Testing times for immigrants
Guardian Comment is Free
What's new, old, fair and unfair about the revamped US citizenship test.
Ian Williams
October 5, 2007 7:00 PM | Printable version
The US immigration and naturalisation service has unveiled new questions for aspirant citizens and candidly warns that it is aware that the "questions sometimes have answers not listed here." It does not say what happens to any enterprising applicant who offers such deviant answers.
People who are born in the US can get away with thinking the Bill of Rights is a chapter from the Communist Manifesto, or that Montana is near Brazil, but those who come to it late have to jump through hoops that don't usually cover the exit of an American womb.
The new test is more flexible than the old one, which had all the limitations of any multiple-choice questionnaire dealing with the complexities of reality. And it even covers geography, not generally the native-borns' strongest point.
I took the old test after 9/11. I had been a resident "alien of extraordinary ability," a position I had luckily attained just as Madeleine Albright's state department were checking whether I was entitled to be writing rude things about her in American newspapers.
However, after 9/11, the US supreme court had effectively ruled that green-card holders had no constitutional rights. Only senators Robert Byrd and Russ Feingold, dissenters to the US Patriot Act, stood between me and John Ashcroft, and so I applied for naturalization.
As soon as I looked up the required questions and answers I realised that they were testing proficiency in doublethink - no bad introduction to the post 9/11 security state. If the immigration officer says he's holding up five fingers and you see only four, you give him the answer he wants: "Five."
Luckily, when I took the old test, I had an indulgent officer who allowed me to be a smart-arse (Whoops! Un-American spelling, drop a point). For example I was asked to name the cause of the civil war.
So I replied: "Do you want the version that most of the Republican party now seems to believe, or the version that they used to have when Abraham Lincoln was a card-carrying member?"
"Let's try both," he said patiently. So I explained that for most of the southern Democrats now turned GOP, the war was about states' rights, and for the northern Republicans now turned Democrats, it was about slavery."
He asked what I thought. "Well the only reason they wanted states' rights was to keep slaves. They didn't believe in them when they passed laws forcing free states to return fugitive slaves." So I came to the correct answer: "Slavery."
Now, I am not sure whether the answers in the new test reflect historical debate, or whether they are pandering to the old south that has hijacked Lincoln's old party. They invite you to "Name one problem that led to the civil war," and now accept "slavery", "economic reasons", or "states' rights".
The original question "Why did the pilgrim fathers come to America?" - to which I had replied: "Officially because they wanted religious freedom. But in fact it was because they were a bigoted bunch of religious fundamentalists who wanted to persecute heretics, Catholics, adulterers, Jews, and Episcopalians, but weren't allowed to do so at home" - has now been replaced by an anodyne question about what motives impelled immigrants to come to the US.
One old question that I really liked has disappeared from the new test: "Who said 'Give me liberty or give me death'?" To which I replied: "I believe it was a well known slave owner from Virginia, Patrick Henry." It is true that he did deplore slavery, but owned them anyway "drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them."
Henry's part in the pantheon has been replaced by Benjamin Franklin, about whom one is supposed to remember one of a few significant facts - not including, I note, his advice to libidinous young men to try to score with older women because "they are so grateful."
The old joke has it that a black sharecropper in Alabama tried to vote and for his literacy test was given Pravda to read. "Well, I know what that's sayin'," he told the shocked white official. "Ain't many black folk voting this year."
At least the old exam was more like a memory test. All you had to do was memorise 100 questions and fixed answers. The new test no longer asks for the colours of the flag, and it is just a tad less Disneyish in its approach to history, but it dangerously allows for more subjectivity in scoring on the part of the examiner. One can't help wondering in some parts of the country, how many Muhammad Does will not do so well.
The very first new question is inviting a dissident approach: "What is the supreme law of the land?" The expected answer is "the constitution," whereas any realist would add, "unless deemed inessential by the White House." Almost as soon as I had a US passport, my fellow citizen Jose Padilla was locked up at the president's whim.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
You can't make it up. Demonising Desmond The Lobby, Israel and Apartheid
So when two eminent academics like Walt and Meersheimer trace the way the pro-Israel lobby works, the non-existent lobby springs into action to deny them a platform and distort their words. For a rational Israeli response see Uri Avnery's review http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=22635. But one has to wonder, is it a Goebbels style "Big Lie" or actively practiced Orwellian doublethink that leads Israeli supporters to stomp with the full force of the lobby on anyone who suggests that the lobby has power?
Tied in to this is the shock and horror that greets anyone like Carter, who points out that Israel is modelling its occupation on Apartheid South Africa, or publicly remembers that the Apartheid regimes diamonds went out via Israel while its weaponry, including nuclear, came back throught the same channels.
Most American Jews have a proud progressive record on issues like the war in Iraq, and on Apartheid. How much longer will they allow loud-mouthed cheque-wielding Likudniks to speak on their behalf.
Check this out - demonising Desmond Tutu.
From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)
Published on 10/03/2007
Tutu Appearance Canceled amid Jewish Concern
A speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu was canceled after local Jews expressed concern about his views on Israel.
The spring visit to Minnesota's University of St. Thomas was canceled because local Jewish groups were upset by comparisons Tutu had made between Israel and Hitler, according to a report in City Pages, a Minneapolis alternative weekly.
University officials reportedly canceled the appearance after consulting with a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas and with several rabbis on the faculty.
The uproar apparently was linked to a speech Tutu made in Boston in 2002. A news release from the Zionist Organization of America, which condemned Tutu's remarks, cited a report from Ha'aretz that quoted Tutu as saying that "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid". A transcript of the speech available online does not include the Hitler quote.
Tied in to this is the shock and horror that greets anyone like Carter, who points out that Israel is modelling its occupation on Apartheid South Africa, or publicly remembers that the Apartheid regimes diamonds went out via Israel while its weaponry, including nuclear, came back throught the same channels.
Most American Jews have a proud progressive record on issues like the war in Iraq, and on Apartheid. How much longer will they allow loud-mouthed cheque-wielding Likudniks to speak on their behalf.
Check this out - demonising Desmond Tutu.
From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)
Published on 10/03/2007
Tutu Appearance Canceled amid Jewish Concern
A speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu was canceled after local Jews expressed concern about his views on Israel.
The spring visit to Minnesota's University of St. Thomas was canceled because local Jewish groups were upset by comparisons Tutu had made between Israel and Hitler, according to a report in City Pages, a Minneapolis alternative weekly.
University officials reportedly canceled the appearance after consulting with a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas and with several rabbis on the faculty.
The uproar apparently was linked to a speech Tutu made in Boston in 2002. A news release from the Zionist Organization of America, which condemned Tutu's remarks, cited a report from Ha'aretz that quoted Tutu as saying that "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid". A transcript of the speech available online does not include the Hitler quote.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Sporting Chances for Burma?
China's Olympic workout
The Beijing Games next year may prove to be China's Achilles heel - if human rights groups can hit it.
Full text of Comment is Free
October 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version
The UN general assembly and the Olympics may not seem that connected, but there are similarities. The latter is an official occasion for global peace and harmony to which almost every country in the world sends its national team to compete ferociously with others and whip up varying degrees of nationalist fervour at home.
Last week's meeting of the general assembly was no different, although we did miss Hugo Chavez's attempt to expand President Bush's reading material beyond the Pet Goat. There was something quite athletic about how different delegations raced up the aisles in the competitive walkout stakes to make sure that a row of empty seats greeted whoever the demon of the day was as he took the rostrum. The sprint was definitely the race that the original Olympians, the Greeks, won to protest the omission of (Former Yugoslav Republic of) from Macedonia's title.
The Cuban foreign minister's articulate and, sad to say, factually based (if somewhat one-sided) verbal assault on Bush, in reply to the latter's attack on Castro, played a nice counterpart to the orotundly obscure style of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact the puzzled expressions of the Iranian and American presidents almost had me thinking they were competing for the Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman "What, Me Worry?" gold medal. (Bush wins on quotes.)
But the Iranian did actually put himself forward for the press - as long as they were not from the Israeli team. Bush may be somewhat challenged, but he knows his limitations enough to avoid unchoreographed and unscripted press conferences.
It may have been my early years as a conductor on football trains, but I've always been very dubious of the idea that sport and peace go hand in hand. Even apart from the personal experience of trying to fend off scores of rabid fans after someone's blood, sport's track record of promoting harmony does not impress. It is not just the fans - think of the football war of 1969. The Olympics has not been much better.
Indeed totalitarianism and the track seem much more closely related. From Hitler in 1936 - and it would have been held in Tokyo in 1940 if throwing javelins had not been overshadowed by firing shells - right on to Beijing, tough regimes love sport. Just look at the gymnastic splendour of a Kim Jong Il birthday party, the inhumane training regime of the East Germans.
At least one thing that can be said about the major American sports, baseball and the American version of football, is that since few other countries play them at a serious level, they are not really the occasions for xenophobic competitiveness on a grand scale. It seems like archetypal American isolationism that they have a baseball World Series just for themselves.
But the Beijing Olympics offers a genuine opportunity for peace. The Chinese are so concerned about urination on their 2008 parade that human rights organisations and governments that support human rights (and even those like Bush's that pretend to do so) have a rare but serious opportunity to get the Chinese onside. The Taiwanese know this - that's why they are staging their referendum on UN membership early in the New Year - not long before the Olympics.
From Darfur to Rangoon, there are definite signals that roguish states that have benefited from Chinese diplomatic protection are feeling a little chilly. The more calls there are for boycotts, the less likely Beijing is to go out on a limb for its mass murdering friends.
Human rights supporters should keep talking boycotts, and they may even put some truth in the rumours of a responsibility to protect that the UN general assembly voted for in 2005, with none against. China seems to have forgotten that principle - that mass murders by governments are a threat to international peace and security that demand United Nations action.
The Beijing Games next year may prove to be China's Achilles heel - if human rights groups can hit it.
Full text of Comment is Free
October 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version
The UN general assembly and the Olympics may not seem that connected, but there are similarities. The latter is an official occasion for global peace and harmony to which almost every country in the world sends its national team to compete ferociously with others and whip up varying degrees of nationalist fervour at home.
Last week's meeting of the general assembly was no different, although we did miss Hugo Chavez's attempt to expand President Bush's reading material beyond the Pet Goat. There was something quite athletic about how different delegations raced up the aisles in the competitive walkout stakes to make sure that a row of empty seats greeted whoever the demon of the day was as he took the rostrum. The sprint was definitely the race that the original Olympians, the Greeks, won to protest the omission of (Former Yugoslav Republic of) from Macedonia's title.
The Cuban foreign minister's articulate and, sad to say, factually based (if somewhat one-sided) verbal assault on Bush, in reply to the latter's attack on Castro, played a nice counterpart to the orotundly obscure style of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact the puzzled expressions of the Iranian and American presidents almost had me thinking they were competing for the Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman "What, Me Worry?" gold medal. (Bush wins on quotes.)
But the Iranian did actually put himself forward for the press - as long as they were not from the Israeli team. Bush may be somewhat challenged, but he knows his limitations enough to avoid unchoreographed and unscripted press conferences.
It may have been my early years as a conductor on football trains, but I've always been very dubious of the idea that sport and peace go hand in hand. Even apart from the personal experience of trying to fend off scores of rabid fans after someone's blood, sport's track record of promoting harmony does not impress. It is not just the fans - think of the football war of 1969. The Olympics has not been much better.
Indeed totalitarianism and the track seem much more closely related. From Hitler in 1936 - and it would have been held in Tokyo in 1940 if throwing javelins had not been overshadowed by firing shells - right on to Beijing, tough regimes love sport. Just look at the gymnastic splendour of a Kim Jong Il birthday party, the inhumane training regime of the East Germans.
At least one thing that can be said about the major American sports, baseball and the American version of football, is that since few other countries play them at a serious level, they are not really the occasions for xenophobic competitiveness on a grand scale. It seems like archetypal American isolationism that they have a baseball World Series just for themselves.
But the Beijing Olympics offers a genuine opportunity for peace. The Chinese are so concerned about urination on their 2008 parade that human rights organisations and governments that support human rights (and even those like Bush's that pretend to do so) have a rare but serious opportunity to get the Chinese onside. The Taiwanese know this - that's why they are staging their referendum on UN membership early in the New Year - not long before the Olympics.
From Darfur to Rangoon, there are definite signals that roguish states that have benefited from Chinese diplomatic protection are feeling a little chilly. The more calls there are for boycotts, the less likely Beijing is to go out on a limb for its mass murdering friends.
Human rights supporters should keep talking boycotts, and they may even put some truth in the rumours of a responsibility to protect that the UN general assembly voted for in 2005, with none against. China seems to have forgotten that principle - that mass murders by governments are a threat to international peace and security that demand United Nations action.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Howe to shake off Trotsky
My article on abiding attraction of Trotsky for many who should know better in the current edition of Logos.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Ahmadinejad, not the only demon in town: full text
Not the only demon in town
Ahmadinejad's critics are selective and self-serving. After all, the Bush administration's record is also objectionable.
Ian Williams
full text from Guardian comment is free
September 25, 2007 3:30 PM | Printable version
When you see one person and nation being demonised, you have to assume that it is for a purpose. It is time for some perspective: why should we take it for granted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the supreme evil being and a super-klutz at the same time?
The ungracious introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk by Lee Bollinger, the Columbia University president, read more like a plea to Fox News and the ADL to give him a break for not calling off the event. Think of all the people who took umbrage at President Bush's intellect and morals being belittled last year. Did Bollinger not realize that he was doing Hugo Chávez imitations?
As the born-again atheist author of Rum, and a not infrequent imbiber, I am no great fan of Ahmadinejad. But he was elected by a much clearer majority, with a much bigger turnout, than his equally religious, teetotalling colleague President Bush. And for those impressed by that sort of thing, the Iranian president volunteered for the front in the war against Saddam Hussein - in contrast to Bush, who dodged the draft, and most of the present White House team, who were then enthusiastic backers of Saddam.
Iran has not invaded any other country since the Islamic revolution. The Shah, who had his own nuclear programme, was a close friend and strategic ally not only of the US but of Israel, and apartheid South Africa. But we forgave him his part in maintaining apartheid, just as we forgave ourselves, and indeed Israel, for arming, financing and supporting a pernicious, evil and racist regime.
So, of what is Ahmadinejad guilty? He supports the death penalty? Anyone would think he was a Texas governor. Is the president of China ostracized for threatening to rain missiles on Taiwan, for not having elections, or for executing thousands of people a year? No, we give him the Olympics, and all the TV channels will be there.
The Iranian president does seem very obtuse about gays, denying that Iran had any. But homosexual acts still carry a 15-year prison sentence in many Caribbean islands that the more innocent cruise to so insouciantly. And only a few decades ago the US, UK and other European countries had similar penalties.
Ahmadinejad has been totally insensitive about the Holocaust, though at last in his speech, he certainly seemed to accept that it happened. But then he asked the very legitimate question of why the Palestinians should have to pay the price for European anti-semitism. It is a question that no one has, or can, answer satisfactorily without invoking divine sanctions.
Then there is the famous mistranslation of Israel being wiped off the map. It has been quoted so often now that it has attained, dare we say, myth-like proportions. But he did not say that. The original Farsi, as several more inquisitive researchers have demonstrated, did not have that apocalyptic flavouring. It meant that he would like Israel, as a state, to go away. Not genocide. Not massacring the population. Not even putting them on boats. At Columbia he seemed to be advocating a one state solution - which more and more Palestinians and even some Israelis are returning to in the face of Israel's continuing avoidance of a genuine, occupation-free two state solution.
Certainly Ahmadinejad has blood on his hands - mostly Iranian. But when Ariel Sharon came to town with the stench of sun-bloated cadavers from Sabra and Shatila lingering over him, many of the people demonstrating against Ahmadinejad had probably attended rubber chicken fundraisers with him.
And on both the death penalty and women: Saudi Arabia has the death penalty while Saudi women can neither drive nor vote. In fact Saudi men can't vote in any meaningful way either. Anti-semitism? Iran has 20,000 Jews who refuse to leave. Not many Jews can get into Saudi Arabia. But who says no to Saudi princes, oil or money, unless they support Palestinians?
And then we come to the nuclear issue. The IAEA Council, under ferocious American pressure, which included giving India a free pass on its overt nuclear weapons, in effect broke its own charter by saying that Iran could not refine its own uranium. And then it went to the security council to repeat the process. The Ayatollahs say the bomb is un-Islamic. I would love the National Evangelical Association to declare it to be un-Christian, or the chief rabbis of Israel to declare it un-Talmudic, but then the US and Israel are nuclear states.
Iran is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and allows inspections, and the IAEA thinks that its nuclear programme is under control. It is mystifying why the Iranians are courting disaster even if they are technically correct about their legal position. The nuclear issue only makes sense as brinkmanship, trying to get the US to talk. It is very dangerous and naïve, and perhaps underestimates the craziness of the people they are dealing with. Nixon used being mad as a tactic. Bush has made it a lifestyle option in international politics.
When we suddenly find Muhamed El-Baradei, the IAEA head, becoming an honorary acolyte of the axis of evil for Washington, it is déjà vu all over again. Some people want war with Iran, very, very badly. As much as they wanted it with Saddam Hussein.
Chavez is a thuggish populist, who was elected. Ahmadinehjad, a naïve, fundamentalist one, was also elected. I would not have voted for either of them. But I would not vote for war on them and their peoples either - not unless I wanted to consolidate their support and power.
Ahmadinejad's critics are selective and self-serving. After all, the Bush administration's record is also objectionable.
Ian Williams
full text from Guardian comment is free
September 25, 2007 3:30 PM | Printable version
When you see one person and nation being demonised, you have to assume that it is for a purpose. It is time for some perspective: why should we take it for granted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the supreme evil being and a super-klutz at the same time?
The ungracious introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk by Lee Bollinger, the Columbia University president, read more like a plea to Fox News and the ADL to give him a break for not calling off the event. Think of all the people who took umbrage at President Bush's intellect and morals being belittled last year. Did Bollinger not realize that he was doing Hugo Chávez imitations?
As the born-again atheist author of Rum, and a not infrequent imbiber, I am no great fan of Ahmadinejad. But he was elected by a much clearer majority, with a much bigger turnout, than his equally religious, teetotalling colleague President Bush. And for those impressed by that sort of thing, the Iranian president volunteered for the front in the war against Saddam Hussein - in contrast to Bush, who dodged the draft, and most of the present White House team, who were then enthusiastic backers of Saddam.
Iran has not invaded any other country since the Islamic revolution. The Shah, who had his own nuclear programme, was a close friend and strategic ally not only of the US but of Israel, and apartheid South Africa. But we forgave him his part in maintaining apartheid, just as we forgave ourselves, and indeed Israel, for arming, financing and supporting a pernicious, evil and racist regime.
So, of what is Ahmadinejad guilty? He supports the death penalty? Anyone would think he was a Texas governor. Is the president of China ostracized for threatening to rain missiles on Taiwan, for not having elections, or for executing thousands of people a year? No, we give him the Olympics, and all the TV channels will be there.
The Iranian president does seem very obtuse about gays, denying that Iran had any. But homosexual acts still carry a 15-year prison sentence in many Caribbean islands that the more innocent cruise to so insouciantly. And only a few decades ago the US, UK and other European countries had similar penalties.
Ahmadinejad has been totally insensitive about the Holocaust, though at last in his speech, he certainly seemed to accept that it happened. But then he asked the very legitimate question of why the Palestinians should have to pay the price for European anti-semitism. It is a question that no one has, or can, answer satisfactorily without invoking divine sanctions.
Then there is the famous mistranslation of Israel being wiped off the map. It has been quoted so often now that it has attained, dare we say, myth-like proportions. But he did not say that. The original Farsi, as several more inquisitive researchers have demonstrated, did not have that apocalyptic flavouring. It meant that he would like Israel, as a state, to go away. Not genocide. Not massacring the population. Not even putting them on boats. At Columbia he seemed to be advocating a one state solution - which more and more Palestinians and even some Israelis are returning to in the face of Israel's continuing avoidance of a genuine, occupation-free two state solution.
Certainly Ahmadinejad has blood on his hands - mostly Iranian. But when Ariel Sharon came to town with the stench of sun-bloated cadavers from Sabra and Shatila lingering over him, many of the people demonstrating against Ahmadinejad had probably attended rubber chicken fundraisers with him.
And on both the death penalty and women: Saudi Arabia has the death penalty while Saudi women can neither drive nor vote. In fact Saudi men can't vote in any meaningful way either. Anti-semitism? Iran has 20,000 Jews who refuse to leave. Not many Jews can get into Saudi Arabia. But who says no to Saudi princes, oil or money, unless they support Palestinians?
And then we come to the nuclear issue. The IAEA Council, under ferocious American pressure, which included giving India a free pass on its overt nuclear weapons, in effect broke its own charter by saying that Iran could not refine its own uranium. And then it went to the security council to repeat the process. The Ayatollahs say the bomb is un-Islamic. I would love the National Evangelical Association to declare it to be un-Christian, or the chief rabbis of Israel to declare it un-Talmudic, but then the US and Israel are nuclear states.
Iran is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and allows inspections, and the IAEA thinks that its nuclear programme is under control. It is mystifying why the Iranians are courting disaster even if they are technically correct about their legal position. The nuclear issue only makes sense as brinkmanship, trying to get the US to talk. It is very dangerous and naïve, and perhaps underestimates the craziness of the people they are dealing with. Nixon used being mad as a tactic. Bush has made it a lifestyle option in international politics.
When we suddenly find Muhamed El-Baradei, the IAEA head, becoming an honorary acolyte of the axis of evil for Washington, it is déjà vu all over again. Some people want war with Iran, very, very badly. As much as they wanted it with Saddam Hussein.
Chavez is a thuggish populist, who was elected. Ahmadinehjad, a naïve, fundamentalist one, was also elected. I would not have voted for either of them. But I would not vote for war on them and their peoples either - not unless I wanted to consolidate their support and power.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ban Ki Moon, Nine Months in office, still ambiguous
Below is the Portuguese of my article in Folho, Sao Brazil this Sunday 23 September. Readers can choose which version to go to.
Ban Ki Moon, nine months in office, still ambiguous
The 62nd General Assembly opens, as always, with the Brazilian representative making the first speech in the General Debate, after Ban Ki Moon has made his own inaugural opening speech as Secretary General to the General Assembly.
Nine months gestation in office, and Ban is still something of an enigma. Personally affable and approachable, officially it is still difficult to pin him down on positions. While he professes the highest regard for lofty principles of international law and humanitarianism, he consummately avoids being pinned down on specifics. He still prides himself on the title the Korean press corps gave him -"the slippery eel."
One of the reasons for this is that his role as the world's conscience contradicts the other role that has accreted to the office, which is to be the global Arch-Envoy. A Secretary General has to epitomize the UN's global conscience, but to get immediate results he must sometimes shake the bloodstained hands of politicians who are breaking international law.
For example, it is now becoming apparent how much personal effort he has put into resolution of the Sudan and Darfur problems, but for many months, only the most sharp-eared observers in UN headquarters knew how much effort he was putting into this, with incessant calls to the President of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir.
However, that it came to public notice at all was at least in part because he had finally expanded his staff from the small hard-core Korean dominated team that he brought with him. In effect, they had bought the John-Bolton angled American agenda that saw the previous administration of Kofi Annan as corrupt and inefficient. They thought that they really had little to learn from the existing office-holders, many of whom were cleared out.
That lack of institutional and global experience often shows, and not just on the Middle East. South Korea, where Ban was foreign minister, sees the world from the bottom of a well, whose walls are China, Russia, Japan, North Korea and America. One can forgive them for not having studied the rest of the world as much as they should, and indeed for taking for granted an American version of what is happening.
By now, they may be learning that factions in Washington will always attack the United Nations, no matter who the Secretary General is. Many Non-Aligned representatives regarded Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan as being overly accommodating to the US to the point of being tools of Washington but that bought them no protection in Washington as soon as they disagreed with American policies.
Nor did their appointment of American nominees to high office protect the UN from attacks from Congress and the American media. So there was apprehension when Ban appointed an American diplomat, B. Lynn Pascoe as Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, which tended to confirm Non-Aligned suspicions that from now on there would be no difference between American and UN Secretariat positions.
Ironically, however, Pascoe has actually moderated the Korean impulses to follow Washington's positions on matters like the Middle East, which is an issue will almost inevitably lead to conflict between the US administration and any Secretary General who upholds UN positions.
Boutros Ghali and Annan worked hard to bring Israeli and American Jewish support behind the organization, but tempered that with an awareness that there were UN resolutions and principles that applied. Initially Ban's team were totally unbalanced in their approach, as charged by the retiring Middle East envoy, Alvaro de Soto, whose leaked report showed how far UN practice was straying from its principles.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sysfiles/Guardian/documents/2007/06/12/DeSotoReport.pdf De Soto complained about the "unprecedented access" Israel had to the Secretary General's office, which went as far as helping choose officials as well as determining positions on the Palestine conflict. For example when Ban went to Israel and the Occupied Territories, the pro-Israeli faction fought successfully to stop him going to Gaza where he would have seen the full horror of life for ordinary Palestinians.
There are some signs of change. After six months of statements that implicitly took a pro-Israeli position, the pressure of reality led this summer to him cautioning the Israelis about using tanks in built up areas. It was a small but significant step to a more measured position, but Arab ambassadors and indeed many Non-Aligned are watching him very critically.
In that context, his success in getting the attention of Khartoum, and harnessing the neighouring states, notably Libya, is notable. But his triumph in getting Bashir to accept a UN force can still backfire. In effect, the UN is now accepting responsibility and blame for what is essentially the failure of the great powers. Ironically, China's wish not to have boycotts and protests rain on its Olympics next year probably had more to do with Sudan's agreement than traditional diplomacy. Sadly, Al-Bashir shows every sign of learning from the Slobodan Milosevic school of statesmanship, taking the occasional one step backwards to defuse pressure and then moving two steps forward as soon as pressure is relaxed.
Reassuringly, insiders suggest that Ban Ki Moon is in a wait and see mode with the Sudanese, rather than naivety. With the reported air attacks this week, perhaps that is just as well. But in every sense, we are unlikely to see him raising the temperature of a debate. He is dampens fires, not fans them
Folha, São Paulo, domingo, 23 de setembro de 2007
Ban Ki-moon ainda busca rumo na ONU
Há nove meses no posto, secretário-geral é visto como escorregadio e ambíguo
Visão de mundo de Seul, proximidade com os EUA e paradoxos ligados ao cargo restringem ação e anuviam os êxitos do sul-coreano
IAN WILLIAMS
ESPECIAL PARA A FOLHA
A 62ª Assembléia Geral da ONU começa nesta semana, como sempre, com o presidente do Brasil fazendo o primeiro discurso no debate geral, depois de Ban Ki-moon ter proferido seu discurso inaugural na condição de secretário-geral.
Nove meses depois de chegar ao cargo, Ban ainda é, até certo ponto, um enigma. Pessoalmente afável e acessível, é porém avesso a posições firmes sobre questões oficiais. Ao mesmo tempo em que afirma a mais alta consideração pelos princípios elevados do direito internacional e do humanitarismo, o secretário-geral toma o máximo cuidado para evitar deixar clara sua posição em questões específicas. E ainda se orgulha do apelido que lhe foi dado pela imprensa sul-coreana: "enguia escorregadia".
Uma das razões é que seu papel de consciência do mundo contradiz o outro papel atribuído ao cargo, o de arquienviado global. Um secretário-geral deve encarnar a consciência da ONU, mas, para obter resultados imediatos, às vezes também tem de apertar mãos manchadas de sangue de políticos que violam leis internacionais.
Por exemplo, está ficando claro agora quanto esforço pessoal Ban investiu na solução dos problemas de Darfur, no Sudão. Por meses, porém, apenas os observadores mais atentos na sede da ONU sabiam o quanto ele estava se dedicando a isso, com telefonemas incessantes ao presidente sudanês, Omar al Bashir.
Mas o próprio fato de a questão ter vindo a público ocorreu, ao menos em parte, porque Ban finalmente ampliou sua equipe para além do pequeno time central, de predomínio sul-coreano, que ele trouxera consigo para o cargo. Esse núcleo central, na prática, havia aceitado a agenda americana traçada por John Bolton, que via a administração anterior, de Kofi Annan, como corrupta e ineficiente.
Seus integrantes pensavam que tinham pouco a aprender com seus predecessores, muitos dos quais foram afastados.
Ótica própria
Essa falta de experiência institucional e global é algo que se torna aparente com freqüência, e não só em relação ao Oriente Médio. A Coréia do Sul, onde Ban foi chanceler, vê o mundo do fundo de um poço cujas paredes são formadas pela China, Rússia, Japão, Coréia do Norte e EUA. Podemos perdoá-la por não ter estudado o resto do mundo tanto quanto deveria e até por aceitar incondicionalmente a versão americana do que acontece no mundo.
Agora, essa equipe já deve estar descobrindo que facções de Washington sempre vão atacar a ONU, não importa quem seja o secretário-geral. Muitos representantes não-alinhados viam Boutros Ghali e Kofi Annan como complacentes demais com os EUA, a ponto de serem instrumentos de Washington, mas isso não lhes garantiu proteção nenhuma em Washington quando discordavam da política americana.
E suas indicações de nomes americanos para altos cargos tampouco protegeram a ONU de ataques do Congresso e da mídia dos EUA. Assim, houve apreensão quando Ban escolheu um diplomata americano, B. Lynn Pascoe, para subsecretário-geral para Assuntos Políticos -uma indicação que tendeu a confirmar as desconfianças dos não-alinhados de que, de agora em diante, não haverá diferença entre as posições dos EUA e do secretariado da ONU.
Ironicamente, porém, Pascoe vem na realidade moderando os impulsos sul-coreanos de acompanhar as posições de Washington em questões como o Oriente Médio -esta, uma questão que vai quase inevitavelmente levar a um conflito entre o governo dos EUA e qualquer secretário-geral que defenda posições da ONU.
Boutros Ghali e Annan trabalharam duro para conseguir o apoio israelense e da comunidade judaica americana à organização, mas contrabalançaram esse esforço com a consciência de que existem resoluções e princípios da ONU que precisam ser respeitados. Num primeiro momento, a equipe de Ban adotou uma abordagem unilateral, como acusou o enviado ao Oriente Médio Álvaro de Soto, cujo relatório vazado deixou claro como a prática da ONU estava se afastando dos princípios da entidade.
De Soto queixou-se do "acesso sem precedentes" que Israel tinha ao gabinete do secretário-geral, a ponto de influenciar a escolha de funcionários e de determinar posições com relação ao conflito palestino. Por exemplo, quando Ban foi a Israel e aos territórios ocupados, a facção pró-israelense lutou com sucesso para impedi-lo de visitar a faixa de Gaza, onde ele teria testemunhado o horror da vida dos palestinos comuns.
Mudanças
Há alguns sinais de mudanças. Após seis meses de declarações que implicitamente assumiam uma posição pró-israelense, nos últimos meses a pressão da realidade levou Ban a advertir Israel contra o uso de tanques em áreas com muitas construções. Foi um passo pequeno, mas importante, rumo a uma posição mais equilibrada.
Porém os embaixadores árabes e de muitos países não-alinhados estão observando o secretário-geral com atenção crítica. Nesse contexto, seu êxito em chamar a atenção de Cartum e em conseguir a adesão dos países vizinhos, especialmente a Líbia, é notável. Mas seu triunfo em conseguir que Bashir aceite uma força da ONU ainda pode ser um tiro pela culatra.
Na prática, a ONU agora está aceitando a responsabilidade e a culpa por algo que, essencialmente, deve-se à inação das grandes potências.
Ironicamente, o desejo da China de não ter protestos e boicotes prejudicando sua Olimpíada, em 2008, provavelmente contribuiu mais que a diplomacia tradicional para o acordo conseguido no Sudão.
Lamentavelmente, Bashir dá sinais de estar aprendendo com a escola Slobodan Milosevic de governo, retrocedendo um passo de vez em quando para reduzir as pressões e então avançando dois passos, assim que a pressão é abrandada.
Um fato tranqüilizador é que fontes bem informadas sugerem que Ban está em modo de "esperar para ver" com o Sudão, e não age ingenuamente. Com os recentes ataques aéreos relatados, talvez seja melhor assim. Mas é pouco provável que o vejamos elevar a temperatura de uma discussão, em qualquer sentido. Ban Ki-moon ainda é alguém que apaga incêndios, não que os atiça.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
O jornalista inglês IAN WILLIAMS cobre a ONU desde 1989 e é colunista da versão on-line do jornal "The Guardian". Autor de "UN for Begginers" (ONU para iniciantes), atualmente trabalha em um livro sobre a ojeriza de parte dos americanos ao organismo internacional
Ban Ki Moon, nine months in office, still ambiguous
The 62nd General Assembly opens, as always, with the Brazilian representative making the first speech in the General Debate, after Ban Ki Moon has made his own inaugural opening speech as Secretary General to the General Assembly.
Nine months gestation in office, and Ban is still something of an enigma. Personally affable and approachable, officially it is still difficult to pin him down on positions. While he professes the highest regard for lofty principles of international law and humanitarianism, he consummately avoids being pinned down on specifics. He still prides himself on the title the Korean press corps gave him -"the slippery eel."
One of the reasons for this is that his role as the world's conscience contradicts the other role that has accreted to the office, which is to be the global Arch-Envoy. A Secretary General has to epitomize the UN's global conscience, but to get immediate results he must sometimes shake the bloodstained hands of politicians who are breaking international law.
For example, it is now becoming apparent how much personal effort he has put into resolution of the Sudan and Darfur problems, but for many months, only the most sharp-eared observers in UN headquarters knew how much effort he was putting into this, with incessant calls to the President of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir.
However, that it came to public notice at all was at least in part because he had finally expanded his staff from the small hard-core Korean dominated team that he brought with him. In effect, they had bought the John-Bolton angled American agenda that saw the previous administration of Kofi Annan as corrupt and inefficient. They thought that they really had little to learn from the existing office-holders, many of whom were cleared out.
That lack of institutional and global experience often shows, and not just on the Middle East. South Korea, where Ban was foreign minister, sees the world from the bottom of a well, whose walls are China, Russia, Japan, North Korea and America. One can forgive them for not having studied the rest of the world as much as they should, and indeed for taking for granted an American version of what is happening.
By now, they may be learning that factions in Washington will always attack the United Nations, no matter who the Secretary General is. Many Non-Aligned representatives regarded Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan as being overly accommodating to the US to the point of being tools of Washington but that bought them no protection in Washington as soon as they disagreed with American policies.
Nor did their appointment of American nominees to high office protect the UN from attacks from Congress and the American media. So there was apprehension when Ban appointed an American diplomat, B. Lynn Pascoe as Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, which tended to confirm Non-Aligned suspicions that from now on there would be no difference between American and UN Secretariat positions.
Ironically, however, Pascoe has actually moderated the Korean impulses to follow Washington's positions on matters like the Middle East, which is an issue will almost inevitably lead to conflict between the US administration and any Secretary General who upholds UN positions.
Boutros Ghali and Annan worked hard to bring Israeli and American Jewish support behind the organization, but tempered that with an awareness that there were UN resolutions and principles that applied. Initially Ban's team were totally unbalanced in their approach, as charged by the retiring Middle East envoy, Alvaro de Soto, whose leaked report showed how far UN practice was straying from its principles.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sysfiles/Guardian/documents/2007/06/12/DeSotoReport.pdf De Soto complained about the "unprecedented access" Israel had to the Secretary General's office, which went as far as helping choose officials as well as determining positions on the Palestine conflict. For example when Ban went to Israel and the Occupied Territories, the pro-Israeli faction fought successfully to stop him going to Gaza where he would have seen the full horror of life for ordinary Palestinians.
There are some signs of change. After six months of statements that implicitly took a pro-Israeli position, the pressure of reality led this summer to him cautioning the Israelis about using tanks in built up areas. It was a small but significant step to a more measured position, but Arab ambassadors and indeed many Non-Aligned are watching him very critically.
In that context, his success in getting the attention of Khartoum, and harnessing the neighouring states, notably Libya, is notable. But his triumph in getting Bashir to accept a UN force can still backfire. In effect, the UN is now accepting responsibility and blame for what is essentially the failure of the great powers. Ironically, China's wish not to have boycotts and protests rain on its Olympics next year probably had more to do with Sudan's agreement than traditional diplomacy. Sadly, Al-Bashir shows every sign of learning from the Slobodan Milosevic school of statesmanship, taking the occasional one step backwards to defuse pressure and then moving two steps forward as soon as pressure is relaxed.
Reassuringly, insiders suggest that Ban Ki Moon is in a wait and see mode with the Sudanese, rather than naivety. With the reported air attacks this week, perhaps that is just as well. But in every sense, we are unlikely to see him raising the temperature of a debate. He is dampens fires, not fans them
Folha, São Paulo, domingo, 23 de setembro de 2007
Ban Ki-moon ainda busca rumo na ONU
Há nove meses no posto, secretário-geral é visto como escorregadio e ambíguo
Visão de mundo de Seul, proximidade com os EUA e paradoxos ligados ao cargo restringem ação e anuviam os êxitos do sul-coreano
IAN WILLIAMS
ESPECIAL PARA A FOLHA
A 62ª Assembléia Geral da ONU começa nesta semana, como sempre, com o presidente do Brasil fazendo o primeiro discurso no debate geral, depois de Ban Ki-moon ter proferido seu discurso inaugural na condição de secretário-geral.
Nove meses depois de chegar ao cargo, Ban ainda é, até certo ponto, um enigma. Pessoalmente afável e acessível, é porém avesso a posições firmes sobre questões oficiais. Ao mesmo tempo em que afirma a mais alta consideração pelos princípios elevados do direito internacional e do humanitarismo, o secretário-geral toma o máximo cuidado para evitar deixar clara sua posição em questões específicas. E ainda se orgulha do apelido que lhe foi dado pela imprensa sul-coreana: "enguia escorregadia".
Uma das razões é que seu papel de consciência do mundo contradiz o outro papel atribuído ao cargo, o de arquienviado global. Um secretário-geral deve encarnar a consciência da ONU, mas, para obter resultados imediatos, às vezes também tem de apertar mãos manchadas de sangue de políticos que violam leis internacionais.
Por exemplo, está ficando claro agora quanto esforço pessoal Ban investiu na solução dos problemas de Darfur, no Sudão. Por meses, porém, apenas os observadores mais atentos na sede da ONU sabiam o quanto ele estava se dedicando a isso, com telefonemas incessantes ao presidente sudanês, Omar al Bashir.
Mas o próprio fato de a questão ter vindo a público ocorreu, ao menos em parte, porque Ban finalmente ampliou sua equipe para além do pequeno time central, de predomínio sul-coreano, que ele trouxera consigo para o cargo. Esse núcleo central, na prática, havia aceitado a agenda americana traçada por John Bolton, que via a administração anterior, de Kofi Annan, como corrupta e ineficiente.
Seus integrantes pensavam que tinham pouco a aprender com seus predecessores, muitos dos quais foram afastados.
Ótica própria
Essa falta de experiência institucional e global é algo que se torna aparente com freqüência, e não só em relação ao Oriente Médio. A Coréia do Sul, onde Ban foi chanceler, vê o mundo do fundo de um poço cujas paredes são formadas pela China, Rússia, Japão, Coréia do Norte e EUA. Podemos perdoá-la por não ter estudado o resto do mundo tanto quanto deveria e até por aceitar incondicionalmente a versão americana do que acontece no mundo.
Agora, essa equipe já deve estar descobrindo que facções de Washington sempre vão atacar a ONU, não importa quem seja o secretário-geral. Muitos representantes não-alinhados viam Boutros Ghali e Kofi Annan como complacentes demais com os EUA, a ponto de serem instrumentos de Washington, mas isso não lhes garantiu proteção nenhuma em Washington quando discordavam da política americana.
E suas indicações de nomes americanos para altos cargos tampouco protegeram a ONU de ataques do Congresso e da mídia dos EUA. Assim, houve apreensão quando Ban escolheu um diplomata americano, B. Lynn Pascoe, para subsecretário-geral para Assuntos Políticos -uma indicação que tendeu a confirmar as desconfianças dos não-alinhados de que, de agora em diante, não haverá diferença entre as posições dos EUA e do secretariado da ONU.
Ironicamente, porém, Pascoe vem na realidade moderando os impulsos sul-coreanos de acompanhar as posições de Washington em questões como o Oriente Médio -esta, uma questão que vai quase inevitavelmente levar a um conflito entre o governo dos EUA e qualquer secretário-geral que defenda posições da ONU.
Boutros Ghali e Annan trabalharam duro para conseguir o apoio israelense e da comunidade judaica americana à organização, mas contrabalançaram esse esforço com a consciência de que existem resoluções e princípios da ONU que precisam ser respeitados. Num primeiro momento, a equipe de Ban adotou uma abordagem unilateral, como acusou o enviado ao Oriente Médio Álvaro de Soto, cujo relatório vazado deixou claro como a prática da ONU estava se afastando dos princípios da entidade.
De Soto queixou-se do "acesso sem precedentes" que Israel tinha ao gabinete do secretário-geral, a ponto de influenciar a escolha de funcionários e de determinar posições com relação ao conflito palestino. Por exemplo, quando Ban foi a Israel e aos territórios ocupados, a facção pró-israelense lutou com sucesso para impedi-lo de visitar a faixa de Gaza, onde ele teria testemunhado o horror da vida dos palestinos comuns.
Mudanças
Há alguns sinais de mudanças. Após seis meses de declarações que implicitamente assumiam uma posição pró-israelense, nos últimos meses a pressão da realidade levou Ban a advertir Israel contra o uso de tanques em áreas com muitas construções. Foi um passo pequeno, mas importante, rumo a uma posição mais equilibrada.
Porém os embaixadores árabes e de muitos países não-alinhados estão observando o secretário-geral com atenção crítica. Nesse contexto, seu êxito em chamar a atenção de Cartum e em conseguir a adesão dos países vizinhos, especialmente a Líbia, é notável. Mas seu triunfo em conseguir que Bashir aceite uma força da ONU ainda pode ser um tiro pela culatra.
Na prática, a ONU agora está aceitando a responsabilidade e a culpa por algo que, essencialmente, deve-se à inação das grandes potências.
Ironicamente, o desejo da China de não ter protestos e boicotes prejudicando sua Olimpíada, em 2008, provavelmente contribuiu mais que a diplomacia tradicional para o acordo conseguido no Sudão.
Lamentavelmente, Bashir dá sinais de estar aprendendo com a escola Slobodan Milosevic de governo, retrocedendo um passo de vez em quando para reduzir as pressões e então avançando dois passos, assim que a pressão é abrandada.
Um fato tranqüilizador é que fontes bem informadas sugerem que Ban está em modo de "esperar para ver" com o Sudão, e não age ingenuamente. Com os recentes ataques aéreos relatados, talvez seja melhor assim. Mas é pouco provável que o vejamos elevar a temperatura de uma discussão, em qualquer sentido. Ban Ki-moon ainda é alguém que apaga incêndios, não que os atiça.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
O jornalista inglês IAN WILLIAMS cobre a ONU desde 1989 e é colunista da versão on-line do jornal "The Guardian". Autor de "UN for Begginers" (ONU para iniciantes), atualmente trabalha em um livro sobre a ojeriza de parte dos americanos ao organismo internacional
Why believe Greenspan now? Full text
Why believe Greenspan now?
Comment is Free in the Guardian
It would almost be reassuring if the war had a rational cause like oil. But Bush was listening to God, not to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Ian Williams
September 22, 2007
Alan Greenspan has benefited considerably from the the US media's customary deference to any significant figure, such George Bush or General David Petraeus, "drest in little brief authority." At times, hagiography is the natural medium for mainstream pundits. And so it is for Saint, or rather Sir Alan, since his knighthood.
So I suppose it is not too surprising that so many jumped on his quote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
But this does not prove the case. All it proves is that Greenspan thinks so.
In fact, Greenspan has eaten his own words so often while and since he headed the Federal Reserve that it almost accounts for his impenetrably masticated prose. The one issue that comes clearly through his gnomic utterances is his monstrous ego. Like the fly in the La Fontaine fable who thought he moved the coach by buzzing around the horse's nuzzle, Greenspan has always taken the credit for all economic booms while skipping over his part in the busts. The Fed really only has one sure instrument, and that is the brake, in the form of raising interest rates. The accelerator, dropping rates, is a now and then thing, depending on many more factors.
Just consider Greenspan's history. He started off as the head of the fan club for Ayn Rand, the writer who combined the megalomaniac sweep of Mein Kampf with the bodice-ripping proclivities of Barbara Cartland. Her best example, Atlas Shrugged, is a hymn of hate to FDR and the New Deal that put America back to work after the Depression and laid the foundations for the unprecedented growth and prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s.
In the process of his infatuation, he became a "gold-bug," a believer in the mystic economic properties of the yellow metal and hard currency, a fighter against inflation.
His PhD was awarded by NYU on the basis of a collection of previously published articles, which he asked them to withhold from public view.
He never renounced his beliefs, despite his part in setting the stage for putting the US dollar on devaluing slide unprecedented since the Confederate dollars hit the printing presses. He set the stage for the dotcom bubble, and typically threw in a hedging warning about "irrational exuberance" - but then did nothing about it.
As he said in 1995: "I spend a substantial amount of my time endeavoring to fend off questions, and worry terribly that I might end up being too clear." Not to worry, with his customary prophetic ambiguity, he told congress that the budget deficit is a bad thing, but the tax cuts for the rich that precipitated it and are going to make it worse, are good and irreversible. Go extrapolate.
He has called for the privatization of social security, so American workers can entrust their financial futures to those wonderful people who brought you the dot-coms, back-dated stock options and sub-prime mortgage bonds. He considered that stock options by the billion for CEOs had no inflationary effect while a couple of dimes on the minimum wage would. Instead he told the Senate that his preference for the minimum wage "would be to lower it and, in fact, eliminate it because I think that it does more damage than good."
In the context of such manifest failure as a prophet, it would be credulous to give too much credence to his revelation that invading Iraq was about oil, part of America's war for global resources. It is more likely part of his plan for ensuring adequate resources for his retirement by hyping the sales of his book.
While the "realist" right will nod approvingly at what they consider to be pragmatic reality, too many on the left will seize on this as support for their "blood for oil" rhetoric. Both of them have to explain why there is less oil coming out of Iraq, at higher cost, than under the bad old days of Saddam. Of course his advice to Bush to invade for the oil would not be the first time that Greenspan had passed on disastrous advice, but sadly it would almost be reassuring if we could ascribe such rational if amoral motives to the invasion. There were certainly all, of motives and lobbies pushing in that direction. Supporters of Israel, some of the more naïve liberal interventionists from Tony Blair to Christopher Hitchens, neocons trying to remake the world in the American image, all buzzed around the nose of the carthorse of this bandwagon. But not the oil companies.
But we look to Bush for the sheer irrationality of it all: God told him to do it. Saddam tried to kill his Dad. And, by deduction, we have the Deserter-in-Chief trying to emulate his father, a teenage war hero, by covering his own cowardly tracks in a cloud of sand and a flood of blood. If George Bush junior is prepared to start a disastrous war on instructions from his own personal Jesus as well, it does make him daft enough to listen to Greenspan even if the Fed chair killed his father politically by tightening the economy to the edge of depression, and then reversing course in time for Clinton to take the credit.
War opponents would be better ignoring as mendacious a maven as Greenspan rather than using him to boost their rhetorical case.
Comment is Free in the Guardian
It would almost be reassuring if the war had a rational cause like oil. But Bush was listening to God, not to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Ian Williams
September 22, 2007
Alan Greenspan has benefited considerably from the the US media's customary deference to any significant figure, such George Bush or General David Petraeus, "drest in little brief authority." At times, hagiography is the natural medium for mainstream pundits. And so it is for Saint, or rather Sir Alan, since his knighthood.
So I suppose it is not too surprising that so many jumped on his quote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
But this does not prove the case. All it proves is that Greenspan thinks so.
In fact, Greenspan has eaten his own words so often while and since he headed the Federal Reserve that it almost accounts for his impenetrably masticated prose. The one issue that comes clearly through his gnomic utterances is his monstrous ego. Like the fly in the La Fontaine fable who thought he moved the coach by buzzing around the horse's nuzzle, Greenspan has always taken the credit for all economic booms while skipping over his part in the busts. The Fed really only has one sure instrument, and that is the brake, in the form of raising interest rates. The accelerator, dropping rates, is a now and then thing, depending on many more factors.
Just consider Greenspan's history. He started off as the head of the fan club for Ayn Rand, the writer who combined the megalomaniac sweep of Mein Kampf with the bodice-ripping proclivities of Barbara Cartland. Her best example, Atlas Shrugged, is a hymn of hate to FDR and the New Deal that put America back to work after the Depression and laid the foundations for the unprecedented growth and prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s.
In the process of his infatuation, he became a "gold-bug," a believer in the mystic economic properties of the yellow metal and hard currency, a fighter against inflation.
His PhD was awarded by NYU on the basis of a collection of previously published articles, which he asked them to withhold from public view.
He never renounced his beliefs, despite his part in setting the stage for putting the US dollar on devaluing slide unprecedented since the Confederate dollars hit the printing presses. He set the stage for the dotcom bubble, and typically threw in a hedging warning about "irrational exuberance" - but then did nothing about it.
As he said in 1995: "I spend a substantial amount of my time endeavoring to fend off questions, and worry terribly that I might end up being too clear." Not to worry, with his customary prophetic ambiguity, he told congress that the budget deficit is a bad thing, but the tax cuts for the rich that precipitated it and are going to make it worse, are good and irreversible. Go extrapolate.
He has called for the privatization of social security, so American workers can entrust their financial futures to those wonderful people who brought you the dot-coms, back-dated stock options and sub-prime mortgage bonds. He considered that stock options by the billion for CEOs had no inflationary effect while a couple of dimes on the minimum wage would. Instead he told the Senate that his preference for the minimum wage "would be to lower it and, in fact, eliminate it because I think that it does more damage than good."
In the context of such manifest failure as a prophet, it would be credulous to give too much credence to his revelation that invading Iraq was about oil, part of America's war for global resources. It is more likely part of his plan for ensuring adequate resources for his retirement by hyping the sales of his book.
While the "realist" right will nod approvingly at what they consider to be pragmatic reality, too many on the left will seize on this as support for their "blood for oil" rhetoric. Both of them have to explain why there is less oil coming out of Iraq, at higher cost, than under the bad old days of Saddam. Of course his advice to Bush to invade for the oil would not be the first time that Greenspan had passed on disastrous advice, but sadly it would almost be reassuring if we could ascribe such rational if amoral motives to the invasion. There were certainly all, of motives and lobbies pushing in that direction. Supporters of Israel, some of the more naïve liberal interventionists from Tony Blair to Christopher Hitchens, neocons trying to remake the world in the American image, all buzzed around the nose of the carthorse of this bandwagon. But not the oil companies.
But we look to Bush for the sheer irrationality of it all: God told him to do it. Saddam tried to kill his Dad. And, by deduction, we have the Deserter-in-Chief trying to emulate his father, a teenage war hero, by covering his own cowardly tracks in a cloud of sand and a flood of blood. If George Bush junior is prepared to start a disastrous war on instructions from his own personal Jesus as well, it does make him daft enough to listen to Greenspan even if the Fed chair killed his father politically by tightening the economy to the edge of depression, and then reversing course in time for Clinton to take the credit.
War opponents would be better ignoring as mendacious a maven as Greenspan rather than using him to boost their rhetorical case.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Speech to Taiwan Rally outside UN
Well here it is in glorious technicolour... my speech to the Taiwan rally outside the UN. For those with pressing deadlines determined to waste time.
Why Believe Greenspan Now?
Why believe Greenspan now?
It would almost be reassuring if the war had a rational cause like oil. But Bush was listening to God, not to the chairman of the Federal Reserve
Guardian Comment is Free today
It would almost be reassuring if the war had a rational cause like oil. But Bush was listening to God, not to the chairman of the Federal Reserve
Guardian Comment is Free today
Friday, September 21, 2007
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know
Iran, Nixon, Bush, and terminal idiocy
Tribune Column 21 September
Richard Nixon famously had the "Madman Strategy" to intimidate his enemies. But it was not really a strategy, it was more of a tactic. It is George W. Bush who has elevated lunacy or at least idiocy, to a strategy. And what is more, it appears the ailment is contagious, possibly even epidemic.
Of course it makes no sense to attack Iran… but all the signs are that that is what the White House coterie is up to. The rhetoric from all the usual suspects is uncannily similar to what we heard the run up to the Iraq invasion – along with the detachment from reality of the deluded proponents.
Just consider General Petraeus's evidence to Congress last week. He is a political general, appointed by Bush to tell the legislators what the White House wanted to hear. And he did. The legislators and the press, hypnotized by the uniform, took what he said as gospel; although some of the bolder souls did indeed point out that he has consistently seen silver linings in the clouds over Baghdad.
Petraeus's delivery elided Al-Qaeda, insurgents, Iran and the Shi'a militias as if they were a seamless whole, implying that Teheran is behind the deaths of Americans in Iraq, and by a few degrees of separation, sponsoring Osama Bin Laden.
Let us consider Iran. It is indeed governed by faith-based zealots who are enthusiastic practitioners of the death penalty. But unlike the US it has not invaded any of its neighbouring countries.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein, with American and British support invaded Iran and fought one of the longest and most bloody wars of aggression of the second half of the Twentieth Century. Ahmedinejad is, to put it kindly, not the brightest star in the diplomatic firmament, but on examination, a lot of what his detractors accuse him of saying is the subject of willful mistranslation, and he has consistently denied military nuclear ambitions.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty binds Iran. – unlike nuclear powers Indian and Pakistan, the former of which has been given the green light by the US in defiance of the treaty while the latter has military and security officers who have a proven record of favoring the Taliban. It is legitimate to ask why on earth an oil–rich country like Iran should embark on a perilous road to nuclear energy, but one could answer that the reasons may be similar to those which impelled a coal and oil rich country like Great Britain to be actively considering expansion of nuclear reactor capability.
But who do you trust on these issues? Nobel prize-winner Mohammed El Baradei of the IAEA, who was completely vindicated about Iraq's lack of a nuclear programme, or the recidivist liars and fabulists who hymned our way into the disastrous invasion?
As El Baradei said in Vienna this week, "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
He thinks he has pulled off a deal, but it is hardly surprising that the murderous clots who brought us the Iraq debacle are again attacking him furiously. Of course, they might be right, and Iran may indeed have nuclear ambitions. But the burden of proof really has to meet an even higher standard than normal because of their own proven predilection for telling political expedient whoppers.
Of course, some of the biggest proponents of an attack on Iran come from Israel. Israel has invaded its neighbour Lebanon over and over again, using modern weaponry supplied by the United States. It has nuclear weapons. It recently flew a provocative sortie into Syria, possibly alienating Turkey in the process. It is occupying parts of Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. So do we really take their word for it that Iran needs dealing with?
Luckily, there are some signs of inoculation against this pervasive insanity. It appears that British officers are demurring at being moved to the Iranian border in order to act as a trip wire if the Revolutionary Guards come swarming over the Iraqi border in retaliation for whatever the Israelis or Americans have done. But they hardly need to.
The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq handed over control of large swathes of the country to Shi'a groups and militia who, if you believe Petraeus, take orders from their coreligionists in Teheran. Even taking his conspiracist scripts with a hint of skepticism, one can assume that the Shi'a in Iraq will not take kindly to an attack on Iran whether by the US, or by Israel with tacit US backing.
There is no way that Israel would attack Iran in the teeth of US displeasure, and of course any Iranian retaliation would then trigger American support. I suppose it would then mean that US troops would be out of Iraq, dead or alive, but with the parlous state of the world economy, all it needs is Gulf Oil to be out of the markets to cause the mother of all crashes.
But surely the Democrats in Congress would oppose an attack? Don't bet on it. Mesmerized by talk of terrorism and attacks on GI's, whipped in by AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, most of the presidential contenders are sleepwalking to disaster- assisted it might be added by inept diplomacy. It's no way to run a world.
Tribune Column 21 September
Richard Nixon famously had the "Madman Strategy" to intimidate his enemies. But it was not really a strategy, it was more of a tactic. It is George W. Bush who has elevated lunacy or at least idiocy, to a strategy. And what is more, it appears the ailment is contagious, possibly even epidemic.
Of course it makes no sense to attack Iran… but all the signs are that that is what the White House coterie is up to. The rhetoric from all the usual suspects is uncannily similar to what we heard the run up to the Iraq invasion – along with the detachment from reality of the deluded proponents.
Just consider General Petraeus's evidence to Congress last week. He is a political general, appointed by Bush to tell the legislators what the White House wanted to hear. And he did. The legislators and the press, hypnotized by the uniform, took what he said as gospel; although some of the bolder souls did indeed point out that he has consistently seen silver linings in the clouds over Baghdad.
Petraeus's delivery elided Al-Qaeda, insurgents, Iran and the Shi'a militias as if they were a seamless whole, implying that Teheran is behind the deaths of Americans in Iraq, and by a few degrees of separation, sponsoring Osama Bin Laden.
Let us consider Iran. It is indeed governed by faith-based zealots who are enthusiastic practitioners of the death penalty. But unlike the US it has not invaded any of its neighbouring countries.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein, with American and British support invaded Iran and fought one of the longest and most bloody wars of aggression of the second half of the Twentieth Century. Ahmedinejad is, to put it kindly, not the brightest star in the diplomatic firmament, but on examination, a lot of what his detractors accuse him of saying is the subject of willful mistranslation, and he has consistently denied military nuclear ambitions.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty binds Iran. – unlike nuclear powers Indian and Pakistan, the former of which has been given the green light by the US in defiance of the treaty while the latter has military and security officers who have a proven record of favoring the Taliban. It is legitimate to ask why on earth an oil–rich country like Iran should embark on a perilous road to nuclear energy, but one could answer that the reasons may be similar to those which impelled a coal and oil rich country like Great Britain to be actively considering expansion of nuclear reactor capability.
But who do you trust on these issues? Nobel prize-winner Mohammed El Baradei of the IAEA, who was completely vindicated about Iraq's lack of a nuclear programme, or the recidivist liars and fabulists who hymned our way into the disastrous invasion?
As El Baradei said in Vienna this week, "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
He thinks he has pulled off a deal, but it is hardly surprising that the murderous clots who brought us the Iraq debacle are again attacking him furiously. Of course, they might be right, and Iran may indeed have nuclear ambitions. But the burden of proof really has to meet an even higher standard than normal because of their own proven predilection for telling political expedient whoppers.
Of course, some of the biggest proponents of an attack on Iran come from Israel. Israel has invaded its neighbour Lebanon over and over again, using modern weaponry supplied by the United States. It has nuclear weapons. It recently flew a provocative sortie into Syria, possibly alienating Turkey in the process. It is occupying parts of Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. So do we really take their word for it that Iran needs dealing with?
Luckily, there are some signs of inoculation against this pervasive insanity. It appears that British officers are demurring at being moved to the Iranian border in order to act as a trip wire if the Revolutionary Guards come swarming over the Iraqi border in retaliation for whatever the Israelis or Americans have done. But they hardly need to.
The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq handed over control of large swathes of the country to Shi'a groups and militia who, if you believe Petraeus, take orders from their coreligionists in Teheran. Even taking his conspiracist scripts with a hint of skepticism, one can assume that the Shi'a in Iraq will not take kindly to an attack on Iran whether by the US, or by Israel with tacit US backing.
There is no way that Israel would attack Iran in the teeth of US displeasure, and of course any Iranian retaliation would then trigger American support. I suppose it would then mean that US troops would be out of Iraq, dead or alive, but with the parlous state of the world economy, all it needs is Gulf Oil to be out of the markets to cause the mother of all crashes.
But surely the Democrats in Congress would oppose an attack? Don't bet on it. Mesmerized by talk of terrorism and attacks on GI's, whipped in by AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, most of the presidential contenders are sleepwalking to disaster- assisted it might be added by inept diplomacy. It's no way to run a world.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
War Resistors and Larry Flynt
This is the text of the article I wrote for Hustler magazine a few months ago. In recursive fashion, I wrote about writing for Hustler for the Guardian afterwards. Now the blogosphere has decided to republish the original Hustler article, so I may as well. They are also using it as a stick to beat the Nation with. The Nation has many palpable faults, but I cannot say they turned this idea down. Rather Hustler came to me based on my book "Deserter" (see the Amazon button to the left). On the other hand, the Nation while keeping me listed on the editorial page as their UN Correspondent, has not accepted a piece from me on the book pages for some four years, and in the main magazine for over one. So there may be some point there, even if I am not sure what. Apparently I upset the editor by describing the Nation as a socialist magazine on the O'Reilly Factor, which I meant as a compliment but she and Bill O both took differently!
So here goes.
Hell No, They Won't Go!
________________________________________
Soldiers talk to Ian Williams on going AWOL, deserting and resisting Bush’s military.
Pablo Paredes, an ex-Navy petty officer who refused to board the Iraq-bound USS Bonhomme Richard in December 2003, estimates that up to 40,000 U.S. servicemen and -women have either gone AWOL (absent without leave) or deserted since 2000. The number of deserters from the Iraq War alone is estimated at around 10,000. The GI Rights Helpline—where The Bronx, New York, resident works—gets 40,000 calls a year—half from military personnel who’ve gone AWOL and want advice on their options. Paredes assumes that at least the same number do not call.
“Every time we pick up the phone, it’s a horror story,” Paredes relates. “They’ve all seen something incredibly traumatic; they’ve watched friends die, civilians die, women assaulted and raped. They’ve had enough. Some of them have been officially diagnosed with psych issues,” Paredes continues, “and the military tries to get them to suck it up and send them straight back to Iraq. Some have done three, four or even five tours of duty, and they are not going back to risk their lives a sixth time. They don’t want to lose their lives for an insane war.”
Court-martialed for refusing to ship out to the Gulf, Paredes was administratively discharged after receiving a relatively light sentence and serving no time in the brig.
The Pentagon is evasive about revealing numbers. By 2004 the Defense Department admitted to 8,500 deserters—not including Marines. On December 2, 2006, CNN reported that 9,500 servicemen and -women had deserted since the start of the Iraq War and that 2,500 to 3,000 had gone AWOL. While anyone absent without leave for more than 30 days is technically classified a deserter, Paredes has had callers who have been on the lam for six months without being officially listed.
The numbers involved are the highest since the Vietnam War, during which an estimated 1.5 million soldiers deserted and went AWOL. Back then, George W. Bush moved to Texas and used his family connections to dodge combat duty while less-well-connected Americans flocked by the thousands to Canada. Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau rolled out the red carpet for them, saying, “Canada should be a refuge from militarism.” Up to 100,000 went north, 30,000 settling there permanently.
One of them, Jeffry House, became a lawyer and now handles the cases of over 30 contemporary GIs who have applied for refugee status to avoid service in Iraq. He estimates that there are another 200 in Canada who have not yet applied formally.
Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía was the first combat veteran who refused to return to Iraq, staying Stateside to denounce the war. He gave himself up and received a year sentence, but is still fighting. “I’m appealing my conviction, so I’m still in the military, although I’m not in uniform or being bossed around by a military superior,” says Mejía, who seems haunted by the things he did and saw in Iraq.
“It’s a pretty messed- up thing, so you can’t really say I have no regrets. But after all, I’m in a better position. The experience has allowed me to grow, to speak out against the war, to educate others. I’ve had some contact with people from my squad in Iraq, and they have been very supportive. They know it was not a matter of cowardice, because we have been through so much together, and I did my job as a squad leader. I proved myself to them in combat; they know me very well.”
Mejía, the son of Sandinista revolutionaries, ruled out fleeing. “I weighed the idea of Canada, but I also had dual Nicaraguan and Costa Rican citizenship, so I could have gone back to either of those countries and had a comfortable middle-class life. It was not just to save my own skin. The best way to make my voice heard was to go public and take my place in court, and eventually it may go all the way to the Supreme Court, if the military refuses to recognize my rights as a conscientious objector.”
In this war, the stakes are higher for those crossing the border. These resisters are a new and tougher breed. Unlike most Vietnam-era servicemen, they volunteered for the military, and most expressed their willingness to go to equally dangerous combat zones in Afghanistan, but they all unite in condemning the war in Iraq as immoral, illegal and futile. And they should know: Many of them have been there.
By 1969, all an American GI had to do was cross the border and register as an immigrant, since Trudeau’s government guaranteed no one would be sent back. Since then, Canada has raised its immigration barriers. Would-be immigrants have to apply from their own countries and are required to show education, training and financial assets before emigrating to Canada—a process that can take two years.
Today arriving GIs must apply for political asylum on the grounds of persecution for refusing to take part in an illegal war. Three years ago, former Private First Class Jeremy Hinzman was the first American to apply for this status. His case is being laboriously fought by the Canadian government, which is now conservative and has so far persuaded the courts to ignore the question of whether or not the Iraq War is illegal. The lower level Immigration and Refugee Boards and courts have ruled against Hinzman, who, if successful, would reportedly be Canada’s first ever certified political refugee from the U.S.
Hinzman headed north with his wife and toddler at the beginning of 2004. Now working as a bike courier in Toronto, he has already survived several of Ontario’s ferocious winters. “The government didn’t roll out a red carpet for us,” Hinzman says, “but we like it up here, and there’s a lot of support for what we have done.”
The ex-soldier adds, “We’ve adapted pretty well. The fact that there is free healthcare is a big plus, but in general it’s not that different from home. Everyone has equal opportunities. We’re not rich, but we’re not poor—comfortable.”
Hinzman has no regrets. He joined the Army for the college funding, but was so horrified by the bloodthirsty values of basic training that he applied for conscientious objector status. Pending his appeal, he served in a noncombatant post with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan. After returning home, Hinzman heard that his application had been denied and that he was being deployed to Iraq. So he flew the coop to the Great White North.
“It was an illegal war,” Hinzman insists. “We did the right thing by deciding to fight it. Canada refused to fight in the war. To me that said they thought the war was illegal and immoral. When we came here, we knew that the chances were we may not be able to go back to America.”
Hinzman attends meetings of the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, but the ex-GIs do not cling together obsessively like expatriates in a foreign country. “It’s not like we are the army north of the border,” Hinzman laughs. In addition to those who have asked for political asylum, other deserters who fled to Canada are trying to make up their minds. House says over 100 have contacted him, and he knows of more on Canada’s West Coast and in Quebec.
House describes Ottawa’s dilemma: “The Canadian government doesn’t want to send a signal to the U.S. Army: ‘Come here!’ Individual officials come up to us and whisper sympathy. But that’s not the official line, which is that the war is not obnoxious or illegal enough for you to stay here.”
In a recent poll, 74% of Canadians saw George W. Bush as a threat to world peace. About the same number said the Iraq War was not justified, so there’s lots of support for the GIs, restraining any attempts by Canada’s new right-tilting government to send them back. It helps, says House, that the war resisters “are very presentable, intelligent, thoughtful and articulate; they have been through things.”
House is confident of eventual success, even if the issue has to go all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. He cites the ironic precedent of a decade ago in which the Court ruled in favor of Mohamed Al-Maisri, a Yemeni deserter from Saddam Hussein’s army at the time of the first Gulf War. In other words, it’s not illegal to desert from an army that stages unprovoked attacks.
Hinzman’s case has now been followed by around three dozen more, and none of his counterparts feel any pressure to leave. Applicants for refugee status get work permits, access to the school system and—something mentioned enthusiastically by all I spoke to—Canada’s free healthcare.
Kyle Snyder headed to British Columbia when he returned from Iraq on leave. Snyder was already disaffected with the military due to family problems, but adds, “I saw a lot of things that were changing my mind about this war. I made a conscious choice that I couldn’t live with myself if I stayed in Iraq. I felt it was evil, the things that were happening. We were not doing anything positive for the Iraqi people.”
Then, after 18 months in Canada, Snyder heard that another resister, Darrell Anderson, had negotiated a deal that would have him quickly discharged if he went south and gave himself up. Snyder retained Anderson’s attorney, Jim Fennerty, who’d worked out the same offer with Major Brian Patterson at Fort Knox in Kentucky. “I gave up my job in Canada, gave up my healthcare and my refugee status,” Snyder states. “In fact, I gave up the life I had started over the last 18 months on a chance of a discharge that they would just let me out.”
However, when Snyder reported to Fort Knox, instead of the less-than-honorable discharge he was promised, Snyder says, “The whole attitude changed. It was ‘We are going to fuck you, we will send you back to your unit, and you will probably be redeployed back to Iraq.’”
Soldiers from Fort Knox dropped him off at the Greyhound station for a trip to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. Snyder recalls thinking, “I’m, like, fuck this. I’m not getting on that bus.”
Instead, when I eventually spoke to him, he was in New Orleans. “I’m going to help Iraq Veterans Against the War reconstruct, like we should have done when Katrina hit,” he declared. “It’s still a disaster area here; I don’t see why there aren’t troops here. It takes me running away from the military to do a job the military should have been doing in the first place.”
And after only a few weeks, he missed Canada. “We were loved up there. I miss it. I do.”
Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came….
Manhattan-based Ian Williams is the author of Deserter: Bush’s War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past and Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776. The U.N. correspondent for The Nation magazine and many other publications around the world, Williams covered both Gulf wars. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, Scarborough Country, Hardball, Lou Dobbs Tonight and Your World w/ Neil Cavuto. “I’m the liberal lion they throw to the Christian Right,” Williams quips.
So here goes.
Hell No, They Won't Go!
________________________________________
Soldiers talk to Ian Williams on going AWOL, deserting and resisting Bush’s military.
Pablo Paredes, an ex-Navy petty officer who refused to board the Iraq-bound USS Bonhomme Richard in December 2003, estimates that up to 40,000 U.S. servicemen and -women have either gone AWOL (absent without leave) or deserted since 2000. The number of deserters from the Iraq War alone is estimated at around 10,000. The GI Rights Helpline—where The Bronx, New York, resident works—gets 40,000 calls a year—half from military personnel who’ve gone AWOL and want advice on their options. Paredes assumes that at least the same number do not call.
“Every time we pick up the phone, it’s a horror story,” Paredes relates. “They’ve all seen something incredibly traumatic; they’ve watched friends die, civilians die, women assaulted and raped. They’ve had enough. Some of them have been officially diagnosed with psych issues,” Paredes continues, “and the military tries to get them to suck it up and send them straight back to Iraq. Some have done three, four or even five tours of duty, and they are not going back to risk their lives a sixth time. They don’t want to lose their lives for an insane war.”
Court-martialed for refusing to ship out to the Gulf, Paredes was administratively discharged after receiving a relatively light sentence and serving no time in the brig.
The Pentagon is evasive about revealing numbers. By 2004 the Defense Department admitted to 8,500 deserters—not including Marines. On December 2, 2006, CNN reported that 9,500 servicemen and -women had deserted since the start of the Iraq War and that 2,500 to 3,000 had gone AWOL. While anyone absent without leave for more than 30 days is technically classified a deserter, Paredes has had callers who have been on the lam for six months without being officially listed.
The numbers involved are the highest since the Vietnam War, during which an estimated 1.5 million soldiers deserted and went AWOL. Back then, George W. Bush moved to Texas and used his family connections to dodge combat duty while less-well-connected Americans flocked by the thousands to Canada. Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau rolled out the red carpet for them, saying, “Canada should be a refuge from militarism.” Up to 100,000 went north, 30,000 settling there permanently.
One of them, Jeffry House, became a lawyer and now handles the cases of over 30 contemporary GIs who have applied for refugee status to avoid service in Iraq. He estimates that there are another 200 in Canada who have not yet applied formally.
Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía was the first combat veteran who refused to return to Iraq, staying Stateside to denounce the war. He gave himself up and received a year sentence, but is still fighting. “I’m appealing my conviction, so I’m still in the military, although I’m not in uniform or being bossed around by a military superior,” says Mejía, who seems haunted by the things he did and saw in Iraq.
“It’s a pretty messed- up thing, so you can’t really say I have no regrets. But after all, I’m in a better position. The experience has allowed me to grow, to speak out against the war, to educate others. I’ve had some contact with people from my squad in Iraq, and they have been very supportive. They know it was not a matter of cowardice, because we have been through so much together, and I did my job as a squad leader. I proved myself to them in combat; they know me very well.”
Mejía, the son of Sandinista revolutionaries, ruled out fleeing. “I weighed the idea of Canada, but I also had dual Nicaraguan and Costa Rican citizenship, so I could have gone back to either of those countries and had a comfortable middle-class life. It was not just to save my own skin. The best way to make my voice heard was to go public and take my place in court, and eventually it may go all the way to the Supreme Court, if the military refuses to recognize my rights as a conscientious objector.”
In this war, the stakes are higher for those crossing the border. These resisters are a new and tougher breed. Unlike most Vietnam-era servicemen, they volunteered for the military, and most expressed their willingness to go to equally dangerous combat zones in Afghanistan, but they all unite in condemning the war in Iraq as immoral, illegal and futile. And they should know: Many of them have been there.
By 1969, all an American GI had to do was cross the border and register as an immigrant, since Trudeau’s government guaranteed no one would be sent back. Since then, Canada has raised its immigration barriers. Would-be immigrants have to apply from their own countries and are required to show education, training and financial assets before emigrating to Canada—a process that can take two years.
Today arriving GIs must apply for political asylum on the grounds of persecution for refusing to take part in an illegal war. Three years ago, former Private First Class Jeremy Hinzman was the first American to apply for this status. His case is being laboriously fought by the Canadian government, which is now conservative and has so far persuaded the courts to ignore the question of whether or not the Iraq War is illegal. The lower level Immigration and Refugee Boards and courts have ruled against Hinzman, who, if successful, would reportedly be Canada’s first ever certified political refugee from the U.S.
Hinzman headed north with his wife and toddler at the beginning of 2004. Now working as a bike courier in Toronto, he has already survived several of Ontario’s ferocious winters. “The government didn’t roll out a red carpet for us,” Hinzman says, “but we like it up here, and there’s a lot of support for what we have done.”
The ex-soldier adds, “We’ve adapted pretty well. The fact that there is free healthcare is a big plus, but in general it’s not that different from home. Everyone has equal opportunities. We’re not rich, but we’re not poor—comfortable.”
Hinzman has no regrets. He joined the Army for the college funding, but was so horrified by the bloodthirsty values of basic training that he applied for conscientious objector status. Pending his appeal, he served in a noncombatant post with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan. After returning home, Hinzman heard that his application had been denied and that he was being deployed to Iraq. So he flew the coop to the Great White North.
“It was an illegal war,” Hinzman insists. “We did the right thing by deciding to fight it. Canada refused to fight in the war. To me that said they thought the war was illegal and immoral. When we came here, we knew that the chances were we may not be able to go back to America.”
Hinzman attends meetings of the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, but the ex-GIs do not cling together obsessively like expatriates in a foreign country. “It’s not like we are the army north of the border,” Hinzman laughs. In addition to those who have asked for political asylum, other deserters who fled to Canada are trying to make up their minds. House says over 100 have contacted him, and he knows of more on Canada’s West Coast and in Quebec.
House describes Ottawa’s dilemma: “The Canadian government doesn’t want to send a signal to the U.S. Army: ‘Come here!’ Individual officials come up to us and whisper sympathy. But that’s not the official line, which is that the war is not obnoxious or illegal enough for you to stay here.”
In a recent poll, 74% of Canadians saw George W. Bush as a threat to world peace. About the same number said the Iraq War was not justified, so there’s lots of support for the GIs, restraining any attempts by Canada’s new right-tilting government to send them back. It helps, says House, that the war resisters “are very presentable, intelligent, thoughtful and articulate; they have been through things.”
House is confident of eventual success, even if the issue has to go all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. He cites the ironic precedent of a decade ago in which the Court ruled in favor of Mohamed Al-Maisri, a Yemeni deserter from Saddam Hussein’s army at the time of the first Gulf War. In other words, it’s not illegal to desert from an army that stages unprovoked attacks.
Hinzman’s case has now been followed by around three dozen more, and none of his counterparts feel any pressure to leave. Applicants for refugee status get work permits, access to the school system and—something mentioned enthusiastically by all I spoke to—Canada’s free healthcare.
Kyle Snyder headed to British Columbia when he returned from Iraq on leave. Snyder was already disaffected with the military due to family problems, but adds, “I saw a lot of things that were changing my mind about this war. I made a conscious choice that I couldn’t live with myself if I stayed in Iraq. I felt it was evil, the things that were happening. We were not doing anything positive for the Iraqi people.”
Then, after 18 months in Canada, Snyder heard that another resister, Darrell Anderson, had negotiated a deal that would have him quickly discharged if he went south and gave himself up. Snyder retained Anderson’s attorney, Jim Fennerty, who’d worked out the same offer with Major Brian Patterson at Fort Knox in Kentucky. “I gave up my job in Canada, gave up my healthcare and my refugee status,” Snyder states. “In fact, I gave up the life I had started over the last 18 months on a chance of a discharge that they would just let me out.”
However, when Snyder reported to Fort Knox, instead of the less-than-honorable discharge he was promised, Snyder says, “The whole attitude changed. It was ‘We are going to fuck you, we will send you back to your unit, and you will probably be redeployed back to Iraq.’”
Soldiers from Fort Knox dropped him off at the Greyhound station for a trip to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. Snyder recalls thinking, “I’m, like, fuck this. I’m not getting on that bus.”
Instead, when I eventually spoke to him, he was in New Orleans. “I’m going to help Iraq Veterans Against the War reconstruct, like we should have done when Katrina hit,” he declared. “It’s still a disaster area here; I don’t see why there aren’t troops here. It takes me running away from the military to do a job the military should have been doing in the first place.”
And after only a few weeks, he missed Canada. “We were loved up there. I miss it. I do.”
Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came….
Manhattan-based Ian Williams is the author of Deserter: Bush’s War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past and Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776. The U.N. correspondent for The Nation magazine and many other publications around the world, Williams covered both Gulf wars. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, Scarborough Country, Hardball, Lou Dobbs Tonight and Your World w/ Neil Cavuto. “I’m the liberal lion they throw to the Christian Right,” Williams quips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)