expected UK government resignations
Commentators assume that Clare Short will be joined in resigning by Robin Cook, former secretary for Foreign Affairs, and now Leader of the House of Commons. Cook is a europhile and in favour of proportional representation and dialogue with the Liberal Democrats so he is not in the ascendant anyway. A far more crucial possible resignation would be that of the Attorney General who has clearly not given a ringing assurance that an invasion without an explicit UN resolution, would be legal. The Observer today suggests that Blair has spent a lot of time massaging and spinning this question: In the next 48 hours, in one of the last moves before military action is announced, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will say Britain is within its legal rights to launch an attack without a second resolution. The Government's chief law officer will say 1441 warns of 'serious consequences' if Saddam does not comply fully with UN resolutions. Earlier UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf war in 1991, which say that nations can use 'all necessary means' to disarm Saddam, back Britain's legal position. Goldsmith, whose legal advice to the Government advice is usually private, has told colleagues he feels he must speak out after reports that Britain had a weak legal case for an invasion. 'He's found all the reports that he's telling the Prime Minister that this might be illegal highly irritating,' said a senior Number 10 figure. http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,915311,00.html Goldsmith is a close friend of Tony Blair, and no doubt realises that an honestly equivocal statement of the legal position, could be damaging, and a resignation could be fatal, to Blair. In English legal usage there is a difference between what is illegal (contrary to law) and what is "unlawful" - not covered by law. A public statement by the government will have to minimise its vulnerability to subsequent litigation. It will be interesting to see whether the formulas include the idea that an attack on Iraq is "lawful", or "not unlawful". The Attorney General is meant to be scrupulously professional, but this is a situation where he cannot but be a member of the government. It will be interesting to see how radical lawyers pull the statement apart, and whether Goldsmith's credibility is undermined to the point where it is more comfortable to resign. It adds to the legal arguments for a general assembly resolution. Chris Burford London
trust fund for Iraqi oil?
In the course of a fluent interview this morning, Gordon Brown dropped the information that both he and Tony Blair favoured a trust fund for Iraqi oil. thereby allegedly removing any suspicion that the war is for the sake of oil. It sounded like a bit of quiet skirmishing with the Bush administration. Chris Burford London
Re: RE: Re: Re: dubya dip?
The Two Towers of the conventional wisdom (over-emphasis on expectations and nationalism/neo-liberalism) distract the observers from the fundamentals that are amiss, i.e., for the US low profit rates, high corporate debt, unused capacity, high consumer debt, a housing bubble, a large deficit on the current account, etc. and not to mention dipping consumer confidence, low interest rates, shaky markets and a rising budget deficit. was it not sometimes ago that the congress voted balanced budgets into the constitution, how does the new tax measures and military spending figure in this, is there a dubya caveat.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
The Arab street keeps its protest mutedftarticle
How to brake the bonds of arab patriarchial society in the fight against colonialism? if the the war takes a tad longer than expected, the economic crisis in the arab world worsens, ad hoc protest movement organise, then, it would be impossible through the same system of patriarchial articulation to buy regime safety for long. imagine just the list of countries in the third world to which americans could not go! this may be a chance occurance, but it may be that just at the bottom of things it is something that is waiting to happen- in what makes the gestation period of capitalism far too ugly to behold. Home Global The Arab street keeps its protest muted By Rhoula Khalaf and James Drummond Published: March 14 2003 20:26 | Last Updated: March 14 2003 20:26 In bright sunshine, worshippers streamed down to the mosque of Hussein in the old city of Cairo. It was what may be the last Friday - the Muslim day of rest - before the US and Britain launch military action against Iraq. Hundreds of pairs of shoes and sandals were stacked on the window ledges of the mosque, where for centuries the sick and the lame of Cairo have come in the hope of a cure. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Thank you
Thanks Eugene! H
The Arab street keeps its protest mutedftarticle
How to brake the bonds of arab patriarchial society in the fight against colonialism? if the the war takes a tad longer than expected, the economic crisis in the arab world worsens, ad hoc protest movement organise, then, it would be impossible through the same system of patriarchial articulation to buy regime safety for long. imagine just the list of countries in the third world to which americans could not go! this may be a chance occurance, but it may be that just at the bottom of things it is something that is waiting to happen- in what makes the gestation period of capitalism far too ugly to behold. Home Global The Arab street keeps its protest muted By Rhoula Khalaf and James Drummond Published: March 14 2003 20:26 | Last Updated: March 14 2003 20:26 In bright sunshine, worshippers streamed down to the mosque of Hussein in the old city of Cairo. It was what may be the last Friday - the Muslim day of rest - before the US and Britain launch military action against Iraq. Hundreds of pairs of shoes and sandals were stacked on the window ledges of the mosque, where for centuries the sick and the lame of Cairo have come in the hope of a cure. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Parecon in the News!
Title: Parecon in the News! [from the entertainment section of the L.A. TIMES!] http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/suncal/cl-ca-donnegan16mar16.story STYLE & CULTURE His economic plan: Start from scratch Capitalism not working for you? Michael Albert may be tilting at windmills, but readers are flocking to his book on a system to spread the wealth and work. By Kevin Donegan Special to The Times March 16 2003 You've heard the stats being thrown around. The top 1% of Americans has greater personal net worth than the bottom 95% combined, says NYU economist Edward Wolff in a 1999 report. One out of three non-elderly Americans doesn't have health insurance, says a recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report. One in six children lives in poverty, says the U.S. Census. The majority of Americans work hard day in, day out, just to keep their heads above water, and many don't make it. In Washington and in statehouses across the country, Democrats and Republicans tweak the edges of the economy with innovations such as earned income tax credits, welfare reform and child-care subsidies, but things don't seem to change all that much. The concern is so great that in a recent poll by Zogby International, two-thirds of Americans agreed that "the income gap between the wealthy and other Americans has become so great that something needs to be done about it." Michael Albert thinks we should start over. Albert, with the help of others, has spent much of his life designing a new economy from the ground up. His latest book, "Parecon: Life After Capitalism" (Verso), shot from No. 2,423,754 on the Amazon bestseller list to No. 13 in just a few days after some online promotion. It now hovers in the 400s and will hit bookshelves later this month. "Parecon" (pronounced par-E-con, the title is short for "participatory economics") is already being translated into more than 20 languages. So why is there so much interest in what seems like such a quixotic undertaking? Albert, 55, points to popular culture as evidence there is widespread agreement about the evils of contemporary capitalism. "Go into the store and buy the 10 top-selling novels and read them. You'll be flabbergasted at the number of them that include a clear-cut condemnation -- although it's not the authors' purpose -- of one sector or another of modern society and the institutions in it." He identifies four key values that any economy must address: equity (how much should people get and why?); self-management (what kind of say over their conditions should people have?); diversity (is more variety better than less?); and solidarity (should people cooperate or compete?). A participatory economy would redefine existing divisions of labor through the idea of "balanced job complexes," whereby each job would contain a balanced share of tasks -- some creative and empowering, some rote and unfulfilling -- required in each workplace. There would be no managers whose primary responsibility is making decisions, just as there would be no janitors whose main job is cleaning up. Each worker would have an equal share of the gravy train and the dirty work, which Albert thinks will contribute to eliminating hierarchy and class. "Eighty percent of people have their talents and skills crushed out of them ... because we educate people to obey orders and to endure boredom because that's what they're going to face in life," he said. Participatory economics, which Albert developed with American University economics professor Robin Hahnel, places shared values at the forefront of economic relations. "If humanity should not aspire to create an elite minority joyfully dancing atop a suffocating mountainous majority," Albert writes, "what should we aspire to?" With his economic system, there would be no private ownership of productive capital, such as commercial property; instead, such assets would be publicly held and run. He points out, however, that he's not talking about a socialist or communist society such as the old Soviet Union, which despite its stated goal of classlessness, did, in fact, produce a class of economic planners whose interests often were opposed to those of workers. His system tries to safeguard against such divisions by using a non-hierarchical, democratic planning process to match the economy's production to people's consumption each year. Albert also wants a balanced division of labor, wages according to people's effort and sacrifice, and input into workplace decisions based on how much one is affected by them. For example, if someone wants to listen to music at work, only co-workers within earshot would be consulted. A hiring decision might be weighed by everyone who will work with the new employee. Depending on the issue at hand, some company decisions could be made by majority rule, some by consensus and, perhaps, others by fiat, as long as a balance that respects each person's right to "self-manage" is achieved over time.
Pledge of Allegiance revised
Title: Pledge of Allegiance revised According to rumors, following the advice of Attorney General John Ashcroft, President Bush has accepted a revision of the "Pledge of Allegiance," to settle the current controversy: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible." jd
Re: Re: Commodity production 8000 years ago?
In a message dated 3/14/03 12:14:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >according to Marx, commodity exchange and thus commodity production is as >old as the hills, though I don't know if he thought in terms of 8000 years >ago and Australian natives. > >"In order that this alienation [of products] may be reciprocal [allowing >them to become commodities], it is only necessary for men, by a tacit >understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable >objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of >reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on >property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal >family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State. The exchange >of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such >communities, at their points of contact with other similar communities, or >with members of the latter." (volume I of CAPITAL, ch. 2) > >It's only within communities that hold property in common that there's no >commodity production. It doesn't surprise me that there would be exchange >between the wide variety of different types of communities -- in addition to >relations of war, theft, and the like. > >Marx doesn't seem to have been a theorist who put a big emphasis on "natural >economy" without exchange. > >Note, of course, that the Gunditjmara were engaged in C-C (or maybe C-M-C) >rather than the capitalist (or class) society's M-C-M' (where M' >M). For myself the question - any social question, is approached from the standpoint of fundamentality. The production of things outside of direct consumption by the producers is ancient, orginating in societies that hold property in common. Holding property in common is by definition social property. "The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with other similar communities, or with members of the latter." The first stage wherein a new qualitative feature is society is witnessed and understood is the second stage of its development, because human being cannot see emergence. What we witness is that which has emerged. Defining the boundary or point of transition - nodal line, is extremely difficult in human affairs. What is involved is an entire historical process that is the quantitative and qualitative transitions on which erupts a different mode of production. We are living in such a period of time, with the qualitative feature of a new juncture slowly being flushed into the open. Everyone sees the partial phenomena. Some witness an awareness of the inherent limitations of oil extraction and what is called sustainable growth. Some see the polarization in the mode of accumulation - profits extraction outside the bound of commodity production or speculation. What is the fundamentality? The fundamentality is always how human being are organized to engage the production process - maintain subsistence, or that, which alters the value relationship and destroys the value form. Computerization, digitalized production process and advanced robotics destroy the value relationship - the basis of commodity exchange, because advanced robotics permanently remove human beings from the production process. Robots cannot engage in exchange. All alienated products do not necessarily enter the realm of exchange. The toilers creating items for consumption and use of the ancient nobility (8000 years ago) created products - things, that became alientated from the indivdual laborer but did not and could not enter the realm of exchange relations. All the items of conusmption of the ancient ruling class where in the main "alienated products" because someone outside the ruling class created them. The goblets, chairs, tables, temples, war articles and such never enteed the realm of exchange relations. The Biblical Noah created a ship with a group of toilers to save humanity perhaps 12,000 years ago. This presupposes a certain division of labor and a history of building where skill is acquired and developed. One can create any number of things that become alientated from the direct producer and this act in itself do not give rise to exchange relations as social relations of production. It is only at a certain stage in the development of the material power of production that commodity production becomes social relations of production driven by exchange relations and acquire a historical force. A historical force means a force that compells soceity to transform itself in accord with a certain method of production. Alienated products and exchange relations are not identical in scope. I concur that the exchange relations evolves in front of the commodity social relations of production. Products are exchanged first before and as the basis for them acquiring the properities of commodities - in theory at least. This is so because products exist become the e
Re: expected UK government resignations
Why is the legality of the issue such a big concern in the UK. I can see that there is the possibility of trials before the International Criminal Court but this seems quite remote and unlikely. Bush seems to be able to lie about 1441 claiming it gives legal authority for the invasion without much political fallout. As Rumsfeld would put it: Why not just let the little British Bulldog off the leash and let him wet on the Commons floor if he is so scared. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=386545 Peers demand that Goldsmith explain the legal basis for war By Ben Russell 13 March 2003 The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will be summoned before the House of Lords next week to justify the legal basis for a war on Iraq. Liberal Democrat peers called the half-day debate after ministers repeatedly refused to explain how a war could be justified without breaching Britain's obligations in international law. But ministers also face the prospect of criticism from the ranks of distinguished former law lords and experts on international law who line the benches of the House of Lords. Yesterday Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, wrote to Tony Blair asking how a war could be legal if it was not backed by a fresh United Nations Security Council resolution. Ministers have been under pressure over the legality of military action after Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, warned this week that unilateral action by Britain and the United States "would not be in conformity with the UN charter". Mr Kennedy wrote: "It is still not clear whether the Attorney General has advised the Government that unilateral military action in Iraq, without a second UN resolution authorising force, would be legal. When I asked you this question earlier today, you chose not to answer it." Lord Goldsmith joined senior cabinet ministers in Downing Street for a meeting of the "embryonic" war cabinet. Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat peer, who will open Monday's debate, said: "This is obviously the critical issue of the moment. It is something that we want to bring up. There is a large amount of expertise in the House of Lords. We don't know what the Attorney General has advised." Yesterday senior lawyers warned that military action would be illegal without a second UN resolution. Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former Labour solicitor general, said a war without a second resolution would be "flagrantly unlawful". Rabinder Singh QC, a human rights specialist, told BBC Radio 4: "The most recent resolution 1441 clearly does not authorise war against Iraq. What that did is to say that Iraq had to comply with certain steps, Blix then had to report back to the Security Council and then the Security Council would decide what to do next." "The Attorney General has been advising the Government on this. What is noticeable is that there seems to be a one-sided legal debate. At present nobody on the Government side seems to be engaging in a legal debate with us." ___ From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: [PEN-L:35615] expected UK government resignations > > Commentators assume that Clare Short will be joined in resigning by Robin > Cook, former secretary for Foreign Affairs, and now Leader of the House of > Commons. Cook is a europhile and in favour of proportional representation > and dialogue with the Liberal Democrats so he is not in the ascendant anyway. > > A far more crucial possible resignation would be that of the Attorney > General who has clearly not given a ringing assurance that an invasion > without an explicit UN resolution, would be legal. The Observer today > suggests that Blair has spent a lot of time massaging and spinning this > question: > > >In the next 48 hours, in one of the last moves before military action is > >announced, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will say Britain is > >within its legal rights to launch an attack without a second resolution. > > > >The Government's chief law officer will say 1441 warns of 'serious > >consequences' if Saddam does not comply fully with UN resolutions. Earlier > >UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf war in 1991, which say that > >nations can use 'all necessary means' to disarm Saddam, back Britain's > >legal position. > > > >Goldsmith, whose legal advice to the Government advice is usually private, > >has told colleagues he feels he must speak out after reports that Britain > >had a weak legal case for an invasion. > > > >'He's found all the reports that he's telling the Prime Minister that this > >might be illegal highly irritating,' said a senior Number 10 figure. > > > > http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,915311,00.html > > > Goldsmith is a close friend of Tony Blair, and no doubt realises that an > honestly equivocal statement of the legal position, could be damaging,
Pilger article
Some sources claim the microwave bomb is not ready to use. One would think it should be banned because of its effects on civilians, life support machines, all sorts of essential electronic infrastructure, pacemakers, and on and on... It has also been pointed out that it will make communications between combatants difficult if not impossible. I wonder how much of a problem shielding is to protect the users technology. And how easy will it be for weak nations to use the bombs pre-emptively to forestall an attack by a technological superpower? Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2261.htm Disobey by John Pilger; March 13, 2003 How have we got to this point, where two western governments take us into an illegal and immoral war against a stricken nation with whom we have no quarrel and who offer us no threat: an act of aggression opposed by almost everybody and whose charade is transparent? How can they attack, in our name, a country already crushed by more than 12 years of an embargo aimed mostly at the civilian population, of whom 42 per cent are children - a medieval siege that has taken the lives of at least half a million children and is described as genocidal by the former United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Iraq? How can those claiming to be "liberals" disguise their embarrassment, and shame, while justifying their support for George Bush's proposed launch of 800 missiles in two days as a "liberation"? How can they ignore two United Nations studies which reveal that some 500,000 people will be at risk? Do they not hear their own echo in the words of the American general who said famously of a Vietnamese town he had just levelled: "We had to destroy it in order to save it?" "Few of us," Arthur Miller once wrote, "can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied." These days, Miller's astuteness applies to a minority of warmongers and apologists. Since 11 September 2001, the consciousness of the majority has soared. The word "imperialism" has been rescued from agitprop and returned to common usage. America's and Britain's planned theft of the Iraqi oilfields, following historical precedent, is well understood. The false choices of the cold war are redundant, and people are once again stirring in their millions. More and more of them now glimpse American power, as Mark Twain wrote, "with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other". What is heartening is the apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of stifling recognition and analysis of American Imperialism. Intellectual loyalty oaths, similar to those rife during the Third Reich, when the abusive "anti-German" was enough to silence dissent, no longer work. In America itself, there are too many anti-Americans filling the streets now: those whom Martha Gellhorn called "that life-saving minority who judge their government in moral terms, who are the people with a wakeful conscience and can be counted upon". Perhaps for the first time since the late 1940s, Americanism as an ideology is being identified in the same terms as any rapacious power structure; and we can thank Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice for that, even though their acts of international violence have yet to exceed those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. "My guess," wrote Norman Mailer recently, "is that, like it or not, or want it or not, we are going to go to war because that is the only solution Bush and his people can see. The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in our lives. And, before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way . . . Indeed, democracy is the special condition that we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascist atmosphere in America already." In the military plutocracy that is the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media, Mailer's "pre-fascist atmosphere" makes common sense. The dissident American writer William Rivers Pitt pursues this further. "Critics of the Bush administration," he wrote, "like to bandy about the word 'fascist' when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi storm troopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Dubbed 'the father of fascism', Mussolini defined the wor
Bush is looking Nappy
Title: Bush is looking Nappy http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-atwood16mar16,1,5974439.story Napoleon's Blunders A tale of preemptive strikes gone wrong By Margaret Atwood Margaret Atwood won the Booker Prize for her novel "The Blind Assassin." Her latest book, "Oryx and Crake," will be published in May 2003. March 16, 2003 TORONTO -- In my high school music appreciation class, we listened to Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture". We liked it, because there was stuff we could identify: Cannons boomed, bells rang, national anthems resounded and there was a satisfying uproar at the end. The English -- being English -- have since produced a version performed by sheep and chickens. Generals screw up, their fiascoes get made into art and then the art gets made into fiascoes. Such is the march of progress. We were told that Tchaikovsky's piece celebrated Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, but we weren't told who Napoleon was or what he was doing in Moscow in the first place. So, in case you had a similarly vague musical appreciation experience, here's the deep background. Napoleon was a brilliant soldier who rose like a bubble during a time of unrest and bloodletting, won many battles and was thus able -- like Julius Caesar -- to grab near-absolute power. He got hold of Italy and Austria and Prussia and Spain. He replaced the French Republic with an emperor -- himself -- thus giving rise to much impressive furniture with eagles and columns on it. He also brought in a legal code, still somewhat admired today. He had laudable motives, or so his spin-doctoring went: He wanted peace and justice and European unity. But he thought it would be liberating for other countries to have their stifling religious practices junked and their political systems replaced with one like his. To this end, he scrapped the kings of other countries and created new kings, who happened to be members of his own family. Which brings me to Napoleon's two biggest mistakes. The first was Spain. Napoleon got Spain treacherously. He had an agreement whereby he could march through it on the way to Portugal, which was bothering him by interfering with his sanctions against trading with the British. Once his armies were in Spain he took the place over, whereupon his forces engaged in their usual practices of priest-pestering, church-looting and removing sparkly things and artworks to other locations for safekeeping. Napoleon's big mistake was underestimating the religious feelings of the staunchly Roman Catholic Spanish. He thought they'd embrace "liberation," but it seems they had a curious attachment to their own beliefs. The British annoyed Napoleon in Spain by winning battles against him, but the real defeat of the French was brought about by widespread guerrilla resistance. Things got very nasty on both sides: The Spaniards cut French throats, the French roasted Spaniards alive, the Spaniards sawed a French general in two. The Spanish population won -- although at enormous cost -- because you can kill some of the people all of the time and you can kill all of the people some of the time but you can't kill all of the people all of the time. When a whole population hates you, and hates you fanatically, it's difficult to rule. Present leaders, take note: Never underestimate the power of religious fervor. Also: Your version of what's good for them may not match theirs. Napoleon's second big mistake was invading Russia. There's no one clear explanation for this. He didn't need to do it. Russia wasn't attacking him, though it had in the past and might in the future. Maybe he just wanted to add it to his set. In any case, he invaded. When his horse stumbled as he crossed the Dnieper -- a bad omen -- a voice said from the shadows: "A Roman would have turned back." Warfare at that time meant forcing your opponent to stand and fight, resulting in victory on one side or the other. But the Russians merely retreated, burning crops as they went and leading Napoleon deeper and deeper into the same huge Russian landmass and awful Russian weather that also defeated Hitler. When Napoleon reached Moscow, he thought maybe he'd "won," but the Russians burned Moscow and retreated again. Napoleon hung around the cinders, expecting the czar to sue for peace, but no message arrived. Thus the retreat, the "1812 Overture" and the decimation of the Grand Army. As others have learned since, it's very hard to defeat an enemy who never turns up. The occupation of Japan after the Second World War has been proposed as a model for Iraq. It's not a helpful comparison. First, the religious fervor of the Japanese soldier was attached to the emperor, who thus had the power to order a surrender. Iraq will have no such single authority. Second, Japan is an island: No Russian-style, Afghan-style retreat was possible. Third, the Japanese had no neighbors who shared their religious views and might aid them. They had only two choices: death or democ
Re: Re: expected UK government resignations
The legality issue is an excuse for giving into popular revuksion against the war without saying that is what they are doing, obviously. jks k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is the legality of the issue such a big concern in the UK. I can seethat there is the possibility of trials before the International CriminalCourt but this seems quite remote and unlikely. Bush seems to be able to lieabout 1441 claiming it gives legal authority for the invasion without muchpolitical fallout. As Rumsfeld would put it: Why not just let the littleBritish Bulldog off the leash and let him wet on the Commons floor if he isso scared.Cheers, Ken Hanlyhttp://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=386545Peers demand that Goldsmith explain the legal basis for warBy Ben Russell13 March 2003The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will be summoned before the House ofLords next week to justify the legal basis for a war on Iraq.Liberal Democrat peers called the half-day debate after! ministersrepeatedly refused to explain how a war could be justified withoutbreaching Britain's obligations in international law. But ministers alsoface the prospect of criticism from the ranks of distinguished former lawlords and experts on international law who line the benches of the House ofLords.Yesterday Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, wrote to Tony Blairasking how a war could be legal if it was not backed by a fresh UnitedNations Security Council resolution. Ministers have been under pressureover the legality of military action after Kofi Annan, the UN secretarygeneral, warned this week that unilateral action by Britain and the UnitedStates "would not be in conformity with the UN charter".Mr Kennedy wrote: "It is still not clear whether the Attorney General hasadvised the Government that unilateral military action in Iraq, without asecond UN resolution authorising force, would be legal. When! I asked youthis question earlier today, you chose not to answer it."Lord Goldsmith joined senior cabinet ministers in Downing Street for ameeting of the "embryonic" war cabinet.Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat peer, who will open Monday's debate,said: "This is obviously the critical issue of the moment. It is somethingthat we want to bring up. There is a large amount of expertise in the Houseof Lords. We don't know what the Attorney General has advised." Yesterdaysenior lawyers warned that military action would be illegal without asecond UN resolution. Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former Labour solicitorgeneral, said a war without a second resolution would be "flagrantlyunlawful".Rabinder Singh QC, a human rights specialist, told BBC Radio 4: "The mostrecent resolution 1441 clearly does not authorise war against Iraq. Whatthat did is to say that Iraq had to comply with certain steps, Blix thenhad to re! port back to the Security Council and then the Security Councilwould decide what to do next.""The Attorney General has been advising the Government on this. What isnoticeable is that there seems to be a one-sided legal debate. At presentnobody on the Government side seems to be engaging in a legal debate withus."___From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AMSubject: [PEN-L:35615] expected UK government resignations>> Commentators assume that Clare Short will be joined in resigning by Robin> Cook, former secretary for Foreign Affairs, and now Leader of the House of> Commons. Cook is a europhile and in favour of proportional representation> and dialogue with the Liberal Democrats so he is not in the ascendantanyway.>> A f! ar more crucial possible resignation would be that of the Attorney> General who has clearly not given a ringing assurance that an invasion> without an explicit UN resolution, would be legal. The Observer today> suggests that Blair has spent a lot of time massaging and spinning this> question:>> >In the next 48 hours, in one of the last moves before military action is> >announced, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will say Britain is> >within its legal rights to launch an attack without a second resolution.> >> >The Government's chief law officer will say 1441 warns of 'serious> >consequences' if Saddam does not comply fully with UN resolutions.Earlier> >UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf war in 1991, which say that> >nations can use 'all necessary means' to disarm Saddam, back Britain's> >legal position.> >> >Golds! mith, whose legal advice to the Government advice is usuallyprivate,> >has told colleagues he feels he must speak out after reports that Britain> >had a weak legal case for an invasion.> >> >'He's found all the reports that he's telling the Prime Minister thatthis> >might be illegal highly irritating,' said a senior Number 10 figure. http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,915311,00.html>>> Goldsmith is a close friend of Tony Blair, and no doubt realises that an> ho
American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-01.htm Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Associated Press American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army by Ibrahim Barzak Seth Sandronsky http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-01.htm Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Associated Press American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army by Ibrahim Barzak Seth Sandronsky http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-01.htm Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Associated Press American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army by Ibrahim Barzak Seth Sandronsky _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: expected UK government resignations
Good question, and good answer. Yes the question is a proxy for the desire to play an honourable imperialist role but not at the dictate of Bush. The UK has shifted in its imperialistic expectations. There is no backlash against negotiating with the IRA. The population is used to terrorism. It has accepted low key roles of peace keeping in Africa, and would have accepted peace making in Kosova, but wants some higher ideals for this. It is prepared for a liberal interventionist imperial model, but not a brazenly hegemonic one. So Blair has some difficulties straddling the unilateralist demands of the Bush adminstration. Yes the UN is something of a legal fiction, and the law is being thrashed out in cases like this, and Blair will probably get away with going to war without a UN resolution. But the desire is that Britain should have things approved by the UN. Longer term I think there is indeed an issue. If British troops negligently fireball a school in the belief that there is a regiment of the Republican Guard behind it, I do not see in the future why they would not be sued if what they did was outside the remit of the United Nations. The USA can probably get away with being hegemon, but it will be difficult for its side kicks without some sort of legitimacy. Chris Burford London At 2003-03-16 09:38 -0800, you wrote: The legality issue is an excuse for giving into popular revuksion against the war without saying that is what they are doing, obviously. jks k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is the legality of the issue such a big concern in the UK. I can see that there is the possibility of trials before the International Criminal Court but this seems quite remote and unlikely. Bush seems to be able to lie about 1441 claiming it gives legal authority for the invasion without much political fallout. As Rumsfeld would put it: Why not just let the little British Bulldog off the leash and let him wet on the Commons floor if he is so scared. Cheers, Ken Hanly
unsubscribe
Please Unsubscribe Me. My email was down for a while and I got 5000 emails half of which were this list. I can't keep up. Sorry. Lisa unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bush is looking Nappy
> "Devine, James" wrote: > > > Napoleon's Blunders > A tale of preemptive strikes gone wrong > > By Margaret Atwood > > > > Napoleon was a brilliant soldier who rose like a bubble during a time > of unrest and bloodletting, won many battles and was thus able -- like > Julius Caesar -- to grab near-absolute power. Julius Caesar gets a bad rap. He of course was similar to all leaders of class-divided societies in defending exploitation. But he differed in one important way, and it was that difference that got him assassinated. He recognized that exploitation could be so extreme that it would self-destruct by destroying those who it exploited. And he felt that the Roman ruling class of landowners was doing just that. Hence he was attempting to _lighten_ the exploitative load on the Roman masses. That got him killed. The Roman ruling class of his day, like the U.S. ruling class of our day, hated and constraint whatever (however much in their own interest objectively) on their powers of exploitation. Carrol
US wants to privatise Iraq oilfields: Yamani
>From dailytelegraph, Money, (UK) Cheers, Ken Hanly Yamani: US wants to privatise Iraqi oilfields By Mary Fagan (Filed: 16/03/2003) The US is examining ways of privatising the Iraqi oilfields, according to Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister. Speaking to The Telegraph, Yamani also said that oil prices could soar beyond $50, wreaking havoc with the world economy, if Saddam Hussein burns the oilfields during the expected war. "We know oil is very important and already the Americans have started to dispose of Iraqi oil [by offering it to others]. " It is said that Iraqi oil will be kept in custody for the Iraqi nation but they have even started studies of how to privatise the oil industry in Iraq. " What does that tell you? The majority of people everywhere say this is a war which is about oil," Yamani said. He said burning the Iraqi oilfields could destroy them, creating a "disastrous" lack of crude. "Whether it's $50 or $80, any price above $50 is extremely harmful to the world economy. The damage would be done," he said. Oil prices dropped back this week on expectations of a quick war and hopes that the US will soon begin to release supplies from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Brent crude closed at $31.16 per barrel from a post-Gulf War peak of $34.55 on Monday. Separately, it has emerged that the Department of Trade and Industry has held a secret meeting with UK companies who fear they will lose out in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. They complained that the Government is not doing enough to help British companies win contracts. By contrast, the US Agency for International Development is already inviting bids from five major American infrastructure groups for a $900m contract to oversee rebuilding in Iraq. BP and Shell have also had informal discussions with the Government about Iraqi oil during "routine" meetings. Phil Watts, the chief executive of Shell, said that the company only wanted a "level playing field" when opportunities arise. Iraq, with more than 100bn barrels of proven reserves, is the second largest oil nation after Saudi Arabia.
Re: Upper East Side vigil
> Throughout the 1960s and 70s nothing like this > ever happened on the Upper East Side, as far as > I know. Not only were there vigils in our > neighborhood, but all around the city. I was also > informed that the churches were having 7pm peace > services. All in all, a sign of the times. And this is the Kugulu Park vigil: http://istanbul.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/702.php Kugulu Park (literal translation: the park with swans) is a park near the "Upper East Side" of Ankara. Looking at the pictures at the above web site and knowing that part of Ankara reasonably well, it seems the participants of this vigil are also from the relatively well to do section of the society although they are not the most wealthy. Nothing like this ever happened in Turkey, either. Sabri
Fictitious capital
MARKET WATCH >From WorldCom, an Amazing View of a Bloated Industry By GRETCHEN MORGENSON VER since WorldCom toppled into bankruptcy last summer, the company has been teaching stunned investors one lesson after another. Not only have we learned how easy it is to cook up a monumental accounting scandal, but our eyes have also been opened to the special treatment that WorldCom's executives received in the form of hot stock issues from Wall Street during the bubble. And who could forget the picture of gullible Wall Street analysts cheering investors into the company even as it was flaming out? But last week's WorldCom tutorial may beat all the others. Thanks to its announcement on Thursday, we now know in actual, quantifiable, stupefying terms, just how much WorldCom overpaid for the telecommunications network it built. After reviewing its books, WorldCom said that it would write down the value of its assets by $80 billion. Some of this had been expected; $45 billion in good will at the company largely a result of overpaying for acquisitions surely had little value. But more than a few jaws dropped when WorldCom noted that it would write down the value of its property, plant and equipment and other intangible assets to $10 billion from $44.8 billion. That meant that WorldCom's hard assets, including its network, are now worth almost 75 percent less than what they had cost. And don't forget, these assets were bought with actual cash, not highflying shares. So WorldCom paid $1 for assets that are now worth 25 cents. At last we know how gross was the misallocation of capital in the telecommunications industry in the late 90's. And how deep is the telechasm. While some investors may want to conclude that vanishing asset values are peculiar to WorldCom, it is not so. Yes, WorldCom is a company in distress, and it wants to be extra-conservative with its books before it starts life over again, post-bankruptcy. But because WorldCom was not alone in building an ambitious network, its hard-asset writedown has implications for others in the telecommunications industry and the nation's economy over all. First, the writedown is a signal that others may follow from WorldCom competitors. "Who's next?" asked one former telecommunications analyst. "Any of the big spenders who put in next-generation networks are going to have to go through the same sorts of tests that WorldCom did." AT&T, for example, is a prime candidate. >From a broader perspective, the deflation in WorldCom's assets also indicates that a rebound in telecommunications spending is further off than the optimists think. WorldCom's announcement also spells continued trouble for makers of telecommunications equipment, like Cisco Systems, Lucent Technologies and Nortel Networks. When customer demand for these goods returns, these outfits will face severe pricing pressure from survivors who understand how inflated prices used to be. Of course, companies that are not operating in bankruptcy do not need to reduce the value of their assets by the same amount as WorldCom has done. But one can make a case that a writedown half the size of WorldCom's say 40 percent is realistic. Another former telecommunications analyst said: "It clearly shows that the remaining companies' true economic value is well, well below where their book values are, even for hard assets and forgetting the good will. And if true economic value is far below that, then stock prices will likely come down." Thanks to WorldCom, we are closer to knowing how much demonstrably dumb money went into the telecom industry at the century's end. Although this particular bubble burst years ago, WorldCom's news from last week reveals just how long it will take to come back into balance. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fictitious capital
Just as an aside, the kuwaiti stock market has been heating up for the last few years because of exess liquidity from iraq, the money is in compensation for the 1990 war, 25% of the the oil for food, nearly all of which goes to kuwait.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Re: Fictitious capital
- Original Message - From: "michael perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:51 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35636] Fictitious capital MARKET WATCH >From WorldCom, an Amazing View of a Bloated Industry By GRETCHEN MORGENSON [snip] Thanks to WorldCom, we are closer to knowing how much demonstrably dumb money went into the telecom industry at the century's end. Although this particular bubble burst years ago, WorldCom's news from last week reveals just how long it will take to come back into balance. = And the fixing the wreckage wrought by equilibrium thinking will be even more difficult to deal with. Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
farewell, long run...
>From bombs to beggar-my-neighbour Larry Elliott Monday March 17, 2003 The Guardian As the world's financial markets showed with startling clarity last week, the long term has ceased to exist. The short-term is the next nano second, the medium term is the next minute and the long term is what might be happening on the other side of lunchtime. The antics of dealers last week would have kept the psychoanalysts in learned articles for many a year, with abundant evidence of all the classic textbook disorders: manic depressive mood swings, denial, id impulses, more denial, the lot. Forecasting what the world will look like after the war is, therefore, nigh-on impossible. To the extent that anybody has given it thought, the feeling is that an easy military campaign will be followed by a longer and more expensive period of reconstruction, but that the costs will be worth it because the threat of Baghdad-sponsored terrorism will have been diminished and the boil on the face of the global economy will have been lanced. This may well be the outcome. Yet contingency planning would suggest that policy makers had best be prepared for a less than perfect scenario, in which the gyrations of the stock market are not just the result of war jitters - although they obviously are to an extent - but are symptomatic of a more serious problem that will be exacerbated by the sundering of the global community over Iraq. George Bush is making positive noises about the need for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, which raises hope that the US has not given up on multilateralism, but the insults that have been flying across the Atlantic and the English Channel in recent days suggests that multilateralism may have been holed below the waterline. The sour mood threatens everything from coordinated action on debt relief to expansion of the European Union to the east, taking in the global trade talks and Britain's relationship with Europe en route. Less confident This would be serious stuff even if the immediate economic outlook were bright, but it does not take a great feat of imagination to envisage a scenario in which the markets enjoy a Saddam rally only to wake up at the beginning of May to a world that has not fundamentally changed. Recent data have suggested that weaker consumer sentiment in the US is having an impact on spending. Likewise, there appears to be evidence that the boom in retail sales in Britain is waning. Europe's domestic demand has been poor and so has Japan's. John Llewellyn of Lehman Brothers concludes: "At root, people are less confident that the economy will be performing satisfactorily a year or two ahead. Consumers, uncertain that they will have a job, spend a bit less and save a bit more. Firms, expecting reduced sales, do likewise. Private sector savings rates rise. The result: a self-fulfilling slowdown with a crashing stock market." Consumer caution is wholly justified, given the destruction of wealth caused by the equity bear market. Take Britain; Simon Rubinsohn, chief economist at the City firm Gerrard, estimates that the net wealth of the household sector stood at £3,397bn in the first quarter of 2002, down from £4,019bn in the fourth quarter of 2002 and a peak of close to £4,400bn in 2000. The size of the fall is modest in relation to the halving of share prices, but is explained by the simultaneous increase in house prices. Over the past three years, the bear market in shares has almost - but not quite - been balanced by the bubble in property. Why then has consumer spending been so strong? Largely, because rises in house prices are much more visible and - in a sense - more visceral than the decline in value of their financial assets. It is the feeling that bricks and mortar are rising in value that has made people willing to take on more debt, or perhaps forget what is happening to their pension funds and endowment policies. A large chunk of the debt that has been taken on by consumers has been to service existing debts, which is just about sustainable so long as interest rates are falling, real incomes are growing, unemployment is coming down, and house prices are going up." However, as Rubinsohn says: "The expectation that property inflation is set to slow sharply means that any meaningful increase in household wealth is unlikely over the course of this year. Second, the lagged impact of previous reductions in the value of wealth will continue to affect consumer behaviour at the same time as all the other key drivers of spending are also turning down. Real income gains are already being squeezed (a crude calculation would put the current increase at a mere 1%), taxes are set to rise by around this amount, unemployment could begin to edge upwards and dividends will struggle to post a positive increase in real terms." Now, of course, the death of the consumer here and across the Atlantic has been much exaggerated. Every downward blip in spending has been hailed as th
Re: Iraq's money supply
The potential iraqi opposition economist in the pro american iraqi governemnt wrote a paper that was never published in which he says that it was not the war and the embargo that are killing people in iraq, it was sadam's money supply policy, too loose.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
centralizaton
Big Banks In the Mood To Acquire By Nicholas Johnston Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 17, 2003; Page E01 Within days last fall, M&T Bank Corp. said it would buy Allfirst Financial Inc. for $2.8 billion and BB&T Corp., the Winston-Salem banking giant, agreed to buy Wheaton's Equitable Bank for $53 million. Those deals were the first sizable banking acquisitions in the Washington area in more than a year, and began a wave of mergers that continued last week. "When these types of deals start to occur, it creates a mindset in various boards of directors and management teams," said Kevin G. Byrnes, who next month is to become president and chief financial officer of Provident Bankshares Corp. "This is just what happens in the banking business from time to time." In January, BB&T agreed to buy First Virginia Banks Inc. for $3.4 billion in one of the largest bank acquisitions in recent years. Last week, Mercantile Bankshares Corp., a company built with acquisitions over the past three decades but which has made few deals in recent years, agreed to buy F&M Bancorp of Frederick for $485 million. "There has actually been a slowdown in the bank M&A market over the last couple of years," said Edward J. Kelly III, Mercantile's chief executive and a former investment banker. "But when you see an opportunity like that you have to take it." Local bankers and industry analysts cite a number of reasons for the recent deals, such as the health of bank stocks and general economic uncertainty. There is no consensus on whether they will lead to another round of banking consolidation like the one that vastly reduced the number of local banks in the early and mid-1990s. "It can hinge on so many things," said Gary B. Townsend, a banking analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. "It's hard to say what might have been the principal factor." Lower interest rates might be one of the reasons. Smaller community banks get most of their income from the difference between what they pay for deposits and what they earn on loans. As rates fall, their margins can be squeezed and price competition increases. "There's some possibility that the rate environment might push small banks to sell," said Harry Terris, a banking analyst at SNL Financial in Charlottesville. "They think selling is a better alternative than continuing to fight in a very competitive market," said Hunter R. Hollar, chief executive of Sandy Spring Bankcorp in Olney. The prices paid recently for some banks might entice future sellers. BB&T, for example, paid more then three times First Virginia's "tangible book value," a common measure of a bank's worth. The average multiple for area deals in the past two years has been a little over two times tangible book value. Mercantile last week paid about 2.6 times tangible book value for F&M. "It has a big impact on sellers," Kelly said. "If people are willing to pay that much for X, would they pay that much for Y?" The value of bank stocks makes such deals easier. Most banks use their stock to buy other banks, so when share prices are high, banks can buy more. The Standard & Poor's index of bank stocks is down 17 percent in the past year, but the broader S&P is down 27 percent. Shares in BB&T were trading near a five-year high last year before it began its most recent acquisitions. On the other hand, Mercantile's shares are at the lower end of their 52-week range. But Mercantile is using cash to pay some of the $500 million price for F&M. In the decade since the area's last big wave of consolidation, many community banks have sprung up around Washington. All of them are possible targets for acquisition by competitors or by big banks looking to increase their business in the area. In Maryland there are 43 such banks with more than $250 million in assets, according to data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. In Virginia there are 63. There's even one in the District, Independence Federal Savings Bank, whose stock price skyrocketed this year on rumors that it was for sale. Bank officials said it was not. Many small-bank executives deny that their banks are for sale right up until the day deals are announced. "I think there's some truth in that," Hollar said. "If they said otherwise they would spend all their time fending off conversations as opposed to running the bank."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is war illegal without a second UN resolution?
the article cited below makes for positive law, similar to positive economics it laissez faire law. all analytically is undetermined, all in reality is overdetermined. contradictions pile up in thought only, in real life they get resolved. Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [earlier I wrote:]- Original Message -From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Since when have aggressors given a damn about international law? What's> going on now, a cynical, nihilistic operationalizing of the inversion of> Alexander Wendt's "Anarchy is What States Make of It"--see Mearsheimer's> "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" page 368-- just goes to show how> epistemically precarious/flaccid the notion of international law is if> there is no transnational Leviathan with the material means to inflict> harm on aggressors with minimal risk to it's own powers; leaving aside> whether the Leviathan would be/become malign in its own right.The following link is an example of the problems of indeterminacy,contradiction, arbitrariness and authority in inter! national law withrespect to intervention[s].http://rideau.carleton.ca/philosophy/cusjp/v20/n1/guidice.htmlDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is war illegal without a second UN resolution?
- Original Message - From: "soula avramidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:17 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35642] Re: Re: Re: Re: Is war illegal without a second UN resolution? > > the article cited below makes for positive law, similar to positive economics it laissez faire law. > all analytically is undetermined, all in reality is overdetermined. contradictions pile up in thought only, in real life they get resolved. = Yes, and the Chicago Cubs are going to win the World Series this year. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is war illegal without a second UN resolution?
=Yes, and the Chicago Cubs are going to win the World Series this year.WOW, i am making my bets early. no need to make this leap of faith, i was simply being modest, human rights are for the living not for the dead so to speak. i mean the argument was that the UN is not of itself, my humble point is that it should be of itself as well- many parts of it function as a trade union for poor nations. n'est ce pas? but funny thanks.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
US starts worrying about Turkey's own agenda
IRAQ CRISIS: US starts worrying about Turkey's own agenda By Stephen Fidler Financial Times; Mar 17, 2003 Turkey has over the past week shifted from being a source of frustration in Washington to a cause of the deepest concern. "Enough is enough," said one senior State Department official, describing Washington's disappointment at Ankara's refusal to allow the deployment of US ground forces. Another official said Turkey was like the girl at the dance who rejected offer after offer and then found herself with no dance partner. US officials were, late last week, pessimistic that Ankara would even allow US overflights for offensive operations against Iraq. As a result, the US has started moving ships southwards from the eastern Mediterranean. Officials say they have alternatives routes to fly missions to Iraq. This suggests that Jordan, which has no wish to advertise its co-operation with Washington, has granted permission for US use of its airspace. The financial consequences for Turkey of rejecting US advances will be significant. It will lose a big financial package, including US loan guarantees. Support in international financial institutions from Washington, usually Ankara's strongest backer, may weaken. George W. Bush has a long memory for what he sees as slights, say some officials. "He's like the elephant who's eaten a whole jar of peanut butter," one senior official said. Yet the US preoccupation now is not so much that Turkey will not help the US, but that it will actively hinder it. Turkish indecision has been widely depicted as an unfortunate consequence of an inexperienced new government. The importance to Turkey of a second United Nations resolution has also been under-emphasised. But US officials say the problem is more fundamental than that: Turkey's powerful military leadership is also divided over the issue. A senior official said Washington was worried about plans by members of the Turkish general staff to send tanks and infantry deep into Iraq. This would be an effort, on the face of it, to forestall a grab by Kurdish forces for Iraqi oil assets in the north of the country - an ambition all the main Kurdish parties have denied. But it would have a strategic objective too. The official said that two generals, whom he would not name, saw "a chance for Turkey to end its Kurdish problem for once and for all". This would potentially leave US troops standing in between tens of thousands of Kurdish forces and the tanks of the Turkish army. In that situation, the lightly armed forces of the US would be helpless. "I don't think light airborne forces will take on Turkish tanks," the official said. Defence experts say that the Turkish military understands US military operational techniques very well. "They have been to our [military] schools," says one. US officials say that an agreement under which the US would allow Turkish forces 20km into Iraqi territory to alleviate their concerns about Kurdish guerrilla activity has been voided because Turkey has not agreed to the US troop deployments. Nonetheless, people in northern Iraq say hundreds of Turkish troops and some armoured vehicles are already in Iraq, though it is not clear if their numbers have increased in recent weeks. Strong messages were delivered to Ankara last week from Mr Bush downwards in an effort to forestall a Turkish invasion, which would jeopardise a central element of the US-led effort: that Iraq should remain a unified state within its existing borders. There is more even than this at stake. Good relations between the US and a new government in Turkey with strong Islamist roots are seen as important in showing to the Muslim world that Washington is not against Islam, but against terrorism. That hopeful prospect looks more distant today than even a few weeks ago.
Socialist Scholars 2003
Over the past two years, I've limited my attendance to the Socialist Scholars Conference to Saturday sessions so these notes are based on only a partial view. That being said, the character of the event this year was marked indelibly by the impending war with Iraq. This meant specifically that almost everybody was forced to acknowledge that we were dealing with "imperialism", even conference chairman Bogdan Denitch, a long-time DSA leader and CUNY professor who first backed a war against the Serbs and then a war in Afghanistan after 9/11. At Friday night's plenary, Tariq Ali turned to Bogdan and noted that this was at last a war that they both could oppose. Although there is broad agreement on the need to oppose the war, there were still differences over the same kinds of issues that divide the various coalitions (although not so grievous as to prevent collaboration--thankfully). For example, at Friday night's plenary, Phyllis Bennis spent much of her talk calling for the need to strengthen the UN. Although Bennis is the author of a highly perceptive critique of the UN (http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14929.html), she still claims that until something better comes along, we have to rely on it to keep the peace. In answering Bennis, Tariq Ali called upon arguments that he had made earlier (http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq02242003.html). Although he has cast off much of his 1960s Trotskyist baggage, it is good to see him defending these kinds of elementary class distinctions. The main point he made was that the victors and not the defeated set up such international bodies. When the Japanese proposed to the League of Nations that racism be outlawed, the motion was not taken seriously. The League of Nations fell apart after it proved incapable of stopping war. The same fate awaits the UN, not withstanding the illusions of people like Hardt and Negri who came in for repeated jibes at the plenary session and various workshops I attended. On Saturday morning I attended one of a myriad of workshops with the term imperialism in the title, in this case "The New Age of Imperialism and War" sponsored by Monthly Review. I was disappointed to discover that Diana Johnstone, author of the aptly titled "Fool's Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions" from MR press, had not shown up. Later that day, I was distressed to learn that she has been gravely ill and is undergoing a heart transplant. Our thoughts are with this fearless journalist who bucked the herd mentality of the "humanitarian" interventionists. MR editor John Bellamy Foster focused on the need to understand recent US moves as dictated by long-term policy objectives rather than the whims of a "cowboy" in the White House. He singled out Bush official Richard Haass, who is an academic with ties to the liberal Brookings Institution to make his point. In a Foreign Affairs article titled "Imperial America," Haass cynically defends "humanitarian interventions" in terms of public relations: "The United States should be prepared to intervene militarily on a selective basis for humanitarian purposes. American foreign policy must have a moral component if it is to enjoy the support of the American people and the respect of the world." Translation: by sending the Marines into Haiti and rescuing people (supposedly) from the Macoute, it makes it easier to go into places like Iraq in order to grab the oil. On Saturday afternoon Socialist Register presented a panel on--you guess it--"The New Imperial Challenge." Although I have been highly critical of David Harvey's writings on ecology, he was in top form yesterday. He did something that has not been done up to this point, as far as I know. He put the global justice movement into the framework of capital accumulation. He argued that resistance to privatization among peasants in the South is virtually identical to that mounted against primitive accumulation in the early days of capitalism. Since this is not taking place in the context of the original moment, Harvey prefers to call this "accumulation by dispossession." (For more on this, go to: http://baltimore.indymedia.org/feature/display/2096/index.php) Interestingly enough, Harvey cited Rosa Luxemberg who made similar arguments in "Accumulation of Capital" at the turn of the 20th century. It is therefore good to learn that her masterpiece is once again available in print from Routledge. Michael Klare also spoke. He made the most convincing case I've seen yet that the war is about oil. Armed with an impressive array of facts, he showed that the entire US economy revolves around an abundance of cheap oil, which is used mostly for transportation. The oil industry is the life-blood of the automobile industry, which in turn fuels the steel industry. Without these components, the expansion of suburbia is impossible. He made the interesting observation that the USA is the only country in
Upper East Side vigil
I just returned from a candlelight vigil consisting of about 50 people 2 blocks from my apartment building. This in itself is not so significant. What is significant is that this gathering took place on Park Avenue and 92nd Street in the midst of the most wealthy neighborhood in NYC and perhaps the world. For example, Woody Allen has a big townhouse on 92nd Street between Park and Madison that probably cost him 3 million dollars or so. He doesn't even live there, but just uses it for Soon Yi and their kids. The people looked like typical neighborhood types, the kind you would see at Bloomingdales or in the pricey French bistros on Madison Avenue. It looked like old NY wealth, mostly women who were likely married to investment bankers or cardiologists. I spoke to one tall square-jawed guy in his fifties who looked like a Ralph Lauren model. He told me that the war didn't make any sense at all. He described himself as an independent who would likely vote for Howard Dean, the Democratic peace candidate. Another woman, who hailed from Australian, had a son in the Special Forces awaiting orders in Kuwait. She had obvious reasons for opposing war on human grounds. Another woman told me that she found out about the vigil from an email from the Sierra Club. Makes perfect sense when you stop to think about it. In conversations the one recurrent theme was that this war was not about fostering democracy or stopping weapons of mass destruction, it was about US geopolitical goals. Throughout the 1960s and 70s nothing like this ever happened on the Upper East Side, as far as I know. Not only were there vigils in our neighborhood, but all around the city. I was also informed that the churches were having 7pm peace services. All in all, a sign of the times. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
