28 December 2006

The Litvinenko Mystery Train

As the Litvinenko Mystery Train rolls on, the theories surrounding his demise appear to be multiplying by the day. There are some who pose as op-ed columnists who appear to have it all sorted out. Charles Krauthammer invokes the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor to support his simplistic and utterly baseless conclusion that Putin is directly responsible for the murder. I don't know why this schmuck garners so many column inches, but he does. His own peculiar brand of bigotry, his blinkered approach and his neo-con rantings collectively wing their merry way across the Atlantic to grace the pages of the Irish Times, which is one more reason I can add to the ever-growing list of reasons why I refuse to buy the paper.

Occam's Razor may well be a suitable means of drawing conclusions from natural phenomena, but as a means of crime-solving, it ranks up there with 'The Butler Did It'. If this principle were to be universally applied to the world of crime detection, every murder will have been carried out by the next-of-kin (for financial motives, of course) and every burglary will have perpetrated by your next-door neighbour. A far more reliable method of getting to the bottom of a complex criminal case is to employ the maxim of Cassius, as quoted by Marcus Tullius Cicero.... "cui bono?". Krauthammer's article deserves a rebuttal, primarily because despite the usual strident self-confidence, it is full of fallacies that are spawned by the simplistic application of a scientific principle to the complexities of human behaviour.

For starters, he claims that the deathbed allegation by Litvinenko - directly accusing Putin of being responsible for his murder - as being a "testimony delivered on the only reliable lie detector ever invented". This is patent nonsense, as the reliability of deathbed lie detector really only comes into play when it is the perpetrator that is dying. Perhaps if Litvinenko was a religious man, and had a belief in an afterlife, he may have been reluctant to bear false witness, but there is no evidence to support this conclusion.

Next up he attempts to relate the murder of Litvinenko to that of Anna Politkovskaya when there is no evidence, not even a the slightest bit, that the two cases are connected. There is also no evidence that the Russian administration was responsible for her murder, but that doesn't stop Mr. Krauthammer from pushing his assumptions as if they were the next best thing to cold, hard facts. He then goes on to drag out that old chestnut - the 'poisoning' of Viktor Yushchenko, which remains unsolved despite a thorough investigation by Ukrainian police. Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com has more than adequately explored the evidence on the Yushchenko poisoning in articles that can be found here, here, and here. Suffice to say that far from being clear, the cause of the disfigurement of Yushchenko is still a mystery.

And one chestnut follows another... Krauthammer claims that "opponents of Putin have been falling like flies. Some jailed, some exiled, some killed.", when in fact it is members of the crimnal, kleptomaniac oligarchy that has gone into self-imposed exile or have found themselves in prison having been found guilty of fraud. He then goes on to make the claim that Russia has a "long and distinguished history of state-sponsored assassination" based solely on the murder of Trotsky and a wild assumption that the attempted assassination of late Pope implicated the involvement of more than just Bulgaria.

These poor, besieged individuals to whom Krauthammer bestows the seemingly innocuous status of "opponents of Putin" were guilty of purloining the natural resources and industries of the former Soviet Union, resources that rightly belonged to everyone in Russia. They did this with a slight of hand and with the assistance of the rigged privatisations of the Yeltsin administration. I find it hard to show these criminals the same sympathy that Mr Krauthammer obviously displays, but then again, perhaps that is because I don't share the same allegiences.

Based on currently available evidence, Russia has no more and no less of a history of state-sponsored targeted murder than any other nation. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that the United States and her allies are far more proficient at 'suiciding' opponents than Russia could ever be. This is, of course, only my opinion.

Next on the menu is the makings of a world-class eulogy..."If we were not mourning a brave man who has just died a horrible death". Give me a break! What's next? The campaign to canonise "Saint Sasha"? While the manner of his death was undoubtedly horrible, it is at least less prolonged than the deaths of those who have been the victims of any one of the cruel and inhumane methods used by the modern war machine, and I don't see Mr Krauthammer carving too many statues to their memories. Indeed, if I recall correctly, he is on frequently on the sidelines waving his pom-poms in support of his home team.

Let's take a moment remember who this guy Litvinenko was. He was an ex-spy and by definition was involved in the very murky underworld of espionage. He had counted numerous dodgy characters amongst his friends. Both Litvinenko and the shady associate he met in the London restaurant - self-styled "professor" and "environmental security expert" Mario Scaramella - have been implicated in arms-trafficking. Mr Scaramella has been arrested on weapons-smuggling charges in Italy, but the anti-Putin, Russphobe chorus seem to be reluctant to make any connection between his activities and the demise of his associate, Litvinenko. Litvinenko was reported to be desperate to get his hands on cash and as a consequence was involved in blackmail schemes with several Russian mafia figures and politicians as the targets.

In a fleeting glimpse of the rational, our esteemed op-ed columnist then points out the way poisoning "evokes the great classical era of raison d’etat rubouts by the Borgias and the Medicis" but then quickly ends this brief excursion to the land of lucidity when he barks that "the first reported radiological assassination in history adds an element of the baroque of which a world-class thug outfit such as the KGB (now given new initials) should be proud." He should remember the old saying - don't point the finger, as there will be four left to point back at you. In the eyes of the world outside of the neo-con world (the neosphere), the contest for "world-class thug outfit" has already finished and has ended with a tie between the CIA and Mossad for first place, with the former KGB taking a poor second place.

In a parting shot, Mr Krauthammer claims that Litivenko may have been 'small fry' but his so-called 'investigations' made him a far more credible target. I hate to burst this bubble, but the evidence points entierely in the other direction. Litvinenko's so-called 'investigations' are widely thought to be little more than the ravings of a lunatic. In one of the books he wrote he accused the Russian government of being responsible for the 1999 terrorist attacks carried out in Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were blamed. Not only did he fail to provide any evidence for this, but he then went on to make the utterly ludicruous claims that the FSB was secretly funding al-Qaeda (a database of terrorists for hire set up by the CIA) and that Russia was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. With a pedigree like that, you can be sure that the guy was not perceived as a threat either by Putin or the FSB.

There's lots more in this story to discuss, but I'll leave it there for now, and perhaps return to it in the New Year. I'll leave you with this story, in The Times, that states "Sources in Spain last week said he had crossed Russian mafia figures. They claimed he had provided information that helped lead to the arrest in May of nine mafia members, including a senior gang leader with interests in Russia and Spain."

Unlike Charles Krauthammer, I can't claim to know who killed Sasha Litvineno. However, I am pretty sure who didn't kill him, and that's the Putin administration.

Continue reading...

25 December 2006

The Christmas Truce

One hundred and two years ago, after five months of World War I, German troops stationed on the Western Front at Ypres in Belgium decided to celebrate Christmas by decorating their trenches using placing candles on trees and by singing Christmas carols. The British, after firing a few shots at the decorated trees, became curious. Although they could not understand the language, they recognised the tune the Germans were singing. It was Stille Nacht, or Silent Night in English.

The English responded by singing carols and it was not long before the two sides were shouting Christmas greetings to each other across no-man's land. Then some soldiers made tentative ventures into no man's land bearing a makeshift flag of truce. Eventually thousands of war-weary soldiers from both sides poured into a no man's land strewn with the decomposing corpses of their fallen comrades. When they met, they exchanged small gifts from their rations - whiskey, jam, cigarettes. They also shared photos of loved ones and played a now famous game of soccer. The truce also provided an opportunity for the soldiers to bring their recently-fallen comrades behind their own lines for burial. In some instances, proper burials took place as soldiers from both sides mourned the dead and paid their respects together.

These men had done what the military command on both sides feared most. They had, in the midst of a bitter war, discovered their shared humanity and had made a spontaneous declaration of their common brotherhood, and as a logical consequence of this, they were refusing to fight. Generals from both sides declared this action to be treasonous and those who participated in it were to be the subject of court martial. Three months later, the 'fraternisation with the enemy' had been all but snuffed out and the killing machine was back in full sway. Perhaps if the generals were required to sit in the damp, cold trenches and fight for their lives, the outcome would have been different. Alas that was not to be the case, and war went on to claim over fifteen million lives.

The powerful song whose lyrics are reproduced below is based on the true story of the the Scottish commanding officer of the British forces involved in the story - Ian Calhoun. As a result of the truce, he was subject to court martial on the charge of 'consorting with the enemy' and sentenced to death - only to be pardoned by King George V.

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Toliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here,
I fought for King and country I love dear.

'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung.
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung.
Our families back in England were toasting us that day,
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground,
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound.
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear,
As one young German voice sang out so clear.

"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me.
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony.
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more,
As Christmas brought us respite from the war.

As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent,
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent.
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht," "'Tis 'Silent Night,'" says I,
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky.

"There's someone coming towards us!" the front line sentry cried.
All sights were fixed on one lone figure trudging from their side.
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shone on that plain so bright,
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night.

Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land,
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand.
We shared some secret brandy and wished each other well,
And in a flare lit soccer game we gave 'em hell.

We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home.
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own.
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin,
This curious and unlikely band of men.

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more.
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war.
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night:
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"

'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung.
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung.
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war,
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore.

My name is Francis Toliver, in Liverpool I dwell,
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well,
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame,
And on each end of the rifle we're the same.

Continue reading...

24 December 2006

The lunatics have taken over the asylum

An earlier post touched on the increasing militarisation of the American school system by way of armed police, in full riot gear and with weapons drawn, raiding junior and high schools – not to combat a specific threat, but as part of an 'exercise'. This lunacy is only the tip of the iceberg that is crammed full of examples not only of a big brother approach to the administration of education but also the crass and frankly insane results of a dogged adherence to the schizophrenic and destructive world of political correctness.

Suspended from class – for making an 'origami' gun

The student code of conduct of the Desoto Independent School District clearly states that no weapons or replica of weapons are allowed on school campus. That's fair enough – no argument there. However, where there is a rule like this there will always be some bozo who insists on taking it too literally, making a mockery of the rule itself and the school system enforcing that rule.

Destiny Thomas, an 11 year-old student at Amber Terrace Intermediate School in the Desoto School District, folded a piece of paper into the shape of a gun. You may be tempted to think that there is nothing remarkable in that and back in the sane world you would be right. However, in a bizarre application of the student code of conduct, the creator of this origami gun and two of her classmates were suspended and sentenced to 30 days of alternative school for 'flagrant violation of district anti-gun policies'.

Having reviewed the case on the following day, officials of the school district revoked the punishment and all three students will be allowed to return to class. What should be of concern is that the punishment was ever meted out in the first place.

[Source: Zero Intelligence]

Teacher's aide sexually harassed – by a four year old child

The detail of the story varies depending on who you listen to, but the official lunacy it represents does not alter that much. According to the child's father, his four-year-old child did nothing more than to hug his teachers aide. As a punishment for this offence the child was put into in-school suspension.

According the La Vega school administrators, the four-year-old was in a queue to get on the bus after school, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the chest of a female employee. The principal of the school sent a letter to the parents claiming that the child had demonstrated "inappropriate physical behaviour interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment."

The parents wrote to the school administrators demanding that the whole incident be erased from his son's academic file because his son is too young to know what it means to act sexually. The school agreed that sexual references on the discipline referral would be removed, but denied his request for an apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding the incident.

[Source: KXXV TV]

Yet more kindergarten sexual harassment

Washington County school officials in Maryland told a parent that his son had pinched a girl's buttocks while in a hallway at Lincolnshire Elementary School, and that this meets the state's definition of sexual harassment. According to school officials, the incident will remain on record in the boy's file until he reaches middle school. A local newspaper, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, reported that 28 kindergarten students in Maryland were suspended for sex offences in one school year, 15 of those suspensions being for sexual harassment.

[Source: AP/KUTV]

Taser abuse

While the tasering of UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad gained worldwide attention and a great deal of criticism, other stories of the abuse of this potentially lethal weapon have flown well and truly under the radar. In May 2004, police were received a call to deal with a runaway from the Arizona Children's Home, a school for children with special needs. While dealing with the runaway, a veteran South Tucson police sergeant is alleged to have fired his taser to subdue a handcuffed 9-year-old girl.

The article cited below claims the weapon is non-lethal, but there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not the weapon is lethal is immaterial – we should be asking ourselves what sort of society would accept the use of such weapons against young children, handcuffed or not.

[Source: KMSB-TV]

School rules... even when you are at home

In some states, the pertinence of school rules and policy extends beyond the boundaries of the school and outside of school hours, as a student from an out-of-district school who was caught streaking at a Valparaiso High School football game found out when his school punished him for his actions. According to Dana Long, assistant director for legal services at the Indiana Department of Education, “Indiana law allows a school corporation to punish a student in violation of a school policy anywhere at any time”. Even if the student is not charged with any crime, schools are allowed to punish any "unlawful activity off school property that can reasonably be viewed as an interference with school purposes," according to Dave Emmert, general counsel for the Indiana School Board Association.

Although the wisdom of this student's decision to streak at a football game (or anywhere else for that matter) is open to question, the wisdom of allowing any school to direct the actions of their students outside of school premises and outside of school hours is far more questionable and the consequences far more intolerable.

[Source: Northwest Indiana Times]

Conclusion

These are but a few stories among a myriad that paint a distressing picture, not only of an educational system permanently at war with those it purports to serve, but of a nation in the throes of self-destruction. The education system, which plays an enormous part in shaping the society of the future, is beset not only by the overt militarism, religious dogmatism and faux patriotism of those on the right but also the morally vacuous and repugnant notions of political correctness peddled by those on the left.

The victims in this equation are, as ever, the children. Children who grow up with an unhealthy fear of authority instead of a healthy disrespect for authority. Children who are taught their purpose is to serve the state when in fact the reverse should be the case. Children who learn by example that displays of affection are deemed sexual harassment. Children who at a very early age are being deprived of their childhood by being introduced to sexual education. Children, who through diversity education are being propagandised into accepting single-sex relationships as the norm – when they are still very much the exception.

Note that I am not really interested in debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. There's simply too much else going on in the world that is of far higher importance. What I do object to is that children are not being afforded the courtesy of allowing them to grow up to discover the complexity of human sexuality for themselves at an appropriate age and only then to make up their own minds as to what they find acceptable.

Continue reading...

16 December 2006

Depleted Uranium - The New Agent Orange?

At a time when the ongoing occupation of Iraq is being compared to the Vietnam war, and when the use of depleted uranium munitions by the United States is both increasingly controversial and being dismissed as no threat to health by its advocates, it is maybe an appropriate time to revisit the effects of a 'safe' herbicide known as Agent Orange on a sizeable proportion of the population of Vietnam.

Forty five years ago, President Kennedy gave his assent to plans to utilise herbicides in the Vietnam war - to destroy foliage and in doing so deny cover to the Vietnamese insurgents. The herbicide would also be used to destroy crops that could potentially be used to supply the insurgents. By far the most commonly used herbicide was 2,4,5 –T , nicknamed “Agent Orange” because then barrels in which it was shipped were marked with an Orange stripe.

The Presidential approval for the use of the herbicide ran contrary to Title IV of 1907 Hague Convention which placed strict prohibitions on the use of poisons as weapons or the use of other materials designed to cause unnecessary suffering. It also was in contravention of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which outlawed the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. To be fair, the United States did not ratify the Geneva Protocol until 1975, a full fifty years after it was tabled, so it could be said that it was not bound by this protocol in 1961. However, the very fact that it took so long to ratify a protocol that outlawed some of the most barbaric practices of war-making is, in itself, very telling.

Agent Orange contained in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin as a contaminant. TCDD, one of the most toxic substances known to humankind, was normally present in trace quantities, but sometimes accounted for as much 50 parts per million. The fact that this toxin represented a tiny fraction of the herbicide spray would be little cause for comfort. Laboratory tests on animals exposed to the most minute quantities of dioxin, as low as parts per billion, have suffered notable increases in the rates of birth defects.

Initially, most of the victims were agrarian workers and those in nearby villages who were repeatedly contaminated when they ate contaminated crops or drank tainted ground water. When ingested, dioxins will bioaccumulate, that is they build up and persist in living tissue, compounding their effect. Exposure to Agent Orange or any dioxin has been linked to disorders of the immune, endocrine, cardiovascular, metabolic, gastrointestinal, neurological and respiratory systems, and has been implicated in a number of skin disorders. The risk of terminal cancer amongst men and women exposed to dioxin is increased by 30% and children of parents exposed to Agent Orange are almost two and a half times more likely to be seriously deformed child than those of parents who were not exposed.

The chemicals used during the Vietnam War were produced by Dow, Monsanto, Uniroyal, Thomson Chemicals, Philips-Duphar, Diamond Shamrock, Hercules and others. Tests of the in affected areas found Dioxin concentrations to be 13 times higher than average in the soil and in human fat tissue, where the poison accumulates, up to 20 times as high. By the time the program was abandoned in 1971, thousands of square kilometres had been sprayed with almost 80 million litres of the herbicide. It is estimated that 3,181 villages were subjected to spraying and that as many as 5 million people would have been present during the spraying. In the city of Ben Tre an estimated 58,000 out of 140,000 residents were victims of Agent Orange.

Legal action for compensation by Vietnamese victims of this toxin have been stalled in court, due to the claimed absence of proof that their conditions are linked to the spraying of the herbicide. This is despite ample evidence that dioxins are highly toxic to practically all forms life and can give rise to tumours, systemic failures and genetic abnormalities. In the past, one of the primary sources of evidence to the contrary was Sir Richard Doll, a leading British epidemiologist, who stated that Agent Orange posed no carcinogenic hazard. For his evidence, he was paid consultancy fees of US$1,500 a day by Monsanto for nearly 30 years. These payments call into question the reliability and objectivity of the evidence he provided.

Our media and politicians have no difficulty in believing that the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin based solely on the flimsy evidence that his symptoms resembled those of chloracne - one of the many conditions associated with dioxin poisoning. This despite the fact Yushchenko's own official medical records show conclusively that Yushchenko suffered pancreatitis and hepatomegaly - both of which could easily have given rise to the outward physical symptoms ascribed to dioxin.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, both from the laboratory and from the field, that dioxin in the sorts of concentrations found in Vietnam poses a severe risk to health, the media, government and judicial system is still failing the victims and protecting the purveyors of this poison from costly legal settlements.

While Agent Orange is no longer used, there are a number of substances used in modern warfare that are a serious cause for concern. One of the most commonplace is depleted uranium. It is claimed that the low level of radioactivity of depleted uranium means that DU is unlikely to be a radiological hazard in a conventional sense. However, it is also a heavy metal and as such shares the chemical toxicity properties of other heavy metals - exposure to high doses of any heavy metal can cause adverse health effects.

Despite the assurances that depleted uranium is a low radiological risk, a survey carried out by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy found that shell holes left by DU munitions in the vehicles along the so-called Highway of Death (the road between Basra and the border with Kuwait) show radiation levels 1,000 times above background. They also found that the desert surrounding the destroyed vehicles was up to 100 times more radioactive than normal background levels. Depleted uranium has been shown to be a problem in other former war zones. Experts from the United Nations have discovered radioactive hot spots in Bosnia - a direct result of the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

Ingestion or inhalation of fine uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of depleted munitions on their targets is the primary potential exposure route and could potentially lead to high levels of radiological exposure. Since the first Gulf War there have has been a surge in birth defects. In 1989 defects number 11 in every 100,000 births whereas in 2001 they had risen to 116 for every 100,000 births. Children were born with a variety of defects - with everything from cleft palettes, leukemia and hydrocephalus. Infants are being born having their internal organs outside their body cavities, being born without brains, without spinal cords, without sexual organs. The list of defects is growing. For those of you who can cope with it, this site shows photos of some of these infants who were deformed at birth, many of whom stand no chance of survival, either because of the severity of their condition or the absence of affordable medication.

Continue reading...

15 December 2006

Olmert comes clean on nukes

According to an article in Arutz Sheva, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, after decades of Israeli "amimut" - a policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity.

The disclosure occurred during an interview with the German TV network SAT 1, where Olmert was asked for his comments on a statement by US defense minister Robert Gates regarding Israel's nuclear ability. Olmert became quite upset when he was asked if the fact that Israel possessed nuclear power had the effect of weakening the position of Western nations with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

His response was that "Israel is a democracy and does not threaten anyone," he exclaimed. "The only thing we have tried to do is to live without terror, but we have never threatened to destroy another nation. Iran explicitly, openly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map." Olmert then admitted Israel's nuclear capability when he said "You can say that it is the same level as America, France, Israel and Russia," he said, adding that those countries had nuclear weapons but did not threaten any one with them.

This response is packed full of the usual duplicitousness and deceit to be expected of Israeli government statements. For starters, any nation that is set up solely for the benefit of one race of people and seeks to actively purge or suppress those who are not of that race is not a democracy. Secondly, for every day of its existence Israel has threatened the Palestinian nation. Over the years, the public statements of scores of Israeli officials and their cheerleaders bear witness to the fallacious nature of Olmert's claim. I have provided a small but representative sample of these statements below.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."
Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces,
New York Times, 14 April 1983.
"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."
Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party
Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

As for the allegations against Iran and their leaders, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never once called for the destruction of Israel. What he did do was to pointout that regime change is both necessary and possible in Israel, just as it happened in Iran when the Shah was deposed.

His speech was deliberately mistranslated by the likes of the Middle East Media Research Institute, an organisation that could hardly be described as being impartial, as it was founded by Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence.

William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, described MEMRI as a news/translation service that "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media" and went on to say that "Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

The implication that although Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but is not threatening anyone with them, can only be seen as nonsense in the light of numerous threats made to other nations, including the slightly veiled but utterly chilling "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." statement made by Ariel Sharon before he became Prime Minister.

Such sabre rattling is not limited to officials. Prof. Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently said “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under." This claim, even if it is true, is nothing less than blackmail and the product of a seriously unstable mindset.

Back to Olmert's statement and its ramifications... attempting to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office said the statement by Olmert was misinterpreted (an all too familiar Zionist refrain when anyone gets a little too close to the truth, whether by design or by accident). Haaretz report that Olmert faces a barrage of criticism for his slip of the tongue and there have been calls for his resignation. I really don't see the point. Israel's nuclear capability, much like the faux nature of its democracy, has always been Pulcinella's secret.

Continue reading...

10 December 2006

The end of a long goodbye

Augusto Pinochet, the man who ruled Chile with a rod of iron for 17 years has finally passed away. I have to say that I don't share the sadness expressed by Margaret Thatcher nor will I ever be in sympathy with the throngs of weeping supporters who gathered in Santiago to bid farewell to their former tyrannt.

Even though some clueless Chileans persist in believing that he "saved Chile from communism" and "stopped Chile from becoming another Cuba", the reality of his legacy is somewhat at odds with their fawning admiration.

The US-backed miltary coup he fronted was, alongside the Suharto regime in Indonesia, one of the earlier examples of the use of military power and political repression to subvert the democratically expressed will of the electorate to suit the requirements of multinational corporations.

Far from saving Chile from anything, he oversaw the brutal murders of over three thousand people and the torture of countless others. He also threw open the doors to foreign exploitation of Chilean natural resources and labour. This same model has been used the world over to overturn democratically elected regimes, to denude countries of their natural resources and to pave the way for exploitation of their workers.

The polar opposite of the hero that a section of the Chilean population think him to be, the man was a traitor and should have paid for his treachery as soon as he was pushed out of power in 1990. Instead he lived on for a full 26 years after his junta was thrown out.

Never once the 26 years since the end of his dictatorship was he subjected to the due process of law. Quite to the contrary, this vile tyrannt was awarded the post of "senator for life" under the provisions of the 1980 constitution. He remained on as head of the armed forces until 1998. Chilean lawyer Hugo Gutierrez could not have put it better when he said that "This criminal has left this world without ever having been sentenced for any of his horrific criminal acts he committed during his dictatorship."

No olvídemos los desaparecidos!

Continue reading...

04 December 2006

Chavez Victorioso!

With approximately 80% of the ballots counted, Chavez appears to have received about 61% of the vote, compared with the 38% received by his opponent Manuel Rosales, current governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia. This is a decisive victory for Chavez and a resounding endorsement of his policies.

The opposition leader Señor Rosales, a so-called social-democrat, said he would go on "fighting for democracy" - in the streets if necessary. This Orwellian turn of phrase indicates that Señor Rosales does not accept that the will of the majority as expressed through the ballot box constitutes democracy. What Rosales really intends to do is to go on fighting the will of the majority –fighting against democracy. In other words, Rosales is a social democrat in name only.

Officials working with the Rosales campaign maintained that there were electoral irregularities, including the refusal of officials of the National Election Commission at some polls to open ballot boxes for audits, as is required by law. The Rosales campaign also complained that voting booths were kept open past the deadline. Given their shady history, it is not entirely unexpected that the opposition would make such accusations and they have yet to offer any substantive evidence that they contain even the tiniest shred of truth. It is true that polling stations remained open after the deadline, as it is electoral tradition in Venezuela that polls remain open until all in the queue at each station at the time of closing have had a chance to vote. So far there have been no comments on these alleged irregularities by international election observers.

Rosales maintains that the long-term future of the country lies in the implementation of free-market policies and through attracting foreign investment, and in doing so propagates the myth of a “free” market that in reality is anything but free. Rosales promotes the sort of foreign investment that is little more than the legalised pillage of his country’s resources by multinationals – for which he would probably expected to be paid handsomely and from which the average Venezuelan could expect to gain nothing. The foreign investment that Rosales so desperately seeks should be more correctly termed foreign divestment.

Chavez also stands accused by Rosales of having concentrated power in his own hands while at the same time having squandered Venezuela's resources – a charge that is loaded with irony, given that the repulsively wealthy and unbelievably tawdry “miami set”, the descendants of conquistadors and a comparatively small minority of Venezuelan society, have been guilty of concentrating the lion’s share of power in their own hands. This same group of people have also culpable of effectively handing over Venezuelan resources to foreign powers at knock-down prices so that they can feather their own nests, and carry on with their competitive petit- bourgeois displays of affluence.

Continue reading...

03 December 2006

Viva Chavez!

Later today, 16 million Venezuelans will be voting in a presidential election that, according to the BBC "offers starkly contrasting visions of their country's future course". Predictably, and somewhat simplistically, the BBC paint this election as a showdown between a socialist who "is seeking a new six-year term to complete his socialist revolution" and a candidate who wants to "keep" a market-based system.

The election could be more accurately be depicted as a battle between those on the one hand who...

  • are the poor descendants of indigenous indian populations and slaves
  • believe that the resources of a country should benefit all its citizens
  • think that the expressed will of the people is highly important
  • the constitution of the country is paramount
and those on the other hand who
  • are the wealthy, low-class descendants of conquistadors
  • believe that the resources of the country belong to their small clique and that they alone have the right to derive benefit
  • believe that the results of elections and the provisions of their constitution can be thrown aside whenever their insatiable greed so dictates
  • are not beyond organising an anti-democratic coup when it suits them
The BBC article states that "whoever wins the election will have to try to unite a deeply divided country or face much political instability". This paints a picture of a country fractured down the middle, which could not be further from the truth. In reality the divide is roughly between 80% of poor Venezuelans and the 20% who have had it too good for too long.

The gulf between the barrios and the trendy "little Miami" suburbs of Caracas will only be bridged if the programme of education and support for the poor in Venezuelan society started by Chavez is allowed to continue. Despite increasing reports of destabilisation tactics employed by the opposition and backed by the United States, support for Chavez remains strong. Assuming that any dirty tricks employed by the opposition do not have a detrimental effect, he should be re-elected with a significant majority - a majority that can look forward to another six years of his bolivarian redress of the hideous imbalances in Venezuelan society.

Continue reading...

02 December 2006

Q - When is a coup not a coup?

A - when John Bolton says it is.

Hundreds of thousands of people drawn from supporters of Hezbollah and other opposition parties participated in a mass protest designed to force the resignation of U.S. puppet Prime Minister, Fuad Siniora. Fully armed troops and armored vehicles were deployed around the Ottoman-style building housing the office where Siniora was holed up. As the protests were taking place, various spokespersons for Western governments and their Middle-Eastern client states chimed in with their support for the corrupt Siniora administration.

Lead chorister in the pro-Siniora / anti-Syria chorus was (soon to be ex) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who predictably labeled the peaceful but noisy demonstrations in Beirut as part of part of an Iran-Syria inspired coup d'etat. Apart from the sheer ludicrous nature of this statement, it is highly ironic coming from a representative of a country that has sponsored coups the world over. Perhaps he thinks the only acceptable coups are the ones his country organises? Like the unsuccessful coup to unseat Hugo Chavez, democratically elected by a significant majority of the Venezulan people?

The UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett chimed in harmony, when she met Siniora to express UK support for his government, saying that "This is a government elected by the people of Lebanon and which has the constitutional authority an election gives it". I know that coming from the Nu-Labour camp, Beckett may well be under the impression that being elected is a sort of blank cheque... a carte blanche to do as you please. Perhaps she regards the 100 billion dollars that are reputed to have gone "missing" from Lebanese coffers to be small change. Maybe the corruption that is reputed to be rife in the Siniora administration is okay by her.

Singing much the same tune on behalf of Lebanon's former colonial masters - France, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called from South Africa to express his full support for the corrupt administration. Piling on the sense of irony, King Abdullah, ruler of the utterly undemocratic Saudi Arabia telephoned Siniora to extend "Saudi Arabia's full backing".

Continue reading...