|
|
Enron Mail |
This is the second one. I haven't read it all as it's quite long.
S. --------- Inline attachment follows --------- From: <kingfisher@humboldt1.com< To: sandy taylor <Sandyteb@aol.com< Date: Thursday, September 20, 2001 5:01:23 GMT Subject: I pass this along so that the 90% approval rating, or whatever they have decided to claim Bush has, will not make each of us feel alone. Joan Dear friends and allies, far and wide, In this terrifying moment on the planet, it is essential that each of us NOT hide from our citizenship responsibilities to speak truth to and about power. Below please find some of the best voices i've come upon since the hijackings, and please feel free to share them widely. (One of them is even funny - how about that!) Massive rallies are already being planned - on more than 50 university campuses, and in DC, SF, and elsewhere - details below. The upcoming anti-IMF/World Bank DC demo's are shifting in focus - details at http://www.globalizethis.org/s30/ . Be well, Paul Cienfuegos Arcata, CA PS. The ONLY outstanding daily news coverage at this time is being offered, as always, by Amy Goodman on 'Democracy Now' (2 hours daily). Her standoff with the Pacifica Foundation continues, so your station may not be broadcasting it. If so, it can be heard on real-audio at these sites: http://www.webactive.com http://www.kpfa.org http://www.wbix.org http://www.democracynow.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS: ------------------ 1. Ten proposed laws for dealing with the crisis - a modest proposal by Patricia Monaghan (and humor for the soul) 2. Perceiving the Situation - by Michael Albert (editor, Z Mag) 3. Is The Left Unilaterally Disarming? - by Rick Giombetti 4. America's Terrorist Roots - by Geov Parrish 5. Michael Moore - excerpts from his now daily journal as he drives across the country. 6. Hold the Vision - by Starhawk 7. Who is Ousmane bin Laden? - by Michel Chossudovsky 8. "Why are we despised? Boulder examines the conscience of a country" - by journalist Pamela White (Boulder Weekly) with commentary by David Barsamian and many others 9. US Foreign Interventions, Invasions, and Assassinations since Vietnam (a comprehensive list) - by Eric J Ross 10. Student Anti-War Coalition organizing more than 50 rallies this Thursday (tomorrow!) nationwide 11. An optimistic activist account: Transforming the unity of nationalism into a call for peace - by Stanley Call 12. Call for a National March and Rally in Washington DC on Saturday, September 29 (from the International Action Center - Ramsey Clark, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, and many others) 13. A Message From the Global South - by Saskia Sassen (The Guardian) 14. The Sukkah & the World Trade Center - by Rabbi Arthur Waskow 15. A Tragedy For All Humanity: A Statement by the Communist Party USA 16. List of additional non-corporate news sources ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Ten proposed laws for dealing with the crisis This modest proposal was written by Patricia Monaghan, a professor at De Paul University in Chicago and author of "The Dictionary of Goddesses and Heroines" among many other books. 1. To buy an American flag, you must present proof you have voted at least once in the last three elections (yes, local and state elections count). 2. To display an American flag in any form, you must present proof of voter registration. 3. To wave an American flag in public, you must be able to name at least one of the following: A. Your Senator B. Your Representative C. Your President ("George Bush" does not count; ambiguous) 4. To sell any product with an American flag on it, you must answer the following question: The Bill of Rights is part of: A. The Constitution B. The Magna Carta C. The Declaration of Independence. 5. Those heard singing patriotic songs in public may be asked to show their voter registration cards. 6. To be permitted to scream "Nuke Afghanistan," you must be able to correctly locate Afghanistan on a map or globe. 7. To be permitted to scream "Arabs go home," you must list and correctly locate ten Arab homelands. 8. Those who wish to express opinions about Arabs and Arab-Americans must pass the following test: A. Those who follow the religion of Islam are called: Moslems Muslins Fanatics B. The holy book of Islam is called: The Koran The Koram The Bible C. In Arabic, God is called: Ali Allah Jehovah 9. Priority for purchase of American flags will be given to those whose ancestors lived on American soil the longest. When all American Indians who wish to display the red, white and blue are satisfied, other applicants will be accepted. 10. A call for war on any radio talk-show will be construed as a public declaration of willingness to enlist in the US Army; callers will have 24 hours to complete the paperwork. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Perceiving the Situation By Michael Albert from ZNet, which is providing free daily updates all this month <zmag.org<: Beyond Bush and his ilk predictably trying to use calamity to propel their reactionary agendas on every front they can, from repressive legislation about eavesdropping, to military expansion, and even to tax policy -- it is certainly also true and must be faced that many citizens are in a violent mood, suggesting all kinds of anti-civilian acts. So many that it feels overwhelming. But how many U.S. citizens who are advocating bombings realize that the people of Afghanistan already live in a horrendously war-torn country, made virtually rubble from its war with Russia? How many understand that hunger and the danger of starvation for Afghanistan is so great that a misstep at this juncture - for example, cutting off all outside food aid, even without bombs - could cause not thousands but literally millions of innocent deaths by starvation? Not many of our citizens, is my guess. When such information is conveyed, how many will hold to the vengeful stance? When it becomes evident that vengeance by assault on civilians is precisely terrorism, that assault on civilians for political purposes is precisely terrorism, how many will want to hold to warring indiscriminately, to being a terrorist? One wonders how many of those working at Ground Zero in NYC would wish military devastation on innocent civilians in another country. Not many, if any, is my guess. But what is even more promising, is that even in a moment of great pain and mourning, even at a time of national rallying, even when all public pressures cry for war, even before there has been opportunity to counter media madness and government manipulation with valid argument and evidence, even now many and probably most people are already wondering at least somewhat about the wisdom of Bush's stance, and are even contemplating such unspeakable conclusions as that the cure for terrorism is not more and even greater terrorism, and that the cure for fanaticism is not to dispense with civil liberties. I think there may be a tendency afoot among many activists, totally understandable, to see the great outpourings of nationalism and to be pessimistic beyond what evidence warrants. Yes, the events have been horrible in their immediate impact, of course. And yes the hypocritical willingness of Bush and others to try to parlay pain into more suffering in different forms, and even into more terror, has been stunning and terrifying. But there are good signs too - not solely in the humanity of the massive outpourings of sympathy, but also in the opposition to race hatred against Arabs that has erupted as quickly and perhaps more pervasively than the reverse, and in the almost instantaneous emergence of both reason and activism regarding war prospects. Thus I want to share with you information from a communication from Portland Oregon. The letter writer communicates that: "Today we had an anti-war demo in Portland. Like so many of you have expressed, I too have felt that we are heading into a very dark time for activism, no less radical politics. "Now, Portland has seen a fair amount of activism lately - events large (1500+ for this year's May Day march, which had a permit taken out by the City Council because organizers refused to get one and the city didn't want to arrest everyone) and small (40 radical activists and union brothers and sisters shutting down the Port of Portland and delaying the offloading of an Italian vessel in protest of the G8 police rioting, a picket line which the longshoremen refused to cross, setting off similar actions as that ship proceeded along the west coast). "I say all that for context, because I reckon things are a bit "better" here for that sort of activism than in many other communities around the country. "Having said that, this was the largest demonstration I've been to in Portland since the Gulf War! Organizers were able to do a pretty good count as we were walking along a narrow area, and there were at least 2600 people there to speak against the incessant beating of the war drums. "Nobody could believe it. Everyone (strangers I talked to, acquaintances I talked to) had been feeling very isolated and had taken on a very bleak attitude about the future of `the left.' "We marched in the streets without a permit, spanning 12 or more blocks. There were no police anywhere to be seen. "This caused some problems, in that they *do* tend to be helpful with traffic control. Ah, well... we did ok without 'em on that one too, a few irate drivers notwithstanding :-) "Well, 2600 isn't enough to stop the impending war, but it's a far bigger start than anyone expected. All is not lost! Let's not let our gloomy perspectives of the moment, (which are perfectly understandable as we watch the manufacture of consent occur before our very eyes, at breakneck speed) let's not let that gloom turn our very rational fears into a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Afterward, I went to a `vigil' organized by the Christian Coalition :-( This occurred in the main `public' square in town (semi-privately owned and operated). There were fewer people at this one, but not by much. The creepy rhetoric of right-wing Christianity was toned down, but not by much. At least it was toned down though. We were there mostly in case of needing to protect any victims of the racism seething beneath the surface. "I stood amidst the sea of American flags, amidst the `rousing' renditions of the great patriotic hits, holding a `Jingoism Hurts America' sign. I got into some rather interesting conversations with people who wanted to know what jingoism meant. I described it as a form of rhetoric using a chauvinistic patriotism to justify an arrogant and belligerent foreign policy. Some nodded and walked away, but many lingered to discuss. My friends and I were only too happy to oblige :-) With some sensitivity, it is possible to clue people in on the activities of the CIA in the overthrow of democratic governments, the institution of autocratic regimes such as the Taliban, and the creation of Osama bin Laden himself. "I couldn't believe the conversations! Who knows if we did anything. Anyhow, it's not necessarily doom and gloom - let's get back out there and be visible, now! I got the above letter without a return email address for its author. But here is my reply.Yes, you did something. You did precisely what we all need to be doing. You went out and worked for peace and justice, and you did it without fear and without arrogance, and without presuppositions. And you showed, in the process, what the potential is of such work. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Is The Left Unilaterally Disarming? by Rick Giombetti (Just published in Counterpunch under a different title.) (Paul's note: A more accurate title for this piece would have been "Are Liberals Unilaterally Disarming?") What good is a Bill of Rights when influential organizations are unwilling to stand up for their constitutional rights in a time of crisis and danger? The AFL-CIO, International Rivers Network, Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, the Rukus Society and Friends of the Earth are among the many liberal organizations that have announced that they are canceling protests and even suspending entire campaigns because of the September 11 terror attacks. It's bad enough that the mass media is leading the drum beat for war and the public towards a deadly embrace with fascism in the wake of the tragic attacks. Now much of the left is engaging in what amounts to unilateral disarmament at a time when the Bill of Rights needs as many defenders as possible. There is much justified fear about a suspension of constitutional rights and marshal law. But what government needs to ban demonstrations if there isn't anybody willing to hold them? Perhaps the most disturbing example of this is an internal Sierra Club memo circulated among the organization's leadership and staff secured by the D.C. political newsletter Counter Punch. The memo explains that "in response to the attacks on America we are shifting our communications strategy for the immediate future. We have taken all of our ads off the air; halted our phone banks; removed any material from the web that people could perceive as anti-Bush, and we are taking other steps to prevent the Sierra Club from being perceived as controversial during the crisis. For now we are going to stop aggressively pursuing our agenda and will cease bashing Bush." Imagine if Martin Luther King had spouted similar tripe in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech. In that great speech given a year-to-the-day before he was assassinated on April 4, 1967, King denounced the U.S. war against Vietnam and called the U.S. government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. How forgetful that speech would have been had King urged advocates for social justice to not say anything "too controversial" about the Vietnam War and not to say anything that could be perceived by people as being "anti-Johnson." King's sentiments weren't popular among much of the general public but he wouldn't be remembered as the great activist he was if he didn't have the courage to express his convictions. Among the groups calling off participation in the upcoming IMF/World Bank demonstrations is Friends of the Earth. FoE President Brent Blackwelder wrote in a message to the organization's board and membership that "it is also time for us to not lose heart, nor to set aside our steadfast commitment to protecting the planet in every way possible." He then justifies FoE's pullout from the IMF/World Bank demonstration by stating that it is "out of respect for those who lost their lives and out of concern for the safety of protesters, we have chosen to demonstrate our commitment to peace and justice by not demonstrating." Now let me get this straight. According to FoE's reasoning those demonstrators who do show up in DC on September 29 will be engaging in violence instead of expressing their own commitments to peace and justice. FoE's reasoning for pulling out of the IMF/World Bank demonstrations is in harmony with the FBI's classification of Reclaim The Streets! as a "terrorist" organization. RTS! is a movement that advocates holding unpermitted block parties in urban areas. Yes, with an army of DJ's armed with an arsenal of CD's and LP's, RTS! will be terrorizing an urban area near you. WHAT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! Is a lobotomy a requirement for becoming a leader of a liberal organization!? David Brower must be rolling over in his grave right now! A more honest, and reasonable, explanation for pulling out of the IMF/World Bank demonstrations would be to explicitly state fear of police violence. Blackwelder never once mentions this possibility in his message, leaving the impression that it is protesters, not police, who would be the cause of violence if they were to show up and demonstrate. The only thing he needed to write was something like "we're afraid the police are going to shoot demonstrators." That would be a fair enough reason for not wanting to hold a protest. Instead he wrote a confusing sentence that reads like it is comparing holding a peaceful demonstration with blowing up a building. And I'm really tired of hearing "we're canceling our demonstration out of respect for those who lost their lives." Yeah, what a fine way to honor the September 11 victims. Let's unilaterally give up our constitutional rights and join the flag waivers at the Sierra Club in helping the war makers usher in fascism. The great environmental warrior David Brower would certainly not be expressing the above mentioned nonsense and he most likely would be endorsing the International Action Center's (IAC) call for an anti-war rally at the White House on September 29 instead of the planned anti-IMF/World Bank rally. Holding an anti-war rally on S29 would be a bold and potentially hazardous action. Such a demonstration could be met with both police and counter-demonstrator violence. However, with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming the ACLU, People for the American Way, gays, lesbians, atheists, pagans, feminists and abortion doctors for the terror attacks and pogroms against Arabs and/or Muslims underway, now is not the time to back down from defending the Bill of Rights. There is no better time to stand up for principles than when they are deeply unpopular. If anti-Vietnam war protesters had postponed demonstrations until it was convenient and safe to hold them, then that movement would have never gotten off the ground. Also, and most importantly, by not pulling out of a planned and already permitted demonstration, the IAC will force the government to try to cancel it. This way an organization like the ACLU can make an issue out of the demonstration being canceled in court. This can't happen though if individuals or organizations are insisting on not upholding their constitutional rights. Even if a march doesn't happen, organizing for one right now is far better than the unilateral disarmament the above mentioned liberal organizations are engaging in. Let's not let the September 11 terror attacks be remembered as an American Reichstag Fire. Here in Seattle the Church Council of Greater Seattle is organizing to protect mosques from violent attacks. An attempted arson against a Seattle mosque has already been reported. Meanwhile, Seattle peace activists are considering holding demonstrations and teach-ins in as little as a week. They should follow through on these plans. Staying at home and not demonstrating isn't going to prevent fascism. Rick Giombetti <rickjgio@speakeasy.org< Seattle ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. America's Terrorist Roots Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com September 11, 2001 "Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disappeared', at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame." -- Amnesty International, 1996 "Everything I did, I did for my country." -- Pol Pot As people recoil in horror at what is undeniably, well, a horror and a tragedy, and as the U.S. undoubtedly starts to mount retaliatory attacks, here are a few brief reminders of how we got here. I listened incredulously Monday as NPR's "Talk of the Nation" sunk to what I can only wish was a new low, with a spirited, cheerful, explicit hour-long defense of the wholesome goodness for the entire world of the American Empire and its current global military dominance. Two cheerleaders for this arrangement deftly handled softball questions, while nobody, in the segments I could stomach listening to, bothered to point out that, for example, this country was founded because our much-worshipped "Founding Fathers" didn't like being told what to do by bullies halfway around the world. Times haven't changed that much. Yesterday, Henry Kissinger was facing accusations (thank you, Christopher Hitchens) of being a war criminal. He's not alone. Here's a short list of additional recent American war criminals-- essentially the American leaders of the last decades: William Clinton, former President, for 78 days and nights of bombing the civilians of Yugoslavia (carried out by U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark under NATO auspices); continuation of sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and illegal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State, for his leading role in the attacks on Panama, Iraq, and covering up My Lai. George Bush, former President, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and thousands of Panamanian civilians (along with kidnapping the country's leader, a former CIA prot?g?). Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, former Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command, for his role in attacking Iraqi civilians. Ronald Reagan, former President, for illegal attacks on El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, and Libya. Elliot Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State (and back in the new Bush Administration), for overseeing much of the death and fascism in Central America. Also Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense; Lt. Col. Oliver North; and many others. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State: Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Angola, Iraq, and Cambodia. Gerald Ford, former President, for giving approval to Indonesia for the genocide of East Timor. And on, back through the war in Southeast Asia. "War criminal" means just that--inflicting a level of carnage barbaric and unacceptable even in time of war. It does not even begin to touch the many regimes -- today, Israel comes to mind -- that the U.S. has supported, armed, advised, and even installed, who have inflicted horrors on their own populations. This is a day of complete horror in the history of the United States; and the American public as well as its leaders will demand retribution. Let's not forget, however, how we got to this day. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Michael Moore, on the road heading to NYC, excerpts from his daily log... "I continue to be amazed at the large number of people -- both on the radio and those we run into -- who are completely opposed to some half-cocked military response to what has happened. No matter what the media tells you or shows you, I am convinced there is a majority of Americans who, though they want justice and want to be protected from further attacks, do not want George W. Bush to start sounding like Dr. Strangelove. and It seems like every sign and flashing marquee along the road has some sort of message regarding the massacre in New York: "GOD BLESS AMERICA UNLEADED. $2.09 GAL." and "REMEMBER WORLD TRADE CENTER PORK CHOP BREAKFAST $5.99." But then a Southern Baptist preacher comes on the radio and says the following: "Perhaps America has some repenting to do. We propped up the Shah of Iran when maybe we shouldn't have. We have used the poor of the world to make our goods so we can make a profit when maybe we shouldn't..." These were stunning words to hear, but it coincided with much of what we have been picking up along the road; namely, that many, many Americans are not in support of going off half-cocked and bombing innocent people, no matter how much we all want those responsible to be brought to justice. I continue to be hopeful..." Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Hold the Vision by Starhawk The world has changed in the past week. An act of violence and horror has cost the lives of thousands, and shattered all of our plans and expectations for the future. We who have been working for global justice now face an enormous challenge. Since Seattle, we've built and sustained a movement in spite of continually escalating police violence and attempts by the media to paint us as violent thugs. Genoa did not intimidate us, and momentum was growing for the demonstrations in Washington DC at the end of the month. Public opinion was shifting, and the whole edifice of corporate rule was losing legitimacy. The terrorist attacks of last Tuesday could undermine all of our work, at least in the short term. They are the perfect excuse for the state to intensify its repression, restrict civil liberties, and for anyone who speaks out against blind retaliation to be demonized. The mood of the country is potentially ugly. People are scared. They're angry. Their sense of power and invulnerability has been badly shaken, and in the U.S., they're not used to it. They're grasping at anything which can restore their sense of power over their lives, and in a violent society, that means punishment, retaliation, war. And many of us activists are also scared. I know how easily I can sink into fear and despair right now. I'm scared of the repression that might come, scared of being personally targeted, scared of the loss of our liberties, scared, yes, of further attacks. But most of all I'm scared for the movement, which I believe is crucial to our survival as a species. And yet I also believe that the current crisis can be a great opportunity, if we can only see how to grasp it. Extraordinary times create extraordinary openings and possibilities. Our usual patterns and ways of thinking are shattered. When structures fall, something new can be built. To do that, we have to behave in extraordinary ways. We need to acknowledge our fears, but not act out of fear. Fear leads to bad decisions and constricted vision, just when we need to see most clearly. "Hold on, hold on, hold the vision, that's being born," our cluster chanted in Quebec City. It may be that the most radical thing we can do right now is to act from our vision, not our fear, and to believe in the possibility of its realization. Every force around us is pushing us to close down,insulate, retreat. Instead, we need to advance, but in a different way. We're called to take a leap into the unknown. As a movement, we've often been accused of lacking a clear vision of the world we want. I think we do have a vision, that includes diversity and rejects uniform, dogmatic formulations. But within all its varied forms there's a clear common ground: we want a world of liberty and justice for all. It sounds downright patriotic but if you think about its ramifications, they are revolutionary. And we want a world in which no one has to fear violence, which is the ultimate violation of freedom. There are many voices right now trying to mobilize people around fear, anger and blame. As radicals, tried to mobilize people out of guilt, or shame. This is the moment to reinvent our approach, our strategies and our tactics, to believe in the possibility of moving people to act from hope, to act in the service of what they love. What would this look like? It would mean embodying the world we want to create in our own movement, and in our actions. Times of grief and anguish can strengthen our bonds. Right now, more than ever, we in the movement need each other as never before, and we need to treat each other well, to cherish and care for and support each other and become the community we like to imagine. Our solidarity must go deeper than we've ever known before. Solidarity means listening to each other with respect, and being willing to protect and support people with whom we may disagree on many levels, or who might simply irritate us. Solidarity means strengthening our practice of direct democracy, our openness and communication with each other, our willingness to bring everyone to the table and give everyone affected by a decision a voice in making it. It means putting aside our usual internal politicking and maneuvering and treating each other with openness and trust. This is not simple to do. But in a moment when the ordinary patterns of life around us have been shattered, shifting our own patterns of behavior may actually be easier. Perspectives change, and the issues that last week seemed so important now seem trivial. What would this look like tactically, say, in DC two weeks from now? First, we'd have to deliberately drop our assumptions, whether they are that confrontation is always the strongest action, or that nonviolence is always the most moral action, or that direct action is always our strategy of choice, or that a march and a rally with speakers are the ultimate form of politics, and ask what makes most sense? What is most visionary? I'd like to see whatever we do involve some kind of process of mutual discussion and education around our visions of alternatives. And I'd like to see us think of ways to take that outside of our own groups and into the community, and to bring in voices from the community to teach us about their issues and concerns. That could be a consulta, a teach-in or maybe a learn-in, where we go out into the community and ask people how issues of power and inequality affect their lives, or what their visions are of the world they want. In a time of fear and despair, calling people to consider their visions could be a powerful form of action. I also think it's important, symbolically and politically, that we make some kind of strong, visible presence in the streets, that we don't voluntarily relinquish the one political space in which we've been able to have a significant impact. But I also think it's important that what we do in the street be appropriate to the moment. A mourning procession, a vigil or rite of healing might make sense right now: a standard march with shouted slogans and printed signs would be offensive. But it's hard to predict what the mood or situation of the country will be two weeks from now. We could be heading into a full fledged war, and a large march might be a needed and powerful statement. Direct action is a powerful tool, but like a chainsaw it's not the tool you want in every situation. Direct action points a spotlight on an issue, can directly interfere with an unjust group or situation, and delegitimize an institution or policy. Used at the wrong moment, without a strong base of support, it risks legitimizing the very institutions we seek to undermine. Many police have just given their lives because they stayed in a dangerous situation helping other people get out. A lot of us in this struggle talk about being willing to die. They just did. Whatever we feel about police as tools of the state, now is not a good moment for a heavy police confrontation. In fact, although generally I'm against negotiating with the police, in this case I'd certainly consider that it might be a wise and even a generous thing to do. As individuals, the police are of a class that doesn't gain from the policies we oppose. Let's not write off the possibility that some of them could be brought to support us. I want peace, not war. But calling for 'peace' at this moment does not sufficiently address the fear, anger and powerlessness people feel. I'd like to see us call for justice: Justice for the victims of this week's terrorist attacks. Justice, not blind vengeance-meaning that we need to know clearly and certainly who carried out the attacks before we retaliate. Justice for the Arab Americans who live among us. They deserve our support and protection. Justice for the people of other countries who could soon become our victims. Justice for the many, many victims of ongoing terror around the world, and recognition of the part we have played in supporting and forging that terror. Economic and environmental justice. These are my thoughts at the moment. They could change as the situation changes. But mostly I suggest that we all begin a creative thinking process, that we consciously choose to set aside our fears and our depression. I suggest that before we agree to do anything we've done before, we consider at least three creative new alternatives. I think we should show up in Washington, if not in the numbers and way we expected, then in some other dimension of strength, and hold open the possibility that we can create not just a protest, but moments of public beauty that can transform the world. Finally, I want to say a word about faith. 'Faith' and 'religion' are being thrown around and served up to us in ways that are at the moment rather sickening. Religion of any denomination can motivate the worst acts and be a rationale for hate. And yet it's hard to get through times like these without faith in something. I don't generally like to inflict my spirituality on people who might not want it. But I feel moved to tell you what's getting me through the night, along with the love and support of my community. It's the faith that there is a great, creative power that works through the living world toward life, diversity, healing and regeneration. That power works in us, in our human love, in our work for justice, in our courage and our visions. We don't need priests or ministers or even Witches to contact that power for us: we each have our own direct line. .It exists within us, infinite, unlimited. Ultimately, it is stronger than fear, stronger than violence, stronger than hate. I wish you all deep contact with whatever feeds your soul, and nourishment from whoever and whatever you most love. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. WHO IS OUSMANE BIN LADEN? by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http:/globalresearch.ca. The url of this article is http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html Posted 12 September 2001 A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Ousmane bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution." Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts". The following text outlines the history of Ousmane Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath. * * * Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Ousmane bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1 In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2: "With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."3 The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade: "In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."4 The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam: "Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow."5 PAKISTAN'S INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union. In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6 CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Ousmane bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7 Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA. With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9 Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq: "''Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course."10 THE GOLDEN CRESCENT DRUG TRIANGLE The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. 11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation":12 "CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'"13 IN THE WAKE OF THE COLD WAR In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.14 With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15 Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 16. Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union. Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." 17 And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI" 18 In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI. 19 In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia. No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".20 THE WAR IN CHECHNYA With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. 21 The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war". 22 Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin. The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army: "[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.23 Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia" 24 Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, 25 Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons. During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya".26 CONCLUDING REMARKS Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Ousmane bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist. While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations. In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. ENDNOTES Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998. See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996): Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992. Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995. Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998. Ibid. Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994. Ibid See Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford university Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995. Alfred McCoy, Drug fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive; 1 August 1997. Ibid Ibid. Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a changing World, Technical document no 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations Publication, Vienna 1999, p 49-51, And Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p 49-51, see also Richard Lapper, op. cit. International Press Services, 22 August 1995. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November- December, 1999, p. 22. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998) Tim McGirk, Kabul learns to live with its bearded conquerors, The Independent, London, 6 November1996. See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995. Levon Sevunts, Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.. Ibid Ibid. See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000. The European, 13 February 1997, See also Itar-Tass, 4-5 January 2000. BBC, 29 September 1999). The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, September 2001. All rights reserved. Centre for Research on Globalisation at http://globalresearch.ca. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Why are we despised? Boulder examines the conscience of a country by Pamela White Editorial@boulderweekly.com As the dust settled on Tuesday's shocking terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., President George Bush vowed the United States would find and punish those responsible for the devastation. His words resonated with stunned Americans across the country, who gathered in front of television sets and spoke out on TV programs and radio shows, some demanding a swift and brutal U.S. response. Anger fueled by images of Palestinians celebrating the attacks in the street prompted one local caller to say it was time to "kill all the towel heads." But scattered among the grief-stricken and angry voices were a small number of Americans asking whether the United States has done anything to provoke such violence. It's a question many people didn't appreciate. "I'm appalled at the lack of patriotism," said one caller, who spoke out on KGNU radio. Still, it's a question worth trying to answer. Why is the United States despised? John Wayne politics Local U.S. policy experts and activists grappled with grief and shock Tuesday along with the rest of the country. While they took pains to explain that they in no way excuse or condone Tuesday's violence, some were willing to offer their insights into the reasons so many people hate America. Understanding the motives behind terrorist attacks against the United States is hampered by the assumptions many Americans hold, said Ira Chernus, a professor of religious studies at CU. One of those assumptions is that U.S. intentions the world over are good, even when the government or military makes mistakes. The belief that we're only trying to help makes it hard for us to understand why anyone would do something like this to us, Chernus said. Related to that assumption is the belief that the United States is both innocent and invulnerable, which prevents Americans from listening to the message behind such events. "The important thing is to be able to listen insofar as we can to the people who carried out this thing," Chernus said. "We start out with the assumption that there's no point in listening to what they have to say. The general assumption is that if you listen to what they say, that endorses (the attack)." Chernus points out that the message of terrorists on trial for other acts of violence around the world has been left out of court coverage. People never get a clear picture of what's bothering these people and why they were driven to such extremes. While some critics claim that U.S. policy is motivated by greed or aggression, Chernus believes foreign policy since World War II has been focused on defending the country against perceived threats like communism and the Soviet Union. Those efforts to protect and defend often extend far beyond U.S. borders, however, forcing the United States into conflict with other peoples. "We believe the only way to defend the United States is to organize the world. We step on other people's toes every day in ways we can't understand," Chernus said. "It's a stupid way to defend yourself because in the end you experience more risk." According to David Barsamian, host of the nationally broadcast program Alternative Radio, risk to American lives comes as a result of rage generated by U.S. foreign policy and economic and cultural hegemony. "It's directly related to its foreign policy and its perception as the primary agent and enforcer of the status quo of the global capitalist system," said Barsamian. Barsamian sat in his Boulder home Tuesday watching coverage of the "very shocking" attacks on television. "What's extraordinary about these attacks is the level of sophistication," Barsamian said. "Where is the CIA? Where is the FBI? Where are the tens of billions of dollars being spent? "Starbucks closes all stores internationally. This is huge. Look at the level of panic here." Speculation since the attacks has centered on various Islamic fundamentalist groups, particularly Saudi Arabian exile Osama Bin Laden and his followers. While pointing out that we don't know who is responsible for the attacks, Barsamian stressed there is a great deal of rage toward the United States in the Middle East. "U.S. foreign policy is seen by many Middle Eastern people as being overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel," he said. "There's tremendous anger toward the United States, and there's a tremendous irony in this. If it is traced to Bin Laden, he's a product of U.S. foreign policy." In an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, the U.S. swallowed its repugnance toward Bin Laden and men like him, who were trained and funded by the CIA in a bit of Cold War strategy that has had devastating consequences as the students turn their weapons against their teachers. "This is an example of blowback," Barsamian said, adding, "if it can be traced to this particular group, which is not farfetched." Joel Edelstein, professor of political science at CU-Denver and producer of programs at KGNU radio, acknowledged that Israel has legitimate concerns about its safety. Still, the struggle in the Middle East has been over land, with the United States supporting a policy that is devastating to Palestinians, he said. "You have this ongoing degradation of Palestinians," Edelstein said. "They really were forced out of their houses. Their houses really were bulldozed." The United States spends $3.5 billion annually on aid to Israel, which goes to support these actions and to defend Israel's continued settlement on the West Bank. "Americans would not sit quiet if they were treated like the Palestinians are treated by the Israelis," Edelstein said. Barsamian said Israel's policies build desperation in Palestinian people. "If you lose your land, if you cannot feed your family, if you've been culturally humiliated, if you've been denigrated on all sides - this creates a reaction, and that reaction can take extreme forms," he said. Terrorism, Barsamian said, is the "poor man's B-52." But it's not just U.S. policy in the Middle East that makes the United States a target, experts agree. Nor is dissatisfaction with the United States limited to Muslims. U.S. indifference toward World Court rulings, its refusal to fulfill its financial obligations to the United Nations, and its global military presence also inspire antipathy in people around the world, including America's allies. "To Americans it seems perfectly normal that we have military bases in scores of countries, but imagine if Thailand had bases in Canada," Barsamian said, conjuring up images of Thai fighters enforcing no-fly zones over parts of the United States. The U.S. military presence is offensive to people around the world, he said. This is particularly true in the Middle East, which has become a sort of "floating military base," with U.S. warships continually stationed in waters surrounding the Persian Gulf. "This is arrogance. This is imperial behavior," Barsamian said. The "American imperial swagger" that accompanies the U.S. military only makes matters worse, Barsamian said. This swagger reveals itself in the U.S. tendency to act unilaterally, rejecting international opinion and even U.N. authority on issues like sanctions against Cuba, the Kyoto Accord, and nuclear weapons treaties. "International treaties are not us," he said. "Bush has never met an international treaty he liked. This is John Wayne politics." Resentment toward the United States extends to Europe, as well. "Any top dog faces resentment, but some of it is rooted in quite strong political feeling," Barsamian said. Europeans are mystified and outraged by American use of capital punishment and the opposition of some Americans toward abortion. And while European nations have tried to voice their opinions on U.S. decisions and actions abroad, the U.S. government has not welcomed the feedback, ignoring resolutions made by the European Parliament. "We're a rogue nation," said Edelstein. "The European nations are looking at us in terms of putting missiles in space, refusing to sign Kyoto. Europe thinks we're crazy." Allies that used to vote with us or abstain from voting on controversial issues of importance to the United States are now voting against us as our isolation grows, Edelstein said. While Americans tend to view the United States as a force for freedom, justice and democracy in the world, many other peoples see the United States as an oppressor, he said. "We are the sole hegemon. We're returning to the concept of Manifest Destiny." A world in poverty "Not only does the United States export foreign policy. It also exports its culture," Barsamian said. "There's not sensitivity to local culture and local traditions, particularly in the Islamic world where tradition is stronger than it is in Europe." This culture takes the form of Hollywood movies, Starbucks, and Burger Kings on street corners in places like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where American culture is considered suspect at best. "We tend to view the United States as the universal culture to which all others aspire," said Edelstein. This is based, in part, on misconceptions Americans have of their own country, he said. "We think we have the highest wages, which is not true," Edelstein said. "We think we are the freest country, which is debatable. We tend to think we have the best democracy, which is absurd." Such blind faith in our own culture creates the mistaken belief that it is welcome everywhere. In the United States, culture is intimately tied to economy, and the U.S. government promotes the latter with a vengeance. Barsamian said U.S. diplomatic policy could be summed up this way: "We're going to do what we want." Barsamian recalls a story Vandana Shiva shared with him during an interview. Shiva, a human-rights activist from India, quoted a U.S. trade representative speaking with Indian officials as saying, "'If you don't open up your markets, we're going to break them open with a crowbar.'" "This is how the Mafia don speaks," Barsamian said. "I often say if you want to understand U.S. policy, watch 'The Godfather.'" Despite the effort put into the economy, global capitalism has not delivered to many people around the globe, Barsamian said. "It has not delivered the kind of benefits that are meaningful to segments of the population. Having a Burger King around the corner is not meaningful." Edelstein agrees. "The U.S. government represents the wealthy in our own country," he said. "And our friends are the wealthy in other countries. You can see it in the development model we support through the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank." This model ensures that a small percentage of people in developing countries move up financially but leaves the vast majority behind, he said. Intense protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization over the past two years indicate that some Americans are concerned about the connection between poverty and global development, Edelstein said. Carolyn Bninski, a local activist who was arrested in April 2000 during the IMF protests in Washington, D.C., said the current model of development accounts for about six million deaths worldwide each year. "We use economic power to impose policies on countries that benefit wealthy corporations in the United States but harm local people," Bninski said. "A lot of people die - slow deaths perhaps - as a result of those policies. I am in no way downplaying the horror (of the terrorist attacks). I think it's a horrible tragedy. But I think we need to start seeing our relationship to every life and everybody on this planet." Scott Silber, a local community organizer who has also
|