Month: December 2004

There are approximately 3 million Kurds living in Iraq. 1.7 million of them have signed a petition requesting independence, which was handed to the UN Wednesday, December 22.

A Referendum Movement in Kurdistan spokesman says a delegation from their organisation has travelled to the United Nations headquarters in New York to hand over the petition.

“The signatures were collected in towns across Iraqi Kurdistan,” spokesman Karwan Abdullah said.

The movement’s campaign is not supported by Iraq’s two main Kurdish former rebel groups – the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan – which have long limited their demands to autonomy within a federal constitution for fear of offending Iraq’s powerful neighbours.

The independence campaigners charge that the two factions, which ran three northern provinces in defiance of Saddam Hussein before last year’s US-led invasion, are unrepresentative and that most Iraqi Kurds want to break away.

Since early October, they have organised a series of rallies in Kurdish cities in a bid to prove their support.

Emphasis mine.

Yesterday the Israelis adopted measures to “facilitate” the Palestinian elections. One might wonder how arresting Mustafa Barghouti fits the Israeli definition of election facilitation. Maybe they mean that they’re facilitating the election of a specific candidate? At least they haven’t beaten Barghouti up again. Yet.

(see 10 for introduction)
1 next

In his 108th Capital Times column of the year, Associate Editor John Nichols pays homage to Jack Newfield and advocacy journalism. It appears that Nichols’ promotion of Russ Feingold is modeled on Newfield’s of Bobby Kennedy. Newfield was a “great fighter for civil liberties and human rights” who, sad to say, couldn’t tolerate criticism of Israel. He was “troubled by Dean’s recent suggestion that America ‘shouldn’t take sides’ between Palestinian terrorists and Israel…it suggested an amateurish foreign policy and insensitivity” (Newsday, Sept. 17, 2003).

The Newfield/Nichols credo is that only “lazy” journalists strive to be “fair and balanced.” Newfield “saw a world of heroes and villians” and realized that “the search for truth led, ultimately, to the point where the journalist had to take a side.” The goal is to “produce the rarest of all commodities: truth, and sometimes justice.”

That’s the ideal, for the reality consider the Capital Times’ stance when a proposal to sanction the Madison-Rafah Sister City Project was before the city council this summer. Obviously, Nichols avoided the subject in his column or there wouldn’t be a countdown. There was, however, a series of editorials.

The first suggests the proposal be expanded (i.e., balanced), to include an Israeli city as well. In the process it criticizes the tactics of Madison Jewish Coummunity Council director Steve Morrison.

The second calls for compromise in the battle between Morrison, who calls Rafah “a hotbed of terrorist activity against Israel and anti-Semitism” and the projects’ supporters, who want Madison “to show solidarity with Palestinians.”

The third, on the day of the vote, criticizes and praises both sides while enjoining the council to “tinker with the proposal” in order to find common ground.

The fourth praises both sides, notes that, while the proposal got a majority of the votes cast, it lost, and criticizes the mayor for not having tried to mediate.

Two weeks before the council vote, the International Court of Justice, speaking with upmost clarity, ruled 14-1 that Israel’s separation wall is illegal. Even the dissenting U.S. judge agreed that its “settlements in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.” The Capital Times didn’t mention the ICJ decision any more than it “took a side” on the proposal that was voted on by the Madison City Council.

A real eye-opener were letters to the editor from two pillars of the Madison arts scene. Both Sidran and Kadushin praise the Jewish Community Council for its dedication to local social justice, never mind how it carries out its mission “to affirm, support and strengthen our relationship with…the State of Israel.” Kadushin takes pride in the angst of some of the Rafah opponents, and then notes something “especially ironic”–right before the vote it was announced that the Goodman brothers had donated millions for a “public pool designed for the underprivileged.” Obliviously, he introduces real irony–a central point of Israel’s colonialism is to exert control over scarce water resources, the settlements’ swimming pools are a primary symbol of the occupation’s grotesqueness.

Israel’s occupation is fundamentally illegal and immoral, yet U.S. support for Israel is “immutable.” Thus, as Russ Feingold said on the senate floor in another context, “our power to lead, to persuade, and to inspire” is “squandered.” “This power will not convert the extremists…But it can thwart their plans by denying them new recruits…”

Ray McGovern may think it doesn’t take special courage “to tell it like it is,” but he’s not in John Nichols’ shoes. John doesn’t write a column and then move on to the next locale for the next gig, he stays put. Not only does he risk being called a name and losing circulation, he faces the decidedly unpleasant prospect of firmly and repeatedly telling proud and esteemed fellow “progressives” that there is a fundamental right and wrong; despite Palestinians’ acts of terrorism, they are fundamentally in the right; despite the Holocaust and Jews’ civil rights activism, Jewish state power in Israel backed by Jewish (and other) institutional power in the U.S. is fundamentally in the wrong; and finally, the longer the wrong is not righted, the likelier we will keep seeing our resources squandered and our freedoms curtailed in an endless “war on terror.”

If John’s not up to the task, it’s understandable, but then he should ease up on the “truth” and “justice.” And have the decency to see his streak through to the end, not mention “Israel” this year. That’s 108 columns down, two to go.

BBC reports: BBC News spoke to Dr Saleh Hussein Isawi, the acting director of the Falluja general hospital, who accompanied some of the refugees into the city.

I was there, inside the city – about 60% to 70% of the homes and buildings are completely crushed and damaged, and not ready to inhabit at the moment.

Of the 30% still left standing, I don’t think there is a single one that has not been exposed to some damage.

One of my colleagues… went to see his home, and saw that it is almost completely collapsed and everything is burnt inside.

When he went to his neighbours’ home, he found a relative of his was dead and a dog had eaten the meat off him.

I think we will see many things like this, because the US forces have cleared the dead people from the streets, but not from inside the homes.

Link via Jews sans frontieres

From Left I on the News:

In Iraq, less than a thousand residents of Fallujah have returned in two days; an estimated 200,000 had fled. Sure, they’ll be ready for elections on January 30…2006. Of course that would be assuming that any of the returnees actually stay, which seems unlikely given the lack of water, electricity…or houses.

Ansar Al-Sunna has posted a video of the attack on the US base FOB Marez in Mosul. Astonishingly, they filmed the actual explosion, then drove around the base in order to get a good shot of the gaping hole in the tent. They introduce the tape with a segment in which an Ansar al-Sunna fighter uses a map of the base to show how the attack was accomplished. The bomber is shown receiving farewell hugs before departing on his mission.

UPDATE: CBS has posted translation of some of the dialogue on the video:

In the new video, which carried a Dec. 20 date on the footage, three guerrillas clad in black, wearing face masks and carrying AK-47 automatic rifles describe their plans.

One of the men read a statement saying another of the three identified as Abu Omar al-Musali would carry the attack by breaking into the base through the perimeter fence. The man reading the statement later embraced the bomber, who was wearing an explosives-laden vest

“He will take advantage of the change of guards. We have been observing their schedule for a long time. This lion will then proceed to his target and we will take advantage of lunch time. He will storm the dining room where the crusaders and their (Iraqi) allies are gathered,” said the man.
[…]
The man reading the statement indicated with a rifle bayonet to a hand drawn map of the base. He also addressed a warning to President Bush, and prime ministers Tony Blair and Ayad Allawi of Britain and Iraq.

“Let Bush, Blair and Allawi know that we are coming and that we will chase them all away, God willing,” the masked man said.

I received some comments on “The Economics of Oil.” T. Gillin wrote:

There is another dimension to the peak oil debate, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned. Whether or not “peak oil” or more “price elastic” views of the oil supply situation is “right” or “wrong,” there is also the issue as to divining what the U.S. national security managers think the real situation actually is.

There doesn’t seem to be much publicly available material around to help us figure this out. Most commentators seem to be just guessing what they think is in Pentagon heads. Even former “insiders” like Karen Kwiatowski don’t seem to offer any insights here.

There is just no guarantee that national security managers will be operating within a realistic energy economics paradigm. History is rife with wars being pursued based on flawed economic advice. Look at the dubious attractions of the much-fought-over China market. Most of the foreign combatants always did more trade with each other than they ever managed to wangle from the Middle Kingdom.

I suspect that in a field where opinions are radically divided between the experts as to what the realistic energy economics paradigm actually is, responsible national security planners would probably choose the worst case scenario. So maybe peak oil theory, whether it is true or not, is behind Pentagon strategy after all.

It is possible that the neo-cons (despite the alleged faith in free markets) are drinking from the same well as the greens (who more or less reject any kind of market-based economic thinking as a matter of principle). It is a reasonable hypothesis to assume that the neo-con “faith” in free markets is superficial, especially when you consider their “Cold War liberal” roots. This faction has definite social democratic and interventionist heritage. So maybe the neocon “faith” in markets is similar to the proverbial Sunday morning Christian, loudly proclaiming his faith in Church but forgotten Monday to Friday.

Donald Losman has pointed out that well before the current Iraq war the U.S. was spending more on “defending” Persian Gulf oil than they were worth to the US at least when you count the cost of what the U.S. actually imports from the region. The same Donald Losman has pointed out that previous National Security Strategies, before the current pre-emptive war doctrine, i.e. those issued during the Clinton era, explicitly added “economic goals” like energy security to the Pentagon’s mission statement.

It is possible that what Losman is reporting here is an unpublicized revival of mercantilism by the U.S. Government, alternately we may be seeing the “military industrial complex” trying to find a new post-cold war justification. This may even turn classical theories of imperialism on their head. Instead of economic demands driving military imperialism, the imperialists are looking for economic sponsor to justify their expenditure levels.

I am old enough to recall that back in the 1970s OPEC oil crisis (which Losman has pointed out barely impacted the U.S. GDP — see pdf file here) even as ardent a defender of free trade as Milton Friedman was prepared to recommend a temporary tariff on OPEC-sourced oil imports as a means of discouraging dependence. Regardless of the validity of peak oil versus price elastic theories, a targeted tariff can be justified on strategic grounds. This would seem to me to be a fairly elegant response to the current situation, yet few seem willing to revive it.

Sam Koritz: I agree that bogus beliefs about oil economics – among other things! – influence foreign policy (see the 2nd half of “The New Energy ‘Crisis’ and Iraq“). My view is that all sorts of nonsensical ideas, some sincerely believed and some not, are used to justify government aggression. The natural tendency of those with power is to weaken restraints on that power. Leaders are often willing to sacrifice personal wealth or popularity to this end but, as Robert Higgs points out in “The Iraq War – A Catastrophic Success,” many of the initiators of this war have personally benefited from it. The active, ongoing limitation of executive power-grabbing is central to the successful functioning of political systems. (See “Common Denominator” by Nicholas Thompson about the judiary’s role – then see Simon Jenkins’ “I never thought I’d say this, but thank you to the Lords, the Libs and the law” for an example.) I don’t see how an oil tariff would help. Continue reading “Economics of Oil, Part 2”