Blinded by belligerence
By Conn Hallinan, Baltimore Sun, January 31, 2003
THERE WERE no surprises in President Bush's address to Congress, except maybe the suggestion that within a month our country will be at war. The State of the Union is less a blueprint for the future than a series of metaphors and symbols, be they words like "resolve" or the empty chair in the president's box representing the dead of Sept. 11. Sitting in that box was a firefighter hero from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, as well as an Afghanistan veteran. But absence can be a powerful symbol as well, and there were numerous metaphorical blank spots in the seats that surrounded Mr. Bush's family. There were not many allies in that box: no France, no Germany, no Canada, no Russia, no China. There were no representatives of the 160,000 veterans suffering from "gulf war syndrome." There were none of the 13 million Iraqi children that, according to Eric Hoskins, leader of the Independent Study Team, "are at a grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma." The team is in Iraq examining the possible impact of war.

Confronting Empire
By Arundhati Roy, ZNet, January 28, 2003
Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness — and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe. -- I’ve been asked to speak about "How to confront Empire?" It’s a huge question, and I have no easy answers. When we speak of confronting "Empire," we need to identify what "Empire" means. Does it mean the U.S. Government (and its European satellites), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and multinational corporations? Or is it something more than that? In many countries, Empire has sprouted other subsidiary heads, some dangerous byproducts — nationalism, religious bigotry, fascism and, of course terrorism. All these march arm in arm with the project of corporate globalization. Let me illustrate what I mean. India — the world’s biggest democracy — is currently at the forefront of the corporate globalization project. Its "market" of one billion people is being prized open by the WTO. Corporatization and Privatization are being welcomed by the Government and the Indian elite. It is not a coincidence that the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Disinvestment Minister — the men who signed the deal with Enron in India, the men who are selling the country’s infrastructure to corporate multinationals, the men who want to privatize water, electricity, oil, coal, steel, health, education and telecommunication — are all members or admirers of the RSS. The RSS is a right wing, ultra-nationalist Hindu guild which has openly admired Hitler and his methods. The dismantling of democracy is proceeding with the speed and efficiency of a Structural Adjustment Program. While the project of corporate globalization rips through people’s lives in India, massive privatization, and labor "reforms" are pushing people off their land and out of their jobs. Hundreds of impoverished farmers are committing suicide by consuming pesticide. Reports of starvation deaths are coming in from all over the country.

A disaster waiting to happen
By Gil Loescher, The Observer, February 2, 2003
Planning for the refugee crisis which would follow an attack on Iraq is woefully inadequate, argues a leading refugee policy expert.  --  The pitiful sight of many thousands of Iraqi refugees moving into the mountains on the Turkish border after the 1991 Gulf war touched prime ministers and presidents worldwide. The policy of safe havens was born. But planning for any new refugee crisis is woefully inadequate. There has been little public discussion about the possibility of a mass exodus of Iraqi refugees as a consequence of a US-led attack against Iraq. Nor has much onsideration been given to the implications of a refugee crisis on the security and stability of Iraq's immediate neighbours. Yet, as past humanitarian emergencies clearly demonstrate, early planning is essential for the uncertainties of military action. Perhaps the most alarming feature of present contingency planning is the almost total lack of coordination between the US government and military, the UN agencies, and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The military has been unwilling to discuss its contingency plans or assumptions for fear of revealing its war strategy. Consequently, NGOs are left in a void, unable to know what other major actors are planning and prevented from making adequate plans because of government restrictions on their activities in Iraq and Iran.

Saudi bashing: Who’s behind it and why?
By Delinda C. Hanley, Arab News, February 2, 2003
Public criticism of Saudi Arabia in the mainstream American media has escalated to new heights in recent months. When newscasters and columnists have exhausted their accusations that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein has amassed weapons of mass destruction that could be used to harm Israel or supported terror, they revert to tirades against the Saudi monarchy. Why the relentless attacks? And who benefits from a US media campaign vilifying Saudi Arabia along with Iraq?....This tried-and-true strategy already has been used most effectively to isolate and demonize Iraq, Iran, Libya, and even a fledgling Palestinian state. Perhaps it is no coincidence that all are considered enemies by one country — Israel. When Israel feels threatened by a rival nation’s real or potential military arsenal, it is usually successful in convincing Washington that the country in question is evil, harms its own people, and is a breeding ground for terrorists. Then, presto! Sanctions, leading to economic hardship and political ignominy soon are imposed on the Israel-offending state.

Litmus Test: Turkey's Neo-Islamists Weigh War and Peace
By Koray Caliskan and Yuksel Taskin, CafeArabica, January 30, 2003
Hours before chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix briefed the UN Security Council on January 27, Turkey's deputy prime minister protested that the Bush administration would proceed toward military confrontation regardless of Blix's findings. "You'll declare war against an Iraq...that has taken out its white flag," said Ertugrul Yalcinbayir. "Why are you going to make a war like this against someone who has surrendered?" The same day, Prime Minister Abdullah Gul confirmed reports that Turkey is negotiating for over $4 billion in US aid in the event of war. Gul, titular leader of the neo-Islamist Justice and Development Party that swept into office in November 2002, has consistently claimed that Turkey will not support military action against Iraq without a Security Council resolution. In mid-January, Gul embarked on a Middle East tour in search of a peaceful solution to the Iraq stalemate and dispatched his State Minister Kursat Tuzmen with 350 Turkish businessmen to Baghdad to improve trade relations. His government also helped organize a meeting in Istanbul of the Turkish, Iranian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi and Syrian foreign ministers, presumably to explore ways of averting war. Turkey's refusal to host 80,000 US troops, as the Pentagon requested, may have forced a postponement of US war plans.

The Other Face of Fanaticism
By Pankaj Mishra, New York Times Sunday Magazine, February 2, 2003
In an article in the prestigious monthly Seminar, Ashis Nandy, India's leading social scientist, lamented that the ''state's political soul has been won over by [Gandhi's] killers.'' This seems truer after Hindu nationalists implicated in India's worst pogrom won state elections held in Gujarat in December -- a fact that Praful Bidwai, a widely syndicated Indian columnist, described to me as ''profoundly shameful and disturbing.''....Now, more than half a century later, many Indians feel that the R.S.S. has never been closer to fulfilling its dream. Its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party, B.J.P.), the most important among the ''Sangh Parivar'' -- the ''family'' of various Hindu nationalist groups supervised by the R.S.S. -- has dominated the coalition government in New Delhi since 1998. Both Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India's prime minister, and his hard-line deputy and likely heir, L.K. Advani, belong to the R.S.S., and neither has ever repudiated its militant ideology....Not much is known about the R.S.S. in the West. After Sept. 11, the Hindu nationalists have presented themselves as reliable allies in the fight against Muslim fundamentalists. But in India their resemblance to the European Fascist movements of the 1930's has never been less than clear.

What Mr Bush has in mind is nothing less than a reshaping of the world
By Fergal Keane, The Independent, February 1, 2003
If Bush wins in Iraq with 'acceptable' casualties, we will enter a more dangerous period than any in the last half century -- What a pleasure to hear someone actually opting for the plain truth. One morning last week I heard a New York Times correspondent being asked on the radio if he believed war could be averted with Saddam Hussein in power. No, he said. The substance of the journalist's position was that George Bush would not go into the next election with Saddam shouting abuse from Baghdad. One can just visualise the Democrats' TV ads. They flash up a picture of Osama bin Laden and the commentary says: "George Bush promised to bring him in dead or alive." And then a picture of Saddam: "He promised to bring him in." And then a picture of George W: "Where are they George?" It is a prospect to chill the heart of the toughest campaigner. Mr Bush knows he will have little good news on the economic front to woo the electorate. There is muttering aplenty in the heartland about how he is the rich son of a rich father who cares too much for rich folks. If the President can't tell Americans that he's made their world (as distinct from "the world") a safer place, he has nothing at all to offer.

The Sharon's New Clothes
By Uri Avnery, February 1, 2003
To paraphrase the Prophet Amos (Chapter 1): # For three transgressions of Labor, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof: Because of the abominable lie of Ehud Barak, "I have offered Arafat everything, and Arafat has rejected everything", a lie that has caused the collapse of most of the Israeli peace camp. Because of the prostitution of Shimon Peres, who has spent the last two years hobnobbing with kings and presidents, prime ministers end secretary generals, selling them Ariel Sharon as a moderate statesman and peacemaker. Because of the blood-stained opportunism of Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who has put a left-wing trade mark on war crimes and atrocities. Because of the antics of the whole degenerate bunch of party hacks, who have obstructed Mitzna on every turn, when he appeared at the last moment in order to save what could be saved. Because of the spin-doctors, "strategists" and copywriters, who have watered down Mitzna’s message and turned it into a tasteless and odorless pot of porridge. # For three transgressions of Meretz, and of four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof..

Invoking secondary UN General Assembly authority in the Palestine/Israel conflict
By Anisa Abd el Fattah, Media Monitors Network, February 1, 2003
"..if the Security Council refuses to act, or is prevented by the irresponsible use of any Security Council member’s power to veto, ..the UN Charter allows..the transference of the primary duty of the Security Council to maintain peace and security, to the General Assembly." --  In an article entitled "Bush must go against Iraq no matter what the UN does" (January 24, 2003), writer Charles Krauthammer wrote, " the one advantage of resolution 1441 is that it gave us a window of legitimacy during which to mobilize, position equipment, send ships, line up bases, in short, create the infrastructure for disarming Iraq." I agree with Krauthammer, and add that when Ariel Sharon’s forces entered Gaza, January 27, 2003, killing Palestinian civilians and destroying property, the same window of legitimacy was created for the disarmament, and containment of Israel. The only questions left to be answered in this respect, is why there is no one willing to take advantage of the window, and what must be done to compel Israel to abide by binding UN resolutions, and international laws and treaties relevant to the occupation of Palestine. It is not morally nor legally defensible that world powers continue to ignore the daily killing of Palestinian civ! ilians by the Israeli military, and all Palestinians are civilians, even those who commit crimes against Israel. Israel is perhaps the world’s foremost arrogant and flagrant violator of international law. We must admit this fact, along with the fact that Ariel Sharon has not demonstrated to the world that he is the type of man who can be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. He has not demonstrated to the world that he is a man who possess good judgement and who can restrain himself, and can be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, and custodianship over a "protected people" who stand in the way of his desire to create by conquest, "Greater Israel."

We can still stop this blind march to disaster
Editorial, The Independent, February 2, 2003
President Bush is impatiently clamouring for war. At his press conference with Tony Blair, he bluntly declared that diplomacy had a "matter of weeks" to run its course. The two leaders have decided on a course of military action – they probably decided months ago. The Prime Minister continues to play word games, but he is increasingly unconvincing. He says that "war is not inevitable". In which case why not give the inspectors more time to complete their job? It would be better to have them in Iraq for months if there was any chance of avoiding a war. As long as the inspectors carry out their work, lives are not being lost in a conflict. Tragically for all of us, there is no sense that George Bush and Tony Blair regard war as a desperate last resort. Instead, they contrive frantically to create the circumstances in which they can go ahead and start bombing.

Some Israelis Contemplate Low-Grade ‘Genocide’ for Palestinians
By Robert Jensen, Palestine Media Center, February 2, 2003
One way to cover up a crime is to find a benign term that hides the violence and cruelty of the act. Such is the case with "transfer," an idea increasingly being put forward in Israel as a solution to conflict with the Palestinians. Transfer conjures up images of a worker reassigned to a new office, or a slip allowing a rider to change buses for free. But transfer of the Palestinians would be nothing less than ethnic cleansing. The main public proponents of this have been on the far right of Israeli politics, such as the Moledet Party, which refuses to recognize Palestinian rights. But in a poll earlier this year, 46 percent of Israelis supported transfer of Palestinians out of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, while 31 percent favored transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country. As Israeli author Tanya Reinhart argues in her new book "Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948," there has long been planning for "the second half of 1948" by some Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Illusions Of Peace
By Nizar Sakhnini, Palestine Media Center, February 2, 2003
The triumphant return of Sharon to power meant, among other things, that hopes for peace in Palestine are no more than an illusive dream in the same way they had been since 1948. At the end of the war in 1948, Ben-Gurion recorded, in unequivocal terms, in his war diary that Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the UN, "sees no need to run after peace. The armistice is sufficient for us; if we run after peace, the Arabs will demand a price of us – borders [that is, in terms of territory] or refugees [that is, repatriation] or both. Let us wait a few years…" (1) According to Ben-Gurion, peace would have meant specifying borders for Israel and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and lands, from which they were ethnically cleansed. This was the reason behind the failure of all peace initiatives ever since. The leadership of the militarized, racist and colonialist Zionist establishment in Israel wanted to buy time so that they would be able to expand their territorial gains, on the one hand, and avoid any return of the refugees, on the other.

What will happen to Iraq's oil?
The Observer, February 2, 2003

The economic consequences of war
The Observer, February 2, 2003