The DePaul Academic Freedom Committee has been active since DePaul University’s disgraceful decision to deny Prof. Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee tenure based on external pressure from the Israel lobby. The committee has organized various protests, representations to the University administration, sit ins and hunger strikes. In October, the committee has put together an event with a stellar cast of scholars and intellectuals who will be speaking in defense of academic freedom.  

12 October 2007 – 2:00pm – 7:00 pm
Rockefeller Chapel, University of Chicago

Featuring:

  • Dr. Akeel Bilgrami, Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy and Director of The Heyman Center, Columbia University
  • Dr. Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Dr. Tony Judt, University Professor and Director of the Remarque Institute, New York University
  • Dr. John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
  • Dr. Neve Gordon, Professor, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University

Hosted by:

Tariq Ali, Editor of the New Left Review and Verso Books

Admission is free ($5 suggested donation) and open to the public

Presented by DePaul Academic Freedom Committee, Diskord Journal (University of Chicago) and Verso Books

Rockefeller Chapel is located on the
University of Chicago’s campus:

5850 S. Woodlawn Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

For more information, please email us at: info@academicfreedomchicago.org

http://www.academicfreedomchicago.org

Sinking together?

August 31, 2007

I generally take Tariq Ali’s commentary on Pakistan with a grain of salt as too often his views are coloured by his urban elitist prejudices, however the following is a decent piece. However, like Musharraf and Benazir, he is making his observations from the more affluent quarters of Lahore, hence no mention of the MMA (who are always lumped by urban liberals into the ‘Taliban’ category). In NWFP and Baluchistan neither Sharif’s party, nor Benazir have any credibility, and support of the ‘international community’ may be the worst qualification a politician could claim to garner support in these regions.

For a politician whose sycophantic colleagues boast that she is closer to the pulse of the people than any of her rivals, Benazir Bhutto’s decision to do a deal with Pakistan’s uniformed president indicates the exact opposite. She is sadly out of touch. General Musharraf is now deeply unpopular here. It is not often that one can actually observe power draining away from a political leader. And the lifeline being thrown to him in the shape of an over-blown Benazir might sink together with him.

An indication that she was not completely unaware of this came a few days ago when she declared that her decision was “approved” by the “international community” always a code-word for Washington) and the Pakistan army (well, yes). In short, Pakistani public opinion was irrelevant.

The mood among sections of the street – I am currently in Lahore – is summed up in a cruel taunt: “People’s Party de ballay, ballay / ade kanjar, ade dallay” (Marvel at the People Party / half-whore and half-pimp). This is slightly unfair and could apply to all the Muslim Leagues as well. The fact is that people are disgusted with politics and see politicians as crooks out to make money and feed the greed of the networks they patronise and which double up as useful vote banks.

But it should be acknowledged that Benazir Bhutto’s approach is not the result of a sudden illumination. There is a twisted continuity here. When the general seized power in 1999 and toppled the Sharif brothers (then Benazir’s detested rivals), she welcomed the coup and nurtured hopes of a ministerial post. When no invitations were forthcoming, she would turn up at the desk of a junior in the South Asian section of the State Department, pleading for a job. Instead the military charged her and her husband with graft and corruption. The evidence was overwhelming. She decided to stay in exile.

In March this year, Musharraf’s decision to sack Iftikhar Hussein Chaudhry, the turbulent chief justice of the Supreme Court, backfired unexpectedly and sensationally. Tens of thousands of lawyers protested and took to the streets, demanding his immediate reinstatement. Political and social activists of almost every political hue joined them and a country usually depicted abroad as a den of bearded extremists on the verge of seizing power was suddenly witnessing an amazing constitutional struggle that had nothing to do with religion. Even the cynics were moved to see lawyers insisting on a rigid separation of powers.

The use of force by Musharraf’s supporters in Karachi who opened fire and killed peaceful demonstrators created a further backlash against the regime. The Supreme Court voted unanimously to re-instate their chief. The general was becoming increasingly isolated.

The politicians who surrounded him pleaded for a state of emergency or even a new declaration of martial law, but according to many sources here in Pakistan the joint chiefs said that the military was too over-committed on the western frontier to police the rest of the country, which was a nice way of saying “No”. With this route blocked, Washington now insisted on a deal with Ms Bhutto. The inner preoccupation to which she was a prey (power at any cost and the withdrawal of corruption charges) prevented her, I think, from having complete control of herself.

The Bush administration, which has brokered this deal, is basically ignorant of Pakistani politics. To isolate the Sharif brothers instead of including them in the “secular package” will drive them in the other direction. Nawaz Sharif is posing as a man of principle, forgetting how under his watch Muslim League thugs raided the Supreme Court and journalists were harassed and locked up. Memories are always short here and the fact the Sharif refused to negotiate with Musharraf has made him more popular in the country.

The notion that Bhutto can succeed in dealing with the Taliban more effectively than the general is risible, as Kamran Nazeer has already pointed out on Cif. Every time innocents are killed in bombing raids in Afghanistan or Pakistan increases support for the Taliban increases. Militants now control or dominate Tank, parts of Swat, North and South Waziristan, Dir, and Kohat inside Pakistan. The solution is political, not military. Killing more people will not help and there have been cases of soldiers refusing to fire on fellow-Muslims and junior officers taking early retirement after a tour of the duty on the Pak-Afghan border.

Pakistan being Pakistan, many observers are convinced that even if the deal is consummated it will be of short duration.

Death’s Head

August 30, 2007

In Dangerous Liaisons, Lesley and Andrew Cockburn describe in exceptional detail the role of Israeli trainers in training and organizing death squads in Latin America. One of the key figures they focus on was Yair Klein. It is now being reported that Klein has finally been arrested in Russia, and Colombia is demanding his extradition.

The Colombian government will seek the extradition of a former Israeli army commando arrested Monday in Moscow on charges stemming from his alleged private training of Colombian paramilitary groups in the 1980s, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

The arrest of Yair Klein by Russian police followed a tip from Colombian authorities, Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo told reporters. The Russians arrested Klein, 61, on an international warrant. Klein had been traveling with a false passport, the Reuters news agency reported.

In 2001, Klein was sentenced in absentia to 10 years in jail by a judge in Manizales on charges of having trained paramilitary armies in terrorist “techniques and tactics,” Araujo said.

Klein has acknowledged in interviews with Colombian news media that he trained paramilitary groups from 1987 to 1989, but said he taught only self-defense methods. He has maintained that the Colombian armed forces were aware of his presence and that he broke no laws.

Prosecutors said he taught offensive tactics, including the use of explosives and firearms. Colombian law prohibits contact with guerrilla or paramilitary groups.

Mauricio Romero, a Javeriana University professor and expert on Colombian paramilitary groups, said he believed Klein also instructed the private armies of the Medellin drug cartel, and may have been partially responsible for a wave of killings, including those of several presidential candidates in 1989 and 1990.

Klein had served as a member of an elite Israeli army commando unit that, according to news reports, helped rescue airline passengers from a hijacked jet in Tel Aviv in 1972. He formed his own security firm in 1978.

The arrest came as Colombian President Alvaro Uribe faces intense pressure at home and abroad to take a tougher stance in bringing to justice militia leaders and those complicit in their crimes.

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Congress have said their support for a free-trade agreement with Colombia and for an extension of the Plan Colombia anti-terrorism and drug aid package will depend on Uribe improving his record on human rights and bringing paramilitary leaders to justice for alleged crimes, including mass murder, drug trafficking, land grabs and election rigging.

The paramilitary groups were formed in the 1980s by farmers and businessmen to defend against leftist guerrillas, but many changed into criminal gangs that controlled businesses and local governments.

About 31,000 militia members laid down their arms as part of a 2002 demobilization agreement, and leaders began voluntarily going to prison and confessing to crimes in exchange for lenient sentences.

The government acknowledged last week that paramilitary leaders continue to run their illegal empires from behind bars. The Interior Ministry removed Carlos Mario Jimenez from the peace process because he was suspected of conducting drug trafficking from his Itagui prison cell near Medellin. Jimenez, alias Macaco, is the former leader of the 5,000-strong Central Bolivar Bloc.

Araujo said Monday that the United States would soon formally seek Jimenez’s extradition to face drug-trafficking charges, though no U.S. criminal charges or extradition order had been filed. Araujo said Colombia would process any such formal request once it was made. Uribe has assented to hundreds of such extradition requests since he took office in 2002.

More than a dozen sitting members of Colombia’s Congress are in jail on charges of having dealings with outlawed groups that the U.S. and Colombia classify as terrorist.

“If Colombia is able to bring Klein here, it will be an important precedent in the globalization of justice,” said Javeriana University’s Romero.

Supporting the Resistance

August 30, 2007

Even after 4 years of brutal occupation, the US antiwar movement is still debating whether it should give moral support to those resisting the empire. From Barbara Ehrenreich to Phyllis Bennis, the self-proclaimed dissidents have reproduced Bush’s rhetoric to demonize the Iraqi resistance. Phyllis Bennis was earlier taken to task by Gabriele Zamparini, but far from expressing regrets, Bennis responded to Alexander Cockburn’s suggestion osupporting the Iraqi resistance as the only means of ending the war with a long screed. Here is Bennis’s retort followed by Cockburn’s response:

Alexander Cockburn makes three points in his “Support Their Troops?” column. One is right, one is wrong, one is preposterous. First he says the U.S. peace movement doesn’t embrace the Iraqi resistance. Right. Second, the U.S. peace movement is “pretty much dead.” Wrong. Third, publicly sympathizing with the Iraqi resistance will somehow build “necessary critical mass to have a real movement.”

Cockburn waxes nostalgically about the days of earlier anti-war movements, particularly Viet Nam and Central America. I was part of the sector of the Viet Nam anti-war movement whose favorite chant was “One side’s right, one side’s wrong. We’re on the side of the Viet Cong!” In the 1980s we didn’t only oppose U.S. intervention, we also supported the FMLN and the Sandinistas. And throughout the anti-apartheid years, we supported the African National Congress.

But that was then. This is now. I have spent the last 17 years opposing U.S. sanctions, war, invasion and occupation of Iraq. But I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was “resisting” the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I don’t support what is called “the Iraqi resistance” today.

What’s the difference? We supported the NLF in Viet Nam, the FMLN, the ANC out of principle, because we supported the social program they were fighting for. We may not have agreed with every position or every tactic, but we shared not only what they were fighting against ­ U.S.-backed dictatorships or U.S.-paid contras or the devastation of apartheid ­ but what they were fighting for as well. Independence and socialism in Viet Nam, self-determination and social justice in Central America, a non-racial South Africa.

Unfortunately that’s not the case with Iraq. Certainly the Iraqi people have the right to resist an illegal occupation, including military resistance. And certainly there are Iraqi people, organizations, movements that many of us do support. (The work of U.S. Labor Against the War in supporting the Iraqi oil workers unions is one of our best examples.) But what is broadly named “the Iraqi resistance” is a set of largely unconnected armed factions (including some who attack Iraqi civilians as much as they do occupation troops). There is no unified leadership that can speak for “the resistance,” there is no NLF or ANC or FMLN that can claim real leadership and is accountable to the Iraqi population as a whole. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation ­ and for myself, of the little that we do know, I don’t like so much.

Real internationalism means making good on our own obligations to end the U.S. war and occupation, and recognizing the Iraqis’ international law-sanctioned right to resist. Internationalism does not require us to embrace any particular resistance forces regardless of what they stand for. We build the strongest movement by keeping our focus on the U.S. occupation, maintaining our demand to bring all the U.S. and “coalition” troops and mercenaries home, dismantle the U.S. bases, and give up control of Iraq’s oil industry.

Cockburn is wrong when he claims the peace movement is dead. How does he think that 70% anti-war opinion he notes was created? There are now 300 cities across the U.S. where “dead” movements have forced city councils and mayors to pass resolutions demanding that troops and National Guard be brought home, that money funding the war and occupation be brought home and reallocated to education and infrastructure and health care. UFPJ is coordinating regional mobilizations on October 27 and across the country counter-recruitment work is escalating.

Our movement is very much alive. It is nowhere near as strong as we must be to force an end to the U.S. occupation. But we are alive, searching for a clearer strategy to transform anti-war public opinion into real political power, to bring that 70% with us to support an entirely new U.S. foreign policy based on justice, not power.

Phyllis Bennis Director, New Internationalism Project, Institute for Policy Studies.

Right now I don’t think the peace movement is advancing the end of the war in Iraq by a single day. In fact goodly chunks of it are effectively protracting it, by marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party whose overseers strive on an hourly basis to tamp down unseemly criticism of what the Party’s congressional representatives could be doing. What they have substantively done since the Democrats took over the Congress is to have given the green light to the “surge”, to continued funding for the war, to the next Pentagon budget.

Take the “netroots”. The organizers of the recent Yearly Kos event wouldn’t even schedule a strategy session on ending the war in Iraq. They denied John Stauber’s request that they put on the official schedule a strategy session organized by Stauber’s Center for Media and Democracy, featuring speakers frrom Iraqi Veterans Against the War. Set that wimp-out by MoveOn next to this paragraph from a New York Times news story from DesMoines, Iowa, published August 12. “Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal. Neither MoveOn.org nor its affiliated group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press Democrats here in Iowa to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately.”

Phyllis Bennis talks vaguely of “searching for a clear strategy”, but this vagueness is no more surprising than the self-restraint of MoveOn and Americans Against Escalation in Iowa. Bennis resides at the Institute for Policy Studies, whose principals are well aware that any-IPS related support for a strategy deemed discomfitting to the Democratic Party’s efforts to capture White House in 2008 would result in having IPS’s major funders yank them back into the kennel in short order.

I don’t doubt Bennis’ calendar is admirably full of speaking events, but from out here in the progressive north west there’s nothing much going on between San Francisco and the Canadian border. Yes, there have been useful actions in Olympia and Tacoma, but it’s all awfully quiet. The mass mobilizations of 2003 seem light years away. In 2005 UFPJ raised over $1 million and in 2006 it raised $575,000. Those budget
numbers were provided at a UFPJ conference. The difference came from
failure in small donations and internet donations.

Of course there’s no fizzle. People here aren’t being driven crazy by the war the way we were by the slaughters and bombings of Vietnamese in the war then. The horrors pressed down on one every day. Of course people were ultras, which is where the long-march radicals should always start out The alternative is to come out of the womb squealing about “the excesses of the left” and spend the rest of your life like Todd Gitlin writing op eds to that effect.

It was even the same somewhat in the Central American interventions of the 19080s. You could read about contras disemboweling a rural organizer from the FSLN and tremble that it might be the same person you just met on a solidarity tour, either up here or down there. People thought I was being frivolous by evoking North American lesbians traveling to meet their Nica partners, but bed is a pretty good place in which to cement revolutionary solidarity.

Iraq’s mostly a blur to the peace movement. Actual Iraqis are a blur to the peace movement. Sure, towns here pass resolutions telling the president or the US Congress to do this or that. Arcata, California, 60 miles north of me, got a lot of press for doing that, at least until they threw David Meserve off the city council. It was cute, but it didn’t add up to anything. Now, if a delegation from Arcata said it was sending a sister city delegation to Falujah, that would mean something. Sister cities programs can add up to something serious, which is why mainstream Jewish organizations go crazy every time Madison, Wisconsin or Olympia, Washington, try to set up official ties with Rafah, in Gaza.

Both Bennis and Katha Pollitt are outraged by Lawrence McGuire’s remarks about the Iraqi resistance, but I thought, and think, what he wrote was on the money. Isn’t it the ultimate in cynicism to use the Iraqi resistance’s successes as a stick with which to beat George Bush and the Republicans, but not the Democrats, while simultaneously saying that you’d rather not think about the Resistance, because it seems Not Very Nice. If you are too scared to look, you’ll never find out anything. In mid-July important Sunni-led insurgent organizations gathered in Damascus to prepare a negotiating position in advance of US withdrawal. Leaders of three of the groups met with Seumas Milne of the UK Guardian and denounced al-Qaida, sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians. You can either try to inform yourself of what exactly the elements in the Iraqi resistance are actually doing, or you can take the route Pollitt did in her hysterical outburst, where she stigmatized the resistance as composed of “theocrats, ethnic nationalists, die-hard Baathists, jihadis, kidnappers, beheaders and thugs”. How come she forgot to add “raghead”? I guess it wasn’t PC.

Alexander Cockburn
Petrolia, California.

The latest addition to the debate is the following powerful contribution from an Iraqi-American, Dahlia Wasfi:

I speak to you today on behalf of relatives on my mother’s side-Ashkenazi Jews who fled their homeland of Austria during Hitler’s Anschluss. It is for them that we say “Never again.” I speak to you today on behalf of relatives on my father’s side who are not living, but dying, under the occupation of this administration’s deadly foray in Iraq. From the lack of security to the lack of basic supplies to the lack of electricity to the lack of potable water to the lack of jobs to the lack of reconstruction to the lack of education to the lack of healthcare to the lack of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are much worse off now than before we invaded. “Never again” should apply to them, too.

There has been debate recently within the American peace movement on the issue of support for the Iraqi resistance. The argument has been made by some that we don’t support the resistance in Iraq because it’s different than it has been for other countries we’ve invaded. That “what is understood to be ‘the Iraqi resistance’ is a disaggregated and diverse set of largely unconnected factions…There is no unified leadership that can speak for ‘the resistance’…There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or what it is for…(Bennis, 2007)”

Well – judge not lest we be judged, for this is an offensive display of the arrogance of empire.

We sit here 8000 miles away with our luxuries of electricity and water, while Iraqis suffer in the desert heat with no relief, and we tell them they are disorganized. This is fiddling while Iraq burns. People are dying; the question is moot.

We are not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq; we are slaughtering people’s children. We went in to liberate Iraqis from a ruthless dictator we imposed upon them who allegedly killed 300,000 during his 30 year reign of terror. We’ve accomplished more than triple that in a fraction of the time.

If ever there were legitimate resistance to illegal occupation, it is in Iraq.

If ever there were a people struggling for democracy and independence, there are Iraqis.

If ever there were a people who have known suffering at the hands of bloodthirsty American imperialism, there are Iraqis.

Through the last 400 years, the European immigrants who landed on these shores have raped and pillaged millions in the name of empire. They followed the call to “Go West, young man,” slaughtering 95% of the indigenous population along the way. In the late 1800’s, sights were set on the Caribbean, and through the last 2 centuries, we have had a hand in creating colonies in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast and Western Asia. After all, what is the Middle East, but the Arab World and America’s colonial outpost Israel, according to their geographic position relative to Western powers?

But now there is a wedge in this imperial path, driving the American neo-conservative empire to a screeching halt. The Iraqi people – who are, in fact, the Iraqi resistance – are succeeding where we could not. What’s not to love?
We cannot start examining history from September 11th, 2001. Since WWI, Arabs have been lied to, manipulated, and used by the U.S., Great Britain, and other colonial powers. Next year will mark the 60th year of Al Nakba in Palestine-the Catastrophe. Iraqis have now seen that illegal occupation extended to include the Fertile Crescent, their land between two rivers, their Mesopotamia. Iraqis see the close to 6 million Palestinian refugees, illegally denied their right of return. Iraqis see the U.S. Army building walls to make impoverished ghettos, like the Nazis did, and like the Israelis are doing with their apartheid wall. Iraqis see the open-air prison that is Gaza, strangled and starving as we speak because of our political agenda. The crime of these prisoners? They were born Palestinian. Iraqis are living under occupation tactics such as daily house raids, uprooting of trees, looting of property, psy-ops death squads and the use of depleted uranium – all of which they know too well by watching our joint actions with Israel in Palestine.

And do you know what Iraqis are saying? I don’t speak Arabic, but I can translate for you. They’re saying, “Get out!” They’re saying, “NO way – you’re staying for 60 years.” They’re saying, “Get your oil the old-fashioned way – pay for it!” And why are they saying this? Because they have a dignity and self-respect rooted in 7000 years of civilization.
Iraq is the center of Arab nationalism. Actually, this is what my father says, and I would argue that my father is the center of Arab nationalism. Modern-day Iraqis are the descendents of ancients who devised the first system of writing, the 24-hour day, the bases of mathematics, law, science and medicine. Once corrupt American corporations, the U.S. military, and its death squads, prisons, and bombings are out of the picture, true reconstruction by Iraqis can and will begin.

Perhaps we don’t embrace the Iraqi resistance because its fighters are killing American soldiers. What other choice have we given them? From Vietnam to Lebanon to Somalia to Iraq, we have taught our victims around the world that the only way to effect a change in American foreign policy is to spill American blood.

Thousands died in Chile during the CIA led coup on Sept. 11th, 1973. But we only remember 3000 Americans who died on the 28th anniversary of that massacre. Grenadans in 1983 and Panamanians in 1989 were buried in mass graves by the thousands after the U.S. assaults, but the stories of these victims go untold. Between 1,000 and 10,000 Somalis were killed when our humanitarian mission in 1993 turned into military aggression. (We will never know the exact number of our innocent victims, again because of mass graves.) But we left Somalia because 19 Americans fell victim to their system and were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Time and again, it doesn’t matter how many “others” die. The outrage comes when the victims are American.

Martin Luther King Jr. said “silence is betrayal.” In these times, remaining silent on our responsibility to the world and its future is criminal. And in light of our complicity in the supreme crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing violations of the U.N. Charter and international law, how dare any American criticize the actions of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation? How dare we condemn anyone else as “violent” or “disorganized?” Our so-called “enemies” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, our other colonies around the world – and our inner cities here at home-are struggling against the oppressive hand of empire, demanding respect for their humanity. They are labeled “insurgents” or “terrorists” for resisting rape and pillage by the white establishment, but they are our brothers and sisters in the struggle for justice.

Last Sunday, my family’s luck ran out, and one of my cousins in Iraq was killed in the violence we have brought upon Iraqis and their children. He leaves behind a wife; a 2 year old son who keeps asking “Where’s Daddy?”; a heart-broken mother and brother; and an entire family devastated by grief for whom life will never be the same. If there are political differences, then whatever they may be, there’s nothing complicated about fighting for Iraqi women and children, who are the majority of the suffering population. And if we respect their humanity, can we not respect their grief as they lose their brothers, fathers, husbands and sons, the same way we mourn with and share the pain of American military families?

I close with the words of a man of peace, El Hajj Malik Al Shabazz, Malcolm X, vilified and ultimately assassinated because he spoke freely. Though condemned as violent, he lived for peace, and for love and brotherhood. I very humbly offer his wisdom.

We declare our right on this earth to be … a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

***

Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it’s against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it’s against the oppressor. You don’t need anything else...

It’s been an honor to share this time with you.

Dr. Dahlia Wasfi is a speaker and activist. Born in the United States to an American Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father, she lived in Iraq as a child, returning to the U.S. at age 5. She graduated from Swarthmore College with a B.A. in Biology in 1993 and earned her medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. Dr. Wasfi has made two trips to Iraq since the 2003 “Shock and Awe” invasion to visit her extended family. She returned from a three month stay in Basrah in March 2006. On April 27, 2006, she testified at a Congressional Forum to provide her eyewitness account of life in Iraq. Based on her experiences, Dr. Wasfi is speaking out in support of immediate, unconditional withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and the need to end the occupation “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Her website is www.liberatethis.com.

View from a Bantustan

August 30, 2007

I had the pleasure of meeting Dennis Brutus and Patrick Bond two years back when we had organized an alternative summit to coincide with the G8 in Gleneagles Scotland. At the end of his talk, Patrick even led us to join him in a South African resistance chant. Here both shed light on the Global Financial Apartheid visited on the world by the neoliberal order, and in particular unregulated finance capital.

In three months, the G20 group of major financial powers will join us in South Africa, hosted near Cape Town by the gregarious finance minister Trevor Manuel. As usual the ministers will wine and dine, and protesters will suck teargas.

But elite self-congratulation will be muted, for the economic officials were reminded during the recent financial meltdowns that when Wall Street has a cold, others get pneumonia.

Or consider a metaphor that better spreads the blame: what president Thabo Mbeki terms Global Apartheid, like Apartheid itself during the bad old days, apparently needs a few Bantustans to kick around.

We are witnessing a boot to the bum of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, which lost nearly US$100 billion–17% of its value–between July 23rd and last Friday.

Yet SA Treasury director-general Lesetja Kganyago is in an emollient, even denialist mood: ‘We should not be too worried about further volatility’ (he wrote last week). ‘We must continue to strengthen our shock absorbers’, which include ‘a floating exchange rate’.

Did the relaxation of exchange controls represent a shock absorber or volatility-amplifier? Since dropping the ‘financial rand’ dual exchange rate system in 1995, the SA Treasury has suffered four intensive speculative attacks on the currency (the most of any substantial country) and last year managed the world’s worst-performing major currency. The country’s vulnerability also stems from Treasury’s decisions to happily repay $25 billion worth of apartheid-era debt (which should have been labeled ‘Odious’ under international law), and then permit the largest SA firms’ financial headquarters to escape to London starting in 1999.

Because of periodic currency crashes and Mbeki’s refusal to reimpose currency controls, the last dozen years witnessed record-high real interest rates. As a result, domestic private fixed investment has been extremely weak and inflows of ‘hot money’–portfolio investments–destabilised the economy. So real estate and the stock market have boomed while manufacturing withered, leaving us with a trade and payments deficit exceeding 7% of GDP this year, in the high danger zone.

Last month, even the IMF’s annual Article IV Consultation report admonished Manuel’s team for the enormous current account deficit, far higher than even the USA’s (and than Thailand when it melted down a decade ago). According to the IMF, South Africa ‘could be adversely affected by weaker appetite for emerging market assets, a global slowdown, or a sharp deterioration in the terms of trade.’

But both the IMF officials and Pretoria’s two respondents–Peter Gakunu and Goolam Aboobaker–argue that ‘sound macro-economic fundamentals, particularly the low external debt together with a well managed and stable financial sector and a flexible exchange rate regime would assist in mitigating this risk.’

As a result of this myopic approach–so similar to the IMF’s soft-peddling of East Asia’s problems just prior to its 1997-98 crashes–South African financial analysts have taken to blaming the victim: the USA’s vast network of ‘Ninja’ borrowers (No Income, No Job or Assets).

Yet as consumer advocate Ralph Nader argues, ‘The corporate capitalists’ knees are shaking a bit. Their manipulation of the sub-prime housing market has led to a spreading credit crunch and liquidity crisis.’

South African financiers have experimented just a little with crazy schemes, but even without a derivatives culture in mortgage bonds, enough liquidity was pumped into local real estate to drive average prices up 200% between 1997-2004, compared to just 60% in the US.

This leaves South Africa at risk of becoming a new Bantustan within Global Financial Apartheid. Consider Apartheid’s three minimum requirements for the homelands, in which roughly half of black South Africans were segregated:

– politicians allied to Pretoria repeatedly gave it legitimacy when under pressure (today, witness how South African officials laud the ‘international community’ and ‘multilateralism’: synonyms in the same tradition of ‘separate development’);

– these agents expressed a willingness to put down local demonstrations using repressive means (and witness regular police brutality against widespread contemporary municipal protests); and

– the old Bantustans also had the responsibility to supply cheap migrant workers to the outside world as labour reserves (witness SA’s post-1994 doubling of unemployment along with its new commitment to export-orientation).

The Bantustan capitals were equipped with ‘toy telephones’ which the old rulers could always play with, but which had no connection to power. Pretoria’s racist regime simply imposed its will, occasionally allowing the local tyrant to serve as ‘point man’ for whatever relatively harmless local crisis bubbled up (as George W. Bush termed Mbeki when it comes to Zimbabwe).

Given these power relations, the challenge faced by the infamous Bantustan dictators–Buthelezi, Matanzima, Mangope, Cebe and the rest–was to disguise the faulty line to their constituents and pretend they had the ear of the powerful. They needed continual reaffirmation that there was dignity and upward mobility associated with their sleazy jobs.

Today the sleazy work entails proclaiming never-ending reforms to Global Financial Apartheid. When US war criminal Paul Wolfowitz was appointed by Washington as World Bank president in April 2005, Manuel–then chair of the Bank’s Development Committee–welcomed him as a ‘wonderful individual perfectly capable.’

Flash forward two years, past one fatal nepotism scandal and another rigged appointment process controlled entirely by George W. Bush, and again Manuel welcomes Wolfowitz’s successor, Robert Zoellick (a fellow member of the Project for a New American Century, that notorious pro-war thinktank): ‘We consider Zoellick to be very competent and hope he will be able to operate in the same manner as he demonstrated in the World Trade Organisation negotiations when he served as the US trade representative.’

Manuel’s five-year fuss about ‘voice’ and ‘democracy deficits’ and ‘global governance’–and mild-mannered toy-telephone conversations–have generated exactly naught. There was not even the decency of a European Union call to consult Mbeki or Manuel last month when another neoconservative, Rodrigo de Rato, stepped down as International Monetary Fund managing director and was replaced, minus any Third World consultation, by French ex-finance minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

After Strauss-Kahn’s visit to Pretoria, Mbeki meekly remarked, ‘He is a very competent person and we think he would add enormously to the work of the IMF–including improving the system of governance of the IMF, making it more representative of the developing world.’

Reflecting the same subservience at a Maputo meeting last week with de Rato, Manuel and seven other African finance ministers announced: ‘The African Governors stressed the need to protect and even increase the voting share of low-income countries as a group.’

The obvious mismanagement of global financial markets means this is the perfect moment for a latter-day Bantu Holomisa–former Transkei Bantustan military official who turned anti-apartheid and hosted the African National Congress during the late 1980s–to rise up, tell it like it is, and foment serious protest.

Indeed there is such a figure, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who on his last trip to South Africa–for the Joburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002–made this very point: ‘We have to have a radical change in the formats of these summits… We just read a speech There is no proper dialogue, it seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. Some people go from summit to summit. Our people go from abyss to abyss.’

Around 30,000 people marched that week from the abyss of Alexandra to the elite abyss of Sandton, decrying Mbeki’s role in water privatisation, climate change and rising poverty.

The same happened a year earlier, at the World Conference Against Racism here in Durban, where Mbeki removed from the summit agenda two central issues–Zionism and reparations for slavery, colonialism and apartheid–and received a 10,000-strong protest in response.

These are the kinds of precedents which make the G20 summit of finance ministers scheduled for mid-November such an interesting moment. South Africa’s independent left, which most vigorously contests the corporate globalization agenda, is licking various wounds, including several that are self-inflicted. And there will be far too much dust in the air concerning the ANC’s post-Mbeki leadership succession race–which culminates in December–to justify the attention of trade unions and Communist Party attention to one more elite talkshop.

Like Buthelezi decrying 1980s apartheid (while killing its genuine Zulu opponents), Manuel has already given the game away. Last year, upon his return from the G20 summit in Melbourne where 10,000 protesters demanded an end to Global Apartheid, Manuel told reporters, ‘There is still a case to be made for the IMF and World Bank to exist … but they have to become more relevant than they are’.

(If he desires an argument to the contrary, Manuel should read the new collection of seminal critiques from across the world edited by our colleague David Moore, The World Bank, published by UKZN Press.)

The G20 attendees will be: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union. Of these, the only even mildly progressive governments are Argentina’s and Italy’s, and the world’s most serious reformers–the Norwegians–won’t be there.

What is required, as ever, is for progressive civil society to do the serious anti-Apartheid organising, both within the Bantustans with their unemployment, inequality, disease, squalor, obsequious leaders and intensifying social protest, and far beyond.

Dennis Brutus is honorary professor and Patrick Bond director of the UKZN Centre for Civil Society.

Following are some brief and useful reviews of books on the Israel Lobby sent out by Mazin Qumsiyeh. I have yet to read the Mearsheimer and Walt book to which I eagerly look forward.

1) John W. Mulhall, America and the founding of Israel: An investigation of the morality of America’s role. Deshon Press, 1995.

This book in 270 pages details America’s role in the founding of Israel in Palestine and the role of the US government in pushing for these things at the behest of Zionists and despite the warnings from intellectuals, foreign policy experts, and veteran state department diplomats. It speaks of the roles of presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Roosevelt and Truman. There
is ample evidence of the lobby gaining critical support from Wilson and Truman and from both Republican and Democrats in Congress. Mulhall also details the lobby’s influence in curtailing Jewish immigration to the US after WWII (to basically leave only one door open: to Palestine). But Mulhall, being a Catholic priest believes that America, being a democracy, can and must repair the damage to native Palestinians that this support for Zionist colonization engendered no matter who pushed our government to commit these acts. He argues, “A strong case can be made that America owes the Palestinians a great deal [due to that history of support for Zionism].”

2) Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby. Lawrence Hill Books, originally published in the 1980s, revised and republished in 2003.

Case studies going back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s of the lobby’s attacks on activists, on anyone who dares to speak in the media or in public about Palestinian human rights. Findley himself was a target of the lobby, which managed to get him out of Congress (he served 1961-1983). The case studies explain the sacrifices some had to make to live with their conscience. It would be great if Findley or others would write an update for the 1990s and 2000s since the number of people who “dare to speak out” climbed significantly in the last 20 years. It is also clear that silencing is becoming more difficult for the Zionist movement as more people are waking up. A chapter from Findley’s book that deals with the silencing of the investigation of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS liberty is posted at the Liberty’s website: http://www.ussliberty.com/findleybook.htm

3) John K. Cooley, An Alliance Against Babylon: The US, Israel and Iraq, Pluto Press, 2005

Cooley was a staff correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and ABC News and has written widely on the issues (including six other books on the Middle East). Drawing on published and much unpublished works (including his own personal interaction with people like Ben Gurion), he focuses on Iraq as how it was/is impacted by Israel and the US. It is a concise description of the tragic history of ancient Babylon and modern Iraq in the context of meddling and/or occupation by outside powers (from the Ottomans to Britain to Israel and the US). It describes for example, the Zionist manipulation of Iraqi Jews to force them to flee their country. It describes how the CIA “gave Saddam a leg up” (Chapter 6). The detailed discussion of the history goes through the periods of the Iran-Iraq war when the US continued to back Saddam but also made dealings with Iran to keep them killing each other), o the period of the Kuwait episode (some call it gulf war I), Sanctions, and then the latest war on Ira that is still ongoing. The last chapter its titled “Endgame: Iraq democratized or dismembered?” and it deals with a range of issues from the neoconservative (Zionist) cabal in action to dismember Iraq with the help of Israeli intelligence and military support, the sharing of weapons and training, Abu Ghreib nightmare, Israel relationship with Turkey and Kurdish areas, and the alliances that are being built at the expense of native people in Iraq and Palestine.

4) James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States, Clarity Press. 2006.

Petras is the author of many books. While this one is not as well documented and resources as others listed here (or other books authored by Petras himself), the book does make some interesting points for example about the Israeli role in pushing for the war on Iraq. It is also highly readable and very smooth (few technical terms, lucid conversational sentence structure etc). It persuasively argues that American oil companies are harmed by US policies (including the unilateral policy of forbidding US companies from investing in Iran and in pushing for endless wars to benefit Israel).

5) Greg Felton, The Host and the Parasite – How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, Dandelion Books, March 2007.

This book has a rather provocative (too strong) a title “consumed America”; I personally believe there is much hope (exemplified by these books listed here, many others, and the overextension of the Israel lobby) that the US can (indeed must) be saved from being “consumed” by the Lobby. But the book of 518 pages contains treasure trophies of material and resources on the
machinations of the lobby. How Israeli large-scale terrorism (e.g. massacres of Qana and Sabra and Shatila) went unpunished due to machinations of the lobby’s domination of US policies, which in turn dominates the UN and other international bodies. The book details the many manifestations of the lobby and there is especially a useful discussion of groups like JINSA (Jewish institute for National Security Affairs) WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy), PNAC (project for New American Century), and AEI (American Enterprise Institute)_ As I stated elsewhere “The Host and the Parasite is a lucid and timely compilation of information and questions that should be fodder for discussions in America and beyond. Those who trusted
the US government and servile media would find this book quite revealing and certainly thought provoking. Those who believe in humanity, justice and peace will find his book a great resource of quotes and information not available elsewhere. Readers will find this book a worthwhile acquisition even when they may not agree with everything stated.” Of course I would say
the same about the other books mentioned here.

6) John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy
, Farrar, Straus, Giroux publishers, August 2007.

In 484 well-documented pages including hundreds of citations, this book is a must for activists and for anyone interested in US policy. It is the most recent book on the subject and lays to rest many of the dogmas about US support for Israel being primarily driven by oil or military interests. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He has published several books, including The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Stephen M. Walt is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was academic dean of the Kennedy School from 2002 to 2006. He is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, among other books. Coming from such highly respected academic quarters, it was difficult to ignore the research done by these two intellectuals. So the Zionist movement decided to attack them full force (ironically in doing so and just like with their attack on Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace not apartheid”) they proved that the thesis that lobby is important. It is hard to summarize such a book in a short paragraph. It is full of data that debunks usual myths such as Israel’s importance to the US was catapulted for cold war issue post 1967; in fact the data show that there was much evidence that US diplomatic and military support for Israel did the opposite in the 1970s and 1980s and that this support continued and in fact increased dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Zionist lobby attack on this book also claims that it brings nothing new beyond the original Mearsheimer and Walt paper published in March 2006. This desperate attempt is bound to fail for anyone even doing a cursory overview of the contents will see that in the one and a half year since, the data that was collected and assembled in this book is equivalent to presentation of teh full body of evidence at a trial as compared with the original few pages of prosecutor indictment. The Jury cannot judge based on the indictment alone but must hear all the evidence. I believe this book lays out the evidence in a very logical, organized way with hundreds of citations. As a bonus the book also details events and lobbying done since March 2006 including the now rising chorus of Zionists pushing for confrontation with Iran.

GENERAL COMMENT: No single book is sufficient to cover the history or the depth and complexity of the Israel-first lobby in the United States. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt briefly mention President Wilson 1917 endorsement of the Balfour declaration in light of pressure exerted on him by Justice Brandeis and Rabbi Wise. By contrast Mulhall devotes two
chapters of his 11 chapters to discuss Wilson’s relationship with the Israel lobby and thus evolution of his policies in support of Britain’s Zionist goals. The latter book also focuses on the morality of America’s role by making the case that US citizens by paying taxes and by their general acquiescence to the power of the lobby, are morally obligated to change course and support peace with justice. The former by contrast explains more the harmful impact the lobby’s negative influence on US standing around the world including on US strategic interests. Hence I believe people should read these books collectively and make their own judgments. But reading these books and developing an opinion is only a first step. We must start with our own communities. It is a shame that there are Zionists who infiltrated peace and justice movements both on the left and the rights to ensure that this subject becomes taboo. It is a shame that peopel like Noam Chomsky claim there is no power for the lobby except in so far as it supports “US imperial” interests (withour defining those interests) [on the other hand Chomsky also was against the international boycotts, divestments and sanction both during apartheid South Africa and today against Apartheid Israel and is also against equality in one state and against repatriation of Palestinian refugees). It is a shame that many others succumb to Zionist
pressure (whether to avoid being called “anti-semite”, “self-hating Jew” or out of maintaining a certain comfort zone or whatever other bogus reasons). But this elephant in the room is not going away. The six books cited above are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. In the past ten years, people have spoken out much more forcefully on these subjects and refuse to be silenced. The Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions movement is growing (my updated summary of this movement is at http://www.qumsiyeh.org/boycottsanddivestment/). The Zionist forces are getting mean (e.g. on Jimmy Carter, on Mearsheimer and Walt, and on the largest British union of teachers) because they are getting desperate. The Zionist lobby’s power is immense (financial, political etc) but it takes far more power to defend lies and myths than the power of telling the truth. Hence we need not match their political or financial power to push for truth, peace, and justice. We merely have to have the courage of our convictions (and pay sometimes a moderate price but it is certainly not as much as what Palestinians or Iraqis on the ground are paying).

My own contributions to the lobby debates can be gleaned from articles I published. In particular these two articles give a glimpse of my thought process:

http://qumsiyeh.org/thelobby/

http://qumsiyeh.org/connectingthedotsiraqpalestine/

Bishop Desmond Tutu wrote in describing the book: “Speaking the Truth About Zionism and Israel” (edited by Rev. Michael Prior, Melisende, 2004): “In our struggle for justice and peace in South Africa we had to learn to speak – and listen to – hard truths. Our experience should encourage all who strive for justice and peace in the Holy Land. My visits to the Holy Land remind me so much of South Africa: apartheid is back, complete with the “Separation
Wall” and bantustans. History, it seems, repeats itself. Yet, if peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come also to the Holy Land. I welcome this book that exposes some of the hardest truths about Israel-Palestine. The distinguished contributors – from Israel, Palestine, the US, the UK and Ireland, women and men, Jews, Christians and Muslims – speak their Truth. Reconciliation will follow later.”

The Agronomist

August 29, 2007

An excellent film on the political struggle in Haiti, featuring the inimitable Jean Dominique and a briliant soundtrack by Wyclef Jean.

Iran and the Lobby

August 29, 2007

At a friend’s prompting I watched last night’s Newsnight on BBC. Tony Benn, as always, was formidable (even though I lost considerable respect for him when he chose to campaign for New Labour in the 2005 election). And the Israel Lobby’s Mike Gapes MP (whose constituency incidentally includes a large number of Muslims, who vote for him for the same reason they sell the Sun, News of the World and the Daily Mail – tabloids that relish in their Islamophobic bigotry) was predictably keen to spill more British blood for the benefit of a foreign state.

With Iraq turning into a palpable nightmare for the United States, the Lobby is worried sentiments at home may turn against Israel for getting US into the mess. One way to counter that is to embroil the United States so deeply in the region’s conflicts that Israel’s enemies through sheer attrition become its enemies over time. With Iraq disintegrating, Iran has turned into the new whipping boy, and Israel’s case has been lent further support by the intervention of its regional surrogates, Egypt and Jordan. The crosshairs have come to rest on the states which have a potential to challenge Israel. Within Saudi Arabi, while the al-Faisal faction has been resisting the neocon designs — with the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation being the biggest snub — the al-Sultan faction, led by Bandar has been assiduously fomenting sectarian tensions ratcheting up fears of a fictional Shia Arc (which has replaced the ‘Sunni triangle’ in US demonology).

In the United States, the approach follows a predictable schema: fears are amplified, dissent is denounced as unpatriotic, and nuance is dismissed as being ‘soft of terror’. Leading the charge at present is Freedom’s Watch, an Israel lobby front comprising of serveral former Bush administration officials who have spent $15m on nation wide ads targetting congressment to dissuade them from contemplating withdrawal. The familiar props of September 11, wounded veterans and family of dead soldiers are used for maximum emotional effect. The spokesman is none other than arc-Zionist, Ari Fleischer , the obnoxious former Bush spokesman.

In the meanwhile, prospective presidential candidates are being cultivated both in the Republican and the Democratic Party.  In the Democratic Party, the three likeliest candidates, Biden, Clinton and Obama are all securely in the Israel Lobby’s fold. The likelihood of Edwards’s ascension to the white house was dealt a fatal blow the day he committed the folly of declaring Israel a threat to world piece to a Hollywood crowd.

On the Republican side, the focus of the lobby’s attention has been former mayor Rudy Giuliani (who also scored highest on Ha’aretz’s Israel Factor). Only recently Ken Silverstein had described his foreign policy advisor’s as AIPAC’s dream team.  They include Martin Kramer, the head honcho at Campus Watch and Middle East Forum, Charles Hill, one of the leading cheerleaders on Iraq, and Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of neoconservatism, who was chosen shortly after he penned an article title, ‘The case for bombing Iran’. No wonder then that in his embarassingly silly piece in Foreign Affairs Giuliani opposed the creation of a Palesitnian state. But as if things weren’t already bad enough, Team Giuliani has just been joined by another neocon lumintary — Daniel Pipes. For those who don’t know, Pipes is a renowned Islamophobe, the founder of Campus Watch, an advocate of concentration camps for Muslims.

All the aforementioned clowns differe in approach, of course, however what they all have in common is a shared desired to bomb Iran.

Apocalypse Now?

So the British establishment erects Mandela a statue [1], and Mandela goes on to absolve it of its responsibility towards eliminating the barriers that lead to low achievement and violence in inner cities. ‘At the start of a visit to Britain to celebrate his own life’, reports The Independent, Mandela ‘made an impassioned appeal for leading black Britons to take a lead in countering violence and low achievement in the inner cities.’ The article is titled, ‘Mandela’s message to Black Britain’. No similar admonitions as far as I am aware were offered ‘White’ Britain. By implication, the violence and low achievement are a Black problem as no mention is made of the structural reasons.

I am reminded of something a friend had told me recently. One of her in-laws is of a dark complexion, and he strictly avoids running in public because he fears the consequences of running-while-black in Britain. In race relations, perceptions all too often trump reality (speaking of which, Crash, despite its many flaws, is a good film that revolves around this theme)

Increasingly since his accomodation with the neoliberal world order, the great Mandela has not lived up to his own exemplary principles. He has dispensed his saintly blessings on the likes of Tony Blair, who visited him for his final photo-op, and, ever susceptible to flattery, Mandela reciprocated with his usual platitudes (Incidentally this was shortly after Blair had declared that Blacks’ problems have nothing to do with poverty). Mandela has turned into a one man image laundering industry for failed Western politicians.

John Pilger was the first to separate the man from the myth. His support for US bombing of Afghanistan was unpardonable. He criticized Bush during his visit to South Africa, only to rush the White House months later when Bush chose to ‘honour’ him. As George Carlin said of Colin Powell, Mandela is now ‘openly White’, he just ‘happens to be Black’.

Returning to The Independent’s report:

Mr Mandela’s intervention takes place amid growing concern that youths in inner cities are being drawn into gangs because they see a lack of alternatives.

Tony Blair caused anger among black community leaders when he used a speech shortly before his resignation to insist that a spate of fatal shootings and stabbings in London was caused by a distinct black culture rather than poverty.

And of course, shortly afterwards he was received with open arms by Mandela. Thankfully, the article then goes on to quote people with more sensible voices.

US civil rights activist the Reverend Jesse Jackson said last week that stemming the flow of guns and drugs into the UK was “critical”.

But he echoed the thoughts of many black leaders when he said that equal importance needed to be attached to bringing ethnic communities into politics and investing in issues such as job opportunities, wage inequality, the impact of debt and day-care provision.

Reach, a report by 20 experts on how to tackle the issues faced by black youngsters published this month, highlighted mentoring as key measure alongside investment to prevent the creation of US-style ghettos in the inner cities.

Dr John Sentamu Archbishop of York

“The criminalisation of generations of black men is being accompanied by the demonisation of Asian, Muslim men. Criminality does not belong to one ethnic group, nor is it innate. It is learnt. It is not a ‘black problem’, it is a human problem…

Kano Rapper

“politicians who blame everything on family breakdown miss the real point: broken homes will generally only breed criminals if they’re poor. This is about young people and poverty, not about colour. Except for a few, black people raised in the UK are not raised by rich families. The children themselves have to raise cash, and from an early age. Of course some of them will be forced into crime. Talking about it in terms of race only entrenches the feeling of difference and opposition amongst communities. If we talk about black people as being particularly predisposed to crime, suddenly everyone becomes afraid of black people. As a result, black people feel victimised. It all gives rise to a kind of ‘they don’t care about us’ feeling within society.”

John Regis Olympic medal winner

His nephew, Adam Regis, was stabbed to death in Plaistow, East London, in March

“It’s neither useful nor fair to treat this as a ‘black’ problem. What we’re dealing with is a nationwide epidemic. We have to face up to the fact that a generation of young people (mostly men) have lost direction. This is largely because our politically correct adults have lost faith in their own authority. The result is that children have lost all sense of discipline. We need much tougher penalties for children who misbehave. That starts in school.

Teachers used to feel confident about asserting their authority, but now they let kids off lightly because they’re fearful of prosecution. This is nonsense: we need our schools to be strict environments where children are rewarded for good behaviour and punished for bad behaviour. People like those who killed my nephew join gangs because they offer a sense of worth. But it is totally false. Gangs are like families which you qualify for through crime. We need to demonstrate to young people that family ties are the truest source of love and security.”

Ray Lewis Founder and executive director of Eastside Young Leaders Academy

“Our first flaw has been talking of the ‘black community’. That label is hollow: no such community exists. An absence of community is the major problem on British streets: it leaves a vacuum filled by crime. Only be re-invigorating community spirit can we give our young a sense of belonging, regardless of colour.

“Increasingly, young, black Britons become socially excluded as a matter of choice. It’s important that we recognise that they are active players in this. Poverty has plenty to do with it, yes, but there is no direct link between poverty and criminality. Instead, many black Britons live on the margins of society because they feel a sense of abandonment and alienation. This leads directly to a collapse in aspiration. Many young black men are suffering from an identity crisis, and don’t know how much of themselves they have to give up in order to feel British.

“Beyond this, the collapse of family values has gripped many young black men. I was raised by a single mother, and I don’t believe that a single mother can raise a boy to manhood. No family is complete without a masculine voice and presence.”

Simon Wooley National co-ordinator, Operation Black Vote

“We need to be clear that racism still thrives in the UK, and the depiction of young black men as criminals is part of that. Black people are still seen as inferior by most people who aren’t black. They are still much less likely to get a job than their white counterparts. They tend to be born into deprivation. And deprivation can breed criminality.

The government has openly admitted that black people still face sustained discrimination within the criminal justice system, for example. It’s the combination of racial inequality and social inequality that has brought us to our current situation. Black people are unique in suffering heavily from both. When the two combine it’s a massive problem: there is an added dynamic of deprivation when it comes to race. If we’re to move on from this situation, black people must be the agents of change. We have to break the cycle of exclusion and start creating opportunities. We need black people to have the same chances as everyone else in terms of getting jobs and houses. Incentivising marriage through the welfare system is a total red herring: poverty is the problem, not single-parent families.

[1] Interestingly, an expert witness from the Westminster Council’s planning committee has criticized the Mandela statue as “run-of-the-mill mediocre modeling” rather than good art.

Martin Luther Tom

August 28, 2007

Martin Luther King III, son of the Civil Rights icon, is visiting Israel and his banalities have left the hosts less than impressed. “Visit by MLK III mostly about platitudes“, Ha’aretz headlined its report on the visit. Malcolm X, of course, would have been far less generous. MLK III’s behavior clearly jibes with Malcolm’s description of a ‘House Negro’.

The following is also remarkable for a different reason. This kind of report would never have appeared in say the New York Times. Israeli media is clearly far superior to the US media – mainstream US media has no counterparts for Amira Haas, Gideon Levy or the late Tanya Reinhart.

King made do with repeating his father’s message of nonviolence and the importance of peace as a means as well as an end. He said that conflicts are not bad as long as they are conducted peacefully, and that while not everyone can be Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, everyone can educate their children to nonviolence.

So far so good. But then comes this,

The one item of interest in King’s talk was his declaration that the use of civil disobedience tactics are irrelevant today. Instead, he recommended using the Internet to spread the message of nonviolence.

The audience was unmoved by King’s bland assertions, and asked pointed questions about his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his failure to criticize the Israeli occupation. In response, King said that his role was to provide food for thought and not to solve the problems, which must be done by those who live here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.