SUGGESTIONS FOR A FUTURE PAKISTAN. (Suggerimenti per un Pakistan futuro)

The idea of a single nation-State based exclusively on religion doesn’t work. It is not enough to define Pakistan as the opposite of India. Institutions and wealth belong to the military. The slavery of women. Five proposals to save ourselves.

More than six decades after Partition, Pakistanis still struggle with the elemental question: who are we? Arabs or South Asians? Muslims first or Pakistanis first? Is there such a thing as Pakistani culture? Can Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Ahmadis, and other non-Muslims be equal Pakistanis? Or is Pakistan only for Muslims?

These questions beg the most fundamental one: is Pakistan the land and people inside a certain geographical boundary or, instead, is it a nation? By nation I mean a form of cultural or social community whose members share an identity, mental makeup, sense of history or common ancestry, parentage or descent.

By this definition, Pakistan is not a nation – at least as yet. Its peoples are too disparate and divided, have too little trust in those whom they perceive as outsiders, and identities of tribe and ethnicity are strong. This is painfully apparent in Karachi – Pakistan’s megacity of nearly 17 million – which is frequented by violent ethnic and religious clashes. And, while the flag is saluted with great fervor in Punjab, it does not fly at all on schools in Baluchistan where the national anthem is also not sung.

The lack of nationhood can be traced to the genesis of Pakistan and the single factor that drove it – religious identity. Carved out of Hindu-majority India, Pakistan resulted from the competition and conflict between natives who had converted to Islam and those who had not. Converts often identified with Arab invaders of the last millennium. Shah Waliullah (1703-1762), a “purifier” of Islam on the subcontinent who despised local traditions, famously declared “We [Hindustanis] are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and the Arabic language are our pride”.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also echoed the separateness of Muslims and Hindus, basing the struggle for Pakistan on the premise that the two peoples could never live together peacefully within one nation state. But Jinnah was unrecognizably different from Waliullah, a bearded religious scholar. An impeccably dressed Westernized man with Victorian manners, secular outlook, and a connoisseur of fine foods and wines, Jinnah nevertheless eloquently articulated the fears and aspirations of an influential section of his co-religionists. Interestingly, he was opposed by a large section of the conservative ulema, such as Maulana Maudoodi of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who said that Islam cannot be confined to national borders. But Jinnah and his Muslim League won the day by insisting that Muslims constituted a distinct nation which would be overwhelmed in post-British India by a larger and better educated Hindu majority.

Thus Pakistan, in essence, was created as the Boolean negative of India – it was NOT India. But what was it beyond being a homeland for Muslims? Decades after the horrific bloodbath of partition, the idea of Pakistan remains hotly debated. It did not help that Mr. Jinnah died in 1948 – just a year after Pakistan was born – with his plans ambiguously stated. He left behind no substantive writings. Thus his speeches, which were often driven by political expediency, are freely cherry-picked. Some find in them a liberal and secular voice, others an embodiment of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.

The basis in religious identity led to painful paradoxes. Jinnah’s Two-Nation theory was left in tatters after the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, and the defeat of the Pakistani military. An overbearing West Pakistan had run roughshod on East Pakistan and was despised as an external imperial power. The enthusiasm of Muslim Bengalis for Bangladesh – and their failure to repent even long after the separation – was a deadly blow against the very basis of Pakistan. Nevertheless, contrary to dire predictions, the Pakistani state survived. Its powerful military easily crushed emerging separatist movements in the provinces of Baluchistan and Sind.

For a while after 1971 the question of national ideology fell in limbo. Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto attempted to create a Pakistani identity around the notion of revenge for the loss of the East Wing. He promised “war of a thousand years” against India and started Pakistan’s quest for the atomic bomb in 1974. While this served temporarily as a rallying cry, the military coup of 1977 that removed him was to revive the identity issue.

Soon after he seized power, General Zia-ul-Haq sent Bhutto off to the gallows. Seeking a final resolution of Pakistan’s purpose and identity, he wanted to emulate Napoleon’s achievement of creating a nation from a nation-state. Indeed, Eric Hobsbawm, the influential Marxist British historian, has persuasively argued that the French state preceded the formation of the French people. In other words, the state of France made the French nation, not some pre-existing nationalism. Zia wanted the same for Pakistan.

To be sure, Zia’s goal was religious nationalism and not Napoleon’s secular nationalism. The word soon went out that henceforth Pakistan was not to be described as a Muslim state but, instead, as an Islamic state where Islamic law would reign supreme. To achieve this re-conceptualization, Zia knew that future generations of Pakistanis would have to be purged of liberal and secular values.

Thus began a massive decade-long state-sponsored project: democracy was demonized and declared un-Islamic, culture was purified of Hindu contamination, the Urdu language was cleansed of Hindi words to the extent possible, and religion was introduced into every aspect of public and private life.

Education was the key weapon for Zia’s strategy. In 1981, he ordered the education authorities to rewrite the history of Pakistan. All new school textbooks must now “induce pride for the nation’s past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakeable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan”. Jinnah and other icons of the Pakistan Movement had to be portrayed as pious fundamentalists whether or not they had beards. Their lifestyles had to be hidden from public view. To eliminate possible ambiguities of approach, a presidential order was issued to the University Grants Commission that henceforth all Pakistan Studies textbooks must:

Demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularize it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan - the creation of a completely Islamised State.

In a matter of years, Pakistani school children grew up learning a catchy but linguistically nonsensical jingle about the “ideology of Pakistan”: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illala! [What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no god but Allah!]. Although the purported answer has nothing to do with the question, Zia’s strategy was showing signs of working well.

Barely a generation was needed for Pakistan’s transformation from a moderate Muslim majority country into one where the majority of citizens wanted Islam to play a key role in politics. The effect is clearly visible today. Even as the sharia-seeking Taliban were busy blowing up schools in Swat and elsewhere, a survey by the World Public Opinion.Org in 2008 found that 54% of Pakistanis wanted strict application of sharia while 25% wanted it in some more dilute form. Totaling 79%, this was the largest percentage in the four countries surveyed (Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia).

A more recent survey of 2000 young Pakistanis between 18-27 years of age was carried out across Pakistan by the British Council in 2009. It found that “three-quarters of all young people identify themselves primarily as Muslims. Just 14% chose to define themselves primarily as a citizen of Pakistan”. The youth are deeply worried by lack of employment, economic inflation, corruption, and violence. In this turbulent sea, it is not surprising that most see religion as their anchor. The common refrain of the post-Zia generation is that “every issue will be solved if we go back to the fundamentals of Islam.” But, while the “fundamentals of Islam” slogan has enormous rallying power, it is ambiguous and of ten carries diametrically opposite meaning. The interpretation depends hugely upon social class, education, ethnicity, and personal disposition.

For some, violent change is the answer to the country’s problems. This is precisely what Zaid Hamid, Pakistan’s emerging Hitler-clone, advocates. A fiery demagogue who claims to have fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, he builds on the insecurity of the youth. Enthralled college students throng to packed auditoriums to listen to this self-proclaimed jihadist. Millions watch him on various TV channels, as he lashes out against Pakistan’s corrupt rulers and other “traitors”. Hamid promises that those who betrayed the nation’s honor by joining America’s war on terror will hang from lampposts in Islamabad. In his promised Islamic utopia, speedy Taliban-style justice will replace the clumsy and corrupt courts established by the British.

Just as Hitler dwelt on Germany’s “wounded honour” in his famous beer hall oratory in Munich – where he promised that Germany would conquer the world – Hamid calls for the Pakistan Army to go to war against India and liberate Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and Afghanistan. One day, he says, Pakistan’s flag shall fly from Delhi’s Red Fort. Inshallah, of course! The students applaud.

Notwithstanding the enormous impetus given by Zia-ul-Haq, final success still eludes Pakistan’s Islamists. In spite of an explosion of religiosity, the goal of producing a new Pakistani identity and a sharia state has not been reached. Why?

Ethno-nationalism is part of the answer. This natural resistance against melding into some larger entity is the reflexive response of historically constituted groups that seek to preserve their distinctiveness, expressed in terms of dress, food, folklore, and shared history. Assimilation of Pakistan’s diverse people into a homogenized national culture is opposed by this force which, like gravity, always acts in one direction.

Ethno-nationalism is, of course, vulnerable. It can be overcome by integrative forces, which arise from the natural advantage of being part of a larger economy with correspondingly greater opportunities. But for these forces to be effective it is essential that the state machinery provide effective governance, demonstrate fairness, and be indifferent to ethnic origins.

Here lies the problem: Pakistan’s ruling elite is widely perceived as ethnically biased as well as incompetent. Historically, the Pakistani state had quickly aligned with the powerful landed class. The army leadership and the economic elite joined forces to claim authority, but they were transparently self-serving and therefore lacked legitimacy.

Weak integration resulted. Today only a Punjabi – from Pakistan’s politically and economically dominant region – is likely to think of himself as Pakistani first and Punjabi second. Not so for Baluchis and Sindhis, whose principal identities are first Baluchis or Sindhis and then Pakistanis; the group identity dominates. So, for example, the physical fights between students in my university, as in other places, mostly occur between ethnic groups.

At a recent lecture that I gave to senior Pakistan civil service officers in Peshawar, I was taken back at the intensity of those from Baluchistan who said that wounds were too deep and the time for reconciliation had passed. A decade ago one would have expected this language from student radicals only; now it is the mainstream Baluch who articulates this.

Dangling the utopia of an Islamic state raised expectations but did little else. To the chagrin of the establishment, it backfired and became the cause of infinite division. This should have been easily predictable: religious groups are bitterly divided by sect. There is no way of avoiding the fundamentally unanswerable questions: which interpretation of Islam is the right Islam? Of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafii, Maaliki, Hanbali), whose version of the sharia should be adopted? Will all, or most, Pakistanis accept any non-elected amir-ul-momineen (leader of the pious) or a caliph? And what about the Shia?

Religion cannot be the basis of Pakistan or move it towards integration. I say this categorically, although it was the reason for Pakistan’s formation. Indeed, any serious move in the direction of a sharia state could lead to civil war. Today, even those who loudly call for sharia are frightened by the emergence of the Pakistani Taliban, whose primary demand is the imposition of sharia. Their Wahabi-Deobandi-Salafi understanding of sharia calls for forbidding females to leave their houses, be educated, or to hold jobs. Men must have beards, wear shalwars rather than trousers, and never miss prayers. Taliban-inflicted decapitations, amputation of limbs, and floggings are defended only by fanatics. These constitute no more than perhaps ten percent of Pakistan’s population.

There is excellent reason for Pakistan to be: it must be because it is! The cost of disappearance or destruction of this nuclear weapon state, is too awful to contemplate. I contend that Pakistan can become a nation, and that it will almost certainly become one in the decades ahead. But this will require that it seeks new roots lying within its social reality rather than religion. One must also assume that some foolish adventurism of its leaders does not lead to a further breakup.

Look at it this way: rain inevitably grinds down stony mountains over centuries and ultimately creates fertile soil. Similarly, nations are inevitably formed when people experience a common environment and live together for long enough. How long is long? In Pakistan’s case the time scale could be fairly short. Its people are diverse but almost all understand Urdu. They watch the same television programs, hear the same radio stations, deal with the same irritating and inefficient bureaucracy, use the same badly written textbooks, buy similar products, and despise the same set of rulers.

The metamorphosis of Pakistan into a nation can be catalyzed by a suitable manifesto of change. What should that be?

First, Pakistan needs peace. This means that it must turn inwards and fix its own problems rather than attempt solving those around it such as Kashmir, Afghanistan, or Palestine. In particular, the Kashmir dispute must be shelved. Kashmiris must learn how to deal with India, an occupying power that has mistreated them. Attempts by Pakistan to liberate Kashmir have achieved nothing beyond creating a militarized Pakistani security state that is incapable of serving the interests of its people.

Second, Pakistan needs economic justice and the working machinery of a welfare state. Economic justice is not the same as flinging coins at a beggar. Rather, it requires an organizational infrastructure that, at the very least, provides employment but also rewards appropriately according to ability and hard work. Incomes should be neither exorbitantly high nor miserably low. To be sure, “high” and “low” are not easily quantifiable, but an inner moral sense tells us that something is desperately wrong when rich Pakistanis fly off to vacation in Dubai while a mother commits suicide because she cannot feed her children.

Pakistan must learn from the fact that India abolished feudalism upon attaining independence. But the enormous pre-partition land holdings of Pakistan’s feudal lords remained safe and sound, protected by the authority of the state. The land reforms announced by Ayub Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto were eyewash. In later years, with the consolidation of military rule in national politics, the army turned itself into a landlord and capitalist class.

The military owns assets that have no relation to national defense. Today, the private property of military officers includes vast amounts of farm lands and valuable urban real estate, commercial assets in manufacturing, transportation, banking, insurance, advertising companies, cement and sugar industries, banking and insurance, airlines and ground transportation, factories for making corn flakes and even bottled water. Most countries have armies but, as some have noted, only in Pakistan does an army have a country.

Third, Pakistan needs a federation agreement that gives its different peoples equal participation and the feeling that they are part of the same nation. Different historically constituted peoples must want to live together, not be forced. So this means Pakistan’s rulers must respect diversity and hand important powers over to the provinces, re- conceiving itself as a federation of autonomous states with defense and foreign affairs held in common. India serves as model. Above all, Islamabad’s conflict with Baluchistan urgently needs resolution using political sagacity and persuasion rather than military force.

Fourth, Pakistan needs freedom for its women. In much of rural Pakistan a woman is likely to be spat upon, beaten, or killed for being friendly to a man or even showing to him her face. Newspaper readers expect – and get – a steady daily diet of stories about women raped, mutilated, or strangled to death by their fathers, husbands, and brothers. Energetic proselytizers, like Farhat Hashmi, have made deep inroads even into the urban middle and upper classes, and the culture of female suppression spread without bound. Pakistan’s cities are becoming culturally backward villages. As the pious multiply their numbers, the horrific daily crimes against women become still less worthy of comment or discussion.

Fifth, and finally, Pakistan needs the rule of law and renewal of the social contract. Nearly three centuries earlier, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed that each citizen of a state voluntarily places his person under the supreme direction of the “general will”. An unwritten compact between the individual and society requires that a citizen accept the rule of law and acknowledge certain basic responsibilities. In return the citizen receives certain rights from the larger entity. Without this voluntary submission by individuals, said Rousseau, humans would be no better than beasts.

The social contract is being ruthlessly violated. Citizens do not exhibit responsible social behavior. Most do not pay their fair share of income tax, respect basic environmental rules, heed traffic laws, and dispose off garbage as they should. Law-breaking occurs because ordinary people see the nation’s leaders openly flouting the very rules they were empowered to protect, and because they can see that enforcement of the law is no more than a perfunctory gesture. The problem is compounded by Pakistan’s fundamental confusion: is the citizen obligated to obey secular (or common) law or one of the many interpretations of Islamic law, or even the tribal law of jirgas? Surely a modern state has to set uniform rules for its citizens or else risk losing its legitimacy.

The path to creating a Pakistani nation is doubtlessly difficult. As the population explodes, oceans of poverty and misery deepen, limbless beggars in the streets multiply, water and clean air become scarce, education is stalemated, true democracy remains elusive, and the distance from a rapidly developing world increases. There is a strong temptation for one to step aside, give up, and admit helplessness. But no, surely that is wrong, for what we fear will then actually come to pass. I go along with Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian philosopher, who spoke of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. With the pessimism of the intellect we must calmly contemplate the yawning abyss up ahead. But then, after a period of reflection, one should move to prevent falling into it.
(Heartland)

VOLCANOES AND CLIMATE CHANGE. WHERE ARE THE ENVIROMENTALISTS? (Vulcani e cambiamento climatico. Dove sono gli ambientalisti?)

Radical greens – who long ago picked on flying as the ultimate green sin – may be raising a glass of organic elderberry wine to Eyjafjallajökull, if they can pronounce the Icelandic volcano's name on so heady a brew [by the way, the real name of the volcano is Fimmvorduhals, not Eyjafjallajökull, which is the name of the glacier above it: please, journalists, inform yourselves! ndr.] . But even if it has realised their dreams by grounding thousands of flights, they would be unwise to celebrate.

Let's leave aside how counter-productive it has been to demonise air travel; most measures to save energy and combat global warming, such as insulating homes, greatly benefit people – and cut pollution more – but the greens puritanically prioritised something popular and useful. The real danger is that the blast may distract from combating climate change.

Volcanic eruptions can briefly cool the climate by emitting dust, sulphur and ash particles that reflect sunlight. A much bigger bang at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 cut world temperatures by an average of half a degree centigrade over the next year and temporarily took much of the heat out of concerns over global warming. Of course, carbon dioxide levels were still increasing, so the thermometer rose later to compensate.

The new eruption is much smaller, and is unlikely to have a global effect, but might cool Northern Europe – something that, if last winter is anything to go by, would be exploited by sceptics. New figures show that, worldwide, we have just been through the fourth warmest January to March ever, but the snows in Europe and the US were wrongly used to "prove" the Earth is cooling

(The Telegraph)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Laki volcanic fissure in southern Iceland erupted over an eight-month period from 8 June 1783 to February 1784, spewing lava and poisonous gases that devastated the island's agriculture, killing much of the livestock. It is estimated that perhapsa quarter of Iceland's population died through the ensuing famine.

Then, as now, there were more wide-ranging impacts. In Norway, the Netherlands, the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, in North America and even Egypt, the Laki eruption had its consequences, as the haze of dust and sulphur particles thrown up by the volcano was carried over much of the northern hemisphere.

Ships moored up in many ports, effectively fogbound. Crops were affected as the fall-out from the continuing eruption coincided with an abnormally hot summer. A clergyman, the Rev Sir John Cullum, wrote to the Royal Society that barley crops "became brown and withered … as did the leaves of the oats; the rye had the appearance of being mildewed".

The British naturalist Gilbert White described that summer in his classic Natural History of Selborne as "an amazing and portentous one … the peculiar haze, or smokey fog, that prevailed for many weeks in this island, and in every part of Europe, and even beyond its limits, was a most extraordinary appearance, unlike anything known within the memory of man.

"The sun, at noon, looked as blank as a clouded moon, and shed a rust-coloured ferruginous light on the ground, and floors of rooms; but was particularly lurid and blood-coloured at rising and setting. At the same time the heat was so intense that butchers' meat could hardly be eaten on the day after it was killed; and the flies swarmed so in the lanes and hedges that they rendered the horses half frantic … the country people began to look with a superstitious awe, at the red, louring aspect of the sun."

Across the Atlantic, Benjamin Franklin wrote of "a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America".

The disruption to weather patterns meant the ensuing winter was unusually harsh, with consequent spring flooding claiming more lives. In America the Mississippi reportedly froze at New Orleans.

The eruption is now thought to have disrupted the Asian monsoon cycle, prompting famine in Egypt. Environmental historians have also pointed to the disruption caused to the economies of northern Europe, where food poverty was a major factor in the build-up to the French revolution of 1789.

Volcanologists at the Open University's department of earth sciences say the impact of the Laki eruptions had profound consequences.

Dr John Murray said: "Volcanic eruptions can have significant effects on weather patterns for from two to four years, which in turn have social and economic consequences. We shouldn't discount their possible political impacts."

(The Guardian)

KABUL REVENGE. (La vendetta di Kabul)

Il Generale Fabio Mini, già Capo di Stato maggiore del Comando Nato delle forze alleate Sud Europa e al vertice della Kfor in Kosovo, è intervenuto ieri per commentare l’arresto, da parte delle autorità afghane e del contingente Isaf della Nato, di tre attivisti italiani dell’ospedale di Lashkar Gah.

“Siccome non sono pacifista, – ha scritto Mini in un lungo articolo – siccome cerco di stare con i piedi per terra e non ho ancora trovato alcuna pace interiore che mi lasci inebetito trovo molti aspetti della vicenda, perfino i più imbarazzanti, plausibili e comprensibili. Specie alla luce di qualche esperienza. [...] Non ci sarebbe nulla di strano che un medico di Emergency si facesse dare mezzo milione di dollari per aiutare dei terroristi. Con quello che li paga l’organizzazione, il compenso varrebbe il rischio della pelle. I dubbi aumentano se si considera che una tale fortuna viene offerta al medico per portare un paio di scatoloni nel suo ospedale e lasciarli in bella vista in modo che vengano subito trovati: sembra più una operazione da “governatori” e servizi segreti che da terroristi”.

“Semmai è strano – continua, analizzando il comportamento tenuto dal ministro degli Esteri Franco Frattini – che la prima dichiarazione venuta in mente al nostro Ministro degli Esteri sulla vicenda sia la condanna contro tutti i terrorismi: in pratica è l’ammissione che Emergency è una organizzazione terroristica.

O almeno una di cui è lecito sospettare.
E infine non sarebbe affatto strano che i prigionieri in Afghanistan confessassero. Da quelle parti gli stranieri si salvano solo se confessano, qualsiasi cosa e alla svelta. Salvano la faccia dei loro aguzzini e così salvano la pelle. Se c’è da fare dell’eroismo o del martirio bisogna aspettare di essere tornati a casa“.

Ma perché il governo afghano e le forze militari della Nato avrebbero dovuto orchestrare una simile operazione proprio contro Emergency e il suo ospedale, oggetto di un corteo di protesta di abitanti aizzati dalle autorità locali?
“Ho già detto chiaramente in tempi non sospetti – ha risposto Mini nel prosieguo del pezzo – che Emergency avrebbe pagato caro il suo intervento “politico” nella vicenda Mastrogiacomo. Ora ci siamo.
Un altro fatto concreto è il fastidio arrecato da Emergency alle forze internazionali e ai governanti afgani ogni volta che ne ha denunciato le nefandezze.
Un fatto è che Emergency è un punto di riferimento per chiunque abbia bisogno e quindi anche per i cosiddetti talebani. Un fatto è che Helmand è ancora una roccaforte dei ribelli pashtun e che il loro smantellamento deve necessariamente passare per quello di qualsiasi organizzazione che li aiuta, anche se per i soli aspetti umanitari. [...] Dal punto di vista militare Emergency deve cessare di essere un testimone e un punto di riferimento per i ribelli. Tutti devono sapere che farsi ricoverare può essere l’anticamera dell’arresto che per gli afgani è sempre l’anticamera del cimitero“.

Un’ipotesi, quella del collegamento con il ruolo di mediazione svolto da Emergency nel 2007 per ottenere la liberazione del giornalista di “Repubblica” rapito da gruppi talebani, preso in considerazione anche dalla Procura di Roma che ha aperto un fascicolo sull’arresto dei tre attivisti dell’associazione di Gino Strada, raccogliendo proprio i materiali dei Ros.
(NewNotizie.it)

ENGDAHL: "US WON'T RECOVER FOR AT LAST 15 YEARS". (Engdahl: “All’economia USA non basteranno 15 anni per riprendersi”)

Prendendo spunto da una celebre affermazione dell’allora segretario di Stato nordamericano Henry Kissinger, secondo il quale “chi controlla il petrolio controlla le nazioni, chi controlla il cibo controlla le popolazioni, chi controlla il denaro controlla il mondo intero”, William Engdahl introduce il suo ultimo libro, Gods of Money (“Gli dei del denaro”), un’opera frutto di una trentennale ricerca dell’autore sugli sviluppi del sistema economico e finanziario internazionale basato sul dollaro. Già dall’emergere dell’attuale crisi nell’agosto 2007, sostiene Engdahl, è apparso evidente come la Federal Reserve, il Tesoro americano ed il Congresso siano stati pronti a salvare e sostenere (con trilioni di dollari dei contribuenti) le banche di Wall Street responsabili, con i loro comportamenti fraudolenti ed ingannevoli, della crisi stessa. In una recente intervista ad un quotidiano londinese, il CEO di Goldman Sachs avrebbe addirittura affermato “noi siamo semplicemente banchieri che svolgono il lavoro di Dio”, espressione significativa che rivela il modo di porsi dell’élite finanziaria nei confronti della società e del mondo: in un’espressione, al di sopra della morale.

Circa la crisi che sta investendo l’area euro, continua Engdahl, occorre inserirla nella giusta prospettiva e nelle corretta proporzione, anche quando ci si riferisce ai cosiddetti PIGS (Portogallo, Irlanda/Italia, Grecia e Spagna). Il centro di gravità dell’attuale crisi è e rimarrà New York, in particolare Wall Street ed il sistema basato sul dollaro. Subito dopo, per importanza, vengono la City di Londra e la sterlina. In confronto a questi due centri economico/finanziari, quello che accade in Grecia assomiglia a nulla più di una “tempesta in una teiera”. L’attivazione di tale tempesta è certamente “politica” ed è stata opera di quegli stessi “gods of money”, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, che influenzano fortemente agenzie di rating quali Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s e Fitch. In un momento di enorme pressione sul dollaro, nel novembre 2009, queste agenzie abbassarono la loro valutazione sul credito ellenico, esponendo il fatto che la Grecia avesse manipolato i propri conti per riuscire ad entrare nella zona euro nel 2002. Ironia della sorte, proprio JP Morgan e Goldman Sachs (il principale consigliere finanziario del governo Papandreou, salito al potere nell’ottobre 2009) avevano aiutato Atene a porre in essere queste operazioni di cosmesi finanziaria.

Più in generale, considerando l’area della moneta unica, vi sarebbero attualmente, secondo Engdahl, enormi problemi politici dovuti alla natura stessa del processo top-down che ha caratterizzato l’adozione dell’euro. Francia e Germania sembrerebbe stiano cercando, insieme ai partner europei, di porre le basi affinché quanto successo in Grecia non possa più accadere nell’UE. Tuttavia, al di là delle belle parole, la realtà è che diversi hedge funds stanno già preparando attacchi speculativi concertati per trarre profitto dagli eventi ellenici.

Riguardo invece al Fondo Monetario Internazionale ed al suo ruolo nella risoluzione di questa tipologia di crisi, occorrerebbe tenere sempre a mente che esso fu creato nel 1944 da Wall Street e Washington, col fine di essere uno strumento di mantenimento del potere finanziario statunitense a livello globale. Basti pensare che, ad oggi, gli USA detengono (unico paese) il diritto di veto su qualsiasi decisione del Consiglio di Amministrazione del Fondo. Vi è dunque un acceso dibattito nell’UE circa l’opportunità di coinvolgere il FMI per affrontare crisi come quella scoppiata in Grecia. Nonostante la contrarietà della maggioranza dei paesi comunitari, alla fine Bruxelles ha lasciato spazio al FMI: un classico caso, secondo Engdahl, di “operazione di guerra economica sotto copertura”, condotta dal sistema-dollaro contro l’euro. Il primo, attualmente molto debole ed oggetto di fortissime pressioni, non parrebbe proprio essere sulla strada della ripresa, contrariamente a quanto sostenuto dall’amministrazione americana. E probabilmente non lo sarà per almeno 15 anni.

L’ingresso del FMI nell’eurozona, fortemente voluto da Berlino, “equivale a far entrare una volpe in un pollaio”, minando l’idea stessa di Unione Europea. Esso rappresenta inoltre un segnale per l’intera comunità economica e finanziaria internazionale: al giorno d’oggi il potenziale del Fondo Monetario Internazionale non è assolutamente esaurito. Anzi, il FMI ha il potere di attuare misure capaci di annullare le scelte economiche e finanziarie comunitarie.

Con un occhio al futuro ed al lungo periodo, Engdahl rileva infine come nelle relazioni internazionali l’Unione Europea tenga un atteggiamento fondamentalmente schizofrenico. Dal 1945 le relazioni transatlantiche furono il principale fattore di stabilizzazione per il Vecchio Continente durante la Guerra Fredda. Con il crollo dell’Unione Sovietica anche il Patto di Varsavia venne dissolto. Lo stesso non avvenne per l’Alleanza Atlantica. Washington decise di estendere la NATO fino alle porte della Federazione russa, attraverso l’appoggio alle cosiddette “Rivoluzioni Colorate” e la promozione di governi fantoccio filo-occidentali intorno alla Russia. Tuttavia questa strategia si è rivelata fallimentare. Facendo di necessità virtù, Mosca e Pechino, insieme ad altre repubbliche centro-asiatiche, si sono così ritrovate nella nuova Organizzazione per la Cooperazione di Shanghai (OCS) a collaborare strettamente sui temi della difesa e della sicurezza, nonché su temi economici. Ad emergere, dunque, è stata una nuova dinamica; una dinamica euroasiatica, l’unica potenzialmente in grado di scalzare il predominio economico nordamericano. Il quesito fondamentale per il Vecchio Continente è allora il seguente: rivolgersi verso l’Eurasia, con un occhio di riguardo al commercio ed alle risorse energetiche, oppure “salire” sul sistema-dollaro, ogni giorno più simile ad un Titanic? Una domanda complessa, che pretende una risposta articolata, capace di tenere in debita considerazione l’attuale scenario geopolitico globale. L’Unione Europea non ha ancora deciso in che direzione andare e per questo, attualmente, la sua politica appare schizofrenica. Dirigersi verso l’Eurasia significherebbe subire immediate ed enormi ritorsioni statunitensi. Dirigersi verso gli USA significherebbe salire su di una barca che sta affondando.
(Pubblicato su Eurasia)

THE ESSENTIAL ABOUT THAI CRISIS. (L'abc sulla crisi tailandese)

Thailand is locked in a political conflict that took a deadly turn Saturday when government efforts to evict protesters from city streets turned into a savage nighttime battle between soldiers and demonstrators. Twenty-one people were killed and hundreds wounded. The demonstrators are standing fast and support for the government is fading quickly.

Some questions and answers about the crisis that has threatened political anarchy in the country:

Q. What are anti-government protesters in Thailand demanding?

A. The so-called ''Red Shirt'' protesters want Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve Parliament immediately and call new elections. They say he came to power illegitimately because his Democrat Party was not the top vote-getter in the last election in 2007. Military pressure on lawmakers of other parties allowed him to cobble together a coalition government in December 2008.

Q. What is the government's response?

A. Abhisit says he came to power through legal Parliamentary processes. In two inconclusive rounds of talks with protest leaders late last month, he offered to dissolve Parliament by the end of the year. The timing would allow his government to pass a new budget and oversee the annual military reshuffle, which includes the appointment of a new army commander, one of the most powerful posts in Thailand, with a history of intervention in politics.

Q. Who are the major players in the conflict?

A. The Red Shirts, formally known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, consist largely of supporters of ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and pro-democracy activists who opposed the 2006 military coup that ousted him after months of demonstrations. The anti-Thaksin protesters -- led by the People's Alliance for Democracy, or so-called ''Yellow Shirts'' -- demanded he step down for alleged corruption and disrespecting the country's constitutional monarch, 82-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Q. What are the roots of the problem?

A. The 2006 protests against Thaksin polarized the country. His party easily won two elections amid popularity among the country's rural majority for initiating social and economic welfare programs. Those who voted for Thaksin felt their votes were ignored after he was ousted from power.

Thaksin's political allies came to power in a December 2007 election, but courts forced two successive pro-Thaksin prime ministers out of office on grounds their supporters found dubious.

Thaksin's foes insist he was a corrupt megalomaniac who abused his power and tried to quash all opposition. They say he sought to usurp the prestige and influence of the respected monarchy.

The fault lines between rich and poor, city and countryside have led many to paint the conflict as a class war.

Q. How can the crisis be resolved?

A. It is likely some sort of compromise will ease tensions. Army Commander Gen. Anupong Paochinda indicated Monday he did not want to send soldiers in to try again to disperse demonstrators. The coalition partners in Abhisit's government could withdraw their support, or use that threat to have him call a new election soon.

The country's Election Commission has recommended that Abhisit's Democrat Party be disbanded for a 2005 electoral law violation, a move that would have to be upheld by the Constitutional Court. If that happens, Abhisit would be removed from office immediately.

Abhisit could undercut the Red Shirts' demands by calling an election on his own schedule, but earlier than the end of the year.

The standoff between Abhisit and the Red Shirts could also continue as a test of wills. That could lead third parties to intervene in the form of a coup by military officers unhappy with Anupong's noninterventionist stance.
(International Herald Tribune)

THE BEGINNING OF THE END: A LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW ON OBAMACARE.(L'inizio della fine: un punto di vista libertario sulla riforma Obama)

Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.

Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can't find a doctor.

Legislative hopes and dreams don't always stand up well against economic realities.

Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many — the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn't be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.

Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court's responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.
(CampaignForLiberty)

FOR WHAT? (Per quale motivo?)

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
(HeraldScotland)