A Failed Project For The New American Century?By Tim Buchholz
12 June, 2008Countercurrents.orgIt was early morning (for me) when my roommate got a call from his mother in Wisconsin telling him to turn on the TV. That’s when we saw the first building on fire. We ran to our roof in Brooklyn that overlooked Manhattan and saw the plumes of smoke filling the air, and that’s when we saw the second plane hit. We were in shock; we couldn’t believe what we just saw. We thought the world was ending.
As soon as the trains were running again, my friend and I went in to the city and got off at Union Square/14th Street, where anything below 14th was blocked off. Makeshift hospitals lined the streets as gurney’s rushed past us with bleeding bodies through the smoke clouded air.
“How could this have happened?” we asked ourselves as a soldier motioned with his machine gun that we could not go any further.
I’m sure we all have stories of where we were on 9/11; even those numbers will never be the same to us again. And there are just as many theories as to why it happened, and who is to blame. I’m not going to try to answer those questions, but 9/11 did set into motion a military plan that seemed to have been waiting for it to happen.
In 1997, many of the names we have seen so often since the War in Iraq began were listed as members of a neoconservative think tank called “Project for a New American Century,” or PNAC. Founded by William Kristol (not the comedian) and Robert Kagan, its stated goal according to Wikipedia was “to promote American global leadership. Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that American leadership is both good for America and good for the world and support for a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” And their Statement of Principle ends with, “While such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today, it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.” They felt that America was the most powerful country in the world and it was their duty to keep it that way, protecting the world while serving the interests of the United States. PNAC called for an increase in military spending, and a redeployment of our troops oversees to meet modern needs.
In January 1998, in a letter to Bill Clinton, written in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, PNAC called for the US Military to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and later criticized the December 1998 bombing attempts the Clinton Administration had made in Iraq, calling them ineffective.
George W. Bush was elected in 2000, and his Vice President (Dick Cheney), the VP’s Chief of Staff (I. Lewis Scootter Libby), Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), Deputy Secretary of Defense (Paul Wolfowitz), Deputy Secretary of State (Richard Armitage), and his appointed Ambassador to the UN (John R. Bolton) were all members of PNAC, as well as many members of his cabinet and his brother Jeb, who was Governor of Florida during the recount that made him president. PNAC published a 90 page report entitled “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century” which explains exactly how they planned to implement their program, and also states, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” They knew the American people wouldn’t go for the plan without a major catastrophe, and they were about to get it. But let’s backtrack just a bit.
Dick Cheney had been Secretary of Defense under George Bush Sr., and as we all know moved on to Halliburton after Bush Sr.’s presidency. During the Clinton Administration, the stock value for Halliburton dropped significantly, and they were rumored to be doing business through their subsidiary businesses with Iran, even though sanctions forbid such dealings. George Jr. asked Cheney to help him pick a VP for his presidential run, and Cheney suggested … Cheney.
Once elected, Bush put Cheney in charge of a national energy policy team called “National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).” According to www.halliburtonwatch.org, Cheney’s group “met secretly with lobbyists and representatives of the petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industries. Many of these individuals work for energy companies which gave large campaign contributions to Bush/Cheney 2000. Environmental groups were mostly excluded from the task force.”
Congress asked Cheney to release the information from these meetings, and he declined. Judicial Watch sued under “The Freedom of Information Act” to make these reports public, and finally managed to get some released in July 2003. According to www.halliburtonwatch.org, “Those documents include maps of Iraqi and other mid-east oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." They also sate that, “In January 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Halliburton, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron-Texaco Corp. and Conoco-Phillips, among others, had met with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry. However, both Cheney and the companies deny the meeting took place.” The War didn’t begin until March 2003, but we already had maps showing who would get Iraq’s Oil Fields when the war was over, drawn up in meetings held between January and May, 2001.
According to “Crossing the Rubicon - Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney” byMichael Kane, “On May 8, 2001 - four months prior to 9/11 - the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies… This included all training and planning which needed to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive in order to maximize effectiveness. This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney.”
Michael Kane goes on to say that Cheney and the Secret Service were running War Games on 9/11, “that placed ‘false blips’ on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.”
As the planes hit, Dick Cheney was rushed to a secret bunker/command center, while George W. Bush read to school children. Who was really in charge that day? And was this the new “Pearl Harbor” that PNAC had said it would take to implement their plans?
After 9/11, we started to hear links between Al Qaeda and Hussein, mainly from Members of PNAC who happened to be in Bush’s administration, like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Then we heard the reports of the WMD’s and the PNAC plan to invade Iraq was set into motion.The question now is - how did The Project for the New American Century go? PNAC had stated that removing Hussein from power would be good for American interests. Well, our economy is in a recession, we are spending 275 million dollars a day in the war, the dollar is hitting record lows, and there are rumors of oil reaching $150.00 a barrel in just a few weeks time. Bush’s approval rating has gone from close to 70% at the start of the war to 67% disapproval. Donald Rumsfeld was forced to resign. Scooter Libby was implicated in the Valerie Plame scandal, which some say was an attack on her husband for his views about the US’s desires to go to war. Paul Wolfowitz went on to lead The World Bank, till he was forced to resign amidst scandal. Republicans are distancing themselves from the Bush Administration, and a new report was just issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee stating the administration “led the nation to war on false premises,” and, “statements that Iraq had a partnership with Al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence.” So far, not so good.
But, according to www.halliburtonwatch.org, Halliburton's stock price tripled since the Iraq invasion from $20 to $63 as of 2005. They have since leveled off to around $50.00 today. Cheney still has stock options from Halliburton, but he gives the profits to charity. Then in March of 2007, amidst scandals for no-bid contracts and overcharging our troops, they moved their headquarters out of the United States and to the United Arab Emirates, which means they are no longer an American based company or pay American taxes. Exxon Mobile beat its own 2006 record profit by 3%, and according to a U.S. News report from February 2008 called “Exxon's Profits: Measuring a Record Windfall” by Marianne Lavelle, “If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar—two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.” She also says, “Exxon Mobil's profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion.” It is interesting to note that their headquarters are in Bush’s home state of Texas. According to Ms. Lavelle, Exxon-Mobile was not the only oil company to profit; the major oil companies combined profits for 2007 surpassed 100 billion.
The members of The Project for the New American Century felt that America was in a prime position atop the rest of the world in 1998, and called for an increase in military spending to keep that position. According to Gordon Lubold of The Christian Science Monitor; “Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the defense budget has ballooned about 35 percent.” He goes on to say, “For the 2009 fiscal year, the Defense Department is asking for $515 billion and a separate $70 billion to cover war costs into the early months of a new administration. Those amounts combined would represent the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II (adjusted for inflation).” He says that we are currently spending 4% of our GDP on Defense, (as much as the rest of the world put together) which The Pentagon wants to keep as the new “floor” for Defense spending. But Mr. Lubold goes on to say that this trend is coming to an end. He quotes Steven Kosiak, a senior budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, another think tank in Washington as saying "Under this plan, between fiscal year 2010 and 2013, The Defense Department's base budget would be cut by 1.5 percent. Thus, the administration is proposing that the buildup, begun in earnest after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, should come to an end in fiscal 2010."
So the war in Iraq led to an increase in the short term, but looks like it will lead to a decrease in the future. The dollar is reaching new lows and people are starting to invest in Euros and Yen instead. Our housing market has crashed. Our deficit continues to grow. China and India’s economies are growing and threatening to overtake our prime spot on top. It has been suggested by our own Senate in a Bipartisan report that we went to war under false pretense. An article in today’s Los Angeles Times states that “Monthly growth in unemployment rate is biggest in over 20 years,” and the Dow Jones dropped sharply after this report and another rise in oil prices. And even PNAC’s website, www.newamericancentury.org, has been taken down, saying only “This account has been suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.”
Do not forget, PNAC also said that their, “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity” was good for the world too. Noam Chomsky, interviewed by Gabriel Mathew Schivone in May 2008’s “Monthly Review” states, “There was a recent study by two leading terrorism experts (using RAND Corporation government data) which concluded that what they called the “Iraq effect”—meaning, the effect of the Iraq invasion on incidents of terror in the world—was huge. In fact, they found that terror increased about seven-fold after the invasion of Iraq.” The rise in oil prices has led to a food crisis all over the world. According to “2008: The Year of Global Food Crisis” By Kate Smith and Rob Edwards, “Millions more of the world's most vulnerable people are facing starvation as food shortages loom and crop prices spiral ever upwards. And for the first time in history, say experts, the impact is spreading from the developing to the developed world.”
How did it go? I guess it all depends on whose interests you’re interested in.
Tim Buchholz is a freelance writer living in Ohio
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
SHANKAR GUHA NIYOGI
Shankar Guha Niyogi.
ON January 20, when the Supreme Court was to deliver its judgment on the appeals against the acquittal by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of all the accused in the assassination of the popular trade union leader of Chhattisgarh Shankar Guha Niyogi in 1991, it was not just the fate of the accused that was at stake; the faith of workers' movements across the country, including that of the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (CMM), a trade union movement formed by Niyogi, in the justice delivery system was on test.
The Supreme Court's judgment that day confirming the acquittal of all the accused except Paltan Mallah, the hired killer, in the case came as a shock. For those who joined the spontaneous protests against this judgment, in regions under the influence of the CMM in Chhattisgarh, their 14-year-long wait for justice had ended in dismay.
Niyogi's role in successfully bringing together the unorganised contract workers in the coal mines of Dalli Rajhara, Dani Tola and at the Associated Cement Companies (ACC) cement factory in Bhilai was unique. His struggle for their rights resulted in their jobs becoming permanent and their getting better wages and working conditions.
Niyogi had also put forth a concept of alternative development based on people's participation. He sought to prepare the people to realise his ambition to free Chhattisgarh from starvation and exploitation. He became a legend in his lifetime. His murder on September 28, 1991, at Bhilai by hired killers, allegedly at the instance of some industrialists who felt threatened by his struggles, was therefore, a major setback to the movement he had led.
But Niyogi's contribution was qualitatively different in that the movement depended on people's support for its sustenance rather than on individuals. Over the years, punishment for Niyogi's murder was a key issue that held the workers' movements and civil liberty groups in the region together against the collective oppression of the industrial class. In other words, Niyogi became a symbol of the workers' quest for rights and justice, in the face of countrywide attempts to dilute their interests for the sake of globalisation and economic reforms.
In this context, the trial of his alleged killers, and the award of due punishment to the guilty assumed considerable importance. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was entrusted with the case, charged nine accused persons with the crime. The trial court acquitted three for insufficient evidence.
In June 1997, the trial court, the Second Additional Sessions Judge at Durg, found Simplex industries owner Moolchand Shah, Oswal Iron and Steel Private Limited owner Chandrakant Shah, Gyan Prakash Mishra, Abhay Singh and Awadesh Rai guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy). The court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10 lakhs each on the two industrialists. Paltan Mallah, a young man from Gorakhpur accused of committing other crimes in the region, was found to be the hired assassin and was held guilty under Section 302 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge concluded that this case was the "rarest of rare" since the hired assassin, while murdering "defenceless" Niyogi, with "no personal animosity" and "no motive except money", had "harmed not only his family but human feelings of thousands of workers who form the foundation of our society". Thus "with a view to prevent such mega crimes in future", the trial court sentenced Paltan Mallah to death.
In June 1998, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed this judgment and acquitted all the accused. Both the CBI and the CMM appealed against the acquittal in the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Supreme Court made it clear that the case being an appeal against acquittal, it would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court unless there was perverse appreciation of the evidence that had resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and A.R. Lakshmanan, suggested that if the High Court had taken a plausible view, the Supreme Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal and if two views were possible and the High Court had chosen one view, which was just and reasonable, then, too, the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere.
The CBI had adduced extensive evidence to show that Chandrakant Shah, Abhay Singh, Moolchand Shah and Chandrabaksh Singh were owners of certain industries at Durg and Niyogi's trade union activities had created a lot of problems in running their business and caused loss to these industries.
The Supreme Court Bench, in its judgment, referred to the evidence that Simplex and Kedia Distilleries were acting against the interests of the workers and there were a series of agitations by the workers against the factory owners. The court also acknowledged that evidence was also adduced to show that Simplex had retrenched some workers, and they had agitated demanding their reinstatement. But the court dismissed this saying that "this by itself would not prove the prosecution case of conspiracy". The court said: "Motive by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused."
Another item of evidence is the recovery of a diary maintained by Niyogi. In it, he had written that industrialists of Simplex and Kedia, along with higher officials of Durg district, had formed a fascist gang and that the sad thing was that the judiciary of Durg and Rajnandgaon districts had also joined this gang. On page 172 of the diary, he had written the names of the accused Gyan Prakash Mishra and Avdesh Rai.
In an audio cassette, Niyogi had recorded a speech in which he mentioned that he apprehended danger at the hands of some persons. He also said that some people in Simplex were indulging in mischief; in particular, he mentioned Moolchand Shah.
Niyogi had also submitted a memorandum to the President of India, prior to his murder. In this, he stated elaborately the grievances of the workers and emphasised that the industrialists had been doing their utmost to break the workers' organisation and they had even resorted to physical violence against workers. He alleged that police personnel were helping the industrialists and he appealed to the President to bring a check on these acts of violence by industrialists.
Commenting on these pieces of evidence, the Supreme Court Bench said the statements of a person who is dead could be relevant only if they referred to the cause of his death or any of the circumstances that led to his death. Having said this, however, the court concluded that the entries in the diary and the cassette do not refer to any event that ultimately was the cause of his death.
The Supreme Court's judgment has examined each piece of evidence against the accused independently of each other, and seems to have ignored the connecting links between them, to see whether there was conspiracy.
There is, however, different reasoning for reversing the High Court's acquittal of Paltan Mallah alone. The Supreme Court relied on the extra-judicial confession of this key accused to a prosecution witness, Satyaprakash Nishad, his relative. In this confession, Paltan Mallah disclosed to Nishad that the accused had given him money and that he had murdered Niyogi for the sake of money. Nishad was cross-examined extensively during the trial. The Supreme Court Bench said: "He could withstand the cross-examination successfully".
Yet, the Bench, considering Paltan Mallah's confession to the same witness about the co-accused giving him money for the crime, found it insignificant in the absence of any "substantive" evidence against them. So the question of why Paltan Mallah killed Niyogi remained unanswered.
The answer is probably found in the trial court's judgment which had woven together the financial loss caused to the accused by Niyogi's agitation, the watching of Niyogi's movements by the accused, their trip to Nepal to purchase firearms, Niyogi's audio cassette and diary entries naming them, the payment of Rs.20,000 by one accused to another after the commission of the crime, and the absconding of the accused soon after the crime.
The Bench sentenced Paltan Mallah to imprisonment for life, rather than death, as there was a long lapse of time since the commission of the crime.
Seen in the context of the Supreme Court's recent verdict holding the right to strike illegal, the import of the Niyogi judgment is disturbing to the working class.
ON January 20, when the Supreme Court was to deliver its judgment on the appeals against the acquittal by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of all the accused in the assassination of the popular trade union leader of Chhattisgarh Shankar Guha Niyogi in 1991, it was not just the fate of the accused that was at stake; the faith of workers' movements across the country, including that of the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (CMM), a trade union movement formed by Niyogi, in the justice delivery system was on test.
The Supreme Court's judgment that day confirming the acquittal of all the accused except Paltan Mallah, the hired killer, in the case came as a shock. For those who joined the spontaneous protests against this judgment, in regions under the influence of the CMM in Chhattisgarh, their 14-year-long wait for justice had ended in dismay.
Niyogi's role in successfully bringing together the unorganised contract workers in the coal mines of Dalli Rajhara, Dani Tola and at the Associated Cement Companies (ACC) cement factory in Bhilai was unique. His struggle for their rights resulted in their jobs becoming permanent and their getting better wages and working conditions.
Niyogi had also put forth a concept of alternative development based on people's participation. He sought to prepare the people to realise his ambition to free Chhattisgarh from starvation and exploitation. He became a legend in his lifetime. His murder on September 28, 1991, at Bhilai by hired killers, allegedly at the instance of some industrialists who felt threatened by his struggles, was therefore, a major setback to the movement he had led.
But Niyogi's contribution was qualitatively different in that the movement depended on people's support for its sustenance rather than on individuals. Over the years, punishment for Niyogi's murder was a key issue that held the workers' movements and civil liberty groups in the region together against the collective oppression of the industrial class. In other words, Niyogi became a symbol of the workers' quest for rights and justice, in the face of countrywide attempts to dilute their interests for the sake of globalisation and economic reforms.
In this context, the trial of his alleged killers, and the award of due punishment to the guilty assumed considerable importance. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was entrusted with the case, charged nine accused persons with the crime. The trial court acquitted three for insufficient evidence.
In June 1997, the trial court, the Second Additional Sessions Judge at Durg, found Simplex industries owner Moolchand Shah, Oswal Iron and Steel Private Limited owner Chandrakant Shah, Gyan Prakash Mishra, Abhay Singh and Awadesh Rai guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy). The court sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10 lakhs each on the two industrialists. Paltan Mallah, a young man from Gorakhpur accused of committing other crimes in the region, was found to be the hired assassin and was held guilty under Section 302 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge concluded that this case was the "rarest of rare" since the hired assassin, while murdering "defenceless" Niyogi, with "no personal animosity" and "no motive except money", had "harmed not only his family but human feelings of thousands of workers who form the foundation of our society". Thus "with a view to prevent such mega crimes in future", the trial court sentenced Paltan Mallah to death.
In June 1998, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed this judgment and acquitted all the accused. Both the CBI and the CMM appealed against the acquittal in the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Supreme Court made it clear that the case being an appeal against acquittal, it would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court unless there was perverse appreciation of the evidence that had resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and A.R. Lakshmanan, suggested that if the High Court had taken a plausible view, the Supreme Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal and if two views were possible and the High Court had chosen one view, which was just and reasonable, then, too, the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere.
The CBI had adduced extensive evidence to show that Chandrakant Shah, Abhay Singh, Moolchand Shah and Chandrabaksh Singh were owners of certain industries at Durg and Niyogi's trade union activities had created a lot of problems in running their business and caused loss to these industries.
The Supreme Court Bench, in its judgment, referred to the evidence that Simplex and Kedia Distilleries were acting against the interests of the workers and there were a series of agitations by the workers against the factory owners. The court also acknowledged that evidence was also adduced to show that Simplex had retrenched some workers, and they had agitated demanding their reinstatement. But the court dismissed this saying that "this by itself would not prove the prosecution case of conspiracy". The court said: "Motive by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused."
Another item of evidence is the recovery of a diary maintained by Niyogi. In it, he had written that industrialists of Simplex and Kedia, along with higher officials of Durg district, had formed a fascist gang and that the sad thing was that the judiciary of Durg and Rajnandgaon districts had also joined this gang. On page 172 of the diary, he had written the names of the accused Gyan Prakash Mishra and Avdesh Rai.
In an audio cassette, Niyogi had recorded a speech in which he mentioned that he apprehended danger at the hands of some persons. He also said that some people in Simplex were indulging in mischief; in particular, he mentioned Moolchand Shah.
Niyogi had also submitted a memorandum to the President of India, prior to his murder. In this, he stated elaborately the grievances of the workers and emphasised that the industrialists had been doing their utmost to break the workers' organisation and they had even resorted to physical violence against workers. He alleged that police personnel were helping the industrialists and he appealed to the President to bring a check on these acts of violence by industrialists.
Commenting on these pieces of evidence, the Supreme Court Bench said the statements of a person who is dead could be relevant only if they referred to the cause of his death or any of the circumstances that led to his death. Having said this, however, the court concluded that the entries in the diary and the cassette do not refer to any event that ultimately was the cause of his death.
The Supreme Court's judgment has examined each piece of evidence against the accused independently of each other, and seems to have ignored the connecting links between them, to see whether there was conspiracy.
There is, however, different reasoning for reversing the High Court's acquittal of Paltan Mallah alone. The Supreme Court relied on the extra-judicial confession of this key accused to a prosecution witness, Satyaprakash Nishad, his relative. In this confession, Paltan Mallah disclosed to Nishad that the accused had given him money and that he had murdered Niyogi for the sake of money. Nishad was cross-examined extensively during the trial. The Supreme Court Bench said: "He could withstand the cross-examination successfully".
Yet, the Bench, considering Paltan Mallah's confession to the same witness about the co-accused giving him money for the crime, found it insignificant in the absence of any "substantive" evidence against them. So the question of why Paltan Mallah killed Niyogi remained unanswered.
The answer is probably found in the trial court's judgment which had woven together the financial loss caused to the accused by Niyogi's agitation, the watching of Niyogi's movements by the accused, their trip to Nepal to purchase firearms, Niyogi's audio cassette and diary entries naming them, the payment of Rs.20,000 by one accused to another after the commission of the crime, and the absconding of the accused soon after the crime.
The Bench sentenced Paltan Mallah to imprisonment for life, rather than death, as there was a long lapse of time since the commission of the crime.
Seen in the context of the Supreme Court's recent verdict holding the right to strike illegal, the import of the Niyogi judgment is disturbing to the working class.
Monday, February 11, 2008
WARS IN GURGAON
How Many Working Class Families Have Been Rendered Destitute in the Town of the Great Shopping Mall?
The Class War in Gurgaon
By P. SAINATH
The northern Indian state of Haryana in which Gurgaon is a town is known for the ruthlessness and barbarity of its police and the backwardness of its policiics. It is also needless to say seen as a popular investment destination by multinational corporations. Honda recently threw out lots of workers. When protests boiled up, they sacked some leaders. The workers took out a legal, lawful protest march which was set upon by the police with incredible ferocity. Only, this time it happened on the highway and very close to New Delhi, the capital city. So there was "live" coverage of the violence for two days. The same Gurgaon is also famous for its Great Mall, a symbol of the emerging 'new' India, much touted by the New York Times and other newspapers. AC/JSC
The scenes from Gurgaon gave us more than just a picture of one labour protest, police brutality or corporate tyranny. It presented us a microcosm of the new and old Indias. Different rules and realities for different classes of society.
A horribly oppressed wife, so runs the old American joke, slapped her husband in despair. The man punched her over 30 times, till she lay battered and he was exhausted by the effort. Then, panting, he told her: "Now we're even." That's right. Both sides were violent, weren't they?
That's pretty much the both-sides-did-it line, now in vogue to describe the brutality in Haryana. Months of being denied their rights, the ruthless cutting of their jobs, the despair of the workers, count for little. The breaking of the nation's laws, the torment of the sacked workers, their wives and children count for less. Context counts for nothing at all. History begins with the televised violence of two days. Not with the hidden violence of years.
Even those 48 hours are instructive. On the one hand, hundreds thrashed mercilessly by the police. Some still being clubbed as they lay bleeding on the ground. Hundreds missing. Lathis [hard wooden stick carried by Indian policemen, often metal-tipped], teargas, water canons and other action from the police. One woman sick with anxiety, swinging a stick at them - shown ad nauseum on every channel. That, and some stone-throwers targeting cops in bullet-proof vests, neatly symbolised the match-up. Yup, both sides were violent.
The Haryana police lived up to their history. At the best of times, this force would not win a prize in any human rights competition. (Unless the only other contestants were Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the Punjab police. The race might then be close.) This is the state of Jhajar, where five Dalits were lynched by a mob. Their crime: they were suspected of killing a cow. The Haryana police swung into action as only they could, filing cases against those they suspected of cow slaughter. Then too, only nationwide outrage saw matters go further. Then too, the site was close enough to the capital city for the media to take notice.
Yet the present violence in Haryana speaks of newer things as well. There was something quite symbolic about Gurgaon being the venue of the protests. About "old" Gurgaon being the scene of bloodshed and mayhem. While "new" Gurgaon with its bustling, happy, mall culture, saw business as usual. Gurgaon's mall has won the attention of media the world over. Many well-known papers, notably, the New York Times, have added lustre to its legend.
On Tuesday, one television channel was smart enough to see the contrast. The clearly better-off (and for now unaffected) having their hot dogs and coleslaw in the Mall. While the plebs battled the cops at the barricades in "old" Gurgaon. In that is a parable of an old and new India as well.
This time, much of the media got the picture, but many of them missed the point. Two channels at least, told us the police were showing "maximum" and "extreme" restraint. This against a background (reported by the same channels) of hundreds missing. Of injured persons being frogmarched from hospital to lock-ups. And of frightened people searching for their relatives. This, too, alongside visuals of police battering unarmed people lying helpless on the ground. I guess that's the maximum restraint the Haryana police are capable of, anyway.
The second day's violence was reportedly sparked off when frantic members of the public who turned up at the civil hospital could not find their relatives. Some of these seem to have been whisked away by police to be charged with the previous day's violence. That inflamed matters. Note that some non-involved citizens of "old" Gurgaon got quickly involved. What they had seen angered them. And anyway, their anger had other causes, too. Oddly, those pushing the "both-sides-were-violent" line seek no action against the police. Both sides were violent, right? How come one side faces no punishment?
Gurgaon was about the police and administration increasingly acting as enforcement agents of big corporations. Not without precedent in the past. But more and more a symbol of the new India. It has been happening for some years in Kashipur and other parts of Orissa. There, police and local officials have functioned almost as a private army of the mining companies. Opposition leaders, even elected representatives, have been attacked when reaching there to inquire into the violence.
In Haryana, Honda did not even have to come into the picture till things went awfully wrong. The police and administration were there to act on its behalf. Had this incident occurred in Japan, where Honda has large unions to deal with, some of its top brass would have been seeking new employment. Here, they've just begun to talk about giving back some of the workers their jobs.
Japan's Ambassador to India says this episode might prove bad for our image as an investment destination. Gee! I'm sure that warning will send all those terrified women searching for their relatives scurrying back to their homes in shame. What's a few breadwinners when the image of India as an investment destination is at stake? That mindset too, is symbolic of the new India. Remember those editorial writers whose horror over the pogroms in Gujarat was roused not so much by the misery of the victims as by the damage to India's image as an investment destination? They're back.
It's not all about Honda, either. Haryana has seen many brutal actions against workers in the past decade. In 1996, over 18,000 safai karamcharis struck work across that State for 80 days. They were not seeking a paisa extra in wages or benefits. They had a single demand. They wanted their wages paid on time. They sometimes went months without getting paid.
In response, the then Bansi Lal Government sacked 6,000 of them. Close to 700 women found themselves jailed for up to 70 days under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA). This had not happened even during the Emergency. This is the State of which an editorial says approvingly: "Historically, Haryana has been a State without labour unrest. This has made it a sought after destination for investment... " It has in fact been a region of severe labour suppression. The editorial worries about finding "a more enlightened and less brutal way" of "dispersing a crowd." Such kindness. It might also be enlightened to respect the basic rights of people. Haryana is notorious for a labour department that will not register trade unions formed by workers.
All such government actions were, of course, aimed at privatising services like sanitation. In 2001, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered the reinstatement of over 1,000 workers of the Faridabad municipal corporation. The corporation had privatised sanitation work - to an "NGO" - for "a monthly fee." The then Mayor admitted the "experiment" had failed. The fate of the Rs.2.5 million monthly fee is best guessed at. The court held the retrenchment to be wrong. Some courts still do such things. That's why governments are so keen to change labour laws. That too, reflects the new India.
Successive governments in Haryana have allowed companies to ride roughshod over workers' rights. And though quite a few of new India's elite may not know it, trade unions are still legal in the country. For now, anyway. It would be worth looking at how much media coverage there has been of workers' problems here. (Or anywhere else.) In what depth have the often illegal practices of managements been covered? How many working class families have been rendered destitute in the town of the Great Mall?
How many channels or big newspapers even have full-time correspondents on the labour beat? That too in a country where just the job seekers at the employment exchanges almost equal the population of South Africa?
In Mumbai, the Mall itself has been built on the retrenched future of the workers. On mill lands and on work they've been cheated off. And laws have been stretched or changed. You can open a bowling alley and evade the rules by dubbing it "a workers' recreation centre." You can see both new and old India cheek by jowl here.
When entities closely linked to two top Shiv Sena leaders buy former mill lands for Rs. 421 crore, you'd think there would be much curiosity. At least about where the money came from. That too, when one of them happens to be a former Chief Minister and the other a Thackeray. There's far more, though, about the "record" nature of the deal. And excitement over what will come up. A grand mall? Or residential complexes?
The streets of Gurgaon gave us a glimpse of something larger than a single protest. Bigger than a portrait of the Haryana police. Greater than Honda. Far more complex than the "image of India" as an investment destination. It presented us a microcosm of the new and old Indias. Of private cities and gated communities. Of different realities for different classes of society. Of ever-growing inequality. Of the malls of the few and the chawls run-down tenements where usually working class people live] of the many.
The Class War in Gurgaon
By P. SAINATH
The northern Indian state of Haryana in which Gurgaon is a town is known for the ruthlessness and barbarity of its police and the backwardness of its policiics. It is also needless to say seen as a popular investment destination by multinational corporations. Honda recently threw out lots of workers. When protests boiled up, they sacked some leaders. The workers took out a legal, lawful protest march which was set upon by the police with incredible ferocity. Only, this time it happened on the highway and very close to New Delhi, the capital city. So there was "live" coverage of the violence for two days. The same Gurgaon is also famous for its Great Mall, a symbol of the emerging 'new' India, much touted by the New York Times and other newspapers. AC/JSC
The scenes from Gurgaon gave us more than just a picture of one labour protest, police brutality or corporate tyranny. It presented us a microcosm of the new and old Indias. Different rules and realities for different classes of society.
A horribly oppressed wife, so runs the old American joke, slapped her husband in despair. The man punched her over 30 times, till she lay battered and he was exhausted by the effort. Then, panting, he told her: "Now we're even." That's right. Both sides were violent, weren't they?
That's pretty much the both-sides-did-it line, now in vogue to describe the brutality in Haryana. Months of being denied their rights, the ruthless cutting of their jobs, the despair of the workers, count for little. The breaking of the nation's laws, the torment of the sacked workers, their wives and children count for less. Context counts for nothing at all. History begins with the televised violence of two days. Not with the hidden violence of years.
Even those 48 hours are instructive. On the one hand, hundreds thrashed mercilessly by the police. Some still being clubbed as they lay bleeding on the ground. Hundreds missing. Lathis [hard wooden stick carried by Indian policemen, often metal-tipped], teargas, water canons and other action from the police. One woman sick with anxiety, swinging a stick at them - shown ad nauseum on every channel. That, and some stone-throwers targeting cops in bullet-proof vests, neatly symbolised the match-up. Yup, both sides were violent.
The Haryana police lived up to their history. At the best of times, this force would not win a prize in any human rights competition. (Unless the only other contestants were Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the Punjab police. The race might then be close.) This is the state of Jhajar, where five Dalits were lynched by a mob. Their crime: they were suspected of killing a cow. The Haryana police swung into action as only they could, filing cases against those they suspected of cow slaughter. Then too, only nationwide outrage saw matters go further. Then too, the site was close enough to the capital city for the media to take notice.
Yet the present violence in Haryana speaks of newer things as well. There was something quite symbolic about Gurgaon being the venue of the protests. About "old" Gurgaon being the scene of bloodshed and mayhem. While "new" Gurgaon with its bustling, happy, mall culture, saw business as usual. Gurgaon's mall has won the attention of media the world over. Many well-known papers, notably, the New York Times, have added lustre to its legend.
On Tuesday, one television channel was smart enough to see the contrast. The clearly better-off (and for now unaffected) having their hot dogs and coleslaw in the Mall. While the plebs battled the cops at the barricades in "old" Gurgaon. In that is a parable of an old and new India as well.
This time, much of the media got the picture, but many of them missed the point. Two channels at least, told us the police were showing "maximum" and "extreme" restraint. This against a background (reported by the same channels) of hundreds missing. Of injured persons being frogmarched from hospital to lock-ups. And of frightened people searching for their relatives. This, too, alongside visuals of police battering unarmed people lying helpless on the ground. I guess that's the maximum restraint the Haryana police are capable of, anyway.
The second day's violence was reportedly sparked off when frantic members of the public who turned up at the civil hospital could not find their relatives. Some of these seem to have been whisked away by police to be charged with the previous day's violence. That inflamed matters. Note that some non-involved citizens of "old" Gurgaon got quickly involved. What they had seen angered them. And anyway, their anger had other causes, too. Oddly, those pushing the "both-sides-were-violent" line seek no action against the police. Both sides were violent, right? How come one side faces no punishment?
Gurgaon was about the police and administration increasingly acting as enforcement agents of big corporations. Not without precedent in the past. But more and more a symbol of the new India. It has been happening for some years in Kashipur and other parts of Orissa. There, police and local officials have functioned almost as a private army of the mining companies. Opposition leaders, even elected representatives, have been attacked when reaching there to inquire into the violence.
In Haryana, Honda did not even have to come into the picture till things went awfully wrong. The police and administration were there to act on its behalf. Had this incident occurred in Japan, where Honda has large unions to deal with, some of its top brass would have been seeking new employment. Here, they've just begun to talk about giving back some of the workers their jobs.
Japan's Ambassador to India says this episode might prove bad for our image as an investment destination. Gee! I'm sure that warning will send all those terrified women searching for their relatives scurrying back to their homes in shame. What's a few breadwinners when the image of India as an investment destination is at stake? That mindset too, is symbolic of the new India. Remember those editorial writers whose horror over the pogroms in Gujarat was roused not so much by the misery of the victims as by the damage to India's image as an investment destination? They're back.
It's not all about Honda, either. Haryana has seen many brutal actions against workers in the past decade. In 1996, over 18,000 safai karamcharis struck work across that State for 80 days. They were not seeking a paisa extra in wages or benefits. They had a single demand. They wanted their wages paid on time. They sometimes went months without getting paid.
In response, the then Bansi Lal Government sacked 6,000 of them. Close to 700 women found themselves jailed for up to 70 days under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA). This had not happened even during the Emergency. This is the State of which an editorial says approvingly: "Historically, Haryana has been a State without labour unrest. This has made it a sought after destination for investment... " It has in fact been a region of severe labour suppression. The editorial worries about finding "a more enlightened and less brutal way" of "dispersing a crowd." Such kindness. It might also be enlightened to respect the basic rights of people. Haryana is notorious for a labour department that will not register trade unions formed by workers.
All such government actions were, of course, aimed at privatising services like sanitation. In 2001, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered the reinstatement of over 1,000 workers of the Faridabad municipal corporation. The corporation had privatised sanitation work - to an "NGO" - for "a monthly fee." The then Mayor admitted the "experiment" had failed. The fate of the Rs.2.5 million monthly fee is best guessed at. The court held the retrenchment to be wrong. Some courts still do such things. That's why governments are so keen to change labour laws. That too, reflects the new India.
Successive governments in Haryana have allowed companies to ride roughshod over workers' rights. And though quite a few of new India's elite may not know it, trade unions are still legal in the country. For now, anyway. It would be worth looking at how much media coverage there has been of workers' problems here. (Or anywhere else.) In what depth have the often illegal practices of managements been covered? How many working class families have been rendered destitute in the town of the Great Mall?
How many channels or big newspapers even have full-time correspondents on the labour beat? That too in a country where just the job seekers at the employment exchanges almost equal the population of South Africa?
In Mumbai, the Mall itself has been built on the retrenched future of the workers. On mill lands and on work they've been cheated off. And laws have been stretched or changed. You can open a bowling alley and evade the rules by dubbing it "a workers' recreation centre." You can see both new and old India cheek by jowl here.
When entities closely linked to two top Shiv Sena leaders buy former mill lands for Rs. 421 crore, you'd think there would be much curiosity. At least about where the money came from. That too, when one of them happens to be a former Chief Minister and the other a Thackeray. There's far more, though, about the "record" nature of the deal. And excitement over what will come up. A grand mall? Or residential complexes?
The streets of Gurgaon gave us a glimpse of something larger than a single protest. Bigger than a portrait of the Haryana police. Greater than Honda. Far more complex than the "image of India" as an investment destination. It presented us a microcosm of the new and old Indias. Of private cities and gated communities. Of different realities for different classes of society. Of ever-growing inequality. Of the malls of the few and the chawls run-down tenements where usually working class people live] of the many.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
BUSH ARUOND
Save for Israel, no West Asian country U.S. President George Bush visited gave him an enthusiastic welcome.
SUSAN WALSH/AP George Bush speaks at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi on January 13.
WITH his tenure nearing its end, United States President George W. Bush went on a highly publicised eight-day tour of West Asia. The avowed goals of the tour were to enhance the prospects of Arab-Israeli peace and to ensure the isolation of Iran in the region.
But the consensus, both in the U.S. and in the Arab world, is that Bush has very little to show from the trip. Arab leaders gave the lame-duck President a patient hearing but did not seem to be in a mood to listen to his dictates.
Bush’s popularity rating in the Gulf region, according to a recent poll conducted by an American agency, is at 12 per cent. The poll revealed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden are much more popular than Bush in the Arab world. In many of the Arab countries, the American President was greeted by protesters. Local media coverage was generally critical of the President’s political agenda. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was on a visit to the region around the same time, seems to have scored more diplomatic points than Bush. The French offer to share civilian nuclear technology with the Gulf Arab states was appreciated. The United Arab Emirates has given permission to France to set up a small French military base on its territory.
The American President’s itinerary included Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, the major Gulf emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The trip came soon after the Annapolis summit, which brought leaders of the region together. At the summit, Bush grandiosely promised to find a solution to the Palestinian issue by the end of the year. However, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, things seem to be going from bad to worse. Israel is determinedly pursuing its expansionist policies. New Jewish settlements are being built in East Jerusalem, which is supposed to be the capital of the proposed Palestinian state. Israeli forces have been targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip with impunity while trying to starve the million and a half people there into submission. Just after Bush left Tel Aviv, Israeli forces massacred 19 civilians in Gaza.
Not surprisingly, Bush received the most effusive welcome in Israel. In an interview before his West Asia tour, Bush told the Israeli media that he thought it was no longer possible for an agreement to be reached on establishing a Palestinian state before the end of 2008 and all that could be hoped for “was an agreement on the definition of a Palestinian state”. At the Annapolis summit, Bush had promised “a sovereign and contiguous” Palestinian state before the end of the year. The President told the interviewer that he did not want to put any pressure on Israel to show flexibility in responding to the demands of the Palestinians.
Though Bush formally made a call, during the course of the visit, for Israel “to end the occupation that began in 1967”, his subsequent statements showed that he fully backed the recalcitrant policies pursued by the Jewish state. He went to the extent of describing Israel as a “model state” for the rest of West Asia to follow. President Bush told his Israeli hosts that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) would have to implement the Washington-sponsored “road map” before meaningful talks about statehood could start. Under the terms of the “road map”, Israel is supposed to halt its settlement-building activities while the P.A. is obliged to disarm the Palestinian resistance groups. It is clear that the Bush administration does not consider the United Nations resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict as the basis for negotiations.
According to reports in the Israeli media, Bush gave the Israeli government the “green light” to continue with its policy of targeted killing of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories. To the dismay of Palestinians, Bush extended support to the continuation of Israeli military checkpoints spread throughout the West Bank. These checkpoints have made life veritable hell for ordinary Palestinians. Many Israeli Cabinet members have called for their removal, but President Bush has decreed that they are necessary to stop terrorists from reaching Israeli cities.
Bush told the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah that it should lower its expectations about a deal that would give it back all the territories that it lost in the 1967 war and that it should forget about the “right of return” for the millions of refugees scattered all over the Arab world and beyond. He also made it a point to emphasise the Jewish character of the state of Israel, conveniently forgetting about the two million Palestinians who still reside there.
Throughout his trip, the American President also echoed the Israeli government’s views on Iran. In the only speech he gave during his visit, he told an audience consisting of royalty and businessmen in Abu Dhabi that Iran was “the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism” and that its actions “threaten the security of nations everywhere”.
The Israeli Opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Israeli media that he “was convinced about Bush’s determination to end the Iranian threat”. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that President Bush had “completely adopted the Israeli conception of confronting the threat from Iran”.
Israeli officials also said that Bush had given an assurance that Washington would “provide a cover” for Israeli military action against Gaza. Israel has been preparing for a military onslaught against Gaza to dislodge the Hamas-led government. Netanyahu, after his meeting with Bush, said that “if matters were left to this President, he would not allow any Palestinian terrorist to remain alive”. Even before Bush left Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stressed that Israel would continue to build settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.
The respected Israeli intellectual and commentator, Gideon Levy, wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz that “there has never been anyone in the White House who granted Israel permission to enact aggression as Bush, who encouraged Israel to wage campaigns of violence and urged it to firmly establish the reality of the occupation”. He went on to accuse Bush of granting legitimacy to every “criminal act” committed by Israel, including the expansion of settlements and the ignoring of signed agreements, some of which were made under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Bush’s rhetoric, especially on Iran, evidently failed to impress his Arab hosts. Just before Bush’s arrival in Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal said that his country “is a neighbour of Iran in the Gulf, which is a small lake. We are keen that harmony and peace should prevail among states of the region.” Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states no longer look at Iran through the American prism. To the surprise of Washington, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) had invited the Iranian President to participate in a meeting in December 2007. Saudi Arabia had given permission to Ahmadinejad to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in late December.
Al Khaleej, a UAE daily, accused Bush of “striving to transform the Arab-Israeli conflict into an Arab-Iranian conflict”. The paper sarcastically noted that according to the Bush world view, “nuclear Israel, which is armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction, which is aggressive, expansionist, racist and an international outlaw, does not threaten world peace”. An opinion poll conducted in the region before the Bush visit showed that 80 per cent viewed the U.S. and Israel as the greatest threats. Only 10 per cent thought of Iran as a major threat. An editorial in Arab News, the English daily published from Saudi Arabia, commented on the Bush visit thus: “No Palestinian, no Arab believes he will, or can, deliver. Everything he touches turns to dust and ashes. Iraq, Afghanistan – maybe now even Iran.”
Despite their growing disillusionment with the Bush presidency, most Arab states continue to have strong political and economic ties with the U.S. Saudi Arabia is the biggest buyer of American weaponry. In the 1990s, it bought more than $39 billion worth of sophisticated weaponry. Bush, during his recent visit, offered another $20 billion worth of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. To ensure that Israel retains its military edge in the region, the Bush administration has offered its closest ally in the region $30 billion worth of new weapons. The Saudis are among the U.S.’ major creditors. They recently lent a helping hand in bailing out a large American financial institution that was on the verge of bankruptcy.
NASSER NURI/REUTERS A DEMONSTRATION IN Cairo, the Egyptian capital, against Bush's visit to the country.
During his West Asia trip, Bush did not completely forget his pet theme of spreading democracy. In his speech in Abu Dhabi, he said that he was encouraged by the elections in Iraq and Palestine. He did not, of course, say that the elections resulted in victories for pro-Iranian parties in Iraq and Hamas in Palestine. The overthrow of Hamas is now one of the top priorities of the Bush administration and Israel. Bush said that Arab governments should expand civil liberties and allow non-violent political opposition. Without going into specifics, he talked about “setbacks” to democracy in the region. He pointedly refused to apportion blame to any of the governments in the region that are close allies of Washington, choosing instead to target Al Qaeda and the Iranian government. Bush blamed “violent extremists who murder innocents in their pursuit of power … They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know that we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions”.
In the course of his brief visit to Egypt, the biggest recipient of American largesse after Israel, there were small protests by members of banned political parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, in the capital Cairo. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members continue to languish in jail. Bush chose to spend only three hours in Egypt and that too in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh. Interestingly, very few newspapers in Egypt had the Bush visit on their front pages. The Egyptian government is known to be unhappy with the Bush administration on a variety of issues. Under pressure from Israel, there is a move to reduce the 10-year, $15-billion U.S. aid package the Bush administration approved early this year. The U.S. Congress has already frozen $100 million out of its annual $1.3 billion in aid. Israel has been alleging that the Egyptian government is aiding the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told Bush that more needs to be done to hasten the Arab-Israeli peace process. Egyptian diplomats were quoted as saying that the American President’s visit was not aimed at resolving the differences between the two countries. They said that there were “no great expectations” from a President who was set to demit office within a few months’ time. An Egyptian newspaper, Rose El-Youssef, which is close to the ruling National Democratic Party, ran a headline: “The Crow of Peace: Bush”. The very fact that the Egyptian government allowed Opposition activists to protest against the Bush visit is an indication of the tensions that have surfaced in the relations between the two countries. •
SUSAN WALSH/AP George Bush speaks at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi on January 13.
WITH his tenure nearing its end, United States President George W. Bush went on a highly publicised eight-day tour of West Asia. The avowed goals of the tour were to enhance the prospects of Arab-Israeli peace and to ensure the isolation of Iran in the region.
But the consensus, both in the U.S. and in the Arab world, is that Bush has very little to show from the trip. Arab leaders gave the lame-duck President a patient hearing but did not seem to be in a mood to listen to his dictates.
Bush’s popularity rating in the Gulf region, according to a recent poll conducted by an American agency, is at 12 per cent. The poll revealed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden are much more popular than Bush in the Arab world. In many of the Arab countries, the American President was greeted by protesters. Local media coverage was generally critical of the President’s political agenda. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was on a visit to the region around the same time, seems to have scored more diplomatic points than Bush. The French offer to share civilian nuclear technology with the Gulf Arab states was appreciated. The United Arab Emirates has given permission to France to set up a small French military base on its territory.
The American President’s itinerary included Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, the major Gulf emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The trip came soon after the Annapolis summit, which brought leaders of the region together. At the summit, Bush grandiosely promised to find a solution to the Palestinian issue by the end of the year. However, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, things seem to be going from bad to worse. Israel is determinedly pursuing its expansionist policies. New Jewish settlements are being built in East Jerusalem, which is supposed to be the capital of the proposed Palestinian state. Israeli forces have been targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip with impunity while trying to starve the million and a half people there into submission. Just after Bush left Tel Aviv, Israeli forces massacred 19 civilians in Gaza.
Not surprisingly, Bush received the most effusive welcome in Israel. In an interview before his West Asia tour, Bush told the Israeli media that he thought it was no longer possible for an agreement to be reached on establishing a Palestinian state before the end of 2008 and all that could be hoped for “was an agreement on the definition of a Palestinian state”. At the Annapolis summit, Bush had promised “a sovereign and contiguous” Palestinian state before the end of the year. The President told the interviewer that he did not want to put any pressure on Israel to show flexibility in responding to the demands of the Palestinians.
Though Bush formally made a call, during the course of the visit, for Israel “to end the occupation that began in 1967”, his subsequent statements showed that he fully backed the recalcitrant policies pursued by the Jewish state. He went to the extent of describing Israel as a “model state” for the rest of West Asia to follow. President Bush told his Israeli hosts that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) would have to implement the Washington-sponsored “road map” before meaningful talks about statehood could start. Under the terms of the “road map”, Israel is supposed to halt its settlement-building activities while the P.A. is obliged to disarm the Palestinian resistance groups. It is clear that the Bush administration does not consider the United Nations resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict as the basis for negotiations.
According to reports in the Israeli media, Bush gave the Israeli government the “green light” to continue with its policy of targeted killing of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories. To the dismay of Palestinians, Bush extended support to the continuation of Israeli military checkpoints spread throughout the West Bank. These checkpoints have made life veritable hell for ordinary Palestinians. Many Israeli Cabinet members have called for their removal, but President Bush has decreed that they are necessary to stop terrorists from reaching Israeli cities.
Bush told the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah that it should lower its expectations about a deal that would give it back all the territories that it lost in the 1967 war and that it should forget about the “right of return” for the millions of refugees scattered all over the Arab world and beyond. He also made it a point to emphasise the Jewish character of the state of Israel, conveniently forgetting about the two million Palestinians who still reside there.
Throughout his trip, the American President also echoed the Israeli government’s views on Iran. In the only speech he gave during his visit, he told an audience consisting of royalty and businessmen in Abu Dhabi that Iran was “the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism” and that its actions “threaten the security of nations everywhere”.
The Israeli Opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Israeli media that he “was convinced about Bush’s determination to end the Iranian threat”. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that President Bush had “completely adopted the Israeli conception of confronting the threat from Iran”.
Israeli officials also said that Bush had given an assurance that Washington would “provide a cover” for Israeli military action against Gaza. Israel has been preparing for a military onslaught against Gaza to dislodge the Hamas-led government. Netanyahu, after his meeting with Bush, said that “if matters were left to this President, he would not allow any Palestinian terrorist to remain alive”. Even before Bush left Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stressed that Israel would continue to build settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.
The respected Israeli intellectual and commentator, Gideon Levy, wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz that “there has never been anyone in the White House who granted Israel permission to enact aggression as Bush, who encouraged Israel to wage campaigns of violence and urged it to firmly establish the reality of the occupation”. He went on to accuse Bush of granting legitimacy to every “criminal act” committed by Israel, including the expansion of settlements and the ignoring of signed agreements, some of which were made under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Bush’s rhetoric, especially on Iran, evidently failed to impress his Arab hosts. Just before Bush’s arrival in Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal said that his country “is a neighbour of Iran in the Gulf, which is a small lake. We are keen that harmony and peace should prevail among states of the region.” Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states no longer look at Iran through the American prism. To the surprise of Washington, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) had invited the Iranian President to participate in a meeting in December 2007. Saudi Arabia had given permission to Ahmadinejad to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in late December.
Al Khaleej, a UAE daily, accused Bush of “striving to transform the Arab-Israeli conflict into an Arab-Iranian conflict”. The paper sarcastically noted that according to the Bush world view, “nuclear Israel, which is armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction, which is aggressive, expansionist, racist and an international outlaw, does not threaten world peace”. An opinion poll conducted in the region before the Bush visit showed that 80 per cent viewed the U.S. and Israel as the greatest threats. Only 10 per cent thought of Iran as a major threat. An editorial in Arab News, the English daily published from Saudi Arabia, commented on the Bush visit thus: “No Palestinian, no Arab believes he will, or can, deliver. Everything he touches turns to dust and ashes. Iraq, Afghanistan – maybe now even Iran.”
Despite their growing disillusionment with the Bush presidency, most Arab states continue to have strong political and economic ties with the U.S. Saudi Arabia is the biggest buyer of American weaponry. In the 1990s, it bought more than $39 billion worth of sophisticated weaponry. Bush, during his recent visit, offered another $20 billion worth of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. To ensure that Israel retains its military edge in the region, the Bush administration has offered its closest ally in the region $30 billion worth of new weapons. The Saudis are among the U.S.’ major creditors. They recently lent a helping hand in bailing out a large American financial institution that was on the verge of bankruptcy.
NASSER NURI/REUTERS A DEMONSTRATION IN Cairo, the Egyptian capital, against Bush's visit to the country.
During his West Asia trip, Bush did not completely forget his pet theme of spreading democracy. In his speech in Abu Dhabi, he said that he was encouraged by the elections in Iraq and Palestine. He did not, of course, say that the elections resulted in victories for pro-Iranian parties in Iraq and Hamas in Palestine. The overthrow of Hamas is now one of the top priorities of the Bush administration and Israel. Bush said that Arab governments should expand civil liberties and allow non-violent political opposition. Without going into specifics, he talked about “setbacks” to democracy in the region. He pointedly refused to apportion blame to any of the governments in the region that are close allies of Washington, choosing instead to target Al Qaeda and the Iranian government. Bush blamed “violent extremists who murder innocents in their pursuit of power … They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know that we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions”.
In the course of his brief visit to Egypt, the biggest recipient of American largesse after Israel, there were small protests by members of banned political parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, in the capital Cairo. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members continue to languish in jail. Bush chose to spend only three hours in Egypt and that too in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh. Interestingly, very few newspapers in Egypt had the Bush visit on their front pages. The Egyptian government is known to be unhappy with the Bush administration on a variety of issues. Under pressure from Israel, there is a move to reduce the 10-year, $15-billion U.S. aid package the Bush administration approved early this year. The U.S. Congress has already frozen $100 million out of its annual $1.3 billion in aid. Israel has been alleging that the Egyptian government is aiding the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told Bush that more needs to be done to hasten the Arab-Israeli peace process. Egyptian diplomats were quoted as saying that the American President’s visit was not aimed at resolving the differences between the two countries. They said that there were “no great expectations” from a President who was set to demit office within a few months’ time. An Egyptian newspaper, Rose El-Youssef, which is close to the ruling National Democratic Party, ran a headline: “The Crow of Peace: Bush”. The very fact that the Egyptian government allowed Opposition activists to protest against the Bush visit is an indication of the tensions that have surfaced in the relations between the two countries. •
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)