Aug. 24, 2009 Issue #149
HUDSON VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
jacdon@earthlink.net, http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
The Activist Newsletter, published in New Paltz, N.Y., appears once a month, supplemented by the Activist Calendar of progressive events, which is sent to Hudson Valley readers only. Editor: Jack A. Smith (who writes the articles that appear without a byline or credit to other publications). He is the former editor of the (U.S.) Guardian Newsweekly. Copy Editor: Donna Goodman. Calendar Editor: Rocco Rizzo. If you know someone who may benefit from this newsletter, ask them to subscribe at jacdon@earthlink.net. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, unsubscribe at the same address. Please send event listings to the above email address. The current and back issues of the newsletter/calendar are available at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com.
—————————————————
CONTENTS
1. OUR NEW GROUP ORGANIZES PROTESTS — We gotta blow our own horn once in a while, so we take note of the fact that our new organization, Peace and Social Progress Now!, is organizing two demonstrations Sept. 12 and Oct. 17, and we'd like you with us.
2. Editorial: HEALTHCARE IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA — The right wing disruption at Town Hall healthcare meetings stimulated several thoughts about politics in our society.
3. THE U.S. AND THE COUP IN HONDURAS — The Obama Administration said it opposed the coup but has done next to nothing to back up its words with deeds.
4. INCIDENT AT A LOCAL HEALTHCARE FORUM — A first-person report of a disruptive Town Hall forum on healthcare in the Hudson Valley's Orange County.
5. THE BLUE DOG DAYS OF AUGUST — The Blue Dogs parade as "fiscal conservatives" and "moderates," but it's false advertising that the mainstream press mindlessly echoes. In fact, they are the epitome of a Washington captured by moneyed interests.
6. THE REAL DEATH PANELS — The best estimate of the annual death toll among Americans of working age due to lack of insurance or under-insurance is at least 20,000.
7. PRISONHOUSE AMERICA — With 5% of the world population, the U.S. and state/local prison and jail population, amounts to some 25% of the world's incarcerated population.
8. U.S. MILITARY BASES GROW IN LATIN AMERICA — Colombia deal is a major expansion of American military power in South America.
9. TROY DAVIS WINS COURT DECISION — Sitting on death row in Georgia, Troy Davis has won a key victory against his own execution.
10. CLIMATE TALKS MOVE AT SNAIL'S PACE — Global warming talks are moving so slowly that "at this rate, we will not make it," said the UN’s top climate change official.
11. "CAP AND TRADE" WON'T HALT GLOBAL WARMING — So writes progressive Hudson Valley activist Steve Greenfield.
12. NINE ARRESTED AT END OF 3-DAY PEACE WALK — They were apprehended after walking onto the central-Wisconsin military base at Ft. McCoy to protest war.
13. KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE — Liberals evidently worry less about Church-State togetherness when Democrats advance "faith-based" programs.
14. ANOTHER WAR CRIME CHARGED TO ISRAEL — This time it involves the shooting deaths of 11 unarmed civilians (five women and four children) holding white flags.
15. THE 'PRISON' KNOWN AS GAZA — There's a new UN report titled, "Locked In: The Humanitarian Impact of Two Years of Blockade on the Gaza Strip."
16. THE CLASS IN THE CLASSROOM — Who's kidding whom about a "classless" American educational system?
17. WAR BY REMOTE CONTROL — Robots in the sky and on the ground are transforming warfare, and the U.S. military is rushing to recruit the new warriors that never sleep and never bleed.
18. NEWS SHORTS — Mental illness in U.S juvenile detention centers; corporal punishment in American schools; attacks on homeless are called hate crimes; record number of U.S. prisoners are serving life terms.
19. AMERICA'S UNJUST SEX LAWS — America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest of any advanced democracy. Too strict, says this article.
20. THE WOODSTOCK (NY) FORUM — Weekend meeting rejects U.S. propensity to "foment wars around the world and to manufacture, export and sell weapons."
21. "JUDEO-CHRISTIAN" FOREIGN POLICY? — It is historically untrue that our secular republic was founded upon a so-called Judeo-Christian (or any religious) tradition.
22. U.S. GROUPS CHALLENGE TRAVEL BAN TO CUBA — Hundreds of Americans intentionally broke Washington's travel ban to Cuba this year. Right-on!
—————————————————
1. OUR NEW GROUP ORGANIZES PROTESTS
Our announcement to local lists Aug. 10 about forming a new multi-issue progressive organization in the Hudson Valley — titled Peace and Social Progress Now! (PSPN) — has attracted a greater than expected positive response. Thank you to the several score readers who have sent us words of encouragement.
The new group will conduct two actions in coming weeks, each coinciding with national demonstrations.
• On Saturday, Sept. 12 , we will organize a picket line/vigil in New Paltz on behalf of two issues: the Honduras coup, about which the U.S. is not doing enough to support the deposed president or in opposing violence against demonstrators, and the Cuban Five anti-terrorists, now starting their 12th year in American prisons. The event will take place 10 a.m.-12 noon on the sidewalk of heavily trafficked Main St. (Rt. 299) in front of New Paltz Plaza (the mall with the movie theater).
• On Saturday, Oct. 17, we will hold an antiwar rally, probably at Academy Green Park in Kingston (but the location is not yet firmed up) to mark the eighth anniversary of the Bush Administration's war against Afghanistan. The main demand will be for the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq
Full details on both actions will be available soon — and we urge our readers to join with us on both occasions. (Check out the Honduras article below, which explains why the U.S. must increase its opposition to the coup-maker government.)
The editors of the Activist Newsletter have formed PSPN in an effort is to kick-start the declining antiwar movement in the Hudson Valley and to activate the progressive forces in the region on issues from healthcare to actions promoting environmental consciousness, from reducing the defense budget to strengthening civil liberties, from a genuinely progressive taxation plan to increased social programs for working families. We will also fight racism, support affirmative action, back LGBT equality, and firmly stand with organized labor.
Despite some welcome changes in Washington after eight ghastly neoconservative years, many unsavory Bush-Cheney initiatives are still being carried out. This includes the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an increased Pentagon budget, a militarist national/foreign security strategy, and continuing erosions of civil liberties, among other reactionary programs. In addition, millions of American families are suffering joblessness and home foreclosures, but they have not received the kind of solicitous attention bestowed upon the banking system and Wall St. Meanwhile, the gap between wealth and poverty continues to widen.
The struggle for peace and social progress is as relevant today when the Democrats are in power as it is during periods when the Republicans occupy the White House and Congress. The need for that struggle continues until its goals are achieved. Yet, it appears to us the antiwar forces and other movements dedicated to advancing progress are weaker today than they were a year or two ago, much weaker in some cases.
We will be meeting with several regional organizations to propose joint actions and occasional ad hoc coalitions around big issues. In addition, several leading members of such groups have agreed to serve on our advisory board and others will be asked to do so in coming weeks.
If you have questions, comments, or wish to become more closely associated with PSPN as it develops over the next months, please communicate with us at jacdon@earthlink.net.
—————————————————
2. Editorial:
HEALTHCARE IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA
The Republican attack on the Obama Administration's healthcare proposals — compounded by its campaign to inspire intimidating confrontations at Town Hall meetings across the country — has highlighted a number of realities about American politics today. Key among them are:
• Conservative leaders and their wealthy backers are promoting the growth of extreme right wing populism throughout the U.S., first focused on healthcare but inevitably spreading to other issues as well. The purpose is to rise from the ashes of political defeat last November in order to crush any remaining aspect of liberalism in Presidential Obama's middle-of-the-road legislative agenda. The ultimate goal is to win back seats in the 2010 congressional contest.
This conservative cabal is intentionally circulating outrageous lies, fear, red-baiting, xenophobia, and racism throughout the country to further its ambitions. Judging by the response to right wing antics this summer, a fairly large conservative constituency is being mobilized for political battle. The enthusiastic pro-Obama crowds of yesteryear seem passive by comparison. (See below: "Incident at a Local Healthcare Forum" and "The Real Death Panels.")
• It is hardly a surprise that President Barack Obama's repeated emphasis upon creating a "post-partisan" political era, where left and right wing views no longer contend, quickly became a shambles. Suggestions of lion-lamb compatibly may have produced votes during a remarkably vague "Yes we can!" election campaign, but it cannot result in progressive legislation.
It takes intense struggle and the defeat of the Republicans in Congress — a task made all the more complex because the Obama Administration bargains with the right wing from the center/center-right, and is committed to compromise. At least a center-left orientation and a willingness to do battle is required.
• With a large Democratic majority in the House and 60-40 domination in the Senate, a main enemy of a comprehensive healthcare bill — whether single-payer or the considerably more modest "public option" — is right wing Democrats in both chambers. It's like dealing with two opponents, first making concessions within the party, they with the other party.
Conservative Democrats destroyed President Harry Truman's universal healthcare plan in 1948 and are still at it 61 years later. Then they were Dixiecrats, today it's Blue Dogs.
The progressive minority of House Democrats appear to be taking a defiant stand in favor of the public option. Whether the left perseveres or caves in will be determined after Congress reconvenes. (See below: The Blue dog days of August.)
• Truly adequate healthcare, as exists for the people in most other wealthy capitalist countries, was brought about by center-left or left governments, often responding to mass movements, certainly not by center, center right and right wing administrations such as have ruled the U.S. in recent decades. Despite the Democratic victory over the ineffably reactionary Bush-Cheney neoconservatives, the American political system largely remains in a conservative straitjacket that can only be shredded by a veritable uprising of the progressives and the left.
Many of the progressives who enthusiastically backed Obama in the election campaign obviously feel let down as their own political priorities — quite predictably — have been sidetracked once again. A relatively small number seem to be fighting back by trying to apply additional pressure on the White House and Congress. Many more should be fighting back in coming months, but keeping in mind as they do that the minimum requirement for genuine reform in capitalist society is a party of the center-left.
As our country gradually emerges from the latest recession over the next couple of years, the working class, lower middle and middle classes, and the poor will return bruised and battered to the same conditions of economic inequality and the same inadequate government social programs that existed before the downturn. In our view, genuine reform is possible in such objective political and economic conditions.
Paradigm shifts in American politics have taken place before and can take place again. What's required is the building of mass movements demanding progressive social and structural change, strengthened unions, and a leadership devoted to creating the conditions that allow extensive reform to flourish, including construction of a social democratic-type party.
The alternative is to proceed as usual, with the political center succeeding the right and the right succeeding the center ad infinitem as the majority of people in the richest country in the world get short-changed, and far too often trampled upon by the wealthiest elite known to history.
Aren't "We the People" supposed to be in charge of all this? After watching much of our social welfare system stagnate in recent years and upward mobility is now going downward for many people, isn't it time — as we bid farewell to single payer and probably public option, too — to finally take charge? Doing so just may lead to better times, perhaps much better than we all think.
—————————————————
3. THE U.S. AND THE COUP IN HONDURAS
By Jack A. Smith
President Barack Obama's recent effort to convince skeptical Latin American nations that the United States was seeking a new relationship no longer based on Yankee domination is being undermined by his lukewarm opposition to the right-wing coup in Honduras.
Four months ago, at the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sought to develop a "new beginning" in relations between the U.S. and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The purpose was to retain influence in a region of traditional U.S. hegemony in response to a left political trend that has caused over a dozen governments to distance themselves in varying degrees from Uncle Sam's inhibiting embrace and neoliberal economic policies.
The Obama Administration said it opposed the coup but has done next to nothing to back up its words with deeds. Washington's restrained attitude toward the military takeover June 28 that exiled President Manuel Zelaya has provoked criticism of the U.S. from some Latin American leaders and politicians.
Zelaya, who was kidnapped at gunpoint and flown by military plane to Costa Rica, is a former conservative turned progressive in office. He began to advocate a populist approach to some of the nation's problems, particularly poverty, and enlisted Honduras in ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean), a trade organization set up by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to rival Washington's proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. This immediately transformed him from "friend" to "possible enemy" in State Department evaluations.
Such a seeming political left turn was completely unacceptable to the oligarchy that largely rules this Central American country of 7.3 million people through the vehicle of electoral democracy. Two parties dominate Honduran politics: Zelaya's center-right Liberal Party and the more rightist National Party.
The entire Honduran power structure seemed to support the coup — the military, Congress (where the National Party is the majority), some key Liberal Party politicians, the business elite, and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. (Some 97% of the religious population is considered Catholic.)
Most of the poor, the working class and the unions came to Zelaya's defense when his government was abruptly dissolved. Anti-coup demonstrations continue to take place two months later on a regular basis in the capital and smaller towns, often in the face of extreme violence from the police and army. On Aug. 19, Amnesty International published a report on "Honduras: Human rights crisis threatens as repression increases," describing "serious human rights concerns," including:
"The increasingly disproportionate and excessive use of force being used by the police and military to repress legitimate and peaceful protests across the country. Female protestors are particularly vulnerable and some women and girls taking part in the demonstrations are reportedly suffering gender based violence and abuse at the hands of police officers.... As protests increase and spread throughout the country, violent methods of repressing dissent intensify and Honduran citizens are increasingly exposed to violations of their fundamental rights." (A link to the full report is below.)
Earlier in August, 16 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama stating we "urge you to publicly denounce the [Honduran government's] use of violence and repression of peaceful protestors, the murder of peaceful political organizers, and all forms of censorship and intimidation directed at media outlets." To our knowledge the White House has remained silent.
The coup leaders said Zelaya was seeking to change the constitution so he could serve a second term. What he actually did was call for a nonbinding referendum on whether to convene a constitutional convention. Even if the one term limit was changed, Zelaya would not have been able to run for reelection this November. The Organization of American States unanimously suspended Honduras because of the coup, and the UN General Assembly issued a July 1 resolution condemning the overthrow and demanding "immediate, unconditional" restoration of the Zelaya government.
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias has been trying to negotiate between the coup-makers and Zelaya for several weeks but isn't getting anywhere because the fraudulent regime is obviously stalling until the clock runs out in November when there will be new elections. At that point it is assumed a candidate acceptable to the right wing will be elected and, probably sooner than later, loyal Honduras will be fully restored to the Washington's good graces.
After a number of progressive Latin American leaders began criticizing what appeared to be the U.S. government's subdued response to the coup in a country basically in liege to Washington, President Obama retorted Aug. 9 with a sharp statement, implying his critics were hypocrites. A week later, Venezuela's Chavez — a leader of the left trend in the region — replied to Obama's charge, suggesting he missed the point.
Addressing a press conference during the North American Summit in Mexico, Obama said the White House "has been very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup and that he should return. We have cooperated with all the international bodies in sending that message.
"The same critics who say the U.S. has not intervened in Honduras are the same people who say we are always intervening and Yankees need to get out of Latin America. If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then I think that what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations."
On Aug. 16 Chavez told his regular Sunday night radio-TV audience that Obama "didn't get it," continuing: "We are not asking you to intervene in Honduras. On the contrary, we are asking that the empire get its hands off Honduras and get its claws out of Latin America." Declaring that President Obama "has lost his bearings," Chavez called on the American leader to "get with it, brother."
The Venezuelan leader was referring to proposals urging the U.S. — which wields decisive influence in Honduras — to do more than wring its hands or just take symbolic action against the rightist coup in one of the region's poorest countries (about 70% of the people live below the poverty line). This was not a call for Washington to engage in undemocratic intervention but for withdrawing American material support for the illegitimate coup government.
For example, Chavez and others have recommended that Washington terminate the annual $200 million in subsidies, loans and other aid from Washington to the Tegucigalpa government, which has long functioned in a subordinate relationship to the U.S., and as a CIA jumping off point for subversion in the region. Some liberal Democrats in Congress have suggested at least withdrawing the U.S. ambassador and freezing bank accounts of coup leaders, but have been ignored by the White House.
Some Latin leaders have suggested that President Obama should withdraw the 600 American troops at its Soto Cano military air base, and terminate its policy of training and equipping the Honduran army, which carried out the coup on behalf of the reactionary oligarchy. According to a July 16 statement by former Cuban President Fidel Castro, "the Soto Cano base — headquarters of the Joint Task Force Bravo belonging to the U.S. Armed Forces — is the central support point of the coup d'état in Honduras."
This army has long been a creature of the Pentagon and it is difficult to believe it didn't consult with Washington about the plan to depose the elected government. Both Honduran Army Gen. Romeo Vásquez, who led the military takeover, and Air Force Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, are graduates of the notorious U.S. School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA, also known as the "School of Assassins." This puts them in the Pentagon's pocket, where they presumably still reside.
Actually, reported the Wall St. Journal the day after the coup, "senior U.S. officials" acknowledged that Washington "had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya."
That's good to hear, if true, but it raises two questions: (1) Why didn't Washington inform the plotters that it would discontinue all annual aid and other favors if they went ahead with the scheme? (2) Of greater importance, why did the White House refuse to warn the Zelaya government before the military takeover, since it was aware "for weeks" that the coup-makers were determined to strike? Zelaya was uninformed about the planned coup until 100 soldiers surrounded his home as he was arrested at gunpoint in the early morning hours.
Seeking, as usual, to placate congressional Republicans — who in this instance actually support the coup — the Obama Administration announced it has purposely held back only a small portion of its annual aid-subsidy-loan program to Honduras. In an Aug. 5 letter to GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, the State Department noted that "We have rejected calls for crippling economic sanctions." Such sanctions would have seriously weakened the coup regime of "President" Roberto Micheletti, a member of the Liberal Party and former leader of Congress, who was sworn in on the basis of a bogus letter of resignation by Zelaya.
The U.S. State department assured Lugar that "our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting" the ousted president, and noted that " Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions ... led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
This criticism — blaming Zelaya for provoking the coup — coupled with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remark that his attempt to return to Honduras by symbolically stepping over the border was "reckless," led the deposed president to comment that "the United States should be helping me, not criticizing."
Zelaya sought a meeting with Obama after the coup but the White House refused, and continues to keep him at arm's length. Zelaya ultimately traveled to Washington in July for a meeting with Clinton. By late July, the deposed leader told reporters that Clinton is "not really denouncing [the coup] and she's not acting firmly against the repression that Honduras is suffering." In Mexico for talks with President Felipe Calderon earlier this month, Zelaya told the press: "The United States only needs to tighten its fist and the coup will last five seconds." And on Aug. 19, speaking of Obama and Clinton: "The measures taken until now are lukewarm. They have been lukewarm hands against those who led the coup."
According to Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, "Clinton is very close to the Honduran dictatorship's chief strategists led by Americans Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff — both top-rung Washington lobbyists. Davis was a former counsel to President Bill Clinton and also helped Hillary's own presidential campaign. Most likely Clinton hopes to stall Zelaya's return until shortly before the election.
"This would guarantee an unfair election that her friends in the dictatorship would easily win. The presidential election campaign has already started, and the longer it continues under conditions of political repression and censorship, the less likely it is that anyone outside of Washington will consider it legitimate.
"And an illegitimate government in Honduras would become a festering sore, with boycotts and economic sanctions of the type that targeted the South African apartheid regime in the 1970s and 80s. The Obama administration can still change course and support democracy in Honduras. But time is rapidly running out."
Some on the Honduran left who were close to Zelaya suggest Washington was behind the coup. We have not come across concrete evidence to support the allegation. But it would hardly be inconsistent with actions repeatedly taken in the region by Yankee imperialism during the 111 years since the 1898 Spanish-American war — up to supporting the failed coup against Chavez in 2002 and encouraging right wing attempts last year to destabilize the government of President Evo Morales of Bolivia, another left leader.
The U.S.-Honduran relationship goes back a long time. Between 1907 and 1931, Washington sent troops to invade Honduras seven times, either in support of client regimes against the people or to defend American corporations. Honduran governments have functioned as loyal subordinates of the U.S. for many decades, which may explain Washington's reluctance to withhold more than a token of its aid.
To provide a small window into this relationship we'll quote two paragraphs from the book "Rogue State – A guide to the world's only superpower" by William Blum:
"The U.S. turned Honduras into an instant colony in the early 1980s — a military base with thousands of American troops — to support counter-insurgency operations in El Salvador and Guatemala, and, above all to serve as a staging area, supply center and refuge for the Contras an their war against the Nicaraguan government. Inasmuch as the uninterrupted continuance of such operations required a quiescent population, the U.S. gave the Honduran military and police the training, army, equipment and funds needed to efficiently suppress dissidents....
"During the 1980s, the CIA gave indispensable support to the infamous Battalion 3-16, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of citizens, using shock and suffocation devices for interrogation, among other techniques. The CIA supplied torture equipment, torture manuals, and in both Honduras and the U.S taught battalion members methods of psychological and physical torture."
Several leading members of the old death squad Battalion 3-16 took part in the coup and are reported to be close to the Micheletti regime.
The U.S. State Department web site brags that Honduras is a country that "generally supports U.S. initiatives in international fora.... During the 1980s, Honduras supported U.S. policy opposing a revolutionary Marxist government in Nicaragua and an active leftist insurgency in El Salvador," also noting that the country "contributed 370 troops for stabilization in Iraq."
Washington viewed Honduras as a beacon of resistance to the left political trend in Latin America and the Caribbean until Zelaya began to promote populist policies after assuming office. More disturbing, from the White House and Honduran ruling class point of view, Zelaya not only supported ALBA but developed a warm relationship with Chavez and a friendly attitude toward Cuban President Raúl Castro. The oligarchy feared this would result in a future erosion of its privileges. The U.S. fretted that a bulwark against the left trend might be crumbling.
The U.S. government and the corporate mass media have had little to say about the violent military crackdown on numerous anti-coup protests in Honduras conducted by the working class, its allies, students and unions. Perhaps the reason is that it's not taking place in Iran but within the U.S. orbit of hegemony by an army and officer corps well trained by the Pentagon in repressing dissidents.
Here's a couple of examples of the many protest actions against the right wing coup, excerpted from a longer report by Agence France-Presse:
"Police fired teargas and water cannon at some 3,000 students who amassed in the Honduran capital Aug. 7 to protest against the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya last June. Heavily-protected riot police beat back demonstrators who blocked one of the city’s main thoroughfares in front of the National Autonomous University, fulfilling a pledge to clampdown on protests that have convulsed the Central American country since June 28.
"Police used water cannon to disperse the protesters, who sought refuge on the university campus, where they were pursued and beaten with batons. The university’s rector Julieta Castellanos intervened in an attempt to calm both sides, but she too was beaten to the floor. Elsewhere in the capital, another crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court — which had sanctioned the move against Zelaya — demanding that coup leaders "get out."'
Democracy Now! reported that 60 demonstrators were arrested in Tegucigalpa during protests Aug. 11-12. "Honduran police fired tear gas at thousands of people in the capital for the second straight day. Police also occupied and closed off a teacher’s college where protesters have gathered. The coup regime has imposed a curfew in the capital after a pro-Zelaya rally Aug. 11 drew more than 10,000 people."
On Aug. 13, "an estimated 5,000 supporters of Zelaya marched to denounce the arrest of 60 protesters earlier this week." The next day, AP reported, "two dozen supporters of Honduras' ousted president were charged with sedition in an intensifying crackdown on protests against the coup-installed government." Following these protests the usurper government reimposed a nighttime curfew in the capital.
——
The full Amnesty International report is at
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR37/004/2009/en/fa065539-1131-49d1-85d2-6a2b84a30c6b/amr370042009eng.html#1.Honduras:%20human%20rights%20crisis%20threatens%20as%20repression%20increases|outline
—————————————————
4. INCIDENT AT A LOCAL HEALTHCARE FORUM
[Following is a first-person report of an Aug. 17 Town Hall forum in Greenwood Lake, in the Hudson Valley's Orange County. It's by Sam Sussman, a local resident and progressive student activist involved with a number of organizations and causes. He just returned from a two-month congressional internship in Washington (where he learned a great deal about healthcare) and will be returning to his studies at Binghamton University.]
Tonight, I attended a forum on health care with Greg Ball, NYS Republican Assemblyman who is challenging Rep. John Hall in the 19th Congressional District in 2010. Ball opened the meeting by stating that he was there to hear all perspectives on "government-run" healthcare.
The first speaker stood up and began to rant — quite inarticulately — about how socialism was evil. She mentioned no specifics or facts that related to any of the five health care bills presently in Congress.
The next speaker did the same. This continued for 45 minutes. Again and again, individuals —mostly elder — would stand up and do anything from rant against socialism to complain, incorrectly, that illegal immigrants were covered in the bill. Many complained that abortion would be mandated in the bill (also untrue) and whined about the high cost, despite the fact that the bill is deficit neutral.
Others complained about government rationing, ignoring the fact that individuals can keep their private insurance under the new plan if they desire. More made comparisons to the British and Canadian systems, ignoring the fact that the proposed bills offer a public option, not single-payer. Others claimed the bill would destroy small businesses by mandating that they insure their employees, although this mandate applies only to small businesses with a payroll of $500,000 or more. Others skipped concrete complaints altogether, and merely rampaged against President Obama and his perceived socialist agenda.
Although there were some Democrats in the hall and they weren't happy, nobody was stepping up to the plate, so I got on the line. Medicare seemed to be a good place to start. The crowd was overwhelmingly composed of senior citizens, and there had been much complaining about cuts to Medicare, but I knew that individual Medicare plans won't be touched.
Finally it was my turn. As I took the microphone, I looked out at the crowd. "My name is Sam Sussman," I said, "and I live in Chester. May I see, by a show of hands, how many of you are on Medicare?" Almost everybody raised his or her hand. "OK," I continued, "we have a system whereby health insurance for senior citizens is subsidized, because if it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to afford health care. What would be wrong with doing the same for those who presently cannot afford health care?"
The crowd went nuts. There was screaming and booing. Some yelled, "We worked for ours!" —obviously missing the points that Medicare is subsidized, and that many people without insurance also work.
One woman yelled out "It's not our problem, it's not our responsibility!" I was taken aback by the outrageous audience response, and was unable to speak over the noise for a few moments, but I began again. "Oh, it's not your responsibility?" I said, voice rising. "It's not your problem? Guess what, people die in America because they don't have health care. That's wrong. It is our problem. It is our responsibility. We're all Americans and we're all in this together."
The crowd kept yelling, screaming, booing. Many yelled out "Let him speak," but others called for me to step down. One of Ball's aides came over to me and asked for the mic until the crowd calmed down. I handed it to him.
Ball, who had been sitting several feet away from me, stood up and took the mic. "How many veterans do we have here?' he asked. Many hands went up. "You fought for this," he said, "You fought for freedom of speech." Then he turned to me. "But you know you were the first person to get up here and yell, and you didn't need to do that." I was outraged. I had only raised my voice because the entire crowd of some 200 people was screaming and booing me in an attempt to drown me out. A friend stood up and said something to support me.
Ball then returned the microphone and I continued. "You mention veterans, sir," I said, turning to him. "You served, correct?" He responded in the affirmative. "Thank you for your service, sir. We have single payer for our veterans through the VA. How do you feel about giving government-run health care to those who gave their blood, sweat, and tears for America?"
Ball responded by telling me that he knew a woman whose husband had died under the VA system, and that, therefore, they weren't too happy with "government healthcare." Conservatives are great at pointing out one or two people who take advantage of the system, or one horror story in a government-run program, and then move from that single example to the conclusion that the whole system or program is flawed.
I asked Ball, "So then you support repealing the VA single payer system as it stands now? At that point the crowd took over. One man to my right started screaming at me. Many in the crowd were yelling at me to leave, even though my remarks were much shorter than most other speakers.
The next few seconds are fuzzy in my mind, but there was more yelling and Ball's aide indicated I should give up the mic. I handed it to the next man on line, who remarked that he was going to "give me a civics lesson."
I was still standing in front of the room, and a few people came up to me. One man said that my problem was that I evidently don't watch FOX News. Another said, "I'm from Romania. I can tell you all about the evils of communism." I'm still trying to figure out how a public option fits into Marxism.
Many other people approached me. Some shook my hand and commended my courage. Others tried to argue with me. I attempted to explain calmly and rationally the truth behind many of the false and malicious rumors, ranging from euthanasia to Medicare cuts.
The Democratic showing was weak at the forum. Nobody else articulated support for a public option or single payer. We have the facts and know the truth. We have to speak out.
—————————————————
5. THE BLUE DOG DAYS OF AUGUST
[Editor's Note: A number of progressive commentators and publications — all big supporters of Obama's election — have lately been disturbed by the flaccid performance of Democratic Party politicians in office. The following editorial appears in the Aug. 31 issue of The Nation magazine, a virtual house organ of liberalism.]
No doubt progressives need to mobilize to counter the thuggery of wing nuts — aided and applauded by Republican leaders and health industry lobbyists — trying to take over town meetings. The right should be scorned for trying to "break" the Obama presidency by stopping any reform whatsoever.
But Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and a large majority in the House. If they were unified behind their president and their leaders, significant healthcare reform would pass. That Congress recessed without agreement on a sensible bill is mostly the result of the destructive maneuvers of a handful of conservative Democrats in the House, largely from the 52-member Blue Dog caucus and their allies in the Senate, headed by Max Baucus, chair of the Finance Committee and poster child of corrupt and compromised incoherence.
Baucus, mired in unending "bipartisan" negotiations with all of three Republicans, has failed to produce a bill from the Finance Committee; what eventually emerges will probably be deeply, if not fatally, flawed. Representative Mike Ross and a pack of Blue Dogs managed to force the House Energy Committee to gut the public option, while lowering subsidies to middle-income families forced to pay higher prices to insurance companies.
The Blue Dogs come largely from rural and Southern districts, and often campaign by distancing themselves from the national party. Their support comes from voters who are conservative on social issues like guns and abortion. But on bread-and-butter concerns, these legislators are voting with their contributors, not their constituents.
The Blue Dogs parade as "fiscal conservatives" and "moderates," false advertising that the mainstream press mindlessly echoes. In fact, they are the epitome of a Washington captured by moneyed interests. They aren't working to ensure that healthcare reforms are paid for; they are laboring on behalf of insurance companies to protect their obscene profits. The Blue Dogs are maneuvering on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure the government won't negotiate reasonable drug prices. They're doing their best to derail reasonable tax hikes on the affluent, hikes that would make insurance affordable for working- and middle-class families. Even on the Blue Dogs' signature issue—the "pay-go" rules, which they insist must be passed into law—they exempt reductions in the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans and, of course, the cost of any military adventure whatsoever.
White House officials apparently think these legislators can be bought off one by one, and fear that offending Blue Dogs en masse might raise their price. More destructively, they care far more about passing something called "comprehensive healthcare" than about what is in the actual legislation. Focus on those who oppose any bill, they urge. Let us make the best deals we can in the back rooms.
The problem with this strategy is that the lobbies own the back rooms. We saw evidence of that when Big Pharma announced that Obama had privately agreed to sustain the most outrageous Bush handouts to the drug companies.
The White House call for progressives to ignore these Democratic obstructionists is not much different from Lyndon Johnson telling Martin Luther King Jr. to halt civil rights demonstrations in a South ruled by segregationist Democrats. Change never comes from following such advice.
What the country needs — what Obama needs, whether he realizes it or not — is an independent, mobilized, progressive citizens' movement that takes on the corporate lobbies, from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Wall Street; challenges the legislators who are in their pockets; and demands affordable national healthcare, renewable energy, empowerment of workers, regulation of Wall Street and more. That movement should go after the conservatives and the compromised in both parties— anyone who stands in the way of reform.
The obstruction by Republicans and the right is real and must be opposed. But so should the back-room guile of the moneyed lobbies and their Democratic allies. If we are going to get the change we need, progressives will have to challenge those in both parties who can't see which way the wind is blowing.
—————————————————
6. THE REAL DEATH PANELS
By Joe Conason, Truthdig, Aug. 13
When Republican politicians and right-wing talking heads bemoan the fictitious "death panels" that they claim would arise from health care reform, they are concealing a sinister reality from their followers. The ugly fact is that every year we fail to reform the existing system, that failure condemns tens of thousands of people to die—either because they have no insurance or because their insurance companies deny coverage or benefits when they become ill.
The best estimate of the annual death toll among Americans of working age due to lack of insurance or under-insurance is at least 20,000, according to studies conducted over the past decade by medical researchers, and the number is almost certainly rising as more and more people lose their coverage as costs continue to go up.
They die primarily because they didn’t have the coverage or the money to pay doctors and thus delayed seeking treatment until it was too late. They don’t get checkups, screenings and other preventive care. That is why uninsured adults are far more likely to be diagnosed with a disease, such as cancer or heart disease, at an advanced stage, which severely reduces their chances of survival.
This isn’t news. Seven years ago, the Institute of Medicine found that approximately 18,000 Americans had died in 2000 because they had no insurance. Using the same methodology combined with Census Bureau estimates of health coverage, the Urban Institute concluded that the incidence of death among the uninsured was enormous. Between 2000 and 2006, the last year of that study, the total number of dead was estimated to have reached 137,000—a body count more than double the number of casualties in the Vietnam War.
The Institute of Medicine also found that uninsured adults are 25% more likely to die prematurely than adults with private health insurance, and other studies have warned that uninsured adults between the ages of 55 and 64 are even more prone to die prematurely. A lack of health insurance is the third-leading cause of death for that age cohort, following heart disease and cancer.
All those appalling figures, which are real rather than mythical, do not include the casualties of insurance company profiteering—namely, all the people, including small children, who perish because of the anonymous "death panels" that deny or delay coverage to consumers.
Perhaps the most notorious case in recent years was that of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old leukemia patient whose liver transplant was held up by insurance giant Cigna HealthCare. She died for no reason except to protect Cigna’s profit margin, but her unnecessary and cruel demise was hardly unique.
Research by the American Medical Association found that the nation’s largest insurance companies deny somewhere between 2% and 5% of all the claims submitted by doctors. That rough estimate is the best available because private insurers are not required to reveal such statistics (although they certainly maintain them), and the government does not collect them.
But in June, a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation found that three major insurance companies—Golden Rule, Assurant and WellPoint—rescinded the coverage of at least 20,000 people between 2003 and 2007 for minor errors, including typos, on their paperwork; a pre-existing condition; or a family member’s medical history.
"They try to find something — anything — so they can say that this individual was not truthful," said Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who oversaw the committee probe. He warned that insurance companies launch these nitpicking inquisitions whenever a policyholder becomes ill with a certain kind of condition — usually a costly and deadly one, such as ovarian cancer or leukemia. The result is denial and loss of coverage — and we now know that means increased mortality for innocent people.
So, who are the members of the death panels?
You can find them among the corporate bureaucrats who concoct excuses to deny coverage and throw the sick off their rolls. You can find them among the politicians and lobbyists who have stalled reform for years while people died. You can find them among the morons who show up to shout slogans at town halls rather than seek solutions. And you can find them among the cable and radio blabbers, who invent scary stories about reform to conceal the sickening truth.
—————————————————
7. PRISONHOUSE AMERICA
The population of the United States is about 307,200,000 — roughly 5% of the population of the entire world. America's prison and jail population, however, which is estimated at nearly 2.5 million people, amounts to some 25% of the world's incarcerated population.
In 1970, approximately 100 people were behind bars for every 100,000 U.S. residents, but today the prison population is nearly 800 per 100,000 — and the shocking increase had nothing to do with any kind of crime wave.
Over these four decades the U.S. political system has developed a vicious and inhumane lock 'em up mentality, far exceeding all other nations. Russia is closest to the U.S. with about 620 per 100,000. And China, contrary to many assumptions in our society, has a relatively low prison rate — about 115 per 100,000 — equal to that of Canada.
It wasn't always this way, according to an important economic and political analysis of modern America's penchant for incarceration in the June 2009 issue of Monthly Review titled, "The Penal State in an Age of Crisis." What happened?
"The slowdown in the economic growth rate of U.S. capitalism beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s — converging with the emergence of radical social protest around the same period — was accompanied by a rapid rise in public safety spending as a share of civilian government expenditures," explained the article, which was written by Hanna Holleman, Robert W. McChesney, John Bellamy Foster, and R. Jamil Jonna.
"So significant was this shift that we can speak of a crowding out of welfare state spending (health, education, social services) by penal state spending (law enforcement, courts, and prisons) in the United States during the last third of a century."
The article points out that "Bernie Madoff notwithstanding, prisoners come almost entirely from the poor and working class. Rising incarceration rates reflect in the first instance a rising industrial reserve army of the unemployed/underemployed. Thus there is normally a close relationship between inequality, joblessness, poverty, crime, and incarceration."
In addition, "Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1,200% since 1980. Those in prison due to drug possession now account for 53% of all federal prisoners, and 20% of state prisoners. These offenses were victimless, and nonviolent." About 75% of those incarcerated for drugs are black of Hispanic, even though whites use illegal drugs in about the same proportion.
"The prison population is disproportionately African American and nonwhite," the article shows. "By disproportionate, we mean not only in relation to the population as a whole, but also in relation to the population of poor and working-class people. It is impossible to look at the prisoner explosion without seeing racism in all its fury."
It seems obvious that the entire American prison system requires an extensive overhaul, from overturning draconian sentencing rules and finding alternatives to prison for nonviolent offenders, to ending capital punishment, introducing serious rehabilitation and job training programs, and taking steps at last to end rape throughout the prison and jail system, among many other reforms.
There is much more to this 6,000 word article and we encourage our readers to peruse the entire piece at http://monthlyreview.org/090601holleman-mcchesney-foster-jonna.php.
—————————————————
8. U.S. MILITARY BASES GROW IN LATIN AMERICA
Many key Latin American leaders are strongly critical of an impending pact between the Obama Administration and the right wing Bogotá government that allows the Pentagon to station its forces in seven Colombian military bases — a major expansion in American military power in South America.
Venezuela and Ecuador, which border Colombia, are most upset by the deal, which involves three air bases, two navy bases and two army bases, but criticism has also come from the governments of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, among others.
Latin American unease reached the point where State Hillary Clinton told a news conference Aug. 18: "I want to be clear about what this agreement does and does not. First: the agreement does not create U.S. bases in Colombia, it does provide U.S. access to Colombian bases.... This agreement does not pertain to other countries. This is about the bilateral cooperation between the United States and Colombia regarding security matters within Colombia."
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela stated: "They know what they are telling the world is not true.... We are the first target of the United States. Using Colombia and the bases in Aruba and Curacao, they are surrounding us." President Rafael Correa of Ecuador denounced the agreement for the same reasons. Clinton said the deal will be consummated in the near future.
Washington reporter Yang Qingchuan, writing for China's Xinhua News Agency Aug. 14, provided the background for understanding the latest conflict between the Obama Administration and several countries in Latin America. His report follows:
Despite protests and warnings from many Latin American countries, the United States is poised to sign an agreement with Colombia to expand Washington's military presence in that country.
The move has raised ire in the Latin America region where memories of U.S. military interventions are still fresh and seems to undermine the Obama Administration's latest efforts to forge warmer ties with the region.
The implications of the controversy extend beyond the region and suggest an unchanged U.S. policy to maintain a mammoth global military presence despite the change of government, analysts said.
Excluding the huge presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 900 U.S. military facilities in 46 countries and territories, accommodating 190,000 U.S. troops and 115,000 civilian employees, according to official figures. Some analysts say the real figures may be far greater.
Latin American leaders have been critical of the U.S.-Colombia deal. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suggested that "the winds of war are blowing," while Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner called the move "belligerent." Uruguayan President Tabar Vasquez has proposed banning foreign military bases in the region and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also expressed concern.
Confronting such concerns, President Obama declared Aug. 7 that the United States has "no intent in establishing a U.S. military base in Colombia." However, whether the bases in the deal will have the two letters of "U.S." in their names, the reality is that Washington's military presence in Colombia will grow, said John Lindsay-Poland, a California-based researcher on Pentagon bases in Latin America.
According to U.S. media reports, the agreement involves the use of Colombian military bases by U.S. aircraft and troops engaged in counter-narcotics and counter-guerrilla surveillance programs. They would make up for last month's closure of a similar U.S. operation out of Manta, Ecuador [as the request of the progressive Correa government].
U.S. officials described the Colombian bases involved in the deal as "Forward Operating Locations (FOLs)" for U.S. military. "We're not talking about U.S. bases at all.... We're talking about access by U.S. personnel to existing Colombian bases," a State Department official told Miami Herald on condition of anonymity.
However, according to the Pentagon's descriptions, FOLs in overseas facilities come in three types. By the Pentagon's definition, FOLs are "expandable facilities maintained with a limited U.S. military support presence and possibly pre-positioned equipment," such as the Incirlik Airbase in Turkey and the Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras. The second type are "Main operating bases," with permanent personnel, strong infrastructure, and often family housing, such as the Kadena Airbase in Japan and the Ramstein Airbase in Germany. The third is "cooperative security locations," which are sites with few or no permanent U.S. personnel, maintained by contractors or the host nation for occasional use by the U.S. military.
Some observers argue that the FOLs are de facto U.S. bases without a formal title.
Speaking to a group of Spanish-language reporters recently, Obama said the new deal with Colombia is an "update" of existing security agreement between the two countries and is a "continuation" of existing bilateral military cooperation.
However, some analysts pointed out that it signaled a continuous trend of expanding a web of U.S. military facilities and functions in Latin America over recent years.
"New U.S. bases and military access agreements have proliferated in Latin America," analyst Lindsay-Poland wrote in a research paper. He pointed out that instead of operating large bases in the region, now Washington prefers smaller and "informal" facilities such as the FOLs, in order to maintain a broad military foothold while accommodating regional leaders' reluctance to host large U.S. military bases.
After the U.S. military withdrawal from Panama in 1999, the Pentagon has been expanding the "cooperative security locations" in the region. The U.S. Southern Command also operates some 17 radar sites, mostly in Peru and Colombia. This is in addition to existing U.S. bases in Latin America, including a missile tracking station on Ascension Island in the Caribbean, and Soto Cano in Honduras.
Furthermore, the United States has small military presences and property in Antigua, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and on Andros Island in the Bahamas. In Panama, although all U.S. military forces left the country in 1999, the Pentagon continues to enjoy access for military flights into and out of Panama.
Military supremacy is a U.S. goal in the world. To maintain an unmatched military power is always a national goal of the United States, thus continuing a policy of maintaining a far-reaching global military presence seems to fit that logic. Obama made it clear in his inauguration speech that it is vital for the country to maintain the "strongest military on the planet."
"Barack Obama shows no sign of scaling back the U.S. military presence in the world," said Catherine Lutz, a professor at Brown University. In fact, "many of the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts are being directed towards maintaining and garnering new access for the U.S. military across the globe."
—————————————————
9. TROY DAVIS WINS COURT DECISION
[Editors Note: This article was written by Amy Goodman, the host of the best daily progressive news program on radio/TV, Democracy Now. It appeared Aug. 18 on Truthdig.]
Sitting on death row in Georgia, Troy Davis has won a key victory against his own execution. On Aug. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed a federal court in Georgia to consider, for the first time in a formal court proceeding, significant evidence of Davis’ innocence that surfaced after his conviction. This is the first such order from the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 50 years. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
The order read, in part, "The District Court should receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s innocence." Behind the order lay a stunning array of recantations from those who originally testified as eyewitnesses to the murder of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses who originally identified Davis as the murderer of MacPhail have since recanted, some alleging police coercion and intimidation in obtaining their testimony. Of the remaining two witnesses, one, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, is accused by others as the shooter and identified Davis as the perpetrator probably to save himself from arrest.
On the night of the murder, MacPhail was off duty, working as a security guard at a Burger King. A homeless man was being beaten in the parking lot. The altercation drew Davis and others to the scene, along with MacPhail. MacPhail intervened, and was shot fatally with a .38-caliber gun. Later, Coles arrived at the police station, accompanied by a lawyer, and identified Davis as the shooter. The police engaged in a high-profile manhunt, with Davis’ picture splayed across the newspapers and television stations. Davis turned himself in. With no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Davis was convicted and sentenced to death.
Jeffrey Sapp is typical of those in the case who recanted their eyewitness testimony. He said in an affidavit:
"The police ... put a lot of pressure on me to say ‘Troy said this’ or ‘Troy said that.’ They wanted me to tell them that Troy confessed to me about killing that officer ... they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear."
Despite the seven recantations, Georgia’s parole commission has refused to commute Davis’ sentence. Courts have refused to hear the evidence, mostly on procedural grounds. Conservatives like former Georgia Congressman and prosecutor Bob Barr and former FBI Director William Sessions have called for justice in his case, along with Pope Benedict XVI, President Jimmy Carter, the NAACP and Amnesty International.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, "The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing." Yet conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (with Justice Clarence Thomas), writing that Davis’ case "is a sure loser," and "[t]his Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent."
Davis has had three execution dates, and in one instance was within two hours of lethal injection. Now he will finally have his day in court. With the courageous support of his sister, Martina Correia (who has been fighting for his life as well as her own—she has stage 4 breast cancer), and his nephew, Antone De’Jaun Correia, who at 15 is a budding human rights activist, Davis may yet defy death. That could lead to a long-overdue precedent in U.S. law: It is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
— To watch, listen or read the Monday-Friday one-hour Democracy Now! reports, access http://www.democracynow.org/.
—————————————————
10. CLIMATE TALKS MOVE AT SNAIL'S PACE
By Environmental News Service
Negotiations toward a new agreement to limit global warming ended Aug. 14 in Bonn, Germany, with little progress, United Nations officials and conservationists said. "At this rate, we will not make it," said the UN’s top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Climate Change Secretariat.
Negotiations need to move much faster to deliver strong outcomes on areas such as adaptation, technology and building skills in developing nations, he told reporters. Governments need to buckle down and concretely identify how to achieve this.
Attended by some 2,400 participants, the talks in Bonn were part of a series of UN gatherings this year designed to culminate in an ambitious and effective international climate change deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Dec. 7-10. De Boer stressed that "a climate deal in Copenhagen this year is an unequivocal requirement to stop climate change from slipping out of control."
The Copenhagen agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions is to follow the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. Negotiations will need to considerably pick up speed for the world to achieve a successful result at Copenhagen.
Dr. Jonathan Pershing, head of the U.S. delegation in Bonn, described progress as "modest but real" and said common elements are emerging that the United States would support. He said a deal in Copenhagen depends on India and China being included in any agreement. "Ourselves, Europe, China, India, Japan — it has to be the major emitters," he told BBC News. "If we think of a group of about 15 countries, they comprise on the order of 75% of global emissions. We can't solve this without them; you need them all and they all have to move immediately."
A key stumbling block is still the level and the source of financial support for poor countries, said Kim Carstensen, the head of WWF Global Climate Initiative. "The growing number of countries supporting the idea of Copenhagen delivering a legally binding outcome was a positive sign," he said, but "delegates spent too much time arguing over procedures and technicalities."
New UN figures released in Bonn show that 39 industrialized nations, excluding the United States, are planning to cut greenhouse gas emissions by between 15-21% below 1990 levels by 2020. Canada, for instance, presented their national target to reduce emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020. Russia detailed plans to reduce emissions by 10-15% by 2020 in comparison to 1990s levels.
These levels are higher than those mandated by the Kyoto Protocol — an average 5.2% emissions cuts from 1990 levels — but they fall far short of the 25-40% emissions cuts most scientists say are necessary to avert the worst effects of global warming.
Executive secretary De Boer told reporters these promises are "miles away" from the ambition needed to meet the goal, set by the G8 leaders last month, to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.
—————————————————
11. "CAP AND TRADE" WON'T HALT GLOBAL WARMING
[Editor's Note: The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454 — the Waxman-Markey bill — is President Barack Obama's big effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It recently passed in the House and is now before the Senate. A number of environmentalists backed the bill, but most of them also expressed serious reservations because of its limitations. Some environmental groups — such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Rainforest Acton Network — opposed the bill. Greenpeace said: "It’s like building a four-foot levee in New Orleans as the waters rush in at 40 feet." We asked Ulster County activist Steve Greenfield, a progressive critic of the measure, to write the following article.]
By Steve Greenfield
The United States, under the leadership of the Obama Administration, is moving rapidly toward choosing what is known as "cap and trade" to reduce increasing greenhouse gas emissions that produce global warming. This means polluters purchase the "right" to pollute for a price, which they might recoup by with higher prices to consumers.
Most climate scientists, environmentalists, and economists not affiliated with greenhouse-gas emitting industries or banking institutions eligible to trade in the carbon permits, credits, and offsets that are the basis of "cap and trade," agree that the scheme is inadequate to the task at hand. Even the economists who invented and developed it in the 1960s and 1970s now accept this view.
And precious little is being discussed about the risk to the U.S. economy of giving financial institutions a massive, new, unregulated paper asset to divide into limitless derivatives — the initial carbon permit giveaway — that not only would amount to bailout #3, but also sets up the next banking collapse by not regulating the mechanisms under which the paper can be traded.
Many Americans confuse this massive giveaway of tax dollars to the fossil fuel-laden energy, agribusiness, and financial sectors with something that could actually slow and reverse global warming because President Barack Obama and former Vice President Albert Gore embrace this view.
It should noted that Gore, who has played a major role in alerting people to the danger of global warming, is now in a partnership with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — the architect of Bailout #1 — and some members of the board of Goldman Sachs (the world’s leading carbon credit trading group), who benefited from Bailouts # 1 and 2.
There may still be time to demand a fresh start if enough Americans develop an adequate understanding of how cap-and-trade fails to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate has yet to act on the Democratic supported cap-and-trade Waxman-Markey legislation, which was passed by the house June 26 in a 219-212 vote.
One reason cap-and-trade can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the complete inability to determine that those in a position to sell carbon offsets or surplus permits are doing anything differently than they would have done without the potential to profit from the scheme.
Owners of forested acreage can sell the carbon-offsetting capacity of that acreage even if they previously had no capacity or financial motive to harvest it. Cap-and-trade only balances the harm of the greenhouse gas emitter if greenhouse gas absorption is increased elsewhere — not if an existing status-quo is simply being maintained. So polluters receive a price incentive to purchase polluting rights from people who aren’t actually reducing pollution — they’re just getting cut in on the profits, with the additional cost of that new profit passed on to consumers of the polluter’s products, through higher prices.
In other words, a private taxation system is managed and collected by a partnership of polluters, owners of unexploitable land, and their go-betweens like the Gore-Goldman Sachs-affiliated Generation Investment Management "private equity fund." In fact, the polluters may pretend to be offsetting themselves by purchasing a few acres of worthless vegetation every time they expect to generate more carbon dioxide, so long as such vegetation remains below the market price of privately offered offsets for the same amount of carbon. Without a requirement that greenhouse gas emissions may only be offset by demonstrable new greenhouse gas absorption on the part of the offset seller, cap-and-trade is a façade.
Another reason it can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that it can’t be policed. Anyone in the billions of acres of existing remote forestland throughout the world can say they’ve sold a guarantee that they’ll protect those acres from cutting, but who’s going to search through the entire Amazon to make sure a hundred acres here, a hundred acres there, haven’t been cleared?
A third reason is the big up-front carbon permit giveaway, which not only sets up future banking destabilization of the like repeatedly seen in derivatives trading, and under which the world’s economy and United States Treasury suffers today, but is already known to be the main source of the failure of the European cap-and-trade program (their emissions have increased since adoption). The issuance of the initial permits allows the recipients to either rapidly escalate their own emissions, or if they maintain them, sell their surplus permits to polluters whose emissions are increasing, and to sell it at a pure profit no matter how low the surplus drives the value of the permits — because the permits were simply given to them for free by the taxpayers. By encouraging permit sale even if prices approach zero, the giveaway system guarantees that the permits won’t add meaningful cost to the production of carbon, and whatever costs may someday be incurred are decades away, after it’s way too late.
A fourth reason, one that should have been simple to control, is that too many industries, particularly agriculture, have successfully lobbied for exemption. Combine this with the stimuli in the same bill to use agriculture for direct biofuel production, and you can easily see an escape valve designed to exceed the capacity of the supposedly capped tank itself. If we don’t deforest to sow biofuel crops, we can only do so by sowing existing food acreage and drastically driving up food costs, which the laws of supply and demand will offset with new stimuli for fossil-fuel derived, ecocidal herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, as well as genetically modified crops. And that will be the effect in well-fed countries. In poor countries, the result — already widely observed — will be starvation.
The list of fatal flaws in cap-and-trade as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is long and well-researched, and space limitations require that these few descriptions suffice to halt support for cap-and-trade by readers and stimulate personal exploration of the rest — and the advocacy that must follow.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, picked up mostly in left-wing alternative media, revealed that the economists who invented and developed cap-and-trade four decades ago (primarily used to date to reduce acid rain), claim that cap-and-trade cannot work for greenhouse gas emissions, and only works for pollutants emitted on much smaller, policeable scales with access to existing, proven pollutant-reducing technologies. These qualifiers do not exist in the case of greenhouse gases.
Only direct greenhouse gas taxation — rendered revenue-neutral through redirection of revenues into payroll tax reductions, poverty rebates, and credits for energy efficiencies and investment in greenhouse gas-reducing energy sources — will actually produce the desired effect, effective upon enactment, and with minimum bureaucracy.
—————————————————
12. ARRESTED AT END OF 3-DAY PEACE WALK
Nine antiwar activists were detained at Fort McCoy Aug. 10 after walking onto the central-Wisconsin military base to protest the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued U.S. possession of nuclear weapons.
According to Voices for Creative Nonviolence in Chicago, five of the nine were ticketed and released from the site after being permanently banned from entering the base again. Four of the group were taken by U.S. marshals to Madison where they face federal trespass charges in U.S. District Court. The four had previously been banned from the base for earlier protests.
All nine, ranging in age from 20 to 72, were part of a three-day walk for peace that began Aug. 7, near Camp Williams, WI. Some 50 people joined the peace walk. Five activists from Chicago pedaled for five days to join the march. Of the nine arrested, four lived in Wisconsin, and the rest were from Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and New York.
The walk was also a commemoration of the U.S. atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima, Aug. 6, and Nagasaki Aug. 9, 1945, and an appeal for a moratorium on the use of armor-piercing shells made from waste uranium-238 known as "depleted uranium" munitions.
Walkers carried dozens of placards along highways 12 and 21. Principle among them were demands to bring all the troops home; to compensate the victims of the U.S. military occupations; to abolish nuclear weapons; and to inform the National Guard troops of all their legal rights.
Ft. McCoy plays a key role in mobilizing Army National Guard and Army Reserve units shipping out to the two U.S. military occupations. Several Guard units are undergoing mobilization training this summer at the Fort prior to their deployment. The 32nd Brigade Combat Team is currently deployed to Iraq, the largest combat deployment of the Wisconsin National Guard since WW II.
—————————————————
13. KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE
The separation of church and state has been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution since the adoption of the First Amendment, which stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." President Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of this clause as "a wall of separation between church and state" continues as the law of the land, despite various efforts to dilute its meaning.
In recent years, most liberals and many newspapers supportive of the Democratic Party and secularism expressed criticism when President George W. Bush introduced his controversial "Faith-Based Initiative" in 2001, charging that it violated the principal of separation of church and state. The program expanded the role of tax-payer subsidized religious organizations in the delivery of social services in place of government programs.
Since then, most of born-again Bush's Initiative has been adopted by President Barack Obama, who has lately been displaying his Christian credentials as a defense against right-wing lies that he is a believer in Islam. But, according to a poll released Aug. 13 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, "Obama's faith-based initiative has so far generated little of the contentious press coverage associated with Bush's effort." And as far as we can determine, the outcry of the liberals has been muted.
According to the Pew report: "The faith-based initiative... met resistance from both religious and nonreligious leaders, who voiced concerns that the effort was being politicized and fears that the initiative would undermine church-state boundaries. The controversial nature of the initiative became the focus of much of the early 2001 press coverage. But when Obama established his own faith-based initiative, the press coverage focused primarily on procedural matters.
"The one controversy that generated a relatively significant amount of coverage in the first six months of the Obama administration concerned whether faith-based groups that receive federal funds should be able to consider a potential employee's religion when making hiring decisions....
"Coverage of the faith-based initiative was almost 50% more likely to be on the front page of newspapers in 2001 than in 2009. Issues related to the separation of church and state were the top concern in the press in 2001. Fully 40% of the newspaper coverage focused on whether the initiative violated this constitutional line. In 2009, the top controversy in the coverage analyzed was the unresolved faith-based hiring issue. More than a third of the stories (36%) dealt with this debate."
According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU): "The so-called 'faith-based' initiative is a euphemism for taxpayer-supported religion. The initiative funnels taxpayer dollars to religious social service providers without adequate safeguards to prevent proselytism. In addition, these groups seek to discriminate in hiring based on religion even though their programs are publicly funded."
Commenting Feb. 6 on President Obama's embrace of the Bush religious initiative, the organization declared that it "believes any fair review of the faith-based initiative would conclude that taxpayer-funded religious discrimination runs counter to America’s civil rights laws and our shared values.... In July [2008], Obama gave a major speech on 'faith-based' initiatives in Ohio and promised to end proselytism and job discrimination in tax-funded programs. His order yesterday does not do that. In fact, it leaves a series of executive orders issued by George W. Bush in place."
AU executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn, commented that "I am very disappointed that President Obama’s faith-based program is being rolled out without barring evangelism and religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs. It should be obvious that taxpayer-funded religious bias offends our civil rights laws, our Constitution and our shared sense of values."
Two months ago, AU asked Attorney General Eric Holder to terminate or at least investigate nine Bush-era federal grants awarded to faith-based groups that proselytize and that discriminate in hiring.
The grants ranged from a high of $1,128,000 to an Indiana Evangelical Christian college to $47,000 for an Albany, N.Y., group. Albany Teen Challenge was paid to run several drug-prevention program, during which an "altar call is given, Bibles are provided, and salvation cards are distributed." AU said the ministry has a policy of hiring only Christians.
Though the financing involved is relatively small, the issue is huge, and we hope progressives do not ignore the unfortunate conjunction of church and state in the Faith-Based Initiative, no matter who is president. We should keep in mind a statement on this matter by another president, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
—————————————————
14. ANOTHER WAR CRIME CHARGED TO ISRAEL
[Information from Antiwar.com, HRW, and Democracy Now!]
A new report by Human Rights Watch Aug. 13 cites investigations and statements by eyewitnesses who say Israeli soldiers shot 11 unarmed Palestinians, including five women and four children, who were waving white flags at them. This is the latest in a multitude of war crimes charges leveled at Israeli forces during their December-January invasion of the Gaza Strip.
The 63-page report, "White Flag Deaths: Killings of Palestinian Civilians during Operation Cast Lead," is based on field investigations of seven incident sites in Gaza, including ballistic evidence found at the scene, medical records of victims, and lengthy interviews with multiple witnesses — at least three people separately for each incident.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) declined repeated Human Rights Watch requests for a meeting to discuss the cases and did not respond to questions submitted in writing.
The report urged Israel to conduct a thorough investigation into the charges, but this appears unlikely as the Israeli military publicly condemned Human Rights Watch for releasing the report. Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the invasion, along with 14 Israelis.
The Israeli military also claimed that on occasion Gazans had acted illegally in waving white flags, insisting that this had endangered the civilian population. It did not appear to provide any information to directly dispute the evidence of the particular incident, but merely appeared irked that Human Rights Watch didn’t present it to them before releasing it to the public.
On the Democracy Now! radio/video/website program Aug. 14, Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch said most of the victims were women and children: "These are incidents in which eleven Palestinian civilians, nine of them children and women, were killed, despite the fact that they were holding or waving white flags to signify that they were civilians, they were unarmed, they had no hostile intent. But still, Israeli soldiers, in many cases after calling them out of their homes, shot them."
In a homemade video shown on the program, Gaza resident Khalid Abed Rabbo described the shooting death of his two young daughters: "When the soldiers arrived outside our house, they yelled for us to come outside. My wife, mother, three daughters and I went outside. We were holding cloths, because we are a peaceful family. I thought that the soldiers would realize that they were looking at women and children."
Abed Rabbo’s three-year-old daughter and the children’s grandmother were also wounded in the shooting. The girls’ mother, Umm Soad Abed Rabbo, also witnessed the attack and said: "Right in front of me, they shot my eldest daughter. Then they shot the little one, Amal, and then Samar, who was in front of her. When we ran inside, they shot their elderly grandmother who can hardly walk."
Israel’s own probes into the Gaza War have uncovered virtually no misdeeds, even when several of its own soldiers reported indiscriminate killing of civilians. The military declared that their testimony was "hearsay" and that not a single claim was true.
— For an article on the "Traumatized children of Gaza" as a consequence of the invasion, see Check it Out item below.
—————————————————
15. THE 'PRISON' KNOWN AS GAZA
The United Nations issued a 30-page report in mid-August titled, "Locked In: The Humanitarian Impact of Two Years of Blockade on the Gaza Strip," produced by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for Occupied Palestinian Territory. Here are excerpts from the Executive Summary:
Following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, Israel has imposed an unprecedented blockade on all border crossings in and out of the Gaza Strip. The blockade has "locked in" 1.5 million people in what is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, triggering a protracted human dignity crisis with negative humanitarian consequences.
At the heart of this crisis is the degradation in the living conditions of the population, caused by the erosion of livelihoods and the gradual decline in the state of infrastructure, and the quality of vital services in the areas of health, water and sanitation, and education. The blockade resulted in:
• The lack of essential imports, including raw materials, coupled with the ban on exports, has decimated economic activity in the private sector and resulted in the loss of approximately 120,000 jobs. Over 40% of Gaza’s workforce, or more than 140,000 people, are currently unemployed.
• Approximately 75% of Gaza’s population (more than 1.1 million people) is food insecure, up from 56% in the first quarter of 2008. The main causes of food insecurity are the increase in poverty, the destruction of agricultural assets and the inflation in prices of key food items.
• The reported number of Palestinian fatalities during "Cast Lead" ranges from 1,116 (IDF) to 1,455 (Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza). Based on the cross-checking of multiple fatality lists, OCHA has identified the records of 1,383 Palestinians, including 333 children whose death was confirmed by at least two independent sources; a significant proportion of these fatalities were civilians not involved in the hostilities.
• The ban on the import of building materials has prevented the reconstruction of most of the 3,540 homes destroyed and the 2,870 homes severely damaged during the last military offensive. No new construction for 7,500 planned housing units to cater for Gaza’s rapidly expanding population has been possible due to the lack of building materials available in Gaza.
• The reduction in the amounts of industrial fuel allowed entry has forced Gaza’s sole power plant to reduce its level of production, creating a 15-20% electricity deficit. Ninety percent of the population currently experience scheduled electricity power cuts of 4-8 hours a day. The remaining 10% have no electricity supply due to the lack of construction materials needed to maintain and repair the network.
• Some 10,000 people in northern Gaza still do not have access to running water due a lack of available building materials to maintain and upgrade the wastewater infrastructure. As a result of the lack of adequate maintenance and upgrading of the wastewater infrastructure, 80 million liters of raw and partially-treated sewage are being discharged daily into the environment.
• Follow-up treatment for people suffering from complex injuries and permanent disabilities inflicted during the most recent Israeli offensive has created an enormous burden for a health system weakened by shortages of facilities, equipment, and drugs. The inability of medical staff to upgrade their knowledge and skills due to the continued travel restrictions has significantly undermined the quality of health services in Gaza.
• Over-crowding of schools as a result of the inability to expand and repair existing facilities, compounded by the recurrent shortages of educational materials delayed or denied entry at the crossings, and frequent electricity power cuts have contributed to a decline in school attendance and performance. In the first semester of the 2007-2008 school year only 20% of sixth graders in Gaza passed standardized exams in math, science, English and Arabic.
—The full UN report is at
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/Ocha_opt_Gaza_impact_of_two_years_of_blockade_August_2009_english.pdf
—————————————————
16. THE CLASS IN THE CLASSROOM
In recognition of the reopening of schools in September, here are five of what might be called "alternative" quotations about education — or rather about the system of education in societies such as our own — from five progressive in experts in the field. But first a word of explanation as you tighten your seatbelts in anticipation of what is to come.
While many concerned citizens are worried because of the perceived shortcomings in the American educational process — and most of us, including many teachers, can agree with that — some educators of leftist persuasion also point out that the system is quite successful in terms of what those who rule our society actually seek to achieve.
Is it not true, for example, that in general the children of the rich receive an excellent education as befits candidates for tomorrow’s leadership? Is it not likely in the main that the children of the middle class obtain a sufficient education to fill the ranks of middle and upper-middle management, the professions and small businesses? Or that the odds suggest the children of the working class are educated to perform adequately as cogs in the labor machine, usually paid below their level of productivity in wages and benefits? And that in most cases the children of the poor, including a disproportionate percentage of young people from oppressed minorities, are largely trained for low-wage jobs, the military, unemployment and prison?
Of course there are exceptions to this class-based scenario. A certain upward mobility continues in American society despite a sharp reduction in such options in recent decades.
Although there are different educational goals for children of different class backgrounds, however, one aspect of the education system seems common to almost all. That is a distinct lack of emphasis upon developing a critical faculty in the minds our nation's children. This is particularly the case in matters relating to the sacrosanct categories of citizenship — patriotism, nationalism, the nature of the state, the classless society, the official version of national history, capitalism, "authorities" of all kinds, and the self-evident goodness and utility of religion.
As the conservative curmudgeon H.L. Mencken observed in a review of socialist Upton Sinclair's 1924 book criticizing American schools ("The Goslings"), the aim of the school system is "putting down political and economic heresy" and "to make docile and patriotic citizens."
Now, here are the five brief quotes from educators who are critical of the educational system from this general perspective, plus a final comment by a snobbish English novelist:
Jonathan Kozol: (1991): "Like grain in a time of famine, the immense resources which the nation does in fact possess go not to the child in the greatest need but to the child of the highest bidder — the child of parents who, more frequently than not, have also enjoyed the same abundance when they were schoolchildren."
Paulo Freire, Brazil (1985): "It would be extremely naive to expect the dominant classes to develop a type of education that would enable subordinate classes to perceive social injustices critically."
Walter Karp (1985): "The public schools we have today are what the powerful and considerable have made of them. They will not be redeemed by trifling reforms."
Henry Giroux (1981): "The dominant culture actively functions to suppress the development of a critical historical consciousness among the populace."
Henry M. Levin (1976): "The educational system will always be applied toward serving the role of cultural transmission and preserving the status quo."
The English understand class better than most Americans, who usually embrace the national mythology that there is no class system in the United States. (The big exception to this naïve belief, of course, are people of great wealth — led by the richest 5% of U.S. families who possess 58.9% of all assets and wealth in our country — who well understand and defend their class privileges with gusto.)
What British writer Evelyn Waugh declared in his novel, "Decline and Fall" (1928), might well apply to aspects of the education system in our country, when stripped of its egalitarian rhetoric: "We class schools, you see, into four grades: Leading School, First-rate School, Good School, and School."
If such frank rankings prevailed in America, guess who gets to go to "School"?
————————————————
17. WAR BY REMOTE CONTROL
[Editor's Note: As soon as possible, and wherever feasible, the Pentagon hopes to fight its recurrent wars almost entirely by remote control with U.S. soldiers situated at computer screens behind the front lines or thousands of miles away, pushing buttons that "erase" human targets and structures. For many GIs it will be like a video game. We already see the beginning of this kind of warfare with the piotless drones flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
[Over the years we have written major articles about the Defense Department's space war planning and its designs for operating a futuristic electronic battlefield where only its robots get "killed." It's an extremely efficient way to kill (or delete) enemy individuals, groups or whole societies because few if any Americans get hurt, thus greatly reducing the size of the antiwar movements of tomorrow. Below is an update on the U.S. military's "robot revolution," distributed by the French news agency Agence France-Presse, Aug. 13, 2009.]
Robots in the sky and on the ground are transforming warfare, and the US military is rushing to recruit the new warriors that never sleep and never bleed.
The latest robotics were on display at an industry show Aug. 10 at a naval airfield in Maryland, with a pilotless helicopter buzzing overhead and a "Wall-E" look-alike robot on the ground craning its neck to peer into a window.
The chopper, the MQ-8B Fire Scout, is no tentative experiment and later this year will be operating from a naval frigate, the USS McInerney, to help track drug traffickers in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Navy officers said.
The rugged little robot searching an enemy building is called a Pakbot, which can climb over rocks with tank treads, pick up an explosive with its mechanical arm and dismantle it while a soldier directs the machine from a safe distance.
There are already 2,500 of them on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lighter version weighing six kilograms has arrived that can be carried in a backpack, according to iRobot, the same company that sells a robot vacuum to civilians, the Roomba.
Monday's demonstration of robotic wonders was organised by defense contractors and the U.S. Navy, which says it wants to lead the American military into a new age where tedious or high-risk jobs are handed over to robots.
"I think we're at the beginning of an unmanned revolution," Gary Kessler, who oversees unmanned aviation programs for the US Navy and Marines, said. "We're spending billions of dollars on unmanned systems."
Kessler and other Pentagon officials compare the robots to the introduction of the aircraft or the tank, a new technology that dramatically changes strategy and tactics.
Robots or "unmanned systems" are now deployed by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, spying from the sky for hours on end, searching for booby-traps and firing lethal missiles without putting US soldiers at risk.
The use of robotics in the military has exploded in the past several years as technology has advanced while Washington faced a new kind of enemy that required patient, precise surveillance.
—————————————————
18. NEWS SHORTS
By Nathan Rosenblum
INADEQUATE TREATMENT FOR YOUNG INMATES: Two-thirds of the 93,000 juvenile inmates currently in U.S. detention facilities suffer from mental illnesses, according to an article in the Aug. 10 New York Times. Due to the closing down of many mental hospitals and treatment centers in America over the decades, as well as inadequate state funding, a huge number of "offenders" with mental problems end up in juvenile or adult jails and prisons.
Psychological treatment for young inmates is frequently lacking, and recidivism rates are very high as a consequence. Many jails "treat" such inmates with large amounts of medication, often up to four psychotropic drugs per patient. Lacking post-prison placement options for such inmates, many remain locked up beyond their actual sentences.
Conditions in these centers of juvenile detention often contribute to making matters worse. One study in California uncovered widespread reports of physical and sexual abuse of the young prisoners by guards — a situation known to exist in many states. In order to reduce prison overcrowding, states often transfer youths to county facilities even less able to offer proper treatment.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN U.S. SCHOOLS: According to a new study by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, 200,000 children in the United States are physically punished in public schools each year. Twenty states, all in the South or West, still permit corporal punishment in schools, although in some the decision to allow this form of punishment is made by the school district. In a shocking revelation, students with disabilities constitute nearly 20% of those receiving corporal punishment.
Among the forms of physical punishment reported are beating, slapping, spanking, paddling, pinching, dragging and being thrown on the floor. Severe bruising and lacerations are often the result and many parent remain unaware of the exact nature of the punishment. The rationale for these punishments have been as varied as turning in homework late or creating disturbances. According to Alice Framer, author of the report, "students with disabilities already face extra challenges, and being hit by teachers only makes it worse.” The report suggests that corporal punishment is a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and a number of other similar agreements.
For more information go to:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/08/11/impairing-education
HATE CRIME: ATTACKS ON HOMELESS: There are over 1,000,000 homeless people in the United States at any given time. According to a new report from the National Coalition for the Homeless, last year there were 106 reported attacks on the homeless, including 27 murders (the second highest number since 2001), 54 beatings, nine rapes, and eight shootings. Because attacks often go unreported, the number is undoubtedly higher.
In order to stem the tide of violence, Maryland will become the first state to make attacks on homeless people a hate crime. The District of Columbia has also approved a similar program, five other states are considering it and it has been introduced on the federal level as well.
Groups of men or teenage boys (who are not themselves homeless) have been known to shoot, stab, punch kick, and set on fire homeless people for "sport." Other abuses including rape and paying homeless people to fight each other have also been reported.
A hate crime has been defined as a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender's bias against a specific characteristic of an individual or a group such as race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.
—For more information go to:
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/hatecrimes/index.html
RECORD NUMBER OF U.S. PRISONERS SERVING LIFE TERMS: According to a new report form The Sentencing Project, the U.S. — which already has more people imprisoned than any other country in the world (see Prisonhouse America, above) — now has a record number serving life sentences.
One out of ten prisoners (one in five in California), about 140,610 out of 2.3 million, are serving life terms. Two-thirds of the "lifers" are black or Latino (In New York State, only 16.3 % of those serving life terms are white). Many are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offences due to mandatory sentencing laws. There are 6,807 juveniles serving life terms of which 25.8%, or 1,775, are ineligible for parole and 47.3 % are black. Of the 4,694 women serving life sentences, 28.4% do not have a possibility of parole and 176 are juveniles. Large numbers of the juveniles serve in regular prisons. Seven states and the federal government do not permit parole for any sentenced to life imprisonment.—For more information, go to: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_noexit.pdf
—————————————————
19. AMERICA'S UNJUST SEX LAWS
[Editor's note: The influential conservative British weekly magazine The Economist has published an editorial and a well-researched article on what it terms "America's unjust and ineffective sex laws." The Aug. 8-14 issue notes that the U.S. "has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders," and that other countries are beginning to follow its example. It calls for substantial reforms. The editorial follows. A link to the longer article is at the end.]
It is an oft-told story, but it does not get any less horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a pedophile enticed seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering to show her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the house across the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan’s parents had no idea of this. Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told their daughter to stay away from him.
In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, "Megan’s laws" had spread to every American state.
America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest of any rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are given long prison sentences. When released, they are put on sex-offender registries. In most states this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises to keep their children safe. Other countries are following America’s example, either importing Megan’s laws or increasing penalties: after two little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain has imposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.
Which makes it all the more important to ask whether America’s approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be stronger than the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians who wished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote against such laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically write themselves.
In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of "distributing child pornography" to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.
How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being "party to the crime of child molestation" because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.
Several other countries have sex-offender registries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard to view. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sex offender: some states have a "click to print" icon on their websites so that concerned citizens can put up posters with the offender’s mugshot on trees near his home. Small wonder most sex offenders report being harassed. A few have been murdered. Many are fired because someone at work has Googled them.
Registration is often just the start. Sometimes sex offenders are barred from living near places where children congregate. In Georgia no sex offender may live or work within 1,000 feet of a school, church, park, skating rink or swimming pool. In Miami an exclusion zone of 2,500 feet has helped create a camp of homeless offenders under a bridge.
There are three main arguments for reform. First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer.
Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registers drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to re-offend. And registers give parents a false sense of security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let alone convicted.
It would not be hard to redesign America’s sex laws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same list for life, states should assess each person individually and include only real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, names could be held by the police, who would share them only with those, such as a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from living in so many places should be repealed, because there is no evidence that they protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more intrusively—through ankle bracelets and the like.
In America it may take years to unpick this. However practical and just the case for reform, it must overcome political cowardice, the tabloid media and parents’ understandable fears. Other countries, though, have no excuse for committing the same error. Sensible sex laws are better than vengeful ones.
— The Economist's accompanying article is at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614.
—————————————————
20. THE WOODSTOCK FORUM
[Editor's Note: The following article summing up the recent Woodstock Forum: Building a Peaceful, Just and Sustainable Economy, was written by Dee Dee Halleck, one of the organizers.]
It is 40 years since the historic Woodstock Festival crowned an era now associated with peace, love and rock and roll. Although the 1969 festival itself did not take place in Woodstock, but in Bethel many miles across the Catskills, the town of Woodstock, N.Y., nevertheless, has become a pilgrimage point for people seeking to either rekindle those years of love and music, or at the very least to buy a tie-dye T-shirt. Despite the great deal of hoopla surrounding the 40th anniversary of the famous festival, very little attention has been paid to the philosophical culture which permeated the event and its aftermath.
In 1969 the Vietnam War was a central focus for the passion of the crowd and the many songs of protest. At the Woodstock Forum, which took place Aug. 15-16, well over 300 people heard and discussed the many pressing issues of our time. We are overwhelmed with ongoing wars, continuing exploitation of people and resources around the world, worsening ecological devastation and usurpation of our communities for weaponry and repression. In 2009, although the name Woodstock is synonymous with "peace and love," the biggest employer in our own town is a military contractor. Given the perilous state of New York, the nation and the world, we need more than ever to discuss how to convert the engines of war for a peaceful future.
In the sessions held at the Woodstock Town Hall on Saturday we heard from historians, poets, workers, social critics and journalists such as: Peter Woodruff, worker in a Maine weapons factory; grass roots organizer Mary Beth Sullivan; legendary activist Diane Wilson, author of "An Unreasonable Woman" and co-founder of Code Pink; poet and teacher Janine Vega; curator and gallery director Ariel Shanberg; award winning journalists Jeremy Scahill and Jeff Cohen; economist Robert Pollin; historians Sylvia Federici, Simon Harak, SJ, and Richard Grossman; social critics Joel Kovel and George Caffentzis; filmmakers DeeDee Halleck and Tobe Carey.
The Saturday speakers painted an ominous view of how militarism has gripped our communities, our culture and our lives. On Sunday. the Forum switched from presentations on what was wrong to reflections on how citizens could right those wrongs. A day of deliberation, contentious at times but essentially forward moving, led to the drafting of an initial statement and the framing of ways to build movements, local as well as regional and national, to carry the struggle forward. Here is the statement decided upon at the Forum:
"We, participants of the Woodstock Forum, meeting Aug. 15-16, 2009, the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock Festival, reclaim the authority for our lives and our communities. We reject the usurpation of our rights by the military-industrial-media complex.
"We reject the actions of our country to foment wars around the world and to manufacture, export and sell weapons. Weapons are the number one U.S. export. Our cities and towns have become home to industries for death and destruction.
"We declare that:
"1. We will map and research the military industries that control the economies of our communities, that control the minds and pockets of our government officials, that pollute and destroy our land and waters;
"2. we will draw attention to these industries of death through educational outreach to local and national media and with imaginative and creative nonviolent actions;
"3. we will build coalitions to convert weapons-making to peaceful manufacturing and to create meaningful work in education, the arts, health care, and ecological development;
"4. we vow to take personal responsibility for the products in our workplaces and in our lives.
"We will not cease our resistance to the death machines in our midst and to the laws that support them."
The Woodstock Forum Committee: Nicholas Abramson, Laurie Arbeiter, DeeDee Halleck, Tarak Kauff, Laurie Kirby, Joel Kovel, Helaine Meisler, Gail Miller, Fred Nagel, Katya and Paul Rehm, Laurie Sheridan
—————————————————
21. "JUDEO-CHRISTIAN" FOREIGN POLICY?
Speaking at the annual Christians United For Israel conference in Washington July 21, House Minority Whip and rumored presidential hopeful Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) discussed his vision for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Namely, that it needs to be "firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian principles," a reference to an outlook based on shared religious scriptures.
Cantor, who is Jewish, told the Christian Zionists: "Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded."
Cantor's comment is clearly a critical reference to President Obama's Cairo speech June 4, which was intended to promote better relations with the Muslim world. In this the Virginia Republican was echoing earlier criticism of Obama's talk by right wing American Values president Gary Bauer.
"Somewhere lost in all of the hype over Obama's outreach to the world," Bauer charged, "is a sense that he stands most proudly as the American president. It's time for the president's soaring rhetoric to be applied in support of this great nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage.... Obama cannot have it both ways.... The American president must decide which role is more important to him, Apologist-in-Chief for the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims or Commander-in-Chief of the United States and advocate for American values abroad."
It is historically untrue that our secular republic was founded upon such a "tradition," despite frequent assertions to the contrary, usually by conservatives, Christian Zionists, and pandering politicians of various persuasions. And despite a certain coincidence in moral teaching stemming from a common religious root, Christianity's long "tradition" of oppressing the Jewish people tends to compromise the notion of joint Judeo-Christian principles.
Cantor's remarks were circulated widely on the Internet and drew many deserved criticisms on various websites, such as:
From a reader at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website: "This nation was founded by liberal deists as a secular democracy. We are now a people of many religions and 15% of the nation professes NO religion at all! Maybe it’s finally time (after 200+ years) to put religion back in the closets of our political houses, where our Constitution so clearly indicates it belongs."
From a reader of the Reason Project website: "Since when does 'Judeo-Christian' policy represent America anyway? Our Constitution doesn’t even have the word god or religion in it."
From the Washington Monthly website: "There is no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. There is a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition, but aside from a period of about three or four decades 2,000 years ago there really hasn't been much overlap.... Why don't people stop with the 'Judeo-Christian' drivel and just come out and say anti-Muslim."
The Huffington Post site included this response: "Here's a little excerpt from Treaty of Tripoli: 'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.' This was written in 1797. So why now do some insist we need to pursue a Judeo-Christian policy?"
While there may not be a Judeo-Christian tradition in the sense that Cantor and the Christian Zionists use the term, there certainly is a U.S.-Israeli tradition of more recent vintage. It has nothing do with moral principles. Israel supports the U.S. wars against the Islamic people of Iraq and Afghanistan, while the U.S. supports Israel's attacks on the Islamic people of Gaza and Lebanon, while both are threatening the Islamic people of Iran.
—————————————————
22. U.S. GROUPS CHALLENGE TRAVEL BAN TO CUBA
By Frank Meade, Liberation, August 14, 2009
On Aug. 3, the Venceremos Brigade returned to the United States from Cuba, marking the 40th trip to the island nation without a license from the U.S. government. The brigade allows activists a unique chance to meet with the Cuban people — from Cuban officials to workers and students — to learn about life in Cuba, the problems created by the U.S. blockade and how the socialist government works.
This year, 144 activists participated in the trip demanding an immediate end to the illegal U.S. travel ban and criminal blockade, which seeks to strangle development on the island and force an imperialist counterrevolution.
Also on Aug. 3, the 20th U.S./Cuba Friendshipment Caravan, organized by IFCO/Pastors for Peace, returned to the United States after collecting 132 tons of humanitarian aid for delivery to the Cuban people and visiting Cuba for a nine-day program of education and fellowship.
Rev. Lucius Walker, founder and executive director of IFCO/Pastors for Peace, had the unusual opportunity on this trip to have extended meetings with both Cuban President Raul Castro and with ex-President Fidel Castro.
Difficulties continue to be imposed on the Cuban people, as many supplies are limited or unavailable because of the U.S.-imposed blockade. However, in true internationalist form, Cubans actively seek the friendship of the people of the United States in spite of the policies imposed by the U.S. government. They make a clear distinction between the people and the U.S. government.
It does not take long to notice that the socialist government in Cuba prioritizes the most important necessities for its population. Even with the hardships of the blockade, quality health care and education are accessible and free, housing is guaranteed, employment is a right and every Cuban receives an allotment of food staples.
While in Cuba, the brigade worked in urban gardens alongside Cuban farmers, helped with construction projects, visited health care clinics, attended cultural events and met with Cuban officials and entertainers. There was ample free time as well to explore various cities and get to know the local residents. The trip was well rounded and offered an extensive opportunity to experience Cuban life.
This years travel challenge was especially significant as Cuba is celebrating its 50th anniversary of the triumph of the Revolution. We were visiting on July 26, one of Cuba’s major national holidays, and the date of the attack on the Moncada barracks by a group of young revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro in 1953. The attack failed but helped open the way for the triumph of the Revolution a few years later—a great achievement for the workers of Cuba.
However, this year's celebrations were tempered by further hardship as the world economic crisis — compounded enormously by two devastating hurricanes last year — is beginning to impact Cuba, exacerbating difficulties already caused by the blockade. Even though leaner times lay ahead, the spirit of revolution is evident as Cubans look for solutions determined to keep the socialist state alive and well.
This year marks a critical time for the end of the blockade and travel ban as identical legislation is being debated in both houses of Congress with bipartisan support. At the same time, President Obama has stated he will lift restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans, though not for other Americans. As Dagoberto Rodríguez of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained to us at the Julio Antonio Mella Internationalist Camp, (where we stayed in our second week) despite that promise, the Obama government has yet to even prepare those regulations.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Aug. 23, 2009 Activist Calendar
ACTIVIST CALENDAR, Aug. 23, 2009, Issue #149
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Current and back copies of the Activist Newsletter as well as the Activist Calendar are at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com. Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net.
———
Editor's Note: The Activist Newsletter will be emailed in a day or two. There will be two articles on the healthcare conflict, plus a first-person account of a rumpus at a Town Hall meeting in the Hudson Valley. There are also two articles on the Honduras coup, questioning Washington's lukewarm attitude toward the deposed president; and articles on America's huge prison population, the Supreme Court decision on the Troy Davis case, the status of the climate talks, peace walkers arrested in Wisconsin, the issue of church and state, war by remote control, America's unjust sex laws, the growth of U.S. military bases in Latin America and many more.
———
Sunday, Aug. 23, KINGSTON: Felice Gelman, a member of the WESPAC Middle East Committee, and part of a group of four delegations under the umbrella of CODE PINK, will report on their trips to Gaza by them and the UN Relief and Works Agency, at Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Catskills, 320 Sawkill Rd. 6-7:30 p.m. Sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Monday, Aug. 24, TROY: The docudrama, "In This World" will be shown at the Troy Public Library, 100 Second St., 6-8 p.m. The 4th in a series of free films presented by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, this is also a chance to learn about the committee's work with refugees in the Capital District, and to volunteer if you wish. This free event is sponsored by U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants Albany. Information (518) 459-1790, info@uscri-albany.org http://www.RefugeesAlbany.org.
Tuesday, Aug. 25, LATHAM: Rally and picket the Holiday Inn Express at 400 Old Loudon, Rd. from 4-6 p.m. Each Tuesday, and Wednesday, people will be picketing in solidarity with union organizers who were illegally fired. Charges have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board, and some workers have been reinstated, but the hotel continues to break labor laws, and intimidate workers. Sponsored by Local 471, Workers United. Information (607) 216-5061, mutiny.mcgee@gmail.com, http://shameonjimmorell.com.
Wednesday, Aug. 26, NEWBURGH: The Community Action Committee is holding a public meeting on the topic of police misconduct in Orange County. It takes place at 123 Grand St. on the third floor, at 7 p.m. Sponsored by Democratic Alliance. Information, Michael Sussman, Sussman1@frontiernet.net.
Thursday, Aug. 27 WOODSTOCK: The Middle East Crisis Response group of Hudson Valley residents opposed to Israeli and U.S. policies toward the Palestinians meets 7-8:30 p.m. at the Public Library, 5 Library Lane. All welcome. Information, (845) 876-7906, http://www.mideastcrisis.org , gale@mideastcrisis.org.
Friday, Aug. 28, NEW YORK CITY: A National Solidarity March Against the Coup D'etat in Honduras takes place 4-7 p.m., beginning at Times Sq. (42nd St. and 7th Ave.) in Manhattan. It is backed by the International Action Center and dozens of co-sponsoring organizations. Simultaneous actions will be held in 10 other cities. Among the demands are "Stop the killings and repression of the Honduran people," "Immediate return of Constitutional law and restore constitutional President José Zelaya," and " No to the militarization of Honduras, or U.S. military bases in Honduras." Information: (917) 841-3643 celcas2000@gmail.com, (212) 633-6646, iacenter@action-mail.org
Sunday, Aug. 30, MIDDLETOWN: Demonstration and rally for single payer health insurance in front of the Galleria Mall entrance at Rt. 211 starting at 1:30 p.m. Sponsored by Democratic Alliance. Information, Sussman1@frontiernet.net.
Wednesday, Sept. 2, NEW PALTZ: New Paltz Women in Black, and Ulster County MoveOn Council will be hosting a "Public Option Now!" vigil in front of the Elting Library, 93 Main St. at 7 p.m. To sign up, and for more information, http://pol.moveon.org/event/publicoptionnow/96356.
Thursday, Sept. 3, DELMAR: Prof. Steve Breyman of RPI — a writer for CounterPunch.com, AntiWar.com and ForeignPolicy.com — will discuss U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at the Bethlehem Public Library, 451 Delaware Ave., 7-9 p.m. Sponsored by Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace. Contact: (518) 466-1192, tquaif@yahoo.com, http://www.bethlehemforpeace.org.
Monday, Sept. 7, POUGHKEEPSIE: The 14th Annual Labor Day Rally begins at noon in front of the Post Office on Mansion St. Speakers include Mike Salvia, president of CWA 1120; Tom Midgley, president of Alliance IBM, and Mae Parker-Harris, a well-known local activist and organizer. Music featuring folk performers, Pat Lamanna, Chris Ruhe and Frances Sandiford. Information, Joel Tyner (845)489-5479, (845)876-2488, http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com.
Saturday, Sept. 12, PHILADELPHIA, PA: Protest at the Army Experience Center at Franklin Mills Mall, 1455, Franklin Mills Circle. Starting at 2 p.m. The experimental Experience Center is a major Pentagon effort to imbue teenagers with a desire to join the Armed Forces when they attain enlistment age. Information, Elaine Brower, mermaid432@aol.com,
and Pat Elder, patrickelder@verizon.net, http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2009/08/106775.html.
Saturday, Sept. 12, POUGHKEEPSIE: The film "Peace One Day" will be screened at Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting, 249 Hooker Ave., at 7:30 p.m. Audience discussion to follow. This film documents the five year journey of Jeremy Gilley, who meets heads of State, Nobel Peace laureates, media moguls, victims of war, and other people at the UN, in his successful expedition to convince world powers to officially endorse a global cease-fire day, or a day of peace, worldwide. Sponsored by Dutchess Peace Coalition and Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting. Information (845) 454-6430 or (845)454-2870.
Monday, Sept. 14, ALBANYÚ The Roman Catholic based "New Sanctuary Movement" group will be gathering in support of local immigrants who are in danger of deportation at Emmaus House, 45 Trinity Place, 7-8:30 p.m. Sponsored by New Sanctuary Movement and Albany Catholic Worker. Information, fred.acw@gmail.com, (518) 482-4966, http://NewSanctuaryMovement.org.
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Current and back copies of the Activist Newsletter as well as the Activist Calendar are at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com. Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net.
———
Editor's Note: The Activist Newsletter will be emailed in a day or two. There will be two articles on the healthcare conflict, plus a first-person account of a rumpus at a Town Hall meeting in the Hudson Valley. There are also two articles on the Honduras coup, questioning Washington's lukewarm attitude toward the deposed president; and articles on America's huge prison population, the Supreme Court decision on the Troy Davis case, the status of the climate talks, peace walkers arrested in Wisconsin, the issue of church and state, war by remote control, America's unjust sex laws, the growth of U.S. military bases in Latin America and many more.
———
Sunday, Aug. 23, KINGSTON: Felice Gelman, a member of the WESPAC Middle East Committee, and part of a group of four delegations under the umbrella of CODE PINK, will report on their trips to Gaza by them and the UN Relief and Works Agency, at Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Catskills, 320 Sawkill Rd. 6-7:30 p.m. Sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Monday, Aug. 24, TROY: The docudrama, "In This World" will be shown at the Troy Public Library, 100 Second St., 6-8 p.m. The 4th in a series of free films presented by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, this is also a chance to learn about the committee's work with refugees in the Capital District, and to volunteer if you wish. This free event is sponsored by U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants Albany. Information (518) 459-1790, info@uscri-albany.org http://www.RefugeesAlbany.org.
Tuesday, Aug. 25, LATHAM: Rally and picket the Holiday Inn Express at 400 Old Loudon, Rd. from 4-6 p.m. Each Tuesday, and Wednesday, people will be picketing in solidarity with union organizers who were illegally fired. Charges have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board, and some workers have been reinstated, but the hotel continues to break labor laws, and intimidate workers. Sponsored by Local 471, Workers United. Information (607) 216-5061, mutiny.mcgee@gmail.com, http://shameonjimmorell.com.
Wednesday, Aug. 26, NEWBURGH: The Community Action Committee is holding a public meeting on the topic of police misconduct in Orange County. It takes place at 123 Grand St. on the third floor, at 7 p.m. Sponsored by Democratic Alliance. Information, Michael Sussman, Sussman1@frontiernet.net.
Thursday, Aug. 27 WOODSTOCK: The Middle East Crisis Response group of Hudson Valley residents opposed to Israeli and U.S. policies toward the Palestinians meets 7-8:30 p.m. at the Public Library, 5 Library Lane. All welcome. Information, (845) 876-7906, http://www.mideastcrisis.org , gale@mideastcrisis.org.
Friday, Aug. 28, NEW YORK CITY: A National Solidarity March Against the Coup D'etat in Honduras takes place 4-7 p.m., beginning at Times Sq. (42nd St. and 7th Ave.) in Manhattan. It is backed by the International Action Center and dozens of co-sponsoring organizations. Simultaneous actions will be held in 10 other cities. Among the demands are "Stop the killings and repression of the Honduran people," "Immediate return of Constitutional law and restore constitutional President José Zelaya," and " No to the militarization of Honduras, or U.S. military bases in Honduras." Information: (917) 841-3643 celcas2000@gmail.com, (212) 633-6646, iacenter@action-mail.org
Sunday, Aug. 30, MIDDLETOWN: Demonstration and rally for single payer health insurance in front of the Galleria Mall entrance at Rt. 211 starting at 1:30 p.m. Sponsored by Democratic Alliance. Information, Sussman1@frontiernet.net.
Wednesday, Sept. 2, NEW PALTZ: New Paltz Women in Black, and Ulster County MoveOn Council will be hosting a "Public Option Now!" vigil in front of the Elting Library, 93 Main St. at 7 p.m. To sign up, and for more information, http://pol.moveon.org/event/publicoptionnow/96356.
Thursday, Sept. 3, DELMAR: Prof. Steve Breyman of RPI — a writer for CounterPunch.com, AntiWar.com and ForeignPolicy.com — will discuss U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at the Bethlehem Public Library, 451 Delaware Ave., 7-9 p.m. Sponsored by Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace. Contact: (518) 466-1192, tquaif@yahoo.com, http://www.bethlehemforpeace.org.
Monday, Sept. 7, POUGHKEEPSIE: The 14th Annual Labor Day Rally begins at noon in front of the Post Office on Mansion St. Speakers include Mike Salvia, president of CWA 1120; Tom Midgley, president of Alliance IBM, and Mae Parker-Harris, a well-known local activist and organizer. Music featuring folk performers, Pat Lamanna, Chris Ruhe and Frances Sandiford. Information, Joel Tyner (845)489-5479, (845)876-2488, http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com.
Saturday, Sept. 12, PHILADELPHIA, PA: Protest at the Army Experience Center at Franklin Mills Mall, 1455, Franklin Mills Circle. Starting at 2 p.m. The experimental Experience Center is a major Pentagon effort to imbue teenagers with a desire to join the Armed Forces when they attain enlistment age. Information, Elaine Brower, mermaid432@aol.com,
and Pat Elder, patrickelder@verizon.net, http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2009/08/106775.html.
Saturday, Sept. 12, POUGHKEEPSIE: The film "Peace One Day" will be screened at Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting, 249 Hooker Ave., at 7:30 p.m. Audience discussion to follow. This film documents the five year journey of Jeremy Gilley, who meets heads of State, Nobel Peace laureates, media moguls, victims of war, and other people at the UN, in his successful expedition to convince world powers to officially endorse a global cease-fire day, or a day of peace, worldwide. Sponsored by Dutchess Peace Coalition and Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting. Information (845) 454-6430 or (845)454-2870.
Monday, Sept. 14, ALBANYÚ The Roman Catholic based "New Sanctuary Movement" group will be gathering in support of local immigrants who are in danger of deportation at Emmaus House, 45 Trinity Place, 7-8:30 p.m. Sponsored by New Sanctuary Movement and Albany Catholic Worker. Information, fred.acw@gmail.com, (518) 482-4966, http://NewSanctuaryMovement.org.
Aug. 10, 2009 New Group Formed
August 10, 2009
ANNOUNCEMENT from the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
jacdon@earthlink.net — http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
NEW GROUP FORMED IN NEW PALTZ
FOR MID-HUDSON REGION:
PEACE & SOCIAL PROGRESS NOW!
The editors of the Activist Newsletter have just formed a new multi-issue organization in the Mid-Hudson Valley. It's titled "Peace & Social Progress Now!" (PSPN).
The main purpose of this effort is to kick-start the declining antiwar movement in the Hudson Valley and to activate the progressive forces in the region on issues from single-payer healthcare to actions promoting environmental consciousness, from reducing the defense budget to strengthening civil liberties, from a genuinely progressive taxation plan to increased social programs for working families.
PSPN will conduct regional demonstrations, including a rally in the Mid-Hudson region October 17 (save the date!) calling for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is near the eighth anniversary of George W. Bush's invasion. And there will be a number of educational meetings addressing a variety of national and international topics.
Newsletter editors Jack A. Smith and Donna Goodman are coordinating this process and are creating a board of advisers to help guide PSPN's work. Together they have organized about 100 regional demonstrations, public meetings and bus trips to out-of-region peace demonstrations during the last 15 years, including an October 2002 protest rally and march of some 2,500 people in Kingston, N.Y., opposing Bush's intention to invade Iraq.
It was relatively easy to organize through the newsletter during the dreadful Bush years when liberals and progressives opposed an international policy of war and bullying, and a domestic policy based on flagrantly serving the interests of big business and Wall St. at the expense of the poor, the working class and middle class. But a new organization, as well as the newsletter, is required now.
Why? Bush and the Republicans are gone now, and it is more difficult to organize actions for peace and social progress when Democrats control the White House and Congress. Most activists (and some leaders of movements) vote Democratic and many tend to pull back from protest when their party holds power. Our wake-up call came in March — two months after President Barack Obama was inaugurated — when we organized bus trip number 21 to bring antiwar people to Washington for the national protest on the sixth anniversary of the unjust and illegal invasion of Iraq. Instead of the usual three to six buses bringing 150 to 300 people to D.C., we managed to get one bus, and there were more than a dozen empty seats.
While recognizing that the centrist Obama Administration is better than its right wing predecessor, the reality is that we are still living in a quite conservative period in American history. This era can transform into its opposite, but only if there is a resurgence of mass movements of people demanding substantive progressive changes, not the vague concept of "change" that propelled President Obama to power. In other words, very serious problems remain, and will not disappear without organized, intensive pressure from the people.
Washington is still fighting two unnecessary wars, one of which — the Afghan quagmire — is greatly expanding and its flames have breached national boundaries to burn Pakistan. Despite some welcome changes in Washington after eight ghastly Bush-Cheney years, many of their unsavory initiatives — from erosions of civil liberties, to a militarist national security policy, to the continuation of excessive White House "signing statements" — remain on the books. The bloated Pentagon budget is increasing. Millions of American families are suffering joblessness and home foreclosures, but they have not received the kind of solicitous attention bestowed upon the banking system and Wall St. Meanwhile, the gap between wealth and poverty continues to widen.
Clearly, the antiwar movement and other movements dedicated to advancing progressive goals are weaker today than they were a year or two ago, much weaker in some cases. The formation of Peace & Social Progress Now! is intended to help strengthen those movements and to interject left politics into regional debates. We think that a new organization will be more effective than the newsletter alone in making a contribution to the struggle.
We will continue to promote the activities of all the peace and justice groups in the Hudson Valley through both the newsletter and the Activist Calendar, and in other ways as well. We will be meeting with several regional organizations to propose joint actions and occasional ad hoc coalitions around big issues. In addition, several leading members of such groups have agreed to serve on our advisory board and several others will be asked to do so in coming weeks.
If you have questions, comments, or wish to become more closely associated with PSPN as it develops over the next months, please communicate with us at jacdon@earthlink.net.
ANNOUNCEMENT from the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
jacdon@earthlink.net — http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
NEW GROUP FORMED IN NEW PALTZ
FOR MID-HUDSON REGION:
PEACE & SOCIAL PROGRESS NOW!
The editors of the Activist Newsletter have just formed a new multi-issue organization in the Mid-Hudson Valley. It's titled "Peace & Social Progress Now!" (PSPN).
The main purpose of this effort is to kick-start the declining antiwar movement in the Hudson Valley and to activate the progressive forces in the region on issues from single-payer healthcare to actions promoting environmental consciousness, from reducing the defense budget to strengthening civil liberties, from a genuinely progressive taxation plan to increased social programs for working families.
PSPN will conduct regional demonstrations, including a rally in the Mid-Hudson region October 17 (save the date!) calling for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is near the eighth anniversary of George W. Bush's invasion. And there will be a number of educational meetings addressing a variety of national and international topics.
Newsletter editors Jack A. Smith and Donna Goodman are coordinating this process and are creating a board of advisers to help guide PSPN's work. Together they have organized about 100 regional demonstrations, public meetings and bus trips to out-of-region peace demonstrations during the last 15 years, including an October 2002 protest rally and march of some 2,500 people in Kingston, N.Y., opposing Bush's intention to invade Iraq.
It was relatively easy to organize through the newsletter during the dreadful Bush years when liberals and progressives opposed an international policy of war and bullying, and a domestic policy based on flagrantly serving the interests of big business and Wall St. at the expense of the poor, the working class and middle class. But a new organization, as well as the newsletter, is required now.
Why? Bush and the Republicans are gone now, and it is more difficult to organize actions for peace and social progress when Democrats control the White House and Congress. Most activists (and some leaders of movements) vote Democratic and many tend to pull back from protest when their party holds power. Our wake-up call came in March — two months after President Barack Obama was inaugurated — when we organized bus trip number 21 to bring antiwar people to Washington for the national protest on the sixth anniversary of the unjust and illegal invasion of Iraq. Instead of the usual three to six buses bringing 150 to 300 people to D.C., we managed to get one bus, and there were more than a dozen empty seats.
While recognizing that the centrist Obama Administration is better than its right wing predecessor, the reality is that we are still living in a quite conservative period in American history. This era can transform into its opposite, but only if there is a resurgence of mass movements of people demanding substantive progressive changes, not the vague concept of "change" that propelled President Obama to power. In other words, very serious problems remain, and will not disappear without organized, intensive pressure from the people.
Washington is still fighting two unnecessary wars, one of which — the Afghan quagmire — is greatly expanding and its flames have breached national boundaries to burn Pakistan. Despite some welcome changes in Washington after eight ghastly Bush-Cheney years, many of their unsavory initiatives — from erosions of civil liberties, to a militarist national security policy, to the continuation of excessive White House "signing statements" — remain on the books. The bloated Pentagon budget is increasing. Millions of American families are suffering joblessness and home foreclosures, but they have not received the kind of solicitous attention bestowed upon the banking system and Wall St. Meanwhile, the gap between wealth and poverty continues to widen.
Clearly, the antiwar movement and other movements dedicated to advancing progressive goals are weaker today than they were a year or two ago, much weaker in some cases. The formation of Peace & Social Progress Now! is intended to help strengthen those movements and to interject left politics into regional debates. We think that a new organization will be more effective than the newsletter alone in making a contribution to the struggle.
We will continue to promote the activities of all the peace and justice groups in the Hudson Valley through both the newsletter and the Activist Calendar, and in other ways as well. We will be meeting with several regional organizations to propose joint actions and occasional ad hoc coalitions around big issues. In addition, several leading members of such groups have agreed to serve on our advisory board and several others will be asked to do so in coming weeks.
If you have questions, comments, or wish to become more closely associated with PSPN as it develops over the next months, please communicate with us at jacdon@earthlink.net.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Activist Newsletter July 12, 2009
WHAT REALLY JUST HAPPENED IN IRAN?
By Jack A. Smith
July 12, 2009, Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
1. QUESTIONS and CONTEXT
What really just happened in Iran? The dramatic demonstrations that followed the June 12 contested reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have raised more questions than they answered.
Three questions in particular stand out: (1) What is the struggle actually about? (2) Was the election rigged, as charged by the leading opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Mousavi, and his vocal supporters? (3) Did the U.S. play a role leading up to the protests in quest of an outcome similar to the so-called color revolutions Washington enabled in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan?
The Western mass media have described Iran's contested election and its bitter aftermath as an uprising of the masses to transform the Islamic Republic into a democratic republic, or at least to propel the country into the pro-Western camp. Some publications were already calling it the "Green Revolution" or the "Green Wave," after the color of Mousavi's campaign paraphernalia.
In reality, the struggle is the product of a sharp internal clash between the two conservative coalitions that rule Iran. As Mousavi made clear in a recent public statement: "We are not against our sacred regime and its legal structures; this structure guards our independence, freedom, and Islamic Republic."
As for Ahmadinejad, writer Azmai Bishara described him this way at MRZine June 26: "Ahmadinejad is less a representative of Iranian conservatives than a rebel against them from within their own establishment. He has lashed out against them, including corrupt clergy, using the principles of the Islamic revolution as his weapons. He is a conservative of the fundamentalist stripe and wants to restore the revolution to its youthful vigor and gleam."
At issue in this internal struggle, which is now calming down as the sides reassess their situations, are differences on economic, religious, and social questions, and serious cultural conflicts, which we shall detail below.
The American media and much of the liberal press clearly side with the "good" Mousavi faction against the "evil" Ahmadinejad and seem convinced that the election was a fraud, or a "coup" engineered by the incumbent president involving the theft of millions of votes. As yet there is no concrete evidence of massive electoral malfeasance, a matter we shall discuss later in this article.
Washington insists the U.S. government is innocent of involvement in events leading up to the Iranian election and the social melee that followed. As yet there is only suggestive evidence of an American connection, though this must be coupled with a record of over a half century of interference in Iranian affairs.
Indirect involvement, however, is well documented. For instance, a few years ago the Bush Administration launched a congressionally funded project within Iran to undermine the Teheran government and build an anti-regime opposition within the country — a program that has continued into the Obama Administration. And this is just one of many overt and covert instances of current U.S. actions to destabilize the Iranian government.
President Barack Obama has not specifically accused the Tehran government of stealing the election — either because the U.S. knows Ahmadinejad won, as this writer imagines it does, or doesn't know who won. The extensive American intelligence apparatus has been working overtime to investigate the election. If it found believable evidence of mass fraud, it would hardly conceal the news.
The president did point out June 23, however, that "a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves... consider this election illegitimate…. There [are] significant questions about the legitimacy of the election."
As an aside we must note a certain hypocrisy in the U.S. practice of criticizing elections in countries that are considered America's enemies, overlooking obvious illegalities in friendly-country elections (as in Egypt), or the lack of elections for leadership posts (as in Saudi Arabia), and condemning and refusing to recognize winners of democratic elections who attract Washington's wrath (as in Gaza).
The official vote count was 63.3% for Ahmadinejad and 34.2% for Mousavi. The two other candidates were Mohsen Rezaei, a founder of the Revolutionary Guards, with 2%, and Mullah Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker of the Parliament, who received less than 1%
Obama has strongly criticized the regime's response to the intense street demonstrations, which press reports said drew millions of people over the two weeks following the voting. He charged that "the violence perpetrated against them is outrageous," as though there was no violence from a sector of the demonstrators in the first days of protest.
Iranian authorities state that there was violence on the part of both the demonstrators (20 were killed) and the security forces (eight died). The regime arrested some 2,500 people in the aftermath of the election, but released 2,000 of them by July 8; the remainder are going to trial. Human Rights Watch charged that a number of detainees had been mistreated.
President Ahmadinejad took exception to Obama's criticism in a speech last week: "Didn't he [Obama] say that he was after change [in relations with Iran]? Why did he interfere? Why did he utter remarks irrespective of [diplomatic] norms and decorum?"
President Obama made it clear this week, despite muted criticism about the elections, that the U.S. remained ready to engage in two-party negotiations with the Iranian government about Teheran's nuclear program and other matters. The Bush Administration was disinclined to participate in direct talks, openly working to undermine the Tehran government and for a time was prepared to attack Iran.
Obama, through his "New Beginning" campaign in the Middle East, is proving to be quite effective so far in presenting a less aggressive and considerably more rational American image than that shot into the region like a cannon ball by his neoconservative predecessor. But there is no doubt he is pursuing similar objectives with different means.
First, Obama desires a nuclear agreement acceptable to the U.S. and Israel, but through the mechanism of improved bilateral relations and conventional coercion, in place of bullying and war cries. In the longer term, the Obama Administration still seeks regime change — though preferably the "softer" version — resulting in the extension of American hegemony into Iran for the first time in the three decades since Washington's underling, the Shah of Iran, was dispatched by the Islamic Revolution.
While Obama embraces diplomacy and calls for friendlier relations between Washington and Tehran, the next two highest administration officials have been making declarations designed to disparage and threaten Iran.
On July 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to a Venezuelan TV network that "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime…. We have seen in the last weeks that Iran has not respected its own democracy. It has taken actions against [its] own citizens for peacefully protesting…. I think it is not a very smart position to ally with a regime that is being rejected by so many of their own people."
Clinton was actually undermining two countries on Washington's hit list — Venezuela as well as Iran. She was telling a Venezuelan TV audience (and Latin America in general) to oppose efforts by President Hugo Chavez to establish warm relations with Iran.
On July 5, Vice President Joseph Biden announced that Israel has a right, as a sovereign nation, to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, strongly suggesting that the U.S. would not stand in its way. This has been interpreted as a typical Biden faux pas, but we think it was a warning to Tehran that it best make big concessions at the nuclear talks, or else.
Two days later, while noting that Biden simply "stated a categorical fact," Obama said the White House had "absolutely not" given Israel permission to bomb Iran. He declared, "We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East." Obama has the power to forbid a preemptive Israeli attack, but decided to keep the threat alive by merely not authorizing it.
In June, Clinton declared gratuitously that not only would the U.S. massively retaliate against Iran were it to attack Israel, but warned that one or another unspecified country might launch a preemptive war again Iran. The Teheran government has not threatened war against Israel, but Tel Aviv for the last year has repeatedly suggested it might launch an attack against Iran should it be able to produce a nuclear weapon.
And on June 19, the House of Representatives voted 405-1 to throw its total support to the post-election demonstrators and to demand that Iran "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."
2. THE BACKGROUND
Some background will be useful before digging deeper into the election, its aftermath and the question of U.S. involvement. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been on or near the top of Washington's enemies list for 30 years, ever since the Iranian Revolution toppled the oppressive monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Shah was installed on the Peacock Throne by the U.S. and Great Britain in 1953 after they engineered a successful coup against the democratically elected secular government of progressive Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, which had ended the monarchy and nationalized Iran's petroleum resources. Pahlavi was a servant of U.S. interests in the Middle East for almost 26 years. He saw to it that some 60% of Iranian oil went to American companies.
Washington has never forgiven the Iranian revolutionaries for ousting the dreaded Pahlavi. His value to the U.S. was enormous, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoirs:
"Under the Shah's leadership, the land bridge between Asia and Europe, so often the hinge of world history, was pro-American and pro-West without any challenge…. Iran's influence was always on our side…. Iran under the Shah, in short, was one of America's best, most important, and most loyal friends in the world." The monarch was, to speak plainly, a U.S. puppet.
In his June 4 Cairo address calling for a New Beginning in U.S. relations with the Muslim world, President Obama noted that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." The U.S. continued to lie about its involvement in the bloody coup for 47 years until Secretary of State Madeline Albright finally admitted in 2000 that "the United States played a significant role" in this imperial adventure, noting that "it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Neither Obama nor Albright apologized or offered compensation for a deed that smashed Iranian democracy and ushered in over a quarter-century of a vicious monarchy protected by the U.S. followed by three decades of a conservative theocracy. Ahmadinejad earlier this year said that if the U.S. wants to improve relations it should apologize for its "dark history and crimes" against Iran.
The lack of an apology is nothing new in U.S. relations with Iran. On July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger airliner off the coast of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, killing 290 passengers and crew, including 65 children. The Navy claimed it mistook the huge Airbus A300B2 for an incoming jet fighter, which of course has an entirely different configuration.
Vice President George H.W. Bush, then in the midst of his run for the presidency in August of that election year, was asked whether he was going to apologize for the tragedy. He responded: "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are." The captain of the Vincennes was honored with the Legion of Merit when the cruiser's tour of duty ended.
Washington has sought to isolate and, if possible, overturn the revolutionary regime in Tehran ever since it took power in early 1979, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — a leading Shi'ite cleric in a deeply religious society. The U.S. broke diplomatic relations and imposed economic and trade sanctions against Iran soon after the Shah was deposed. In 1980, Washington secretly backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's aggressive invasion of Iran, a conflict that caused an immense loss of life and material damage before it ended in a stalemate in 1988. Washington supplied Iraq with satellite information about Iran's deployments and materials for chemical-biological warfare.
In 1987 President Ronald Reagan strengthened sanctions against Iran allegedly because it was a "state sponsor of terrorism." In 1995, the Clinton Administration further toughened anti-Iran sanctions after Israel claimed Teheran was building nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration gratuitously identified Iran as a cohort of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and a couple of years later came perilously close to subjecting Iran to another of its unjust wars for "democracy," i.e., for oil and hegemony. Had the subjugation of Iraq gone as planned, instead of the military and political disaster that transpired, Iran probably would have been next on the U.S. regime-change agenda.
Operating as usual in tandem with U.S. foreign policy, the corporate mass media have demonized and caricatured President Ahmadinejad, 52, since he was first elected in 2005. As a general rule, extreme caution is required to evaluate foreign political leaders who have been the target of continual White House criticism and disparagement. We think of President Slobodan Miloseviç of Yugoslavia and President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in this regard — both of whom were characterized as beastly incarnations of Hitler as a prelude to Washington's military aggression in 1999 and 2003.
The Bush Administration spent years mocking and "Hitlerising" Ahmadinejad while contemplating if and when to launch a war. It's always a "good war" to fight a Hitler, and the U.S. public is easily fooled every time the old devil is contrived to have reappeared.
Decades of U.S. enmity toward Iraq were concisely captured by journalist Chris Hedges in an article for TruthDig June 22 titled Iran Had Democracy Before we Took it Away:
"I do not remember Iran orchestrating a coup in the United States to replace an elected government with a brutal dictator who for decades persecuted, assassinated and imprisoned democracy activists. I do not remember Iran arming and funding a neighboring state to wage war against our country. Iran never shot down one of our passenger jets as did the USS Vincennes — caustically nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels — when in June 1988 it fired missiles at an Airbus filled with Iranian civilians, killing everyone on board. Iran is not sponsoring terrorism within the United States, as our intelligence services currently do in Iran. The attacks on Iranian soil include suicide bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, sabotage and 'targeted assassinations' of government officials, scientists and other Iranian leaders. What would we do if the situation was reversed? How would we react if Iran carried out these policies against us?"
Most Americans know little if anything about Iran except Washington's negative views, but there have been some interesting social advances in this country of 70 million people.
Since the revolution, writes Professor Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, "the Islamic Republic — despite its poor image abroad — has taken significant steps toward fulfilling" promises "to create a full-fledged welfare state — in its proper European, rather than derogatory American, sense…. It has done so by giving priority to social rather than military expenditures, and thus dramatically expanding the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture, Labor, Housing, Welfare and Social Security. The military consumed as much as 18% of the gross domestic product in the last years of the Shah. Now it takes up as little as 4%....
"The regime has come close to eliminating illiteracy among the post-revolutionary generations, reducing the overall rate from 53% to 15%. The rate among women has fallen from 65% to 20%. The state has increased the number of students enrolled in primary schools from 4,768,000 to 5,700,000, in secondary schools from 2.1 million to over 7.6 million, in technical schools from 201,000 to 509,000, and in universities from 154,000 to over 1.5 million. The percentage of women in university student populations has gone up from 30% to 62%. Thanks to medical clinics, life expectancy at birth has increased from 56 to 70, and infant mortality has decreased from 104 to 25 per 1,000... [and] the fertility rate — the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime — from 7 to 3. It is expected to fall further to 2 by 2012." (The full article is in the Spring 2009 issue of Middle East Report. It is at http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/abrahamian.html.)
3. THE POLITICAL PLAYERS
In the election, President Ahmadinejad, a civil engineer and a former mayor of Tehran, was backed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sector of the Shia clergy, nearly all the security forces, a large proportion of the working class, lower middle class and the poor, small business owners, and the "second generation" revolutionaries who fought in the war with Iraq —an important part of his political base. This is a large constituency, capable in our view of producing an electoral majority.
Khamenei, 70, is the most powerful figure in the Iranian state, far more so than President Ahmadinejad. He was president 1981-89, after which he was named supreme leader following the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic Revolution.
In Iran, the supreme leader, who is always a leading Shi'ite cleric, is the country's principal religious and political authority and is considered the ultimate head of the Islamic Republic, including of the government and the armed forces. A supreme leader, of which there have been two so far, is selected by an Assembly of Experts — a body of 89 Islamic scholars who supervise the leader's work and have the power to remove him. The scholars are elected by the public every eight years from a screened list of candidates. The leader also appoints six of the 12 members of the powerful Guardian Council (which interprets the constitution and supervises elections), the influential Friday prayer leaders, and the heads of radio and TV. He also confirms the election of Iran's presidents.
The losing candidate, Mousavi, 67, served as prime minister (1981-89) before the post was eliminated. He is said to have liberal tendencies within the context of conservative reform. Since leaving politics, he worked as an architect and painter and now is president of the Iranian Academy of Arts. He is backed by such leading political figures as former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani (who presided 1989-1997) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005). Rafsanjani, a mullah and a billionaire businessman, ran again in 2005 and was beaten by Ahmadinejad, who received 62% of the vote (a shade lower than his official total this June). Mass support for Mousavi comes from political groups characterized by reformism and "pragmatic conservatism," a considerable sector of the clergy, much of the big business and corporate community, the educated urban middle class, upper middle class, college students, and modern women seeking greater gender freedoms.
Rafsanjani, 75, a leading oligarch with powerful connections, is the key figure behind Mousavi and bankrolled his campaign, though he has lately kept a low profile and calls for social calm. He is the big loser in the election. Ahmadinejad was sharply critical of him during the campaign, characterizing the former president as corrupt, which many happen to believe. He is presently the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which puts him in a position to exercise substantial influence in an organization capable of dismissing the supreme leader. Khamenei, however, has recently defended Rafsanjani, even against Ahmadinejad's strong criticism, so the supreme leader is secure in his position. A majority of the Assembly came out on Khamenei's side in late June, declaring that "enemies of Iran" were behind the riots.
4. IRANIAN POLITICS
In discussing the political situation in Iran it is important to understand there's a world of difference between the thrust of Tehran's internal policies and external policies. Internally, Iranian governance is conservative, particularly in the cultural realm, and heavily influenced by the Shi'ite branch of Islam. Externally, in foreign affairs, the policy tends to be radical and anti-imperialist.
Iran may be dominated by conservative clerics but the masses of people do take part in political life and determine the outcome of elections. Government policies frequently derive from a consensus of the differing views of many political parties and organizations, often at the behest of the supreme leader.
A circumscribed form of democracy exists within the country, giving rise to two principal political blocs — conservatism (with a fairly populist economic program, interestingly enough), and reformism (in this instance an essentially conservative tendency seeking modest reforms). The leading religious and secular figures within or supporting these two blocs constitute most of the Iranian ruling class.
The Islamic left, which at one time was considered strong, now exists in reduced circumstances, but its members were at the demonstrations.
The political left was strong, too, but was largely destroyed or exiled — first in the events around the 1953 anti-democratic coup; second throughout the Shah's brutal reign; and third by the Islamic government, especially during the 1980s when it is estimated that 20,000 progressives, socialists, communists and others were slain or executed. At the time the president and prime minister who presided over this slaughter were, respectively, the now Supreme Leader Khamenei and reform leader Mousavi, the losing candidate.
From the point of view of the Iranian Marxist left, underground or in exile, neither of the two principal coalitions represents the interests of the working class. If there was a serious socialist alternative Ahmadinejad's working class base would be far smaller. By and large, it is reported, the workers did not join the protest demonstrations.
There are a number of political parties and organizations in Iran, most of whom ally with one or the other bloc during presidential elections. The Iranian parliament is called the Majlis. According to a June 24 article in Time Magazine online, "Currently, Ahmadinejad's coalition controls 117 of the 290 seats in the Majlis, while the reformists control 46 and pragmatic conservatives aligned with Rafsanjani and Mousavi have 53. Five seats are reserved for religious minorities, and 69 are in the hands of independents, among whom the opposition will presumably be lobbying hard for support against the President."
Complexities abound when discussing Iranian politics because the context and political alliances are quite different in the Islamic Republic compared to America's democratic republic. For example, an important political aspect of the election, unmentioned in most Western press accounts despite its critical importance, was the fact that "Ahmadinejad ran his re-election campaign against the old clerical elite, charging them with corruption, luxurious living and running the state for their own benefit rather than that of the people," according to a June 29 article by Stratfor's George Friedman. "When Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi on the night of the election, the clerical elite saw themselves in serious danger. The margin of victory Ahmadinejad claimed might have given him the political clout to challenge their position."
This could partly explain why a number of clerics and leading ayatollahs in a country largely ruled by the religious establishment have been criticizing the election results and supporting Mousavi's contention of vast electoral impropriety. A good part of Ahmadinejad's popular support is based on his opposition to clerical privileges and dishonesty, and on his strong stand on national security matters, given that the country has long been in the gun sights of both the U.S. and Israel, and also because Iran suffered tremendously from the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s.
Many millions of Iranians are not principally devoted to one bloc or another but to the existence of the Islamic Republic itself, and they participate in elections to advance the candidate who will insure the health of the state. They are part of the ideological base of the republic and are loyal to Khamenei. Others, from liberals to Marxists, desire extensive political changes that are not on the agenda in today's Iran. We assume many showed up at the demonstrations to press their points and push the struggle forward, regardless of whether the election was rigged or not. It was an opportunity to agitate for change while masses were in motion against the oppressive state.
The struggle between conservative Ahmadinejad and reformist Mousavi — or perhaps more properly between Supreme Leader Khamenei and former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami — is not about changing the essential features of a theocratic state with certain democratic options. They both are committed to the maintenance of the Islamic Republic and to the revolutionary constitution promoted by the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
President Obama frankly observed June 16 that "The difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi… may not be as great as advertised. I think it's important to understand that either way we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the U.S." It must be noted here that Iran's "hostility" was hardly generated in a vacuum, but is the product of decades of American threats, punishment and subversion.
Here, in the brief outline, are some of the differences that separate the two ruling blocs, both of which, incidentally, are devoted to capitalism, the development of nuclear energy as a power source, the rights of the Palestinian people, the Islamic state, and opposition to U.S. imperialism.
Ahmadinejad is considered to be on the political right wing but tends to be more attentive to the needs of the working class than the more moderate conservative opposition. He promoted a populist economic policy, including social programs for the masses, easy loans for farmers, food subsidies for low income people, and reductions in bank interest rates, among other measures. His bloc, however, is extremely conservative regarding cultural, religious, and certain civil liberties issues. On the other hand it supports a vigorous anti-imperialist foreign policy, is defiant toward U.S. and Israeli pressure, and stands up to the European Union when it acts against Iranian interests; it is friendly toward countries that treat it fairly, such as Venezuela, Russia, and Syria among many others, and supports (Shi'ite) Hezbollah in Lebanon and (Sunni) Hamas in Palestine. Ahmadinejad wants improved relations with the U.S. but not at the expense of core concessions.
Writing in Antiwar.com June 24, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi — who long warned that the Bush Administration was contemplating an attack on Iran — underscored the popularity of Ahmadinejad's public condemnation of wrongdoing by the clergy when he pointed to "the corrupt Iran of the post-revolutionary period when the country was looted by the senior clerics cooperating with the business class, the bazaaris. Some intelligence sources believe that Ahmadinejad, who has been demonized by the Western media, is actually the reformer in that he has taken on the country's pervasive corruption with the full support of… the supreme leader. Massive corruption has been business as usual in Iran, frequently managed by politicians who have called themselves reformers."
Actually, according to M.K. Bhadrakumar writing in Asia Times June 23, "Ahmadinejad's principal weakness is his failure to bring the rich and corrupt mullahs to justice, as he had promised. His supporters say that would be the priority in his second term."
The Mousavi reform bloc is less populist, and seems to lean toward neoliberalism, integrating the Iranian economy into the world market system and opening to foreign investment. The reformers are critical of Ahmadinejad for what it terms his economic failures, inflation and "handouts" to the workers and the poor. The reformers are liberal on cultural and civil liberties issues — from a more relaxed dress code for women to freer speech. It is critical of the U.S. and Israel, though not with Ahmadinejad's intensity. The group's middle and upper middle class backers seem more attracted to Western society; and its big business supporters, plus a sector of the clergy, wish to integrate far more into the globalized international capitalist economy, which inevitably means making some concessions to end Washington's economic and trade sanctions. Reformists also seek to reduce some of the powers of what has been called "the most influential body in Iran" — the Guardian Council, which has to approve all bills passed by parliament and has the power to veto them if it considers them inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law.
Left analyst James Petras summarized the differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi June 18 by examining the voting patterns: "The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a 'moral economy' in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the 'market', which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition's attack on the regime's 'intransigent' foreign policy and positions 'alienating' the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime's military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack."
According to Ervand Abrahamian, cited above, "Most politicians since the revolution have subscribed to varying degrees to economic populism. Some, such as former Presidents Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, were muted populists shy about tampering with social programs. Others, such as President Ahmadinejad, are out-and-out populists promising to 'bring the oil money to peoples' dining room tables' by further expanding social programs. No realist would contemplate drastic cuts in the safety net, though there are limits to the populism: Ahmadinejad, for instance, placed a quota on subsidized gasoline."
The reform tendencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami during their two eight-year presidencies (1989-2005) were frustrated in part by conservative clerical objections and also by not fighting forcefully enough, but certain reforms did take place, including a gradual relaxation of some of the restrictions on women imposed during the first decade of the Islamic revolution. Ahmadinejad reimposed some of these limitations (pressure from the mullahs was a partial factor) and Khamenei was responsible for others during the past four years. According to a pro-Mousavi article in the July 20 issue of The Nation by Robert Dreyfuss:
"University classes were re-segregated by gender. The law banning satellite dishes was enforced vigorously. The morality police resorted to patrolling the streets to ensure that women wore proper Islamic dress, and unmarried couples refrained from holding hands. This was but a part of Ahmadinejad's drive to return society to the early years of the Islamic revolution.
"Little wonder then that, in the run-up to the 2009 presidential election, young voters rallied behind Mir Hussein Mousavi, whose academic wife, the artist Zahra Rahnavard, spoke of the hijab becoming optional for women. Mousavi promised to disband the morality police and appoint women to important government jobs."
Some of these setbacks for women were the responsibility of Khamenei and at least one we know of was opposed by Ahmadinejad — the supreme leader's April 2007 order that the Tehran police harass women with "improper hijab," i.e., without, at minimum, a head cover or "modest dress." According to the BBC, ultra-conservatives had earlier sharply criticized the president because, said a detractor, "Mr Ahmadinejad is not that strict on this issue. He thinks we should not use force when acting on this issue so as a result hijab has become weaker."
On July 7, in his first post-election TV address, Ahmadinejad made overtures to the defeated bloc. The New York Times reported the next day that "using language that appeared aimed at mollifying the opposition, he promised that his new government would respect the youth, improve the economy and address unemployment.
"He also said that he opposed the use of security forces to deal with cultural issues, an indirect reference to the morality police, which the opposition candidates had pledged to dismantle. 'Cultural issues should be dealt with through cultural channels, and I am against security confrontations [police harassment],' he said. 'Social freedom is a principle. We have freedom in our country and need to expand it, although I am against extremism.'"
In the aftermath of a divisive election, Ayatollah Khamenei is making efforts to project a sense of national unity to counter the actions of any country trying to benefit from the nation's travail. In a July 6 speech he said: "If the officials of the Islamic republic have disputes with one another they are unanimous in standing against the enemy and in maintaining the independence of the country, and the enemy should know that it won't be able to create splits between the people of Iran."
5. THE 'STOLEN' ELECTION
Was the election stolen by Ahmadinejad? The Western mass media sure thinks so, even though it has presented no evidence beyond the circumstantial, and that's where most of us get our information.
But the Western media in general excoriates Iran on a daily basis, as it does to virtually every country that stands up to Uncle Sam, and it simply despises Ahmadinejad. Even a number of liberals, progressives and leftists see only the negative side of the Iranian dialectic in both its domestic politics and international perspective.
The Tehran government does not acknowledge widespread malfeasance. It seems probable to us that some votes for Ahmadinejad were padded and some for Mousavi may have been eliminated at one or another level of the counting process.
But we suspect he received enough votes to win the election, just a predicted in the public opinion poll of Iranian sentiment conducted by two respected American organizations three weeks before the voting. It showed Ahmadinejad winning 2-1, as we reported in the Activist Newsletter, June 17.
Mousavi publicly declared himself the winner by a large majority even before all the polling stations closed June 12. When the official vote total showed Ahmadinejad won big, he immediately charged that he was the victim of a colossal vote swindle. He still maintains this today, but doesn't seem to provide evidence to back up his allegation.
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for CounterPunch June 22, argues that Mousavi's premature claim of victory… is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim."
Middle East correspondent Mahan Abedin, publishing in Asia Times July 9, agrees: "Mousavi's greatest mistake came immediately after the end of polling when he declared himself the outright winner. The implication was clear: a contradictory result would be automatically treated as fraudulent. This was the main trigger for the riots that followed. Mousavi then made one mistake after another by persisting with his fundamental position that the elections had been 'rigged'(without providing any convincing evidence) and refusing the solutions that were offered by mediators."
In a brilliant article for MRZine June 29, Mark Weisbrot — the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington — points out that of the 700,000 people involved in conducting the elections, including poll watchers and other supporters of Mousavi, not one of them has come forward with evidence of fraud.
Weisbrot calculated that nearly 6 million votes had to be stolen from Mousavi and given to Ahmadinejad to deprive the opposition candidate of victory. After describing the thorough voter identification process, including finger prints, he then describes the elaborate electoral procedures he says were in place during the election:
"There are 14 people working at each polling place, in addition to an observer representing each candidate. Most polling places are schools or mosques; if the polling place is a school then the team of 14 people would include teachers. There are 2-4 representatives of the Guardian Council, and 2 from the local police. After the last votes are cast, the ballots are counted in the presence of the 14 people plus the candidates' representatives. All of them sign five documents that contain the vote totals. One of the documents goes into the ballot box; one stays with the leader of the local election team; and the others go to other levels of the electoral administration, including the Guardian Council and the Interior.
"The vote totals are then sent to a local center that also has representatives of the Guardian Council, Interior, and the candidates. They add up the figures from a number of ballot boxes, and then send them to Interior. In this election, the numbers were also sent directly to Interior from the individual polling places, in the presence of the 14-18 witnesses at the ballot box….
"It would appear that large scale fraud is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without creating an extensive trail of evidence. Indeed, if this election was stolen, there must be tens of thousands of witnesses — or perhaps hundreds of thousands — to the theft. Yet there are no media accounts of interviews with such witnesses." (The full article is at mrzine.monthlyreview.org/weisbrot290609.html)
On another matter — the question of the rapidity of the vote count — Weisbrot writes: " How long does it take to count 500-800 ballots at a polling place, with only the presidential candidates on the ballot? It could easily be done within the time that it took, as it was in 2005."
Several commentators have taken issue with the opposition claims that even the Guardian Council declared at least three million votes were stolen. Actually, the Council found that in several score cities and towns it turned out that there were three million more votes than registered voters. Then it explained that in Iran voters may deposit their ballot in any convenient polling location throughout the country, not just in their own local district as in the U.S. Workers voted near their jobs in other towns, vacationers and weekenders voted where they were, and so on.
On June 16, when Iran's leaders offered to conduct a partial recount of the votes, Mousavi rejected the offer, instead demanding a new election. After the opposition continued to reject a recount, the Guardian Council decided to do so anyway. On June 29, in front of TV cameras, randomly selected boxes containing approximately 10% of the vote were opened and counted. The totals were approximately the same as the original count. The Council rejected the charge of fraud and confirmed his victory.
Khamenei actively sought to unify all sides of the dispute throughout the turmoil that followed the election. As July approached most of the key figures seemed to have reconciled their differences. Mousavi continued to claim fraud and insist on a second ballot.
In a decisive development June 28, no less an oppositionist than Rafsanjani declared his support for the supreme leader and stated: "The developments following the presidential vote were a complex conspiracy plotted by suspicious elements with the aim of creating a rift between the people and the Islamic establishment and causing them to lose their trust in the system. Such plots have always been neutralized whenever the people have entered the scene with vigilance."
The next day, June 29, the Expediency Council headed by Rafsanjani instructed the three defeated candidates to "observe the law and resolve conflicts and disputes through legal channels." All the principals, including Mousavi, agreed. From the beginning the government urged Mousavi to take the matter to the courts, not the streets, but he had refused.
This is as close as we can come to putting together the election story on the basis of what is known so far. There are many mysteries and inexplicable behaviors that are yet to be revealed.
—————————
6. DID WASHINGTON PLAY A ROLE?
There is no evidence that the United States played a direct role in the events following the Iranian election. The emphasis is upon "direct." We suspect President Obama was as surprised as President Ahmadinejad by the ferocity and size of the two weeks of post-election demonstrations in Tehran and other cities.
Obama's statement after the election that the U.S. is "not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," however, is untrue.
The protests were principally inspired by the belief that gross election irregularities caused Mousavi's defeat — a view that was originated and vigorously promoted by the defeated candidate himself from the moment he heard the verdict, after announcing to the world hours earlier that he had won. It's never been explained how he knew of his victory before all the polls closed. To our knowledge, Iran doesn't provide nationwide exit poll results throughout the voting day.
Disappointed and shocked supporters of the reform bloc took Mousavi at his word, and fought back until push turned into shove, and shove into tear gas, truncheons, and mass arrests.
We found it puzzling that in Farsi-speaking Iran so many of the signs we viewed on TV news were printed in English. We saw "Where's my vote?" all the time, as well as other signs and banners in a language we could read. A multitude of these signs began showing up the morning after the election and were clearly aimed at a foreign audience. We thought this strange.
It sure looked like an uprising for a brief while as the U.S. and British mass media took the international lead in fanning the flames they hoped would consume the "Holocaust-denier" and his "terrorist" accomplices.
Precisely why Mousavi decided to inspire the confrontations and keep them going as long as possible, especially when he didn't try to prove his case, is not yet known. Mousavi is not an American agent in mufti, though the CIA must wish he were.
Does this mean the U.S. has clean hands? Not by a long shot. Washington has been trying to arrange the overthrow of the Iranian government for many years. The constant anti-Iranian rhetoric emanating from the American political system and government leaders is just the visible part of a long-term destabilization program.
We won't begin at the beginning, having covered some of it earlier in this article, but will just concentrate on the last couple of years.
On June 25, as the Iranian protest demonstrations had just reached their peak, USA Today reported the following:
"The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.
"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to 'promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,' according to documents on the agency's website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30….
"Although the Obama administration has not sought to continue the Iran-specific grants in its 2010 budget, it wants a $15 million boost for the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims but does not specify the nations involved. Some of that money will be targeted at Iran, said David Carle, a spokesman for the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign affairs. Part of it is to expand access to information and communications through the Internet for Iranians," Carle said in an email….
"The State Department and USAID decline to name Iran-related grant recipients for security reasons. After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a major expansion of the program in 2006… Congress eventually approved $66 million…. 'As the Iranian regime cracks down on its people, I strongly believe that we should be prepared to extend our hand in help and support to any Iranian civil society group that reaches out for it,' [said] Sen. Joseph Lieberman."
Writing for Truthout June 30, Steve Weissman revealed: "Since 2006, the State Department alone spent more than $200 million on the effort [to generate decisive protests within Iran]. The money went to its in-house Iran bashers and 'democracy-promoters,' the Voice of America's (VOA) Farsi language broadcasts, Radio Free Europe's round-the-clock Radio Farda and the secretive National Endowment for Democracy, which funded several other groups. This $200 million came on top of the $400 million that Congress allocated in 2007 for regime change in Iran, some of which went for the CIA's state-supported terrorism inside Iranian borders."
On June 30, CounterPunch produced an article by Esam Al-Amin titled, Has the CIA Been Caught in Iran's Cookie Jar, Again?, reporting:
"After Bush’s second inauguration in January 2005, the National Security Council had an intense internal debate regarding Iran. The conflict did not center on whether there should be a regime change in Iran, but rather, whether to employ soft or hard power to achieve it. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated a series of escalating military strikes, while former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the use of soft power. Eventually, the president’s military advisors ended the debate when they cautioned Bush that with the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, engaging Iran militarily would be highly risky and draining for the U.S. armed forces.
"Between 2005-2009, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $400 million for State Department programs designed to 'promote democracy,' among other means of employing soft power in Iran. This was implemented, in part, by funding the activities of Iranian dissident groups. By 2008, Congress included money in the budget that would specifically 'go to software programmers to develop programs that thwart internet firewalls erected by the government of Iran,' and for a program to 'provide anti-censorship tools and services for the advancement of information freedom in closed societies.'
"The overt involvement of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other U.S. Government-funded NGOs in supporting many of the groups and dissidents that led the colored and flowering 'revolutions,' is also well documented. The Orange (Ukraine), Rose (Georgia), Tulip (Kyrgyzstan), Cedar (Lebanon), Saffron (Burma) and now Green (Iran) 'revolutions' have involved mostly pro-Western groups or Western-favored individuals against nationalists."
Two days after the June 12 election, Paul Craig Roberts put together for CounterPunch a compilation of brief reports about Washington's anti-Iran activities in recent years:
"On May 16, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a U.S. military attack on Iran would 'be a last option after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.'
"We are now witnessing in Tehran U.S. 'attempts to foment a popular revolution' in the guise of another CIA orchestrated 'color revolution.'
"It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were 'CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.' It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands….
"On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: 'The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert black operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell... ABC News."
"On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: 'Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs….
"On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: 'Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.'"
There's more about destructive U.S. interference in Iranian affairs but we'll stop here. Suffice to say that the recent Pentagon reports about Iranian support for the Taliban in Afghan and the armed resistance in Iraq are lies aimed at undermining Iran. Tehran despises the Sunni Taliban and supported Bush's Afghan invasion. And, to its discredit, as far as we are concerned, the Iranian government evidently advised Shia Iraqis not to resist the U.S. invaders, as we will mention again below.
7. IRAN, AMERICA, ISRAEL AND THE FUTURE
Before getting into this, and in the interests of "full disclosure," here's some clarity about where our analysis is coming from.
Given our own left political views, we are critical in principle of theocratic regimes and conservative cultural practices as now exist in Iran, and believe that Ahmadinejad has spoken unwisely on several occasions, particularly his comments about the Holocaust and some of his remarks about Israel. We deplore the 30-year repression of the left, and are unaware of any opposition to this practice from the reformers. Our political sympathies lean toward the remaining left, factional and weak as it is.
We supported the overthrow of the U.S.-installed monarchy by the broad forces that fought the revolution led by the Islamic movement headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, the removal of Iran from subordination to the United States, and the Tehran government's anti-imperialist policies. Many progressive Americans such as myself would prefer to see a number of social and political changes in Iran, but believe that Tehran's internal affairs are strictly a matter for the Iranian people to determine, certainly not the U.S. imperial superpower and its satellites. Our task in America is to correct our own country's faults and join in the defense of Iran's sovereignty and independence when it is threatened by our own government. Now back to the story:
Iran is not a military danger to America, Israel or any other country. In its modern history, Iran has experienced a long occupation by British colonialism, a political coup organized by U.S. imperialism, decades of painful sanctions, an invasion by neighboring Iraq, and Yankee subversion, but was not the aggressor.
Teheran's development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is legitimate and within the confines of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, with some 200 nuclear weapons — protected by America and its entire arsenal — claims Iran is an "existential threat." This is nonsense.
Tel Aviv insists Iran must be stopped by any means necessary from producing a nuclear weapons and delivery system, which it says will take five more years to produce. That possibly means yet another unjust war. The National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the 16 U.S. spy agencies reports Iran does not now have a nuclear weapons program. The new chief of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (who was supported for the post by the U.S.) said July 4 that he had no evidence Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Even if the Tehran government ever did produce a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, an intention it denies, it is well aware that preparing to initiate a nuclear attack would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant.
Iran has several enemies, not just the U.S. and Israel. Some Sunni Arab states within the U.S. orbit are distressed by the presence of a powerful Persian Shi'ite country in the region.
Semi-feudal Saudi Arabia, Washington's oldest satellite in the Middle East, was strongly hoping for the downfall of the Ahmadinejad regime. According to M. K. Bhadrakumar, mentioned earlier, "Riyadh's fond hopes of witnessing the Iranian regime debilitated by a protracted crisis have been dashed." He noted that "the state-controlled Saudi Arabian media launched unprecedented, vicious personal attacks on both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad."
On the other hand, Bhadrakumar wrote, "Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad [spy agency], let it be known that a win by Iranian opposition candidate Mousavi in the presidential election on June 12 would have spelled 'big problems' for Israel. He explained: 'The world, and we, already know Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived in the international arena as a moderate element."
A June 25 article in The New York Times under a Cairo dateline reported: " The rancorous dispute over Iran's presidential election could turn into a win-win for Arab leaders aligned with Washington who in the past have complained bitterly that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was destabilizing the region and meddling in Arab affairs, political analysts and former officials around the region said. The good-news thinking goes like this: With Mr. Ahmadinejad remaining in office, there is less chance of substantially improved relations between Tehran and Washington, something America's Arab allies feared would undermine their interests."
Much of this worry derives from the fact that Washington's unjust invasions of secular and Sunni Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Taliban-controlled Afghanistan have neutralized Iran's two enemy neighbors, providing Tehran some influence in now Shi'ite-controlled Baghdad.
Obviously, should both these strategically located oil-rich modern states with majority Shia populations bond closely over time they would represent an alliance that could disrupt America's geostrategic intention to extend its hegemony over the entire Persian Gulf region.
The June 24 Christian Science Monitor reported that as U.S. troops leave Iraq, Washington is urging Arab states within its orbit to draw closer to the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki, "a Shi'ite whom they have been reluctant to work with because of their perception he's close to Iran but who is, nevertheless, an Arab like them." The paper quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that "The embrace of Iraq by its fellow Gulf states will help contain the ambitions of Iran."
America's interest now is to restore the balance of power that existed during the rivalry between Iraq and Iran when Saddam Hussein's regime presided in Baghdad, only this time to make sure that the Iraqi regime is controlled by the United States from its colossal new fortress of an embassy in the Green Zone. Recalling the devastation of the 1980-88 war, Tehran justly fears a strong Iraq now dominated by Washington just across its long western border.
The Iranian government is also concerned about the possibility that the Obama Administration will make a deal in Afghanistan that would eventually allow the more "reasonable" wing of the fanatical Taliban to get back into power, reopening the old threat on its eastern border.
Most Americans are unaware that Iran provided help to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's main effort was in Iraq where, it is said, Tehran sought to convince the Shi'ite leadership to refrain from joining the national liberation struggle against the American invader. This has allowed the Pentagon, unable to actually defeat the Iraqi resistance, to settle for a stalemate rather than a probable defeat from combined Sunni-Shi'ite urban guerrilla warfare.
Iranian leaders correctly calculated that the invasion would eventually result in the Shi'ite majority finally assuming power in a country historically controlled by a Sunni minority. They also expected that in return for their help, the U.S. would not contest Iranian influence in the new Iraq. On this they were quite wrong.
The U.S. recognizes that a violent regime change is not possible in Iran. Washington evidently has not yet given up on bringing about a pro-U.S. government in Tehran through a "soft" power transition such as the "color" revolutions in countries situated in Russia's "near abroad" — but this, too, may not be viable.
At this point the Obama Administration seems to be settling for a two-track effort to make Tehran more amenable to Washington's diktat, or to increase Iran's isolation if it can't. One track is the New Beginning — less hostility, a little (probably too little) give in return for take, patient negotiations and, in extremis, maybe even an apology for 1953, but that might be going too far. The other track includes continued wooing of dissidents; discouraging other nations from befriending Iran (as Clinton seeks to do in Latin America); putting an off limits sign at the Iraq border; threatening to unleash Israel; and the piece de resistance, if it ever works — building a coalition of U.S. and Sunni Arab nations dedicated to keeping Iran "contained," and weakening it further if possible.
A Tehran preoccupied by internal political controversy that may linger a while may be perceived as an opportune moment for the U.S. to form an anti-Iran axis in the region. This could be one reason why Washington is becoming anxious to resolve the Palestinian conundrum, even if it must bulldoze the far-right Tel Aviv regime kicking and screaming to the conference table. An agreement for a Palestinian state — even if it takes forever to materialize in practice — could kick-start an anti-Iranian coalition possibly composed of such U.S. political dependencies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, possibly Kuwait and a few lesser Arab nations. And, because of a Palestinian "settlement" of sorts, a suddenly pristine Israel could be invited to join the coalition of the more-than-willing.
This is where President Ahmadinejad returns to the picture. Described as a vulgar bumpkin by the American mass media, the Iranian president is an intelligent, skilled and tough politician and national leader. He knows it may be more challenging to govern during his second term, and is familiar with the danger posed by the U.S. and the possibility of a hostile regional alliance.
Internally, Ahmadinejad has three options: 1. To sharply increase political repression and govern with an iron hand (this is what much of the Western media predicts will happen); 2. to carry on as during his first term; or 3. to make overtures and some concessions to the moderate reformers and the remaining Islamic left. What will he do?
We do not believe Ahmadinejad will select the first option — more repression. He could go for the second option — business as usual. But we think he will either select the third option — concessions — or more likely a combination of two and three. And we think Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will approve.
Externally, Ahmadinejad must be aware that under present political conditions Iran probably will be attacked the day it produces a deliverable nuclear weapon. Iran wants to establish that it has the right to construct nuclear power facilities. Given the fact that Israel is in major violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and harbors hundreds of nuclear weapons of its own, Iran probably feels it has a right to build a bomb as well.
But it may decide, as did Japan, to obtain the knowledge and wherewithal to weaponize through constructing a peaceful nuclear power apparatus as it is now doing, but not to produce weapons. This may in fact be Iran's intention. I could be wrong, but it would be a huge bargaining chip in negotiations, in return for which Tehran would deserve something just as big.
In terms of the U.S., the great majority of the Iranian people — conservative, moderate, and left — want their country to remain completely free of Washington's domination. They will unite and fight for it. At the same time, Iran will benefit a great deal by the removal of American sanctions. While keeping an eye out to prevent U.S. intervention in its affairs, it may be fruitful for the Tehran government to have improved interaction with Washington without conceding its anti-imperialist politics, support for Palestine, or the development of closer relations with Shia Iraq and left countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and others. At this stage it's as obvious as a mastodon on the front lawn that Uncle Sam will demand that Tehran stop aiding Hamas and Hezbollah, which could be the deal-breaker.
There are many pitfalls ahead for Iran as it prepares for either fruitful talks or a tense showdown with U.S.-Israel; it's a toss up which it will be, and we incline toward pessimism. The Obama Administration says it wants constructive talks and to resolve certain problems, so let's see. But all of this is for the future to decide, and for advocates of peace, national independence, and the equality of nations to watch carefully as it unfolds, and to act politically in defense of those three principles should they be violated, as they have been repeatedly by our country for many years.
By Jack A. Smith
July 12, 2009, Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
1. QUESTIONS and CONTEXT
What really just happened in Iran? The dramatic demonstrations that followed the June 12 contested reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have raised more questions than they answered.
Three questions in particular stand out: (1) What is the struggle actually about? (2) Was the election rigged, as charged by the leading opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Mousavi, and his vocal supporters? (3) Did the U.S. play a role leading up to the protests in quest of an outcome similar to the so-called color revolutions Washington enabled in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan?
The Western mass media have described Iran's contested election and its bitter aftermath as an uprising of the masses to transform the Islamic Republic into a democratic republic, or at least to propel the country into the pro-Western camp. Some publications were already calling it the "Green Revolution" or the "Green Wave," after the color of Mousavi's campaign paraphernalia.
In reality, the struggle is the product of a sharp internal clash between the two conservative coalitions that rule Iran. As Mousavi made clear in a recent public statement: "We are not against our sacred regime and its legal structures; this structure guards our independence, freedom, and Islamic Republic."
As for Ahmadinejad, writer Azmai Bishara described him this way at MRZine June 26: "Ahmadinejad is less a representative of Iranian conservatives than a rebel against them from within their own establishment. He has lashed out against them, including corrupt clergy, using the principles of the Islamic revolution as his weapons. He is a conservative of the fundamentalist stripe and wants to restore the revolution to its youthful vigor and gleam."
At issue in this internal struggle, which is now calming down as the sides reassess their situations, are differences on economic, religious, and social questions, and serious cultural conflicts, which we shall detail below.
The American media and much of the liberal press clearly side with the "good" Mousavi faction against the "evil" Ahmadinejad and seem convinced that the election was a fraud, or a "coup" engineered by the incumbent president involving the theft of millions of votes. As yet there is no concrete evidence of massive electoral malfeasance, a matter we shall discuss later in this article.
Washington insists the U.S. government is innocent of involvement in events leading up to the Iranian election and the social melee that followed. As yet there is only suggestive evidence of an American connection, though this must be coupled with a record of over a half century of interference in Iranian affairs.
Indirect involvement, however, is well documented. For instance, a few years ago the Bush Administration launched a congressionally funded project within Iran to undermine the Teheran government and build an anti-regime opposition within the country — a program that has continued into the Obama Administration. And this is just one of many overt and covert instances of current U.S. actions to destabilize the Iranian government.
President Barack Obama has not specifically accused the Tehran government of stealing the election — either because the U.S. knows Ahmadinejad won, as this writer imagines it does, or doesn't know who won. The extensive American intelligence apparatus has been working overtime to investigate the election. If it found believable evidence of mass fraud, it would hardly conceal the news.
The president did point out June 23, however, that "a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves... consider this election illegitimate…. There [are] significant questions about the legitimacy of the election."
As an aside we must note a certain hypocrisy in the U.S. practice of criticizing elections in countries that are considered America's enemies, overlooking obvious illegalities in friendly-country elections (as in Egypt), or the lack of elections for leadership posts (as in Saudi Arabia), and condemning and refusing to recognize winners of democratic elections who attract Washington's wrath (as in Gaza).
The official vote count was 63.3% for Ahmadinejad and 34.2% for Mousavi. The two other candidates were Mohsen Rezaei, a founder of the Revolutionary Guards, with 2%, and Mullah Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker of the Parliament, who received less than 1%
Obama has strongly criticized the regime's response to the intense street demonstrations, which press reports said drew millions of people over the two weeks following the voting. He charged that "the violence perpetrated against them is outrageous," as though there was no violence from a sector of the demonstrators in the first days of protest.
Iranian authorities state that there was violence on the part of both the demonstrators (20 were killed) and the security forces (eight died). The regime arrested some 2,500 people in the aftermath of the election, but released 2,000 of them by July 8; the remainder are going to trial. Human Rights Watch charged that a number of detainees had been mistreated.
President Ahmadinejad took exception to Obama's criticism in a speech last week: "Didn't he [Obama] say that he was after change [in relations with Iran]? Why did he interfere? Why did he utter remarks irrespective of [diplomatic] norms and decorum?"
President Obama made it clear this week, despite muted criticism about the elections, that the U.S. remained ready to engage in two-party negotiations with the Iranian government about Teheran's nuclear program and other matters. The Bush Administration was disinclined to participate in direct talks, openly working to undermine the Tehran government and for a time was prepared to attack Iran.
Obama, through his "New Beginning" campaign in the Middle East, is proving to be quite effective so far in presenting a less aggressive and considerably more rational American image than that shot into the region like a cannon ball by his neoconservative predecessor. But there is no doubt he is pursuing similar objectives with different means.
First, Obama desires a nuclear agreement acceptable to the U.S. and Israel, but through the mechanism of improved bilateral relations and conventional coercion, in place of bullying and war cries. In the longer term, the Obama Administration still seeks regime change — though preferably the "softer" version — resulting in the extension of American hegemony into Iran for the first time in the three decades since Washington's underling, the Shah of Iran, was dispatched by the Islamic Revolution.
While Obama embraces diplomacy and calls for friendlier relations between Washington and Tehran, the next two highest administration officials have been making declarations designed to disparage and threaten Iran.
On July 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to a Venezuelan TV network that "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime…. We have seen in the last weeks that Iran has not respected its own democracy. It has taken actions against [its] own citizens for peacefully protesting…. I think it is not a very smart position to ally with a regime that is being rejected by so many of their own people."
Clinton was actually undermining two countries on Washington's hit list — Venezuela as well as Iran. She was telling a Venezuelan TV audience (and Latin America in general) to oppose efforts by President Hugo Chavez to establish warm relations with Iran.
On July 5, Vice President Joseph Biden announced that Israel has a right, as a sovereign nation, to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, strongly suggesting that the U.S. would not stand in its way. This has been interpreted as a typical Biden faux pas, but we think it was a warning to Tehran that it best make big concessions at the nuclear talks, or else.
Two days later, while noting that Biden simply "stated a categorical fact," Obama said the White House had "absolutely not" given Israel permission to bomb Iran. He declared, "We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East." Obama has the power to forbid a preemptive Israeli attack, but decided to keep the threat alive by merely not authorizing it.
In June, Clinton declared gratuitously that not only would the U.S. massively retaliate against Iran were it to attack Israel, but warned that one or another unspecified country might launch a preemptive war again Iran. The Teheran government has not threatened war against Israel, but Tel Aviv for the last year has repeatedly suggested it might launch an attack against Iran should it be able to produce a nuclear weapon.
And on June 19, the House of Representatives voted 405-1 to throw its total support to the post-election demonstrators and to demand that Iran "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."
2. THE BACKGROUND
Some background will be useful before digging deeper into the election, its aftermath and the question of U.S. involvement. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been on or near the top of Washington's enemies list for 30 years, ever since the Iranian Revolution toppled the oppressive monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Shah was installed on the Peacock Throne by the U.S. and Great Britain in 1953 after they engineered a successful coup against the democratically elected secular government of progressive Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, which had ended the monarchy and nationalized Iran's petroleum resources. Pahlavi was a servant of U.S. interests in the Middle East for almost 26 years. He saw to it that some 60% of Iranian oil went to American companies.
Washington has never forgiven the Iranian revolutionaries for ousting the dreaded Pahlavi. His value to the U.S. was enormous, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoirs:
"Under the Shah's leadership, the land bridge between Asia and Europe, so often the hinge of world history, was pro-American and pro-West without any challenge…. Iran's influence was always on our side…. Iran under the Shah, in short, was one of America's best, most important, and most loyal friends in the world." The monarch was, to speak plainly, a U.S. puppet.
In his June 4 Cairo address calling for a New Beginning in U.S. relations with the Muslim world, President Obama noted that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." The U.S. continued to lie about its involvement in the bloody coup for 47 years until Secretary of State Madeline Albright finally admitted in 2000 that "the United States played a significant role" in this imperial adventure, noting that "it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Neither Obama nor Albright apologized or offered compensation for a deed that smashed Iranian democracy and ushered in over a quarter-century of a vicious monarchy protected by the U.S. followed by three decades of a conservative theocracy. Ahmadinejad earlier this year said that if the U.S. wants to improve relations it should apologize for its "dark history and crimes" against Iran.
The lack of an apology is nothing new in U.S. relations with Iran. On July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger airliner off the coast of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, killing 290 passengers and crew, including 65 children. The Navy claimed it mistook the huge Airbus A300B2 for an incoming jet fighter, which of course has an entirely different configuration.
Vice President George H.W. Bush, then in the midst of his run for the presidency in August of that election year, was asked whether he was going to apologize for the tragedy. He responded: "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are." The captain of the Vincennes was honored with the Legion of Merit when the cruiser's tour of duty ended.
Washington has sought to isolate and, if possible, overturn the revolutionary regime in Tehran ever since it took power in early 1979, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — a leading Shi'ite cleric in a deeply religious society. The U.S. broke diplomatic relations and imposed economic and trade sanctions against Iran soon after the Shah was deposed. In 1980, Washington secretly backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's aggressive invasion of Iran, a conflict that caused an immense loss of life and material damage before it ended in a stalemate in 1988. Washington supplied Iraq with satellite information about Iran's deployments and materials for chemical-biological warfare.
In 1987 President Ronald Reagan strengthened sanctions against Iran allegedly because it was a "state sponsor of terrorism." In 1995, the Clinton Administration further toughened anti-Iran sanctions after Israel claimed Teheran was building nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration gratuitously identified Iran as a cohort of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and a couple of years later came perilously close to subjecting Iran to another of its unjust wars for "democracy," i.e., for oil and hegemony. Had the subjugation of Iraq gone as planned, instead of the military and political disaster that transpired, Iran probably would have been next on the U.S. regime-change agenda.
Operating as usual in tandem with U.S. foreign policy, the corporate mass media have demonized and caricatured President Ahmadinejad, 52, since he was first elected in 2005. As a general rule, extreme caution is required to evaluate foreign political leaders who have been the target of continual White House criticism and disparagement. We think of President Slobodan Miloseviç of Yugoslavia and President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in this regard — both of whom were characterized as beastly incarnations of Hitler as a prelude to Washington's military aggression in 1999 and 2003.
The Bush Administration spent years mocking and "Hitlerising" Ahmadinejad while contemplating if and when to launch a war. It's always a "good war" to fight a Hitler, and the U.S. public is easily fooled every time the old devil is contrived to have reappeared.
Decades of U.S. enmity toward Iraq were concisely captured by journalist Chris Hedges in an article for TruthDig June 22 titled Iran Had Democracy Before we Took it Away:
"I do not remember Iran orchestrating a coup in the United States to replace an elected government with a brutal dictator who for decades persecuted, assassinated and imprisoned democracy activists. I do not remember Iran arming and funding a neighboring state to wage war against our country. Iran never shot down one of our passenger jets as did the USS Vincennes — caustically nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels — when in June 1988 it fired missiles at an Airbus filled with Iranian civilians, killing everyone on board. Iran is not sponsoring terrorism within the United States, as our intelligence services currently do in Iran. The attacks on Iranian soil include suicide bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, sabotage and 'targeted assassinations' of government officials, scientists and other Iranian leaders. What would we do if the situation was reversed? How would we react if Iran carried out these policies against us?"
Most Americans know little if anything about Iran except Washington's negative views, but there have been some interesting social advances in this country of 70 million people.
Since the revolution, writes Professor Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, "the Islamic Republic — despite its poor image abroad — has taken significant steps toward fulfilling" promises "to create a full-fledged welfare state — in its proper European, rather than derogatory American, sense…. It has done so by giving priority to social rather than military expenditures, and thus dramatically expanding the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture, Labor, Housing, Welfare and Social Security. The military consumed as much as 18% of the gross domestic product in the last years of the Shah. Now it takes up as little as 4%....
"The regime has come close to eliminating illiteracy among the post-revolutionary generations, reducing the overall rate from 53% to 15%. The rate among women has fallen from 65% to 20%. The state has increased the number of students enrolled in primary schools from 4,768,000 to 5,700,000, in secondary schools from 2.1 million to over 7.6 million, in technical schools from 201,000 to 509,000, and in universities from 154,000 to over 1.5 million. The percentage of women in university student populations has gone up from 30% to 62%. Thanks to medical clinics, life expectancy at birth has increased from 56 to 70, and infant mortality has decreased from 104 to 25 per 1,000... [and] the fertility rate — the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime — from 7 to 3. It is expected to fall further to 2 by 2012." (The full article is in the Spring 2009 issue of Middle East Report. It is at http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/abrahamian.html.)
3. THE POLITICAL PLAYERS
In the election, President Ahmadinejad, a civil engineer and a former mayor of Tehran, was backed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sector of the Shia clergy, nearly all the security forces, a large proportion of the working class, lower middle class and the poor, small business owners, and the "second generation" revolutionaries who fought in the war with Iraq —an important part of his political base. This is a large constituency, capable in our view of producing an electoral majority.
Khamenei, 70, is the most powerful figure in the Iranian state, far more so than President Ahmadinejad. He was president 1981-89, after which he was named supreme leader following the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic Revolution.
In Iran, the supreme leader, who is always a leading Shi'ite cleric, is the country's principal religious and political authority and is considered the ultimate head of the Islamic Republic, including of the government and the armed forces. A supreme leader, of which there have been two so far, is selected by an Assembly of Experts — a body of 89 Islamic scholars who supervise the leader's work and have the power to remove him. The scholars are elected by the public every eight years from a screened list of candidates. The leader also appoints six of the 12 members of the powerful Guardian Council (which interprets the constitution and supervises elections), the influential Friday prayer leaders, and the heads of radio and TV. He also confirms the election of Iran's presidents.
The losing candidate, Mousavi, 67, served as prime minister (1981-89) before the post was eliminated. He is said to have liberal tendencies within the context of conservative reform. Since leaving politics, he worked as an architect and painter and now is president of the Iranian Academy of Arts. He is backed by such leading political figures as former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani (who presided 1989-1997) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005). Rafsanjani, a mullah and a billionaire businessman, ran again in 2005 and was beaten by Ahmadinejad, who received 62% of the vote (a shade lower than his official total this June). Mass support for Mousavi comes from political groups characterized by reformism and "pragmatic conservatism," a considerable sector of the clergy, much of the big business and corporate community, the educated urban middle class, upper middle class, college students, and modern women seeking greater gender freedoms.
Rafsanjani, 75, a leading oligarch with powerful connections, is the key figure behind Mousavi and bankrolled his campaign, though he has lately kept a low profile and calls for social calm. He is the big loser in the election. Ahmadinejad was sharply critical of him during the campaign, characterizing the former president as corrupt, which many happen to believe. He is presently the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which puts him in a position to exercise substantial influence in an organization capable of dismissing the supreme leader. Khamenei, however, has recently defended Rafsanjani, even against Ahmadinejad's strong criticism, so the supreme leader is secure in his position. A majority of the Assembly came out on Khamenei's side in late June, declaring that "enemies of Iran" were behind the riots.
4. IRANIAN POLITICS
In discussing the political situation in Iran it is important to understand there's a world of difference between the thrust of Tehran's internal policies and external policies. Internally, Iranian governance is conservative, particularly in the cultural realm, and heavily influenced by the Shi'ite branch of Islam. Externally, in foreign affairs, the policy tends to be radical and anti-imperialist.
Iran may be dominated by conservative clerics but the masses of people do take part in political life and determine the outcome of elections. Government policies frequently derive from a consensus of the differing views of many political parties and organizations, often at the behest of the supreme leader.
A circumscribed form of democracy exists within the country, giving rise to two principal political blocs — conservatism (with a fairly populist economic program, interestingly enough), and reformism (in this instance an essentially conservative tendency seeking modest reforms). The leading religious and secular figures within or supporting these two blocs constitute most of the Iranian ruling class.
The Islamic left, which at one time was considered strong, now exists in reduced circumstances, but its members were at the demonstrations.
The political left was strong, too, but was largely destroyed or exiled — first in the events around the 1953 anti-democratic coup; second throughout the Shah's brutal reign; and third by the Islamic government, especially during the 1980s when it is estimated that 20,000 progressives, socialists, communists and others were slain or executed. At the time the president and prime minister who presided over this slaughter were, respectively, the now Supreme Leader Khamenei and reform leader Mousavi, the losing candidate.
From the point of view of the Iranian Marxist left, underground or in exile, neither of the two principal coalitions represents the interests of the working class. If there was a serious socialist alternative Ahmadinejad's working class base would be far smaller. By and large, it is reported, the workers did not join the protest demonstrations.
There are a number of political parties and organizations in Iran, most of whom ally with one or the other bloc during presidential elections. The Iranian parliament is called the Majlis. According to a June 24 article in Time Magazine online, "Currently, Ahmadinejad's coalition controls 117 of the 290 seats in the Majlis, while the reformists control 46 and pragmatic conservatives aligned with Rafsanjani and Mousavi have 53. Five seats are reserved for religious minorities, and 69 are in the hands of independents, among whom the opposition will presumably be lobbying hard for support against the President."
Complexities abound when discussing Iranian politics because the context and political alliances are quite different in the Islamic Republic compared to America's democratic republic. For example, an important political aspect of the election, unmentioned in most Western press accounts despite its critical importance, was the fact that "Ahmadinejad ran his re-election campaign against the old clerical elite, charging them with corruption, luxurious living and running the state for their own benefit rather than that of the people," according to a June 29 article by Stratfor's George Friedman. "When Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi on the night of the election, the clerical elite saw themselves in serious danger. The margin of victory Ahmadinejad claimed might have given him the political clout to challenge their position."
This could partly explain why a number of clerics and leading ayatollahs in a country largely ruled by the religious establishment have been criticizing the election results and supporting Mousavi's contention of vast electoral impropriety. A good part of Ahmadinejad's popular support is based on his opposition to clerical privileges and dishonesty, and on his strong stand on national security matters, given that the country has long been in the gun sights of both the U.S. and Israel, and also because Iran suffered tremendously from the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s.
Many millions of Iranians are not principally devoted to one bloc or another but to the existence of the Islamic Republic itself, and they participate in elections to advance the candidate who will insure the health of the state. They are part of the ideological base of the republic and are loyal to Khamenei. Others, from liberals to Marxists, desire extensive political changes that are not on the agenda in today's Iran. We assume many showed up at the demonstrations to press their points and push the struggle forward, regardless of whether the election was rigged or not. It was an opportunity to agitate for change while masses were in motion against the oppressive state.
The struggle between conservative Ahmadinejad and reformist Mousavi — or perhaps more properly between Supreme Leader Khamenei and former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami — is not about changing the essential features of a theocratic state with certain democratic options. They both are committed to the maintenance of the Islamic Republic and to the revolutionary constitution promoted by the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
President Obama frankly observed June 16 that "The difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi… may not be as great as advertised. I think it's important to understand that either way we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the U.S." It must be noted here that Iran's "hostility" was hardly generated in a vacuum, but is the product of decades of American threats, punishment and subversion.
Here, in the brief outline, are some of the differences that separate the two ruling blocs, both of which, incidentally, are devoted to capitalism, the development of nuclear energy as a power source, the rights of the Palestinian people, the Islamic state, and opposition to U.S. imperialism.
Ahmadinejad is considered to be on the political right wing but tends to be more attentive to the needs of the working class than the more moderate conservative opposition. He promoted a populist economic policy, including social programs for the masses, easy loans for farmers, food subsidies for low income people, and reductions in bank interest rates, among other measures. His bloc, however, is extremely conservative regarding cultural, religious, and certain civil liberties issues. On the other hand it supports a vigorous anti-imperialist foreign policy, is defiant toward U.S. and Israeli pressure, and stands up to the European Union when it acts against Iranian interests; it is friendly toward countries that treat it fairly, such as Venezuela, Russia, and Syria among many others, and supports (Shi'ite) Hezbollah in Lebanon and (Sunni) Hamas in Palestine. Ahmadinejad wants improved relations with the U.S. but not at the expense of core concessions.
Writing in Antiwar.com June 24, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi — who long warned that the Bush Administration was contemplating an attack on Iran — underscored the popularity of Ahmadinejad's public condemnation of wrongdoing by the clergy when he pointed to "the corrupt Iran of the post-revolutionary period when the country was looted by the senior clerics cooperating with the business class, the bazaaris. Some intelligence sources believe that Ahmadinejad, who has been demonized by the Western media, is actually the reformer in that he has taken on the country's pervasive corruption with the full support of… the supreme leader. Massive corruption has been business as usual in Iran, frequently managed by politicians who have called themselves reformers."
Actually, according to M.K. Bhadrakumar writing in Asia Times June 23, "Ahmadinejad's principal weakness is his failure to bring the rich and corrupt mullahs to justice, as he had promised. His supporters say that would be the priority in his second term."
The Mousavi reform bloc is less populist, and seems to lean toward neoliberalism, integrating the Iranian economy into the world market system and opening to foreign investment. The reformers are critical of Ahmadinejad for what it terms his economic failures, inflation and "handouts" to the workers and the poor. The reformers are liberal on cultural and civil liberties issues — from a more relaxed dress code for women to freer speech. It is critical of the U.S. and Israel, though not with Ahmadinejad's intensity. The group's middle and upper middle class backers seem more attracted to Western society; and its big business supporters, plus a sector of the clergy, wish to integrate far more into the globalized international capitalist economy, which inevitably means making some concessions to end Washington's economic and trade sanctions. Reformists also seek to reduce some of the powers of what has been called "the most influential body in Iran" — the Guardian Council, which has to approve all bills passed by parliament and has the power to veto them if it considers them inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law.
Left analyst James Petras summarized the differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi June 18 by examining the voting patterns: "The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a 'moral economy' in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the 'market', which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition's attack on the regime's 'intransigent' foreign policy and positions 'alienating' the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime's military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack."
According to Ervand Abrahamian, cited above, "Most politicians since the revolution have subscribed to varying degrees to economic populism. Some, such as former Presidents Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, were muted populists shy about tampering with social programs. Others, such as President Ahmadinejad, are out-and-out populists promising to 'bring the oil money to peoples' dining room tables' by further expanding social programs. No realist would contemplate drastic cuts in the safety net, though there are limits to the populism: Ahmadinejad, for instance, placed a quota on subsidized gasoline."
The reform tendencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami during their two eight-year presidencies (1989-2005) were frustrated in part by conservative clerical objections and also by not fighting forcefully enough, but certain reforms did take place, including a gradual relaxation of some of the restrictions on women imposed during the first decade of the Islamic revolution. Ahmadinejad reimposed some of these limitations (pressure from the mullahs was a partial factor) and Khamenei was responsible for others during the past four years. According to a pro-Mousavi article in the July 20 issue of The Nation by Robert Dreyfuss:
"University classes were re-segregated by gender. The law banning satellite dishes was enforced vigorously. The morality police resorted to patrolling the streets to ensure that women wore proper Islamic dress, and unmarried couples refrained from holding hands. This was but a part of Ahmadinejad's drive to return society to the early years of the Islamic revolution.
"Little wonder then that, in the run-up to the 2009 presidential election, young voters rallied behind Mir Hussein Mousavi, whose academic wife, the artist Zahra Rahnavard, spoke of the hijab becoming optional for women. Mousavi promised to disband the morality police and appoint women to important government jobs."
Some of these setbacks for women were the responsibility of Khamenei and at least one we know of was opposed by Ahmadinejad — the supreme leader's April 2007 order that the Tehran police harass women with "improper hijab," i.e., without, at minimum, a head cover or "modest dress." According to the BBC, ultra-conservatives had earlier sharply criticized the president because, said a detractor, "Mr Ahmadinejad is not that strict on this issue. He thinks we should not use force when acting on this issue so as a result hijab has become weaker."
On July 7, in his first post-election TV address, Ahmadinejad made overtures to the defeated bloc. The New York Times reported the next day that "using language that appeared aimed at mollifying the opposition, he promised that his new government would respect the youth, improve the economy and address unemployment.
"He also said that he opposed the use of security forces to deal with cultural issues, an indirect reference to the morality police, which the opposition candidates had pledged to dismantle. 'Cultural issues should be dealt with through cultural channels, and I am against security confrontations [police harassment],' he said. 'Social freedom is a principle. We have freedom in our country and need to expand it, although I am against extremism.'"
In the aftermath of a divisive election, Ayatollah Khamenei is making efforts to project a sense of national unity to counter the actions of any country trying to benefit from the nation's travail. In a July 6 speech he said: "If the officials of the Islamic republic have disputes with one another they are unanimous in standing against the enemy and in maintaining the independence of the country, and the enemy should know that it won't be able to create splits between the people of Iran."
5. THE 'STOLEN' ELECTION
Was the election stolen by Ahmadinejad? The Western mass media sure thinks so, even though it has presented no evidence beyond the circumstantial, and that's where most of us get our information.
But the Western media in general excoriates Iran on a daily basis, as it does to virtually every country that stands up to Uncle Sam, and it simply despises Ahmadinejad. Even a number of liberals, progressives and leftists see only the negative side of the Iranian dialectic in both its domestic politics and international perspective.
The Tehran government does not acknowledge widespread malfeasance. It seems probable to us that some votes for Ahmadinejad were padded and some for Mousavi may have been eliminated at one or another level of the counting process.
But we suspect he received enough votes to win the election, just a predicted in the public opinion poll of Iranian sentiment conducted by two respected American organizations three weeks before the voting. It showed Ahmadinejad winning 2-1, as we reported in the Activist Newsletter, June 17.
Mousavi publicly declared himself the winner by a large majority even before all the polling stations closed June 12. When the official vote total showed Ahmadinejad won big, he immediately charged that he was the victim of a colossal vote swindle. He still maintains this today, but doesn't seem to provide evidence to back up his allegation.
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for CounterPunch June 22, argues that Mousavi's premature claim of victory… is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim."
Middle East correspondent Mahan Abedin, publishing in Asia Times July 9, agrees: "Mousavi's greatest mistake came immediately after the end of polling when he declared himself the outright winner. The implication was clear: a contradictory result would be automatically treated as fraudulent. This was the main trigger for the riots that followed. Mousavi then made one mistake after another by persisting with his fundamental position that the elections had been 'rigged'(without providing any convincing evidence) and refusing the solutions that were offered by mediators."
In a brilliant article for MRZine June 29, Mark Weisbrot — the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington — points out that of the 700,000 people involved in conducting the elections, including poll watchers and other supporters of Mousavi, not one of them has come forward with evidence of fraud.
Weisbrot calculated that nearly 6 million votes had to be stolen from Mousavi and given to Ahmadinejad to deprive the opposition candidate of victory. After describing the thorough voter identification process, including finger prints, he then describes the elaborate electoral procedures he says were in place during the election:
"There are 14 people working at each polling place, in addition to an observer representing each candidate. Most polling places are schools or mosques; if the polling place is a school then the team of 14 people would include teachers. There are 2-4 representatives of the Guardian Council, and 2 from the local police. After the last votes are cast, the ballots are counted in the presence of the 14 people plus the candidates' representatives. All of them sign five documents that contain the vote totals. One of the documents goes into the ballot box; one stays with the leader of the local election team; and the others go to other levels of the electoral administration, including the Guardian Council and the Interior.
"The vote totals are then sent to a local center that also has representatives of the Guardian Council, Interior, and the candidates. They add up the figures from a number of ballot boxes, and then send them to Interior. In this election, the numbers were also sent directly to Interior from the individual polling places, in the presence of the 14-18 witnesses at the ballot box….
"It would appear that large scale fraud is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without creating an extensive trail of evidence. Indeed, if this election was stolen, there must be tens of thousands of witnesses — or perhaps hundreds of thousands — to the theft. Yet there are no media accounts of interviews with such witnesses." (The full article is at mrzine.monthlyreview.org/weisbrot290609.html)
On another matter — the question of the rapidity of the vote count — Weisbrot writes: " How long does it take to count 500-800 ballots at a polling place, with only the presidential candidates on the ballot? It could easily be done within the time that it took, as it was in 2005."
Several commentators have taken issue with the opposition claims that even the Guardian Council declared at least three million votes were stolen. Actually, the Council found that in several score cities and towns it turned out that there were three million more votes than registered voters. Then it explained that in Iran voters may deposit their ballot in any convenient polling location throughout the country, not just in their own local district as in the U.S. Workers voted near their jobs in other towns, vacationers and weekenders voted where they were, and so on.
On June 16, when Iran's leaders offered to conduct a partial recount of the votes, Mousavi rejected the offer, instead demanding a new election. After the opposition continued to reject a recount, the Guardian Council decided to do so anyway. On June 29, in front of TV cameras, randomly selected boxes containing approximately 10% of the vote were opened and counted. The totals were approximately the same as the original count. The Council rejected the charge of fraud and confirmed his victory.
Khamenei actively sought to unify all sides of the dispute throughout the turmoil that followed the election. As July approached most of the key figures seemed to have reconciled their differences. Mousavi continued to claim fraud and insist on a second ballot.
In a decisive development June 28, no less an oppositionist than Rafsanjani declared his support for the supreme leader and stated: "The developments following the presidential vote were a complex conspiracy plotted by suspicious elements with the aim of creating a rift between the people and the Islamic establishment and causing them to lose their trust in the system. Such plots have always been neutralized whenever the people have entered the scene with vigilance."
The next day, June 29, the Expediency Council headed by Rafsanjani instructed the three defeated candidates to "observe the law and resolve conflicts and disputes through legal channels." All the principals, including Mousavi, agreed. From the beginning the government urged Mousavi to take the matter to the courts, not the streets, but he had refused.
This is as close as we can come to putting together the election story on the basis of what is known so far. There are many mysteries and inexplicable behaviors that are yet to be revealed.
—————————
6. DID WASHINGTON PLAY A ROLE?
There is no evidence that the United States played a direct role in the events following the Iranian election. The emphasis is upon "direct." We suspect President Obama was as surprised as President Ahmadinejad by the ferocity and size of the two weeks of post-election demonstrations in Tehran and other cities.
Obama's statement after the election that the U.S. is "not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," however, is untrue.
The protests were principally inspired by the belief that gross election irregularities caused Mousavi's defeat — a view that was originated and vigorously promoted by the defeated candidate himself from the moment he heard the verdict, after announcing to the world hours earlier that he had won. It's never been explained how he knew of his victory before all the polls closed. To our knowledge, Iran doesn't provide nationwide exit poll results throughout the voting day.
Disappointed and shocked supporters of the reform bloc took Mousavi at his word, and fought back until push turned into shove, and shove into tear gas, truncheons, and mass arrests.
We found it puzzling that in Farsi-speaking Iran so many of the signs we viewed on TV news were printed in English. We saw "Where's my vote?" all the time, as well as other signs and banners in a language we could read. A multitude of these signs began showing up the morning after the election and were clearly aimed at a foreign audience. We thought this strange.
It sure looked like an uprising for a brief while as the U.S. and British mass media took the international lead in fanning the flames they hoped would consume the "Holocaust-denier" and his "terrorist" accomplices.
Precisely why Mousavi decided to inspire the confrontations and keep them going as long as possible, especially when he didn't try to prove his case, is not yet known. Mousavi is not an American agent in mufti, though the CIA must wish he were.
Does this mean the U.S. has clean hands? Not by a long shot. Washington has been trying to arrange the overthrow of the Iranian government for many years. The constant anti-Iranian rhetoric emanating from the American political system and government leaders is just the visible part of a long-term destabilization program.
We won't begin at the beginning, having covered some of it earlier in this article, but will just concentrate on the last couple of years.
On June 25, as the Iranian protest demonstrations had just reached their peak, USA Today reported the following:
"The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.
"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to 'promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,' according to documents on the agency's website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30….
"Although the Obama administration has not sought to continue the Iran-specific grants in its 2010 budget, it wants a $15 million boost for the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims but does not specify the nations involved. Some of that money will be targeted at Iran, said David Carle, a spokesman for the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign affairs. Part of it is to expand access to information and communications through the Internet for Iranians," Carle said in an email….
"The State Department and USAID decline to name Iran-related grant recipients for security reasons. After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a major expansion of the program in 2006… Congress eventually approved $66 million…. 'As the Iranian regime cracks down on its people, I strongly believe that we should be prepared to extend our hand in help and support to any Iranian civil society group that reaches out for it,' [said] Sen. Joseph Lieberman."
Writing for Truthout June 30, Steve Weissman revealed: "Since 2006, the State Department alone spent more than $200 million on the effort [to generate decisive protests within Iran]. The money went to its in-house Iran bashers and 'democracy-promoters,' the Voice of America's (VOA) Farsi language broadcasts, Radio Free Europe's round-the-clock Radio Farda and the secretive National Endowment for Democracy, which funded several other groups. This $200 million came on top of the $400 million that Congress allocated in 2007 for regime change in Iran, some of which went for the CIA's state-supported terrorism inside Iranian borders."
On June 30, CounterPunch produced an article by Esam Al-Amin titled, Has the CIA Been Caught in Iran's Cookie Jar, Again?, reporting:
"After Bush’s second inauguration in January 2005, the National Security Council had an intense internal debate regarding Iran. The conflict did not center on whether there should be a regime change in Iran, but rather, whether to employ soft or hard power to achieve it. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated a series of escalating military strikes, while former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the use of soft power. Eventually, the president’s military advisors ended the debate when they cautioned Bush that with the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, engaging Iran militarily would be highly risky and draining for the U.S. armed forces.
"Between 2005-2009, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $400 million for State Department programs designed to 'promote democracy,' among other means of employing soft power in Iran. This was implemented, in part, by funding the activities of Iranian dissident groups. By 2008, Congress included money in the budget that would specifically 'go to software programmers to develop programs that thwart internet firewalls erected by the government of Iran,' and for a program to 'provide anti-censorship tools and services for the advancement of information freedom in closed societies.'
"The overt involvement of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other U.S. Government-funded NGOs in supporting many of the groups and dissidents that led the colored and flowering 'revolutions,' is also well documented. The Orange (Ukraine), Rose (Georgia), Tulip (Kyrgyzstan), Cedar (Lebanon), Saffron (Burma) and now Green (Iran) 'revolutions' have involved mostly pro-Western groups or Western-favored individuals against nationalists."
Two days after the June 12 election, Paul Craig Roberts put together for CounterPunch a compilation of brief reports about Washington's anti-Iran activities in recent years:
"On May 16, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a U.S. military attack on Iran would 'be a last option after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.'
"We are now witnessing in Tehran U.S. 'attempts to foment a popular revolution' in the guise of another CIA orchestrated 'color revolution.'
"It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were 'CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.' It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands….
"On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: 'The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert black operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell... ABC News."
"On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: 'Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs….
"On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: 'Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.'"
There's more about destructive U.S. interference in Iranian affairs but we'll stop here. Suffice to say that the recent Pentagon reports about Iranian support for the Taliban in Afghan and the armed resistance in Iraq are lies aimed at undermining Iran. Tehran despises the Sunni Taliban and supported Bush's Afghan invasion. And, to its discredit, as far as we are concerned, the Iranian government evidently advised Shia Iraqis not to resist the U.S. invaders, as we will mention again below.
7. IRAN, AMERICA, ISRAEL AND THE FUTURE
Before getting into this, and in the interests of "full disclosure," here's some clarity about where our analysis is coming from.
Given our own left political views, we are critical in principle of theocratic regimes and conservative cultural practices as now exist in Iran, and believe that Ahmadinejad has spoken unwisely on several occasions, particularly his comments about the Holocaust and some of his remarks about Israel. We deplore the 30-year repression of the left, and are unaware of any opposition to this practice from the reformers. Our political sympathies lean toward the remaining left, factional and weak as it is.
We supported the overthrow of the U.S.-installed monarchy by the broad forces that fought the revolution led by the Islamic movement headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, the removal of Iran from subordination to the United States, and the Tehran government's anti-imperialist policies. Many progressive Americans such as myself would prefer to see a number of social and political changes in Iran, but believe that Tehran's internal affairs are strictly a matter for the Iranian people to determine, certainly not the U.S. imperial superpower and its satellites. Our task in America is to correct our own country's faults and join in the defense of Iran's sovereignty and independence when it is threatened by our own government. Now back to the story:
Iran is not a military danger to America, Israel or any other country. In its modern history, Iran has experienced a long occupation by British colonialism, a political coup organized by U.S. imperialism, decades of painful sanctions, an invasion by neighboring Iraq, and Yankee subversion, but was not the aggressor.
Teheran's development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is legitimate and within the confines of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, with some 200 nuclear weapons — protected by America and its entire arsenal — claims Iran is an "existential threat." This is nonsense.
Tel Aviv insists Iran must be stopped by any means necessary from producing a nuclear weapons and delivery system, which it says will take five more years to produce. That possibly means yet another unjust war. The National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the 16 U.S. spy agencies reports Iran does not now have a nuclear weapons program. The new chief of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (who was supported for the post by the U.S.) said July 4 that he had no evidence Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Even if the Tehran government ever did produce a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, an intention it denies, it is well aware that preparing to initiate a nuclear attack would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant.
Iran has several enemies, not just the U.S. and Israel. Some Sunni Arab states within the U.S. orbit are distressed by the presence of a powerful Persian Shi'ite country in the region.
Semi-feudal Saudi Arabia, Washington's oldest satellite in the Middle East, was strongly hoping for the downfall of the Ahmadinejad regime. According to M. K. Bhadrakumar, mentioned earlier, "Riyadh's fond hopes of witnessing the Iranian regime debilitated by a protracted crisis have been dashed." He noted that "the state-controlled Saudi Arabian media launched unprecedented, vicious personal attacks on both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad."
On the other hand, Bhadrakumar wrote, "Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad [spy agency], let it be known that a win by Iranian opposition candidate Mousavi in the presidential election on June 12 would have spelled 'big problems' for Israel. He explained: 'The world, and we, already know Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived in the international arena as a moderate element."
A June 25 article in The New York Times under a Cairo dateline reported: " The rancorous dispute over Iran's presidential election could turn into a win-win for Arab leaders aligned with Washington who in the past have complained bitterly that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was destabilizing the region and meddling in Arab affairs, political analysts and former officials around the region said. The good-news thinking goes like this: With Mr. Ahmadinejad remaining in office, there is less chance of substantially improved relations between Tehran and Washington, something America's Arab allies feared would undermine their interests."
Much of this worry derives from the fact that Washington's unjust invasions of secular and Sunni Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Taliban-controlled Afghanistan have neutralized Iran's two enemy neighbors, providing Tehran some influence in now Shi'ite-controlled Baghdad.
Obviously, should both these strategically located oil-rich modern states with majority Shia populations bond closely over time they would represent an alliance that could disrupt America's geostrategic intention to extend its hegemony over the entire Persian Gulf region.
The June 24 Christian Science Monitor reported that as U.S. troops leave Iraq, Washington is urging Arab states within its orbit to draw closer to the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki, "a Shi'ite whom they have been reluctant to work with because of their perception he's close to Iran but who is, nevertheless, an Arab like them." The paper quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that "The embrace of Iraq by its fellow Gulf states will help contain the ambitions of Iran."
America's interest now is to restore the balance of power that existed during the rivalry between Iraq and Iran when Saddam Hussein's regime presided in Baghdad, only this time to make sure that the Iraqi regime is controlled by the United States from its colossal new fortress of an embassy in the Green Zone. Recalling the devastation of the 1980-88 war, Tehran justly fears a strong Iraq now dominated by Washington just across its long western border.
The Iranian government is also concerned about the possibility that the Obama Administration will make a deal in Afghanistan that would eventually allow the more "reasonable" wing of the fanatical Taliban to get back into power, reopening the old threat on its eastern border.
Most Americans are unaware that Iran provided help to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's main effort was in Iraq where, it is said, Tehran sought to convince the Shi'ite leadership to refrain from joining the national liberation struggle against the American invader. This has allowed the Pentagon, unable to actually defeat the Iraqi resistance, to settle for a stalemate rather than a probable defeat from combined Sunni-Shi'ite urban guerrilla warfare.
Iranian leaders correctly calculated that the invasion would eventually result in the Shi'ite majority finally assuming power in a country historically controlled by a Sunni minority. They also expected that in return for their help, the U.S. would not contest Iranian influence in the new Iraq. On this they were quite wrong.
The U.S. recognizes that a violent regime change is not possible in Iran. Washington evidently has not yet given up on bringing about a pro-U.S. government in Tehran through a "soft" power transition such as the "color" revolutions in countries situated in Russia's "near abroad" — but this, too, may not be viable.
At this point the Obama Administration seems to be settling for a two-track effort to make Tehran more amenable to Washington's diktat, or to increase Iran's isolation if it can't. One track is the New Beginning — less hostility, a little (probably too little) give in return for take, patient negotiations and, in extremis, maybe even an apology for 1953, but that might be going too far. The other track includes continued wooing of dissidents; discouraging other nations from befriending Iran (as Clinton seeks to do in Latin America); putting an off limits sign at the Iraq border; threatening to unleash Israel; and the piece de resistance, if it ever works — building a coalition of U.S. and Sunni Arab nations dedicated to keeping Iran "contained," and weakening it further if possible.
A Tehran preoccupied by internal political controversy that may linger a while may be perceived as an opportune moment for the U.S. to form an anti-Iran axis in the region. This could be one reason why Washington is becoming anxious to resolve the Palestinian conundrum, even if it must bulldoze the far-right Tel Aviv regime kicking and screaming to the conference table. An agreement for a Palestinian state — even if it takes forever to materialize in practice — could kick-start an anti-Iranian coalition possibly composed of such U.S. political dependencies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, possibly Kuwait and a few lesser Arab nations. And, because of a Palestinian "settlement" of sorts, a suddenly pristine Israel could be invited to join the coalition of the more-than-willing.
This is where President Ahmadinejad returns to the picture. Described as a vulgar bumpkin by the American mass media, the Iranian president is an intelligent, skilled and tough politician and national leader. He knows it may be more challenging to govern during his second term, and is familiar with the danger posed by the U.S. and the possibility of a hostile regional alliance.
Internally, Ahmadinejad has three options: 1. To sharply increase political repression and govern with an iron hand (this is what much of the Western media predicts will happen); 2. to carry on as during his first term; or 3. to make overtures and some concessions to the moderate reformers and the remaining Islamic left. What will he do?
We do not believe Ahmadinejad will select the first option — more repression. He could go for the second option — business as usual. But we think he will either select the third option — concessions — or more likely a combination of two and three. And we think Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will approve.
Externally, Ahmadinejad must be aware that under present political conditions Iran probably will be attacked the day it produces a deliverable nuclear weapon. Iran wants to establish that it has the right to construct nuclear power facilities. Given the fact that Israel is in major violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and harbors hundreds of nuclear weapons of its own, Iran probably feels it has a right to build a bomb as well.
But it may decide, as did Japan, to obtain the knowledge and wherewithal to weaponize through constructing a peaceful nuclear power apparatus as it is now doing, but not to produce weapons. This may in fact be Iran's intention. I could be wrong, but it would be a huge bargaining chip in negotiations, in return for which Tehran would deserve something just as big.
In terms of the U.S., the great majority of the Iranian people — conservative, moderate, and left — want their country to remain completely free of Washington's domination. They will unite and fight for it. At the same time, Iran will benefit a great deal by the removal of American sanctions. While keeping an eye out to prevent U.S. intervention in its affairs, it may be fruitful for the Tehran government to have improved interaction with Washington without conceding its anti-imperialist politics, support for Palestine, or the development of closer relations with Shia Iraq and left countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and others. At this stage it's as obvious as a mastodon on the front lawn that Uncle Sam will demand that Tehran stop aiding Hamas and Hezbollah, which could be the deal-breaker.
There are many pitfalls ahead for Iran as it prepares for either fruitful talks or a tense showdown with U.S.-Israel; it's a toss up which it will be, and we incline toward pessimism. The Obama Administration says it wants constructive talks and to resolve certain problems, so let's see. But all of this is for the future to decide, and for advocates of peace, national independence, and the equality of nations to watch carefully as it unfolds, and to act politically in defense of those three principles should they be violated, as they have been repeatedly by our country for many years.
Monday, July 6, 2009
ACTIVIST CALENDAR, July 6, 2009
ACTIVIST CALENDAR, July 6, 2009, Issue #148
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Current and back copies of the Activist Newsletter as well as the Activist Calendar are at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com. Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net.
———
Editor's Note: The Activist Newsletter will be emailed in a few days. The main article will be Iran: What's Really Going On? As usual, things are not always as they seem. We will try to answer these three questions: (1) Was the election rigged, as charged by the leading opposition candidate? (2) Did the U.S. play a role in the protests, seeking an outcome similar to the so-called color revolutions? (3) Is the coalition of religious and secular elites that has governed Iran since the 1979 revolution falling apart?
———
TAKE ACTION NOW against the right wing coup in Honduras.
Contact the White House and Congress to demand
that the United States end all military ties to Honduras!
Link to the following website to send your message:
http://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=249
The Honduran oligarchy, using military officers who received their training at the infamous School of the Americas, has ousted the democratically-elected progressive government of Manuel Zelaya. Yesterday, Zelaya was prevented from returning to Honduras to reclaim his rightful position. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators were waiting outside the airport for him to return. The authorities shot into the crowds, killing two.
It is inconceivable that this coup could have been undertaken without the support and encouragement of some sectors within the U.S. military and intelligence organizations. We demand that the U.S. cut all military ties with Honduras.
———
ACTIVIST EVENTS
Thursday, July 9 and 23, WOODSTOCK: The Middle East Crisis Response group of Hudson Valley residents opposed to Israeli and U.S. policies toward the Palestinians meets 7-8:30 p.m. at the Public Library, 5 Library Lane. All welcome. Information, (845) 876-7906, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Friday, July 10, NYACK: The documentary "Flow" will be shown at the Fellowship for Reconciliation, 521 N. Broadway from 7-9 p.m. Irena Salina's film investigates the one of the most important environmental and political issues of this century — the worldwide water crisis. Information, (845) 358-4601 ext. 32 . To view trailer and reviews http://www.flowthefilm.com.
Friday-Sunday, July 10-12, PITTSBURGH: The National Assembly to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations is holding a weekend national conference at La Roche College. Attendees will work toward building a larger and more activist peace movement. If you wish to attend or seek more information: http://www.natassembly.org/Home_Page.html.
Saturday, July 11, POUGHKEEPSIE: Documentary, "The Ground Truth: After the Killing Ends" will be screened at Friends Meeting House, 249 Hooker Ave. from 7-9 p.m. This film features American soldiers describing their experiences on the battlefields in Iraq, then afterward trying to adjust to civilian life at home. Discussion to follow. Film is rated 'R' for violent content and language. Sponsored by Dutchess Peace Coalition and Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting. Information, fred@acornfilm.com, http://www.dutchesspeace.org.
Saturday, July 11, WOODSTOCK: Free Palestine Vigil at 2 p.m. Meet at the Sunflower Natural Food parking lot at 75 Mill Hill Rd and march through town, ending up at the Village Green. Sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Saturday, July 11, 18, and 25, NEW PALTZ: Demonstration for single payer health care from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in front of the Stop 'n' Shop plaza, on Main St., for the next three Saturdays. Demand Congressional passage of HR 676, which calls for universal health care for all Americans. Sponsored by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of New Paltz. Information, Ruth Molloy (845) 256-0733. rmcfood61@live.com.
Sunday, July 12, TARRYTOWN: A Discussion on "Doing Justice in Our Own Homes." Speakers include members of Jews for Radical and Economic Justice and Domestic Workers United who will talk about their Shalom Bayit campaign. It's about getting around the divisions of race, gender, class and other issues for domestic workers and employers. Sponsored by Jews for Radical and Economic Justice. For location, information, or to RSVP, (917) 517-3627, cbell@igc.org.
Monday, July 13, ALBANY: A presentation entitled "Education as a Tool for Justice and Peace in the Middle East" will be given by Brother Jack Curran, Vice President for Development of Bethlehem University in the Holy Land, at the Albany Public Library. 161 Washington Ave. at 7 p.m.
Monday, July 13, WHITE PLAINS: People will arrive at 9 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse, 300 Quarropas St. in support of a suit against West Point officials for the violating First Amendment rights of eight protesters. Westchester County activists are seeking judgment against the Military Academy for forcing them to end "Out of Iraq" messaging at an annual Army-Navy basketball game and for preventing them from entering West Point for five years. Information, Don DeBar, dondebar@yahoo.com.
Monday, July 13, NEW YORK CITY: Rally for Mumia Abu-Jamal at the NAACP Anniversary Convention, at the Hilton Hotel, 1135 6th Ave. at W. 54th St. in Manhattan, noon-2:30 p.m., with an educational rally from 5-8 p.m. Speak out as Attorney General Eric Holder addresses the NAACP's 100th anniversary convention, calling for justice for one of America's best known political prisoners — an innocent man on death row for decades. Sponsored by International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition of NYC, Committee to Eliminate Media Offensive to African People, Millions for Mumia, Iglesia San Romeo de las Americas, Jericho Movement, and others. Information, (212) 330-8029, mateare@gmail.com, http://www.freemumia.com.
Tuesday, July 14, NEW YORK CITY: A roundtable report from Gaza and the West Bank will feature eyewitness accounts from members of delegations trying to break the blockade of Gaza — some successfully, some not. Invited speakers include Medea Benjamin (CodePink), Felice Gelman (NY delegation to Gaza, member WESPAC), Phil Weiss (journalist, Mondoweiss blog), Manijeh Saba (Iranian-American human rights activist), Daniel Strum (member of Adalah-NY). This event takes place 6-8:30 p.m. at the Brecht Forum, 451 West St. (between Bank & Bethune Sts.) The sponsors are Adalah-NY, CodePink, Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, Jews Against the Occupation, Jews Say No!, WESPAC Middle East Committee, UFPJ, and Women in Black. Information, (212) 242-4201, brechtforum@brechtforum.org and http://www.brechtforum.org.
Saturday, July 18, KINGSTON: Free Palestine Vigil at 2 p.m. Line up at the Ulster Plaza parking lot, in front of Barnes and Noble, 1177 Ulster Ave. Sponsored by the Middle East Crisis Response. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Saturday and Sunday, July 18-19 and July 25-26, NEW YORK CITY: Workshop: "Marxism: A Revolutionary Cure for Capitalism's Depression?" with Humberto Brown, Vivek Chibber, Harriet Fraad, Harmony Goldberg, Lisa Maya Knauer, Peter Marcuse, Liz Mestres, Wasir Mohammed, Manny Ness, Cleo Silvers, Bill Tabb, Lincoln Van Sluytman, Rick Wolff, and others, at Brecht Forum, 451 West St, between Bank and Bethune. Cost is $ 75-95 whole workshop or $45 for one weekend. For info call (212) 242-4201, brechtforum@brechtforum.org.
Thursday, July 30, WASHINGTON, DC: Rally and lobby for single-payer healthcare, HR 676, on the 44th anniversary of Medicare." Meet at 1 p.m. in the Upper Senate Park, Constitution and Delaware Aves. NW. Later in the day, lobby Congress to pass universal health care, or "Medicare for all." People are arriving from many cities and towns. Sponsors: Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, Healthcare-NOW. For transportation from the Hudson Valley, contact, email nickmottern@earthlink.net. If there are sufficient numbers, the group Hudson Valley Action will try to arrange bus transport or assist in car pooling. Information (800) 435-1305, info@healthcare-now.org, http://www.healthcare-now.org.
Saturday and Sunday, Aug. 15 and 16, WOODSTOCK: Forum: "Building a Peaceful, Just and Sustainable Economy. Speakers include Diane Wilson, Jeremy Scahill, Joel Kovel, Simon Harak, Robert Pollin, Jeff Cohen, Mary Beth Sullivan, Peter Woodruff, Ariel Schanberg, Finlay Schaef, Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis and Janine Vega. Saturday 9:30 a.m.-9:30 p.m. at Town Hall, on Tinker St. Sunday at the Colony Cafe 10 a.m.- 4 p.m. "On the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock festival, help shape the future economy to enhance local jobs in a peaceful and sustainable way. Whereas Woodstock is known for "peace and love," the town's largest employer is a military contractor." Sponsored by Woodstock Peace Economy. Donations requested. Information http://woodstockpeaceeconomy.org.
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Current and back copies of the Activist Newsletter as well as the Activist Calendar are at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com. Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net.
———
Editor's Note: The Activist Newsletter will be emailed in a few days. The main article will be Iran: What's Really Going On? As usual, things are not always as they seem. We will try to answer these three questions: (1) Was the election rigged, as charged by the leading opposition candidate? (2) Did the U.S. play a role in the protests, seeking an outcome similar to the so-called color revolutions? (3) Is the coalition of religious and secular elites that has governed Iran since the 1979 revolution falling apart?
———
TAKE ACTION NOW against the right wing coup in Honduras.
Contact the White House and Congress to demand
that the United States end all military ties to Honduras!
Link to the following website to send your message:
http://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=249
The Honduran oligarchy, using military officers who received their training at the infamous School of the Americas, has ousted the democratically-elected progressive government of Manuel Zelaya. Yesterday, Zelaya was prevented from returning to Honduras to reclaim his rightful position. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators were waiting outside the airport for him to return. The authorities shot into the crowds, killing two.
It is inconceivable that this coup could have been undertaken without the support and encouragement of some sectors within the U.S. military and intelligence organizations. We demand that the U.S. cut all military ties with Honduras.
———
ACTIVIST EVENTS
Thursday, July 9 and 23, WOODSTOCK: The Middle East Crisis Response group of Hudson Valley residents opposed to Israeli and U.S. policies toward the Palestinians meets 7-8:30 p.m. at the Public Library, 5 Library Lane. All welcome. Information, (845) 876-7906, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Friday, July 10, NYACK: The documentary "Flow" will be shown at the Fellowship for Reconciliation, 521 N. Broadway from 7-9 p.m. Irena Salina's film investigates the one of the most important environmental and political issues of this century — the worldwide water crisis. Information, (845) 358-4601 ext. 32 . To view trailer and reviews http://www.flowthefilm.com.
Friday-Sunday, July 10-12, PITTSBURGH: The National Assembly to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations is holding a weekend national conference at La Roche College. Attendees will work toward building a larger and more activist peace movement. If you wish to attend or seek more information: http://www.natassembly.org/Home_Page.html.
Saturday, July 11, POUGHKEEPSIE: Documentary, "The Ground Truth: After the Killing Ends" will be screened at Friends Meeting House, 249 Hooker Ave. from 7-9 p.m. This film features American soldiers describing their experiences on the battlefields in Iraq, then afterward trying to adjust to civilian life at home. Discussion to follow. Film is rated 'R' for violent content and language. Sponsored by Dutchess Peace Coalition and Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting. Information, fred@acornfilm.com, http://www.dutchesspeace.org.
Saturday, July 11, WOODSTOCK: Free Palestine Vigil at 2 p.m. Meet at the Sunflower Natural Food parking lot at 75 Mill Hill Rd and march through town, ending up at the Village Green. Sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Saturday, July 11, 18, and 25, NEW PALTZ: Demonstration for single payer health care from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in front of the Stop 'n' Shop plaza, on Main St., for the next three Saturdays. Demand Congressional passage of HR 676, which calls for universal health care for all Americans. Sponsored by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of New Paltz. Information, Ruth Molloy (845) 256-0733. rmcfood61@live.com.
Sunday, July 12, TARRYTOWN: A Discussion on "Doing Justice in Our Own Homes." Speakers include members of Jews for Radical and Economic Justice and Domestic Workers United who will talk about their Shalom Bayit campaign. It's about getting around the divisions of race, gender, class and other issues for domestic workers and employers. Sponsored by Jews for Radical and Economic Justice. For location, information, or to RSVP, (917) 517-3627, cbell@igc.org.
Monday, July 13, ALBANY: A presentation entitled "Education as a Tool for Justice and Peace in the Middle East" will be given by Brother Jack Curran, Vice President for Development of Bethlehem University in the Holy Land, at the Albany Public Library. 161 Washington Ave. at 7 p.m.
Monday, July 13, WHITE PLAINS: People will arrive at 9 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse, 300 Quarropas St. in support of a suit against West Point officials for the violating First Amendment rights of eight protesters. Westchester County activists are seeking judgment against the Military Academy for forcing them to end "Out of Iraq" messaging at an annual Army-Navy basketball game and for preventing them from entering West Point for five years. Information, Don DeBar, dondebar@yahoo.com.
Monday, July 13, NEW YORK CITY: Rally for Mumia Abu-Jamal at the NAACP Anniversary Convention, at the Hilton Hotel, 1135 6th Ave. at W. 54th St. in Manhattan, noon-2:30 p.m., with an educational rally from 5-8 p.m. Speak out as Attorney General Eric Holder addresses the NAACP's 100th anniversary convention, calling for justice for one of America's best known political prisoners — an innocent man on death row for decades. Sponsored by International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition of NYC, Committee to Eliminate Media Offensive to African People, Millions for Mumia, Iglesia San Romeo de las Americas, Jericho Movement, and others. Information, (212) 330-8029, mateare@gmail.com, http://www.freemumia.com.
Tuesday, July 14, NEW YORK CITY: A roundtable report from Gaza and the West Bank will feature eyewitness accounts from members of delegations trying to break the blockade of Gaza — some successfully, some not. Invited speakers include Medea Benjamin (CodePink), Felice Gelman (NY delegation to Gaza, member WESPAC), Phil Weiss (journalist, Mondoweiss blog), Manijeh Saba (Iranian-American human rights activist), Daniel Strum (member of Adalah-NY). This event takes place 6-8:30 p.m. at the Brecht Forum, 451 West St. (between Bank & Bethune Sts.) The sponsors are Adalah-NY, CodePink, Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, Jews Against the Occupation, Jews Say No!, WESPAC Middle East Committee, UFPJ, and Women in Black. Information, (212) 242-4201, brechtforum@brechtforum.org and http://www.brechtforum.org.
Saturday, July 18, KINGSTON: Free Palestine Vigil at 2 p.m. Line up at the Ulster Plaza parking lot, in front of Barnes and Noble, 1177 Ulster Ave. Sponsored by the Middle East Crisis Response. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org, http://www.mideastcrisis.org.
Saturday and Sunday, July 18-19 and July 25-26, NEW YORK CITY: Workshop: "Marxism: A Revolutionary Cure for Capitalism's Depression?" with Humberto Brown, Vivek Chibber, Harriet Fraad, Harmony Goldberg, Lisa Maya Knauer, Peter Marcuse, Liz Mestres, Wasir Mohammed, Manny Ness, Cleo Silvers, Bill Tabb, Lincoln Van Sluytman, Rick Wolff, and others, at Brecht Forum, 451 West St, between Bank and Bethune. Cost is $ 75-95 whole workshop or $45 for one weekend. For info call (212) 242-4201, brechtforum@brechtforum.org.
Thursday, July 30, WASHINGTON, DC: Rally and lobby for single-payer healthcare, HR 676, on the 44th anniversary of Medicare." Meet at 1 p.m. in the Upper Senate Park, Constitution and Delaware Aves. NW. Later in the day, lobby Congress to pass universal health care, or "Medicare for all." People are arriving from many cities and towns. Sponsors: Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, Healthcare-NOW. For transportation from the Hudson Valley, contact, email nickmottern@earthlink.net. If there are sufficient numbers, the group Hudson Valley Action will try to arrange bus transport or assist in car pooling. Information (800) 435-1305, info@healthcare-now.org, http://www.healthcare-now.org.
Saturday and Sunday, Aug. 15 and 16, WOODSTOCK: Forum: "Building a Peaceful, Just and Sustainable Economy. Speakers include Diane Wilson, Jeremy Scahill, Joel Kovel, Simon Harak, Robert Pollin, Jeff Cohen, Mary Beth Sullivan, Peter Woodruff, Ariel Schanberg, Finlay Schaef, Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis and Janine Vega. Saturday 9:30 a.m.-9:30 p.m. at Town Hall, on Tinker St. Sunday at the Colony Cafe 10 a.m.- 4 p.m. "On the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock festival, help shape the future economy to enhance local jobs in a peaceful and sustainable way. Whereas Woodstock is known for "peace and love," the town's largest employer is a military contractor." Sponsored by Woodstock Peace Economy. Donations requested. Information http://woodstockpeaceeconomy.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)