33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
By David Swanson
If you were to call your congress member's office at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote against spending $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, they would give you one of several common excuses.
If they refuse to tell you what they plan to do, you can let them know that they work for you and that you are going to vote against them in November unless they commit to opposing the funding of this escalation now. Sure, their opponent could be worse, but not much, and decent representation will only be possible if representatives fear the public more than they fear the funders, media, and parties. Ultimately, this is the only thing you can tell them that they might care about. Still, it helps for them to know that you understand the issue and will not be easily swayed. So . . .
If they tell you (as Rep. Delahunt told me) that they like the attention that comes from remaining undecided, ask them how they think that sounds to the loved ones of those killed. Let them know they could get even more attention by tattooing "Loser" on their forehead.
If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other lipstick included in the bill, or they want to wait and see what sweet-smelling things are packaged into the bill, tell them those things can pass separately and constitute no excuse. You want a commitment now to vote No no matter what. This is life and death. They need to be trying to block the bill, not just considering the possibility of individually voting No if it looks like no one will mind.
If they tell you this is the very last off-the-books war supplemental, tell them you didn't believe that BS last June and won't believe it now, and that it never constituted any excuse for funding war or escalation.
If they tell you they want to obey the president, ask them to read the U.S. Constitution and see what's in Article I. Ask them why they think the framers put the war power in the Congress.
If they tell you they want to "support duh troops," tell them that a No vote merely avoids or undoes an escalation, thus preventing troops from being sent to risk their lives under illegal orders.
If they tell you they're voting for a toothless non-binding request for an exit time-table, tell them a growing causus opposing the funding sends a stronger message and builds toward the ability to actually end the war. Tell them the exit strategy approach, last summer, was rightly delayed until after the funding vote, and then garnered 138 votes, to which the president merely gave a one-finger salute. Let them know that ineffective rhetoric is no substitute for action, and that you see through the use of this "timetable" vote as cover for funding an escalation. If they point to peace organizations that will accept that excuse and only want their support for the "timetable" make clear that those organizations do not speak for you.
If they tell you they're waiting to see who else will vote No before they decide to vote No, point them to the list at defundwar.org and point out that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee is on it, but also ask them whether they represent their constituents or their colleagues.
If they tell you that they're afraid Fox News and the rest of the "media" would attack them, let them know that Glenn Beck has been opposing war funding, that this is escalation funding, and that if they say they want the money for jobs at home nobody can touch them. On top of which, we'll have their back with independent media and media activism. They can encourage media outlets to ask President Karzai, when he's in town next week, whether he supports an escalation -- if they're not afraid of the answer.
If they make clear that they're afraid of losing funding, directly from the war profiteers or laundered through a political party, point them to the fundraising that members like Grayson and Kucinich are able to do on their own. Ask them if they will be able to live with having funded death for the sake of blood money.
Now, it's just conceivable that they will also try a more substantive excuse on you, so be prepared.
If they tell you they're concerned for the safety of the country, point out that terrorism has been increased by the global war on terrorism and that there is no way escalating a war in Afghanistan doesn't make us less safe. We escalated it last year and saw violence increase, with nothing else accomplished. Last week, the Pentagon issued a new report finding that one in four Afghans in important areas support Karzai's government, violence is up 87% in the past year, European allies are bailing out, corruption runs rampant, insurgents still control Marjah, the Taliban is growing, and the Afghan government is getting weaker. Our military experts say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of civilians to accomplish anything. An inadequate escalation is an end in itself, quite literally for those it will kill.
If they tell you the U.S. public supports the war, ask them about polling in your district. And tell them this: Back in December, U.S. pollsters asked Americans if they supported funding an escalation, and in several polls a majority said No. So a lot of congress members voted for more war funding but promised to oppose the escalation funding in the spring. Then the White House began the escalation, and the pollsters (apparently assuming that our servile congress would fund anything the president had already begun, even if the people opposed it) stopped polling on the escalation. Polling just on the war, pollsters find the US public evenly split or leaning slightly in support. But they ask whether people support the president, not how much longer they want the war to last or whether that's their top choice for where to spend a trillion dollars. Many Americans think they are required to say they support the president, and others choose to support a political party, but both big parties support the war (which, by the way, will cause a lot of Democrats to stay home in November). When Democrats.com funded polling on Iraq that no one else would do, we found a majority in favor of Congress cutting off the funding. I'm confident we could find that on Afghanistan at least following the coming rise in deaths. And this supplemental is not to keep the war going but to escalate it, which the American people opposed when asked. Also, nobody has polled on the popularity of a congress member saying they want to fund jobs instead of wars. And what about the people who are best informed? A recent survey of Kandahar, the area where the escalation is planned, found that 94% of the people there prefer peace negotiations to U.S. attacks, and 85% see the Taliban as "our Afghan brothers." The survey was funded by that radical pacifist organization, the United States Army.
If they tell you they have to keep weapons jobs funded to benefit the economy, tell them we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000 per year for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more, and reduced demand for the oil and gas and pipelines and bases. We're spending as much as $400 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the US military used 27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do.
Call Your Congress Member at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that you will vote against them if they vote to fund an escalation in Afghanistan. Tell them you will stand for no excuses.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Peace on Mother's Day
Teach Peace Moment: Mother's Day for Peace
Mother’s Day is celebrated on the second Sunday in May.
Different countries celebrate Mother's Day for different reasons and on different days of the year. In the United States, Mother’s Day was created to be a day for peace. The first Mother’s Days were celebrated by peace groups often consisting of mothers whose sons had fought or died in the Civil War.
The Mother’s Day concept was influenced by Anna Jarvis who in 1858 created Mothers’ Work Days to improve sanitary conditions for both sides during the Civil War. In 1861 Julia Ward Howe wrote The Battle Hymn of the Republic to inspire Union soldiers to end slavery. She was famous in 1870 when she built on Jarvis’s work and created Mother’s Day for Peace with a Mother's Day Proclamation calling for peace and disarmament. The original Mother’s Day for Peace was for women to rise up and oppose war in all its forms.
In 1907 Anna Jarvis' daughter, also named Anna Jarvis, continued the effort for a peaceful and noncommercial Mother’s Day. In 1912, Anna Jarvis trademarked the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day", and created the Mother's Day International Association. Anna Jarvis broadened the peace focus to honor individual mothers for their contributions. She specifically wanted each family to celebrate their mother and this is why the apostrophe is a singular possessive and not a plural possessive to commemorate all mothers in the world.
In 1912 states declared the second Sunday in May a holiday and on May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother’s Day a national holiday. Unfortunately, he also changed Mother’s Day from opposing wars to a day to encourage support for wars. President Wilson changed the purpose by declaring Mother’s Day as a day for citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war.
Today, the peace purpose of Mother’s Day is often unknown. For most people, Mother’s Day is simply a day to say thank you to mothers with a pampering gift. The commercial dimension of Mother’s Day has made it the most popular day of the year for the restaurant industry and a top day for the jewelry, flower, and greeting card purchases. Had President Wilson reinforced the original purpose of Mother’s Day to be a peace education day, instead of receiving flowers, many mothers would have had the greater gift of a son not killed in war.
When Mother’s Day lost its focus as a day to oppose wars and teach peace, Anna Jarvis became a major opponent of the holiday. For the rest of her life she used her inheritance to reclaim the peaceful purpose of Mother’s Day and fight the abuse of the celebration.
We can reclaim Mother’s Day for Peace by educating family and friends about its intended purpose and support work to teach peace. For a donation of $25, the Teach Peace Foundation will send a "Happy Mother's Day for Peace" email or letter to your mother (click here for a sample email) and click on the picture on the left to donate).
Dave Dionisi, Teach Peace Foundation
Notes:
Carnations have come to represent Mother's Day, since they were delivered at one of its first celebrations by its founder. In part due to the shortage of white carnations, and in part due to the efforts to expand the sales of more types of flowers in Mother's Day, the florists promoted wearing a red carnation if your mother was living, and a white one if she were not.
In May 2008, the US House of Representatives voted twice on a resolution commemorating Mother's Day, the first one being unanimous so that all congressmen would be on record showing support for Mother's Day.
According to the National Restaurant Association, Mother's Day is the most popular day of the year to dine out in the United States.
According to IBISWorld, a publisher of business research, Americans will spend approximately $2.6 billion on flowers and another $68 million on greeting cards.
Mother's Day will generate about 7.8% of the U.S. jewelry industry's annual revenue in 2008, with custom gifts like Mother's rings.
To access more Teach Peace Moments, click here.
Mother’s Day is celebrated on the second Sunday in May.
Different countries celebrate Mother's Day for different reasons and on different days of the year. In the United States, Mother’s Day was created to be a day for peace. The first Mother’s Days were celebrated by peace groups often consisting of mothers whose sons had fought or died in the Civil War.
The Mother’s Day concept was influenced by Anna Jarvis who in 1858 created Mothers’ Work Days to improve sanitary conditions for both sides during the Civil War. In 1861 Julia Ward Howe wrote The Battle Hymn of the Republic to inspire Union soldiers to end slavery. She was famous in 1870 when she built on Jarvis’s work and created Mother’s Day for Peace with a Mother's Day Proclamation calling for peace and disarmament. The original Mother’s Day for Peace was for women to rise up and oppose war in all its forms.
In 1907 Anna Jarvis' daughter, also named Anna Jarvis, continued the effort for a peaceful and noncommercial Mother’s Day. In 1912, Anna Jarvis trademarked the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day", and created the Mother's Day International Association. Anna Jarvis broadened the peace focus to honor individual mothers for their contributions. She specifically wanted each family to celebrate their mother and this is why the apostrophe is a singular possessive and not a plural possessive to commemorate all mothers in the world.
In 1912 states declared the second Sunday in May a holiday and on May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother’s Day a national holiday. Unfortunately, he also changed Mother’s Day from opposing wars to a day to encourage support for wars. President Wilson changed the purpose by declaring Mother’s Day as a day for citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war.
Today, the peace purpose of Mother’s Day is often unknown. For most people, Mother’s Day is simply a day to say thank you to mothers with a pampering gift. The commercial dimension of Mother’s Day has made it the most popular day of the year for the restaurant industry and a top day for the jewelry, flower, and greeting card purchases. Had President Wilson reinforced the original purpose of Mother’s Day to be a peace education day, instead of receiving flowers, many mothers would have had the greater gift of a son not killed in war.
When Mother’s Day lost its focus as a day to oppose wars and teach peace, Anna Jarvis became a major opponent of the holiday. For the rest of her life she used her inheritance to reclaim the peaceful purpose of Mother’s Day and fight the abuse of the celebration.
We can reclaim Mother’s Day for Peace by educating family and friends about its intended purpose and support work to teach peace. For a donation of $25, the Teach Peace Foundation will send a "Happy Mother's Day for Peace" email or letter to your mother (click here for a sample email) and click on the picture on the left to donate).
Dave Dionisi, Teach Peace Foundation
Notes:
Carnations have come to represent Mother's Day, since they were delivered at one of its first celebrations by its founder. In part due to the shortage of white carnations, and in part due to the efforts to expand the sales of more types of flowers in Mother's Day, the florists promoted wearing a red carnation if your mother was living, and a white one if she were not.
In May 2008, the US House of Representatives voted twice on a resolution commemorating Mother's Day, the first one being unanimous so that all congressmen would be on record showing support for Mother's Day.
According to the National Restaurant Association, Mother's Day is the most popular day of the year to dine out in the United States.
According to IBISWorld, a publisher of business research, Americans will spend approximately $2.6 billion on flowers and another $68 million on greeting cards.
Mother's Day will generate about 7.8% of the U.S. jewelry industry's annual revenue in 2008, with custom gifts like Mother's rings.
To access more Teach Peace Moments, click here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
More on Bolivia and Climate Change
The Bolivian Government: ¨Mother Earth or barbarism¨
April 21, 2010, Cochabamba, Bolivia
by Ted Glick
(To see blog posts from April 19 and 20 go to http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog.)
I missed President Evo Morales´ speech on Tuesday at the official opening of the World People´s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Asking several friends who were there how it was, they all were surprised by its relative mildness, for Morales. The main things he called upon people to do, my friends said, were to use clay dishes, stop drinking coca-cola and stop eating industrial agriculture-raised chickens.
Perhaps President Morales was holding his powder to allow his Vice President, Alvaro Garcia Linera, to give the rousing speech. This is what he did that afternoon at a major plenary session on the Univalle Campus in Tiquipaya. It was a comprehensive overview of what is happening because of climate change (dried up rivers, melting glaciers, desertification, forest destruction and more) and the cause of it (the economic system of capitalism which turns people and nature into commodities for private gain no matter who and what gets hurt). ¨Capitalism is ready to destroy nature,¨ he said.
Linara made clear his government´s belief that we are at the beginning of a certain worldwide catastrophe if humanity does not get serious right now. He used the figures of 260 million people who have been affected already by climate change and 200 million who have emigrated because of it.
Linara went on to put forward a very different solution than many in the United States, including many environmentalists, believe is the solution. For Linara, it´s not new technology that is going to save the world. What will save it, he said, is when ¨we take the Bolivian Indigenous, the Bolivian peasant model and make it universal. We need a new civilization that´s not about consumerism but about meeting basic needs. Humans must recognize that Mother Earth has rights and we have obligations to respect them. Our new model must be consensus-based, dialogical and rooted in personal relationships with nature. We need new forms of production, and we need new ethics.¨
He referenced Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist leader from over 100 years ago, when he called, not for ¨socialism or barbarism,¨ her call, but for ¨Mother Earth or barbarism,¨ and he put forward five things that we must do:
1) resistance actions by students, workers, peasants where they are, mobilization, personal and community lifestyle changes
2) a Climate Justice Tribunal to bring to account those most responsible for the climate emergency in which we find ourselves
3) new forms of consumption that are consistent with a connection to Mother Earth
4) alternative technologies for energy (and other) development
5) organizing to win political power, to take over government so that it can be used to ¨defend life and nature.¨
We must make a revolution not just in the structures, he said, but in our own lives. And we must make this a universal project, we must be interconnected globally.
With these beliefs, beliefs clearly felt, it is possible to understand the risks that the Bolivian government has been willing to take in response to the bitter results at Copenhagen.
You don´t need to be a socialist, and you don´t have to believe that the Bolivian government is perfect, which it isn´t, to appreciate and salute the initiative they have taken, and the success they have accomplished, over the last few days, with one more to go.
April 21, 2010, Cochabamba, Bolivia
by Ted Glick
(To see blog posts from April 19 and 20 go to http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog.)
I missed President Evo Morales´ speech on Tuesday at the official opening of the World People´s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Asking several friends who were there how it was, they all were surprised by its relative mildness, for Morales. The main things he called upon people to do, my friends said, were to use clay dishes, stop drinking coca-cola and stop eating industrial agriculture-raised chickens.
Perhaps President Morales was holding his powder to allow his Vice President, Alvaro Garcia Linera, to give the rousing speech. This is what he did that afternoon at a major plenary session on the Univalle Campus in Tiquipaya. It was a comprehensive overview of what is happening because of climate change (dried up rivers, melting glaciers, desertification, forest destruction and more) and the cause of it (the economic system of capitalism which turns people and nature into commodities for private gain no matter who and what gets hurt). ¨Capitalism is ready to destroy nature,¨ he said.
Linara made clear his government´s belief that we are at the beginning of a certain worldwide catastrophe if humanity does not get serious right now. He used the figures of 260 million people who have been affected already by climate change and 200 million who have emigrated because of it.
Linara went on to put forward a very different solution than many in the United States, including many environmentalists, believe is the solution. For Linara, it´s not new technology that is going to save the world. What will save it, he said, is when ¨we take the Bolivian Indigenous, the Bolivian peasant model and make it universal. We need a new civilization that´s not about consumerism but about meeting basic needs. Humans must recognize that Mother Earth has rights and we have obligations to respect them. Our new model must be consensus-based, dialogical and rooted in personal relationships with nature. We need new forms of production, and we need new ethics.¨
He referenced Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist leader from over 100 years ago, when he called, not for ¨socialism or barbarism,¨ her call, but for ¨Mother Earth or barbarism,¨ and he put forward five things that we must do:
1) resistance actions by students, workers, peasants where they are, mobilization, personal and community lifestyle changes
2) a Climate Justice Tribunal to bring to account those most responsible for the climate emergency in which we find ourselves
3) new forms of consumption that are consistent with a connection to Mother Earth
4) alternative technologies for energy (and other) development
5) organizing to win political power, to take over government so that it can be used to ¨defend life and nature.¨
We must make a revolution not just in the structures, he said, but in our own lives. And we must make this a universal project, we must be interconnected globally.
With these beliefs, beliefs clearly felt, it is possible to understand the risks that the Bolivian government has been willing to take in response to the bitter results at Copenhagen.
You don´t need to be a socialist, and you don´t have to believe that the Bolivian government is perfect, which it isn´t, to appreciate and salute the initiative they have taken, and the success they have accomplished, over the last few days, with one more to go.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Analysis of James Gilligan's Theory of Violence (by David Swanson)
Our National Epidemic of Violence
So we've identified the problem. What about the solution?
My answer is nonviolence, of course. Seek solutions to violence that don't humiliate or add unnecessary suffering to the perpetrator. Adopt a more community-centered, restorative approach that focuses on the value of each and every human being, regardless of the offense.
A great book to read on the subject: The Psychology of Peace
So we've identified the problem. What about the solution?
My answer is nonviolence, of course. Seek solutions to violence that don't humiliate or add unnecessary suffering to the perpetrator. Adopt a more community-centered, restorative approach that focuses on the value of each and every human being, regardless of the offense.
A great book to read on the subject: The Psychology of Peace
Bolivia Taking the Lead on Climate Change
Bolivian Government Outlines Strategy for International Climate Negotiations
(Click above)
Evo Morales is easily one of the most inspiring world leaders in recent memory (at least, if you're a progressive or a leftist). I like his peaceful, non-confrontation approach to other nations as well as his openness and resilience at home. He's already survived at least one coup attempt and seems to represent the hopes of the oppressed throughout Latin America and beyond.
Watch the film Cocalero online for free!
(Click above)
Evo Morales is easily one of the most inspiring world leaders in recent memory (at least, if you're a progressive or a leftist). I like his peaceful, non-confrontation approach to other nations as well as his openness and resilience at home. He's already survived at least one coup attempt and seems to represent the hopes of the oppressed throughout Latin America and beyond.
Watch the film Cocalero online for free!
Don't Exclude Men in Afghan Women Empowerment Projects
This provides a very interesting perspective (perhaps, a logical middle ground) on the all-important gender divide in Afghanistan.
click here
click here
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Uprising in Kyrgyzstan
Lee Sustar looks at the background to the rebellion that swept out a Central
Asian autocrat with close ties to the U.S. government.
April 9, 2010
THE MASS revolt that toppled the autocratic president of Kyrgyzstan had its
roots in the impoverishment of the mass of the population and growing
discontent over repression and human rights violations.
Predictably, many commentators in the U.S. press focused on the implications
for the U.S. airbase in the town of Manas, a critical part of the supply
chain for the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
Some pundits have pointed the finger at Russia, which was upset over the
pro-U.S. tilt of the ousted Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. But
Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin couldn't
have been pleased by the sight of demonstrators who defied the police, seized
their weapons, and stormed the parliament and the presidential palace.
Anxieties will be greater still in the presidential palaces of the
neighboring Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan, where despots fear a similar mass rebellion.
Thus, a popular revolt in a country of just 5 million people has sent shock
waves through the region. As Russian author and activist Boris Kagarlitsky
said in an interview from Moscow:
>This was more of a social uprising then a revolution. There is a lot of
>unrest. But while people are rebelling against the current regime, they have
>no trust in the opposition, either. It is a social uprising with very little
>political perspective. Sooner or later, one or another group of elites will
>take over, because there is no other political force capable of doing so.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE UPRISING comes almost exactly five years after Kyrgyzstan's 2005 Tulip
Revolution ousted Askar Akayev, who had ruled the country since its
declaration of independence amid the breakup of the former USSR in 1991.
The Tulip Revolution followed a split in the ruling class. Where previous
"color" revolutions in the ex-USSR states of Ukraine and Georgia had been
largely peaceful--and heavily influenced by non-governmental organizations
with ties to the U.S.--the Tulip Revolution involved more violent social
clashes.
Bakiyev, a former stalwart of the Akayev regime turned oppositionist, took
office promising a new era of democracy and social justice.
Once in power, however, Bakiyev soon followed the pattern of other Central
Asian strongmen. He ousted opponents within the elite--including the head of
the new provisional government, Roza Otunbayeva--and used his political
connections to amass personal wealth. Bakiyev's reelection in 2009 was widely
denounced as fraudulent, and anger mounted over his effort to groom his son
to succeed him in office.
The uprising forced Bakiyev to flee the capital city of Bishkek by airplane.
While he hasn't officially conceded power--he's reportedly holed up somewhere
in the country, plotting a comeback--he has been effectively ousted by a
rebellion with much deeper social roots than the Tulip Revolution.
Eyewitness accounts of the uprising make that clear. Kyrgyz journalist Kumar
Bekbolotov described how the rebellion unfolded [1]:
>A crowd began to gather around an old bus stop in an industrial area near
>downtown Bishkek. Several speakers stepped up, rousing the group of 500 with
>impromptu remarks about the events unfolding in Talas, a northern region of
>Kyrgyzstan, where protesters had stormed a local government building and
>declared popular rule.
>
>As the crowd grew excited, the riot police circled the buses--wielding
>batons, shields and, in some cases, angry dogs. Without warning, they moved
>on the crowd in a neat rectangular-shaped formation, rounding them up and
>pushing them toward the buses.
>
>It seemed like a routine police operation. But this was no ordinary day.
>Suddenly, a large group of young protesters, screaming and shouting, tore
>through the police ranks, raced across the street, grabbed rocks and
>attacked. Several policemen lost their batons and helmets in the ensuing
>melee. By day's end, the fracas had drawn crowds of 10,000 to 15,000,
>claimed the lives of scores of protesters, toppled a president--and altered
>a country's destiny.
>
Braving police gunfire that killed at least 75 people and wounded hundreds
more, the crowds stormed the presidential palace and parliament on April 7.
Shops were targeted, too, as poor and hungry people seized the food and goods
they couldn't afford.
Luke Harding, a reporter for Britain's /Guardian/ newspaper, wrote that while
the opposition claimed to be in charge of a provisional government, the real
power was with the people [2]:
>Out on the streets...there were few signs that the new regime was in control
>of anything. The police and security forces appeared to be hiding. Large
>crowds milled around the Soviet-era, fir-tree-lined boulevards, forming and
>reforming revolutionary huddles. Dozens of shops had been looted. Burned out
>cars littered the pavements.
>
>The main government building was on fire, with thick, black smoke pouring
>out of its upper floors. Hundreds of looters gathered near the White House
>presidential building. The shells of trucks and a tractor lay next to
>destroyed railings. Youths perched on an armored personnel carrier, seized
>yesterday from government troops.
>
>By late afternoon, the general prosecutor's office was gutted, with gangs
>roaming around inside, smashing windows with broken-off table legs. Sheets
>of paper--followed by a fig plant--fell from a balcony. At the parliament
>building, opposition workers were tossing posters of Bakiyev into the
>street...
>
>Much of the frustration directed at the ousted government has stemmed from
>Bakiyev's appointment of many of his family members to key government
>positions. In particular, his younger son, Maxim, was widely detested.
>
>Inside Maxim Bakiyev's wrecked and burned mansion, a stream of looters and
>the merely curious trampled over beds of broken glass. On the wall, someone
>had written: "Fuck you." Nearby, they had added: "Death to Maxim!" A couple
>of fir trees were still left in the beds. But the others had all gone,
>transplanted--like the rest of Kyrgyzstan--to a new and uncertain future.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ONE SPARK for the revolt was a big increase in electricity and water prices
that would hammer a population already reeling from the economic crisis. The
Kyrgyzstan economy contracted by 1 percent last year, forcing an increasing
number to emigrate to Russia in the hope of finding jobs that pay just $300
per month. Remittances from emigrants account for 20 percent of Kyrgyzstan's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The other mainstays of the economy are exports of gold and agricultural
products, principally tobacco. Child labor is widespread, especially on
farms.
But the miserable economy is only part of the story. Political life in
Kyrgyzstan had grown intolerable, not just for the elite opposition, but also
for journalists, pro-democracy activists and anyone who happened to cross the
Bakiyev clan and its hangers-on. The summary of the U.S. State Department's
report on Kyrgyzstan [3] in its annual survey of human rights makes that
clear:
>The following human rights problems were reported: restrictions on citizens'
>right to change their government; arbitrary killing, torture and abuse by
>law enforcement officials; impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary
>arrest and detention; lack of judicial independence; pressure on
>nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and opposition leaders, including
>government harassment; pressure on independent media; government detention
>of assembly organizers; authorities' failure to protect refugees adequately;
>pervasive corruption; discrimination against women, persons with
>disabilities, ethnic and religious minorities, and other persons based on
>sexual orientation or gender identity; child abuse; trafficking in persons;
>and child labor.
>
But the actions of the U.S. government speak louder than its words.
In early 2009, when Bakiyev lined up $2.8 billion in loans and aid from
Russia and announced the closure of the U.S. airbase in Manas, Washington
responded with more money and political support. Bakiyev not only extended
the U.S. lease on the airbase, but recently agreed to allow the U.S. military
to establish an "anti-terrorism" training center in southern Kyrgyzstan.
Less than three weeks before Bakiyev's overthrow, the head of U.S. Central
Command, David Petraeus, was in Kyrgyzstan to show U.S. support for the
government. Having already tripled its annual rent for the Manas airbase to
$60 million per year--a big sum for a small, poor country--Petraeus was now
prepared to pay $5.5 million to the government for the training center, which
would formally belong to the Kyrgyzstan military.
Having played off the U.S. against Russia, Bakiyev was confident that it was
time to tighten his grip on power.
Less than two weeks before he was overthrown, he stated at a national
political gathering [4], "The world is actively discussing the shortcomings
of a model of democracy based on elections and human rights. There is no
certainty that such a model is suitable for all countries and peoples."
Bakiyev's tilt back toward the U.S. didn't save him, of course. And Vladimir
Putin's rush to telephone interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva might
suggest that the opposition running Kyrgyzstan's new government is aligned
with Moscow in the "Great Game" of imperial rivalry in Central Asia.
The reality, however, is more complicated. Certainly Russia--which has an
airbase of its own in Kyrgyzstan, about 20 miles away from Manas--will be
keen to influence the new government. But while Otunbayeva was educated in
Moscow and was a diplomat for the old USSR, she also has longstanding ties to
the U.S., having been Kyrgyzstan's ambassador in Washington.
Thus, one of her first statements as head of the new government was to assure
the U.S. that the Manas base would function as usual. Otunbayeva and her
faction of the elite are likely to continue to try and balance between Russia
and the U.S.
Boris Kagarlitsky said that the U.S. and Russia would both have to take a
wait-and-see approach in Kyrgyzstan, since neither has much leverage. "Both
Moscow and Washington are really interested in Kyrgyzstan, but lack any tools
of control at the moment," he said. "All they can do is just flirt with
specific groups of elites."
The question now is whether the mass of people who participated in the
uprising--and who suffered a terrible loss of life in the process--will be
satisfied with the new government. Otunbayeva has pledged to convene a
constituent assembly to draft a new constitution and hold elections in six
months. But the people are also in desperate need of jobs and economic
security.
And what's more, they've showed their power. As Kagarlitsky pointed out, the
uprising in Kyrgyzstan will reverberate across Central Asia. "This is
definitely the beginning of the destabilization of the region," he said. "It
will have a domino effect in the long term. In the short term, the Central
Asian leaders will tighten the screws, which will lead to more control and
more authoritarianism. The question is how far these regimes will go."
Pakistan's /Daily Times/ made a similar point [5]:
>The masses, fed up with the denial of their rights, across-the-board
>corruption and profiteering, tailored alterations of the constitution to
>suit whosoever usurps power, a lack of basic amenities and skyrocketing
>inflation, hold the power to exhibit an extreme degree of pent-up animosity.
>The Pakistani public, too, has been alerted, not just to its rights but also
>of the blatant denial of them.
>
>As can be seen in these latest developments in Kyrgyzstan, it is the people
>who bring about a change once the limit of their patience has been reached.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Material on this Web site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a
Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) [6] license, except for articles that are
republished with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use material
belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as they are
attributed to the author and SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/how-the-uprising-happened/
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/08/kyrgyzstan-revolt-over-kurmanbek-bakiyev
[3] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136089.htm
[4] http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2010/03/24/kyrgyz_revolution_leaves_legacy_of_oppression/
[5] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C04%5C09%5Cstory_9-4-2010_pg3_1
[6] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
Asian autocrat with close ties to the U.S. government.
April 9, 2010
THE MASS revolt that toppled the autocratic president of Kyrgyzstan had its
roots in the impoverishment of the mass of the population and growing
discontent over repression and human rights violations.
Predictably, many commentators in the U.S. press focused on the implications
for the U.S. airbase in the town of Manas, a critical part of the supply
chain for the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
Some pundits have pointed the finger at Russia, which was upset over the
pro-U.S. tilt of the ousted Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. But
Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin couldn't
have been pleased by the sight of demonstrators who defied the police, seized
their weapons, and stormed the parliament and the presidential palace.
Anxieties will be greater still in the presidential palaces of the
neighboring Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan, where despots fear a similar mass rebellion.
Thus, a popular revolt in a country of just 5 million people has sent shock
waves through the region. As Russian author and activist Boris Kagarlitsky
said in an interview from Moscow:
>This was more of a social uprising then a revolution. There is a lot of
>unrest. But while people are rebelling against the current regime, they have
>no trust in the opposition, either. It is a social uprising with very little
>political perspective. Sooner or later, one or another group of elites will
>take over, because there is no other political force capable of doing so.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE UPRISING comes almost exactly five years after Kyrgyzstan's 2005 Tulip
Revolution ousted Askar Akayev, who had ruled the country since its
declaration of independence amid the breakup of the former USSR in 1991.
The Tulip Revolution followed a split in the ruling class. Where previous
"color" revolutions in the ex-USSR states of Ukraine and Georgia had been
largely peaceful--and heavily influenced by non-governmental organizations
with ties to the U.S.--the Tulip Revolution involved more violent social
clashes.
Bakiyev, a former stalwart of the Akayev regime turned oppositionist, took
office promising a new era of democracy and social justice.
Once in power, however, Bakiyev soon followed the pattern of other Central
Asian strongmen. He ousted opponents within the elite--including the head of
the new provisional government, Roza Otunbayeva--and used his political
connections to amass personal wealth. Bakiyev's reelection in 2009 was widely
denounced as fraudulent, and anger mounted over his effort to groom his son
to succeed him in office.
The uprising forced Bakiyev to flee the capital city of Bishkek by airplane.
While he hasn't officially conceded power--he's reportedly holed up somewhere
in the country, plotting a comeback--he has been effectively ousted by a
rebellion with much deeper social roots than the Tulip Revolution.
Eyewitness accounts of the uprising make that clear. Kyrgyz journalist Kumar
Bekbolotov described how the rebellion unfolded [1]:
>A crowd began to gather around an old bus stop in an industrial area near
>downtown Bishkek. Several speakers stepped up, rousing the group of 500 with
>impromptu remarks about the events unfolding in Talas, a northern region of
>Kyrgyzstan, where protesters had stormed a local government building and
>declared popular rule.
>
>As the crowd grew excited, the riot police circled the buses--wielding
>batons, shields and, in some cases, angry dogs. Without warning, they moved
>on the crowd in a neat rectangular-shaped formation, rounding them up and
>pushing them toward the buses.
>
>It seemed like a routine police operation. But this was no ordinary day.
>Suddenly, a large group of young protesters, screaming and shouting, tore
>through the police ranks, raced across the street, grabbed rocks and
>attacked. Several policemen lost their batons and helmets in the ensuing
>melee. By day's end, the fracas had drawn crowds of 10,000 to 15,000,
>claimed the lives of scores of protesters, toppled a president--and altered
>a country's destiny.
>
Braving police gunfire that killed at least 75 people and wounded hundreds
more, the crowds stormed the presidential palace and parliament on April 7.
Shops were targeted, too, as poor and hungry people seized the food and goods
they couldn't afford.
Luke Harding, a reporter for Britain's /Guardian/ newspaper, wrote that while
the opposition claimed to be in charge of a provisional government, the real
power was with the people [2]:
>Out on the streets...there were few signs that the new regime was in control
>of anything. The police and security forces appeared to be hiding. Large
>crowds milled around the Soviet-era, fir-tree-lined boulevards, forming and
>reforming revolutionary huddles. Dozens of shops had been looted. Burned out
>cars littered the pavements.
>
>The main government building was on fire, with thick, black smoke pouring
>out of its upper floors. Hundreds of looters gathered near the White House
>presidential building. The shells of trucks and a tractor lay next to
>destroyed railings. Youths perched on an armored personnel carrier, seized
>yesterday from government troops.
>
>By late afternoon, the general prosecutor's office was gutted, with gangs
>roaming around inside, smashing windows with broken-off table legs. Sheets
>of paper--followed by a fig plant--fell from a balcony. At the parliament
>building, opposition workers were tossing posters of Bakiyev into the
>street...
>
>Much of the frustration directed at the ousted government has stemmed from
>Bakiyev's appointment of many of his family members to key government
>positions. In particular, his younger son, Maxim, was widely detested.
>
>Inside Maxim Bakiyev's wrecked and burned mansion, a stream of looters and
>the merely curious trampled over beds of broken glass. On the wall, someone
>had written: "Fuck you." Nearby, they had added: "Death to Maxim!" A couple
>of fir trees were still left in the beds. But the others had all gone,
>transplanted--like the rest of Kyrgyzstan--to a new and uncertain future.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ONE SPARK for the revolt was a big increase in electricity and water prices
that would hammer a population already reeling from the economic crisis. The
Kyrgyzstan economy contracted by 1 percent last year, forcing an increasing
number to emigrate to Russia in the hope of finding jobs that pay just $300
per month. Remittances from emigrants account for 20 percent of Kyrgyzstan's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The other mainstays of the economy are exports of gold and agricultural
products, principally tobacco. Child labor is widespread, especially on
farms.
But the miserable economy is only part of the story. Political life in
Kyrgyzstan had grown intolerable, not just for the elite opposition, but also
for journalists, pro-democracy activists and anyone who happened to cross the
Bakiyev clan and its hangers-on. The summary of the U.S. State Department's
report on Kyrgyzstan [3] in its annual survey of human rights makes that
clear:
>The following human rights problems were reported: restrictions on citizens'
>right to change their government; arbitrary killing, torture and abuse by
>law enforcement officials; impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary
>arrest and detention; lack of judicial independence; pressure on
>nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and opposition leaders, including
>government harassment; pressure on independent media; government detention
>of assembly organizers; authorities' failure to protect refugees adequately;
>pervasive corruption; discrimination against women, persons with
>disabilities, ethnic and religious minorities, and other persons based on
>sexual orientation or gender identity; child abuse; trafficking in persons;
>and child labor.
>
But the actions of the U.S. government speak louder than its words.
In early 2009, when Bakiyev lined up $2.8 billion in loans and aid from
Russia and announced the closure of the U.S. airbase in Manas, Washington
responded with more money and political support. Bakiyev not only extended
the U.S. lease on the airbase, but recently agreed to allow the U.S. military
to establish an "anti-terrorism" training center in southern Kyrgyzstan.
Less than three weeks before Bakiyev's overthrow, the head of U.S. Central
Command, David Petraeus, was in Kyrgyzstan to show U.S. support for the
government. Having already tripled its annual rent for the Manas airbase to
$60 million per year--a big sum for a small, poor country--Petraeus was now
prepared to pay $5.5 million to the government for the training center, which
would formally belong to the Kyrgyzstan military.
Having played off the U.S. against Russia, Bakiyev was confident that it was
time to tighten his grip on power.
Less than two weeks before he was overthrown, he stated at a national
political gathering [4], "The world is actively discussing the shortcomings
of a model of democracy based on elections and human rights. There is no
certainty that such a model is suitable for all countries and peoples."
Bakiyev's tilt back toward the U.S. didn't save him, of course. And Vladimir
Putin's rush to telephone interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva might
suggest that the opposition running Kyrgyzstan's new government is aligned
with Moscow in the "Great Game" of imperial rivalry in Central Asia.
The reality, however, is more complicated. Certainly Russia--which has an
airbase of its own in Kyrgyzstan, about 20 miles away from Manas--will be
keen to influence the new government. But while Otunbayeva was educated in
Moscow and was a diplomat for the old USSR, she also has longstanding ties to
the U.S., having been Kyrgyzstan's ambassador in Washington.
Thus, one of her first statements as head of the new government was to assure
the U.S. that the Manas base would function as usual. Otunbayeva and her
faction of the elite are likely to continue to try and balance between Russia
and the U.S.
Boris Kagarlitsky said that the U.S. and Russia would both have to take a
wait-and-see approach in Kyrgyzstan, since neither has much leverage. "Both
Moscow and Washington are really interested in Kyrgyzstan, but lack any tools
of control at the moment," he said. "All they can do is just flirt with
specific groups of elites."
The question now is whether the mass of people who participated in the
uprising--and who suffered a terrible loss of life in the process--will be
satisfied with the new government. Otunbayeva has pledged to convene a
constituent assembly to draft a new constitution and hold elections in six
months. But the people are also in desperate need of jobs and economic
security.
And what's more, they've showed their power. As Kagarlitsky pointed out, the
uprising in Kyrgyzstan will reverberate across Central Asia. "This is
definitely the beginning of the destabilization of the region," he said. "It
will have a domino effect in the long term. In the short term, the Central
Asian leaders will tighten the screws, which will lead to more control and
more authoritarianism. The question is how far these regimes will go."
Pakistan's /Daily Times/ made a similar point [5]:
>The masses, fed up with the denial of their rights, across-the-board
>corruption and profiteering, tailored alterations of the constitution to
>suit whosoever usurps power, a lack of basic amenities and skyrocketing
>inflation, hold the power to exhibit an extreme degree of pent-up animosity.
>The Pakistani public, too, has been alerted, not just to its rights but also
>of the blatant denial of them.
>
>As can be seen in these latest developments in Kyrgyzstan, it is the people
>who bring about a change once the limit of their patience has been reached.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Material on this Web site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a
Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) [6] license, except for articles that are
republished with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use material
belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as they are
attributed to the author and SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/how-the-uprising-happened/
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/08/kyrgyzstan-revolt-over-kurmanbek-bakiyev
[3] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136089.htm
[4] http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2010/03/24/kyrgyz_revolution_leaves_legacy_of_oppression/
[5] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C04%5C09%5Cstory_9-4-2010_pg3_1
[6] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)