Obama for America, or Israel?
July 31, 2007
Imagine if the presidential candidate in the French elections were to base his campaign on the record of his service to Senegal? It isn’t likely that it would do his campaign any good. In the US, however, it is a different story.
Believe it or not, the following email was sent by the campaign of Barack Obama to its supporters. For some reason, I don’t think the ‘Obama for America‘ in the ‘From’ field is meant to be ironic:
From: “Eric Lynn, Obama for America”<elynn@barackobama.com
Date: July 12, 2007 7:10:41 AM PDT
Subject: Barack Obama: A Strong Record of Supporting Israel
Reply-To: elynn@barackobama.com
Dear Friends,
I hope that this email finds you well. I recently joined the Barack Obama campaign as the Middle East Policy Advisor and Jewish Community Liaison. I am eager to work with all of you as we continue to communicate Barack Obama’s vision and policies on the Middle East and other issues of concern to the Jewish Community. We will be traveling to your cities soon, and we look forward to hearing your views on Israel, the Middle East, and the other
important issues to the community.In these troubling times in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, Senator Obama has called for strong support of Israel and emphasized the need for a true partner for peace. He has advocated isolating Hamas which refuses to renounce violence and calls for Israel’s destruction, while supporting the strengthening of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and advocate nonviolence.
Barack Obama has also said strongly that Iran must not be allowed to achieve its nuclear ambition. Senator Obama authored and introduced as the primary sponsor, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act in May, 2007. Obama’s legislation makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds of companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector, providing the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism. Divestment is a useful tool to bring additional economic pressure to bear on Iran.
Attached and below is a Fact Sheet of Barack Obama’s record on Israel. We hope that you will pass this on to all interested in his views. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and comments. I look forward to speaking with you about electing Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.
Regards,
Eric LynnEric Lynn
Middle East Policy Advisor
Obama for America
elynn@barackobama.comBARACK OBAMA: A STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE SECURITY, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY OF ISRAEL
“Our job is to renew the United States’ efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. . . . That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the
growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.” [Speech at AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago, 3/2/07]BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP
Barack Obama has established a strong record as a true friend of Israel, a stalwart defender of Israel’s security, and an effective advocate of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship. He believes that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has consistently emphasized his commitment to our ally Israel, and has been an active supporter of legislation helping to ensure the support and security of the Middle East’s
only established democracy. Obama continually works with a number of his colleagues in the Senate to promote a closer relationship between the U.S. and Israel on a range of fronts – security, economic, political, and cultural.ENSURE A STRONG U.S.-ISRAEL PARTNERSHIP:
Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, a bond that is mutually beneficial to each country as we share common values, histories,
and a dedication to democracy. Senator Obama believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. Expressing his support for this reality, Obama delivered the message to Palestinian university students in Ramallah that the United States would never distance itself from Israel. Before the Palestinian elections, Obama asserted that the United States would
never recognize Hamas unless it renounced its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel and he continues to insist that Hamas recognize Israel, abandon violence, and abide by previous agreements made between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.SUPPORT ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE:
During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks. Obama is an original cosponsor of the Senate resolution expressing support for Israel, condemning the attacks, and calling for strong action against Iran and Syria. Throughout the war, Barack Obama made clear that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. In addition, Obama signed a letter to the European Union pressing the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS:
Concerned about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional ambitions, Barack Obama has been a strong voice warning of the dangers to both the
United States and Israel if Iran successfully develops these weapons. Consistently, Senator Obama has been outspoken regarding the growing influence of Iran in the region, especially Iraq, saying, “Make no mistake – if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly
mistaken” [Speech to Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 11/20/06] Obama has called for stronger international sanctions against Iran to persuade it to halt uranium enrichment. He is a cosponsor of the Durbin-Smith Senate Bill, the Iran Counter Proliferation Act, which calls for sanctions on Iran and other
countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program. Believing that Americans must do more to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Senator Obama authored and introduced as the primary sponsor, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act in May, 2007. Obama’s Bill makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds of companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector, providing the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear
weapons and sponsor terrorism. Divestment is a useful tool to bring additional economic pressure to bear on Iran. Senator Obama has conducted an active dialogue with a range of Israeli political leaders and security officials regarding Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and Israel.SUPPORT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL:
Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both
military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. Additionally, he has called for sustaining the unique U.S.-Israel defense relationship by fully funding military assistance and continuing cooperative work on missile defense programs, such as the Arrow.WORK TOWARDS TWO STATES LIVING SIDE BY SIDE IN PEACE AND SECURITY:
Barack Obama believes in working towards a two-state solution, with both states living side by side in peace and security. To that end, Senator Obama is a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. Introduced in the wake of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian elections, this act outlaws direct assistance to any entity of the Palestinian Authority controlled by Hamas until it meets the conditions of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations to renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by all agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Obama signed a letter urging President Bush to make it clear to Palestinian leaders that terrorist groups must either disarm or be barred from the political process. Since the
elections, Obama has stated that Israelis must have a true Palestinian partner for peace. He has sought to encourage the strengthening of the Palestinian moderates who seek peace and to isolate Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s
destruction.HELP PALESTINIAN FAMILIES GET THE AID THEY NEED WITHOUT SUPPORTING TERRORISM:
Barack Obama supports U.S. efforts to provide aid directly to the Palestinian people by bypassing any Hamas-led government that refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is good for both Israelis and Palestinians.
LIMIT HEZBOLLAH’S INFLUENCE IN THE REGION:
Senator Obama is concerned about the rapid re-arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He has called for the end of Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah via arms shipments and funding. Obama urged the enforcement of UN Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to
Hezbollah, a resolution that Syria and Iran continue to disregard.
Long before the July 2006 conflict, Barack Obama worked to limit
Hezbollah’s influence in the region, signing a letter urging President Bush to place al-Manar, the official television station of Hezbollah, on the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity list and to aggressively target organizations that aid in its broadcast.SUPPORT U.S.-ISRAEL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
As a strong supporter of broadening and deepening the U.S.-Israel relationship, Barack Obama cosponsored the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. This bill would establish a grant program to support joint U.S.-Israeli
research and development efforts in the areas of alternative and renewable energy sources – a key step toward energy independence, which is very much in the national security interests of the U.S. and Israel.ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE:
Looking for innovative ways to enhance U.S. and Israeli security through energy independence, Obama has pushed a number of initiatives – from E-85 to CAFE reform to biofuels. The purpose of these initiatives is to reduce U.S.
dependence on oil from the Middle East, limiting the influence of oil-producing nations and increasing U.S. and Israeli national security.
Palestinian Authority: A US-Israeli Proxy
July 31, 2007
Edward Said broke with the PLO in the wake of the Camp David accords as he believe Arafat had won little more than the right to police his own people. The following report, a sordid catalogue of Fatah’s collaboration with the US-Israeli intelligence, confirms Said’s prescience:
When the Islamist group Hamas conquered the Gaza Strip in June it seized an intelligence-and-military infrastructure created with U.S. help by the security chiefs of the Palestinian territory’s former ruler.
According to current and former Israeli intelligence officials, former U.S. intelligence personnel and Palestinian officials, Hamas has increased its inventory of arms since the takeover of Gaza and picked up technical expertise — such as espionage techniques — that could assist the group in its fight against Israel or Washington’s Palestinian allies, the Fatah movement founded by Yasser Arafat.
Hamas leaders say they acquired thousands of paper files, computer records, videos, photographs and audio recordings containing valuable and potentially embarrassing intelligence information gathered by Fatah. For more than a decade, Fatah operated a vast intelligence network in Gaza established under the tutelage of the Central Intelligence Agency.
• The Find: Palestinian group Hamas seized rival Fatah’s intelligence-and-military infrastructure, which was built with U.S. help.
• What’s at Stake: Secrets, expertise and technology are now in the hands of a group the U.S. calls a terrorist organization.
• The Damage: Though the ultimate impact is difficult to determine, Hamas leaders say they will make some details public and share others with Arab governments.
Hamas leaders are expected as early as tomorrow to go public with some of the documents and the secrets they hold.
The exact nature of the threat posed by the intelligence grab in Gaza — including any damage to U.S. intelligence operations in the Palestinian territories and the broader Middle East — is difficult to ascertain. U.S. and Israeli officials generally tried to play down any losses, saying any intelligence damage is likely minimal.
But a number of former U.S. intelligence officials, including some who have worked closely with the Palestinians, said there was ample reason to worry that Hamas has acquired access to important spying technology as well as intelligence information that could be helpful to Hamas in countering Israeli and U.S. efforts against the group.
“People are worried, and reasonably so, about what kind of intelligence losses we may have suffered,” said one former U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in Gaza.
A U.S. government official said he doubted serious secrets were compromised in the Gaza takeover. Other officials said they had no reason to believe that U.S. spying operations elsewhere in the Arab world had been compromised.
Close ties between Hamas and the governments of Iran and Syria also mean that intelligence-and-spying techniques could be shared with the main Middle East rivals of the Bush administration. As the White House prepares to lead an international effort to bolster Fatah’s security apparatus in the West Bank, the losses in Gaza stand as an example of how efforts to help Fatah can backfire.
The compromised intelligence Hamas says it now has ranges widely. The group alleges it has videos used in a sexual-blackmail operation run by Washington’s allies inside Fatah’s security apparatus. But the group also says it has uncovered detailed evidence of Fatah-controlled spying operations carried out in Arab and Muslim countries for the benefit of the U.S. and other foreign governments. Hamas also alleges that Fatah intelligence operatives cooperated with Israeli intelligence officials to target Islamist leaders for assassination.
“What we have is good enough for us to completely reveal the practices [of Fatah-controlled security services], both locally and throughout the region,” said Khalil al Hayya, a senior Hamas official in Gaza, who has assumed a leading role on the intelligence issue for the Islamist group.
Michael Scheuer, a former top CIA counterterrorism analyst who left the agency in 2004, said the U.S. had provided the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority with “substantial help” in training as well as computers, other equipment and analytical tools. Other former intelligence officials confirmed that the U.S. gave Fatah-controlled services sophisticated intelligence-gathering equipment, including eavesdropping technology, though these officials wouldn’t provide more precise details about the technology.
This kind of technology, along with the knowledge it yields, is broadly known in intelligence circles as “Sigint,” which is shorthand for “signals intelligence.” It can include eavesdropping equipment, devices used for intercepting radio, microwave and telephone communications and telemetry technology that allows the user to pinpoint the location of someone holding a communication device, such as a cellphone.
“The United States invested a lot of effort in setting up this system in Gaza — construction, equipment, training… filings, the logistics, the transportation. It was a big operation, and it’s now in the hands of the other side,” said Efraim Halevy, who formerly headed both the Mossad, which is Israel’s foreign-intelligence agency, and Israel’s National Security Council. Mr. Halevy said, however, that he didn’t want to overemphasize the value of Hamas’s potential intelligence gains.
Avi Dichter, Israel’s public-security minister and the former head of Shin Bet, the domestic intelligence-and-counterterrorism agency, also said he didn’t want to overemphasize the potential benefits to Hamas. But he confirmed that the Islamist group seized Sigint technology and expertise during its Gaza sweep. He declined to provide specifics, but said it had been provided by the Americans, the British and the French.
Mr. Dichter, who left the Shin Bet when his five-year term as its chief ended in 2005, also said the potential damage goes beyond Hamas’s ability to turn the technology against its enemies. Now, he said, the militants could gain an understanding of how such technology is used against them, allowing them to adopt more sophisticated counter measures.
“It’s not only the tools. It’s also the philosophy that’s behind them,” he said.
Hamas leaders are being vague about the equipment and technological know-how they captured. Mr. Hayya said some important former Fatah operatives in Gaza, all of whom were granted amnesty after Hamas took over, were now cooperating with the group on intelligence matters.
Easier to assess is the threat posed by the military hardware Hamas picked up after the takeover. The militant group seized an arsenal of arms and munitions captured from U.S.-backed security forces loyal to Fatah and its leader, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr. Dichter said Hamas gained roughly the same number of weapons during a few days that it would have taken the group nearly a year to amass from smuggling operations.
Hamas says it is using the armaments to build a popular army in Gaza. Israeli intelligence and security officials estimate the Islamist group has some 13,000 armed men in Gaza.
As for Fatah’s secrets, Hamas leaders say they grabbed intelligence stashes from three locations: the headquarters in Gaza City of the Preventive Security Force; the Palestinian Authority intelligence headquarters, which were housed in a Gaza City office known as “Il Safina,” or “the ship”; and a nearby satellite-intelligence office dubbed, “Il Mashtal,” or “the nursery.”
As Hamas fighters moved in during their June sweep across Gaza, Fatah officials burned some papers and stripped data from computers. But the Hamas conquest was so quick that significant caches remained for the taking, according to the militant group.
All three sites were long under the sway of Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan, who first became an important CIA ally in Gaza in 1996. At the time, then-CIA director George Tenet began working openly with Mr. Dahlan and other Palestinian officials to build up security services aimed at combating the rise of Hamas and like-minded extremist groups that rejected the Oslo peace accords.
Through a spokesman, Mr. Tenet declined to comment on the CIA-Fatah cooperation, his relationship with Mr. Dahlan or Hamas’s gains. Mr. Dahlan on Thursday formally resigned his Palestinian Authority post. Mr. Dahlan hasn’t commented publicly since resigning and he couldn’t be located for comment. Associates in the West Bank said he was abroad.
Mr. Hayya, the senior Hamas leader, said hundreds of the group’s Hamas’s operatives have been culling through and analyzing the intelligence troves since their seizure, with specialists in security, forensic accounting and administration conducting detailed assessments. Significant portions of these assessments are close to completion, Mr. Hayya said.
Some of the most potentially explosive claims from Hamas center on the alleged activities beyond the Gaza Strip of Palestinian agents loyal to Fatah. Mr. Hayya alleged the CIA utilized Palestinian agents for covert intelligence operations in other Middle Eastern countries. Hamas, he said, now possesses a roadmap detailing the names and actions of “those men whom thought were going to continue to be their hand across the region.”
Some former U.S. intelligence officials who worked closely with the Palestinian Authority confirmed that such overseas spying arrangements beyond Gaza existed with the Palestinians in the past and said they likely continued, bolstering the credibility of Hamas’s claims.
Whitley Bruner, a longtime CIA officer in the Middle East, recalled that “some of our first really good information on [Osama] bin Laden in Sudan” in the early 1990s “came from Palestinian sources.” Before leaving the agency in 1997, Mr. Bruner participated in many of the first cooperative sessions organized by Mr. Tenet between the CIA and the Palestinians.
“It’s not unlikely that continued to do things for the U.S. well beyond the territories,” Mr. Bruner said. “Palestinians are embedded all over the place, so they have access to things that the U.S. doesn’t.”
Others are more circumspect. Bruce Reidel, who worked for nearly 30 years as a U.S. Middle East specialist, both as a CIA intelligence officer and as an adviser to Presidents Clinton and Bush, said there is sure to be “quite a treasure trove of materials that would document relationship with the CIA.” Mr. Reidel said during his time in government, which ended in 2005, “the Palestinians were always trying to prove that they had unique access and information,” but he said he was skeptical of Hamas’s claims that such operations ventured far beyond Gaza and the West Bank.
Mr. Hayya alleges that while many officials from Arab and Muslim nations knew Mr. Dahlan was cooperating with U.S. intelligence agencies inside the Palestinian territories, many of those same leaders “are going to be amazed and surprised when they discover had actually worked against them for the Americans.” He wouldn’t directly answer a question about which nations were allegedly being spied on, but he said Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had the most to be concerned about from potential disclosures.
Jabril Rajoub, a Fatah rival to Mr. Dahlan who was long his West Bank counterpart and most recently served as Mr. Abbas’s national security adviser, said he was aware of the alleged outlines of these operations, though he said he was unaware of their details. He called the Gaza-based network a “for-hire” intelligence operation, adding that it was active around the Middle East and provided information to the Americans, the British and others.
Mr. Hayya also said there is a substantial amount of evidence detailing cooperation between Fatah and Israel. There is evidence several militant leaders were targeted as a result of such cooperation, he alleged. This includes circumstantial evidence that he was personally targeted in an Israeli assassination attempt after he was fingered by Fatah intelligence officers as a top security threat.
After taking over Gaza, Mr. Hayya said Hamas recovered notes from a meeting of senior Palestinian Authority intelligence officials in which they discussed Mr. Hayya’s value to the Islamist group. On May 20, less than a week after the meeting, an Israeli missile was fired into his home, killing eight people. Mr. Hayya was en route at the time, but says the strike came about five minutes after his 35-year-old cousin, Ibrahim, entered the home. The Hamas leader said he and his cousin look very similar.
“They thought it was me,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the Shin Bet declined to comment.
Father and Son
July 31, 2007
(with Ronan Keating and Yusuf Islam [formerly Cat Stevens])
Beyond Advocacy v. Objective Journalism
July 31, 2007
Robert Jensen is one of my favorite US commentators. Unlike most of the traditional Left, he is completely non-dogmatic and always penetrating in his analysis. Here he speaks on the myth of ‘objective’ journalism.
In a recent discussion with other journalism professors, I suggested that mainstream journalists have failed to grasp the depth of the crises — cultural and political, economic and ecological — that the United States and modern industrial society face, and hence are failing in their fundamental task in a democratic society, the work of monitoring the centers of power.
A colleague acknowledged the importance of such issues, but said that university schools of journalism don’t teach “advocacy journalism” or promote the idea of “the journalist as activist.”
This advocacy/activist tag is often applied to journalists who don’t accept the conventional wisdom of the powerful and dare to challenge the more basic frameworks within which news is reported. The idea seems to be that anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the worldview of the powerful people and institutions in society is not “objective,” and therefore must be motivated not by a principled search for truth but some pre-determined political agenda.
But the crucial distinction is not between “objective” and “advocacy/activist” journalists but (1) between propagandists and journalists, and then (2) between journalists who do the job well and those who do it poorly. If there is a label we might valorize, it should be “independent” — we need journalists who are independent not only from the powerful but also from any political movements.
While this may seem to be a hyper-sensitivity about terminology, an examination of these labels can help us understand both the problems with, and possibilities of, contemporary journalism.
The term advocacy journalism typically is used to describe the use of techniques to promote a specific political or social cause. The term is potentially meaningful only in opposition to a category of journalism that does not engage in advocacy, so-called objective journalism.
This distinction is a focus of attention most intensely in the United States, especially in the last half of the 20th century; use of these terms does not necessarily translate for other political landscapes, though U.S. (and more generally Western) models are becoming dominant. In Western Europe, some newspapers have long identified openly with a political position, even though journalists from those papers are considered professionals not typically engaged in advocacy. For example, in Italy Il Manifesto identifies itself as a communist newspaper philosophically but does not associate with any party and operates as a workers’ cooperative. In the nations of the Third World that became independent since World War II, journalism typically was part of freedom movements inherently in support of liberation from colonialism. Many independent publications retain that opposition to entrenched power, such as The Hindu in India.
The press in the United States, which was distinctly partisan well into the 19th century, developed objectivity norms that now define the practices of corporate-commercial news media. Many journalists found (and find) those norms constraining, and in the political fervor of the 1960s and 1970s, advocacy journalism emerged with counterculture and revolutionary political activity. Other terms used for practice outside the mainstream include alternative, gonzo, or new journalism. Within those forms, journalists may openly identify with a group or movement or remain independent while adopting similar values and political positions.
This advocacy-objectivity dichotomy springs from political theory that asserts a special role for journalists in complex democratic societies. Journalists’ claims to credibility are based in an assertion of neutrality. They argue for public trust by basing their report of facts, analysis, and opinion on rigorous information gathering. Professional self-monitoring produces what journalists consider an unbiased account of reality, rather than a selective account reflecting a guiding political agenda.
At one level, the term advocacy might be useful in distinguishing, for example, journalistic efforts clearly serving a partisan agenda (such as a political party publication) from those officially serving non-partisan ends (such as a commercial newspaper). But the distinction is not really between forms of journalism as much as between persuasion and journalism. Although so-called objective journalism assumes that, as a rule, disinterested observers tend to produce more reliable reports, a publication advocating a cause might have more accurate information and compelling analysis than a non-partisan one. The intentions of those writing and editing the publication are the key distinguishing factor.
More complex is categorizing different approaches to journalism by those not in the direct service of an organization or movement. Can those who advocate a particular philosophical or political perspective — but remain independent of a partisan group — produce journalism that the general public can trust?
An extended example is helpful here. In general usage, freelance reporter John Pilger (Australian born, now living in the United Kingdom) could be considered an advocacy journalist, and New York Times reporter, John Burns, an objective journalist. Both are experienced and hard-working, with a sophisticated grasp of world affairs, and both have reported extensively about Iraq. Pilger primarily writes for newspapers and magazines in England but has a large following in the United States, and he also is a documentary filmmaker. Burns writes almost exclusively for the Times but also gives frequent interviews on television and radio programs about his reporting. Anti-war and anti-empire groups circulate Pilger’s reports and screen his documentaries, but he, like Burns, describes himself as an independent journalist and rejects affiliations with any political groups.
Pilger is, however, openly critical of U.S. and U.K. policies toward Iraq, including unambiguous denunciations of the self-interested motivations and criminal consequences of state policies. His reporting leads him not only to describe these policies but to offer an analysis that directly challenges the framework of the powerful. Burns, in contrast, avoids such assessments, not only in news reports but also in articles labeled analysis . His reporting tends to accept the framework of the powers promoting these policies, and his criticism tends to question their strategy and tactics, not their basic motivations. In some sense, both journalists advocate for a particular view of state power and how it operates in the areas they cover. Both have reputations for accurately reporting; the difference resides in their interpretations. The language of mainstream journalism would see Burns as objective but not Pilger.
The example illustrates the limits of conceptions of journalism as practiced in the media industries, especially those under corporate commercial control. All reporters use a framework of analysis to understand the world and report on it. But reporting containing open references to underlying political assumptions and conclusions seems to engage in advocacy, while the more conventional approach appears neutral. Both are independent, in the sense of not being directed by a party or movement, but neither approach is in fact neutral. One explicitly endorses a political perspective critical of the powerful, while implicitly reinforcing the political perspective of the elite.
Accounts of the world, including journalistic ones, must begin from some assumptions about the way the world works. None is neutral. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can know or trust about the world, or that journalists can’t offer us reliable information. It simply means that those who report from the conventional wisdom are not exempt from the questions about perspective.Readers should keep that in mind. So should journalists.
Robert Jensen is Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Formerly a journalist himself, Jensen is a regular contributor to the Znet Commentaries and has published a number of books including Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004) and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2001). His latest book is concerned with pornography Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007).
Sealing Pakistan’s Fate
July 30, 2007
So now we have one willing executioner of Washington’s war of terror, and one would-be executioner deciding the course of Pakistan’s future in secret trysts in backroom meetings in the Gulf. No one has asked however exactly what mandate allows each discredited puppet to feel qualified to speak on these weighty matters.
The subtitle of this silly article (which actually describes the neoliberal Benazir as ‘left-leaning’) from the Guardian carries in it the precise reason why the alliance of Pervez Musharraf with Benazir Bhutto threatens to seal the country’s fate. “Joint rule seen as best way to beat extremists”, it says. Except, the extremists are only a recent problem, and the aforementioned individuals have done much to engender this extremism. People do not want to get rid of Musharraf only to have him replaced with someone even more subservient to the Washington agenda. The victory of the MMA in the first place was a response to Musharraf’s enthusiastic embrace of Bush’s war of terror. Contrary to the popular liberal myth (repeated ad nauseum by elite-leftists like Tariq Ali), the MMA won their seats fair and square. The extent of their victory, in fact, was diminished through direct intervention from the federal government, which rigged the votes in favour of the PML-Q (pro-Musharraf party) to bring about a result more favorable to Musharraf’s continued rule. (I know this because a friend’s Father-in-Law was running on a PML-Q ticket, and they were handed bagsful of the pre-stamped votes on the eve of the election by electoral authorities to be dropped into the ballot box along with a legit vote to boost the numbers of vote cast).
What Pakistan needs is not an enforcer for the Washington agenda, which is what Benazir (the second most vacuous head of state in Pakistan’s history, after Nawaz sharif) is promising, but someone who can represent the legitimate aspirations of its people. Both these discredited individuals promise to wage Washington’s counterinsurgency war with more vigour, which only promises to alienate people of NWFP and Baluchistan further, and possibly lead to the country’s disintegration.
Oxfam on the Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
July 30, 2007
At the same time as the Independent‘s report confirming that one out of every seven Iraqis is being driven into exile, an AFP report on the Oxfam study (download pdf here) released yesterday sheds light on some of the reasons:
Oxfam warned in a report Monday that unabated violence in Iraq is masking a humanitarian crisis that has worsened since the US-led invasion in 2003, putting at risk almost eight million Iraqis.
“While horrific violence dominates the lives of millions of ordinary people inside Iraq, another kind of crisis, also due to the impact of war, has been slowly unfolding,” said the report by international relief agency Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi non-governmental organisations.
According to the 45-page report released in Amman, almost eight million Iraqis are in need of immediate emergency aid with children the hardest hit by worsening conditions. An estimated “43 percent of Iraqis suffer from ‘absolute poverty’.”
“Children are hit the hardest by the decline of living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now,” it said.
Among the eight million Iraqis in dire need of assistance are more than two million who are displaced within the country and more than two million who have sought refuge in neighbouring Jordan and Iraq.
Many of those fleeing are professionals whose exodus leaves Iraqi services in an ever more precarious state, said the report by Oxfam and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI).
“The brain drain’ that Iraq is experiencing is further stretching already inadequate public services, as thousands of medical staff, teachers, water engineers, and other professionals are forced to leave the country,” it said.
The report criticised the Iraqi government and the international community and donors for not “adequately addressing this deteriorating situation.”
According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) spokesman Peter Kessler, “there has been an abject denial of the impact, the humanitarian impact, of the war,” it said
The report castigated the Iraqi government and world community for focusing too much on reconstruction and building political institutions while overlooking the everyday needs of ordinary people.
“Funding for development and reconstruction in Iraq from the 22 Development Assistance Committee donors increased by 922 percent between 2003 and 2005 … whereas funding for humanitarian assistance declined by 47 percent,” it said.
“Political will must be found to improve the emergency support system for the poorest citizens, including the internally displaced,” said report entitled “Rising to the humanitarian challenge in Iraq.”
It noted that of the four million Iraqis who depend on food assistance, only 60 percent have access to rations from the government-run public distribution system, down from 96 percent in 2004.
The number of Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies has risen from 50 percent to 70 percent since 2003, while 80 percent lack effective sanitation.
It urged the beleaguered government of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki to decentralise the distribution of aid, reinforce the legal framework for civil society organisations to operate, and double emergency cash allowances to widows and families to 200 dollars a month.
Foreign governments, especially the United States and Britain, should provide technical and financial assistance to Iraqi ministries to implement these policies and provide basic services, it added.
The report charged that the US-led coalition of governments who sent forces to Iraq failed to predict the spiral of violence and “as a consequence their emergency preparedness plan was insufficient to cope with increasing basic needs.”
“If people’s basic needs are left unattended, this will only serve to further destabilise the country,” it warned.
Them US Liberals Again
July 30, 2007
For once, US liberals seem to voice concern at the sale of vast quantities of weapons to an ally known for regularly violating human rights law — except, it is not Israel. While Saudi Arabia is being sold weapons, while Israel being granted a larger cache — both countries which have no legitimate use for the weapons – the criticisms are exclusively directed at sales to the former. (And the statement is made by none other than Israel-firster Tom Lantos)
And then they wonder why they are not taken seriously!
Science and Torture: Rorschach and Awe
July 30, 2007
After a recent talk in London by Steven and Hillary Rose on Globalisation, biotechnology and democracy, someone from the LSE audience asked would not the democratisation of sicence lead to its politicization. Hillary Rose’s reply was rather brief; something to the effect: ”Implicit in your question is the assumption that science at the moment is not politicized”.
Scientists generally assume themselves to be working in a singularly apolotical context. Rarely does a scientist reflect on the possible uses that his research is being put into. There are others however who have willingly put science at the service of the state for the most nefarious of ends. Vanity Fair, has just published an exclusive report by Katherine Eban, which reveals how psychologists have collaborated with the US state to devise more effective ways of torture.
America’s coercive interrogation methods were reverse-engineered by two C.I.A. psychologists who had spent their careers training U.S. soldiers to endure Communist-style torture techniques. The spread of these tactics was fueled by a myth about a critical “black site” operation.
Democracy Now has covered the issue in depth in three different shows. Here is from the latest:
Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban unravels the central role of two CIA-contracted psychologists, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, in designing torture tactics for use on detainees held in secret CIA prisons around the world. Both worked in a classified military training program known as sere—for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape—which trains soldiers to endure captivity in enemy hands. Mitchell and Jessen reverse-engineered the tactics inflicted on sere trainees for use on detainees in the global war on terror. The C.I.A. put them in charge of training interrogators in the brutal techniques, including “waterboarding,” at its network of “black sites.”
Manu Chao: The World Beater
July 29, 2007
An excellent profile of one of the world’s greatest musicians, Manu Chao, a true heir to Marley and Lennon, from the pages of the Observer.
Backstage at the Prospect Park Bandshell in Brooklyn there is a computer screen locked into the weather channel and it is warning that a ‘severe, dangerous’ storm is heading this way. It is the last weekend in June and, as the needle pushes 100 Fahrenheit, 6,000 fans are generating their own electricity in expectation of a kind of communion long since absent from most rock gigs.
Tickets are so hot that the Village Voice has reported the strategies adopted by people on the online network Craigslist to get theirs. There are hugs and prayers and, before they go on stage, I wish the band ‘mucha mierda’ (‘much shit’ – the Spanish equivalent of ‘break a leg’). There are five of them – including Ronaldo-lookalike Madjid on guitar and the similarly shirtless Gambit on bass – led by an elfin 46-year-old dressed in sawn-off denims, a khaki top and beret and a Yoruba shell necklace.
Musical magpie, rebel and vagabond, pied piper to the disenfranchised, a star who carries his own bags – no other act in the past decade has assumed the mantle of political engagement, passion and global empathy once worn by Bob Marley or Joe Strummer quite like Manu Chao. Outside the English-speaking world, his status is assured – his first solo album, 1998′s Clandestino, sold five million copies and in places like in Mexico City he has played to crowds of 100,000. But this is his first full tour of the United States, a country whose politics he has repeatedly criticised. ‘You cannot fight terrorism with terrorism, you should fight violence with education not more violence,’ he later yells from the stage in Brooklyn, which is draped with a banner carrying the slogan ‘Immigrants are not criminals’.
Whereas his records are full of loping, lazy rhythms, the band on stage regularly break down to a double-time hardcore thrash and midway through the opening ‘Peligro’, every fist is pumping in the crowd. The pan-Hispanic expat community in New York is heavily represented – some of them wearing Mexican wrestler masks (an oblique reference to Chao’s support of the Zapatistas) – but the Anglo element joins in to sing along in Spanish and English to the reggae thump of ‘Clandestino’ (which deals with the plight of illegal immigrants); ‘Mr Bobby’(‘Hey Bobby Marley, sing something good to me’); and the enjoyably silly ‘Bongo Bong’ (recently covered by Robbie Williams).
Here the crowd loves him, but Chao’s trek through America has not been wholly smooth. The toughest gig came first at the Coachella Festival in California in April. The band took to the stage just before Rage Against the Machine, who were making a comeback. ‘There were 90,000 impatient fans, and it could have been a disaster,’ one record exec who witnessed Manu’s performance told me. ‘But he totally won them over. And if he can do that, he can cross over to any audience.’
Chao told me that the Coachella gig had been ‘a hot spot’, but several fans had been following him on the 20-date tour since then. Two days before Brooklyn, I speak to him on the tour bus in Boston. ‘I love going to sleep in one city and waking in another,’ he says, lighting a cigarette, which strictly speaking isn’t allowed on the vehicle. ‘The band is really positive, a great family – I can imagine touring with these guys for years. We went all through the West, stopping in the desert to make fires. Deep down …. not just to the big cities.’
But why travel to the heart of the beast if you seem to hate America and all it stands for?
‘I always criticise the government, not the people,’ he says with characteristic intensity. ‘And if I am criticising, it’s better to understand what it is you criticise – more and more, for people in South America and Africa the US is like the devil. There’s a heavy cost for the way of life here in the rest of the world. When I criticise the government everyone applauds – I just don’t understand why there aren’t thousands protesting outside the White House every day.
‘Everyone always said you have to make it in the States,’ he adds. ‘But I always thought the best way was to make it in South America first.’
His insistence on playing the music business game on his own terms makes it difficult to schedule big tours – usually he only plans three months ahead. He refuses the usual round of media interviews – and he doesn’t even have a mobile phone. This unselfconsciously dishevelled figure has little interest in hanging out with his fellow stars. ‘Every time I met any of my heroes I was disappointed – the exception was Joe Strummer, who was like an uncle to me. The last time I saw him was at a festival in Japan, sleeping out in the woods, jamming by a fire and putting on little tapes he’d made to keep the atmosphere going.’
‘Joe absolutely adored Manu’s music and was a friend,’ says Strummer’s widow, Lucinda. ‘I met him once with Joe at the Shepherds Bush Empire, in 2002, and there was lots of excitement when Joe turned up before the gig – attempting to speak to Manu in his broken Spanish.’
Five years ago, when Chao was in a cafe in London’s Brick Lane, and I bumped into him, a rep from his previous label, Virgin, materialised to tell him he had secured tickets for the Brit Awards that night and could meet Sting, David Bowie and Robbie Williams. Manu couldn’t have been less interested. ‘I’ve arranged to spend the evening with some friends,’ he said.
Undeterred, the Virgin man added that he had landed the band a spot on Later …With Jools Holland, but Chao explained that he was splitting up the group that weekend and was off backpacking somewhere. For his first album since then, La Radiolina, set for release in the UK on 4 September, it was rumoured he would collaborate with Shakira and Carlos Santana. ‘But I have enough friends to be on the record,’ he says.
Another time, three years ago, I was supposed to meet Chao in Paris and, having searched in vain for where he was staying, found him sleeping on the floor of a small studio. I met him a couple of times in Barcelona, too, the city where his long-term girlfriend lives and in which he has a studio where he keeps ‘souvenirs from Mali, things people have given me’. Then, he arrived on a battered bicycle. Sometimes Chao goes busking too; the last time I was in the Catalan capital he stood up to sing several songs of a Brazilian-style album he is also working on in Bar Mariachi in the Gothic quarter. His bohemian mates, swigging Dos Equis, picked up their guitars and bongos and started joining in.
In Spain and elsewhere, Manu often performs anonymously – on tours of South America he will perform a major gig then, prior to the next, play to striking dockers, students, even mental patients. He is friends with – and has helped financially – political activists such as the masked Zapatista spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos, champion of the indigenous peasants of the Chiapas region in Mexico.
Radicalism was in the Chao genes. He was born Jose-Manuel Thomas Arthur Chao on 21 June, 1961 in Paris. His grandfather had been sentenced to death by the Spanish dictator Franco and the family had to flee the country. His mother, Felisa, an engineer, is Basque, and his father, writer and journalist Ramon Chao, comes from Galicia. ‘Besoin de la Lune’, the sweetest song on the new album, includes the lines, ‘I need my father to tell me where I come from/ I need my mother when I am lost’.
Chao grew up in the suburbs of Paris, in Boulogne-Billancourt and then Sevres, surrounded by artists, intellectuals and immigrant communities. He played football with children of the workers at the local Renault factory.
In the Seventies he discovered the UK rock scene, being initially fascinated by Canvey Island’s Dr Feelgood – particularly guitarist Wilco Johnson (‘he was a Martian!’). As a teenager he travelled to Essex, convinced it was a musical hotbed, where he tried to find like-minded musicians. ‘They just told me to get lost, you stupid boy,’ he laughs.
Following such short-lived bands as Hot Pants, he and his brother Antoine formed the multiracial Mano Negra in 1987, establishing themselves as an important force in the French alternative music scene. The Clash and Bob Marley, then as now, were primary influences.
Although Chao was the main driving force and songwriter, the group split all proceeds seven ways. He has always rejected the use of his music for TV ads – his manager told me he recently turned down $500,000 for an HMV ad – although once when an insurance company wanted to use some Mano Negra music he was outvoted. ‘But when they asked to repeat the campaign I told them I couldn’t stand it. Democracy has its limits.’
The bus on which his band now travels represents a mundane way for Chao to tour the Americas. In 1992 he journeyed to a number of South American port cities performing on a stage built into a ship’s hold. A year later, Mano Negra bought an old train and took it round Colombia, playing to audiences of peasants, guerrillas and drug traffickers. Not everyone shared Manu’s taste for extreme adventure, and shortly afterwards the group disintegrated.
It was at this point in his life that Manu became seriously depressed. ‘I woke up many mornings thinking maybe I wanted to kill myself. I thought I had lost my instinct, I was thinking only with my reason. A cow saved my life, though.
‘I was in a bar in Rio and a cow walked in, I looked into its eyes, and I saw such tranquillidad, serenity. Then I started seeing cows everywhere. I realise why the Indians worship them.’
On his jacket hung up on the tour bus, there are two cows’ eyes. ‘India is calling me – one day I will spend time there, I will need it,’ he says. Conversations with Chao can take strange turns. He also tells me that ‘I met the devil two times – in Madrid and in Tokyo. He was like a man and a spoke to him – but I know he was the devil.’
His depression and its aftermath prompted him to write his masterpiece Clandestino on which he sings, ‘I search for a better life or asylum/ I walk alone with sorrow/ My doom stands alone/ My fate is to keep running, because I don’t have any papers.’
The subject of immigration still concerns him. ‘A big part of the economy is the clandestinos – it’s hypocrisy because the illegal immigrant can be paid less than anyone and cannot complain, and that’s perfect for the economy.’ His ‘Welcome to Tijuana’ has become another classic from the album. In fact, the band played Tijuana on the current tour. ‘It’s like a little point of fever on the planet – the problems are concentrated,’ he says on the tour bus. ‘From the north they come to party, for the cheap beer and girls and drugs, and from the south it’s the end of the line, it can be hell.’
Tijuana is emblematic for Chao, embodying the collision in his music of desperation, violence and hedonism. ‘Actually, I really love the place. It’s the best and the worst.’
Clandestino, mainly recorded with a small portable studio Chao carried in his backpack on his travels, and incorporating ambient street sounds, was a slow-burn success. Its follow-up, 2001′s Proxima Estacion: Esperanza (‘Next Station: Hope’ – from a recorded announcement on the Madrid underground for the Esperanza station), employed a similar musical language. Both albums feature Chao’s stylistic quirk of recycling backing tracks from different songs. A live album, Radio Bemba Sound System, had a harder sound, but was also a hit on its release in 2002.
No one claims that Chao is technically a great musician – he plays one-finger guitar solos – or even that great a singer. But he is a terrific songwriter, and knows how to connect with people. Malcolm McLaren calls him ‘the French answer to Paul Simon – a lot hipper, a lot grungier and a lot more politically credible’, while Island Records founder Chris Blackwell considers him ‘one of the most important musicians on the planet’.
Although it has been six years since his last official studio recording, Chao has not been idle. He created a limited-edition book/CD in 2004 with illustrator Jacek Wozniak – Siberie M’etait Conteee – and stepped behind the studio controls to produce Amadou and Mariam’s widely feted and enormously successful Dimanche a Bamako. Turning a pair of middle-aged blind Malians into hit artists was not the most obvious of moves, but Manu’s unerring pop sensibility and subversive aesthetic proved triumphant. ‘Making the album with Manu was the easiest thing we’ve ever done,’ says Amadou. ‘He was a great producer, as well as incredibly laid-back.’
Chao has nearly finished producing a CD with the married couple’s son, Sam. ‘It’s an extremely beautiful album,’ says Manu. ‘I like going to Bamako; I’ve got my neighbourhood and my friends there now.’ Whereupon he launches into a typically Manu-esque tale of how he has swapped identities with a guy in Bamako, who now calls himself Manu Chao, while Manu is called Modibo. As a result, he is always being told of adventures that ‘Manu Chao’ gets up to in Mali.
His ‘Brazilian’ record – he has a son who lives in Fortaleza, northern Brazil, and says Rio is his favourite city – will see the light of day in the next year or two. He has put together another album, too, with patients from the Colifata psychiatric hospital in Buenos Aires. ‘They have so much lucidity; what they are saying is huge. It’s going to be a much more important album than mine, just all in very poetic Spanish – impossible to translate – about using God’s name to make wars, about everything …’
Some of the patients also feature on one of the strongest tracks, provisionally titled ‘Infinita Maleza’, on La Radiolina. It deals with the pain that American foreign policy inflicts on the world and has the patients talking about ‘the winds of Washington’. It’s one of only a few new songs to make the set-list for the American tour and carries an epic, moving chorus of ‘chore’ (cry).
Perhaps the album’s killer track, though, is ‘Politics Kills’ – it is the one which Chris Blackwell picked out as a winner when he first heard the record. Reminiscent of Ennio Morricone’s work, with hints of Mexican mariachi, it is shot through with the conviction that ‘politics is a heavy dance’ which needs violence, blood, drugs, and ‘your mind’. Punk-minded single ‘Rainin’ in Paradize’ (downloadable for free from manuchao.net) sees Chao rhyme ‘atrocity’ with ‘democracy’ and sing about Baghdad.
Another track, ‘Bleedin’ Clown’, is what Chao calls ‘an old-style’ song about unrequited love. ‘I wrote it 20 years ago and after every album my friends ask me why that one is not on it.’ It’s one of those annoyingly brilliant songs that lodges itself in your head and sounds like a quirky third hit single. The album is a kaleidoscope of brilliant ideas and global musics, full of passionate conviction, nostalgia and celebration, and as such is a more than worthy successor to Clandestino. Every second counts too: when I meet Chao he is agonising over the final mixes of the songs.
Talk of bleeding clowns leads to talk of wounded healers -Wounded Healer being the title of Joan Halifax’s classic study of shamanism, a subject in which Chao is fascinated. ‘I’ve met many shamans in my life; some of them say they are, some don’t but they are.’
Is he a modern shaman, channelling energies, travelling to other worlds and reporting on the natives? ‘No, but I try to be on my way to be a medicine man. For the moment, my passion is music, and I’m tied to it, but if this passion goes down a bit, I would like to learn more. I want to cure with my hands – but that takes years and you have to live more on the inside. Now it’s all to the outside. But I try every day to find a little place, maybe a tree or a river. I learnt how to auto-repair – there’s a lot of stress in my job.’
Does he meditate?
‘Sure, and I have little mantras. One that works is that because I’m a shy guy, getting on stage is something almost violent. But I repeat to myself “Shame Don’t Kill” – if it’s a bad concert it’s not like someone’s gonna shoot me.’
So what are the temptations of being Manu Chao? The bevies of Latina lovelies who try, and often succeed, in getting backstage after the show? ‘No, I’m too romantic. Maybe that’s stupid, or maybe that’s my salvation.’
Maybe a role as political leader then? At the Genoa G8 summit a few years ago, the Italian government asked Chao to represent the anti-globalisation protesters, and he has been present at forums in Porto Alegre in Brazil and elsewhere. ‘That would be an error, the worst mistake. We need 1,000 leaders, everybody’s got to be a leader – there’s nothing so corrupt as being a leader.’ Yet in his travels, politicians do try to co-opt him, among them Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez. ‘I’m not a “Chavista”,’ he says, ‘but I would like to see some equilibrium in how things are reported. I used to go to the neighbourhoods and there was no hope. Now there’s hope. Sure, he’s closed a TV station – but he’s opened others.’
As much as being a musician, Manu is a great traveller. When I take him to a little bar in Chinatown called Double Happiness on the night before the Brooklyn gig, he reels off a series of tales involving life on the road with the repentistas – the troubadours of northern Brazil – surviving on strong cachaca (a Brazilian spirit made from sugarcane) and little else. He rhapsodises about the chorinho bars of Lapa, the forro music of Sao Cristovao market and the baile funk in the favelas in Rio. ‘It’s the only city in the world where you can go into a bar at 3am banging a drum and they complain when you stop.’ He mentions that a Candomble priestess once told him that he was a song of Shango, the fearsome Yoruba god of thunder.
When I say I like Sao Paulo as much as Rio he says, ‘because I didn’t understand the city, I spent all one night for hours walking across it – ending up talking to the child prostitutes’. Although he loves such places, his anger, which is channelled into his music, is fuelled by the misery he’s seen. ‘I’ve seen women about to give birth thrown out of hospitals, guys being tortured in the favelas screaming, “Please kill me” – and there’s nothing I can do about it.’
What lies behind his manic travelling – he once told me he couldn’t stand to be in any one place for more than two weeks. Is he hiding from something?
‘Maybe I should go to a psychiatrist to find out – but I do have a terror of routine.’
There’s nothing routine about the show in Brooklyn. I’m looking at Chao and he reminds me a little of a Latin Charlie Chaplin – a little guy taking on the big guys with a sentimental heart. The word ‘corazon’ (meaning ‘heart’) features repeatedly in his lyrics and at the end of the set he bashes his chest with his microphone. An official gets on stage and says there will only be one encore as the storm is now imminent. A couple of minutes later, there is crashing thunder and blinding flashes of lightning and the heavens open. It feels almost biblical. Chao carries on with the crowd singing ‘Proxima estacion esperanza’ – the rain functioning as a baptism of hope: hope for the politics of the country, for the future, for the day when music might be viewed as more than just a commodity.
Manu says he isn’t that concerned if the new album is a big hit in the States (or elsewhere) or not. ‘Sincerely I don’t care, I will adapt – I’ve done my meditation, I feel really in harmony with myself, so I don’t have ego deception. If it’s a huge record it will bring problems also. I know I will carry on making music whatever happens.’
As it goes, Chao’s maverick approach has worked pretty well so far, and the timing of his assault on the States, if accidental, is perfect – not just because the Hispanics are the country’s fastest growing – and an increasing vocal – minority group, but because his anti-government message finds widespread sympathy now in a way it might not have done even recently.
In the tour bus afterwards, sitting upfront, Chao agrees that Shango was in the house. I ask him if he’s coming to a Brazilian party we’ve been invited to or maybe an Ojos de Brujo bash – the Barcelona band are in town. No, he says, and brandishes a phone number. An activist meeting? A jam session? A girl? Who knows – but Manu Chao is off on his next adventure.
Israelis can sit back and relax now: they have found in the higher echelons of Fatah willing executioners for their policy of creeping genocide in Gaza. According to Shlomo Shamir: “Fatah-led delegation to block UN initiative over Gaza crisis“.
The Palestinian delegation to the United Nations is blocking a Security Council initiative aimed at expressing the organization’s concern over the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
Since the militant Hamas faction violently seized control over the coastal territory in mid-June, border crossings between Gaza and its neighbors Israel and Egypt have largely remained closed, limiting the transfer of food and supplies into the Strip.
Hamas routed rival faction Fatah in the takeover, and thus the resolution of the humanitarian crisis stands in conflict with the interests of the Fatah-affiliated Palestinian delegation to the UN.
Senior UN officials reported Friday that the Palestinian representatives have been relentlessly operating in recent days to foil an initiative ultimately aimed at issuing a Security Council presidential statement criticizing the situation in the Gaza Strip.
A presidential statement is typically issued when the council is unable to attain a passing vote on a resolution, and is non-binding. However, such a statement requires a consensus among the 15 member states. These statements are meant to apply political pressure and to warn that additional action could follow, and are usually accompanied by a press statement.
Reports from the UN headquarters in New York reveal that Qatar, a member of the Security Council, formulated at least two drafts for the final presidential statement on the Gaza humanitarian crisis. The second draft was formulated in efforts to appease the Palestinians.
However, according to sources, the Palestinian delegation has opposed any move on the behalf of the Security Council regarding this issue.
“This situation is absurd,” a Western diplomat told Haaretz. “It is obvious that it is in the Palestinian delegation’s best interest to conceal the fact that Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip,” he said.