Liberian Americans: Ebola be gone!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

EbolaBeGone 033At the Rhode Island State House yesterday just under 200 people representing 15,000 Liberian-Americans living here in Rhode Island rallied to call attention to the terrible Ebola crisis now ravaging four countries in Africa. The rally succeeded in its goal of gaining the attention of political leaders as Mayor Angel Taveras addressed the crowd and rally organizers announced a meeting with Representative David Cicilline to take place at his Pawtucket office following the rally.

Rally organizer and facilitator Kormasa Amos kept the proceedings on track, encouraging singing and dancing by the crowd. Samuel Aboh Jr., the other rally organizer and keynote speaker, developed the #ebolabegone campaign online, which has gained national prominence. Willete Holt delivered a poem to the crowd which was extremely well received.

Rhode Island has the largest Liberian population in the country, and the Ebola virus is tearing through that country as we speak. People are being quarantined in their homes, hospitals are closing. Food and water are becoming scarce. This is a massive humanitarian crises. Supplies, such as water, non-perishable foods and medical supplies can be dropped off at Decontee’s African Restaurant at 711 Broad St, Jerry’s Beauty Salon at 500 Broad St, Christ Center of Praise Church at 93 Prudence Ave, and at Council President Michael Solomon’s office at the Providence City Hall.

EbolaBeGone 001

EbolaBeGone 002

EbolaBeGone 003

EbolaBeGone 004

EbolaBeGone 008

EbolaBeGone 010

EbolaBeGone 012

EbolaBeGone 013

EbolaBeGone 014

EbolaBeGone 015

EbolaBeGone 016

EbolaBeGone 017

EbolaBeGone 019

EbolaBeGone 021

EbolaBeGone 023

EbolaBeGone 024

EbolaBeGone 026

EbolaBeGone 027

EbolaBeGone 028

EbolaBeGone 029

EbolaBeGone 030

EbolaBeGone 032

EbolaBeGone 034

EbolaBeGone 035

EbolaBeGone 036

EbolaBeGone 037

EbolaBeGone 038

EbolaBeGone 039

EbolaBeGone 040

EbolaBeGone 043

EbolaBeGone 045

EbolaBeGone 046

EbolaBeGone 048

EbolaBeGone 049

EbolaBeGone 051

EbolaBeGone 052

EbolaBeGone 053

EbolaBeGone 054

EbolaBeGone 055

EbolaBeGone 056

EbolaBeGone 058

EbolaBeGone 059

EbolaBeGone 065

EbolaBeGone 067

EbolaBeGone 070

EbolaBeGone 072

EbolaBeGone 073

EbolaBeGone 074

EbolaBeGone 076

000 Kormasa Amos

000 Song

000 Song 002

000 Song 003

001 Kormosa Amos

002 Sister Miatta Dorley

003 Randell Dauda

004 Poem Willette Holt

005a Winston Gould

005b Fatima Khadar

005c Deen Ibiyemi

005d Dr Fine

006 Samuel Aboh Jr

007 Hull, Solomon Vincent

007 Taveras

007 Elorza

007 Claudius Cooper

Pro-Palestine rally and vigil in Burnside Park


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_3419About 125 people gathered in Burnside Park on Saturday “in protest of the massacre in Gaza” and to “stand in solidarity with Palestine in the face of civilian murders and generations of systematic oppression.” It is hoped that intensifying public pressure on Israel will “end the occupation.” The description of the event continued:

As of late Tuesday, over 200 Palestinians have been killed and 1500 Palestinians have been wounded, the majority of whom are women and children. Without pressure, the Israeli regime has proven time and time again that it will continue such massacres as we see in Gaza now, and continue the decades of systematic ethnic cleansing, military occupation and apartheid policies.

Take to the streets to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and to demand an end to our Rhode Island officials’ silence on the violence, a condemnation of attacks on civilians, and the cessation of military aid to Israel.

Perhaps the most emotional part of the rally was a reading of the names of those who have died in Palestine as Israel continues to pursue military solutions to the crisis.

DSC_3415DSC_3425  DSC_3434  DSC_3444  DSC_3459  DSC_3468  DSC_3477  DSC_3490DSC_3495  DSC_3501  DSC_3515DSC_3517DSC_3521DSC_3539DSC_3541DSC_3543DSC_3550  DSC_3564DSC_3566DSC_3569DSC_3577DSC_3582DSC_3595DSC_3600DSC_3616DSC_3626DSC_3629DSC_3637DSC_3639DSC_3642DSC_3643DSC_3654DSC_3682DSC_3689DSC_3690DSC_3700DSC_3714DSC_3723DSC_3728DSC_3732DSC_3737DSC_3742DSC_3745DSC_3750DSC_3751DSC_3758DSC_3764DSC_3769DSC_3771DSC_3792DSC_3804

RI delegation weighs in on situation in Iraq


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

reed burnettAs President Obama prepares to deploy some 300 “military advisers” to Iraq in hopes of quelling the Sunni-led violence there, Rhode Island’s congressional delegation is mixed on the move.

Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Jim Langevin said they support the president’s decision. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he will “cautiously support” the president’s decision. Congressman David Cicilline, on the other hand, said he would “continue to urge the Obama Administration to proceed cautiously.”

Each offered a detailed statement to RI Future about the escalating strife in Iraq. Assuming the progressive position is opposing war and violence, here are their statements in order of how opposed they seemed to me based on their statements alone:

Congressman David Cicilline:

I am very concerned about the implications of any new U.S. military engagement in Iraq and strongly oppose sending American combat forces to this country.

The resolution of the current crisis in Iraq is ultimately the obligation of the Iraqi people. Their leaders have the responsibility to establish a pluralistic and inclusive government that will provide stability in Iraq. America has spent more than $1.7 trillion and sacrificed 4,486 American lives in this terrible war.  After nearly a decade of war in Iraq, Rhode Islanders and most Americans think it’s time to focus on nation building right here in America.  I will continue to closely monitor this situation and continue to urge the Obama Administration to proceed cautiously.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

I will cautiously support the Administration’s efforts to help Iraqis regain control of their territory. This insurgency could become a real threat to our interests and we need to find ways to support the Iraqis who seek a peaceful democracy.  But that should not mean sending American troops into combat.  The Iraqi government needs to include all its citizens – not just the Shiite majority – in their democracy if they wish it to last.

Congressman Jim Langevin:

The violence in Iraq is very disturbing, and it is something we must monitor closely. Like the President, I am opposed to sending any new combat troops into the area, but I respect and agree with his decision to provide additional security to the United States embassy in Baghdad and Special Operations advisors to better assess the situation on the ground. Going forward, we must continue to explore all of our options as the situation develops. However, U.S. actions must not be in any way a substitute for meaningful action on the part of the Iraqi government to mend the rifts between Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish leaders.

Senator Jack Reed:

Iraq represents a very difficult situation.  The U.S. needs to be vigilant when it comes to ISIS, which is so ruthless that even Al Qaeda disavows it, and we obviously need to protect our diplomatic personnel and other assets.  But the responsibility to maintain the security and stability of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi government.  We can’t be their air force and U.S. combat troops are not the solution.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far managed to politicize Iraq’s military and militarize its politics, a dangerous approach that will only breed more instability.  To even begin to solve this conflict, Maliki must make serious political reforms to build an inclusive and stable Iraq.  This country’s future must be decided by every segment of its society, not just by certain groups, and certainly not by the United States.

Reed also spoke with CNN’s Erin Burnett Wednesday about the issue.

State House Rally for the kidnapped Nigerian girls transcends our differences

bring back rallyThe terrible situation of the 276 kidnapped Nigerian girls feels hopeless and so far away, but there is much we can do, even here in Rhode Island, to help. To that end Mary Gwann of the Rhode Island Young Professionals, in coordination with the Nigerian Community of Rhode Island and Take 5 with Reza Rites will be holding a rally on the mall side of the State House today at 5pm “to keep up the pressure on the United States’ efforts in rescuing and reuniting the girls with their families!”

In the meantime, Mary Gwann has other ideas on how to help. You can go to the Whitehouse.gov website and sign the petition demanding the White House work with the UN and the Nigerian government to bring home the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Let other people know on social media that you signed the petition and that they should too. (I’m signer #21,961.)

Then you could write to your Senator or Congressperson to let them know that you want action taken on this issue. Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, David Cicilline and Jim Langevin are standing by, eager to take your calls and/or read your emails.

MichelleObamaBringBackOurGirlsWhile you’re on the Internet, playing around with social media (and using the #bringbackourgirls hashtag), take a picture of yourself with a sign that says any one or more of the following: “#bringbackourgirls”, “Devuelvan Nuestras Niñas”, “Real men don’t buy girls” or “#bringbackourgirls” in another language. Some people are putting their petition signature number on the sign while they’re at it.

Mary Gwann
Mary Gwann

Finally, you should go to the rally. This event transcends religion, race and politics, so anyone and everyone should come if possible. As Mary Gwann said to me this morning, “Today’s rally will demonstrate to the world that it doesn’t matter the color of your skin, how much money you have, or if you are Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. Everyone in attendance has one goal – to have the girls rescued and reunited with their families. For me, that would be the best Mothers day gift any of us could ask for.”

 

Syria: Later that same day

syria protest dcYesterday, I spoke with staffers of Congressman David Cicilline in order to try to influence the Rep. to vote against military action against Syria for its August 21 use of chemical weapons. Cicilline has yet to comment himself.

The situation remained highly fluid throughout the afternoon. I was able to talk to staffers of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. James Langevin, and leave a synopsis of my/RIPDA’s position with Sen. Jack Reed’s office. All of the RI Congressional delegation’s offices were very accommodating with their time, very professional and very competent.

Things changed while going from office to office over the span of about three hours. Be that as it may, I think Rep. Langevin’s assistant effectively spoke for all of the RI delegation, indeed probably most all Congressmen, when at the end of the afternoon he said that there was nothing Rep. Langevin had to vote for or against any more, with the UN Security Council still hotly formulating a resolution suiting all.

While this was a bit of a cop-out (Rep. Langevin still might have come out against military action regardless of the final resolution), it certainly had a lot of truth to it, and not much time had passed for the Rep. to determine a new position. Indeed, supposedly the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Syria earlier in the day didn’t have a chance to focus much on anything, with the developments occurring as fast as they did.

The overall sentiment here seems to be to conditionally support the Russian proposal, but the international monitoring of Syria’s chemical weapons and the latter’s destruction would have to be quick and verifiable. There is also the sticking point that Russia wants no threat of military action in the resolution, while the US does. Hopefully a compromise will occur.

In other action, Codepink was across the street from the Cannon House Office Building demonstrating against military action (see the picture; that’s Ellen on the  right, yours truly on the left, and a stand-in in the center). gus in dcThey have been there for several days now, nonstop. They have a rally planned for later in the evening, 7 PM, outside the White House. That may have changed, I don’t know, since the President’s address is not due to start until 9 PM ET.

Well, the news will likely still stay interesting over the next few days.

 

Cicilline still on fence re: Syria, advises caution


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

photo-CicDC-20130910-1-akuWASHINGTON, DC — I am in Washington, representing both RIPDA and myself, arguing against a military response to the recent horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria.

I had the good fortune to talk to Rep. Cicilline staff members in his DC office today about his position on such a strike. The staffers indicated that the Representative is listening to his constituents carefully and intently. This was borne out by their careful consideration of our anti-war thoughts on the Syrian situation. The Representative has yet to make a final decision on a possible US response.

However, Rep. Cicilline’s current thinking is that all possibilities should be explored before any military action is taken, and that such a decision be made with great care and deliberation. Note that in his capacity as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee he has current knowledge on the deliberations in the House, as well as influence on the outcome.

I say “current thinking” with a grain of salt. The situation is quite fluid. Things were developing as we talked. Due to no fault of their own,  and understandably so, I seemed to have more current info than the staffers did, the latest New York Times posting having occurred 4 minutes before our 11:30 AM meeting.

More and more nations and diplomats are lining up behind Russia’s Sec’y Kerry-derived proposal for international monitoring and destruction of Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons. This includes a high-ranking Syrian official; according to an earlier New York Times post:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Syrian prime minister, Wael al-Halki, said Tuesday that his country supported a Russian proposal for the Syrian government to give up chemical weapons to avoid a possible military strike by the United States.

Syrian state television quoted Mr. Halki as saying that the government backed the initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”

(Emphasis is mine.)

Right now, 1:30 PM, diplomatic developments are still happening fast and furiously, at the UN, the Congress, and the White House.

I’ll post again later today, as I am able to.

Gus Uht

 

Another ‘Munich Moment’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Munich-MomentIn a conference call on Syria with House members this past Monday Secretary of State John Kerry called this a “Munich moment.”  My throat clenched up as I read yet one more in an endless series of references to Neville Chamberlain’s ill-advised attempt at peacemaking with Adolf Hitler in 1938.

Let’s start with a stipulation: The use of chemical weapons is barbaric and ought not to be tolerated. I believe this, and probably you do, too. No one is arguing about this.

However, I don’t know about you, but I have had it up to here with people trotting out the ghost of Neville Chamberlain whenever there is a war to be waged. It’s offensive and silly for two reasons. The first is that it implicitly compares every bad guy to Hitler. Bashar al Assad is certainly not my kind of guy, but he has not turned his nation into a war-making expansionist machine that threatens his neighbors with its designs on their territory. (Though of course he is no friend of Israel.)  Assad is a dictator fighting a brutal civil war against mostly domestic opponents, many of whom are no friends of ours. He is also not a threat to the United States. Apart from the dictator bit, the comparison to Hitler fails on every count, from the war aims to the mustache.

The other reason invoking Chamberlain’s ghost is offensive is this: Munich was in 1938. Was Neville Chamberlain the last guy to make a foreign policy mistake?  Is Secretary Kerry telling us that no one since then has made enough of a mistake to learn lessons from?  Does he have nothing to learn from, oh, I don’t know, Lyndon Johnson?

Johnson liked to refer to Munich, too, and in 1965 used the comparison to say that surrender in Vietnam would encourage the aggression of the North Vietnamese.  This was the moment that Johnson essentially Americanized the Vietnam war. With 48 years to think about it, would Secretary Kerry agree with Johnson’s assessment now?

How about the Bush gang who brought us war in Iraq?  They were all over the Chamberlain analogy.  In 2002 Donald Rumsfeld said that looking for proof of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs was “appeasement” akin to Munich. With 11 years to think about it, would Kerry agree with Rumsfeld’s assessment now?

Here’s some news: since Chamberlain’s dumb mistake in 1938, we fought WWII, but we also fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the Balkans, Somalia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and probably others I’m forgetting. Do we have no lessons to learn from those adventures? How about all the proxy wars we had others fight for us in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, Laos, Afghanistan and the rest?  Is Neville Chamberlain more relevant to a decision about war today than all of that blood and treasure spilt?

And beyond all that, please Secretary Kerry, tell me again why I should believe the intelligence assessment that supposedly guarantees the chemical attacks really were the work of Assad’s army?  On whose credibility would I rely should I believe those reports?  Would those be the same agencies that told me so clearly false things about weapons in Iraq?  So far as I can tell, the evidence in Syria remains quite cloudy. For example, the relevant UN agencies do not agree that the responsibility for the attack is clear. Claims of certainty are little more than the usual stance of the charlatan.

President Obama went even farther than Kerry. He said, about the use of chemical weapons: “The moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing.”  He later added, “I do have to ask people if in fact you’re outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it?”

This is a legitimate challenge, and the civilized world has struggled with it for decades. However, the struggle is not a struggle simply to find answers to the question. We do not lack for answers; we lack for good answers. We have plenty of experience with answers that are ineffectual, wasteful, and expensive. These are bad answers, and I’m tired of our nation’s routine answer that seems mostly to consist of blowing things up, shooting people, and getting our soldiers shot and blown up in turn.

To some, the President’s failure to muster international support for action against Syria means we must take up the task ourselves. To me, the failure means that the world isn’t ready or able to enforce a ban on chemical weapons. While I agree that this is tragic, I don’t agree that a solo strike against Syria will make it any better.

Sanctions, boycotts, frozen assets, arguments in the Hague — all these things are far less cathartic than the fantasy of justice delivered on the tip of a cruise missile. But when you consider the uncertainty of the intelligence and the muddle of the Syrian civil war, the likelihood of such a missile even being aimed at an appropriate target seem very small, let alone hitting it. I believe there are other solutions to find, and that we owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the world to seek them.

Please, for once, let’s consider the limits of power. Is it disloyal to point out that history teaches other lessons besides Neville Chamberlain’s?  Is it unpatriotic to care about blood and treasure? Is it treasonous to suggest that the most powerful country on earth is not actually omnipotent?

It’s tempting to fantasize how easy solutions would be if we could just storm in and knock some heads. But Captain America is a comic-book figure, not a model after which to fashion our armed forces. Here in the real world, problems are difficult to solve because they are complicated. The easy answers are bad ones. Unleashing more violence on war-torn Syria is nothing more than a seemingly easy solution that will do more harm than good. I beg our congressional delegation not to go along with the easy march to regrettable violence. Some will moan about losing “credibility”, but that is not the only object of value to protect. In the end, our nation will be stronger tomorrow for restraint today.

What is the progressive security policy?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

syriaMichael Hastings once declared “I didn’t know there was a progressive security policy.” He then proceeded to suggest that if you wished to be part of the debate about security in America, you needed to be either a neocon or a liberal hawk. Today, as the United States looks increasingly likely to intervene in Syria, it’s worth pausing to reflect about where the progressive community stands.

The last ten years have done a number on progressive policies towards war. Afghanistan and Iraq were sold to the American public as wars about denying terrorism bases of support; in the latter case, it included outright lies about the presence of “weapons of mass destruction.” But as the disasters in South Asia and the Middle East lengthened, the impetus for remaining drifted. What had started as limited punitive expeditions became nation-building humanitarian projects. We were unable to leave for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, who would suffer viciously if Islamist radicals came to power.

Under President Barack Obama (who opposed the invasion of Iraq as an Illinois state representative), the rationale of denying bases for terrorism has remained a key object of U.S. security policy (see, Yemen). But, perhaps thanks to the inheritance of its predecessor’s wars, the administration has also begun thinking in terms of the “humane intervention” that rationalized the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I should note that the strategy of invasion seems to have fallen away. Indeed, it’s hard to think of a large-scale commitment of ground forces the American military hasn’t fought to a stalemate or loss since World War II. Our success has been limited to simpler smash and grab operations. The “success” of Libya was along those lines; establish air supremacy, use U.S. special forces to bolster local forces. Get out quickly.

The problem with that “humane” intervention is that it merely continues long-standing U.S. security policy; do something that immediately benefits us and ignore the long-term consequences. Once a war “officially” ends, what comes next is usually the important part. Do the victors massacre the losers? Will a constitution be written or elections held? Will generals seize power? Those consequences can be more inhumane than the impetus for intervention in the first place.

Syria, and its place in the Asian and African upheavals of 2011, represent the ambivalent nature of America’s interventionism. On one hand, American interventionism is rightly viewed as suspicious (Hastings noted that “humane intervention” seemed to only occur when it aligned with U.S. strategic interests, which he pointed out was probably a major reason for our hesitance to intervene there). On the other hand, America is very good at removing its enemies from power; a powerful friend to have for any resistance movement.

Unlike Libya, Syria holds no immediate strategic value for America. Indeed, since a successful revolution could bring an Islamist government to power, it could harm America’s strategic interests only by threatening Israeli security; alternatively the civil war could threaten Turkish security as well, which would impact our strategic interests. The presence of Islamists (not to be confused with “Islamic” or “Muslim”) represents a problem for America. Under Bush, Islamist governments were labelled the enemy, and America suffers from anti-Muslim prejudice (which exists across the political spectrum, from Glenn Beck to Bill Maher). Since 2011, democratization in the Middle East has seen the success of Islamist political parties, who aren’t as aligned with Washington as their former secular dictators.

If America was simply in favor of promoting democracy, we would accept this as the nature of politics and move on. But since America prefers democratic results that favor its interests, our responses to democracy aren’t always laudable. Whether it’s socialism and heterodox economics in Latin America or Islamism in the Middle East, neoconservative doctrines have led to the denouncing of democratic nations across the world. It’s easy for neocons, with their Trotskyist black and white view of the world, to equate America’s interests with the right thing to do. But for anyone favoring a bit more nuance, who wants to support the right thing, it’s a bit harder.

Syria doesn’t provide an easy answer, for anyone. And it will be impossible to think of a progressive security policy that can really encompass the situation here. Do we place boots on the ground, occupy the nation, and establish a democracy (the World War 2 model)? We don’t have the stomach for the manpower commitments required nor the financial commitments required. Nor is it even the right thing to do. Use our weaponry to attack the regime as a punishment for using chemical weapons? At best, it eliminates critical military infrastructure in terms of people and actual infrastructure, but it doesn’t guarantee a cessation of chemical warfare. Cripple Syria’s military, as in Libya? A successful revolution leaves us with all of the post-victory questions from before. One peaceable solution I’ve seen advanced was to assist the migration of all Syrians who wish to flee the country. But even that offers troubling questions about logistics, refugee status, and what is to remain in Syria when the diaspora has finished.

There continues to be no such thing as progressive security policy. Because progressive security policy can’t provide a right answer here. If Syria’s conflict engulfs its neighbors, do we intervene? Or do we let its neighbors deal with it? Is this a job for America, the United Nations, or the Arab League? Until progressives can formulate a philosophy that can be applied across all such situations, there will be no progressive security policy.

Syria: Obama And Clinton’s War for Natural Gas?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Now that President Obama has given in to Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John McCain and announced that he will send US weapons to the rebels in Syria, it is important to look one of the under-reported subjects of the war: natural gas.

Specifically, natural gas from the South Pars/North Dome reserves, the largest in the world.

The Syrian Civil War has become a proxy fight in the “Great Game” geo-politics of energy and power in the New World Order. A columnist published by the Guardian in the UK lays it out like this:

  • On the one side: Russia and Iran supporting the repugnant dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad as part of a plan to run a natural gas pipeline from North Dome to Russia, increasing Iranian and Russian power in the European natural gas markets
  • On the other side: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian rebels plan an alternate pipeline to Turkey and thus to Europe, generating the support of France, Germany and now the United States

Or, as Milad Jokar writes in the Huffington Post:

“…the conflict can be viewed as a broader struggle between mainly Russia and Western countries which attempt to advance their national interests. For the West these interests are isolating Iran and bolstering the strategic and economic alliance with Arab allies like Qatar, which invests in Europe and offers an alternative to Russian gas.”

Natural gas may not be the central issue propelling the increasingly venomous civil war, but it may be a key reason why the US and European nations are involving themselves in this particular conflict.

The rebels are struggling against a tyrannical regime, but also are working with self-proclaimed al Qaeda groups. Many have noted that the war is now a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shiite groups and is spreading into other nations like Iraq.  Should the United States send arms that may end up in the hands of al Qaeda? Should we insert ourselves into another Middle East conflict that cuts through the heart of Islamic society?

Obama and his supporters argue that arming the rebels will force the Assad regime to negotiate a settlement. But how likely is that? 93,000 Syrians have already been killed. How many more will die as Russia arms Assad’s Baathist regime and the United States arms the Free Syrian Army? How much blood money will the profiteers of the military-industrial complex and the fossil fuel industry make?

The wars in Korea and Vietnam killed between 5 and 8 million people, mostly civilians. In both, the United States armed one side while the Soviet Union and China armed the other, until eventually American troops fought and died. Vietnam and Iraq were justified by President Johnson and President Bush on flimsy evidence of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin and the presence of WMDs. Will it happen again?

And finally, why aren’t any major US media outlets reporting on the role of natural gas in this mess?

Addenda: I recommend watching the PBS Frontline documentary “Syria: Behind the Lines.” It captures a few days in the war and the morass of ethnic and religious divisions that inform the conflict. While some would like the American public to perceive the rebels as freedom fighters valorously rejecting the yoke of Assad tyranny, the reality seems far more complex. The chilling words of a wounded rebel soldier’s mother towards the end of the film make it clear the US may have no useful role in this conflict.

Thomas Pynchon – “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

 

RI Activist Helps Syrians Transition To Democracy


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Screenshot from g-chat with Josie Shagwert from Gaziantep, Turkey on Friday.

As a brutal revolution rages in Syria, the ancient city of Aleppo is the most deadly front in his civil-war and likely the most dangerous place in the world.

On Sunday, 16 people were reportedly killed when the government fired a missile at an apartment building (video here), and 79 executed bodies were pulled from a river there last week. The AP reports a former member of parliament and his family were killed by what the state news agency called “terrorists.”

In Saturday’s New York Times, under an Aleppo dateline, C.J. Chivers writes, “While Western governments have long worried that its self-declared leaders, many of whom operate from Turkey, cannot jell into a coherent movement with unifying leaders, the fighting across the country has been producing a crop of field commanders who stand to assume just these roles.”

But meanwhile, just an hour to the north of Aleppo, Josie Shagwert of Providence was in Gaziantep, Turkey, helping to ensure this doesn’t happen. She’s part of a grassroots effort to train non-violent Syrian activists how to implement a fair democracy after the Assad regime falls.

“I don’t think anyone knows what will happen after the regime falls,” she told me on Friday. “But everyone is fairly certain the regime will fall. It’s a horrible situation and we don’t know what will happen, but at some point we are going to have to rebuild.”

For the next five weeks, Shagwert will be working in Gaziantep with the Center for a Civil Society and Democracy in Syria. On Friday, as there was a suicide bombing at an American embassy in Ankura, Turkey, Shagwert was a mere five hours away helping with with a workshop for 25 Syrians from between the ages of 30 and 60 who traveled across the border to learn about transitional justice.

“Humanitarian relief work is really important, but CCSDS made a decision to focus on what is the future and what will the transition be like,” she said. “Believing in democracy is a lot easier than practicing it. We’re helping people unlearn the practices of an oppressive regime.”

Shagwert, who was raised in Providence and still lives in the Capital City, is well-versed in grassroots organizing. She recently left a job as the director of Fuerza Laboral/ Power of Workers, an “organization of immigrants and low-income workers who organize to end exploitation in the workplace” in Central Falls, according to its Facebook page.

She told me she has an “obsessive passion for democracy movements and resistance to authoritarianism in whatever form that takes.”

She’s no stranger to Syria, either. She lived in Damscus for about 6 months in 2010, and left just a month before uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and, soon thereafter, in Syria, too. Her grandparents emigrated from Syria in the 1920’s to Rhode Island, and Shagwert grew up listening to them speak Arabic with their neighbors.

But she never understood the language until taking a class at a local church in Worcester, Mass. While studying there, she befriended a Syrian woman whose sister works with CCSDS. After Shagwert left her job with Fuerza Laboral, she began to plan her trip to Turkey to help.

“There’s so much focus on sectarianism and no one is really consulting with grassroots Syria,” she said. “We’re helping civil society activists. There are still people practicing non violence in Syria, which is incredibly brave in the face of so much violence and oppression.”

Shagwert will file dispatches with RI Future on her efforts and experiences in Gaziantep with CCSDS.

Super Bowl Ad Nixed, But For Wrong Reasons


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

SodaStream manufactures devices to make carbonated beverages at home and the company intended to run an ad for their contraption during the Super Bowl. But apparently CBS turned them down because Coke-a-Cola and Pepsi objected to the competition.

(Update: A Sodastream ad did air during the game)

But SodaStream is not only a threat to Big Cola, it’s also made by an Israeli company in Mishor Adumim, part of an Israeli settlement on stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank. The international community (except perhaps the U.S. and Israel) recognizes these settlements as illegal.

Companies that operate in the settlements exploit Palestinian land, resources and labor.  They enjoy government support including tax incentives and lenient enforcement of regulations, while the taxes and profits go to support the Israeli economy.

You can learn more here.

American organizations asking people to boycott their products include Jewish Voice for Peace, United Methodist Kairos Response, CodePink, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and many others.

Obama’s Circumstantial Compassion For Victims


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

After the horrific Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama could not hold back his tears.  He went to Newtown to comfort families of the victims.  And at a memorial service he solemnly read off the names of the 20 children and six teachers who were killed.

But he has never read off the names of Wajid, Ayeesha, Naila or any of  the hundreds of other innocent children killed or horribly maimed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia,….  Is that because those children are Arabs?  Or is it because the news media does not show us the grieving parents or the terrorized surviving children?  Or is it because Obama himself ordered the strikes? 

I assume Obama only intended to kill “suspected militants,” and the children were just “collateral damage.”  But if that’s the case wouldn’t you think Mr. Obama would at least apologize and offer condolences to the children’s parents?  Wouldn’t he comfort the father who has picked up pieces of his daughter’s body for burial?   Wouldn’t he say something to the mother whose blinded son will no longer be able to live his dreams? 

On Jan 14, Mr.  Obama declared “If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.”  Of course there is a step he could take to save not one but hundreds of children.  He would not need congressional approval to stop drone strikes since he never got approval to begin them.

A Palestinian in the Knesset


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Haneen Zoabi is a Palestinian who was elected to the Israeli Knesset in 2009. Israel often reminds us of the rights it grants to “Arab Israelis,” avoiding the word “Palestinian.”

In 2010 Ms. Zoabi was on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in the international flotilla carrying humanitarian supplies for Gaza. She witnessed the assault on that ship (in international waters) by Israeli commandos. And she was there when those Israeli pirates boarded the ship and killed nine unarmed civilians including an American citizen.

On her return, when Ms. Zoabi rose to tell of this in the Knesset, some members shouted out calling her a “terrorist” or a “traitor.” Others supported her right to speak. Ms. Zoabi also received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls including death threats.

Here’s a fascinating view inside the parliament of “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Is the Democratic Peace Theory An Oxymoron?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Occasionally, you’ll see some politician (for example, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair) make the assertion that no two democratic nations have ever gone to war. I know that I’m hardly one to criticize the former Prime Minister of the entire United Kingdom, but I’ll criticize democratic peace theory (DPT), nonetheless.

The problem with DPT is that it relies on shifting definitions of both “democracy” and “war”. For instance, if I point to the Peloponnesian War as an example of war between democratic states, people will invariably point out the limited franchise in the Greek state (18 year olds, male, property owners), and the existence of slavery as reasons not to classify even Athens as a true “democracy”.

You can see the problem here; the United States hasn’t even fit that definition since about the early 20th Century; the mid-20 Century if you suggest that the end of Jim Crow truly democratized/ended slavery the South (and there are more then enough facts to back you up there, though others might suggest that slavery continues to this day). So that tosses out wars like the American Revolution and the War of 1812 (fought between the democracies of America and the United Kingdom). It tosses out the American Civil War.

I could go on with examples, but this great list has been existence on the Internet since 1998. It includes the mathematical probability of two democracies fighting an international war between World War 2 and Y2K (19.8%). Basically, it’s highly unlikely that a democracy would fight an international war, because A) democracies are relatively rare in the world, and B) so are international wars. So it’s not a question of government type, it’s a question of probability.

To throw out one final example; the Hamas government in Palestine’s Gaza Strip has recently fought a series of conflicts with Israel. Both governments were democratically elected (Hamas came to power after an election prompted by American democracy-spreader George W. Bush). In contrast, the less-militant Fatah government in Palestine’s West Bank, which is technically not democratically elected (it lost to Hamas yet refused to give up power) has pursued a diplomatic solution in the United Nations. How do we make sense of democracy and dictatorship then?

The issue is that proponents of democracy use it as a sort of cure-all for issues around the world. The reality is it’s not. Democracy requires a lot of work to get right, and has had critics from almost the beginning (the aristocrat Plato’s Republic is an example of a definite non-democracy, his mentor Socrates being notably put to death by a democratic government).

It also puts a greater value on the citizens of democracies. “Oh democracies would never go to war with each other, but non-democracies, who cares?” As though the lives of the citizens of non-democracies are less important. I’ve also heard DPT reduced to this tricky statement: “no democracy will willing vote for what it believes to be an offensive war.”

The problem is when has there ever been a war that couldn’t be turned into a defensive war? I mean, even James K. Polk portrayed the Mexican-American War as a defensive war.

Democracy rocks, but it’s not free of imperfections. It’s not like it’s infallible. We see that every day, voters and politicians can make mistakes too. Perhaps we might remember these words from Winston Churchill: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Israel’s Policies Similar to South African Apartheid


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Photo by Wissam Nassar

Severe civilian death tolls in the siege of Gaza and calls for war with Iran by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu call attention to the reality of the Apartheid state imposed by Israel on the Palestinian people.

The existence of Apartheid was verified recently in a poll of 503 Jewish Israelis published by Haaretz, of which 58% said they believe that there is Apartheid in Israel.  They are not alone.  A plethora of Jewish and non-Jewish activists, political leaders, and philosophers have likened the condition in Israel and the occupied territories to South African Apartheid.

Those who reject the notion that Israel is an Apartheid state argue that within Israel, a liberal democracy functions with participation in government by multiple parties including Arab parties. Also, Arab citizens of Israel are treated in hospitals next to Jews, share the same drinking fountains and so forth, which never could have occurred under South African Apartheid.

Israel, however, maintains control of how many non-Jews are allowed inside its borders. Palestinians, many of whom are, or are children of the 711,000 Arabs forcibly removed in 1948 from lands inside Israel’s borders, live in the Israeli occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.  Those who try to enter Israel are considered illegal immigrants and are sometimes shot when they even approach the border.  In the occupied West Bank, Palestinians are subjected to severe restriction of movement, being forced to drive on a separate road system from Jewish settlers there. Palestinian settlements there are being surrounded with high concrete walls which destroy farmland and make it difficult to access.  Palestinian residents of these lands under Israeli control have no rights of Israeli citizenship, access to services, or representation in the government.

Apartheid in S. Africa bore an uncanny resemblance. Blacks were removed from the white areas and forced on to “Bantustans” or “Townships” which were declared to be independent nations. There, blacks were deprived of the rights of citizenship and were made to carry passports to visit white areas. Israel was the only country, except for S. Africa, to recognize these “Nations”, institutions of the Apartheid state.

Israel and S. Africa have different histories but are implementing the same policies. President Jimmy Carter, author of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid stated “that the system of Apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence.”  However, both countries were established in the colonial model, both forcibly relocated indigenous populations, and each formed a nation around a racial identity.  In both systems the threat of violent resistance to Apartheid policies has been used to justify separation.

The growing realization that Israel operates an Apartheid state will eventually cause that state to succumb under the threat of international divestment as S. Africa did. Israel faces the choice that President F.W. de Klerk of S. Africa faced, to end Apartheid and share power with those of another race or face growing international isolation.

Our ‘Special Relationship’ With England Is A Relic


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special… The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have,” said an anonymous adviser to Mitt Romney, about the candidate to The Telegraph of Britain.

When this quote appeared ahead of Mitt Romney’s disastrous foreign policy outing, it was rightly maligned for being the sort of ethnocentric comment a well-off WASP would make to the British press. While Mr. Romney himself didn’t make it, and later the campaign denied anyone in fact saying it, it wasn’t hard for people to believe it. While there’s been plenty of talk about the sort of assumptions it reveals about how Mr. Romney and his team view the President’s foreign policy, I’d say the major strategic assumption here went unchallenged.

America’s “special relationship” with Britain is a relic of a bygone era; one in which we relied on British military might to nominally enforce our own Monroe Doctrine. Yes, the relationship is without a doubt one based on cultural closeness; but it no longer makes much strategic sense. Furthermore, it’s helped the British more than it’s ever helped America.

Consider that under the special relationship, Britain (along with France) was free to routinely violate the Monroe Doctrine, for example, going into Argentina to attempt to overthrow Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas or creating the Mosquito Kingdom as a protectorate. Consider that during the Civil War, the British (who had abolished slavery in 1833) seriously considered supporting the slave-owning illegal insurrection of the Southern states. It was only following the Civil War and the Indian Wars, as the American military turned towards areas across the ocean, rather than our own territory, that Britain began to pay attention to American strength in a serious manner.

While Britain was the largest naval power and world empire of the 19th and 20th centuries, World War One effectively signaled the decline of the British Empire. And it’s a war which started to create the “we saved your ass in World War…” mindset of Americans towards our European allies. Yet, World War One made no sense for the British to be in, and less for the United States to get involved in, except as a way to ensure that our debtors kept paying off their war debts. The peace that came out of WW1, the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, is directly responsible for nearly all the wars of the so-called “Short Twentieth Century”. The lines that the British and French drew within the defeated German and Ottoman Empires have caused in inordinate amount of death and destruction, and directly led World War Two.

Gen. George C. Marshall, Sec. of State following World War 2 and chief architect of the European Recovery Program popularly known as the “Marshall Plan”

In that war, there’s no disputing that Britain got its teeth kicked in by both the Germans and the Japanese, and in the aftermath, was financially ruined to the point where the sun finally set on their empire, with the “Commonwealth of Nations” taking its place. Britain benefited the most from the nation-building exercise of the post-war era; $3.297 billion were spent on Britain, a nation whose in the only fighting that involved its home soil was a Nazi bombing campaign that was nothing compared to the one that Britain and the United States had launched against Germany in the final years of the war. The next closest up: France (occupied for most of the war, invaded twice) received $2.296 billion. The money was well spent, it was largely successful in rebuilding the European economies and preventing takeovers by European communist parties; especially those tied to Moscow (which had sacrificed millions of lives fighting the Germans, and led Eastern European powers in rejecting Marshall Plan money).

Today, the United Kingdom is the fourth largest military spender. It is perhaps the sixth or seventh largest economy. It is a nuclear power. But in terms of importance to America, it should be no more than France, which is a comparable world power. In fact, in diplomatic terms, it really should be less important than France. France at least is part of the duopoly of leadership with Germany in the European Union. Britain holds itself at arm’s distance from Europe (“we’re with them, but we’re not really with them”).

Our relationship with Japan is one of far more potent strategic importance: Japan occupies a geographic position close to China, which really is the most important player in the American foreign policy sphere. Europe, even, isn’t entirely that important. They’re under our cultural hegemony. There is no realistic scenario where a military conflict could break out between Europe and America. With the end of large-scale European wars, Britain needn’t be that special.

We should resent them more than anything. After all, it’s the messes of the British Empire that America has been dealing with for the past seventy or so years. Even some of our own foreign policy seems to be the result of Anglophilia; the antagonism towards France or the terrible approach towards Africa; as examples (give President George W. Bush credit, he was great towards Africa). On the latter, China is making great in-roads by simply being a less awful exploiter.

Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama are offering to shift away from the Anglophile foreign policy of the past. Mr. Romney’s foreign policy team seems to believe that they truly have the secret to the “special relationship”. Mr. Obama seems content to maintain the status quo (“that’s not change, that’s more of the same”). Which is a shame, because if there’s one thing nearly two and half centuries of British-style foreign policy has taught us, it’s that it doesn’t really work. It’s just bloody special.

Iran: the Progressive War?

Iran 2012:  Iraq 2003 All Over Again? presented the neoliberal case for the imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. The panel was moderated by Karen Finney and consisted of Democratic strategist Bob Creamer, Alireza Nader from the Rand Corporation, National Security Network executive director Heather Hurlburt, and Rhode Island’s own Senator Jack Reed. Reed was quick to point out (to some applause) his 2003 vote against the authorization of force in Iraq. But still it’s no surprise I suppose to see him defending the administration’s plan for projection of U.S. power via sanctions on Iran, a strategy he described as a “peaceful” alternative to outright military force. What was odd for me was that the discussion focused entirely on justifying economic sanctions on Iran without a single panelist to the left of the empire lite position of the Obama administration.

Essentially panelists sought to convince progressives that although sanctions in Iraq led eventually to the disastrous invasion and occupation, this time it will be different. War weariness, a faltering domestic economy, a changed Middle East, and the “one extraordinary difference, unilateralism,” as Senator Reed put it, make it different than 2003. Certainly there are some differences, but I couldn’t help but think the panel should have asked, Iraq 1990 All Over Again? As the Times put it in 2003:

For many people, the sanctions on Iraq were one of the decade’s great crimes, as appalling as Bosnia or Rwanda. Anger at the United States and Britain, the two principal architects of the policy, often ran white hot. Denis J. Halliday, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in Iraq for part of the sanctions era, expressed a widely held belief when he said in 1998: ”We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that.” Even today, Clinton-era American officials ranging from Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, and James P. Rubin, State Department spokesman under Albright, to Nancy E. Soderberg, then with the National Security Council, speak with anger and bitterness over the fervor of the anti-sanctions camp. As Soderberg put it to me, ”I could not give a speech anywhere in the U.S. without someone getting up and accusing me of being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.”

I asked exactly that question when given the chance. I traveled a bit in the Middle East in the 90s and was approached by an Iraqi who begged me to tell people back home the effect the sanctions were having on Iraqi civilians. “You’re killing the children and old people,” he said with the hope that if Americans only knew we’d stop. That’s a difference now too. Americans can no longer claim to be unsure or blissfully ignorant. We now know the effect these sanctions will have on the civilian population.

As Madeline Albright said it, “this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” Heather Hurlburt, a speechwriter for Albright, similarly defended the calculus of the collective punishment of civilians as preferable to war. But these rationalizations conveniently omit the effect the sanctions and the Clinton administration’s eventual signing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 had in laying the groundwork for the Bush invasion. By 2003 the die was cast, and progressives could do little to stop it. The question now, will we do it all over again? Just don’t say you couldn’t have known.

OP protests Pfizer, ALEC joining 7 N.E. Occupies


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Members of Occupy Providence protest Pfizer in Groton, Conn. on Wednesday.

Despite the cold rainy weather, about a half a dozen Occupy Providence members took part in the #F29 Shut Down the Corporations at Pfizer in Groton, CT. The national action was called by Occupy Portland to protest members of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a front group that writes model pro-corporate legislation.

The coordinated inter-occupy direct action against ALEC and Pfizer in Groton resulted in a civil disobedience where 8 people were arrested after Pfizer refused to send a representative out to discuss their ALEC initiatives. It was a success by any standard. The coalition, which consisted of occupiers from Occupy New London, Occupy Shoreline (CT), Occupy Hartford, Occupy Worcester, Occupy New Haven, Occupy Boston, Occupy Providence and more, gathered in Groton to march to the Pfizer facility, and then participated in a dynamic teach-in to work on ways to build non-violent protest in the Occupy movement.

Occupy Providence’s Susan Walker said, “We couldn’t believe how many police cars and officers were there. It was a little intimidating at first. But we walked right up to the crowd and joined about 100 other protesters in mike checks about Pfizer and ALEC. The energy was great. The costumes and signs were creative- an activist costumed as Big Bird with a sign ‘Hey Pfizer, Test This Bird’ was my favorite.”

CT residents were angry because Pfizer negotiated $161 million in tax incentives to build the facility, bulldozed a residential neighborhood, and then laid off 1500 local workers once the tax incentives abated. Not only that, but they resented that Pfizer is a heavy hitter with ALEC in legislating for corporate greed.

The march ended back at the main gate where access was denied. Several Occupiers approached the gatehouse and asked for a representative to come out and speak to us as was requested in an advance letter that was sent. They were denied.  The group decided to march around the facility and approach all the gates and ask to speak to a Pfizer representative.

The police had painted a blue line demarcating a boundary protesters weren’t supposed to cross. One protester later mused “blue line from the blue pill (Viagra) company- did Pfizer plan it that way?”

In unified action of civil disobedience, the whole group crossed the line, and got within 20 feet of the heavily guarded gate. Eight protesters then walked straight up to the gate house, linked arms, refused to leave, and were arrested one by one.

Civil Disobedience arrestees were singing Solidarity Forever as the paddy wagon hauled them away. Occupiers chanted and mike checked for a little longer.

Walker noted, “I found the vibe of the police presence really interesting. It was intimidating at first.  I think it was almost a 1:1 ratio of officers to occupiers. Early on occupiers had chanted, “The Police Need a Raise! The Police Need a Raise!” which was a pressing local issue.  The officers were respectful and seemed to have our safety in mind.”

As the march around the facility continued, police made sure we stayed on the sidewalk, that traffic could flow, and even blocked traffic so we could cross streets.

Walker continued, “I’m willing to bet some of the officers know families who were hurt by Pfizer’s layoffs, or who were displaced when they built the facility in the first place.  But these are guesses, not facts.  It’s a fact that those arrested were treated well and released promptly. I really got the feeling some of the officers felt like they were marching with us.”

After a break, the group reconvened at the New London All Souls Unitarian Church for a teach-in by a War Resisters League member from Voluntown, CT.  In the workshop,  an energized 30-40 people from over 7 different occupations worked together to develop a stronger, more effective movement.  It included 3 first time occupiers whose excitement was palpable, one commented, “This is the most empowering day of my life.”

After protesters introduced themselves, CT Brian led the group reading off  #F29 highlights from around the country from Twitter, starting with a report from Tucson, where they forced a G4S prison deportation bus to cut a hole in their own fence to get the deportees on the road.

This an interesting snapshot video of a twitter reading at 3:15 ET.

#F29-#CT #OP-Snapshot-3:15 National Actions http://youtu.be/1cC4BhIpFxQ

The facilitator broke down the elements of successful activism into 8 components- constructive work/alternatives, common understanding, non-violence discipline, demonstrations, allies, negotiation, research/Info gathering, and legislative/electoral reform and let the participants break into groups to work on the aspect most resonant to them.

Then each study group was given a list of questions, like for the demonstrations sub-group focused on “how we can best demonstrate our concern”.

Each small group reported back to the whole group their observations. The demonstration group reported that they felt the ALEC protester was a good model as it was focused on a key issue that connected with the central messages of Occupy.  A person from one of the last standing of the New England encampment, Occupy New Haven camp resident Danielle DiGirolamo, reported on Alternatives- that much of this has started with natural medicine and alternative energy becoming more mainstream and Susan Walker added that “basically we feel there are a lot of alternatives to what the corporations are spoon feeding us.”

Then the group was asked to order the different parts of a campaign with respect to the sequence they should occur in. They selected- Common understanding, Research, Allies, combined Training/Education, create Constructive alternatives, Negotiation, Non Violent Discipline, Legislative Action, to which the facilitator commented, not the usual order but  “I’d say that’s perfect.” At the end materials on non-violent training were distributed.

Protesters nationally were successful in raising awareness about ALEC a legislative shadow organization as Occupies around the world united for systemic change.

Check out the embedded video from the Occupy Portand Video Collective.

The large  Anti-Corporate greed protest in LA included masked Anarchists and possible young actress marching behind a banner of People  Over Profits in the middle of a large crowd. One tweet reported that- when the March arrived at Walmart, many workers from WalMart stepped outside. The police responded by telling them to go back to work or risk arrest.  An interesting accidental exposure of the Police bias to protect corporate property before people.

Perhaps the management had called.  A t that time the LAPD was not threatening the protesters with arrest, only the Walmart workers, seeming to be more of an  attempt to suppress worker solidarity with any movement that dares to unite people behind pro-worker programs- living wage, right to organize, right to strike to name a few. Had Walmart succeeded in forming the Grass Roots Union they sought, management wouldn’t have been so quick to suppress what could have been interpreted as a walkout.

Walker summed up her experience this way. ” It’s inspirational that Occupy Providence got to participate in a national coordinated day of action against ALEC. The bottom line: retailers, for-profit prisons and pharmaceuticals are writing legislation, and paying legislators to get it passed. The prisons are writing the laws? Really?  It’s not OK. “

By Robert Malin & Susan Walker

Apple: The Company No American Should Be Proud Of


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

When most Americans think of Apple, they think of the hip commercials, the latest must have gadgets, and the industry leading innovation. What most do not realize is the untold story of how Apple has perfected stealing the seeds of American ingenuity and harvesting them under a complex system of third world slave labor. Throughout this article, keep in mind that Apple made a profit of $400,000 dollars per employee last year.

Apple made headlines this week when a New York Times article detailed Apples explanation for the companies lack of US manufacturing. Apple said that the issue goes much deeper than cheap labor and that American manufactures lacked the, “flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers.”

The true meaning of Apples statement only became evident when they cited a specific example clarifying what they meant. Last year, Apple ran into a last minute problem with the screen on one of its devices that caused the company to make a last minute adjustment in the manufacturing procedure.

Apple proudly admitted that 8000 employees at a Chinese manufacturing plant were quickly roused from their on-site plant dormitories, given a biscuit and cup of tea, and forced to go right into a 12 hours shift retrofitting the new screens.

If Apple wants to define “flexibility” as keeping workers in military like dormitories in which they are forced awake in the middle of the night to work a 12 hour shift on minimal food rations, than perhaps America cannot compete with that.

If one wishes to measure how Chinese workers truly feel about the working conditions they should look no further than the Foxconn plants in China. Apple uses the Chinese company Foxconn to manufacture a large portion of the Apple items bought in the US. In 2010, there were 14 successful suicide attempts at Foxconn when workers began jumping off the manufacturing building.

These suicides led 20 Chinese universities to launch an investigation and compile a report on the working conditions at Foxconn. The universities findings classified the conditions at the plants as comparable to a “labor camp.”

The idea of suicide being preferable to work became so widespread throughout the company that special netting was put around the roof of the building to keep workers from jumping to their deaths. In addition, workers were asked to take a anti-suicide pledge. Unfortunately Apple is not alone here. A few weeks ago, 300 employees that manufacture the Microsoft Xbox 360 threatened to commit mass suicide over working conditions.

Although Apple’s manufacturing practices are closer to the norm, rather than the exception when it comes to tech corporations, they deserve special scrutiny. Apple is quickly monopolizing the market of tablet and phone accessories. Most third party magazines, catalogues, and retailers that sell electronic accessories seem to be marketing accessories almost solely for Apple products today. Consequently, Apples business practices will likely be the practices emulated by the industry for market competitiveness.

Most disturbing though may be the uniquely deceptive way in which Apple products are marketed. Apple has successfully marketed its products as the must have items for generation Y. Sadly, when the young American unpacks his or her new I-Pad, they are unaware of the story behind how it actually was made.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387