2007/04/23
Bad news, not just for France
Segolène was hardly inspiring, but consider the alternative! Sarkozy is José María Aznar on steroids, even more narcissistic, opportunistic and cruel, and (unfortunately) a lot smarter than his Spanish counterpart, and therefore more dangerous. Doug Ireland: Why Sarkozy is dangerous
2007/04/15
The Growing Toll of Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Be sure to read the reader comments on this important article by our good friend César Chelala. And thanks, César, for stimulating this discussion. The Growing Toll of Iraqi Civilian Deaths - CommonDreams.org - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
What might be the consequences of a rapid withdrawal of "coalition" (i.e., U.S. and British) troops? Moise Naím has argued persuasively -- it's an easy argument to make -- there's no way that any amount of U.S. assistance will make the Iraqi government prepared to provide security, so the immediate consequence might be an increase in violence -- though how things could get any worse is hard to imagine. I've been impressed by Zbigniew Brzesinski's argument, repeated in several recent articles: the U.S. military presence is an OBSTACLE to peace, because it relieves the governing faction from the need to negotiate with its foes. If the government has to defend itself, all by itself, it will either come to terms with its many and varied attackers or succumb, in which case the victors may form some new government. Or, most likely, we may see a repeat of the Somali experience, where nobody wins and everybody loses -- that is, no one faction or coalition of factions has the force to conquer.
The U.S. invasion has just compounded the massive errors by previous imperialisms. But here we are: we can't go back and undo any of it, we just have to figure out where we can go from here. Peace in Iraq, whether as a single country or divided into three or more (a very bad idea, it seems to me, but possibly inevitable given the depth of hostility among Kurds and Sunni and Shiite Arabs and Turkomans)--how to achieve it? A first step is to get U.S. & U.K. troops out of there. Negotiated peace will take far more diplomatic skill and sensitivity than the U.S. neocons have so far demonstrated. A coalition force of foreign troops may indeed be needed to assist whatever government(s) emerge. But the first requirement would be NO U.S. or U.K. MILITARY PARTICIPATION. We've demonstrated our massive incompetence and united almost all Iraqis against us.
What might be the consequences of a rapid withdrawal of "coalition" (i.e., U.S. and British) troops? Moise Naím has argued persuasively -- it's an easy argument to make -- there's no way that any amount of U.S. assistance will make the Iraqi government prepared to provide security, so the immediate consequence might be an increase in violence -- though how things could get any worse is hard to imagine. I've been impressed by Zbigniew Brzesinski's argument, repeated in several recent articles: the U.S. military presence is an OBSTACLE to peace, because it relieves the governing faction from the need to negotiate with its foes. If the government has to defend itself, all by itself, it will either come to terms with its many and varied attackers or succumb, in which case the victors may form some new government. Or, most likely, we may see a repeat of the Somali experience, where nobody wins and everybody loses -- that is, no one faction or coalition of factions has the force to conquer.
The U.S. invasion has just compounded the massive errors by previous imperialisms. But here we are: we can't go back and undo any of it, we just have to figure out where we can go from here. Peace in Iraq, whether as a single country or divided into three or more (a very bad idea, it seems to me, but possibly inevitable given the depth of hostility among Kurds and Sunni and Shiite Arabs and Turkomans)--how to achieve it? A first step is to get U.S. & U.K. troops out of there. Negotiated peace will take far more diplomatic skill and sensitivity than the U.S. neocons have so far demonstrated. A coalition force of foreign troops may indeed be needed to assist whatever government(s) emerge. But the first requirement would be NO U.S. or U.K. MILITARY PARTICIPATION. We've demonstrated our massive incompetence and united almost all Iraqis against us.
2007/04/11
Media lesson from 15th c. Europe
This is fun, a reminder that the idea of "protected knowledge" or copyright is not exactly new. Terry Heaton’s PoMo Blog » Blog Archive » It’s all about empowered people
2007/03/28
Apocalypse now - April 6 Sneak Attack On Iran By Bush
Be forewarned. If the Russkies have got this right, we're all in big, big trouble. Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack On Iran By Bush The Novosti (Russian News & Information Agency) article cited is available in French but not (apparently) in the English-language version of the website. RIA Novosti - International - Le Pentagone va attaquer des cibles militaires iraniennes (expert russe)
2007/03/26
Coming up for air
Sorry not to have had much to say here lately, but I really was busy. I´ve been working on a book for W. W. Norton on the history of architecture and urbanism in Latin America, which I'm writing with Susana Torre. And just on Saturday I finally finished the draft of a chapter that had given me a lot of trouble, which is why I finally feel free to think about other things and return to this blog.
The chapter is the one on several thousand years of development in the Andes, right up to the eve of the Spanish invasion. Research was complicated, the sources are contradictory, and the selection of cases to present a coherent story was also more difficult than in any previous book I've written.
In fiction, I have a novel I want to revise before sending it around again. Also, I've begun writing for publication in Spanish. I've created an alter ego, Baltasar Lotroyo ("el otro yo"), who signs all my stuff in Spanish. Baltasar also has his own web page. He has a short story (and Susana has an essay) in an anthology coming out soon, of writings about or from this little town, Carboneras.
And I (not Baltasar, this time) have also been recruited by our Spanish friends in the local library's reading club (a very active crowd) to direct the theater group they've long been wanting to create. We have our first meeting this next Wednesday; I'll have to come up with some good theater exercises for them.
The chapter is the one on several thousand years of development in the Andes, right up to the eve of the Spanish invasion. Research was complicated, the sources are contradictory, and the selection of cases to present a coherent story was also more difficult than in any previous book I've written.
In fiction, I have a novel I want to revise before sending it around again. Also, I've begun writing for publication in Spanish. I've created an alter ego, Baltasar Lotroyo ("el otro yo"), who signs all my stuff in Spanish. Baltasar also has his own web page. He has a short story (and Susana has an essay) in an anthology coming out soon, of writings about or from this little town, Carboneras.
And I (not Baltasar, this time) have also been recruited by our Spanish friends in the local library's reading club (a very active crowd) to direct the theater group they've long been wanting to create. We have our first meeting this next Wednesday; I'll have to come up with some good theater exercises for them.
2007/03/22
"The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism...
has awoken!" thunders pastor John Hagee. And where is St. George the Dragon Slayer when we need him? This dreadful giant is made of mass hysteria, defending the indefensible. A few good pricks from a sharp lance should let all the venomous steam out, but so far no brave knight appears. Inside America's powerful Israel lobby | Salon News
2007/03/16
Israel's right to be racist
Sadly, this summary of Israel's arguments through the years appears to be exact. And yet Israel's defenders express outrage whenever anyone points out that "Zionism is racism" -- so we'll have to ask them what they mean by "racism." We already know what they mean by "Zionism," and it sure looks like racism to me. Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Israel's right to be racist
2007/03/08
Wind, wind, wind
Right now (a little before 9 a.m.), I'm watching the powerful effects of the windstorm from the west, sending the waves rushing over one another in direction of the Baleares (Mallorca & Menorca), whipping the palm branches and raising the sand of the beach. This is the strongest wind I've seen here. It's been much worse in the northern parts of the peninsula -- I was just looking at these photos from A Coruña (in Galicia, the northeasternmost region), Madrid and elsewhere: 20minutos.es. When it calms down a bit, I plan to walk over to our construction project, to make sure that the crane is still standing and see what else has happened.
2007/02/23
Defense Calls Padilla Incompetent for Trial - New York Times
Guilty until proven innocent (and we'll fix it so that your innocence can never be proven). Here's an example of Bushian justice. Defense Calls Padilla Incompetent for Trial - New York Times
2007/02/21
"Israel's right to exist"
The phrase keeps coming up, and every time, I wonder what is it supposed to mean? Which Israel? In what boundaries? Exist how? Most recently, I saw it in a letter from Rabbi Michael Lerner, a mostly reasonable man I always find worthwhile listening to. He criticizes "those who deny Israel's right to exist—and hence deny to the Jewish people the same right to national self-determination that they grant to every other people on the planet..."
First off, the "right to national self-determination" is not granted "to every other people on the planet." We need go no further than the Chechens. Or the Kurds. And a score or more other groups that consider themselves "nations" (they have their own language and historical myths) but are denied statehood.
More importantly, "national self-determination" is obsolete and unsustainable in our "globalized" world of the 21st century. It's an idea that belongs to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it was advertised as the way to cast off colonial oppression. But "national liberation" (not to mention "national socialism" and other varieties) quickly came to mean individual and minority-group suppression or even extermination. It means that only people of "our" national group have full rights in "our" state. Today, populations everywhere are on the move, and every state is ethnically mixed. Such exclusionary states are asking for trouble, and their decision-makers (not their people, of course) deserve all the trouble they invite.
In the case of Israel, "national self-determination" is an especially incoherent concept. What is the "nation," and whom does it exclude? Are the "ins" all Jews, everywhere? Or only those accepted as true Jews by Israeli religious authorities? No, probably not. How about all Hebrew-speakers? Or maybe what is meant is, All those who feel themselves to be Israelis. But then, what about non-Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist people who have lived in Israel all their lives?
If those last groups are included, then, thankfully, we have got past gab about "nations" and can think in terms of "citizens," whose rights are civil and legal, not ancestral. The Israel that can and should exist would not be a Jewish state, but a modern one that recognizes the citizenship (regardless of the religion or the lack of it) of all the people in the territories it administers.
As always, I invite comment. For more by Rabbi Michael Lerner, see Tikkun — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement
First off, the "right to national self-determination" is not granted "to every other people on the planet." We need go no further than the Chechens. Or the Kurds. And a score or more other groups that consider themselves "nations" (they have their own language and historical myths) but are denied statehood.
More importantly, "national self-determination" is obsolete and unsustainable in our "globalized" world of the 21st century. It's an idea that belongs to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it was advertised as the way to cast off colonial oppression. But "national liberation" (not to mention "national socialism" and other varieties) quickly came to mean individual and minority-group suppression or even extermination. It means that only people of "our" national group have full rights in "our" state. Today, populations everywhere are on the move, and every state is ethnically mixed. Such exclusionary states are asking for trouble, and their decision-makers (not their people, of course) deserve all the trouble they invite.
In the case of Israel, "national self-determination" is an especially incoherent concept. What is the "nation," and whom does it exclude? Are the "ins" all Jews, everywhere? Or only those accepted as true Jews by Israeli religious authorities? No, probably not. How about all Hebrew-speakers? Or maybe what is meant is, All those who feel themselves to be Israelis. But then, what about non-Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist people who have lived in Israel all their lives?
If those last groups are included, then, thankfully, we have got past gab about "nations" and can think in terms of "citizens," whose rights are civil and legal, not ancestral. The Israel that can and should exist would not be a Jewish state, but a modern one that recognizes the citizenship (regardless of the religion or the lack of it) of all the people in the territories it administers.
As always, I invite comment. For more by Rabbi Michael Lerner, see Tikkun — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)