Sent to WS and Blog
Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:
http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and
ecology movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for opposition to
empire, militarism, and wars. Here is the
link to the Index: http://www.omnicenter.org/omni-newsletter-general-index/ See: Continental US Westward Expansion,
Genocide, Indigenous People of Americas, Pentagon ,
US Imperialism,
and more.
My blog:
It's the War Department
It's the War Department
WHO TELLS THE STORY?
“. . .the dominant interpretation of the past often enjoys
its status not because of its superior historical accuracy but because of its
proponents’ social power.” Karl Jacoby, Shadows at Dawn: An Apache Massacre and the
Violence of History (p. 276).
THE CHINA
THREAT
“Percentage of Americans who say China ‘can’t be trusted: 68.” (“Harper’s Index” January 2013). Where do you think that fear came from? US
encirclement of China would
not happen without the majority of people first having been persuaded by the
warriors to believe China
was an enemy, just as with Vietnam
and the “Axis of Evil.” --Dick
Nos. 1 & 2 at end
Contents #3, Nov. 25,
2012
Dick: Jeju Island
Obama Focuses on Asia-Pacific
Burns on Panetta: Transferring Forces to China “Threat”
Letman (via Global Nework and VFP): Hawaii , Head of PACOM
US Fear of Chinese Port Management
Andre Vltchek, Oceania , Western Imperialism S. Pacific
Contents #4 Encircling China , Pacific Resistance
LaFebre, Expansion 1860-1898
Dick: Progress to Pacific
Dick: General Custer
Lind: Hawaii
Bardsley: US Troops to Australia : China
Paik and Mander: Pacific Blowback
Space Alert! Dec. 2012
Middleton, Australian
Military Connections
US and NZ: Waihopai
Spybase
Vandenberg Air Force
Base
Star Wars and China
USPACCOM
Contents #5 March 27, 2013
RESISTANCE
Gagnon: Oppose US/SK War Games
Public Citizen: Stop Trans-Pacific Partnership: Contact Your Congressman
Garate: Resistance to US Military Bases in S. Korea
Kalikasan People’s Resistance
to US Military Destruction of Environment in the Philippines
HISTORY
Chalmers Johnson
Steve Clemons, Tribute
Dick Bennett, Blowback
Conroy, et al., West Across the Pacific
And S.
America
Contents #6
Dick: From Plymouth
and Pequots to Across the Pacific
Fackler: Japan Abandoning Pacifism
Southeast
Asian Bases: Singapore
Gerson:
Peace Movement and Pivot
Beifus:
Transpacific Partnership (TPP)
Glazebrook: Empire Westward or Eastward? Africa
The US Westward Movement: Puritan Aggression from Plymouth Across the Continent and the Pacific
This
passage from Alfred Cave’s The Pequot War
connects the dots of US westward expansion that included the enormous theft
from Mexico of the Southwest US and California and the spoils of the
Spanish-American War and WWII: .
“The Pequot War was not
waged in response to tangible acts of aggression. It cannot be understood as a rational
response to a real threat to English security.
It was, however, the expression of an assumption central to Puritan
Indian policy. Puritan magistrates were
persuaded that from time to time violent reprisals against recalcitrant savages
would be necessary to make the frontier safe for the people of God. The campaign against the Pequots was driven
by the same assumption that had impelled Plymouth
to massacre Indians suspected of plotting against them at Wessagusett in
1623. The incineration of Pequots at Fort Mystic
served the same symbolic purpose as the impalement of Wituwamet’s head on Plymouth ’s
blockhouse. Both were intended to
intimidate potential enemies and to remind the Saints that they lived in daily
peril of massacre at the hands of Satan’s minions” (168).
Just change a few words and the passage
applies amazingly well to the Cold War and the War on Terror, the permanent war
that has ravaged the planet. From the
dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki , partly to intimidate the Soviet Union, to the
drone assassinations, US leaders have pumped the public with fear of attack to
justify some fifty US
invasions and interventions against “evil” nations since 1945.
One of our greatest critics of US war-making,
former Senator J. William Fulbright, understood this disastrous, corrosive
combination of paranoia and arrogance. In
The Arrogance of Power, Fulbright
wrote: “. . .the Puritan way of
thought—harsh, ascetic, intolerant, promising salvation for the few but
damnation for the many—became a major intellectual force in American life. It introduced a discordant element into a
society bred in the English heritage of toleration, moderation, and experimentalism”
(250). Out of the Puritan tradition came
zealous US
nationalism and exceptionalism, Sovietphobia, anti-communism, anti-Islam,
anti-terrorism, the “Axis of Evil,” and utter blindness to the humanity of
“enemies.” --Dick
EVAN TAYLOR, EURASIA : CROSSROADS OF EMPIRE
“The New Crossroads of
Empire,” Part Two of a Series on Eurasia in Z Magazine (April 2013).
·
ZNet
·
ZMag
·
ZBooks
·
ZSocial
·
ZVid
·
ZSpace
·
ZBlog
·
Parecon
Volume 26, Number 4
NOTE: Z Magazinesubscribers and sustainershave
access to all Z Magazine articles here and in the archive. The latest Z
Magazine articles available to everyone are listed in the Free Articles box at
the top of the table of
contents, and are starred in the list below.Questions? e-mail Z Magazine
Online.
The New Crossroads of Empire [US
westward expansion meets Chinese. –Dick] By Evan Taylor
[CHINA ]Railroads
build empires. Beijing
is building a new one. China ,
now a world-class producer of high-speed rail technology, is in the middle of a
transportation boom unprecedented in history as 5,800 miles of domestic
high-speed rail lines have been built since 2008, at a cost of $640 billion.
Three months ago, just in time for the Chinese New Year, the Ministry of
Railways celebrated the opening of their longest route yet, running 1,200 miles
between Beijing and Guangzhou ,
the historic trading center on China ’s
southeast coast. In the annual spectacle of movement that was the most recent
Chinese New Year passengers celebrated the upcoming year of the snake by
slithering along the world’s longest high-speed railway at speeds of over 200
miles per hour (“China Opens Longest High-Speed Rail Line,” Keith Bradshar, New York Times, December 26, 2012). The overland journey
from Beijing to Guangzhou , the great route from the mountains
to the heartland, now takes only eight hours.
But equally as important is Beijing ’s use of high-speed rail as a tool of
foreign policy, a part of its 20-year strategy to Go West
and build connections across the Eurasian continent. In last month’s issue of Z,
I touched on the recent growth in relations between China and Turkey, where Chinese companies are in the process of
building a railroad across Turkey ’s
east-west breadth, connecting Asia to Europe
at 200 mph. But where Turkey
is the future, the start of Beijing ’s
empire to the west has already been built.
The
idea of a railroad has always been the dream for connecting global markets
going on two centuries now. The Trans-Siberian railway, the original Eurasian
land bridge from Moscow to the Sea
of Japan , was a two-decade project completed by the Russian Tsars
in 1916. In the U.S. ,
railroads settled the west and, when they reached the Pacific, the U.S. moved
across the ocean and became an imperial power. But now the American century is
over and China
is taking its turn at the game. Working with Deutsche Bahn—the German national
railway company and largest rail company in the world—as well as RZD, a
subsidiary of Russian railways, Beijing has for four years now, been operating
the “Second Eurasian Land Bridge,” as
author F. William Engdahl calls it, direct freight rail service from Germany to
China (F. William Engdahl, “China’s Land Bridge to Turkey Creates New
Eurasian Geopolitical Potentials,” April 28, 2012).
In
October 2008, Norbert Bensel, a top board manager at DB Schenker, the logistics
subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn that manages the service, aptly described the new
process of industry that was taking place. “The introduction of the regular
timetable and fixed departure times,” he stated, will create “a new link in our
global network” and “a new level of quality in the trans-continental exchange
of goods” (“Trans-Eurasia Express to Launch next year,” Railway Gazette, October 6,
2008). Heady words, and ones that speak of a great imaginary market coming to
life.
Bensel was speaking at the commercial launch
of what was then called the Trans-Eurasia expressway, a twice a week, 20-day
freight shipping line from Beijing to the German
ports of Hamburg , Duisburg , and Nuremburg. Describing itself as
the first regular rail transportation service between Europe and Asia, the line
runs from Germany through Poland and Belarus
to Russia .
From there, it can either go across the continent on the Trans-Siberian to
Manzhouli, on China ’s
Northeast border, or south through Kazakhstan
to Western China .
By
October 2011, DB Schenker had the service running five days a week and a number
of major companies had bought into the route. Auto manufacturers like BMW,
Audi, and Volkswagen now ship parts overland from their German manufacturing
plants to their Chinese assembly plants, and computer companies like HP and
Acer ship from their Chinese factories to the European market. Since 2011, HP
has shipped over four million notebook computers from Chongqing
to Germany
(“The Silk Railroad of China-Europe Trade,”Bloomberg Business Week,
December 20, 2012).
Beijing is also developing a factory economy in
Western China. Whereas the Southeast coast had been the major
growth market for Chinese factory development in the past, industry is now
moving inland and to the west. Chongqing , in Sichuan province, has
become a factory boomtown. During World War II, Chiang Kai-Shek’s government
fled to Chongqing ,
so remote that the Japanese couldn’t get there. And now, with a municipal
population over 13 million, it is “the world’s biggest city” as Time Magazine put it in 2005 (“China : the
world’s largest city,” April 18, 2005; “Xinjiang to set up two special economic
zones in 2011,” Peoples Daily,
February 14, 2011). Two years ago, Beijing
created two new Special Economic Zones (SEZs), the free-market
economic-framework that has fueled the factory growth along the coast. But the
new SEZs are to be far from the coast—in fact, as far from the coast as
possible—located in Kashgar on the far western border of Xinjiang. Beijing plans to invest
billions of dollars into the area and provide regulatory and tax breaks as
well, aiming to attract domestic and international investment. Frederick
Jackson Turner is not in China ,
and for the first time since Xinjiang was conquered in the late 18th century it
is being industrially developed as a global trading hub.
Oil
and Gas Pipelines
The other half of Beijing ’s
Go West strategy is creating overland energy corridors, namely oil and gas
pipelines from Iran
and the Caspian region. The developments started in 1997, when Kazakhstan and China
agreed to a “project of the century,” with China
promising to invest nearly $11 billion in Kazakhstan ’s oil infrastructure and
pipelines. Progress, however, was slow and it took until 2003 for China to begin making waves in Kazakh oil, when
the Chinese National Petroleum Company bought 100 percent of the shares in the Northern Buzachi fields from a Chevron-Saudi consortium.
Since
then, Beijing
has worked steadily to acquire more production companies in the field, working
with Kazakh state owned companies like KazMunaiGaz. According to the estimates
of Kazakh government researcher Konstantin Syroezhkin, by 2012:“China ’s share in oil production in Kazakhstan
amounts to around 25-27 percent and in gas production to13-15 percent. Of
course, these figures are far from those with which the Kazakhstani opposition
and some deputies ‘frighten’ the Kazakhstanis (40 percent), but they are quite
considerable, particularly if we keep in mind the areas Chinese companies are
operating in the country and the fact that the oil and gas sector is the basis
of Kazakhstan’s economy and the main contributor of revenue to the budget.”
In
order to transport the oil to China ,
a Western Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline was also agreed to in 2003. Within a
year construction on the first phase had begun, and by 2005 a pipeline to the
Kazakh-Chinese border was complete, at a cost of over $800 million. In July
2006, a mark of great geopolitical significance was reached, as an oil refinery
in the city of Dushanzi , located halfway between
the border and Xinjiang’s capital of Urumqi ,
received China ’s
first-ever overland imports of oil. Construction began on the second phase of
the Kazakh pipeline in 2009, and again within 2 years the project was complete.
Throughput of the overall pipeline network, which started at 10 million tons of
crude oil per year, was expected to reach 20 million tons in 2012 and 50
million tons in 2020.
A
second pipeline, for transporting natural gas, has also been constructed,
running from fields in Kazakhstan
and Turkmenistan
to Khorgos, at the southern end of the Kazakh-Chinese border. The first stage
of this pipeline, built over two years and finished in 2009, runs from the
Uzbek-Kazakh border through Shykment to Khorgos. With a throughput
capacity of 40 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas, the pipeline covered a
distance of 1,333 km, and came at a cost of $7.5 billion. A second phase within
Kazakhstan has been planned
as well, running from the Caspian Sea to
Shykment.
A 2009 meeting in the remote Turkmeni desert
symbolized the new petroleum reality in Central Asia ,
with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Uzbek President Islam Karimov and Kazakh
President Nursaltan Nazarbayev all convening with their Turkmeni colleague to
inaugurate the new gas pipeline. “The whole world is watching us right now,” Hu
stated. And one can be sure that Washington
was watching when the President of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov
(for real) visited Beijing in November 2011 and
agreed to increase gas exports to China by 25 bcm per year. Soon, the
total gas trade between the two states will be 65 bcm per year, half of China ’s total
gas consumption.
[USA ]While China
is building her industrial connection to the west, the U.S. has been establishing its own
attempt at a trans-continental transport network as well. Known as the Northern Distribution Network (NDN)
and operated by the Pentagon’s Transportation Command, it has been pieced
together since 2009 to supply troops, weapons, and supplies for the war effort
in Afghanistan .
One
main path starts in the Latvian port
of Riga , on the Baltic
Sea . From there it travels by rail through Russia , Kazakhstan ,
and Uzbekistan
to Termez on the Afghan border. Another path starts in the Georgia ’s Black Sea port
of Poti and runs across the Caucasus
to Baku , on the Caspian Sea .
It then goes through Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan
and meets up with the first path in Termez. Sounds like a log jam? It is. The
NDN is not an efficient method of transport—“to Afghanistan , on the slow train”—as
CNN put it. As of November 2011, the rail trip from the Riga
to Afghanistan
takes about 10 days. This seems to be a best-case scenario, however, as many
reports have stated that it can take up to 35 days for goods to cross the
Uzbek-Afghan border due to myriad problems related to congestion and
corruption. This touches on the larger problem of the network, namely that it
requires the consent of the corrupt and dictatorial governments of the region.
Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan
Consider
the case of Uzbekistan , the
most populous state in Central Asia and one
ruled with an iron fist by Islam Karimov since 1989. Karimov is of the Saddam
Hussein mold of dictator, a former Soviet secret policeman obsessed with power
and violence, famous for boiling prisoners alive. Like Iraq , Uzbekistan is flush with resources—
gas, copper, uranium, and gold. After gaining independence from the Soviet
Union in 1992, Karimov played Washington ’s
imperial expansion game, signing up for NATO military training programs like
the Partnership for Peace. Then, after 9/11, it took Uzbekistan
barely one month to agree to host a U.S. military base at Khanabad
airport. Within a week of the base opening in October 2001, more than 60 planes
had dropped off supplies and 1,200 soldiers were on the ground, primarily light
infantry troops from Fort Drum ’s tenth mountain division, the first U.S. soldiers
to ever be deployed to former Soviet territory.
Months
later, Kyrgyzstan followed
suit, and allowed the U.S.
military to use the Manas International Airport ,
located on the outskirts of the capital city of Bishkek . Within months, Air Force engineers had
built a 30-acre compound at Manas, the equivalent of 6 city blocks, to house
3,000 personnel. Located 7,000 miles away from Central Command headquarters in Tampa , Florida ,
Manas is less than 300 miles from the Chinese border.
Here, it is worth quoting at length from a
remarkable article, “Footprints in Steppes of Central Asia,” by Vernon Loeb and
published in the February 9, 2002 edition of the Washington Post: “In a remote
corner of Central Asia in a country that didn’t even exist a decade
ago, the U.S. Air Force is building a base that within
months will be home to 3,000 personnel and nearly two dozen American
and allied aircraft. While the intensity of the war in Afghanistan has slowed, the base going
up outside Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan , tells a much different
story. It embodies what senior U.S.
defense officials say is a major commitment to maintain not just air operations
over Afghanistan
for the foreseeable future but also a robust military presence in the
region well after the war.”
Just
how long the United States
plans to remain is anyone’s guess. Senior military officials say they have no
plans for a permanent American presence. But if the construction here at Manas International
Airport is any indication, the
Pentagon, rather than searching for an exit strategy for Afghanistan , is
focusing on the opposite: establishing a foothold. “America will have
a continuing interest and presence in Central
Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before,”
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the House International Relations
Committee on Wednesday….”
All
told, more than 50,000 U.S.
military personnel now live and work on ships and bases stretching
from Turkey to Oman and
eastward to the Manas airport, 19 miles outside of Bishkek and 300 miles from
the Chinese border. “The imperial
perimeter is expanding into Central Asia ,”
Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century, wrote in a recent e-mail
circulated among leading military analysts.
The
full article is an amazing read on the
bellicose optimism of American policymakers in the wake of September 11.
Central Asia had been conquered, the war in Afghanistan
would soon be over, and Iraq
was next in line. But in a sign of the peril that expanding your “imperial
perimeter” brings, relations with Uzbekistan
soon turned sour. In the summer of 2005, after Karimov’s security forces
massacred hundreds of protesters in the city of Andijon ,
U.S.
and other international officials began making calls for a judicial inquiry.
Angered at this, and distrustful of the U.S.
due to the recent “color revolutions” Washington
had sponsored in Georgia , Ukraine , and Kyrgyzstan , Karimov kicked the
Pentagon out of Khanabad.
With
the growing importance of the Northern Distribution Network, the U.S. has been crawling back to Karimov in order
for him to open up his borders for U.S. military transit. In late
2011, Washington lifted the last of the
arms-sales restrictions placed on Uzbekistan following the Andijon
incident. More importantly, after an official visit to the Uzbek capital of Tashkent in November, Army Lt. General James L. Brooks
stated that transferring leftover or old
U.S. military equipment from
Afghanistan to Uzbekistan
was one of the key points of discussion. “I think that there are ways that the
excess equipment could benefit both countries, Uzbekistan
and Afghanistan , with the
excess of U.S.
equipment from the war,” he was quoted as saying.
Although it is ethically troublesome for the U.S. to kowtow
to such an oppressive government, it is simply a sign of the times. Pentagon
aid to NDN states, authorized in the yearly Defense Authorization Act, has
increased from $1.2 billion in 2008 to $1.6 billion in 2010 and $1.69 billion
in 2011. Uzbekistan ,
as the hub of the NDN operations, receives the lion’s share of these
funds. In fact, in 2010 the U.S.
added sweeping new language to section 1233 of the annual Defense Authorization
Bill, setting the stage for untempered
military aid to the region. Now, “key cooperating nations,” working in
support of the war effort would be
given “specialized training,” “supplies,” and “specialized equipment.”
Moreover, it was all to be a gift, provided on a “non-reimbursable basis.”
Trucks, spare parts, weapons, night-vision goggles; it is all being provided by
Washington (and London ), easier to leave behind than ship
out. With the U.S.-led forces planning
to retreat from Afghanistan
after realizing that the country cannot be occupied, the dictators and
autocrats have the upper hand and are demanding the world. The U.S. is enabling region-wide corruption for the
purpose of propping up a corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan .
New Silk Road
Disregarding
the logistical and ethical problems, the entire effort is not a sustainable
plan, as it is a fact that the U.S.
will soon remove all its “combat” soldiers from Afghanistan . What Washington hopes to maintain is a Status of
Forces Agreement and a small permanent base of some 20,000 “non-combat”
soldiers; whether the Afghans will allow this is a different story. But
regardless, why develop such an extensive military supply network? For the U.S.
State Department, the NDN is the first step in creating what they term a “New Silk Road ,”
with Afghanistan
serving as the heart of a Pentagon controlled Eurasian network. In November
2012, Dennise Mathieu, a former Ambassador to Nigeria
and top State Department advisor to Transportation Command, laid out the U.S. strategy: “Eventually, with continued
cooperation, they will be able to go all the way from China into Europe ….
You will have a whole new economic
network, built upon the foundation of this military logistics supply network.”
Hilariously,
the State Department is also still pining for the famed TAPI pipeline,
connecting Turkmenistan to Afghanistan , Pakistan ,
and India .
Dreamed up in the 1990s, TAPI has approached the territory of conspiratorial
legend—the great pipeline behind the invasion of Afghanistan —except for the fact
that the State Department is still talking about it. But as the war continues
into its 12th year, construction on the pipeline has still not begun. In the
meantime, Turkmenistan found
its energy patron in China .
Highlighted here is the true difference
between U.S.
and Chinese foreign policy. While China
has embraced industrial development, the U.S. has focused exclusively on the
sword. Just read the above quote from Ambassador Mathieu again. The Pentagon
military network will be the foundation of a new Eurasia ?
It is laughable, but the same idea has driven U.S.
policy around the globe, from Columbia to Iraq to the Philippines .
China’s Going West Policy
China’s current policy of Going West and
expanding their economic influence into western Eurasia—Central Asia, the
Middle East, and eventually Western Europe—is rooted in
Beijing’s keen reading of the last 20 years of history. Economically, they
watched the dissolution of the Soviet Union ,
and the reality of Western-backed free-market “shock therapy” being imposed on
a nation of 150 million, and decided a different path was needed. Beijing wants stability,
not shock.
Militarily,
they watched the U.S. follow
the Cheney plan of imperial expansion and privatization, fighting wars in Yugoslavia , Afghanistan ,
and Iraq , all at a huge cost
to the U.S.
economic balance sheet and public support. In contrast, China ’s
military still does not have any overt foreign bases. In 2009, when a Chinese
official suggested that the People’s Liberation Army was thinking of building
their first overseas military base, in the Red Sea
area, the idea was quickly denied and no base was ever constructed.
Currently,
Beijing seems to be happy letting U.S. soldiers protect China ’s foreign investments, which
more and more is the effective purpose of the American military. China is now the largest investor in the Iraqi
oil sector, as well as making the largest investment in the history of Afghanistan , a
$7 billion Copper Mine contract. In Central Asia and the energy rich Caspian Basin ,
which U.S. strategists have
tried to control since the George H.W. Bush Administration, China has built oil and gas pipelines to their
Western province
of Xinjiang . The arid
mountains of Uzbekistan ,
where the China-Central Asia gas pipeline
intersects with NATO’s supply route for the Afghanistan War, are the new
crossroads of empire. While Washington
strategists dream about ending the war by turning the supply route into a
Pentagon-designed “New Silk Road” in the region, Beijing has built their own “New Silk Road.”
As Zbigniew Brzezinski feared, the vassals are now independent and the
“barbarians” have come together, resulting in an economic conquering of Eurasia .
The
last the 40 years of U.S.
foreign policy have been devoted to gaining hegemony over the Middle East and Southwest Asia . U.S.
leaders have made this an entirely military project, fighting multiple wars in
both Iraq and Afghanistan and
constructing hundreds upon hundreds of military bases and installations. But
within a decade, China
implemented an economic strategy and trumped the U.S. attempt. Political leaders
across Eurasia are beginning to disregard the longstanding U.S. policy of
gunboat diplomacy—using arms sales and military threats to control
international economic and geopolitical policies.
The
guns are still there, but the resources and industrial infrastructure is being
developed and controlled by China .
To go back to the beginning, here is the reasoning behind the CFR’s thesis that
the U.S. needs a “new
strategic partnership” with Turkey .
Sitting in New York City and Washington ,
they see a Turkey
that is having it both ways, forging an independent path using both the
American military machine and the Chinese economic model. Now the question
becomes whether the CFR and its associated think-tank warriors will tolerate
this independence or if they want Ankara
exclusively to themselves. For it is not as if Turkey
is spurning U.S.
military advances. In terms of NATO, Syria ,
and Missile Defense, Turkey
has been a willing partner in American warmaking. However, it may be that this
is not enough. A battle of grand strategy is taking place in the heartland of
the world and the U.S.
plans seem to be falling to pieces.
Whether
the Chinese people are benefitting from these developments is a different
question altogether and one that cannot be fully examined in this space.
Corruption and scandals have plagued the upper levels of the Chinese Communist
Party as of late and top leaders have been exposed as amassing giant fortunes.
In 2011, Liu Zhijun, railroad minister for 8 years, was dramatically fired from
his post, accused of netting $152 million in bribes. One wonders if China ’s high-speed railroad boom will be a
repeat of the Gilded Age, the famous phrase used in 1873 by Mark Twain to
describe the veneer of conspicuous wealth associated with the U.S. westward
expansion. However, perhaps there is also somewhere in China , someone
willing to work for radical change and reform in the face of moneyed
industrialization. Will the Communist Party allow them to speak? With such vast
geopolitical shifts occurring, the moment is ripe for action on both sides of
the equation. As fast as freight and oil crosses the continent, people and
ideas can move faster. And while a move away from war and militarization in
favor of industrialization should be applauded, there is no joy in seeing one
form of imperialism replaced by another.
Evan Taylor is a student at American
University and a graduate of Marlboro College . Part one of this article can be
found in the March issue of Z Magazine.
by E. San
Juan , Jr. [NOTES ON U.S.GENOCIDE IN THE PHILIPPINES ]
Except during the sixties when the Filipino-American War
of 1899-1902 was referred to as “the first Vietnam ,”
the death of 1.4 million Filipinos has been usually accounted for as either
collateral damage or victims of insurrection against the imperial authority of
the United States .
The first Filipino scholar to make a thorough documentation of the carnage is
the late Luzviminda Francisco in her contribution to The Philippines: The End of An Illusion (London , 1973).
This fact is not even mentioned in the
tiny paragraph or so in most U.S.
history textbooks. Stanley Karnow’s In
Our Image (1989), the acclaimed history of this intervention, quotes the
figure of 200,000 Filipinos killed in outright fighting. Among historians, only
Howard Zinn and Gabriel Kolko have dwelt on the “genocidal” character of the
catastrophe. Kolko, in his magisterial Main
Currents in Modern American History (1976), reflects on the context of the
mass murder: “Violence reached a crescendo against the Indian after the Civil
War and found a yet bloodier manifestation during the protracted conquest of
the Philippines from 1898 until well into the next decade, when anywhere from
200,000 to 600,000 Filipinos were killed in an orgy of racist slaughter that
evoked much congratulation and approval....” Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (1980) cites 300,000
Filipinos killed in Batangas alone, while William Pomeroy’s American Neo-Colonialism (1970) cites
600,000 Filipinos dead in Luzon alone by 1902.
The actual figure of 1.4 million covers the period from 1899 to 1905 when
resistance by the Filipino revolutionary forces mutated from outright combat in
battle to guerilla skirmishes; it doesn’t include the thousands of Moros
(Filipino Muslims) killed in the first two decades of U.S. colonial domination.
The
first Philippine Republic led by Emilio Aguinaldo, which had already waged a
successful war against the Spanish colonizers, mounted a determined nationwide
opposition against U.S.
invading forces. It continued for two more decades after Aguinaldo’s capture in
1901. Several provinces resisted to the point where the U.S. had to employ scorched-earth tactics, and hamletting or
“reconcentration” to quarantine the populace from the guerillas, resulting in
widespread torture, disease, and mass starvation. In The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective (2003),
Prof. Gavan McCormack argues that the outright counterguerilla operations
launched by the U.S.
against the Filipinos, an integral part of its violent pacification program,
constitutes genocide. He refers to Jean Paul Sartre’s contention that as in Vietnam ,
“the only anti-guerilla strategy which will be effective is the destruction of
the people, in other words, the civilians, women and children.” That is what
happened in the Philippines
in the first half of the bloody twentieth century.
As
defined by the UN 1948 “ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide,” genocide means acts “committed with intention to destroy,
in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” It is
clear that the U.S. colonial
conquest of the Philippines
deliberately sought to destroy the national sovereignty of the Filipinos. The
intent of the U.S.
perpetrators included the dissolution of the ethnic identity of the Filipinos
manifest in the rhetoric, policies, and disciplinary regimes enunciated and
executed by legislators, politicians, military personnel, and other apparatuses.
The original proponents of the UN document on genocide conceived of genocide as
including acts or policies aimed at “preventing the preservation or
development” of “racial, national, linguistic, religious, or political groups.”
That would include “all forms of propaganda tending by their systematic and
hateful character to provoke genocide, or tending to make it appear as a
necessary, legitimate, or excusable act.” What the UN had in mind, namely,
genocide as cultural or social death of targeted groups, was purged from the
final document due to the political interests of the nation-states that then
dominated the world body.
What
was deleted in the original draft of the UN document are practices considered
genocidal in their collective effect. Some of them were carried out in the Philippines by the United States from 1899 up to 1946
when the country was finally granted formal independence. As with the American Indians, U.S.
colonization involved, among others, the “destruction of the specific character
of a persecuted group by forced transfer of children, forced exile, prohibition
of the use of the national language, destruction of books, documents,
monuments, and objects of historical, artistic or religious value.” The goal of
all colonialism is the cultural and social death of the conquered natives, in
effect, genocide.
In
a recent article, “Genocide and America ”
(New
York Review
of Books, March 14, 2002), Samantha Power observes that US officials “had
genuine difficulty distinguishing the deliberate massacre of civilians from the
casualties incurred in conventional conflict.” It is precisely the blurring of
this distinction in colonial wars through racializing discourses and practices
that proves how genocide cannot be fully grasped without analyzing the way the
victimizer (the colonizing state power) categorizes the victims (target
populations) in totalizing and naturalizing modes unique perhaps to the
civilizational drives of modernity.
Within the modern period, in particular, the messianic impulse to genocide
springs from the imperative of capital accumulation—the imperative to reduce
humans to commodified labor-power, to saleable goods/services. U.S. “primitive
accumulation” began with the early colonies in New England and Virginia, and
culminated in the 19th century with the conquest and annexation of Puerto Rico,
Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines.With the historical background of the
U.S. campaigns against the American Indians in particular, and the treatment of
African slaves and Chicanos in general, there is a need for future scholars and
researchers to concretize this idea of genocide (as byproduct of imperial
expansion) by exemplary illustrations from the U.S. colonial adventure in the
Philippines.
What happened in 1899-1903 is bound
to be repeated with the increased U.S.
intervention in the Philippines
(declared “the second front” in the “war against terrorism”) unless U.S.
citizens protest. Hundreds of U.S. Special Forces are at present deployed
throughout the islands presumably against “terrorist” Muslim insurgents and the
left-wing New People’s Army. Both groups have been fighting for basic
democratic rights for more than five decades now, since the Philippines gained nominal independence from the
U.S.
in 1946. There is unfortunately abysmal ignorance about continued U.S.
involvement in this former Asian colony—except, perhaps, during the 1986
“People Power” revolt against the Marcos “martial law” regime universally
condemned for stark human-rights violations.
As attested to by UNESCO and human rights monitors, the situation
has worsened since then with hundreds of killings of journalists, lawyers,
women activists, and union organizers. The current crisis of the Arroyo regime,
ridden with corruption and exposed for blatant vote rigging, is renewing alarm
signals for Washington, foreboding a repeat of mass urban uprisings sure to
threaten the comprador agents of global capital that abet the misery of
millions—10 million of 80 Filipinos work as domestics and contract workers
abroad—caused by World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International
Monetary Fund policies imposed on a neocolonial government.
The revolutionary upsurge in the Philippines against the Marcos
dictatorship (1972-1986) stirred up dogmatic Cold War complacency. With the
inauguration of a new stage in academic Cultural Studies in the nineties, the
historical reality of U.S.
imperialism (the genocide of Native Americans is replayed in the
subjugation of the inhabitants of the Philippines ,
Puerto Rico , Hawaii ,
and Cuba )
is finally being excavated and re-appraised. But this is, of course, a
phenomenon brought about by a confluence of multifarious events, among them:
the demise of the Soviet Union as a challenger to U.S. hegemony; the
sublation of the Sixties in both Fukuyama’s “end of history” and the
interminable “culture wars,” the Palestininan intifadas; the Zapatista revolt
against NAFTA; the heralding of current anti-terrorism by the Gulf War; and the
fabled “clash of civilizations.” Despite these changes, the old frames of
intelligibility have not been modified or reconfigured to understand how
nationalist revolutions in the colonized territories cannot be confused with
the nationalist patriotism of the dominant or hegemonic metropoles, or how the
mode of U.S. imperial rule in the twentieth century differs in form and content
from those of the British or French in the nineteenth century.
Despite inroads of critical theory
here and there, the received consensus of a progressive modernizing influence
from the advanced industrial Western powers
remains deeply entrenched here and in the Philippines . Even postcolonial and
postmodern thinkers commit the mistake of censuring the decolonizing projects
of the subalternized peoples because these projects (in the superior gaze of
these thinkers) have been damaged, or are bound to become perverted into
despotic postcolonial regimes, like those in Ghana, Algeria, Vietnam, the
Philippines, and elsewhere. The only alternative, it seems, is to give assent
to the process of globalization under the aegis of the World Bank/IMF/WTO, and
hope for a kind of “benevolent assimilation.”
What remains to be carefully considered,
above all, is the historical specificity or singularity of each of these
projects of national liberation, their class composition, historical roots,
programs, ideological tendencies, and political agendas within the context of
colonial/imperial domination. It is not possible to pronounce summary judgments
on the character and fate of nationalist movements in the peripheral formations
without focusing on the complex manifold relations between colonizer and
colonized, the dialectical interaction between their forces as well as others
caught in the conflict. Otherwise, the result would be a disingenuous ethical
utopianism such as that found in U.S. postnationalist and postcolonialist
discourse which, in the final analysis, functions as an apology for the
ascendancy of the transnational corporate powers embedded in the nation-states
of the North, and for the hegemonic rule of the only remaining superpower
claiming to act in the name of freedom and democracy.
The case of the national-democratic
struggle in the Philippines
may be taken as an example of one historic singularity. Because of the
historical specificity of the Philippines ’
emergence as a dependent nation-state controlled by the United States in the twentieth
century, nationalism as a mass movement has always been defined by events of
anti-imperialist rebellion. U.S.
conquest entailed long and sustained violent suppression of the Filipino
revolutionary forces for decades.
The central founding “event” (as the philosopher Alain Badiou
would define the term) is the 1896 revolution against Spain and its sequel, the Filipino-American war
of 1899-1902, and the Moro resistance up to 1914 against U.S. colonization. Another
political sequence of events is the Sakdal uprising in the thirties during the
Commonwealth period followed by the Huk uprising in the forties and fifties—a
sequence that is renewed in the First Quarter Storm of 1970 against the
neocolonial state. While the feudal oligarchy and the comprador class under
U.S. patronage utilized elements of the nationalist tradition formed in
1896-1898 as their ideological weapon for establishing moral-intellectual
leadership, their attempts have never been successful. Propped by the
Pentagon-supported military, the Arroyo administration today, for example, uses
the U.S.
slogan of democracy against terrorism and the fantasies of the neoliberal free
market to legitimize its continued exploitation of workers, peasants, women and
ethnic minorities.
Following a long and tested tradition of grassroots mobilization,
Filipino nationalism has always remained centered on the peasantry’s demand for
land closely tied to the popular-democratic demand for equality and genuine
sovereignty.
For over a century now, U.S.-backed developmentalism and modernization have
utterly failed in the Philippines .
The resistance against globalized capital and its neoliberal extortions is
spearheaded today by a national-democratic mass movement of various ideological
persuasions. There is also a durable Marxist-led insurgency that seeks to
articulate the “unfinished revolution” of 1896 in its demand for national
independence against U.S.
control and social justice for the majority of citizens (80 million) ten
percent of whom are now migrant workers abroad. Meanwhile, the Muslim
community in the southern part of the Philippines initiated its armed
struggle for self-determination during the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) and
continues today as a broadly based movement for autonomy, despite the Islamic
ideology of its teacher-militants.
Recalling the genocidal U.S. campaigns cited above, BangsaMoro
nationalism cannot forget its Muslim singularity which is universalized in the
principles of equality, justice, and the right to self-determination. In the
wake of past defeats of peasant revolts, the Filipino culture of nationalism
constantly renews its anti-imperialist vocation by mobilizing new forces (women
and church people in the sixties, and the indigenous or ethnic minorities in
the seventies and eighties). It is organically embedded in emancipatory social
and political movements whose origin evokes in part the Enlightenment narrative
of sovereignty as mediated by third-world nationalist movements (Gandhi, Ho Chi
Minh, Mao) but whose sites of actualization are the local events of mass
insurgency against continued U.S.
hegemony.
The Philippines as an “imagined” and actually experienced ensemble
of communities, or multiplicities in motion, remains in the process of being
constructed primarily through modes of political and social resistance against
corporate transnationalism (or globalization, in the trendy parlance) and its
technologically mediated ideologies, fashioning thereby the appropriate
cultural forms of dissent, resistance, and subversion worthy of its people’s
history and its collective vision.
Revised
version of my piece that came out in countercurrents.org
--
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: [New post] FREE ALL FILIPINA POLITICAL PRISONERS!
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: [New post] FREE ALL FILIPINA POLITICAL PRISONERS!
philcsc posted: "U.S.
GLOBAL CAPITALISM'S HUMANITARIAN BLESSING : TORTURE OF WOMEN POLITICAL
PRISONERS IN THE PHILIPPINES by E. SAN JUAN, Jr. Philippines Cultural Studies
Center, USA Listed early this year by the UK ECONOMIST as an upcoming
Asian Tiger with 6-7% G"
|
Reader Supported
News | 02 April 13 AM
Japan Shifting Further Away From Pacifism
Martin Fackler, The New York Times
Fackler reports: "Iron Fist is one of the latest signs that Japan's anxiety about China's insistent claims over disputed islands as well as North Korea's escalating nuclear threats are pushing Japanese leaders to shift further away from the nation's postwar pacifism."
READ MORE
Martin Fackler, The New York Times
Fackler reports: "Iron Fist is one of the latest signs that Japan's anxiety about China's insistent claims over disputed islands as well as North Korea's escalating nuclear threats are pushing Japanese leaders to shift further away from the nation's postwar pacifism."
READ MORE
NEW FILM, THE GHOSTS OF JEJU, Purchased by OMNI
Hello James,
Got your email from Bruce Gagnon. First, your copy of The Ghosts of Jeju will be in tomorrow's mail.
I visited the website and am very impressed with the work you folks are doing. I hope that you will have an opportunity to screen the film with as many as possible, especially the students. The real history of theU.S. is
something that has never been taught.
Thanks for purchasing the film, and please do provide me with feedback on how it is received.
Regis Tremblay
209 River Rd
Woolwich, ME 04579
207-400-4362
"I refuse to live in a country like this, and I'm not leaving"
Michael Moore
Hello James,
Got your email from Bruce Gagnon. First, your copy of The Ghosts of Jeju will be in tomorrow's mail.
I visited the website and am very impressed with the work you folks are doing. I hope that you will have an opportunity to screen the film with as many as possible, especially the students. The real history of the
Thanks for purchasing the film, and please do provide me with feedback on how it is received.
Regis Tremblay
209 River Rd
Woolwich, ME 04579
207-400-4362
"I refuse to live in a country like this, and I'm not leaving"
Michael Moore
REPORTING
Latest report in June 5, 2013 number, “Jeju Island , Korea ,”
a partial account of recent developments.
See savejejunow.org for additional stories.
1.
24/7 construction met with 24/7 resistance on Jeju
Island « The ...
www.nukeresister.org/.../247-construction-met-with-247-resistance-on-je...
Oct 29, 2012 – 24/7 construction met
with 24/7 resistance on Jeju Island . Posted on October ... Construction of the
controversial navy base on Jeju Island , South Korea , is accelerating. In
the last week, ... Support the Nuclear Resister · Links ...
2.
Inside
& Out « The Nuclear Resister
www.nukeresister.org/inside-out/
Write a note of support to these
imprisoned anti-nuclear and anti-war activists ... (Obstruction of business
of military port contractors, Jeju , South Korea ) ... road leading into the
site of a naval base under construction on Jeju Island , South Korea .
3.
Arrests, jailings, injuries and other repression on Jeju
Island as ...
www.nukeresister.org/.../arrests-jailings-injuries-and-other-repression-on...
May 13, 2013 – Arrests, jailings,
injuries and other repression on Jeju Island as resistance to the
naval base under construction ... Jeju Prison, 161 Ora
2-dong, Jeju City ,
Jeju , Korea ... It is a nuclear war. .... Support the Nuclear Resister · Links ...
4.
~ from Jeju Prison, by Kim Young-Jae « The
Nuclear Resister
www.nukeresister.org/2013/05/17/from-jeju-prison-by-kim-young-jae/
May 17, 2013 – from Jeju Prison, by Kim
Young-Jae ... the site of a naval base
under construction on Jeju Island , South Korea . ... Support the Nuclear Resister ...
5.
The Nuclear Resister
www.nukeresister.org/
The Nuclear Resister networks the
anti-nuclear and anti-war resistance .... leading into the site of
a naval base under construction on Jeju Island , South Korea .
6.
Busted on Jeju Island « The Nuclear Resister
www.nukeresister.org/2012/02/26/busted-on-jeju-island/
Busted on Jeju Island . Posted on February 26, 2012. from
Bruce Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Ten
international ...
7.
E-bulletin May 2013 « The Nuclear Resister
www.nukeresister.org/2013/05/31/e-bulletin-may-2013/
May 31, 2013 – Arrests, jailings,
injuries on Jeju Island ... anti-nuclear and
anti-war activists on the Nuclear Resister blog, as well as
prisoners' writings.
8.
More arrests on Jeju Island; support calls and
emails needed « The ...
www.nukeresister.org/.../more-arrests-on-jeju-island-support-calls-and-e...
Nov 8, 2011 – More arrests on Jeju Island; support calls and
emails needed ... In other related news
from South Korea, 40 Catholic priests in
Seoul have begun a hunger strike in protest at what they call a ... Support the Nuclear Resister ...
SOUTHEAST
ASIA: SINGAPORE
“Obama
Lauds Ties with Singapore .” ADG (4-3-13).
“President Barack Obama on Tuesday thanked Singapore for its military ccoperations as the U.S. prepares
to rotate ships through the city state to boost its presence in the
Asia-Pacific. Obama met with Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the third Asian leader to visit the White House this
year. . . .
“Singapore is a close defense and
economic partner of the U.S.. . . .part of the Obama administration’s ‘pivot’
to the Asia-Pacific region as the U.S.
disentangles itself from a decade of conflict in Iraq
and Afghanistan .” [Dick:
After the more than two
decades of stupid, greedy, unnecessary, genocidal depredations in the ME (from
the first Iraq War and decade-long blockade to the present), can we hope our
leaders will be any less harmful in the Asia-Pacific region?]
JOSEPH GERSON, THE PEACE MOVEMENT AND THE PIVOT. The
Peace Chronicle (Spring-Summer 2013).
Here’s a partial summary of the opening paragraphs: The recent increase of US military and
economic expansion and pressure in the Pacific and East Asia (e.g., Afghan
troops to Australia in the south, Jeju Island naval base expansion in the
north) began with Hillary Clinton’s article “America’s Pacific Century,”
followed by the Pentagon’s new strategic identification of the Persian Gulf and
the Pacific region as the US’s two priorities.
US
hegemony in the Pacific is as old as the 1850s and Sec’t. Of State Seward’s
argument to prepare to replace Britain as the dominant power, continuing
through the Spanish-American War when the US seized Guam and the Philippines
and annexed Hawai’i to provide coal for US merchant and war ships. These foundations of US westward empire multiplied
following WWII and the conquest of the Japanese empire, when the Pacific became
an “American Lake,” and hundreds of bases were established in Japan, Korea,
Australia, the Marshall Islands, and other Pacific nations, forming a bastion
to “contain” communism and supply bases to fight the Korean and Vietnam
wars. What can we do to prevent catastrophic Asian
and pacific wars? First, all in the
peace movement must become well-informed about the projection of US power in the Pacific and Asia
and use every means at our disposal as teachers and citizens to educate others.
Second, we must link with campaigns in solidarity with our peace, justice, and
ecology partners across Asia and the
Pacific. Contact: Working Group for Peace and Demilitarization
in Asia and the Pacific (www.asiapacificinitiative.org).
--Dick
Gerson calls the peace movement to resist US military intensification in the Pacific and East Asia . Here
are a few more Gerson sources from Google July 1, 2013.
1.
Peace Advocates Pivot Toward Asia and the Pacific | American ...
https://afsc.org/story/peace-advocates-pivot-toward-asia-and-pacific
Lead conference organizer and AFSC
staffer Joseph Gerson said, “We need to pivotthe peace movement in the same way that the
US
is pivoting resources to ...
2.
Reinforcing Washington's Asia-Pacific Hegemony | FPIF
www.fpif.org/articles/reinforcing_washingtons_asia-pacific_hegemonySep 13, 2012 – The Obama
administration's military "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific region is... the U.S. peace movement must begin challenging
the pivot and its consequences.... Joseph Gerson directs the Peace and
Economic Security Program ...
3.
SAVE THE DATE - Challenging the Pivot | Facebook
Challenging the Pivot: The U.S., China ,
& Alternatives to Asia-Pacific ... Joseph Gerson, who has worked closely
with Asian and Pacific peace movement for many ...Meet Jason and Joseph
and other area peace activists at a special reception ...
4.
Countering Washington's Pivot and the New Asia-Pacific Arms Race
To understand the Obama pivot, it may be helpful to
know what and how ..... build a U.S. peace movement capable of challenging
the pivot and U.S. Asia-Pacific ...Joseph Gerson is currently AFSC
Disarmament Coordinator and Director of the ...
5.
[act-ma] 3/13 'Challenging the Pivot:
The U.S., China ...
Mar 13, 2012 – [act-ma] 3/13
'Challenging the Pivot: The U.S., China ,
& Alternatives to... Tower and Joseph Gerson > > Hosted by
American Friends Service Committee, ...who has worked closely
with Asian and Pacific peace movement for ...
6.
Challenging
the Pivot - United for Justice with Peace
Mar 11, 2012 – Join Jason
Tower and Joseph Gerson for a public forum about ... who has worked closely
with Asian and Pacific peace movements for many ...
7.
Challenging the Pivot: United States, China and
Alternatives to Asia ...
Challenging the Pivot: United States , China and Alternatives to
Asia-Pacific ... JOSEPH GERSON co-sponsored by AFSC,
Massachusetts Peace Action and UFJP. ...GERSON, who has worked
closely with Asian and Pacific peace movements ...
Why the TransPacific Partnership is a Scary Big
(Trade) Deal [The actual title
is: “The Biggest Trade Deal You’ve Never
Heard of.” --Dick]
A
super-sized NAFTA, the TPP gives foreign corporations privileges that can
override domestic laws on environmental health and citizens’ rights. Here’s why
we shouldn’t let it pass without a fight.
Document Actions
§
§
Email
§
Feed
§
Share
by Kristen Beifus. YES! Summer 2013
NHK Broadcasting, Japan ’s equivalent of the BBC,
contacted me last month, wanting a statement on the American public’s reaction
to the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.
A super-sized NAFTA, the TransPacific Partnership is a
free-trade agreement whereby countries give foreign corporations rights and
privileges to encourage investment and global business. The TPP was a major
issue during Japan ’s
recent national elections, when thousands took to the streets in protest. It
was hard for the Japanese journalist to believe me when I explained that there
is little awareness of the TPP here in the United States ,
because our media has hardly covered the subject.
The corporate powers
granted in the TPP can override domestic laws on environmental health and
safety, and labor and citizens’ rights. Not only that, but multinationals can
claim that those domestic laws hamper free trade and sue member countries for
millions of dollars.
The TPP is in many ways an attempt to revive the stalled expansion of the World
Trade Organization.
At present, the TPP talks include 12 Pacific Rim
countries: Canada , the United States , Mexico ,
Peru , Chile , New Zealand ,
Australia , Singapore , Malaysia ,
Brunei , Vietnam and, most recently, Japan . Thailand
and the Philippines
have expressed interest, and other countries would be allowed to join the TPP
at any time.
Although trade deals have potentially huge effects on
the economy, environment, and food sovereignty of communities throughout these
12 countries, the TPP negotiations are
being held in secret between unelected government officials and representatives
from more than 600 of the world’s most powerful corporations. The United States has plenty of interests clamoring
for the trade advantages of the TPP, while developing countries like Vietnam
see the TPP as an opportunity for economic development.
Like what you’re reading? YES! is
nonprofit and relies on reader support.
Click here to chip in $5 or more to help us keep the inspiration coming.
Click here to chip in $5 or more to help us keep the inspiration coming.
But the AFL-CIO, one of the few non-corporate and
nongovernmental entities that have access to the text of the agreements, does
not support the TPP in its current form because of implications for labor and
human rights.
The talks are scheduled to finish by October of this
year. Meanwhile, negotiators are lobbying Congress to grant “Fast Track”
authority for the TPP. That would mean Congress couldn’t revise the agreements
and could only vote “yes” or “no” to the United States joining the TPP.
Leaked documents show how extensive the reach of the TPP
would be. It is shaping up as a corporate takeover of public policy that would
impact safe food, sustainable jobs, clean water and air, access to life-saving
medicines, education, even our very democracy. After 20 years under NAFTA we
know the likely impacts for people and the environment.
Can a
"Dracula Strategy" Bring the TPP Into the Sunlight?
A highly secretive trade agreement aims to penalize countries that protect workers, consumers, and the environment. Luckily, the growing opposition goes beyond the usual trade justice suspects.
A highly secretive trade agreement aims to penalize countries that protect workers, consumers, and the environment. Luckily, the growing opposition goes beyond the usual trade justice suspects.
In March, Citizens Trade Campaign organized a letter to
Congress signed by 400 U.S.
organizations outlining expectations for public involvement and calling for an
end to Fast Track. It was signed by, among others, the Sierra Club, Doctors
Without Borders, Public Citizen, the National Family Farm Coalition, and state
trade justice groups including my organization, the Washington Fair Trade
Coalition. Polls show the majority of Americans believe that offshoring jobs
and NAFTA-style free trade deals have hurt the U.S. economy, so it’s likely that
Americans would be opposed to the TPP too—if they knew more about it.
The next round of TPP talks will be held May 15–24 in Lima , Peru .
An International Day of Action Against the TPP is set for May 11, International
Fair Trade Day. TPPx-Border, a network of groups in the United States , Canada ,
and Mexico
resisting the TPP, is organizing actions throughout the month of May and beyond,
including webinars with Peruvian activists, a TPP action camp, and local
community events. Visit TPPxBorder.org to find out how the TPP will impact
you—and then take to the streets!
Kristen Beifus wrote this article for Love and the
Apocalypse, the Summer 2013 issue of YES!
Magazine. Kristen is Executive
Director of the Washington Fair Trade Coalition, which is dedicated to creating
an equitable global trading system.
Counterpunch WEEKEND EDITION
FEBRUARY 15-17, 2013
The African Union , Algeria and Mali
The West’s War Against African Development
Continues
by DAN GLAZEBROOK,
Another
form of handout would be through the looting of minerals. Countries like the
Democratic Republic of Congo are ravaged by armed militias who steal the
country’s resources and sell them at sub-market prices to Western companies,
with most of these militias run by neighbouring countries such as Uganda,
Rwanda and Burundi who are in turn sponsored by the West, as regularly
highlighted in UN reports.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, are the pitifully low
prices paid both for African raw materials and for the labour
that mines, grows or picks them, which effectively amount to an African subsidy
for Western living standards and corporate profits.
This
is the role for which Africa has been ascribed
by the masters of the Western capitalist economy: a supplier of cheap resources
and cheap labour. And keeping this labour, and these resources, cheap depends
primarily on one thing: ensuring that Africa
remains underdeveloped and impoverished. If it were to become more prosperous,
wages would rise; if it were to become more technologically developed, it would
be able to add value to its raw materials through the manufacturing process
before exporting them, forcing up the prices paid. Meanwhile, extracting stolen oil
and minerals depends on keeping African states weak and divided. The Democratic
Republic of Congo, for example – whose mines produce tens of billions of
mineral resources each year – were only, in one recent financial year, able to
collect a paltry $32million in
tax revenues from mining due to the proxy war waged against
that country by Western-backed militias.
The
African Union, established in 2002 was a threat to all of this: a more
integrated, more unified African continent would be harder to exploit. Of
special concern to Western strategic planners are the financial and military
aspects of African unification. On a financial level, plans for an African
Central Bank (to issue a single African currency, the gold-backed dinar) would
greatly threaten the ability of the US ,
Britain and France to
exploit the continent. Were all African trade to be conducted using the
gold-backed dinar, this would mean Western countries would effectively have to
pay in gold for African resources, rather than, as currently, paying in
sterling, francs or dollars which can be printed virtually out of thin air. The
other two proposed AU financial institutions – the African Investment Bank and
the African Monetary Fund – could fatally undermine the ability of institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund to manipulate the economic policies of
African countries through their monopoly of finance. As Jean Paul Pougala
has pointed out,
the African Monetary Fund, with its planned startup capital of $42billion, “is
expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International
Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire
continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like
forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies.”
Along with these potentially threatening financial
developments come moves on the military front. The 2004 AU Summit in Sirte , Libya ,
agreed on a Common African Defence and Security Charter, including an article
stipulating that “any attack against an African country is considered as
an attack against the Continent as a whole”, mirroring the Charter of NATO
itself. This was followed up in 2010 by the creation of an African Standby
Force, with a mandate to uphold and implement the Charter. Clearly, if NATO was
going to make any attempt to reverse African unity by force, time was running
out.
Yet the creation of the African Standby Force represented
not only a threat, but also an opportunity. Whilst there was certainly the
possibility of the ASF becoming a genuine force for independence, resisting
neocolonialism and defending Africa against
imperialist aggression, there was also the possibility that, handled in the
right way, and under a different leadership, the force could become the
opposite – a proxy force for continued neocolonial subjugation under a Western
chain of command. The stakes were – and are – clearly very high.
Meanwhile,
the West had already been building up its own military preparations for Africa . Its economic decline, coupled with the
rise of China, meant that it was increasingly unable to continue to
rely on economic blackmail and financial manipulation alone in order to keep
the continent subordinated and weak. Comprehending clearly that this meant it
would be increasingly forced into military action to maintain its domination, a
US white paper published in 2002 by the African Oil Policy Initiative Group
recommended “A new and vigorous focus on US military cooperation in sub-Saharan
Africa, to include design of a sub-unified command structure which could
produce significant dividends in the protection of US investments”. This
structure came into existence in 2008, under the name of AFRICOM. The costs –
economic, military and political – of direct intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan ,
however – with the costs of the Iraq
war alone estimated at over three
trillion dollars - meant that AFRICOM was supposed to
primarily rely on local
troops to do the fighting and dying. AFRICOM was to be the body
which coordinated the subordination of African armies under a Western chain of
command; which turned, in other words, African armies into Western proxies.
The biggest obstacle to this plan was the African Union
itself, which categorically rejected any US
military presence on African soil in 2008 – forcing AFRICOM to house its
headquarters in Stuttgart , Germany , a humiliating about turn after
President Bush had already publicly announced his intention to set up the HQ in
Africa itself. Worse was to come in 2009, when
Colonel Gaddafi – the continent’s staunchest advocate of anti-imperialist
policies – was elected Chairman of the AU. Under his leadership, Libya had
already become the biggest financial donor to the African Union, and he was now
proposing a fast-track process of African integration, including a single
African army, currency and passport.
His
fate is clearly now a matter of public record. After mounting an invasion of
his country based on a pack of lies worse
than those told about Iraq ,
NATO reduced Libya
to a devastated failed state and facilitated its leader’s torture and
execution, thus taking out their number one opponent. For a time, it appeared
as though the African Union had been tamed. Three of its members – Nigeria , Gabon
and South Africa
– had voted in favour of military intervention at the UN Security Council, and
its new chairman – Jean Ping – was quick to recognize the new Libyan government
imposed by NATO, and todownplay and
denigrate his predecessor’s achievements. Indeed, he even
forbade the African Union assembly from observing a minute’s silence for
Gaddafi after his murder.
However,
this did not last. The South Africans, in particular, quickly came to regret
their support for the intervention, with both President Zuma and Thabo Mbeki
making searing
criticisms of NATO in the months that followed. Zuma argued –
correctly – that NATO had acted illegally by blocking the ceasefire and
negotiations that had been called for by the UN resolution, had been brokered
by the AU, and had been agreed to by Gaddafi. Mbeki went much further and
argued that the UN Security Council, by ignoring the AU’s proposals, were
treating “the peoples of Africa with absolute contempt” and that “the Western
powers have enhanced their appetite to intervene on our Continent, including
through armed force, to ensure the protection of their interests, regardless of
our views as Africans”. A senior diplomat in the South African Foreign
Ministry’s Department of International Relations said that “most SADC [Southern
African Development Community] states , particularly South Africa, Zimbabwe,
Angola, Tanzania, Namibia and Zambia which played a key role in the Southern
African liberation struggle, were not happy with the way Jean Ping handled the
Libyan bombing by NATO jets”. In July 2012, Ping was forced out and replaced –
with the support of 37 African states – by Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma: former
South African Foreign Minister, Thabo Mbeki’s “right hand woman” – and clearly
not a member of Ping ’s capitulationist camp.
The African Union was once again under the control of forces committed to
genuine independence.
However, Gaddafi’s execution had not only taken out a powerful
member of the African Union, but also the lynchpin of regional security in the
Sahel – Sahara region. Using a careful mixture
of force, ideological challenge and negotiation, Gaddafi’s Libya was at the
head of a transnational security system that had prevented Salafist militias
gaining a foothold, as recognized by US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in 2008:
“The Government of Libya has aggressively pursued operations to disrupt foreign
fighter flows, including more stringent monitoring of air/land ports of entry,
and blunt the ideological appeal of radical Islam…Libya cooperates with
neighbouring states in the Sahara and Sahel region to stem foreign fighter
flows and travel of transnational terrorists. Muammar Gaddafi recently brokered
a widely-publicised agreement with Tuareg tribal leaders from Libya, Chad,
Niger, Mali and Algeria in which they would abandon separatist aspirations and
smuggling (of weapons and transnational extremists) in exchange for development
assistance and financial support…our assessment is that the flow of foreign
fighters from Libya to Iraq and the reverse flow of veterans to Libya has
diminished due to the Government of Libya’s cooperation with other states…” MORE
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/15/the-wests-war-against-african-development-continues/ [I read this article in Z Magazine (April 2013) entitled The African Union , Algeria and Mali . –Dick]
END US
WESTWARD IMPERIALISM, PACIFIC OCEAN , EAST ASIA
NEWSLETTER #6
No comments:
Post a Comment