Re: The Kurds: Betrayed again?
Could anyone ever imagine that the US will give the kurds a state in these conditions. what made things worst is the kurdish leadership that is leading the iraqi kurds tied and gagged to the their all foreseen destiny.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: Stiglitz on Iraq attack
the 90's represented a period of very high growth for the US. this was the result of the gulf war. another war with full control of oil will bring more riches for the US. war is very good for the US and the american bourgeoisie would be very stupid to forfiet such a golden opportunity-they need war like people need oxygen. but on the flip side there won't any oxygen left to breath after the war.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: US already attacking Iraq's defences
At 22/02/03 20:16 -0600, you quoted the Independent US and Britain pound Iraqi defences in massive escalation of airstrikes By Raymond Whitaker 23 February 2003 Some have always disputed whether the no-fly zones have UN authority, but now the US and Britain have widened the rules of engagement to the point where warplanes are effectively preparing the way for an imminent invasion. Attacks on such battlefield weapons, rare until recently, are part of a semi-secret air campaign, conducted under cover of the no-fly patrols, which has intensified sharply since the beginning of the year. This coincides with a revealing interview this morning with Clare Short, the most open dove in the Blair cabinet. She reiterated that there must be a UN resolution but also expressed a lot of detailed confidence that Tony Blair may find a way through. She seemed to believe there could be a military option that would cause the minimum of civilian casualties. My guess is that the Blair side of the axis of righteousness, has already done contingency plans on the assumption that they will not get even a simple declaration of material breach through the security council. The hegemons will then declare their intention of taking the current military action further to maintain pressure on Iraq. They will look for opportunities to fly in specialist squads or parachute troops to secure key installations or protect populations from Saddam's troops. They will look for any uprising by the local population for an excuse for further intervention, (although they abandoned them in the past). British troops would be particularly chosen as peace keepers. ** This might help them secure the sunni south and the Basra oil fields while creating the picture of the Iraq state falling apart while Saddam contemplates revolt or exile. This fall back strategy would have the advantage for the hegemons of using the sunni south together with the Kurdish area of northern Iraq to pressurise the shiite majority of Iraq to accept a federal solution under the aegis of the hegemons as in Afghanistan. Since the SC has already accepted the logic of pressure on Iraq to disarm, such an incremental declaration of war, will not irretrievably isolate Blair from the rest of the world. This strategic alternative to a second SC resolution would weaken the anti-war movement and also strengthen Blair's hand in relation to the fundamentalists of the Bush administration. It makes it important that the anti-war movement defines its goals. It may not be able to sustain pure opposition to war in the numbers achieved on 15th February. But it could maintain the momentum for an international united front for peace and justice in depth if not in numbers. Chris Burford London PS since writing this, I see the BBC is reporting Desert Rats 'to hold Basra' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2779969.stm
Re: Re: US already attacking Iraq's defences
Chris B. write: My guess is that the Blair side of the axis of righteousness, has already done contingency plans on the assumption that they will not get even a simple declaration of material breach through the security council. The hegemons will then declare their intention of taking the current military action further to maintain pressure on Iraq. They will look for opportunities to fly in specialist squads or parachute troops to secure key installations or protect populations from Saddam's troops. The problem with this interpretation is that the Bush administration would then be seen as staying within the boundaries of the U.N. Is this what it wants? Consider the possibility that the U.S. is 'playing' with the U.N. to finally show what is 'wrong' with working through the U.N. and thus to be able to disentangle itself from the U.N. for all future actions it desires. The extreme right here hates the U.N. If so, the Bush administration, following its 'complete' exposure of the U.N., would need to launch a full-scale attack and be done with the U.N. (Consider how 'exhausting' all these negotiations have been for the Bush administration; are they not saying what do we need this for?.) In the final analysis Blair is not going to call the shots (no pun). One somewhat related question: Blix said at the beginning that the U.N. inspectors are only there to inspect. How is his calling for destruction by the Iraqi regime of its longer range missles not going beyond inspection to policy? Paul *** Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists, Vol. 20 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Re: [PEN-L:34988: US already attacking Iraq's defences
At 23/02/03 08:57 -0500, Paul Zarembka wrote: The problem with this interpretation is that the Bush administration would then be seen as staying within the boundaries of the U.N. Is this what it wants? I take your point. Richard Perle has just stated baldly on UK tv that the US will go to war without a second UN resolution, without any concession to UK government sensibilities. He was virtually contemptuous of former Conservative foreign minister Geoffrey Howe, who was on the panel. Chris Burford
Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
At 21/02/03 09:38 -0500, you wrote: A trap set for protesters Michael Hardt Friday February 21, 2003 The Guardian full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899852,00.html REPLY: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war? Get used to it professor, we are living in an epoch of wars, civil wars and revolution. Time to put the Spinoza back on the shelf and reread Lenin--and for some first people, including Hardt based on the evidence, to read him for the first time. I have printed off various criticisms of this article and re-read them. This article seemed to me less irritating than some of Hardt's contributions. I did not read him to imply that it was the anti-war movement that is mainly responsible for redirecting the energies of the globalisations protests. 9-11 punctured those. On the point that Louis Proyect makes (above), I think Hardt would accept the line of demarcation:- The last section of Empire ends ... the militant is the one who best expresses the life of the multitude: the agent of biopolitical production and resistance against Empire. When we speak of the militant, we are not thinking of anything like the sad, ascetic agent of the Third International whose soul was deeply permeated by Soviet state reason, the same way the will of the pope was embedded in the hearts of the knights of the Society of Jesus. We are thinking of nothing like that and of no one who acts on the basis of duty and discpline, who pretends his or her actions are deduced from an ideal plan. We are referring, on the contrary, to something more like the communist and liberatory combatants of the twentieth-century revolutions, the intellectuals who were persecuted and exiled in the course of anti-fascist struggles, the republicans of the Spanish civil war and the European resistance movements, and the freedom fighters of all the anticolonial and anti-imperialist wars. A prototypical example of this revolutionary figure is the militant agitator of the Industrial Workers of the World. The Wobbly constructed associations among working people from below, through continuous agitation, and while organizing them gave rise to utopian thought and revolutionary knowledge. So in a nutshell the Wobblies rather than the Communists of the Third International. Even allowing for the fact that some admirers of Lenin would not blame him for all the problems of the Third International, there is a line of demarcation here. Whether you agree with him or not however, Hardt highlights the undermining of the westphalian system of states. This is relevant for the political and ideological struggle over the legitimacy of any attack by Bush and Blair on Iraq. The universalist ideas and institutions of the feudal era were dealt a stunning blow. Sovereign control over a well-defined territory, akin to individual ownership of property, emerged as the norm. Populations were to look to their sovereigns as the highest legitimate authority. The roots of a broad nationalism were secured. Sovereigns legitimated their right to make treaties and conduct independent foreign relations. Diplomacy was regularized. War became a method by which to pursue interests, and not necessarily a method by which to scour the world of evil. [from a call for papers on the Westphalian system for a conference in Minnesota in 1998 http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/newsletter/may97.html Hardt and Negri appear to be arguing for a new global civil society or a new transitional democracy rather than emphasising the sovereignty of individual states. This is certainly contested global juridical territory. The global anti-war movement will have to take these issues on board in practice if it is not to lose momentum after the coalition of the willing and uniquely powerful have conquered Iraq probably rather speedily but without a mandate from the United Nations. Chris Burford London
New KPFA Radio show on Disability Rights 'Pushing Limits'
Hello Economists, Starting in late April on Wednesday Afternoons at 2pm, San Francisco Bay Area radio station KPFA will broadcast 'Pushing Limits' made by the Pushing Limit Collective. 94.1 FM on the Radio dial. One of our first broadcasts will feature Marta Russell former Pen L participant on disabled prisoners. Pen-L member Doyle Saylor will examine Web Accessibility for disabled people, and Disability and the Arts. Other programs by the collective will look at Iraq and disability and the War, Paratransit, Housing for disabled people, employment for disabled people, Anti-disabled people movements centered around ethicists like Peter Singer, disability and sexuality, etc. This program is an on-going news and analysis program aimed at giving a voice to serious disabled rights, economic analysis on an in-depth level, and an organizing tool. Further information periodically posted. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
Chris Burford: Hardt and Negri appear to be arguing for a new global civil society or a new transitional democracy rather than emphasising the sovereignty of individual states. Yes, this sounds about right. This is certainly contested global juridical territory. Contested global juridical territory? Sorry, don't know what this means at all. The global anti-war movement will have to take these issues on board in practice if it is not to lose momentum after the coalition of the willing and uniquely powerful have conquered Iraq probably rather speedily but without a mandate from the United Nations. I am not sure what you are driving at, but this post by Craig Brezofsky on Marxmail pretty much captures the mood of all the young Marxist antiwar activists that I am familiar with both in cyberspace and in real space: I'm inclined to leave Hardt himself out of this, since I take his work as an expression of a liberal ideology expanded to a world scale. His washed out academic-radical rhetoric will keep him alienated from most of the world, save the educated and philosophically inclined petit-bourgeois. No revolutionary party or force will come from that ideological trend -- how do you formulate a revolutionary thought from the dead men of the academic institutions of imperialist nations? It must continually rehabilitate itself to deal with the changing conditions, and that is Hardt's job, literally. This is not just Hardt's pique over the bypassing of his political agenda. The anti-war movement threatens the project of institutionalized (press, radio, univerity) liberalism in the imperialist nations. As people become more educated on the issues in the Middle East and elsewhere they recognize the UN, WTO, and IMF for the mechanisms of mediated colonialism they are, and how quickly they will be cast away when a gross imbalance in military or economic power presents itself. The liberal's dream of their social institutions being globalized as a mediator of capital isn't selling. The anti-war movement is the logical result of a transformation in the anti-globalization movement when US Imperialism revealed its intention to jettison any semblance of mediation thru liberal multi-lateral institutions. It now must recognize that any international foreplay in the UN Security Council is a distraction. The coalition of the willing is built thru bribery and blackmail. I believe a large part of the anti-war movement, podium and street, are beginning to understand this, if they don't already. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
At 3:21 PM + 2/23/03, Chris Burford wrote: Hardt highlights the undermining of the westphalian system of states What has been undermined is not the Westphalian system but the idea of sovereign equality embodied in the U.N. Charter -- see David Chandler, International Justice, _New Left Review_ 6 (November-December 2000), http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR24003.shtml: * The 1945 settlement, preserved in the principles of the UN Charter, reflected a new international situation, transformed by the emergence of the Soviet Union as a world power and the spread of national liberation struggles in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Ideologies of race and empire, too, seemed definitively vanquished with the defeat of the Nazi regime. It was a decisive moment in the transformation of the Westphalian system. In this context, the inter-war consensus on 'the non-applicability of the right to self-determination to colonial peoples' could no longer be sustained. United States policy makers, as they looked forward to assuming the mantle of the now declining British Empire, realized that updated institutions for the management of international relations would have to 'avoid conventional forms of imperialism'. [3] The result was nominal great-power acceptance -- however hypocritical -- of a law-bound international system. Central to this new mechanism of international regulation was the conception of sovereign equality. The UN Charter, the first attempt to construct a law-bound 'international community' of states, recognized all its members as equal. Article 2(1) explicitly stressed 'the principle of sovereign equality', while both Article 1(2) and Article 55 emphasized 'respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples'. New nations -- which would have failed Westphalian tests of 'empirical statehood', and hence been dismissed as 'quasi-states' -- were granted sovereign rights, [4] while the sovereignty of the great powers was now, on paper at least, to be restricted. The UN system did not, of course, realize full sovereign equality. In practice, the Security Council overwhelmingly predominated, with each of its self-appointed permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- retaining rights of veto. Still, sovereign equality was given technical recognition in parity of representation in the General Assembly and lip-service to the principle of non-interventionism, setting legal restrictions on the right to wage war. Under the Westphalian system, the capacity of the most powerful states to use force against the less powerful was a normal feature of the international order. Under the legal framework set up by the Charter, the sovereign's right to go to war (other than by UN agreement or in self-defence) was, for the first time, outlawed -- a point sometimes missed by those who would argue that the post-1945 order 'failed to break' with Westphalian norms. [5]* -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re: patriarchy and finance
In a message dated 2/23/2003 2:18:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But these publicised cases are a tiny fraction of the total, probably less than 10 per cent. Much of the really ugly stuff is swept away, the women paid off and gagged with confidentiality clauses, long before the public gets a whiff of the stench. Sad but true. I spent 7 years working in banking in London. I'd agree with the statement that you just adapt. And not to excuse anything, but I'd also say the more blatant discrimination in London is less insidious and damaging than the more hypocritical behavior of Wall Street. Wall Street's chauvinism is not as blatant as it was in the 80s when you couldn't walk through a trading floor aisle without a string of nasty comments. Today, that sort of outward behavior is discouraged and firms are peppered with all sorts of bogus 'diversity committees' to avoid lawsuits - I was on one at Goldman. To say it was a joke, would be to give it more credit than it deserved. I know a number of women who worked in London finance that struggled with long drawn out discrimination suits that never saw the light of the media. One senior saleswoman at Merrill Lynch sued her boss for not giving her any bonus after she decided not to sleep with him, and then firing her. Her production figures were the highest in her group. Merrill eventually settled, but after 4 years of legal battles, and the amount was nothing near what she lost. One woman I worked with at Bear Stearns, who was a managing director, had the nerve to dress attractively, and yes, sometimes even provocatively. She covered the Middle East clients. She was rumored to only get their business because she slept with them. Since she was often in the office late nights and weekends working, and she had over 60 clients - sleeping with all of them would have required a monumental scheduling effort. When her business slumped, as it did for everyone in the industry, she was axed, after a successful twenty year career. Chauvinism is the air these women breathe. They get it Before Children when they can still be classed as totty and they get it AC, after childbirth, when their decision to become a mother dooms them to be seen as 'lacking in commitment'. And they deal with it as Clara Furse has. They become men. When I finally sent out proofs of my novel to the City's real-life Kate Reddys, they came back scrawled with scholarly amendments: 'She would NEVER have flowers on her desk. It shouts girl!' 'Women at Kate's level don't display photographs of the kids - that tells the office you're a mum and they don't want to know you're a human being.' In my case, I developed a pretty coarse lexicon and got a black belt in aikido. And though, it was not on purpose, I did break the finger of one of our clients to deter a drunken advance. I dressed the way I wanted, though. I didn't care whether it screamed girl. Life's too short. Also, I had flowers in my office - they added color. The headlines and emails about Clara Furse will deter some bright women from entering the City and will encourage yet more to leave and set up their own businesses. For others, like Rosemary, a gifted investment analyst, it will be business as usual. All things considered, she told me, her firm wasn't too bad. As a cheery afterthought, she added: 'Of course, they're all total sexist bastards.' I always considered the glass ceiling effect as much a form of discrimination as more blatant things. There was a terrific line in a female detective movie, staring Kathleen Turner - 'Never underestimate a man's power to underestimate a woman.' It served me well in finance, and I passed it on to countless other women. Now, I just hang out on the left full time, and work to expose the finance industry's dirty laundry. Nomi
re: US already attacking Iraq's defences
Title: re: US already attacking Iraq's defences Paul Z. writes: Consider the possibility that the U.S. is 'playing' with the U.N. to finally show what is 'wrong' with working through the U.N. and thus to be able to disentangle itself from the U.N. for all future actions it desires. The extreme right here hates the U.N. If so, the Bush administration, following its 'complete' exposure of the U.N., would need to launch a full-scale attack and be done with the U.N. also, if the U.N. caves to the U.S. and goes along with the Iraq attack, any integrity the U.N. had left is gone. (Tariq Ali recently had a good column on this in the GUARDIAN.) Jim Devine
Drop in UK support for war
According to a YouGov poll reported in today's Sunday Times support even for a war sanctioned by the Security Council has dropped in the UK. Almost unbelievable. [2000 adults sampled Feb 20-21] Should Britain take part in a war against Iraq if there is a second resolution backing it. Yes 59% (down from 72% a month ago) No 30% DK 11 Without a second resolution only 21% support war What is your view of America 47% a bully that wants to dominate the world 23% a force for good in the world 27% neither 3 DK 57% think Bush wants to impose American values on the world. Who represents the greatest danger to world peace? 45% Saddam Hussein 45% George Bush 10% DK Blair's strong backing for Bush is causing him problems. His lead over Conservatives is down to just 2 points Only 37% agree with Blair that there is a moral case for war 50% disagree. f
RE: Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34990] Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian Chris B. writes:So in a nutshell the Wobblies rather than the Communists of the Third International. ... there is a line of demarcation here. for what it's worth, a bunch of Wobblies (including William Z. Foster, I believe) became 3rd International types in response to U.S. government repression. So the line may be hard to draw... the key issue is whether the left is trying to mobilize a mass movement to promote the latter's power and eventual self-liberation (socialism from below) -- or is trying to promote the left's own organizational power (socialism from above). Jim
unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE [EMAIL PROTECTED] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Khestanov;Rouslan FN:Rouslan Khestanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) TEL;HOME;VOICE:(026) 322-2966 ADR;WORK:;;rue Pierre-Aeby 43;Fribourg, CH -1700;;;Switzerland LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:rue Pierre-Aeby 43=0D=0AFribourg, CH -1700=0D=0ASwitzerland EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20010525T092730Z END:VCARD
Re: Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
What on earth is this Multitude the supposed agent of blah blah blah? Is this the Proletariat replacement for these guys? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34990] Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian At 21/02/03 09:38 -0500, you wrote: A trap set for protesters Michael Hardt Friday February 21, 2003 The Guardian full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899852,00.html REPLY: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been redirected against the war? Get used to it professor, we are living in an epoch of wars, civil wars and revolution. Time to put the Spinoza back on the shelf and reread Lenin--and for some first people, including Hardt based on the evidence, to read him for the first time. I have printed off various criticisms of this article and re-read them. This article seemed to me less irritating than some of Hardt's contributions. I did not read him to imply that it was the anti-war movement that is mainly responsible for redirecting the energies of the globalisations protests. 9-11 punctured those. On the point that Louis Proyect makes (above), I think Hardt would accept the line of demarcation:- The last section of Empire ends ... the militant is the one who best expresses the life of the multitude: the agent of biopolitical production and resistance against Empire. When we speak of the militant, we are not thinking of anything like the sad, ascetic agent of the Third International whose soul was deeply permeated by Soviet state reason, the same way the will of the pope was embedded in the hearts of the knights of the Society of Jesus. We are thinking of nothing like that and of no one who acts on the basis of duty and discpline, who pretends his or her actions are deduced from an ideal plan. We are referring, on the contrary, to something more like the communist and liberatory combatants of the twentieth-century revolutions, the intellectuals who were persecuted and exiled in the course of anti-fascist struggles, the republicans of the Spanish civil war and the European resistance movements, and the freedom fighters of all the anticolonial and anti-imperialist wars. A prototypical example of this revolutionary figure is the militant agitator of the Industrial Workers of the World. The Wobbly constructed associations among working people from below, through continuous agitation, and while organizing them gave rise to utopian thought and revolutionary knowledge. So in a nutshell the Wobblies rather than the Communists of the Third International. Even allowing for the fact that some admirers of Lenin would not blame him for all the problems of the Third International, there is a line of demarcation here. Whether you agree with him or not however, Hardt highlights the undermining of the westphalian system of states. This is relevant for the political and ideological struggle over the legitimacy of any attack by Bush and Blair on Iraq. The universalist ideas and institutions of the feudal era were dealt a stunning blow. Sovereign control over a well-defined territory, akin to individual ownership of property, emerged as the norm. Populations were to look to their sovereigns as the highest legitimate authority. The roots of a broad nationalism were secured. Sovereigns legitimated their right to make treaties and conduct independent foreign relations. Diplomacy was regularized. War became a method by which to pursue interests, and not necessarily a method by which to scour the world of evil. [from a call for papers on the Westphalian system for a conference in Minnesota in 1998 http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/newsletter/may97.html Hardt and Negri appear to be arguing for a new global civil society or a new transitional democracy rather than emphasising the sovereignty of individual states. This is certainly contested global juridical territory. The global anti-war movement will have to take these issues on board in practice if it is not to lose momentum after the coalition of the willing and uniquely powerful have conquered Iraq probably rather speedily but without a mandate from the United Nations. Chris Burford London
Baghdad stock market active....
Stocks Finish Second Straight Up Week By Niko Price THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 23, 2003 Baghdad, Iraq - The bell rings and they're off. Old men in tattered pinstripes bark orders to buy and sell, peering through an iron fence with opera glasses to make out the numbers. Traders in baby blue vests sprint across the floor, haggling over dinars and scribbling triumphantly on an erasable white board. The Baghdad Stock Exchange doesn't have hostile takeovers, e-trading or even an air conditioner, but it's one of the hottest markets in the world. Since the beginning of August, when the prospect of war with Iraq began to solidify, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen about 7 percent, the London FTSE 100 index of British blue chips has slid 10 percent and the DAX index of leading German shares has tumbled 26 percent. Meanwhile, the benchmark Baghdad Stock Index has quietly gone from 1,317 to 1,933 - a 47 percent rise. Even since Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the U.S. evidence against Iraq on Feb. 5, the Baghdad index has risen 2 percent. All the stock markets in the world fell after the U.S. threats. Only on the Baghdad Stock Exchange is the price going up, said the exchange's amiable general director, Subhi al-Azawi. We aren't afraid of Mr. Bush's threats. The proof is that our people are putting their money here for investment. The exchange is a humble institution. Founded in 1991, it is housed in a rundown concrete building sandwiched between military installations on a side street. Instead of posh watering holes outside, there are a few tarp-covered stalls selling falafel, bean soup and tea. The trading floor bears more resemblance to an off-track betting parlor than a financial hub, and it opens only three mornings a week - Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. Volume averages about 300 million dinars ($130,000) a day, an infinitesimal fraction of the $42.3 billion daily average on the New York Stock Exchange. But what matters in the markets are profits, and there have been plenty of those here lately. Khadum Muttar began playing the markets at age 61, when he retired from his job as a merchant with a nest egg of 3 million dinars, worth $1,000. Seven years later, he has doubled that. We are old now and we'll do anything to pass the time, but it's exciting to be here, he said, fingering a string of blue prayer beads. The market goes up and down, but you can always make up for your losses by buying and selling. Most investors shrug off the bear market in the rest of the world, saying other markets pay too much attention to politics. We are different from the rest of the world because our economy is strong, said Khelikhali Rassoul, 70. We have many resources, and we have total freedom in our dealing here. Rassoul, a portly, balding man missing several teeth, showed up in a stained beige suit and a black pin-striped vest pulled over a ratty blue sweater. A market veteran, he told of capital won and lost - some people who had 100 dinars now have only 10. But the retired director of the Khelikhali Trading Office declined to give details of his own market fortunes. With a vague wave of his arm, he said his investments totaled millions ... Of course the market has been good to me. If I was not making a profit, I wouldn't be here. Al-Azawi, the exchange's general director, is thinking big. He is in contact with other Arab stock markets to develop an electronic trading system and says maybe someday people will be able to buy and sell over the Internet. He also wants to move the exchange to a better building. Al-Azawi, who has traveled only to Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, even speaks of more personal hopes for the future. I would like to visit the New York Stock Exchange, he said with a broad smile. Maybe when this trouble is finished. www.newsday.com/biztech Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. .How to Subscribe .How to Advertise .Career Opportunities .About Us .Contact Us By visiting this site you agree to the terms of the Newsday.com User Agreement. Read our Privacy Policy. Copyright © Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic Publishing. About Us | E-mail directory | How to Advertise | Linking To Newsday.com Check Stocks: Local Companies | Gainers | Losers | Most Active Currently: 43° F Fog Weather Advisory Forecast | Radar Inside BUSINESS . Stock Quotes . Retirement / Act II . Technology . Real Estate . Top 100 . Databank Files . Columnists . Print Edition HOME PAGE TRAFFIC NEWS . Long Island . New York City SPORTS OPINION Part 2 / FEATURES ENTERTAINMENT CLASSIFIEDS ARCHIVES SITE INDEX Today's Newsday Hoy Spanish Language Paper News/Sports Webcasts Make us your home page Bulls Run in Baghdad Iraqi exchange is a humble but hot market Email this story Printer friendly format Top Stories The Fight Against Fraudulent Cell Calls Oil Prices Rise On Refinery Fire Sticker Shock at the Pump
Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
What on earth is this Multitude the supposed agent of blah blah blah? Is this the Proletariat replacement for these guys? Cheers, Ken Hanly And what happens when the Multitude goes out of fashion? What will be the Multitude substitute? Mulch, in the spirit of Red-Green synthesis? :-0 -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Africa conference
Conference details The Review of African Political Economy in association with Centre of West African Studies, University of Birmingham, is convening a conference on Africa: Partnership as Imperialism September 5 - 7, 2003, The Manor House, Bristol Road South, Birmingham, U.K. Africa is being actively encouraged to seek partnerships with international agencies, western capital and donor governments as a way of promoting economic growth and improved governance, and enhancing living standards. The New Economic Partnership for Africa (NEPAD) is just one of a range of initiatives designed to help African states to 'engage constructively' with the global capitalist market place; for Africa to embrace and take an 'ownership stake' in various arrangements that tie the continent more closely to the economic and political liberalisation of capital. Such a stratagem is referred to as 'making globalisation work for the poor'. Yet Africa's experience with world markets, aid and trade has not enhanced the continent's growth. On the contrary, the continent's external relations have tended to exacerbate its problems. Currently, famine afflicts an increasing number of countries; debt continues to block growth and human development; HIV/AIDS infection rates are the highest in the world; and economies are unable to provide even the most rudimentary of medical care. Poor and ill health undermine all economic activity, but especially farming and food production. Just what does 'partnership' represent in such a context? Is it an exchange between equals? Is it instead a new phase of imperialist control? Can we talk of partnership-as-imperialism? The organisers invite paper and/or panel proposals on the following themes topics: Resistance: Neo-Liberalism; Vigilantes; 'Terrorists/Terrorism'; Eco-Resistance; Youth-and-Violence. Security, Conflict and Domination:(Il)licit Capitalism; Gender Violence; Africa post-9/11. Globalisation, Partnership and Imperialism: NEPAD; NGOs; Resources (including land); Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes/Processes (PRSPs); 'Instrumentalising' Imperialism. Aid, Exploitation and Control: Corruption; Post-Conflict Reconstruction; 'Draining' Africa (brains, trade, money laundering). Struggles of Accumulation: The Built Environment; Resources; Production/Privatisation. Ideology and Culture: Gender Relations 'in an African pot'; Religions; Networks; Moralising Intervention; AIDS; 'Democracy/Democratisation'. Proposals/abstracts, to be received by 5 March 2003, are to be sent to the undersigned (to whom all other enquiries and general expressions of interest are to be directed): Reginald Cline-Cole Centre of West African Studies University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT Tel: +44 (0)121-414-5132/5128 Fax : +44 (0)121-414-3228 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lynne Brydon Centre of West African Studies University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT Tel: +44 (0)121-414-5123/5128 Fax : +44 (0)121-414-3228 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cwas.bham.ac.uk/news/conference1.htm
it's official ...
Title: it's official ... ... western civilization has ended, in a combination of a bang and a whimper: today I visited the FAO Schwartz toy store at a local shopping mall and saw a child-sized Humvee (that actually runs!) for only $30,000! (US dollars!) JD
Re: it's official ...
In a message dated 2/23/2003 4:50:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I visited the FAO Schwartz toy store at a local shopping mall and saw a child-sized Humvee (that actually runs!) for only $30,000! (US dollars!) and to think must-have gems like a 30K Humvee couldn't keep FAO from filing for bankruptcy... Nomi
new radio product
Just added to my radio archive http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html: * February 13, 2003 MARATHON SPECIAL: IF A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE, WHAT MIGHT IT LOOK LIKE? Walden Bello on the World Social Forum (WSF) and rural development * Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and Fences and Windows, on how Argentines are taking governance and businesses into their own hands and the arrested adolescence of the globalization movement * Njoki Njehu, director of the U.S. 50 Years Is Enough campaign, on the global justice movement and peace * February 6, 2003 DH on big bond manager Bill Gross on the end of American hegemony * Ellen Frank (of Emmanuel College and Dollars Sense) on Bush's capital-friendly tax plans * Lenni Brenner on his latest book, a collection of 51 documents on Zionist-fascist links They join: * Joseph Stiglitz on the IMF and the Wall St-Treasury axis * William Pepper on the state-sponsored assasination of Martin Luther King * Sara Roy on the Palestinian economy * Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, and Cynthia Enloe on the impending war with Iraq * Michael Hardt on Empire * Judith Levine on kids sex * Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations... * Mark Hertsgaard on the U.S. image abroad * Ghada Karmi on her search for her Palestinian roots * Jonathan Nitzan on the Israeli economy * Alexandra Robbins on Skull Bones Coming soon: Slavoj Zizek and Susie Bright For those keeping track, please note new address and phone number. Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 38 Greene St - 4th fl. New York NY 10013-2505 USA voice +1-212-219-0010 webhttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com
G7 incoherence
Leaders Reject a United Economic Effort Group of 7 Meeting Emphasizes Individual Tactics, Avoids Focusing on Iraq War By Robert J. McCartney Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, February 23, 2003; Page A11 PARIS, Feb. 22 -- The world's seven leading industrialized countries pledged today to take steps to spur economic growth but steered clear of joint action on budgets or currencies, saying each nation should adopt whatever policies it saw fit. At a two-day meeting here, finance ministers and central bank chiefs of the Group of Seven nations also chose not to focus on what they might do if the world economy were hurt by a possible war with Iraq. They did not want to assume that a war would break out, officials said, and in any case had some fundamental differences about how to react. A final communiqué noted only that geopolitical uncertainties have increased, without even mentioning Iraq. The communiqué added, If the economic outlook weakens, we are prepared to respond as appropriate. Ministers said they were closely watching oil markets and currency exchange rates but saw no need for action on either front at this time. U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, attending his first international conference in his new post, repeatedly stressed the importance of passing President Bush's tax-cutting plan. In one-on-one meetings with other ministers, as well as at the full session, he emphasized that the proposed tax cuts and other measures would accelerate growth in the American economy, the world's largest, and thus help the world as a whole. Snow had some success in making his case. The final communiqué suggested that the United States was already on the right path, saying America is implementing action to create jobs and promote growth. By contrast, the statement called on others to make various economic reforms. The statement said that Europe needed to accelerate measures to free up labor markets and otherwise achieve a more flexible economy. It said Japan needed to follow through on promised structural reforms of its financial and corporate sectors. Nevertheless, Snow faced implicit criticism of the U.S. tax-cut plan, as several European leaders expressed strong concern about the U.S. budget and trade deficits. The Bush administration's package is projected to add to the budget deficit, at least initially. It is a cause for concern for Europe and the world that the situation of twin deficits seems to be re-emerging, European Central Bank President Wim Duisenberg said. German Finance Minister Hans Eichel and Greek Finance Minister Nikos Christodoulakis, who was representing the European Union because Greece currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, also spoke out against the U.S. deficits. Snow said the United States was committed to fiscal discipline and budget balance in the long run. He also said it wasn't desirable to focus on battling the deficit now, when growth is slower than the administration would like. The communiqué said the seven nations recognize the imperative for higher growth rates and resolve to take steps to achieve this result. Both Snow and French Finance Minister Francis Mer, who was the host of the meeting, said each country was free to pursue that goal in its own way, rather than through joint action. There wasn't a one-size-fits-all solution, Snow said. The G-7 countries are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada. Russia also takes part in some meetings, though not all, as a member of what is called the G-8. The G-7 acknowledged that the prospect of a U.S.-led war with Iraq was a major burden on the world economy at present. If war occurs and ends quickly, ministers said, oil prices would drop, stock prices would rise, and, above all, corporations would be more willing to invest. Asked whether governments would tap strategic stockpiles of petroleum to avoid shortages, Mer said that was unlikely unless there were a very long-term break or decline in production. The stocks are there for a crisis situation. There is not a crisis situation at present, Mer said. He and other ministers went out of their way to play down political and diplomatic differences over the Iraq issue. France and the United States, in particular, are at loggerheads over it, but before the meeting, Mer told French television: We're not deciding here whether it's war or not. I'm not indifferent about that issue, but it's not our job. Today, at the end of the meeting, Mer noted, We had no difficulty discussing common values, and I think that is worth underscoring.
Re: G7 incoherence
Right. Great success. Ian Murray wrote: Snow had some success in making his case. The final communiqué suggested that the United States was already on the right path, saying America is implementing action to create jobs and promote growth. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
What on earth is this Multitude ? "The writer is a spiritual anarchist, as in the depth of his soul every man is. He is discontented with everything and everybody. The writer is everybody's best friend and only true enemy - the good and great enemy. He neither walks with the multitude nor cheers with them. The writer who is a writer is a rebel who never stops." (from The William Saroyan Reader, 1958) Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
G7 incoherence II
Britain backs US in G7 row over kickstarting global economy Charlotte Denny in Paris Monday February 24, 2003 The Guardian Open hostilities broke out between Europe and the US and Britain this weekend over how to kickstart the fragile global recovery. At a fractious meeting in Paris of the financial ministers from the world's seven most powerful economies, senior European officials and politicians warned that President George Bush's $695bn (£440bn) tax cut could destabilise a world economy already undermined by threat of war against Iraq. Mirroring the widening transatlantic rift over disarming Saddam Hussein, Britain stood alongside America to defend the Bush administration from attacks by the rest of Europe over its ballooning budget deficit. The continental European financial leaders expressed their unusually strongly-worded concerns about US economic policy at the first G7 meeting attended by the new US treasury secretary, John Snow. Wim Duisenberg, the president of the European Central Bank, described the record shortfalls in America's public finances and between its spending and earnings abroad as a cause for concern. Speaking on behalf of European finance ministers, Nikos Christodoulakis, the Greek finance minister, said the Bush tax cut was unlikely to achieve its aim of boosting the US economy and that the surge it could cause in US borrowing could become everyone's problem. European countries fear that the re-emergence of the so-called twin deficits - on the US budget and on its current account - could prompt a damaging run on the dollar if investors lose faith in the world's largest economy. The greenback has already fallen by 25% against the euro in the 12 months. Mr Snow dismissed Europe's concerns. The tax cuts would pay for themselves over long-term through faster growth, he said. He also shifted some of the blame for America's booming current account deficit on to its G7 trading partners which he said were not growing fast enough to buy America's goods. Mr Snow received support from Gordon Brown who said increasing government borrowing was the appropriate action during economic downturns. The chancellor was forced to admit last November that disappointing growth would push up borrowing in Britain. We believe that the action which is being taken at the moment in the UK is right as well for the US, Mr Brown said. Ministers patched over their differences sufficiently to issue a communique which called on the leading economies to go for growth, a marked change in emphasis for a body which has until recently been mainly concerned with the dangers of resurgent inflation. If the economic outlook weakens, we are prepared to respond as appropriate, the ministers said. But the divisions over how best to respond to slowing growth remained as the G7 meeting closed. Britain and the US, which have already cut interest rates over the last two years, favour increasing government borrowing to offset ongoing economic weakness. The tax cut package has received a rough reception in America where Democrats have accused Mr Bush of giving most of the money away to America's wealthiest families. Independent tax experts estimate that nearly half the benefits will go to the 1% of richest Americans.
tests, we don't need no stinkin' tests
http://www.latimes.com Missile Defense Waiver Sought White House wants to exempt the Pentagon's controversial weapons system from operational testing rules, a first for a major program. By Esther Schrader Times Staff Writer February 24, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing to exempt the Pentagon's controversial missile defense system from operational testing legally required of every new weapons system in order to deploy it by 2004. Buried in President Bush's 2004 budget, in dry, bureaucratic language, is a request to rewrite a law designed to prevent the production and fielding of weapons systems that don't work. If the provision is enacted, it would be the first time a major weapons system was formally exempted from the testing requirement. The proposal follows administration moves to bypass congressional reporting and oversight requirements in order to accelerate development of a national missile defense system. One of Bush's goals when he took office was to carry out a missile defense system - an idea first proposed by President Reagan - and he almost immediately expanded the scope and the funding of the controversial program, which had encountered scientific and budgetary difficulties in recent years. Last year, to help achieve that goal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave the Missile Defense Agency unprecedented managerial autonomy and removed procurement procedures that were intended to ensure new weapons programs remain on track and within budget. Administration officials believe the unusual measures are necessary because of a growing missile threat from rogue countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. But critics maintain the new independence and secrecy of what has become a vastly expanded missile defense program increases the chance that the Pentagon will spend tens of billions of dollars on an antimissile system that doesn't work. Much is at stake. While the exemptions granted previously gave the missile defense program an unprecedented degree of autonomy from congressional oversight, they did not exclude it from testing. Highlighting its technical weaknesses has been opponents' best hope for slowing the long-debated program. In recent years, critics repeatedly have used Pentagon data from missile defense flight tests to challenge whether the experiments were as successful as claimed. The latest proposal from the Pentagon would exempt the missile defense deployment from a law that requires the Defense Department to certify that appropriate operational testing has been completed before putting systems into production. The Bush administration announced in December a goal of having a limited ground-based system operational in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by Oct. 1, 2004. The moves last year were just about reporting requirements. This is different, said Philip Coyle, director of operational testing and evaluation for the Pentagon from 1994 to 2001. This is about obeying the law. Without these tests, we may never know whether this system works or not, and if they are done after this system is deployed, we won't know until we've spent $70 billion on a ground-based missile defense system. The proposed waiver has raised concerns of Senate Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein of California, missile defense critic Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking member of his party on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. In a letter to Rumsfeld dated Wednesday, Feinstein wrote: I believe that any deployed missile defense system must meet the same requirements and standards that we set for all other fully operational weapons systems. Indeed, given the potential cost of a failure of missile defense, I believe that, if anything, it should be required to meet more stringent test standards than normally required. Feinstein's letter came one week after Rumsfeld had been grilled on the issue by Levin and Reed at an Armed Services Committee hearing. That law exists to prevent the production and fielding of a weapons system that doesn't work right, Levin said. Rumsfeld replied that an exemption made sense in the case of missile defense. I happen to think that thinking we cannot deploy something ... until you have everything perfect, every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed, it's probably not a good idea, he said. In the case of missile defense, I think we need to get something out there, in the ground, at sea, and in a way that we can test it, we can look at it, we can develop it, we can evolve it, and ... learn from the experimentation with it. Rumsfeld pointed out that two other weapon systems in recent years - the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and the Joint-STAR aircraft radar systems - were deployed before they were tested operationally. But those systems did eventually go through operational testing, and neither went into full production until the testing was completed. There is no guarantee the operational
Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
At 23/02/03 10:45 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Burford: Hardt and Negri appear to be arguing for a new global civil society or a new transitional democracy rather than emphasising the sovereignty of individual states. Yes, this sounds about right. This is certainly contested global juridical territory. Contested global juridical territory? Sorry, don't know what this means at all. Yes, I had to check what Hardt and Negri mean by that. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning as effectively synonymous with legal. Hardt is full of associations and hints. I do not know why he used this word. However it is the start of the first chapter of Empire: The problematic of Empire is determined in the first place by one simple fact: that there is world order. This order is expressed as a juridical formation. Hardt presented himself, or allowed his publishers to present him, as a sort of fashionable intellectual style accessory, in the days of the world wide anti-capitalist protests before 9-11 2001. There is also a sentimental desire to believe that all problems can be solved with the naivety of the Italian autonomists, who impressed him in his youth. [Fashions perhaps should not matter but I think they do. At the moment in Britain it is fashionable to be against Blair being Bush's poodle.] To the extent that it is worth discussing Hardt now, I think he does, in his confusing style, address questions that are relevant. The nature of evidence, the limits of sovereignty and individual or collective human rights are centre stage of the struggle at the moment. It is extraordinary, but debate in Britain is going back to mediaeval concepts of What is a just war. But it matters when the head of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church in the UK, and the head of the Catholic Church in the world says effectively that a pre-emptive war is an unjust war. Hardt and Negri's introduction to Empire is a little clearer, whether you agree we need a revolutionary party, or a radical global network, or both: Empire is materializing before our very eyes. Over the past several decades, as colonial regimes were overthrown and then precipitously after the Soviet barriers to the capitalist world market finally collapsed, we have witnessed an irresistible and irreversible globalization of economic and cultural exchanges. Along with the global market and global circuits of production has emerged a global order, a new logic and structure of rule - in short, a new form of sovereignty. Empire is the political subject that effectively regulates these global exchanges, the sovereign power that governs the world. Many argue that the globalization or capitalist production and exchange means that economic relations have become more autonomous from political controls, and consequently that political sovereignty has declined. Some celebrate this new era as the liberation of the capitalist economy from the restrictions and distortions that political forces have imposed on it; others lament it as the closing of the institutional channels through which workers and citizens can influence or contest the cold logic of capitalist profit. It is certainly true that, in step with the processes of globalization, the sovereignty of nation-states, while still effective, has progessively declined. The primary factors of production and exchange - money, technology, people, goods, move with increasing ease across national boundaries; hence the nation-state has less and less power to regulate these flows and impose its authority over the economy. Even the most dominant nation-states should no longer be thought of as supreme and sovereign authorities, either outside or even within their own borders. The decline in sovereignty of nation-states, however, does not mean that soveriegnty as such has declined. Throughout the temporary transformations, political controls, state functions, and regulatory mechanisms have continued to ule the realm of economic and social production and exchange. Our basic hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a series of national and supernational organisms united under single logic of rule. The new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire. Chris Burford London
Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian
At 23/02/03 10:47 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: At 3:21 PM + 2/23/03, Chris Burford wrote: Hardt highlights the undermining of the westphalian system of states What has been undermined is not the Westphalian system but the idea of sovereign equality embodied in the U.N. Charter -- see David Chandler, International Justice, _New Left Review_ 6 (November-December 2000), http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR24003.shtml: Under the Westphalian system, the capacity of the most powerful states to use force against the less powerful was a normal feature of the international order. Under the legal framework set up by the Charter, the sovereign's right to go to war (other than by UN agreement or in self-defence) was, for the first time, outlawed -- a point sometimes missed by those who would argue that the post-1945 order 'failed to break' with Westphalian norms. [5]* I think these academic points are also terrains of battle at this particular time. Struggle in the legal realm can be semi-independent from political and economic struggle, but also with significant impact in turn. Can we hold this line in the passage above? I suspect not, certainly where the overwhelming military hegemon of the world, says it does not trust certain unpopular regimes, however arbitrary or hypocritical its choice. We have to fight back but perhaps not mainly on the grounds of maintaining the sovereignty of nation-states. What line can we hold? What is the basis for counter-attack? I have an uneasy feeling that Clare Short has probably read Hardt's article in the Guardian and she is hoping that it will give her a way out of not resigning from the UK cabinet. However the arguments can cut two ways. The BBC is featuring a Englishman who is taking up a position as a human shield next to a power station in Baghdad. The implication is that if the authorities in Baghdad surrender, it must be by negotiation or after the people of Baghdad have changed the authorities, not through high level bombing. And perhaps if there is high level bombing that kills civilians, progressive people in the USA can indict Bush as a war criminal and send him off like Sesilj today to the Hague. What line can the progressive people of the world hold in practice? Chris Burford London
meaning and location of multitude
At 23/02/03 11:36 -0600, Ken wrote: What on earth is this Multitude the supposed agent of blah blah blah? Is this the Proletariat replacement for these guys? One of the ironies of Hardt's style of analysis by free association, is that the multitude was a negative concept for Spinoza, whereas for him it is something akin to the proletariat in marxist theory. No? Chris Burford
Mahathir: West Wants to Rule World.
Despite Mahathir's reactionary policy on domestic human rights and some reactionary features in his ideology, he is a passionate opponent of imperialism, willing to combine determination and technical measures to stop capital haemorrhaging to the west. According to the BBC he not only said what is below, but that the west wants to dominate all non-white peoples. This is dramatic rallying call transcends the nation state. Perhaps the US will win Iraq, but will lose the world. Especially economically. Chris Burford Reuters. 23 February 2003. Malaysia's Mahathir Says West Wants to Rule World. KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Sunday the world was in a state of terror, allowing a fear of Muslims to affect international policy, and a war on Iraq would be seen as a war on Muslims. He spoke on the eve of a three-yearly summit of leaders of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that is to issue a declaration calling on Baghdad to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions while challenging Washington with vociferous opposition to any U.S.-led war on Iraq. The attack against Iraq will simply anger more Muslims who see this as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror, Mahathir, chairman and summit host, told a business forum. The world is in a state of terror...We are afraid of Muslims, of Arabs, of bearded people, he said of feelings since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Ahead of the two-day summit that opens Monday, Mahathir told fellow developing nations the United States wanted to conquer the world. I'm certain if they are successful in Iraq they will turn to Iran next and then to North Korea, he told a state-sponsored anti-war rally of 200,000 in a reference to the three nations President Bush has branded an axis of evil. After that, who will become their victim? It is clear the Western powers want to conquer the world again. Mahathir told NAM members U.S. inaction on North Korea was evidence of the polarization of the world over Iraq. The fact that North Korea's open admission that it has weapons of mass destruction has met only with mild admonishment by the West seems to prove that indeed it is a war against Muslims and not against the fear of possession of weapons of mass destruction by the so-called rogue countries, he said.
