By David Swanson
After Downing Street
Dec. 12, 2007
As noted by the uniquely vigilant Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe, President Bush in November issued a signing statement unconstitutionally overturning 10 sections of H.R. 3222, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008.” Among the little technical details Bush just erased was the requirement that he not take funds appropriated to the Pentagon for one thing and use them for something else.
By Don Hazen
AlterNet
November 21, 2007
An interview with author Naomi Wolf, whose new book, “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” may confirm your worries about democracy in America.
If you think we are living in scary times, your worst fears may be confirmed by reading Naomi Wolf’s newest book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. In it, Wolf proves the old axiom that history does repeat itself. Or more accurately, history occurs in patterns, and in order to understand where our country is today and where it is headed, we need to read the history books.
Wolf began by diving into the early years leading up to fascist regimes, like the ones led by Hitler and Mussolini. And the patterns that she found in those, and others all over the world, made her hair stand on end. In “The End of America,” she lays out the 10 steps that dictators (or aspiring dictators) take in order to shut down an open society. “Each of those ten steps is now under way in the United States today,” she writes.
If we want an open society, she warns, we must pay attention and we must fight to protect democracy.
I met with Wolf to discuss what she learned while researching this book, how the American public has received her warnings, and what we can do to squelch the fascist narratives we are fed in this country each day.
Don Hazen: Let’s take up a big question first — your fears about the upcoming U.S. presidential election and what the historical blue print about fascist takeovers shows in terms of elections.
Naomi Wolf: We would be naive given the historical patterns to have hope that there’s going to be a transparent, accountable election in 2008. There are various ways the blueprint indicates how events are much more likely to play out. Historically, the months leading up to the national election are likely to be unstable.
What classically happens is either there will be a period of provocation, and we have a history of this in the United States — agitators who are dressed as or act like activist voter registration workers, anti-war marchers … but who engage in actual violence, torch property, assault police officers. And that scares people. People are much less likely to vote for change when they’re scared, and it gives them the excuse to crack down.
In addition, I’m concerned about the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, which makes it much easier for the president to declare martial law.
DH: Are you saying that they keep on adding coercive laws for no apparent reason?
NW: Yes. Why amend the law so systematically? Why do you need to make martial law easier? Another thing historical blueprints underscore is the hyped threat; intelligence will be spun or exaggerated, and sometimes there are faked documents like Plan Z with Pinochet in Chile.
DH: Plan Z?
NW:Yes, Plan Z. Pinochet, when he was overthrowing the Democratic government of Chile, told Chilean citizens that there was going to be a terrible terrorist attack, with armed insurgents. Now there were real insurgents, there was a real threat, but then he produces what he called Plan Z, which were fake papers claiming that these terrorists were going to assassinate all these military leaders at once.
And this petrified Chileans so much that they didn’t stand up to fight for their democracy. So it’s common to take a real threat and hype it. And close to an election it’s very common to invoke a hype threat and scare people so much that they will not want to have a transparent election.
Americans have this very wrong idea about what a closed society looks like. Many despots make it a point to try to hold the elections, but they’re corrupted elections. Corrupted elections take place all over the world in closed societies. Ninety-nine percent of Austrians voted yes for the annexation by Germany, because the SA were standing outside the voting booths, intimidating the voters and people counting the vote. So you can mess with the process.
One current warning sign is the e-mails that the White House is not yielding about the attorney general scandal. The emails are likely to show that there were plans afoot to purge all of the attorneys at once, like overnight. And then to let the country deal with the shock.
Now that’s something that Goebbels did in 1933 in April, overnight. He fired everyone, focusing on lawyers and judges who were not a supporter of the regime. So you can still have elections … in an outcome like that. If that had happened, if the bloggers and others actually hadn’t helped to identify the U.S. attorney scandal, and they had been successful and fired them all, our election situation would be different.
Basically we’d still have an election, but it is possible the outcome would be predetermined because it’s the U.S. attorneys that monitor what voting rights groups do, what is legal and who can decide the outcome of elections.
…
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
The “Use of the Armed Forces” in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Interview: Naomi Wolf: The End of America (must see video) + Bush on Blackwater USA
Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video link)
Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (Iran)
Bush Pens Dictatorship Directive, Few Notice by Kurt Nimmo
National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (2007)
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency by Lee Rogers (Martial Law; Police State)
Interview with Naomi Wolf author of “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot”
by Prof. Edward S. Herman
Global Research, November 17, 2007
Z Magazine
It is amusing to contrast the September 24, 2007 treatment of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger with Bollinger’s September 16, 2005 treatment of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and the treatment of the Shah of Iran in 1955 by Columbia University President Grayson Kirk (and by the media). As we all know, after having invited Ahmandinejad to speak at Columbia, Bollinger proceeded to give the guest a nasty, pedantic, and misinformed attack, calling him a “cruel dictator” with a “mind of evil.” But in 2005, Bollinger welcomed Pakistan President Musharraf with a warm accolade, as “a leader of global importance…[whose] contribution to Pakistan’s economic turnaround and the international fight against terror remain remarkable—it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus” (“Columbia University has standing ovation for President,” press release, General Pervez Musharraf, President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, September 16, 2005).
In February 1955, the Shah of Iran was a guest at Columbia receiving an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and he, like Musharraf, was greeted deferentially by Grayson Kirk and gave a well-received speech featuring an accolade to the U.S. “policy of peace backed by strength.” The New York Times also noted that the Shah was “impressed by the desire of Americans for a secure and enduring peace” (“Shah Praises U.S. For Peace Policy,” NYT, February 5, 1955). This was, of course, just a few months after the United States had overthrown the elected government of Guatemala via a proxy army and had installed a regime of permanent terror.
In the real world, both Musharraf and the Shah of Iran fit comfortably the category of “cruel dictator,” whereas Ahmandinejad does not. Musharraf came to power in a coup and has ruled by decree ever since, in the interim carrying out quite a few massacres of his own people. The Shah was installed as ruler by the United States in a coup in 1953 (only 18 months before his Doctor of Laws degree award—or reward—at Columbia University) and from the very beginning displayed his cruelty and intention to rule by dictatorial authority. Ahmandinejad won a contested election and has limited personal power.
The Shah’s torture chambers were famous, modernized with the help of his CIA and Israeli advisers and probably topped anything the Iranian regime has engaged in since the Shah’s departure. The crucial difference between the winners of Columbia presidents’ accolades and denunciations is obviously that the one denounced is a declared U.S. enemy and target, whereas the good guys served U.S. interests. As in so many cases of leaders who serve, any little defects like torture or dictatorial rule somehow fail to get noticed by the presidents of Columbia (or by the mainstream media), whereas the lesser defects of the leader of the target state arouses furious indignation as the Columbia president displays his deep concern for human rights and democracy.
It is a little awkward for Bollinger that since Musharraf’s 2005 visit to Columbia he has fallen out of complete favor and there is talk of ousting this “leader of stature” who has not shaped up adequately. But if Mus- harraf came to Columbia again, we can be sure that Bollinger would find the proper nuance for a leader who was of somewhat diminished stature, but still a U.S. instrument.
The Shah was even encouraged to pursue nuclear energy, just as the target Iran of today is being threatened for trying to do what the Shah was allowed to do, by dictate of the ruler of the world. In short, the double standard is comprehensive and even funny in its crudity, but the United States and its propaganda system prevent large numbers from seeing this and laughing the responsible char- latans off the stage.
Israel Bombing Syria “Fuels Debate”
Almost daily the title and framing of news articles puts on clear display the internalized bias of propaganda system journalism. A nice illustration is the September 22, 2007 article in the New York Times by Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger, “Raid on Syria Fuels Debate on Weapons.” The continuation page headline is “Israeli Raid Renews Debate on Nuclear Arms and Syria.” Then in a box we see this thought: “Washington worries, Is Damascus trying to build or buy an arsenal?” Now if Syria had bombed Israel to knock out some of its threatening weaponry, it is obvious that the Times headline would be much larger and the focus would be on the bombing attack itself, not on any “debate” that might ensue about nuclear arms. This would be considered an act of war and very bad business and deserving of retaliatory action (which would surely ensue). There would be no box that says, “Damascus worries, Is Israel trying to build an arsenal?” And there would be an indignant editorial denouncing Syrian aggression violating the UN charter.
What this reflects is the New York Times’s journalistic principles. That is, Israel has a right to an arsenal, whereas any Syrian arsenal and any Syrian effort that might enable it to defend itself is highly debatable. Furthermore, Israel shares aggression rights with the United States, so that if it attacks Syria that is not in itself bad or even problematic, whereas if Syria or Iran or any non-ally bombs another country, aids dissident or resistance movements like Hezbollah, or intervenes anywhere outside their own territory, this is very bad business. These principles are so well internalized that people like Mazzetti and Sanger probably don’t even realize that they are pretty brazen propagandists.
An old favorite of mine that beautifully illustrates the New York Times’s structured bias and normalization of Israeli state terrorism is an article by Joel Greenberg on “Israel Rethinks Interrogation of Arabs” (NYT, August, 14, 1993). This was a period in which Israel’s torture of Palestinians was running at 400-500 victims per month, a point mentioned rather matter-of-factly deep in Greenberg’s article. But instead of the article featuring the torture itself—and it was alone in even mentioning the subject and giving the estimated number of victims—it is framed around Israeli thoughts on whether such “interrogation” procedures are helpful. The torture “fuels debate.” It isn’t worthy of an article on the torture regime itself. The Times has always steered clear of reporting on Israeli torture and, in a notorious case, when the London Times Insight team produced a lengthy study of Israeli torture in 1977, the New York Times refused to pick up the story (also fended off by the Washington Post) and mentioned it first in an article featuring the Israeli rebuttal to the torture charges (which were not spelled out).
Anti-Semitism as a Function of Israeli State Terrorism
The point was made years ago by Alexander Cockburn, but retains its value as a virtual social science law: that the more ruthlesslessly Israel behaves toward its untermenschen the more furious the outcries of growing anti-Semitism. This law is easily explained: when Israel escalates its violence, the “defenders of anything Israel chooses to do” realize that Israel’s actions might provoke criticism in the West among those elements of the population overly sensitive to enlightenment values. So the best defense is a good offense. That is, start proclaiming that anti-Semitism is once again on the march, picking out or even manufacturing illustrations, and continue the long-standing effort to conflate hostility to Israeli actions to anti-Semitism. Of course, the conflation is rendered plausible by the fact that the campaigners who are identifying critics of Israeli actions as anti-Semites are usually Jewish and are usually linked to the well-financed Jewish lobby. So these Jewish campaigners are de facto supporters of Israeli state terror, making it not unreasonable to see a definite connection between the two, even if these campaigners don’t represent Jews in general.
The purpose of these campaigns is not only to silence criticism of Israel, but beyond that to help mobilize the West for war against Israel’s targets, now notably Iran. This program has been frighteningly successful. The U.S. Senate and Congress are now virtual appendages of the Israel lobby and rush to denounce its enemies and clear the ground for war against Israel’s targets. The political leaders compete for subservience honors and are afraid even to denounce the leaked suggestions that nuclear weapons might be used against Iran, let alone put a brake on further U.S. aggression. The media not already in service have been beaten into submission and the lobby has had notable successes in its McCarthyite campaigns against academics who don’t meet their standards of political correctness on Middle East issues. A stream of quality academics have been attacked and some of them damaged by Lobby campaigns—Juan Cole, Rashid Khaladi, Nadia Abu el-Haq, Joel Beinen, Joseph Massad, Norman Finkelstein, among others. People like Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt, and John Mersheimer have been under steady attack for expressing critical views on Israeli policy and Lobby influence. Speakers not satisfying the Lobby principles have been denounced and invitations withdrawn because of the systematic pressure. Publishers of books deemed overly critical, most recently Pluto Press, have been threatened. Although the efforts of Campus Watch, CAMERA, Israel on Campus Coalition, and the David Project are such a clear throwback to the McCarthy era efforts of Red Channels and other private thought-police operations, you would hardly be aware of the civil liberties threat if you read only the mainstream media.
Democracy in Its Last Throes?
The already weak (plutocratic) democracy is in deep trouble in the United States, and good arguments can be made that it is likely to be stripped of its façade in the very near future. Right now it is crystal clear that “the people” do not rule and that monied interests and powerful lobbies determine eligible candidates—it is power sovereignty, not popular sovereignty. We have had a telling illustration of this following the 2006 election, where a majority of the the public clearly rejected the Bush policies and Iraq war, verified by polls, but were unable to do anything about it through the political process.
The Bush–Cheney team has already done serious damage to the democratic structures of this country: the checks-and-balances system is badly impaired, executive power to ignore congressional legislation is now openly asserted and still in place, executive power to permit torture and ignore international law has been strengthened, the right to privacy and due process has been weakened, habeas corpus is in jeopardy, and the executive’s power to go to war and carry out assassinations and other covert and military operations abroad has also been strengthened. In a recent speech, Daniel Ellsberg argues convincingly that a coup has already taken place with these legal-structural changes making for an all-powerful executive (‘A Coup Has Occurred’ By Daniel Ellsberg September 27, 2007, http://www.consortiumnews.com). But he then goes on to point out that a war with Iran, with its more catastrophic effects, including an impact on energy prices and supply, as well as wider warfare (possibly including the use of nuclear weapons), would almost surely produce a second coup and a police state. He argues that this may be just what Cheney, his chief-of-staff David Addington, and other elements of the Iran war support network want, but it would be the end of a great U.S. experiment and would usher in a new dark age.
Edward S. Herman is an economist, author, and media and social critic.
Edward S. Herman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Edward S. Herman
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Edward S. Herman, Z Magazine, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7349
see
Benazire Bhutto First Interview After House Arrest (video)
‘A Coup Has Occurred’ By Daniel Ellsberg
by Cyril Evans
Socialist Standard
Book Review from the October 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard
The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia. By Richard Overy. Penguin
If you’ve been thinking that books on the two most renowned political dictators, Hitler and Stalin, have been done to death forget it and read this book. Whereas books such as Alan Bullock’s Parallel Lives, Alan Kershaw’s Hitler and Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Court of the Red Czar (reviewed in the March 2006 Socialist Standard) concentrate on personality, Richard Overy investigates issues far more important to the working class. He raises such questions as how dictatorships could happen, how did they manage to hold on to power and impose their will on a sometimes-uncooperative working class. For answers to questions such as these this book is excellent.
Overy finds many similarities in the methods adopted by the dictators but also some important differences, lying mainly in the varying levels of economic development existing in the two countries. Germany, emerging from its history as a collection of loosely federated states was already a capitalist nation. It had a native capitalist class, trade unions, a democratic political constitution in the Weimar Republic. Russia had none of these. Eighty percent of its population were peasants, its homegrown capitalist class were almost non-existent, or at any rate very weak. There were trade unions (in fact it was largely trade union action which had toppled the Czar) they had not yet reached the same level of development as those in Germany. There had never been even the semblance of political democracy in Russia.
These historical conditions were important in the way the dictators came to power and held on to it. One thing Overy makes abundantly clear is that neither dictator was “imposed” or brought about by force against an unwilling or resisting populace. Hitler used the electoral process to gain power and, although no one in Russia ever had the chance of voting against Stalin, he still needed working class support to remain in power.
Hitler maintained his position of supreme ruler by adopting the cult of leadership right from the beginning. Everyone (including, crucially, the army) had to swear allegiance to the Führer. Stalin had to work slowly and behind the scenes to achieve his pre-eminence. But, as Overy makes clear, neither of them could move very far without popular support, and they both went to extraordinary lengths to hold on to a mass following.
This does not mean of course that Stalin and Hitler did not routinely employ force. But by means of propaganda, of general scare alarms – about “wreckers” in the case of Stalin, or “undesirables” in the case of Hitler – they managed to enlist the support of the ordinary citizen. Informers were actively encouraged and many enthusiastically took part in wholesale denunciation of the regime’s opponents.
Overy makes a strong case for believing that both dictators believed in their own ideologies – something that can be readily accepted in the case of Hitler with his belief in the existence of “race” and of a “racially pure” Aryan blood. However we find it much more difficult to accept that Stalin really believed that he was building socialism. Overy also suggests that Stalin’s purges of Communist Party members had some basis in reality in the sense that they really did threaten his conception of “socialism”. After getting rid of Roehm, Hitler was much more loyal to his close circle as he built up his authority on the basis of personal loyalty and did not see them as a threat. His biggest problem lay in the conservative nature of the generals. This explains why he took over the conduct of the war as sole commander, something also attempted by Stalin, who sacked or murdered most of his generals. Overy also appears to have a greater respect for Stalin as a political theoretician than is warranted by the facts.
For anyone who wants to understand how the Holocaust came about and the circumstances building up to it this book is essential reading. From general beginnings as slave labour to its eventual conclusion as mass killing, it makes chilling reading. He also presents some interesting statistics on the Gulags and their role as providers of slave labour in the economy that goes a long way to understand them. In the pursuit of maintaining power both dictators used spectacle. Parades, military processions, torchlight rallies – all were used extensively and served as displays of power and as entertainment. In the days before television this was very effective. Rigid control of the press was also an essential. Any criticism of the establishment was viciously suppressed.
A serious shortcoming of this book lies in the author’s conception of socialism. Overy takes the word “socialism” and the concept of “national socialism” as used by Stalin and Hitler at their face value. He never defines the terms and appears to believe that socialism is synonymous with a “command economy” capitalism, regarding which he has some very perceptive things to say. However the lessons implicit in this book are vitally important and it is to be recommended.
h/t: Socialist Standard
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The Militarization of Our Police
*Note: This is not a general blanket statement about police. We know there are many more decent, hard-working police officers than not and we respect you and what you do.
by Captain Eric H. May
Dissident Voice
October 3rd, 2007
Peter Guenther’s Prologue
The most persuasive anti-Nazi I ever knew was my mentor, Dr. Peter W. Guenther, who believed that Nazism was monstrous at every level. As a professor of humanities, he thought it was both inhumane and inhuman. As a professor of art history he thought its aesthetics were artless histrionics. He readily granted that his intellectual opinions were molded by his personal experiences. As a German veteran of World War II, he regretted the loss of his youth, the waste of his friends’ lives and the devastation that they had inflicted on others. He held Hitler accountable for all of this — after all, it was Hitler who had drafted them into the war. He had served from 1939 to 1945, from Poland to Norway to France to Russia. He once quipped that before every one of their invasions their leaders said they were fighting for national defense, but after the shooting started every soldier on every side believed that he was fighting for his own self-defense.
…
“Drang Nach Ost” — The Eastern Offensive
George W. Bush came into office with a secret war plan and no excuse to implement it — just as Hitler had come into office in 1933 with the same predicament. Both of them wanted the prize of Middle Eastern oil. In Hitler’s case that meant going through “Judeo-Bolshevik” Russia on the way, while in Bush’s case that meant going through “Islamo-Fascist” Iraq. In Hitler’s case the guiding document was Mein Kampf, while in Bush’s case there were two. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was presented to the Israeli government in 1996 by American neocons Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser, among others. Restructuring America’s Defenses was presented to the American government in 2000. Its arguments mirrored the Israeli document, and had been drawn up by the neocons as well. In 2001 Feith, Perle and Wurmser became key Bush administration members.
Neither Hitler’s nor Bush’s plans for world dominance could have been pursued without some good luck, though. Both leaders entered office with over half their nations opposing them, and an avid opposition that wanted to pull them down. Hitler’s good luck came with the Reichstag fire, blamed on Jewish Communists, which mobilized his fatherland to rally behind him. Bush’s good luck happened on 9/11, blamed on Muslim Fundamentalists, which mobilized his homeland to rally behind him.
…
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
By Eric Margolis
Toronto Sun
September 30, 2007
Increasingly serious situation could turn into another Iraq or Yugoslavia
Growing unrest and mass street demonstrations across Myanmar could herald an extremely dangerous period for the nation formerly known as Burma.
Military-ruled Myanmar is extremely difficult to enter and bans foreign journalists. This writer has managed to get into Myanmar three times. On the last, I was told the secret police were actually conducting bed checks in people’s homes in the capital to ensure no trouble-makers from the rebellious northern states were in town.
On a second visit, I eluded the secret police and got to see the nation’s Nobel prize-winning democratic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi in her home in Yangon, formerly Rangoon, where she has been under house arrest for 17 years.
The crisis in Myanmar seems a simple morality drama. The saintly Suu Kyi is held like a bird in a cage by a junta of brutal, wicked generals, who until recently called themselves the State Law and Order Council, or SLORC. In 1988, the junta’s soldiers crushed student demonstrations, killing 3,000. After Suu Kyi’s party won a landslide victory in 1990 elections, the generals annulled the vote and declared martial law.
This week President George W. Bush and other western nations called for even tighter sanctions against Myanmar’s junta and urged its replacement with democratic government.
Myanmar, in-deed, is a nasty police state. Its generals have plundered resources and kept this magnificent nation in direst poverty. Myanmar is often called a “jewel” and “unspoiled Asia of 1940s.” True enough. But that’s because the junta and its predecessor, mad dictator, Gen. Ne Win, turned Burma into a weird, hermit kingdom.
But extreme caution is advised in dealing with Myanmar. If things go wrong there, it could turn into an Asian version of Iraq, Yugoslavia or Afghanistan.
50 YEARS
Myanmar has been at war for 50 years with 17 ethnic rebel groups seeking secession from the former 14-state Union of Burma created by Imperial Britain, godfather of many of the world’s worst current problems.
Burmans, of Tibetan origin, form 68% of the population of 57 million. But there are other important, well-defined, independence-minded ethnic groups: Shan, the largely Christian Karen, Kachin, Chin, Mon, Wa, Rakhine, Anglo-Burmese, and Chinese.
The largest, Shan, with its Shan State Army, are ethnically close to neighbouring Thailand, and in cahoots with the Thai military. Each major ethnic group has its own army and finances itself through smuggling timber, jewels, arms, and drugs.
The military juntas in Rangoon, and their 500,000-member armed forces, known as Tatmadaw, battled these secessionists for decades until the current junta managed to establish uneasy ceasefires with the major rebel groups.
If the junta were to be replaced by a democratic civilian government led by the gentle Suu Kyi, and military repression ended, it is highly likely Myanmar’s ethnic rebellions would quickly re-ignite. The only force holding Myanmar together is the military and secret police.
Shan, Karen, Kachin, and Mon still demand their own independent nations. Myanmar’s powerful neighbours — India, China and Thailand — have their eye on this potentially resource-rich nation.
China exercises strong influence over Myanmar and is building a naval base near Rangoon to give direct access for the first time to the Andaman Sea and Indian Ocean.
India sees rival China threatening its rebellion-plagued eastern hill states along the Burmese border, and is increasingly alarmed by Chinese naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean.
NEIGHBOURING INTERESTS
A new democratic government in Yangon-Rangoon that is not tough enough to deal with secessionist regions around its troubled periphery could see Burma fall into internal turmoil and also invite intervention by covetous neighbours.
At worst, India and China could even clash head-on over control of strategic Burma, a threat identified in my book on Asian geopolitics and Indian-Chinese rivalry, War at the Top of the World.
So the West should tread with great caution in Myanmar. The West and Asia must exercise great care they do not exchange military dictatorship for ethnic strife and regional conflict.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Image by Mayu Shimizu via Flickr
by Michael Parenti (1996)
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Sept. 24, 2007
Fascism is a false revolution. It makes a revolutionary appeal without making an actual revolution. It propagates the widely proclaimed New Order while serving the same old moneyed interests.
September 14, 2007
From: quq5
CNN BUSH UNITED NATIONS
Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to president Bush for possible war crimes?
By Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Speaking Truth to Power
Monday, 17 September 2007
Reprinted from MOUNTAIN SENTINEL
Bush now has the ability to declare martial law at his own discretion, and in so doing dissolve the other branches of government, throw out the constitution, and suspend elections. He appropriated the right to do this largely by executive order. He can declare martial law whenever he deems there is sufficient cause; cause being an act of terrorism, an economic crisis, an act of war, civil unrest, or a natural catastrophe. For more information about the executive orders and legislation granting Bush these rights, please watch the short video at mountainsnetinel.com What we chose to ignore (video; executive orders), or visit the US Martial Law Timeline.
Hard as it might be to believe, there is a very real possibility that Bush will exercise these rights before his term ends. All he needs is an excuse. At present, the economy is on the verge of collapse, the Iraqi Occupation is going badly no matter what Bush and his chosen generals say, energy supplies are unable to keep pace with demand, disapproval of the Bush administration is growing, and Bush wants to attack Iran and so complete his Middle East conquest. He has all the reason in the world to declare martial law. All he lacks is a sufficient excuse.
Many people who follow the news are worried that Bush will declare martial law sometime in the months ahead. If natural crises prove insufficient, they are afraid that he will stage another 9/11. The current economic climate is very similar to the climate at the time of 9/11, though the present brewing economic hurricane will be much worse than the dot.com bust. The economic crises we currently face could very well result in bank closings, the crash of the US dollar, and the impoverishment of a large segment of the US population. What is more, with peak oil and the dawn of a new era of energy depletion it is unlikely that we will be able resuscitate our economy once the collapse is complete.
In the past couple weeks, we have heard about nuclear weapons being “mistakenly” shipped across the country onboard B-52 bombers. These weapons, which have a very limited capacity, were accidentally shipped to one of the bases that coincidentally functions as a staging grounds for the Middle East. While it is possible that these weapons were intended to be used for tactical strikes against Iran, I think it more likely that they were going to be used on US troops in Iraq, or perhaps even citizens within the US. A nuclear terrorism attack would clear the way for an immediate attack on Iran and provide a sufficient excuse to declare martial law within the US. (See Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? By Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.)
This sounds far-fetched and paranoid, doesn’t it? Well, word is circulating around Wall Street that billions in put options were made at the end of August. Put options are short term bets that a corporation will do poorly. From the number and size of these puts, some big players are betting that the stock market is going to take a major fall before the end of September. The last time there was a move in put options this large was just prior to 9/11.
(See Dispelling the ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades By Steven Smith and Aaron L. Task, ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades Have Wall Street Whispering, and $4.5b bet on another 9/11 within 4 weeks)
Whether or not there are plans to stage another terrorist event, the fact remains that Bush has cleared a path towards establishing a dictatorship within the US. Given Bush and Cheney’s psychological profiles, it is unlikely that this pathway was cleared for altruistic purposes, and it seems equally unlikely that they will not now take advantage of it. Nor did Bush clear this pathway for some future president. Bush and Cheney are both far too selfish and egotistical for that. So it is likely that Bush will walk this path sometime before the next election.
Now the question arises, what will we do if Bush declares martial law and usurps our government?
What to Do
Should Bush declare martial law, life in this country will quickly become untenable for a great many of us. Halliburton subsidiaries are currently building internment camps to house detainees. The first sweep will pick up radicals and known dissenters, along with Blacks and Hispanics. Successive sweeps will capture more disruptive minorities, along with any newly vocal critics.
Knowing this, my first impulse was to head for the woods and disappear in the event of martial law. Yet this would not solve the problem. And I would have to hide forever, while my family and friends suffered the consequences. Hiding is not an option; the only recourse is to fight back.
The establishment of martial law and dictatorship depends on a majority of the public going on with their daily lives as usual. They cannot arrest everyone; they cannot even arrest a sizable portion of the population should they all decide to resist in solidarity. Therefore, the key to defending our country against martial law and dictatorship lies in massive resistance and solidarity.
If martial law is declared we must, each of us, tell everyone we know that the US government has been overthrown. Everyone must know that it is time for each of us to stand up and resist. Do not go to work, do not go to school. That is what they want us to do. Far from complying, it is our duty to rise up for freedom and justice. Our forefathers and foremothers would be ashamed of us if we did anything less.
Simply refusing to serve is not enough. Nor is a march through downtown an adequate response. Short-term protests will be dismissed as soon as they end. Nor is any resistor safe so long as he or she remains at home. We must rally, for safety and power. And we must stay together until the dictatorship is toppled and martial law is ended.
Rallying
There are a few possible targets for rallying. Progressive communities such as college towns would be relatively safe places to rally, and might attract large numbers of people supported by the local community. Yet for greatest effect, rallies should target seats of government and finance. The most effective targets would be state capitals, Wall Street, and Washington DC. For those desiring an even more confrontational approach, you could rally at military bases and National Guard armories. Bear in mind that these military targets have the greatest potential for bloodshed.
It would be best to plan rallying locations ahead of time. There is no telling how disrupted communications might be after martial law is declared. If the internet is still functioning, that would be great. But do not plan on it.
Print up flyers explaining what is taking place and what needs to be done about it. Tell people that it is their duty to resist. Let them know where they can rally to protest. If need be, drive down the street with banners and/or megaphones.
Above all, make it clear that these rallies will not end until the coup leaders have been arrested and martial law has ended. Ceasing our efforts before our goals are achieved is simply not an option. What is more, we will all be safer if we stay together. They cannot pick us off separately; they will have to deal with us en masse.
Breaking Hard
We should be prepared for the worst. It is likely that they will try to break our rallies with force. Stand fast and be prepared. It would be wise to learn how to improvise body armor, procure helmets with safety visors, and gas masks. First aid stations should be established at all rallies.
Above all, resist any impulse towards violence. Violence will achieve nothing, but will provide them with an excuse to crack down. The violent overthrow of government by the masses simply isn’t possible in this day and age, nor is it desirable. Our strength lies in our solidarity and our ability to bring the machine to a screeching halt. When we resort to violence, we have compromised our strength and made ourselves weak.
Appeal to the police and the National Guard that you are the citizens they were hired to serve and protect. Help them to understand what has happened. It may be that many of them will side with you.
If the military does attack, stand firm, but be prepared to give up ground and reform elsewhere. Do not simply scatter and give up. In the face of a military advance, pass along word of a secondary rallying point. And send an advance team to secure that area and prepare.
Remember, martial law and the establishment of dictatorship will only succeed if we let it. Know that if you do nothing as martial law is declared and nothing as they come for your neighbors, then the day will arrive when they come for you. Or you will be left to answer for what has happened while you were looking the other way and going on with your own life.
We, the people, have the power, and never let us forget that.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
see:
What we chose to ignore (video; executive orders)
Dispelling the ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades By Steven Smith and Aaron L. Task
Check out this video: Bush Declares Himself Dictator
Sorry the video is no longer available.
***
Suryu on August 12, 2007 Continue reading
Dandelion Salad 