We Won't Be Fighting for Freedom in Iraq
By Robert Jensen, Dissident Voice, January 2, 2003
The Defense Department's "Defend America" Web site reads, "Dear member of the U.S. military: Thank you for defending our freedom." Fill in your name and hometown and click to join the more than 2 million who have sent the message. The sentiment seems hard to argue with. No matter what one thinks of the coming war against Iraq, can't we all send such a message to those who serve? Not if we want to be honest about U.S. war plans, for those troops won't be defending our freedom but defending America's control over the strategically crucial energy resources of the Middle East. They will be in the service of the empire, fighting a war for the power and profits of the few, not freedom for the many. To some, that statement may seem disrespectful. But resistance to the coming war against Iraq doesn't signal a lack of respect for those who do the fighting. I never have served in the military, but my family and friends have, and I have empathy for people on the front lines who face the risks. If I truly am to respect them – as human beings and as fellow citizens – I should be willing to state clearly my objections to this war.

Human Rights Week 2002
By Noam Chomsky, Dissident Voice, December 30, 2002
Human Rights Week is not much of an occasion in the US, with some notable qualifications. But it does receive considerable attention elsewhere. For me personally, Human Rights Week 2002 was memorable and poignant. The week opened on the eve of Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, where thousands of people gathered to celebrate -- though that may not be quite the right word -- the tenth anniversary of the Kurdish Human Rights Project KHRP, which has done outstanding work on some of the most serious human rights issues of the decade: particularly, but not only, the US-backed terrorist campaigns of the Turkish state that rank among the most terrible crimes of the grisly 1990s, leaving tens of thousands dead and millions driven from the devastated countryside, with every imaginable form of barbaric torture. The week ended for me in Diyarbakir in southeastern Turkey, the semi-official capital of the Kurdish region, teeming with refugees living in squalor, barred from returning to what is left of their villages, even though new legislation theoretically allows that choice.

The rot starts at the top
By Doron Rosenblum, Ha'aretz, January 5, 2003
In the stand-up comedy act from hell that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been staging for two years, the "Naomi Blumenthal shtick" will be remembered as one of the show's classic acts. It will stand beside the "prepare the underground shelters spin," "the Lybian threat piece," the "I don't know, ask my son" prank, as well as the one-liner "Iraqi-Syrian axis," and the so-called "scolding of the central bank governor." The frozen skull smile that doesn't budge off the face of the fired functionary provides an apt illustration for this comic part, which culminates in the "integrity sermon" - that fiery speech in praise of truth, integrity and honesty in public figures that Sharon gave as he fired the deputy minister. Had it not been accompanied by those unmistakable signs of ticks and nose-twitchings - hinting that the comedian himself is having difficulty controling his facial expressions and not bursting into laughter - this speech might have been taken seriously. One way or the other, it can be compared to another classic comedy shtick - the address of Richard Nixon on his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate in 1968: "Let's begin with committing to the truth; to see things as they are, and say them as they are, to find the truth, to say the truth and to live the truth. And that's what we'll do."

The Bush Vision and the Culture of Power
By Saul Landau, January 4, 2003
"Why do they hate us?" George W. Bush asked. I waited for his answer as did millions of others after the 9/11 events. We had lost our collective virginity when we had to acknowledge that some serious characters did not have our best interests at heart. As Bush spoke I conjured up the image of they with the help of the cartoonists who had provided me with stereotyped fierce-looking Arabs, wielding curved swords, heads wrapped in kefiyahs and screaming anti-American curses. W went on to say that they hate Americans because we re free, referring, I presumed, to the great institutions our founding fathers left us. He implied that the mass murdering fanatics of Al Qaeda loved a non-free system. So, to show them a thing or two, he advised us to fly somewhere for vacation, like Disneyland, and shop; in other words, practicing the American way of life would make us feel better and help the economy to boot; imagine, going to Disneyland as a veritable act of patriotism. And while he assured us of our safety, Attorney General Ashcroft and Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge, periodically warned us about the imminent threat of another terrorist assault. Well, one learns to live with contradictions, but where, I ask myself, does George W. Bush intend to lead us?

Open letter to the rejectionists
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line,  2 - 8 January 2003
A call for an extensive inter-Arab debate along the lines of the Egyptian-sponsored Palestinian reconciliation talks -- In 1947, when the sharp East-West polarisation that came to be known as the Cold War was just beginning to take shape, Stalin came forward with an apparently strange theory. He identified the Soviet Union's main enemy not as the United States, but as the British Labour Party and its leader, Britain's then prime minister, Clement Attlee. The underlying logic of Stalin's theory was the same as the one that had led Lenin, just before the Bolshevic Revolution, to focus the main thrust of his attacks not against the Tsar but against the Cadet Party, the party of the Russian Liberal bourgeoisie. The logic in both cases was that these apparently less offensive parties, the Cadets in 1917 and the British Labour Party, a typical representative Social-Democracy, in 1947, were better equipped than any other anti- communist forces to attract the masses. As such, they represented the main obstacle in the way of a communist victory, and only by removing that obstacle would the communists succeed in isolating the capitalist enemy and paving the way for its downfall.

In search of the epic
By Sharif Elmusa, Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line,  2 - 8 January 2003
Gilgamesh as Bush, Humbaba as Saddam. Finding new roles for old foes -- Discourse in the US on Iraq, at a time when Washington is readying its forces for what could culminate in an invasion of that country, bears an uncanny resemblance to the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh. In the epic Gilgamesh, king of the city of Uruk, wants to log timber from the cedar forest in Lebanon to build a city gate and other structures that will guarantee him immortality. Gilgamesh was an arbitrary ruler. The gods arranged a companion for him, Enkidu, to guide him to the forest. Enkidu, a "primitive" creature, is seduced by a harlot who introduces him to the basics of civilisation -- bread, beer and clothing. After losing a wrestling match to Gilgamesh he submits to the king's authority and they become companions. They venture into the forest where they face off with fearsome Humbaba, guardian of the forest. They behead him, fell the cedars and carry their prizes back. Subsequently Enkidu dies. Gilgamesh mourns him deeply, goes primitive for a while and eventually becomes wiser, accepting both the death of his companion and his own mortality. If a clear comparison cannot be made between this ambiguous tale and the current US-Iraq crisis the cast of characters, the struggle for control of resources, the representation of the conflict as one between civilisation and darkness, the impulsiveness that comes with power, all invite reflection and remind us about how little progress has been made in restraining aggressive human drives.

After Mombassa
By Diaa Rashwan, Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line,  2 - 8 January 2003
Al-Qa'eda's recent attacks in Kenya appear set to propel the organisation into a head on confrontation with Israel --  The attacks in Mombassa, Kenya against Israeli targets may prove to be a turning point for Al-Qa'eda. As the United States continues its so-called war against terror, the Islamist network lead by Osama Bin Laden is undergoing a transformation in terms of focus and tactics. Understanding this metamorphosis requires a closer look at the various levels at which Al-Qa'eda operates. First, there is the organisation itself. Strictly speaking, Al-Qa'eda should be referred to as Qa'edat Al-Jihad (the base for Jihad). This is the name the group assumed in April 2002, apparently as a result of the merger of the overseas branch of Egypt's Al-Jihad group, led by Ayman El-Zawahri, with the groups Bin Laden brought under his control after his return to Afghanistan in the mid 1990s. This coalescence was preceded by a grouping that brought together the two sides and other Islamist groups from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The coalition, declared on February 1998, was called the Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. It was this group that is thought to have mounted the bombing attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998.

 

Articles Archives