September 2010
Vol 10, No 9
INDIA AND POVERTY By Arun Kumar
A
ccording to a new Oxford University study, 55 percent of India’s population of 1.1 billion, or 645 million people, are living in poverty. Using a newly-developed index, the study found that about onethird of the world’s poor live in India. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) has been developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as a more precise and comprehensive means of estimating poverty levels. It will replace the Human Poverty Index that has been used in the UNDP’s annual Human Development Report since 1997. The MPI assesses a range of factors or “deprivations” at the household level as well as income and assets. These include: child mortality, nutrition, access to clean drinking water, sanitation, cooking fuel, electricity, and
years of schooling and child enrolment. “A person is considered poor if they are deprived in at least 30 percent of the weighted indicators,” the study states. As measured by the new index, half of the world’s poor are in South Asia (51 percent or 844 million people) and one quarter in Africa (28 per cent or 458 million). While poverty in Africa is often highlighted, the Oxford research found that there was more acute poverty in India than many African countries combined. Poverty in eight Indian states—Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—exceeded that of the 26 poorest African countries. The study examined poverty across 28 Indian states, concluding that “81 percent of people are multidimensionally poor in Bihar— more than any other state. Also,
poverty in Bihar and Jharkand is most intense—poor people are deprived in 60 percent of the MPI’s weighted indicators. Uttar Pradesh is the home of largest number of poor people—21 percent of India’s poor people live there. West Bengal is home to the third largest number of poor people.” The last figure is particularly significant as West Bengal has been ruled since 1977 by a Left Front coalition government led by the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM). Far from being “socialist” or “Marxist”, the Turn to next page
STATEMENTS
ARTICLES
ISRAELI P ALESTINIAN T ALKS : DESIGNED FOR PEACE OR FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS ? .............The
By Philip Giraldi ......................................... page 3
mainstream media has described the latest Israeli Palestinian “peace talks” currently being hosted by the White House as a breakthrough in the “Middle East peace process.” Is it really a breakthrough? Is there really a peace process? .......................................P.3
US — V ENEZUELA : T HE STRIKES BACK (AND LOSES)
BOXED INTO
A
CORNER
ON
IRAN
D ON ’ T B LAME P AKISTAN FAILURE OF THE WAR
FOR THE
By Imran Khan .. ........................................ page 5
E MPIRE
By James Petras ........................................ page 6
WILL MEDIA CONNECT WITH RELIGION IN A WORLD IN CONFLICT AND CRISIS ? By Chandra Muzaffar ................................ page 9
2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
continued from page 1 Stalinist CPM has been responsible for implementing the pro-market agenda of economic restructuring carried out in other states and nationally by openly bourgeois parties. The result has been a decline in living standards for the majority and a deepening divide between rich and poor.
care and food, 61 million children in India are stunted, the largest figure for any country, according to a UNICEF report. It also stated that the health of children suffers not just due to poor hygienic conditions and lack of nutritional food but also because mothers often suffer from anaemia and malnutrition during pregnancy.
The Oxford University research also exposed high levels of poverty among India’s oppressed castes and tribal peoples. The poverty level among India’s so-called Scheduled Tribes is 81.4 percent. “The intensity of poverty is also very high among Scheduled Tribes, who are deprived in 59.2 percent of weighted indicators on average,” the study stated. The MPI for Scheduled Castes was 65.8 percent and for Other Backward Castes (OBC) was 58.3 percent.
Sharply rising food prices, including an average 83 percent increase since 2008, have been devastating for the country’s poor. Their situation has been further aggravated by recent fuel price hikes announced by the Indian government. The United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) recently painted an alarming picture, reporting that nearly 350 million people—roughly 35 percent of India’s population —was food insecure and consumed less than 80 percent of their total energy requirements.
The figures expose the Congress-led government’s claim that India’s economic growth has been “inclusive”. In fact, successive Indian governments led by Congress and the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) are responsible for economic policies that have boosted the profits of big business and the wealth of a tiny layer at the expense of the working class and rural poor. By focusing on a broader range of factors, the Oxford University study has highlighted the continuing lack of basic facilities for the majority of the Indian population. Governments at the national and state levels have failed to provide even the most rudimentary assistance for hundreds of millions of people. Moreover, existing public services have been further undermined by the policies of privatisation and restructuring. Only 31 percent of India’s population had access to improved sanitation in 2008. As a result of the lack of health
More than 1.5 million children in India are estimated to suffer from malnourishment and 43 percent of children under five years of age are underweight, according to the latest UNWFP report. The proportion of anaemic children has increased by six percent in the last six years, with 11 states reporting 80 percent child anaemia rates. Another study that used a household income of $US2 a day as the poverty benchmark found that India not only has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa, but also has a higher level of poverty. In India, 75.6 percent of the population, or 828 million people, live below the poverty line as compared to 72.2 percent, or 551 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. On the other end of the scale, the wealthy few in India have amassed great riches. While impacted by the global financial crisis, the number of US dollar billionaires in India on the
LEAD ARTICLE Forbes list rebounded to 49 in 2010, after falling to 24 last year. The figure falls just short of the record high of 53 in 2008. The Financial Express commented that year: “The wealth amassed by Indian billionaires—estimated at 340.9 billion dollars by the US business magazine Forbes—is nearly 31 percent of the country’s total GDP. This gives them nearly three times more weight in the economy than their American counterparts and over ten times of those in China. The GDP share of Indian billionaires’ wealth is more than four times of the global average.” The situation is similar this year. While 49 individuals preside over what for most Indians is unimaginable wealth, the majority of people are struggling to survive from day to day. In India’s financial capital of Mumbai, more than six million desperately poor people, half of the city’s population, eke out an existence in the slums. Mumbai’s gleaming skyscrapers that symbolise India’s economic growth sit alongside makeshift hovels. Like their counterparts around the world, India’s business elite likes to justify their position in society on the basis of their own personal initiative, acumen and drive. In reality, their wealth is the product of the exploitation of the country’s huge reserves of cheap labour and depends on the continued impoverishment of the rest of the population. This worsening social divide will inevitably produce a rebellion against the appalling conditions created by profit system and the ruling elites that defend and benefit from it. 3 August, 2010 Arun Kumar is professor of economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Source: countercurrents.org reproduced from World Socialist Website (WSWS)
3 I N T E R N AT I O N A L M O V E M E N T
FOR A JUST WORLD
S T A T E M E N T
STATEMENT ISRAELI PALESTINIAN TALKS: DESIGNED OR FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS? The mainstream media has described the latest Israeli Palestinian “peace talks” currently being hosted by the White House as a breakthrough in the “Middle East peace process.” Is it really a breakthrough? Is there really a peace process? Or is it designed to create a public impression that the US is seriously interested in bringing peace to the region? Such questions are raised because such meetings and talks have been held many times during the past decades but the condition of the Palestinian people has constantly deteriorated. All forms of contact between Israelis and Palestinians came to a standstill almost 20 months ago when Israel attacked and demolished most of Gaza. The peace process suffered further
when Israel continued with the building of settlements in occupied territories. However prospects of hope emerged when the Obama Administration expressed strong displeasure on the issue to the Netanyahu government. Surprisingly, building of settlements continued and the Obama Administration kept quiet. Did the administration come under pressure from some invisible political quarters? In our opinion, in a democratic environment one has the right to know the source of such pressures. Also disappointing is the fact that the White House has invited Egypt and Jordan to witness the peace negotiations. If any two Muslim countries qualify to witness the process, in our opinion, they should be Turkey and Saudi Arabia because of their constructive role in
FOR
PEACE
trying to resolve the conflict. Turkey was able to inform Israeli authorities about the well-being of their soldier held captive in Gaza since June 2006.Besides, among members of the international community Turkey has come out strongest against the Israeli blockade of Gaza and has won heartfelt support of the people of Palestine. And on Saudi Arabia’s initiative, the Arab League in 2002 came up with the most rational and sensible solution to the problem. What is the difference between the current initiative and those that have been conducted earlier? Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan, Vice-President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST). 1 September 2010.
ARTICLES BOXED INTO A CORNER ON IRAN By Philip Giraldi There has been considerable concern expressed in the media over the date August 21st. It was the day when Russian technicians were to insert the fuel rods to begin the activation of the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr. No less a voice out of the past than John Bolton, UN Ambassador under George W. Bush, called for an immediate attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities before the reactor became operational. Bolton and his neoconservative friends reasoned that no attack against Iran would be “complete” if Bushehr were not taken out as it is part of the broader Iranian nuclear program. In their view, its destruction would have the same impact as the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by Israel in 1981, which was intended to derail Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Well, the 21st has come and gone and neither Israel nor the United States took the initiative to destroy Bushehr.
Indeed, the entire argument about attacking it has something of a surreal quality. Bushehr is not a reactor that can be used to concentrate its fuel, meaning that it can generate electricity but cannot itself produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium. The entire argument about attacking it seems to center on its symbolic value as Iran’s only soon-tobe operating reactor combined with the notion that its fuel could be removed and enriched somewhere else. The reactor is located in a relatively heavily populated coastal area and the demand to hit it before it became operational was based on the possible consequences of having to do so after it is up and running. Destroying an operating reactor would produce considerable radioactive contamination that would devastate a wide area both within Iran and in neighboring countries and would kill many civilians. Comparisons with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island spring
to mind. Whoever would bomb and destroy such a target would be vilified by most of the international community, and rightly so. While Israel and the United States both regularly ignore such criticism, the deaths of thousands in a deliberate bombing directed against a country that poses no immediate threat would be a bit hard to explain, even in the New York Times and Washington Post. To be completely and cold bloodedly serious about the respective positions being staked out by Iran and its chief antagonists in Washington and Tel Aviv, one must first of all remember that Tehran does not currently have a nuclear weapon and there is no real evidence that it even has a program to produce one. It has been basically compliant with the UN inspection regime mandated by the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, to which it is a continued next page
4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 3 signatory. Nor is there any evidence that the Mullahs are suicidal, suggesting that they would not want to develop a weapon in a secret program at great cost to hand off to terrorists and thereby guarantee the annihilation of their nation and millions of their people. And they have good reason to be just a bit paranoid about their own security. The repeated threats coming out of Israel and the United States that “all options are on the table” with Iran is a not exactly subtle suggestion that many policymakers in both countries consider it perfectly acceptable to begin bombing, all in spite of the fact that it would be an attack on a country based on what might happen without any evidence that there is an actual intention to develop and use a weapon of mass destruction. Bombing a country under those circumstances would be a war crime, one more crime among many. The real problem is that the public utterances of the policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv have backed them into a corner, reducing their options and committing them to a policy that has no real attainable objective and makes absolutely no sense. If Iran is a threat at all, which can be disputed, it can be easily contained by either Israel or the United States, both of which have large nuclear and conventional arsenals. Iran is a military midget compared to either country, though admittedly it has the capability to strike back hard in asymmetrical ways if it is attacked. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu both appreciate very clearly that Iran does not pose a serious threat and both know that the often cited claim that Tehran has called for wiping Israel off the map is bogus. Such knowledge is widespread even among hawks in Israel, though apparently less so among American neocons. In September 2009 former Israeli Prime Minister and current Minister of Defense Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that “I am not among
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel.” A few years earlier, Foreign Minister Livni argued against the idea that a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat. This summer, exMossad chief Ephraim Halevi made the same point and added that speaking of Iran as an existential threat exaggerates Iran’s power and suggests instead the false and dangerous narrative that Israel might be vulnerable. But in spite of their certain knowledge of the fragility of the Iranian threat, both Obama and Netanyahu have unfortunately let themselves wallow in rhetoric that hypes the danger. If it sounds and smells exactly like the lead up to Iraq, it should. And, like the case of Iraq, the fearmongering does not end with the intemperate comments made by the two leaders. The US Congress with its proposed House Resolution 1553 is engaged in giving the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, indicating in advance its support for such an action. HR 1553 comes on top of harsh sanctions approved in early July, measures that could lead to US Navy vessels attempting to board Iranian flagged merchant ships. Even tougher sanctions, steps that would almost certainly lead to war are endorsed by many legislators, particularly those who are regarded as close to Israel. Congressman Brad Sherman of California explains “Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.” At least Congress shows consistency when it is knee jerking spasmodically to demonstrate support for Israel. Sherman’s view of Iranians is somewhat similar to his punishing the Gazans for voting for Hamas or pillorying the Turks for trying to send aid to the Palestinians. Or, not so long ago, sending the 500,000 Iraqi children to their deaths à la Madeleine Albright. And the White House rhetoric blends harmoniously with the congressional ire. President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State
S T A T E M E N T S Hillary Clinton have all repeatedly stated that Israel is completely free to make its own decisions relating to its security. That assertion presumably plays well in certain quarters, but as an Israeli attack will have to be enabled by the United States they also know that bombing courtesy of Tel Aviv would mean Iranian retaliation directed against American troops in the Middle East. In other words, America’s leaders have abdicated all responsibility for maintaining a rational policy in an unstable part of the world and have instead granted the authority to make key decisions to Israel. How many Americans will die as a result? Both the Israeli and American people have been prepared for war by all of the truculent noises coming out of Washington and the propaganda appearing in the media. The conversation on Iran, such as it is, has been expressly designed to bring about a war rather than avoid it. The mainstream media disinformation campaign orchestrated by AIPAC has worked just fine. Most Americans already believe incorrectly that Iran has a nuclear weapon and most also support attacking it, a product of the steady diet of hokum that they have been fed. The moral turpitude of America and Israel’s leaders combined with the popular consensus that they have willy-nilly allowed to develop grants the concept of war with Iran a certain inevitability. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has described the process as “inexorable.” So we have dodged the bullet on the war that might have begun on August 21st because our leaders really do know that Iran is not a threat and when it came to gut check time were ultimately unwilling to start World War III. But the bomb is still ticking because those selfsame politicians, lacking any sense of true leadership, have set the forces in play that will almost inevitably produce a war. It is somewhat reminiscent of Iraq surely, but it also recalls the 1914 continued next page
5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 4 European security environment in which an entangling web of alliances and arrangements virtually guaranteed that a war would take place. The only way to stop the rot is for President Obama to consider for a moment what is good for the United States rather than for his political party’s hold on power. He should act like a true statesman instead of a used car salesman. If he is uncertain how to do that there are a number of good
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
nineteenth century political biographies that he can read up on to learn the ropes. He must stand up before the American people and state simply and unequivocally that Washington opposes any new military action in the Middle East and that the United States is not threatened by Iran and will take no part in any military action directed against it. He might add that the US will further consider anyone staging such an attack as an aggressor nation and will
A R T I C L E S immediately break off relations before demanding a UN Security Council vote to condemn the action. Will that happen? Fat chance. 26 August, 2010 Philip Giraldi is a former CIA official. He is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Source: http://antiwar.org
DON’T BLAME PAKISTAN FOR THE FAILURE OF THE WAR By Imran Khan It is unfortunate that the US was unable to use the window of opportunity that it had in the immediate aftermath of the removal of the Taliban Government in late 2001. It could have brought in a truly broad-based Afghan government and invested in the development of the country. Instead, it continued its military actions and brought corrupt and criminal elements into power in Kabul. Before the West invaded Afghanistan my country had no suicide bombers, no jihad and no Talibanisation. There is now a general recognition that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. All the Taliban have to do to win is not to lose. The Americans won’t stay and everybody knows that. The focus has come to rest on the inevitable need to talk with all the militant groups in Afghanistan. While most important players are ready to talk peace, the US remains confused and has still to straighten out its policy. This confusion is once again taking its toll, especially on Pakistan. As the US and Nato realise the failure of their military policy in Afghanistan, they are seeking to shift the centre of gravity of the war into the north west of Pakistan, the region known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). One of the fears raised in the West at the prospect of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is that it will lead to a Taliban-controlled nuclear Pakistan. That fear betrays a total ignorance about
the evolution of the Taliban movement as well as the impact of the War on Terror on Pakistan. Remember, there was no Pakistani involvement in 9/11. Nor throughout the period of the Taleban regime in Kabul was there Talibanisation in Pakistan . When the Americans were drawing up their military response to the 9/11 attacks, they drew up a list of seven conditions for Pakistan to meet to attract US support. The assumption was that General Pervez Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan, might agree to three or four. Instead he unilaterally signed up for the lot. These conditions were a total violation of the human rights of the people of Pakistan and the sovereignty of the country. This was a leader with whom President Clinton had refused to shake hands when he came to Pakistan before 9/11, for fear of being seen to support a dictator. It was quite shameless how the Pakistani leadership capitulated and how the US gave Musharraf the embrace of legitimacy. This was reminiscent of the Cold War era when tinpot dictators were routinely supported by the US. In 2004 Pakistan’s Government sent troops into Waziristan, where alQaeda was allegedly present. I was one of the politicians from outside the tribal areas who had been to Waziristan and I opposed the move in Pakistan’s Parliament. Anyone who knows the region and its history could see it would
be a disaster. Until that point we had no militant Taliban in Pakistan. We had militant groups, but our own military establishment was able to control them. We had madrassas, but none of them produced militants intent on jihad until we became a frontline state in the War on Terror. The country is fighting someone else’s war. We never had suicide bombings in our history until 2004. Now we have 30 to 40 deaths a day from shells or bombings and the suicide attacks continue to increase. While we have received about $15 billion in aid from the US, our own economy has lost about $50 billion. We have borrowed a record amount of money from the International Monetary Fund, which was only given to us because of our role in the war, not because we could afford to pay it back. Our social and economic fabric is being destroyed because of the conditions that the IMF has imposed. Millions of our people have been displaced and a massive radicalization of our youth has taken place as they see the Pakistani state becoming a puppet doing US bidding. The military operations by Pakistan in FATA have led to 40,000 casualties in indiscriminate aerial bombardment and ground fire. The attacks by US drones, in which the Government of Pakistan is complicit, have also killed thousands of civilians, continued next page
6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 5 leading to a growing hatred becoming embedded among the local population. There is deep resentment of the war in the frontier regions, where high unemployment feeds the discontent. The war in Afghanistan is justified as a stabilizing force for Pakistan, whereas in truth the country is collapsing under the pressure. We are like Cambodia in the Vietnam War. After the Wikileaks revelations yesterday reports are being floated that the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, is aiding the Afghan militancy. The fact is that the ISI is not that powerful, but certainly in an environment of chaos and uncertainty Pakistan will need to protect its interests through all means necessary. It is unfortunate that the US was unable to use the window of opportunity that it had in the immediate aftermath of the removal of the Taliban Government in late 2001. It could have brought in a truly broad-based Afghan government
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
and invested in the development of the country. Instead, it continued its military actions and brought corrupt and criminal elements into power in Kabul. Pakistan, supposedly an ally of the US, is bearing the brunt of American failure in Afghanistan. A recent poll showed that 80 per cent of Pakistanis consider the US a bigger threat to their country than India. Nor is this view about the US solely because of the “War on Terror”. Pakistanis also blame the US for brokering the “National Reconciliation Order”, which was intended to sustain Musharraf in power while also bringing rogue Pakistani politicians back into the political landscape. The result is a total collapse of governance in Pakistan today. There is no danger of Talibanisation in Pakistan but there is a very real threat of chaos and radicalization, especially of the youth. There is only one solution to this chaos. This is to implement an immediate ceasefire and commence talks
A R T I C L E S with all militant groups in Afghanistan. Either America leaves or Pakistan withdraws from this war. The US should not worry about Pakistan. Once the bombing stops, it willno longer be jihad and the suicide attacks will immediately subside. About 18 months ago the former head of the CIA’s Kabul station, Graham Fuller, wrote in the International Herald Tribune that once the US leaves the region Pakistan will be stable. Political leaders in the US and UK should realize that people in the streetsof New York and London are not threatened by the people in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan but by the growing radicalization of their own marginalised Muslim youth. 3August, 2010 Imran Khan is the founder and chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (the Movement for Justice Party) and a world cup winning national cricket team captain Source: www.veteranstoday.com
US — VENEZUELA: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (AND LOSES) By James Petras US policy toward Venezuela has taken many tactical turns, but the objective has been the same: to oust President Chavez, reverse the nationalization of big businesses, abolish the mass community and worker based councils and revert the country into a client-state. Washington funded and politically backed a military coup in 2002, a bosses’ lockout in 2002-03, a referendum and numerous media, political and NGO efforts to undermine the regime. Up to now all of the White House efforts have been a failure – Chavez has repeatedly won free elections, retained the loyalty of the military and the backing of the vast majority of the urban and rural poor, the bulk of the working class and the public sector middle class. Washington has not given up nor reconciled itself to coming to terms with the elected government of President Chavez. Instead with each defeat of its internal collaborators, the White House
has increasingly turned toward an ‘outsider ’ strategy, building up a powerful ‘cordon militaire’, surrounding Venezuela with a large-scale military presence spanning Central America, northern South America and the Caribbean. The Obama White House backed a military coup in Honduras, ousting the democratically elected government of President Zelaya (in June 2009), a Chavez ally, and replacing it with a puppet regime supportive of Washington’s anti-Chavez military policies. The Pentagon secured seven military bases in eastern Colombia (in 2009) facing the Venezuelan frontier, thanks to its client ruler, Alvaro Uribe, the notorious narco-paramilitary President. In mid 2010 Washington secured an unprecedented agreement with the approval of right wing President Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, to station 7000 US combat troops, over 200 helicopters, and dozens of ships pointing
toward Venezuela, under the pretext of pursuing narco-traffickers. Currently the US is negotiating with the rightist regime of President Ricardo Martinelli of Panama, the possibility of re-establishing a military base in the former Canal Zone. Together with the Fourth Fleet patrolling off shore, 20,000 troops in Haiti, and an airbase in Aruba, Washington has encircled Venezuela from the West and North, establishing jumping off positions for a direct intervention if the favorable internal circumstances arise. The White House’s militarization of its policy toward Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, is part of its global policy of armed confrontation and interventions. Most notably the Obama regime has widened the scope and extent of operations of clandestine death squads now operating in 70 countries on four continents, increased the US combat presence in Afghanistan by over 30,000 continued next page
7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 6 troops plus over 100,000 contract mercenaries operating cross border into Pakistan and Iran, and provided material and logistical assistance to Iranian armed terrorists. Obama has escalated provocative military exercises off the coast of North Korea and in the China Sea, evoking protests from Beijing. Equally revealing, the Obama regime has increased the military budget to over a trillion dollars, despite the economic crises, the monstrous deficit and the calls for austerity cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In other words, Washington’s military posture toward Latin America and especially toward the democratic socialist government of President Chavez is part and parcel of a general military response to any country or movements which refuse to submit to US domination. The question arises – why does the White House rely on the military option? Why militarize foreign policy to gain favorable outcomes in the face of decided opposition? The answer, in part, is that the US has lost most of the economic leverage, which it previously exercised, to secure the ousting or submission of adversary governments. Most Asian and Latin American economies have secured a degree of autonomy. Others do not depend on USinfluenced international financial organizations (the IMF, World Bank); they secure commercial loans. Most have diversified their trading and investment partners and deepened regional ties. In some countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru, China has replaced the US as their principal trading partner. Most countries no longer look to US “aid” to stimulate growth, they seek joint ventures with multi-national corporations, frequently based outside of North America. To the extent that economic arm twisting is no longer an effective tool to secure compliance, Washington has resorted more and more to the military option. To the extent that the US financial elite have hollowed out
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
the US industrial sector, Washington has been unable to rebuild its international economic levers. Major diplomatic failures, resulting from its incapacity to adapt to basic shifts in global power, have also prompted Washington to shift from political negotiations and compromise toward military intervention and confrontation. US policymakers are still frozen in the time warp of the 1980’s and 1990’s, the heyday of client rulers and economic plunder, when Washington secured global support, privatized enterprises, exploited public debt financings and was relatively unchallenged in the world market. By the end of the1990’s, the rise of Asian capitalism, mass anti-neo-liberal uprisings, the ascendancy of center-left regimes in Latin America, the repeated financial crises and stock market crashes in the US and the EU and the increase in commodity prices led to a realignment of global power. Washington’s efforts to pursue policies attuned to the previous decades conflicted with the new realities of diversified markets, newly emerging powers and relatively independent political regimes linked to new mass constituencies. Washington’s diplomatic proposals to isolate Cuba and Venezuela were rejected by all of the Latin-American countries. The effort to revive free trade agreements, which privileged US exporters and protected uncompetitive producers, were rejected. Unwilling to recognize the limits of imperial diplomatic power and moderate its proposals, the Obama regime turned increasingly toward the military option. Washington’s struggle to reassert imperial power, via interventionary politics fared no better than its diplomatic initiatives. The US-backed coups in Venezuela (2002) and Bolivia (2008) were defeated by mass popular mobilizations and the loyalty of the military to the incumbent regimes. Likewise in Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil, post-neo-
A R T I C L E S liberal regimes, backed by industrial, mining and agro-export elites and popular classes were able to beat back traditional pro-US neo-liberal elites rooted in the politics of the 1990’s and earlier. The politics of destabilization failed to dislodge the new governments’ pursuing relatively independent foreign policies and refusing to return to the old order of US supremacy. Where Washington has regained political terrain with the election of rightist political regimes – it has been through its ability to exploit the ‘exhaustion’ of center-left politics (Chile), political fraud and militarization (Honduras and Mexico), decline of the national popular left (Costa Rica, Panama and Peru) and the consolidation of a highly militarized police state (Colombia). These electoral victories, especially in Colombia, have convinced Washington that the military option, combined with deep intervention and exploitation of open electoral processes, is the way to reverse the left turn in Latin-America especially in Venezuela. US Policy to Venezuela: Combining Military and Electoral Tactics US efforts to overthrow President Chavez’s democratic government borrow many of the tactics applied against previous democratic adversaries. These include border incursions by Colombian paramilitary and military forces similar to cross border attacks by the US sponsored “contras” against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua during the 1980’s. The attempt to encircle and isolate Venezuela is similar to Washington’s policy over the past half century against Cuba. The funneling of funds to opposition groups, parties, media and NGO’s via US agencies and “dummy” foundations is a repeat of the tactics applied to destabilize the democratic government of Salvador Allende of Chile 1970-73, Evo Morales in Bolivia 2006-2010 and numerous other continued next page
8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 7 governments in the region. Washington’s multiple track policy, in its current phase, is directed at escalating a war of nerves, by constantly raising security threats. The military provocations, in part, are a ‘testing’ of Venezuela’s security preparations, probing for weaknesses in its ground, air and maritime defenses. These provocations also are part of a strategy of attrition, to force the Chavez government to put its defense forces on “alert” and mobilize the population and then to temporarily reduce the pressure until the next provocation. The purpose is to discredit the government’s constant reference to threats, in order to weaken vigilance and when circumstances allow making an opportune strike. Washington’s external military build-up is designed to intimidate Caribbean and Central American countries who may be looking toward closer economic relations with Venezuela. The show of force is also designed to encourage the internal opposition toward more aggressive actions. At the same time the confrontational posture is directed at the “weak links” or “moderate” sectors of the Chavista government who are nervous and anxious for “reconciliation” even at the price of unprincipled concessions to the opposition and the new Colombia regime of President Santos. The increasing military presence is designed to slow the internal radicalization process and to preclude Venezuela’s growing ties with Middle Eastern and other regimes, adverse to US hegemony. Washington is betting that a military build-up and psychological warfare linking Venezuela with revolutionary insurgents like the Colombian guerrilla will result in Chavez’s allies and friends in Latin America putting distance toward him. Equally important Washington’s unsubstantiated accusations that Venezuela is harboring FARC guerilla encampments, is meant to pressure Chavez to lessen his support to all social movements in the region,
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
including the landless Rural Workers of Brazil as well as non- violent human rights groups and trade unions in Colombia. Washington wants a military “polarization”: US or Chavez. It rejects the political polarization existing today which pits Washington against MERCOSUR, the organization of economic integration involving Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay with Venezuela in line for membership or ALBA (economic integration involving Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and several Caribbean states. The FARC Factor Obama and now ex-President Uribe accused Venezuela of offering sanctuary for Colombian guerillas (FARC and ELN). In reality this is a ploy to pressure President Chavez to denounce or at a minimum demand that the FARC give up their armed struggle on terms dictated by the US and Colombian regime. Contrary to President Uribe and the State Department’s boasts that the FARC is a declining, isolated and defeated fragment of the past, as a result of their successful counter-insurgency campaigns, a recent detailed field study by a Colombian researcher La guerra contra las FARC y la guerra de las FARC demonstrates that in the last 2 years the guerrillas have consolidated their influence over one-third of the country, and that the regime in Bogota controls only half the country. After suffering major defeats in 2008, the FARC and ELN have steadily advanced throughout 20092010 inflicting over 1300 military casualties last year and probably near double this year. (La Jornada 8/6/2010). The resurgence and advance of the FARC has crucial importance as far as Washington’s military campaign again Venezuela. It also affects the position of its “strategic ally” – Santos regime. First it demonstrates that despite $6 billion plus in US military aid to Colombia, its counter-insurgency campaign to “exterminate” the FARC has failed. Secondly, the FARC’s offensive opens a
A R T I C L E S “second front” in Colombia, weakening any effort to launch an invasion of Venezuela using Colombia as a “springboard”. Thirdly, faced with a growing internal class war, the new President Santos is more likely to seek to lessen tensions with Venezuela, hoping to relocate troops from the frontier of its neighbor toward the growing guerilla insurgency. In a sense, despite Chavez misgivings about the guerrillas and outspoken calls for ending the guerrilla struggle, the resurgence of the armed movements are likely a prime factor in lessening the prospects of a US directed intervention. Conclusion Washington’s multi-track policy directed at destabilizing the Venezuelan government has by and large been counter-productive, suffering major failures and few successes. The hardline toward Venezuela has failed to “line up” any support in the major countries of Latin America, with the exception of Colombia. It has isolated Washington not Caracas. The military threats may have radicalized the socioeconomic measures adopted by Chavez not moderated them. The threats and accusations emanating from Colombia have strengthened internal cohesion in Venezuela, except among the hard-core opposition groups. They have also led to Venezuela’s upgrading its intelligence, police and military operations. The Colombian provocations have led to a break in relations and an 80% decline in the multi-billion dollar cross border trade, bankrupting numerous Colombian firms, as Venezuela substitutes Brazilian and Argentine industrial and agrarian imports. The effects of the policies of tension and the “war of attrition” are hard to measure, especially in terms of their impact on the forthcoming crucial legislative elections on September 26, 2010. No doubt, Venezuela’s failure to regulate and control the multi-million flow of US funds to its Venezuelan collaborators has made a continued next page
9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 8 significant impact on their organizational capability. No doubt the economic downturn has had some effect in limiting public spending on new social programs. Likewise, the incompetence and corruption of several top Chavista officials, especially in public food distribution, housing and public safety will have an electoral impact. It is likely that these “internal” factors are much more influential in shaping the alignment of Venezuela’s electoral outcome, than the aggressive confrontational politics adopted by Washington. Nevertheless, if the pro-US opposition substantially increases its legislative presence in the September 26 elections – beyond one-third of the Congress people – they will attempt to block social changes and economic stimulus policies. The US will intensify its efforts to pressure Venezuela to divert resources to security issues in order to undermine social-economic expenditures which sustain the support of the lower 60% of the Venezuelan population. Up to now, White House policy based on greater militarization and virtually no new economic initiatives has been a failure. It has encouraged the larger Latin American countries to increase regional integration, as witnessed by new custom and tariff agreements taken at the MERCOSUR meeting in early August of this year. It has not led to any diminuation of hostilities between the US and the ALBA countries. It has not increased US influence. Instead Latin America has moved toward a new regional political
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
organization UNASUR (which excludes the US), downgrading the Organization of American States which the US uses to push its agenda. Ironically, the only bright lights, favoring US influence, comes from internal, electoral processes. Rightist candidate Jose Serra is running a strong race in the upcoming Brazilian Presidential elections. In Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia the pro-US right is regrouping and hoping to return to power. What Washington fails to understand is that across the political spectrum from the left to the center-right, political leaders are appalled and opposed to the US push and promotion of the military option as the centerpiece of policy. Practically all political leaders have unpleasant memories of exile and persecution from the previous cycle of US backed military regimes. The selfproclaimed extra-territorial reach of the US military, operating out of its seven bases in Colombia, has widened the breach between the centrist and centerleft democratic regimes and the Obama White House. In other words, Latin America perceives US military aggression toward Venezuela as a “first step” southward toward their countries. That, and the drive for greater political independence and more diversified markets, have weakened Washington’s diplomatic and political attempts to isolate Venezuela. Colombia’s new President Santos, made out of the same rightist mold as his predecessor Alvaro Uribe, faces a difficult choice – continuing as an instrument of US military confrontation
A R T I C L E S and destabilization of Venezuela at the cost of several billion dollars in trade losses and isolation from the rest of Latin America or lessening border tensions and incursions, dropping the provocative rhetoric and normalizing relations with Venezuela. If the latter takes place, the US will lose its last best instrument for its external strategy of “tensions” and psych warfare. Washington will be left with two options: a unilateral direct military intervention or funding of political warfare through its domestic collaborators. In the meantime President Chavez and his supporters would do well to concentrate on pulling the economy out of recession, tackling state corruption and monumental inefficiency and empowering the community and factorybased councils to play a greater role in everything from increasing productivity to public safety. Ultimately Venezuela’s long term security from the long and pervasive reach of the US Empire depends on the strength of the organized mass organizations sustaining the Chavez government. 12 August, 2010 James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is coauthor of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest book is The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, 2006). He can be reached at jpetras@binghamton.edu. Source: Petras.lahaine.org
WILL MEDIA CONNECT WITH RELIGION IN IN CONFLICT AND CRISIS?
A
WORLD
By Chandra Muzaffar The media has two major missions vis-àvis religion in the contemporary world, one more obvious than the other. The media, whether old or new, mainstream or alternative, never fails to report and analyze all sorts of conflicts and upheavals including those that
appear to have a religious thrust. Instead of just reporting and analyzing, the media must now ask itself: how can it help to contain these conflicts, minimize the violence, reduce the killings, ameliorate the pain and suffering of the people? Since conflicts with a religious edge are
pervasive — and it is through the media that the world comes to know of these conflicts—the media cannot abdicate its responsibility to society. There are perhaps seven principles that the media could observe in reporting and analyzing continued next page
10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 9
these conflicts. One, do not present the conflict as a “religious conflict” when the religious factor may be secondary or of little consequence. Just because the individuals involved in a conflict may come from different religious communities one should not assume that the causes of the conflict are also “religious.” Two, analyze as lucidly as possible the real causes of the conflict. Inform the public of these causes without hesitation and without delay. Very often, the real causes are political or economic or a combination of both. Religious doctrine or ritual which may reflect differences between religions are not the cause of conflict as such. Power rather than prayer is at the root of many a conflict. Three, do not equate the violence that mars the conflict with the religion of the militants involved. No religion cherishes violence. Every religion abjures extremism, bigotry and hatred of the other. If individuals or groups within a particular religious community preach and practise violence, condemn it as a wrongdoing without tarnishing the entire religious tradition. Four, if individuals and groups attempt to justify violence or bigotry in the name of their religion, expose them for their dishonesty and deception. The media should show their viewers or listeners or readers how a particular text has been distorted or taken out of context. Five, in condemning violence or exposing religious bigotry do not be selective. Do not highlight such misdeeds when the perpetrators are from a certain religious community and downplay these wrongdoings when they come from another religious community. Bigots and extremists are found in all communities. Our recent history has shown us that no one community has the monopoly of religious militancy. Six, focus upon prominent individuals and groups from the communities embroiled in the conflict, especially those with strong religious
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
credentials, who have the courage and the conviction to condemn the wrongdoings committed by their own kind. The media should give equal attention to ordinary women and men who are revolted by the misuse and abuse of religion and yearn for justice and righteousness. Seven, the media should also bring to the fore instances of individuals and families from a party caught in the conflict reaching out to their counterparts on the other side. It is remarkable how in every conflict situation there are instances of this sort, of individuals and families protecting the victim of some atrocity committed by “one’s own people” so to speak. In many cases, the protector chooses to attribute his magnanimity to his faith. The seven principles outlined here— there must be many others— are by no means alien to the media. They have been observed to a lesser or greater degree by segments of the media in a number of countries over a period of time. What has yet to happen is a conscious, consistent, concerted articulation and application of these and other principles to conflict situations by the media community as a whole. This brings us to the media’s second mission. The media should show some appreciation of how the universal spiritual and moral values and principles embodied in all our religions can be harnessed to overcome some of the gravest challenges facing humanity today. I shall discuss briefly four such challenges in relation to spiritual and moral values and the failure of the media in establishing the nexus between the two. I shall also argue that the media has done very little to nurture popular consciousness on the pivotal importance of these values. First, perhaps the greatest threat to the continued existence of life on our planet at this point in time: the environmental challenge. Not many in the media are aware that in all our religions there are powerful teachings that implore us to live in harmony with nature; to use God’s bounties in a judicious manner
A R T I C L E S with the unborn generations of tomorrow in mind; to fulfill our responsibility as trustees on earth by preserving that delicate ecological balance upon which our collective survival depends. The media should highlight these teachings as a spiritual-moral message that all religions share. Second, the media should also emphasize the relevance of a spiritualmoral perspective on the other monumental challenge confronting the entire human race— the global economic crisis. Every aspect of the crisis— the widening chasm between those who have a lot and those who have a little; the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few; the excessive consumerism of the upper echelons of society; the huge debt burden that many economies bear; and the preponderance of speculative capital in the global economy that has given rise to the phenomenon of casino capitalism — is a violation of spiritual-moral principles. At the root of this crisis are two human traits which every religion condemns: selfishness and greed. In the midst of the current global economic criss, most media outlets have failed to tell thetruth about how and why the global economy and almost all our national economies transgress the essence of faith. Third, neither has the media told us that the continuous drive to enhance military power by a number of countries does not accord with a spiritual-moral worldview. That military expenditure in 2008 was a whopping 1.4 trillion US dollars is a damning indictment upon the rulers of the world. It is the sort of money that could have been used to provide the basic needs of more than three billion human beings on the planet who live on less than 2 US dollars a day. This vulgar inversion of priorities at the national and global level is nothing less than a gross betrayal of humanity’s moral conscience. And yet the media— specifically the mainstream media— has been deafeningly silent on this. Fourth, most of the mainstream media has also been silent on how continued next page
11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MOVEMENT
continued from page 10 mammoth military expenditure, the spread of casino capitalism and the environmental crisis, are related, directly or indirectly, to the drive for global hegemony by a global elite. This pursuit for global dominance and control is undoubtedly one of the most serious challenges confronting humankind today. The occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the subjugation of the Palestinians, the looming threat of military action against Iran, the conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the big power tussle over natural resources in the African continent, and the attempts to create instability in Bolivia and Venezuela, are all consequences of that hegemonic drive. The media reports on events associated with these crisis zones but it does not join the dots and make its audiences aware of the quest for global hegemonic power and why it is happening. For those who subscribe to spiritual and moral values and principles, the elite drive for hegemony is simply anathema. For no individual or group has the right to control, dominate and subjugate other human beings since the human being’s ultimate loyalty— his engaged surrender— is to God, and God alone. How does one enhance the media’s awareness of, and commitment to, its dual mission comprehending conflicts with a religious dimension in depth, on the one hand, and understanding of the significance of spiritual-moral values and principles in addressing some fundamental global challenges in the contemporary world, on the other? Including the philosophies and histories of the various religions, their values and principles, and their rituals and practices in the curricula of media studies in universities and other institutions of higher learning would be a step in the right direction. For serving media practitioners, there should be courses and workshops which emphasize the same themes and subjects of study. It is important that both categories are also exposed to the interface between religion and society, and some of the theories and concepts associated with
FOR
A
JUST
WORLD
this interface. Neither the conflicts of our time nor the challenges of our age— and the role of religion in them— can be understood in any depth without the benefit of ideas drawn from sociology, political science, economics, psychology and other social science disciplines. It is quite conceivable that media students and media practitioners may be somewhat reluctant to incorporate religion into their knowledge base since both the discipline and many individuals in the profession appear to be estranged from matters of faith. Expanding one’s knowledge base to include religion does not require a person to commit herself to a particular religion. In any case, those who are averse to any attachment to religion because of the bigotry of some theologians, or the obsession with rituals and rules, should realize that the sort of approach and understanding to religion that I am proposing here would bring to the surface the universal and inclusive, humane and enlightened essence of faith that has been pushed to the margins in recent decades in many parts of the world. However, even if media practitioners develop a more profound understanding of the nexus between religion and society, and are more appreciative of the role of spiritual-moral values in resolving fundamental contemporary challenges, there is no guarantee that there will be a significant change in the media’s outlook and role. For in the ultimate analysis, how a mainstream media channel views conflicts or challenges is determined to a great extent by the powerful interests that shape media policy. To put it differently, there are vested interests that would want to stereotype the followers of a particular religion because it serves their larger political agenda. They may be opposed to enlightened voices within different religious communities coming together in solidarity to protest against global casino capitalism or global militarism or global hegemony for the simple reason that their action would undermine their interests. This is why we should not expect the mainstream media as a whole to play
A R T I C L E S a role of any significance in fulfilling the dual mission of the media, enunciated at the outset of this presentation. The best we can hope for are individual media practitioners here and there to commit themselves to reporting and analyzing conflicts with a deeper understanding of the role of religion. There may also be minor media outlets that are cognizant of the potential contribution of spiritualmoral principles to the shaping of a just and compassionate civilization. The alternative media which is less encumbered by vested interests may be in a better position to pursue the media’s dual mission. But even the alternative media— or certain structures associated with it— has links to the global power stratum. At the end of the day we should perhaps look beyond the media to propel the changes we envisage. It is when the larger situation itself begins to change that popular consciousness will also begin to change. For instance, it is because the environmental crisis has become so pronounced that more people today are turning to values embodied in religion for answers. Similarly, the economic crisis has compelled more individuals and groups including diehard secularists to explore principles pertaining to finance and the management of money in a religion like Islam. What this means is that the great global challenges that face us will force the media to develop more empathy for religion and the spiritual and moral values it enshrines. The media will not be a trailblazer but it will certainly follow the trail. 24 May, 2010 The above is a keynote address delivered at the International Media Dialogue on Cultures and Religions on 24 May 2010 in Beijing China. Dr Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement For A Just World.
P.O BOX 288 Jalan Sultan 46730 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan MALAYSIA www.just-international.org
TERBITAN BERKALA
The International Movement for a Just World is a nonprofit international citizens’ organisation which seeks to create public awareness about injustices within the existing global system. It also attempts to develop a deeper understanding of the struggle for social justice and human dignity at the global level, guided by universal spiritual and moral values. In furtherance of these objectives, JUST has undertaken a number of activities including conducting research, publishing books and monographs, organising conferences and seminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns. JUST has friends and supporters in more than 130 countries and cooperates actively with other organisations which are committed to similar objectives in different parts of the world.
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)
Bayaran Pos Jelas Postage Paid Pejabat Pos Besar Kuala Lumpur Malaysia No. WP 1385
About the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)
It would be much appreciated if you could share this copy of the JUST Commentary with a friend or relative. Better still invite him/her to write to JUST so that we can put his/her name on our Commentary mailing list.
Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque addressed to: International Movement for a Just World P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia or direct to our bank account: Malayan Banking Berhad, Damansara Utama Branch, 62-66 Jalan SS 21/35, Damansara Utama, 47400, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA Account No. 5141 9633 1748 Donations from outside Malaysia should be made by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$