[Mb-civic] The Anti-Empire Report

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

The Anti-Empire Report - January 9, 2006

Some things you need to know before the world ends

by William Blum

The sign has been put out front: "Iraq is open for business." We read
about things done and said by the Iraqi president, or the Ministry of this
or the Ministry of that, and it's easy to get the impression that Iraq is
in the process of becoming a sovereign state, albeit not particularly
secular and employing torture, but still, a functioning, independent
state. Then we read about the IMF and the rest of the international
financial mafia -- with the US playing its usual sine qua non role --
making large loans to the country and forgiving debts, with the customary
strings attached, in the current instance ending government subsidies for
fuel and other petroleum products. And so the government starts to reduce
the subsidies for these products which affect almost every important
aspect of life, and the prices quickly quintuple, sparking wide discontent
and protests.[1] Who in this sovereign nation wanted to add more suffering
to the already beaten-down Iraqi people? But the international financial
mafia are concerned only with making countries meet certain criteria sworn
to be holy in Economics 101, like a balanced budget, privatization, and
deregulation and thus making themselves more appealing to international
investors.

In case the presence of 130,000 American soldiers, a growing number of
sprawling US military bases, and all the designed-in-Washington
restrictive Coalition Provisional Authority laws still in force aren't
enough to keep the Iraqi government in line, this will do it. Iraq will
have to agree to allow their economy to be run by the IMF for the next
decade. The same IMF that Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning
economist and dissident former chief economist at the World Bank,
describes as having "brought disaster to Russia and Argentina and leaves a
trail of devastated developing economies in its wake".[2]

On top of this comes the disclosure of the American occupation's massive
giveaway of the sovereign nation's most valuable commodity, oil. One
should read the new report, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil
Wealth" by the British NO, Platform. Among its findings:

This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State
Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December
elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The
policy allocates the majority of Iraq’s oilfields -- accounting for at
least 64% of the country’s oil reserves -- for development by
multinational oil companies.

The estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is $74
to $194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands.

The contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with
rates of return of 42 to 162 percent. The kinds of contracts that will
provide these returns are known as production sharing agreements. PSAs
have been heavily promoted by the US government and oil majors and have
the backing of senior figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry. However, PSAs
last for 25-40 years, are usually secret and prevent governments from
later altering the terms of the contract.[3]

"Crude Designs" author and lead researcher, Greg Muttitt, says: "The form
of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option
available. Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not
foreign oil companies."[4]

Noam Chomsky recently remarked: "We're supposed to believe that the US
would've invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main
exports were pickles and lettuce. This is what we're supposed to
believe."[5]

Reconstruction, thy name is not the United States

The Bush administration has announced that it does not intend to seek any
new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before
Congress in February. When the last of the reconstruction budget is spent,
US officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the
fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is
tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring
reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million
people.[6]

It should be noted that these services, including sanitation systems, were
largely destroyed by US bombing -- most of it rather deliberately --
beginning in the first Gulf War: 40 days and nights the bombing went on,
demolishing everything that goes into the making of a modern society;
followed by 12 years of merciless economic sanctions, accompanied by 12
years of often daily bombing supposedly to protect the so-called no-fly
zones; finally the bombing, invasion and widespread devastation beginning
in March 2003 and continuing even as you read this.

"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William
McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told
reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview this past week,
McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."[7]

It's a remarkable pattern. The United States has a long record of bombing
nations, reducing entire neighborhoods, and much of cities, to rubble,
wrecking the infrastructure, ruining the lives of those the bombs didn't
kill. And afterward doing shockingly little or literally nothing to repair
the damage.

On January 27, 1973, in Paris, the United States signed the "Agreement on
Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam". Among the principles to
which the United States agreed was that stated in Article 21: "In
pursuance of its traditional [sic] policy, the United States will
contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction of
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam [North Vietnam] and throughout
Indochina."

Five days later, President Nixon sent a message to the Prime Minister of
North Vietnam in which he stipulated the following: (1)The Government of
the United States of America will contribute to postwar reconstruction in
North Vietnam without any political conditions. (2)Preliminary United
States studies indicate that the appropriate programs for the United
States contribution to postwar reconstruction will fall in the range of
$3.25 billion of grant aid over 5 years.

Nothing of the promised reconstruction aid was ever paid. Or ever will be.

During the same period, Laos and Cambodia were wasted by US bombing as
relentlessly as was Vietnam. After the Indochina wars were over, these
nations, too, qualified to become beneficiaries of America's "traditional
policy" of zero reconstruction.

Then came the American bombings of Grenada and Panama in the 1980s. 
There
goes our neighborhood. Hundreds of Panamanians petitioned the
Washington-controlled Organization of American States as well as American
courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, for "just compensation"
for the damage caused by Operation Just Cause (this being the
not-tongue-in-cheek name given to the American invasion and bombing). 
They
got just nothing, the same amount the people of Grenada received.

In 1998, Washington, in its grand wisdom, fired more than a dozen cruise
missiles into a building in Sudan which it claimed was producing chemical
and biological weapons. The completely pulverized building was actually a
major pharmaceutical plant, vital to the Sudanese people. The United
States effectively admitted its mistake by releasing the assets of the
plant's owner it had frozen. Surely now it was compensation time. It
appears that nothing has ever been paid to the owner, who filed suit, or
to those injured in the bombing.[8]

The following year we had the case of Yugoslavia; 78 days of
round-the-clock bombing, transforming an advanced state into virtually a
pre-industrial one; the reconstruction needs were breathtaking. It's been
6 1/2 years since Yugoslavian bridges fell into the Danube, the country's
factories and homes leveled, its roads made unusable, transportation torn
apart. Yet the country has not received any funds for reconstruction from
the architect and leading perpetrator of the bombing campaign, the United
States.

The day after the above announcement about the US ending its
reconstruction efforts in Iraq, it was reported that the United States is
phasing out its commitment to reconstruction in Afghanistan as well.[9]
This after several years of the usual launching of bombs and missiles on
towns and villages, resulting in the usual wreckage and ruin.

Oh those quaint tribal customs

On December 7, the "All things considered" feature of National Public
Radio had a report about the "honor" killing of a young woman in Iraq who
had been kidnaped. She had to be killed by her family because of the mere
possibility of her having been raped by her captors; the family had to
protect its honor; a much loved and admired daughter she was, but still,
her cousin shot her dead. It had nothing to do with Islam, the story said,
it was a "tribal custom".

This report was followed immediately by Col. Gary Anderson, US Marines
retired, arguing that the United States has to stay the course in Iraq.
He's concerned that bin Laden et al. will think the United States is "a
quitter". He says that leaving now would "dishonor" the Iraqis and he's
apparently prepared to continue killing any number of the very same Iraqi
people to preserve their honor. Anthropologists report that this seems to
be some kind of "tribal custom" in Anderson's country.

Presumably it doesn't bother the good colonel that a large majority of the
informed people of the world think the United States is a murderous
imperialist power -- he's probably proud of that -- but a "quitter"? Over
his dead body. Or someone's dead body.

Yankee karma

The questions concerning immigration into the United States from south of
the border go on year after year, with the same issues argued back and
forth: How to/should we block the flow into the country? granting amnesty,
a guest-worker program, whether the immigrants help the economy,
immigrants collecting welfare, policing employers who hire immigrants ...
on and on, round and round it goes, for decades. Once in a while someone
opposed to immigration will question whether the United States has any
moral obligation to take in these Latino immigrants. Here's one answer to
that question: Yes, the United States has a moral obligation because so
many of the immigrants are escaping situations in their homelands made
hopeless by American interventions. In Guatemala and Nicaragua Washington
overthrew progressive governments which were sincerely committed to
fighting poverty. In El Salvador the US played a major role in suppressing
a movement striving to install such a government, and to a lesser extent
played such a role in Honduras.

The end result of these policies has been an army of desperate people
heading north in search of a better life, in the process of which they
have added to Mexico's poverty burden, inducing many Mexicans to join the
trek to Yanquiland.

Although Washington has not intervened militarily in Mexico since 1919,
over the years the US has been providing training, arms, and surveillance
technology to Mexico's police and armed forces to better their ability to
suppress their own people's aspirations, as in Chiapas, and this has added
to the influx of the impoverished to the United States. Moreover,
Washington's North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has brought 
a
flood of cheap, subsidized US corn into Mexico and driven many Mexican
farmers off the land and into the immigration stream north.

Hmmm, perhaps we really are in danger of a biological attack ... but not
from al Qaeda

A week after the massive anti-war demonstration in Washington on 
September
24, it was revealed that deadly bacteria had been detected at several
sites in the city, including by the Lincoln Memorial, situated very close
to the demonstration. Biohazard monitors installed at various sites gave
positive readings on the 24th and 25th for the bacterium francisella
tularensis, which causes the infectious disease tularemia, a
pneumonia-like ailment that can be acquired by inhaling airborne bacteria
and can be fatal. This biological agent is on the "A list" of the
Department of Homeland Security's biohazards, along with anthrax, plague
and smallpox.[10]

My first thought upon reading about this was: Those bastards, they'd love
to punish people who protest against the war. There's nothing I would put
past them.

My second thought was: Oh stop being so paranoid. The news report cited
federal health officials saying that the tularemia bacterium can occur
naturally in soil and small animals.

My third thought came more than a month later, when I happened to be
reading about a US Army program of the 1960s which carried out numerous
exercises involving aircraft spraying of American warships with thousands
of servicemen aboard. A wide variety of chemical and biological warfare
agents were used to learn the vulnerabilities of these ships and personnel
to such attacks and to develop procedures to respond to them. Amongst the
CBW agents used were pasteurella tularensis (another name for francisella
tularensis), which, said the Department of Defense later, causes
tularemia, can produce very serious symptoms, and has a mortality rate of
about six percent.[11]

These tests in effect used members of the armed forces as guinea pigs,
without their informed consent and without proper medical follow-up. This
was a scenario enacted on numerous occasions during the Cold War, and
subsequently as well, involving literally millions of service members,
with frequent harmful effects, including at least several deaths, military
and civilian. It's a good bet that on some future date we'll learn that
similar tests are still going on as part of the war on terrorism. I
conclude from all this that if our glorious leaders are not particularly
concerned about the health and welfare of their own soldiers, the wretched
warriors they enlist to fight the empire’s wars, how can we be surprised
if they don't care about the health and welfare of those of us standing in
opposition to the empire?

Civil liberties holds an important place in the heart of the Bush
administration's rhetoric.

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United
States of America and, I repeat, limited," said President Bush about the
National Security Agency's domestic spying on Americans without a court
order.[12]

Let's give the devil his due. It's easy to put down the domestic spying
program, but the fact is that the president is right, it is indeed
limited. It's limited to those who are being spied upon. No one-- I
repeat, no one -- who is not being spied upon is being spied upon.

On the other hand, there have been legal scholars, such as former Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Brandeis, who have felt strongly that all wiretapping
by the government should be considered an unconstitutional search under
the Fourth Amendment, which, we should remember, states: "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized."

Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But,
as someone has pointed out, he was talking about citizens watching the
government, not the reverse.

NOTES

[1] Los Angeles Times, December 28, 2005, p.1; Agence France Presse,
December 23, 2005

[2] Johann Hari, "Why Are We Inflicting This Discredited Market
Fundamentalism on Iraq?" The Independent (UK), December 22, 2004; yes,
2004, this has been a work carefully in progress for some time.

[3] http://www.crudedesigns.org/

[4] Interview with Institute for Public Accuracy (Washington, DC),
November 22, 2005

[5] Interview by Andy Clark, Amsterdam Forum, December 18, 2005, audio 
and
text at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11330.htm

[6] Washington Post, January 2, 2006, p.1

[7] Ibid

[8] William Blum, "Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American
Empire", p.134-8

[9] Washington Post, January 3, 2006, p.1

[10] Washington Post, October 2, 2005, p.C13

[11] Part of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), Department of
Defense “Fact Sheets” released in 2001-2, "Shady Grove" test;
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/current_issues/shad/shad_intro.shtml See
also Associated Press, October 9, 2002, The New York Times May 24, 2002,
p.1

[12] Associated Press, January 2, 2006

[William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War 2 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir Freeing the World to
Death: Essays on the American Empire at http://www.killinghope.org
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to
bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city
in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll
be speaking in your area.]

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
 former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060114/c65bbf84/attachment-0001.htm