"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." -M. L. King Jr.
Just a quick post today covering a couple of newsworthy items today (other than the first major snowstorm of the year in Stockholm).
The first is the fact that the predictions of Far East analysts regarding North Korea using their Nuclear tests as a ploy to gain an advantage in diplomatic negotiations in the stalled six party talks seems to be accurate. While the DPRK's official news site has said this all along, now even Reuters is reporting (via the Moscow Times) that North Korea is "ready" to return to the 6 party talks, apparently dropping their demand for strict one-on-one talks with the U.S. This is likely due to pressure from Beijing to stop with their "provacative" measures, and likely to have been their strategy from the beginning. As they have been asserting all along, they have no desire to see a large scale conflict erupt.
On the American Elections, I'm sure most people are aware of former Presidential candidate John Kerry's comments saying that if you don't work hard and study you end up in Iraq. This was aimed at the Bush administration, and he followed up that statement (after an attack by the White House saying he was attacking the troops that were serving) by explaining further that it was the bush administration who didn't do their homework and thus ended up in Iraq.
Perhaps slightly more important for the hopes of changes in the US Government is the recent work of M. J. Fox for democratic candidates who support stem cell research, which seems to be increasing the lead most democrats have over republicans in the US, mere days before elections.
Also in the news is a recently leaked EU report on Turkey "slamming" their economic progress, and likely to curtail EU spending in that country and strain relations. Also the EU election inspectors currently in the Congo for elections being held there are urging calm following disputable results. Where were they in 2000 in the US? Hopefully they'll make a showing at the US elections and try to keep everything on the up-and-up.
When confronted with harshrealities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."
Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.
But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.
A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."
Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.
We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.
There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.
Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.
We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
...
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
...
"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."
Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).
On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.
Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.
The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.
Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.
But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.
However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:
The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.
Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.
However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America. From Unclaimed Territory:
A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.
It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.
Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.
Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.
To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.
Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:
The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.
I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.
I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.
Over the past few days there has been a great deal of coverage of the recent tests by the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a.k.a. North Korea) of medium- and long-range ballistic missles. This coverage has varied substantially, from neglegable to outlandish. Fox News in America went so far as to claim (and I am not making this up) that they were "Nukes" that were "aimed at Hawaii." It goes without saying that such an assertion is fictional (not based whatsoever in reality), but it was made nonetheless. Its important to step back for a moment and get a more realistic take on the situation.
In a recent press conference, the U.S. President George Bush, when asked why he thought N. Korea would conduct such an exersise, stated (referring to the N. Korean Premier Pak Pong Ju) "I don't know what the man's intentions are."
For an individual who has access to a vast array of information sources, such as those available with basic internet access, "the man's" intentions should be fairly clear.
Firstly, a logical conclusion that could be drawn would be the fact that North Korea was re-affirming its deterrant to military attack. This is a byproduct of the U.S. government's famed one percent doctrine, wherein a soverign nation can be attacked if there is even a one percent chance that they might attack America, and that one percent chance does not have to be substantiated with any sort of evidence. As such, any country in the world can be attacked by America at any given time, provided that the U.S. propaganda machine can manufacture enough conscent in America for the invasion. Leaders of countries on America's hit list know this, and as such they must ensure that they have enough of a military deterrant to preclude any overt military action. Pyongyang was merely reminding the White House that they should not be the next target for attack (Iran is out of the running now for reasons I've discussed in great detail in many previous posts, and Iraq and Afghanistan have already happened... there's more than 2 years left of this presidency, the "war president" turned "decider" needs another war soon or he won't know how to handle himself, or maybe he needs to send more working class people off to die so that there won't be so many of them around to vote against his successor in the next presidential election).
Another reason for North Korea launching these ballistic missiles (to test them, not to take out Waikiki) has been touched on to a certain extent in the western media. The Los Angeles Times ran a story recently referring to the tests as a "Big, Booming Cry for Attention." While The Times' patronising tone does not go unnoticed, such a statement is in fact based somewhat in the realities of the situation. In November of last year, 6 party talks (between N. Korea, S. Korea, The U.S., China, Russia, and Japan) regarding the DPRK (N. Korea) Nuclear program were suspended indefinitely. This was due to DPRK's withdrawl from the talks based on what they felt was a lack of respect for them and for previous agreements reached between them and Japan and the U.S., which Japan and the U.S. have not lived up to their obligations for. For a better understanding of this, we now turn to the State-Run News Agency (Xinhua) of North Korea's close ally (and feared rival of America), China:
PYONGYANG, July 6 (Xinhua) -- A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry confirmed Thursday that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) had test-fired missiles, saying the missile launches were part of the routine military exercises aimed at increasing the nation's military capacity for self-defense.
The spokesman said in a statement that the DPRK remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula in a negotiated peaceful manner just as it committed itself in the Sept. 19 joint statement of the six-party talks, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported.
The latest missile launch exercises are quite irrelevant to the six-party talks, the statement said.
The KCNA also quoted the spokesman as saying that the missile launches were "successful" and that "the DPRK's exercise of its legitimate right as a sovereign state is neither bound to any international law nor to bilateral or multilateral agreements such as DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration and the joint statement of the six-party talks."
"The missile test moratorium reached between the DPRK and the United States in 1999 was valid only when the DPRK-U.S. dialogue was under way," it said.
The Bush administration, however, has scrapped all the agreements its preceding governments reached with the DPRK and "totally scuttled" the bilateral dialogue, said the statement.
It noted it was the same case with the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration in 2002 on the long-range missile test-fire.
In the Declaration, the DPRK expressed its "intention to extend beyond 2003 the moratorium on the missile fire," a step taken on the premise that Japan moved to "normalize its relations with the DPRK and redeem its past, the statement said.
However, the Japanese authorities didn't honor their commitment. Moreover, they have pursued a hostile policy toward the DPRK together with the U.S. and chosen to internationalize the "abduction issue" although the DPRK had fully settled the issue.
"It is a manifestation of the DPRK's broad magnanimity that it has put on hold the missile launch so far under this situation," the statement added.
The statement by Pyongyang that immediately followed these missile tests basically included an offer to not launch any more missles (which seemed to scare the world a bit, kind of like swatting at a hornets nest with a rake where the hornets nest is America) if negotiations were resumed (note this quote:
"The missile test moratorium reached between the DPRK and the United States in 1999 was valid only when the DPRK-U.S. dialogue was under way," it said.
The Bush administration, however, has scrapped all the agreements its preceding governments reached with the DPRK and "totally scuttled" the bilateral dialogue, said the statement. ).
The launches should come as no surprise however. On the 28th of June, China came out warning Korea against swatting at the hornets nest (test firing missiles), as they were already aware (as were many members of the non-western media) of N. Korean development of long range ballistic missles. China was, however, worried about the situation:
"We hope that the various parties will proceed from the greater interest of maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula and refrain from taking measures that will worsen the situation," Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said in a statement at the time.
However, as a tripolar order begins to take shape wherein countries like Russia and China are realising that they don't actually have to take orders from Washington, the U.S. needs to heed the advise of Hu Jintao when he said that America needs to allow the U.N. to take the lead in international issues. After all, it just won't do to have the country that many people in the world feel is the greatest threat to world peace running the international arena.
Again, as with Iran, China and Russia do not support sanctions as the best course of action. The Russian ambassador to the U.N. phrased their view in such a way as to say "in my mind we could consider the format of a presidential statement." (condemning the tests). While Japan has already drafted a security council resolution calling for sanctions, China has refused to support the imposition of sanctions against their close ally, and Pyongyang has stated(according to Reuters) that "If sanctions are invoked, we will take strong and full counter measures."
North Korea has already made apparent its willingness to return to the negotiating table to discuss their ballistic missiles, trade, aid, and their Nuclear program. Level headed people (who do not want a return to the days of peace-by-mutual-assured-destruction) need to encourage the use of diplomatic forums rather thanmilitary action as a first resort that has become the formost policy of America and Britain. Tangling with North Korea (and with them China and their allies) is not a smart game for the west to play. Just to remind those of you what it is that the international community is aware of as far as North Korea's Nuclear program is concerned, the most recent IAEA report on the subject:
"Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea Since the end of 2002, when at the request of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the Agency´s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to verify the DPRK´s nuclear activities. As I have reported before, the Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK - and other concerned parties - towards a comprehensive solution that addresses the security and other needs of the DPRK, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes."
American foreign policy authors need to understand the gravity of their constant militaristic tendencies. Constant threat - of and resort - to violence is only encouraging other nations to militarise, with potentially disasterous consequences. That constant threat and use of violence (that embodies American Foreign Policy) is also the very definition of Terrorism.
It should also be noted that the DPRK has legitamate grievances with the U.S. It was the American-Korean war that created the artificial partition through Korea. As recently as yesterday the DPRK government was calling on its citizens to embark upon a "Patriotic Struggle for National Reunification." If you're curious, a different side of the Korea-America historical story is available at the Official Homepage of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Its interesting to get a different take on certain situations.
While searching the United Nations homepage scouring the internet for first hand resources and documentation regarding the current "Nuclear Situation" in Iran (to be discussed in greater detail in the next post), I came across the following statement by the IAEA:
"Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea Since the end of 2002, when at the request of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the Agency´s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to verify the DPRK´s nuclear activities. As I have reported before, the Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK - and other concerned parties - towards a comprehensive solution that addresses the security and other needs of the DPRK, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes."
"Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran The report on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran is before you. As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme. During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE IAEA REGARDING IRAN, MADE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. But that's not the point of this particular blog entry. It is important to note that, while Iran is being cooperative with the IAEA, North Korea is not. Not at all, in fact the inspectors have been thrown out of their country and are not invited to return. So why is America going after Iran (who's not really doing anything wrong, but we'll discuss that in the next post) and not North Korea? [(Other than to steal China's oil I mean)]
The NEXT funny bit I found was the HOMEPAGE of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is so anti-American that one can't help but smile or laugh (depending on your perspective). It calls Americans "imperialist," states bluntly that the U.S.A. has no interest in peace, they are "racist" and "separatist" and lie when they claim to be defenders of freedom. The homepage of N.Korea says ALL OF THIS about America, and yet it's Iran that the U.S. is going after, even though it's painfully obvious that with N.Korea's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA they are obviously the more out of line of the 2 countries, and they use a far more harsh rhetoric than the President of Iran has. Why?
THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SCHOOLYARD BULLY. They went after Iraq because it was weak, they are going after Iran because they feel it is weak (it is, in point of fact, actually NOT. At All.), but they are scared of North Korea, so North Korea doesn't even get mentioned, regardless of the fact that their lack of cooperation with the UN's IAEA is far more dangerous than that of Iran. Just a thought. The homepage of DPRK linked to through the title is brilliant though. Thought you'd like to know. Back with IRAN, CNN, U.S. PROPAGANDA, and more soon.
