À procura de textos e pretextos, e dos seus contextos.

10/10/2009

Auchan aurait payé moins que le Smic : 1 400 salariés aux Prud'hommes

Stéphanie Maurice

"On postait 36h45 et on était payé que 35 heures. Les heures de pause n'étaient plus payées depuis le passage aux 35 heures
", expliquent Sandrine, Corinne et Claudine. Ce qui fait que le Smic horaire n'était plus dans les clous, 5% de moins que le montant légal. Ce matin, c'était la première audience de conciliation entre Auchan et l'avocat des 1 400 salariés qui ont assigné l'enseigne.

Ils sont une soixantaine à avoir fait le déplacement ce matin, aux Prud'hommes de Lannoy, près de Roubaix. Sous les bannières CGT et CFDT, il y a une majorité de femmes, hôtesses de caisse à Dunkerque, Valenciennes, Lille, Amiens aussi. "Rien qu'à notre magasin de Grande-Synthe, l'inspection du travail a compté 983 infractions", s'exclame Claudine. Surtout, elles se sentent "trahis, pas considérées." Elles gagnent en moyenne 850 euros par mois, à temps partiel : elles ont calculé qu'Auchan leur doit dans les 3 400 euros, grapillés pendant cinq ans. Guy Laplatine, le délégué CFDT, s'amuse : "Ce n'est pas cela qui va ruiner la première fortune de France, ne vous inquiétez pas". Un employé, à proximité, persifle : "Ils vont nous dire de placer l'argent dans Valauchan". Valauchan c'est le fond d'actions maison, là où la très grande majorité des salariés reversent leur participation annuelle. Sandrine, 30 ans de carrière comme hôtesse de caisse, s'indigne : "Cette boîte, elle a été montée par nous, et ce sont les salariés, avec Valauchan, qui ont servi de banque. On nous disait qu’on était des actionnaires. Maintenant, nous savons que ce n’est qu’une vaste blague."

Ils regrettent tous à demi-mots le temps du paternalisme, incarné par Gérard Mulliez, le patriarche, désormais à la retraite. Il a été remplacé par son neveu Vianney Mulliez. "Un financier", soupire les salariés. "Rentabilité, rentabilité, ils ne pensent plus qu'à cela maintenant. Vous parlez à un collègue dans la réserve, on grince des dents."

Il est 11h30, les avocats des deux parties sortent sur le perron. Pour Auchan, Me Laurent Marquet de Vasselot insiste sur la politique salariale ambitieuse du groupe "27% au-dessus du Smic", en comptant les primes d'intéressement, individuelle et le 13e mois. Et déclare être confiant : "C'est un contentieux assez technique sur l'assiette de calcul du salaire minimum. Nous sommes sûrs d'avoir appliqué la loi." Le procès est fixé au 2 avril prochain.

Libération - 10.10.09

A Paris, un défilé pour les sans-papiers

Plusieurs milliers de personnes, 3.000 selon la police et 20.000 selon les organisateurs, ont commencé à défiler samedi à 14 heures à Paris pour dénoncer la politique du gouvernement au sujet des sans-papiers.

Organisée par les collectifs des sans-papiers, la manifestation est partie du 14 rue Baudelique, en face d'un immeuble baptisé «ministère de la régularisation globale de tous les sans-papiers» abritant plusieurs centaines de personnes d'origine immigrée.

Le cortège très bruyant, précédé d'une banderole proclamant «Tous ensemble pour la régularisation de tous les sans-papiers» souhaite se rendre devant le ministère de l'Immigration et de l'identité nationale.

Les organisateurs dénoncent «une politique qui maintient les sans-papiers dans une zone de non-droit et dans la précarité administrative, empêchant leur intégration».

«Ces sans-papiers sont dans la précarité, ils veulent travailler, payer des impôts, sortir de l'ombre» a expliqué le porte-parole du comité des sans-papiers 75, Mamadou Bramé.
Libération - 10.10.09

Juízes denunciam desaparecimento de processos e pedem avaliação ao sistema informático

A Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses (ASJP) insistiu, este sábado, que é urgente realizar uma avaliação externa ao sistema informático dos tribunais. À TSF, o presidente do associação deu conta do desaparecimento de processos.

O Citius tornou-se obrigatório desde Janeiro e desde então os juízes e os magistrados têm-se queixado de problemas vários.

O jornal Público deste sábado escreve que o Conselho Superior da Magistratura tem recebido inúmeros protestos de juízes e que os erros informáticos já levaram ao desaparecimento de despachos.

À TSF, o presidente da ASJP confirmou a existência desses casos e adiantou que os despachos que desapareceram estão relacionados com processos cíveis, os únicos onde o uso do sistema Citius é obrigatório.

«São situações completamente distintas» e acontecem de Norte a Sul e nas ilhas, denunciou António Martins.

O responsável da ASJP deu conta de um processo que desapareceu do sistema informático, sendo que «só foi verificada essa situação porque existia suporte físico».

Para evitar mais casos destes e garantir a segurança do sistema, António Martins pediu uma avaliação feita «por uma entidade externa» que detecte «problemas de segurança» e que proponha soluções para os mesmos.

Contactado pla TSF, o Ministério da Justiça recusou a existência de problemas graves com o Citius e assegurou que os magistrados utilizam o sistema com toda a normalidade.

TSF - 10.10.09

Funcionários da EMEL admitem recorrer à greve

Os trabalhadores da EMEL admitiram, ontem, sexta-feira, recorrer à greve caso a Administração não ceda na manutenção do regime de 30 horas semanais de trabalho para operacionais de rua e de 35 para administrativos.

Trinta dias é, por isso, o prazo acordado em plenário pelos trabalhadores para o fim das negociações com a Empresa Municipal de Estacionamento de Lisboa (EMEL) e a Câmara. Findo este, os trabalhadores voltarão a manifestar-se. "A greve está iminente", admitiu Ana Pires, fiscal de rua há dez anos e dirigente do Sindicato do Comércio, Escritórios e Serviços de Portugal (CESP).

Foram cerca de 50 os trabalhadores da EMEL que se reuniram numas instalações da empresa, na Rua Sanches Coelho, em Lisboa, no sentido de decidir que proposta apresentariam para o acordo da empresa. Uma hora depois, dirigiram-se à sede da EMEL, na Avenida de Berna, onde tornaram pública a resolução e a entregaram à Administração da empresa. A resolução será, também, entregue à Autarquia.

Os trabalhadores - face à proposta da empresa de aumentar o horário de trabalho para 40 horas - continuam, assim, a lutar pela manutenção de um regime de jornada contínua de seis horas diárias para os operacionais de rua, num total de 30 horas semanais, e de 35 horas para os administrativos da empresa.

A proposta sustém-se no facto de estes serem os horários "praticados há muitos anos na EMEL e na Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (CML), única accionista da EMEL", lê-se na resolução aprovada.

"Hoje, não há na Câmara nenhum trabalhador que faça mais de 35 horas semanais. Por isso a vossa luta é totalmente justa e legítima", disse Libério Domingues, coordenador da União dos Sindicatos de Lisboa, salientando que a EMEL "é uma empresa importante para a cidade" e como tal "uma boa relação com os seus trabalhadores é essencial".

Ana Pires frisou que a falta de condições de trabalho continua. "O parque de bloqueadores em Sete Rios, agora com o Inverno, fica inundado pelas chuvas e volta e meia a electricidade falha". A operadora reforçou, ainda, a falta de segurança: "Continuamos a ser agredidos física e verbalmente".
J.N. - 10.10.09

Las campanas están doblando por el dólar

Fidel Castro Ruz

El imperio dominó al mundo más por la economía y la mentira que por la fuerza. Había obtenido el privilegio de imprimir las divisas convertibles al finalizar la Segunda Guerra Mundial, monopolizaba el arma nuclear, disponía de casi todo el oro del mundo y era el único productor en gran escala de equipos productivos, bienes de consumo, alimentos y servicios a nivel mundial. Tenía, sin embargo, un límite a la impresión de papel moneda: el respaldo en oro, al precio constante de 35 dólares la onza troy. Así ocurrió durante más de 25 años, hasta que el 15 de agosto de 1971 mediante una orden presidencial de Richard Nixon, Estados Unidos rompió unilateralmente ese compromiso internacional estafando al mundo. No me cansaré de repetirlo. De esa forma lanzó sobre la economía mundial sus gastos del rearme y aventuras bélicas, en especial la guerra de Viet Nam que, según cálculos conservadores, costó no menos de 200 mil millones de dólares y la vida de más de 45 mil jóvenes norteamericanos.

Sobre ese pequeño país del Tercer Mundo fueron lanzadas más bombas que las utilizadas en la última guerra mundial. Millones de personas murieron o fueron mutiladas. Al suspender la conversión, el dólar pasó a ser una divisa que podía imprimirse a voluntad del Gobierno norteamericano sin el respaldo de un valor constante.

Los bonos y billetes de la Tesorería continuaron circulando como divisas convertibles; las reservas de los Estados continuaron nutriéndose de esos billetes que, por un lado, servían para adquirir materias primas, propiedades, bienes y servicios de cualquier parte del mundo y, por otro, privilegiaban las exportaciones de Estados Unidos frente a las demás economías del planeta. Los políticos y académicos mencionan una y otra vez el costo real de aquella guerra genocida, admirablemente descrita en la película de Oliver Stone. Las personas tienden a realizar cálculos como si los millones fuesen iguales. No suelen percatarse de que los millones de dólares de 1971 no son iguales a los millones del 2009.

Un millón de dólares hoy, cuando el oro -un metal cuyo valor ha sido el más estable a lo largo de siglos- tiene un precio que sobrepasa los mil dólares la onza troy, vale alrededor de 30 veces lo que valía cuando Nixon suspendió la conversión. Doscientos mil millones en 1971, equivalen a 6 millones de millones de dólares en el 2009. Si no se tiene en cuenta esto, las nuevas generaciones no tendrán una idea de la barbarie imperialista.

De igual modo, cuando se habla de los 20 mil millones invertidos en Europa al finalizar la Segunda Guerra Mundial -en virtud del Plan Marshall para reconstruir y controlar la economía de las principales potencias europeas, que poseían la fuerza de trabajo y la cultura técnica necesaria para el rápido desarrollo de la producción y los servicios- las personas suelen ignorar que el valor real de lo invertido entonces por el imperio equivale al valor internacional actual de 600 mil millones de dólares. No advierten que 20 mil millones apenas alcanzarían hoy para construir tres grandes refinerías de petróleo, capaces de suministrar 800 mil barriles diarios de gasolina, además de otros derivados del petróleo.

Las sociedades de consumo, el despilfarro absurdo y caprichoso de energía y de recursos naturales que hoy amenazan la supervivencia de la especie, no serían explicables en tan breve período histórico si no se conoce la forma irresponsable en que el capitalismo desarrollado, en su fase superior, ha regido los destinos del mundo.

Tan asombroso despilfarro explica por qué los dos países más industrializados del mundo, Estados Unidos y Japón, están endeudados en aproximadamente 20 millones de millones de dólares.

Desde luego que la economía de Estados Unidos se aproxima a un Producto Interno Bruto anual de 15 millones de millones de dólares. Las crisis del capitalismo son cíclicas, como lo demuestra irrebatiblemente la historia del sistema, pero esta vez se trata de algo más: una crisis estructural, como explicaba el Ministro de Planificación y Desarrollo de Venezuela, el profesor Jorge Giordani a Walter Martínez en su programa por Telesur en la noche de ayer.

Los despachos cablegráficos divulgados hoy, viernes 9 de octubre, añaden datos que son irrebatibles. Un despacho de AFP procedente de Washington precisa que el déficit presupuestal de Estados Unidos, en el año fiscal 2009, se eleva a 1,4 millones de millones de dólares, el 9,9% del PIB, “algo nunca visto desde 1945, al finalizar la Guerra Mundial”, añade.

El déficit en el año 2007 había sido ya un tercio de esa cifra. Se esperan elevadas sumas de carácter deficitario los años 2010, 2011 y 2012. Ese enorme déficit está dictado, fundamentalmente, por el Congreso y el Gobierno de Estados Unidos para salvar los grandes bancos de ese país, impedir que el desempleo se eleve por encima del 10% y sacar a Estados Unidos de la recesión. Es lógico que si inundan la nación de dólares, las grandes cadenas comerciales venderán más mercancías, las industrias incrementarán la producción, menos ciudadanos perderán sus viviendas, la marea del desempleo dejará de crecer, y las acciones de Wall Street elevarán su valor. Fue la forma clásica de resolver la crisis. Sin embargo, el mundo no volverá ya a ser el mismo. Paul Krugman, prestigioso Premio Nobel de Economía, acaba de afirmar que el comercio internacional ha sufrido su mayor caída, peor todavía que la de la Gran Depresión y expresó dudas sobre la pronta recuperación.

No se puede inundar también el mundo de dólares y pensar que esos papeles sin respaldo en oro mantendrán su valor. Otras economías, hoy más sólidas, han surgido. El dólar dejó de ser ya la reserva en divisas de todos los Estados, más bien sus poseedores desean apartarse de él, aunque evitando en lo posible que se devalúe antes de que puedan desprenderse de ellos.

El euro de la Unión Europea, el yuan chino, el franco suizo, el yen japonés -a pesar de las deudas de ese país-, hasta la libra esterlina, junto a otras divisas, pasaron a ocupar el lugar del dólar en el comercio internacional. El oro metálico vuelve a convertirse en importante moneda de reserva internacional.

No se trata de una opinión personal caprichosa, ni deseo calumniar esa moneda.

Otro Premio Nobel de Economía, Joseph Stiglitz, expresó, según despacho cablegráfico: ”‘lo más probable es que el billete verde siga de capa caída. Los políticos no deciden los tipos de cambio y los discursos tampoco lo hacen’. Esto lo declaró el 6 de octubre en la Asamblea Anual Conjunta del FMI y el Banco Mundial que se celebró en Estambul”. En esa ciudad se pudo apreciar una violenta represión. El evento fue saludado con vidrieras comerciales rotas e incendios producidos por cocteles molotov.

Otras noticias hablaban de que los países europeos temían el efecto negativo de la debilidad del dólar frente al euro y sus consecuencias sobre las exportaciones europeas. El Secretario del Tesoro de Estados Unidos declaró que a su país “le interesaba un dólar fuerte”. Stiglitz se burló de la declaración oficial y expresó según EFE, que “en el caso de Estados Unidos el dinero se ha derrochado y la causa ha sido el rescate multimillonario de los bancos y sufragar guerras como Afganistán”. Según la agencia, el Premio Nobel “insistió en que en vez de invertir 700 mil millones en ayuda a los banqueros, EE.UU pudo haber destinado parte de ese dinero a ayudar a los países en desarrollo, lo que a su vez habría estimulado la demanda global”.

Robert Zoellick, presidente del Banco Mundial, dio la voz de alarma días antes, y advirtió que el dólar no podía mantener indefinidamente su status como divisa de reserva.

Un eminente profesor de Economía de la Universidad de Harvard, Kenneth Rogoff, afirmó que la próxima gran crisis financiera será la de “los déficit públicos”.

El Banco Mundial declaró que “el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) mostró que los bancos centrales del mundo acumularon menos dólares durante el segundo semestre del 2009 que en ningún otro momento durante los últimos 10 años e incrementaron su tenencia de euros”.

El propio 6 de octubre, la AFP publicó que el oro alcanzó la cifra récord de 1 045 dólares la onza, impulsado por el debilitamiento del dólar y el temor a la inflación.

El diario Independent, de Londres, publicó que un grupo de países petroleros estudiaban reemplazar el dólar en las transacciones comerciales por una cesta de divisas que incluirán el yen, el yuan, el euro, el oro y una futura moneda común.

La noticia filtrada o deducida con impresionante lógica fue desmentida por algunos de los países presuntamente interesados en esa medida de protección. No desean que colapse, pero tampoco seguir acumulando una moneda que ha perdido 30 veces su valor en menos de tres décadas.

No puedo dejar de consignar un despacho de la agencia EFE, la cual no puede ser acusada de antiimperialista y que en las actuales circunstancias transmite opiniones de especial interés:

“Expertos de economía y finanzas coincidieron hoy en Nueva York en afirmar que la peor crisis desde la Gran Depresión ha llevado a ese país a jugar un papel menos significativo en la economía mundial.”

“‘La recesión ha hecho que el mundo haya cambiado la forma en que se mira a EE.UU. Ahora nuestro país es menos significativo que antes y eso es algo que debemos reconocer’, afirmó David Rubenstein, presidente y fundador de Carlyle Group, la mayor firma de capital de riesgo del mundo, en su intervención en el World Business Forum.”

“‘El mundo financiero va a estar menos centrado en EE.UU. (…) Nueva York no va a ser nunca más la capital financiera mundial y ese papel se repartirá con Londres, Shanghai, Dubai, Sao Paulo y otras ciudades’, aseveró.”

“…desgranó los problemas a los que se enfrentará EE.UU. cuando salga de ‘una gran recesión’ de la que aún quedan ‘un par de meses por delante’.”

“…’el enorme endeudamiento’ público, la inflación, el desempleo, la pérdida de valor del dólar como divisa de reserva, los precios de la energía…”

“El Gobierno debe disminuir el gasto público para enfrentar el problema de la deuda y hacer algo que gusta poco: subir los impuestos.”

“El economista de la Universidad de Columbia y asesor especial de la ONU, Jeffrey Sachs, coincidió con Rubenstein en que el predominio económico y financiero de EE.UU ’se está apagando’.”

“Hemos dejado un sistema centrado en EE.UU. por uno ‘multilateral’…”

“…’veinte años de irresponsabilidad por parte primero de la administración de Bill Clinton y luego de la de George W. Bush’, cedieron a las presiones de Wall Street…”

“…’los bancos negociaban con ‘activos tóxicos’ para conseguir dinero fácil’, explicó Sachs.”

“‘Lo importante ahora es reconocer el desafío sin precedentes que supone lograr un desarrollo económico sostenible y consecuente con las reglas básicas físicas y biológicas de este planeta’…”

Por otro lado, las noticias que llegaban directamente de nuestra delegación en Bangkok, capital de Tailandia, no eran en absoluto alentadoras:

“Lo esencial que se discute -informó textualmente nuestro Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores- es la ratificación o no del concepto responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas entre los países industrializados y las llamadas economías emergentes, básicamente China, Brasil, India y Sudáfrica, y los países subdesarrollados.

“China, Brasil, India, Sudáfrica, Egipto, Bangladesh, Pakistán y el ALBA son los más activos. En general el Grupo de los 77, en su mayoría, se mantienen en posiciones firmes y correctas.

“Las cifras de reducción de emisiones de carbono que se están negociando no se corresponden con las que se calculan por los científicos para mantener el aumento de la temperatura a un nivel inferior a 2 grados Celsius, 25-40%. En este momento, la negociación se mueve en torno a una reducción del 11-18%.

“Estados Unidos no está haciendo ningún esfuerzo real. Sólo están aceptando un 4% de reducción con respecto al año 1990.”

En horas de la mañana de hoy viernes 9, el mundo se despertó con la noticia de que “el Obama bueno” del enigma, explicado por el Presidente Bolivariano Hugo Chávez en las Naciones Unidas, recibió el Premio Nobel de la Paz. No siempre comparto las posiciones de esa institución, pero me veo obligado a reconocer que en estos instantes fue, a mi juicio, una medida positiva. Compensa el revés que sufrió Obama en Copenhague al ser designada Río de Janeiro y no Chicago como la sede de las Olimpiadas del 2016, lo cual provocó airados ataques de sus adversarios de extrema derecha.

Muchos opinarán que no se ha ganado todavía el derecho a recibir tal distinción. Deseamos ver en la decisión, más que un premio al Presidente de Estados Unidos, una crítica a la política genocida que han seguido no pocos presidentes de ese país, los cuales condujeron el mundo a la encrucijada donde hoy se encuentra; una exhortación a la paz y la búsqueda de soluciones que conduzcan a la supervivencia de la especie.

CUBADEBATE - 09.10.09

Obama, prix Nobel du chic type

Bénédicte Charles

And the winner is… Barack Obama. Encore. Un an après son élection, le président américain vient de se voir décerner le prix Nobel de la Paix.
Mine de rien, c'est la première fois que ce prix est attribué au dirigeant d'un état qui occupe militairement (avec d'autres nations) deux pays — l'Irak et l'Afghanistan.
On a la paix qu'on peut, certes, mais il y avait d'autres prétendants. Il y en avait même trop. Hu Jia, le dissident chinois emprisonné. Sima Samar, la militante féministe afghane. Morgan Tsvangirai, le Premier ministre zimbabwéen qui a fait la nique à Mugabe. Ces trois-là faisaient partie des favoris. Pas Obama. Son nom n'était même pas évoqué. Logique : il n'est que depuis dix mois à la tête des Etats-Unis. Alors que s'est-il passé pendant les délibérations du jury?

«Il y a beaucoup de bons candidats», déclarait déjà Geir Lundestad, le secrétaire du comité Nobel, la semaine dernière. Une façon de signifier que ses membres auraient du mal à se mettre d'accord sur un lauréat. C'est apparemment ce qui s'est produit. Du coup, le comité a choisi un plus petit dénominateur commun. Un homme qui certes n'a pas beaucoup oeuvré pour la paix, mais qui n'a pas non plus déclaré une guerre (il s'est juste contenté de les poursuivre). Un lauréat dont personne n'aurait l'idée de contester la victoire parce que décidément il est vraiment trop sympa. Un chic type, quoi.

Or qui est le plus chic type de la planète, le plus cool, le plus souriant, le plus beau? Barack, évidemment.
Le Nobel de la paix a donc été, cette année, décerné via un sondage planétaire de popularité. D'ailleurs, sur le site de la fondation Nobel, il y a bien un sondage : «Connaissiez-vous les efforts d'Obama en faveur d'un monde sans armes nucléaires?», demande-t-on candidement aux internautes. Imaginez la tête des membres du comité si une majorité répondait «Non. En revanche je connais le montant du budget de la Défense américaine, voté la veille de l'attribution du Nobel : 680 milliards de dollars».

Bref, si Obama est prix Nobel 2009, il garde toutes ses chances pour 2011 ou 2012 : s'il réussit la paix au Proche Orient, s'il ferme Guantanamo comme il l'a promis, s'il retire les troupes US d'Irak, alors il a toutes les chances d'être lauréat une seconde fois. Yes he can!
Marianne2 - 09.10.09

Sauce verte

Alain Accardo

Il est établi depuis longtemps que chaque grand type de société de classes dans l’histoire a développé une idéologie dominante constituée pour l’essentiel de représentations (idées, croyances, sentiments, etc.) permettant de légitimer la suprématie de la classe sociale dominante.

En fait, ces grandes idéologies, dans leur principe, n’étaient pas destinées à ce à quoi on les a fait servir par la suite. Elles n’ont intéressé les puissants que parce qu’elles possédaient une forme d’universalisme qui les rendait capables de répondre aux attentes du plus grand nombre et susceptibles d’être adoptées par les masses. Le christianisme, par exemple, n’avait pas originellement pour but de donner bonne conscience aux riches dans l’oppression des pauvres. C’était même plutôt le contraire. De même pour la philosophie des Lumières qui a enfanté l’idéologie démocratique au XVIIIe siècle, ou pour l’idéologie socialiste à la fin du XIXe. Chaque fois la classe possédante-dirigeante (quelque nom qu’on lui donne), secondée par son intelligentsia cléricale et/ou laïque, a su glisser sa main de fer dans le gant de velours d’un humanisme qui se voulait d’abord égalitaire et sans discrimination d’aucune sorte, le détournant ainsi dans ses finalités et le falsifiant dans son inspiration. Et il s’est trouvé, à chaque époque, des princes, des évêques, des philosophes, des politiciens, par corporations entières, pour théoriser, rationaliser et justifier ces impostures, et pour accomplir en toute bonne conscience ce travail de faux-monnayeurs.

Bien évidemment une telle adultération des doctrines initiales, un tel dévoiement du sens, ne pouvaient qu’avoir des effets catastrophiques à long terme, et plus précisément aboutir à ces parodies idéologiques qui ont permis aux seigneuries féodales puis aux grandes bourgeoisies contemporaines d’exploiter systématiquement et imperturbablement le genre humain, mais toujours ad majorem dei gloriam et au nom de la paix, de la justice et de la prospérité universelles. Et depuis les philosophes grecs justifiant l’esclavage jusqu’aux théologiens établissant la nature « démoniaque » de la Femme ; des « légistes » de Philippe le Bel, aux think tank de la Commission européenne de Bruxelles ; des économistes de l’espèce de Ricardo ou de Bastiat, théorisant la supériorité du libéralisme, aux technocrates du FMI enseignant aux pays pauvres à se ruiner pour enrichir les banques ; des « Messieurs du Commerce nantais » du XVIIIe légalisant la traite négrière, aux congressistes de Bad-Godesberg rangeant en 1959 la social-démocratie sous la bannière du capitalisme ; des gouvernants français couvrant les crimes du colionalisme, aux dirigeants du G20 faisant mine de tancer les rapaces de la Finance internationale pour leurs « excès », le camp des puissants de la Terre foisonne en cerveaux habiles non seulement à exécuter les mauvais coups portés au monde du travail mais à les légitimer au regard de l’éthique de leur époque.

Nous sommes précisément en train de vivre un moment historique spécialement édifiant à cet égard, une évolution idéologique de grande ampleur caractérisée par le mouvement simultané de déclin d’une forme d’idéologie dominante, le néolibéralisme, auquel les dévastations matérielles et humaines du capitalisme sont en train d’arracher son double masque social-libéral et social-démocrate, et de montée en puissance d’un courant idéologique encore multiforme et en cours de définition, l’écologie. Alors qu’il n’y a pas si longtemps les adeptes d’une vision écologique passaient pour des plaisantins ou des illuminés, la brutale évidence de la dégradation de l’environnement a mis l’écologie à l’ordre du jour. Le « Grenelle de l’environnement » n’a été qu’un moment significatif de la mobilisation du système pour, une fois de plus, s’emparer de la légitime émotion des masses, la canaliser, l’orienter et, sous le slogan du « développement durable », accommoder le capitalisme à la sauce verte.

Et une fois de plus, la main-d’œuvre pour mitonner cette nouvelle cuisine intellectuelle ne fait pas défaut, si on en juge par la foule de Cohn-Bendit, Hulot, et autres marmitons se bousculant au fourneau, lointains et pâles émules de l’évêque Adalbéron de Laon qui, sous le règne de Robert le Pieux, concoctait le mythe théologico-politique des « trois ordres » pour sanctifier le féodalisme, ou de l’« humaniste » Juan Ginès de Sepulveda, qui, pour soutenir la politique impérialiste de Charles Quint, démontrait que les Indiens d’Amérique latine étaient naturellement destinés à servir d’esclaves aux Espagnols.

blog.agone.org - 05.10.09

Les inégalités d’espérance de vie dans le monde

L’espérance de vie varie presque du simple au double entre les pays : de 43,6 ans en Afghanistan à 82,7 ans au Japon...

Les données générales

Dans certains pays riches, on peut vivre deux fois plus longtemps que dans les pays où l’espérance de vie est la plus faible. Celle-ci se situe en effet au-dessus de 77 ans dans plusieurs pays, la palme revenant au Japon (82,7 ans en 2007)*. La France se situe parmi les pays qui disposent de la longévité la plus élevée avec 81 ans en 2007. Dans presque tous les pays développés elle augmente assez nettement.

L’espérance de vie croît également dans les pays émergents (Amérique du Sud, Maghreb, Chine, Inde...) bien que l’écart avec les pays les plus riches reste souvent plus marqué. Les disparités entre ces pays sont aussi plus importantes, la fourchette étant de 60 à 79 ans.

La fin d’une inégalité particulièrement insupportable ? Ce serait oublier les pays les plus pauvres... En Afrique, continent frappé par les guerres et les épidémies (particulièrement le Sida), l’espérance de vie est particulièrement faible : au mieux de 60,1 ans au Gabon, elle est de 46,5 ans en Angola et 44,5 ans en Zambie. Ces chiffres sont ceux que la France connaissait en 1800.

Mais c’est en Afghanistan que l’espérance de vie est la plus faible (43,6 ans), bien plus faible que ses voisins.

* chiffres hommes-femmes confondus, sachant que les femmes vivent plus longtemps que les hommes.

Espérance de vie à la naissance en années par régions du monde


Pays en développement66,9
Pays les moins avancés51,0
Etats arabes68,5
Asie de l'Est et Pacifique72,2
Amérique latine et Caraïbes73,4
Asie du Sud64,1
Afrique subsaharienne51,5
Europe centrale et Orientale et CEI69,7
OCDE79,0
Pays de l'OCDE à revenu élevé80,1

Source : Rapport sur le développement humain PNUD 2009. Année des données : 2007
L'espérance de vie à la naissance dans le monde, par pays

Espérance de vie à la naissance en années
Afghanistan43,6
Afrique du Sud51,5
Allemagne79,8
Angola46,5
Brésil72,2
Chili78,5
Chine72,9
Côte d’Ivoire56,8
France81,0
Gabon60,1
Inde63,4
Indonésie70,5
Italie81,1
Japon82,7
Mali48,1
Maroc71,0
Pakistan66,2
Royaume uni79,3
Russie66,2
Sénégal55,4
Sierra Leone47,3
USA79,1
Zambie44,5

Source : Pnud - Rapport mondial sur le développement humain 2009. Année des données : 2007

La mortalité infantile

Une des causes de l’inégalité d’espérance de vie entre les pays réside dans le taux de mortalité infantile : malgré les progrès dans toutes les régions du monde, ce taux est de 169 pour 1 000 en Afrique de l’Ouest et Centrale, contre environ 6 pour 1 000 dans les pays industrialisés.

Taux de mortalité des enfants de moins de 5 ans

1960
1990
2007
Afrique subsaharienne277187148
Afrique de l'Est et du Sud252165123
Afrique de l'Ouest et Centrale300208169
Moyen-Orient et Afrique du Nord2497846
Asie du Sud23812378
Asie Orientale et Pacifique1215527
Amérique latine et Caraibes1545526
CEE/CIS915325
Pays industrialisés39106
Pays en voie de développement21918074
Pays les moins développés276180130
Monde1849368
pour 1 000 naissances vivantes
Source : UNICEF

Observatoire des Inégalités - 09.10.09

Monde : un développement inégal

L’indice de développement humain (IDH) des pays de l’OCDE atteint 0,932 en 2007. Il est de 0,514 en Afrique subsaharienne.

L’état des lieux

L’indice de développement humain (IDH [1]) des pays de l’OCDE atteint 0,932 en 2007. Il est le plus faible en Afrique subsaharienne : 0,514. Le niveau de santé est mesuré par l’espérance de vie à la naissance : elle est de 51,5 ans en moyenne dans les pays les moins avancés, de 79 ans dans les pays de l’OCDE. L’éducation prend en compte deux éléments : le taux d’alphabétisation des adultes (pour 2/3) et le taux brut de scolarisation qui intègre les études secondaires et supérieures (pour 1/3). Dans les pays les plus pauvres, un tiers des adultes ne sont pas alphabétisés.

Le développement humain ne dépend pas uniquement du revenu. Avec 10 077 dollars en moyenne par habitant, l’Amérique latine a un revenu moyen beaucoup plus élevé que l’Asie orientale (5 733 dollars/hab) alors que l’indice de développement humain de ces pays est assez proche (0,82 et 0,77). Si l’Asie "rattrape" l’Amérique latine en matière de développement humain, c’est que les inégalités y sont moins fortes, que le niveau d’espérance de vie et d’alphabétisation sont quasiment au même niveau aujourd’hui dans ces parties du monde. L’Amérique latine affiche une moyenne élevée, mais celle-ci est liée au fait qu’une minorité de la population est très aisée.

Les niveaux de développement par grandes régions

Espérance de vie à la naissance en années
Taux d'alphabétisation des adultes de 15 ans et + en %
Taux de scolarisation combiné pour l'éducation primaire, secondaire et supérieure
en %
PIB par habitant
en dollars
Indice de développement humain*
Monde67,583,967,59 9720,753

Afrique Sub-saharienne51,562,951,52 0310,514
Amérique latine et Caraïbes73,491,283,410 0770,821
Asie orientale et Pacifique72,292,769,35 7330,770
Asie du Sud64,164,258,02 9050,612
Etats arabes68,571,266,28 2020,719
Europe centrale et orientale et CEI69,797,679,512 1850,821

OCDE78,0nd **89,132 6470,932
* L'indice de développement humain est une moyenne de trois composantes : le niveau de vie (pib par habitant), la santé (espérance de vie) et le niveau d'éducation (alphabétisation et scolarisation). ** non disponible mais proche de 100 %.
Source : Rapport mondial sur le développement 2009 du PNUD. Année des données : 2007

L’évolution

L’indice de développement humain montre, depuis 1980, le fort développement de la Chine, de l’Inde, du Brésil. L’IDH de la Chine est passé de 0,533 en 1980 à 0,772 en 2007, rattrapant presque le Brésil. Celui de l’Egypte a également fait un bond : de 0,496 en 1980 à 0,713 en 2007. L’amélioration des conditions de vie est ainsi visible dans de nombreux pays en développement. Mais les pays qui étaient développés en 1980 gardent la tête du classement, alors que certains pays comme l’Afrique du Sud subissent une diminution de leur IDH depuis les années 2000.

Evolution de l’indice de développement humain (IDH) de 1980 à 2007

1980
1990
2000
2007
Pays à développement humain très élevé
Norvège0,9000,9240,9610,971
Suède0,8850,9060,9540,963
France0,8760,9090,9410,961
Japon0,8870,9180,9430,960
Etats-Unis0,8940,9230,9490,956
Grèce0,8440,8720,8950,942
Pays à développement humain élevé
Polognend0,8060,8530,880
Mexique0,7560,7820,8250,854
Brésil0,6850,7100,7900,813
Pays à développement humain moyen
Chine0,5330,6080,7190,772
Egypte0,4960,5800,6650,703
Afrique du Sud0,6580,6980,6880,683
Inde0,4270,4890,5560,612
Nigériand0,4380,4660,511
Pays à faible développement humain
Ethiopiendnd0,3320,414
Mali0,2450,2540,3160,371
nd : non disponible
Source : PNUD - Rapport mondial sur le développement 2009

Pour en savoir plus : PNUD - Rapport mondial sur le développement 2009

Qu’est-ce que l’indice de développement humain ?
Cet indicateur développé par le Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement (PNUD) cherche à déterminer une mesure du bien être, de l’état d’une société à un moment donné, en allant au-delà de la seule richesse nationale monétaire (le produit intérieur brut). Il l’intègre mais aussi la santé (à travers l’espérance de vie) et le niveau d’éducation (taux de scolarisation et d’alphabétisation). Cet indice n’est pas à prendre à la lettre car bon nombre de données sont approximatives - notamment dans les pays du Sud - et il réalise une moyenne discutable. Le "développement humain" est par définition difficile à résumer... C’est toutefois un exercice qui permet de dépasser la seule richesse monétaire, que l’on doit compléter par d’autres indicateurs.

Observatoire des Inégalités - 09.10.09

Le Prix Nobel de la Paix : « Une décoration prématurée »

Serge Charbonneau

La Paix, la Paix…Plutôt que d’en parler, il faut la faire !

Hier on titrait : « La Chambre des représentants accorde 680 milliards au Pentagone » [1]

Les démocrates sont au pouvoir. Ce ne sont plus les faucons républicains. Où est la différence ? En tout cas, pas dans le budget militaire. Le Pentagone a obtenu au-delà de ses espérances !

Et Obama dans tout ça ?

Il est nettement prématuré d’accorder le prix Nobel de la PAIX, à ce président. Jusqu’ici, la Paix s’est avérée n’être qu’un vœu pieux. Les mains tendues se retirent une à une et l’arrogance de l’empire se poursuit comme si rien n’avait changé à la présidence des États-Unis.

Je crois que cette attribution du prix Nobel de la PAIX est un voile qu’on nous met sur la réalité. Il aurait fallu attendre en fin de mandat et voir si vraiment la Paix est plus réelle. Pour l’instant, c’est plus de 75 millions par heure (plus d’un million à la minute) que l’on continue à dépenser aux États-Unis dans l’industrie de la guerre et de la mort. Rien de très reluisant comme réussite pour Obama-Nobel-de-la-Paix,.

Kissinger aussi avait eu le prix Nobel de la Paix. Ce personnage qui manigança combien de tueries, entre autres le Coup d’État au Chili et l’assassinat de Salvador Allende.

Jusqu’ici, on dirait qu’Obama marche dans les pas de cette crapule de Kissinger. Kissinger met au point la politique de la détente avec l’Union soviétique. Il négocie ainsi le traité SALT I limitant le nombre de bombes nucléaires des deux superpuissances (la réduction du bouclier à missiles pour Obama). De même, en juin et en octobre 1971, pour la première fois, il entre secrètement en contact avec la Chine communiste (la main tendue) puis accompagne Nixon lors de sa visite officielle (la première d’un président américain) en 1972.

… jetant les bases du retrait américain du Viêt Nam (Irak pour Obama), il reçoit le prix Nobel de la paix, en 1973, l’année même qu’il orchestre le sanglant Coup d’État au Chili et l’assassinat de son président élu.

Il est NETTEMENT PRÉMATURÉ d’accorder le Prix Nobel de la Paix à Obama. Ce prix devrait se mériter sur des faits tangibles et non sur les mains (hypocritement ?) tendues et les beaux discours.

Le Grand Soir - 10.10.09

Obama: apariencia y realidad

Enrico Piovesana

El Premio Nobel de la Paz a Obama causa perplejidad. El presidente del “cambio” ha mantenido al mismo “ministro de la Guerra” de Bush (Robert Gates), y junto con él, todos los compromisos militares que tenían los EEUU en los distintos frentes de la Guerra Global contra el Terrorismo (GWOT), que Obama ha rebautizado y maquillado bajo el nombre “Operaciones de emergencia ultramarinas” (OCO).

Irak. La retirada de EEUU de Irak (que se completará antes de finales de 2011) no se debe a ideales pacifistas, sino a la decisión estratégica de liberar recursos militares de una guerra que Obama definó como la “guerra equivocada” para emplearlos en el frente de la “guerra justa”, la de Afganistán.

Afganistán. Pese a haber declarado que se emprendería una “nueva estrategia”, de hecho Obama lleva a cabo una intensificación del conflicto, duplicando el número de tropas EEUU en el frente (de 32.000 a 68.000 en un año, aunque se prevé llegar a 100.000), y prosiguen los bombardeos aéreos que día tras día provocan masacres de civiles afganos.

Pakistán. La realidad es que Obama ha extendido la intervención militar de EEUU en Afganistán a Pakistán, intensificando notablemente los ataques con cohetes lanzados por drones de la CIA en las zonas tribales (unas 70 incursiones de drones desde su nombramiento con decenas y decenas de civiles muertos) y forzando al gobierno de Islamabad a acometer ofensivas militares masivas en los bastiones talibanes del valle de Swat (ofensiva que ha causado una catástrofe humanitaria de millones de personas sin hogar). Dentro de poco se prevé otra en Waziristán.

Somalia. Con Obama han continuado los ataques militares estadounidenses en territorio somalí para eliminar a exponentes de Al Qaeda y del grupo local Al Shabab: ataques con misiles o incursiones de escuadrones de tropas especiales aerotransportadas (como la del pasado 14 de septiembre).

Filipinas. Las fuerzas especiales estadounidenses siguen combatiendo con las tropas filipinas empleadas en operaciones militares contra grupos armados integristas islámicos que se consideran vinculados a Al Qaeda (Abu Sayaf y Jemaah Islamiyah), que operan en las islas más meridionales del archipiélago filipino.

Otros conflictos. Consejeros e instructores militares de EEUU siguen operando en muchos otros frentes de guerra: en el sur de Tailandia (contra los separatistas islámicos de Pattani, también acusados de vínculos con Al Qaeda), en Georgia (contra los separatistas osetas y abjasios respaldados por Rusia), en Colombia (contra los guerrilleros de las FARC), en Níger, Malí, Túnez (contra las células locales de Al Qaeda en el Magreb islámico) y en Yemen (contra las milicias de Al Qaeda en la península arábiga del jeque Nasir al Wahayshi).

Diplomacia. Tampoco es que todas las iniciativas diplomáticas de Obama hayan guardado miramientos. Basta con pensar en la obstrucción de una investigación independiente sobre crímenes de guerra que cometió Israel en Gaza durante la operación “Plomo fundido”, o en la patraña provocadora de la “nueva” central nuclear iraní en Com (que en realidad EEUU conocía desde 2006), o en el “abandono” del escudo de misiles de Bush (en realidad rediseñado según criterios más modernos), o en la renovación del anacrónico embargo económico a Cuba.

Rebelion - 10.10.09

Premio Nobel de la Paz a Obama: Premio consuelo

Atilio A. Boron

En una insólita decisión el Comité Nóbel de Noruega puso fin a siete meses de búsqueda entre los 205 nominados para el Premio Nóbel de la Paz y se lo confirió a Barack Obama. La decisión del Comité noruego provocó reacciones muy diversas en el sistema internacional: desde el estupor hasta una gigantesca risotada. Las declaraciones del presidente de ese órgano, Thorbjorn Jagland, no tienen desperdicio: “es importante para el Comité reconocer a las personas que están luchando y son idealistas, pero no podemos hacer eso todos los años. De vez en cuando debemos internarnos en el reino de la realpolitik. Al fin de cuentas es siempre una mezcla de idealismo y realpolitik lo que puede cambiar al mundo.” El problema con Obama es que su idealismo se queda en el plano de la retórica, mientras que en el mundo de la realpolitik sus iniciativas no podrían ser más antagónicas con la búsqueda de la paz en este mundo.

Según informa Robert Higgs, un especialista en presupuestos militares del Independent Institute de Oakland, California, la forma como Washington elabora el presupuesto de defensa oculta sistemáticamente su verdadero monto. Al analizar las cifras elevadas al Congreso por George W. Bush para el año fiscal 2007-2008 Higgs concluyó que ellas representaban poco más de la mitad de la cifra que sería efectivamente desembolsada, llegando por eso mismo a superar la barrera, impensable hasta ese entonces, de un billón de dólares. Es decir, de un millón de millones de dólares. Y esto es así porque, según Higgs, a la suma originalmente asignada al Pentágono es preciso sumar los gastos relacionados con la defensa que se ejecutan por fuera del Pentágono, los fondos extraordinarios demandados por las guerras de Irak y Afganistán, los intereses devengados por el endeudamiento en que incurre la Casa Blanca para afrontar estos gastos y los que se originan en la atención médica y psicológica de los 33.000 hombres y mujeres que sufrieron heridas durante las guerras de Estados Unidos y que requieren un abultado presupuesto de la Administración Nacional de Veteranos. Obama no ha hecho absolutamente nada para detener esta infernal máquina de muerte y destrucción, y cuando por boca de su Secretaria de Estado denuncia los “gastos desproporcionados en armamentos” en lugar de ver la viga que tiene en su ojo el blanco de sus críticas es ¡la Venezuela bolivariana!

Obama aumentó el presupuesto para la guerra en Afganistán al paso que contempla incrementar el número de tropas desplegadas en ese país; sus tropas siguen ocupando Irak; no da señales de revisar la decisión de George Bush Jr. de activar la Cuarta Flota; avanza en un tratado todavía secreto con Álvaro Uribe para desplegar siete bases militares norteamericanas en Colombia, y se habla de cinco más que estarían a punto de confirmarse, con lo cual está preparando (o se convierte en cómplice) de una nueva escalada guerrerista en contra de América Latina; mantiene su embajador en Tegucigalpa, cuando prácticamente todos se marcharon, y de ese modo respalda a los golpistas hondureños; mantiene el bloqueo en contra de Cuba y ni se inmuta ante la injusta cárcel de los cinco luchadores antiterroristas encarcelados en Estados Unidos. Claro, el Comité noruego sufre periódicamente algunos desvaríos –no se sabe si ocasionados por su ignorancia de los asuntos mundiales, presiones oportunísticas o las delicias del acquavit noruego-, lo que se traduce en decisiones tan absurdas como la actual. Pero, si en su momento le concedieron el Premio Nóbel de la Paz a Henry Kissinger, correctamente definido por Gore Vidal como el mayor criminal de guerra que anda suelto por el mundo, ¿cómo se lo iban a negar a Obama, sobre todo después del desaire que sufriera a manos de Lula en Kopenhagen? La realpolitik exigía reparar inmediatamente ese error. Porque, al fin y al cabo, como lo declaró el propio presidente de Estados Unidos al enterarse de su premio, éste representa la “reafirmación del liderazgo norteamericano en nombre de las aspiraciones de los pueblos de todas las naciones.” Y, en un súbito ataque de “realismo”, los compañeros del Comité pusieron su granito de arena para fortalecer la declinante hegemonía estadounidense en el sistema internacional.
Rebelion - 10.10.09

The Wizard of Oslo: Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

John Dickerson

It came a week late, but President Obama did win the gold. Last Friday, the International Olympic Committee stiffed him. Today, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He should probably leave his schedule open next Friday, because apparently anything can happen.
It was the second time in three years that the peace prize went to someone trying to create a new international climate. In 2007, Al Gore shared the prize for his efforts to combat global warming. Explaining this year's selection, the committee credited Obama not for concrete accomplishments but for atmospheric ones. "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Having worked at Time magazine when it occasionally named a Person of the Year who evoked a similar "Huh?" reaction, I recognize this language: It the sound of words groaning for a rationale. The committee can, of course, pick whomever it wants. But in his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

"Shall have done," seems a tricky piece of language to write around. This makes the committee's statement sounds more like a wish list. It's not that Obama has done nothing. It's that so much about his presidency is preliminary. (I'm not counting the beer summit.) Other recipients—Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, and Lech Walesa—seem more aptly to hit the "have done" mark. Others who might not be household names, like Muhammad Yunus, make sense on inspection.

On the other hand, Obama may fit the bill more than some other recipients. At least he hasn't actively been engaged in making warfare, as were previous recipients Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat. Then again, Obama is considering whether to send more troops into Afghanistan, one of America's two wars.

Obama took office less than 10 days before the Feb. 1 deadline for Nobel Prize nominations. It was not a weak field. This year there were 205 submissions, more than ever. Obama was not a part of the pregame speculation, which had centered on human rights activists in China and Afghanistan and political figures in Africa. Human rights activists in China must be particularly miffed, since the Obama administration has downplayed China's bad human rights record.
The committee of five Norwegians has a more relaxed standard than Saturday Night Live, which recently poked fun at Obama for his lack of accomplishments, and Arizona State University, which declined to award him an honorary degree because of his inexperience.

Obama is not the first president, sitting or former, to win the award. In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt won the award. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson did. In 2002, Jimmy Carter took home the prize. Today's announcement may test the empathy of Bill Clinton, who has devoted his post-presidency to global health and peace initiatives.

The news came as such a shock that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to CBS News White House Correspondent Peter Maer with one word: "Wow." Gibbs phoned the president at 6 a.m. to give him the news.

The award has essentially been given for the president's speechmaking ability, which means his political handlers made the right call by sending him to Berlin during last year's election. The prize highlights the juxtaposition between the 44th and 43rd presidents: from a verbally challenged leader who seemed at time to revel in shunning world opinion to a wordsmith who came to office promising to embrace the globe.

The award will feed into the automatic sorting mechanism of politics. Conservatives who scoffed that Obama's Olympic defeat meant a drop in prestige should, by the same logic, herald this as an even greater spike in the same. They won't, because no one gets a prize for consistency.

Other parties that benefit from the prize are the producers at Fox News, who now know what they're going to talk about this weekend. Pundits win because the Nobel committee has validated the idea that speeches and atmospherics are really important. The award also offers the opportunity for all of us elites to do what we do best, which is miss how regular people might react. While we're talking about how the Nobel committee has jumped the shark, some people might like that a president who they elected, in part, to improve America's image in the world has been rewarded for it.

One debate will be whether Obama should turn down the prize, as Slate's Mickey Kaus suggests. That would be a slap to the committee, but since awards are being given for atmospherics, let's consider the atmospherics of such a move. Obama could easily write the justifying language: He's honored and humbled but he has merely articulated the common aspirations of all mankind. As it is mankind's global challenge, no one man can claim a prize with so much work left to be done. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. (Ben Rhodes and Jon Favreau could certainly find the language.)

In the quarters where his speechmaking and diplomatic flair are praised, such a performance will only enhance his reputation. His critics will be dumbfounded. The arrogance rap will fade. Obama would immediately become the favorite for next year's Nobel Prize for Humility.

Slate - 09.10.09

09/10/2009

As US Continues Afghan, Iraq Occupations and Quashes Accountability for Gaza Assault, Critics Decry Awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to Obama

President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months after taking office. The award comes despite Obama’s continuation of the Iraq war and escalation of the US occupation of Afghanistan. We get reaction from author and journalist Naomi Klein and London-based author and commentator Tariq Ali.

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months after taking office. The chair of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, made the announcement today in the Norwegian capital of Oslo.

    THORBJORN JAGLAND: [translated] The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Nobel Committee specifically highlighted what it called Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world and his attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. After the announcement, Jagland took questions from journalists.

    REPORTER: If we could just go over that same territory of the fact that he’s not been in office one year yet and has not fulfilled any of his promises, may never do so, and in English, if you could state why you’re so certain that this is a good choice so early in the day.

    THORBJORN JAGLAND: Because we would like to enhance, to support what is he’s trying to do, what is he trying to achieve. And it is a clear signal to the world that we want to advocate the same as he has done, namely to promote international diplomacy, to strengthen the international institutions, to work for a world free of nuclear arms. All these kind of things, which—I mean, it’s a longstanding history of the Nobel Committee that we have tried to promote that kind of attitudes and that kind of policies. And, I mean, I could mention a lot of examples of awarding a prize to a personality that has started that kind of processes in the very beginning.

    REPORTER: Mr. Obama is in the middle of a major decision, as you know, on—and will probably end up increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. How does the committee feel about that at this time?

    THORBJORN JAGLAND: The conflict in Afghanistan concerns us all. And we do hope that an improvement of the international climate and the emphasis on negotiations could help resolve that. I do not claim that it must help or will help, but we could hope that this could help resolving that conflict, as well.

    REPORTER: And what—do you have an opinion about raising the troop levels, increasing the—

    THORBJORN JAGLAND: Well, I could have an opinion, but not the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama took office less than two weeks before the nomination deadline. He is the third sitting American president to win the Nobel Peace Prize after Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

For more, we’re joined by award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein. She’s the author of the books The Shock Doctrine and No Logo. She joins us on the line from her home in Toronto.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Naomi.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you, Juan.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your reaction to this surprise announcement?

NAOMI KLEIN: You know, I try not to speak about things before I really had a process—you know, a chance to process it, because my raw reaction is really that this represents—it’s very significant and disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize. And, you know, it’s been cheapened before, and it will cheapen again—be cheapened again, but I think there’s something really striking here. And even just listening to the rationale that, despite overwhelming evidence, they’re giving this prize in the hopes that it will change Obama’s mind or encourage him to do things he hasn’t done—this is a candidate that ran a campaign that was much more based on hope and wishful thinking than it was on concrete policy. So we have hopes being piled on hope and wishful thinking.

This is supposed to be a prize that rewards concrete behavior, concrete action. And there are many people out there in the world who were under consideration for this prize, who every day perform acts that are taken at enormous risk for concrete benefit. I mean, I think that one of the people—one of the names under consideration this year was Dr. Mukwege in the Congo, in the DRC. This is somebody who is under personal threat because he is saving the lives of women every day who have been violently raped. And giving the prize to Dr. Mukwege—and I’m just giving one example—would have been such a concrete victory and encouragement for that action. It would have put pressure on the United States to take action, on the international community to take action, for the women of the Congo. And instead of that, we have this very, very political decision, and in many ways it’s like a pat on the head for good behavior or the hope of good behavior, because actually we’ve seen a lot of bad behavior. And we can come back to this.

But what I’m working on right now is a piece for Rolling Stone about the climate negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. And one of the things that the Obama administration is being rewarded for with this prize or what Barack Obama is personally being rewarded for in this prize is his supposed breakthroughs on international relations. What we’re actually seeing, as we speak, in Bangkok—this is the final day of two weeks of climate negotiations—has been extraordinarily destructive behavior on the part of the United States government, on the part of the Obama administration, absolutely derailing the climate negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Developing countries are absolutely shocked by what US climate negotiators have done. They have gone into these talks saying, you know, “We’re back. We want to reengage with the world.” What they’ve actually done is made a series of demands that would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and the binding emission architecture that was set up under Kyoto. So, to reward the Nobel Prize in the context of destroying the climate, where the US is destroying the climate negotiations, or threatening to, to me, is just shocking.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Naomi, the Nobel Committee specifically cited Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world. And I’d like you to comment, especially in light of the fact that right now the President is considering a dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan and also the US government’s criticism of the Goldstone report on the Israeli war in Gaza.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’ll start with the second point, because this is something else that is so strange about the timing. I think the moment of just rewarding Obama for awakening hope and optimism has clearly passed. And we certainly see this in the context of Israel-Palestine, where there was a huge amount of hope that was awakened and inspired by Obama’s rhetoric, by his historic Cairo speech. But now we’re past that moment. He didn’t just give that speech yesterday. And now is the moment when we’re seeing his actual commitment to change. And it has been one disappointment after the next.

First, an extremely half-hearted attempt to get tough with the Netanyahu government when it comes to settlement expansion. I say “half-hearted,” because demands were made, but they weren’t followed through with any kind of muscle. As we know, the US has more than moral suasion to use with the Netanyahu government, if it’s really opposed to settlement expansion. There are billions of military aid that, of course, is never put on the table. And after a little bit of moral suasion failed, we see the same defeatism setting in.

And then the Goldstone report. You know, one of the supposed victories of the US reengagement with multilateralism has been the US taking a seat on the Human Rights Council. But what we see, as in the context of the climate negotiations, is the US is reengaging, but in an extremely destructive way, using their status, their seat at the table, to undermine international law. That’s happening in the context of the climate negotiations, and now it’s happened in the context of the Goldstone report, where, rather than strengthening international law, the US pressure on Abbas and also their own words and actions undermine a crucial report, which should have been a breakthrough.

And the Obama administration wasted absolutely no time in selling out Judge Richard Goldstone with no basis of fact whatsoever. The report was extremely balanced. The Obama administration could have stepped back and allowed it to work its way through the UN system, really kind of hid behind the UN on this one. Here you have a judge with an extraordinary international reputation for his belief in international law and his commitment to the reality of the—of “never again,” whether in the context of Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. And this is somebody who’s really, really been committed to that idea. And the US has allowed his reputation to be destroyed, and contributed to it in many ways. So this is a moment where Palestinians more and more are saying, “OK, you raised our hopes, and now you’re dashing them.”

And then, in the middle of all this, the Nobel Prize Committee awards their top honors to Obama. And I think it’s quite insulting. I don’t know what kind of political game they’re playing, but I don’t think that the committee has ever been as political as this or as delusional as this, frankly.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Naomi Klein, I’d like to thank you for joining us on such short notice, since this was announced just a few hours ago, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Naomi Klein, the well-known journalist and author of the bestselling books Shock Doctrine and No Logo.

We had hoped to get Jeremy Scahill on to respond, as well, but we’ve had some problems. But we did manage, just before the program, to reach journalist and activist Tariq Ali. He has written over a dozen books and is on the editorial board of the New Left Review. Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous asked Tariq Ali for his reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    TARIQ ALI: Nobel [inaudible] surprises me. They’ve awarded the prize in the past to US presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, not particularly known for his love of peace. They’ve awarded it to Jimmy Carter, etc., etc. So the choice of Barack Obama, the only thing one can say is that they should have possibly waited; a decent interval might have been better, if they had waited ’til next year, because at the present moment US troops are occupying two countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. For all the talk, US soldiers remain in Iraq, and their bases are likely to stay there for some time. And the war in Afghanistan continues unabated, with President Obama actually sending in more troops. More people are being killed, both Afghans and NATO soldiers. The war has been expanded into Pakistan. So this is a sort of odd, though not surprising, choice by the Nobel Prize Committee.

    They tend to take rhetoric very seriously. And though they deny it, we know that in 1938 they couldn’t decide whether to give the prize to Hitler or to Gandhi. And finally, they gave it to the Nansen International Office of Refugees, which was a much better choice.

    It would be worth their while thinking that perhaps they should have a self-denying ordinance. They shouldn’t give the prize to serving heads of state. People still in power [inaudible] people making war.

    I mean, I could have given them two candidates who are very deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize this year. One is, of course, Noam Chomsky, who has fought for peace all his life. And the other is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been peacefully sitting in prison, waiting for justice for the last twenty-five years. Now, that would have given people something to think about.

    SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And what about the Nobel Committee’s citing Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world? Your reaction?

    TARIQ ALI: Well, Obama made a speech in Cairo, where he spoke to the Muslim world, as US presidents have done in the past. In contrast to Bush, of course, that appears very dramatic. And it was welcome, in a way, that he said, “You’re not our enemies.” But, you know, actions always speak louder than words.

    There has been no progress whatsoever on the Israel-Palestine talks. The administration is incapable of dealing with Netanyahu and the extreme right in Israel, which is now in power. And there has been no development in terms of getting out of Iraq completely. There are constant pressures being put on Tehran and war in Afghanistan. So talking to the Muslim world is fine, but one should always base one’s judgment on what politicians do, not on what they say.

    SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And you’ve written much on Pakistan in your book The Duel. It’s called The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power. What about the Obama administration’s stance towards Pakistan?

    TARIQ ALI: Well, the Obama administration’s stance towards Pakistan is to see it exclusively in instrumentalist terms as to whether it’s doing its bidding or not. This was the position of the previous administration. And Patterson, the US ambassador in Pakistan, behaves and acts like a viceroy. They’re expanding their military presence in the country. They are expanding the land holdings they have in that country, building more and more places for themselves, no doubt for their spy networks, as well. And they are essentially backing a corrupt regime, whose president does their bidding. In terms of what ordinary people in Pakistan need and what the real problems in that country are, they’ve actually done very little.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Tariq Ali, the noted journalist, activist, cultural critic and author. He has written over a dozen books and is on the editorial board of the New Left Review. Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous interviewed him earlier.

www.democracynow.org - 09.10.09

The Aspirational Nobel

Richard Kim

I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead. I hit refresh. Still there: "Obama Wins Nobel for Diplomacy." Maybe this is one of my weird work-related dreams, I thought. Maybe I am still drunk from last night's party. Better close my eyes and wake up again in the real world. Five minutes later...and still no dice.

Yes, Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. My first reaction is that this is going to be a test of how much crazier Orly Taitz and the Republican Anti-Christers can get. Not only does this prove that Obama is a socialist svengali--because he got the Norwegians to vote for him, probably as part of some UN-takeover of America--it also proves that Obama is piggy. Anti-Christs are so like that; they want everything right now (and losing the 2016 Olympics was just a red herring).

But back in reality, I'm still a little bewildered. It's as if the Nobel Committee gave Obama the award for behaving like a normal American president, instead of like a clueless corrupt cowboy.

The Committee insists this is not an aspirational prize, no carrot to make the United States and its president better neighbors. Thobjorn Jagland, the former prime minister of Norway who chaired this year's committee, insists that it's for work the president has already accomplished, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year," Jagland said. The announcement, which takes special note of Obama's anti-nukes position, says that Obama has "created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play...thanks to Obama's initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

These Nobel sentiments, however, are aspirational in my view. Obama doesn't deserve the prize, yet.

Yes, the president has said he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, but as Jonathan Schell wrote in our pages, he has a long way to go before that vision becomes reality. That path must include the US Senate ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty, and even a full court press from the White House can't guarantee that will happen this fall.

Then there's the matter of Obama's multilateralism and partnering with the UN. As Naomi Klein pointed out, the Obama administration, like its predecessor, boycotted the UN Durban anti-racism conference, using the flap over language on Israel-Palestine as an excuse to duck the actual issues about racial justice the conference cautiously raised. As for climate change, Obama has yet to commit to attending the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, and if that jaunt to Denmark is going to succeed in reducing carbon emissions, the US will have to bring a lot more to the table than it is currently offering.

I could go on: fully closing Gitmo and restoring civil liberties and compliance with the Geneva Conventions; negotiating with Iran in good faith; withdrawing from Iraq and, of course, withdrawal from Afghanistan. Escalation, or even maintaining the status quo there, would alone discredit this award in history's eyes.

Obama got a nice vote of confidence from the Norwegians for his promises. But now, he has to actually earn the Nobel with his deeds. That will be hard to do if his administration continues to send such mixed signals on international cooperation and diplomacy.

The Nation - 09.10.09

War and Peace

Alexander Cockburn

I suppose we should not begrudge Barack Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, though it represents a radical break in tradition, since he's only had slightly less than nine months to discharge his imperial duties, most concretely through the agency of high explosives in the Hindu Kush whereas as laureates like Henry Kissinger had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years.

Woodrow Wilson, the liberal imperialist with whom Obama bears some marked affinities, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, having brought America into the carnage of the First World War. The peace laureate president who preceded him was Teddy Roosevelt, who got the prize in 1906 as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines. Senator George Hoar’s famous denunciation of Roosevelt on the floor of the US Senate in May of 1902 was probably what alerted the Nobel Committee to Roosevelt’s eligibility for the Peace Prize:

“You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives—the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. ”

TR was given the peace prize not long after he’d displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino “monkey men” in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as “the missing link” in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam’s imperial credentials, anticipating by scarce more than a century, Obama’s award, as he prepares to impose Pax Americana on the Hindukush and portions of Pakistan.

People marvel at the idiocy of these Nobel awards, but there’s method in the madness, since in the end they train people to accept without demur or protest absurdity as part and parcel of the human condition, which they should accept as representing the considered opinion of rational men, albeit Swedish. It’s a twist on the Alger myth, inspiring to youth: you too can get to murder Filipinos, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese or Afghans and still win a Peace Prize. That’s the audacity of hope at full stretch.

It’s dawning even on those predisposed to like the guy that when it comes to burning issues the first black president of the United States truly hates to come down on one side or the other. He dreads making powerful people mad. He won’t stand up for his own people when they’re being savaged by the nutball right, edges them out, then has his press secretary claim that they jumped of their own accord. This may impress the peaceniks of Oslo, but from the American perspective he's looking like a wimp.

Obama’s Afghan policy evolved on the campaign trail last year as a one-liner designed to deflect charges that he was a peacenik on Iraq. Not so, he cried. The Global War on Terror was being fought in the wrong place. His pledge was to hunt down and “kill” Osama bin Laden.

Once ensconced in the Oval Office Obama, invoking “bipartiship”, instantly nailed a white flag to the mast by keeping on Robert Gates, Bush’s secretary of defense.

He formed a foreign policy team mostly composed of Clinton-era neo-liberal hawks, headed by Hilary Clinton and Richard Holbrook. His next step was to eject the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, and install Gen. Stanley McChrystal, best known for running the assassination wing of the military's joint special-operations command. (JSOC). Then he ordered 17,000 new US troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.

It was a fine exhibition of Obama’s eerie skill - also demonstrated in the politicking over health reform - in foreclosing his own range of choices and allowing opponents to coalesce and seize the initiative. If, on his second day in office he’d announced a full and complete review of US aims in Afghanistan, with no option left off the table he’d have had some purchase on the situation. But the months drifted by and finally the worsening situation forced a review of Afghan policy, precisely when Obama’s poll numbers were dropping, the war lobby heartened and the liberals already dejected by Obama’s surrender to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street and disastrous efforts in the health fight.

At this point fate handed Obama a golden opportunity. With astounding insolence Gen. McChrystal began to conduct a public lobbying campaign for his appeal for 40,000 more troops. His top security rationale for new troops ended up in the hands of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post.

Harry Truman was an indifferent president who needlessly dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, designed to intimidate Stalin. He launched the cold war arms race in 1948. Yet Americans venerate him for two things: the sign on his desk saying the buck stops here, and his dramatic firing of war hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination in challenging Truman’s overall direction of the war in Korea (not to mention possible excess in administering plans being carefully evolved in Truman’s high command to deploy and use nuclear weapons on the Koran peninsula.)

Truman didn’t allow MacArthur time to stage a grandiose resignation. In April, 1951, he fired him on late night radio, announcing that "With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. …I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command.”

It’s clear that McChrystal stepped over the line conclusively in his speech in London at the Institute for Strategic Studies General where he contemptuously dismissed the “small footprint” counter-terrorism strategy proposed by Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry, saying that it would lead to Afghanistan becoming Chaos-istan. Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen Jim Jones declared that it would have been better that McChrystal’s criticisms had come up through the Army’s chain of command. That was the moment Obama could have fired McChrystal for MacArthur’s offense – insubordination and defiance of civilian control of military policy.

McChrystal is no war hero, like McArthur. People crave some evidence that Obama has steel in his soul. High risk, maybe, but potentially a huge coup for Obama at a fraught political moment, also a brisk exit from the humiliation of the failed booster trip to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Obama did nothing, except further infuriate his liberal base by saying withdrawal isn’t an option. Pundits solemnly explained that given Democrats’ distaste for the war in Afghanistan – backed by strong popular hostility, Obama might have to go to Republicans to get the votes for the necessary appropriations of money.

It’s all much too late for any sensible policy review. There have been two moments in the last 40 years when life might have improved for ordinary Afghans, particularly women. The first came with the the reforming left regime of the late 1970s, destroyed by the warlords with US backing. The second arrived with the US eviction of the Taliban in 2001-2, which was welcomed by many Afghans. But at this stage in the game, simply by definition, no American intervention overseas can be anything other than a ghastly disaster, usually bloodstained. But already the US had too many chits out to the warlords of the Northern Alliance. The US “nation building” apparat is irreversibly corrupt – with a network of $250,000 a year consultancies, insider contracts, and beyond that a de facto stake in the drug industry now supply most of the West’s heroin and opium.

There’s no possible light at the end of any tunnel. The robot war via Predator missiles and other instruments in the arsenal infuriates all Afghans, as wedding parties are blown to bits every weekend. With more troops and mercenaries now in Afghanistan than during the Russian military presence at its peak, there’s zero chance for America playing a long-term constructive role in Afghanistan. The US presence is just a recruiting poster for the Taliban.

But Obama has now surrounded himself with just the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to destroy his presidency by escalating the war. They’re all as deluded as the lunatic I heard last week on my truck radio as I drove over the Tehachapi pass on route 58, between Barstow and Bakersfield. A man of the cloth in some Baptist denomination was patiently explaining that God’s plan was to end the world by flooding on May 21, 2011, thus trumping the end of the Mayan calendar, December 21, 2012. In the Biblical perspective 5/21/2011 is the end of the world. The elect will be saved, the rest will perish, not even given brief probation, like the inhabitants of Nineveh. The pastor’s voice was calm and resonant, no doubt like those of the men and women briefing Obama. A doubter called in, emphasizing that he was a 100 per cent believer in the veracity of each line in the Bible, but how to explain verse 4 of the ninetieth psalm: “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night”? Why had the divine author permitted himself the ambiguity of simile? The pastor plunged confidently into biblical numerology: God revealed to Noah in the year 4990 BC that there would be yet 7 days until the flood of waters would be upon the earth. Substitute 1000 years for each one of those 7 days, and we get 7000 years. And when we project 7000 years into the future from 4990 BC, we find that it falls on the year 2011 AD. 4990 + 2011 = 7001. He counseled us to remember, when counting from an Old Testament date to a New Testament date, always to subtract one year because there is no year zero, resulting in: 4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7000 years exactly.

But May 21? On May 21, 1988, God finished using the churches and congregations of the world. The Spirit of God left all churches and Satan entered into the churches to rule at that point in time. The Bible decrees that this period of judgment upon the churches wil last for 23 years. A full 23 years (8400 days exactly) would be from May 21, 1988 until May 21, 2011. The pastor took pains to remind his radio audience that this information was discovered in the Bible completely apart from the information regarding the 7000 years from the flood.

At this point the geological contours of the Tehachapi pass interrupted the radio signal and soon I was descending into the inferno of sunset over Bakersfield. Was the pastor madder than the augurers who have been counseling Obama on his Afghan policy? Was the pastor’s devoted audience more gullible than the President?

Last week Obama invited Republicans as well as Democrats to the White House for further review of the options. Obama has let events overtake him, exactly as he allowed the health policy debate to spin out of his control in the summer and early fall. He'll shoot for some sort of lethal semi-compromise on reinforcements, thus feeding the right and angering his liberal supporters. A year from now he’ll be paying the penalty in the mid-term elections, just as Clinton did.

Anthropology at War

Don’t miss the marvelous new edition of our Subscriber-Only Newsletter. David Price, an anthropologist and season contributor to CounterPunch excavates a story of particular relevance right now: the way the Pentagon is recruiting PhDs to fight its counter-insurgency campaigns: today Afghanistan, tomorrow the world. Price writes:

“While political science was the academic discipline, which the wars of the twentieth century drew upon, the asymmetrical wars of the twenty-first century now look toward anthropology with hopes of finding models of culture, or data on specific cultures, to be conquered or to be used in counterinsurgency operations. ..

“The counterinsurgency program generating the greatest friction among anthropologists is the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) – a program with over 400 employees, originally operating through private contractors and now in the process of being taken over by the U.S. Army. Human Terrain embeds anthropologists with military units to ease the occupation and conquest of Iraqi and Afghanis – with plans to extend these operations in Africa through expanding units with AFRICOM. Some HTS social scientists are armed, others choose not to. In the last two years, three HTS social scientists have been killed in the course of their work, and HTS member Don Ayala recently pled guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the Afghan (whom Ayala shot in the head-execution style while the victim was detained with his hands cuffed behind him) who had attacked THS social scientist Paula Loyd…

“Supporters of HTS claim the program uses embedded social scientists to help reduce “kinetic engagements,” or unnecessary violent contacts with the populations they encounter. The idea is to use these social scientists to interact with members of the community, creating liaison relationships between occupiers and occupied, as well as using HTS’s social scientists’ cultural knowledge to reduce misunderstandings that can lead to unnecessarily violent interactions.”

HTS has been selling itself to the public through remarkably well-organized domestic propaganda campaigns that have seen dozens of uncritical articles on HTS , with personality profiles on HTS’s personnel appearing in American newspapers, The New Yorker, Harpers, Elle, More, etc.) In his essay, exclusive to the newsletter, Price lays out the full, ugly story of these recipes for “better killing”.

Also in the newsletter: Mark Grueter reports from Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan, on a multi-million dollar campus designed to sell the American way of life. Welcome to the American University of Iraq. “Move your ass and your brains will follow”: Joe Paff remembers an astounding mobilization in San Francisco, 1967-1973 and the lessons it holds for left organizers today.

Subscribe today!

CounterPunch - 09.10.09
Related Posts with Thumbnails