Liberation is a Praxis

New blog

2007-05-20T22:06:00.001-05:00

http://dejitarob.wordpress.com

Nakba '48 manifesto

2006-04-08T09:28:00.000-05:00

This is the manifesto for Nakba '48 which I drafted along with the assistance of other members. It addresses many of the common questions and misconceptions.

Who are you?
We are a diverse UF student organization of Americans, Palestinians, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and Jews who all agree on the universality of unconditional equal human rights. We strive to raise critical awareness of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by engaging the community through dialogue, a student journal, charity, speakers, films, performances, and working with other groups in the Student Coalition against Injustice. Membership is open and encouraged for all who are interested in learning about Israel and Palestine and working towards a just peace for all people in one of the most important and unfortunate conflicts of our time.

What does Nakba '48 mean?
Al-Nakba, translated from Arabic, means "affliction" or "catastrophe" and refers to the creation of the state of Israel, which has caused the plight and struggle of the Palestinian people against Zionist occupation and oppression. The '48 refers specifically to the 1948 mass expulsion and exodus of around 1 million non-Jewish Palestinians following numerous massacres and demolitions of over 400 Palestinian communities in order to form the Zionist state of Israel. The Palestine Remembered Project has more details, testimony, and figures on the ethnic cleansing which was required to establish a Jewish demographic majority in the region of Israel.

What exactly is Zionism?
Zionism is the ideology that the Jewish people are a "tribe" who must have a "homeland", in the form of a nation-state, because of the historical injustices they have suffered. Jews, as an ethnic group, must be the majority population in the given area of this nation-state. Through working with the European colonial powers, this ideology came to material fruition in 1948, when the Jewish land "by birthright", later renamed to Israel, was established in greater Palestine.

What is wrong with that? Don't the Jews deserve a homeland?
There are some inherent problems with Zionism that prevent not only a "homeland" for the Jews, but for anyone else in the Middle East region. Peace is one of the basic characteristics of a home, and that simply cannot take place by replacing co-existence in Palestine with a state that elevates Jewish rights over those of non-Jews. This logic of ethnic nationalism (constructing a "nation"-state with the idea of elevating the rights of a particular ethnic community) has actually been the guiding ideology oppressing Jewish peoples and other minorities across the world historically for centuries. In a nation-state, the rights of minorities are always secondary to the majority (whether by population or power) population which constitutes the nation. Most notably apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, and even the Jim Crow-segregationist United States all attempted to use this logic of national ethnic superiority with extremely disastrous results. Creating a Jewish nation-state is a replication, rather than a reversal, of the original problem that has haunted Jews across the world. Upholding the rights of all people equally, universally, and unconditionally is impossible in the framework of the state of Israel, where the explicit purpose of the state is to maintain a demographic majority of one particular ethnic group at all times.

But isn't Israel a democracy? How does it not respect the universal rights of all people?
While the parliamentary system of Israel appears just like any other liberal representative government, there are a few major perceptible differences. In order to create a Jewish demographic majority, around one million non-Jewish Palestinians in 1948 had to be "transfered", i.e. forcefully expelled or coerced to leave. While any Jew regardless of their birthplace is granted automatic citizenship and allowed to settle in Israel under the "Law of Return", Palestinians are denied their right to return to their homes, which is a basic right enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Conventions and other international law treaties. Imagine if Native Americans forced your whole community one day to leave so they could construct their own "nation"-state, and never compensated or allowed you to come back (using checkpoints, missiles, tanks, and barbed-wire walls to drive home the message).

Additionally, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are denied citizenship, even though their lives are in the hands of the Israeli government. They live under military occupation facing curfews, incursions, affluent Jewish-only settlements overlooking their pitiful refugee camps, Jewish-only high-speed, nicely-paved roads, military checkpoints and institutional harassment like the requirement to obtain permits from Israel to travel anywhere outside their community.

As has been proven by minorities all over the world, citizenship itself is not a guarantee of fair treatment. Exacerbated by Zionist policies to maintain an ethnic Jewish majority, Non-Jews inside the formal borders of Israel face widespread discrimination, harassment, and poverty even with their Israeli citizenship. For example, many indigenous communities are refused official recognition by the state of Israel, particularly in the Negev which has a low demographic concentration of Jews. These "unrecognized communities" are denied access to water, electricity, roads, schools, and other basic services in an attempt to encourage them to leave. For numerous other examples, see the Israeli Arab Association for Human Rights.

Why are you singling out Israel? Why not focus on the rights of minorities in other "nation"-states, women, blacks, LGBT, or other groups facing persecution?
Our purpose is not to pick on anyone, but to bring attention to the inhumanity of Zionism, which is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a geopolitical nightmare that has cost tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and exacerbated global anti-Semitism (directed at both Jews and Arabs alike, since both are Semitic peoples). The Zionist state of Israel currently receives widespread economic, military, and political support, especially from the US government (maintaining a sphere of influence in the resource-laden Middle East), to violate universal basic human rights in their project of ethnic-nationalism in Palestine. Many of us work with other groups, and we actively seek to form coalitions with student organizations committed to upholding universal human rights. To that end, we have co-founded the Student Coalition against Injustice and created a semesterly journal, Human Liberation, that focuses on struggles for social justice worldwide. To repeat, Nakba '48 supports the rights of all humanity; there is no inconsistency in our message of universal, equal human rights.

How are Jews supposed to co-exist with Arabs who are anti-Semitic, do not respect Jews' right to life, and constantly resort to terrorism?
Firstly, there are many Arabs and Palestinians who are themselves Jews. They have peacefully co-existed in Palestine and the greater Middle East for thousands of years, sharing a common Semitic heritage with Arab Muslims and Christians in the region. While this co-existence was certainly not perfect, Palestine was often considered a haven for Jewish exiles who had suffered horrific injustices in Europe.

The context of the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is often framed, especially in the Western press, as two equally-equipped warring sides engaging in a "cycle of violence". Actually, the "conflict" is extremely asymmetrical, with Palestinians struggling to survive under Israeli military occupation and suffering disproportionate collective punishment (see If Americans Knew for more details). Those who are simply defending their community against Israeli military incursions are killed as "terrorists" by the Israeli state and demonized posthumously as "militants" in the press.

However, we should not become nihilistic as there is a vibrant joint Palestinian-Israeli nonviolent civil disobedience movement, which often goes untold in the press. Israeli military officials have attacked these peaceful demonstrations (see Gush Shalom and the Independent Media Center-Israel) and even admitted to using undercover agents for provoking violence (see Ran HaCohen's report). The website of the International Solidarity Movement contains a wealth of information and updates on this movement.

Isn't this goal of working to end Zionism and the state of Israel pretty unrealistic?
Of course this goal is not easy, nor a simple or quick fix, but real lasting change hardly ever comes without hard work. The model of ending apartheid in South Africa definitely provides inspiration for the collective triumph of humanity over seemingly insurmountable odds. Grassroots awareness and divestment campaigns surfaced in places like Gainesville to demand that higher institutions, like universities, churches, city councils and eventually the US government, end their support for ethnic nationalism.

What can I do?
You can increase your awareness of the plight of the Palestinian people and the tragedy of Zionism by coming to the table of Nakba '48 (every Monday and Wednesday at Turlington Plaza), signing our petition for the basic human right of return for the Palestinian people, supporting our divestment campaign against the Zionist state of Israel, joining our organization, and most importantly speaking out against injustice in your daily life wherever you are or whatever the context.

On the Palestinian Question

2006-01-04T13:35:00.000-05:00

Note: This an updated version which was published in the Spring 2006 issue of Human Liberation.

“You should work... as man for the emancipation of mankind; and you should feel the particular form of your oppression and shame not as an exception to the rule but rather as its confirmation.”¹

Over 150 years ago, in the Christian state of Prussia, Jews faced discrimination as official state policy simply for having a different religious/ethnic identity than that of the majority population (and most importantly, those in power). The inability of the Jewish people to comprehensively resolve this “Jewish question” manifested in a geopolitical Zionist movement whose goal was the construction of a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. This movement has culminated in Israel, an officially “Jewish state” whose existence is predicated on maintaining a demographic majority of persons with Jewish religious/ethnic identity. Ironically, the Jews, who once sought freedom from the Prussian state, are now being asked to grant freedom. The preexisting majority population of non-Jews living in Palestine, struggling against the necessary occupation and oppression in order to maintain a Jewish majority, symbolizes the tragic consequences of an incomplete resolution to the Jewish question.

Within this historical context, Karl Marx's ideas on human liberation remain highly relevant to the contemporary predicament of the Palestinian people. I will argue that Marx’s proposed resolution to the Jewish question can ultimately help resolve the Palestinian question, as well as actualizing the emancipation of all other oppressed peoples worldwide. I will demonstrate this by practicing Marx’s theory on a contemporary writing on the Palestinian question by Joel Kovel.

Bruno Bauer, who belonged with Marx to a group of German philosophy students known as the Young Hegelians, wrote a number of articles dealing with the question of equal rights for Jews vis-à-vis the Prussian state. He claimed that a Jew could not be politically emancipated as long as “the limited nature which makes him a Jew…triumph[ed] over the human nature which should link him as a man with others and must separate him from non-Jews.”² For Bauer, the solution was simply to abolish all state-sponsored religion and other official privileges.

Marx’s famous essay “On the Jewish Question” provides a thorough critique of Bauer. In this work, he faults Bauer for falling into contradictions as he narrowly presents the Jewish question as one-sided, as only a problem of Jews in relation to the Christian. Since Bauer limits his examination to the Christian state, he ceases to be critical when it comes to universal emancipation and the state in general. In turn Marx asks, “What kind of state?.. What kind of emancipation is involved and what are its underlying conditions?”³

Marx examines the theory behind, not the practice stemming from, the foremost liberal states at the time—France and the United States. These states boast the embodiment of emancipation, of liberty, justice, equality, and security for all. Yet Marx recognizes that these are determined “just as the boundary between two fields is marked by a stake”. The man presupposed in these “rights of man” is conceived as that of the bourgeois—an atomistic, isolated monad, able to be cleanly separated from the relations of his fellow humans in society.

As such, liberty is not based on the association of human with human, but rather its separation. It is the “right of this separation, the right of the limited individual limited to himself.”⁴ Practically applied, the right of private property emerges as the “right to self-interest” without regard for others, independent of their social relations. Equality is declared as equal opportunity and access to the universality of the state, that is, “all are created equal”. Privileges and ranks are claimed to be abolished yet material differences obviously persist. “All are the same before the law” from the landowner as citizen to the day laborer as citizen. The state thus treats these inequalities as apolitical, separating them from their contingencies since everyone is considered a self-sufficient monad. This is sealed with the right of security as the preservation of the limited individual, his rights and his property—the supreme guarantor of egoism.

To keep these atomistic individuals from the dreaded “war of all against all” and maintain order, the state must become autonomous, given a life of its own through social relations that are abstracted and reified. Individuals are required to find their emancipation through an intermediary instead of each other. Perceived threats to the autonomy of the state are met with hostility and often outright violence, all in the name of “our national security” and the “protection of our society”.⁵ Originally alleged to be a means of emancipation, the state becomes inverted into end in itself.

At the same time, Marx recognizes the futility of efforts to attenuate and limit the liberal state through an expansion of “civil liberties”. While this political emancipation is the best which can be offered in the current context of the bourgeois as the ideal type of existence, such reform ignores the fundamental nature of this existence: individual freedom separated instead of from sociality. It is the freedom to isolated egoism and withdrawn self-interest rather than the freedom from it.

Like Bauer's formulation of the Jewish question, its failure to subject the nature of the state and this political emancipation to criticism translates into the inability to surpass the limited, egoistic individual who finds in others “not the realization but rather the limitation of his own freedom”. Social relations with others remain degraded to mere “natural necessity, need and private interest, the maintenance of their property and egoistic persons.”⁶ This “separation of man from his community, from himself and from other men” forms the basis of the prized “civil” society within the autonomous state.⁷

Most tragically, bourgeois political emancipation prevents the meaningful fulfillment of one's species-being, or the creative and cooperative capacity of humanity-as-community. It is a deformed type of liberation that is employed by the owners of production to further solidify the current social hierarchy within which they are able to prevent unfettered access to the means of production. The liberal state, like the concept of capital, is externalized and purported to be natural and universal in order to deny its assumptions and origins in bourgeois political theory. At this privileged position, these human creations can confront people as alien, controlling them through the justification of an ultimate end in itself.

Since “egoism and selfish needs” are thought of as the essence of human rights, complete human emancipation can not take place within the state and its civil society. The negation of humanity through the concept of alienating individualism must first itself be negated. Only when the human imprint on this abstracted concept of human rights is revealed, individuality is understood as predicated on sociality, and relationships are reorganized to humanity's unique species-being will actual emancipation be able to take place.⁸

Unfortunately, this comprehensive form of human liberation has not occurred historically. Marx and others who helped unveil ideology have been cast aside as dangerous tyrants, ignored by many who seek the divine promised land of objectivity. Incomplete revolutions like those in the Soviet Union have become the favorite whipping boy for apologists of liberalism. These revolutions' failures to negate the reified autonomy of their states combined with the constant threats of annihilation from imperialism produced a hyper-autonomous state with repression on a massive scale in Marx's name. Given the apologists' inability to subject their treasured states and civil society to meaningful criticism, their failure to comprehend these effects of the incomplete revolution is only natural. Ultimately then, despite the radical implications of Marx’s critical philosophy, the same old political emancipation employed in the Jewish question of 19th century Europe has become aggrandized, perpetuated in the form of international law. Consequently, a number of unresolved “questions” continue to propagate despite the comprehensive vision for true emancipation outlined by Marx more than 150 years ago.

The Palestinian question is certainly no exception. At this juncture, I will put Marx's critique into practice and demonstrate that even the most prominent champions of justice fall prey to a Bauerian formulation of the Palestinian question. I will do so using “Zionism's Bad Conscience” by Joel Kovel, a notable activist and intellectual.

Kovel justifiably claims that the problem in Palestine is the denial of a common humanity.9 Yet he misidentifies the problem as particular stemming from Jewish exceptionalism in the form of geopolitical Zionism. This is primarily due to the privileging of the Jew in the eyes of the state of Israel over the other invalidates the state's claim to universal emancipation.¹⁰ The state of Israel effectively withholds political emancipation in an unacceptable way, committing human rights abuses in the name of Zionism. As with Bauer, the failure of Kovel to expansively and critically formulate a question he seeks the answer to leads him into contradictions.

As a result, he asserts the state emerged historically to “accommodate the power of the newly emerging capitalist classes” yet the solution is to expand the legitimacy of this state and its civil society.¹¹ Kovel aids these capitalists by occluding their agency in abstracting a particular set of organized social relations to their advantage. He points to the problematic tribalism of Zionism and purports this will be remedied through “strengthening and advancing the notion of universal human rights.”¹² Since “the formulation of a question is its solution”, I shall ask like Marx, what kind of state, what kind of emancipation and what are its assumptions?¹³

The bourgeois emancipation Kovel puts forth is based on the limited individual, separated from his community. It produces not only mere tribalism when one is confronted with something alien, but atomism on a truly sickening scale. When the individuals is thought as isolatable and separated from others, where social relations are considered an external framework which limits the individual through reification, actualization of a common humanity is impossible.
The question of the Palestinians as well as others will continue to fester as long as the philosophical turns made by Marx and others are ignored. A radical, fundamentally different re-conceptualization of emancipation and social relations is necessary to negate the negation of humanity by the illusory restrictions imposed by bourgeois political theory. True human liberation can emerge when these limits of the current framework of political emancipation within the state are superseded. In other words, humans will only be able to experience true freedom when they flourish in the uniqueness of their species-being.

This requires an adoption of Marx's “ruthless criticism of everything”.¹⁴ Even the most sacred concepts, like the state, its civil society and emancipation, must be considered apocryphal and doused with criticism. Most importantly, their particular assumptions must be constantly exposed, never allowed to remain hidden or dressed up under the guise of nature, universalism or the metaphysical.

Furthermore, this can only be realized through Marx's example of praxis—the simultaneity of concrete action and reflexive theory. The contemporary imagined dichotomy between the two must be broken down. Armchair and ivory tower theorizing about inert concepts leads to hollow action, while its complement, the increasingly pragmatic form of activism, lacks the critical reflection and theoretical analysis to embody effective human liberation.

Therefore, it is more relevant than ever to apply the lessons learned from Marx’s analysis of the Jewish question. To summarize, Marx expands Bauer's original critique of the Jewish request for equal rights in civil society to include a critique of the liberal state and the “human rights” it protects. He demonstrates that bourgeois civil society is predicated on presupposing humanity's species-being as individualistic self-interest. Due to such alienating assumptions, political emancipation within the framework of liberalism leaves the Jewish question unresolved. This deformed emancipation resulted in geopolitical Zionism and the atrocities committed in the name of Israel. Ultimately, a new Palestinian question emerged which suffers from the same presuppositions as the original Jewish question.

The solution is not to further the final form of political emancipation in the current context of the society of limited individuals like Kovel's writings put forth, but to engage in limitless criticism and negate the original negation of humanity by bourgeois theory. Activists and scholars alike cannot successfully re-conceptualize social existence and supersede the current alienating order unless the false dichotomy between radical action and critical theory is collapsed. Only when the stagnant state of praxis today is reinvigorated with the idea of species-being can love and empathy bring down the social hierarchies that corrupt the human spirit, including the geopolitical Zionism that has caused such pain and suffering in the Middle East.

References
1. Marx, Karl. [1843] 1994. Karl Marx: 1818-1883. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, pg 2.
2. Ibid., pg. 16.
3. Ibid., pg. 5.
4. Ibid., pg. 16.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., pg. 17.
7. Ibid., pg. 10.
8. Ibid., pg. 21.
9. Kovel, Joel. Zionism’s Bad Conscience. http://www.joelkovel.org/zionism.html. Accessed December 20, 2005. pg 1.
10. Ibid., op. cit., pg. 3.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Marx, Karl. “On the Jewish Question”. pg. 3.
14. Marx, Karl. [1844] 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., pg. 12-5.

The Importance of Critical Pedagogy in Constructing Development from Below

2005-11-22T14:50:00.000-05:00

The neoliberal consensus on globalization is that the world is changing at an ever increasing rate. The world is shrinking (or flattening) due to the ease of movement for capital, people, commodities and ideas.[1] In order not to be left behind, people must be responsive to the demands of the expanding “total market”.[2] Through the ideological denial of real collective and individual practices, abstract market forces are purported to not only be autonomous but sacred and pristine. Thus, they must be left unchallenged; any intervention whatsoever is anathema. Through a supposedly neutral and value-free process, the market will regulate itself, allowing the survival of the fittest commodities and ideas. If the end result of market forces is greater alienation and poverty, this situation reflects either some hidden unwarranted intervention in the market or the ignorance, laziness, and/or stupidity of the masses.

This neoliberal worldview increasingly pervades global society today. The result is, not surprisingly, a noticeable lack of democracy in many aspects of social life. If all social interaction is thought to be guided by metaphysical forces divorced from human control, then there is little anyone can do to change what is thought to be an inevitable march of history. By internalizing “the end of history”, [3] individuals negate their ability to collectively determine social living.

To counter the alienation of neoliberalism, this paper will attempt to provide a more suitable way for social development that emerges out of local contexts and strives for democratization across all realms of society. This approach, known as development “from below”, requires a critical pedagogy that is based on dialogical relations and tranformative knowledge, rather than structural hierarchy and commoditized information that seeks to conform to market demands.

The institutions of education are being constructed increasingly to fit the theoretical framework of neoliberalism. A growing number of educators have begun treating students as consumers purchasing the rights to information that will allow them to best compete in the “total market” of society. Instead of understanding how to enact social change, students are taught how best to adapt to “reality”. Education has become synonymous with the transfer of descriptive facts, or what Lyotard calls “information bits”,[4] from teacher to student. In this manner, education becomes a means to gain more “human capital” for leverage as students begin conceiving of themselves increasingly as “human resources”.[5]

This is what the renowned critical theorist of education Paulo Freire calls the “banking system” where the “scope of action allowed to the students extends only so far as receiving, filing, and storing deposits” of information.[6] They might become “great collectors or cataloguers”, but they are ultimately filed away themselves through the lack of creativity, transformation and ingenuity their education provides.[7] He points out that the banking-system of education “minimize[s] or annul[s] the students' creative power and …stimulates their credulity”, undermining the ability for students to develop reflexive and critical thinking.[8]

This framework for education is highly compatible with the “metaphysics of domination” in the “age of globalization”.[9] The neoliberal model of education is thought to be part of the unilinear path of development societies are forced to follow. The mainstream discourse of society’s material and technological progress is used to prove that the splendor of neoliberal development “speaks for itself”. Despite these ideological narratives, most people throughout the world continue to live in horrid conditions brought about by asymmetrical relationships between the center and periphery.[10] In many contexts neoliberalism has worsened these inequalities.

Thankfully, many around the world are exclaiming “enough”. They are saying that “another world is possible” where justice and equality become globalized.[11] They assert that in order for social development to occur, democracy must extend into all facets, particularly the economy and culture. Instead of being imposed from above, development must be enacted “from below” in order for it to be truly for and by the people.

All over the world, this belief is actively being put into practice through many non-governmental and community organizations, including the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) in Brazil and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional in Mexico.[12] These organizations are primarily constituted by poor and indigenous members. They engage in sustainable community building and in turn develop support services for themselves, filling in for the “free market” and their own government which are unresponsive to their need.[13]

At the forefront of these movements of development from below is a new kind of liberatory education, known as critical pedagogy, which seeks to democratize the classroom as well as peoples' everyday experiences. An emphasis on promoting social change through education is not new; it has long been used by revolutionary movements like the Maoists in China, the National Liberation Front in Vietnam, the Cuban Communist Party, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. However, while often increasing drastically the literacy rate, the pedagogy of these revolutionary movements are rarely critical and the product is often not truly emancipating.

According to Freire, the failure of these traditional revolutionary movements is that they are not really revolutionary.[14] These movements are not sufficiently reflexive in their approach to social change, particularly their pedagogy. They often resort to the same worn out, “top down” banking system where teachers seek to deposit information and indoctrinate the population using slogans and propaganda. As Friere points out, true liberation cannot be deposited or given as a gift; it must come from the people themselves.[15]

Many critical social philosophers like John W. Murphy have argued that the goals of development “from below” have been significantly undermined by the traditional notions of social ontology, or the manner in which social order is conceptualized. A new ontology is required which realizes the potential of human agency so that truly democratic development can take hold and spread. It must be realized that the processes of globalization and especially history is “not something abstract, but the outgrowth of decisions and programs that are thoroughly particular”.[16] Instead of just passively experiencing and adapting to what is thought to be the autonomous progress of history, social change must be actively created. As such, knowledge should not be thought of as a commodity, divorced from personal experience, but rather intertwined with experience to form praxis, or the concrete practice of theoretical knowledge.[17]

The critical pedagogy initiated by Freire seeks this “humanization” as its goal by re-invigorating peoples' imaginations so they can learn to actively shape their realities and thus create an effective development “from below”. His model of education breaks down the traditional dichotomies and hierarchies between teacher and student, which are narrow and stifling. Instead of teachers dictating what to learn with students passively receiving their education, critical pedagogy requires a mutual process of reflexive dialogue.

This method is not merely non-directive “pseudo-participation” but authentic “co-intentional education” where the relationships are dialogical and mutually reinforcing.[18] The dialectal method is fundamental for this teaching philosophy so that the result is knowledge which can be used in a transformative manner rather than simply bits of information which are only useful for adaptation.[19] Students and teachers are encouraged to search out the limits of their current situations, identify a new way to supersede these limits, and thus bring forth new situations into reality.

One example is the MST in Brazil, which emphasizes that the students in their community schools “become subjects of their own pedagogy”, not only “reflect[ing] upon their own education” but actively “challeng[ing] themselves to become the subjects of theoretical reflection upon the pedagogy that they live”.[20] Therefore students (and teachers) learn to creatively shape their contexts instead of merely adapting to them.

Once communities create what Friere calls conscientização, or the ability to “develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves... [seeing] the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation”, they will be empowered to break their cycle of dependency themselves and gain actual self-sufficiency.[21] As Cortezia stresses, this is not isolationism, but the community’s self-identification of its needs and the consequent creation of locally appropriate solutions.[22] The eradication of dependency can only occur through an education that continually reinforces “socio-political deconstruction”. This notion allows for a negation of the ideological programming the center (including local elites) propagates to reify their exploitative, asymmetrical relationship with the masses in the periphery.[23]

To summarize, the current “banking system” of education does not encourage creativity and transformative knowledge but rather information that is adaptive. Critical pedagogy based on dialogical relations is useful for empowering communities to find the limits of their current situations, enabling them to break dependency, and promoting locally appropriate solutions for self-actualization and social development. There already exist myriads of invigorating critical theories and successful movements employing concrete action which can serve as an inspiration and challenge in this endeavor.[24]

Fundamental and lasting changes are the hardest kind and typically entail a difficult uphill struggle. On one level, there is great resistance to openness and the diffusion of power from those who currently monopolize it. Also, the ideological lack of faith in human agency has been internalized by the masses, making them their own worst enemy at times. Therefore, the “frontline” of social change is contemporary education. Critical pedagogy must be fought for vigorously so that students begin to embrace their imaginations rather than hiding them. As Karl Marx highlighted, any idea which humans can imagine is not foreign but a possibility awaiting praxis.[25]

Works Cited
1. Friedman, Thomas L. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Strause and Giroux.
2. Hinkelammert, Franz. 1991. Crítica a la razón utópica. San José de Costa Rica: DEI.
3. Fukuyama, Francis. 1993. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Avon.
4. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 4.
5. Callaghan, Karen A. 2004. “Globalization and Resistance to the Market in Education.” In Globalization with a Human Face, eds. Choi, Jung M., John W. Murphy, and Manuel J. Caro. London: Praeger, 67.
6. Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 72.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, 83.
9. Murphy, John W. 2004. “The Traditional Ontology of Development, History and Globalization from Below.” In Globalization with a Human Face, eds. Choi, Jung M., John W. Murphy, and Manuel J. Caro. London: Praeger, 5.
10. Cortezia, William G. 2004. “Does Dependency Theory Still Have Relevance in Latin America?” In Globalization with a Human Face, eds. Choi, Jung M., John W. Murphy, and Manuel J. Caro. London: Praeger.
11. Toh, Swee-hin and Virginia Floresca-Cawagas. 1997. “Towards a People-Centered Education: Possibilities and Struggles in the Philippines.” International Review of Education 43:527-545.
12. Kane, Liam. 2000. “Popular Education and the Landless People's Movement in Brazil (MST).” Studies in the Education of Adults 32:36-51.
13. Toh and Floresca-Cawagas, 7.
14. Freire, 95.
15. Ibid, 79.
16. Murphy, 20.
17. Ibid, 19.
18. Freire, 69.
19. Kane, 4.
20. Emílio, Júlio Diniz-Pereira. 2005. “Teacher Education for Social Transformation and its Links to Progressive Social Movements: The case of the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 3:2-10.
21. Freire, 83.
22. Cortezia.
23. Ibid, 79.
24. Kane, 5.
25. Murphy, 7.

Solidarity with victims

2005-07-21T20:18:00.000-05:00

I feel of all the speeches, rants, and articles on the horrific loss of life in London, this Brit puts it best, next to perhaps the mayor of London. The following was written by Stella Jorgensen.

"The day the British people have been awaiting for four years arrived on Thursday. Scenes of turmoil, confusion, smoke and blood. Streams of crumpled people poured out of subway tunnels and drifted round the streets like litter.

Surprisingly, there was very little fear or panic on open display. Sadness and confusion, yes, but few tears, few screams, no hysteria. The predictability of the attack combined with London stoicism mean that the first worry on many people's minds was how they would get into work, or how they would get home that evening.

The response to the attack, even while the dead are still being counted, also highlights unique aspects of the British character. I am a member of an online political network of activists from all over the globe. As soon as the news broke, fulsome tributes began to pour in from my American colleagues; pictures of flags and lit candles, poems, expressions of heartfelt sympathy and friendship. Yet it felt odd to me.

The British are not good at sentiment, no matter how genuine. Since Thursday's tragedy, we have not been shedding public tears, we have not been buying flags, we have not been shouting for retaliation. It is interesting to speculate as to why the response has been so unusually subdued. Part of the explanation is undoubtedly "blitz mentality". Decades of being targeted by the IRA means that London, like few other western cities, has an intimate acquaintance with terrorism, and at some point the collective decision was made that it would take more than bombs to dent London's swagger. Since then, terrorism is allowed only to affect those directly involved, and we get on with the boring but essential business of living, as our brothers around the world wave flags on our behalf.

The condemnation of the act of terrorism has rightly been universal. Civilians of all creeds and colours share outrage, the Muslim Council expressed it horror and grief, the newspapers all have sombre black banners. And yet, the condemnation is tempered by a dawning sense that, as a nation, we are not blameless victims.

As I watched the aftermath of the bombing on television, the thought occurred that the fear, the anger, the disgust I felt as I watched my fellow citizens wipe blood from their eyes was just a tiny fraction of what the people of Iraq have been experiencing every day for years, with no end in sight. The act of individual terror, revolting though it is, is completely dwarfed by the relentless onslaught of state terror, paid for with our taxes.

So, perhaps our quiet response to the attack also reflects our guilt about the fire our government rains down on the heads of the innocent civilians of Iraq. A sentiment I have heard again and again in recent days has been "now we know what it's like". Victims reaching out in solidarity to other victims. Why did it take this tragedy to force jaded imaginations to recognise our common humanity? Why does war have to be brought to our doorsteps before we realise how horrible, how fundamentally unacceptable it is?

If understanding motive is important when investigating a murder, it must be even more important to try to comprehend the motivation of those who murder dozens. Even now, with the smoke still billowing, British people are recognising national culpability in such great numbers that there is very little criticism of their view. The condemnation of the war in Iraq has reached an astonishing peak, and the attempt to understand the motivation behind the London attacks is so widespread that it cannot rightly be considered dissent at all. Those who refuse to ask themselves "why" are now firmly in the minority.

Seeing Tony Blair and George Bush on television pontificating solemnly about protecting our values, our way of life, and about how evil the terrorists are ignores the simple fact that in terms of numbers alone, they themselves are infinitely worse than a handful of determined amateurs. Our values and way of life have done irreparable harm to people around the world. They need to be rethought as a matter of some urgency. This basic truth fails to penetrate the dull fog of cliché which surrounds Blair and Bush, and it was with weary resignation that my family and I, watching the ludicrous, irony free pronouncements, turned to each other and laughed out loud."

Dualism and Its Effects on Political Beliefs

2005-06-09T22:16:00.000-05:00

I finished packing the cars late at night for the trip to my dormitory for my first semester at college. I sat down to watch TV with my dad in the family room. We talked about how exciting it was and how I finally was moving out. He reminded me again how he saved up for college and told me more stories about his fraternity, friends and classes. He warned me that some professors I may get would be biased. "Be careful, don't come back a liberal," he quipped.

My roommate and I got along fairly well. We both enjoyed history and video games. We discussed the glorious defeat of the evil Nazis while playing it out in games like "Battlefield 1942" and "Medal of Honor." He plastered a rather large poster of the Twin Towers on the wall along with a huge American flag on his side of the room. We watched the surreal footage of the occupation of Afghanistan on Fox News. We tried to see who could name the type of guns and armaments the fastest while making fun of some anti-American hippies down the hall. Later, we both concurred with speech after speech that Saddam Hussein could not be allowed to sell his Weapons of Mass Destruction to other terrorists. This had to be for real, I never had even seen any coverage of this "United Nations" before. After the bombs began dropping, the TV was constantly tuned to the war porn channel.

I had argued vehemently with some leftists friends, including my girlfriend, that WMDs could not be left in the hands of an evil doer like Saddam. Mistrusting the federal government was nothing strange but when the endless search for WMDs proved naggingly futile, I realized that I was lied to. What else were the liberals right about? I began questioning the administration's motives. "So you're a Democrat Bush basher now," was the response of my mother on a visit back home.

Two political parties have dominated the United States from its very beginning. Many political ideals are formed by attempting to coherently fit them within a "left" or "right" side. Not only is it constraining but it is often the source of the formation of the political ideals themselves. This often occurs without wholly comprehending or even justifying the formation for any other reason besides it is the "liberal" or "conservative" way. The descriptive adjective form is then used to speak of something or someone as "liberal" or "conservative". This is becoming increasingly common even while general concern with politics is certainly decreasing due to widespread apathy. Yet we are not alone in the belief of the necessity of a self-perpetuating and self-justifying external normative abstraction, in this case a left-right spectrum. This notion has characterized modern Western thought since its conception. Most highly regarded thinkers sought to find a singular basis for order that was separate so it was sovereign but still ubiquitous so justification could be deferred to it. Thales is widely recognized as the first modern "lover of wisdom" who proposed that water was the basic, primary source which compromises the observable universe and underpins reality. Pythagoras later argued numbers take this role of coordinating and providing harmony in order to be the bedrock of order. Heraclitus claimed logos is both the single origin of norms and justice. As such, it is universal and authoritative. There is no escaping the external, monolithic entity.

Plato purported that the world is one of ideal form of pure truth and that of a world of illusions. These Platonic "Forms" are unaffected by contingencies and disconnected from everyday life. Aristotle wrote that this pure truth must be discovered through experiencing an empirical reality. Throughout the Medieval period, God served as the basis for order so it was viewed as natural and static. For Thomas Hobbes, people were innately egoistic and needed to be restrained by a "Leviathan" state which was external and reached above the "brutish and short" jungle of society. John Locke concurred that the state was important for preserving social order. People could sacrifice some freedom in order to cooperate and co-exist. However this sacrifice of freedom externalizes the state and makes it self-sustaining. All legitimacy is deferred to the state's perceived product of order. Since it is viewed as natural and necessary, the social creation now monopolizes the origins of its own creation. This reification through circular logic is the result of the Western tradition of dualism.

Later social thinkers followed suit such as Emile Durkheim, the father of structural-functionalism. He purported that social reality was similar to any other object in the world. It was observable, external, "fixed and capable of operating on the individual." He also looked at those around him and saw that everyone was greedy and selfish. Talcott Parsons believed that society was an organic whole whose parts solely served to maintain the whole. The parts are people and they input energy into the system. Social roles, a set of behavioral expectations, and rewards motivate these parts. The organic system of society becomes a totality and a separate entity unto itself. The system now becomes the reason for existence while it simultaneously was created to allow for existence.

"What are you, Republican or Democrat?" is certainly the most popular response I receive when informing others my major is Political Science or simply when discussing an issue deemed political. I must fit neatly into the normative spectrum in order to express myself and communicate. Or I use it to justify my attitudes and perspective. But in turn, the external abstraction defines me through this process of reification. It occurs even though this spectrum was originally created and defined by society itself. This vicious circularity reveals the conundrum of modern, Western dualistic thought. Jean Jacques Rousseau criticized Machiavelli and Hobbes for this reason. Their notion of humanity being innately egoistic which justified the need for society, was looking at humans in a society ordered in such a manner that treated humans as such. Once the social creation is fixed and self-reinforcing, it then becomes impossible for one to separate it from social existence.

Is Capitalism the Answer, Problem, or None of the Above?

2005-06-09T22:12:00.000-05:00

Mega greedy transnational companies agro-export till the Latin American workers drop from pesticide-induced cancer so you can have that perfect chrysanthemum. Alternatively, the foreign-based company offers developing countries a mechanism to support themselves besides scrounging and drug trafficking. The rampant mismanagement of the environment stems from impoverished people left with no other choice for feeding their family. But are they kept this way due to the global economic system? Or is the does the problem with the environment and thus society and its people lie in something deeper than economics, trade, property rights, production, development and consumption?

Latin America provides the unfortunate narratives common throughout emerging markets. Poverty, disease, malnutrition, and lacking infrastructure are widespread. Among other worries, pollution becomes so chronic it is a prime public health hazard. Even in urban centers like Mexico City, most garbage and waste is not disposed of properly. This leads to problems like fecal dust, which blow dangerous organisms throughout the air. Many people miss numerous days from work due to being chronically ill.

Fortunately, some areas are improving. Non-traditional agricultural exports are on the rise. They have helped bolster economic output in places like Ecuador, which has had a 27-fold increase since 1985. Thanks to Western aid from institutions like the World Bank, where there was once simply subsistence, small farmers are successfully growing and finding markets for products like snow peas and quinoa. In other countries like Colombia, many peasants are finding they do not have to cultivate cocoa or work processing labs in a brutal civil war fueled by the drug trade.

The future is not nearly as bright as these transnational corporations and their capitalist benefactors present. These entities are monolithic onto themselves, with their sheer numbers increasing seven fold in the last 30 years. They control 90% of product patents and 70% of the international trade. The overwhelming majority of the top 500 companies in the United States vie for multiple national markets. As such, they account for 63% of our Gross Domestic Product. Their political power is also growing with their profit margins. In the 2000 elections, they contributed a record $200-400 million. The resulting return was $85 billion in tax breaks and public subsidies. With over 250,000 foreign subsidiaries, production primarily occurs in poor communities where wages are low. They support politicians, think tanks and global banking institutions which espouse "free market" neoliberal policies that call for an end for all environmental regulation.

Their inherently monopolistic and profit-hungry nature undermines the sovereign rights of people and causes unquantifiable environmental harm. Take for example the instance of Texaco in Ecuador. The transnational sought to extract oil in an area known as the Oriente, home to many indigenous communities. Despite the protest of these people, the state barred any taxes and environmental regulation against Texaco, who was left to self-regulate. Thirty spills and 16.8 million gallons of oil waste later, 30,000 indigenous people were stricken with diseases and cancers. Miscarriages ensued and the population declined.

Both of these orientations claim that the effects of the current capitalist economic order is either beneficial or harmful. But how about the third choice? Suppose the problem lied not merely in the rationality of actors or the value-judgments of those who hold power, but in the nature of how ideas like power and rationality are conceptualized, implemented, and practiced. Currently, it is considered "irrational" to work for a more democratic manner in which to "maximize" yourself through something like sharing power through increased participation by all those involved. While it would certainly would entail immensely increased organization and awareness in order to reverse this, it also more importantly requires increased creativity and imagination. If one believes an end is unlikely to materialize or even impossible because of the difficult means, one will not even consider working towards that end. If people collectively wish to democratized their life and society, will not participatory government and economics be possible?

Whatever the means, certainly no one would freely choose to degrade themselves and environment if alternates were available. The problem is with removing dehumanizing ideologies, like positivism and its essentialist products like determinism, that reify the current relationship between society, individual, and environment as perpetual and any alternative as chaotic. The external and autonomous foundations which positivists justify the existence of the current order must be exposed as the social constructions they are. Only then, where there is a will there will be a way.

Environmentalism as Accommodation

2005-06-09T21:53:00.000-05:00

There are hundreds of international environmental groups and tens of thousands of smaller groups who work on the national and local level throughout the world. Numerous surveys over the past 30 years indicate widespread concern for the environment and desire for increased regulation. The last century has seen the appearance of a broad based environmental movement. Yet why is the specter of environmental degradation which it seeks to solve still very much with us?

Mainstream environmental organizations work within the created political realities in order to mitigate particular instances of environmental degradation. Organizations like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club seek to secure plots of land and encourage “sustainable” use by engaging collective actors such as states and firms. After all, this is the most practical strategy given the current capitalist system right? These organizations demand and may very well receive a few concessions from other collective actors. Concessions are regressive since they are often used for the justification of more environmental exploitation elsewhere. These gains are also antithetical to the necessary capitalistic treadmills of production and consumption. They require an immense defensive posture to maintain, as long as the current system is viewed as given. The mainstream environmental organizations are then restrained to confront the foundation and origins of the problem of environmental degradation, like Capitalism and issues pertaining to social justice. Thus, the environmental organizations place themselves in a reifying, Sisyphusian predicament.

The popular environmental strategy of accommodation implies the capitalist system and how it subsequently structures markets as natural, external, and autonomous. Therefore, the only flexibility is dealing with firms and state misuse and abuse of the environment. Exploitation is due to externalities, firms lacking the will to factor the environment into their economic calculations, or to the absence of private ownership of resources. However this is an incredible parochial understanding. Society created Capitalism through politics, as they did every other economic system, and control can be re-exerted or it can be changed if so desired. Political change has always came about through the collective action of people, something that is rarely ever historically contested.

In order to retain credibility and access to participate inside the given framework, mainstream environmental organizations must approach other collective actors in a manner which is predetermined to be acceptable. This constrains critique or critical analysis exploring the origins of environmental degradation, especially Capitalism and the motives of actors, since it is less likely cooperation will ensue. To ward off unwanted negative publicity, a phenomenon known as the “greening of the discourse” is often permitted by the collective actors to undermine such claims for concessions. This is exemplified by the debate over sustainable development, where environmental affects are always discussed but rarely ever progress further.

Playing off of the widespread existence of environmental concern, numerous firms realize that there is much to be gained from having the appearance of an environmentally-friendly operation. Advertising and public relations are one of the largest international industries. Many firms who are the most exploitative are some of the largest funders of mainstream environmental organizations, like DuPont, Monsanto and ExxonMobil with some corporate representatives also residing on the board of large organizations.

The majority of large environmental organizations justify their modus operandi by paying lip service to being real, practical and engaging. However this still assumes the framework and political reality as given and unchangeable except through accommodation, token reforms and concessions. There is no reason why they could not substitute working with firms and states for working with grassroots and environmental justice organizations against firms and states. They certainly would receive less funding, but they would be even more practical and engaging and, if successful, would create a new environmentally-conscious reality. There is no excuse for grassroots organizing to remain confined to a local, attenuated level. The larger national and international organizations would bring much needed experience to the growing “Fourth wave” of the environmental movement. Cooperation among the movement to change the inherently unequal and exploitative political-economic system which creates the problems needs to take primacy over accommodation within that system to merely alleviate the symptoms. Furthermore, it is necessary to critique all collective actors, regardless of their rhetoric. We should be particularly skeptical of those who traditionally subsumed the environment as secondary and suddenly green their discourse, like firms, states, global institutions and organizations.

Protracted Conflict, Globalized Narcotrafficking and the Critical Imperative of Peace in Colombia: A Preliminary Analysis of Paramilitary Groups

2005-04-19T21:23:00.000-05:00

Paramilitary groups play a significant role in the tumultuous history of Colombia. The current discourse primarily created by scholars, journalists and human rights groups presents the paramilitaries as merely an inverse response to the guerrillas as self-defense groups or indiscriminate killers as death-squads (Spencer pg. 6). But how much weight does this truly hold? I argue the dynamics presented by the paramilitaries through their shared goals with the state, precedented support from the conservative oligarchical elite, arrangement within the globalized realm of nacrotrafficking and increasing political sway produce a unique, synergistic malignancy. This subsequently undermines U.S. regional policy and exacerbates human rights conditions, critically increasing the imperative to attain sustainable peace. Furthermore, there exists conflicting perceptions of paramilitaries throughout Colombian society. Although they have been implicated in as much as 3 times more killings and massacres than guerrillas and the state's security apparatus, for some sectors paramilitaries bring a stable alternative where guerrillas and the state have not (State Department sect. 1a). However for other mostly marginalized areas, there are yet another source of oppression in a long successive line of oppressors.

Socio-historical Background:
Land, Civil War and Armed Movements

A historical inquiry into the origins of the longest-running armed conflict in Latin America is necessary in order to understand its ramifications. In this section, I will explore Colombia's conflictual history in the context of the failure of the state to extend control and influence consequentially leading to weak or non-existent institutions, means and mechanisms to nonviolently arbitrate disputes between groups. I will also examine how this and other factors came to encourage the formation and development of paramilitary groups.

Similar to that of many countries, particularly those of former colonies, Colombia's history is marked by violence and conflict. Unlike its Latin American neighbors however, it continues to pervade all facets of society – culture, economy and politics. With one of the highest homicide rates in the world and over 500,000 murders in the past 27 years alone, violence is so prevailing that it is in effect the primary health problem throughout the country (Franco pg. 1).

To exploit the country's abundant natural resources the Spanish introduced many new systems, one which was the hacienda system around the early 18th century. The crown granted the use of public lands to primarily noble landlords while slaves and peasants worked these self-sufficient units. As this colonization of land intensified, landless workers or colonos became commonplace. This created enormous landed estates or latifundias which still characterize much of the present rural landscape. The landowning class frequently used violence to settle disputes between peasants and repress revolts in the absence of a fair judicial system. The landed class as well as the colonos continued to expand under the explosion of coffee and agricultural exports in the early 20th century.

Violence and repression became more necessary and increasingly brutal to maintain the system without any concrete reforms. However, after an drastic increase in worker massacres, many in the Liberal Party believed that agrarian and property rights reforms could no longer be avoided. Two successive administrations attempted to reorganize the relationship between landowner and tenant with the passage of such laws as Law 200, 100 and 1936. In a classic example of the inadequacy of the Colombian state, they were unable to enforce their initiatives due to being continually undermined at the local and municipal levels by landowners and their constituents (Richani pg. 16). A growing backlash capitalized on the emerging anti-communist Cold War sentiment which purported the necessity to control and prevent potentially subversive popular working class and peasant movements.

The next member of the Liberal Party which was able to consolidate enough power to run for President was Jorge Eliecer Gaitan in 1950. He promised to further push for more land reforms and property rights. He was a highly favored candidate but was assassinated before the election triggering a riot known as the Bogotazo, tearing apart the capital city. This further sparked intense fighting between Liberal and Conservative Party followers which became known as La Violencia (Manwaring pg. 2). In 1957, the biparty system was re-established while no real progress was made in resolving the disputes over land and property rights. Various leftist political organizations like the National Association of Peasant Users (ANUC), Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), and the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN) were founded in the early 1960's on the grievances of colonos and the peasant subsistence economy. Threatened landowners in turn developed their own “self-defense” forces. In 1965, these self-defense paramilitary forces were declared legal and legitimate entities to fight against the radicalized peasant based movements aiming to forcefully restructure the peasant, landowner, and state relationship (Richani pg. 28).

Historically unable to extend control primarily outside of population and economic centers, the state continued to be ineffective against the emergence of this protracted conflict. The National Security Doctrine called for containment of the insurgency and protection of areas of influence instead of an all out war to militarily defeat the guerrillas. This was justified by low assessments of the guerrillas' potential for succeeding in overturning the state leading to a reluctance to provide any significant aid needed for an extended offensive campaign. This defensive posture in turn further limited the expansion of the state's control. It is against this backdrop of the “state's hegemonic crisis” in which nacrotrafficking was able to organize and make enough significant gains to eventually monopolize (Richani pg. 95-99). These organized nacrotrafficking structures were diametrically opposed to the guerrillas since they represented a form of capitalism while the guerrillas essentially originated from the struggle against capitalism's hierarchy (Thoumi pg. 85). Similar to any agribusiness enterprise which produces raw materials, organized narcotrafficking structures relied on cheap labor – the abundance of peasants in Colombia – to decrease their cost of production and increase their competitiveness in the market. New paramilitaries were created or more given support to defend against the guerrillas and in an attempt by nacrotraffickers to monopolize the growing and processing cocoa then transporting the cocaine.

Paramilitaries were encouraged and supported by the United States in Colombia, like elsewhere in Latin American and throughout the world during the Cold War. In 1962, U.S. military advisors proposed the Colombian military “select civilian and military personnel... to perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents” (HRW pg. 14: 1996). Irregular security forces and counter-revolutionary assassination squads targeting guerrillas, sympathizers and others deemed subversive to the current system became increasingly popular means used by conservative economic elites and the armed forces, particularly in the north. The most prominent example is the systematic campaign of extermination waged against the Patriotic Union (UP) party. The UP was organized mainly by former members of the FARC and other leftist activists seeking to use the system to make significant political changes. Unsurprisingly, the UP was largely successful in many impoverished areas in the 1986 municipal elections. To halt the reforms the party was promising the numerous landed and industrial oligarchical elites used the familiar violent mechanisms of repression, contracting paramilitaries to extinguish the UP by killing its members, candidates and sympathizers. In the struggle to undermine the UP, an estimated 3,000 were murdered, including two presidential candidates and numerous senators. More often then not this campaign enjoyed the complicity and implicit support of Colombia's armed forces who stood to lose influence and prerogative under proposed military reforms (Shifter pg. 3).

Another example demonstrative of the paramilitary-military relationship is the Muertos a los Secustradores (MAS). The MAS was established in 1981 by those radicalized by the affect of the armed guerrillas along with land and business owners in Barrahcaberjeua. The area was frequently targeted by the ELN and contained Colombia's largest oil refinery and port on the Magdalena River. Eventually, the MAS operated jointly with the Naval Intelligence Network No. 7 to ensure stability by liquidating subversives – guerrilla sympathizers, trade unionists, leftist activists, intellectuals and journalists (HRW pg. 30-39: 1996). This additionally came to include anyone who publicly criticized or opposed the MAS. When finally investigated, the attorney general implicated fifty-nine individuals actively serving in the Colombian military, including numerous officers (Jones pg. 8).

Political violence began to drastically increase. In the 1970s there were 1,053 political killings recorded. That number jumped to 12,859 in the 1980s (HRW pg. 25: 1996). Following immense public and international pressure, the Colombian government began to recognize the problem of the effects of the paramilitaries. In 1989, their legal status was revoked. In 1991, Colombia's first appointed civilian of the Ministry of Defense stated, “Paramilitary groups engaged in organized violence pose the biggest threat to the country's institutional stability” (HRW pg. 26: 1996). In spite of the Colombia government's efforts, collusive paramilitary-military relationships continue to be documented throughout the country, especially in traditional guerrilla strongholds in the south. It is widely alleged the 24th Brigade based in Putumayo coordinates actions against guerrillas with paramilitary groups. Intelligence and logistical support is given, many times in return for payment. The 3rd Brigade based in Cali, Valle actively promotes, assists and coordinates operations with paramilitaries. Eyewitnesses report active duty soldiers moonlighting as paramilitaries, and paramilitaries using military uniforms and transportation. There are numerous accounts of state security personnel informing civilians that paramilitary members would follow after them to carry out atrocities on guerrilla sympathizers. Following a successful paramilitary campaign to control dozens of towns along the Magdalena River, the 5th Brigade based in Bucaramange, Santander remained passive and unresponsive, supplying excuses of lacking jurisdiction, time, evidence and large distances instead (HRW pg. 9-51: 2001). The State Department's annual Report on Human Rights found “there continued to be credible reports that some members of the security forces cooperated with illegal paramilitaries... Such collaboration often facilitated unlawful killings and sometimes may have involved direct participation in paramilitary atrocities... Impunity for military personnel... remained a problem” (State Department sect. 1a).

The collapse of the Medellín and Cali cartels allowed their former monopolization on the narcotrafficking processes to spread to a much wider array of organizations and traffickers. In order to significantly expanded their revenues, the FARC and ELN moved from simply taxing the cocoa production and regulating the price from merchants to become more directly involved in the other processes of nacrotrafficking. Many paramilitaries soon followed suit. However, paramilitaries enjoyed toleration and support from many landowners and some armed forces in numerous regions – something the guerrillas never could achieve. This allowed the paramilitaries to easily grow strong regional networks, manifested in the coalition known as the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) headed by Carlos Castaño.

Current Dynamics: Paramilitarization and Demobilization

Paramilitaries have grown from localized bands of a few hundred mostly ex-military and civilians directly affected by the guerrillas, to a national economic and political force containing over 13,000 active duty militants. The AUC estimates that it controls 90% of all paramilitary forces in the country. In a 2000 televised interview, Castaño claimed that over 70% of its finances derrived from narcotrafficking-related activities with the rest coming from donations from sponsors – businesses, cattle ranchers, and other landowners. U.S. Ambassador William Wood estimates the paramilitaries control 40% of the nacrotrafficking in the country (ISG pg. 12). This is supported by the 1999 seizure of one of the largest cocoa processing complexes near Puerto Boyaca, a traditional AUC stronghold. The 10 kilometer complex was estimated by investigators to cost $5 million to construct, able to produce 8 tons of cocaine a month and employ over 100 workers. The AUC also incontestably controls the important smuggling routes along the Panamanian border and Atlantic coast (Richani pg. 108-109).

Castaño explained in another interview how the AUC essentially establishes new “franchises”. Those willing to organize to combat guerrillas come to ask for funds and training. Before assistance is granted, a minimum number of recruits and small budget is required. Funds are collected for use in times of need and autonomy is allowed unless coordination is requested (Spencer pg. 11). This decentralized structure allows for incredible flexibility and incredibly easy expansion. Castaño also described how the AUC infiltrates areas under guerrilla influence. Soldiers enter the village with a list of “known guerrillas and sympathizers”. They are extrajudicially executed due to mere guilt by association or being tipped off. Fighting with guerrilla forces often ensues. After an area is cleared, the AUC establishes a code of conduct banning “anti-social” behavior (Spencer pg. 7-9). This is enforced by "social cleansing" – generally killings of sexual workers, drug users, the homeless, and mentally ill (State Department sect. 1a). Reports of the AUC bringing in clients to work abandon land and fill vacated jobs are common (Richani pg. 115). The AUC rent seeks similar to the guerrillas but much less progressively, taxing landowners and businesses significantly less percentage amounts. These “liberated” areas receive praise, even by U.S. analysts, for their apparent violent economic productivity (Spencer pg. 9).

Mostly absent from English information sources, Colombian analysts and journalists are increasingly documenting the trend of “paramilitarization” across the country. Traditional irregular anti-guerrilla forces are evolving into mafia style organizations, entering the “a la Italiana” phase. According to Senator Moreno, “half the country is theirs.” In July 2004, two paramilitary leaders even addressed the Columbian Congress. Sponsored by the Colombia Viva party, many of its members are from paramilitary controlled areas and have expressed open support for their ends. Reports by El Tiempo and El Spectador detail paramilitary organizations establishing enterprises in the formal economy, copying the former drug cartels who notoriously setup unlicensed security firms, telecommunication providers, and various companies to vie for municipal government contracts. Through the production of extreme levels of corruption followed by systematic assassination of competitors and opposition, a Colombian Congressmen claims that this “becomes a new form of organized crime that must be added to the already long list of threats to Colombian democracy” (Isacson: 3.28.05).

As promised by the Álvaro Uribe administration's “Democratic Security” plan, Colombian officials have been negotiating with paramilitaries since his election in 2002. This has lead to a cease-fire agreement in November 2002 and thousands of paramilitary soldiers handing in armaments. While any progress that could curb bloodshed is highly needed, there is a consensus that a current sufficient legal framework is lacking as well as support for the proposed framework, recently highlighted in a statement by U.S. Ambassador Wood (Isacson: 4.11.05). Many issues about the demobilization process are presently being debated in the Colombian Congress, domestically among citizens, and in the international community. The most significant issues include ceasefire and demobilization breaches, criminals posing as paramilitaries, punishment, reparations, seizure of assets, extradition, amnesty and aid for the demobilization process.

The Colombian Congress is nearly finished drafting the “Justice and Peace” bill proposed by the Uribe administration, which establishes legal guidelines for the demobilization process. The Colombian Congress narrowly approved the majority of the bill's provisions by the week of April 15, 2005. Government opposition, human rights groups, United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCHR), U.S. officials, many donor countries, and even a coalition of businesses criticize the current standing bill as too lenient and lacking many available conditions sufficient for sustainable peace (Isacson: 4.6.05). For example, a provision actually supported by the Uribe administration to exclude lenient jail sentences to paramilitary members who engaged in narcotrafficking before joining paramilitaries was voted down. Another similar provision was defeated that would of declared paramilitaries who used illegal means to gain material benefit ineligible for amnesty. The Center for International Policy highlighted at least three individuals on the U.S. extradition list for narcotrafficking that were participating in the demobilization negotiations in Ralito, claiming to command paramilitaries (Isacson: 4.6.05). There are also eighteen other known members of AUC which are wanted for extradition (ISG pg. 12). On April 12, the Colombian Congress passed a version of an amendment that failed to classify paramilitary actions as a political crime which is exempt from extradition according to current law, that was being pushed by the Uribe administration and supporters. Members of the opposition voiced their dissatisfaction in futile as parts of the bill which only gave 30 days for investigators to gather evidence for individual trials was passed. A recent non-binding statement by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee pointed out the lacking guidelines in dismantling the paramilitaries accumulated assets and organization structure (Isacson: 4.15.05).

Analysis of Possible Outcomes and Conclusion

If an ineffective demobilization process ensues, there are potentially large repercussions on not only U.S. policy and Plan Colombia, but also on global nacrotrafficking which is exemplified in the wide range of expressed international interest. There are most likely three potential outcomes to the bilateral demobilization process. One is complete dissolution of the demobilization plan from a breakdown in negotiations. The AUC has repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the current proposed legislation, citing the inclusion of extradition as their primary concern. If this occurs, the Uribe administration could be left to use its guerrilla “firm hand” policy on the paramilitaries. Besides the inherent risks of a war on two fronts, it could possibly lead to collaboration between the guerrillas and paramilitaries to protect their current nacrotrafficking operations. U.S. and Colombian sources have revealed there are already multiple cases of cooperation at various low levels (Dudley pg. 1). A second possibility is the completion of negotiations, complete paramilitary demobilization, but failing to instead disassemble their organized criminal structure. They would be incorporated into civil society, essentially legitimizing their illegal practices. Since impunity would be nearly impossible to combat, nacrotrafficking and corruption would reach unsurpassed heights producing the infamous “nacrodemocracy” analysts have been terrified of. The third potential outcome is that of the successful demobilization of the majority of paramilitary groups, along with some successful enticement for them to forgo their acquired organized criminal assets and nacrotrafficking structures. Obviously this is the most desirable for the majority of Colombian society and international community. Nevertheless, the past Colombian political history of complete or partial demobilizations of various guerrilla organizations is full of more grim outcomes. The M-18 and UP party experienced immense opposition and campaigns of systematic extermination. This would likely be lessened by the lack of support experienced by the current guerrilla organizations who would presumably be targeting the demobilized paramilitaries. Another grave concern is after an area is cleared of illegal armed groups, it could leave a vacuum for other groups not yet demobilized. The state has consistently failed to follow up its military apparatus with non-military institutions but this could easily be corrected with enough federal assistance. However, it remains to be seen just how the paramilitaries would be enticed to forgo their accumulated wealth in the first place.

Facing the elevation of insecurity and the continued erosion of Colombian democracy, these potential outcomes posit the Uribe administration in a dire situation. The recognition of the paramilitary groups as a real, outstanding problem is a fairly new development within the past 15 years. The realization of the dynamic complexity presented by the paramilitary situation remains critically lacking in Colombia and elsewhere. It is imperative domestic and international constructive criticism and support for confronting this issue needs to persist, as it has for the previous two decades. However, in order to expand the current restrictions imposed on the discourse detailing paramilitaries, additional investigative scholarly work which takes into account the intricacies of the delicate historical-socioeconomic nature of the issue is greatly required. There are numerous reasons why a resolution of this conflict is in the best interest of multiple involved actors. The requisite respect of universal human rights resulting from increased awareness and constructive dialogue is a present imperative concern. Another is regional stability, essential to the eradication of narcotrafficking and Plan Columbia. Finally, the credibility of the War on Terrorism also demands international support for the current progress made. Hopefully this will allow the people of Colombia to attain some much deserved and long withheld sustainable peace.

Works Cited

U.S. Department of State. 2004 Colombian Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. February 28, 2005. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41754.htm
Franco, Saul. A Social-Medical Approach to Violence in Colombia. American Journal of Public Health, December 2003, Vol. 93 Issue 12, pg. 2032.
Manwaring, Max G. Non-State Actors in Columbia. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Summer 2002, Vol. 13 Issue 2, pg 68.
Richani, Nazih. Systems of Violence. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Jones, Adam. Parainstitutional Violence in Latin America. Latin American Politics & Society, Winter 2004, Vol. 46 Issue 4, pg 12.
Spencer, David. Colombia's paramilitaries. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2001.
Thoumi, Francisco E. Illegal drugs, economy and society in the Andes. Washington, D.C: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Shifter, Michael. Colombia on the Brink. Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999, Vol. 78 Issue 4, pg 14.
Isacson, Adam. Plan Columbia and Beyond. April 2005. http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/
Human Rights Watch (HRW). The "Sixth Division". New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2001.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). The "Sixth Division". New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2001.
International Crisis Group (ISG). Demobilising the Paramilitaries in Colombia. August 5, 2004. http://www.icg.org/home/index.cfm?id=2901&l=1
Dudley, Steven. Paramilitaries ally with rebels for drug trade. Miami Herald. November 25, 2004. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/10268889.htm

Water in Israel and Palestine: A Permeating Imperative

2005-04-19T21:19:00.000-05:00

Land has long been the principle focus of the nearly century old tumultuous conflict which has redefined the region many times over. Water resources is inseparable from the primacy of land, yet this notion appears to receive less attention and consideration than it deserves. The problem of water, further intensified by the arid environment making it a regional commodity, is a perpetual and unresolved barrier to the establishment of peace, stability and regional sustainable economic and social development. Aside from the necessary equal recognition and respect of universal human rights, it is in the interest of all the world's citizens to actualize and directly confront these salient issues which prevent a foreseeable end to this grave conflict. More so now than ever this is particularly due to the heightened interest in transnational terrorist actors who use the persistent failure of the developed world to constructively push for a resolution as well as the historical marginalization of regional populations by the same Western cultures as a rallying cry for continued successful recruitment and support.

Of all the repercussions of 57 years of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, “one of the most blatant forms of discrimination faced by Palestinians was inequitable access to water” with an “administrative structure that penalized Arab consumers” (Rouyer pg. 112, 113). There exists large disparities in water distribution from those in relatively close proximity, mostly differentiated along lines of traditionally defined ethnicity and therefore held citizenship. According to testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives along with data from the World Bank, Israeli West Bank settlers used 300 l/pd (liters per person per day) of water on average while their Palestinians neighbors in the occupied territory used merely a fourth of that at 76 l/pd and those in Gaza used 100 l/pd for domestic purposes in the early 1990's. This translates to around 130,000 settlers consuming 60-100 mcm (million cubic meters) per year while 1.2 million Palestinians consumed 100-140 mcm or 31% of the area's population consuming only 10% of the water (Rouyer pg. 116). The actual consumption rates to Palestinians is approximately 40-60 l/pd due deteriorating infrastructure causing 50% leakage rates and very high contamination rates. Many scholars have pointed out that these are conservative estimates and the numbers for Israeli settlement water usage is likely to be much higher. Exact data remains uncertain due to the secretive tendency of Israeli settlement data, particularly from the IWC, Merkorot and Tahal. Even the relatively small amount of water supplied to Israeli settlement through Palestinian utilities is not billed but subtracted out of the fees owed to the governing entity for the occupied territories, the Israel Civil Administration (ICA) (Rouyer pg. 124).

Israel extends and maintains control over water resources through licensing, rationing and regulation of rates. This is codified by an unprecedented series of laws and military orders governing water enacted after the Suez War in 1956 and the Six Day War in 1967. The Israeli Water Commission (IWC) is the government agency responsible for overall planning, regulation and supervision of all water related matters. The head Water Commissioner is appointed by the current ruling party coalition's Cabinet. Merkorot, also know as the Israel Water Company, primarily handles the design and supply of irrigation. Tahal or the Water Planning Company is charged with long range development of new water infrastructure. Before the occupation under Egyptian and Jordanian law in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively, water resources were considered private and not regulated or restricted in anyway by the state. The allowed water consumption for agricultural for Palestinians was frozen in 1967. As Palestinian populations continue to boom, only recently has domestic consumption been allowed to steadily rise. While new settler wells were numerous, not one permit was granted to Palestinians in the West Bank for drilling wells. The 20 permits granted in Gaza never materialized due to high associated costs and lack of funds.

While only 20% to 30% of Israel's total water resources originate from the occupied territories, 50% of its drinkable water comes from the West Bank (Rouyer pg. 116). Israel has repeatedly denied the charge that exploitation of aquifers is pass safe limits. However, according to a study by the Palestinian Hydrology Group, salinity levels from 1982 to 1991 in Palestinian wells in the Jordan Valley rose by 130% and chlorine concentrations by 50% due to lower water table levels most likely attributed to over-pumping of much deeper Israeli settlement wells. Numerous Mekorot wells that were dug for Israeli settlers were often near Palestinian wells. The deeper and more abundant settler wells often dried up the shallower Palestinian wells nearby. The Palestinian Hydrology Group found 26 completely dry wells in the vicinity of Mekorot wells in the Jordan Valley in 1993 (Rouyer pg. 119).
Road blockages and landfill closures by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and ICA have severely impacted solid waste collection. This has greatly increased transportation costs due to having to travel further away, on lower quality roads or even arbitrarily dumping near cities and villages. It has also resulted in the doubling of the price of solid waste collection per pound (World Bank pg. 77). New landfills are often constructed inside cities due to various restrictions by the state of Israel. These generally do not meet acceptable specifications such as being located near wells and lacking appropriate lining. Numerous solid waste utilities have reported structural damage due to conflict-related violence. Consequentially, bacterial contamination of piped water from fecal coliforms is up from 20% to an alarming 65%, making it equivalent to tanker water. Diarrhea and other gastrointestinal infections of children under 5 has increased by 42% due to the prevalence of protozoans like giardia. Further disheartening is the fact that many Palestinians are unaware of the deterioration of their water quality as 83% of respondents of a recent survey said their drinking water was safe and clean (World Bank pg. 67).

The price Palestinians pay for domestic and agricultural water consumption is significantly higher rates than that of West Bank settlers. The settlers water is heavily subsidized by the World Zionist Organization (WZO). It is estimated to be $0.33 per cubic meter for domestic consumption and $0.16 per cubic meter for agricultural uses. Palestinians pay $1.00 per cubic meter for both agricultural and domestic uses. This demonstrates the power of the agricultural lobby in Israel politics, which has grown from small, sustenance driven kibbutzim to large agribusiness firms that rake in profits from Israel's large national market. In recent years, Israel has also become a leading exporting of fruits and vegetables to primarily the U.S., but also to Europe and Asia. Furthermore, Palestinians are not allowed to actually purchase from Israeli water utilities like Mekorot or Tahal, but must do so from the ICA. This allows for a markup in price of about three fold from the price water was sold for to the ICA, justified by the administrative costs which is solely on paper since the water is still delivered by Mekorot or Tahal. This is tantamount to “belligerent occupation” under international law, which prohibits the economic gain from the exploitation of populations under military occupation.

Development of water infrastructure for Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank were financed by the Israeli government and the cost of consumption heavily subsidized by the WZO. The ICA made only minor contributions to infrastructure development that was to be used by Palestinians. Since there was no banking institutions in the occupied territories until 1994, Palestinians found it difficult to obtain monetary funds to development not only water, but also other humanitarian infrastructure. Relatively incomparable to the amounts available to Israeli settlers, the limited development that was invested was from non-governmental organization donors like the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) and the American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA). Mekerot provided the high cost of drilling new wells, estimated at $250,000 per bore, as the reason why no new wells were dug in the occupied territories. However, new deep wells continued to be dug for Israeli settlements as they continued to expand.

Merkorot, Tahal, ICA and other Israeli settlement supporters assert that many of the water resources were left unused by Palestinian before Israeli settlers. This completely ignores the effects Israeli occupation had on potential Palestinian development well documented by international institutions like the UN, World Bank, and various other non-governmental agencies. The most notable example that fly in the face of this assertion are the creation of refugees, restriction of movement and constriction of any possible competitor to the Israeli economy besides cheap labor. One does not have to look far for many demonstrations of this, often by the very same individuals and groups making the assertion. A former Israeli Water Commissioner, Meir Ben-Meir, stated in an in interview in 1994, “Israel will not divert fresh water to cotton away from a Palestinian child to drink; but nor will Israel give-up irrigating orchards in Israel so that new orchards in the West Bank may be irrigated” (Rouyer pg. 118). Additionally, this “unused” argument is commonly heard in many realms to justify the maintenance and progression of the status-quo by effectively denying the existence of Palestinians and their subsequent unrecognized universal human rights.

Joshua Schwarz, a manager for Tahal, purports that “Cutting Judea and Samaria off from the rest of the country may result in mismanagement of groundwater resources”. The term Judea and Samaria is typically used by contemporary Zionists for the West Bank and is territorial different from the biblical term of the same name. Schwarz goes on to ascertain that the West Bank is “hydrologically interconnected with with the other regions of Israel” (Elmusa pg. 6). However this completely overlooks the over-pumping of wells and environment degradation at the behest of Israeli management in the occupied Palestinian territories. For example, the Israeli State Comptroller found that Mekerot-ran Israeli settlement wells overran their quotas by over 35% set by the IWC in the 1980s (Rouyer pg. 119).

One major point of contention in the politics of scare water resources in the center of a long-running conflict is whether Israeli expansion has been primarily or highly motivated by the acquisition of this resource (Trottier pg. 48-49). One can fill whole books on the debate, which a few scholars have done. While a historical understanding is obviously always necessary, various actors are providing very different accounts of the same occurrences and then using them as the basis of claims to customary and natural laws. This is worsened by the highly disputable control of scarce water resources in the middle of a long-running conflict in an arid region lacking arable and inhabitable land. This particular debate is probably more useful for polemics and propagandists than it is to those actually interested in the resolution of the conflict.

The fact of the matter is the need for the maintenance of the status quo, that is current disparate Israeli consumption rates and authoritarian control, has been repeatedly linked to national security. Under closer examination, one will discover this is a primarily realist argument (Shiyyab pg. 6). It perceives the resource situation as a parsimonious zero-sum game by ignoring the consequential benefits for everyone resulting from a sustainable resolution to the conflict. This argument also generalizes or ignores the multiple sub or non-state actors involved which influence and shape policy, for example Israeli's successfully growing agribusiness and their rather large lobby.

The U.S. is in a position to mediate the conflict and has insisted on the lead role for years (Frederiksen pg. 21). U.S. aid to Israel tops $4 billion a year. However it continually and uncritically grants Israel the terms to dictate to the conditions for peace and the terms for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. For example, even to this day when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announces the construction of a new settlement -- 3,500 houses which will divide the West Bank, the U.S. merely resorts to public statements of condemnation absent of any possible repercussions while continuing to subsidize Israeli occupation and expansionism (Marcus pg. 1). This has lead the Israeli government to repeatedly insist that it must have “complete, continued control” over water resources in the occupied territories it views as its own without compromise (Frederiksen pg. 21).

The problems with Israeli's occupational policies adversely affecting the occupied Palestinian populations is worsening. An exemplification of these problems is the construction of the West Bank “Separation Wall”. Surprisingly, where the wall deviates most from the Green Line (demarcation line between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) is the partitioning off the most developed West Bank cities of Jenin, Tulkarm and Qalqiliya. The economic livelihood of these cities and their surrounding areas has been gradually eroded due to restriction in movements and curfews. However the current loss of access to the Palestinian population's agricultural land, employment, and potential markets is drastic. Since the end of 2003, damage resulting from the construction of the wall has resulted in the loss of 8.3 square km of agricultural land and more importantly 37.3 square km of water resource networks. It is estimated after construction is completed, these communities will be isolated from 238.3 square km in between the Green Line (HEPG pg. 5).

Any constructive resolution or remedy of the problems of scarce water resources in the center of the conflict will include some form of compromise. Neither parties will deem the compromise successful as the Israeli will likely be forced to concede water resources they link to their national security and the Palestinians will probably deem an agreement inadequate. Palestinians will be short 180 million cubic meters per year (MCM/Yr) over the next 15 years to meet future domestic consumption due to population increase. This estimate does not take into account any growth of agricultural or industry (Shuval pg. 20). The Taba Interim Agreement (also known as Oslo II or Oslo B) in 1999 granted Palestinian access to sources in the Eastern Acquifer, east of the Samarian Mountains in the West Bank. If the Palestinians can develop infrastructure, this can be a source of 50 MCM/Yr only a 130 MCM/Yr shortage. Israel currently has an ample excess supply for domestic and industrial usage. Taking into account population increases, the ongoing process of pollution, and peace agreements with Lebanon and Syria which should concede the Shebaa Farms and Golan Heights decreasing available clean water resources, Israel will still have an estimated 300 MCM/Yr surplus. A compromise could be reached and this could be combined with other potential regional water resource plans like the proposed Turkish “Peace Pipeline” to deliver some of the country's amble water reserves to fulfill the Palestinian shortage.

Hopefully eventually both parties will come to accept that a compromise will mean they must limit some degree of their claims to territorial sovereignty. It is in both afflicted parties' best interest to cooperate to equitable distribute, joint manage and combine monitoring efforts. This may seem difficult, but there are numerous precedents of powerful states limiting their claims and cooperating to end conflict, for example European powers around the Rhine dating back to the 19th century.

The problems presented by scarce water resources threaten the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recognition of Palestinian rights to water has only began in the Taba Interim Agreement. However the imperative to resolve this permeating issue grows as both Israeli and Palestinian populations boom, and the Israeli government continues to expand settlements in occupied territories further partitioning a viable Palestinian state. Policies that amount to belligerent occupation which violate international law by exploiting natural resources and profit at the expense of the Palestinian population must be halted and reversed. The realization that claims based on customary or natural law are unrealistic and nonconstructive in the current context must be popularized and integrated into diplomatic efforts.

References
1) Lein, Yehezkel. Disputed Waters. Ecotheology: Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment, July 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 9, pg. 68.
2) Isaac, Jad. The Essentials of the Sustainable Water Resource Management in Israel and Palestine. Arab Studies Quarterly, Spring 2000, Vol. 22 Issue 2, pg. 13.
3) Shuval, Hillel I. A Proposal for an Equitable Resolution to the Conflicts Between the Israelis and the Palestinians Over Shared Water Resources of the Mountain Aquifer. Arab Studies Quarterly, Spring 2000, Vol. 22 Issue 2, pg. 33.
4) Rouyer, Alwyn R. The Political Economy of Water. Structural flaws in the Middle East peace process. Palgrave: New York, NY. 2002.
5) Elmusa, Sharif. Water conflict. Institute for Palestine Studies. Washington, D.C. 1997.
6) The World Bank. Palestinian Economic Crisis: An Assessment. October 2004. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/wbgaza-4yrassessment.pdf
7) Trottier, Julie. Hydropolitics in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Passia: Jerusalem, Israel. 1999.
8) Shiyyab, Mohammad. Two Threats to Regional Stability: Water and Refugees. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, 2004, Vol. 11 Issue 1, pg. 30.
9) McArthur, Shirl. Total Direct Aid to Israel. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2005, Vol. 24 Issue 3, pg. 16.
10) Frederiksen, Harald D. The World Water Crisis. International Journal of Water Resources Development, December 2003, Vol. 19 Issue 4, pg. 593.
11) Mission to the Humanitarian and Emergency Policy Group (HEPG). The Economic Impact of Israel’s Separation Barrier on Northern West Bank Communities. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, 2004, Vol. 10 Issue 4.
12) Marcus, Jonathan. 'Greater Jerusalem' takes shape. BBC News. March 21, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4368297.stm

Against the liberal concept of modernization, the state, and its inherent inequalities

2005-04-19T20:41:00.000-05:00

Philosophers have long contemplated and put forth their explanations of the problems of humankind, society and politics. By purporting that these problems are inherent to the natural apolitical condition of human beings, Hobbes borrows from Machiavelli to launch his theory of modern society devoted to the acquisition and maintenance of commodious living by technological dominance over nature instead of each other. Rousseau agrees with Hobbes and Machiavelli somewhat, furthering stating that human beings are naturally asocial. However he argues that Hobbes mistakenly concluded what the state of nature would be like by merely removing those who were already socialized in civil societies. For Rousseau it is the artificially constructed society itself which engenders the problems that affront humankind. The most admired civilized society simply furthers the deprecation of the human species and nature itself, being founded on outright lies to justify inequality. Uncivilized society remains preferable due to the lack of progression and subsequent institutionalization of these lies.

Catapulting his theory for the need of the modern state from Machiavelli, Hobbes argues that human beings are not naturally political but instead driven into society and thus politics. He states that the natural condition of humankind is that of primitive, unrestrained desire -- similar to Sigmund Freud's id unbalanced by an ego and superego. This endless desire is not only for bare necessities like survival, but ultimately translates to a never-ending struggle for power and glory, “a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death... because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” (Hobbes pg. 161 X1). This notion of the human condition is extremely problematic because it would appear that any level of cooperation will be fundamentally unstable and factional due to this extreme form of competition. “Therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes pg. 184 XIII). To remedy this inherent cyclical conflict, humans are forced into a social contract according to Hobbes. They must agree to cooperate by forfeiting their ultimate right, usage of extreme measures for self-preservation, so society can exist to ensure stability where economic gain is possible. This will only be successful if human beings essentially forgo politics altogether, leaving it to the sovereign “Leviathan” state, so they can concentrate on art, philosophy and material gain to eventually achieve what everyone ultimately desires -- “commodious living”.

It appears Hobbes purports that without the social contract human beings are merely misanthropic, ruggedly individualistic and immature in dire need of a parent sovereign to redirect our inherent conflictual nature so we can live long and prosper. Drawing from Machiavelli, the study of conquests in Western Civilization, and more importantly the recent English Civil War it seems difficult to fault Hobbes.
With the assistance of Locke and others, Hobbes' dream came into reality -- a contemporary liberal society collectively devoted to technological dominance over nature, instead of each other, in order to achieve material well-being and eventually fulfillment. However living in Hobbesian based modern society 100 years later, Rousseau would argue that Hobbes was utterly wrong, essentially due to him being mistaken in theorizing about the natural state of humankind. Rousseau begins his Second Discourses on the Origin of Inequality by quoting Aristotle, “Not in corrupt things, but in those which are well ordered in accordance with nature, should one consider which is natural.” Rousseau argues that Hobbes “drew all his reasons from the consitution of civil man” (Rousseau pg. 192), mistaking the human state of nature as chaotic and conflictual because he theorized about what “civilized people” would be like without the civil society in which they were raised. Rousseau agrees with Machiavelli and Hobbes that humankind is naturally not only apolitical but asocial as well. However problems arise not from the natural condition of humans and being forced into society but from that of the repercussions of residing in an artificially constructed civil society.

Rousseau argues that in a state of nature, without artificially constructed society, human beings have simple animal-like instincts. “His desires do not exceed his physical needs” (Rousseau pg. 116). This includes self-preservation but it is l'amour de soi-même or love of oneself, made benevolent by pity. Since human beings in a state of nature are “the sole spectator to observe him” and “the sole judge of his own merit” this “produces humanity and virtue” not antagonism. However in society, love of oneself is typically transformed into amour-propre or vanity, in turn producing the emulous selfishness described by Hobbes as essential to the natural condition. But since vanity relies on perpetual reaffirmation and recognition solely determined by others it is “a relative sentiment, artificial and born in society” (Rousseau pg. 222). Those who receive the most recognition or highest status claim entitlement to more and more resources and eventually necessitate these newly acquired excess desires as requisite for living. Rousseau states that this creates a weakened sense of existence, due to socialized human beings constantly worrying over fulfilling these newly acquired desires. Rousseau believes it is the source of all human evil due to the increased dependence on others, prevalent exposure to unnecessary desires, and the extremity socialized human beings will go in an attempt to quench this seemingly insatiable amour-propre. For example, those with higher status and thus more resources will exercise their gained influence over less-fortunate others, using it to hypocritically justify oligarchical control and inequality.

Although uncivilized “savage” society still encourages amour-propre, it remains preferable to modern, commercial-technological civil society for Rousseau. Since savage society is less developed there is greater room for self-sufficiency, less required reliance on others, and less exposure to vices. Since those residing in savage society are less socialized than those in modern society, there is greater “restrain[t] by natural pity.” Rousseau identifies that many of the problems caused by amour-propre began with the division of labor, which savage society generally contains to a much smaller degree. He cites an axiom from Locke, “where there is no property, there is no injury” (Rousseau pg. 151). Rousseau points out that great harm and hardship stems from the cutthroat competition that fosters in commercial-technological society, that “our advantage in the detriment of our fellow-men and someone's loss almost always creates another's prosperity” (Rousseau pg. 194). He concludes that as civil society develops “in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decrepitude of the species” due to the quality of life actually greatly decreasing. Rousseau puts forth the examples of “endemic illness engendered... among the multitudes of men gathered together”, “corrupted foodstuffs”, and the general neglect of needs for unnecessary desires (Rousseau pg. 196).

It appears that with the onset of evolutionary biology which essentially demonstrates that social interaction is inherent to the human condition undermines Rousseau's theory of the nature of modern society's problems. However, it would not be too difficult to assert that one simply has a choice in society, if first actualized, between amicable love of oneself and vanity. Rousseau may respond that those in modern society who devote their life to the elevation and maintenance of relative status will ultimately be left disappointed and unhappy. This could quite possibly explain the continual existence of suicide, depression and overall mental disorders unique to modern societies. Further exemplified by the endemic rates of suicide, poverty and substance abuse all too common to indigenous populations throughout the world unforgivingly forced into modernity. Rousseau would agree that the maxim of civilized human beings continuing their search for a panacea to their socialized condition of amour-propre only to be left unfulfilled remains true today. Distractions from the rigors of modernity through the use of applied technologies and substances continue to boom, many times sacrificing long-term well-being for an artificially induced state of temporary happiness.

Hobbes states that the natural condition of humankind forces us into society and politics. Only through redirecting our inherent conflictual nature to material gain will chaos be avoided and stability achieved. However this is opposed by Rousseau who asserts that the problem lies in the ramifications of residing in an artificially constructed society. This will only be solved through rejecting vanity and subsequent status, a careful withdrawal from modern society where possible, and institutionalizing radical individualism and collectivism.

Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. Penguin Classics: London, England, 1985.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First and Second Discourses. Translated by Roger D. and Judith R. Masters. St. Martin's Press: New York, NY, 1964.

Hypocrisy in FAA warnings about al-Qaeda and another red Iraqi day

2005-02-10T22:28:00.000-05:00

A previously unreleased portion of the 9-11 Commission report that had to under go a "declassification process" that mysteriously lasted till after the election, details how the FAA received no less than 52 intelligence reports warning about al-Qaeda planning a potential terrorist attack using airplanes. A FAA spokeswoman responded by saying it was just another non-specific warning that could not of helped with preventing an attack. However, as I previously wrote, this rebukes earlier statements by various high level military and government officials, including the FAA, where they stated using a plane as a weapon was just previously unthinkable.

Another bloody post-election day in Iraq as the bodycount tops 50, with much of the fighting in Baghdad. Dr. Cole explains why he concurs with a high-ranking US military official who stated that he expects the guerrilla war would continue on for many years. This is primarily due to the dissillusionment of Sunnis, who will be vasty underrepresented in the new government due to an extremely low voter turnout. This is probably a main reason why the former Ba'athists, who of course want to re-gain power, are getting a popular base required to wage guerrilla warfare. If you never read Dr. Cole, he is a professor of History at UMich specializing in Islamic cultures so he brings great insight and dedication, posting everyday while certainly maintaining a informative edge that many mainstream journalists apparently lack.

Iraqi elections

2005-01-30T22:46:00.000-05:00

While the country is in the midst of a guerrilla war the population still managed a ~57% turnout, basically whipping our ass with our pathetic 41% last presidential election. Even though it was the first multi-party election in 50 years, it was still far from a model for other countries. Vehicle traffic was banned, security checkpoints were everywhere, 44 people died, and many polling stations - predominately in Sunni areas - were empty. Additionally, all candidates save for a handful of famous ones were anonymous from the party lists voters chose from.

Absent from the mainstream cheerleading press were reminders that left up to Bush, these elections would of never occurred. The administration only gave in after the most highly revered Shi'a cleric in Iraq, Ali Sistani, issued a fatwa demanding free elections. Demonstrations of thousands of Iraqis broke out across the country and after months of trying to ignore and sidestep popular sentiment, the exiled elites hand-picked to institute the administration's original plans of basically a puppet government refused to play along any further. Still the administration claimed elections were impossible and stated only an indirect one with US approved candidates would do. Sistani again demanded full, free elections and nation-wide demonstrations ensued once more. Finally the administration approved the UN designed election plan, but only with our own guy as interim Prime Minister and elections held _after_ the November US presidential elections. Nevertheless, Sistani lobbied the UN for allowing the future Iraqi government the ability to nullify US drafted transitional law and issued another fatwa stating it was a religious duty to vote in the elections.

There are still many decisive and dividing issues facing the new government, like how large a part religion will play in the new constitution. But hopefully this will be the start of an improvement and all those who braved the violence to go to the polls didn't do so in vain. I would not put any money on a peaceful Iraq just yet though since, among many other issues, very few Sunnis (approximately 40% of the population) chose not to or were unable to vote.
Thanks to Dr. Cole for some helpful, informed comments.

"Reality" TV

2004-12-06T11:12:00.000-05:00

We all figured some of it was fake: Joe Millionaire's slurping make-out noises, the depth of the relationship between Brigitte Nielsen and Flavor Flav, Jessica Simpson's breasts. And "reality" was always a misnomer for shows that involve Donald Trump or people on desert islands. But these shows purporting to be unadulterated documentaries are unreal in a more obvious way: They are secretly crafted in advance by writers. And I've got the entertainment equivalent of the Pentagon Papers to prove it. Maybe more like the equivalent of the photo with President Bush holding the fake Thanksgiving turkey in Iraq, but still, they are definitely papers.

Many of the shows that supposedly follow the real lives of real people are really scripted by real writers, many of whom were unemployed because their sitcoms got replaced by reality programs. So reality shows are just sitcoms starring good-looking people instead of hot actresses and the fat, ugly guys who play their husbands. That's why they're 50% more entertaining.

Through sources I cannot reveal but would definitely not go to jail to protect, I got hold of a 19-page, single-spaced outline of an upcoming episode of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." Every moment is planned in advance, including a few specific lines for the straight guy to deliver, which Bravo says is not unusual for any reality show. It's something that people in Hollywood know and think is no big deal. Like Mike Ovitz.

This script tells the touching story of Patrick Mullare, a guido who lost 100 pounds and lives in his parents' basement (see latimes.com/realitytv for the full script and Cialis pop-up ads). On Page 5, Fab Five member Jai conveniently provides exposition and sets up the tension by finding a greeting card in Patrick's room from Rene, an unrequited crush.

Six pages later, Jai brings him to the bar at the Tribeca Grand ("INT. HIP AFTERWORK SINGLES BAR") where Patrick invites a woman to the party the queer guys are throwing for him that night. Then there's "a funny moment" where Patrick, after showering, slips back to his pre-queerified self and almost uses hair gel.

The final page of the script is Nora Ephron-worthy. Rene shows up and is attracted to the de-straightened Patrick. But Patrick "keeps looking down the street; will the girl from the bar come? He sees nothing…. Over his shoulder a set of car headlights appear and get continuously closer until the car stops. She gets out of the car; Patrick hasn't noticed. She taps him on the shoulder…. He invites her in to see his new place, she accepts, and they walk off into the proverbial sunset…. Fade out." I never thought a man could cry while reading a reality show script about another man's struggle to lay off pomade.

It's not just "Queer Eye." It's even affected the otherwise upstanding straight world. Writers staged that clip of Nicole Ritchie crashing her car that's being used for the promos of the new season of "The Simple Life," the supposedly real adventures of Ritchie and Paris Hilton.

The waiter tripping and injuring himself in "The Restaurant," a show that documented the disastrous opening of a Manhattan eatery, is a reenactment.

According to supervising producer Christie Zelling, at MTV's "Made," where high school students get to live out their incredibly depressing dreams, the staff writes voice-overs for the teenage stars, some about boyfriends they no longer have and all of which the subjects find "totally cheesy."

Producer Matt Swanson says that when Ozzy threw a block of wood over a fence and shattered the window of his noisy neighbors during the first season of "The Osbournes," it was just a sound effect and a phony reaction shot. We wanted to believe so badly in reality TV that we believed a man so feeble he can no longer remember whether or not he ate a live bat could somehow throw like Curt Schilling.

"The Simple Life" is so unreal that people who produce the show refer to it as a "hybrid sitcom" or a "soft-scripted show," a fact Fox does not deny. This fall, when the entire season's gimmick was that Hilton and Ritchie slept in trailer parks, they checked into hotels all but two nights.

In an upcoming episode, I found out, Hilton and Ritchie tell some kids that the best present for their daddy is to get him laid by their mom. So the women go to a bar to score some condoms. The producers had pre-interviewed a guy in a baseball cap who would agree to take them to his apartment to give them some rubbers. But the ever-confused Hilton and Ritchie went up to the wrong guy, who, not surprisingly, happily agreed to take them to his place.

The producers, however, yelled, "Cut," confusing everyone in the bar, who thought they were at a reality show taping. Then Hilton and Ritchie started the scene again and approached the baseball-cap guy, because the producers had already lighted his apartment. It seems they had momentarily forgotten how effectively Hilton can act in night vision.

Once you find out reality stars actually need help to be that dumb, they somehow stop being entertaining. We wanted to believe reality shows were real because they made us feel like other people's lives were more messed up than our own. Though that may not be true, at least we know that without writers they're just as boring as we are.
L.A. Times - JOEL STEIN

Containing Democracy

2004-12-06T11:08:00.000-05:00

Protectionists, nativists, xenophobes and racists affirm that immigration is mainly negative. They purport hostile and defensive policies on restricting or completely eliminating the movement of people into their country. Most supporters of a greater free market call for more open borders. Nearly all economically developed countries have restrictive or exclusionary immigration policies which erode the principles of democracy.

Currently the United States’ policy has been growing more restrictive. President Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994, allowing for unprecedented capital and goods to be moved across the North American borders. Almost simultaneously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Border Patrol launched Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold the Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona—all implemented to prevent the movement of actual people [1]. It also dangerously militarized the border under the rubric of the war on drugs, allowing military and police not trained or structured to deal with immigration on a daily basis, to intervene. Around 2.5 million Mexican farmers have lost their jobs to agriculture corporations subsidized in the U.S. and Canada and over half of Mexico’s population plummeted into poverty [2]. This created a surge of immigrants pouring across the border searching for sustenance. After 9/11, the militarization of the Mexican border was strengthened under the war on terrorism. Many visa and asylum programs were limited, including the H1-B visas which allow U.S. companies and universities to hire foreign professionals.

France, like many other countries, encouraged migration during the post-World War II period. Many immigrants arrived from former French colonies, many being Muslims. However during the 1970s, economic stagnation and creeping unemployment created an anti-immigration sentiment. French right and left wing parties vying for working class votes passed waves of laws heavily restricting immigration. Unlike the U.S., where organized business and ethnic interests have lobbied for expansive immigration legislation, France has none pushing for greater immigration. Also dissimilar to the U.S., the number of foreigners is actually decreasing [3]. However, most suburbs are filled by immigrants and their families. Similar to the U.S., many politicians scapegoat crime, unemployment, dwindling traditional values and subversion of their culture on immigrants. Today over 50% of those imprisoned are Muslims, while they only constitute 10% of the nation’s population, comparable to the high incarceration rate of minorities in the U.S. [4].

Throughout history, Japan was the quintessential protectionist state. Many traditions still linger after Commodore Perry forced the opening of Japan in 1854. However, Japan faces a shrinking workforce (mostly cheap or unskilled labor) due to an aging population and low fertility rates, which possibly may equate to a decline of 22 million by 2050 [5]. Clinging to their homogenous culture, stringent immigration laws have been modified for those only with Japanese parents or ancestry. Scapegoating crime on foreigners by officials and the media is common, as well as racial profiling [6] [7].

An option rarely considered or discussed is dealing with root causes of why mass populations need to immigrate. Lesser developed countries mainly encompass the southern regions of the globe. If economically developed countries worked towards eliminating the inequality between the north and south, incentives to immigrate would cease. While aid is becoming more widespread, it always has political intentions and overwhelming entails military and arms. Many countries, like Israel--the number one receipt of U.S. aid at $3.4 billion a year, do not need assistance and are already developed [8]. The primary channels through which aid is given, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, are controlled by developed countries. They usually entail cookie-cutter plans for development and rarely cater to specific needs of countries. Eliminating expenditures to encourage growth is the method hailed by these international institutions, but was widely abandoned by the developed countries during the Great Depression [9].

Free trade agreements that favor business and include no protections for laborers like NAFTA create more inequality. NAFTA needs reform and the U.S.-Mexican border opened. Deportations, exclusion and disenfranchisement of minorities which many anti-immigration supports propose hinder democratic politics. While majority rule results in imposing their will over minorities and the status quo of immigration policies, a principle of democracy is the inclusion of all groups.

1. Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gatekeeper.htm

2. Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nafta_legacy_at10

3. Eurostat http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat

4. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/international/europe/19CONV.html

5. United Nations Economic & Social Development http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/japan.pdf

6. Japan Times http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040518zg.htm

7. Electric New Paper http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,65031,00.html

8. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

9. John T. Rourke and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World State pg. 351

Anti-Americanism

2004-09-25T18:34:00.000-05:00

A specter is haunting America - the specter of anti-Americanism. All the powers of patriotic America have entered into a corporate alliance to exorcise this specter: draft-deferrers and women-gropers, grammar-challenged and duel-challengers, oil diggers and grave diggers. It is the duty of all upstanding American citizens to fully understand and identify the leading symptoms of anti-Americanism, so that our homes, homeless shelters, reading chambers, torture chambers, chocolate refineries, weapons factories, and places of worship, such as churches, temples, and Wall Street, are completely free from the poison of anti-war sentiment. The patriotic American must save both himself and others from becoming an anti-American American by learning to be an active, honorable, anti-anti-American American. It is with this pressing obligation in mind that the following signs of anti-Americanism have been compiled and exposed.

The most irksome and identifiable feature of the anti-American American is his flagrant abuse of the First Amendment. He deviously twists and distorts his constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech by exercising this right - at a time when an important event is underway, no less: the war in Iraq, and more broadly, the so-called war on terror. It should be obvious to the reasonable American that, in times of war, speaking one's mind is quite a dangerous and reckless act: there is, after all, only so much free speech to go around, and, as our soldiers are busily bringing it to inferior races via cruise missiles and cluster bombs abroad, there is little left for consumption at home. Muting criticism of our leaders and staying silent about the direction of our country is also a sound tactic for fighting terrorist dead-enders head on. By complacently sitting back and letting the government pass unconstitutional laws that infringe on the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of speech, we demoralize the dark evil-doers by showing to them in no uncertain terms that they can never snatch away our rights and civil liberties: only our own president and Congress can do that, and by enthusiastically allowing this internal process of destruction, we cause great agony for the powerless terrorists.

Patriots should also understand that calling for an end to the war and advocating bringing the troops home puts troops at great risk, endangers their morale, gives comfort to the enemy, and contributes to the clubbing of baby seals. The irresponsibility of attacking the war is crystal clear: over 150,000 Americans are currently enjoying their extended vacations in exotic locales, freeing them from the hellish, tedious troubles of friends, family, home, and the country they grew up in. Could any good American truly wish to deprive them of this luxury? Our soldiers are merrily mixing with different peoples, forging important personal relationships, taking in the pleasant scenery, and making a lasting impression with millions of foreigners. To call for an end to this enchanted cultural exchange program is nothing short of treason.

Calling into question the overall tactics and strategy of the war is equally unconscionable. Decisions about war plans have already been made well in advance by intelligent and competent individuals, who have acquired a very sharp, reasoned understanding of military affairs by carefully observing their fellow countrymen fighting and dying in war from afar, sparing themselves from the deceptive and delusional experience of actual combat. Therefore, to say in reference to the war Iraq - as various wild-eyed leftists do - that "There are no good options," that there is "no sense of the realities on the ground", that "the priorities are all just wrong" is dangerous nonsense. Saying that "we're achieving Bin Laden's ends," that "this is far graver than Vietnam," is also completely outrageous rubbish that appeases the enemy. Former general and National Security Agency chief William Odom and former marine commander and head of US CENTCOM Joseph Hoare should really think hard before saying such things again in the future.

Above all, the anti-American American attempts to dupe and deceive the unsuspecting citizen with a long list of supposed "root causes" of terrorism which must be recognized and addressed in order to make us safer. Among these supposed "root causes" are our support for tyrannical Arab dictators who suppress their people's rights, backing of a brutal colonial regime in Israel that tortures, occupies, and ethnically cleanses the native population, lack of reparations for enforcing sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, bombing that country into rubble, and then occupying it. Highbrow, snobby leftist liberal elites think there is some kind of "connection" between this behavior of terrorizing others and Islamist terrorism against us.

But this is sheer nonsense: Arabs don't really care much that we've starved, strangled, tortured, beaten, bombed, bulldozed, killed, and maimed them directly or indirectly for decades, because - unlike us - they don't place much value on human life. The real reason they hate us is because of their mindless, reckless hatred of everything that's good in the world (that's us), because we are free, democratic and virtuous.

Which well explains the logic of the current war. For as we let our rights erode with Guantanomization of dissent, as we engage in atrocities like the sadism of Abu Ghraib, as we chain ourselves to interminable terror alerts and color-code warnings of imminent mass death, we will soon lose every last vestige of freedom, democracy, and virtue we currently possess - thus forcing Arab insurgents and terrorists everywhere to fall in love with America, drop their weapons, and sue for peace.

God Bless America! Or Else.

This article was written by M. Junaid Alam at Left Hook and was recently posted on the social justice site ZNet. I think it sums up the majority of the American exceptionalist uniformed opinion quite nicely.

September 11 third anniversary leaves many questions still unanswered

2004-09-12T07:52:00.000-05:00

As America commemorates the third anniversary of September 11, a site I visited the other week came to mind. At first glance it seemed like typical conspiracy duckspeak, but after further reading and facts back up by the congressional 9-11 commission it proved to be very thought provoking. Albeit the site does come to the conclusion that NORAD was ordered from someone or somewhere by mistake or not to stand down, that is not take action. It asks something similar to what Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg who was killed in the WTC, asked the 9-11 commission on the first day of hearings. Mainly:

Why did the FAA take 20 minutes to notify North American Aerospace Defense Command (in charge of aerospace warning and control for all of North America) even after two separate attendants notified American Airlines they were being hijacked and when it was standard operating procedure? In addition, it only took the FAA 2 minutes to notify NORAD for the late great golfer Payne Stewart when they lost voice contact with his private Leer jet. Former FAA director blamed large bureaucracy and poor policy.

Why then were fighter-jets scrambled 12 minutes after NORAD was notified, only flying at 25% speed and not even from the nearest Air Force base? If the jets traveled at their full speed, MACH-12, they would of intercepted the plane in time. This occurred when NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System department of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian"; fully staffed and readied 24/7. Also, why the delay for scrambling more jets when they learned two more planes were hijacked? Commander of NORAD blamed the uniqueness of the attack. Even though they were recommended to hold a war game scenario on this very situation 5 months earlier and there were previous known plans to use planes as weapons.

Among other statements of interest on standdown.net are that both of the planes that struck the WTC flew right by Indian Point, one of the nations oldest nuclear power plants 35 miles outside of Manhattan surrounded by 20 million people. If a catastrophic event, two planes crashing into one of the reactors or poorly trained and overworked technicians in Chernobyl's case, occurred, then excessive radioactive material would be emitted (Chernobyl experienced 400 times the radioactive contamination of Hiroshima after the atom bomb was dropped). This would bring suffering on a much larger and longer scale then the destruction of two half-staffed skyscrapers falling. The site contains many more statements, some backed up by sources, others not. The point? Many questions are still left unanswered about this atrocious and far reaching event that has led to many serious repercussions.

Sleep? Nah a blog.

2004-09-12T07:43:00.000-05:00

Lieing in bed unable to sleep, thinking about things I normally think about when I can't sleep I decided to finally go ahead and throw up a blog. I should of done this four years ago when I started reading other's blogs. I'll just have to catch up for lost time.