In the articles transcribed below Blair even dreams of a new Afghanistan as a Kosovo-like protectorate or an old Palestine-like mandate with a coalition government that includes the _good_ part of the Taliban. Are they the enemy or redeemable third-wayers? Ridiculous, but comprehensible: Taliban may serve once more to imperialism.
The British journalist Patrick Bishop's article which may be also found below was translated this Sunday in "O Globo", a leading Brazilian newspaper, without any commentary. Though it is a conservative print --and its radio and TV network, that is one of the largest in the world, is quite reactionary-- I think that the Bishop's article was published because there is a growing difuse fear that in one way or another the new holy war of imperialism will eventually be spread to South America. In the same Sunday edition O Globo's correspondent in Washington discloses that a certain Pentagon high officer said: "We are going to have the _Americas Command_, that will take care of the US internal security as well as of the whole Latin America." (in the original text: "Vamos ter o Comando Américas, que cuidará tanto da segurança interna dos Estados Unidos como de toda a América Latina.") So, we have finally got annexed to US! The officer seems to forgot Canada and other countries. Public opinion polls made all over the country have been showing that the Braziilian people, from North to South, is overwhelmingly against the war and favoring a United Nations iniciative to settle the questions about terrorism. A larger number --more than 90%-- are completely against sending Brazilian troops or any other kind of military or paramilitary support to US and Britain. Nevertheless, a small police SWAT team of a little state (province) was sent to USA to help training fresh recruits in personal defense techniques. The hypothesis of some kind of military support was drawn by neoliberal President Fernando Henrique Cardoso himself in a press audience, what has contributed to his growing unpopularity. I am also sending today to the lists the official text of the testimony before the US Congress on October 10 of ambassador Francis Taylor, Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State, on the South American "terrorist" venue. In solidarity, Roberto Magellan ######################################## http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/08/nspee c08.xml Daily Telegraph Neo-colonialism may be the solution By Patrick Bishop in Paris (Filed: 11/10/2001) THE war in Afghanistan has barely begun yet Tony Blair is already sketching the outlines of a post-conflict settlement. He suggested that he favours turning the country into some sort of international protectorate under which it can start the long haul back to peace and relative prosperity. The solution Mr Blair proposes is in essence neo-colonialism, an idea that has been gaining ground in liberal circles. Recent applications are Bosnia (quoted in Whitehall's policy bible) and Kosovo, which remain effectively under international control, in addition to East Timor and Sierra Leone. East Timor appears to be moving forward successfully under United Nations tutelage after winning independence from Indonesia. With Sierra Leone it is far too early to tell whether British military muscle will have a similar benign end. But as the most obvious models for a possible solution in Afghanistan the Balkan pair provide few obvious grounds for optimism. Both places are much smaller than Afghanistan and their history and circumstances are markedly different. The international presence is costly in money and manpower and for the moment the commitment seems open-ended. In Bosnia, progress in breaking down inter-ethnic hatreds and suspicions has been slow and nationalist politicians begrudge the democratic reforms that have been foisted on them. In Kosovo the triumphalism of the Serbs has been replaced by that of the Albanians, whose hostility to their former oppressors and local minorities is held in check only by 50,000 Nato-led troops. Corruption flourishes in artificial economies that are fed and watered by the international community. The locals feel patronised by the well-meaning outsiders, whom they blame for stifling local initiative. Yet despite all the drawbacks Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Albanians would rather the soldiers and do-gooders were there. Their presence means the absence of war - and for that, everyone is profoundly thankful. The Bosnian and Kosovo protectorates were able to come about because of decisive events on the battlefield. In Bosnia the Serbs were forced into negotiations by the success of an American-backed Croat offensive. In Kosovo they backed off after a prolonged American bombing campaign, underpinned with the threat of a ground invasion. The benign international occupations that followed were possible because the protagonists had no fight left in them. That is not the case in Afghanistan. They were also politically feasible because the warring parties in the Balkans all claimed, no matter how implausibly, to share the democratic and humanitarian values proclaimed by those leading the interventions. Many of the Afghan civilian population would no doubt be delighted to see the Stars and Stripes fluttering over whatever is left of Kabul and Kandahar. But the main military and political force in the country, the Taliban, not only do not share Western notions of peace and justice, they actively reject them. As for the warlords of the Northern Alliance, their dedication to the allied cause provokes cynical smiles among those who remember the rape, robbery and internecine killing that followed the victory of the mujahideen over the Russian invaders. The practical problems of colonising Afghanistan would be colossal. The aerial campaign is thought to have removed what remained of the country's infrastructure after 22 years of war and the occupiers would have to build everything from scratch. A vast military deployment would be necessary to pin down the country's 250,000 square miles, the greatest part of which would have to be supplied by an American leadership that has already jibbed at maintaining a presence in the Balkans. Indeed there is once again talk of America backing out of its commitment. Precedent, and the moral framework in which the enterprise has been presented, may make the establishment of a de facto protectorate inescapable once the dust has settled in Afghanistan. Allied rhetoric has made it difficult to make a distinction between the freedom from fear sought by the West and that to which Afghans have a right. The West's leaders have indicated that they are prepared to pay any price in the pursuit of that aim. It may - as Mr Blair hints - have to include the high cost of another neo-colonial entanglement. Related reports It's Blair the nation builder http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/11/wblur 11.xml It's Blair the nation builder By Andy McSmith in al-Sha'afa, Oman, and Anton La Guardia (Filed: 11/10/2001) TONY BLAIR revealed yesterday a sweeping vision for the future of Afghanistan that includes replacing the Kabul regime with a broad-based government and rebuilding the country with the long-term help of the international community. As American aircraft bombed targets in Afghanistan for a fourth day, the Prime Minister travelled to the Middle East to drum up Muslim support for the action. Although his ambitious blueprint, which includes trying to resolve other conflicts from Israel to Chechnya, has been cleared with Washington, it shows differences of emphasis between Britain and the United States. While the Bush administration has avoided speaking of nation-building, Mr Blair sees the international community doing so: helping to establish a new government in Kabul, perhaps with breakaway elements of the Taliban, and rehabilitating Afghanistan for a decade at the cost of billions of pounds under United Nations auspices. In contrast to hawkish Washington comments on possible attacks on Iraq, Mr Blair also came close to ruling out the prospect of extending military action beyond Afghanistan without international support. He spelled out his ideas while visiting British troops on exercise in Oman, long used as a forward staging post by Britain and America. Later he left for the next leg of his two-day tour of the region. Mr Blair's decision to publicise his proposals during his alliance-building tour shows how eager he is to convince moderate Arabs that the anti-terrorist campaign is not a conflict between the West and Islam. He evidently hopes that the Arabs, having been given a glimpse of Whitehall's deliberations, will believe him when he says that phase one of the campaign is aimed at Osama bin Laden's organisation and his allies the Taliban - and will not include an attack on Iraq unless there is proof of its involvement in the September 11 attacks on America. The decision to issue details was made after Mr Blair had alarmed some Arab leaders by hinting on television that Iraq and other states might be next in the line of fire. He told Abu Dhabi television: "No country will be attacked unless there is evidence, as there is evidence in relation to Afghanistan. We would make sure we discussed it with our friends." But yesterday he all but ruled out action against Iraq while bin Laden's organisation was still active. He said: "There are two phases to our action. The first phase is focused on Afghanistan to close down the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. That phase is the military action we are undertaking. "There will then be a second phase when we can consider what action to take to close down international terrorism in all its forms." An official travelling with Mr Blair emphasised that Britain saw no evidence implicating Iraq in the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Mr Blair's interventionist policy, which he set out in his speech at the Labour conference, is contained in a handbook known in Whitehall as the "policy bible", a term that some officials fear may offend Muslims. It proposes two phases of action under the heading: Defeating international terrorism - campaign objectives. The first includes the aims "to bring bin Laden and other leaders to justice; to prevent his organisation from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to this end, to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism and enables us to verify that terrorist training has ceased and the camps in which terrorists trained destroyed". The fourth "immediate aim" is based on the assumption that the Taliban's leader, Mullah Muhammed Omar, will refuse to hand over bin Laden. In that case, "we will require sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that links with terrorism are broken". This ambiguity hints at the possibility of recycling members of the Taliban in a future government in phase two. British officials are dismissive of the ability of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance to form a government on its own and allied action against the Taliban seems aimed at preventing the alliance from taking Kabul. A senior official in London said: "What is likely to happen is that the Taliban will fragment at a time when the Northern Alliance holds no more territory than it does at the moment. "The Taliban hardliners would be pushed out. This is going to be a spontaneous process." http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/08/nspee c08.xml Tony Blair's statement (Filed: 07/10/2001) "AS you all know from the announcement by President Bush, military action against targets inside Afghanistan have begun. I can confirm that UK forces are engaged in this action. "I want to pay tribute at the outset to Britain's armed forces. There is no greater strength for a British Prime Minister and the British nation at a time like this to know that the forces we are calling upon are amongst the best in the world. "They and their families are of course carrying an immense burden at this moment and will be feeling deep anxiety, as will the British people, but we can take great pride in their courage, their sense of duty, and the esteem with which they are held throughout the world. No country lightly commits forces to military action and the inevitable risks involved. "We made clear following the attacks upon the US on September 11 that we would take action once it was clear who was responsible. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all the available evidence, including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by the al Qaida network headed by Osama bin Laden. "Equally, it is clear that they are harboured and supported by the Taliban regime inside Afghanistan. "It is now almost a month since the atrocity occurred. It is more than two weeks since an ultimatum was delivered to the Taliban to yield up the terrorists or face the consequences. "It is clear beyond doubt that the Taliban will not do this. They were given the choice of siding with justice, or siding with terror. They chose terror. "There are three parts, all equally important, to the operation in which we are engaged - military, diplomatic and humanitarian. "The military action we are taking will be targeted against places we know to be involved in the al Qaida network of terror or against the military apparatus of the Taliban. "The military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. I cannot disclose how long this wave of action will last. But we will act with reason and resolve. "We have set the objective to pursue those responsible for the attacks, to eradicate bin Laden's network of terrorism and to take action against the Taliban regime that is sponsoring him. "After the precise British involvement, I can confirm that last Wednesday the US government made a specific request that a number of UK military assets be used in the operation which has now begun, and that I gave the authority for these assets to be deployed. "They include the base at Diego Garcia, reconnaissance and other aircraft and missile-firing submarines. The missile-firing submarines are in use tonight. The air assets will be available for use in the coming days. The US are obviously providing the bulk of the force required and leading the operation. But this is an international effort. As well as the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada have also committed themselves to take part in it. "On the diplomatic and political fronts, in the time I have been Prime Minister, I cannot recall a situation that has commanded so quickly such a powerful coalition of support - not just from those countries directly involved in military action but from many others in all parts of the world. "That coalition has strengthened not weakened in the 26 days since the atrocity occurred. This is no small measure due to the statesmanship of President Bush. "The world understands that whilst of course there are dangers in acting as we are, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater - the threat of further such outrages, the threats to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world. "On the humanitarian front, we are assembling a coalition of support for refugees in and outside Afghanistan, which is as vital as the military coalition. Even before September 11, four million Afghans were on the move. There are two million refugees in Pakistan and one and a half million in Iran. We have to ask for humanitarian reasons to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Afghan people and to deliver stability so that people from that region stay in that region. We have already contributed £36 million to the humanitarian effort and stand ready to do more. So we are taking action therefore on three fronts - military, diplomatic and humanitarian. "I also want to say very directly to the British people why this matters so much to Britain. First, let us not forget that the attacks of September 11 represented the worst terrorist outrage against British citizens in our history. The murder of British citizens, whether it happened overseas or not, is an attack upon Britain. "But even if no British citizen had died, we would be right to act. This atrocity was an attack on us all, on people of all faiths and people of none. We know the al Qaida network threatens Europe, including Britain, and indeed any nation throughout the world that does not share their fanatical views. So we have a direct interest in acting in our self-defence to protect British lives. "It was an attack on lives and livelihoods. The airlines, tourism and other industries have been affected, and economic confidence has suffered with all that means to British jobs and business. Our prosperity and standard of living require us to deal with the terrorist threat. "We act also because the al Qaida network and the Taliban regime are funded in large parts on the drugs trade - 90% of all heroin sold in Britain originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is again directly in our interests. "I wish to say finally as I have said many times before that this is not a war with Islam. It angers me, as it angers the vast majority of Muslims, to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are contrary to the teachings of the Koran. "These are difficult and testing times for us all. People are bound to be concerned about what the terrorists may seek to do in response. I should say there is at present no specific credible threat to the United Kingdom that we know of and that we have in place tried and tested contingency plans which are the best possible response to any further attempts at terror. "This is a moment of utmost gravity for the world. None of the leaders involved in this action want war. None of our nations want it. We are peaceful people. But we know that sometimes to safeguard peace, we have to fight. Britain has learnt that lesson many times in our history. We only do it if the cause is just. This cause is just." _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
