its agriculture. On the other hand, deprived of local patronage, Kashmir's poets, painters and scribes left the valley in search of employment at the Mughal Courts in Delhi and Lahore, taking the country's cultural life with them. What made the disappearance of Kashmiri culture particularly harsh was the fact that the conquest itself coincided with a sudden flowering of the Kashmiri Court. Zoonie, the wife of Sultan Yusuf Shah, was a peasant from the village of Tsandahar who had been taken up by a Sufi mystic enchanted with her voice. Under his guidance, she learned Persian and began to write her own songs. One day, passing with his entourage and hearing her voice in the fields, Yusuf Shah, too, was captivated. He took her to Court and prevailed on her to marry him. And that is how Zoonie entered the palace as Queen and took the name of Habba Khatun ('loved woman'). She wrote: I thought I was indulging in play, and lost myself. O for the day that is dying! At home I was secluded, unknown, When I left home, my fame spread far and wide, The pious laid all their merit at my feet. O for the day that is dying! My beauty was like a warehouse fille with rare merchandise, Which drew men from all the four quarters; Now my richness is gone, I have no worth: O for the day that is dying! My father's people were of high standing, I became known as Habba Khatun: O for the day that is dying. Habba Khatun gave the Kashmiri language a literary form and encouraged a synthesis of Persian and Indian musical styles. She gave women the freedom to decorate themselves as they wished and revived the old Circassian tradition of tattooing the face and hands with special dyes and powders. The clerics were furious. They saw in her the work of Iblis, or Satan, in league with the blaspheming, licentious Sufis. While Yusuf Shah remained on the throne, however, Habba Khatun was untouchable. She mocked the pretensions of the clergy, defended the mystic strain within Islam and compared herself to a flower that flourishes in fertile soil and cannot be uprooted. Habba Khatun was Queen when, in 1583, the Mughal Emperor, Akbar, despatched his favourite general to annex the Kingdom of Kashmir. There was no fighting: Yusuf Shah rode out to the Mughal camp and capitulated without a struggle, demanding only the right to retain the throne and strike coins in his image. Instead, he was arrested and sent into exile. The Kashmiri nobles, angered by Yusuf Shah's betrayal, placed his son, Yakub Shah, on the throne, but he was a weak and intemperate young man who set the Sunni and the Shia clerics at one another's throats and before long Akbar sent a large expeditionary force, which took Kashmir in the summer of 1588. In the autumn the Emperor came to see the valley's famous colours for himself. Habba Khatun's situation changed dramatically after Akbar had her husband exiled. Unlike Sughanda and Dida, two powerful tenth-century queens who had ascended the throne as regents, Habba Khatun was driven out of the palace. At first she found refuge with the Sufis but after a time she began to move from village to village, giving voice in her songs to the melancholy of a suppressed people. Th e is no record of when or where she died - a grave, thought to be hers, was discovered in the middle of the last century - but women mourning the disappearance of young men killed by the Indian Army or 'volunteered' to fight in the jihad still sing her verses: Who told him where I lived? Why has he left me in such anguish? I, hapless one, am filled with longing for him. He glanced at me through my window, He who is as lovely as my ear-rings; He has made my heart restless: I, hapless one, am filled with longing for him. He glanced at me through the crevice in my roof, Sang like a bird that I might look at him, Then, soft-footed, vanished from my sight: I, hapless one, am filled with longing for him. He glanced at me while I was drawing water, I withered like a red rose, My soul and body were ablaze with love: I, hapless one, am filled with longing for him. He glanced at me in the waning moonlight of early dawn, Stalked me like one obsessed. Why did he stoop so low? I, hapless one, am filled with longing for him! Habba Khatun exemplified a gentle version of Islam, diluted with pre-Islamic practices and heavily influenced by Sufi mysticism. This tradition is still strong in the countryside and helps to explain Kashmiri indifference to the more militant forms of religion. The Mughal Emperors were drawn to their new domain. Akbar's son, Jehangir, who had described Kashmir as 'a page that the painter of destiny had drawn with the pencil of creation', lost his fear of death there, since paradise could only transcend the beauties of Kashmir. While his wife and brother-in-law kept their eye on the administration of the Empire, he reflected on his luck at having escaped the plains of the Punjab and spent his time planning gardens around natural springs so that the reflection of the rising and setting sun could be seen in the water as it cascaded down specially constructed channels. 'If on earth there be a paradise of bliss, it is this, it is this, it is this,' he wrote, citing a well-known Persia 18th century, the Mughal Empire had begun its own slow decline and the Kashmiri nobles invited Ahmed Shah Durrani, the brutal ruler of Afghanistan, to liberate their country. Durrani obliged in 1752, doubling taxes and persecuting the embattled Shia minority with a fanatical vigour that shocked the nobles. Fifty years of Afghan rule were punctuated by regular clashes between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Worse lay ahead, however. In 1819 the soldiers of Ranjit Singh, the charismatic leader of the Sikhs, already triumphant in northern India, took Srinagar. There was no resistance worth the name. Kashmiri historians regard the 27 years of Sikh rule that followed as the worst calamity ever to befall their country. The principal mosque in Srinagar was closed, others were made the property of the state, cow-slaughter was prohibited and, once again, the tax burden became insufferable - unlike the Mughals, Ranjit Singh taxed the poor. Mass impoverishment led to mass emigration. Kashmiris fled to the cities of the Punjab: Amritsar, Lahore and Rawalpindi became the new centres of Kashmiri life and culture. (One of the many positive effects of this influx was that Kashmiri cooks much improved the local food.) Sikh rule didn't last long: new conquerors were on the way. Possibly the most remarkable enterprise in the history of mercantile capitalism had launched itself on the Indian subcontinent. Granted semi-sovereign powers - i.e. the right to maintain armies - by the British and Dutch states, the East India Company expanded rapidly from its Calcutta base and, after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, took the whole of Bengal. Within a few years the Mughal Emperor at the Fort in Delhi had become a pensioner of the Company, whose forces continued to move west, determined now to take the Punjab from the Sikhs. The first Anglo-Sikh war in 1846 resulted in a victory for the Company, which acquired Kashmir as part of the Treaty of Amritsar, but, aware of the chaos there, hurriedly sold it for 75 lakh rupees (10 lakhs = 1 million) to ammu, who pushed through yet more taxes. When, after the 1857 uprising, the East India Company was replaced by direct rule from London, real power in Kashmir, and other princely states, devolved to a British Resident, usually a fresh face from Haileybury College, serving an apprenticeship in the backwaters of the Empire. Kashmir suffered badly under its Dogra rulers. The corvée was reintroduced after the collapse of the Mughal state and the peasants were reduced to the condition of serfs. A story told by Kashmiri intellectuals in the 1920s to highlight the plight of the peasants revolved round the Maharaja's purchase of a Cadillac. When His Highness drove the car to Pehalgam, admiring peasants surrounded it and strewed fresh grass in front of it. The Maharaja acknowledged their presence by letting them touch the car. A few peasants began to cry. 'Why are you crying?' asked their ruler. 'We are upset,' one of them replied, 'because your new animal refuses to eat grass.' When it finally reached the valley, the 20th century brought new values: freedom from foreign rule, passive resistance, the right to form trade unions, even socialism. Young Kashmiris educated in Lahore and Delhi were returning home determined to wrench their country from the stranglehold of the Dogra Maharaja and his colonial patrons. When the Muslim poet and philosopher Iqbal, himself of Kashmiri origin, visited Srinagar in 1921, he left behind a subversive couplet which spread around the country: In the bitter chill of winter shivers his naked body Whose skill wraps the rich in royal shawls. Kashmiri workers went on strike for the first time in the spring of 1924. Five thousand workers in the state-owned silk factory demanded a pay rise and the dismissal of a clerk who'd been running a protection racket. The management agreed to a small increase, but arrested the leaders of the protest. The workers then came out on strike. With the backing of the British Resident, the opium-sodden Maharaja Pratap Singh sent in troops. Workers on the ere badly beaten, suspected ringleaders were sacked on the spot and the principal organiser of the action was imprisoned, then tortured to death. Some months later, a group of ultra-conservative Muslim notables in Srinagar sent a memorandum to the British Viceroy, Lord Reading, protesting the brutality and repression: Military was sent for and most inhuman treatment was meted out to the poor, helpless, unarmed, peace-loving labourers who were assaulted with spears, lances and other implements of warfare . . . The Mussulmans of Kashmir are in a miserable plight today. Their education is woefully neglected. Though forming 96 per cent of the population, the percentage of literacy amongst them is only 0.8 per cent . . . So far we have patiently borne the state's indifference towards our grievances and our claims and its high-handedness towards our rights, but patience has its limit and resignation its end. The Viceroy forwarded the petition to the Maharaja, who was enraged. He wanted the 'sedition-mongers' shot, but the Resident wouldn't have it. As a sop he ordered the immediate deportation of the organiser of the petition, Saaduddin Shawl. Nothing changed even when, a few years later, the Maharaja died and was replaced by his nephew, Hari Singh. Albion Bannerji, the new British-approved Chief Minister of Kashmir, found the situation intolerable. Frustrated by his inability to achieve even trivial reforms, he resigned. 'The large Muslim population,' he said, 'is absolutely illiterate, labouring under poverty and very low economic conditions of living in the villages and practically governed like dumb driven cattle.' In April 1931, the police entered the mosque in Jammu and stopped the Friday khutba which follows the prayers. The police chief claimed that references in the Koran to Moses and Pharaoh quoted by the preacher were tantamount to sedition. It was an exceptionally stupid thing to do and, inevitably, it triggered a new wave of protests. In June the largest political rally ever seen in Srinigar el atives by popular acclamation to lead the struggle against native and colonial repression. Among them was Sheikh Abdullah, the son of a shawl-trader, who would dominate the life of Kashmir for the next half-century. One of the less well-known speakers at the rally, Abdul Qadir, a butler who worked for a European household, was arrested for having described the Dogra rulers as 'a dynasty of blood-suckers' who had 'drained the energies and resources of all our people'. On the first day of Qadir's trial, thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the prison and demanded the right to attend the proceedings. The police opened fire, killing 21 of them. Sheikh Abdullah and other political leaders were arrested the following day. This was the founding moment of Kashmiri nationalism. At the same time, on the French Riviera, Tara Devi, the fourth wife of the dissolute and infertile Maharaja Hari Singh - he had shunted aside the first three for failing to produce any children - gave birth to a boy, Karan Singh. In the Srinagar bazaar every second person claimed to be the father of the heir-apparent. Five days of lavish entertainment and feasting marked the infant heir's arrival in Srinagar. A few weeks later, public agitation broke out, punctuated by lampoons concerning the Maharaja's lack of sexual prowess, among other things. The authorities sanctioned the use of public flogging, but it was too late. Kashmir could no longer be quarantined from a subcontinent eager for independence. The Viceroy instructed the Maharaja to release the imprisoned nationalist leaders, who were carried through the streets of Srinagar on the shoulders of triumphant crowds. The infant Karan Singh had been produced in vain; he would never inherit his father's dominion. Many years later he wrote of his father: He was a bad loser. Any small setback in shooting or fishing, polo or racing, would throw him in a dark mood which lasted for days. And this would inevitably lead to what became known as a muqaddama, a long inquiry into the alleg misbehaviour of some hapless young member of staff or a servant . . . Here was authority without generosity; power without compassion. On their release from jail, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues set about establishing a political organisation capable of uniting Muslims and non-Muslims. The All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference was founded in Srinagar in October 1932 and Abdullah was elected its President. Non-Muslims in Kashmir were mainly Hindus, dominated by the Pandits, upper-caste Brahmins who looked down on Muslims, Sikhs and low-caste Hindus alike, but looked up to their colonial masters, as they had to the Mughals. The British, characteristically, used the Pandits to run the administration, making it easy for Muslims to see the two enemies as one. Abdullah, though a Koranic scholar, was resolutely secular in his politics. The Hindus may have been a tiny minority of the population, but he knew it would be fatal for Kashmiri interests if the Brahmins were ignored or persecuted. The confessional Muslims led by Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah broke away - the split was inevitable - accusing Abdullah of being soft on Hindus as well as those Muslims regarded by the orthodox as heretics. From the All India Kashmir Committee in Lahore came an angry poster addressed by the poet Iqbal to the 'dumb Muslims of Kashmir'. No longer constrained by the orthodox faction in his own ranks, Sheikh Abdullah drew closer to the social-revolutionary nationalism advocated by Nehru. He wasn't the only Muslim leader to do so: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in the North-West Frontier Province, Mian Iftikharuddin in the Punjab and Maulana Azad in the United Provinces all decided to work with the Indian National Congress rather than the Muslim League, but it was not enough to tempt the majority of educated urban Muslims away from the Muslim League. The Muslims had arrived in India as conquerors. They saw their religion as infinitely superior to that of the idol-worshipping Hindus and Buddhists. The bulk of Indian Muslims were nonetheless con ers voluntary, seeking escape, in Kashmir and Bengal especially, from the rigours of the caste system. Thus, despite itself, Islam in India, as in coastal Africa, China and the Indonesian archipelago, was affected by local religious practices. Muslim saints were worshipped like Hindu gods. Holy men and ascetics were incorporated into Indian Islam. The Prophet Mohammed came to be regarded as a divinity. Buddhism had been especially strong in Kashmir, and the Buddhist worship of relics, too, was transferred to Islam, so that Kashmir is the home today for one of the holiest Muslim relics: a strand of hair supposedly belonging to Mohammed. The Koran expressly disavows necromancy, magic and omens and yet these superstitions remain a strong part of subcontinental Islam. Many Muslim political leaders still have favourite astrologers and soothsayers. Muslim nationalism in India was the product of defeat. Until the collapse of the Mughal Empire at the hands of the British, Muslims had dominated the ruling class for over five hundred years. With the disappearance of the Mughal Court in Delhi and the culture it supported, they were now merely a large religious minority considered by Hindus as lower than the lowest caste. There was an abrupt retreat from the Persian-Hindu cultural synthesis they had created, orphaning the scribes, poets, traders and artisans who had flourished around the old Muslim courts. The poet Akbar Allahabadi (1846-1921) became the voice of India's dispossessed Muslims, speaking for a community in decline: The Englishman is happy, he owns the aeroplane, The Hindu's gratified, he controls all the trade, 'Tis we who are empty drums, subsisting on God's grace, A pile of biscuit crumbs and frothy lemonade. The angry and embittered leaders of the Muslim community asked believers to wage a jihad against the infidel and to boycott everything he represented. The chief result was a near-terminal decline in Muslim education and intellectual life. In the 1870s, Syed Ahmed Khan, pleading for compromise that their self-imposed isolation would have terrible economic consequences. In the hope of encouraging them to abandon the religious schools where they were taught to learn the Koran by rote in a language they couldn't understand, he established the Muslim Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh in 1875, which became the pre-eminent Muslim university in the country. Men and women from all over northern India were sent to be educated in English as well as Urdu. It was here, at the end of the 1920s, that Sheikh Abdullah had enrolled as a student. The college authorities encouraged Muslims to stay away from politics, but by the time Sheikh Abdullah arrived in Aligarh, students were divided into liberal and conservative camps and it was difficult to avoid debates on religion, nationalism and Communism. Even the most dull-witted among them - usually those from feudal families - got involved. Most of the nationalist Muslims at Aligarh University aligned themselves with the Indian National Congress rather than the Muslim League, set up by the Aga Khan on behalf of the Viceroy. To demonstrate his commitment to secular politics, Sheikh Abdullah invited Nehru to Kashmir. Nehru, whose forebears were Kashmiri Pandits, brought Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the 'Frontier Gandhi', with him. The three leaders spoke at consciousness-raising meetings and addressed groups of workers, intellectuals, peasants and women. What the visitors enjoyed most, however, was loitering in the old Mughal gardens. Like everyone else, Nehru had a go at describing the valley: Like some supremely beautiful woman, whose beauty is almost impersonal and above human desire, such was Kashmir in all its feminine beauty of river and valley and lake and graceful trees. And then another aspect of this magic beauty would come into view, a masculine one, of hard mountains and precipices, and snow-capped peaks and glaciers, and cruel and fierce torrents rushing to the valleys below. It had a hundred faces and innumerable aspects, ever-changing, sometimes smiling, som row . . . I watched this spectacle and sometimes the sheer loveliness of it was overpowering and I felt faint . . . It seemed to me dreamlike and unreal, like the hopes and desires that fill us and so seldom find fulfilment. It was like the face of the beloved that one sees in a dream and that fades away on wakening. Sheikh Abdullah promised liberation from Dogra rule and pledged land reform; Nehru preached the virtues of unremitting struggle against the Empire and insisted that social reform could come only after the departure of the British; Ghaffar Khan spoke of the need for mass struggle and urged Kashmiris to throw fear to the wind: 'You who live in the valleys must learn to scale the highest peaks.' Nehru knew that the main reason they had been showered with affection was that Abdullah had been with them. There was now a strong political bond between the two men, though they weren't at all similar. Abdullah was a Muslim from a humble background whose outlook remained provincial and whose political views arose from a hatred of suffering and of the social injustice he perceived to be its cause. Nehru, a product of Harrow and Cambridge, was a lofty figure, conscious of his own intellectual superiority, rarely afflicted by fear or envy, and always intolerant of fools. He was a left-wing internationalist and a staunch anti-Fascist. Yet, the ties established between the pair proved vital for Kashmir when separatism took over the subcontinent in 1947. In a hangover from Mughal days and to make up for their lack of real power, the Muslims of India had developed an irritating habit of elevating their leaders with fancy titles. In this scheme Sheikh Abdullah became Sher-i-Kashmir, the Lion of Kashmir, and his wife Akbar Jehan Madri-i-Meharban, the Kind Mother. The Lion depended on the Kind Mother to impress famous visitors, to receive them during his frequent absences in prison, and to give him sound political advice. Akbar Jehan was the daughter of Harry Nedous, an Austro-Swiss hotelier, and Mir Jan, a Kash amily had arrived in India at the turn of the last century and invested their savings in the majestic Nedous Hotel in Lahore - later there were hotels in Srinagar and Poona. Harry Nedous was the businessman; his brothers, Willy and Wally, willied and wallied around; his sister, Enid, took charge of the catering and her pâtisserie at their Lahore hotel was considered 'as good as anything in Europe'. Harry Nedous first caught sight of Mir Jan when she came to deliver the milk at his holiday lodge in Gulmarg. He was immediately smitten, but she was suspicious. 'I might be poor,' she told him later that week, 'but I am not for sale.' Harry pleaded that he was serious, that he loved her, that he wanted to marry her. 'In that case,' she retorted wrathfully, 'you must convert to Islam. I cannot marry an unbeliever.' To her amazement, he did so, and in time they had 12 children (only five of whom survived). Brought up as a devout Muslim, their daughter Akbar Jehan was a boarder at the Convent of Jesus and Mary in the hill resort of Murree. Non-Christian parents often packed their daughters off to these convents because the education was quite good and the regime strict, though there is evidence to suggest they spent much of their time fantasising about Rudolph Valentino. In 1928, when a 17-year-old Akbar Jehan had left school and was back in Lahore, a senior figure in British Military Intelligence checked in to the Nedous Hotel on the Upper Mall. Colonel T.E. Lawrence, complete with Valentino-style headgear, had just spent a gruelling few weeks in Afghanistan destabilising the radical, modernising and anti-British regime of King Amanullah. Disguised as 'Karam Shah', a visiting Arab cleric, he had organised a black propaganda campaign designed to stoke the religious fervour of the more reactionary tribes and thus provoke a civil war. His mission accomplished, he left for Lahore. Akbar Jehan must have met him at her father's hotel. A flirtation began and got out of control. Her father insisted that they get married i months later, in January 1929, Amanullah was toppled and replaced by a pro-British ruler. On 12 January, Kipling's old newspaper in Lahore, the imperialist Civil and Military Gazette, published comparative profiles of Lawrence and 'Karam Shah' to reinforce the impression that they were two different people. Several weeks later, the Calcutta newspaper Liberty reported that 'Karam Shah' was indeed the 'British spy Lawrence' and gave a detailed account of his activities in Waziristan on the Afghan frontier. Lawrence was becoming a liability and the authorities told him to return to Britain. 'Karam Shah' was never seen again. Nedous insisted on a divorce for his daughter and again Lawrence obliged. Four years later, Sheikh Abdullah and Akbar Jehan were married in Srinagar. The fact of her previous marriage and divorce was never a secret: only the real name of her first husband was hidden. She now threw herself into the struggle for a new Kashmir. She raised money to build schools for poor children and encouraged adult education in a state where the bulk of the population was illiterate. She also, crucially, gave support and advice to her husband, alerting him, for example, to the dangers of succumbing to Nehru's charm and thus compromising his own standing in Kashmir. Few politicians in the 1930s believed that the subcontinent would ever be divided along religious lines. Even the most ardent Muslim separatists were prepared to accept a federation based on the principle of regional autonomy. In the 1937 elections the Congress Party swept most of the country, including the Muslim-majority North-West Frontier Province, where Ghaffar Khan's popularity was at its peak. The Muslim-majority provinces of the Punjab and Bengal remained loyal to the Raj and voted for secular parties controlled by the landed gentry. Contrary to Pakistani mythology, separatism wasn't at this stage an aim so much as a bargaining tool to ensure that Muslims received a fair share of the post-colonial spoils. The Second World War changed every n's declaration of war against Germany and the Congress Party was livid at His Majesty's Government's failure to consult them. Nehru would probably have argued in favour of participating in the anti-Fascist struggle provided the British agreed to leave India once it was all over, and London would probably have regarded such a request as impertinent. As it was, the Congress Governments of each province resigned. Gandhi, who, despite his pacifism, had acted as an efficient recruiting-sergeant for the British during the First World War, was less sure what to do this time. A hardline ultra-nationalist current within the Congress led by the charismatic Bengali Subhas Chandra Bose argued for an alliance with Britain's enemies, particularly Japan. This was unacceptable to Nehru and Gandhi. But when Singapore fell in 1942, Gandhi, like most observers, was sure that the Japanese were about to take India by way of Bengal and argued that the Congress had to oppose the British Empire, whatever the cost, in order to be in a position to strike a deal with the Japanese. The wartime coalition in London sent Stafford Cripps to woo the Congress back into line. He offered its leaders a 'blank cheque' after the war. 'What is the point of a blank cheque from a bank that is already failing?' Gandhi replied. In August 1942 the Congress leaders authorised the launch of the Quit India movement. A tidal wave of civil disobedience swept the country. The entire Congress leadership, including Gandhi and Nehru, was arrested, as were thousands of organisers and workers. The Muslim League backed the war effort and prospered. Partition was the ultimate prize. When Nehru and Ghaffar Khan revisited Srinigar as Abdullah's guests in the summer of 1945 it was evident that divisions between the different nationalists were acute. The Lion of Kashmir had laid on a Mughal-style welcome. The guests were taken downriver on lavishly decorated shikaras (gondolas). Barred from gathering on the four bridges along the route, Abdullah's local Muslim opponents , long tunics which almost touched the ground. In the summer months it was customary not to wear underclothes. As the boats approached, the male protesters, who had not been allowed to carry banners, faced the guests and lifted their phirens; the women turned their backs and bared their buttocks. Muslims had never protested in this way before, and have not done so since. Ghaffar Khan roared with laughter, but Nehru was not amused. Later that day Ghaffar Khan referred to the episode at a rally and told the audience how impressed he had been by the wares on display. Nehru, asked at a dinner the next day how he compared the regions he had visited most recently, replied: 'Punjabis are crude, Bengalis are hysterical and the Kashmiris are simply vulgar.' The confessional movement was gaining strength, however. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, had left the Congress in the 1930s partly because he was uneasy about Gandhi's use of Hindu religious imagery. He had then joined the Muslim League in a partially successful attempt to wrest it from the collaborationist landlords of the United Provinces. Jinnah had half-hoped, half-believed that Pakistan would be a smaller version of India, but one in which Muslims would dominate, with Hindus and Sikhs still living there and forming a loyal minority. Had a confederal solution been adopted this might have been possible, but once the decision to split had been accepted as irrevocable by the departing British, it was out of the question. Bengal and the Punjab were mixed provinces and so they, too, would have to be divided. As they were. Crimes were committed by all sides. Those who were reluctant to abandon their villages were driven out or massacred. Trains carrying refugee families were attacked by armed gangs and became moving coffins. There are no agreed figures, but according to the lowest estimates, the slicing of the subcontinent cost nearly a million lives. No official monument marks the casualties of Partition, there is no official record of those ear-old Sikh, born and brought up in Lahore but now forced to become a refugee, left behind a lament in which she evoked the medieval Sufi poet and free-thinker, Waris Shah, whose love-epic 'Heer-Ranjha' was (and is) sung in almost every Punjabi village on both sides of the divide: I call Waris Shah today: 'Speak up from your grave, From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Oct 13 21:55:35 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 13 Oct 2001 16:25:35 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] New Left Review article on the Taliban Message-ID: <20011013162535.3576.qmail@mailFA2.rediffmail.com> NEW LEFT REVIEW TARIQ ALI AFGHANISTAN: BETWEEN HAMMER AND ANVIL Coveted in the late 19th century by Russian Tsar and British Viceroy alike, Afghanistan’s impassible fastnesses enabled it to avoid occupation by either colonial power. Two British invasions were repelled—a warning to both London and St Petersburg. Eventually an expanding Tsarist Empire and the British Empire in India accepted Afghanistan, still a pre-feudal confederacy of tribes with its own king, as a buffer state. The British, as the more powerful force, would keep a watchful eye on Kabul. This arrangement suited all three parties at the time. The result was that Afghan society never underwent even a partial imperial modernization, remaining more or less stationary for over a century. When change finally came, the catalysts were external. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the overthrow of the Ottoman Caliphate by Kemal’s new model army in 1919 stirred modernizing ambitions in the young Afghan King Amanullah. Chafing under British tutelage, and surrounded by radical intellectuals who looked to Enlightenment ideals from Europe and the bold example from Petrograd, Amanullah briefly united a small educated elite with the bulk of th From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sat Oct 13 21:56:15 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 13 Oct 2001 16:26:15 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] New Left Review article on the Taliban Message-ID: <20011013162615.6137.qmail@mailFA1.rediffmail.com> NEW LEFT REVIEW TARIQ ALI AFGHANISTAN: BETWEEN HAMMER AND ANVIL Coveted in the late 19th century by Russian Tsar and British Viceroy alike, Afghanistan’s impassible fastnesses enabled it to avoid occupation by either colonial power. Two British invasions were repelled—a warning to both London and St Petersburg. Eventually an expanding Tsarist Empire and the British Empire in India accepted Afghanistan, still a pre-feudal confederacy of tribes with its own king, as a buffer state. The British, as the more powerful force, would keep a watchful eye on Kabul. This arrangement suited all three parties at the time. The result was that Afghan society never underwent even a partial imperial modernization, remaining more or less stationary for over a century. When change finally came, the catalysts were external. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the overthrow of the Ottoman Caliphate by Kemal’s new model army in 1919 stirred modernizing ambitions in the young Afghan King Amanullah. Chafing under British tutelage, and surrounded by radical intellectuals who looked to Enlightenment ideals from Europe and the bold example from Petrograd, Amanullah briefly united a small educated elite with the bulk of the tribes, and won a famous military victory against British arms in 1919. Success in the field gave Amanullah the confidence to launch a Reform Programme, partially inspired by Kemal’s revolution in Turkey. A new Afghan Constitution was proclaimed, promising universal adult franchise. If implemented, it would have made Afghanistan one of the first countries in the world to give all women the right to vote. Simultaneously, emissaries were dispatched to Moscow to seek assistance. Though the Bolshevik leaders were themselves beleaguered by multiple armed interventions from the Entente powers, they treated the Afghan overtures quite seriously. Sultan-Galiev received the messengers from Kabul warmly on behalf of the Comintern, while Trotsky sent a secret letter to the Central Committee of the Russian Communist P from his armoured train at the front-line of the civil war. In this remarkable dispatch, he wrote: ‘There is no doubt at all that our Red Army constitutes an incomparably more powerful force in the Asian terrain of world politics than in the European terrain. Here there opens up before us an undoubted possibility not merely of a lengthy wait to see how events develop in Europe, but of conducting activity in the Asian field. The road to India may prove at the given moment to be more readily passable and shorter for us than the road to Soviet Hungary. The sort of army which at the moment can be of no great significance in the European scales can upset the unstable balance of Asian relationships of colonial dependence, give a direct push to an uprising on the part of the oppressed masses and assure the triumph of such a rising in Asia . . . The road to Paris and London lies via the towns of Afghanistan, the Punjab and Bengal.’ A hallucinatory document by one of Trotsky’s military specialists proposed the creation of an anti-imperialist cavalry corps of 30–40,000 riders to liberate British India. Nothing came of such schemes. No doubt the failure of Tukhachevsky’s march into Poland two years later had a sobering effect in Moscow. Amanullah got no more than friendship and advice from the Bolsheviks. The British, understandably nervous, were now determined to overthrow him. New Delhi purchased the services of a couple of leading tribes, fomented religious opposition to the king, and finally toppled him with a military coup in 1929. The Comintern journal Inprecorr commented that Amanullah had only survived for a decade because of ‘Soviet friendship’; more pertinently, the senior Bolshevik Raskolnikov remarked that Amanullah had introduced ‘bourgeois reforms without a bourgeoisie’, whose cost had fallen on peasants whom he had failed to win over with an agrarian reform, allowing Britain to exploit social and tribal divisions in the country. Fifty years later history repeated itself, with a grimmer outcome. In th the reigning King Zahir was ousted by his cousin Daud, who declared a republic with the support of the local Communists and financial aid from the USSR. When, in April 1979, the Shah of Iran convinced Daud to turn against the Communist factions in his army and administration, they staged a self-defensive coup. Bitterly divided amongst themselves—inner-party disputes were sometimes settled with revolvers—the Afghan Communists had no social base outside Kabul and a few other cities. Their power rested on control of the Army and Air Force alone. The United States, taking over the historic role of Britain, soon started to undermine the regime by arming the religious opposition to it, using the Pakistani Army as a conduit. Under mounting pressure, the Afghan Communists broke into violent internecine strife. At this juncture, Brezhnev took the plunge that had been beyond the Bolsheviks—dispatching a massive military column to Kabul to salvage the regime. This was exactly what Carter’s National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski had been hoping for. The Russian leaders fell headlong into the trap. The entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan transformed an unpleasant civil war funded by Washington into a jihad enabling the mujaheddin (‘holy warriors’) to appear as the only defenders of Afghan sovereignty against the foreign army of occupation. Brzezinski was soon posing for photographs in a Pathan turban on the Khyber Pass and shouting ‘Allah is on your side’, while Afghan fundamentalists were being feted as freedom-fighters in the White House and Downing Street. Washington’s role in the Afghan war has never been a secret, but John Cooley’s remarkable book is the first systematic and detailed account of how the United States utilized the intelligence services of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to create, train, finance and arm an international network of Islamic militants to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. As a former Middle-East correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and ABC Television, Cooley gaine retired and serving officials in the states mobilized in this final episode of the Second Cold War. Although he does not always cite his sources, and some of what he says should be viewed with scepticism, his information corroborates much that was widely bruited in Pakistan during the eighties. According to his account, the US drew in other powers to the anti-Soviet jihad. Cooley contends that Chinese help was not restricted to the provision of weapons, but extended to the provision of listening-posts in Xinjiang, and even dispatch of Uighur volunteers whose costs were covered by the CIA. Some form of Chinese assistance was privately always acknowledged by the Generals in Islamabad, though Beijing has never admitted it. Cooley even suggests the PRC has not been immune to the post-Soviet-withdrawal-syndrome: Islamic militants turning on the powers that armed them. However, the country not mentioned by Cooley is Israel, whose role in Afghanistan remains one of the best kept secrets of the war. In 1985 a young Pakistani journalist working for The Muslim, Mansur, accidentally stumbled across a group of Israeli ‘advisers’ at the bar of the Intercontinental Hotel in Peshawar. Aware that the news would be explosive for the Zia dictatorship, he informed his editor, some friends and a visiting WTN correspondent. A few days later the mujaheddin, alerted by the Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), captured and killed him. In the course of his account, Cooley describes a meeting in 1978 in Beirut with Raymond Close, former station chief of the CIA in Saudi Arabia, who clearly charmed him. If he had questioned him more closely, he would have discovered that Close had previously been posted to Pakistan, where his father had been a missionary teacher at the Forman Christian College in Lahore. His son was fluent in Persian, Urdu and Arabic. In nominal retirement, he would have been ideally placed to help orchestrate operations in Afghanistan, and their back-up in Pakistan, where the Bank of Credit and Commerce Inte el for CIA funding of clandestine activities, and laundering profits from the heroin trade. Cooley’s argument that the United States and its relays in the region paid a heavy price for victory in Afghanistan is indisputable. In Egypt Sadat was executed by Islamist soldiers as he was taking the salute at a military parade. In Pakistan Zia—not to speak of his fellow-passengers Arnold Raphael, US Ambassador in Islamabad, and General Rahman, of Pakistan’s ISI—died in a mysterious plane crash that few believe was an accident. The five thousand US marines still in Riyadh are not there to threaten Saddam Hussein, but to defend the Saudi Royal Family. Afganistan itself, a decade after Soviet withdrawal, is still awash with factional violence. Veterans of the war have helped to destabilize Egypt, Algeria, the Philippines, Sudan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Daghestan and Saudi Arabia. They have bombed targets in the United States and declared their own war against the Great Satan. Osama bin Laden, whose icon adorns the jacket of Cooley’s book, has become the bugbear of US official and popular fantasies—after starting his career as a Saudi building tycoon with links to the CIA. When the Pakistani Generals pleaded with the Saudi dynasty to send a princeling from the Royal Family to lead the holy war, he was sent as a friend of the palace instead. Doing better than expected, he was to surprise his patrons in Riyadh and Foggy Bottom. Cooley concludes with the following advice to the US government: ‘When you decide to go to war against your main enemy, take a good, long look at the people behind you whom you chose as your friends, allies or mercenary fighters. Look well to see whether these allies already have unsheathed their knives—and are pointing them at your own back.’ His pleas are unlikely to move Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has no regrets. ‘What was more important in the world view of history?’ he asks with more than a touch of irritation, ‘the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberatio e and the end of the Cold War?’ Contempt for the rights and lives of ordinary people elsewhere in the world—a trade-mark of the Washington outlook before, during and after the Cold War—could not be more pithily expressed. Ahmed Rashid’s book is the first credible account of the rise to power of the Taliban. The author is a courageous Pakistani journalist who has been reporting from Afghanistan since 1978, and refused to be intimidated or suborned in his pursuit of truths inconvenient to the powers that be. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the de facto alliance of states that had backed different factions of the mujaheddin soon fell apart. Islamabad did not want any broad government of reconstruction, preferring—with US and Saudi support—to impose its own pawn, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, on the country. The result was a series of vicious civil wars, punctuated by unstable cease-fires, as Hazaras (backed by Iran), Ahmed Shah Masud (backed by France), and the Uzbek general Dostum (backed by Russia) resisted. When it became obvious that Hekmatyar’s forces were incapable of defeating these foes, the Pakistan Army shifted its backing to the students it had been training in religious schools in the North-West Frontier since 1980, where the alphabet consisted of jeem for jihad, kaaf for kalashnikov and tay for tope (cannon). By 1992 the Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province could remark that the juvenile fanatics in the madrassahs might or might not ‘liberate’ Afghanistan, but they would certainly destabilize what was left of Pakistan. The Taliban were orphans of the war against the Russian infidel. Trained and dispatched across the border by the ISI, they were to be hurled into battle against Muslims they were told were not true Muslims. Rashid captures their outlook vividly: ‘These boys were a world apart from the Mujaheddin whom I had got to know during the 1980s—men who could recount their tribal and clan lineages, remembered their abandoned farms and valleys with nostalgia and recounted legends an Afghan history. These boys were from a generation who had never seen their country at peace. They had no memories of their tribes, their elders, their neighbours nor the complex ethnic mix of peoples that was their homeland. They admired war because it was the only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a messianic, puritan Islam was the only prop they could hold onto and which gave their lives some meaning.’ This deracinated fanaticism—a kind of bleak Islamic cosmopolitanism—made the Taliban a more effective fighting force than any of their localized adversaries. Although Pushtun in origin, the Taliban leaders could be sure their young soldiers would not succumb to the divisive lure of ethnic or tribal loyalties, of which even the Afghan left had found it difficult to rid itself. When they began their sweep from the frontier, a war-weary population often greeted them with an element of relief: citizens in the larger towns had lost faith in all the other forces that had been battling at the expense of civilian life since the Soviet departure. If the Taliban had simply offered peace and bread, they might have won lasting popular support. Soon, however, the character of the regime they were bent on imposing became clear to the bewildered population. Women were banned from working, collecting their children from school and, in some cities, even from shopping: effectively, they were confined to their homes. Girls’ schools were closed down. The Taliban had been taught in their madrassahs to steer clear of the temptation of women—male brotherhood was a condition of tight military discipline. Puritanism extended to repression of sexual expression of any kind; although this was a region where homosexual practices had been common for centuries, recruits guilty of the ‘crime’ were executed by the Taliban commanders. Outside their ranks, dissent of any sort was brutally crushed with a reign of terror unmatched by any preceding regime. The Taliban creed is a variant of the Deobandi Islam profess kistan—more extreme even than Wahabbism, since not even the Saudi rulers have deprived half their population of all civic rights in the name of the Koran. The severity of the Afghan mullahs has been denounced by Sunni clerics at al-Azhar in Cairo and Shiite theologians in Qom as a disgrace to the Prophet. The great Pakistani poet Faiz, whose ancestors came from Afghanistan, could have written his lines from prison about the land of his forebears: Bury me underneath your pavements, oh my country Where no person now dare walk with head held high, Where true lovers bringing you their homage Walk furtively in fear of life and limb; A new-style law-and-order is in use Stones and bricks are locked up and dogs turned loose— Villains are judges and usurpers both, Who speaks for us? Where shall we seek justice? Certainly not from the Commander-in-Chief in the White House or his aide-de-camp in Downing Street. Little was heard from these pulpits for human rights as the women of Afghanistan were subjected to a vile persecution. Rashid notes tartly that a few mild words of criticism from Hillary Clinton were more designed to soothe American feminists during the Lewinsky scandal—not a very demanding task—than to alter the situation in Kabul or Kandahar or Herat, ancient towns where women had never before been reduced to such depths of misery. American business was less hypocritical. Responding to complaints about the pipeline it is constructing from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan, a spokesman for the US oil giant Unocal explained why capitalism is gender-blind: ‘We disagree with some US feminist groups on how Unocal should respond to this issue . . . We are guests in countries who have sovereign rights and their own political, social, religious beliefs. Walking away from Afghanistan would not solve the problem.’ Nor, of course, improve the rate of return on its projected investments. Rashid makes clear that the Taliban could not have swept aross Afghanistan without the military and shington. The top Taliban commander Mullah Omar, today the one-eyed ruler of Kabul (and bin Laden’s father-in-law), was long on the direct payroll of the Pakistani regime. The conquest of power, however, has had an intoxicating impact on the Afghan zealots. The Taliban have their own goal for the region—a Federation of Islamic Republics that would enforce a pax Talibana from Samarkand to Karachi. They now control sufficient revenues from the heroin trade to fund their land campaigns. But they want access to the sea and have made no secret of their belief that Pakistan with its nuclear arms will fall to them one day. They know they enjoy strong support at the lowest and highest levels of the Pakistan Army. Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz, Chief of the General Staff, and Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, the Director of the ISI, the two senior commanders who currently flank Pakistan’s more secular-minded military dictator, Pervaiz Musharraf, are well-known for their Taliban sympathies. The sad and squalid story of the wreckage of Afghanistan is told well by Cooley and Rashid, but the tragedy is far from over. From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 14 06:09:28 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 01:39:28 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Ruchir Joshi - Life during wartime Message-ID: The Hindu Sunday, October 14, 2001 Features Life during wartime All through his time in New York, RUCHIR JOSHI carried a bag of fear inside him, as the city never lost a certain hum of general aggression and nastiness. But it also had a chaotic warmth ... a sense of camaraderie, its inhabitants happy at living in the innards of this particular beast and no other. New York was the world, and the whole planet sent bits of itself to the city as human tithe. The first of a two-part article. WHEN I lived in New York I never saw it as a part of America. New York was New York and, even though I had no plans to settle there, it felt like it belonged to me as much as anyone else. America, on the other hand, was emphatically not mine. America was the soulless mess that began once you came out of the tunnel or got off the bridge into New Jersey or southern New York state. The grey suburban-industrial penumbra of the city was a truly foreign place and not where I liked spending any time. I journeyed out when I needed to, on as few occasions as possible, and escaped back to the city as fast as I could. I rented a top floor garret between Avenue B and Avenue C, not too far from Wall Street. The World Trade Center (WTC) was pretty close by NYC standards - a friend who lived next door and worked down near Tribeca got there in 15 minutes every morning - but for all real purposes the twin towers were on the other side of the planet, so far away that they could even have been in America. Downtown was where all the world's money was, and the East Village was where all the world's money was not, unless of course you happened to be in the narcotics trade. I loved this non-American, un-dollared, neighbourhood which had been the first beachhead on the continent for so many generations of immigrants, from Ukranians and Poles in the early 20th Century to, more recently, the Puerto Ricans and Bangladeshis. I loved the sounds that welcomed me as I returned home every day, the old alcoholics in Tomkins Square beating up mad salsa rhythms on their beer cans, the timbre of each can changing as it emptied, the warring boom-boxes on the basketball courts, the modern-jazz guy reverberating the empty school building across my street with his tenor sax, the acappella of police sirens, the broad Belfastese of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) priest who ran the boys' shelter next door, the deep hammer of a Harley when a local Hell's Angel landlord rode by, cruising for some tenant late on his rent. As I climbed up the six floors to my "apartment" there was also a whole sequence of smells, and I could almost identify each floor with my eyes closed: stale urine and dirty cat litter on the ground, ganja on the second, pork fat frying on the fourth, industrial strength bug-killer on the fifth, old dust and fresh coffee on my own floor, the sixth. No, it was not America, or not just America, it was the whole world, and I was sure it was like no other place on earth. It was not always nice. All through my time in New York I carried a little bag of fear inside me, and there were times, when faced with a gun or a knife, when the bag burst open and spilled out total, abject, terror. Besides the fear, the city never lost a certain hum of general aggression and nastiness. Then there was a visibility to poverty here that put the visibility of the rich into sharp relief, like morning light shining sideways on a tall building. There was that huge verticality always dwarfing you, and that fed into a particular New York loneliness. If you happened to be broke when the December wind funnelled down an avenue and jumped you, it could become chillingly clear that nobody really gave a damn whether you were starving or not. But the city also had a chaotic warmth. I came from Calcutta, and there were similarities that I appreciated. The naked garbage on the streets was comforting, as was the maelstrom of traffic - there was the satisfaction that not everything worked and not everything had to; strangers would pick up conversations, have opinions they needed to communicate, advice to offer about your shoes, and questions to ask about the universe; friendships would form much faster than in other western cities - there was a sense of camaraderie against this beast we were living in, but we also shared an electric sense of adventure, a happiness at living in the innards of this particular beast and no other. New York was the world, and the whole planet sent bits of itself to the city as human tithe. In one day, without being conscious of it at all, I would find I had stopped at the Cuban's bodega to buy my coffee beans, visited the bakery run by the three old Jews on East 9th to get bagels and poppy seed cake, shook hands with the East African Gujaratis running the subway newstand ("Bawss, ek Playboy aney ek Voice aapjo ney!"), chatted to the Ukranian lady as she served me my lunch of borsht and chala bread at Veselka, visited the trendy new Japanese restaurant for a quick beer, and ended the evening knocking back Wyborowa Vodka and cursing the Soviet leadership in the Polish bar called Blue and Gold; and most of all of this within seven minutes of where I lived. Besides my American friends, around me also lived several different non-Americans who had nothing to do with running shops and restaurants. Till I reached New York, job-descriptions such as "bohemian", "revolutionary", "exile" and "dissident" were only romantic words I had seen on paper. In the East Village I found myself surrounded by real exiles and dissidents. As I looked around at the diverse people around me I totted up yet more lists and this was the "political" one: there were the two Iranian Communists who had been persecuted by the Shah's Savak and who then had comrades executed by the Ayatollah's goons; then there were the anti-communists, some young Cubans, and the slightly older Poles, one of whom gave me a real Solidarity union badge from the Gdansk shipyards; there was the anti-Zionist Israeli sculptor; and then there were a couple of Palestinians at the breakfast diner who kept to themselves, but who began nodding hello to me once they realised I was Indian. In the middle of all this there was me, neither an exile nor a dissident, very happy to be where I was for the time being, and happy precisely because I knew I could always go back home to a normal life in Calcutta. Despite all the craziness, there was a normalcy to New York too. Life's major upheavals happened elsewhere and we, as was due to those living at the centre of the world, received news of them. In no particular sequence, I remember the following taking place between the Augusts of 1981 and 1982: Jaruzelski's crackdown on the Solidarity movement which signalled the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire; the war in the Falklands, which would be cited nine years later as a kind of precedent and model for the Gulf War; the first cases of AIDS starting to come to public notice; the war in Afghanistan escalating as the war between Iran and Iraq continued; Britain exploding into race riots; Israel invading Lebanon, and the butchery at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps being overseen by an ex-Panzer General called Ariel Sharon. There were things brewing in India too, but I was less aware of these than I should have been. I was far more interested in the events in other parts of the world. There were signs though, if only I had been clever enough to read them, and they would lead to a shattering of many normalcies that I took for granted at the time. Over the next decade, all the components of September 11 would appear, one by one, in the arena of Indian politics. Before the Lockerbie crash there would be the bomb which exploded Air India's "Kanishka" - the first instance where airport security was breached not to take hostages but to bring a plane down. Next, Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a woman with a bomb strapped to her body - till then the highest profile murder by a suicide bomber. Bombs also went off in an attempt to destroy the Air India building and the Bombay Stock Exchange, two tall buildings standing near the sea, in the financial heart of the major commercial city of the country. These and the other blasts across Bombay were in retaliation for attacks on Muslims. Looking back, one can see the whole kit that went into making the WTC atrocity being laid out, as if a macabre collagist was cutting out the various bits he was later going to stick together to make a bigger deconstruction. In New York I had, of course, no idea that any of this was coming. Despite knowing so many people, all of whom were, in some sense, questioning where they had come from and where they now found themselves, I continued to hold on to a certain idea of India - one I had carried with me in some shape or form throughout my conscious life. Despite its many problems, mistakes and failures, India, to me, was the "good guy", stable, and inherently decent. India was the David to the Goliaths of America, the former USSR and China. India was, in more ways than one, home. I was from India but also, in a deep sense, India was from me. In retrospect, it seems a crazily nave idea to have retained till the ripe age of 21. I was old enough to know better, and it was in New York, in the international bhelpuri I found myself in, that my picture of India first got dented and began its irretrievable slide towards disintegration. The first time "India" got knocked was at a falafel stall near Madison Square Garden. Whenever I passed by I used to pick up a kebab and pita from this place. The two guys who ran it looked like they were from my part of the world, but I never had the time to ask them. Then, one day, as the man handed me my loaded pita, he asked me - "Where you from?" "India," I said, "What about you?" "Kashmir, I am coming from Kashmir." I nodded. "So, same. India, no?" The man's eyes flashed and he shook his head. "Not India! Azad Kashmir!" Some patriotic gland inside me secreted adrenalin and I retorted, "Oh, you mean Pakistan Occupied Kashmir!" The man was about to hand me my change, but he froze when I said this. I would swear to myself later that if he had had a kebab skewer or a meat knife handy he would have cut me open. For that one paused moment I could see the options flashing through his eyes. Something in him decided not to kill me in broad daylight on one of the busiest crossroads in the world. Instead he leaned forward and spoke quite slowly, making sure I got it. "No India and no Pakistan. One day all Kashmir - free!" Then he pressed the change into my hand as if giving me back all of India. I dismissed the man as some fool loaded with the delusion that Pakistan would ever let Kashmir be independent. I tried to put the incident out of my mind, but the Kashmiri had opened a Pandora's box. A couple of weeks later, I fell into a conversation with a Bangladeshi man who told me he had fought in the Mukti Bahini against the Pakistanis in 1971. True or false, I was fascinated by his stories and quite unprepared for what happened as we came out of the bar. "I would say let us meet again," he said to me, his slurring making it difficult for me to understand his East Bengali accent, "but I have found it is best not give you Indian bastards too much. You can never trust an Indian. First we thought you were our friends, but now ... but now." He expelled some abuses that I recognised despite the accent, " ... now we know, really, really what Big Brother means!" He spat a couple more expletives at me and turned and walked away, leaving me mystified. India, as far as I remembered, had given shelter to hundreds of thousands of East Bengali refugees fleeing the murderous Pakistani army. Finally, our own army had gone in, fighting a war to free what was now Bangladesh from Pakistan. I just could not understand the man - what had India done wrong? Equally confusing was the drunken Nepali who tried to beat me up one January night outside the Astor Place subway. "You! India! Bastard!" I can still remember the words coming out of his mouth, three distinct shapes smoking up in the winter air as he lurched after me, throwing punches. As I sprinted away from the madman the same question ran with me - why? And then a variation of it, when once or twice Sikhs I passed on the street looked at me funny - had they, perhaps, mistaken me for a Pakistani? (To be continued) (The title of this essay is taken from the title of a song by the rock group Talking Heads. The song was a big hit in New York during the time I describe.) Ruchir Joshi's first novel The Last Jet-engine Laugh was published earlier this year by HarperCollins India. From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 14 07:52:44 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:22:44 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Tariq Ali's "Afghanistan..." appeared in NLR 2, Mar-Apr.2000 Message-ID: Tariq Ali's - Afghanistan : Between Hammer and Anvil appeared in New Left Review 2, March-April 2000 From ravis at sarai.net Sun Oct 14 16:00:19 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:00:19 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] London Anti-war demo Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011014155940.00aade08@mail.sarai.net> 20,000 in London march for peace Nick Paton Walsh Sunday October 14, 2001 The Obeserver Tweny thousand demonstrators brought central London to a near standstill yesterday as they marched from Hyde Park Corner to Trafalgar Square in protest at the bombing of Afghanistan. Hundreds of demonstrators scrambled on to Nelson's Column, chanting: 'We want peace'. A thousand police officers controlled the demonstration. 'Clearly there is a very large section of the public who feel disgusted by the war,' said Nigel Chamberlain, a CND spokesman. The anti-globalisation campaign group Globalised Resistance and British Muslims were strongly present in the crowd. David Shayler, the former MI5 officer, who joined the protest, said: 'I don't know of any intelligence officer, former or serving, who thinks you can beat terrorism with terror. I also want to know who's paying for this war. This country's already bankrupt from foot and mouth disease.' From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Oct 14 21:16:45 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 14 Oct 2001 15:46:45 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] UMBERTO ECO Message-ID: <20011014154645.1097.qmail@mailFA5.rediffmail.com> UMBERTO ECO Saturday October 13, 2001 All the religious wars that have caused blood to be shed for centuries arise from passionate feelings and facile counter-positions, such as Us and Them,good and bad, white and black. If western culture is shown to be rich it is because, even before the Enlightenment, it has tried to “dissolve” harmful simplifications through inquiry and the critical mind. Of course it did not always do this. Hitler, who burned books, condemned “degenerate” art and killed those belonging to “inferior” races; and the fascism which taught me at school to recite “May God Curse the English” because they were “the people who eat five meals a day” and were therefore greedy and inferior to thrifty Italians, are also part of the history of western culture. It is sometimes hard to grasp the difference between identifying with one’s own roots, understanding people with other roots, and judging what is good or bad. Should I prefer to live in Limoges rather than, say, Moscow? Moscow is certainly a beautiful city. But in Limoges I would understand the language. Everyone identifies with the culture in which he grew up and the cases of root transplants, while they do occur, are in the minority: Lawrence of Arabia dressed as an Arab, but he ended up back home in England. The west, often for reasons of economic expansion, has been curious about other civilisations. The Greeks referred to those who did not speak their language as barbarians, that is stammerers, as if they did not speak at all.But a few more mature Greeks, like the Stoics, noticed that although the barbarians used different words, they referred to the same thoughts. From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 14 22:51:25 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:21:25 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Marketing a War Message-ID: The Hindu Sunday, October 14, 2001 Features Marketing a war WHILE those Tomahawk missiles that cost a million and a half dollars apiece are busy flattening out a faraway Third World country that would be hard put to scrummage together total assets, military or otherwise, of a million dollars, we are getting vivid, blow by blow accounts of the attempts that are on to assuage First World Fear. President Bush is swearing in America's first ever director of homeland security. Former Governor Ridge, he tells us, is a patriot who has heard the sound of battle. ``He is a man of compassion who has seen what evil can do." So the alerts go out across this well organised nation, and reports come pouring in. Of coast guards mobilising to guard 88,000 miles of coastline, of queues of trucks and vans waiting to be checked before they can enter Manhattan, of airport queues building up because of unprecedented security checks, and ready- for-the-worst Americans telling the cameras with cheerful stoicism that they are prepared for the inconvenience. Director Ridge is on the job, doing his bit. ``I encourage all Americans to have a heightened sense of their surroundings. I am counting on every American to help us defend America in this war.'' Of course the poor dears are worried, you will say, after the horror of September 11. Except that back in 1991, as a new convert to cable TV and Cable News Network (CNN), I remember watching in disbelief that as those Scud missiles began dropping over Iraq, Americans in the United States were being offered counselling for enduring the trauma of watching their soldiers go to war. Psychologists were in TV studios, urging early recognition of the symptoms of anxiety and stress. First World fear is not just palpable, it is always on camera. The White aggressor always has a face and a family, the brown victim is very hard to spot close up on the TV channels, even ours. Finally, by Tuesday night last week, the BBC had pictures of life returning to Kabul streets, vegetable vendors tying their spinach into bundles, people shopping for food. Is the relative absence of pictures on the ground from the area under attack because Al Jazeera was not putting out enough footage of damage, death and destruction, or because it was not getting picked up by the channels that the Indian news channels were picking up from? The great irony of this war has been that almost all footage of the actual bombing has emanated from this Arab channel. The Taliban kept most of America's mighty networks at bay, and this Qatar channel (pronounced ``gutter'' by the woman from CNN) did brisk business, offering its footage to the world at large, including Indian news channels. What you got from BBC, Channel News Asia, CNN and Fox correspondents were piece-to cameras from Islamabad or Peshawar. As their reporters squint into the sun from the rooftop of the Marriott, faces red presumably with the heat, and say their piece, against a faraway backdrop of brown and green, the folks back home doubtless imagine that they are on the battlefront. "Operation Enduring Freedom" will perhaps do for Al Jazeera what the Gulf War did for CNN. Make it a household name across the globe. To the accusations of being a propaganda tool for Osama the Elusive, Ahmed Sheikh, one of the channel's leading lights said indignantly to Shankar Aiyar of Channel News Asia,`` We have our own policy, we work on norms of journalism, freedom for all points of view. America is the greatest advocate of the freedom of speech, now they come and say, you shut up. Coming from Americans this is shocking, unbelievable.'' Lectures on press freedom and independence from Osama's most reliable conduit to the outside world. What a crazy war this is. All the stuff you can find on the Internet (being faithfully regurgitated by my fellow hacks in the morning newspapers each day) tells you that this five-year-old channel has made a name for itself in the Arabic-language news business with often- acclaimed reporting and an independent editorial policy that is rare in the region. We are objective and independent, its chief executive asserts. But you cannot help wondering how kindly Bin Laden and Co. would take it if Al Jazeera decided tomorrow that it would not oblige every time he chose to communicate with the outside world. May be he knows it will not do that, given what a marketable commodity every word that falls from his lips, is. It could be a while before anyone knows which of the two wars will succeed more: the one waged with Tomahawks, or the one with peanut butter and jam, or if you prefer, with baked beans and potato vinaigrette. But it makes for great copy. A beaming Colonel Bob Allardice told us after dropping 37,000 packets of this ingenious menu on three million starving Afghans, that it had been an outstanding success. (You really have to admire Americans for their unshakeable faith in the rightness of the American Way.) But there was carping almost instantly, in response. Medicine Sans Frontieres wanted to know which medical handbook recommended peanut butter and strawberry jam to counter malnutrition. It also asked sourly how the U.S. knew that the food was getting to the right people, that people would know it was safe to eat, and that it was not dropping on land planted with mines. Poor Uncle Sam. Can it ever get it right in the eyes of the non-American world? Fortunately, there was not much self- doubt on evidence. The TV channels like to help keep the morale of the aggressor up. Opposition is a containable sound bite from Times Square in New York. A placard from a protestor telling Bush he has been fired, a bustle of peaceniks chanting 1-2-3-4, stop the bombing, stop the war. And then there was the coverage from our home squad of eager beavers. "Jawabi Hamla", brought to you by MDH pakora masala on Aaj Tak. "Headlines" sponsored by J. Hampstead on Zee News. The latter would announce the headlines, take an ad break, give you the headlines, take an ad break, and then come back with the news. Just in case you had any doubts about why they were in business. And Aaj Tak was telling those who asked that it had the sensitivity to reduce the ads, hadn't we noticed? On the Sunday that Madhav Rao Scindia was killed, the channel apparently touched a record of 45 minutes of sponsored programming in one hour. Thirty minutes of ads, 15 minutes of sponsored items, like the weather. That finally prompted big chief Aroon Purie to step in and rescue the news from the ad clutter. We did not see CNN, BBC and Channel News Asia drown their news in commercials. For all their faults, the big boys get some things right. And while assiduously copying their war rooms, maps and pointers over here, our home-grown channels might have also taken a cue on the etiquette of reporting distress. SEVANTI NINAN E-mail the writer at sevantininan at vsnl.com -- From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Oct 14 21:53:58 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 14 Oct 2001 16:23:58 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Slavoj Zizek replies to Marco Mauas Message-ID: <20011014162358.12845.qmail@mailFA3.rediffmail.com> Reply to Marco Mauas by Slavoj Zizek The worst thing to do apropos of the events of September 11 is to elevate them to a point of Absolute Evil, a vacuum which cannot be explained and/or dialecticized. To posit them in a series with Shoah is a blasphemy: the Shoah was committed in a methodical way by a vast network of state apparatchiks and their executors who, in contrast to the bombers of the WTC towers, lacked the suicidal acceptance of their own death - as Hannah Arendt made it clear, they were anonymous bureaucrats doing their job, and an enormous gap separated what they did from their individual self-experience. This "banality of Evil" is missing in the case of the terrorist attacks: they fully assumed the horror of their acts, this horror is part of the fatal attraction which draws them towards commiting them. Or, to put it in a slightly different way: the Nazis did their job of "solving the Jewish question" as an obscene secret hidden from the public gaze, while the terrorists heroically and display the spectacle of their act. The second difference is that the Shoah was a part of EUROPEAN history, it was an event which does NOT concern directly the relationship between Muslims and Jews: remember Sarajevo which had by far the largest Jewish community in ex-Yugoslavia, and, on the top of it, was the most cosmopolitan Yugoslav city, the thriving center of cinema and rock music - why? Precisely because it was the Muslim dominated city, where the Jewish and Christian presence was tolerated, in contrast to the Christian-dominated large cities from which Jews and Muslims were purged long ago. Why should the New York catastrophe be in any way privileged over, say, the mass slaughter of Hutus by Tutsis in Ruanda in 1999? Or the mass bombing and gas-poisoning of Kurds in the north of Iraq in the early 1990s? Or the Indonesian forces' mass killings in East Timor? Or... the list of the countries where the mass suffering was and is incomparably greater than the one in New York, but which do not have th elevated by the media into the sublime victim of Absolute Evil, is long, and therein resides the point: if one insists on the use of this term, these are all "Absolute Evils." So should we extend the prohibition to explain and claim that none of these evils could and should be "dialecticized"? And is one not obliged to go even a step further: what about "individual" horrible crimes, from those of the sadist mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer to those of Andrea Yates who in a cold-blooded way drowned her five children? Is there not something real/impossible/inexplicable about EVERY of these acts? Is it not that, as Schelling put it more than 200 years ago, in each of them we confront the ultimate abyss of the free will, the imponderable fact of "I did it because I did it!" which resists any explanation with psychological, social, ideological, etc. causes. So have the events of September 11 something to do with the obscure God who demands human sacrifices? Yes, the spectacular explosion of the WTC towers was not simply a symbolic act (in the sense of an act whose aim is to "deliver a message"): it was primarily an explosion of lethal jouissance, a perverse act of making oneself an instrument of the big Other's jouissance. Yes, the culture of the attackers is a morbid culture of death, the attitude which finds the climactic fulfillment of one's own life in the violent death. Yes, the ultimate aim of the attacks was not some hidden or obvious ideological agenda, but - precisely in the Hegelian sense of the term - to (re)introduce the dimension of absolute negativity into our daily lives: to shatter the insulated daily course of the lives of us, true Nietzschean Last Men. Sacrilegious as it may appear, the WTC attacks do share something with Antigone's act: they both undermine the "servicing of the goods," the reign of the pleasure-reality principle. However, the "dialectical" thing to do here is not to include these acts into some larger narrative of the Progress of Reason or Humanity which somehow - if not r all-encompassing larger consistent narrative, "sublated" them in a "higher" stage of development (the naive notion of Hegelianism), but to make us question our own innocence, to render thematic our own (fantasmatic libidinal) investment and engagement in them. So, rather than remain stuck in the debilitating awe in front of the Absolute Evil, the awe which prohibits us to THINK what is going on, one should recall that there are two fundamental ways to react to such traumatic events which cause unbearable anxiety: the way of superego and the way of the act. The way of the superego is precisely that of the sacrifice to the obscure gods of which Lacan speaks: the reassertion of the barbaric violence of the savage obscene law in order to fill in the gap of the failing symbolic law. And the act? One of the heroes of the Shoah is for me a famous Jewish balerina who, as a gesture of special humiliation, was asked by the camp officers to perform a dance for them. Instead of refusing it, she did it, and while she hold their attention, she quickly grabbed the machine gun from one of the distracted guards and, before being shot down herself, succeeded in killing more than a dozen officers... was her act not comparable to that of the passengers on the flight which crashed down in Pennsylvania who, knowing that they will die, forced their way into the cockpit and crashed the plane, saving hundreds of others' lives? From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Sun Oct 14 22:11:33 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 14 Oct 2001 16:41:33 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Simulation,WTC,Virtual reality and War... Message-ID: <20011014164133.27367.qmail@mailFA12.rediffmail.com> Here are a few excerpts fron an old interview with Virilio...hope you find it interesting...Later on in the full interview available at the Critical Theory website there is an uncanny statement on the Boeing and the body...this I'd like to quote before the excerpt: a man who pilots a Jumbo Jet will ultimately feel that the Boeing is entering his body. Anybody on the List who can post from Virilio's War and Cinema??? Thanks, Abir So in talking about the simulation industry and its function to "expose the accident in order not to be exposed to it", could you say more about that in its relationship to television? Virilio: One exposes the accident in order not to be exposed to the accident. It's an inversion. There is a French expression that says: to be exposed to an accident, to cross a street without looking at the cars means exposing oneself to be run over. This is more than a play with words, it's fundamental. For instance, when a painter exhibits his work, one says: he exposes his work. Similarly, when we cross the street, we expose ourselves to a car accident. And television exposes the world to the accident. The world is exposed to accidents through television. The editor of the New York Times was recently interviewed in Le Nouvel Observateur, and he said something that I really agree with: television is a media of crisis, which means that television is a media of accidents. Television can only destroy. In this respect, and even though he was a friend of mine, I believe that McLuhan was completely wrong (in his idyllic view of television). But surely the commodification of the accident happened before television through simulation? Virilio: To start with, the simulator is an object in itself, which is different from televison and leads to cyberspace. The US Air Force flight simulator - the first sophisticated simulators were created by the US Air Force - has been used in order to save gas on real flights by training pilots on the ground. Thus there is a cyberspace vision: one doesn't es, etc...it is a different logic. In a way, the simulator is closer to cyberspace than televison. It creates a different world. So, of course, the simulator quickly became a simulator of accidents, but not only that: it started simulating actual flight hours, and these hours have been counted as real hours to evaluate the experience of pilots. Simulated flight hours and real flight hours became equivalent, and this was cyberspace, not the accident but something else, or rather the accident of reality. What is accidented is reality. Virtuality will destroy reality. So, it's some kind of accident, but an accident of a very different nature. The accident is not the accident. For instance, if I let this glass fall, is it an accident? No, it's the reality of the glass that is accidented, not the glass itself. The glass is certainly broken and no longer exists, but with a flight simulator, what is accidented is the reality of the glass, and not the glass itself: what is accidented is the reality of the whole world. Cyberspace is an accident of the real. Virtual reality is the accident of reality itself. But then simulation doesn't really pretend to be the glass? Virilio: This is a little hard to explain. We have a sense of reality which is sustained by a physical sensation. Right now, I am holding a bottle: this is reality. With a data glove, I could hold a virtual bottle. Cybersex is similar: it is an accident of sexual reality, perhaps the most extraordinary accident, but still an accident. I would be tempted to say: the accident is shifting. It no longer occurs in matter, but in light or in images. A Cyberspace is a light-show. Thus, the accident is in light, not in matter. The creation of a virtual image is a form of accident. This explains why virtual reality is a cosmic accident. It's the accident of the real. I disagree with my friend Baudrillard on the subject of simulation. To the word simulation, I prefer the one substitution. This is a real glass, this is no simulation. When I hold a virtual gla , this is no simulation, but substitution. Here lies the big difference between Baudrillard and myself: I don't believe in simulationism, I believe that the word is already old-fashioned. As I see it, new technologies are substituting a virtual reality for an actual reality. And this is more than a phase: it's a definite change. We are entering a world where there won't be one but two realities, just like we have two eyes or hear bass and treble tones, just like we now have stereoscopy and stereophony: there will be two realities: the actual, and the virtual. Thus there is no simulation, but substitution. Reality has become symmetrical. The splitting of reality in two parts is a considerable event which goes far beyond simulation. What about early cinema as a primitive form of this, when people left the cinema in fright? Virilio: Unlike Serge Daney or Deleuze, I think that cinema and television have nothing in common. There is a breaking point between photography and cinema on the one hand and television and virtual reality on the other hand. The simulator is the stage in-between television and virtual reality, a moment, a phase. The simulator is a moment that leads to cyberspace, that is to say, to the process because of which we now have two bottles instead of one. I might not see this virtual bottle, but I can feel it. It is settled within reality. This explains why the word virtual reality is more important than the word cyberspace, which is more poetic. As far as gender is concerned, there are now two men and two women, real and virtual. People make fun of cybersex, but it's really something to take into account: it is a drama, a split of the human being! The human being can now be changed into some kind of spectrum or ghost who has sex at a distance. That is really scary because what used to be the most intimate and the most important relationship to reality is being split. This is no simulation but the coexistence of two separate worlds. One day the virtual world might win over the real world. The make virtual reality more powerful than actual reality, which is the true accident. The day when virtual reality becomes more powerful than reality will be the day of the big accident. Mankind never experienced such an extraordinary accident. What is your own feeling about that? Virilio: I'm not scared, just interested. This is drama. Art is drama. Any relationship to art is also a relationship to death. Creation exists only in regard to destruction. Creation is against destruction. You cannot dissociate birth from death, creation from destruction, good from evil. Thus any art is a form of drama standing between the two extreme poles of birth and death, just like life is drama. This is not sad, because to be alive means to be mortal, to pass through. And art is alive because it is mortal. Except that now, art has become more than painting, sculpture or music: art is more than Van Gogh painting a landscape or Wagner composing an opera. The whole of reality itself has become the object of art. To someone like Zurbaran, who paints still lifes, lemons and pears are the objects of art. But to the electronics engineer who works on the technologies of virtual reality, the whole reality has become the object of art, with a possibility to substitute the virtual with the real. Is there a transcendence of the body? Virilio: That is difficult to say. First, what is under consideration is not only the body itself, but the environment of the body as well. The notion of transcendence is a complex one, but it is true that there is something divine in this new technology. The research on cyberspace is a quest for God. To be God. To be here and there. For example, when I say: "I'm looking at you, I can see you", that means: "I can see you because I can't see what is behind you: I see you through the frame I am drawing. I can't see inside you". If I could see you from beneath or from behind, I would be God. I can see you because my back and my sides are blind. One can't even imagine what it would be like to see insid The technologies of virtual reality are attempting to make us see from beneath, from inside, from behind...as if we were God. I am a Christian, and even though I know we are talking about metaphysics and not about religion, I must say that cyberspace is acting like God and deals with the idea of God who is, sees and hears everything. What will happen when virtual reality takes the upper hand? Virilio: It already has. If you look at the Gulf War or new military technologies, they are moving towards cyberwars. Most video-technologies and technologies of simulation have been used for war. For example, video was created after the Second World War in order to radio-control planes and aircraft carriers. Thus video came with the war. It took twenty years before it became a means of expression for artists. Similarly, television was first conceived to be used as some kind of telescope, not for broadcasting. Originally, Sworkin, the inventor of television, wanted to settle cameras on rockets so that it would be possible to watch the sky. From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 14 23:35:14 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:05:14 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Another report on the anti-war rally in London Message-ID: The Sunday Independent Surprise at large turnout for national anti-war rally http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=99415 By Cole Moreton 14 October 2001 Old men in Islamic dress marched with former Greenham women and dreadlocked anti-capitalists who booed when they passed McDonald's. Yesterday's peace rally in London was the first major public show of strength for a diverse coalition of people opposed to war which has grown up by website and e-mail faster than in any previous conflict. Even the organisers were surprised at how many people turned up. "The police expected 10,000 but we have far, far exceeded that,'' said Carol Naughton, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which cancelled a planned demo against Star Wars in order to host the rally. The police estimated 20,000 people were on the march from Hyde Park Corner to Trafalgar Square, while the organisers put the numbers at 50,000. It was a noisy and unruly demonstration on a hot day but people danced in the fountains instead of causing trouble. Attempts by far-left groups such as the Socialist Workers' Party to dominate the gathering were thwarted by weight of numbers. Salma Yakoob of the Stop the War Coalition in Birmingham addressed the crowd from the plinth in Trafalgar Square. "If only the leftists had been here today people would have said we were all lefties," she said. ''If only CND had been here they would have said it was the middle-class elite. If it was only the Muslims they would have called us extremists. If it was only Asians and black people they would have said it was the ethnic minorities. Tony Blair, we are here united against this war. You cannot dismiss us all.'' The poet Adrian Mitchell performed a piece which he had first read out in Trafalgar Square in 1964. "It is about Vietnam,'' he said. "But it is still relevant. It's about sitting faithfully in England while thousands of miles away terrible atrocities are being committed in our name.'' The Stop The War Coalition announced that it intended to hold another national rally on 18 November. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Mon Oct 15 01:04:26 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:34:26 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Paul Virilio on events of Sept 11 & the new form of conflict Message-ID: The following short interview with Paul Virilio appeared in the Swiss Weekly called L'Hebdo in September 2001. I have done a rough translation for people on this list. The original French version is also posted below for those interested best Harsh. ============== L'Hebdo in September 2001. A CRASH OF THE STRATEGIC THOUGHT? Essayist who wrote a lot on war, Paul Virilio diagnoses a totally new form of conflict. -The massive destruction of September 11 imposed the term "war". Is this evident to you? Completely. The big terrorism which begins doesnt have anything in common with the small terrorism of XX-th century. We entered in a historic way, on September 11, 2001, a form of war, at the same the same time worldwide and "accidental ". Clausewitz qualified as "substantial" war as continuation of the politics(policy) by the other means. But he observed also , about Napoleon in Spain, that "substantial" war could decompose, get destructured, stop pursuing its political objectives and become a sort of frenzy impossible to juggle [manage]. That's right "accidental" war, and civil wars constitute a known form. But what has just begun is without reference. Up to now "accidental" war was local, not global. We have been pulled despite us into a new form of war which we have to learn as a foreign language. -Do the United States have then to revise their strategic choices? -One can say that we have just attended two crashes. That of net economy in 2000. And that of net strategy of the Pentagon in 2001. All the strategies elaborated up to here, the war of the information, the aéro-orbitale war which one saw in Kosovo or the antimissile shield, all this has just been swept away by a large-scale terrorist action which made twice as many victims than the armada which destroyed Pearl Harbor. We are in front of a logic which does not have anything to do with the traditional militaro-strategic thought. As town planner, I shall underline that terrorism has just inaugurated a anti-cities strategy. What means that all the towers are today threatened. Instead of being a place of dominion, as the donjon of the past, the tower became a place of weakness: upright, it is henceforth the equivalent of the outer wall which the artillery blew up. -Can such a war be won? -Thats the whole question. A political invention would be needed as high as the threat. But Bush is not Churchill. And Sharon neither. At the moment, it is necessary to defend ourselves, in particular at the level of cities: it is much too early to think of the offensive. I distrust especially reactions which it is going to arouse. My main fear, it is that all this degenerate into religious war impossible to master. As was said when I was young, it would be necessary to begin by turning seven times his tongue in his mouth. Because the tongue of war is the tongue of a viper. (Translated by Harsh Kapoor ) o o o o [The original text in French is posted below] Source: http://www.webdo.ch/hebdo/attentats_usa_11_09_01/usa_4.html#top Un krach de la pensée stratégique? Essayiste qui a beaucoup écrit sur la guerre, Paul Virilio diagnostique une forme de conflit totalement inédite. - Les destructions massives du 11 septembre ont imposé le terme de «guerre». Est-ce qu'il relève pour vous d'une évidence? Tout à fait. Le grand terrorisme qui commence n'a plus rien à voir avec le petit terrorisme du XXe siècle. Nous sommes entrés de façon historique, le 11 septembre 2001, dans une forme de guerre à la fois mondiale et «accidentelle». Clausewitz qualifiait de «substantielle» la guerre comme continuation de la politique par d'autres moyens. Mais il a aussi observé, à propos de Napoléon en Espagne, que la guerre «substantielle» pouvait se décomposer, se déstructurer, cesser de poursuivre des objectifs politiques et devenir une sorte de délire impossible à juguler. C'est ça la guerre «accidentelle», et les guerres civiles en constituent une forme connue. Mais ce qui vient de débuter est sans référence. Jusqu'ici la guerre «accidentelle» était locale, non globale. Nous sommes entraînés malgré nous dans une nouvelle forme de guerre que nous devons apprendre comme une langue étrangère. - Les Etats-Unis doivent-ils alors réviser leurs choix stratégiques? - On peut dire que nous venons d'assister à deux krachs. Celui de la net-économie en 2000. Et celui de la net-stratégie du Pentagone en 2001. Toutes les stratégies élaborées jusqu'ici, la guerre de l'information, la guerre aéro-orbitale qu'on a vue au Kosovo ou le bouclier antimissile, tout cela vient d'être balayé par une action terroriste de grande ampleur qui a fait deux fois plus de victimes que l'armada qui a dévasté Pearl Harbor. Nous sommes devant une logique qui n'a plus rien à voir avec la pensée militaro-stratégique traditionnelle. En tant qu'urbaniste, je soulignerai que le terrorisme vient d'inaugurer une stratégie anti-cités. Ce qui signifie que toutes les tours sont aujourd'hui menacées. Au lieu d'être un lieu de domination, comme le donjon de jadis, la tour est devenue un lieu de faiblesse: à la verticale, elle est désormais l'équivalent du mur d'enceinte que l'artillerie a fait sauter. - Une telle guerre peut-elle être gagnée? - C'est toute la question. Il faudrait une invention politique à la hauteur de la menace. Mais Bush n'est pas Churchill. Et Sharon non plus. Pour l'instant, il faut se défendre, en particulier au niveau des cités: il est trop tôt pour songer à l'offensive. Je me méfie surtout des réactions que cela va susciter. Ma principale crainte, c'est que tout cela dégénère en guerre religieuse impossible à maîtriser. Comme on disait quand j'étais jeune, il faudrait commencer par tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche. Parce que la langue de la guerre est une langue de vipère. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Mon Oct 15 01:05:04 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:35:04 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Ctheory Interview With Paul Virilio [on Kosovo War...] Message-ID: Ctheory Interview With Paul Virilio The Kosovo War Took Place In Orbital Space Paulo Virilio in Conversation with John Armitage Translated by Patrice Riemens Paul Virilio is a renowned urbanist, political theorist and critic of the art of technology. Born in Paris in 1932, Virilio is best known for his 'war model' of the growth of the modern city and the evolution of human society. He is also the inventor of the term 'dromology' or the logic of speed. Identified with the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, the futurism of Marinetti and technoscientific writings of Einstein, Virilio's intellectual outlook can usefully be compared to contemporary architects, philosophers and cultural critics such as Bernard Tschumi, Gilles Deleuze and Jean Baudrillard. Virilio is the author, among other books, of Bunker Archeology (1994 [1975]), Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology (1986 [1977]), The Information Bomb (2000 [1998]) and, most recently, Strategie de la deception (1999). His analysis of the Kosovo War is the subject of his conversation with John Armitage below. John Armitage: Professor Virilio, to what extent does your intellectual and artistic work on the architecture of war, and architecture more generally, inform your thinking in Strategie de la deception? Is it the case that, in common with other so-called 'postmodern' wars, such as the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the architecture of war, along with architecture itself, is 'disappearing'? How did you approach the question of the architecture of war and its disappearance in Strategie de la deception? Paul Virilio: Well, let me put it this way, I have always been interested in the architecture of war, as can be seen in Bunker Archeology. However, at the time that I did the research for that book, I was very young. My aim was to understand the notion of 'Total War'. As I have said many times before, I was among the first people to experience the German Occupation of France during the Second World War. I was 7-13 years old during the War and did not really internalise its significance. More specifically, under the Occupation, we in Nantes were denied access to the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. It was therefore not until after the War was over that I saw the sea for the first time, in the vicinity of St Nazaire. It was there that I discovered the bunkers. But what I also discovered was that, during the War, the whole of Europe had become a fortress. And thus I saw to what extent an immense territory, a whole continent, had effectively been reorganised into one city, and just like the cities of old. From that moment on, I became more interested in urban matters, in logistics, in the organisation of transport, in maintenance and supplies. But what is so astonishing about the war in Kosovo for me is that it was a war that totally bypassed territorial space. It was a war that took place almost entirely in the air. There were hardly any Allied armed personnel on the ground. There was, for example, no real state of siege and practically no blockade. However, may I remind you that France and Germany were opposed to a maritime blockade of the Adriatic Sea without a mandate from the United Nations (UN). So, what we witnessed in Kosovo was an extraordinary war, a war waged solely with bombs from the air. What happened in Kosovo was the exact reversal of what happened in 'Fortress Europe' in 1943-45. Let me explain. Air Marshall 'Bomber' Harris used to say that 'Fortress Europe' was a fortress without a roof, since the Allies had air supremacy. Now, if we look at the Kosovo War, what do we see? We see a fortress without walls - but with a roof! Isn't that disappearance extraordinary?! John Armitage: Let's talk about your theoretical efforts to understand and interpret the Kosovo war in Strategie de la deception. Is the campaign in the air the only important element that other theorists should pay attention to? Paul Virilio: Let me emphasise the following points about the Kosovo War. First, while the United States (US) can view the war as a success, Europe must see it as a failure for it and, in particular, for the institutions of the European Union (EU). For the US, the Kosovo War was a success because it encouraged the development of the Pentagon's 'Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA). The war provided a test site for experimentation, and paved the way for emergence of what I call in Strategie de la deception 'the second deterrence'. It is, therefore, my firm belief that the US is currently seeking to revert to the position it held after the triggering of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1940s, when the US was the sole nuclear power. And here I repeat what I suggest in my book. The first deterrence, nuclear deterrence, is presently being superseded by the second deterrence: a type of deterrence based on what I call 'the information bomb' associated with the new weaponry of information and communications technologies. Thus, in the very near future, and I stress this important point, it will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be what I have dubbed 'the integral accident' that is the continuation of politics by other means. The automation of warfare has, then, come a long way since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Needless to say, none of these developments will help the plight of the refugees in Kosovo or stop the actions of the militias operating there. However, the automation of warfare will allow for the continuation not only of war in the air but also of the further development of the Pentagon's RMA in the form of 'Global Information Dominance' (GID) and 'Global Air Power' (GAP). It is for these reasons that, in my new book, I focus for example on the use of the 'graphite bomb' to shut off the Serbian electricity supply as well as the cutting off of the service provision to Serbia of the EuTelSat television satellite by the EU. And, let me remind you that the latter action was carried out against the explicit wishes of the UN. To my mind, therefore, the integral accident, the automation of warfare, and the RMA are all part of the shift towards the second deterrence and the explosion of the information bomb. For me, these developments are revolutionary because, today, the age of the locally situated bomb such as the atomic bomb has passed. The atomic bomb provoked a specific accident. But the information bomb gives rise to the integral and globally constituted accident. The globally constituted accident can be compared to what people who work at the stock exchange call 'systemic risk'. And, of course, we have already seen some instances of systemic risk in recent times in the Asian financial crisis. But what sparked off the Asian financial crisis? Automated trading programmes! Here, then, we meet again the problems I noted in earlier works with regard to interactivity. Moreover, it is clear that the era of the information bomb, the era of aerial warfare, the era of the RMA and global surveillance is also the era of the integral accident. 'Cyberwar' has nothing to do with the destruction brought about by bombs and grenades and so on. It is specifically linked to the information systems of life itself. It is in this sense that, as I have said many times before, interactivity is the equivalent of radioactivity. For interactivity effects a kind of disintegration, a kind of rupture. For me, the Asian financial crisis of 1998 and the war in Kosovo in 1999 are the prelude to the integral accident. John Armitage: How does your description above of the chief theoretical aspects of the Kosovo War map on to the important themes of your previous writings? I would like to start by charting your theoretical and architectural interest in questions concerning the two concepts of military space and the organization of territory. For example, even your earliest research - into the 'Atlantic Wall' in the 1950s and 1960s - was founded on these two concepts. However, before we discuss Strategie de la deception and the war in Kosovo in some detail, could you explain first of all what you mean by military space and the organization of territory and why these concepts are so important for an understanding of your work? Paul Virilio: These concepts are important quite simply because I am an urbanist. Thus the whole of my work is focused on geopolitics and geostrategy. However, a second aspect of my work is movement. This, of course, I pursue through my research on speed and on my study of the organisation of the revolution of the means of transportation. For me, then, territory and movement are linked. For instance, territory is controlled by the movements of horsemen, of tanks, of planes, and so on. Thus my research on dromology, on the logic and impact of speed, necessarily implies the study of the organisation of territory. Whoever controls the territory possesses it. Possession of territory is not primarily about laws and contracts, but first and foremost a matter of movement and circulation. Hence I am always concerned with ideas of territory and movement. Indeed, my first book after Bunker Archeology was entitled L'insecurite du territoire (1976). John Armitage: In Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology, you write of the military and political revolution in transportation and information transmission. Indeed, for you, the speed of the military-industrial complex is the driving force of cultural and social development, or, as you put it in the book, 'history progresses at the speed of its weapons systems'. In what ways do you think that speed politics played a role in the military and political conflict in Kosovo? For instance, was the speed of transportation and information transmission the most important factor in the war? Or, more generally, for you, is the military-industrial complex still the motor of history? Paul Virilio: I believe that the military-industrial complex is more important than ever. This is because the war in Kosovo gave fresh impetus not to the military-industrial complex but to the military-scientific complex. You can see this in China. You can also see it in Russia with its development of stealth planes and other very sophisticated military machines. I am of course thinking here about new planes such as the Sukhois. There is very little discussion about such developments but, for me, I am constantly astonished by the current developments within the Russian airforce. And, despite the economic disaster that is Russia, there are still air shows taking place in the country. For these reasons, then, I believe that the politics of intervention and the Kosovo war prompted a fresh resumption of the arms race worldwide. However, this situation has arisen because the sovereignty of the state is no longer accepted. This is also why we are witnessing states rushing forward in order to safeguard themselves against an intervention similar to the one that took place in Kosovo. This is one of the most disturbing, if indirect, aspects of the war in Kosovo and one that I discuss at length in my new book. Of course, one of the most disturbing features is the fact that while we have had roughly a ten year pause in the arms race where a lot of good work was done, this has now come to an end. For what we are seeing at the present time are new developments in anti-missile weaponry, drones, and so on. Thus, some of the most dramatic consequences of the Kosovo war are linked to the resumption of the arms race and the suicidal political and economic policies of countries like India and Pakistan where tons of money are currently being spent on atomic weaponry. This is abhorrent! John Armitage: Before we turn to consider the aesthetic aspects of the 'disappearance' of military space and the organisation of territory in Kosovo, I would like to ask why it was that in the late 1970s and early 1980s you first began to consider the technological aspects of these phenomena? What was it that prompted you to focus on the technological aspects at that time? Paul Virilio: Because it was from that time onwards that real time superseded real space! Today, almost all-current technologies put the speed of light to work. And, as you know, here we are not only talking about information at a distance but also operation at a distance, or, the possibility to act instantaneously, from afar. For example, the RMA begins with the application of the speed of light. This means that history is now rushing headlong into the wall of time. As I have said many times before, the speed of light does not merely transform the world. It becomes the world. Globalisation is the speed of light. And it is nothing else! Globalisation cannot take shape without the speed of light. In this way, history now inscribes itself in real time, in the 'live', in the realm of interactivity. Consequently, history no longer resides in the extension of territory. Look at the US, look at Russia. Both of these countries are immense geographical territories. But, nowadays, immense territories amount to nothing! Today, everything is about speed and real time. We are no longer concerned with real space. Hence not only the crisis of geopolitics and geostrategy but also the shift towards the emergence and dominance of chronostrategy. As I have been arguing for a long time now, there is a real need not simply for a political economy of wealth but also for a political economy of speed. John Armitage: But what about the cultural dimensions of chronostrategy? For instance, although modernist artists such as Marinetti suggested to us that 'war is the highest form of modern art', Walter Benjamin warned us against the 'aestheticization' of war in his famous essay in Illuminations (1968) on 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'. Additionally, in your The Aesthetics of Disappearance (1991 [1980]), you make several references to the relationship between war and aesthetics. To what extent do you think that the Kosovo War can or should be perceived in cultural or aesthetic terms? Paul Virilio: First of all, if I have spoken of a link between war and aesthetics, it is because there is something I am very interested in and that is what Sun Tzu in his ancient Chinese text calls The Art of War. This is because, for me, war consists of the organisation of the field of perception. But war is also, as the Japanese call it, 'the art of embellishing death'. And, in this sense, the relationship between war and aesthetics is a matter of very serious concern. Conversely, one could say that religion - in the broadest sense of the word - is 'the art of embellishing life'. Thus, anything that strives to aestheticise death is profoundly tragic. But, nowadays, the tragedy of war is mediated through technology. It is no longer mediated through a human being with moral responsibilities. It is mediated through the destructive power of the atomic bomb, as in Stanley Kubrick's film, Dr Strangelove. Now, if we turn to the war in Kosovo, what do we find? We find the manipulation of the audience's emotions by the mass media. Today, the media handle information as if it was a religious artefact. In this way, the media is more concerned with what we feel about the refugees and so on rather than what we think about them. Indeed, the truth, the reality of the Kosovo War, was actually hidden behind all the 'humanitarian' faces. This is a very different situation from the one faced by General Patton and the American army when they first encountered the concentration camps at the end of the Second World War. Then, it was a total and absolute surprise to find out that what was inside the concentration camps was a sea of skeletons. What is clear to me, therefore, is that while the tragedy of war grinds on, the contemporary aesthetics of the tragedy seem not only confused but, in some way, suspicious. John Armitage: Almost inevitably, reviewers will compare Strategie de la deception with your earlier works and, in particular, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception (1989 [1984]). Indeed, the very first chapter of the latter book is called 'Military Force is based upon Deception'. Could you summarise the most important developments that, for you, have taken place in the relationship between war, cinema, and deception since you wrote War and Cinema? Paul Virilio: For me, Sun Tzu's statement that military force is based upon deception is an extraordinary statement. But let us start with the title of War and Cinema. The important part of the title is not War and Cinema. It is the subtitle, The Logistics of Perception. As I said back in 1984, the idea of logistics is not only about oil, about ammunitions and supplies but also about images. Troops must be fed with ammunition and so on but also with information, with images, with visual intelligence. Without these elements troops cannot perform their duties properly. This is what is meant by the logistics of perception. Now, if we consider my latest book, Strategie de la deception, what we need to focus on are the other aspects of the same phenomenon. For the strategies of deception are concerned with deceiving an opponent through the logistics of perception. But these strategies are not merely aimed at the Serbs or the Iraqis but also at all those who might support Milosevic or Saddam Hussein. Moreover, such strategies are also aimed at deceiving the general public through radio, television and so on. In this way, it seems to me that, since 1984, my book on the logistics of perception has been proved totally correct. For instance, almost every conflict since then has involved the logistics of perception, including the war in Lebanon, where Israel made use of cheap drones in order to track Yasser Arafat with the aim of killing him. If we look at the Gulf War, the same is also true. Indeed, my work on the logistics of perception and the Gulf War was so accurate that I was even asked to discuss it with high-ranking French military officers. They asked me: 'how is it that you wrote that book in 1984 and now it's happening for real?' My answer was: 'the problem is not mine but yours: you have not been doing your job properly!' But let us link all this to something that is not discussed very often. I am referring here to the impact of the launch of the television news service CNN in 1984 or thereabouts. However, what I want to draw your attention to is CNN's so-called 'Newshounds'. Newshounds are people with mini-video cameras, people who are continually taking pictures in the street and sending the tapes in to CNN. These Newshounds are a sort of pack of wolves, continually looking for quarry, but quarry in the form of images. For example, it was this pack of wolves that sparked off the Rodney King affair a few years ago in Los Angeles. Let us consider the situation: a person videos Rodney King being beaten up by the cops. That person then sends in the footage to the TV station. Within hours riots flare up in the city! There is, then, a link between the logistics of perception, the wars in Lebanon and the Gulf as well as with CNN and the Pentagon. But what interests me here is that what starts out as a story of a black man being beaten up in the street, a story that, unfortunately, happens all the time, everywhere, escalates into something that is little short of a war in Los Angeles! John Armitage: In The Vision Machine (1994 [1988]) you were concerned with highlighting the role of the military in the 'contemporary crisis in perceptive faith' and the 'automation of perception' more broadly. Has the Kosovo War led you to modify your claims about the role of the military in the contemporary production and destruction of automated perception via Cruise missiles, so-called 'smart bombs' and so on? Paul Virilio: On the contrary. The development and deployment of drones and Cruise missiles involves the continuing development of the vision machine. Research on Cruise missiles is intrinsically linked to the development of vision machines. The aim, of course, is not only to give vision to a machine but, as in the case of the Cruise missiles that were aimed at Leningrad and Moscow, also to enable a machine to deploy radar readings and pre-programmed maps as it follows its course towards its target. Cruise missiles necessarily fly low, in order to check on the details of the terrain they are flying over. They are equipped with a memory that gives them bearings on the terrain. However, when the missiles arrive at their destination, they need more subtle vision, in order to choose right or left. This, then, is the reason why vision was given to Cruise missiles. But in one sense, such missiles are really only flying cameras, whose results are interpreted by a computer. This, therefore, is what I call 'sightless vision', vision without looking. The research on vision machines was mainly conducted at the Stanford Research Institute in the US. So, we can say that the events that took place in the Kosovo War were a total confirmation of the thesis of The Vision Machine. John Armitage: Let us turn to vision machines of a different variety. To what extent do you think that watching the Kosovo War on TV reduced us all to a state of Polar Inertia (1999 [1990]), to the status of Howard Hughes, the imprisoned and impotent state of what you call 'technological monks'? Paul Virilio: There can be no doubt about this. It even held true for the soldiers involved in the Kosovo War. For the soldiers stayed mostly in their barracks! In this way, polar inertia has truly become a mass phenomenon. And not only for the TV audiences watching the war at home but also for the army that watches the battle from the barracks. Today, the army only occupies the territory once the war is over. Clearly, there is a kind of inertia here. Moreover, I would like to say that the sort of polar inertia we witnessed in the Kosovo War, the polar inertia involving 'automated war' and 'war-at-a-distance' is also terribly weak in the face of terrorism. For instance, in such situations, any individual who decides to place or throw a bomb can simply walk away. He or she has the freedom to move. This also applies to militant political groups and their actions. Look at the Intifadah in Jerusalem. One cannot understand that phenomenon, a phenomenon where people, often very young boys, are successfully harassing one of the best armies in the world, without appreciating their freedom to move! John Armitage: Jean Baudrillard infamously argued that The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1995 [1991]). Could it be argued that the Kosovo War did not take place? Paul Virilio: Although Jean Baudrillard is a friend of mine, I do not agree with him on that one! For me, the significance of the war in Kosovo was that it was a war that moved into space. For instance, the Persian Gulf War was a miniature world war. It took place in a small geographical area. In this sense it was a local war. But it was one that made use of all the power normally reserved for global war. However, the Kosovo War took place in orbital space. In other words, war now takes place in 'aero-electro-magnetic space'. It is equivalent to the birth of a new type of flotilla, a home fleet, of a new type of naval power, but in orbital space! John Armitage: How do these developments relate to Global Positioning Systems (GPS)? For example, in The Art of the Motor (1995 [1993]), you were very interested in the relationship between globalisation, physical space, and the phenomenon of virtual spaces, positioning, or, 'delocalization'. In what ways, if any, do you think that militarized GPS played a 'delocalizing' role in the war in Kosovo? Paul Virilio: GPS not only played a large and delocalizing role in the war in Kosovo but is increasingly playing a role in social life. For instance, it was the GPS that directed the planes, the missiles and the bombs to localised targets in Kosovo. But may I remind you that the bombs that were dropped by the B-2 plane on the Chinese embassy - or at least that is what we were told - were GPS bombs. And the B-2 flew in from the US. However, GPS are everywhere. They are in cars. They were even in the half-tracks that, initially at least, were going to make the ground invasion in Kosovo possible. Yet, for all the sophistication of GPS, there still remain numerous problems with their use. The most obvious problem in this context is the problem of landmines. For example, when the French troops went into Kosovo they were told that they were going to enter in half-tracks, over the open fields. But their leaders had forgotten about the landmines. And this was a major problem because, these days, landmines are no longer localised. They are launched via tubes and distributed haphazardly over the territory. As a result, one cannot remove them after the war because one cannot find them! And yet the ability to detect such landmines, especially in a global war of movement, is absolutely crucial. Thus, for the US, GPS are a form of sovereignty! It is hardly surprising, then, that the EU has proposed its own GPS in order to be able to localise and to compete with the American GPS. As I have said before, sovereignty no longer resides in the territory itself, but in the control of the territory. And localisation is an inherent part of that territorial control. As I pointed out in The Art of the Motor and elsewhere, from now on we need two watches: a wristwatch to tell us what time it is and a GPS watch to tell us what space it is! John Armitage: Lastly, given your analyses of technology and the general accident in recent works such as Open Sky (1997 [1995]), Politics of the Very Worst (1999 [1996]) and The Information Bomb (2000 [1998]), what, for you, is the likely prospective critical impact of counter measures to such developments? Are there any obvious strategies of resistance that can be deployed against the relentless advance of the technological strategies of deception? Paul Virilio: Resistance is always possible! But we must engage in resistance first of all by developing the idea of a technological culture. However, at the present time, this idea is grossly underdeveloped. For example, we have developed an artistic and a literary culture. Nevertheless, the ideals of technological culture remain underdeveloped and therefore outside of popular culture and the practical ideals of democracy. This is also why society as a whole has no control over technological developments. And this is one of the gravest threats to democracy in the near future. It is, then, imperative to develop a democratic technological culture. Even among the elite, in government circles, technological culture is somewhat deficient. I could give examples of cabinet ministers, including defence ministers, who have no technological culture at all. In other words, what I am suggesting is that the hype generated by the publicity around the Internet and so on is not counter balanced by a political intelligence that is based on a technological culture. For instance, in 1999, Bill Gates not only published a new book on work at the speed of thought but also detailed how Microsoft's 'Falconview' software would enable the destruction of bridges in Kosovo. Thus it is no longer a Caesar or a Napoleon who decides on the fate of any particular war but a piece of software! In short, the political intelligence of war and the political intelligence of society no longer penetrate the technoscientific world. Or, let us put it this way, technoscientific intelligence is presently insufficiently spread among society at large to enable us to interpret the sorts of technoscientific advances that are taking shape today. Ecole Speciale d'Architecture, Paris. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CTHEORY editors would like to thank Paul Virilio for participating in this CTHEORY interview, John Armitage for conducting and editing the conversation, and Patrice Riemens for translating the interview. John Armitage is Principal Lecturer in Politics and Media Studies at the University of Northumbria, UK. The editor of Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond (2000), he is currently editing Virilio Live: Selected Interviews for publication in 2001 and Economies of Excess, a forthcoming issue of parallax, a journal of metadiscursive theory and cultural practices. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Mon Oct 15 01:11:01 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:41:01 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: LPP Message of Solidarity at Berlin demo Message-ID: FYI the forwarded message below from Pakistan xxx Harsh. =============== [14 October 2001] Dear Friends, Please find enclosed the message of Labour Party Pakistan to the Berlin Demonstration on 13th October. Our German friends read it in the demonstration. Over 50,000 participated in this massive demonstration which has made headlines in Pakistan media today. Leaflets to support the LPP were also distributed in the demo. LPP is very much thankful to the comrades of the supporters of the magazine WasTun for this solidarity. Fraternally, Farooq Tariq Support the peace-movement in Pakistan! The media is today mainly reporting about protests from the fundamentalists, when they want to show the mood or tell something about the actual situation in Afghanistan or Pakistan after the military attacks by the US. We would like to break this one-sided point of view and the blockade of the media information by this report from Farooq Tariq, leader of the LPP in Pakistan. It shows the real background of the military attacks and which also shows that also in Pakistan there is a peace-movement like in Germany. This peace movement is much more than only the protests by the fundamentalists, but which is in contrary opposing the war and the fundamentalists - in a way the US never did. In fact the US always supported the fundamentalists, while the peace-movement activists in Pakistan had and have to fight against them as well as against the war and the military regime in their own country. For the today peace-demonstration here in Berlin we therefore want to share with you a declaration we received by Farooq Tariq, the leading member of the Pakistan Labour Party (LPP): Support the campaign: Solidarity with the peace-movement in Pakistan Contact in Germany: sonjaengelhardt1 at aol.com www.wastun.net/pakistansoli/ Message of Labour Party Pakistan to Berlin Peace demonstration (13-19-2001) We, the Labour Party Pakistan, condemn the US war against the people of Afghanistan. The US has already announced expansion of these attacks against other countries and in this way against other innocent people in the poor countries of the world. We condemn the terrorist attacks, which took place on the 11th September, but we also condemn the economic terror, which is practiced by countries like the US until years and years against the poor countries of the world. And this is the economic terror by IMF and World Bank, which forces their economic conditions to all of the poor countries. It means that the poor countries are forced to privatize, to dismiss the workers and in this way, bring again poverty and misery to the people, which "helps" in the end to put these people in the hands of the fundamentalists... And we also condemn the hypocrisy of the US in the way they try to justify their war. Pakistani ruling class during the Cold War was an apple of US eye. A trust worth ally against Soviet Union, Pakistan under its corrupt ruling class was generously granted IMF, World Bank loans and grants. The process reached its peak during 1980s when the USA was engaged in Afghanistan. Pakistan became third largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Egypt. But these enormous sums of money did not improved in any way the miserable living conditions for the working masses. These grants did end up in offshore bank accounts of military generals, bureaucrats and corrupt bourgeois politicians. Then Pakistan was no more needed as a base camp against Soviet Union. Now was the time to 'pay back' the loans. But the industrial base in Pakistan is very week. Debt retirement is possible only by IMF dictated 'economic reforms’ namely increased taxation, privatization and mass redundancies of public sector employees, an end to state subsidies. These so-called reforms brought nothing but misery, poverty and joblessness to the people. During last 20 years, poverty has doubled in Pakistan. The per capita income in Pakistan that was $ 460 in 1990 is now $340. Forty per cent of Pakistan's annual fiscal budget goes to army. Another 40 per cent go to debt retirement. Pakistan has paid $12 as interest, for every $1 it has loaned! Since the military took over in October 1999, the life of the workers and peasants became even worst what it was before. It carries out the IMF and World Bank instructions and deprives the working class of its trade union and democratic rights. This is a fact in Pakistan since 1999 - since the military coup of general Musharaf - the new good friend of the US-government, who is now needed to help the US-military attacks which are cynically called "permanent freedom". For the Pakistan people, there had been not existing any kind of permanent freedom since the military coup in 1999. Demonstrations had been banned and unions’ rights have been destroyed! Within a couple of months, the military regime becomes damn unpopular among masses was loosing its social base quit rapidly. A democracy movement started building up and on August 2001, the military dictator announced a schedule for elections and restoration of democracy. But the terrorist attack and its turn towards American Imperialism have earned him good new political friends. The USA would like to have an un-elected, dictatorial government in Pakistan during would-be Afghan war and Traders, rich people and bourgeois parties see a lot of opportunities to make money in pursuing Musharaf policy and the policy of the US. The demands for the restoration of democracy will not be put anymore. General Musharaf explain his support for Americans with the worsening economic conditions of Pakistan and the benefit Pakistan can get from his total surrender. But the Pakistan people know: Again it will make the life of the rich and the ruling class better and not the life of the workers. Which is much more worse than this: now a total support for the American foreign policy can result in death of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens and military men, inside Afghanistan and in Pakistan as well. A new war by the American on the name of curbing terrorism can start a new era of terrorism and counter terrorism. The US in the past has supported all sort of dictators and religious fanatics. This was on the name of stopping the offence of communism. Now to bomb Afghanistan, they are all out to support the military regime of Pakistan in economic and political terms. They have now forgot the fact that what they are dealing in Pakistan is an undemocratic military regime which has also harbored the Talban in the past - like the US have done it by themselves. With the active help of Pakistan and passive support of the Americans, Talban took over Kabul. This was to install a “strong” government in Afghanistan, which can guarantee a safe passage to the oil pipeline from Central Asia to Indian subcontinent and other areas. Osama Bin Laden is a bye product of the American State terrorism over the years and a product of the joint activities of the Bush-family and the family of Bin Laden, which have common oil companies. Innocent citizens have paid the price with their lives of these fanatic policies. So it is more the case to oppose all sort of terrorism, on state level or on individual level. The terrorist attack on American cities has provided an excuse for the Americans to attack Afghanistan. But it will not solve the question of terrorism and will not bring any peace or stability. All the talk of a world campaign against terrorism will not bring any positive results. It can only lead to more bloodshed of innocent citizens. There has been growing anger among many Muslims here in Pakistan about the military total cooperation with the Americans. Demonstrations and rallies have been increasing day by day all over the countries. The religious fanatic parties are exploiting this wave of sympathies. And this is not showing in the media’s - there is also a new peace-movement arising, which has nothing to do with the fundamentalists but is fighting against these forces as well. In this new peace-movement in Pakistan, the women and the LPP are standing in the frontline: They are fighting together against the military attacks by the US against Afghanistan. And they are fighting together against the military regime in Pakistan, against globalization and the economic dictatorship by IWF and World Bank - and against the religious fundamentalists... But they need the help and support of the international peace- and workers-movement! On the 25th September, a peace-really took place in Lahore, one of the biggest cities in Pakistan. The “Women’s Workers Help Line”, the LPP and the “Joint Committee for peoples rights” organized it. This was a demonstration against terrorism and religious fundamentalism, which in the same way sent a warning to the US not to start a war against Afghanistan. This demonstration was able to take place although there has been a ban on demonstration by the military dictatorship. For Monday, the 15th October, there will again another peace-really take place, which is organized by the Labour Party Pakistan and some women and human rights organizations. But this new peace-movement in Pakistan has to deal with several enormous challenges, because it is fighting on several fronts in the same time: Against religious fundamentalism, against terrorism, against the own military dictatorship and against the war of the US against Afghanistan. It needs support! Everybody who wants to know more about the peace- and workers-movement in Pakistan and who wants to help should look at: www.labourpakistan.org. Financial help is very necessary and should be send to: Education Foundation Donations Foreign currency account (US Dollars) Account number 1161774808090 Standard Grindlays Bank, Gulberg Branch Main Boulevard, Gulberg, Lahore, Pakistan Fraternally, Farooq Tariq, General Secretary Labour Party Pakistan" From menso at r4k.net Mon Oct 15 10:59:30 2001 From: menso at r4k.net (Menso Heus) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:29:30 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] US refuses new offer Taliban Message-ID: <20011015072930.U78334@r4k.net> "The Taliban made an offer of their own Sunday, saying they would be willing to discuss giving bin Laden to a third country for trial if the United States ended its attacks and provided evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington." "The White House quickly rejected the offer, and President Bush said the U.S. position was "non-negotiable." Full article on: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.retaliation.facts/index.html What's that funny smell? Menso -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip of sticky tape across his mouth. -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery --------------------------------------------------------------------- From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Sat Oct 13 10:58:29 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:28:29 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] *Guardian on Cluster Bombs & *Al-Jazira TV on Injured Children Message-ID: <000201c153b1$4fa1b8c0$1076c8cb@shohini> US deploys controversial weapon: Cluster bomb B-52s scour country for troop convoys to attack Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian (London) October 12, 2001 United States aircraft are dropping cluster bombs on Afghanistan for the first time as pilots begin to look for moving targets, including armoured vehicles and troop convoys. The weapons - which scatter about 150 small "bomblets" over a large area and whose use has been condemned by the Red Cross and other hu manitarian agencies - can be dropped by B-52 bombers. B-52 bombers engaged in air strikes on Afghanistan are based on the British Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia. "The prime focus was garrisons, bivouac areas, maintenance sites, troop-type facilities," a US defence official said yesterday. The official described the latest round of round-the-clock bombing as "substantial". US officials hope the cluster bomb attacks on troops may persuade some Taliban commanders to change sides. The attacks involved about 10 B-52 and B-1 bombers, which took off from Diego Garcia. The Pentagon said they dropped "area munitions," including CBU-89 Gators, which are 1,000-pound cluster bombs. The Red Cross last year called for a ban on cluster bombs. In a report sent to the UN it said some 30,000 unexploded bomblets remained in Kosovo after the conflict ended. They are estimated to have caused up to 150 casualties, including the death of two Gurkha soldiers. "Unlike anti-personnel mines, incidents involving these sub-munitions usually result in death or injury to several people as a result of their greater explosive power," the Red Cross said. Cluster bombs are used to cover a broad area rather than a single specific target. The bomblets, or "sub-munitions", contain higher explosive than landmines and their normally brightly-coloured casings make them attractive to children. An internal Ministry of Defence report estimated that 60% of the 531 cluster bombs dropped by the RAF during the conflict in Kosovo missed their in tended target or remain unaccounted for. Cluster bombs were dropped from medium and high altitudes during the Kosovo conflict despite official US assessments after the 1991 Gulf war that they were likely to miss their targets. On average, between 5% and 12% of the bomblets fail to explode, according to UN estimates. In its report on the lessons from Kosovo, the MoD last year described cluster bombs as "an effective weapon against area targets such as a group of soft-skinned military vehicles". It added: "Nevertheless, we have learned that it would be useful to have a capability to strike single vehicles more accurately." ##### October 12, 2001 Al-Jazira television broadcast pictures this morning of children seriously injured in the United States bombing of the Afghan capital Kabul. Several children were shown lying on hospital beds some with bandages around their heads and limbs. One child's body was almost completely covered in bandages while another infant was screaming in someone's arms. One child appeared completely still and had small scars on his face. It was not clear if this child was alive or simply weakened or unconsious. Many parents have taken their children out of hospitals, the television said, because there were no medications or supplies with which to treat them. Al-Jazira also showed what appeared to be a school house destroyed by bombing. A chalk board could be clearly seen on the inside wall of the building. The television also showed pictures of a number of destroyed houses. The Al-Jazira correspondent in Kabul Taysir al-Allouni said that he had received eyewitness reports of a mosque being destroyed in an area called Rishkour, and more houses in another area with the loss of dozens of lives. He said there were reports of heavy civilian casualties in two villages outside Kabul. Al-Jazira does not have pictures of these areas yet, but is working to obtain them he said. Al-Allouni said that the bombing last night had been the heaviest. He described the bombs being used by the United States as setting off enormous explosions with fireballs lasting up to 30 seconds, and sending enormous clouds of black smoke into the sky. The type of bomb could not be confirmed from the ground, he said, but referred to reports from Washington that US forces are dropping 2300kg "bunker buster" bombs and said that the bombs used last night were bigger than those used in the first days of the US attacks. The Guardian also confirms that the US is now using cluster bombs (see story below) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011012/e21a66c6/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Mon Oct 15 17:26:29 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:26:29 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Call for Digital documentaries Message-ID: >> >>CALL FOR PROPOSALS DIGITAL DOCUMENTARY PROJECTS >> >>Special programme IDFA 2001 >>23-30 november, Amsterdam >> >>Whatís the impact of new, digital media on the traditional, >>creative documentary? >>This year's DOCS ONLINE will raise some new questions looking at >>documentary filmmaking and what the effects and possibilities are >>when working with digital media and the internet. Starting off with >>a selection of interesting digital documentary projects, the >>International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA) will allow >>space and time to exchange ideas, present work and discuss the >>impact of the changing infrastructure on the documentary landscape. >> >>DOCS ONLINE.2 will be an inspiring platform for a broad audience; >>from traditional documentary-filmmakers to webaddicts, from >>researchers to producers, from students to experienced >>professionals. >>In addition to debates, presentations and ofcourse a special >>website, the audience can participate in discussions and meet the >>guests invited for this program. >>The central issue of debate will be "The Real versus Mediated >>Life". Media-experiences have a big impact on the way we watch the >>world around us. Media have become our senses, and experiences in >>the 'real world' increasingly refer to information we have already >>absorbed and images coming to us through media. Are there new ways >>of communicating documentary-stories? How are filmmakers and their >>audiences reacting to CNN, docu-soaps and information overload? >> >>DOCS ONLINE explores the changing nature of authorship, presents >>tools for documentary content production and distribution and >>invites a growing online community to participate in the programme. >> >>CALL FOR PROPOSAL >>IDFA invites individuals and organisations to send in proposals for >>DOCS ONLINE. Check the IDFA website for more information >>www.idfa.nl or email to the editors of the team: >>Carolien Euser and Nathalie Faber info at cut-n-paste.nl >>We are looking for online-documentary projects and filmmakers with >>an interesting take on the use of digital media. Organisations >>which explore the infrastructure of the web as a platform for >>documentaries are also invited to come forward. Deadline 15th of >>October 2001 >> >>During the festival the public will have permanent access to the >>DOCS ONLINE computers at the festivallocation 'de Balie'. There >>will also be possibilities in presenting 'offline works' (cd-rom, >>dvd). Please send in your details, data, a description of your >>project (max. 10 lines), URLís and/or tapes/cdís to >>IDFA Kleine Gartmanplantsoen 10 1017 RR Amsterdam. >> >>EDITORIAL TEAM >>Curators for this programme are Carolien Euser and Nathalie Faber >>who work together as Cut-n-Paste >>www.cut-n-paste.nl, coordinated by Adriek Nieuwenhuijzen and Manna >>Nasht (production) +31 20 6273329 >>For information about DOCS ONLINE 2000 check out www.docs-online.nl >> >>You can also reply answering the following questions: >> >> >>1. What is the documentary project? (max. 100 words) >> 2. Who is involved? (organizations, individuals) >> 3. What exactly would you show at the IDFA? (film, computer >>presentation, other digital formats?) >> 4. What will you send us by mail (tapes, cd-rom, etc.)? >> 5. What equipment would you need and would you bring it yourself? >> 6. Your URL >> 7. Contact person >> 8. Email address, postal address, telephone, and fax. Send us >>this information >>email to: carolien euser -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From ravis at sarai.net Tue Oct 16 22:49:59 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:49:59 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] ACTIVISTS AND SPOOKS by Felipe Rodriquez (fwd from nettime) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011016224917.00a925d8@mail.sarai.net> ACTIVISTS AND SPOOKS A lecture about covert activities against activist groups, given at TILT conference, Sydney Australia (c) Felipe Rodriquez - 27 September 2001 With special thanks to Eveline Lubbers for her insightful comments and inspiration for this article and in general. INTRODUCTION Activists worldwide are scrutinized by government agencies and corporate intelligence activities. Numerous organizations have been the object of surveillance and infiltration. These organizations include activist groups that advocate sabotage and violence. But most are peaceful organizations that do not advocate violence. Organizations around the world that have been targets of government surveillance and infiltration include Greenpeace and Amnesty International. Other groups include gay and lesbian rights organizations, socialist and Communist organizations, environmental groups, animal rights groups, middle east organizations, unions, peace activist organizations and human rights groups [1]. Western world intelligence organizations work on the basis of a counter insurgency model developed by British intelligence expert Frank Kitson. In his book, Low Intensity Operations he defines various stages of development of political organizations. He advices that the primary work of an intelligence agency should occur in the earliest phase of the creation of an organization, when the it is small and vulnerable. It outlines the necessity for continuous covert operations, insisting that infiltration and "psychological operations" be mounted against dissident groups in "normal times," before any mass movement can develop. [2] Officially the primary functions of government intelligence activities consist of giving information and warning of potentially hostile political plans of organizations, and the research and analysis of that information. Unofficially it includes the manipulation of organizations and people, in order to disrupt, weaken, compromise and control them. There is a need for activist groups to be concerned with surveillance and infiltration: governments and corporations observe, and sometimes manipulate, these groups to discover what they know, who their sources are, and what their future activities will be. One word of warning; you should not let this lecture make you feel too paranoid; governments have limited resources, and therefore they are unlikely to use many of the techniques that I will mention in this lecture if you are not an important suspect to them. WHO ARE THE SPOOKS ? Organizations involved in infiltration and surveillance activities include police organizations, local and foreign human intelligence organizations, local and foreign signal intelligence organizations and global corporations. A large US based religion, The Church of Scientology, has also been accused numerous times of infiltration and surveillance activities, apparently to weaken and destroy their perceived enemies. A large number of government infiltrations of activist groups have been reported worldwide. An example is reported infiltration and surveillance activity by the Victorian police Operations Intelligence Unit, in Australia, in the early nineties. This unit monitored 316 organizations and had files on more than 700 people in the state of Victoria [1]. Exceptional about this was not the amount of organizations and individuals that where monitored, but the fact that these covert activities where exposed. Similar activities by police forces and intelligence organizations happen around the world, but remain covert. Often we only get to see single pieces of the intelligence puzzle. Some of the examples of puzzle pieces that where found are: - the infiltration into the US organization 'Students for Economic Justice' [3] - undercover police activities during protests [4] - failed attempts to recruit informers [5] - informants or agents that have been discovered and volunteered information about their previous covert activities. Such activities need not be limited to domestic government agencies. In the early 90s a US agency tried to infiltrate a hacker group in the Netherlands by setting up a hackers bulletin board to lure and entrap hackers. He created multiple personalities on his bulletin board to create an impression that there was genuine activity and communication going on. But in reality he was trying to extract information from Dutch hackers about their activities, and possibly try to infiltrate those hacker groups. The operator of this bulletin board later turned out to be an employee at the US embassy in The Hague. In 1995 he was fired by the US embassy because he had become a security threat, and in 1996 he started posting elaborate stories about his intelligence activities [6] for the CIA. Various corporations have also engaged in surveillance and infiltration activities. And they do not only spy on their competitors. Activities against activist groups have been reported. Such as the case of McDonalds, that employed private investigation agencies to infiltrate London Greenpeace [7,8]. In the case of Greenpeace London, Mc Donald's had hires more than one investigators to infiltrate that group. The infiltrators did not know the identity of the other infiltrators. Corporations have an increasing need to gather intelligence to protect their interests. Governments can often not provide the information and intelligence products that corporations need. Various corporations have therefore used private intelligence companies, such as a company called Control Risks. Control Risks is a so called international business risk consultancy. Services include political and security risk solutions, investigations, security consultancy and crisis management and response. The essence of companies like Control Risks, is to function like a privatized intelligence organizations. In January this year a person called Manfred Schlickenrieder was exposed as a corporate spy that was doing work for shell and possibly other corporations. This person has been spying on activist groups for a period of more than twenty years. He collected information and photographs on hundreds of people. He also offered to sell guns to people. The founder of the company he worked for, a former MI6 agent, said in the Financial Times that his company tried to do the same thing for corporations as they had done before for the government. A number of espionage activities by freelance agents that sell their product to corporations have been reported. In the Netherlands there was a case involving a detective agency that collected paper from activist groups. The agency employee, posing as an activist, told organizations that the old paper would be sold to a recycling company, and the proceeds would be donated to a school. As a result many sensitive documents ended up on the desk of corporate managers, to whom they where sold by the agency [9]. Another freelance agent was Adrian Franks, who infiltrated numerous activist groups, collected information about them, and tried to sell this information to corporations around the world [10]. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE Much has been written about the Echelon surveillance network. Echelon has the capacity to carry out total communications surveillance. Satellite receiver stations and spy satellites in particular are alleged to give it the ability to intercept any telephone, fax, Internet or e-mail message sent by any individual. Echelon operates worldwide on the basis of cooperation among the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia. These states place their interception systems at each others disposal, and make joint use of the resulting information [11]. A former Canadian secret service employee says the service routinely received communications concerning environmental protests by Greenpeace vessels on the high seas [12]. Echelon is coordinated by the National Security Agency, or NSA, in the United States. This is an agency has a budget of approximately 4 billion dollars a year. This budget is magnified by the cooperation with other intelligence agencies, and assets are pooled with these agencies. Examples are the spy base in Pine Gap, based in Australia, with mixed Australian and US staff. There are numerous speculations about the capabilities of the NSA, they have been known to top into undersea communications cables, and the United States have a special submarine equipped for these operations. There have been messages about the NSA tapping undersea fiber optic cables, by splicing them. The problem does not seem tapping into these cables, but processing the unimaginable amounts of information that such tapping provides. In space the NSA has specially equipped spy satellites, such as the Mercury signals intelligence spacecraft. These satellites are designed to intercept transmissions from broadcast communications systems such as radios, as well as radars and other electronic systems. They have a very large deployable antennae with a diameter of approximately 100 meters. Carnivore is a computer-based system that is designed to allow the FBI to collect information about emails or other electronic communications to or from a specific user. It has the capability to capture all the network traffic to and from a specific user or IP address [13]. Other countries are developing similar devices, and the legislation needed to implement them. In the Netherlands legislation has already been implemented that will force ISPs to make their Internet network traffic available to police and secret service surveillance, when served with an order to do so [14]. In the Netherlands there was a legal case where a former hacker, that now works for the police, provided evidence that the Dutch police had created a black box device that was capable of tapping specific internet traffic at a provider, and had the capability to reconstruct the entire session of the user that was the target of surveillance. There are currently a lot of news items about intelligence services trying to uncover messages that have been hidden using steganography. This is a technique to hide a message inside another message. It is alleged that terrorists use steganography to hide messages that are sent to other terrorists. Several Internet providers around the world have been asked to provide information about this, and to cooperate with the intelligence community to uncover these hidden messages. Government contracts have been granted to companies to develop techniques that enable the analysis of content on the Internet, in order to uncover messages that are hidden using steganography. If you are concerned about the security of your computer network, then stay away from wireless network equipment, such as the Apple Airport and Lucent Orinoco wireless access points. Wireless network communication has been compromised, and it is relatively easy even for an amateur to eavesdrop and penetrate a wireless computer network. In the United States it has become a bit of a fashion to drive around in a car, equipped with a computer, a wireless Ethernet device, and a special antenna. This enables one to pick up network traffic from most wireless networks, especially the ones that are not secure. This new fashion has a name, it is called war driving, and is derived from the old hacker activity of war-dialing In Australia laws have been passed that give ASIO, Australia's domestic spy organization, powers to hack into computers. They can now enter and modify computers remotely. [15] The FBI has been reported to have rigged a computer used by a suspected criminal in order to be able to monitor every keystroke. [16] The suspect was using encryption to protect the data on his computer, and it was impossible for the FBI to crack this encryption. By tapping his keystrokes they where able to find the password of his encryption software, and decrypt all the secret information on his computer. Less high-tech ways of spying on activist communication include a phone tap, or a pen register. A phone tap eavesdrops on the activist's telephone calls, recording the oral communications on tape. A pen register tracks all the numbers of inbound telephone calls. Phone taps are used extensively in some countries, and less in other countries. The Netherlands is notorious for its use of phone taps; it has among the highest amount per 1000 population of phone taps in the world. Also in the Netherlands it has been reported more than once that public phones where being tapped by the police, because they where allegedly being used by criminals that tried to circumvent government tapping of their phone. A government phone tap is impossible to detect, don't believe the marketing hype that spy shops give you about anti bug devices. These devices are only effective for very low-end surveillance equipment as employed by mediocre freelance spooks. The danger of bug detection devices is that they'll give a false sense of security. A very rare way of detecting a phone tap is when a mistake is made. In 1992 a tap was placed on a computer line of the Dutch hacker group HackTic network. This disrupted normal network email operations. The inverse signal of the tapped line was connected to another line by mistake. Social engineering of the phone company engineer responsible for the switch disclosed that something odd was done to the wiring that he was not allowed to disclose [17]. In some cases microphones (bugs) are installed in a premises, to record conversations in a room. Before such a device can be placed, surveillance by the agency is initiated in order to determine the best time and place to install it. Be wary of electricians and plumbers at the door with whom you have no appointment, they may be checking out the best location for a bug, and may be trying to find security problems for later covert entry into your house. Often there is no need for the spooks to install any microphones in your home, there already is one there, its called the telephone ! Built into the international CCITT telephone protocol is the ability to take phones 'off hook' and listen into conversations occurring near the phone, without the user being aware that it is happening [18]. This effectively makes the telephone into a room monitoring device. Do you believe only street cats are interested in your garbage bin ? You're wrong ! Garbage can be a primary source of intelligence. This may sound smelly, but look at what people throw away. Often draft versions of documents end up in the trash. These may give away vital information. Oracle paid private investigators to go through the trash of a trade group with ties to arch-rival Microsoft. [19] A case that already mentioned before occurred in the Netherlands, where a private investigation company collected the trash of numerous activist organizations. Shredding documents is an option, but may provide a false sense of security. When the Iranian revolutionaries occupied the US embassy in Tehran they found big pile of shredded secret US government documents. The Iranians managed to recover the shredded items and systematically reassemble them. They then published facsimiles of the documents in a series that currently numbers over 70 volumes. The information that was uncovered by the Iranians contained the identity of the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Buckley, who was kidnapped and assassinated by a group calling itself Islamic Holy War. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden switched his satellite phone off ? Because following people around has become very easy if they use a cellular or satellite phone. A mobile phone network always knows in what cell of the network the phone is at any given time. Police and intelligence organizations can access this information to locate someone, or to find out the history of a person's movements. Another way of finding out where a person has been in the past, is by checking credit card transactions; purchase anything with a credit card, and the transaction is logged on the mainframe of the credit card company, including the location of the merchant, and therefore your location at the time of purchase. During demonstrations and protests the government often uses photo and video surveillance, to record the presence and activities of individuals. Some police forces have specially equipped command and control vehicles with video camera's on their roof, and video terminals inside. Video and photographic surveillance of specific locations, such as an office of an activist organization, has been documented in the past. With the right optical equipment such surveillance can be done from a mile or so away, defeating any chance of discovery. INFILTRATION An infiltrator tries to penetrate an organization with the intention of collecting information that is otherwise not available. Surveillance of communications is called Sigint, an acronym for Signals Intelligence. The use of informers, or actual infiltration of groups is called Humint. Sigint often does not provide adequate information about the motives and future plans of people and organizations, therefore government agencies often engage in Humint activities. Infiltration is also used to manipulate and compromise activists and their organizations. Undercover infiltration is a specialist job, and can be hard to detect. There are some recurring signs that have been turning up in reports about past infiltrations. An infiltrator needs to gain trust in the target organization, and will sometimes offer secret information to gain trust and respect. An infiltrator will seek a leadership, or close to leadership, position. It is important for an infiltrator to become an information hub, and infiltrators often maintain extensive contacts with other organizations. Infiltrators often create conflict and intrigues in their environment. Infiltrators often extensively copy archived documents of the activist organization and take these copies with them. Another important sign that has come up repeatedly in reports about different infiltrations by government agencies is that the infiltrator will often promote the use of illegal activities, and may encourage others to participate in illegal activities. Infiltrators have been reported that offered arms and explosives to activists [20]. In the Netherlands there have been two reported cases of infiltrators that where offering guns and explosives. Another case has been documented in Germany. I have had some personal experience with a person working for the US embassy in the Netherlands that tried to incriminate me in a crime, apparently with the intention to use that against me to discredit me, or worse. Fortunately we reported this to the press and police before the case came to its climax; and this person consequently lost his job at the embassy. The reasoning behind this activity of offering weapons is that governments want to know who is willing to use violence or illegal activities to achieve their activist goal [21]. An element of entrapment is often blended into this; the infiltrator promotes the use of violent or illegal activity, and when the illegal activity takes place the people involved are arrested. After such an arrest an attempt can be made by the government agency to pressure the participating activist into becoming an informer with threats of punishment and prison. The African National Congress manual for covert actions [22] used the following list to identify infiltrators: * they try to win your confidence by smooth talk and compliments; * they try to arouse your interest by big talk and promises; * try to get information and names from you which is no business of theirs; * try to get you to rearrange lines of communication and contact points to help police surveillance; * may show signs of nervousness, behave oddly, show excessive curiosity; * may pressurize you to speed up their recruitment or someone they have recommended; * ignore instructions, fail to observe rules of secrecy; Spies that work for corporate intelligence organizations often work in a different way than government organizations. Corporations want information of a more general nature, such as the results of voting sessions, the intentions of campaigns and what contacts exist with other activist organizations. The main function of this information for the corporation is the creation of damage assessments and to develop public relations responses to actions like a consumer boycotts. Because of their different nature, corporate spies are more low-key. They are less likely to promote violence or to offer weapons and explosives for sale. Therefore they are harder to detect and isolate. Cases have been reported, such as the one mentioned before in this lecture, where corporate spies have been active for many years. INFORMERS An informer reveals confidential information in return for money or other benefits. Recruiting informers often ends in failure, and therefore there are many reports available about the recruitment process. Informers can have a range of motives to turn against the organization they are informing about. They can be disenchanted members who volunteer their services. An activist may be overheard by someone not of the group, who in turn informs police. Someone may have been arrested and may try to avoid prosecution by agreeing to infiltrate a group and obtain information about activist activities. Or someone may have been targeted for recruitment by the police. [23] Recruitment by police or intelligence agencies is usually preceded by extensive background checks. Activists that have weak spots are singled out for recruitment attempts. A weak spot may be financial trouble, immigration status, pending prosecution and a range of other possibilities. The activist may be threatened and/or offered money. Other offers that may be made to coerce the activist into becoming an informer may include a permanent visa offer, or a settlement to prevent prosecution. Family members and friends of the recruitment prospect may be pressured, to convince the activist to become an informer. WHAT TO DO ? If you believe you, or your organization, are the target of infiltration of surveillance, the best thing you can do is start building up documentation and evidence. Create a small group of trusted individuals, and start to planning and researching the case. Try to find out all the facts, try to remember every detail that can be remembered. It is no use to have suspicions that cannot be backed up with hard facts. If evidence has been collected, it is often useful to double-check it first, and then publish the evidence. Please try to always be extremely careful about paranoia and unfounded allegations. Because that can cause as much, or more, harm to an organization as any intelligence activity. The best defense, if you have nothing to hide anyway, is to be extremely transparent. If transparency does not deter intelligence agencies, it will at least diminish your own feelings of paranoia and persecution. Second best is to have a high degree of awareness about security and knowledge about surveillance methodology. That helps in developing secure communication mechanisms, such as using encryption, steganography and maintaining anonymity. It is always useful to use encryption to protect your Email. Sending an unencrypted email is the same as sending a postcard without an envelope, any hacker or system engineer can read your email. There are various encryption software programs available on the Internet, PGP, Pretty Good Privacy, is probably a good choice. If you want to hide the fact that you are communicating, you may want to use some steganographic program, that hides a message within another message. Security is one thing, paranoia another. The summary of technologies and activities in this article is extensive, and some may find it scary. The fact that all these things are possible, does not mean that they happen right now in your organization. For most people it is unlikely to be extensively targeted by most of the methods that I have described. Police and intelligence organizations have limited resources, and very extensive surveillance will only be done on high priority targets. One also has to be mindful of the fact that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have limited resources. Priorities change, and what one day seemed important, may not be important the next day. An recent example would be increased attention by the intelligence community for the anti-globalization protestors, that may not seem as important today in light of the global fight against terrorism. The intention of this article is not to make you feel paranoid, or to make you feel permanently watched by the government. Such extreme focus on an individual or group is rare and only happens in extreme cases where suspects are very important. Most intelligence operations against activists are likely to be low intensity intelligence operations with the aim of tracking developments and collecting information. But if you have been trained in some Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, then you probably have a credible reason to feel watched at this particular moment. The intention of this lecture is also to instill a certain level of security awareness in people. You could compare it to an insurance policy. You never know when we will have a need to know about these surveillance and infiltration techniques; one day in the future we may find ourselves living in a totalitarian state. It would be useful in those circumstances if some information about government surveillance and infiltration activities is available. Another reason to create this lecture, is that most of us live in democratic states. Therefore it is important to have some insight in the covert activities that our governments engage in, because they do so in the name of the electorate, and therefore in our name. Thanks, Felipe Rodriquez ------------ SOURCES: [1] Operations Intelligence Unit Victorian police data base files at: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~neils/PoliceWatch/spec1.html [2] Low-intensity Operations - General Sir Frank Kitson Faber and Faber; ISBN: 0571161812 [3] Activist group exposes undercover officer http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=3519 [4] Undercover troopers among those arrested during GOP convention http://europe.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/16/convention.protests.ap/ [5] Koerden geïnfiltreerd (dutch) http://www.xs4all.nl/~evel/koerd.htm [6] Snorri Helgarsson - My Story http://groups.google.com/groups?q=snorri+cia+parker&hl=en&rnum=19&selm=4omak u%24b6%40enterprise.cistron.nl [7] Special Branch Help McDonald's http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/squall_aut96.html [8] Mag ik u infiltreren? (dutch) http://www.xs4all.nl/~evel/mcspy.htm [9] Liefdewerk Oudpapier (dutch) http://www.xs4all.nl/~evel/onzewer.htm [10] Infiltrator in A SEED, Earth First!, ENAAT - and where else? http://www.xs4all.nl/~respub/artikelen/adrian/ [11] European parliament report on the existence of Echelon http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/rapport_echelon_en.pdf [12] Jim Bronskill, Canada a key snooper in huge spy network, Ottawa Citizen, 24.10.2000 [13] Carnivore FAQ http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/carnivore-faq.html [14] opentap.org http://www.opentap.org/documents.php3 [15] EFA newsletter - ASIO hacking legalised http://www.efa.org.au/News/issue5_2.html#asio [16] Mafia trial to test FBI spying tactics http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15268.html [17] Hack-Tic afgeluisterd ? Hack-Tic 18/19 (dutch) http://www.hacktic.nl/magazine/1811.htm [18] SGR Newsletter, No.4, 1993 And also in Hack-Tic 18/19 at http://www.hacktic.nl/magazine/1824.htm (dutch site) [19] Oracle's Private Eyes Hit Microsoft Trail http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,17470,00.asp [20] Operatie Homerus - papieren tijger uitgeverij (dutch) ISBN 906728100X [21] Verslag van de speurtocht naar de infiltrant Adrian Franks (dutch) http://www.xs4all.nl/~evel/adrian.htm [22] African National Congress manual for covert actions http://cryptome.org/anc-manual.htm [23] POLICE UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS (2) by Mollie Maguire http://www.cat.org.au/a4a/police2.html (C) Felipe Rodriquez Copyright Notice; You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of this article for non-commercial use without the author's permission. --- Felipe Rodriquez http://www.xs4all.nl/~felipe # 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 aiindex at mnet.fr Wed Oct 17 00:40:00 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:10:00 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] NEW YORK CITY LABOR AGAINST THE WAR Message-ID: The statement below has been endorsed by 368 signers. We at "ground zero NYC" would greatly appreciate your support. To endorse this statement, please e-mail name, union affiliation/position and location to letwin at alaa.org or LaborAgainstWar at yahoogroups.com, or fax this signature page to 212.343.0966. All affiliations and titles listed for identification only (unless otherwise noted). Latest list of signers can be downloaded from . Name Union/Position E-mail City ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK CITY LABOR AGAINST THE WAR September 27, 2001 September 11 has brought indescribable suffering to New York City's working people. We have lost friends, family members and coworkers of all colors, nationalities and religions—a thousand of them union members. An estimated one hundred thousand New Yorkers will lose their jobs. We condemn this crime against humanity and mourn those who perished. We are proud of the rescuers and the outpouring of labor support for victims’ families. We want justice for the dead and safety for the living. And we believe that George Bush's war is not the answer. No one should suffer what we experienced on September 11. Yet war will inevitably harm countless innocent civilians, strengthen American alliances with brutal dictatorships and deepen global poverty—just as the United States and its allies have already inflicted widespread suffering on innocent people in such places as Iraq, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Territories, the former Yugoslavia and Latin America. War will also take a heavy toll on us. For Americans in uniform—the overwhelming number of whom are workers and people of color—it will be another Vietnam. It will generate further terror in this country against Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, people of color and immigrants, and erode our civil liberties. It will redirect billions to the military and corporate executives, while draining such essential domestic programs as education, health care and the social security trust. In New York City and elsewhere, it will be a pretext for imposing "austerity" on labor and poor people under the guise of "national unity." War will play into the hands of religious fanatics—from Osama bin Laden to Jerry Falwell—and provoke further terrorism in major urban centers like New York. Therefore, the undersigned New York City metro-area trade unionists believe a just and effective response to September 11 demands: *NO WAR. It is wrong to punish any nation or people for the crimes of individuals—peace requires global social and economic justice. *JUSTICE, NOT VENGEANCE. An independent international tribunal to impartially investigate, apprehend and try those responsible for the September 11 attack. *OPPOSITION TO RACISM—DEFENSE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. Stop terror, racial profiling and legal restrictions against people of color and immigrants, and defend democratic rights. *AID FOR THE NEEDY, NOT THE GREEDY. Government aid for the victims’ families and displaced workers—not the wealthy. Rebuild New York City with union labor, union pay, and with special concern for new threats to worker health and safety. *NO LABOR "AUSTERITY." The cost of September 11 must not be borne by working and poor New Yorkers. No surrender of workers’ living standards, programs or other rights. Signers list in formation: Rev. October 16, 2000–13:05 ALL INDIVIDUAL AFFILIATIONS AND TITLES LISTED FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) NYC METRO AREA >>>>UNION BODIES (Official Union Endorsements)(2) *AFSCME DC 1707 *AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 >>>>PRINCIPAL OFFICERS (12): *Larry Adams, Pres., National Postal Mail Handlers Union L.300 *Barbara Bowen, Pres., Professional Staff Congress-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Arthur Cheliotes, Pres., CWA L.1180 *Michael Letwin, Pres., Ass’n. of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW L.2325 *Jill Levy, Pres., Council of Supervisors and Administrators, NYSFSA, AFSA L.1 *Kim V. Medina, Pres., AFSCME L.253 & Pres., DC 1707 *Victoria Mitchell, Pres., AFSCME L.107; VP, DC 1707. *Maida Rosenstein, Pres., UAW L.2110 *Joel Schwartz, Pres., AFSCME, Civil Service Employees Ass’n. L.446 *Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez, RN, Chairperson, State Delegate Assembly, NY State Nurses Ass’n. *Brenda Stokely, Pres., AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Jonathan Tasini, Pres., National Writers Union/UAW L.1981 >>>>OTHER (258) *Jayma Abdoo, Jt. Council Del., UAW L.2110 *Ervand Abrahanian, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Tristin Adie, Steward, CWA L.1109 *Marilyn Albert, RN, SEIU L.1199 *George Albro, Sec’y-Treas., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Tom Anderson, Vice-Chairperson, OSA *Amun Ankhra, Exec. Bd., AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Hyacinth Anthonyson, UAW L.2110 *Anthony Arnove, NWU/UAW L.1981 *Sylvia Aron, NYC CLC Rehab.; Past-Pres., AAUP, Adelphi U. Chap. *Stanley Aronowitz, Union-Wide Officer & Exec. Council, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Daniel Ashworth, Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Anthony Assent, Del., AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Harold Bahr III, Chair, GLTGC, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Ellen Baker, Asst. Prof. of History, Columbia U.; AAUP *Joshua Barnett, AFSCME L.375, DC 37 *Thomas Barton, Steward, AFSCME L.768, DC 37 *Lisa Baum, Staff, AFSCME DC 37 *Dave Beal, Interim-Treas., UUR (Long Island) *Nicholas K. Bedell, Griev. Rep., CWE/UFT *Ed Beechert, NWU/UAW L.1981; Del., Northwest OR Labor Council *Dorothee Benz, Communications Dir., CWA L.1180 *Debra Bergen, Dir. of Contract Admin., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Carl Biers, Exec. Dir., AUD *Maggie Block, UNITE!; Fed. of Union Reps. *Peter Blum, Acting VP/CAB, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Ricky Blum, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Robert Bomersbach, OSA *Ian Brand, UNITE! L.169 *Caroline N. Brown, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Bill Bradley, Del., SEIU L.32B-J *June Brewster-Roger, Education Dir., AFSCME DC 1707 *Renate Bridenthal, Chair, Int’l Cttee., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Rachel Burd, labor consultant, NWU/UAW L.1981 *Gregory A. Butler, UBCJA L.608 *Chris Butters, AFSCME L.1070, DC 37 *Barbara H. Chasin, Officer, AFT L.1904, Montclair State U. *A.B. Chitty, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334; USN 1965-1969, Vietnam, 1966-1967, 1968, NY/VVAW *Maria J. Chiu, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Kimberly Christensen, UUP *Patricia Clough, Queens College Chap. Officer, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Antonia Codling, Chair, ACLA, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Hillel Cohen, Del., SEIU L.1199 *Catherine Cook, Jt. Council Del., UAW L.2110 *Sandi E. Cooper, Prof. of Hist., College of SI & Grad. Sch.-CUNY/frm. chair, Univ. Fac. Senate; PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Thelma C. Correll, SEIU L.1199, Retirees Chap. Exec. Cttee.; AUD Adv. Bd.; PHANYC *Lillian Cozzarelli, CWA L.1180 *Teresa Crawford, OPEIU, L.153 *Claire Crosby, GSEU/UAW L.2110 *Bill Davis, AFSCME DC 37 Retirees *Susan E. Davis, Co-Chair, NWU/UAW L.1981; founder Writers for Mumia *Jackie DiSalvo, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Robert E. Dow, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Bryce Dowd, Organizer, SEIU L.1199 *Steve Downs, Exec. Bd., TWU L.100 *Tim Dubnau, Dir. of Org., CWA L.1034 *Phyllis Eckhaus, NWU/UAW L.1981 *Madeleine M. Egger, CWA L.1101 *Hester Eisenstein, Queens College Chap., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Toby Emmer, Dir., UAW Region 9A Education Fund *Hugh English, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Hillary Exter, LSSA/UAW L.2320 *Samuel Farber, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Kate Fitzer, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Kevin M. Fitzpatrick, Organizer, NYTWA *Jordan Flaherty, SEIU Int’l Organizer (NYC) *Geoffrey Fox, NY L.Steering Cttee., NWU/UAW L.1981 *Josh Fraidstern, TWU L.100 *Richard W. Franke, Exec. Bd., AFT L.1904, Montclair State U. *Leona Frederick, VP, AFSCME L.95, DC 1707 *Lew Friedman, fmr. Exec. Bd., UFT *Eric Fruman, AFT *Hank Frundt, State Exec. Council, AFT L.2274, Ramapo College (Mahwah, NJ) *Brenda Fung, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Nanette Funk, Brooklyn College Chap., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Pam Galpern, Steward, CWA L.1101 *Livia Gershon, SEIU L.32B-32J *Mike Gimbel, Del., AFSCME L.375, DC 37; Del., NYC CLC *Gary Goff, Rec. Sec’y, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Marty Goodman, Exec. Bd., TWU L.100 *Winston A. Gordon, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Mark Grashow, Fmr. Chap. Chairperson, UFT *Shirley Gray, Griev. Rep., OSA *Michael Green, Staff Rep., AFSCME DC 1707 *Lorraine Guess, Rec. Sec’y, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *George Gulifield, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Larry Hanley, City College Del., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Elon Harpaz, Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Michele Hart, Staff Rep., AFSCME DC 1707 *Bill Henning, VP, CWA L.1180 *Lucy Herschel, Del., SEIU L.1199, LAS Chap. *Ed Hilbrich, SSA/SEIU L.693 *Carol Hochberg, VP/JRD, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Norman Hodgett, AFSCME L.371, DC 37 *Peter Hogness, PSU *Adriene Holder, VP/Civil, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Nancy Holmstrom, AAUP, Rutgers-Newark *Nina Howes, RN, Del., SEIU L.1199 *Dean Hubbard, union attorney, Labor & Employment Cttee., Nat’l Steering Cttee., NLG *Norman Hodgett, AFSCME SSEU/L.371 (ret.) *Carolyn Hughes, UFT *Lisa Jessup, Organizer, UAW L.2110 *Christine Karatnytsky, Exec. Bd., NY Public Library Guild, AFSCME L.1930; Ed., L.1930 Update *Ron Johnson, Public Relations Dir., AFSCME DC 1707 *Danny Katch, IBT L.804 *Cindi Katz, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Patrick Kavanagh, CWA L.1032 *Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz, Dir., Queens College Worker Education Extension Center; PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *David Kazanjian, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Dian Killian, Organizer, Journalism Div., NWU/UAW L.1981 *Terry Klug, Sec’y-Treas., TWU L.241 *Lisa Maya Knauer, GSOC/UAW L.2110 *Kevin Kniffin, Bus. Agent, GSEU/CWA L.1104 *Tom Knutson, UAW L.2110 *Bill Koehnlein, NWU/UAW L.1981 *John Korber, IWW-NYC; UFT *Daniella Korotzer, Alt. VP/LAS CDD-Brooklyn, Health & Safety Rep., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Kitty Krupat, Barg. Team, GSOC/UAW L.2110 *Uma Kutwal, Fmr. Pres., AFSCME L.375, DC 37 *Ray Laforest, Staff Rep., DC 1707, AFSCME *Robert Lapides, BMCC Chap., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Jane Latour, Dir., Women’s Proj., AUD; Man. Ed., Hardhat Mag.; NWU/UAW L.1981 *Tatiana Lemon, Del., SEIU L.1199, LAS Chap. *Robert Lesko, VP, AFT L.3882 *Jon Levine, AFL-CIO Labor's Community Services, Union Co. Labor Council, CWA L.1010 & UAW L.595 *Eileen A. McCann, Alt. Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *John McCarthy, Staff, TWU L.100 *Patrick McCreery, GSOC/UAW L.2110 *Earl McFadden, AFSCME L.153, DC 1707 *Siobhan McGrath, Unit Chair, UAW L.2110 *Charles McLaughlin, SEIU L.1199 *Robert McMillan, Controller, AFSCME DC 1707 *Miguel Maldonado, Pres., Immigrant Worker’s Association *Julius Margolin, IATSE L.52 *Anthony L.Massa, Senior Action (retirees), NYC CLC *Luis Matos, U.S. Healthcare Trade Union Cttee. *Barton Meyers, Chair, Griev. Policy Cttee., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Aaron Micheau, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Claude Misukewicz, UAW L.2110 *Charlene Mitchell, Asst. to the Pres., AFSCME L.371, DC 37 *Chuck Mohan, Pres., Guyanese-American Workers United; Staff Rep., AFSCME DC 1707 *Charles Molesworth, Acting Chair, Queens College Chap., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Kim Moody, NWU/UAW L.1981; Labor Notes Policy Cttee. *John Mooney, Vice Chairman of Station Agents, TWU L.100 *Caryn L.Morgan, Staff Rep., AFSCME DC 1707 *Florence Morgan, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Susan Olivia Morris, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Jeff Olshansky, SEIU L.1199, LAS Chap. *Amy Muldoon, CWA L.1106 *Soo Kyung Nam, UAW L.2320 *Ken Nash, Building Bridges: Your Community and Labor Report in Exile *Henri L.Nereaux, Fmr. VP, Masters Mates & Pilots/ILA *Marcia Newfield, BMCC Chap. Officer, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Catherine Newton, Alt. Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Daniel Nichols, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Matt Noyes, Education Coordinator, AUD; NWU/UAW L.1981 *Tony O’Brien, Del., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *John O'Connor, Sec’y-Treas., AFM L.1000 *Rick O’Gorman, Bus. Agent At-large, GSEU/CWA L.1104 *Susan O’Malley, Exec. Council, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Dennis O’Neil, Leg. Dir., NY Metro Area Postal Union, APWU *Richard L.Oeser, IATSE L.52; Cornell Labor Studies; Nat’l Labor College *Rene Orellana, public health educator (ret.), DC 37 *Martin Paddio, UAW L.2110 *Greg Pason, NJ Steering Cttee., NWU/UAW L.1981 *J.P. Patafio, New Directions Caucus & Exec. Bd., TWU L.100 *Paul Peloquin, Del., LSSA/UAW 2320 *Andy Piascik, Program Coord., AUD; NWU/UAW L.1981 *John Pietaro, Del., SEIU L.1199, Health Systems Div. *Leonard Polletta, VP, Legal Dept. Staff Assn., AFSCME DC 37 *Pride at Work, NY *Jeannette Pringle, Treas., AFSCME L.389, DC 1707 *Jim Provost, LSSA/UAW 2320 *Mike Quinn, High School Del., UFT *Jugo Quintero, U.S. Healthcare Trade Union Cttee. *Gloria E. Quiñones, Fmr. member, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Peter Ranis, Exec. Council, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Shirley Rausher, BMCC Del., PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Amie Ravitz, union labor attorney; Fmr. Del.and Exec. Bd., LSSA/UAW 2320 *Adolph Reed, Jr. NWU/UAW L.1981 *Joan Max Reinmuth, RN, NYSNA *Michael Relyea, Fmr. VP, AFSCME L.1113, DC 37 *Dominic Renda, CWA L.1105 *Marc Ribot, AFM L.802 *Sally Ridgeway, AAUP, Adelphi Chap. *Winston Roche, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Cicely Rodway, Queens College Chap. Officer, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Terrance Romeo, AFSCME L.1113, DC 37 *Nancy Romer, Exec. Council, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Mimi Rosenberg, Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *George Rosenthal, NALC Branch 41 *Rochelle Rosenthal, Steward, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Andrew Rowe, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Cathy Ruckelshaus, Litigation Dir., NELP *Trudy Rudnick, Organizer, AFT L.3882 *Sharon Ruffin, Proj. Staff Organizer, AFSCME DC 1707 *Michael Ruscigno, IBT L.802 *Eduardo Santiago, Exec. Dir., LCLAA-NYC *Luz Santiago, Field Services Dir., AFSCME DC 1707 *Norelis Santiago, OPEIU, L.153 *Jay Schaffner, Supervisor, Nat’l Contracts Dept., AFM L.802 *Tim Schermerhorn, Vice Pres., RTO, TWU L.100 *Jose Schiffino, Organizer, UNITE! L.169 *Jason Schulman, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Wendy Scribner, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Silochoni Seerattan, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Elba Serrano, Admin. Services/Personnel Dir., AFSCME DC 1707 *Hasan Shafiqullah, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Ryan Shanahan, SEIU L.1199, LAS Chap. *Carole Shreefter, SEIU L.1199 *Jana Silverman, UAW L.2110 *Cleo Silvers, SEIU L.1199; Workers to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal *Barbara Slemmer, UFT *Neil Smith, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *George Snedeker, Disability Rights Cttee., UUP *Joyce Soso, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Ann Sparanese, Steward, RWDSU L.29 *Claudette R. Spencer, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Rob Spencer, Dir. of Media Services, OSA *Deirdre Griswold Stapp, NYSUT L.24-005 *Michael Sullivan, Organizer, UNITE! *Gibb Surette, Del., LSSA/UAW 2320 *Sean Sweeney, Dir., Cornell Labor Studies *Kyle Talbert, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *John Talbutt, AFSCME SSEU/L.371, DC 37 *Norman Taylor, VP, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Terry Taylor, IBEW L.827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice *Steve Terry, Alt. Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Miriam Thompson, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Sin Sin Tong, fmr. Member, AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *Azalia Torres, Alt. VP/CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Merry Tucker, UFT *Glenn Turnbull, Exec. Bd., AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *G.L.Tyler, Political Dir., AFSCME DC 1707 *Juliet Ucelli, UFT *Mark Ungar, PSC-CUNY/AFT L.2334 *Andrea de Urquiza, Organizer, UAW L.2110 *Ninfa Vassallo, Dir. Home Health Care, AFSCME DC 1707 *Amanda Vender, Sec’y, Newspaper Guild of NY, TNG, CWA *Lise Vogel, AAUP/CBC *Marilyn Vogt-Downey, UFT *Kit Wainer, UFT *Naomi Walcott, SEIU L.1199 *Michael Ware, Steward, CWA L.1109 *Ron Washington, IBEW L.827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice *Rosemary Washington, AFSCME DC 1707 *Steve Weiner, Steward, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Pat Whitted, Steward, AFSCME L.215; Del., DC 1707 *Edlyn Willer, Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Corinne Willinger, PEF *James Wilson, Sec’y-Treas., AFSCME L.215, DC 1707 *JoAnn Wypijewski, TNGNY/CWA *Jacob Yagnatinsky, AFSCME L.2627, DC 37 *Michael Yates, Assoc. Ed., Monthly Review magazine; Prof. Emeritus, U. of Pittsburgh; CWA; NWU/UAW L.1981 *Ethan Young, NWU/UAW L.1981 *Naomi Zauderer, NELP; UAW L.2320, UAW L.1981 *Milton Zelermyer, Del., ALAA/UAW L.2325 *Robert Zuss, VP/CDD-Brooklyn, ALAA/UAW L.2325 NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL ENDORSERS >>>>PRESIDENTS (6) *Alan Fisher, AFT L.2121 (San Francisco) *Chris Goodwin, AFSCME L.3592 (Boulder, CO) *Ruth Holbrook, Sacramento CLC *John Riehl, AFSCME L.207 (Detroit) *Michael-David Sasson, Coalition of University Employees L.3 (Oakland, CA) *Sabina Virgo, AFSCME L.2620 (Statewide CA) >>>>OTHER (89) *Stephen Aberle, ACTRA/Union of British Columbia Performers (Vancouver) *Robin Alexander, UE Dir. of International Labor Affairs *Douglas Anderson, UE L.896/Campaign to Organize Graduate Students, U. of Iowa *Diana Barahona, Los Angeles District, CWA *Edward Barahona, NALC L.1100 (Long Beach, CA) *Sandy Bauer, Steward Coordinator, BCNU (British Columbia) *Erwin Baur, Fmr.-Pres., UAW L.306 (Berkeley, CA) *Catherine Bell, VP, BCGEU (Burnaby, Canada) *Alan Benjamin, OPEIU L.3; Del., S.F. CLC *Geoff Bickerton, Dir. of Research, CUPW (Ottawa) *Margaret Blamey, CEP L.468 (Vancouver) *Michele Bollinger, WTU/AFT L.6 (DC) *Bill Bumpers, UE L.262 (Somerville, MA) *Jeffrey W. Burritt, NOLSW/UAW L.2320 *Duane Campbell, CFA/SEIU L.1983 (CA) *Nancy Grimley Carleton, NWU L.3/UAW L.1981 (S.F. Bay Area) *Robert Cartwright, NJEA *Dave Cunningham, SEIU L.250 (Fremont, CA) *Helen Davis, NPMHU L.218 (Hendersonville, NC) *Andrea Dehlendorf, Organizing Coordinator, SEIU L.1877 (CA) *Roger Dittmann, Prof. of Physics Emeritus, CA State U., Fullerton; Pres., US Fed. of Scholars and Scientists; Fmr-Pres., AFT L.1588; Fmr-Sec’y, United Prof. of CA; Rep., Orange Co. CLC *Sandy Eaton, RN, Bd. of Dir., MNA (Quincy, MA) *Tom Edminster, UESF (AFT/NEA); Del., SF CLC; Labor in the Schools Cttee., CFT *Michael Eisenscher, Dir. of Organizational Development, U. Council, AFT (Berkeley) *Larry Frank, UCLA Labor Center *Fred Furlong, Atlantic Region Education Officer, CUPW, (Halifax, NS) *Robert “Gabe” Gabrielsky, Steward, HERE L.54 (Atlantic City, NJ) *Judith Kegan Gardiner, AFT, U. of Illinois at Chicago *Alex Garza, Bd. Member, LCLAA; CSEA/SEIU L.1000 (state workers) (Sacramento) *Phil Gasper, NWU L.3/UAW L.1981 (S.F. Bay Area) *Javier Gonzalez, Lead External Organizer, SEIU L.1877, Sand Shop Steward, Building Service Staff Union (BSSU) (Los Angeles) *Sumanth Gopinath, GESO/HERE, Yale U. (New Haven) *Dean T. Hall, International Organizer, SEIU (Los Angeles) *Wayne Heimbach, Producer, Labor Express Radio (Chicago) *Douglas Higbee, UAW L.2865 (Irvine, CA) *Ed Hunt, Exec. Bd., SEIU L.925 (Seattle WA); Exec. Bd., Pride at Work, AFL-CIO *Jef Keighley, National Rep., CAW (Vancouver) *Greg King, SEIU L.285 (Boston) *Roger Kishi, HEU (Vancouver) *Chris Kutalik, Steward, ATU L.1549 (Austin) *Labour Left Briefing (London) *Tom Laney, Shop Committeeman, UAW L.879 (Minneapolis/St-Paul) *Elly Leary, UAW L.2324 (Boston) *Kathy Lipscomb, Field Rep., SEIU L.250 (San Francisco) *Ian McCarthy, NSW Sec’y, Communications Electrical & Plumbing Union, Telecommunications and Services Branch (Sydney, AU) *Bob McCloskey, Business Agent, SEIU L.535 (Los Angeles) *Dorothy Macedo, UNISON Rep. to Exec. Cttee., Greater London Labour Party *Ian Malcolm-Walker, National Conference Del.& Regional Disability Advisory Cttee., MSF Derby General Branch 0880 (UK) *Bob Mandel, Exec. Bd., OEA (Oakland, CA) *James Mattiace, SEA-OEA (Springfield, OR) *William C. Meecham, Ph.D, AAUP *John M. Michon, DGA member, IATSE (Los Angeles) *John P. Murphy, UAW L.376 (Hartford, CT) *Michal Elaine Myers, Chapter Chair, UTLA/AFT L.1021 (Los Angeles) *Aaron Newman, AFT-Oregon/AFT L.3544 *Peter B. Olney, Institute for Labor and Employment, U. of California (San Francisco) *Mike Parker, UAW L.1700; Labor Notes (Detroit) *Harry S. Pariser, NWU/UAW L.1981 (San Francisco) *Jan Perkins, UAW L.2000, (OH) *Sandy Polishuk, VP for Political Affairs, PSUFA/AFT; Treas., OR local, NWU/UAW L.1981 *Mel Pritchard, Union Representative, Marin Association of Public Employees/SEIU L.949; AFM L.6 (San Francisco) *Fred Prockiw, Organizer, SEIU L.6 (Seattle) *Roland Rance, Sec’y, Waltham Forest Trades Union Council (London, UK) *Teófilo Reyes, Labor Notes, CWA L.34022/TNG (Detroit) *Marc Rich, Exec. Bd., UTLA/AFT L.1021 (Los Angeles) *Stewart M. Robinson, CSU-AAUP (ret.) (Cleveland) *Valerie C. Robinson, OFT (ret.) (Cleveland) *Ed Rosario, VP, GCIU L.4N (San Francisco) *Jonathan Rosenblum, Organizing Coordinator, SEIU (Seattle) *Star Rosenthal, Rep., HEU; CEP L.468 (Vancouver) *Albert Sargis, UAW L.2324 (Boston U. Clerical/Technical Workers) *Sy Schuster, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics, Carleton College, AAUP (Northfield, Minnesota) *Anita Seth, GESO/HERE, Yale U. (New Haven) *Herbert Shapiro, Prof. of History, Emeritus; Past-Pres., AAUP, U. of Cincinnati Chapter *Eva Sharell, Exec. Member, Vancouver Community College Faculty Association/CIEA L.15 *Judy Shattuck, Sec’y, Coalition of University Employees (Berkeley) *Simmi Singh, GSEU/UAW L.2110 (Irvine, CA) *Andor Skotnes, Co-Chair, Sage Faculty Association/NEA-NY (Troy, NY) *Jim Smith, VP, AFSCME L.1108 (Los Angeles) *Jim Stanford, Economist, CAW (Toronto) *R. Stockwell, IWW IU 610 (California) *Susan Stout, CAW L.2213 (ret.) (Vancouver) *Cameron Studevant, NWU/UAW L.1981 (S.F. Bay Area) *Lee Sustar, NWU/UAW L.1981 (Chicago) *Patrick Switzer, SEIU L.925/CSA (Seattle) *Todd Tollefson, CWA/TNG L.37083 WashTech (Seattle) *Linda Tubach, House of Representatives, AFT L.1021 (Los Angeles) *Lynne Turner, ICEM North America (D.C.) *Rachel Tutte, HSA (BC, Canada) *Francisco Ugarte, CNA (San Francisco) *Rodney Ward, Reserve Chair, AFA LEC 69 (Boston) *Lynne Williams, MSEA/SEIU *Sheila Wilmot, CEP (Toronto) *Julia Witwer, SEIU L.616 (Fremont, CA) *Jon Zerolnick Research Analyst, AFL-CIO (Fort Collins, CO) *Stacey Zimmerman, Shop Chair (CT Citizens Action Group), UAW L.376 >>>>>GLOSSARY AAUP. American Association of University Professors ACLA. Attorneys of Color of Legal Aid ACTRA. Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television, and Radio Artists AFA. Association of Flight Attendants AFM. American Federation of Musicians AFSA. American Federation of School Administrators AFT. American Federation of Teachers AFSCME. American Federation. of State, County and Municipal Employees ALAA. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys APWU. American Postal Workers Union ATU. Amalgamated Transit Union AUD. Association for Union Democracy BCGEU. BC Government and Service Employees Union (Canada) BCNU. British Columbia Nurses Association CAB. Legal Aid Society Criminal Appeals Bureau CAW. Canadian Auto Workers CDD. Legal Aid Society Criminal Defense Division CEP. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union CFA. California Faculty Association CIEA. College Institute Educators’ Association (Canada) CLC. Central Labor Council CNA. California Nurses Association CSEA. Civil Service Employees Association CUNY. City University of New York CUPW. Canadian Union of Postal Workers CWA. Communication Workers of America CWE. Consortium for Worker Education DC. AFSCME District Council Del. Delegate FSA. Federation of School Administrators GCIU. Graphic Communications International Union GLTGC. Gay, Lesbian, Trans-Gender Caucus GSEU. Graduate Student Employees Union GSOC. Graduate Student Organizing Committee HERE. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union HEU. Hospital Employees’ Union (Canada) HSA. Health Sciences Association (Canada) IATSE. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees IBEW. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers IBT. International Brotherhood of Teamsters ICEM. International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions, IWW. Industrial Workers of the World JRD. Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Division L. Local Union LAS. Legal Aid Society of New York LCLAA. Labor Council for Latin American Advancement LSSA. Legal Services Staff Association MNA. Massachusetts Nurses Association MSEA. Maine State Employees Association MSF. Manufacturing Science and Finance (UK) NALC. National Association of Letter Carriers NELP. National Employment Law Project NJEA. New Jersey Education Association NLG. National Lawyers Guild NOLSW. National Organization of Legal Services Workers NPMHU. National Postal Mail Handlers Union NWU. National Writers Union NYSNA. New York State Nurses Association NYTWA. New York Taxi Workers Alliance’ OEA. Oakland Education Association OFT. Ohio Fed. of Teachers OPEIU. Office and Professional Employees International Union OSA. Organization of Staff Analysts PEF. Public Employees Federation PHANYC. Public Health Association of NYC PSC. Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York PSU. Professional Staff Union PSUFA. Portland State University Faculty Association (OR) RWDSU. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union SEIU. Service Employees International Union SSEU. Social Service Employees Union TNG. The Newspaper Guild TWU. Transport Workers Union UAW. United Auto Workers UBCJA. United Brotherhood of Carpenter and Joiners of America UE. United Electrical Workers UESF. United Educators of San Francisco UFT. United Federation of Teachers UNISON. Public Services Union (UK) UNITE! Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees UUP. United University Professions UUR. Union of Union Representastives VVAW. Vietnam Veterans Against the War WASHTECH. Washington Alliance of Technology Workers WTU. Washington Teachers Union (DC) From jimmychoi_kc at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 01:51:27 2001 From: jimmychoi_kc at hotmail.com (Jimmy Choi Kam Chuen) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:21:27 +0000 Subject: [Reader-list] (no subject) Message-ID: Dear members of reader-list I believe all of you like reading books and have had or will order books from online bookshops. I order books from Barns and Nobles, Blackwell, Waterstone, and Amazon. But I recently found out something from Amazon that will incur lose to customers if they are not careful. So read on if you don't want to lose money and time. I ordered a book through Amazon in July from one of its Zshop --- Jordty. Payment was made through my Amazon account and I received an e-mail telling me that the seller will send out the book on 22-Jul and asked me to give 8 weeks for delivery. I can email the seller after 14-Sep if I still don't receive it. I followed their instruction and e-mailed the seller after 14-Sep. I also gave them a few days to check the shipment and emailed again on 29-Sept cc to Amazon payment office. I received no reply from the seller but an auto-reply from Amazon payment office telling me to contact the seller directly. I told them I did that twice and what they have received is just a copy. I told them they have the means and obligation to contact the seller since I only have the seller's email address there is nothing I can do if they prefer not to respond. I was told to contact the buyer's support office of Amazon which just felt sorry that they can do nothing I had missed the deadline for refund which is 30 to 60 days after the shipment. I e-mailed them that they were not answering my question. I never asked for refund which they should seriously consider but to check the seller and see if any fraud involved. I told them to address my question again and stop this seller from swindling Amazon's clients otherwise I will stop using Amazon. Lessons to learn : you must be very careful doing business with Amazon because they are either unprofessional or they did it with a purpose. 1.The 30 to 60 days refund deadline was never brought up in all the email exchanges including the first one which acknowledged my order. It might have appeared in the process when I am placing the order.I am not sure. 2. Don't trust their instruction to wait for 8 weeks because that only leaves you four days before the deadline. Any reasonable person will give a few days for the seller to check the shipment and end up missing the deadline. 3. There is a buyer support office dealing with such matter but Amazon will only tell you to contact the seller. I am still waiting an answer from Amazon. I hope you guys fare better with them. Choi Kam Chuen _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Steef at CwaC.nl Wed Oct 17 03:06:35 2001 From: Steef at CwaC.nl (Steef Heus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:36:35 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] Cabinet clears tough anti-terror order Message-ID: Hi, Hawks see their chances. It is the same everywhere these days. Steef TIMES NEWS NETWORK NEW DELHI: The Union cabinet on Tuesday promulgated the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001, giving the police wide-ranging powers of investigation and arrest whenever terrorist acts are involved. The Ordinance goes beyond some of the stringent provisions currently contained in the draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha and is likely to revive unpleasant memories of the now-lapsed anti-terrorism law, TADA. Ever since TADA was scrapped because of popular protest against what was seen as an ineffective and draconian law, successive governments have tried to introduce fresh anti-terrorism legislation. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill drafted by the Law Commission went through several revisions but even the text that was pending in Parliament had been criticised by the National Human Rights Commission for giving the police excessive powers. The new Ordinance will extend even those powers, said an official release, because an inter-ministerial group which examined the Bill found it to be "too weak to provide a legal framework for combating terrorism". In the new ordinance, terrorist acts have been defined as "acts done by using weapons and explosive substances or other methods in a manner as to cause or likely to cause death or injuries to any person or persons or loss or damage to property or disruption of essential supplies and services with intent to threaten the unity or integrity of India or to strike terror in any section of the people." While the new law differs from TADA by providing some safeguards against the possibility that suspects could be tortured to provide confessions that would then be admissible in a court of law, it goes beyond the old law in one crucial sphere. It makes the withholding of "information relating to any terrorist activity" an offence. From zamrooda at sarai.net Wed Oct 17 13:50:10 2001 From: zamrooda at sarai.net (zamrooda) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:50:10 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] International passengers. Message-ID: <01101713501003.00996@legal.sarai.kit> Passengers with confirmed tickets on International flights are denied travel........ they happen to be Muslims. On one flight the pilot refused to take off, if the passenger was allowed to board. Another flight the fellow passengers created an uproar and the victim was offloaded. Just some rules to be kept in mind while flying 1.Avoid having a Muslim name. 2. Shave off the long beard and the long hair. 3. Attire should be western. 4. Never ever reveal your Muslim identity. First it was the Jews, then the Sikhs and now the Muslims. From ravikant at sarai.net Wed Oct 17 12:40:12 2001 From: ravikant at sarai.net (Ravikant) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:40:12 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] An =?iso-8859-1?q?Aid-worker=B4s?= account In-Reply-To: <20011016183652.90527.qmail@web20203.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20011016183652.90527.qmail@web20203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01101712314800.01078@jadu.sarai.kit> Here is a longish diary on pre-war Afghanistan, which i wish to share without comment.... ravikant --------------- A Last Road Trip Through Premodern, Postmodern Afghanistan > > September 30, 2001 > > By JOHN SIFTON > > > > > I got my last haircut in Kabul, but Sept. 11 found me > standing on John Street in lower Manhattan with about 20 > volunteer rescue workers, amid masses of scorched paper and > debris, watching fires burn near where the World Trade > Center used to be. A recently returned humanitarian aid > worker, I had rushed downtown when the towers collapsed. > Brushing dust and ash out of my hair -- still short from my > haircut -- I felt the low-level shock that came often in > Afghanistan, the kind of shock I felt when I saw dead > bodies, starving children, Taliban enemies hung from > lampposts by cable. I marveled at the fact that I was > feeling this familiar emotion in the financial district of > Manhattan, an unusual place to be in shock. For a moment I > felt that I had somehow not escaped Afghanistan, that I had > brought its disaster home with me to New York. > > I have spent most of the past year working in Afghanistan > and Pakistan for one of the international nongovernmental > organizations that implement humanitarian aid programs for > people suffering or fleeing from Afghanistan's multiple > crises: civil war, persecution by the Taliban and by > anti-Taliban military forces, economic stagnation, severe > drought and food and water shortages. We were the welfare > state for a failed state. > > Of course, everything has changed now. Relief workers from > international groups and the United Nations have been > evacuated from Afghanistan in response to an expected > military strike by the United States. Humanitarian > operations have been severely curtailed, and an increasing > number of refugees are pouring out of Afghanistan into Iran > and Pakistan. ''The country was on a lifeline,'' one of my > colleagues said, ''and we just cut the line.'' > > Like many countries suffering from political instability, > Afghanistan is a complicated and weird place. In some > areas, there are few traces of modern life. Goods are > carried by donkey or camel, and oxen plow the ground. Old > men with long beards sit beneath trees, fingering prayer > beads, their skin brown and wrinkled. Many rural people > live as their ancestors probably did 400 years ago: iron > pots over the fire, clothes they made themselves and babies > delivered by candlelight. > > In other parts of the country, life is more complicated. > Taliban troops speed around Kabul in their clean new Toyota > pickup trucks, tricked-out, hip-hop ghetto rigs. On the > sides they have painted pseudo-American phrases: ''City > Boy,'' ''Fast Crew,'' ''King of Road.'' Inside, young > solemn-looking Taliban men sit in their black holy dress, > sporting Ray-Bans. > > The juxtapositions can make your mind reel. Donkey carts > carrying computer equipment. Hungry children digging > through garbage piles using shovels from a Mickey and > Minnie Mouse sand-castle set. > > The number of people displaced from their homes is > enormous. Populations of the desperate roam around, begging > for money and scraps of food. People eat wild plants, > garbage, insects and old animal parts discarded by > butchers. In one camp, an old man showed me a bowl filled > with rotten cow bowels, grass poking out in places. ''This > is what we eat, sir!'' he said, wiping away tears with his > fist. > > I often had a strange feeling in Afghanistan, a sort of > temporal vertigo. It was impossible for me to get a proper > sense of time. Like many former cold-war battlefields, > Afghanistan is partly frozen in time; most of its urban > buildings and infrastructure were completed in the 1960's > and 1970's during the height of Soviet and American > spending on foreign aid to the developing world. The > telephone in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul is > one of those heavy models from the 1960's; in a pinch, you > could probably knock someone out with the handset. There is > an old telex machine in one of the offices, sitting dusty > in the corner, making you think it's 1976. Then you see the > American and Soviet military remnants from the 1980's: > broken old Soviet tanks painted and lined up in town > squares, a mural on a wall in eastern Kabul showing a holy > warrior with a Stinger antiaircraft launcher on his > shoulder. And still there are antique doors on some > buildings with designs from the 13th century. History > presents itself in a disorderly montage, like one of those > heuristic displays in natural-history museums -- dinosaurs, > the bronze age, the renaissance, space travel -- rearranged > at random: pre-cold-war, post-cold-war, cold war, Buddhist > antiquities, Kalashnikovs. The timelessness of this jumbled > history made me feel like an old museum curator: > time-transcendent, fascinated and lonely. This is perhaps > why I felt so crazy at times. > > > > Taliban troops and police are always easy to spot. They > have black flowing robelike clothes, long hair and big > silky black turbans with long tails running almost to the > ankles. (These accouterments are meant to identify them as > direct descendants of Muhammad.) They are often tall and > imposing, even impressive. ''The Taliban troops are like > gangsters,'' a colleague told me when I first arrived. > ''Tough guys.'' But there is often a particular dandyism in > them; many wear black eyeliner (part of the > descendant-of-Muhammad costume), and their hair is long and > curly. I once saw one buying Prell shampoo at the bazaar. > They carry themselves like supermodels. > > The reputation for religious conservatism in the Taliban > obviously doesn't come from their foppish troops. It comes > instead from the leadership in the southern city of > Kandahar, who founded the Taliban in the early 1990's. They > are considered mullahs now, but 10 years ago they were > essentially no more than a collection of seminary teachers > from the rural south. These ''original Taliban'' are the > ones who present the decrees barring women from work, > making men wear long beards and prohibiting me from > entering the country with ''pork products or lobsters'' (as > one recent decree dictated). These are the people who > proudly call themselves ''the Mosquitoes of Islam,'' > proclaiming, ''Islamic faith is a bright light: we seek to > be so close to it that we catch fire.'' > > In urban Afghanistan, crime was rare (one of the > seldom-mentioned upsides to Taliban authority), and > expatriates were treated with a good deal of respect by > government officials and the military. ''He who believes in > Allah and the hereafter shall perform good service for his > guests,'' reads a sign in one small government office in > the north. This is a telling poster. It might seem strange, > but aid workers were considered guests of Afghanistan, and > the title bestowed a special status on us. Even if we were > seen as an enemy of sorts (perhaps by a particularly grumpy > mullah), we were guests -- distrusted and carefully > examined, but still welcomed. > > In our humanitarian work, my colleagues and I interacted > with neither the black-robed troops nor the mullahs from > Kandahar. We dealt mostly with the ''new Taliban'' -- the > civil servants who in recent years have appeared from > between the cracks to run the country for the predominantly > illiterate and uneducated ''original Taliban.'' These > people form the real bureaucracy of Afghanistan. Though > they now sport the same flowing black turbans and long hair > as the troops, many were ordinary municipal leaders a few > years ago, local politicians. For the most part, they are > opportunists who saw the direction the wind was blowing > when the Taliban took power and adjusted accordingly; they > grew out their beards and put on black robes and became > Talibs. > > Of course, these new leaders' commitment to the moral > righteousness of the Talib movement is questionable. Many > seem fascinated by Americans and the West, eager to learn > more English, more American phrases and more about America. > (One afternoon, a Talib in Kabul kept me in his office for > an hour to go over some English grammar rules and ask about > New York and the ''Hollywood movie company.'') Still, the > new Taliban follow the orders of the Taliban leadership. > The decrees are enforced. > > > > The summer wind up in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north is just > absurd -- you feel as if you are on another planet. The > temperature is usually well over 100 degrees and the wind > blows about 40 to 50 miles an hour almost every day, > raising huge clouds of dust that hang hundreds of feet over > the desert. You feel as if you're standing in front of a > space heater in a dusty attic at the height of summer. Your > nostrils fill with dust and dry up; your eyes turn to red > slits. You have to wrap a turban around your head and nose > and drink a great deal of water. It is a war against > desiccation. > > On a particularly windy and hot day in June, some > colleagues and I took an almost insane trip from > Mazar-i-Sharif west into the scorching Iranian Plateau, to > a province called Jozjan, to gather some information about > the drought crisis areas there. > > We started out at 5 in the morning to avoid some of the > heat and drove for hours through the desert -- or what I > thought was desert. I learned later that it was, in normal > years, productive agricultural land. The heat and dust were > intense. The car rocked in the wind, and sometimes > visibility was reduced to only a few car lengths. To pass > the time, the young Afghan staff members told me about > their time in the jihad when they bombed Soviet > installations from the mountains. I recited hip-hop verses > at the request of one of the young Afghans, who wanted to > know ''about the African people with black skin in > America'' who ''sing, but without music, like shouting.'' > We drank huge amounts of water. > > We arrived in a small village called Aqchah, a dusty and > extremely windy trading town. We stumbled out of the car, > clothes soaked with sweat and filthy from the dust, and > walked into the local Taliban office to ''check in.'' (One > must indulge in this courtesy in order to avoid problems > later.) Then we sat for an hour with the entire village > leadership -- 15 or so men with long beards who argued > among themselves about what sorts of aid projects might > keep more people from leaving town for the city. (We had > this sort of meeting all the time.) > > We drank a lot of tea. The men spoke in Persian, and my > interpreter just filled me in on essentials. In the next > room, through the doorway, a man with a large knife stood > cutting fat from a sheep carcass hanging from the ceiling. > Every so often, the man would come halfway into the doorway > in his blood-stained apron, knife in hand, join the > conversation briefly, make a point and then go back to his > butchering in the next room. The others listened to him > with respect, but I never found out why. Our meeting > finished when the tea ran out. > > We drove through another desert -- a real desert -- to > arrive in the capital of Jozjan, Shiberghan. The trip took > about three hours. We arrived dusty, wind-blasted and > spacey. We staggered into the local Taliban office -- a > bombed-out building without windows -- to check in. The > local liaison official for international relief workers in > Shiberghan was about 22 years old. We were invited into his > office, a room facing the courtyard with no furniture, just > a rug on the floor and a phone. After the regular > introductions, the young official explained that he would > need to ''ensure my safety'' by supplying me with guarded > accommodations. I insisted that this wouldn't be necessary. > I told the official that I did not fear for my safety. I > even flattered him and said that I was sure that his city > was exceedingly safe. Still, after 15 minutes, he stood up, > put on his black turban and left to go secure my lodging. > > We had to wait for more than two hours. We got bored. I > examined a curious calendar on the wall that displayed a > map of Afghanistan surrounded by planes, tanks and ships > all labeled ''U.S. ARMY'' and all pointing missiles toward > the center of Afghanistan. Various Taliban functionaries > came and went -- new Talibs mostly. Finally, the official > returned to inform me that I would be staying at a hotel > reserved ''for foreign dignitaries'' (this is how my > interpreter translated it) called Dostum's Castle. It was > obvious that this was an honor, so I made an effort to > thank him profusely, despite the fact that I did not want > to go. I insisted, however, that the Afghan staff accompany > me. He obliged me at least on this point. Off we went. > > Dostum's Castle. What can I say? It was chintzy > Soviet-style public architecture combined with low-rent > Miami design: long frosted-glass windows and a faux marble > facade. There were peacocks on the front lawn -- peacocks > -- and a swimming pool filled with algae-plagued water. > > Inside, it was like ''The Shining.'' We walked down long > wide corridors with dark red carpeting; each of the > hotel-room doors had a padlock on it. We were the only > guests. The air-conditioner in my room sounded like a > Harrier jet, and there were bullet holes in the furniture. > > The bathroom in our room didn't work, so we had to go down > two floors to use another one. On the landing of the stairs > two floors down, there was a large landscape painting, > about 16 feet by 12 feet, of a pond, some flowers, a forest > and a few animals. The heads of the three animals had been > cut out of the painting to comply with Taliban aesthetic > restrictions: the creation of images of living beings is > forbidden under the Taliban's kooky interpretation of > Islamic law. This left a decapitated deer standing by a > pond and a headless beaver sitting on a tree stump. > > I considered the piece as I stood on the landing. A > terrible painting in the style of Bob Ross, done entirely > with two shades of green and one shade of brown and then > vandalized by Taliban police trying to ensure its innocence > before God without destroying it altogether. In its own > way, I thought, it is a post-postmodern masterpiece. But > surely I could add still more to this artwork. I could buy > it from the Taliban, sell it for a fortune in New York and > give the money to the Afghan opposition. Yes. Participatory > political art. It just might be crazy enough to work. How > much would a rich New York liberal with a sense of irony > pay for this, this bad art, vandalized by the Mosquitoes of > Islam and then sold to raise money against them? A new > school: censorship as an art form unto itself. Politics as > art. Art-dealing as art. I could be rich. > > I was still chuckling to myself when one of the Afghan > engineers came down the stairs. ''What are you laughing > about?'' he asked. ''I don't know,'' I answered. > > > > the next day was a nightmare: human suffering on a shocking > scale. Displaced persons without enough food to eat were > drinking water taken from muddy ponds -- mud really. > ''They're drinking mud,'' I said into my tape recorder. > ''They're drinking mud.'' I remember one particular > experience especially. We were in a windy camp for > displaced persons, and a man was showing us the graves of > his three children, who had died of disease on three > consecutive days: Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It was > Monday, and he had buried his last child the day before. > After he described all this, we stood around the graves in > the strangely loud silence of the wind, hot as an oven, and > the man absent-mindedly adjusted a rock atop one child's > grave. > > It was a very emotional moment, yet I didn't really feel > sad. I was just fascinated by the realness of it all. You > look out an office window, and you see a displaced family > living in a bombed-out school, sleeping on the balcony and > cooking some birds they caught, doves. This is their life. > They can't change the channel. > > There are no channels, in fact. We are ''off the grid,'' > not linked up with the world's information sources or any > of its culture. There are no telephones outside the cities. > There is no television reception. We have no access to > ''entertainment.'' There are no theaters, films, galleries > or circuses. The Taliban has even banned music. All this is > in contrast with the Western world, with its many > reality-altering and distance-distorting mechanisms: > television, cellphones, the Internet. Again, there seems to > be a time warp. Sometimes it feels as if we have been > brought back not just to a time before modern entertainment > but to a time before art -- a time in which reality was > just more real, a time without images and ideas and > representations, only actual events. > > And yet moments here often seem cinematic to me. I > constantly see things as scenes. Here we are walking in > Kabul, near some women in their concealing blue burqas; > goats are running by and an ancient Soviet tank lies gutted > by the side of the road. Here we see the schoolchildren > running by in their little Taliban uniforms, black turbans > hanging to their knees, yelling to me in robot English: > ''Hello! Hello! How are you?'' And here we are at the U.S. > government club in Peshawar, over the border in Pakistan, > sitting by the pool with some Belgian journalist, drinking > Grand Marnier and orange juice and talking about German > novels. I feel outside myself seeing these scenes play out: > absurdities that seem so normal while they're happening. > > There is a propensity among some aid workers (usually > younger ones) to work endless hours during a crisis. You > cannot take a break, it is argued, when children are > hungry. You cannot sleep, have a beer or lie in your bed. > You have to act. And so you work endlessly. And then, > inevitably, you crack: you go nuts, start acting righteous > and weird, and your colleagues come to despise you. > Ultimately, your organization evacuates you on > psychological grounds -- a procedure churlishly referred to > as a ''psycho-vac.'' You end up back home: unemployed, > asocial, crazy, useless and pathetic. > > I remember a story that a friend told me about an aid > worker she worked with in Albania. During the Kosovo > crisis, they were working together in a huge new refugee > settlement across the border with inadequate sanitation > facilities. > > ''We had to get 5,000 latrines built, like immediately. But > I'll tell you, he was gone, man -- his brain was fried by > trauma. He had been at Goma'' -- in the Congo -- dead > bodies and hacked-off limbs in a pile, and they had to > clean it up. I guess he was scarred. Anyway, he got like a > pound of pot from some Albanian mafia playboy in Tirana. He > would drink huge amounts of that terrible instant coffee, > Nestle's -- I think they put speed in that stuff. He was > high all the time. He didn't talk to anyone. He just drank > that crank coffee and smoked pot. He worked like a madman. > But we did it, man. We built those 5,000 latrines. They > psycho-vac'd him a little later though. He lost it.'' > > > > Just a few weeks ago, on an unusually cool summer evening > in southeast Afghanistan, I was sitting with some > colleagues at an outdoor restaurant above a small pond > beneath the beautiful mountain ranges southeast of Kabul. > We were enjoying a rare night of relaxation away from the > madness of our work. We sat on carpets, drinking tea, > waiting for food and enjoying the evening sky. > > The pond below was unnatural -- the result of a small > hydroelectric dam built by Soviet contractors decades > before -- but it was pretty enough, and we were enjoying > the scene. We had come to have some fried fish, a rare dish > in this landlocked country. > > We watched as a young boy climbed down to the pond to > retrieve our dinner, some fish previously caught but still > alive, swimming in a burlap bag laid in the water. In > Afghanistan, dried to the bone by three years of drought > and enduring a decreasing food supply, the sight of both > fish and water was strange. > > Some Taliban troops appeared from the nearby road. ''We are > here for fish!'' they announced in Pashtu. (My interpreter > told me this later.) They sat beside us. My colleagues > stiffened. > > ''Is he a Muslim?'' one of the Talibs asked, indicating me. > (He appeared, incidentally, to be very stoned.) My > interpreter answered in the negative. ''Christian?'' the > Talib asked. > > My interpreter turned to me. ''Are you a Christian?'' he > asked. > > ''Basically,'' I answered. > > My interpreter translated this, somehow. > > Questions began > to fly: ''Is he an American?'' the Talib asked. ''Where is > America? How close is America to Saudi Arabia? Are there > Muslims in America?'' > > My interpreter turned to me again. ''These are very > uneducated peasant people from the south.'' I nodded. > > ''Is this a problem?'' I asked. ''Should we leave?'' > > > ''No. They are bemused by you.'' > > The Talibs ordered some fish. Although we had ordered our > dinners first, the owner gave the Talibs our fish and > started to cook some more for us. The Talibs ate with > gusto, spitting bones onto the floor, fish catching in > their beards. When they finished, they rose and went to the > next room for prayers. > > Our fish arrived. We began to eat, but soon the Talibs > returned and sat down with us. ''Which province are you > from in America?'' one of them asked. I told them I was > from New York. ''This is a place with many black people, > from Africa, is this right? Very dangerous.'' I tried to > explain that this was a misperception. > > One Talib began to help himself to our fish, taking it from > our basket as though he hadn't just eaten. ''The black > people are very dangerous,'' he said. ''I hear that they > are very tall. How tall are they?'' > > I tried my best. There is only so much that can be > translated from one language to another, from one culture > to another. > > After a while, the Talibs rose to leave. Amazingly, the one > who had stolen from our bowl of fish wiped his hands on my > turban, lying untied on the ground next to me. Then he > started to leave, but turned back, and a smile came across > his face. > > ''God bless America,'' he said in English, inexplicably. > > > John Sifton is a human rights attorney and humanitarian aid > worker. The views expressed here are personal reflections > and do not represent the organization for which he worked. > For security reasons, it is not named hereOn Wednesday 17 October 2001 --------------------------------- From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 18 06:26:06 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:56:06 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] US buys up all satellite war images Message-ID: US buys up all satellite war images Duncan Campbell Wednesday October 17, 2001 The Guardian The Pentagon has spent millions of dollars to prevent western media from seeing highly accurate civilian satellite pictures of the effects of bombing in Afghanistan, it was revealed yesterday. The images, which are taken from Ikonos, an advanced civilian satellite launched in 1999, are better than the spy satellite pictures available to the military during most of the cold war. The extraordinary detail of the images already taken by the satellite includes a line of terrorist trainees marching between training camps at Jalalabad. At the same resolution, it would be possible to see bodies lying on the ground after last week's bombing attacks. Under American law, the US defence department has legal power to exercise "shutter control" over civilian satellites launched from the US in order to prevent enemies using the images while America is at war. But no order for shutter control was given, even after the bombing raids began 10 days ago. The decision to shut down access to satellite images was taken last Thursday, after reports of heavy civilian casualties from the overnight bombing of training camps near Darunta, north-west of Jalalabad. Instead of invoking its legal powers, the Pentagon bought exclusive rights to all Ikonos satellite pictures of Afghanistan off Space Imaging, the company which runs the satellite. The agreement was made retrospectively to the start of the bombing raids. The US military does not need the pictures for its own purposes because it already has six imaging satellites in orbit, augmented by a seventh launched last weekend. Four of the satellites, called Keyholes, take photographic images estimated to be six to 10 times better than the 1 metre resolution available from Ikonos. The decision to use commercial rather than legal powers to bar access to satellite images was heavily criticised by US intelligence specialists last night. Since images of the bombed Afghan bases would not have shown the position of US forces or compromised US military security, the ban could have been challenged by news media as being a breach of the First Amendment, which guarantees press freedom. "If they had imposed shutter control, it is entirely possible that news organisations would have filed a lawsuit against the government arguing prior restraint censorship," said Dr John Pike, of Globalsecurity, a US website which publishes satellite images of military and alleged terrorist facilities around the world. The only alternative source of accurate satellite images would be the Russian Cosmos system. But Russia has not yet decided to step into the information void created by the Pentagon deal with Space Imaging. · Duncan Campbell is a writer on intelligence matters, and is not the Guardian's Los Angeles correspondent of the same name. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Thu Oct 18 07:31:13 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:01:13 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Who will watch the watchmen? Message-ID: Who will watch the watchmen? Monday October 8, 2001 By Richard Stallman [Richard Stallman is founder of the Free Software Foundation] Who will watch the watchmen? The question was posed by Plato, but it is just as important today as it was 2,400 years ago. Power has to be kept in check, as the founders of our country knew when they designed a system of checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. Any agency that has the power to protect us from enemies also has the power to do us great harm. Police must be able to search for evidence, if they are to catch terrorists or other criminals. But when police can get access too information about us too easily, they regularly abuse their power. (See "Cops tap database to harass, intimidate.") It is vital to protect citizens from police intrusion. In the United States, we do this by requiring the police to go to court and obtain a search warrant. Today the security forces want to be allowed to seize credit card information from Internet sites without a court order; they want to be able to record what URLs you look at without a court order, which can tell them such information as what books you have bought. There will be no difficulty getting a court to approve a search warrant when there is credible evidence of a terrorist plot, so they can investigate terrorists without this change. Whenever police ask to be allowed to bypass search warrants, we must be on guard. We depend on the FBI to investigate suspected terrorists, but who else will it investigate? Probably any real political opposition, since the FBI has a long history of investigating dissidents purely for their political views. Martin Luther King Jr.'s phone was tapped; his life-long commitment to non-violence apparently was not enough reason to consider him non- threatening. More recently, John Gilmore, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was investigated by the FBI as a criminal suspect based on no evidence except his political views. Terrorists often set up organizations to carry out their work or raise funds, and it makes sense to pursue those organizations, and prohibit contribution to them. But we must be very careful about how organizations are designated as terrorist, because we know the FBI won't be reasonable about it. The FBI has infiltrated and targeted many peaceful political groups -- in the '80s, while the United States supported a regime in El Salvador that killed tens of thousands of opposition activists, the FBI burglarized the office of CISPES rather than ask for a search warrant to investigate. Will the FBI stick to reason in deciding what is a "terrorist group?" Not if recent experience is any guide. On May 10, 2001, FBI director Louis Freeh testifying to Congress on the "threat of terrorism to the United States" listed Reclaim the Streets as a terrorist threat. Reclaim the Streets sets up surprise street parties, where people play music and dance. It is described in the book No Logo, by Naomi Klein, as one of the new forms of protest against global brand-dominated culture. No person has ever been killed or wounded by Reclaim the Streets. Can't the FBI distinguish between dancing and murder? U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked for the power to deport any non-citizen, or imprison him indefinitely, on mere suspicion of involvement with terrorism, without even going to court. This would deny visitors and immigrants to our country the most basic legal right, the right to a fair trial when accused of a crime. It would put the United States on a level with every police state. The U.K. government has already announced plans for similar measures; we cannot take for granted that the United States will not follow. Another way the watchmen can threaten our freedom is by keeping us in the dark about what the government is doing. There are good reasons to keep secrets about intelligence- gathering methods. If enemies find out how their plans are being observed, they can take countermeasures. But the U.S. government also has a long tradition of keeping secrets from the American public to conceal its mistakes or its mistreatment of the public. In the 1960s, the Pentagon Papers showed that the Department of Defense knew that what it was telling the public about the Vietnam War was false. The public found out because a heroic whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg, released a copy of these papers to the New York Times. So when we see proposals for laws to prevent leaks by punishing whistle-blowers, we should check them very carefully and make sure we won't be giving our public servants carte blanche to thumb their noses at us. If an FBI agent asks for our cooperation, what should we do? The FBI investigates and arrest terrorists. If the FBI were investigating a plot to hijack planes, I would want to help all I could. But the same FBI arrested Dmitry Sklyarov for allegedly developing a program that Americans can use to escape from the shackles of Adobe e-books. No one should cooperate with an investigation of that kind of "crime." If you don't know whether a policeman is looking to arrest a person for murder or for smoking a joint, how can you determine what right conduct would be? If the United States wants to obtain full cooperation for the FBI and the police from all Americans, it should abolish laws that shackle and harm Americans. Congress should repeal the DMCA, and the prohibition of certain drugs. Prohibition of drugs is especially self-destructive now, because in addition to imprisoning a million Americans who would otherwise contribute to the strength of our country, it subsidizes terrorism. Prohibition makes illegal drugs so profitable that various terrorist groups (including, reportedly, bin Laden's) get substantial funding by trading in them. The self- destructive U.S. drug policy has become a vulnerability we cannot afford. Over decades, external and internal enemies come and go. Sometimes the government protects us from danger; sometimes it is the danger. Whenever there is a proposal to increase government surveillance power, we must judge it not solely in terms of the situation of the moment, but in terms of the whole range of situations that we have faced and will face again. We must use the government for our protection, but we must never stop protecting ourselves from it. In the United States, we have developed a system to watch the watchmen: Judges watch them in some ways; the public watches them in other ways. For our safety, we must keep this system functioning. When the watchmen are really working for us, they can afford to let us check their work. When they ask us to stop checking, we must say no. Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved. From office at ncc.mur.at Thu Oct 18 14:56:14 2001 From: office at ncc.mur.at (ncc 48 office) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:26:14 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] ncc 48 netART community congress | graz Message-ID: <4.0.1.20011018111940.00e52df0@mail.mur.at> [apologies for any cross-postings!] The net art platform mur.at -- established in 1998 as a strategic alliance of art initiatives and artists of Graz, and dedicated to creating an electronic network -- is pleased to announce the upcoming _ncc 48 netART community congress_ being held in Graz and online during 48 hours of input and output. |--------------------------------------------------- |--- ncc 48 |--- netART community congress |--- opening: october 25th, 12:00 cet |--- closing: october 27th, 12:00 cet |--- dom im berg, graz/austria |---------------------------------------------------- http://ncc.mur.at/ ncc48 stands for 48 hours of non-stop information, documentation, discussions, reflections, and productions in analog and virtual space. the topic is "the internet in the context of art". Condensing information is the intention of ncc48, the congress is the medium. Over a time-line of 48 hours international artists, scientists, theorists, computer experts and the scheme-team will discuss, report and reflect on topics succeeding one another in a temporal rhythm and forming the "content back bone" of ncc48. There will also be concurrent workshops, chats, lectures and presentations of networkart projects. The whole programm of ncc 48 is set up as a network of interrelated issues addressed by the also interrelated designed contributions of all co-operators, contributors and the audience. The following 48 HOUR SPEAKERS have been invited to address those interelations and to constantly moderate the whole process of carrying out the ncc 48 netART community congress both on site and online: Josephine Bosma, NL; Andreas Broekmann, D; Katharna Gsoellpointner, A; Derrick de Kerckhove, CAN; Ulli Meybohm, D a mur.at event http://www.mur.at/ TOPICS/PROGRAM opening --------------------------------------- october 25 | 12:00 noon cet opening lectures: Winfried Ritsch, mur.at, A; Ivan Redi, ortlos architects, A open_source & free software --------------------------------------- october 25 | 2:00 pm cet The application of open source models on the internet in "net" architecture & "net" art may well be one of the most innovative scenarios for the future and will radically change the current situation. But how compatible is the "open source model", with all its guidelines ("open source definition") and as a working model, with net art projects? How could the further development of "free net art" be conceived in analogy to the development of "free software"? PARTICIPANTS: Maia Engeli, Kerstin Hoegger, Technical University, Zurich, CH (remote); Ulli Meybohm, D; Jaromil, I; Richard Stallman, USA (remote); Erich Stamberger, A carried out by ortlos architects, A | http://www.ortlos.com http://www.gnu.org/ http://meybohm.de/ www.kyuzz.org/jaromil/ http://www.ethz.ch/ net.communication --------------------------------------- october 25 | 6:00 pm cet net.communication refers to the situation of austrian cultural initiatives related to the net, being a plattform for presenting several important associations and the "konsortium.at", an pressure group for net culture in Austria. Presentation of "local task 2003", a call for entries addressing net art projects to be realised in the realm of "Graz 2003 - Cultural Capital of Europe" PARTICIPANTS: Katharina Gsoellpointner, A, Peter Riegersperger, konsortium.at, A; Thomas Fundneider, A; Gabi Kepplinger, Stadtwerkstatt Linz, A carried out by mur.at | http://mur.at http://www.konsortium.at http://www.servus.at/stwst/ http://graz2003.mur.at/ neighbour.net --------------------------------------- october 25 | 10:00 pm cet Once again, the metaphor 'web' has to be tested: In which way have the channels of communication and electronic exchangeable forms changed the idea of what neighbourhood, seen as a cultural overlapping and transgression, can be? Why are the often geographically closest regions basically a blank spot on the map of net based communication and production? Does it still make any sense to think about processes of cultural exchange in this way? PARTICIPANTS: Kristian Lukic, Media Education Centre KUDA.org, Novi Sad, YU; Zeljko Blace, Multimedia Institute, Zagreb, CRO; Walter van der Cruijssen, desk.org, Berlin, D (remote); Peter Tomas Dobrila, Multimedia Center KiberSRCeLab, KIBLA, Maribor, SLO; Jurij Krpan, Kaplica - Students Organisation of the University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SLO carried out by MiDiHy | http://midihy.org http://www.kuda.org http://www.desk.org http://www.kibla.org net.perform --------------------------------------- october 26 | 2:00 am cet late nite streaming show for those addicted to the net -- there is no such thing as break ... PARTICIPANTS: Station Rose, D; Radio Fro, A; Berlin noton, D; Zvuk Broda, CRO carried out by mur.at | http://mur.at http://www.stationrose.com http://noton.mur.at/ http://www.fro.at http://www.egoboobits.net net.basics --------------------------------------- october 26 | 8:00 am cet net.basics presents netstories for breakfast and is dealing with early net art and the development of the internet, including a presentation of the projected media plattform for "Graz 2003 - Cultural Capital of Europe", some lectures, presentations and a nice discussion PARTICIPANTS: splitterwerk, A; Gerhard Greiner, INFONOVA Information Technology, A; Willi Stadler; INFONOVA Information Technology, A; Erich Leitgeb, TU-Graz, Institut fuer Nachrichtentechnik und Wellenausbreitung, A carried out by Ute Angeringer in cooperation with Info-Design | http://www.infonova.at http://www.splitterwerk.at net.space --------------------------------------- october 26 | 11:00 am cet Design today. The changing in paradigm is reality. Selected lectures about modells in network practice and their potential for applied new-organisation from physical environments. Starting up with a empirical basic research. PARTICIPANTS: Manfred Ruttner, mobilkom Austria, A; RPT Kapfenberg, caX, A; Egon Maurer, Alarm und Raumschutz ARS, A; ski-data, A. carried out by splitterwerk, Wolfgang Reinisch, Gernot Ritter, in cooperation with Technical University, Graz http://www.splitterwerk.at/ http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/proj/unit/two/ transfer.net --------------------------------------- october 26 | 4:00 pm cet _transfer.net_ deals with the framework conditions of everyday/popular net cultures (i.e. net cultures having, among other things, always some sort of economic motivation) and the increasing intermeshing of entertainment and consumption cultures on the one hand and net cultures on the other. How are the popularization of connectivity ("get connected", Nokia) and the individualization of presence on the net ("your personal homepage") affecting the framework conditions for all types of net art? Is it possible to maintain a counter-cultural net art or community concept in a time when net-based discourses are increasingly becoming merchandise-type discourses ("satisfy your lust", Siemens)? PARTICIPANTS: Andreas Broeckmann, D; Verena Kuni, D; konsum.net (Margarethe Jahrmann, Max Moswitzer), A; Station Rose (Elisa Rose, Gary Danner), A/D carried out by MiDiHy | http://midihy.org _transfer.net_ is going to be fully webcasted from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm cet in cooperation with Station Rose @ http://www.stationrose.com http://www.transmediale.de http://www.kuni.org/v/ http://www.climax.at http://www.stationrose.com net & literature --------------------------------------- october 26 | 8:00 pm cet The project is mainly dedicated to the relationships between old (physical) and new (simulated) spaces -- referring to spaces in their capacity as cultural terrain. How can narratives be delivered in new spaces? How are constructions of "We" developing in these new spaces? What does "presence" mean under such conditions? What does "public" mean and what would "the private" be under such conditions? PARTICIPANTS: Dzevad Karahasan; Beat Mazenauer, CH, die flut (Thomas Ballhausen, Xaver Bayer, Julia Hadwiger, A); hugi (Claus D. Volko, D), upsites revisited (Martin G. Wanko, A); Igor Markovic carried out by Martin Krusche | http://www.kultur.at http://www.dieflut.at http://www.hugi.de http://www.m-wanko.at/up/ net.relax --------------------------------------- october 26 | 12:00 midnight cet cool vibes on the net tonto, A: feron, reflector, remi/wini ritsch, lepnik/kaplan, lackner/posch, strobl, tonto DJ http://tonto.mur.at/ net.art --------------------------------------- october 27 | 6:00 am cet Although the creative process is liberated from the limitations of matter, it nevertheless is dependent on the medium of the work. Comprehensive technical knowledge is imperative. Furthermore a theoretical programmatic grasp of net.spaces is necessary, whereby techno-aesthetics in its severity places the highest demands. And in the end the question: do the present instruments of discursive forums (such as mailings lists) suffice or should we advocate "The Birth of the Net-Gallery" which describes that system of power, deciding on art and non-art? Probing the necessity of elaborating a productive and distributive apparatus that is to envelope the net-work of art (collectors, dealers, curates, critics, ncc48 organizers, etc.). PARTICIPANTS: Josephine Bosma, NL; Andreas Broeckmann, D; Katharina Gsoellpointner, A; Derick de Kerckhove, CAN; Ulli Meybohm, D; Heat Bunting, GB; Geert Lovink (remote), NL; audience on site and on line carried out by ortlos architects, A | http://www.ortlos.com http://meybohm.de/ http://www.irational.org www.thing.desk.nl/bilwet/ net.summary --------------------------------------- 0ctober 27 | 10:00 am cet to be realised during the whole 48 hours SPECIALS GOODLOOK-DRUCKLOOK: "going sub" fashion and the net http://gegenalltag.at/ NETWORKING STRATEGIES Zeljko Blace, CRO A workshop on networking stragegies and collaborative projects (a.net), [ASU2 - challenges of networking between, .alt/.act/.art & Servers/ Streamers/ Spaces] PERFORMANCE Das Werkzeug des Architekten, Thomas Kienzl, A RADIO radio boot,Radio Helsinki | http://helsinki.mur.at/ |--------------------------------------------------- |--- ncc 48 |--- netART community congress |--- opening: october 25th, 12:00 cet |--- closing: october 27th, 12:00 cet |--- dom im berg, graz/austria |---------------------------------------------------- http://ncc.mur.at/ mur.at in collaboration with SPLITTERWERK, ortlos architects, MiDiHy, Martin Krusche, Radio Helsinki supported by steirischer herbst, fh-joanneum studiengang informations - design, TU-Graz, Institut für Gebäudelehre und Wohnbau, Gewilab -- Labor für geisteswissenschaftliche Informatik (University of Graz), KPMG InfoDesign, Humanic, Die Steiermärkische, Hypo Leasing Zagreb, City of Graz, Government of Styria, Bundeskanzleramt From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 23:55:00 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Pictures of Afghanistan! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011018182500.86429.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Pictures of Afghanistan!--> By: Rehan Ansari October 19,2001 On a flight from London to Islamabad there were almost 60 media people, Europeans and Americans, and I am sure most of them checked into the Pearl Continental in Rawalpindi or the Marriott in Islamabad. I am also certain that one of their first field trips were to a madrassa. That they all reported back home about how boys are offered room and board, read the Quran by rote and over the years are sent to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. I wonder why these goras cannot look inside their own culture for jehadi understandings. Stanley Kubrick did in his film Full Metal Jacket. He shows a Marine boot camp where the commanding officer takes a group of young, impressionable, lower middle class men and within a couple of weeks graduates them as marines. Day in and day out the officer pounds into the men the ideas that they are worthless to begin with, that the only way to be worthy is to become living weapons, and in their fight the cause is god�s. The trouble with the New York Times and everybody else. They will not enter the homes of anyone of the kids who are in madrassas. The way to those homes is too cluttered and despairing. It is beyond their compassion. They don�t have the time to visit those homes, those families, those communities consistently. Their reporting at best is charity and at worst is a wish that this assignment was not something they want to deal with. For an entirely different approach see the cultural reporting Iranian filmmakers are doing. I�ll refer to the film Baran by Majid Majidi that has just been released, and premiered at the New York Film Festival. And the essay by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who has also made two films on Afghanistan. They report with the conviction that their humanity and their destiny are tied to their subject. We experience the film Baran through a young Iranian man who works on a construction site in Teheran. He is a happy go lucky chota who fetches the workers their tea. Afghans work side by side with the Iranians. The key differences being the Afghans work illegally. One day an Afghan worker has a terrible accident and cannot continue work. Everybody knows he is destitute, and his wife has passed away and has young children. The construction supervisor reluctantly lets a young son of the injured Afghan work for him. This young boy makes better tea, and more � cooks fabulously for the entire crew. He displaces our hero, who now has now to perform heavy labour. The hero seethes with resentment and tries at every opportunity to humiliate and otherwise defeat the Afghan boy. One day he finds out that the Afghan boy is a girl in disguise. Soon after a raid on the site obliges illegals to be let go. Our Iranian boy decides to find out where it is that this girl lives. He journeys again and again to find her. The journey to an Afghan refugee settlement means being marked by the unsettlements of Afghan life. The risk of exposure to the cold, the lack of sewerage, the coming face to face with an entire population for whom the search for livelihood is constant, the tumultuous effects of news of the war in Afghanistan. Through him we experience the arduousness of the journey to knowledge. It is a moral journey. Again and again he tries to help the girl out by helping her family, sending them his own saved monies. All his efforts are in vain. It is a sufi journey in that one doesn�t win one set of goals but another. A cobbler tells him that if he gets too close to the flame he will get burnt. His budding sense of morality keeps him going. At one moment he sells his own Iraninan identity papers in the black market to raise money. By the end he still does not get the girl but there is no doubt in my mind that he is a man who has experienced a great moral journey. Makhmalbaf who has made two films on Afghanistan writes a despairing essay (you can ask for it from times at iranian.com). He gives eyewitness accounts of mass starvation. "I never forget those nights of filming Kandahar. While our team searched the deserts with flashlights, we would see humans dying like herds of sheep left in the desert." He even has compassion for the Taliban, the tortured children of war. He talks about how the Saudi and Pakistani ruling elites continued to stoke the fires left behind by the Soviet and the United States. He creates a metaphor for the crumbling of the Bamiyan Buddhas. "It crumbled out of shame. Out of shame for the world�s ignorance towards Afghanistan. It broke down knowing its greatness didn�t do any good." One Afghan dies every 14 minutes. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011018/b6ea649d/attachment.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Fri Oct 19 16:05:49 2001 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:05:49 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] weather-war reports Message-ID: <01101916054903.01129@sweety.sarai.kit> Has anybody noticed the new extension of the weather report aesthetic to the running commentaries on the present war? (especially Star TV news...) --- A naturalised lanscape in shades of brown and dashes of white. An excited and at times a trimumpant anchor in front of it. The anchor dances and waves his hand (apparently that's his job!). "Good news" and "bad news" are distributed over the landscape--- So we now have a `naturalised aesthetics` for war commenatries. It is just part of a long `report` continuum. Only the background shades need to change. Lets wait and see how big the background canvas becomes. Or maybe some areas will become so much part of the landscape that they won't be worth talking about. Remember Grozny! From rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 16:52:27 2001 From: rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Being confused by the normal Message-ID: <20011019112227.33976.qmail@web14601.mail.yahoo.com> The CEO of the company where I work recently recounted to me how he had been walking in one of Delhi's upscale markets when someone driving past threw a used coke cup at his feet. He picked it up, walked up behind the car, and handed it to the driver. "I think you dropped this," he said. The man took the cup from him, drove on, and threw it out of the window further down the road. I quite liked my colleague's stance of mock bewilderment. The affectation of a kind of utter confusion when confronted with mere normality - "You cannot have *intended* to drop this cup!" I tried the experiment myself. Outside Defence Colony bakery a man threw his burger wrapper in the street in front of me. I called out to him in my most fraternal voice, "You dropped something," pointing urgently as if at a crucial piece of paper that would have been lost were it not for me. He turned round. "Oh that - it's just a wrapper," he garbled through his burger, with a smile of gratitude mixed with protein. "Yes I realise. Why are you littering the street with it?" "This place is full of litter anyway. It doesn't make any difference." "Maybe it's littered because of people like you." But he'd gone. A couple of weeks later in the same market a middle-aged man threw a polystyrene container out of a car in front of me. I picked it up and gaily knocked on his window, gesturing to him to lower it. "You dropped this," I said with a smile, returning his waste to him again as if it were a long-lost and much regretted pet. He did not seem emotional at the reunion. He took it with a glare and wound his window up. I walked out of the market into the street and stood waiting for an auto. As the traffic moved, the man followed me in his car, stopped in front of where i was standing, wound down his window, and threw the packet at me. And drove off. People can be quite hostile when you take them for being more concerned about the city than they actually are. They seem to think you are criticising them. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in Fri Oct 19 18:21:50 2001 From: alokrai at hss.iitd.ernet.in (Dr. Alok Rai) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:21:50 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Letter from Tony Message-ID: <001101c1589c$d305ce00$4601050a@x6o6l2> Here's something for the List: A message from Tony A L Kennedy Tuesday October 16, 2001 The Guardian Kabul Drop Zone, Leaflet No 17 Hello to our Afghan friends. Or "Shalom", as you put it. Oh, no, that's the other lot, isn't? Mind you - one's as awkward as the other, when you think about it. No, no. Only joking - British sense of humour, it's the envy of the free, crusading world. And it's just one of the many gifts we're dying (no pun intended) to give you. All of us over here remember very clearly how our sense of humour got us through the blitz. Our relatives may have been atomised by high explosives from above, but did we grumble? - not a bit of it. We sang songs, robbed sleeping strangers in the underground and jolly well got on with it. And you can do the same. Yes indeed, even though we're killing you and your fellow non-combatants in difficult-to-confirm numbers, it's for your own good. It will be character-forming in the long run. We've never really been as happy as we were when Mr Hitler was maiming our mothers and pulverising our infants with searing shrapnel. And now, even the smallest sporting occasion is an excuse for us to roll out the flags and banners, the old songs and the wartime slogans. Soon you'll doing the same, believe us. We know you currently tend to use your football pitches for mass executions, but eventually we know you'll see the error of your ways. I mean, don't get me wrong, the president of the United States is rarely happier than when he's offing a bad egg or two but, please, do it the Christian way - by lethal injection. We'll sell you all the necessary equipment at very reasonable rates. Which brings me to our central aim - selling you necessary equipment. For goodness sake, you can't even shelter in an underground because we haven't built you one. How are we supposed to destroy your infrastructure when you've shown no interest in acquiring more than a few yards of road and half an airport? No taking out exorbitant loans, no exchanging backhanders with lobbyists and no handing over your independence to multinationals and the IMF. I mean, what's wrong with you people - don't you want to be civilised? Once we've dropped the first few thousand 15,000lb bombs, believe me, your country's going to be a lot less mountainous and awkward than it was - ideal for a major development of motorway and rail networks. We can help you with that. The people of Britain would be delighted to send you over executives, specialists, in fact, the whole damn staff of a wonderful organisation called Railtrack which will provide you with literally stunning railway lines and signalling in no time. And we guarantee that its services will kill far fewer innocent civilians than we ever will. Look, I know the last time we asked you to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, we just sent over a few SAS men to research their novels and then rather dropped you in it with the Russians and the raging poverty and extremism and so forth, but things will be different this time. We will not walk away. No. We're going to stay - even though, frankly, a great deal of your countryside is going to be a tad radioactive with all the depleted uranium we'll have blasted into it. Nevertheless, we will happily build you, for example, pricey hospitals to accept the deformed children of the wealthy new class of capitalist robber barons we'll create. Everyone else's children can choose to sell a kidney in exchange for treatment, or simply enjoy the benefits of random genetic mutation - that's the free market for you. Meanwhile, you'll be offered a rich variety of satisfying new jobs - the kind of employment you goatherds and opium farmers have only dreamed of. You'll be able to stitch trainers, jeans, or even cheap, Gucci replicas. Or we'll help you get those clever, foreign fingers of yours busy assembling parts for mobile phones, personal organisers and other humanitarian devices. Some of you may earn up to £1 a month! I know it's difficult to believe, but this is the wonderland that our missiles and token food drops are bringing you. And remember, no glumness and resentment and no thinking you'll slip off and become an economic refugee just because your village is covered in body parts and broken flour bags and your belongings have gone up in smoke. That's no reason to leave. Between you and me, turning up in Dover as a refugee, just because we made you one, wouldn't be wise. We do have Muslims here, almost all of them Good Muslims, but we don't particularly want any more - all that inter-racial understanding and international social responsibility, it's not really British. So, Ally-Akbar, as Cherie and I often say, and Al-humpty-lee-lah. Best wishes, Tony Blair, US ambassador to the world From ravikant at sarai.net Sat Oct 20 15:56:53 2001 From: ravikant at sarai.net (Ravikant) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:56:53 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] weather-war reports In-Reply-To: <01101916054903.01129@sweety.sarai.kit> References: <01101916054903.01129@sweety.sarai.kit> Message-ID: <01102015565300.01057@jadu.sarai.kit> Yes, the reporting from the so-called 'battle-rooms' is extremely irritating. And it has become a genre - of naturalised aesthetics - as Jeebesh rightly points out. There is a choice made here in terms of selections made from the received mapping traditions. You don't choose the more busy 'Political' maps because 'Natural landscapes' present reality in broad brushstokes, are vaguely three-dimensional, and completely de-humanized. The graphics(or pictures taken by bomber planes themselves) on bombings make it appear even more lifeless, by converting the greens into gray, depopulated locales. Its as if these places suddenly spring up from nowhere, whose sole reason for existence is their 'target-ness'. They do not have a history, sociology or even futures. It is an ironical reversal of the trend started by Hindi News Channel "Aj Tak', which brought in human interest into weather reporting by collapsing headlines with the weather news from diffrent cities. The Satellite Reporter of the Mahabharata, Sanjay, did his commentator's job with more empathy than our jouralists, I must say. Is it because he was reporting a war among relatives, including his own? The philosophical rationale/counterpoint to sentimentalism, of course, was provided by Krishna, who had a lot of realpolitik convincing to do before Arjuna decided to kill his own kith and kin. The Lord had to propound the theory of the futility of life, relationships, etc. to wean Arjuna away from his natural human frailties. Jeebesh also talks about the on-screen gestures of the presenters. Their body language and tone betrays a sense of glee. Thus what we get as reporting on this one-sided war is a peculiarly sanitized partisanship. ravikant From cdr at pro.hu Sun Oct 21 02:11:34 2001 From: cdr at pro.hu (cdr at pro.hu) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:41:34 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] mail art call Message-ID: <02fc01c159a7$9c4da7f0$6036a3d5@contes9q73mzax> > patricia at redshift.com wrote to fluxlist [ 20/10/2001|10.24 PM ] > > Open to Everyone > > Greetings. > This e.mail is to inform you of the upcoming > International Mail-Art Exhibition > entitled: > > "POSTCARDS TO NEW YORK" > > to be held at the MACY GALLERY on the campus of > Teachers College, Columbia University in the City of > > New York in the United States of America, > from November 5th through November 16th / 2001. > Please join us for the Reception on Friday, > November 9th, from 4-6 PM for special performances. > > > Title: "Postcards To New York" > open to interpretation > size: Postcards only/ no envelopes > Mail: All postcards must be received through > the U.S. Mail > Media: All > All Entries are accepted > Multiple entries are encouraged > There is no fee or Jury > Postcards cannot be returned > Names of the participants will be listed > alphabetically on our web site: > www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/arts/MACY.html > following the exhibition > > Deadline: November 1/2001 > > Mail your Postcards to: > > "Postcards To New York" > Macy Gallery > Box 78 > Teachers College, Columbia University > 525 West 120th Street > New York NY 10027 > > Postcards are accepted from all Artists and > Non-Artists from every age group, every country, > every religion and every body from every walk of life > who feels they want to say something, write something, > draw, paint, make or photograph something about what > happened on September 11/2001 in New York. > Mail Art continues to be a creative venue for > collective and communal expression and global > communication. > If you have any additional Questions please > > e.mail us at postcardstonewyork at yahoo.com > > We hope that you will pass this along to anyone > or any organization that will be interested. > Thank you for your participation. > We will look forward to receiving your postcards. > > > Yours, > > Kendal Kennedy > Curator > kendalkennedy at yahoo.com From mithi at silchar.com Sun Oct 21 02:38:15 2001 From: mithi at silchar.com (SAGNIK CHAKRAVARTTY) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Jatinga Steam Safari - A rail tourism venture of N.F.Railway Message-ID: <20011020210815.52F7E3ECC@sitemail.everyone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011020/dfa31793/attachment.pl From aiindex at mnet.fr Sun Oct 21 04:05:12 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:35:12 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] WAR IS PEACE Message-ID: http://www.outlookindia.com/ Outlook Magazine | Oct 29, 2001 FRONTLINES WAR IS PEACE The world doesn't have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of the world-literature, music, art-lies between these two fundamentalist poles. ARUNDHATI ROY As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7, 2001, the US government, backed by the International Coalition Against Terror (the new, amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, Tomahawks, 'bunker-busting' missiles and Mark 82 high-drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and stopped clamouring for new video games. The UN, reduced now to an ineffective abbreviation, wasn't even asked to mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "The US acts multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must." People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. ) The 'evidence' against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the 'Coalition'. After conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the 'evidence' would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed. Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington. People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond-they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts. There is no easy way out of the spiralling morass of terror and brutality that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever. Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have taken on new meaning. Governments have to acknowledge President George Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation." America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a peaceful people." So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. this transformation, and approach their new tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition. Or the Taliban. When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation." America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a peaceful people." So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. Speaking at the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: "This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will not tire." Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with-and bombed-since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53); Korea (1950-53); Guatemala (1954, 1967-69); Indonesia (1958); Cuba (1959-60); the Belgian Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (1964-73); Vietnam (1961-73); Cambodia (1969-70); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980s); Nicaragua (1980s); Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998); Yugoslavia (1999).And now Afghanistan. Certainly it does not tire-this, the Most Free nation in the world. What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate-usually in the service of America's real religion, the 'free market'. So when the US government christens a war 'Operation Infinite Justice', or 'Operation Enduring Freedom', we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear. Young boys-many of them orphans-who grew up in those times, had guns for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women; they don't seem to know what else to do with them. Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others. The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league. The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin and landmines in the backwash of the Cold War. Its oldest leaders are in their early 40s. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped, missing an eye, an arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and devastated by war. Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20 years, about $45 billion worth of arms and ammunition was poured into Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was the only shard of modernity to intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society. Young boys-many of them orphans-who grew up in those times, had guns for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women; they don't seem to know what else to do with them. Years of war have stripped them of gentleness, inured them to kindness and human compassion. They dance to the percussive rhythms of bombs raining down around them. Now they've turned their monstrosity on their own people. With all due respect to President The issue is not about Good vs Evil or Islam vs Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony-every kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious and cultural. Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human civilisation-our art, our music, our literature-lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they'll all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about Good vs Evil or Islam vs Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony-every kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious and cultural. Any ecologist will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A hegemonic world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It becomes a kind of dictatorship. It's like putting a plastic bag over the world, and preventing it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn open. One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the second day of the air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot put it, Afghanistan is "not a target-rich environment". At a press briefing at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, was asked if America had run out of targets. "First we're going to re-hit targets," he said, "and second, we're not running out of targets, Afghanistan is..." This was greeted with gales of laughter in the Briefing Room. By the third day of the strikes, the US defence department boasted that it had "achieved air supremacy over Afghanistan". (Did they mean that they had destroyed both, or maybe all 16, of Afghanistan's planes?) On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance-the Taliban's old enemy, and therefore the International Coalition's newest friend-is making headway in its push to capture Kabul. (For the archives, let it be said that the Northern Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's. The fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all. Love is hate, north is south, peace is war. But for now, because it's inconvenient, that little detail is being glossed over.) The visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the Alliance, Ahmed Shah Masood, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal warlords, ex-communists and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group divided along ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in Afghanistan in the past. Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5 per cent of the geographical area of Afghanistan. Now, with the Coalition's help and 'air cover', it is poised to topple the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the Alliance. So the fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all. Love is hate, north is south, peace is war. Among the global powers, there is talk of 'putting in a representative government'. Or, on the other hand, of 'restoring' the Kingdom to Afghanistan's 89-year-old former king, Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in Rome since 1973. That's the way the game goes-support Saddam Hussein, then 'take him out'; finance the mujahideen, then bomb them to smithereens; put in Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to 'put in' a representative government? Can you place an order for Democracy-with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers?) Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off. Those who have experience of working in Afghanistan say that by early November, food convoys will not be able to reach the millions of Afghans (7.5 million according to the UN) who run the very real risk of starving to death during the course of this winter. They say that in the days that are left before winter sets in, there can either be a war, or an attempt to reach food They say that air-dropping food packets is worse than futile. First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up by landmines. A tragic alms race. to the hungry. Not both. As a gesture of humanitarian support, the US government air-dropped 37,000 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan. It says it plans to drop a total of 5,00,000 packets. That will still only add up to a single meal for half-a-million people out of the several million in dire need of food. Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical, dangerous, public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food packets is worse than futile. First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up by landmines. A tragic alms race. Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we're told, as per Muslim Dietary Law(!) Each yellow packet, decorated with the American flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad, strawberry jam, crackers, raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar, seasoning, matches, a set of plastic cutlery, a serviette and illustrated user instructions. After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal in Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to understand what months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty really mean, the US government's attempt to use even this abject misery to boost its self-image, beggars description. Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing, the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kababs impaled on an Afghan flag. What if the Taliban was to bomb NYC and also drop packets of nan and kababs impaled on Afghan flags? Would the good people of New York be able to forgive the Afghan government? Would the good people of New York ever find it in themselves to forgive the Afghan government? Even if they were hungry, even if they needed the food, even if they ate it, how would they ever forget the insult, the condescension? Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a gift of $10 million from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East. Is pride a luxury only the rich are entitled to? Far from stamping it out, igniting this kind of rage is what creates terrorism. Hate and retribution don't go back into the box once you've let them out. For every 'terrorist' or his 'supporter' that is killed, hundreds of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be created. Where will it all lead? Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, consider the fact that the world has not yet found an acceptable definition of what 'terrorism' is. One country's terrorist is too often another's freedom fighter. At the heart of the matter lies the world's deep-seated ambivalence towards violence. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate political instrument, then the morality and political acceptability of terrorists (insurgents or freedom fighters) becomes contentious, bumpy terrain. The US government itself has funded, armed and sheltered plenty of rebels and insurgents around the world. The CIA and Pakistan's ISI trained and armed the mujahideen who, in the '80s, were seen as terrorists by the government in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. While President Reagan posed with them for a group portrait and called them the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers. Today, Pakistan-America's ally in this new People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalisation. war-sponsors insurgents who cross the border into Kashmir in India. Pakistan lauds them as 'freedom fighters', India calls them 'terrorists'. India, for its part, denounces countries who sponsor and abet terrorism, but the Indian army has, in the past, trained separatist Tamil rebels asking for a homeland in Sri Lanka-the LTTE, responsible for countless acts of bloody terrorism. (Just as the CIA abandoned the mujahideen after they had served its purpose, India abruptly turned its back on the LTTE for a host of political reasons. It was an enraged LTTE suicide-bomber who assassinated former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.) It is important for governments and politicians to understand that manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow purposes may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably, they have disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious sentiments for reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous legacy that governments or politicians can bequeath to any people-including their own. People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalisation. This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage on September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They must be. But is war the best way to track them down? Will burning the haystack find you the needle? Or will it escalate the anger and make the world a living hell for all of us? At the end of the day, how many people can you spy on, how many bank accounts can you freeze, how many conversations can you eavesdrop on, how many e-mails can you intercept, how many letters can you open, how many phones can you tap? Even before September 11, the CIA had accumulated more information than is humanly possible to process. The sheer scale of the surveillance will become a logistical, ethical and civil rights nightmare. It will drive everybody clean crazy. And freedom-that precious, precious thing-will be the first casualty. It's already hurt and haemorrhaging dangerously. (Sometimes, too much data can actually hinder intelligence-small wonder the US spy satellites completely missed the preparation that preceded India's nuclear tests in 1998.) The sheer scale of the surveillance will become a logistical, ethical and civil rights nightmare. It will drive everybody clean crazy. And freedom-that precious, precious thing-will be the first casualty. It's already hurt and haemorrhaging dangerously. Governments across the world are cynically using the prevailing paranoia to promote their own interests. All kinds of unpredictable political forces are being unleashed. In India, for instance, members of the All India People's Resistance Forum, who were distributing anti-war and anti-US pamphlets in Delhi, have been jailed. Even the printer of the leaflets was arrested. The right-wing government (while it shelters Hindu extremists groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal) has banned the Students' Islamic Movement of India and is trying to revive an anti-terrorist act which had been withdrawn after the Human Rights Commission reported that it had been more abused than used. Millions of Indian citizens are Muslim. Can anything be gained by alienating them? Every day that the war goes on, raging emotions are being let loose into the world. The international press has little or no independent access to the war zone. In any case, mainstream media, particularly in the US, has more or less rolled over, allowing itself to be tickled on the stomach with press hand-outs from militarymen and government officials. Afghan radio stations have been destroyed by the bombing. The Taliban has always been deeply suspicious of the Press. In the propaganda war, there is no accurate estimate of how many people have been killed, or how much destruction has taken place. In the absence of reliable information, wild rumours spread. Put your ear to the ground in this part of the world, and you can hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat Put your ear to the ground in this part of the world, and you can hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger. Please. Please, stop the war now. Enough people have died. The smart missiles are just not smart enough. They're blowing up whole warehouses of suppressed fury. of burgeoning anger. Please. Please, stop the war now. Enough people have died. The smart missiles are just not smart enough. They're blowing up whole warehouses of suppressed fury. President George Bush recently boasted: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." President Bush should know that there are no targets in Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth. Perhaps, if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the Coalition's weapons manufacturers. It wouldn't make any sense at all, for example, to the Carlyle Group-described by the Industry Standard as 'the world's largest private equity firm', with $12 billion under management. Carlyle invests in the defence sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending. Carlyle is run by men with impeccable credentials. Former US defence secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle's chairman and managing director (he was a college roommate of Donald Rumsfeld's). Carlyle's other partners include former US secretary of state James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George Bush Sr's campaign manager). An American paper-the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel-says that former President George Bush Sr is reported to be seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from Asian markets. He is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make 'presentations' to potential government-clients. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil. Ho Hum. As the tired saying goes, it's all in the family. Then there's that other branch of traditional family business-oil. Remember, President George Bush (Jr) and Vice-President Dick Cheney both made their fortunes working in the US oil industry. Turkmenistan, which borders the northwest of Afghanistan, holds the world's third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a couple of centuries.) America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil. Oil and gas from the Caspian region currently moves northward to European markets. Geographically and politically, Iran and Russia are major impediments to American interests. In 1998, Dick Cheney-then CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the oil industry-said: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight." True enough. For some years now, an American oil giant called Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and out to the Arabian Sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access the lucrative 'emerging markets' in South and Southeast Asia. In December 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs travelled to America and even met US State Department officials and Unocal executives in Houston.At that time the Taliban's taste for public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out to be the crimes against humanity Shall we look away and eat because we're hungry, or shall we stare unblinking at the grim theatre unfolding in Afghanistan until we retch collectively and say, in one voice, that we have had enough? that they are now. Over the next six months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the Clinton administration. Fortunately, they managed to scuttle the deal. And now comes the US oil industry's big chance. In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines. Therefore, it would be foolish to expect this talk of guns and oil and defence deals to get any real play in the media. In any case, to a distraught, confused people whose pride has just been wounded, whose loved ones have been tragically killed, whose anger is fresh and sharp, the inanities about the 'Clash of Civilisations' and the 'Good vs Evil' discourse home in unerringly. They are cynically doled out by government spokesmen like a daily dose of vitamins or anti-depressants. Regular medication ensures that mainland America continues to remain the enigma it has always been-a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government. And what of the rest of us, the numb recipients of this onslaught of what we know to be preposterous propaganda? The daily consumers of the lies and brutality smeared in peanut butter and strawberry jam being air-dropped into our minds just like those yellow food packets. Shall we look away and eat because we're hungry, or shall we stare unblinking at the grim theatre unfolding in Afghanistan until we retch collectively and say, in one voice, that we have had enough? As the first year of the new millennium rushes to a close, one wonders-have we forfeited our right to dream? Will we ever be able to re-imagine beauty? Will it be possible ever again to watch the slow, amazed blink of a new-born gecko in the sun, or whisper back to the marmot who has just whispered in your ear-without thinking of the World Trade Center and Afghanistan? From chaiyah at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 23:06:31 2001 From: chaiyah at hotmail.com (m emily cragg) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:06:31 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: Reader-list digest, Vol 1 #246 - 4 msgs Message-ID: Outlook Magazine | Oct 29, 2001 --- [Edited and cleaned-up copy for further distribution. I hope I got all the deletions and duplications repaired here. It's worth sending to everyone you know who cares about this planet.] FRONTLINES -- "WAR IS PEACE" by ARUNDHATI ROY As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7, 2001, the US government, backed by the International Coalition Against Terror (the new, amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, Tomahawks, 'bunker-busting' missiles and Mark 82 high-drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and stopped clamouring for new video games. The UN, reduced now to an ineffective abbreviation, wasn't even asked to mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "The US acts multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must." People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. The 'evidence' against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the 'Coalition'. After conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the 'evidence' would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed. Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond-they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts. There is no easy way out of the spiralling morass of terror and brutality that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever. Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have taken on new meaning. Governments have to acknowledge this transformation, and approach their new tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition. Or the Taliban. When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation." America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a peaceful people." So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. Speaking at the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: "This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will not tire." Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with-and bombed-since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53); Korea (1950-53); Guatemala (1954, 1967-69); Indonesia (1958); Cuba (1959-60); the Belgian Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (1964-73); Vietnam (1961-73); Cambodia (1969-70); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980s); Nicaragua (1980s); Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998); Yugoslavia (1999).And now Afghanistan. Certainly it does not tire--this, the Most Free nation in the world. What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate-usually in the service of America's real religion, the 'free market'. So when the US government christens a war 'Operation Infinite Justice', or 'Operation Enduring Freedom', we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear. Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others. The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league. The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin and landmines in the backwash of the Cold War. Its oldest leaders are in their early 40s. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped, missing an eye, an arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and devastated by war. Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20 years, about $45 billion worth of arms and ammunition was poured into Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was the only shard of modernity to intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society. Young boys--many of them orphans--who grew up in those times, had guns for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women; they don't seem to know what else to do with them. Years of war have stripped them of gentleness, inured them to kindness and human compassion. They dance to the percussive rhythms of bombs raining down around them. Now they've turned their monstrosity on their own people. With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human civilisation-our art, our music, our literature-lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they'll all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about Good vs Evil or Islam vs Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony--every kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious and cultural. Any ecologist will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A hegemonic world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It becomes a kind of dictatorship. It's like putting a plastic bag over the world, and preventing it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn open. One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the second day of the air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot put it, Afghanistan is "not a target-rich environment". At a press briefing at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, was asked if America had run out of targets. "First we're going to re-hit targets," he said, "and second, we're not running out of targets, Afghanistan is..." This was greeted with gales of laughter in the Briefing Room. By the third day of the strikes, the US defence department boasted that it had "achieved air supremacy over Afghanistan". (Did they mean that they had destroyed both, or maybe all 16, of Afghanistan's planes?) On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance-the Taliban's old enemy, and therefore the International Coalition's newest friend-is making headway in its push to capture Kabul. (For the archives, let it be said that the Northern Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's. Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5 per cent of the geographical area of Afghanistan. Now, with the Coalition's help and 'air cover', it is poised to topple the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the Alliance. So the fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all. Love is hate, north is south, peace is war. But for now, because it's inconvenient, that little detail is being glossed over.) The visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the Alliance, Ahmed Shah Masood, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal warlords, ex-communists and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group divided along ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in Afghanistan in the past. Among the global powers, there is talk of 'putting in a representative government'. Or, on the other hand, of 'restoring' the Kingdom to Afghanistan's 89-year-old former king, Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in Rome since 1973. That's the way the game goes--support Saddam Hussein, then 'take him out'; finance the mujahideen, then bomb them to smithereens; put in Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to 'put in' a representative government? Can you place an order for Democracy-with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers?) Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off. Those who have experience of working in Afghanistan say that by early November, food convoys will not be able to reach the millions of Afghans (7.5 million according to the UN) who run the very real risk of starving to death during the course of this winter. They say that in the days that are left before winter sets in, there can either be a war, or an attempt to reach food. As a gesture of humanitarian support, the US government air-dropped 37,000 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan. It says it plans to drop a total of 5,00,000 packets. That will still only add up to a single meal for half-a-million people out of the several million in dire need of food. Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical, dangerous, public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food packets is worse than futile. First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up by landmines. A tragic alms race. Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we're told, as per Muslim Dietary Law(!) Each yellow packet, decorated with the American flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad, strawberry jam, crackers, raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar, seasoning, matches, a set of plastic cutlery, a serviette and illustrated user instructions. After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal in Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to understand what months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty really mean, the US government's attempt to use even this abject misery to boost its self-image, beggars description. Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing, the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kababs impaled on an Afghan flag.Would the good people of New York be able to forgive the Afghan government? Even if they were hungry, even if they needed the food, even if they ate it, how would they ever forget the insult, the condescension? Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a gift of $10 million from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East. Is pride a luxury only the rich are entitled to? Far from stamping it out, igniting this kind of rage is what creates terrorism. Hate and retribution don't go back into the box once you've let them out. For every 'terrorist' or his 'supporter' that is killed, hundreds of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be created. Where will it all lead? Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, consider the fact that the world has not yet found an acceptable definition of what 'terrorism' is. One country's terrorist is too often another's freedom fighter. At the heart of the matter lies the world's deep-seated ambivalence towards violence. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate political instrument, then the morality and political acceptability of terrorists (insurgents or freedom fighters) becomes contentious, bumpy terrain. The US government itself has funded, armed and sheltered plenty of rebels and insurgents around the world. The CIA and Pakistan's ISI trained and armed the mujahideen who, in the '80s, were seen as terrorists by the government in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. While President Reagan posed with them for a group portrait and called them the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers. Today, Pakistan--America's ally in this new war--sponsors insurgents who cross the border into Kashmir in India. Pakistan lauds them as 'freedom fighters', India calls them 'terrorists'. India, for its part, denounces countries who sponsor and abet terrorism, but the Indian army has, in the past, trained separatist Tamil rebels asking for a homeland in Sri Lanka-the LTTE, responsible for countless acts of bloody terrorism. (Just as the CIA abandoned the mujahideen after they had served its purpose, India abruptly turned its back on the LTTE for a host of political reasons. It was an enraged LTTE suicide-bomber who assassinated former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.) People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalisation. It is important for governments and politicians to understand that manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow purposes may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably, they have disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious sentiments for reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous legacy that governments or politicians can bequeath to any people-including their own. People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalisation. This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage on September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They must be. But is war the best way to track them down? Will burning the haystack find you the needle? Or will it escalate the anger and make the world a living hell for all of us? At the end of the day, how many people can you spy on, how many bank accounts can you freeze, how many conversations can you eavesdrop on, how many e-mails can you intercept, how many letters can you open, how many phones can you tap? Even before September 11, the CIA had accumulated more information than is humanly possible to process.(Sometimes, too much data can actually hinder intelligence--small wonder the US spy satellites completely missed the preparation that preceded India's nuclear tests in 1998.) The sheer scale of the surveillance will become a logistical, ethical and civil rights nightmare. It will drive everybody clean crazy. And freedom-that precious, precious thing-will be the first casualty. It's already hurt and haemorrhaging dangerously. Governments across the world are cynically using the prevailing paranoia to promote their own interests. All kinds of unpredictable political forces are being unleashed. In India, for instance, members of the All India People's Resistance Forum, who were distributing anti-war and anti-US pamphlets in Delhi, have been jailed. Even the printer of the leaflets was arrested. The right-wing government (while it shelters Hindu extremists groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal) has banned the Students' Islamic Movement of India and is trying to revive an anti-terrorist act which had been withdrawn after the Human Rights Commission reported that it had been more abused than used. Millions of Indian citizens are Muslim. Can anything be gained by alienating them? Every day that the war goes on, raging emotions are being let loose into the world. The international press has little or no independent access to the war zone. In any case, mainstream media, particularly in the US, has more or less rolled over, allowing itself to be tickled on the stomach with press hand-outs from militarymen and government officials. Afghan radio stations have been destroyed by the bombing. The Taliban has always been deeply suspicious of the Press. In the propaganda war, there is no accurate estimate of how many people have been killed, or how much destruction has taken place. In the absence of reliable information, wild rumours spread. Put your ear to the ground in this part of the world, and you can hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger. Please. Please, stop the war now. Enough people have died. The smart missiles are just not smart enough. They're blowing up whole warehouses of suppressed fury. President George Bush recently boasted: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." President Bush should know that there are no targets in Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth. Perhaps, if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the Coalition's weapons manufacturers. It wouldn't make any sense at all, for example, to the Carlyle Group-described by the Industry Standard as 'the world's largest private equity firm', with $12 billion under management. Carlyle invests in the defence sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending. Carlyle is run by men with impeccable credentials. Former US defence secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle's chairman and managing director (he was a college roommate of Donald Rumsfeld's). Carlyle's other partners include former US secretary of state James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George Bush Sr's campaign manager). An American paper-the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel-says that former President George Bush Sr is reported to be seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from Asian markets. He is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make 'presentations' to potential government-clients. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil. Ho Hum. As the tired saying goes, it's all in the family. Then there's that other branch of traditional family business-oil. Remember, President George Bush (Jr) and Vice-President Dick Cheney both made their fortunes working in the US oil industry. Turkmenistan, which borders the northwest of Afghanistan, holds the world's third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a couple of centuries.) America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil. Oil and gas from the Caspian region currently moves northward to European markets. Geographically and politically, Iran and Russia are major impediments to American interests. In 1998, Dick Cheney-then CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the oil industry-said: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight." True enough. For some years now, an American oil giant called Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and out to the Arabian Sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access the lucrative 'emerging markets' in South and Southeast Asia. In December 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs travelled to America and even met US State Department officials and Unocal executives in Houston.At that time the Taliban's taste for public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out to be the crimes against humanity. Over the last six months of the Clinton Administration, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the deal. Fortunately, they managed to scuttle the deal. And now comes the US oil industry's big chance. In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines. Therefore, it would be foolish to expect this talk of guns and oil and defence deals to get any real play in the media. In any case, to a distraught, confused people whose pride has just been wounded, whose loved ones have been tragically killed, whose anger is fresh and sharp, the inanities about the 'Clash of Civilisations' and the 'Good vs Evil' discourse home in unerringly. They are cynically doled out by government spokesmen like a daily dose of vitamins or anti-depressants. Regular medication ensures that mainland America continues to remain the enigma it has always been--a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government. And what of the rest of us, the numb recipients of this onslaught of what we know to be preposterous propaganda? The daily consumers of the lies and brutality smeared in peanut butter and strawberry jam being air-dropped into our minds just like those yellow food packets. Shall we look away and eat because we're hungry, or shall we stare unblinking at the grim theatre unfolding in Afghanistan until we retch collectively and say, in one voice, that we have had enough? As the first year of the new millennium rushes to a close, one wonders-have we forfeited our right to dream? Will we ever be able to re-imagine beauty? Will it be possible ever again to watch the slow, amazed blink of a new-born gecko in the sun, or whisper back to the marmot who has just whispered in your ear-without thinking of the World Trade Center and Afghanistan? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From cdr at pro.hu Sun Oct 21 15:45:35 2001 From: cdr at pro.hu (cdr at pro.hu) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Reader-list] Rumors of War Message-ID: <059b01c15a19$54df09f0$6036a3d5@contes9q73mzax> Rumors of War This page indexed a collection of links to pages discussing the various rumors to come out of the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States of America. Each entry is followed by a date indicating the last time the corresponding page was updated. To find entries added to this site since your last visit, please see our Recent Additions page, or join our Update list to receive automatic e-mail notification of new pages. http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/rumors.htm From octave at vsnl.com Mon Oct 22 06:07:16 2001 From: octave at vsnl.com (Sanjay Kak) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:37:16 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] Protesting in the Post-WTC Age / Naomi Klein Message-ID: Protesting in the Post-WTC Age Naomi Klein, The Nation October 10, 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------- As shocking as this must be to New Yorkers, in Toronto, the city where I live, lampposts and mailboxes are plastered with posters advertising a plan by antipoverty activists to "shut down" the business district on October 16. Some of the posters (those put up before September 11) even have a picture of skyscrapers outlined in red -- the perimeters of the designated direct-action zone. Many have argued that O16 should be canceled, as other protests and demonstrations have been, in deference to the mood of mourning -- and out of fear of stepped-up police violence. But the shutdown is going ahead. In the end, the events of September 11 don't change the fact that the nights are getting colder and the recession is looming. They don't change the fact that in a city that used to be described as "safe" and, well, "maybe a little boring," many will die on the streets this winter, as they did last winter, and the one before that, unless more beds are found immediately. And yet there is no disputing that the event, its militant tone and its choice of target will provoke terrible memories and associations. Many political campaigns face a similar, and sudden, shift. Post-September 11, tactics that rely on attacking -- even peacefully -- powerful symbols of capitalism find themselves in an utterly transformed semiotic landscape. After all, the attacks were acts of very real and horrifying terror, but they were also acts of symbolic warfare, and instantly understood as such. As Tom Brokaw and so many others put it, the towers were not just any buildings, they were "symbols of American capitalism." As someone whose life is thoroughly entwined with what some people call "the antiglobalization movement," others call "anticapitalism" (and I tend to just sloppily call "the movement"), I find it difficult to avoid discussions about symbolism these days. About all the anticorporate signs and signifiers -- the culture-jammed logos, the guerrilla-warfare stylings, the choices of brand name and political targets -- that make up the movement's dominant metaphors. Many political opponents of anticorporate activism are using the symbolism of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks to argue that young activists, playing at guerrilla war, have now been caught out by a real war. The obituaries are already appearing in newspapers around the world: "Anti-Globalization Is So Yesterday," reads a typical headline. It is, according to the Boston Globe, "in tatters." Is it true? Our activism has been declared dead before. Indeed, it is declared dead with ritualistic regularity before and after every mass demonstration: our strategies apparently discredited, our coalitions divided, our arguments misguided. And yet those demonstrations have kept growing larger, from 50,000 in Seattle to 300,000, by some estimates, in Genoa. At the same time, it would be foolish to pretend that nothing has changed since September 11. This struck me recently, looking at a slide show I had been pulling together before the attacks. It is about how anticorporate imagery is increasingly being absorbed by corporate marketing. One slide shows a group of activists spray-painting the window of a Gap outlet during the anti-WTO protests in Seattle. The next shows The Gap's recent window displays featuring its own prefab graffiti -- words like "Independence" sprayed in black. And the next is a frame from Sony PlayStation's "State of Emergency" game featuring cool-haired anarchists throwing rocks at evil riot cops protecting the fictitious American Trade Organization. When I first looked at these images beside each other, I was amazed by the speed of corporate co-optation. Now all I can see is how these snapshots from the corporate versus anticorporate image wars have been instantly overshadowed, blown away by September 11 like so many toy cars and action figures on a disaster movie set. Despite the altered landscape -- or because of it -- it bears remembering why this movement chose to wage symbolic struggles in the first place. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty's decision to "shut down" the business district came from a set of very specific and still relevant circumstances. Like so many others trying to get issues of economic inequality on the political agenda, the people the group represents felt that they had been discarded, left outside the paradigm, disappeared and reconstituted as a panhandling or squeegee problem requiring tough new legislation. They realized that what they had to confront was just not a local political enemy or even a particular trade law but an economic system -- the broken promise of deregulated, trickle-down capitalism. Thus the modern activist challenge: How do you organize against an ideology so vast, it has no edges; so everywhere, it seems nowhere? Where is the site of resistance for those with no workplaces to shut down, whose communities are constantly being uprooted? What do we hold on to when so much that is powerful is virtual -- currency trades, stock prices, intellectual property and arcane trade agreements? The short answer, at least before September 11, was that you grab anything you can get your hands on: the brand image of a famous multinational, a stock exchange, a meeting of world leaders, a single trade agreement or, in the case of the Toronto group, the banks and corporate headquarters that are the engines that power this agenda. Anything that, even fleetingly, makes the intangible actual, the vastness somehow human-scale. In short, you find symbols and you hope they become metaphors for change. For instance, when the United States launched a trade war against France for daring to ban hormone-laced beef, José Bové and the French Farmers' Confederation didn't get the world's attention by screaming about import duties on Roquefort cheese. They did it by "strategically dismantling" a McDonald's. Nike, ExxonMobil, Monsanto, Shell, Chevron, Pfizer, Sodexho Marriott, Kellogg's, Starbucks, The Gap, Rio Tinto, British Petroleum, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Citigroup, Taco Bell -- all have found their gleaming brands used to shine light on everything from bovine growth hormone in milk to human rights in the Niger Delta; from labor abuses of Mexican tomato farmworkers in Florida to war-financing of oil pipelines in Chad and Cameroon; from global warming to sweatshops. In the weeks since September 11, we have been reminded many times that Americans aren't particularly informed about the world outside their borders. That may be true, but many activists have learned over the past decade that this blind spot for international affairs can be overcome by linking campaigns to famous brands -- an effective, if often problematic, weapon against parochialism. These corporate campaigns have, in turn, opened back doors into the arcane world of international trade and finance, to the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and, for some, to a questioning of capitalism itself. But these tactics have also proven to be an easy target in turn. After September 11, politicians and pundits around the world instantly began spinning the terrorist attacks as part of a continuum of anti-American and anticorporate violence: first the Starbucks window, then, presumably, the WTC. New Republic editor Peter Beinart seized on an obscure post to an anticorporate Internet chat room that asked if the attacks were committed by "one of us." Beinart concluded that "the anti-globalization movement...is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the United States" -- immoral with the United States under attack. In a sane world, rather than fueling such a backlash the terrorist attacks would raise questions about why US intelligence agencies were spending so much time spying on environmentalists and Independent Media Centers instead of on the terrorist networks plotting mass murder. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the crackdown on activism that predated September 11 will only intensify, with heightened surveillance, infiltration and police violence. It's also likely that the anonymity that has been a hallmark of anticapitalism -- masks, bandannas and pseudonyms -- will become more suspect in a culture searching for clandestine operatives in its midst. But the attacks will cost us more than our civil liberties. They could well, I fear, cost us our few political victories. Funds committed to the AIDS crisis in Africa are disappearing, and commitments to expand debt cancellation will likely follow. Defending the rights of immigrants and refugees was becoming a major focus for the direct-action crowd in Australia, Europe and, slowly, the United States. This too is threatened by the rising tide of racism and xenophobia. And free trade, long facing a public relations crisis, is fast being rebranded, like shopping and baseball, as a patriotic duty. According to US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick (who is frantically trying to get fast-track negotiating power pushed through in this moment of jingoistic groupthink), trade "promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle." Michael Lewis makes a similar conflation between freedom fighting and free trading when he explains, in an essay in The New York Times Magazine, that the traders who died were targeted as "not merely symbols but also practitioners of liberty.... They work hard, if unintentionally, to free others from constraints. This makes them, almost by default, the spiritual antithesis of the religious fundamentalist, whose business depends on a denial of personal liberty in the name of some putatively higher power." The battle lines leading up to next month's WTO negotiations in Qatar are: Tradeequals freedom, antitrade equals fascism. Never mind that Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire with a rather impressive global export network stretching from cash-crop agriculture to oil pipelines. And never mind that this fight will take place in Qatar, that bastion of liberty, which is refusing foreign visas for demonstrators but where bin Laden practically has his own TV show on the state-subsidized network Al-Jazeera. Our civil liberties, our modest victories, our usual strategies -- all are now in question. But this crisis also opens up new possibilities. As many have pointed out, the challenge for social justice movements is to connect economic inequality with the security concerns that now grip us all -- insisting that justice and equality are the most sustainable strategies against violence and fundamentalism. But we cannot be naïve, as if the very real and ongoing threat of more slaughtering of innocents will disappear through political reform alone. There needs to be social justice, but there also needs to be justice for the victims of these attacks and immediate, practical prevention of future ones. Terrorism is indeed an international threat, and it did not begin with the attacks in the United States. As Bush invites the world to join America's war, sidelining the United Nations and the international courts, we need to become passionate defenders of true multilateralism, rejecting once and for all the label "antiglobalization." Bush's "coalition" does not represent a genuinely global response to terrorism but the internationalization of one country's foreign policy objectives -- the trademark of US international relations, from the WTO negotiating table to Kyoto: You are free to play by our rules or get shut out completely. We can make these connections not as "anti-Americans" but as true internationalists. We can also refuse to engage in a calculus of suffering. Some on the left have implied that the outpouring of compassion and grief post-September 11 is disproportionate, even vaguely racist, compared with responses to greater atrocities. Surely the job of those who claim to abhor injustice and suffering is not to stingily parcel out compassion as if it were a finite commodity. Surely the challenge is to attempt to increase the global reserves of compassion, rather than parsimoniously police them. Besides, is the outpouring of mutual aid and support that this tragedy has elicited so different from the humanitarian goals to which this movement aspires? The street slogans -- PEOPLE BEFORE PROFIT, THE WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE -- have become self-evident and viscerally felt truths for many in the wake of the attacks. There is outrage in the face of profiteering. There are questions being raised about the wisdom of leaving crucial services like airport security to private companies, about why there are bailouts for airlines but not for the workers losing their jobs. There is a groundswell of appreciation for public-sector workers of all kinds. In short, "the commons" -- the public sphere, the public good, the noncorporate, what we have been defending, what is on the negotiating table in Qatar -- is undergoing something of a rediscovery in the United States. Instead of assuming that Americans can care about each other only when they are getting ready to kill a common enemy, those concerned with changing minds (and not simply winning arguments) should seize this moment to connect these humane reactions to the many other arenas in which human needs must take precedence over corporate profits, from AIDS treatment to homelessness. As Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen, puts it, despite the warmongering and coexisting with the xenophobia, "People seem careful, vulnerable, and extraordinarily kind to each other. These events just might be able to break us away from our gated communities of the heart." This would require a dramatic change in activist strategy, one based much more on substance than on symbols. Then again, for more than a year, the largely symbolic activism outside summits and against individual corporations has already been challenged within movement circles. There is much that is unsatisfying about fighting a war of symbols: The glass shatters in the McDonald's window, the meetings are driven to ever more remote locations -- but so what? It's still only symbols, facades, representations. Before September 11, a new mood of impatience was already taking hold, an insistence on putting forward social and economic alternatives that address the roots of injustice as well as its symptoms, from land reform to slavery reparations. Now seems like a good time to challenge the forces of both nihilism and nostalgia within our own ranks, while making more room for the voices -- coming from Chiapas, Pôrto Alegre, Kerala -- showing that it is indeed possible to challenge imperialism while embracing plurality, progress and deep democracy. Our task, never more pressing, is to point out that there are more than two worlds available, to expose all the invisible worlds between the economic fundamentalism of "McWorld" and the religious fundamentalism of "Jihad." Maybe the image wars are coming to a close. A year ago, I visited the University of Oregon to do a story on antisweatshop activism at the campus that is nicknamed Nike U. There I met student activist Sarah Jacobson. Nike, she told me, was not the target of her activism, but a tool, a way to access a vast and often amorphous economic system. "It's a gateway drug," she said cheerfully. For years, we in this movement have fed off our opponents' symbols -- their brands, their office towers, their photo-opportunity summits. We have used them as rallying cries, as focal points, as popular education tools. But these symbols were never the real targets; they were the levers, the handles. They were what allowed us, as British writer Katharine Ainger recently put it, "to open a crack in history." The symbols were only ever doorways. It's time to walk through them. - From mithi at silchar.com Sun Oct 21 18:47:15 2001 From: mithi at silchar.com (SAGNIK CHAKRAVARTTY) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Join the egroup INDIAN SOCIETY OF FILM EDITORS Message-ID: <20011021131715.E6CEF36FA@sitemail.everyone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011021/39cb7260/attachment.pl From twsherma at mailbox.syr.edu Sat Oct 20 10:52:59 2001 From: twsherma at mailbox.syr.edu (Tom Sherman) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Reader-list] Nerve Theory/Syr & Mtl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Le Moyne College's Coyne Performing Arts Center and the LeMoyne Student Programing Board present: the American premiere of "THE DISCONNECTION MACHINE" by Nerve Theory (Tom Sherman and Bernhard Loibner) Jesuit Theater, Thursday, November 8, 2001, 9:00pm* Le Moyne College, Syracuse, New York Nerve Theory creates VidSonic environments that are immersive, intense and challenging. THE DISCONNECTION MACHINE is a 45-minute performance that fingers global telecommunications as the trigger of human disconnection. Disembodied voices, free- floating images, asynchronous messaging, addiction to amplitude and data-density, the fragmenting effects of the multi-syndrome, are distancing people from their sense of place and peace of mind. Tom Sherman (U.S./Canada) and Bernhard Loibner (Austria) have been recording and performing together since 1993. As Nerve Theory they have performed in Paris, Vienna, Linz, Stuttgart and New York. Their recordings, video and texts are available at: http://www.allquiet.org/ Following this Syracuse appearance, Nerve Theory will perform THE DISCONNECTION MACHINE at ELEKTRA 2001 in Montreal, Quebec, November 10, 2001. The ELEKTRA 2001 festival also features performances by Oval, Monty Cantsin, Louis-Philippe Demers, Jean Piche, Yves Daoust, Louis Dufort, and Purform: http://www.elektrafestival.ca ----- DIRECTIONS to Le Moyne College's Coyne Center for the Performing Arts: take E. Genesee to the traffic light at Salt Springs Rd., take Salt Springs Rd. (left) until it intersects with Springfield Rd. (turn left onto Springfield). This is the Eastern edge of the Le Moyne campus (the first right off Springfield is Parking Lot C, parking for the Coyne Performing Arts Center).] *This Coyne Performing Arts Center presentation of THE DISCONNECTION MACHINE is sponsored by Le Moyne College. There will be no admission charge. For further information call: 315-445-4523 ----- DIRECTIONS (continued): From the South (Pennsylvania, Binghampton, Ithaca, etc) Route 81 North to Route 690 East to Thompson Rd. South exit. Thompson Rd. uphill, right turn on Springfield Rd (top of the hill), left at first intersection (still Springfield Rd.) Enter campus at Parking Lot C. From the North (Ontario, Watertown, N. Syracuse, etc.) Route 81 south to Route 690 east to Thompson Rd. South exit, then same as above. From the East (Albany, Utica, Rome, etc.) Route 90 (NYS Thruway) Westbound to Route 481 South, to Route 690 West, to Thompson Rd. South exit, then the same as above. From the West (Rochester, Buffalo, Auburn, etc.) Route 90 (NYS Thruway Eastbound to Route 481 South, to Route 690 West, to Thompson Rd. South, then the same as above. ----- From octave at vsnl.com Wed Oct 24 10:09:10 2001 From: octave at vsnl.com (Sanjay Kak) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:39:10 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] FW: John Le Carre on the war In-Reply-To: <20011023115602.AF0C4653C@mx2.vsnl.com> Message-ID: > The Globe and Mail > Toronto, Canada > Saturday, October 13, 2001 > > We have already lost > > By John Le Carre > > The Bombing Begins! screams today's headline of the normally restrained > Guardian. Battle joined, echoes the equally cautious International Herald > Tribune, quoting George W. Bush. But with whom is it joined? And how will > it end? How about with Osama bin Laden in chains, looking more serene and > Christ-like than ever, arranged before a tribune of his vanquishers with > Johnny Cochran to defend him? The fees won't be a problem, that's for > sure. > > Or how about with Osama bin Laden blown to smithereens by one of those > clever bombs we keep reading about that kill terrorists in caves but don't > break the crockery? Or is there a solution I haven't thought of that will > prevent us from turning our archenemy into an arch martyr in the eyes of > those for whom he is already semi-divine? > > Yet we must punish him. We must bring him to justice. Like any sane > person, I see no other way. Send in the food and medicines, provide the > aid, sweep up the starving refugees, maimed orphans and body parts - > sorry, "collateral damage" - but Osama bin Laden and his awful men, we > have no choice, must be hunted down. > > Unfortunately, what America longs for at this moment, even above > retribution, is more friends and fewer enemies. And what America is > storing up for herself, and so are we Brits; is yet more enemies. Because > after all the bribes, threats and promises that have patched together this > rickety coalition, we cannot prevent another suicide bomber being born > each time a misdirected missile wipes out an innocent village, and. nobody > can tell us how to dodge this devil's cycle, of despair, hatred and - yet > again-revenge. > > The stylized television footage and photographs of this bin Laden suggest > a man of homoerotic narcissism, and maybe we can draw a grain of hope from > that. Posing with a Kalashnikov, attending a wedding or consulting a > sacred text, he radiates with every self-adoring gesture an actor's > awareness of the lens. He has height, beauty, grace, intelligence and > magnetism, all great attributes, unless you're the world's hottest > fugitive and on the run, in which case they're liabilities hard to > disguise. > > But greater than all of them, to my jaded eye, is his barely containable > male vanity, his appetite for self-drama and his closet passion for the > limelight. And, just possibly, this trait will be his downfall, seducing > him into a final dramatic act of self-destruction, produced, directed, > scripted and acted to death by Osama Bin Laden himself. > > By the accepted rules of terrorist engagement, of course, the war is long > lost. By us. What victory can we possibly achieve that matches the defeats > we have already suffered, let alone the defeats that lie ahead? "Terror is > theatre," a soft-spoken Palestinian firebrand told me in Beirut in 1982. > He was talking about the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics > 10 years before, but he might as well have been talking about the Twin > Towers and the Pentagon. The late Mikhail Bakunin, evangelist of > anarchism, liked to speak of the Propaganda of the Act. It's hard to > imagine more theatrical, more potent acts of propaganda than these. > > Now Mr. Bakunin in his grave and Mr. bin Laden in his cave must be rubbing > their hands in glee as we embark on the very process that terrorists of > their stamp so relish: as we hastily double up our police and intelligence > forces and award them greater powers, as we put basic civil liberties on > hold and curtail press freedom, impose news blackouts and secret > censorship, spy on ourselves and, at our worst, violate mosques and hound > luckless citizens in our streets because we are afraid of the colour of > their skin. > > All the fears that we share - Dare I fly? Ought I to tell the police about > the weird couple upstairs? Would it be safer not to drive down Whitehall > this morning? Is my child safely back from school? Have my life's savings > plummeted? - are precisely the fears our attackers want us to have. > > Until Sept. 11, the United States was only too happy to plug away at > Vladimir Putin about his butchery in Chechnya. Russia's abuse of human > rights in the North Caucasus, he was told - we are speaking of wholesale > torture, and murder amounting to genocide - was an obstruction to closer > relations with NATO and the United States. There were even voices - mine > was one - that suggested Mr. Putin join Slobodan Milosevic on trial in The > Hague: Let's do them both together. Well, goodbye to all that. In the > making of the great new coalition, Mr. Putin looks a saint by comparison > with some of his bed­fellows. > > Does anyone remember any more the outcry against the perceived economic > colonialism of the G8? Against the plundering of the Third World by > uncontrollable multinational companies? Seattle, Prague and Genoa > presented us with disturbing scenes of broken heads, broken glass, mob > violence and police brutality. Tony Blair was deeply shocked. Yet the > debate was a valid one, until it was drowned in a wave of patriotic > sentiment, deftly exploited by corporate America. > > Drag up Kyoto these days, you risk the charge of being "anti-American." > It's as if we have entered a new Orwellian world where our personal > reliability as comrades in the struggle is measured by the degree to which > we invoke the past to explain the present. Suggesting there is a > historical context for the recent atrocities is, by implication, to make > excuses for them: Anyone who is with us doesn't do that; anyone who does, > is against us. > > Ten years ago, I was making an idealistic bore of myself by telling anyone > who would listen, that with the Cold War behind us, we were missing a > never-to-be repeated chance to transform the global the global community. > > Where was the Marshall Plan? I pleaded. Why weren't young men and women > from the U.S. Peace Corps, Britain's Voluntary Service Overseas and their > continental European equivalents pouring into the former Soviet Union by > the thousands? > > Were was the world-class statesman and the man of the hour, with the voice > and vision to define for us the real; if unglamorous, enemies of mankind: > poverty, famine, slavery, tyranny, drugs, bush-fire wars racial and > religious ,intolerance, greed? > > Now thanks to Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, all our leaders are > world-class statement, , proclaiming distant their voices and visions in > distant airports while they feather their electoral nests.. > > There has been unfortunate talk - and not only from Silvio Berlusconi - of > a "crusade." Crusade, of course, implies a delicious ignorance of history. > Was Mr. Berlusconi really proposing to set free the holy places of > Christendom and smite the heathen? Was George W. Bush? And am I out of > order in recalling that we (Christians) actually lost the Crusades? But > all is well: Signor Berlusconi was misquoted and the presidential > reference is no longer operative. > > Meanwhile, Mr. Blair's new role as America's fearless spokesman continues > apace. Mr. Blair speaks well because Mr. Bush speaks badly. Seen from > abroad, Mr. Blair in this partnership is the inspired elder statesman with > an unassailable domestic power base, whereas Mr. Bush - dare one say it > these days? - was barely elected at all. > > But what exactly does Mr. Blair, the elder statesman, represent? Both he > and the U.S. President at this moment are riding high in their respective > approval ratings, but both are aware, if they know their history books, > that riding high on Day One of a perilous overseas military operation > doesn't guarantee you victory come election day. > > How many American body bags can Mr. Bush sustain without losing popular > support? After the horrors of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the > American people may want revenge, but they're on a very short fuse about > shedding more American blood. > > Mr. Blair - with the whole Western world to tell him so, except for a few > sour voices back home - is America's eloquent white knight, the fearless, > trusty champion of that ever-delicate child of the mid-Atlantic, the > "Special Relationship." > > Whether that will win Mr. Blair favour with his electorate is another > matter because the Prime Minister was elected to save the country from > decay, and not from Osama bin Laden. The Britain he is leading to war is a > monument to 60 years of administrative incompetence. Our health, education > and transport systems are on the rocks. The fashionable phrase these days > describes them as "Third World," but there are places in the Third World > that are far better off than Britain. > > The country Mr. Blair governs is blighted by institutionalized racism, > white male dominance, chaotically administered police forces, a > constipated judicial system, obscene private wealth and shameful and > unnecessary public poverty. At the time of his re-election, which was > characterized by a dismal turnout, Mr. Blair acknowledged these ills and > humbly admitted that he was on notice to put them right. > > So when you catch the noble throb in his voice as he leads us reluctantly > to war, and your heart lifts to his undoubted flourishes of rhetoric, it's > worth remembering that he may also be warning you, sotto voce, that his > mission to mankind is so important that you will have to wait an­other > year for your urgent medical operation and a lot longer before you can > ride in a safe and punctual train. I am not sure that this is the stuff of > electoral victory three years from now. Watching Tony Blair, and listening > to him, I can't resist the impression that he is in a bit of a dream, > walking his own dangerous plank. > > Did I say "war"? Has either Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush, I wonder, ever seen a > child blown to bits, or witnessed the effect of a single cluster bomb > dropped on an unprotected refugee camp? It isn't necessarily a > qualification for generalship to have seen such dread things- and I don't > wish either of them the experience - but it scares me all the: same when > I'll watch uncut, political faces shining with the light of combat, and > hear preppy political vices steeling my heart for battle. > > And please, Mr. Bush - on my knees, Mr. Blair - keep God out of this. To > imagine God fights wars is to credit Him with he worst follies of mankind. > God, if we now anything about Him, which I don't profess to, prefers > effective food drops, dedicated medical teams, comfort and good tents for > the homeless and bereaved, and without strings, a decent acceptance of our > past sins and a readiness to put hem right. He prefers us less greedy, > less arrogant, less evangelical, and less dismissive of life's losers. > > It's not a new world order, not yet, and is not God's war. It's a > horrible, necessary, humiliating police action to redress he failure of > our intelligence services and cur blind political stupidity in arming and > exploiting fanatics to fight the Soviet invader, then abandoning them to a > devastated, leaderless country. As a result, it's our miserable duty to > seek out and punish a bunch of modern medieval religious zealots who will > gain mythic stature from the very death we propose to dish out to hem. > > And when it's over, it won't be over. The shadowy bin Laden armies, in the > emotional aftermath of his destruction, will gather numbers rather than > wither .way. So will the hinterland of silent sympathizers who provide > them with logistical support. > > Cautiously, between the lines, we are being invited to believe that the > conscience of the West has been reawakened to the dilemma of the poor and > homeless of the Earth. > > And possibly, out of fear, necessity and rhetoric, a new sort of political > morality has, indeed, been born. But when the shooting dies and a seeming > peace is thieved, will the United States and its allies stay at their > posts or, as happened at the end of the Cold War, hang up their boots and > go home to their own back yards? Even if those back yards will never pin > be the safe havens they once were. > > John le Carre is the author of 18 novels, including his most recent, The > Constant Gardener. > From aiindex at mnet.fr Wed Oct 24 00:23:49 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:53:49 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] The Alternative to Global Terror Message-ID: South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2. 24 October 2001 ------------------------------------ [The below article is also available on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/message/1114 ] THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO GLOBAL TERROR by Rohini Hensman Father, Son and Holy War My apologies to Anand Patwardhan, but I can't resist the temptation to borrow the title of his film as an apt description of what is happening in the world right now (i.e. October 2001, the month after the terrorist attacks in the USA). Whether the father is Saudi billionnaire Mohammed bin Laden, with his close ties to the Saudi royal family, the son is his estranged offspring Osama, who is enraged every time he thinks of infidel American troops stationed on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, and the holy war is the jihad which the latter has declared against America and Americans; or the father is George Bush Sr, who started it all with his war to defeat Saddam Hussein by gradually exterminating the people of Iraq, the son is George Jr., who has trouble opening his mouth without putting his foot in it, and the holy war is the crusade the latter has declared against, well, let us say vaguely specified enemies who happen to be Muslims - in both cases, the themes of religious communalism, militarism and machismo are inextricably intertwined. There is even an uncanny similarity in the ways that the two sons think, if we ignore the cowboy rhetoric of one ('wanted - dead or alive', 'smoke 'em outa their holes', etc.) and the pious expressions of the other ('may God mete them the punishment they deserve', etc.). Bush tells us, 'either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists' (statement of 20/9/01); Osama tells us the entire world is divided into 'two regions - one of faithŠand another of infidelity' (statement of 7/10/01). In other words, they both want us to believe that the population of the world is divided into two camps, one headed by Bush, the other by bin Laden. If this is true, then we are heading into an epoch of unlimited violence and terror. South Asia is right at the centre of the conflict, and could suffer the most from it. For example, if the war goes on much longer, General Musharraf could be overthrown by even more extremist communal forces in Pakistan, who would then have nuclear weapons in their hands. On the other side of the border, there could well be a hidden agenda behind the BJP-led government's enthusiastic support for the US war. What do they hope to gain from it? Not US mediation in Kashmir to put pressure on Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism - Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh made it very clear that mediation would not be welcome. Belligerent speeches by Kashmir's Chief Minister Farouq Abdullah and Home Minister L.K.Advani, as well as aggressive firing across the border the same day that corruption-tainted Defence Minister George Fernandes regained his ministry, suggest that what they want is the US go-ahead to do exactly what Big Brother is doing: i.e. to bomb Pakistan as the US is bombing Afghanistan, on the same pretext of 'a war against those who harbour terrorists'. That could be the prelude to a nuclear war. For those of us who are opposed to both camps, the only way to avert such a catastrophe is to build a viable third alternative - a new non-aligned movement for human rights and democracy - at top speed. This will become obvious when we take a closer look at the two camps which have already constituted themselves. But first we need to be clear what we are talking about when we refer to 'terrorism'. What do we mean by 'terrorism'? The first kind of definition of terrorism is lack of definition. Eqbal Ahmad, after going through at least twenty US documents on terrorism, came up with a surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) discovery: not once was terrorism defined. And he concluded that this was quite deliberate: 'If you're not going to be consistent, you're not going to define' ('Terrorism: Theirs and Ours', Alternative Radio programme). Since September 11th, we find the definition chopping and changing, according to expediency. First it is made clear that only acts of violence against US citizens are acts of terrorism; the same acts against citizens of other countries don't count. When some governments whose support the US wishes to retain question this, the definition is expanded slightly. At no point are similar acts of violence committed or supported by the US defined as terrorist. Ranged against this are counter-definitions by anti-globalisers like Vandana Shiva, who classify hunger, poverty, unemployment and environmental degradation as terrorism; we can call this an economic reductionist type of definition. One problem is that it is so wide that it becomes impossible to define a strategy to fight it; it is a bit like trying to make tables, chairs, beds, windows and doors with a tool-kit consisting entirely and solely of a hammer: you end up unable to make any of them. Another problem is that terrorism as political violence is nowhere acknowledged, so that it becomes possible to join hands, as Vandana Shiva has done, with terrorists of the Sangh Parivar in the struggle against globalisation. I would say that even disasters like Bhopal and Chernobyl, which kill and injure tens of thousands of victims, should not be classified as terrorism, because they occur in the pursuit of economic gain and therefore require different remedies (e.g. health and safety and environmental legislation which makes them impossible). The US is not the only state whose definition of terrorism shifts according to who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. In Sri Lanka, the UNP and its supporters defined the JVP and Tamil militant groups as 'terrorist' when these groups committed admittedly horrific acts of indiscriminate violence, but even more violent responses by the state and state-sponsored paramilitaries were, supposedly, not terrorism. The militants, on the other hand, denounce state terrorism, but would not call their own actions terrorist. In Kashmir, violence against civilians by militants from Pakistan are called terrorism by the Indian state, which does not, however, give the same name to its own violence against Kashmiri civilians; conversely, the Pakistani state refers to the militants as 'freedom fighters', and denounces Indian state terrorism. It is not possible to fight something without knowing what it is. Against this miasma of rhetoric, and taking off from dictionary definitions of 'terrorism', I would say that acts of terrorism are acts or threats of violence against ordinary, unarmed civilians carried out in the pursuit of a political objective. It should be irrelevant whether the perpetrators are state parties or non-state parties, and other characteristics (like skin colour, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, social origin or anything else) of the perpetrators and victims should likewise be irrelevant. Further, the stated political objective should not come into the picture either, whether it is a religion, nationalism, national interest, national security, national liberation, democracy, socialism, communism, infinite justice or enduring freedom. A murderer's claimed motive does not change the fact of a murder. In this connection, we need to dispense with another term: 'collateral damage'. In the context of terrorism as defined above, it makes no sense, because the purpose of terrorism is not to kill or injure people, that is merely a means to some political end. For example, in the case of the 11 September attacks, we cannot know for sure the motives of the hijackers because they are all dead, but if we assume for the sake of argument that they were in some way connected to Osama bin Laden , then the demands are very clear: the US must stop supporting Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, stop the bombing of Iraq and lift the sanctions against that country, stop supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East, and move their armed forces out of Saudi Arabia. The purpose was not to kill all those people in the aeroplanes, the World Trade Centre and Pentagon; they were merely collateral damage. Does that sound outrageous? Of course it does. Because we are not used to hearing dead Americans referred to as 'collateral damage'. But shouldn't it sound equally outrageous when Bush, Blair and their cohorts justify the killing of Afghani civilians in the bombing as 'collateral damage'? 'According to Michael Tonry, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, "In the criminal law, purpose and knowledge are equally culpable states of mind. An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passenger will be killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing more despicable" (Malign Neglect, p. 32)' (A.J.Chien, 'The Civilian Toll', Institute for Health and Social Justice, October 11). So let us forget about collateral damage. Murder is murder, and mass murder is mass murder. Terrorist acts which result in mass murder can additionally be defined as crimes against humanity. It seems to me that this could be a functional definition of terrorism or acts of terrorism, which can be agreed upon by pacifists as well as those who believe that armed resistance to armed aggression is justified. Fighting between combatants would not count as terrorism. Only minimal grey areas are left; for example, those cases where settlers on land seized from others by acts of terrorism either defend their gains with arms or are defended by armed forces, as in the case of the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories of Palestine, whom Nigel Harris graphically describes as 'Jewish Taliban and Zionist Red Necks' ('Collapse of the Peace Process', Economic and Political Weekly, 15/9/01). In such cases, I would say that adult settlers cannot be regarded as innocent unarmed civilians, whereas children can. Another problematic case would be one where a politician who advocates and promotes the transfer of populations (a crime against humanity according to the Nuremburg Principles articulated to prosecute Nazi war criminals), such as Israeli Minister Rehavam Ze'evi, is assassinated. All one can say is that if that is terrorism, so was the attempted assassination of Hitler. The bin Laden-Taliban camp: communalist terrorism I prefer the term 'communalism', as used in South Asia, to the more commonly-used 'fundamentalism', for two reasons. (1) Communalism, meaning an adoption of identity based overwhelmingly on membership of a community, with corresponding isolation from or hostility to others - ranging from opposition to intermarriage with them to genocidal massacres of them - is a much broader term. It can encompass identities based not only on different religions, but on different ethnic groups, and on sects within the same religion (Shia and Sunni, Protestant and Catholic, etc.) (2) Claims of fundamentalists that they are defending the 'fundamentals' of their religion have convincingly been contested by theologians of those same religions; it is therefore a misleading term, suggesting that more humane interpretations are somehow less authentic. Attacks like those of 11 September were unprecedented in the US, but not in our countries. Indeed, almost nine years earlier we felt the same horror and fear when a terrorist attack brought down the Babri Mosque, accompanied and followed by anti-Muslim riots which took a death toll similar to that of the US attacks. So unlike several consecutive US administrations which have supported and still continue to support communal forces in our countries (more about this later), many of us, especially women, have long recognised the dire danger posed to women's rights in particular, and human rights and democracy in general, by communal terrorism, and have been battling against it for decades. The hell that women have gone through under the Taliban - girls and women denied education, women not allowed to earn a living, even if the only alternative for them and their children is death by starvation, not allowed to go out except covered from head to foot by a burqa and accompanied by a male relative, brutal punishments including stoning to death or being buried alive if they break any of the draconian rules imposed on them - these are only the most extreme examples of the violation of women's rights which is much more widespread. And while patriarchal authority in its Islamic form receives the widest publicity, let us remember that other forms - like the common practice of female infanticide in India, bride-burning, ill-treatment of widows, and the lynching of young people who have out-of-caste relationships - can be just as barbaric. Other forms of communal terrorism may provide more space for women, and the LTTE even encourages them to become suicide bombers, but all this is premised on blind support for the supreme leader. The penalty for independent thought, expression or action, as Rajani Thiranagama and Sarojini Yogeshwaran found out to their cost, is death. The suppression of women's rights goes along with a more general authoritarian control over what members of the religious or ethnic community may or may not say and do. Depending on the degree of power the communal group enjoys, punishments for those who refuse to abandon the struggle for human rights and democracy can vary from social boycott, to beatings (e.g. Asghar Ali Engineer), to death (notably Neelan Thiruchelvam). But the greatest violence is directed outward, towards other ethnic/religious communities. Massacres of the type that the Taliban inflicted on non-Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan (and which warlords of those tribes also carried out when they were in a position to do so) are familiar in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. They have been carried out in the name of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sinhala, Tamil and a whole number of other ethnic nationalisms. The victims, starting from the Partition riots, add up to millions dead, apart from massive displacement and destruction of livelihoods. Nor is this kind of terrorism confined to South Asia. Rwanda, East Timor and the Balkans have recently seen horrific communal killings. They can even be seen as genocidal, if genocide is seen not as an attempt to exterminate a people from the whole face of the earth but, rather, to clear them out of the territory controlled by a particular ethnic or religious group. How can we explain such terrorism? This is important if we wish to combat it. One popular explanation is that terrorism is a response to oppression, but I am not happy with this. If this is true, why is it that millions of exploited and oppressed people throughout the world never become terrorists? Why is it that women, who are the most oppressed of the oppressed, rarely go down this path, since it is not biologically impossible, as the female fighters of the LTTE show? Secondly, there is a fine line between explanation and justification, and I fear that this explanation slips over the line into justification. Thus, for example, Steve Cohen, who correctly makes a clear distinction between Jews and zionists, actually blurs the distinction when he goes on to explain zionism as a response to anti-semitism (That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic). That, I feel, is an insult to all those Jewish people who suffer anti-semitism without endorsing ethnic cleansing. It is entirely legitimate and understandable for people who suffer constant persecution and regular pogroms to wish for a place where they can live in security and dignity. It is quite something else to create this place by clearing out the majority of the indigenous population by murderous terror. The same goes for Sri Lanka Tamils: the craving for a homeland where one can be safe and enjoy equal rights is absolutely justified; trying to create it by driving out and killing ordinary Sinhalese and Muslims is not justifiable, as all my research suggests that the majority of Tamil people would agree. Thirdly, this explanation ignores terrorist movements within Europe and the US, like those who were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing and are now suspected of spreading anthrax. This newspaper report is highly revealing: The FBI's domestic terrorism unit is investigating the possible role of illegal militia groups in the spate of anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber who killed 168 people when he blew up a federal building in 1995, was a supporter of one such group, the National Alliance. Others have threatened to use biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism, and ricin, in their struggle against what they see as a global conspiracy between the US administration and the United Nations to disarm and enslave them. Every state has its own "patriot" group of disaffected right-wing Christian radicals opposed to central government and federal regulations. Most are organised along paramilitary lines. The FBI estimates their numbers at up to 40,000, with the larger militias in backwoods country areas. They claim they are mobilising to fight the "New World Order". In places like Idaho, Texas, Montana and West Virginia, they wear army surplus camouflage uniforms and train with assault rifles and explosives against the day when they might have to defend themselves against direct interference from the federal authorities. They range in outlook from Pat Robertson, a failed 1988 presidential candidate, with his vision of a "Christian America" to the sinister Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and Minnesota Patriots' Council, who favour armed insurrectionŠ Most of the militias' philosophy is based on white-supremacist principles, looking down on blacks as "mud people" and Jews as instigators of the global plot against them and manipulators of the world economy for their own benefit. Despite their redneck reputation, they have developed a sophisticated communications network using computer e-mail, shortwave radio, and fax. The North American Patriots, a group with members from California to Kansas, publish a newsletter entitled Firearms and FreedomŠ In January 1999, police and security forces responded to 30 anthrax hoaxes in southern California alone. Since then, there have been thousands of false alarms across the country. Many aimed at government buildings, including deliveries of envelopes containing suspicious white powder, were militia inspired. (Ian Bruce, The Herald, 16/10/2001). These people, who bomb Black churches, synagogues, abortion clinics and gay bars, are clearly not reacting to oppression, but, on the contrary, to what they see as unwarranted restrictions on their 'right' to oppress. When capitalism develops, it produces, broadly speaking, three types of social forces: the old dominant elites, the bourgeoisie, and the working classes. In colonies, the bourgeoisie is furher split into the imperialist ruling class and the nascent local capitalist class. Each of these forces is pitched against all the others, but in specific conjunctures, depending on who is perceived as the greatest enemy, they may make pragmatic alliances. My own feeling is that communal terrorism represents a resistance to social change from traditional dominant groups whose power is undermined by the development of what has been called bourgeois democracy or modernity. Patriarchy, clerical power, monarchy in some countries, hierarchical caste domination in India: these are the values they uphold. But they are internally divided, into those who seek an accommodation with modernity while preserving traditional values, and those who represent all-out rejection of modernity and everything that goes with it. The governments of India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are examples of the former variant, hence their ability - even obscene eagerness in the case of India - to join the US-led alliance. The RSS, VHP, jihadi groups in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are examples of the latter. They are certainly not seeking to put an end to oppression: far from it. The whole basis of the way of life they seek to perpetuate is that that all human beings are not born equal, are not entitled to equal respect as persons. And yet, their resistance to a certain type of oppression, usually associated with foreigners and especially the West, provides them with an appeal for oppressed people who do not see effective resistance to their oppression coming from anywhere else. This is clearly the reason why Osama bin Laden has become an icon to so many. What does he protest against in public? US support for Israel's murderous occupation of Palestine, where Palestinians who were driven out decades ago are barred from returning while more land is occupied (in clear violation of several UN resolutions) and more Palestinians are being killed every day; the bombing of Iraq, which killed around 200,000 at the time of the war, many of them conscripts massacred while retreating from Kuwait, and sanctions against Iraq which have killed 1.5 million civilians, including some 540,000 children; support for corrupt and undemocratic regimes in West Asia; and now the bombing of Afghanistan. Don't these causes strike a resonance with us? They certainly do with me. I don't have to be the mother of the Palestinian child shot dead while he crouched terrified by his father, the young man conscripted to fight for Saddam Hussein and killed by the US in cold blood, the Iraqi child dying of leukemia from exposure to depleted uranium, I don't even have to be an Arab or a Muslim to feel grief and fury at the cruelty and injustice of it all, at the apparent failure of all legal and democractic attempts to enforce respect for human rights. So is it surprising that people who are not necessarily aware of Osama bin Laden's real agenda regard him as a hero for highlighting these iniquities? Is it surprising if boys and men burning to wipe out the humiliation and in some cases bereavement they have been subjected to are attracted to groups like Al Qa'ida, just as some of the many war-traumatised Tamil children in Sri Lanka might join the LTTE in order take revenge against 'the Sinhalese'? In this more complex sense, perhaps, imperialist oppression legitimises terrorism and provides it with recruits. For us, however, opposition to communal terrorism is a matter of survival, and this means we have to be equally opposed to the Bush camp. What, after all, do they stand for? The Bush camp: racist imperialist terrorism Imperialism - and this means not merely economic exploitation but actual political and/or military subjugation, as even Lenin acknowledged - takes different forms. In South Asia it was relatively mild, certainly using sufficient brutality to subjugate the 'natives', but not clearing them out with wholesale massacres. In the Americas and Australia, by contrast, the indigenous population was virtually wiped out by the European colonisers. Africa was devastated by the slave trade, in which tens of millions of Africans perished, apart from being colonised. Apartheid represents a half-way house between ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population and allowing them to remain where they are: they are herded into Bantustans from where their labour power can be used by the colonisers. Israel initially appeared to adopt the apartheid model, but more recently seems to be attempting to wipe out the Palestinians from Palestine altogether. The colonies of tsarist Russia briefly seemed to be destined for self-determination after the revolution, but Stalinism soon reverted to imperial domination over the Central Asian peoples, some of whom were ruthlessly massacred. World War II ended with the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, proving, for those who needed proof, that it was not a war against fascism on the part of the Allies but an inter-imperialist war to re-divide the world between imperialist powers, where this crime against humanity could be justified as a demonstration of naked military might. Post-war, while one colony after another achieved independence, the Cold War provided the basis for a different type of imperialist strategy. In the name of the struggle against 'communism', the US installed and propped up brutal fascistic dictatorships throughout the world, from Latin America to Indonesia. Where these failed to hold up, as in Cuba and Vietnam, it intervened directly. Tens of millions were killed in these actions to stamp out democracy in the name of democracy. This is why, for most people in the world, the US and the 'American way of life' are associated not with democracy and freedom but their very opposite: authoritarian dictatorships, rape, torture, death squads and massacres. The Soviet Union, for its part, mostly restricted its military interventions to the parts of the world that had been awarded to it as the spoils of war - its own empire in Central Asia, now extended by the 'Eastern Bloc' in Eastern and Central Europe - while also attempting to extend its influence elsewhere. One of the few countries outside its own 'sphere' which it invaded and occupied was Afghanistan, in 1979. Imperialism is premised on racism: the belief that humankind is divided into different 'races', out of whom the European or Caucasian or White or Aryan 'race' is superior to all the rest. Only such a premise can legitimise the wholesale domination, enslavement or extermination of other peoples. Those who understand imperialism purely in terms of monopoly capitalism miss this dimension. No doubt capitalism is brutal and oppressive, and certainly contains an element of what might be called class racism in the way that the lives and health of workers, including child labourers, are treated. Yet the rationale of this is the production of profit and the accumulation of capital. The quest for control over sources of raw materials, markets and labour power is certainly an element in imperialism. Yet if this were its sole rationale, then one would expect populations in the colonies to be treated in the same way as those in the imperialist countries, and this has not been the case. Thus although there was intensive bombing of Germany in the final stages of the war, the German people were not chosen as guinea-pigs to test the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. No European country was subjected to the intensive chemical warfare waged against Vietnam, where children were set on fire with napalm and others are still born with birth defects, and land is still unusable as a result of bombardment with Agent Orange. The bombing of Yugoslavia, reprehensible though it was, was not on anything like the same scale as the bombing of Iraq, nor was it followed by sanctions which took a similar toll on civilian life. I still remember how stunned I was to read a report of Madeleine Albright's response in 1996 to an interviewer who pointed out that half a million children had died as a result of sanctions against Iraq, and asked whether she thought it was worth it? She replied that although it was a hard choice, 'we think the price is worth it'. That's unbelievable, I thought; either this woman is a psychopath who could just as easily round up 500,000 Eurpean-American kids and kill them off at a rate of 1000 per week, or she thinks of Iraqis - and probably coloured people in general - as some kind of sub-human species who can be slaughtered in the pursuit of political gain. The same kind of racism is apparent in the treatment of Afghanistan, beginning with the Soviet occupation. It is estimated that at least a million Afghanis died in the war against the Soviets, who also took the chance to litter the country with millions of anti-personnel landmines during their occupation, as a result of which civilians are still being blown up and crippled or killed every day. And now this new war. Who are being killed in this so-called war against terrorism, despite the blatant lies which White House and Pentagon officials are doubtless paid to put out? Even if we discount reports of hundreds of civilian casualties by the Taliban and Al-Jazeera TV (despite the fact that they are confirmed by lakhs of refugees fleeing the carnage and foreign reporters who were invited in by the Taliban), doesn't it seem strange that one of the earliest strikes was against the UN mine-clearing facility in a civilian area, killing four workers and destroying the building along with the equipment? And this despite the fact that the UN had earlier notified the US of the location of its offices? Why was a Red Cross office with huge stores of food aid bombed, despite the fact that it could be identified by the huge red cross on its roof? There are only two ways these incidents can be explained: either the bombs are falling way off their supposed military targets, and the Pentagon knows it, or civilian facilities and civilians are deliberately being targeted. Take your pick. However, this is not the only death toll resulting from the bombing. Right from the beginning, aid agencies have been warning that unless massive amounts of food aid are transported to various locations including remote villages before the winter makes roads impassable by mid-November, up to seven-and-a-half million people could starve to death. Every day that bombing continues therefore means that lakhs more people will starve. The same agencies have pointed out that the surreal exercise of dropping food packets during bombing raids could at best keep some tens of thousands of people alive for one more day (after which they will die anyway); at worst it could result in people getting blown up by landmines as they run for the food. This may serve as a justification for people who can't count, or for pilots who would not like to think of themselves as murderers blowing up women with small children, the elderly, the crippled, i.e. those unable to run away from the bombing, but it is no use to the starving people of Afghanistan. Total civilian casualties as a result of the bombing are likely to be several millions. When you look at the NATO alliance backing the war, its racist nature becomes explicable. All the imperialist countries are there, including, this time, Russia, represented by ex-KGB agent Putin, the butcher of Chechnya. Why hasn't anyone suggested bombing the US to get rid of the right-wing militias which are apparently present in every state? What can explain these double standards if not racism? In other words, this type of terrorism and the kind represented by Al Qa'ida share some basic premises in common: all human beings are not born equal, and it is justifiable to kill innocent civilians in the pursuit of a political objective.This is what allows them to coexist and collaborate with each other so easily. It is what allowed the US to pour money, arms and training into the Pakistani ISI, and through them to the Taliban, the Northern warlords and Osama bin Laden from 1979 onwards - 'aid' that has had a devastating fallout not only for the women of Afghanistan, but also for those of Pakistan and Kashmir, where for the first time women were recently subjected to acid attacks for not wearing a burqa. It is what allows the US to continue to have a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, where women are treated scarcely any better than they are by the Taliban - a cozy relationship best exemplified by the business association of Bush the father with bin Laden the father in the Carlyle Group, whose investments in armaments could mean that both fathers profit from the war declared by their sons! (see Wall Street Journal 27/9/2001). It is what allowed the Israeli state to promote Hamas in its effort to undermine the secular elements in the Palestinian liberation struggle. Finally it is also the reason why President Bush can still ally himself with the warlords of the Northern Alliance, none of whom accept voting rights for women, and, as the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) have repeatedly told us, raped, looted and massacred their way through the regions they captured after 1992. At the same time, because these opposing forces are so similar to each other in their propensity to violate human and democratic rights, they also reinforce each other. There is credible evidence that the US was already planning an attack on the Taliban even before the September 11 events, but the terrorist strikes provided an excellent pretext for that attack. Many people who would have objected if the war appeared to be motivated by the desire to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, were disarmed by the claim that the purpose was a 'war against terrorism'. Those of us who still object have a much harder task to convince others that this war is a crime against humanity. Unlike the self-immolation of the Buddhist monks in Vietnam to draw the world's attention to the rape of their country, the September 11th gestures could easily be coopted by the imperialist agenda. On the other side, Bush has reacted exactly as bin Laden would have wanted him to; if I were cartoonist, I would draw a picture of the former as a puppet with the latter pulling the strings. Millions of people around the world, some of whom can hardly have heard of Osama bin Laden before, now regard him as a hero; and if the CIA kills him without any convincing proof of his guilt, as they have now apparently been authorised to do, that will elevate him to the status of a martyr, silenced because he spoke up for the oppressed. So the apparent choice - Bush or bin Laden - is really no choice at all. What alternative do we have? A worldwide movement for human rights and democracy Freedom from forced labour, freedom of expression and association, equal rights and opportunities, the right to elect one's representatives to government - these are usually referred to as 'bourgeois democracy'. The implication is that these are values upheld by the bourgeoisie, but I disagree. My contention is that these are values fought for spontaneously by working people throughout the world, especially working women, and supported only sporadically by the bourgeoisie, whose only values are the right to property and the freedom to exploit. One indication is provided by the struggle for universal adult suffrage. The original idea was that only males with property would have the right to vote; the dispossessed and women had to fight against these restrictions, and only working class women and those who supported them were steadfastly in favour of universal adult suffrage. Another indication is the ease with which the bourgeoisie attacks so-called bourgeois democracy, and the fact that fascism too is a form of bourgeois rule, despite its negation of all the rights and freedoms listed earlier. The US, for all its tall claims to be a defender of democracy, has attacked it not only abroad but even at home. The McCarthy years saw a fascistic attack on democratic rights, and many observers have commented that similar forces are at work post-September 11 - restrictions on the right to information, freedom of expression and association, the right to privacy, etc. A speaker at a meeting in Bombay who had recently returned from the US said that the ubiquitous Stars and Stripes reminded him of the Swastika displayed everywhere in Nazi Germany. Vicious attacks on dissenters, not only by the state but by other citizens, are evidence of fascism developing as a mass movement. And the fact that Congress, with the sole dissenting voice of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, voted to give unelected President George Bush Jr. almost unlimited powers for military attacks on anyone anywhere in the world, in violation of international law, the UN Charter and the US Constitution, suggests uncomfortable parallels with other regimes of absolute power. Let us be very clear: this may be the American way of life according to George Bush, but it is not democracy. Both sides in the Cold War propagated the notion that socialism and communism were the opposite of democracy, yet when these ideals were first put forward, they constituted not a negation but a further development of democratic control over spheres from which it is normally excluded even under 'bourgeois democracy', notably production relations and distribution of wealth, the repressive apparatus of the state, and international relations. However, the Soviet Union's use of these terms to describe policies which ruthlessly crushed democratic rights both at home and abroad, all but wiped out the memory of what these ideals had originally meant. If the destruction of Afghanistan is one of the tragic consequences of the Cold War, the destruction of the notions of democracy, socialism and communism are in a different way equally tragic, because they deprive us of a language in which to argue for the interests of the third social force, the working people of the world. Again, I reject the notion that these ideals are 'alien' to us in the Third World. Perhaps they were articulated first by spokespeople like Kant, Marx and Sylvia Pankhurst because capitalism, and therefore the working class, had developed further in Europe than the rest of the world in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. But ordinary working people anywhere in the world can respond to them if they are explained in a comprehensible manner. This, I think, is the task that faces us. We need to create a culture where these values are taken for granted, in opposition to the values of both communal and imperialist terrorism, and we need to do it on a global scale. That's a massive task, but let me suggest a few starting points here. 1) Given the present context, we need to take an absolutely clear stand on the politics of both types of terrorism, and explain why it is necessary to do so. We have to insist on secular states in our countries, neither Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Sinhala or Tamil, because a state that is tied to any particular religious or ethnic group cannot be democratic. In elections - for example, the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka and assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh in India, both of which will be crucially important - the record of every candidate and party in terms of human rights and secularism should be examined, and support extended or withheld accordingly. Sadly, there may be many cases where we have to make do with the lesser of two evils rather than a positive good, but there is always a choice. At the same time, we have to explain to those who have illusions in the US (and that includes the majority of Americans!) why, as Gulf War resistor Jeff Paterson put it, 'Now, more than ever, the people of the world are not safe from the U.S., and the people in the U.S. are not safe from the U.S.' ('A Message to Troops, Would-be Troops and Other Youth', 15/10/01) 2. Wherever there are ongoing conflicts, as in Sri Lanka, Kashmir and many other places in the subcontinent, we must insist that the first priority for any resolution must be to safeguard the human and democratic rights of all those concerned - national minorities as well as local minorities, women, etc. - and this, again, cannot take place except within a genuinely secular state. Some 'peace' campaigners think it is possible to sidestep this issue, but any 'peace accord' which allows for continuing violation of fundamental rights will not last long. 3. Conflicts in other parts of the world affect us, as this latest crisis has shown, and we need to press for a just resolution of them too. In the current situation, the most urgent issues are: (a) Afghanistan: an immediate end to the bombing - since many legal experts have argued that it is illegal according to international law, and the death of civilians as a result of it constitute a crime against humanity - and resumption of food and other aid, protected by UN peace-keepers if necessary; prosecution of those responsible for the terrorist attack of 11 September as well as others who have committed crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. (b) Iraq: an immediate end to the bombing, and lifting of sanctions, so that adequate food, medicines and rebuilding of infrastructure takes place to end the appalling loss of life there. (c) Palestine: Implementation of numerous UN resolutions to bring about an Israeli evacuation (including settlers and the Israeli Defence Forces) from the Occupied Territories and the establishment of a secular, democratic Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as ensuring the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. This would mean challenging the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. As Israel Shahak, a survivor of the Belsen concentration camp and citizen of Israel, writes, 'In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond,' just as the self-definition of other states as 'Arab' or 'Muslim' also constitutes a danger. He points out that this communal definition resulted in close relations between zionists and anti-semites: 'Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which some zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of "race" and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among '"Aryans"' (Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto Press,1994, pp. 2, 71). So the transformation of Israel into a secular, democratic state would also be required. UN sanctions may be needed to press for these changes. 4. None of this could be achieved without an international movement for human rights and democracy, comprising supporters of these principles in all countries including the USA and Israel. There is also a need for international institutions capable of implementing them. Whether the UN can play this role remains to be seen. Although its role in this war has not been as shameful as in the Gulf War, where it merely rubber-stamped the slaughter of civilians, it has been side-lined completely so far. It seems obvious that so long as permanent members of the Security Council have veto powers, the UN cannot function in a democratic manner; so abolishing those veto powers is one reform which needs to be made in the long term. More immediately, however, the permanent International Criminal Court which was agreed upon in 1998 needs to be set up to deal with crimes against humanity including terrorism, war crimes and genocide. Other machinery is needed to deal with violations of fundamental rights (of women, workers, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, dalits, etc.) where governments persistently fail to do so. 5. Finally, this crisis has shown the need for alternatives to the mainstream media as sources of information and communication. The internet can play such a role, but only if those who have access to it also disseminate the information more widely, which involves translating it into local languages - a laborious task, but one without which a worldwide movement for human rights and democracy cannot grow. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To subscribe send a blank message to: / To unsubscribe send a blank message to: ________________________________________ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. -- From aiindex at mnet.fr Wed Oct 24 05:56:31 2001 From: aiindex at mnet.fr (Harsh Kapoor) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:26:31 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] MEDIA WORKERS AGAINST THE WAR (MWAW) Message-ID: FYI Harsh -------------------- >MEDIA WORKERS AGAINST THE WAR (MWAW) > >http://www.mwaw.org > >NEWS RELEASE: Wednesday 17 October, 2001 >TO: Planning editors, peace movement correspondents >PRESS CONTACT: Mike Marqusee 0207 275 9399 > >* Anti-war picket at BBC Broadcasting House 5.30pm Tuesday 23 October >* MWAW website now up and running > >Media Workers Against the War (MWAW) have called a picket of BBC >Broadcasting House, Portland Place in London, from 5.30 to 8 pm on Tuesday >23 October. We want to register our support for our colleagues in the BBC >who are doing all they can to resist government attempts at censorship. > >Ten Downing Steet called in broadcasting and newspaper executives to >instruct them to spin the news, and in particular not to broadcast >statements by Bin Laden or pictures of dead and wounded civilians in >Afghanistan. As a result, only the Mirror and Channel 4 News used the >harrowing pictures from Afghanistan on Monday. Many BBC staff are deeply >unhappy about this. > >As media workers, we are also deeply concerned that Radio Shariat, formerly >Radio Kabul, was obliterated by coalition bombs in the first two days of >the attacks on >Kabul. > >"The destruction of the national radio station, and the staff working >there, was presented as an attack on a military target," said Jonathan >Neale of Media Workers Against the War. > >"On Tuesday we want to make it very clear that journalists and other media >workers in this country do not accept that radio stations, like Radio >Shariat in Kabul and >Broadcasting House in London, are legitimate targets in any war. There can >be no freedom of the press where journalists are killed for broadcasting >their views." > >More information can be found at the new MWAW website: http://www.mwaw.org > >PRESS CONTACT:Mike Marqusee 0207 275 9399 From kshekhar at bol.net.in Tue Oct 23 23:10:06 2001 From: kshekhar at bol.net.in (Mumbai Study Group) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:10:06 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Season's Greetings Message-ID: Dear Friends: We want to extend our thanks and greetings to all of you who have made the Mumbai Study Group a vibrant and successful public forum in the past year of our existence. This message is to hereby inform you that the next two sessions of the Mumbai Study Group, which would have taken place on 27 October and 10 November, will be cancelled, due to the Academy of Architecture closing for the festival season. We will have our next session on 24 November, when we will announce a programme of lectures, presentations and panel discussions on the many aspects of the city for the coming several months. See you then, and best wishes for the holiday season. Regards, Shekhar Krishnan, Pankaj Joshi, Arvind Adarkar and Darryl D'Monte Joint Convenors, Mumbai Study Group 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 and global issues, we have since September 2000 held conversations about various historical, political, legal, 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. 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 smitashu at vsnl.com Wed Oct 24 22:51:21 2001 From: smitashu at vsnl.com (s choudhary) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:51:21 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Colour of a journalist !!! Message-ID: <022e01c15cb0$521398a0$92e4c5cb@shundf> Dear friends, Here I am raising a Journalist's right issue which is related to this ongoing war. Pakistan, which is a very important ally of US and UK in this war has taken a decision not to allow Indian journalists or journalists of Indian origin of any nationality including British) their visas. There are some journalists working for an organisation ( eg- BBC like me) who were denied visas due to their country of origin or the color of passport they carry. Unfortunately we have been told this is a war to safeguard "democracy and freedom" !!! Please feel free to come to me if you need any more information. I will be grateful if you could raise the issue at your forum. With regards Shubhranshu Choudhary Asstt. Bureau Producer BBC South Asia Bureau 1, Rafi Marg New Delhi-1, India tel 0091 9811066749 e-mail shu at bbc.co.uk From ravis at sarai.net Thu Oct 25 12:00:46 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:46 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Hans Magnus Enzensberger on the crisis Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011025115902.00ac2398@pop3.norton.antivirus> fwd from nettime list Human Sacrifice Is a Thoroughly Modern Phenomenon By Hans Magnus Enzensberger Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 17 Born in 1929, the poet and essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger was a member of the influential postwar literary Group 47; in 1965 he founded the journal Kursbuch, which he led until 1975. Since 1979 he has lived in Munich. Numerous books of his poetry and essays are available in English, including "Civil Wars: From L.A. to Bosnia" (1995). The swifter the comment, the shorter-lived its relevance. Nothing against timeliness! But moments when no one knows what will happen next are precisely the times when there is good reason to attempt a distanced view. For example, on globalization: A German academic by the name of Karl Marx analyzed this phenomenon in considerable depth as much as 150 years ago. He certainly would not have dreamed of being "for" or "against" it. In the conflicts that erupted in places like Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa, he would have seen no more than a bout of shadow-boxing. Protesting against such a massive historical fact may be honorable, but the best it can achieve is worldwide television drama, showing that naive anti-globalization protesters are in fact themselves part of what they seek to combat. In his day, Marx described globalization as a purely political and economic phenomenon. And in 1848, that was the only possible angle, as the expansion of the world market and the politics of the colonial powers were then the key driving forces. But since then, this irreversible process has come to affect all aspects of life. Those who look at globalization in purely economic terms have not understood it. Today, nothing is left that can remain separate from it, neither religion nor science, neither culture nor technology, not to mention consumerism and the media. Which is why its costs are counted everywhere, in every sphere. Not only the countless economic losers are affected. Around the globe, sudden collapses, weapons, computer viruses, new types of epidemics, ecological disasters, civil wars and crimes all take their lead from the world market with its currents of money and knowledge. The belief that any society could isolate itself from these consequences is absurd. One such consequence is terrorism. And it would be a miracle if terrorism had remained the only thing not to go global. Faced with fanaticized masses, the modern world has long clung to the view that it was dealing with the peculiarities of backward societies. Many believed that sooner or later, the unstoppable process of modernization would put an end to such atavisms, even if the occasional relapse proved inevitable. The murderous energies of today cannot be traced back to any tradition. Neither the civil wars in the Balkans, Africa, Asia and Latin America, the dictatorships in the Middle East, nor the countless "movements" under the banner of Islam should be seen as archaic throwbacks: They are absolutely contemporary phenomena, reactions to the current state of global society. This also applies to a venerable religion such as Islam, although it, like ultra-orthodox Judaism, has not developed any productive ideas for a long time. To date, its strength has consisted in a determined negation of the modern world, to which it thus remains bound. The immanence of terror, regardless of its source, is evident not only in the protagonists' behavior, but also in their choice of methods, pathological copies of the enemy like those made by a retrovirus of the attacked cell. The feeling that this attack came from outside is mistaken, since no external realm of human and inhuman action exists outside the global context. Those who carried out the attacks on New York and the Pentagon were right up to date, not only in technical terms. Inspired by the pictorial logic of Western symbolism, they staged the massacre as a media spectacle, adhering in minute detail to scenarios from disaster movies. Such an intimate understanding of American civilization hardly testifies to an anachronistic mentality. It is no coincidence that at first, doubts were voiced concerning who was behind the attack. On the Internet, blame was leveled at extreme right-wing groups in the United States, while others spoke of Japanese terrorist groups or a Zionist intelligence service plot. As always in such cases, all manner of conspiracy theories immediately sprang up. Such interpretations are a measure of how infectious the culprits' mania is. But they also contain a grain of truth, as they demonstrate how interchangeable the motives for such attacks are. The letters claiming responsibility in the wake of most attacks, full of clichés and phrases learned by rote, resemble one another in their vacuity. Ideological analysis tells us nothing about the origins of the psychological energy that fuels terror. Labels such as left or right, nation or sect, religion or liberation all lead to exactly the same patterns of behavior, and their only common denominator is paranoia. Just how important the Islamic motive was to last week's mass murder in New York will have to be evaluated. Any other motive would have served just as well. In a gray area as murky as this one, certainties are hard to come by. Yet it would be hard to overlook the one thing that practically all terrorism as we know it has in common -- the extraordinary self-destructiveness of those who perpetrate it. This is true not only of the groups of conspirators and countless warlords, militias and paramilitary groups that have laid waste to large parts of Africa and Latin America, but also to so-called rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq. Such dictatorships seem bent less on annihilating their true or imagined enemies than on ruining their own countries. The as-yet unsurpassed pioneer of such suicidal behavior was Adolf Hitler, who was able to count on the support of the vast majority of Germans. Russia took 70 years to reach a state of total collapse, while Iraq even takes pride in its own demise. Countless "liberation movements" are pursuing similar goals. Algeria, Afghanistan, Angola, the Basque Country, Burundi, Indonesia, Cambodia, Chad, Chechnya, Colombia, Congo, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kashmir, Liberia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Uganda -- they make up an alphabet of horrors that shows no signs of ending. The logic of self-mutilation applies to the terrorist attacks on the United States too, as their most devastating consequences will have to be borne not by the West, but rather by that part of the world in whose name they were perpetrated. The foreseeable consequences for millions of Muslims will be disastrous. Yet Islamic fundamentalists are already celebrating a war they will never win. Nor will the suffering be confined to refugees, asylum-seekers and economic migrants. Beyond all sense of justice, entire peoples from Afghanistan to Palestine will have to pay an enormous political and economic price for the actions of those who claimed to be acting in their name. The expected retaliation will not spare innocents any more than did the attack that provoked it. The West has consistently underestimated the power of this collective urge to self-mutilation or even suicide. Reflecting on one's own past is apparently not enough to make the unfathomable any less incomprehensible. For that reason, perhaps it is time to risk a comparison with more familiar phenomena. One glance at a newspaper is proof enough of how irresistible this pleasure in one's own demise really is, even in the so- called developed world. Although drug addicts and skinheads knowingly rob themselves of every possible opportunity life has to offer and although hardly a day goes by without some new "family tragedy" or someone going on a shooting spree, we nevertheless continue to assume that most of what we do is dictated by the survival instinct. Every day brings new evidence to the contrary: A schoolboy lunges at his teachers and fellow pupils with a knife, someone who is HIV-positive tries to infect as many of his sexual partners as possible, a man who feels his boss has treated him unfairly climbs up a tower and shoots at anything that moves -- not despite, but precisely because this massacre will bring his own end sooner. There are certain parallels between individual death wishes like these and the motives that drove last week's hijackers. No matter how real or imagined the endless calamity is that he believes is threatening him, the individual or collective suicide candidate invariably prefers a calamitous end to every other alternative. The only difference is in the scale. Whereas the skinhead is armed only with a baseball bat and the arsonist only with a gasoline canister, the well-trained assailant has financial backing, sophisticated logistics and state-of- the-art communications and encryption technology at his disposal. And before long he will have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons too. For all the differences in scale, there is one thing that all these perpetrators have in common. Their aggression is directed not only at others, but rather -- and above all -- at themselves. If a terrorist can claim to be pursuing a higher goal, then so much the better. It does not matter which particular chimera it is. Any authority will do, any divine mission, any sacred fatherland or revolution. If necessary, the murderous self- murderer can even make do without such second- hand justifications altogether. His triumph consists in the fact that he can be neither fought nor punished, because he has already taken care of both these things himself. Those who prefer to remain alive will have a hard time understanding this. Although the overwhelming majority of us has never felt the urge to go on a rampage, none of us stands a chance against the adherents of suicide. As there are probably hundreds of thousands of human bombs in this world, their violence is likely to accompany us throughout the 21st century. What we are witnessing now is the globalization of another of our species' ancient customs: human sacrifice. From ravis at sarai.net Thu Oct 25 12:04:03 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:04:03 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] south asian resource on the war Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011025120119.00ab9e30@pop3.norton.antivirus> The South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch is an important resource on South Asian response to the war . See: http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex Ravi From geeta.patel at verizon.net Fri Oct 26 21:18:36 2001 From: geeta.patel at verizon.net (Geeta Patel) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:48:36 -0400 Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: [panboston] Re:Unseen Civilizan Casualty Images] Message-ID: <00ef01c15e35$b1ed96a0$6401a8c0@inteva> > The site itself is quite extraordinary. For pictures on Afghanistan. > http://www.abunimah.org Geeta Patel From reyhanchaudhuri at hotmail.com Sat Oct 27 12:46:02 2001 From: reyhanchaudhuri at hotmail.com (Dr. Reyhan Chaudhuri) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:16:02 +0000 Subject: In response to[Reader-list] Old Hat by Mr.Pandey Message-ID: This is in response to Mr.Pandey's contribution on the World events.He has certainly some very original things to say with interesting W.Owen emoticons.However the writings are also interspersed with four letter words.Surely hard hitting truths and beliefs can also be evoked without resorting to unimaginative expletives.There has been and is being enough of blood,gore and pollutants being spilled to necessiate rationing of atleast foul-mouthed broth; I'm also slightly baffled about the last paragraph,where the concept of rural elite is used.Is it an error where the writer actually means urban elite,in the contemporary context?Or does he refer to the past ? Yours Sincerely, R.Chaudhuri. >From: pratap pandey >To: Reader-list at sarai.net >Subject: [Reader-list] Old Hat >Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:31:22 +0100 (BST) > >Now we knew that when not so Young Goodman Lenin (oh! >how the Man on the Hill is going to hate this, and >Hawthorne) went very, very late into the country >called Russia without even a majority opinion [think, >as Hobsbawm asks us to do: why is the October >Revolution the October Revolution? Didn't the Czar >abdicate in Feb. of that year?], he didn't know what >the fuck to do. >Yet, today, we could argue that the most important >event of the twentieth century was The Russian >Revolution. There followed an almost impeccable >balkanisation of the terrain that separated >(apparently evermore) commie Russia from the rest of >Western Europe (Enlightened, if you please; >Democratic, if you'd like to believe). >There was only one hitch in the Complete Paranoiac >Plan to Shut Russia Away, called CPPSRA: Central Asia. >Now Osama Bin Laden the designated (by the US, not me) >asshole of all time (as the US calls him, not me)has >apparently masterminded the strikes on the World >Whatever Towers and so justified a complete Christian >American "crusade" on terrorism that will result, I >think, on the US creating a complete, permanent, >Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Whatever militray base in >central Asia. >The US wants to shut Russia out for all time to come >(no communist threats, forever; no International, as >happened in the US itself in 1880 -- all this is too >traumatic). It wishes to complete the barrier between >Russia, and the rest of the world. Also it wants to >place itself in the hitherto unpatrolled Central Asian >region for once and evermore (Compared to Edgar Allen >Poe, this Bush is completely Raven). This emplacement >is what will give the US true world or global >hegemony. >The US is desperate today. They have the Moral >Advantage (not the ethical imperative). This is their >chance. >Behind the emotional sabre-rattling lies an old >design. It is a design that Alexander (feeding on the >weakness of the Greek city-states that never recovered >from the Peloponesian War) tried to carry out. It is a >design that Napoleon thought possible (financed by the >Rothschilds). It is a design that Hitler believed in >(he made the same mistake that Napoleon made: >attacking Russia). It is a design that Stalin (a name >the cobbler Dzhugashvilli took upon himself, meaning >'Man of Steel')thought he ruled over and had the last >word on. > >What is this design? Simply, World Conquest > >Today the conquest of the world cannot take place >through Arms. It must take place via the Man ( that >Old Guy postmodernism has not been able to dislodge >and does notm. More insiduously, it must take place >via the control of finance capital. Even more >insiduously it must take place via the wants of the >rural elite that is intent upon destroying the signs >of its involvement in the project of becoming the >world power > >____________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat >events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >Reader-list mailing list >Reader-list at sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 29 01:06:23 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 28 Oct 2001 19:36:23 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Eqbal Ahmed on Kashmir Message-ID: <20011028193623.23730.qmail@mailweb11.rediffmail.com> Beyond mutual destruction EQBAL AHMED DIPLOMACY does occasionally wear a farcical look but nowhere more often than in South Asia. During bilateral talks in 1993, India and Pakistan exchanged carefully drafted position papers. These were called ‘non-papers’. An American academic, Stephen Cohen, has followed in this tradition. He is the author recently (1996) of a non-plan, labelled the Cohen Plan. It is the subject currently of much interest in Islamabad which has, to the best of my knowledge, not given any thought to a plan of peace with India. Cohen’s is an outline not for a settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan but for U.S. sponsorship of a ‘Camp David process’. It offers no clue to American or even the author’s thinking on the principles that may guide the agenda of this process. It merely argues that the climate for an American initiative is favourable, that peace-making in South Asia will be less expensive for the United States than was Camp David which entailed large aid to Egypt in addition to the hefty billions Israel receives from the U.S., and that it will require patience, bipartisan consensus, and a well-reputed American mediator. The closest Cohen comes to revealing the substance of the initiative he recommends is his model of the Camp David Accord. He deems it, as most American policy analysts do, a great success. But was it? Surely, by removing Egypt from the rank of frontline Arab states, it rendered unthinkable an Arab war against Israel. By the same token, Arab states and people became the objects of Israel’s ambition and aggression. It was after Camp David that Israel invaded Lebanon, killing 30,000 civilians, maiming thousands more, destroying its ancient villages, towns, and the capital city Beirut where Israeli forces oversaw the Falangist massacre of Sabra and Shatila. A portion of Lebanon remains under Israeli occupation, the site of weekly killings and dying, a monument to Camp David. The Palestinians – who are the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Kas ter Camp David. The United States pretended to an arbiter’s and guarantor’s role; in reality it was on Israel’s side. When negotiations between Anwar Sadaat and Menachem Begin deadlocked over the question of unlawful Zionist settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, Jimmy Carter staked his presidential prestige to assure Sadaat that Israel would not establish more settlements. The ink had not dried on the Camp David Accord when Begin announced the establishment of new settlements. Jimmy Carter protested, verbally and in vain. While massive U.S. aid continued to pour into Israel, it expropriated nearly 60% of Palestinian land and all of its water resources. The augmented harshness of the occupier rendered life well nigh impossible for the hapless people of the West Bank and Gaza. Dispossession on a large scale was one outcome; the outbreak of the intifada was another. The Camp David Accord is viewed, not incorrectly, as the foundation stone of the Oslo and Cairo agreements between Israel and the PLO. Officials no less than most journalists and scholars in the United States have been offering these as first steps toward Palestinian statehood. I, among others, have argued that Oslo is liable to yield not a Palestinian state but a state of apartheid in the Middle East. Its outlines had already emerged under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, though both prime ministers were viewed in Washington as apostles of peace. Two distinct humanities live in Israel and under its occupation – one Jewish, the other Arab. One enjoys full citizenship rights, the other does not. One claims sovereignty, the other is denied it. One controls the land and its resources, the other does not. They live in separated spaces, the one as a free people, the other as a besieged people. These realities become uglier and more complex as new roads, public facilities and institutions are constructed with American aid. They create new facts of apartheid and inequality. It’s an awesome tribute to the power of belief that perfectly normal sch ike Professor Cohen, offer Camp David as a successful model. As Washington shows interest in midwifing an India-Pakistan agreement, Pakistan’s policy-makers – where are you Éwhere? – ought to reflect on Camp David’s example. No two histories are similar, yet analogies help analysis. Egypt and Israel went to war thrice in three decades; so did India and Pakistan. Palestine served as a major bone of contention in the Middle Eastern conflict as Kashmir does in South Asia. As Pakistan has over four decades, Egypt expended much energy posturing about resistance and liberation while ignoring Palestinian right to representation and paying scant attention to a changing world environment. As frustrations piled over failures, Egypt put all its eggs in the American basket. ‘Ninety per cent of this problem can be solved by America,’ Anwar Sadaat was fond of saying. Pakistan has been inviting third party mediation for some time. As a ploy to engage the sympathies of others it has not worked. It is unlikely to serve as a mechanism to obtain even a modicum of justice for the Kashmiris, or peaceable Indo-Pakistan relations. Rather, American mediation may harm Pakistan as it harmed the Arabs. The United States’ interests in South Asia are those of a great power, largely economic and part strategic. Moral issues of human rights and self determination play but a minor role in policy-making. It is self-defeating to get distracted by Washington’s professions of virtues and neutrality. Realistic analysis would suggest that in the role of mediator, the U.S. shall be keen to bring about peace in South Asia while favouring India over Pakistan, and the two states over the stateless Kashmiris. Consider, among other factors, the following: India is a large market roughly eight times larger than Pakistan; this ratio is reflected in the current volume of American investments in the two countries. It is many times more endowed in natural resources than Pakistan. Also, India is better positioned for rapid economic growth by v nd literacy. Strategically, it is a large and populous country, in important respects a counterpoint to China. As a post-cold war structure of international relations emerges, the United States seeks balancing mechanisms to strike a favourable equilibrium in its relations with China. India can serve this purpose better than any other country in Asia except Japan. For these reasons, Washington has to be more keen to insure the goodwill and stability of India than of Pakistan. Nations, realists are fond of reiterating, do not have permanent friends, nor permanent enemies. They only have permanent interests. During most of the cold war years, the United States government saw political Islam as its ally and an adversary of communism. Today the reverse is true; it views Islamic movements the world over with deep distrust and active hostility. Between 1989 when Kashmir’s powerful nationalist insurrection began, and 1992 when it developed an Islamic character with Pakistan’s help, America’s intelligence services supplied their policy-makers an alarming picture of militant Islam emerging in the strategic Kashmir valley with Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian involvement. This impression of Kashmiri resistance has been reinforced by the proliferation of a score of armed Islamic groups in Kashmir. Like all paramount powers, the United States is a status quo power. In areas of its interest and influence it favours stability over change. Kashmir’s liberation movement has been increasingly perceived in Washington as a destabilizing force in South Asia, especially if it makes significant gains toward its goal of total separation from India. They see the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamaat-ul-Ulema’i Islam gaining legitimacy, popularity, and armed strength from their role in Kashmir, thus changing the comfortable current balance in favour of temporal parties of Pakistan. In India, Kashmir’s separation can only aid the militant Hindu parties which have arrived perilously close to power. Above all, Kashmir’s separation is like worsen India’s tense communal environment; the BJP and its partners may ride the anti-Muslim wave. ‘We cannot afford,’ a Washington insider remarked some months ago, ‘Bosnia on a grand scale.’ For these and more reasons, Pakistan will be wise to encourage U.S. interest while declining its mediation in our relations with India. Thanks, but no thanks! Islamabad’s challenge is to explore other, better options. Unfortunately, it does not appear poised to meet it. A lasting peace between India and Pakistan remains, nevertheless, an urgent necessity. Hostility between the two will continue to distort the political and economic environment of both countries, inflict upon their inhabitants the augmenting costs of subversion and sabotage, inhibit regional cooperation, and force more than a billion people to live perpetually under the menace of nuclear holocaust. Indian-Pakistani disputes over Siachin and Wuller Barrage are easily resolvable; in fact, the basics of agreement over these two issues have already been reached in bilateral talks. Kashmir is the primary source of conflict. It has outlasted most post-world war II conflicts – the cold war, war in Indo-China, the American-Chinese confrontation, South African apartheid, and the Israeli-Arab conflict. Three full scale wars, frequent armed confrontations along the India Pakistan border, years of Kashmiri uprising and Indian repression, and the beleaguered Kashmiris’ enormous sorrows, have not induced either India or Pakistan to shift from their positions. Delhi declares the matter settled, claims that Kashmir – under its occupation – is an integral part of India, regularly denounces and occasionally threatens Pakistan for its ‘interference in India’s internal affairs,’ and has been trying for years to put down Kashmiri resistance – mercilessly, without pity, and in vain. Islamabad insists that Kashmir is an unresolved international dispute, and it must be settled by a plebiscite as originally envisaged by a U.N. Security Council Resolut Neither position is sustainable. Pakistani and Indian decision-makers will serve their countries well if they concede to the realities sooner rather than later. One, a military solution of the Kashmir dispute is not possible. Two, it is equally difficult to envisage, as India does, a unilateral political solution. Three, while the United States has a stake in peace between India and Pakistan, neither the great powers nor world opinion will make a decisive contribution toward resolving this conflict. Four, direct negotiations offer the only effective path to a peaceful solution. However, meaningful negotiations are not possible without Kashmiri participation. Hence the most sensible way to resolve the dispute is tripartite negotiations involving Pakistan, India, and a representative Kashmiri delegation. Direct negotiations do not preclude a facilitating role for the United Nation’s or the United States. A discussion of these points follows. Three models may be envisaged for a military solution: a conventional Indo-Pakistan war, the Kashmiri war of liberation ending like Cuba, Algeria or Vietnam, and protracted guerrilla warfare followed, as India achieved in East Pakistan, by a decisive Pakistani military coup de grace. To a student of military strategy all three options would appear unrealistic. For differing reasons neither Pakistan nor India are likely to win a conventional war. It shall, nevertheless, be unbearably costly to both countries. If perchance a decisive outcome appeared likely, nuclear weapons will surely enter the scene, resulting at best in an inconclusive cease-fire or, at worst, in a continental holocaust. Military leaders in both countries share this estimation of the military balance and international environment. Barring the odd hawkish officer, they do not favour a full scale military confrontation. That leaves the option of low intensity warfare. In Kashmir, India is engaged as an incumbent; Pakistan supports the insurgency. It also happens in wars of incumbency and prox ivals hit each other with sabotage and subversion. This Kashmiri uprising has lasted more than a decade, long enough for observers to discern its ramifications, possibilities and limitations. India and Pakistan exchange accusations against each other on a regular basis. Since 1990 the two countries have engaged in a carefully calibrated war of proxy and subversion which has done both sides much harm. In the process, an estimated 40,000 Kashmiris are dead, and many more wounded. Kashmir’s economy has been wrecked, and an entire generation of Kashmiris has already been deprived of normal upbringing and education. Yet, armed struggle and Indian repression have not brought Kashmiris closer either to self determination, which is Pakistan’s demand, or to pacification, which India seeks. In fact, both countries are farther from attaining their goals in Kashmir than they were in 1989. Kashmir’s discontent is rooted in history, economics, politics and psychology. The causes and dynamics of the Kashmiri movement lie in Kashmir and its experience with India. It is not a product of plotting and subversion by Pakistan. As such, it can not be suppressed by force. Nor is it likely to be managed by electoral manipulations. Yet India has confronted the insurgency as incumbents normally do – with a combination of brute force, unlawful subversions, violations of Kashmiri humanity and, above all, denial of reality. In the last analysis, the successes and failures of counter-insurgency operations revolve around two questions: One, does the incumbent state enjoy at least residual legitimacy among the insurgent people? Two, is the incumbent power willing to accommodate those aspirations which converge to cause and sustain the insurgency? I have asked these questions twice before. Once in 1965 in relation to America’s war in Vietnam. Again in 1971 concerning Pakistan’s military operation in East Pakistan. For India too the answer to both questions is NO. A rational approach to Kashmir shall elude India as long as i nce may not be for India the kind of military defeats which the United States experienced in Vietnam or Pakistan suffered in its eastern wing, now Bangladesh. Yet, one can say with confidence that if India, Pakistan, and Kashmiris do not reach a mutually beneficial settlement, the protracted war among the three will continue, with lulls and heats. Its costs may be even greater in the future than the hapless peoples have already paid. India’s allegations notwithstanding, Pakistan had little to do with the insurgency which emerged full blown in 1989. In fact, Islamabad’s military no less than civilian intelligence services were surprised by the intensity and scope of the uprising. It was united by and large behind a single organization, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, which had most of the attributes of a winning young movement. The great powers, especially the United States, have not evinced any interest in supporting Pakistan’s position which is legally and historically well founded. Islamabad has expended much effort and resources in trying to mobilize international opinion. In effect, lobbying for Kashmir has provided since 1989 the framework for hundreds of Pakistan’s ministerial, parliamentary, and other international junkets. None of these have had any discernible impact. Even the United Nations and its Security Council, whose authority Pakistan invokes quite assiduously, have shown scant interest in the matter. An analysis of years of Pakistani effort to mobilize meaningful international support for its position on Kashmir suggests that neither the great powers nor international opinion are inclined to weigh in meaningfully on Pakistan’s or the Kashmiri resistance’s side. India has lost Kashmir. Delhi’s moral isolation from the Kashmiri people is total and, I think, irreversible in the sense that in order to reverse it India will have to envisage a qualitatively different relationship with Kashmir. But can India’s loss translate into Pakistan’s gain? My answer is no! There is an in ot unusual. It is common in international relations for rival countries to view their contests as a zero sum game whereby the losses of one side would translate into gains for the other. The American intervention in Iran (1953), and its costly involvement in Vietnam (1956-75), were compelled in part by this outlook. The Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956), and Czechoslovakia (1968), were similarly motivated. History has repeatedly exposed this assumption to be false. The ratio of rival losses and gains is rarely proportional; it is determined by circumstances of history, politics, and policy. India’s Kashmir record offers a chronicle of failures; yet none of these accrued to Pakistan’s benefit. Rather, Pakistan’s policy has suffered from its own defects. Three characteristics made an early appearance in Pakistan’s approach to Kashmir. One, although Pakistani decision-makers know the problem to be fundamentally political, beginning in 1948 they have approached it primarily in military terms. Two, while the military outlook has dominated, there has been a healthy unwillingness to go to war over Kashmir. Three, while officially invoking the Kashmiri right to self determination, Pakistan’s governments and politicians have pursued policies which have all but disregarded the history, culture, and aspirations of Kashmir’s people. One consequence of this is a string of grave Pakistani miscalculations regarding Kashmir. Another outcome has been to alienate Kashmiris from Pakistan at crucial times such as 1948-49, 1965, and the 1990s. The question asked at the beginning remains largely unanswered: Has India’s loss translated into Pakistan’s gain? Another question needs to be asked: if both countries are failing in Kashmir, what next? A reminder is useful: in the 20th century armed struggles have failed more often than they have succeeded. In the 1960s, no less than 45 armed uprisings were in progress; six of these could claim success. A few, including the Kurdish, Irish, Timorese, and Filipi that while success may not be assured an armed uprising can endure or keep recurring if the aspirations on which it feeds are not addressed. A review of the Kashmiri movement suggests that it is falling in this latter category. Popular support is an essential attribute of success. To win, consolidate and maintain it is the greatest single challenge of an armed movement. To deny it popular following, drive wedges between it and the people, and reclaim the hearts and minds of the populace constitute the primary objectives of incumbents. This is one requirement the Kashmiri movement fully meets. As I argued earlier, India’s federal government has lost all semblance of legitimacy and support among Kashmiri muslims. It’s moral isolation appears so total that it is unlikely to regain even a modicum of legitimacy without conceding in a large measure the Kashmiri aspirations which have converged around a single slogan – Azaadi. That slogan, Pakistan’s policy-makers and Pakistani partisans of Kashmiri struggle ought to acknowledge, translates as sovereignty for Kashmir. There exists among Kashmiri speaking people but little enthusiasm for a plebiscite which would confine them to exchanging life under Indian sovereignty for life under Pakistan’s sovereignty. It is only a rare Kashmiri – I found none among the dozens abroad or scores I have interviewed in Pakistan – who views Kashmir as an ‘unfinished agenda of partition.’ In the U.S., a Kashmiri academic from Srinagar asked: ‘East Pakistan has violently separated from the west. The Muslim nation of the Qaid-i-Azam is now divided into three sovereign states. So what unfinished agenda of partition are we Kashmiris required to complete?’ Unity is essential to success. But unity is rarely total. The Chinese, Algerian, Cuban and Vietnamese movements confronted divisions, but in all four countries one party and leadership commanded hegemony over the others. At the start, the Kashmiri movement had the appearance of fulfilling this requirement. Soon after, the proliferat parties began and became epidemic. There are no less than thirty-eight armed parties in the valley. Thirty of them are grouped in the All Party Hurriyat Conference, a welcome umbrella all but paralysed by differing ambitions and styles. Increasingly, the valley has become a free-for-all environment in which the distinction between crime and militancy has been blurred. The atrocities of the ‘reformed militants’ are credited obviously to India’s account. But it is also true that the excesses of other groups reflect on the standing of the movement as a whole. Pakistan is viewed as the purveyor of internal divisions as some parties and positions are known to be favoured by Islamabad while others are not. In growing numbers Kashmiris are beginning to regard themselves as dually oppressed. Clarity and consistency of ideology and objectives are the third essential factor in keeping a movement strong and resilient. These are essential to maintaining the morale of cadres, solidarity of the people, and sympathy of neutrals at home and abroad. In an environment of armed struggle in which people invariably face great risks and cadres unusual hardships over long periods of time morale, solidarity, and sympathy define success and failure in critical ways. Unfortunately, barely two years after it began Kashmir’s uprising started to suffer from split images. At first the movement led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front appeared to be secular and nationalist. As such it elicited support at home, and a measure of sympathy both in India and abroad. When the Islamic parties, supported among others by the Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan made a significant appearance on the scene, the effect was not only internal confusion and division but also the dissipation of actual and potential international support for Kashmiri struggle. To date, the governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir have spent millions of dollars to mobilize international support behind the question of Kashmir. Cumulatively, the score has bee secular, parliamentary and private carpet-baggers and patronage seekers, Kashmir’s cause serves in Pakistan as one big pork barrel. The creation and maintenance of ‘parallel hierarchies’ of governance has been the distinguishing feature of liberation warfare in the 20th century. Successful movements have tended to out-administer their enemy rather than outfight them. This is so because the gap between the military resources of states and the opposing guerrilla forces have widened greatly as a consequence of technological progress after world war I. An armed movement neither aims nor expects to defeat its adversary in conventional battlefields; events such as the battle of Dien Bien Phu are exceptions not the rule. Liberation organizations expect to exhaust the enemy – politically, economically, psychologically – through protracted struggle. This is primarily political not military warfare. It demands systematic elimination of the incumbent’s governing capability, and its substitution by the movement’s administrative and social infrastructure. Slowly and surely the guerrilla organization assumes the functions of government – provides health facilities, schools, courts, arbitration, and collects (not extorts!) taxes. Thus the state’s machinery becomes increasingly dysfunctional, delinked from the people. ‘Nous commencons legiferer dans le vide’, the French had recognized first in Indo-China, then in Algeria (We are legislating in a void!). And the liberation movement gets organically linked to the land and its people. It is this phenomenon that overcomes the vast discrepancy in the military power and material resources of the two sides. In 1989-1990, the Kashmiri movement showed signs of developing parallel hierarchies, an infrastructure of governance. Then, it lost interest no less than ability. It still has popular support but neither the will nor capacity to serve the people. In such a climate a movement’s support dissipates as people tire of hardships and suffering. The location of the intell decisive factor in wars of liberation. Individual exceptions notwithstanding, the intelligentsia is a cautious class, prone to opportunity seeking more than risk taking. In an environment of armed polarization they wait and watch, and change positions as they sense the balance of forces shifting. The desertion of the intelligentsia from incumbency to the movement normally signals a decisive shift in favour of the latter. The opposite is also true. In Kashmir, the intelligentsia inclined toward the JKLF in 1990, then began distancing from the movement as it recoiled from the excesses of Islamic militancy. Menaced also by Indian excesses, many middle and upper middle class families moved to the safety of Jammu and Delhi. An estimated 15,000 Kashmiris are now enrolled at Indian universities. Although it is impossible to find an educated Kashmiri who does not disapprove of India’s military presence in the valley, their class location vis-a-vis the struggle for Kashmir remains ambiguous. Last the material factors – the availability of arms, men, and logistical supplies – which significantly affect the course of a struggle. The best organized armed uprisings obtain much of their armaments from the enemy. ‘We must regard [French General] De Lattre as our quarter-master-general,’ was Vietnamese General Ngo Vuyen Giap’s motto during the Indo-China war. Algeria’s guerrilla commander Belkacem Krim had his adversary, General Andre Beaufre play roughly the same role. To my knowledge, Kashmiri militants are not capturing even 10% of their weapons from Indian forces. Their dependence on external sources of supply is total. I am not in a position to estimate the endurance and reliability of their external sources of weapons supply. One should expect it to be limited and sporadic. Kashmir has a Muslim population of about 5.5 million. Of these roughly half a million are estimated to be males of fighting age, between 15-35 years. The state is their major employer, followed by agriculture and tourism, a trade wrec hese some 40,000 are dead; and an estimated 60,000 have been disabled. Unbearable economic burdens on families are added to their enormous personal grief. There is a growing feeling among Kashmiris that the world, including their own world, has abandoned them. The dispute over Kashmir is as old as independent India and Pakistan. This latest phase of violent strife has lasted over ten years. Yet while the human and material losses have mounted – beyond bearing for the Kashmiri people – neither India nor Pakistan have shown an inclination to end the bloodshed on any except their own terms. The three parties to this conflict have reached an impasse. It is now necessary for them to find a peaceful solution. I should first summarize the nature of the impasse. If one views as crucial the distinction between governing a society and coercing a multitude, India has ceased to govern Kashmir. For reasons discussed earlier, its moral isolation there is total, and irreversible if Delhi remains fixed on the terms which it currently offers. It’s options then are three-fold: One, to keep its coercive presence in Kashmir and hope that some day Kashmiris will tire and throw in the towel. Two, to negotiate with Kashmiri leaders on terms the latter could live with. Three, to negotiate a broader settlement with Pakistan and the Kashmiri insurgents who are grouped in the All Party Hurriyat Conference. We deemed a fourth, another India-Pakistan war, as an unrealistic option for settling the question of Kashmir. India’s current From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 29 01:05:05 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 28 Oct 2001 19:35:05 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Eqbal Ahmed on Kashmir Message-ID: <20011028193505.23310.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com> Beyond mutual destruction EQBAL AHMED DIPLOMACY does occasionally wear a farcical look but nowhere more often than in South Asia. During bilateral talks in 1993, India and Pakistan exchanged carefully drafted position papers. These were called ‘non-papers’. An American academic, Stephen Cohen, has followed in this tradition. He is the author recently (1996) of a non-plan, labelled the Cohen Plan. It is the subject currently of much interest in Islamabad which has, to the best of my knowledge, not given any thought to a plan of peace with India. Cohen’s is an outline not for a settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan but for U.S. sponsorship of a ‘Camp David process’. It offers no clue to American or even the author’s thinking on the principles that may guide the agenda of this process. It merely argues that the climate for an American initiative is favourable, that peace-making in South Asia will be less expensive for the United States than was Camp David which entailed large aid to Egypt in addition to the hefty billions Israel receives from the U.S., and that it will require patience, bipartisan consensus, and a well-reputed American mediator. The closest Cohen comes to revealing the substance of the initiative he recommends is his model of the Camp David Accord. He deems it, as most American policy analysts do, a great success. But was it? Surely, by removing Egypt from the rank of frontline Arab states, it rendered unthinkable an Arab war against Israel. By the same token, Arab states and people became the objects of Israel’s ambition and aggression. It was after Camp David that Israel invaded Lebanon, killing 30,000 civilians, maiming thousands more, destroying its ancient villages, towns, and the capital city Beirut where Israeli forces oversaw the Falangist massacre of Sabra and Shatila. A portion of Lebanon remains under Israeli occupation, the site of weekly killings and dying, a monument to Camp David. The Palestinians – who are the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Kas ter Camp David. The United States pretended to an arbiter’s and guarantor’s role; in reality it was on Israel’s side. When negotiations between Anwar Sadaat and Menachem Begin deadlocked over the question of unlawful Zionist settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, Jimmy Carter staked his presidential prestige to assure Sadaat that Israel would not establish more settlements. The ink had not dried on the Camp David Accord when Begin announced the establishment of new settlements. Jimmy Carter protested, verbally and in vain. While massive U.S. aid continued to pour into Israel, it expropriated nearly 60% of Palestinian land and all of its water resources. The augmented harshness of the occupier rendered life well nigh impossible for the hapless people of the West Bank and Gaza. Dispossession on a large scale was one outcome; the outbreak of the intifada was another. The Camp David Accord is viewed, not incorrectly, as the foundation stone of the Oslo and Cairo agreements between Israel and the PLO. Officials no less than most journalists and scholars in the United States have been offering these as first steps toward Palestinian statehood. I, among others, have argued that Oslo is liable to yield not a Palestinian state but a state of apartheid in the Middle East. Its outlines had already emerged under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, though both prime ministers were viewed in Washington as apostles of peace. Two distinct humanities live in Israel and under its occupation – one Jewish, the other Arab. One enjoys full citizenship rights, the other does not. One claims sovereignty, the other is denied it. One controls the land and its resources, the other does not. They live in separated spaces, the one as a free people, the other as a besieged people. These realities become uglier and more complex as new roads, public facilities and institutions are constructed with American aid. They create new facts of apartheid and inequality. It’s an awesome tribute to the power of belief that perfectly normal sch ike Professor Cohen, offer Camp David as a successful model. As Washington shows interest in midwifing an India-Pakistan agreement, Pakistan’s policy-makers – where are you Éwhere? – ought to reflect on Camp David’s example. No two histories are similar, yet analogies help analysis. Egypt and Israel went to war thrice in three decades; so did India and Pakistan. Palestine served as a major bone of contention in the Middle Eastern conflict as Kashmir does in South Asia. As Pakistan has over four decades, Egypt expended much energy posturing about resistance and liberation while ignoring Palestinian right to representation and paying scant attention to a changing world environment. As frustrations piled over failures, Egypt put all its eggs in the American basket. ‘Ninety per cent of this problem can be solved by America,’ Anwar Sadaat was fond of saying. Pakistan has been inviting third party mediation for some time. As a ploy to engage the sympathies of others it has not worked. It is unlikely to serve as a mechanism to obtain even a modicum of justice for the Kashmiris, or peaceable Indo-Pakistan relations. Rather, American mediation may harm Pakistan as it harmed the Arabs. The United States’ interests in South Asia are those of a great power, largely economic and part strategic. Moral issues of human rights and self determination play but a minor role in policy-making. It is self-defeating to get distracted by Washington’s professions of virtues and neutrality. Realistic analysis would suggest that in the role of mediator, the U.S. shall be keen to bring about peace in South Asia while favouring India over Pakistan, and the two states over the stateless Kashmiris. Consider, among other factors, the following: India is a large market roughly eight times larger than Pakistan; this ratio is reflected in the current volume of American investments in the two countries. It is many times more endowed in natural resources than Pakistan. Also, India is better positioned for rapid economic growth by v nd literacy. Strategically, it is a large and populous country, in important respects a counterpoint to China. As a post-cold war structure of international relations emerges, the United States seeks balancing mechanisms to strike a favourable equilibrium in its relations with China. India can serve this purpose better than any other country in Asia except Japan. For these reasons, Washington has to be more keen to insure the goodwill and stability of India than of Pakistan. Nations, realists are fond of reiterating, do not have permanent friends, nor permanent enemies. They only have permanent interests. During most of the cold war years, the United States government saw political Islam as its ally and an adversary of communism. Today the reverse is true; it views Islamic movements the world over with deep distrust and active hostility. Between 1989 when Kashmir’s powerful nationalist insurrection began, and 1992 when it developed an Islamic character with Pakistan’s help, America’s intelligence services supplied their policy-makers an alarming picture of militant Islam emerging in the strategic Kashmir valley with Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian involvement. This impression of Kashmiri resistance has been reinforced by the proliferation of a score of armed Islamic groups in Kashmir. Like all paramount powers, the United States is a status quo power. In areas of its interest and influence it favours stability over change. Kashmir’s liberation movement has been increasingly perceived in Washington as a destabilizing force in South Asia, especially if it makes significant gains toward its goal of total separation from India. They see the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamaat-ul-Ulema’i Islam gaining legitimacy, popularity, and armed strength from their role in Kashmir, thus changing the comfortable current balance in favour of temporal parties of Pakistan. In India, Kashmir’s separation can only aid the militant Hindu parties which have arrived perilously close to power. Above all, Kashmir’s separation is like worsen India’s tense communal environment; the BJP and its partners may ride the anti-Muslim wave. ‘We cannot afford,’ a Washington insider remarked some months ago, ‘Bosnia on a grand scale.’ For these and more reasons, Pakistan will be wise to encourage U.S. interest while declining its mediation in our relations with India. Thanks, but no thanks! Islamabad’s challenge is to explore other, better options. Unfortunately, it does not appear poised to meet it. A lasting peace between India and Pakistan remains, nevertheless, an urgent necessity. Hostility between the two will continue to distort the political and economic environment of both countries, inflict upon their inhabitants the augmenting costs of subversion and sabotage, inhibit regional cooperation, and force more than a billion people to live perpetually under the menace of nuclear holocaust. Indian-Pakistani disputes over Siachin and Wuller Barrage are easily resolvable; in fact, the basics of agreement over these two issues have already been reached in bilateral talks. Kashmir is the primary source of conflict. It has outlasted most post-world war II conflicts – the cold war, war in Indo-China, the American-Chinese confrontation, South African apartheid, and the Israeli-Arab conflict. Three full scale wars, frequent armed confrontations along the India Pakistan border, years of Kashmiri uprising and Indian repression, and the beleaguered Kashmiris’ enormous sorrows, have not induced either India or Pakistan to shift from their positions. Delhi declares the matter settled, claims that Kashmir – under its occupation – is an integral part of India, regularly denounces and occasionally threatens Pakistan for its ‘interference in India’s internal affairs,’ and has been trying for years to put down Kashmiri resistance – mercilessly, without pity, and in vain. Islamabad insists that Kashmir is an unresolved international dispute, and it must be settled by a plebiscite as originally envisaged by a U.N. Security Council Resolut Neither position is sustainable. Pakistani and Indian decision-makers will serve their countries well if they concede to the realities sooner rather than later. One, a military solution of the Kashmir dispute is not possible. Two, it is equally difficult to envisage, as India does, a unilateral political solution. Three, while the United States has a stake in peace between India and Pakistan, neither the great powers nor world opinion will make a decisive contribution toward resolving this conflict. Four, direct negotiations offer the only effective path to a peaceful solution. However, meaningful negotiations are not possible without Kashmiri participation. Hence the most sensible way to resolve the dispute is tripartite negotiations involving Pakistan, India, and a representative Kashmiri delegation. Direct negotiations do not preclude a facilitating role for the United Nation’s or the United States. A discussion of these points follows. Three models may be envisaged for a military solution: a conventional Indo-Pakistan war, the Kashmiri war of liberation ending like Cuba, Algeria or Vietnam, and protracted guerrilla warfare followed, as India achieved in East Pakistan, by a decisive Pakistani military coup de grace. To a student of military strategy all three options would appear unrealistic. For differing reasons neither Pakistan nor India are likely to win a conventional war. It shall, nevertheless, be unbearably costly to both countries. If perchance a decisive outcome appeared likely, nuclear weapons will surely enter the scene, resulting at best in an inconclusive cease-fire or, at worst, in a continental holocaust. Military leaders in both countries share this estimation of the military balance and international environment. Barring the odd hawkish officer, they do not favour a full scale military confrontation. That leaves the option of low intensity warfare. In Kashmir, India is engaged as an incumbent; Pakistan supports the insurgency. It also happens in wars of incumbency and prox ivals hit each other with sabotage and subversion. This Kashmiri uprising has lasted more than a decade, long enough for observers to discern its ramifications, possibilities and limitations. India and Pakistan exchange accusations against each other on a regular basis. Since 1990 the two countries have engaged in a carefully calibrated war of proxy and subversion which has done both sides much harm. In the process, an estimated 40,000 Kashmiris are dead, and many more wounded. Kashmir’s economy has been wrecked, and an entire generation of Kashmiris has already been deprived of normal upbringing and education. Yet, armed struggle and Indian repression have not brought Kashmiris closer either to self determination, which is Pakistan’s demand, or to pacification, which India seeks. In fact, both countries are farther from attaining their goals in Kashmir than they were in 1989. Kashmir’s discontent is rooted in history, economics, politics and psychology. The causes and dynamics of the Kashmiri movement lie in Kashmir and its experience with India. It is not a product of plotting and subversion by Pakistan. As such, it can not be suppressed by force. Nor is it likely to be managed by electoral manipulations. Yet India has confronted the insurgency as incumbents normally do – with a combination of brute force, unlawful subversions, violations of Kashmiri humanity and, above all, denial of reality. In the last analysis, the successes and failures of counter-insurgency operations revolve around two questions: One, does the incumbent state enjoy at least residual legitimacy among the insurgent people? Two, is the incumbent power willing to accommodate those aspirations which converge to cause and sustain the insurgency? I have asked these questions twice before. Once in 1965 in relation to America’s war in Vietnam. Again in 1971 concerning Pakistan’s military operation in East Pakistan. For India too the answer to both questions is NO. A rational approach to Kashmir shall elude India as long as i nce may not be for India the kind of military defeats which the United States experienced in Vietnam or Pakistan suffered in its eastern wing, now Bangladesh. Yet, one can say with confidence that if India, Pakistan, and Kashmiris do not reach a mutually beneficial settlement, the protracted war among the three will continue, with lulls and heats. Its costs may be even greater in the future than the hapless peoples have already paid. India’s allegations notwithstanding, Pakistan had little to do with the insurgency which emerged full blown in 1989. In fact, Islamabad’s military no less than civilian intelligence services were surprised by the intensity and scope of the uprising. It was united by and large behind a single organization, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, which had most of the attributes of a winning young movement. The great powers, especially the United States, have not evinced any interest in supporting Pakistan’s position which is legally and historically well founded. From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 29 01:06:19 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 28 Oct 2001 19:36:19 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Beyond Mutual Destruction:Eqbal Ahmed on Kashmir Message-ID: <20011028193619.14233.qmail@mailweb14.rediffmail.com> Beyond mutual destruction EQBAL AHMED DIPLOMACY does occasionally wear a farcical look but nowhere more often than in South Asia. During bilateral talks in 1993, India and Pakistan exchanged carefully drafted position papers. These were called ‘non-papers’. An American academic, Stephen Cohen, has followed in this tradition. He is the author recently (1996) of a non-plan, labelled the Cohen Plan. It is the subject currently of much interest in Islamabad which has, to the best of my knowledge, not given any thought to a plan of peace with India. Cohen’s is an outline not for a settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan but for U.S. sponsorship of a ‘Camp David process’. It offers no clue to American or even the author’s thinking on the principles that may guide the agenda of this process. It merely argues that the climate for an American initiative is favourable, that peace-making in South Asia will be less expensive for the United States than was Camp David which entailed large aid to Egypt in addition to the hefty billions Israel receives from the U.S., and that it will require patience, bipartisan consensus, and a well-reputed American mediator. The closest Cohen comes to revealing the substance of the initiative he recommends is his model of the Camp David Accord. He deems it, as most American policy analysts do, a great success. But was it? Surely, by removing Egypt from the rank of frontline Arab states, it rendered unthinkable an Arab war against Israel. By the same token, Arab states and people became the objects of Israel’s ambition and aggression. It was after Camp David that Israel invaded Lebanon, killing 30,000 civilians, maiming thousands more, destroying its ancient villages, towns, and the capital city Beirut where Israeli forces oversaw the Falangist massacre of Sabra and Shatila. A portion of Lebanon remains under Israeli occupation, the site of weekly killings and dying, a monument to Camp David. The Palestinians – who are the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Kas ter Camp David. The United States pretended to an arbiter’s and guarantor’s role; in reality it was on Israel’s side. When negotiations between Anwar Sadaat and Menachem Begin deadlocked over the question of unlawful Zionist settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, Jimmy Carter staked his presidential prestige to assure Sadaat that Israel would not establish more settlements. The ink had not dried on the Camp David Accord when Begin announced the establishment of new settlements. Jimmy Carter protested, verbally and in vain. While massive U.S. aid continued to pour into Israel, it expropriated nearly 60% of Palestinian land and all of its water resources. The augmented harshness of the occupier rendered life well nigh impossible for the hapless people of the West Bank and Gaza. Dispossession on a large scale was one outcome; the outbreak of the intifada was another. The Camp David Accord is viewed, not incorrectly, as the foundation stone of the Oslo and Cairo agreements between Israel and the PLO. Officials no less than most journalists and scholars in the United States have been offering these as first steps toward Palestinian statehood. I, among others, have argued that Oslo is liable to yield not a Palestinian state but a state of apartheid in the Middle East. Its outlines had already emerged under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, though both prime ministers were viewed in Washington as apostles of peace. Two distinct humanities live in Israel and under its occupation – one Jewish, the other Arab. One enjoys full citizenship rights, the other does not. One claims sovereignty, the other is denied it. One controls the land and its resources, the other does not. They live in separated spaces, the one as a free people, the other as a besieged people. These realities become uglier and more complex as new roads, public facilities and institutions are constructed with American aid. They create new facts of apartheid and inequality. It’s an awesome tribute to the power of belief that perfectly normal sch ike Professor Cohen, offer Camp David as a successful model. As Washington shows interest in midwifing an India-Pakistan agreement, Pakistan’s policy-makers – where are you Éwhere? – ought to reflect on Camp David’s example. No two histories are similar, yet analogies help analysis. Egypt and Israel went to war thrice in three decades; so did India and Pakistan. Palestine served as a major bone of contention in the Middle Eastern conflict as Kashmir does in South Asia. As Pakistan has over four decades, Egypt expended much energy posturing about resistance and liberation while ignoring Palestinian right to representation and paying scant attention to a changing world environment. As frustrations piled over failures, Egypt put all its eggs in the American basket. ‘Ninety per cent of this problem can be solved by America,’ Anwar Sadaat was fond of saying. Pakistan has been inviting third party mediation for some time. As a ploy to engage the sympathies of others it has not worked. It is unlikely to serve as a mechanism to obtain even a modicum of justice for the Kashmiris, or peaceable Indo-Pakistan relations. Rather, American mediation may harm Pakistan as it harmed the Arabs. The United States’ interests in South Asia are those of a great power, largely economic and part strategic. Moral issues of human rights and self determination play but a minor role in policy-making. It is self-defeating to get distracted by Washington’s professions of virtues and neutrality. Realistic analysis would suggest that in the role of mediator, the U.S. shall be keen to bring about peace in South Asia while favouring India over Pakistan, and the two states over the stateless Kashmiris. Consider, among other factors, the following: India is a large market roughly eight times larger than Pakistan; this ratio is reflected in the current volume of American investments in the two countries. It is many times more endowed in natural resources than Pakistan. Also, India is better positioned for rapid economic growth by v nd literacy. Strategically, it is a large and populous country, in important respects a counterpoint to China. As a post-cold war structure of international relations emerges, the United States seeks balancing mechanisms to strike a favourable equilibrium in its relations with China. India can serve this purpose better than any other country in Asia except Japan. For these reasons, Washington has to be more keen to insure the goodwill and stability of India than of Pakistan. Nations, realists are fond of reiterating, do not have permanent friends, nor permanent enemies. They only have permanent interests. During most of the cold war years, the United States government saw political Islam as its ally and an adversary of communism. Today the reverse is true; it views Islamic movements the world over with deep distrust and active hostility. Between 1989 when Kashmir’s powerful nationalist insurrection began, and 1992 when it developed an Islamic character with Pakistan’s help, America’s intelligence services supplied their policy-makers an alarming picture of militant Islam emerging in the strategic Kashmir valley with Pakistani, Afghan, and Iranian involvement. This impression of Kashmiri resistance has been reinforced by the proliferation of a score of armed Islamic groups in Kashmir. Like all paramount powers, the United States is a status quo power. In areas of its interest and influence it favours stability over change. Kashmir’s liberation movement has been increasingly perceived in Washington as a destabilizing force in South Asia, especially if it makes significant gains toward its goal of total separation from India. They see the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamaat-ul-Ulema’i Islam gaining legitimacy, popularity, and armed strength from their role in Kashmir, thus changing the comfortable current balance in favour of temporal parties of Pakistan. In India, Kashmir’s separation can only aid the militant Hindu parties which have arrived perilously close to power. Above all, Kashmir’s separation is like worsen India’s tense communal environment; the BJP and its partners may ride the anti-Muslim wave. ‘We cannot afford,’ a Washington insider remarked some months ago, ‘Bosnia on a grand scale.’ For these and more reasons, Pakistan will be wise to encourage U.S. interest while declining its mediation in our relations with India. Thanks, but no thanks! Islamabad’s challenge is to explore other, better options. Unfortunately, it does not appear poised to meet it. A lasting peace between India and Pakistan remains, nevertheless, an urgent necessity. Hostility between the two will continue to distort the political and economic environment of both countries, inflict upon their inhabitants the augmenting costs of subversion and sabotage, inhibit regional cooperation, and force more than a billion people to live perpetually under the menace of nuclear holocaust. Indian-Pakistani disputes over Siachin and Wuller Barrage are easily resolvable; in fact, the basics of agreement over these two issues have already been reached in bilateral talks. Kashmir is the primary source of conflict. It has outlasted most post-world war II conflicts – the cold war, war in Indo-China, the American-Chinese confrontation, South African apartheid, and the Israeli-Arab conflict. Three full scale wars, frequent armed confrontations along the India Pakistan border, years of Kashmiri uprising and Indian repression, and the beleaguered Kashmiris’ enormous sorrows, have not induced either India or Pakistan to shift from their positions. Delhi declares the matter settled, claims that Kashmir – under its occupation – is an integral part of India, regularly denounces and occasionally threatens Pakistan for its ‘interference in India’s internal affairs,’ and has been trying for years to put down Kashmiri resistance – mercilessly, without pity, and in vain. Islamabad insists that Kashmir is an unresolved international dispute, and it must be settled by a plebiscite as originally envisaged by a U.N. Security Council Resolut Neither position is sustainable. Pakistani and Indian decision-makers will serve their countries well if they concede to the realities sooner rather than later. One, a military solution of the Kashmir dispute is not possible. Two, it is equally difficult to envisage, as India does, a unilateral political solution. Three, while the United States has a stake in peace between India and Pakistan, neither the great powers nor world opinion will make a decisive contribution toward resolving this conflict. Four, direct negotiations offer the only effective path to a peaceful solution. However, meaningful negotiations are not possible without Kashmiri participation. Hence the most sensible way to resolve the dispute is tripartite negotiations involving Pakistan, India, and a representative Kashmiri delegation. Direct negotiations do not preclude a facilitating role for the United Nation’s or the United States. A discussion of these points follows. Three models may be envisaged for a military solution: a conventional Indo-Pakistan war, the Kashmiri war of liberation ending like Cuba, Algeria or Vietnam, and protracted guerrilla warfare followed, as India achieved in East Pakistan, by a decisive Pakistani military coup de grace. To a student of military strategy all three options would appear unrealistic. For differing reasons neither Pakistan nor India are likely to win a conventional war. It shall, nevertheless, be unbearably costly to both countries. If perchance a decisive outcome appeared likely, nuclear weapons will surely enter the scene, resulting at best in an inconclusive cease-fire or, at worst, in a continental holocaust. Military leaders in both countries share this estimation of the military balance and international environment. Barring the odd hawkish officer, they do not favour a full scale military confrontation. That leaves the option of low intensity warfare. In Kashmir, India is engaged as an incumbent; Pakistan supports the insurgency. It also happens in wars of incumbency and prox ivals hit each other with sabotage and subversion. This Kashmiri uprising has lasted more than a decade, long enough for observers to discern its ramifications, possibilities and limitations. India and Pakistan exchange accusations against each other on a regular basis. Since 1990 the two countries have engaged in a carefully calibrated war of proxy and subversion which has done both sides much harm. In the process, an estimated 40,000 Kashmiris are dead, and many more wounded. Kashmir’s economy has been wrecked, and an entire generation of Kashmiris has already been deprived of normal upbringing and education. Yet, armed struggle and Indian repression have not brought Kashmiris closer either to self determination, which is Pakistan’s demand, or to pacification, which India seeks. In fact, both countries are farther from attaining their goals in Kashmir than they were in 1989. Kashmir’s discontent is rooted in history, economics, politics and psychology. The causes and dynamics of the Kashmiri movement lie in Kashmir and its experience with India. It is not a product of plotting and subversion by Pakistan. As such, it can not be suppressed by force. Nor is it likely to be managed by electoral manipulations. Yet India has confronted the insurgency as incumbents normally do – with a combination of brute force, unlawful subversions, violations of Kashmiri humanity and, above all, denial of reality. In the last analysis, the successes and failures of counter-insurgency operations revolve around two questions: One, does the incumbent state enjoy at least residual legitimacy among the insurgent people? Two, is the incumbent power willing to accommodate those aspirations which converge to cause and sustain the insurgency? I have asked these questions twice before. Once in 1965 in relation to America’s war in Vietnam. Again in 1971 concerning Pakistan’s military operation in East Pakistan. For India too the answer to both questions is NO. A rational approach to Kashmir shall elude India as long as i nce may not be for India the kind of military defeats which the United States experienced in Vietnam or Pakistan suffered in its eastern wing, now Bangladesh. Yet, one can say with confidence that if India, Pakistan, and Kashmiris do not reach a mutually beneficial settlement, the protracted war among the three will continue, with lulls and heats. Its costs may be even greater in the future than the hapless peoples have already paid. India’s allegations notwithstanding, Pakistan had little to do with the insurgency which emerged full blown in 1989. In fact, Islamabad’s military no less than civilian intelligence services were surprised by the intensity and scope of the uprising. It was united by and large behind a single organization, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, which had most of the attributes of a winning young movement. The great powers, especially the United States, have not evinced any interest in supporting Pakistan’s position which is legally and historically well founded. Islamabad has expended much effort and resources in trying to mobilize international opinion. In effect, lobbying for Kashmir has provided since 1989 the framework for hundreds of Pakistan’s ministerial, parliamentary, and other international junkets. None of these have had any discernible impact. Even the United Nations and its Security Council, whose authority Pakistan invokes quite assiduously, have shown scant interest in the matter. An analysis of years of Pakistani effort to mobilize meaningful international support for its position on Kashmir suggests that neither the great powers nor international opinion are inclined to weigh in meaningfully on Pakistan’s or the Kashmiri resistance’s side. India has lost Kashmir. Delhi’s moral isolation from the Kashmiri people is total and, I think, irreversible in the sense that in order to reverse it India will have to envisage a qualitatively different relationship with Kashmir. But can India’s loss translate into Pakistan’s gain? My answer is no! There is an in ot unusual. It is common in international relations for rival countries to view their contests as a zero sum game whereby the losses of one side would translate into gains for the other. The American intervention in Iran (1953), and its costly involvement in Vietnam (1956-75), were compelled in part by this outlook. The Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956), and Czechoslovakia (1968), were similarly motivated. History has repeatedly exposed this assumption to be false. The ratio of rival losses and gains is rarely proportional; it is determined by circumstances of history, politics, and policy. India’s Kashmir record offers a chronicle of failures; yet none of these accrued to Pakistan’s benefit. Rather, Pakistan’s policy has suffered from its own defects. Three characteristics made an early appearance in Pakistan’s approach to Kashmir. One, although Pakistani decision-makers know the problem to be fundamentally political, beginning in 1948 they have approached it primarily in military terms. Two, while the military outlook has dominated, there has been a healthy unwillingness to go to war over Kashmir. Three, while officially invoking the Kashmiri right to self determination, Pakistan’s governments and politicians have pursued policies which have all but disregarded the history, culture, and aspirations of Kashmir’s people. One consequence of this is a string of grave Pakistani miscalculations regarding Kashmir. Another outcome has been to alienate Kashmiris from Pakistan at crucial times such as 1948-49, 1965, and the 1990s. The question asked at the beginning remains largely unanswered: Has India’s loss translated into Pakistan’s gain? Another question needs to be asked: if both countries are failing in Kashmir, what next? A reminder is useful: in the 20th century armed struggles have failed more often than they have succeeded. In the 1960s, no less than 45 armed uprisings were in progress; six of these could claim success. A few, including the Kurdish, Irish, Timorese, and Filipi that while success may not be assured an armed uprising can endure or keep recurring if the aspirations on which it feeds are not addressed. A review of the Kashmiri movement suggests that it is falling in this latter category. Popular support is an essential attribute of success. To win, consolidate and maintain it is the greatest single challenge of an armed movement. To deny it popular following, drive wedges between it and the people, and reclaim the hearts and minds of the populace constitute the primary objectives of incumbents. This is one requirement the Kashmiri movement fully meets. As I argued earlier, India’s federal government has lost all semblance of legitimacy and support among Kashmiri muslims. It’s moral isolation appears so total that it is unlikely to regain even a modicum of legitimacy without conceding in a large measure the Kashmiri aspirations which have converged around a single slogan – Azaadi. That slogan, Pakistan’s policy-makers and Pakistani partisans of Kashmiri struggle ought to acknowledge, translates as sovereignty for Kashmir. There exists among Kashmiri speaking people but little enthusiasm for a plebiscite which would confine them to exchanging life under Indian sovereignty for life under Pakistan’s sovereignty. It is only a rare Kashmiri – I found none among the dozens abroad or scores I have interviewed in Pakistan – who views Kashmir as an ‘unfinished agenda of partition.’ In the U.S., a Kashmiri academic from Srinagar asked: ‘East Pakistan has violently separated from the west. The Muslim nation of the Qaid-i-Azam is now divided into three sovereign states. So what unfinished agenda of partition are we Kashmiris required to complete?’ Unity is essential to success. But unity is rarely total. The Chinese, Algerian, Cuban and Vietnamese movements confronted divisions, but in all four countries one party and leadership commanded hegemony over the others. At the start, the Kashmiri movement had the appearance of fulfilling this requirement. Soon after, the proliferat parties began and became epidemic. There are no less than thirty-eight armed parties in the valley. Thirty of them are grouped in the All Party Hurriyat Conference, a welcome umbrella all but paralysed by differing ambitions and styles. Increasingly, the valley has become a free-for-all environment in which the distinction between crime and militancy has been blurred. The atrocities of the ‘reformed militants’ are credited obviously to India’s account. But it is also true that the excesses of other groups reflect on the standing of the movement as a whole. Pakistan is viewed as the purveyor of internal divisions as some parties and positions are known to be favoured by Islamabad while others are not. In growing numbers Kashmiris are beginning to regard themselves as dually oppressed. Clarity and consistency of ideology and objectives are the third essential factor in keeping a movement strong and resilient. These are essential to maintaining the morale of cadres, solidarity of the people, and sympathy of neutrals at home and abroad. In an environment of armed struggle in which people invariably face great risks and cadres unusual hardships over long periods of time morale, solidarity, and sympathy define success and failure in critical ways. Unfortunately, barely two years after it began Kashmir’s uprising started to suffer from split images. At first the movement led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front appeared to be secular and nationalist. As such it elicited support at home, and a measure of sympathy both in India and abroad. When the Islamic parties, supported among others by the Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan made a significant appearance on the scene, the effect was not only internal confusion and division but also the dissipation of actual and potential international support for Kashmiri struggle. To date, the governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir have spent millions of dollars to mobilize international support behind the question of Kashmir. Cumulatively, the score has bee secular, parliamentary and private carpet-baggers and patronage seekers, Kashmir’s cause serves in Pakistan as one big pork barrel. The creation and maintenance of ‘parallel hierarchies’ of governance has been the distinguishing feature of liberation warfare in the 20th century. Successful movements have tended to out-administer their enemy rather than outfight them. This is so because the gap between the military resources of states and the opposing guerrilla forces have widened greatly as a consequence of technological progress after world war I. An armed movement neither aims nor expects to defeat its adversary in conventional battlefields; events such as the battle of Dien Bien Phu are exceptions not the rule. Liberation organizations expect to exhaust the enemy – politically, economically, psychologically – through protracted struggle. This is primarily political not military warfare. It demands systematic elimination of the incumbent’s governing capability, and its substitution by the movement’s administrative and social infrastructure. Slowly and surely the guerrilla organization assumes the functions of government – provides health facilities, schools, courts, arbitration, and collects (not extorts!) taxes. Thus the state’s machinery becomes increasingly dysfunctional, delinked from the people. ‘Nous commencons legiferer dans le vide’, the French had recognized first in Indo-China, then in Algeria (We are legislating in a void!). And the liberation movement gets organically linked to the land and its people. It is this phenomenon that overcomes the vast discrepancy in the military power and material resources of the two sides. In 1989-1990, the Kashmiri movement showed signs of developing parallel hierarchies, an infrastructure of governance. Then, it lost interest no less than ability. It still has popular support but neither the will nor capacity to serve the people. In such a climate a movement’s support dissipates as people tire of hardships and suffering. The location of the intell decisive factor in wars of liberation. Individual exceptions notwithstanding, the intelligentsia is a cautious class, prone to opportunity seeking more than risk taking. In an environment of armed polarization they wait and watch, and change positions as they sense the balance of forces shifting. The desertion of the intelligentsia from incumbency to the movement normally signals a decisive shift in favour of the latter. The opposite is also true. In Kashmir, the intelligentsia inclined toward the JKLF in 1990, then began distancing from the movement as it recoiled from the excesses of Islamic militancy. Menaced also by Indian excesses, many middle and upper middle class families moved to the safety of Jammu and Delhi. An estimated 15,000 Kashmiris are now enrolled at Indian universities. Although it is impossible to find an educated Kashmiri who does not disapprove of India’s military presence in the valley, their class location vis-a-vis the struggle for Kashmir remains ambiguous. Last the material factors – the availability of arms, men, and logistical supplies – which significantly affect the course of a struggle. The best organized armed uprisings obtain much of their armaments from the enemy. ‘We must regard [French General] De Lattre as our quarter-master-general,’ was Vietnamese General Ngo Vuyen Giap’s motto during the Indo-China war. Algeria’s guerrilla commander Belkacem Krim had his adversary, General Andre Beaufre play roughly the same role. To my knowledge, Kashmiri militants are not capturing even 10% of their weapons from Indian forces. Their dependence on external sources of supply is total. I am not in a position to estimate the endurance and reliability of their external sources of weapons supply. One should expect it to be limited and sporadic. Kashmir has a Muslim population of about 5.5 million. Of these roughly half a million are estimated to be males of fighting age, between 15-35 years. The state is their major employer, followed by agriculture and tourism, a trade wrec hese some 40,000 are dead; and an estimated 60,000 have been disabled. Unbearable economic burdens on families are added to their enormous personal grief. There is a growing feeling among Kashmiris that the world, including their own world, has abandoned them. The dispute over Kashmir is as old as independent India and Pakistan. This latest phase of violent strife has lasted over ten years. Yet while the human and material losses have mounted – beyond bearing for the Kashmiri people – neither India nor Pakistan have shown an inclination to end the bloodshed on any except their own terms. The three parties to this conflict have reached an impasse. It is now necessary for them to find a peaceful solution. I should first summarize the nature of the impasse. If one views as crucial the distinction between governing a society and coercing a multitude, India has ceased to govern Kashmir. For reasons discussed earlier, its moral isolation there is total, and irreversible if Delhi remains fixed on the terms which it currently offers. It’s options then are three-fold: One, to keep its coercive presence in Kashmir and hope that some day Kashmiris will tire and throw in the towel. Two, to negotiate with Kashmiri leaders on terms the latter could live with. Three, to negotiate a broader settlement with Pakistan and the Kashmiri insurgents who are grouped in the All Party Hurriyat Conference. We deemed a fourth, another India-Pakistan war, as an unrealistic option for settling the question of Kashmir. India’s current policy is to stick with option one while giving it a face lift. This entails a focus on legislative elections and vague promises of greater autonomy. Although the U.S. is encouraging it, the ploy is not likely to work because Kashmiri leaders distrust India’s tenuous promise, and Pakistan encourages their rejection of it. In comparison with the earlier period of their insurgency, the promises and options of the Kashmiris are circumscribed. The insurrection climaxed in 1993. That was an appr a vigorous political and diplomatic offensive. Since then the insurgency has not gained. Rather its strength has been sapped. It faces internal divisions. The Kashmiri movement now confronts Indian sponsored competitors and a more supple Indian counter insurgency effort than was possible during Jagmohan’s heavy handed cruelties between 1990-92. While Jagmohan cleared the ground of the more-or-less secular nationalists during 1990-1992, India’s intelligence services connived, as Israel’s had done earlier in Gaza, at the emergence of Islamic groupings in Kashmir. Pakistan’s intelligence services appear to have missed the point. The emergence of multiple Islamic groupings have sectarianized the movement, dampened the enthusiasm of those Muslims who cherish their traditional, lived relationship to Islam, alienated a significant section of Kashmiri intelligentsia, and contributed greatly to militarizing what should have been primarily a political struggle. U.S. support for India’s electoral initiatives has caused self-doubt and confusion among Kashmiri leaders. The lack of international support, civil war in Karachi, unrelenting reports of crisis and discontent in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and a drop in logistical supplies have also had a dampening impact on cadres and leaders. Above all, the people are showing signs of war weariness and economic hardship, and the movement has suffered from a decline in its manpower pool. As a result, while Kashmiri insurgents are not about to surrender to India’s coercion or manipulation, they are enfeebled politically, logistically, and psychologically. Itself in a severe economic crunch, Pakistan is unlikely to help in improving their fighting capability and morale with significantly larger logistical support. The outlook in Kashmir then is of low intensity war-fare continuing with ups and downs, and costing its people heavily in blood, repression, and economic hardship. All three sides are in a blind alley, back to back. India and Pakistan have the there indefinitely. Out of frustration and fatigue they might swing around one day and come to blows. The Kashmiris, being the weakest and most vulnerable party, have Hobson’s choice: either give in to India and settle for what symbolic concessions they can get from the tormenting giant, or continue with resistance, however sporadically. History is replete with examples of oppressed peoples who have done just that. Their sacrifices were always awesome. The shame and moral burden was always the oppressor’s. There is a third option of which the initiators can only be Pakistan and India. It requires those two armed adversaries to move toward the future, away from the fixed positions of half a century ago. For history moves by rendering fixed positions obsolete. Any good soldier, engineer, physician, philosopher, and historian knows the high costs of obsolescence. New realities are rapidly creeping over South Asia. Globalization is creating transnational assembly lines, breaking boundaries, forcing enemies to trade, creating transnational centres of power, and circumscribing sovereignties. South Asia governments are eager participants in the process. prime ministers proudly claim MOUs as their achievement, cite figures of foreign investments, sign international trade agreements, and join regional cooperation treaties. India and Pakistan are signatories of GATT, members in the WTO, SAFTA, and SAARC. Ironically, they cross swords in these councils of collaboration. New realities lead them to enter pacts of amity. Tired instincts and vested interests compel them to rake up the bile and bitterness of an earlier time. One hand, stretched toward the future, is chopped off by another hand anchored in the past. This is but one, possibly the most harmful, manifestation of inorganic growth in the body politic of India and Pakistan. Such distortions will continue to grow as long as our governments do not restore to this region its natural millennial flow – of rivers and mountains, ecology and production, and commerce and and normal peoples we must make peace where there is hostility, build bridges where there are chasms, heal where there are wounds, feed where there is hunger, prosper where there is poverty. Kashmir is the finest place to start, and not merely because it is the core of Indo-Pakistan conflict. Our histories, cultures and religions have converged in Kashmir. Our rivers begin there, mountains meet there, and dreams rest there. A framework of durable peace ought to provide incentives for each party to keep the peace and attach penalties for breaching it. The pertinent facts are the following: (i) Kashmir is divided. India holds Jammu, Ladakh, and the valley. Pakistan’s sovereignty extends to Azad Kashmir, and the Northern Areas are virtually integrated into Pakistan as federal territories. (ii) With one major exception, the present division of Kashmir conforms to the principle on which the partition agreement was based in 1947. The exception is the valley, which is the center of opposition to Indian rule. (iii) While there exists no objective measure of nationalist sentiments, most observers believe that it runs deep, especially in the valley’s Kashmiri speaking population. (iv) The principle of free trade between India and Pakistan is now established. The actual resumption of normal trade is a question of time. To deprive divided Kashmir the right to exchange and trade will be to penalize the principal party and victim of the India-Pakistan conflict. (v) India-Pakistan relations, including trade, will not be stable until the question of Kashmir is settled by a tripartite peace process, and the arms race and war threat between the two neighbours will continue. (vi) In relation to Kashmir India is the status quo power. Like all such powers it is engaged in a ‘war of position’. The Kashmiris are entering the second decade of an insurgency which aims at changing the status quo. As India’s challenger, Pakistan should have engaged in a ‘war of movement’, which in this instance translates into maintaining tically and diplomatically dynamic and flexible posture. Instead, it matched India ‘position for position’, thus creating for itself a crisis of policy, and for the beleaguered Kashmiris an imbroglio of political fragmentation and diminishing resources. Islamabad will continue to deny itself the advantages of a ‘revolutionary power’ (i.e., one whose interest lies in changing the status quo) as long as it remains inexorably committed to the demand for a plebiscite, a demand for which there exists neither the backing of force, nor of the great powers, nor of international opinion. Rather, even the author of the plebiscite formula, the U.N., is keen to repudiate it. Hopefully, our policy-makers realize that Pakistan’s insistence on a plebiscite was a means to an end, not the end itself. That means is now out of date. A plebiscite is a noun without a verb, a car without an engine. Islamabad has to find other means to reach its goal of settling the question of Kashmir to the satisfaction of Kashmiri people and without compromising its own national interest. The first step is to develop a policy, and a strategy to pursue it. It is unnecessary to spell out details. Details can change, and political manoeuvres and diplomatic tactics alter to suit new developments and unforeseen events while a broadly defined strategy continue to serve as a road map to the final destination. A key to developing a workable strategy is the concept of linkage. In this instance, the question of Kashmir must linked to the imminent liberalization of trade between India and Pakistan. Free trade may not survive and will not thrive if Kashmir is excluded from it, and the long miles of the India-Pakistan ‘line of control’ remain closed to exchanges other than those of gunfire. The two issues ought to be presented as integral parts of a singular peace to be negotiated between India and Pakistan. The international community, which is keen to see the barriers of trade lifted between neighbours, should be urged to active normal trade and growing regional cooperation in South Asia. It is difficult for nations not ravaged by war, as were Germany and Japan at the end of world war II, to shift suddenly from one state of mind to another. A period of transition, during which assumptions can be tested, trust is engaged, and new bonds are built across boundaries, is often preferable to precipitous peace of the kind that the Arabs of Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan have entered with Israel. In our case, it is important to proceed gradually, step by careful step, in a manner capable of absorbing shocks and building confidences. But peace, however gradual, must be based on common commitment to principles. These need spelling out. One fundamental principle in this case is that the ultimate arbiters of the dispute over Kashmir are the people of Kashmir in all their diversity of past as well as recent history. Second, a settlement that does not restore the natural, millennial flow of Kashmiri history and geography is not likely to satisfy either Kashmiri aspirations or the requirements of durable peace between India and Pakistan. Third, the notion of sovereignty changed in the second half of the twentieth century; in the twenty-first century, it is in the process of changing drastically. Fourth, divided sovereignties are not synonymous with divided frontiers. If these principles are followed, diplomacy might be directed at reaching an agreement which could be implemented in three stages, of autonomy, open borders, and shared sovereignty over historic Kashmir. If they fail to avail themselves of yet another opportunity, they shall remain holding unused and archaic cards in frozen hands. Such failures rarely harm the leaders. Only the people get hurt. * The late Eqbal Ahmed (re. In Memoriam, Seminar 479) was an indefatigable campaigner for peace and sanity in the subcontinent. This article is an edited version of an eight part series on Kashmir that he wrote for Dawn in 1996. It is an index of Eqbal’s perspicacity that th ents – has not diluted the validity of his propositions for a situation as fluid and fluctuating as Kashmir. From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Fri Oct 26 22:03:37 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:33:37 -0700 Subject: [Reader-list] Fallout of Anthrax Panic Message-ID: <000301c15e7e$b41a5780$1fcfc5cb@shohini> Financial Times http://www.ft.com October 23, 2001 A bitter pill for the drug makers Instead of an opportunity, the anthrax scare has raised awkward questions about patent protection by Geoff Dyer and Adrian Michaels If there are to be any beneficiaries from the anthrax panic sweeping North America, they should be the drug companies. With 10 people infected and one killed so far, Americans are rushing to buy antibiotics that can treat the disease. Instead, the threat of bio-terrorism has thrown the pharmaceuticals industry on to the defensive. Not only has the anthrax crisis reopened the controversy over patent protection of sought-after treatments, it has also moved the debate from the developing world to the industry's most lucrative and protected market: the US. The Canadian government has asked a local company to make copies of Cipro, the drug under patent to Bayer of Germany that has become the most popular treatment for anthrax. Meanwhile, in the US, Charles Schumer of New York, a leading Democratic senator, has called on the government to ensure adequate supplies of anthrax treatments by buying generic versions of Cipro. The administration has so far rejected his plan. Campaigners who have been pushing for developing countries to ignore patents on drugs to treat Aids and other illnesses have been quick to claim a double standard. "Canada has done the right thing, given that it needs the rapid supply of a drug," says James Love at the Consumer Project on Technology, a Washington lobby group. "But the US and Canada have been trying to discourage African countries from doing this over Aids." The industry suffered a bruising defeat in April in South Africa, one of the countries worst affected by Aids, when it withdrew a lawsuit against the country's patent law, which it claimed broke international rules. Before the drugs companies withdrew, the trial was dominated by the issue of the cost of Aids medicines. Urged on by pharmaceuticals companies, the US government took Brazil to the World Trade Organisation last year, claiming that Brazil's patent law made it too easy to ignore patents and amounted to protectionism. That complaint was also later withdrawn. Developing countries were already planning to bring the issue up at the WTO ministerial summit in Doha, Qatar, next month. Brazil has proposed a motion, signed by at least 50 countries, arguing that Trips, the WTO's rules on intellectual property rights, should not impede access to essential medicines. The US and Canada had strongly opposed the idea. But now those developing countries will use the anthrax incidents to press the case in Doha. "It smacks of one rule for the north, another for the south," says Paulo Teixeira, director of the Brazilian government's Aids programme. "The anthrax outbreak is very distressing but I hope it will make them reflect more about our position that compulsory licensing is an entirely legitimate instrument if there is a problem of access to a crucial drug." The Consumer Project on Technology has compiled an archive of cases where it believes the US government has overridden patents or copyright on products. The examples of compulsory licensing range from protective eyewear and camouflage screens supplied to the US army to machines that can control the spinning of space vehicles. For the drugs industry, the importance of the Cipro case is not the financial loss to Bayer, which will do well from the anthrax windfall and would receive compensation in the event of a compulsory licence being issued. In Canada, many legal experts think the government could lose if the case were to go to court. Rather, after the bruising battles over Aids, the industry fears that the clamour for anthrax treatments will increase the pressure for lower prices and reduced patent protection in rich countries. Hence the close attention paid to Washington's response to the bioterrorism crisis. The US government has committed itself to securing a stockpile sufficient to treat 12m people. Given that doctors generally prescribe a two-month treatment of two pills a day, that means the government needs about 1.4bn tablets. Yet even after tripling its US output, Bayer can supply only 200m pills over the next three months. The US government stresses that Cipro is not the only medicine suitable for anthrax victims. Penicillin and doxycyclin, both of which are off-patent and easily produced, can also be used. And, to allay criticisms of war profiteering, Tommy Thompson, the US health and human services secretary, said that he would drive a hard deal with Bayer and that the final price "may be very much in line with the generics". Even so, Phrma, the powerful industry organisation, remains fearful. It insists there is no need for the US government to override Bayer's patent, because Bayer's increased production and the use of other medicines can easily meet the demand for anthrax medicines. The patent issue is not the only controversy in the drugs industry that the anthrax outbreak has highlighted. The Cipro dispute has reminded an increasingly sceptical public of the spate of allegations that big pharmaceuticals companies have colluded with generic manufacturers to keep cheaper versions of drugs off the market. In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has opened a number of investigations into potentially anti-competitive deals between drugs companies. Cipro is the subject of one of them. Back in 1991, Barr Laboratories, a generic manufacturer, took legal action to contest Bayer's patent on Cipro. Six years later it struck an out-of-court deal with Bayer that has led to Barr and Watson, another generic company, being paid about $170m by Bayer in order not to pursue its claim to produce a copy of Cipro. Barr says it took the view that it had less than a 50 per cent chance of winning its case. The company says that it is no longer challenging Bayer's patent, which ends in 2003 in the US, but that others are free to do so. The FTC, which opened an investigation into the deal 2* years ago, has not brought any charges. Even so, the publicity surrounding the case, combined with renewed anxiety about patent protection, presents more awkward questions. A crisis that could have been a boon for drug manufacturers looks instead like becoming another problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011026/b9a2b00b/attachment.html From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 13:26:32 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:56:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: RHIZOME_RAW: Fw: GameArtResearch || Seeking Submissions || Message-ID: <20011029075632.66159.qmail@web8104.in.yahoo.com> Note: forwarded message attached. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "delire" Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Fw: GameArtResearch || Seeking Submissions || Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:08:21 +1100 Size: 9594 Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011029/b52d3a41/attachment.mht From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 13:29:09 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:59:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: new media projects-call for submission Message-ID: <20011029075909.14737.qmail@web8103.in.yahoo.com> Dear reader-list readers, I hope you find this interesting. pp Reply-to: "delire" ___________________________________________________________________________ ] call for submissions [ ........................... ___________________________________________________________________________ New Media Using Computer Games SelectParks is putting together a large public database of experiments and artworks exploring the use and/or modification of computer gaming technologies. Of particular interest is work coming from either a fine-arts or theoretical perspective. We are also interested in work purely concerned with exploring the limits of the technology: Including: ___________________________________________________________________________ 3D engine hacks Architectural Investigations Gameboy and handheld hacks Game to real world applications [eg: robotics] AI / Bot design Console modifications Machinima Game Engines for audio installation / performance Renderer Hacks [PanQuake etc] Research on Platform Independence / Portability Written Theory ___________________________________________________________________________ SelectParks is not interested in game-related illustrations, conventional level design, tags and skins, or work that celebrates in-game exploits. We are also not seeking flash or shockwave games. Work must directly engage gaming technology specifically, toward the ends of developing it for applications outside of the computer game marketplace. The site will feature: ___________________________________________________________________________ Resources Festival and Funding billboard Howto's Downloads Online Multi-user Game Lab Forum Code repository Catalogue ___________________________________________________________________________ Each submitted work will have a page of documentation designed for it by SelectParks. Those not comfortable with this can supply a link. These pages will be composed within a template looking something like this: www.selectparks.net/qthoth.htm We will soon have servers for popular multi-user development platforms like Quake [II and Q3a], Unreal Tournament, with support also for Linux based engines like CrystalSpace. The site will bring together the resources and innovations of the computer gaming and demo scenes in contact with those wishing to explore alternative applications for these rich technologies. Please email nearhere at selectparks.net with details of your project[s]. ___________________________________________________________________________ Cheers, SelectParks ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 13:44:06 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:14:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: RHIZOME_RAW: beauty and chaos @ Nordic Interactive Conference Message-ID: <20011029081406.8480.qmail@web8102.in.yahoo.com> Note: forwarded message attached. ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "ericdeis" Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: beauty and chaos @ Nordic Interactive Conference Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:10:22 -0700 Size: 3239 Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011029/5df1f55c/attachment.mht From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 14:02:46 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:32:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: Afterimage call for papers Message-ID: <20011029083246.10258.qmail@web8102.in.yahoo.com> 4 crr!T!cs und ozzer cr!tters ewhen as crayters o-pen up loverrs hayters wrr!te now, nicht layters pp Afterimage call for papers/contributions: Alternative technologies "'Dialectic' is a way of evading the always open and hazardous reality of conflict by reducing it to a Hegelian skeleton and 'semiology' is a way of avoiding its violent, bloody and lethal character by reducing it to the calm Platonic form of language and dialogue." Michel Foucault, from Power/Knowledge Contents: Introductory overview Call for papers/contributions +++++Introductory overview+++++ It is common practice that sailors and soldiers launching bombs and missiles in Afghanistan these days often decorate them with a written message for their recipient. Usually underwritten by phobic statements from the American vocabulary, these deliberately offensive exclamations obviously reiterate some close affinities between warfare and discourse. However, while insulting words are often delivered for a destructive effect they are rarely backed by such explosive power: with every message dispatched in Afghanistan any notion of impact acquires an added meaning. The sight of language dispersed along with shrapnel has caused many cultural critics and artists to lament the lack of power and potency in the relations of meaning they have carefully crafted. But to actually mourn such a loss must come with a recognition that any dialectic always aspires to a combative model. If words have supposedly lost their impact, to recall the blast of a previous sentence, it is only because they were, from the outset, launched from a linguistic command that calculated their syntactical path and semantic trajectory with purposeful precision. Discourse, in other words, is always caught up in the power relations made explicit by warfare. The point is made even more poignant by the Anthrax-laced letters arriving at various U.S. institutions. Handwritten manifestos have forwarded a lethal concoction that is both a subject of the text and a definitive enclosure. These words are, as with the correspondence taking place in Afghanistan, dispatched and backed by a substance that brings them into effect. The question is: are we, as critics, writers and artists, really "jealous" of bombs or toxic agents to the extent that we, in understandable despair, surrender words to the role of a futile supplement, even when words remain such a compelling addendum for warlords and terrorists alike? At the moment, the American bombs, combining insults and munitions, along with the anonymous letters, blending threats and poisons, are horrible compromises on communication. Let us instead address the struggles, strategies and tactics of present discourse/warfare with a sharpened pencil. +++++Call for papers/contributions+++++ Let me offer some incomplete and inadequate fragments to elaborate on this call for papers and contributions in the context of recent events. It becomes more apparent with every GPS-guided missile and ground operation guided by night-vision equipment that this "war on terrorism" is fought both with and over certain technologies. In the "wrong" hands, technology has a destructive potential, as witnessed on a macro level by the September 11 hijackings, renewed concern over the nuclear capability of Pakistan and the capacity to produce Anthrax spores with a levitating density. In the "right" hands, technology exudes a redeeming promise of global justice (administered the American way), economic affluence and ideological supremacy. But the battle of and over technology, interpreted here in the widest sense, may of course also extend to the removal of new Osama Bin Laden footage from network television over fears that he could send some secret signal-a destructive code made possible by his mere presence-to accomplices around the world. American media outlets have accompanied this move toward a dated caricature of the enemy with segments on the "lies" spread by headlines in the Pakistani press (reporting on Taliban news conferences) and "misleading" information distributed by broadcasting networks in Arab nations. It may furthermore include the capture of this very email message by the joint project Echelon that monitors communication channels and intercepts those parcels containing key words from a filtering list (I have no doubt made this shortlist). This latter point was further exacerbated by the recent U.S. anti-terrorism bill, passed on October 26, which makes invasion of privacy, through searches, and the constant surveillance of phone and email communications, what is commonly referred to as a gathering of ³intelligence,² a largely uncontested right of certain government agencies. The technologies now pronouncing war are, without doubt, the same technologies that we are actually fighting over, and the unbalanced contrast between the current adversaries could not be stronger: on one side, a global power, and on the other, a devastated place derogatively referred to as a remnant of the Stone Age. Technological progress, or prowess, is quite horrifically celebrated through this questionable display of military might, but it is also seen, usually in the foreboding CNN suspense that accompanies a dark night made visible in the moments before explosive impact, as a regulating and disciplining apparatus extending from certain conjunctions of power and knowledge to cover everything from your own home to the entire globe. In a broad call for papers and contributions, Afterimage, the journal of media arts and cultural criticism (http://www.vsw.org/afterimage), seeks work that wishes to profoundly engage and challenge the use and distribution of technology with alternative visions and functions. Please forward your requests for further information or proposals to the editor, Are Flagan, areflagan at mac.com. ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 14:23:52 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:53:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] c*nv%rs#t!*n Message-ID: <20011029085352.12052.qmail@web8102.in.yahoo.com> H%#r !s # c*nv%rs#t!*n pp Terrence writes; Women in America wear hot clothing Men in America do slap women around, mostly their wives and in private. American children are aborted every month by the thousands, Millions of men in America masturbate evey day. Mostly in secrecy to hide their embarrassment. Some masturbate in front of a small audience. T. Mikidot wrote: > mikidot wrote; > > I was thinking bout how the Taliban has fobidden women to work to > earn a living. > Begging and prostitution are allowed though. > > m. > > josh zeidner wrote; > > > but can't you see how bad they are? the men are mean > >to the women. They make them wear clothing that is > >much hotter than turbans. and after they are done > >slapping around thier women, they kill thier children, > >and masturbate publically. Bad, bad afghanis. THIS > >WAR WILL BE SUPPORTED BY ALL AMERICANS. EVEN SUSAN > >SONTAG. > > > > -josh > > > > > >--- Mikidot wrote: > > > Mikidot writes; > > > > > > Protest US entry into Afghanistan. > > > > > > The US will probably remove 1 million or more > > > landmines, > > > as well as feed da starving children. > > > > > > This is interference in another country's > > > sovereignty! > > > Protest! > > > > > > M. > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 10/23/2001 9:18:55 PM Central > > > Daylight Time, > > > >voyd at VOYD.COM writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Actually, I think that i might agree with some of > > > the similarities with '33 > > > >>Germany, and my wife who is a PhD in Weimar > > > history is really nervous. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >Making a large portion of Islam the 21st c. version > > > of 20th c. Jews. > > > >Only we USA would be looking through the eyes of > > > Hitler. > > > > > > > >I know many see Osama bin Laden as the Hitler in > > > question (let's see > > > >both!); he certainly is legitimately threatening to > > > topple regimes > > > >and create a fascist Pan-Arab revolution in the > > > most unstable region > > > >on the planet. To what extent present geopolitics > > > ought to govern > > > >our acceptance of 1984-like measures is a dangerous > > > but clear > > > >question in my opinion. > > > > > > > >Don't worry about losing your rights; don't lose > > > them. Rights need > > > >exercise, like brains > > > >. > > > > > > > >Max Herman ___________________________________________________________________ *NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW* Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html From pnanpin at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 29 14:31:05 2001 From: pnanpin at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?pratap=20pandey?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:01:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Reader-list] art ex for low income wtc victims Message-ID: <20011029090105.48156.qmail@web8105.in.yahoo.com> MORE THAN 150 NEW YORK CITY ART GALLERIES PRESENT "I LOVE NY ­ ART BENEFIT," A CITYWIDE ART EXHIBTION AND SALE, OCTOBER 26 ­ NOVEMBER 3, 2001 ALL PROCEEDS TO BENEFIT ROBIN HOOD RELIEF FUND TO AID LOW INCOME FAMILIES OF WTC VICTIMS This unprecedented benefit event will offer paintings, drawings, sculpture, photographs, installations and media arts, donated by both emerging and renowned contemporary artists and dealers. Visit http://www.ilovenyartbenefit.org for details. The site, which will be accessible for up to six months, includes a list of all participating artists, galleries, images of the works for sale, and names individuals and companies which have made this event possible. In conjunction with this benefit, Downtown Arts Project has mobilized the junior memberships of many of New York City's museums who will join together for a benefit walking tour of participating galleries and museums in Soho and Chelsea starting at 10:30am on October 27, 2001. Ticket prices start at $100. For registration and further information, call 212.243.5050. http://www.ilovenyartbenefit.org For media requests, email john at bluemedium.com or strausn at att.net ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com From mazzarel at uchicago.edu Mon Oct 29 20:41:52 2001 From: mazzarel at uchicago.edu (William Mazzarella) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:11:52 -0600 Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: Afterimage call for papers In-Reply-To: <20011029083246.10258.qmail@web8102.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011029090519.00b17688@nsit-popmail.uchicago.edu> On the Foucault quotation re: dialectic. This is one of the central misunderstandings of much poststructuralist theory, a misunderstanding that has its roots in the particular reception of Hegel in interwar and postwar France. It equates 'dialectic' with the onwards-and-upwards movement of Hegelian thought, and in so doing it misses the whole fruitful tradition of post-Marxist German critical theory, in which the dialectic is NOT necessarily teleological, in which it is, to use Adorno's term, 'negative.' That means that its terms mutually transform each other but do not resolve into a higher synthesis. It is a dialectic of perpetual critique, perpetual inversion, and perpetual undoing. Having understood that the dialectic is not necessarily totalizing, this line of thought unfurls its critique from within, rather than, in the poststructuralist mode, perpetually positing hegemonic and totalizing structures that must be countered with indeterminacy and rupture. The result of this misunderstanding is a double fetishization: on the one hand, of an overtotalized master narrative that must be deconstructed and, on the other, of the radical potential of otherness. Having said that - on the semiology quotation: Right on! WM At 08:32 AM 10/29/2001 +0000, pratap pandey wrote: >4 crr!T!cs und ozzer cr!tters >ewhen as crayters >o-pen up loverrs hayters >wrr!te now, nicht layters >pp > >Afterimage call for papers/contributions: Alternative >technologies > >"'Dialectic' is a way of evading the always open and >hazardous reality >of >conflict by reducing it to a Hegelian skeleton and >'semiology' is a way >of >avoiding its violent, bloody and lethal character by >reducing it to the >calm >Platonic form of language and dialogue." > >Michel Foucault, from Power/Knowledge > >Contents: >Introductory overview >Call for papers/contributions > >+++++Introductory overview+++++ >It is common practice that sailors and soldiers >launching bombs and >missiles >in Afghanistan these days often decorate them with a >written message >for >their recipient. Usually underwritten by phobic >statements from the >American >vocabulary, these deliberately offensive exclamations >obviously >reiterate >some close affinities between warfare and discourse. >However, while >insulting words are often delivered for a destructive >effect they are >rarely >backed by such explosive power: with every message >dispatched in >Afghanistan >any notion of impact acquires an added meaning. The >sight of language >dispersed along with shrapnel has caused many cultural >critics and >artists >to lament the lack of power and potency in the >relations of meaning >they >have carefully crafted. But to actually mourn such a >loss must come >with a >recognition that any dialectic always aspires to a >combative model. If >words >have supposedly lost their impact, to recall the blast >of a previous >sentence, it is only because they were, from the >outset, launched from >a >linguistic command that calculated their syntactical >path and semantic >trajectory with purposeful precision. Discourse, in >other words, is >always >caught up in the power relations made explicit by >warfare. The point is >made >even more poignant by the Anthrax-laced letters >arriving at various >U.S. >institutions. Handwritten manifestos have forwarded a >lethal concoction >that >is both a subject of the text and a definitive >enclosure. These words >are, >as with the correspondence taking place in >Afghanistan, dispatched and >backed by a substance that brings them into effect. >The question is: >are we, >as critics, writers and artists, really "jealous" of >bombs or toxic >agents >to the extent that we, in understandable despair, >surrender words to >the >role of a futile supplement, even when words remain >such a compelling >addendum for warlords and terrorists alike? At the >moment, the American >bombs, combining insults and munitions, along with the >anonymous >letters, >blending threats and poisons, are horrible compromises >on >communication. Let >us instead address the struggles, strategies and >tactics of present >discourse/warfare with a sharpened pencil. > >+++++Call for papers/contributions+++++ >Let me offer some incomplete and inadequate fragments >to elaborate on >this >call for papers and contributions in the context of >recent events. It >becomes more apparent with every GPS-guided missile >and ground >operation >guided by night-vision equipment that this "war on >terrorism" is fought >both >with and over certain technologies. In the "wrong" >hands, technology >has a >destructive potential, as witnessed on a macro level >by the September >11 >hijackings, renewed concern over the nuclear >capability of Pakistan and >the >capacity to produce Anthrax spores with a levitating >density. In the >"right" >hands, technology exudes a redeeming promise of global >justice >(administered >the American way), economic affluence and ideological >supremacy. But >the >battle of and over technology, interpreted here in the >widest sense, >may of >course also extend to the removal of new Osama Bin >Laden footage from >network television over fears that he could send some >secret signal-a >destructive code made possible by his mere presence-to >accomplices >around >the world. American media outlets have accompanied >this move toward a >dated >caricature of the enemy with segments on the "lies" >spread by headlines >in >the Pakistani press (reporting on Taliban news >conferences) and >"misleading" >information distributed by broadcasting networks in >Arab nations. It >may >furthermore include the capture of this very email >message by the joint >project Echelon that monitors communication channels >and intercepts >those >parcels containing key words from a filtering list (I >have no doubt >made >this shortlist). This latter point was further >exacerbated by the >recent >U.S. anti-terrorism bill, passed on October 26, which >makes invasion of >privacy, through searches, and the constant >surveillance of phone and >email >communications, what is commonly referred to as a >gathering of >³intelligence,² a largely uncontested right of certain >government >agencies. >The technologies now pronouncing war are, without >doubt, the same >technologies that we are actually fighting over, and >the unbalanced >contrast >between the current adversaries could not be stronger: >on one side, a >global >power, and on the other, a devastated place >derogatively referred to as >a >remnant of the Stone Age. Technological progress, or >prowess, is quite >horrifically celebrated through this questionable >display of military >might, >but it is also seen, usually in the foreboding CNN >suspense that >accompanies >a dark night made visible in the moments before >explosive impact, as a >regulating and disciplining apparatus extending from >certain >conjunctions of >power and knowledge to cover everything from your own >home to the >entire >globe. > >In a broad call for papers and contributions, >Afterimage, the journal >of >media arts and cultural criticism >(http://www.vsw.org/afterimage), >seeks >work that wishes to profoundly engage and challenge >the use and >distribution >of technology with alternative visions and functions. > >Please forward your requests for further information >or proposals to >the >editor, Are Flagan, areflagan at mac.com. > > >___________________________________________________________________ >*NEW* Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone *NEW* > Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html >_______________________________________________ >Reader-list mailing list >Reader-list at sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list William Mazzarella Assistant Professor University of Chicago Department of Anthropology 1126 E 59th St Chicago, IL 60637 tel: (773) 834-4873 fax: (773) 702-4503 From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 29 21:31:02 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 29 Oct 2001 16:01:02 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Zizek on the battle for Stalingrad Message-ID: <20011029160102.10984.qmail@mailweb29.rediffmail.com> So much has already been written about the battle for Stalingrad, this battle is invested with many fantasies and symbolic meanings‹when the German troops reached the Western bank of Volga, the "apolitical" Franz Lehar himself, the author of The Merry Widow, Hitler's favored operetta, quickly composed Das Wolgalied, celebrating this achievement. Let us just recall the two main "as if" scenarios: if the Germans were to break through to the East of the Volga and to the Caucasus oil fields, the Soviet Union would collapse and Germany would have won the war; if Erich von Manheim's deft maneuvers were not to prevent the collapse of the entire German front after the defeat of the 6th Army in the Stalingrad Kessel, the Red Army would have rolled over into Central Europe already in 1943, defeating Germany before the Allied invasion of Normandy, so that the whole of continental Europe would have been CommunistŠSo, perhaps, the time has come to cast a reflexive glance on the main types of the Stalingrad narratives. [...] From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 29 21:33:45 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 29 Oct 2001 16:03:45 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Alain Badiou on what is "the political" Message-ID: <20011029160345.2243.qmail@mailFA10.rediffmail.com> When and under what conditions can we say that an event is political? To what extent is the "what is happening" happening politically? We propose that an event is political, and that the procedure which it employs reveals a political truth, under certain conditions. These conditions are attached to the subject of the event, to infinity, to the relationship to the state of the situation, and to the numeration of the procedure. 1. An event is political if the subject of this event is collective, or if the event is not attributable to anything other than the multiplicity of a collective. "Collective" is not a numerical concept here. We say that the event is ontologically collective inasmuch as this event conveys a virtual requirement of the all. "Collective" is immediately universalizing. The effectiveness of the political emerges from the assertion according to which "for every x, there is thought." [...] From rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 01:21:27 2001 From: rehanhasanansari at yahoo.com (rehan ansari) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:51:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] Top ten current oxymorons. Message-ID: <20011029195127.98618.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> > From: "zehra rizvi" > To: From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Tue Oct 30 04:42:05 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:12:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Reader-list] Top ten current oxymorons. In-Reply-To: <20011029195127.98618.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, rehan ansari wrote: > > From: "zehra rizvi" > >From The Friday Times, Lahore > > 3. American diplomacy An alleged USAmerican criminal against humanity (for what happened in Indonesia and East Timor), Richard Holbrooke, has very publicly admitted (in the Washington Post) that what he calls "public diplomacy" or "public affairs" is really just... propaganda! So he wishes to brainwash "1 billion Muslims" in order to try to have them support the illegal war against Afghanistan. Tough task. Here's a radical suggestion that might convince 1 billion Muslims: - publish the claimed evidence against bin Laden Jr, - accept the Talibans' offer to extradite bin Laden Jr to a neutral country for trial, - stop bombing Afghanistan, - pay compensation for all the damage done there over the past 23 years, - and allow the UN to help pro-human rights groups like RAWA to help set up a pro-human rights, democratic government Much easier than propaganda. Much more ethical too. Here's one of the Talibans' offers, in case anyone missed them: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011014/wl/attack_afghan_court_dc_3.html 14 Oct 2001 > JALALABAD, Afghanistan (news - web sites) (Reuters) - Afghanistan's > ruling Taliban said Sunday militant fugitive Osama bin Laden (news - > web sites) could be handed to a neutral country for trial if the > United States provided sufficient evidence. ... > Washington lost little time in rejecting the offer, which appeared to > edge slightly away from earlier demands that any trial be held in an > Islamic country. Bad for propaganda purposes. Naive Muslims might think that "Washington" does not want bin Laden Jr to go to trial in a neutral country. Only solution: brainwashing of 1 billion people! I think you have to admire the sheer megalomania of it, the willingness to insult the intelligence and personal experiences of a billion people in order to justify bloodthirsty injustice. Goebbels must be green with envy. Here's Holbrooke's confession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59981-2001Oct26.html > Get the Message Out > > By Richard Holbrooke > Sunday, October 28, 2001; Page B07 > > Call it public diplomacy, or public affairs, or psychological > warfare, or -- if you really want to be blunt -- propaganda. But > whatever it is called, defining what this war is really about in > the minds of the 1 billion Muslims in the world will be of > decisive and historic importance. ... From rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 16:06:38 2001 From: rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:36:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Reader-list] alexander cockburn's column Message-ID: <20011030103638.71816.qmail@web14602.mail.yahoo.com> Ravi submitted one of AC's pieces from the Nation some time ago. He has a regular column on antiwar.com which may be of interest. http://www.antiwar.com/cockburn/cockburn-col.html R __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From chaiyah at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 14:04:59 2001 From: chaiyah at hotmail.com (m emily cragg) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:04:59 Subject: [Reader-list] Re: Fwd: ELF & GWEN by Jim Keith Message-ID: DO THIS!!-- [Postscript by Jim Keith [in ELF & GWEN] "Last week the buzzing happened again, so loud yet so easily dismissed against the background of city noise. How could I prove to myself that it was not simply just coming from my head, could I possibly have the rare hearing condition, tinnitus, which causes ringing in the ears? I remembered a Mr. Science experiment where the electromagnetic transparency of various substances was being demonstrated. A portable radio was placed into a wooden box. 'Hear that? The radio is still playing, which means? That's right, wood is electromagnetically transparent.' The radio was imprisoned in various other containers to see what would happen. Then finally it was wrapped in aluminium foil, and fell silent. I ran into the kitchen and grabbed the tin foil. Pulling a three foot strip of it, I wrapped it around my head, and the buzzing stopped." I have been noticing the problem of buzzing, on and off, for several years--particularly in the urban San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C., area. Okay, Connie, here I am in the Appalachian Mountains and it's still a nuisance, and I tried wearing an aluminum foil scarf/hat, and it worked. The buzzing stopped. It's silent, and I can rest. I've made myself a stylish aluminum-foil HAT that I wear in the house, and it's very restful. What this means is that we must retrofit our homes, to create Faraday Boxes, so we can resist, block and eliminate ALL ELECTRONIC signals that disrupt our bodies so we hear buzzing all the time. Pass it along. chaiyah _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "ConstanceMarie Boisvert" Subject: Fwd: ELF & GWEN by Jim Keith Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 03:42:28 +0000 Size: 30541 Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011030/a4f90f19/attachment.mht From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 31 07:24:59 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:24:59 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Tariq Ali's arrest in Munich Airport Message-ID: <000201c161b9$daf025e0$8f74c8cb@shohini> Germany's Green Police State Busted in Munich By Tariq Ali At 7am, on 29 October I was arrested at the Munich airport. After a day of interviews and book-signings and another two spent at a Goethe Institute seminar (on 'Islam and the Crisis'), I was exhausted and desperate for a cup of coffee. I checked in. Soon my hand-luggage was wending its way through the security machine. No metal objects were detected, but they insisted on dumping its contents on a table. Newspapers, dirty underpants, shirts, magazines and books tumbled out in full view. Since news always reaches Germany a day after it has appeared in the US press, I thought the locals might be unaware of FBI and CIA briefings to the effect that Bin Laden or Iraqi complicity in the anthrax scare was extremely unlikely and were on the look-out for envelopes containing powder. There were no envelopes of any sort in my bag. The machine-minder brushed aside the copies of the Sud-Deutsche Zeitung (SDZ), the International Herald Tribune and Le Monde Diplomatique. He appeared to be very interested in the Times Literary Supplement and was inspecting my scribbled notes on the margin of a particular book review. I suggested that if he wanted my views on the present crisis he could read them in German in the SDZ which had published an article of mine. I pointed it out to him. He grasped the text eagerly and then, in a state of some excitement, rushed it over to the armed policeman. Then his eyes fell on a slim volume in German which had been handed to me by a local publisher. Since I'd had no time to flip through the volume, it was still wrapped in cellophane. The offending book was an essay by Karl Marx, 'On Suicide'. It was the reference to suicide that had gotten the policemen really excited. They barely registered the author, though when they did real panic set in and there were agitated exchanges. I was slightly bemused by the spectacle, waiting for them to finish so I could read the morning papers. This was not to be. The way they began to watch me was an indication of their state of mind. They really thought they had got someone. My passport and boarding card were taken from me, I was rudely instructed to re-pack my bag, minus the crucial 'evidence' (SDZ, the TLS and the offending text by Marx), after which I was escorted out of the departure area and taken to the police HQ at the airport. On the way there the arresting officer gave me a triumphant smile. 'After September 11, you can't travel with books like this', he said. 'In that case', I replied, 'perhaps you should stop publishing them in Germany or better still burn them in public view.' Inside the HQ another officer informed me that it was unlikely I'd be boarding the BA flight and they would make inquiries about later departures. At this point my patience evaporated and I demanded to use a phone. 'Who do you want to ring?' 'The Mayor of Munich', I replied. 'His name is Christian Ude. He interviewed me about my books and the present crisis on Friday evening at the Hugundubel bookshop. I wish to inform him of what is taking place.' The police officer disappeared. A few minutes later another officer (this one sported a beard) appeared and beckoned me to follow him. He escorted me to the flight which had virtually finished boarding. We did not exchange words. On the plane a German fellow-passenger came and expressed his dismay at the police behaviour. He told me how the policeman who had detained me had returned to boast to other passengers of how his vigilance had led to my arrest. It was a trivial enough episode, but indicative of the mood of the Social Democrat-Green alliance that rules Germany today. It is almost as if many of those who currently in power are trying desperately to exorcise their own pasts. While Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in Pakistan insisting that there could be no pause in the bombing and that the war of attrition would continue, his Minister for Interior, Otto Schilly, was busy masterminding the new security laws, which threaten traditional civil liberties. Schilly, once a radical lawyer and a friend of the generation of 1968, first acquired public notoriety when he became the defense lawyer for the Red Army Faction, an urban terrorist network active in the Seventies. It was said at the time that he also supported their activities. In 1980 Schilly joined the Greens and was their key spokesman in the fight against the stationing of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Germany. In 1989 he moved further by joining the Social Democrats. Today he is busy justifying extra powers to the police and infusing a sense of 'realism' in his Green coalition partners. One of the "realist" proposals being discussed is granting jurisdiction to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the German equivalent of the FBI) so that it has the right to spy on individuals it suspects of working against the 'causes of international understanding or the peaceful coexistence of nations.' And since in the debased coinage of the present 'peaceful coexistence of nations' includes waging war against some of them, I suppose that my experience was a tiny dress-rehearsal for what is yet to come. It was a tiny enough scratch, but if untreated these can sometimes lead to gangrene. CP Tariq Ali, a frequent CounterPunch contributor, is the author of The Stone Woman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011031/ff3313cd/attachment.html From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 31 07:28:34 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:28:34 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Saifullah, man of peace, killed by American cruise missile- by Robert Fisk Message-ID: <000301c161b9$de809fa0$8f74c8cb@shohini> Saifullah, man of peace, killed by American cruise missile War on Terrorism: Victim By Robert Fisk 30 October 2001 The Americans have killed Saifullah of Turangzai, MA in Arabic and MA in Islamic Studies (Peshawar University), BSc (Islamia College), BEd certificate of teaching, MPhil student and scholarship winner to Al-Azhar in Cairo, the oldest university in the Arab world. He spoke fluent English as well as Persian and his native Pashto, and loved poetry and history and was, so his family say, preparing a little reluctantly to get married. His father, Hedayatullah, is a medical doctor, his younger brother a student of chartered accountancy. Of course, no one outside Pakistan - and few inside - had ever heard of Saifullah. In these Pashtun villages of the North-West Frontier, many families do not even have proper names. Saifullah was not a political leader; indeed his 50-year-old father says his eldest son was a humanitarian, not a warrior. His brother, Mahazullah, says the same. "He was always a peaceful person, quiet and calm, he just wanted to protect people in Afghanistan whom he believed were the victims of terrorism.'' But everyone agrees how Saifullah died. He was killed on 22 October when five US cruise missiles detonated against the walls of a building in the Darulaman suburb of Kabul, where Saifullah and 35 other men were meeting. His family now call him the shahid, the martyr. Hedayatullah embraces each visitor to the family home of cement and mud walls, offers roast chicken and mitha, sweets and pots of milk and tea, and insists he be "congratulated" on being the proud father of a man who died for his beliefs. Hens cluck in the yard outside and an old, coloured poster, depicting a Kalashnikov rifle with the wordjihad (holy struggle) above it, is pasted to the wall. But "peace" is the word the family utter most. Saifullah had only gone to take money to Kabul to help the suffering Afghans, says Mahazullah, perhaps no more than 20,000 rupees - a mere $3.50 - which he had raised among his student friends. That's not the way the Americans tell it, of course. Blundering through their target maps and killing innocent civilians by the day, the Pentagon boasted that the Darulaman killings targeted the Taliban's "foreign fighters", of whom a few were Pakistanis, Saifullah among them. In Pashto, his Arabic name means "Sword of God". Mahazullah dismisses the American claims. Only when I suggest that it might not be strange for a young Muslim with Saifullah's views to have taken a weapon to defend Afghanistan does Mahazullah say, briefly, that his brother "may have been a fighter''. Saifullah's best friend, a smiling, beardless young man with bright blue eyes, says he telephoned the doomed man on 16 October, two days before he left for Afghanistan, six days before his death. "I asked him if he was going to Afghanistan and he said he was - but just to take money to the Afghans. He said: 'If God wills it, I will be back after 10 days.' I told him it would be very dangerous. I pleaded with him not to go, but he said he just wanted to take the money. He said to me: 'I know my life will be in danger but I'm not going to fight. What can I do? The Americans are out of range.' He said he just wanted to give moral support.'' Mahazullah never imagined his brother's death. "We never expected his martyrdom. I never thought he would die,'' he says. A phone call prepared the family for the news, a friend with information that some Pakistanis had been killed in Kabul. "It has left a terrible vacuum in our family life,'' Mahazullah says. "You cannot imagine what it is like without him. He was a person who respected life, who was a reformer. There was no justification for the war in Afghanistan. These people are poor. There is no evidence, no proof. Every human being has the right to the basic necessities of life. "The family - all of us, including Saifullah - were appalled by the carnage in New York and Washington on 11 September. Saifullah was very regretful about this - we all watched it on television.'' At no point does the family mention the name of Osama bin Laden. Turangzai is a village of resistance. During the Third Afghan War in 1919, the British hunted down Hadji Turangzai, one of the principal leaders of the revolt, and burnt the village bazaar in revenge for its insurgency. Disconcertingly, a young man enters Saifullah's family home, greets me with a large smile and announces that he is the grandson of the Hadji, scourge of the English. But this is no centre of Muslim extremism. Though the family pray five times a day, they intend their daughters to be educated at university. Saifullah spent hours on his personal computer and apparently loved the poetry of the secular Pakistani national poet Allam Mohamed Iqbal of Surqhot - Sir Mohamed Iqbal after he had accepted a British knighthood - and, according to Mahazullah, was interested in the world's religions. "He would talk a lot about the Northern Ireland problem and about Protestants and Catholics,'' he says. "He believed that Islam was the religion which most promotes peace in the world. He used to say that the Prophet, peace be upon him, tells us that we can't even attack a person who is engaged in war with us if he has his gun over his shoulder. "You can only fight a person who is attacking you. He thought that every civilian should help the Afghans because they are being attacked. But we are not extremists or terrorists as the media say.'' Saifullah, at 26 the oldest of three brothers and two sisters, was unmarried. "Our father told him: 'We are going to marry you,' '' Mahazullah says. "But my brother said he would only marry after his studies. His father was trying to see which girls might be suitable. It is our duty to follow our parents' wishes because they have an experience we don't have.'' But Saifullah left for Afghanistan. "Trust me,'' were the last words he said to his father. Perhaps he was remembering one of Iqbal's most famous verses: "Of God's command, the inner meaning do you know? To live in constant danger is a life indeed.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011031/37c3a055/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Wed Oct 31 11:17:53 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:53 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Call for Residencies Message-ID: The Edith Russ Site for Media Art will award three 6 month work stipends for the year 2002. International artists who work with New Media may apply. Each stipend is endowed with DM 20,000 (10,225.84). There are no residency requirements. The stipends have been made possible through a grant by the Niedersachsen Foundation. An international jury will choose the awards in March 2002. Application and project description DEADLINE (post date): 15.2.2002 Edith Russ Site for Media Art Katharinenstr. 23 26121 Oldenburg Germany T. +49 (0) 441 235 3208 F. +49 (0) 441 235 2161 www.edith-russ-haus.de info at edith-russ-haus.de -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From ravis at sarai.net Wed Oct 31 11:06:44 2001 From: ravis at sarai.net (Ravi Sundaram) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:06:44 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] tariq ali in counterpunch Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20011031110533.00ae78c8@pop3.norton.antivirus> Germany's Green Police State Busted in Munich By Tariq Ali At 7am, on 29 October I was arrested at the Munich airport. After a day of interviews and book-signings and another two spent at a Goethe Institute seminar (on 'Islam and the Crisis'), I was exhausted and desperate for a cup of coffee. I checked in. Soon my hand-luggage was wending its way through the security machine. No metal objects were detected, but they insisted on dumping its contents on a table. Newspapers, dirty underpants, shirts, magazines and books tumbled out in full view. Since news always reaches Germany a day after it has appeared in the US press, I thought the locals might be unaware of FBI and CIA briefings to the effect that Bin Laden or Iraqi complicity in the anthrax scare was extremely unlikely and were on the look-out for envelopes containing powder. There were no envelopes of any sort in my bag. The machine-minder brushed aside the copies of the Sud-Deutsche Zeitung (SDZ), the International Herald Tribune and Le Monde Diplomatique. He appeared to be very interested in the Times Literary Supplement and was inspecting my scribbled notes on the margin of a particular book review. I suggested that if he wanted my views on the present crisis he could read them in German in the SDZ which had published an article of mine. I pointed it out to him. He grasped the text eagerly and then, in a state of some excitement, rushed it over to the armed policeman. Then his eyes fell on a slim volume in German which had been handed to me by a local publisher. Since I'd had no time to flip through the volume, it was still wrapped in cellophane. The offending book was an essay by Karl Marx, 'On Suicide'. It was the reference to suicide that had gotten the policemen really excited. They barely registered the author, though when they did real panic set in and there were agitated exchanges. I was slightly bemused by the spectacle, waiting for them to finish so I could read the morning papers. This was not to be. The way they began to watch me was an indication of their state of mind. They really thought they had got someone. My passport and boarding card were taken from me, I was rudely instructed to re-pack my bag, minus the crucial 'evidence' (SDZ, the TLS and the offending text by Marx), after which I was escorted out of the departure area and taken to the police HQ at the airport. On the way there the arresting officer gave me a triumphant smile. 'After September 11, you can't travel with books like this', he said. 'In that case', I replied, 'perhaps you should stop publishing them in Germany or better still burn them in public view.' Inside the HQ another officer informed me that it was unlikely I'd be boarding the BA flight and they would make inquiries about later departures. At this point my patience evaporated and I demanded to use a phone. 'Who do you want to ring?' 'The Mayor of Munich', I replied. 'His name is Christian Ude. He interviewed me about my books and the present crisis on Friday evening at the Hugundubel bookshop. I wish to inform him of what is taking place.' The police officer disappeared. A few minutes later another officer (this one sported a beard) appeared and beckoned me to follow him. He escorted me to the flight which had virtually finished boarding. We did not exchange words. On the plane a German fellow-passenger came and expressed his dismay at the police behaviour. He told me how the policeman who had detained me had returned to boast to other passengers of how his vigilance had led to my arrest. It was a trivial enough episode, but indicative of the mood of the Social Democrat-Green alliance that rules Germany today. It is almost as if many of those who currently in power are trying desperately to exorcise their own pasts. While Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in Pakistan insisting that there could be no pause in the bombing and that the war of attrition would continue, his Minister for Interior, Otto Schilly, was busy masterminding the new security laws, which threaten traditional civil liberties. Schilly, once a radical lawyer and a friend of the generation of 1968, first acquired public notoriety when he became the defense lawyer for the Red Army Faction, an urban terrorist network active in the Seventies. It was said at the time that he also supported their activities. In 1980 Schilly joined the Greens and was their key spokesman in the fight against the stationing of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Germany. In 1989 he moved further by joining the Social Democrats. Today he is busy justifying extra powers to the police and infusing a sense of 'realism' in his Green coalition partners. One of the "realist" proposals being discussed is granting jurisdiction to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the German equivalent of the FBI) so that it has the right to spy on individuals it suspects of working against the 'causes of international understanding or the peaceful coexistence of nations.' And since in the debased coinage of the present 'peaceful coexistence of nations' includes waging war against some of them, I suppose that my experience was a tiny dress-rehearsal for what is yet to come. From monica at sarai.net Wed Oct 31 14:35:17 2001 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:35:17 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Harun Farocki Exhibition Message-ID: I hope that there are some people on the list who live in the proximity of this exhibition. Personally i think that Farocki is an exceptionally intelligent filmmaker, and it would be great if any one who sees the exhibition can write about it on the reader list. If anyone else is reading Imprint, we could also begin a conversation on it... best M haus.0 Künstlerhaus Stuttgart, Reuchlinstr.4b, D -70178 Stuttgart +49 /711 T 6157470 F 6157472 Exhibition: 4. 11. 01 - 14. 12. 01 Opening: Saturday, 3. November 2001, 7 PM Exhibition, Film screening, Artist Discussion NICHT LÖSCHBARES FEUER Harun Farocki - Films, Videos and Installation from 1968 - 2001 SPUREN DER INSZENIERUNG Harun Farocki, Olaf Metzel, Wendelien van Oldenborgh curated by Constanze Ruhm Saturday, 3. November 2001, 8 PM Filmpresentation: NICHT löschbares Feuer (1968/9) d. Harun Farocki (D), 25 Min., 16mm What Farocki Taught (1998), d. Jill Godmilow (USA) 30 Min., 16mm/videoversion Followed by: Harun Farocki in discussion with Constanze Ruhm The project NICHT löschbares Feuer focuses on four decades of work from film director Harun Farocki through an artist’s space perspective, in this period of time where a convergence of Farocki materials appear in neighboring regional institutions (ZKM Karlsruhe in the group exhibition CTRL -[SPACE], Frankfurter Kunstverein), and the release of a newly published book on his work "Imprint/Nachdruck" (Lukas&Sternberg NY, 2001). NICHT löschbares Feuer introduces an overview of Harun Farockis film and video works as well as his work as author and filmcritic (editor and writer of Filmkritik journal, Film and TAZ Berlin), including his well know installation work Ich glaubte Gefangene zu sehen along with a first presentation of a new installation with the title Die Maschinen tun ihre Arbeit nicht länger blind which is based on materials Farocki is currently investigating. The exhibition centers specifically on Farocki's methodology and practice on the scale of a highly individual artistic approach and convention, that of first and foremost a filmmaker, a documentarist and writer engaged in politics of representation. His strategy connects an ongoing investigation of notions of representation with a search for new principles of montage, for tools that render visible the changing structures of a society. A new technique of framing is employed that allows for comparison, analysis and modification of the political and cultural space of ideas within which representational modes are formulated. These montage principles are applied within various media formats as a form of consistent exploration of the etymology of images, as well as through a technique of re-inscription and re-contextualization within always-new constellations. Farocki relates that to a critique of hegemonical, official forms of representation ranging from subjects like the Vietnam war to Self Managment, Advertisement and sales strategies. Through doubting the truth of that what we see, he reveals the mechanics hidden beneath the surface of images and opens them up to critical rereading and re-interpretation. The project opens with a screening of two films followed by a discussion with the artist. The focus is on production, with Farocki’s film on Vietnam and US manufacture of Napalm, NICHT löschbares Feuer (1968/69), and US filmmaker Jill Godmilow’s 1998 shot-for-shot replica What Farocki Taught. Together, these represent a dialogue between decades where the causality chain of action and reaction within the sensitive field of cultural readings and re-readings becomes visible. As Godmilow writes for this haus.0 presentation: What Farocki Taught is a replica -- not a remake, not an homage, not an updating -- but a shot-for-shot replica of Harun Farocki's 1969 film Inextinguishable Fire. It was intended as a repetition of the original. Gertrude Stein once said, 'Let me repeat what history teaches: History teaches.' Fire seemed worth repeating." Farockis role as rigorous theorizer of a contemporary syntax of filmmaking will be emphasized in a spatial framework, at three exhibition areas. The installation Ich glaubte Gefangene zu sehen is joined by a new work presented for the first time: Die Maschinen tun ihre Arbeit nicht länger blind, which was developed by HarunFarocki specifically along the outline of the project. The work joins to the artist space at the level of a methodology, a representational interplay and breakdown of his recent investigations that link with his new work on intelligent machines, intelligent weapons and how these advertise one another. Seen together, the shift from a society of discipline towards a society of control is a constituent factor within Farockis work and thus emphasized a line of thought along which the works and installations are developed. SPUREN DER INSZENIERUNG (TRACES OF A STAGING) ... looking for traces of a staging in social reality... Harun Farocki, Olaf Metzel, Wendelien van Oldenborgh The exhibition introduces three specific moments extracted from a sense of contemporary public spaces, and sets these in relation to various possible forms of occupation, inhabitation and demarcation : The Prison: Harun Farocki Ich glaubte Gefangene zu sehen (2000) Die Maschinen tun ihre Arbeit nicht länger blind (2001) The Museum: Olaf Metzel Stammheim Dokumente (1984/2001) The Stadium: Wendelien van Oldenborgh It´s full of holes, it´s full of holes (1999/2001) The spaces' borders and margins are usually defined by contemporary surveillance systems recording fragmentary gestures, unpredictable movements of bodies, evocations of past and future potential transgressions that transform into materials for artistic investigation. Each work contains aspects of performance, deals with issues of observation and surveillance, as well as with the notion of the system of architecture as embodiment of institutional strategies of constraint, thus defining and limiting the subject's potential sphere of influence. An interruption within the system's economy occurs in a moment of exchange constituting a punctuation mark in space, in which a subversive potential is finally released. -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From soenke.zehle at web.de Wed Oct 31 14:38:53 2001 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:08:53 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] Report on Eco/Labor Implications of IT in Asia Message-ID: Dear all, I'm putting a short piece together called "Just Say No to E-Waste: How Electronics Production Aggravates Global Water Struggles." If you come across relevant nmaterial within the next few days, please send it to me off the list. Thanx. S/Z A Study of the Performance of the Indian IT Sector Prepared for the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development California Global Corporate Accountability Project by Radha Gopalan, Environmental Management Centre Full Report at http://www.nautilus.org/cap/reports/index.html (other reports about Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand) Executive Summary The Electronics industry has emerged as the fastest growing segment of the Indian industry both in terms of production and exports. This growth has had significant economic and social impacts. Today the local and global impact of the electronics industry has been due to its modern incarnation viz., the Information Technology (IT) Industry. By definition the IT industry includes the hardware "backbone" from the electronics industry and software. The present study looks at the IT industry focussing on the environmental, health and labor issues associated with its rapid growth. Emerging from the study is this report which, has been developed based on interviews with industry, industry associations, government officials, academicians and civil society. The report also draws from a field visit to Bangalore ­ the Silicon City ­ and review of literature and studies carried out by other researchers in this sector. The Indian IT industry has a prominent global presence today largely due to the software sector. Promotion of the software industry and protection of the hardware industry from external competition has resulted in this skewed growth. More recently however, policy changes have led to a tremendous influx of leading multinational companies into India to set up manufacturing facilities, R&D Centres and offshore software development facilities. The domestic market for both software and hardware is getting revitalized. All these developments have had a significant impact not only on the economy but also the environmental and social milieu. A number of new policy initiatives are on the anvil to enhance and sustain the growth of the IT industry ­ this time the focus being both on hardware and software. Given these developments, some questions that emerge are: What has been the environmental and social impact of this industry and how has it been managed? What are the likely impacts due to the envisaged growth? How can accountability and responsibility of this rapidly growing industry be ensured? The report tries to answer these questions through a situation analysis of the IT industry in terms of its structure and evolution, the existing and emerging environmental and social issues and the associated regulatory framework. Drawing from the findings of the situation analysis, a set of recommendations are provided on how policy and governance measures can ensure accountability and environmental and social responsibility of the IT industry. The report is composed of five chapters with the opening chapter presenting a preamble that positions the electronics industry and the IT industry. This puts the focus of the study in perspective. The structure and evolution of the IT industry presented in Chapter 2.0 indicates that policy has played a very crucial role in shaping the industry. Protectionist policies for the hardware industry and support for establishment of a strong technical and scientific educational system led to software dominated IT industry. This also led to extensive export of the skilled labor force to service the international market and the presence of a grey market in hardware. The hardware industry meanwhile was relegated to the background. Trends changed with liberalization of the Indian economy. Markets opened and policies supporting foreign investments led to an influx of multinational companies (MNCs)­ hardware and software. More recently, the software industry has begun slowly moving up the value chain from programming to systems analysis and design. More offshore work is being carried out in India. R&D Centres and manufacturing (albeit only assembling of components) facilities are being set up in India by MNCs. New policies and plans with fiscal incentives, modifications in export-import policies, support for infrastructure are now promoting foreign investment and focussing on providing impetus to software and hardware sectors of the IT industry ­ both domestic and export. This is also creating changes in the grey market. Infrastructure and finance however appear to be the main deterrents to growth. Given how the industry has evolved and the likely trend for future growth, Chapter 3 identifies the significant environmental and labor issues. While manufacturing in the Indian IT industry is primarily assembling, some component manufacture does take place for non-IT applications. Software development dominates the domestic IT industry with increasing off shore work being carried out in India and the emergence of IT enabled services. As a result of these developments the main environmental and social issues facing the existing and emerging IT industry are: (I) solid and hazardous waste management both during manufacturing and at the end of the IT products¹ useful life; (II) phasing out ozone depleting substances from the electronics sector; (III) implications of the increasing energy demands given the power scarcity in the country and (IV) congestion and pressure on local infrastructure such as land, roads, housing, water and power. The magnitude of some of these issues like hazardous and solid waste management in manufacturing are not as high as they would be in countries where there are fabrication facilities but in India solid and hazardous waste management at the end-of-life stage could very soon become a significant issue. The labor issues facing the industry are: (I) challenges of retaining the intellectual property in the country; (II) prevailing and changing working conditions, health and safety at the work place, wages and (III) the role of collective bargaining in the Indian IT industry. The Indian IT industry is unique in that there is almost no unionization. Industry¹s response is distinctly differentiated by whether they are MNCs or domestic players. Corporate codes of conduct are largely adopted by the MNCs for environmental management while for the domestic players environmental issues are not a priority at present. To understand how significant the environmental, social and labor issues really are, the legal framework that regulates management of these issues is discussed in Chapter 4.0. While comprehensive environmental laws exist, enforcement is an issue. Moreover, till very recently the electronics industry has been considered non-polluting. As a result regulatory controls have been low. Emerging regulatory framework does address some of the issues but also aims to simplify the laws for the IT industry. The elaborate labor laws are undergoing reforms. For the IT industry however a number of labor laws are being simplified to promote investments in this sector and to enable the Indian IT industry to face competition from the more relaxed labor markets of South East Asia. Given this scenario, policy and governance related recommendations have been developed to enhance accountability and environmental and social responsibility of the industry. The report suggests that policies be developed to: (I) strengthen enforcement through monitoring, measurement and reporting thereby improving accountability; (II) ensure uniform zoning country-wide of hardware and software facilities placing the onus of operating and maintaining these zones on industry and industry associations; (III) provide incentives for resource efficiency in the IT industry; (IV) promote proactive and preventive approaches to environmental management as well as product stewardship and asset recovery; (V) ensure a balance between flexibility and worker rights while carrying out labor reform; (VI) promote studies and R&D to provide technology support to the industry; (VII) create awareness and strengthen civil society to increase industry accountability and (VIII) increase stakeholder engagement. From joy at sarai.net Wed Oct 31 17:10:36 2001 From: joy at sarai.net (Joy Chatterjee) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:10:36 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] War, China & WTO Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031164709.00a4d7d0@mail.sarai.net> I received this mail regarding the China's share of so-called imperialism ( if there is anything called imperialism any way). I think rather than pin pointing US for so called imperialism and other biased allegations we should look at our own sleeves honestly whether they are free of blood stains or not. Why don't we take account from Nepalese for their version of Indian imperialism? Is there anyone to speak about it? So I refuse to go to any rally (most of the rallies happening in Delhi) which talks only about "US WAR" rather than any war per say. I find that rally to be motivated by political ambition instead of true concern for mankind. Actually no rally or condolence meet happened in Delhi after 11th of September !! No humanist is standing up and protesting against killing of Christians in Pakistan. No rally happened against killing of minorities in Bangladesh after election. And also against the riot happening in Maharashtra. As some one says "War is also terrorism" similarly terrorism is also war. And I think both are nothing but VIOLENCE which needs to be addressed at equal level with out any political discrimination. Joy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alochoks: The recent issue of Business Week has a fascinating story on China and the effects of its not too distant entry into the World Trade Organization. After I read the article I realised that China's entry into the WTO has serious implications for Bangladesh and most of South East Asia, from an economic stand point. I provide to you some insightful quotes from the article: "Li [a Hong Kong Trading company's managing director]already has a plan for China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization, the global body that enforces free-trade rules. One of the trade barrriers that Li expects to fall is US and European import quotas on clothes made in China for children up to 2 years old. Most of the apparel LI & Fung trades in that category is now produced in Egypt, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Honduras, and Guatemala. Fung plans to shut operations in all those countries and move baby-clothes production to southern China.... Shipment time from China to California is 14 days, vs. 30 days from Sri Lanka." "Its [China's] advantages are formidable: abundant cheap labor, millions of talented engineers, good infrastructure." "In Taiwan and Malaysia, two of the high-tech export hot spots of the 1990s, new investment in semiconductor, disk drive, and computer plants is drying up as companies such as Intel, Motorola, and Dell Computer move production to China. Matshushita, Sony, and Samsung are preparing a wholesale transfer of production facilities to the mainland." "Even in India, which has some of the planet's lowest wages, low-tech industries cant compete with the Chinese in productivity. Shops in Bombay and Calcutta are flooded with Chinese goods. The Indian government is so worried about China that it has refused to allow Chinese software companies to locate in the high-tech center of Bangalore and scotched plans by software powerhouse Infosys Technologies to train 200 Chinese employees in India." As you can see, China is not only goign to attract investments in the garments industry, but they are also going to attract investment in the high tech fields. China will likely enter the WTO by early 2002. It will be interesting to see how they cope with the challenges and oppurtunities of entering the WTO. I think the most effective way to deal with such an economic powerhouse is to form and strengthen trade pacts, such as ASEAN, and SARC. India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka; all have much to lose to the growing competition from China. I can see how we will need to co-operate with our neighbors more than compete in order to even keep our existing industries. - Rumon Little Rock, AR From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 31 18:22:10 2001 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:52:10 +0100 Subject: [Reader-list] [fred@bytesforall.org: LINK: The Development Laboratory Pavilion at BangaloreIT.com] Message-ID: <20011031135210.C15387@xs4all.nl> ----- Forwarded message from Frederick Noronha ----- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:39:15 +0530 (IST) X-Sender: fred at localhost.localdomain To: bytesforall at goacom.com Subject: LINK: The Development Laboratory Pavilion at BangaloreIT.com The Development Laboratory is pleased to announce that the Honorable Minister for Information Technology, Dr. B. K. Chandrashekar will be inaugurating The Development Laboratory Pavilion at BangaloreIT.com. The Ribbon Cutting ceremony will take place at 11.30 am on November 1st, 2001, inside Exhibition Hall 'B.' The Development Laboratory is a common platform created by Madhyam, Voices, Mahiti.Org, and the Center for Knowledge Societies - Bangalore. Together they aim to create, test and develop new applications and services that benefit non-elite communities in both urban and rural environments across South Asia. In addition to showcasing work done by the four organizations, the pavilion also represents other non-profit and commercial initiatives. Represented NGOs include the Azim Premji Foundation, the Kannada Ganaka Parishath, and ASCENT. Commercial enterprises include N-Logue Communications based in Chennai, Mithi.Com from Pune, and Bangalore's own Spinfosoft.com. VXL is providing a server and thin clients for use on site. Interns from the Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media and Mount Carmel College are also participating at the venue. The pavilion is reminiscent of a folk setting, including gunny, thatch, and other natural fibers with folk art in contrasting earthen tones. It has been designed by Mr. Suresh, director of Srujana, an NGO working with artists and artisanal communities. Regional language software products created by many of the above groups will be demonstrated using 7 computer terminals and two LCD projectors. After the Inauguration, the four founding fellows of The Development Laboratory, Munira Sen (Madhyam), Ashish Sen (Voices), Sunil Abraham (Mahiti.Org) and Aditya Dev Sood (CKS-B) will release a joint statement on the use of Information Technology for Rural Development. We would be honored if a representative from your organization could join us for the inauguration ceremony and participate in the proceedings. As this pavilion was specially created for the Development Laboratory by the organizers of the BangaloreIT.com, it does not have a number. However, it is located opposite the Bosch stall in Exhibition Hall 'B.' Aditya Dev Sood Ashish Sen Center for Knowledge Societies - Bangalore Voices +91.98440.87663 +91.80.521.3902 Sunil Abraham Munira Sen Mahiti.Org Madhyam +91.80.535.2003 +91.80.228.1983 ----- End forwarded message ----- From shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 31 08:48:52 2001 From: shohini at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (Shohini) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:48:52 +0530 Subject: [Reader-list] Majority want bombing pause Message-ID: <000401c1620a$76b430c0$3377c8cb@shohini> Majority want bombing pause Exclusive poll shows support for war cooling - 54% say halt attacks and allow aid convoys into Afghanistan Alan Travis Tuesday October 30, 2001 The Guardian British public support for the war against the Taliban has dropped by 12 points in the past fortnight and a majority now believe there should be a pause in the bombing to allow aid convoys into Afghanistan. The sharp drop in support revealed by today's Guardian/ICM poll confirms Tony Blair's fears that the reality of modern warfare and reports of mounting civilian casualties have already led to a wobble in British support. It provides clear evidence that there has been a significant change in the mood of the country towards the war and explains why ministers have spent the last weekend trying to shore up public opinion and why the prime minister is to appeal to the nation to "keep its nerve" in a major speech today. Although the prime minister will take comfort from the fact that nearly two-thirds say they approve of military action, the prime minister will be alarmed by details of the survey, which show that support among women has slumped by 17 points from 68% to 51%. Only a bare majority of women now approve of military action against the Taliban. It is a similar picture among older voters, with support among the over 65s dropping from 71% to just 54% in the past fortnight. The slide in support for military action is least marked amongst men, where backing for the war has fallen by only six points from 80% to 74%, and among the young, down from 73% to 64%. But it should be noted that while positive support for the war has cooled somewhat, this has not necessarily translated into anti-war feeling. Those opposed to military action have risen by only four points in the last fortnight from 16% to 20%. The largest growth has been among humanitarian sceptics, with don't knows rising by eight points to 18%. This is shown most clearly by the clear majority who agree with the statement that there should be a pause in the bombing campaign against the Taliban to allow aid convoys to go into Afghanistan. A majority of 54% believe this should happen, with 29% saying that the bombing campaign should continue without pause. When viewed against the 62% support for military action, this suggests that the clear motive behind those who back the calls for a pause in the bombing is humanitarian rather than outright anti-war reasons. Among women there is overwhelming support for a pause (59% to 19%) but opinion among men is closer, with 49% in favour of a pause and 40% opposed. Further evidence that it is a humanitarian inspired wobble in public opinion rather than outright opposition to the war is shown by the results to the question on attitudes towards sending British troops into Afghanistan to take part in the fighting on the ground. Some 57% backed the decision announced on Friday for a small force of British commandos to be sent to Afghanistan. Some 29% disapproved of this decision, showing that there is only a small gap in British public opinion between attitudes to the bombing campaign and to use of British troops on the grounds. A final question about public confidence in the government's ability to deal with a major outbreak of anthrax, smallpox or other public health threat, produced mixed results. A substantial minority, 44%, replied they were either not very confident (29%) or not at all confident (15%) that the government could cope. A bare majority, 51%, said they were either very confident (12%) or fairly confident (39%) that the authorities could deal with it effectively. · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults aged over 18 by telephone between October 26 and 28. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20011031/3a3bfb59/attachment.html From geeta.patel at verizon.net Wed Oct 31 21:37:17 2001 From: geeta.patel at verizon.net (Geeta Patel) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:07:17 -0500 Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: Red Cross bldg intentionally bombed Message-ID: <00b301c16226$1ee22160$6401a8c0@inteva> FYI > > It's amazing how hard you have to work to follow news > > of the US bombing campaign. Stories appear and then > > disappear before you know it. > > > > Check this out in the middle of this long messy > > article on MSNBC's website at: > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp > > > > "Meanwhile, new information came forward on why Red > > Cross warehouses were bombed repeatedly last week. > > NBC's Miklaszewski said a senior U.S. military > > official now says they were bombed on purpose because > > the food was being stolen by Taliban troops." > > > > Now why isn't that a headline somewhere??? > > > > --Pippa Holloway > > Middle Tennessee State University > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > From abirbazaz at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 31 22:14:09 2001 From: abirbazaz at rediffmail.com (abir bazaz) Date: 31 Oct 2001 16:44:09 -0000 Subject: [Reader-list] Slavoj Zizek on Lenin and freedom Message-ID: <20011031164409.30584.qmail@mailweb9.rediffmail.com> CAN LENIN TELL US ABOUT FREEDOM TODAY? Slavoj Zizek Today, even the self-proclaimed post-Marxist radicals endorse the gap between ethics and politics, relegating politics to the domain of doxa, of pragmatic considerations and compromises which always and by definition fall short of the unconditional ethical demand. The notion of a politics which would not have been a series of mere pragmatic interventions, but the politics of Truth, is dismissed as "totalitarian." The breaking out of this deadlock, the reassertion of a politics of Truth today, should take the form of a return to Lenin. Why Lenin, why not simply Marx? Is the proper return not the return to origins proper? Today, "returning to Marx" is already a minor academic fashion. Which Marx do we get in these returns? On the one hand, the Cultural Studies Marx, the Marx of the postmodern sophists, of the Messianic promise; on the other hand, the Marx who foretold the dynamic of today's globalization and is as such evoked even on Wall Street. What these both Marxes have in common is the denial of politics proper; the reference to Lenin enables us to avoid these two pitfalls. There are two features which distinguish his intervention. First, one cannot emphasize enough the fact of Lenin's externality with regard to Marx: he was not a member of Marx's "inner circle" of the initiated, he never met either Marx or Engels; moreover, he came from a land at the Eastern borders of "European civilization." (This externality is part of the standard Western racist argument against Lenin: he introduced into Marxism the Russian-Asiatic "despotic principle"; in one remove further, Russians themselves disown him, pointing towards his Tatar origins.) It is only possible to retrieve the theory's original impulse from this external position, in exactly the same way St Paul, who formulated the basic tenets of Christianity, was not part of Christ's inner circle, and Lacan accomplished his "return to Freud" using as a leverage a totally distinct theoretical tradition. this necessity, which is why he put his trust in Jung as a non-Jew, an outsider - to break out of the Jewish initiatic community. His choice was bad, because Jungian theory functioned in itself as initiatic Wisdom; it was Lacan who succeeded where Jung failed.) So, in the same way St Paul and Lacan reinscribe the original teaching into a different context (St Paul reinterprets Christ's crucifixion as his triumph; Lacan reads Freud through the mirror-stage Saussure), Lenin violently displaces Marx, tears his theory out of its original context, planting it in another historical moment, and thus effectively universalizes it. Second, it is only through such a violent displacement that the "original" theory can be put to work, fulfilling its potential of political intervention. It is significant that the work in which Lenin's unique voice was for the first time clearly heard is What Is To Be Done? - the text which exhibits Lenin's unconditional will to intervene into the situation, not in the pragmatic sense of "adjusting the theory to the realistic claims through necessary compromises," but, on the contrary, in the sense of dispelling all opportunistic compromises, of adopting the unequivocal radical position from which it is only possible to intervene in such a way that our intervention changes the coordinates of the situation. The contrast is here clear with regard to today's Third Way "postpolitics," which emphasizes the need to leave behind old ideological divisions and to confront new issues, armed with the necessary expert knowledge and free deliberation that takes into account concrete people's needs and demands. As such, Lenin's politics is the true counterpoint not only to the Third Way pragmatic opportunism, but also to the marginalist Leftist attitude of what Lacan called le narcissisme de la chose perdue. What a true Leninist and a political conservative have in common is the fact that they reject what one could call liberal Leftist "irresponsibility" (advocating grand projects of solidarity, free has to pay the price for it in the guise of concrete and often "cruel" political measures): like an authentic conservative, a true Leninist is now afraid to pass to the act, to assume all the consequences, unpleasant as they may be, of realizing his political project. Rudyard Kipling (whom Brecht admired) despised British liberals who advocated freedom and justice, while silently counting on the Conservatives to do the necessary dirty work for them; the same can be said for the liberal Leftist's (or "democratic Socialist's") relationship towards Leninist Communists: liberal Leftists reject the Social Democratic "compromise," they want a true revolution, yet they shirk the actual price to be paid for it and thus prefer to adopt the attitude of a Beautiful Soul and to keep their hands clean. In contrast to this false radical Leftist's position (who want true democracy for the people, but without the secret police to fight counterrevolution, without their academic privileges being threatened), a Leninist, like a Conservative, is authentic in the sense of fully assuming the consequences of his choice, i.e. of being fully aware of what it actually means to take power and to exert it. The return to Lenin is the endeavor to retrieve the unique moment when a thought already transposes itself into a collective organization, but does not yet fix itself into an Institution (the established Church, the IPA, the Stalinist Party-State). It aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the "good old revolutionary times," nor at the opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the old program to "new conditions," but at repeating, in the present world-wide conditions, the Leninist gesture of initiating a political project that would undermine the totality of the global liberal-capitalist world order, and, furthermore, a project that would unabashedly assert itself as acting on behalf of truth, as intervening in the present global situation from the standpoint of its repressed truth. What Christianity did with regard to the Roman Empire, should do with regard to today's Empire.1 How, then, do things stand with freedom? In a polemic against the Menshevik's critics of the Bolshevik power in 1920, Lenin answered the claim of one of the critics - "So, gentlemen Bolsheviks, since, before the Revolution and your seizure of power, you pleaded for democracy and freedom, be so kind as to permit us now to publish a critique of your measures!" - with the acerbic: "Of course, gentlemen, you have all the freedom to publish this critique - but, then, gentlemen, be so kind as to allow us to line you up the wall and shoot you!" This Leninist freedom of choice - not "Life or money!" but "Life or critique!" -, combined with Lenin's dismissive attitude towards the "liberal" notion of freedom, accounts for his bad reputation among liberals. Their case largely rests upon their rejection of the standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual" freedom: as even Leftist liberals like Claude Lefort emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion "formal," so that "actual freedom" equals the lack of freedom. 2 That is to say, with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort "Freedom - yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?" - for him, in the above-quoted case of the Mensheviks, their "freedom" to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to "freedom" to undermine the workers' and peasants' government on behalf of the counterrevolution... Is today, after the terrifying experience of the Really Existing Socialism, not more than obvious in what the fault of this reasoning resides? First, it reduces a historical constellation to a closed, fully contextualized, situation in which the "objective" consequences of one's acts are fully determined ("independently of your intentions, what you are doing now objectively serves..."); secondly, the position of enunciation of such statements usurp the right to decide what yours acts "objectively mean," so that their apparent "objectivism" (the focus on "objective meaning") is the form of m: I decide what your acts objectively mean, since I define the context of a situation (say, if I conceive of my power as the immediate equivalent/expression of the power of the working class, than everyone who opposes me is "objectively" an enemy of the working class). Against this full contextualization, one should emphasize that freedom is "actual" precisely and only as the capacity to "transcend" the coordinates of a given situation, to "posit the presuppositions" of one's activity (as Hegel would have put it), i.e. to redefine the very situation within which one is active. Furthermore, as many a critic pointed out, the very term "Really Existing Socialism," although it was coined in order to assert Socialism's success, is in itself a proof of Socialism's utter failure, i.e. of the failure of the attempt to legitimize Socialist regimes - the term "Really Existing Socialism" popped up at the historical moment when the only legitimizing reason for Socialism was a mere fact that it exists... Is this, however, the whole story? How does freedom effectively function in liberal democracies themselves? Although Clinton's presidency epitomizes the Third Way of the today's (ex-)Left succumbing to the Rightist ideological blackmail, his healthcare reform program would nonetheless amount to a kind of act, at least in today's conditions, since it would have been based on the rejection of the hegemonic notions of the need to curtail Big State expenditure and administration - in a way, it would "do the impossible." No wonder, than, that it failed: its failure - perhaps the only significant, although negative, event of Clinton's presidency - bears witness to the material force of the ideological notion of "free choice." That is to say, although the large majority of the so-called "ordinary people" were not properly acquainted with the reform program, the medical lobby (twice as strong as the infamous defense lobby!) succeeded in imposing on the public the fundamental idea that, with the universal healthcare, the free cho somehow threatened - against this purely fictional reference to "free choice", all enumeration of "hard facts" (in Canada, healthcare is less expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffective. We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal ideology: the freedom of choice, grounded in the notion of the "psychological" subject endowed which propensities s/he strives to realize. And this especially holds today, in the era of what sociologists like Ulrich Beck call "risk society," 3 when the ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the very insecurity caused by the dismantling of the Welfare State as the opportunity for new freedoms: you have to change job every year, relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment? Why not see it as the liberation from the constraints of a fixed job, as the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality? You can no longer rely on the standard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it as an additional opportunity to choose: either better life now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you anxiety, the postmodern or "second modernity" ideologist will immediately accuse you of being unable to assume full freedom, of the "escape from freedom," of the immature sticking to old stable forms... Even better, when this is inscribed into the ideology of the subject as the psychological individual pregnant with natural abilities and tendencies, then I as if were automatically interpret all these changes as the results of my personality, not as the result of me being thrown around by the market forces. Phenomena like these make it all the more necessary today to REASSERT the opposition of "formal" and "actual" freedom in a new, more precise, sense. What we need today, in the era of the liberal hegemony, is a "Leninist" traite de la servitude liberale, a new ve ervitude volontaire that would fully justify the apparent oxymoron "liberal totalitarianism." In experimental psychology, Jean-Leon Beauvois did the first step in this direction, with his precise exploration of the paradoxes of conferring on the subject the freedom to choose. 4 Repeated experiments established the following paradox: if, AFTER getting from two groups of volunteers the agreement to participate in an experiment, one informs them that the experiment will involve something unpleasant, against their ethics even, and if, at this point, one reminds the first group that they have the free choice to say no, and one says to the other group nothing, in BOTH groups, the SAME (very high) percentage will agree to continue their participation in the experiment. What this means is that conferring the formal freedom of choice does not make any difference: those given the freedom will do the same thing as those (implicitly) denied it. This, however, does not mean that the reminder/bestowal of the freedom of choice does not make any difference: those given the freedom to choice will not only tend to choose the same as those denied it; on the top of it, they will tend to "rationalize" their "free" decision to continue to participate in the experiment - unable to endure the so-called cognitive dissonance (their awareness that they FREELY acted against their interests, propensities, tastes or norms), they will tend to change their opinion about the act they were asked to accomplish. Let us say that an individual is first asked to participate in an experiment that concerns changing the eating habits in order to fight against famine; then, after agreeing to do it, at the first encounter in the laboratory, he will be asked to swallow a living worm, with the explicit reminder that, if he finds this act repulsive, he can, of course, say no, since he has the full freedom to choose. In most cases, he will do it, and then rationalize it by way of saying to himself something like: "What I am asked to do IS disgusting, but I am -control, otherwise scientists will perceive me as a weak person who pulls out at the first minor obstacle! Furthermore, a worm does have a lot of proteins and it could effectively be used to feed the poor - who am I to hinder such an important experiment because of my petty sensitivity? And, finally, maybe my disgust of worms is just a prejudice, maybe a worm is not so bad - and would tasting it not be a new and daring experience? What if it will enable me to discover an unexpected, slightly perverse, dimension of myself that I was hitherto unaware of?" Beauvois enumerates three modes of what brings people to accomplish such an act which runs against their perceived propensities and/or interests: authoritarian (the pure command "You should do it because I say so, without questioning it!", sustained by the reward if the subject does it and the punishment if he does not do it), totalitarian (the reference to some higher Cause or common Good which is larger than the subject's perceived interest: "You should do it because, even if it is unpleasant, it serves our Nation, Party, Humanity!"), and liberal (the reference to the subject's inner nature itself: "What is asked of you may appear repulsive, but look deep into yourself and you will discover that it's in your true nature to do it, you will find it attractive, you will become aware of new, unexpected, dimensions of your personality!"). At this point, Beauvois should be corrected: a direct authoritarianism is practically inexistent - even the most oppressive regime publicly legitimizes its reign with the reference to some Higher Good, and the fact that, ultimately, "you have to obey because I say so" reverberates only as its obscene supplement discernible between the lines. It is rather the specificity of the standard authoritarianism to refer to some higher Good ("whatever your inclinations are, you have to follow my order for the sake of the higher Good!"), while totalitarianism, like liberalism, interpellates the subject on behalf of HIS OWN good ("what may eally the expression of your objective interests, of what you REALLY WANT without being aware of it!"). The difference between the two resides elsewhere: "totalitarianism" imposes on the subject his/her own good, even if it is against his/her will - recall King Charles' (in)famous statement: "If any shall be so foolishly unnatural as to oppose their king, their country and their own good, we will make them happy, by God's blessing - even against their wills."(Charles I to the Earl of Essex, 6 August 1644) Here we already encounter have the later Jacobin theme of happiness as a political factor, as well as the Saint-Justian idea of forcing people to be happy... Liberalism tries to avoid (or, rather, cover up) this paradox by way of clinging to the end to the fiction of the subject's immediate free self-perception ("I don't claim to know better than you what you want - just look deep into yourself and decide freely what you want!"). The reason for this fault in Beauvois's line of argumentation is that he fails to recognize how the abyssal tautological authority ("It is so because I say so!" of the Master) does not work only because of the sanctions (punishment/reward) it implicitly or explicitly evokes. That is to say, what, effectively, makes a subject freely choose what is imposed on him against his interests and/or propensities? Here, the empirical inquiry into "pathological" (in the Kantian sense of the term) motivations is not sufficient: the enunciation of an injunction that imposes on its addressee a symbolic engagement/commitment evinces an inherent force of its own, so that what seduces us into obeying it is the very feature that may appear to be an obstacle - the absence of a "why." Here, Lacan can be of some help: the Lacanian "Master-Signifier" designates precisely this hypnotic force of the symbolic injunction which relies only on its own act of enunciation - it is here that we encounter "symbolic efficiency" at its purest. The three ways of legitimizing the exercise of authority ("authoritarian," he three ways to cover up, to blind us for the seductive power of, the abyss of this empty call. In a way, liberalism is here even the worst of the three, since it NATURALIZES the reasons for obedience into the subject's internal psychological structure. So the paradox is that "liberal" subjects are in a way those least free: they change the very opinion/perception of themselves, accepting what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their "nature" - they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination. Let us take the situation in the Eastern European countries around 1990, when the Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: all of a sudden, people were thrown into a situation of the "freedom of political choice" - however, were they REALLY at any point asked the fundamental question of what kind of knew order they actually wanted? Is it not that they found themselves in the exact situation of the subject-victim of a Beauvois experiment? They were first told that they are entering the promised land of political freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involves wild privatization, the dismantling of the social security, etc.etc. - they still have the freedom to choose, so if they want, they can step out; but, no, our heroic Eastern Europeans didn't want to disappoint their Western tutors, they stoically persisted in the choice they never made, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has its price... This is why the notion of the psychological subject endowed with natural propensities, who has to realize its true Self and its potentials, and who is, consequently, ultimately responsible for his failure or success, is the key ingredient of the liberal freedom. And here one should risk to reintroduce the Leninist opposition of "formal" and "actual" freedom: in an act of actual freedom, one dares precisely to BREAK this seductive power of the symbolic efficiency. Therein resides the moment of truth of Lenin's acerbic retort to his Mens oice in which I do not merely choose between two or more options WITHIN a pre-given set of coordinates, but I choose to change this set of coordinates itself. The catch of the "transition" from the Really Existing Socialism to capitalism was that people never had the chance to choose the ad quem of this transition - all of a sudden, they were (almost literally) "thrown" into a new situation in which they were presented with a new set of given choices (pure liberalism, nationalist conservatism...). What this means is that the "actual freedom" as the act of consciously changing this set occurs only when, in the situation of a forced choice, one ACTS AS IF THE CHOICE IS NOT FORCED and "chooses the impossible." Did something homologous to the invention of the liberal psychological individual not take place in the Soviet Union in the late 20s and early 30s? The Russian avant-garde art of the early 20s (futurism, constructivism) not only zealously endorsed industrialization, it even endeavored to reinvent a new industrial man - no longer the old man of sentimental passions and roots in traditions, but the new man who gladly accepts his role as a bolt or screw in the gigantic coordinated industrial Machine. As such, it was subversive in its very "ultra-orthodoxy," i.e. in its over-identification with the core of the official ideology: the image of man that we get in Eisenstein, Meyerhold, constructivist paintings, etc., emphasizes the beauty of his/her mechanical movements, his/her thorough depsychologization. What was perceived in the West as the ultimate nightmare of liberal individualism, as the ideological counterpoint to the "Taylorization," to the Fordist ribbon-work, was in Russia hailed as the utopian prospect of liberation: recall how Meyerhold violently asserted the "behaviorist" approach to acting - no longer emphatic familiarization with the person the actor is playing, but the ruthless bodily training aimed at the cold bodily discipline, at the ability of the actor to perform the series of mechanized mo AND IN the official Stalinist ideology, so that the Stalinist "socialist realism" effectively WAS an attempt to reassert a "Socialism with a human face," i.e. to reinscribe the process of industrialization into the constraints of the traditional psychological individual: in the Socialist Realist texts, paintings and films, individuals are no longer rendered as parts of the global Machine, but as warm passionate persons. The obvious reproach that imposes itself here is, of course: is the basic characteristic of today's "postmodern" subject not the exact opposite of the free subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible for his fate, namely the subject who grounds the authority of his speech on his status of a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Every contact with another human being is experienced as a potential threat - if the other smokes, if he casts a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me); this logic of victimization is today universalized, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment - recall the growing financial industry of paying damage claims, from the tobacco industry deal in the USA and the financial claims of the holocaust victims and forced laborers in the Nazi Germany, up to the idea that the USA should pay the African-Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to their past slavery... This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective from which every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject's precarious imaginary balance; as such, it is not the opposite, but, rather, the inherent supplement of the liberal free subject: in today's predominant form of individuality, the self-centered assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances. The case of Muslims as an ethnic, not merely religious, group in Bosnia is exemplary here: during the entire history of Yugoslavia tension and dispute, the locale in which the struggle between Serbs and Croats for the dominant role was fought. The problem was that the largest group in Bosnia were neither the Orthodox Serbs nor the Catholic Croats, but Muslims whose ethnic origins were always disputed - are they Serbs or Croats. (This role of Bosnia even left a trace in idiom: in all ex-Yugoslav nations, the expression "So Bosnia is quiet!" was used in order to signal that any threat of a conflict was successfully defused.) In order to forestall this focus of potential (and actual) conflicts, the ruling Communist imposed in the 60s a miraculously simple invention: they proclaimed Muslims an autochthonous ETHNIC community, not just a religious group, so that Muslims were able to avoid the pressure to identify themselves either as Serbs or as Croats. What was so in the beginning a pragmatic political artifice, gradually caught on, Muslims effectively started to perceive themselves as a nation, systematically manufacturing their tradition, etc. However, even today, there remains an element of a reflected choice in their identity: during the post-Yugoslav war in Bosnia, one was ultimately forced to CHOOSE his/her ethnic identity - when a militia stopped a person, asking him/her threateningly "Are you a Serb or a Muslim?", the question did not refer to the inherited ethnic belonging, i.e. there was always in it an echo of "Which side did you choose?" (say, the movie director Emir Kusturica, coming from an ethnically mixed Muslim-Serb family, has chosen the Serb identity). Perhaps, the properly FRUSTRATING dimension of this choice is best rendered by the situation of having to choose a product in on-line shopping, where one has to make the almost endless series of choices: if you want it with X, press A, if not, press B... The paradox is that what is thoroughly excluded in these post-traditional "reflexive societies," in which we are all the time bombarded with the urge to choose, in which even such "natural" features as sexual orientation and ethn ice, is the basic, authentic, choice itself. 1. See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2000. 2. See Claude Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press 1988. 3. See Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage 1992. 4. See Jean-Leon Beauvois, Traite de la servitude liberale. Analyse de la soumission, Paris: Dunod 1994. 5. See Chapters 2 and 3 of Susan Buck-Morss, Dreamworld and Catastrophe, Cambridge (Ma): MIT Press 2000. From boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl Wed Oct 31 23:38:09 2001 From: boud_roukema at camk.edu.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:08:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: Red Cross bldg intentionally bombed In-Reply-To: <00b301c16226$1ee22160$6401a8c0@inteva> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Geeta Patel wrote: > > > It's amazing how hard you have to work to follow news > > > of the US bombing campaign. Stories appear and then > > > disappear before you know it. Thank you for spotting this and circulating it. I recommend to anyone who has some local disk space or even just a floppy of 1.4Mb to locally store html refs and key excerpts of files they find most important. If you store files as "text" and avoid html/postscript/MSWord formats etc. you can store a hell of a lot in just a plain 1.4Mb diskette! > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp I can't find the quotation on this site. But I found the equivalent here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10762-2001Oct30.html > As for the war, if Jim Miklaszewski is right, the Pentagon could be > facing a bit of a credibility gap. The United States has said that its > bombing of a Red Cross warehouse on two different occasions was an > accident. But the NBC correspondent last night quoted a senior > military source as saying the bombing was deliberate because Taliban > forces were stealing food from the warehouse. Which, if true, would > render the original explanation, well, inoperative. Also here: http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20011030.asp BTW, you might like this reference to a Reuters article on the Talibans' offer to extradite bin Laden Jr to a neutral country: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011014/wl/attack_afghan_court_dc_3.html The Lockerbie trial went ahead in a neutral country. Why not a trial of bin Laden Jr? And a trial of Bush Jr in a neutral country, of course! Anyone know if the US has accepted to extradite Bush Jr?