Pirates and Emperors

The following clip does a great job at explaining the current world affairs, with the US as the hegemon. Enjoy!

Lebanon solidarity letter

Lebanon solidarity letter:


The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has left the country numb, smoldering and angry. The massacre in Qana and the loss of life is not simply "disproportionate." It is, according to existing international laws, a war crime.

The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanon's social infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate.

The attempt has backfired, as people all over the world watch aghast. In Lebanon itself, 87 percent of the population now support Hezbollah's resistance, including 80 percent of Christian and Druze and 89 percent of Sunni Muslims, while 8 percent believe the US supports Lebanon.

But these actions will not be tried by any court set up by the "international community" since the United States and its allies that commit or are complicit in these appalling crimes will not permit it.

It has now become clear that the assault on Lebanon to wipe out Hezbollah had been prepared long before. Israel's crimes had been given a green light by the United States and its ever-loyal British ally, despite the overwhelming opposition to Blair in his own country.

The short peace that Lebanon enjoyed has come to an end, and a paralyzed country is forced to remember a past it had hoped to forget. The state terror inflicted on Lebanon is being repeated in the Gaza ghetto, while the "international community" stands by and watches in silence. Meanwhile the rest of Palestine is annexed and dismantled with the direct participation of the United States and the tacit approval of its allies.

We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it. For our part, we will use all the means at our disposal to expose the complicity of our governments in these crimes. There will be no peace in the Middle East while the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and the temporarily "paused" bombings of Lebanon continue.

Tariq Ali
Mona Abaza
Matthew Abraham
Gilbert Achcar
Etel Adnan
Aziz el-Azmeh
Nadia Baghdadi
John Berger
Timothy Andres Brennan
Michaelle Browers
Noam Chomsky
Alexander Cockburn
Dan Connell
Mahmoud Darwish
Richard Falk
Eduardo Galeano
Irene Gendzier
Charles Glass
Yassin al Haj Saleh
Emilie Jacir
Assaf Kfoury
Elias Khouri
Yitzhak Laor
Ken Loach
Jennifer Loewenstein
Karma Nabulsi
John Pilger
Harold Pinter
Richard Powers
Tanya Reinhart
Eric Rouleau
Arundhati Roy
Sandra Shattuck
William Thelin
Gore Vidal
Howard Zinn
Stephen Zunes

[Source: http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm]

Intellectuals respond to Israel-Lebanon conflict

A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East (July 19, 2006):

"The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.


"That this 'kidnapping' was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.


"Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?


"Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.


"This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted."



Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn

[Source: www.chomsky.info]

What "War on Terror"?

What War on Terror?
- Inti Martínez--4/2/2006

For the past three years, the world has learned about an ongoing war pitting US and its allies against “the terrorists”. This war was ignited in response to the 9/11 attacks; it started off by legitimately attacking Afghanistan’s Taliban regime for supporting Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda, which is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The war later spread to Iraq for three main reasons: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and needed to disarm, Saddam had links with terrorist organizations that threatened world peace (i.e., al-Qaeda), and Saddam carried out human rights violations and needed to stop.

The first reason for invading Iraq has been categorically dismissed, since WMD have, yet, not been found. In fact, according to leading intelligence officers like Paul Pillar and Tyler Drumheller (among others), the Bush administration already had plans to invade and occupy Iraq--even though the intelligence that was presented by the CIA and DIA did not show any WMD or WMD programs occuring Iraq. Paul Pillar, in his "Foreign Affairs" journal article, points out that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence that was presented to them, in order to demonstrate to Congress and the UN General Assembly that Saddam Hussein had WMD and WMD programs.

The second reason to attack Iraq is preposterous, no actual links with Al-Qaeda have ever been proved (in fact, bin Laden despised and distrusted Hussein for not being a real Islamic leader). Al-Qaeda and Hussein's Baathist regime were ideologically opposed to each other.

Iraq was, and still is, the weakest country of the region--militarily speaking; everyone in the Middle East knew it--they hated Saddam Hussein, but no one feared him, since he was no threat to anyone.

The latter reason for invading Iraq is also objectionable since, during the 1980s, the US supported the Hussein regime, while it carried out its most horrendous human rights violations--which he is being tried for today. Also, there were innumerable other places that were carrying out comparable, or even worse, human rights violations (e.g., Sudan, Nepal, Honduras). Why Iraq, then? I prefer not to discuss the answer to this question because, thanks to the Patriot Act, I may end up in Guantánamo Bay for contradicting the official White House statement for the Iraq invasion (this is a "semi-hyperbole", but you get the idea); instead I want to focus on the larger picture.
The White House has officially labeled this the “War on Terror.” Other names like “War on Terrorism,” “Global War on Terror” and “the Long War” are also used to label the US-led plan to eradicate international terrorism by dismembering terrorist groups and stopping state-sponsored terrorism. All this sounds praiseworthy to me. But, what exactly is terrorism? This word is defined in countless ways—even among US governmental entities and documents like the National Security Strategy (2002 and 2006), National Counterterrorism Center, Pentagon, USA Patriot Act (2001 and 2006), and United States Code—and it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate terrorism from aggression, retaliation, and legitimate resistance. For practical purposes, I will craft and implement a definition that covers nearly all of the official definitions for this term: “Terrorism is the calculated use of violent acts by individuals, groups or state actors to intimidate, coerce, or influence a civilian population or established government on political, religious, or ideological grounds.”
If we use this definition of “terrorism” consistently throughout several cases—regardless of the perpetrators—we find that the 9/11 attacks, the 2004 and 2005 bombings in Madrid and London (respectively), the ongoing attacks between Palestine and Israel in the Holy Land, Shining Path’s bombings in Perú, the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, were all acts of terrorism. These attacks may or may not have occurred under an official war, but the definition of terrorism covers them all. The US government has officially stated that it carries out counterterrorism and low-intensity warfare—but, if you compare their definitions to that of “terrorism,” they are impressively similar.
Furthermore, the “War on Terror” is not a new thing under US policy; it is a recycled term from Ronald Reagan’s administration. (Many of the members of President Bush’s cabinet, speech writing staff and advisory group were once members of the Reagan administration.) The “War on Terror” was declared early in Reagan’s first presidential term, and directed to a particularly dangerous form of terror: state-sponsored international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached southern Africa and Southeast Asia. Then-President Reagan declared several national emergencies, because the dangerous country of Nicaragua posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States of America, and was only two days away from marching into Texas and attacking the USA.
An interesting fact that you may or may not know is that in 1986 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemned the US for its “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua—which, in lay terms, amounts to international terrorism—and demanded massive reparations. This judgment was backed by virtually unanimous UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. Reparations were not made, but military escalation against Nicaragua was put into effect. The US was spared from being condemned for “aggression” (which is what really happened, and military manuals consider it worse than “terrorism”) because, in 1946, the US accepted to be under ICJ jurisdiction on the condition that it would be exempted from being condemned for “aggression.”
Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the US government directly and indirectly supported murderous coup d’états, oppressive regimes, and unscrupulous dictators in
Indonesia, the Philippines, Romania, Zaire, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on and on. The US government also harbors terrorists—who were once backed by the US military and on the CIA payroll—at home (e.g., Emmanuel Constant, Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles—just to name a few). The US terrorist record is extensive and appalling.

So, if a leftist terrorist cell or a state government with a terrorist record or al-Qaeda decided to fight a war against terror, in an entirely consistent fashion, wouldn’t that be self-destructive? Wouldn't these harmful individuals, cells and governments be attacking themselves?

Moreover, even if every single one of present-day terrorists is killed, captured and tried in court, or sent to an obscure prison somewhere in the world, many more terrorists would rise up out of anger for these killings or captures—and to defend their ideology, religion, and/or people-group. Take the example of Iraq; right before the 2003 invasion, there were practically no terrorist or violent attacks happening in the country. The atrocious levels of violence in today’s near-to-civil-war Iraq originated from neighboring terrorists coming into the country and blowing up buildings, sniping at Coalition troops, foreign contractors, security officers, etc.—and influencing Iraqi citizens to do the same. So, the scant amount of terrorist attacks in Iraq before the 2003 invasion eventually turned into insurmountable violence, making Iraq the quagmire that it is today (2,500+ Coalition troops killed and 37,000 Iraqi deaths—not to mention thousands of them wounded and disabled for life). The interesting thing is that these terrorist attacks make most people outside of Iraq (i.e., the West) think that this “war” is justified and necessary in order to fight and eliminate “the terrorists.” Without a clear target and an effective strategy to fight “the terrorists,” this “War on Terror” will not be over for a while.
There are three direct ways in which the US and its allies can reduce terrorism in this world. First, they should stop inciting it. Terrorist cells like al-Qaeda thrive whenever Muslims are killed and when there is turmoil caused by foreign forces in Muslim territory. Second, they should stop participating in and funding terrorism. Remember that the CIA supported al-Qaeda through the 1980s as they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Colombia receives, by far, the largest amount of military aid from the US in this hemisphere and it’s where the largest amount of human rights violations and terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere occur (the correlation between US military aid and human rights violations in the world is surprisingly strong). Over 200,000 lives would have been spared in Central America if the US government wouldn’t have funded and trained military and paramilitary groups to fight “the commies” from the 1950s to the 1990s. These groups organized themselves as death squads, and up to this day there are thousands of people “missing.” Third, the US and its allies should be more efficient in using their military intelligence to find and capture terrorists. It is aggravating and frustrating to see Coalition troops being killed by insurgents in Iraq, but attacking back with disregard for civilian lives is intolerable. If there is an actual threat, a target, it should be systematically dismembered without hurting civilians and carrying out shameful acts of human degradation like those in Abu Ghraib.
I am a staunch supporter of reducing terrorism in the world to near-inexistent levels (“terrorism” can’t be completely eliminated), but calling it the “War on Terror” is inappropriate, since it is applying double standards, it is hypocritical and counterproductive. Next time you read or hear such a term…chuckle.

This is Adam Carman's original article. Thankfully, it was edited before print.

Latin American Dictator Owns Houghton Gas Station: Students Organize Protest
Guest Article by Adam Carman.


Should American college students, already strapped for cash, pay what little money they have to a gas company solely owned by a government hostile to the United States? Some of us say, no. To this end, in the following weeks, a petition will be circulating to the owners of Houghton’s only gas station to change their supplier from Citgo to Mobil, a reverse to a change they made in the past. The reason for this petition is, on the surface, a political one. Citgo is owned, solely not in part, by the government of Venezeula, whose dictator-like president, Hugo Chavez, has declared open enmity for the United States, vowing to be President Bush’s “worst nightmare.” I recognize that hyperbole is a big part of these dictators’ lives—remember Saddam Hussein—but is it fair to ask Americans, however they may personally think of President Bush, to support a left-wing thug determined to make trouble for their country? I urge everyone who reads this to look for the petition at dinners in the upcoming weeks leading up to the Break. The petition will be respectful, and will simply request the change on the basis of who the owner of Citgo is; if the owners of the gas station do not see fit to meet the request, we will take it to the next stage, meaning a boycott and public protest of the gas station. Houghton only has one gas station so we already have been denied a choice, unless we want to spend gas money to drive further, and it is unfair to have to choose between spending gas money and supporting a third world enemy. But beyond this there is an economic concern. As I drove through Allegheny and the surrounding counties the last couple weeks, I noticed a pattern. Citgo gas was routinely ten to twelve cents more expensive than all its competitors. When the Houghton gas station has one of their “gas sales” you can get a pretty good idea of what other gas stations are charging regularly, particularly Mobil. So not only are college students supporting the extremist Venezuelan government but they are paying more money for gas. If you’re anything like me, you have little money to spare yet even the money you spend driving to Fillmore or Nunda is saving you money at the pump. Of course this is an argument for the other side, who insist that as filthy Westerners we ought to pay more for the same (or inferior in the case of Fair Trade coffee) kinds of goods to assuage our consciences about being powerful and “rich.” This is not at all fair and I don’t see in the end how we are helping the “noble savages” of the Third World by encouraging them to sell us high-priced, under-quality material. Consciences are tricky things and you can’t depend on them forever. Sooner or later, people are going to wake up and say, “Why in the world are we paying so much money for this stuff?” And they’re going to stop. And the Third World peasants will be in deep trouble again. As for gas companies, I see no reason to continue to support the existence of a Citgo as the only gas station in this college town. It’s more expensive than any other, and it is supporting a very questionable cause. Taken together, I believe this is good cause for a change. I urge my fellow students to sign the petition and to demand a change. Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans, and the enemy of our country should be our enemy as well.

This is our rebuttal to Adam's article above.

CITGO ROCKS!

Adam Carman’s accusations and rants against Citgo, Venezuela, and Hugo Chávez in his recent (National Enquirer-styled) Star article are more damaging than constructive—and more false than true. His accusations are baseless. Do not believe his hokum. Don’t sign their hogwash petition!

· Hugo Chávez has not declared enmity towards the American people (more details below); yet he is a very strong critic of the US government operations and foreign policy—not the same thing.
· Hugo Chávez has never said he would be Bush’s “worst nightmare.” Adam, you got your presidents mixed up.
· Chávez is a democratically-elected president. He has won elections and referenda with irrefutable majorities—certified by American and other international organizations.
· The US government, too, has been hostile against the Venezuelan government by covertly backing a coup in 2002, among many other things.
· Pat Robertson, a famous American evangelist and influential leader, called for Chávez’s assassination (though he later apologized).
· US senators sent a letter to 10 major oil companies asking them to donate a portion of their recent record profits (remember Fall 2005 gas prices?) to go to the poor. The only response came from Citgo. So what did they donate? Read below…
· On Jan. 12, 2006, the state of Maine and the Venezuelan government signed a contract through Citgo to provide 8 million gallons of heating oil at a 40% discount to low-income residents and Native Americans.
· A statewide heating assistance program in Massachusetts began, through Citgo, Nov. 22, 2005; and a similar program in the Bronx started Dec. 6. Many more have started throughout the Northeast—a total of 25 million gallons of heating oil. (Any New Yorkers or New Englanders reading this?!) PA and DE are also on the list!
· Chávez, through Citgo, responded more quickly than FEMA and pledged US$1 million in oil, food, and material for Katrina victims. Chávez also offered two mobile hospital units, and 120 rescue and first aid experts.
· Chávez’s vast social programs in Venezuela provide healthcare, education and housing, and promote land reform, nutrition, rural development, and indigenous rights.

If we are going to pick on somebody, let’s pick on Mobil…
· ExxonMobil, which owns Mobil, has a remarkably worse reputation than Citgo over many issues (e.g., environment, human rights, price gouging). Check their record…
· Mobil has repeatedly lobbied against researching for renewable energy sources and is the only oil company member of Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobby.
· It’s been nearly 17 years since the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil along the Alaska coast in one of the country’s worst environmental disasters, and a jury’s $5 billion judgment against the company is still tied up in the courts. The company only wants to pay $25 million.
· On January 30, 2006 ExxonMobil reported $36 billion profits on $371 billion sales during 2005—42% more than in 2004—more than any other oil company has ever earned during a single year. (The company’s record profits came at a time when working families across America struggled with ever-increasing gas and home heating costs.)
· Oil companies like Valero (a big one) reaped 4.7 cents per dollar in profit last year. Citgo earned just 1.3 cents per dollar.
· Places in the Middle East and other Muslim fundamentalist-influenced countries, where Mobil gets most of its oil, indoctrinate citizens to hate America and everything it entails. There’s no religious freedom, no democracy, women are treated like property. At least Venezuela is a democracy. So, we ask, where do you want your money to go?

· Prices at our Citgo are comparable to prices at other gas stations. “Students' calculations show that money spent driving to Fillmore or Nunda is reimbursed by savings at the pump”—ridiculous.
· The mini-mart has competition. That competition makes its money off selling beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
· The mini-mart was started by the Willard J. Houghton Foundation. The foundation is non-profit, dedicated to developing the Houghton College Campus and community. The mini-mart and Citgo are a service to our campus and community, without which everybody would have to travel to other towns to get gas.
· The same distributor of gasoline for the mini-mart also distributes Sunoco gas elsewhere, including Belfast. Chávez does not control the distribution channels or the pricing of gas. No retail seller in their right mind would pay more for gas to make some form of political statement. They all want to pay the least. Venezuela does not own the distributors or the retailers. Venezuela only owns Citgo’s name.
· Carman gave no indication of respectfully discussing the proposed “public protest and boycott” with the gas station managers. As a community-focused campus, don't we have the obligation to communicate such dramatic intentions with those whom our protest will affect? Shouldn't we be concerned for the economic well-being of those whose livelihoods depend on us?
· Finally, Carman’s Star article (which was originally twice as long and blatantly less sensible—you can ask Adam Carman for a copy) is a combination of research failure, and opinions presented as fact. Certainly, as an academic institution, we should strive to have intellectual debate about matters of this gravity, rather than seeking to motivate a student body by utilizing deplorable means.

To sign or not to sign, you decide.

--Endorsed by the Houghton Coalition for Truth, Evangelicals for Social Action, Jeff Spear, and Ted Murphy

Please submit any questions or comments to Chelsea.Kinsman@houghton.edu

Nota Bene: All of our sources are of reputable nature, public dominion, and common sense.

--Approved by the Office of Student Life--