THE ROVING EYE - Time is tight to produce a worthy US dream By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE 

Time is tight to produce a worthy US dream 

By Pepe Escobar 

LOS ANGELES - It's tight. It's awfully tight. But way beyond demented pollmania permeating every nook and cranny of the multibillionaire election circus - coupled with the torrential vomiting of the Spin Machine scary monsters and super freaks - these are the stark facts. 

To become the next president of the United States (POTUS), Mitt Romney's got to win Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Arizona.

As it stands, hours before the foreign policy debate this Monday in Boca Raton, Florida, Barack Obama maintains a slight lead, 3 to 2 (Ohio, Colorado and Arizona versus Virginia and Florida where, until recently, he was also leading; now, according to Nate Silver's projections, Romney's chance of winning Florida are at 66%). 

Still, Obama is relatively comfy on top in Iowa (66%), New Hampshire (63%), Nevada (73%), Pennsylvania (89%) and Wisconsin (80%). 

The Obama slide had been relentless, non-stop, ever since the first debate; it was only barely reversed for the past three days. Even so, Romney must win all these swing states if he can't swing Ohio, which is leaning towards Obama by 70%. 

Mitt "Binders Full of Women" will come out all (Libyan) guns blazing at the last debate because he cannot afford to lose anywhere. Ultimately, if he doesn't swing those undecided Ohio ladies, the fat lady herself will sing. 

Sing what? It could be anything from The Star Spangled Banner - the Jimi Hendrix version - to We Shall Overcome. Well, here in California, it's more like Booker T and the MG's Time Is Tight. That's the Roving Eyemobile's official theme song - as our made in Detroit noir car, a grey Mustang (supporting US jobs) crisscrosses Southern California in search of what's left of the American dream. 

LA noir

Los Angeles, LA, Hollywood, whatever you wanna call it, this is a town that lies for a living - not a bad metaphor of both the US government and Mitt "Binders Full of Women". Come up with the appropriate soundstage, set design and a few catchy lines - plot is just a detail - and Hollywood will lie till it dies, or rather till it survives endless tequila sunrise shots. 

The LA Weekly is running a tournament to elect the best LA novel ever, which has to be a noir masterpiece. (See here.) 

The Roving Eye - a former Hollywood resident and perennial literature fanatic - takes no sides; I would vote for anything from Thomas Pynchon's psychedelic Inherent Vice to Raymond Chandler's black as hell The Big Sleep, passing through Scott Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon and anything by James Ellroy, especially The Black Dahlia. 

Of course, there's always the possibility of interpreting Obama vs Mitt as a noirish saga of love lost, betrayal and crime (financial, military, imperial and otherwise). Leave that to a disaster movie screenplay-to-be. 

Back to reality. To paraphrase the late great Ginsberg, I have seen the best and worst minds of past generations starving, silent, practically naked - or even respectably clothed - plowing LA's mean streets at night looking not for an angry fix, but for a soup kitchen. 

To check out on the bottom end of the 47%, I just had to drive by night to downtown LA, further down Los Angeles street, and then follow the dark clouds coming down all across the Los Angeles river. 

That did not prevent me from finding a decently attired 55-year-old Air Force veteran begging near UCLA in upscale Brentwood. I gave him some help, asked "Why?" and he answered, "Check with the US government". The gleaming outposts of the industrial-military complex - from Boeing to Lockheed Martin - are not that far away, around LAX. 

In the world according to Mitt Romney, this Air Force vet doesn't pay enough taxes, is a victim, and doesn't take personal responsibility for his life. By the way, in Mittworld the vet is joined by US soldiers in combat, firefighters, steelworkers, security guards, police officers and, yes, high school teachers - who draw an average wage of US$54,000, usually their only source of income to support a family of four or five. 

I also followed the surf trail from Laguna Beach to Dana Point and San Clemente - where small enterprises still deliver sweatshop-free, first class made-in-the-USA manufactured products, which threw me back to my teenage years when every hip kid wanted a Hobie cat, a Gordon & Smith skateboard and a Dewey Weber surfboard. 

When I went for a couple of sweatshirts I bought American - James Perse, a new, chic, LA clothing company successfully competing with delocalized corporate behemoths. It's quite a shock to see that label Made in USA instead of - well, it's inevitable - Made in China. 

LA, of course, is as much in Asia as in America. My dry cleaner is Cantonese; my local bakery in Brentwood is Korean; my Thai curry fix is still there in Thai town. But I was particularly keen on meeting Asia's 1/10th of the 1%, for whom California remains The Promised Land, essentially thanks to Silicon Valley and Hollywood. 

And then I found him, Mr 1% China, on Rodeo Drive, gleefully photographing a spectacular black-and-yellow Bugatti Veyron 16.4 along with his quite extended family. 

He was a successful businessman from Xiamen, sporting a Hollywood baseball cap and carrying a black crocodile Chanel bag worth the entire GDP of northern Syria (which, by the way, is sending prospective political refugees to California in increasing numbers). 

I asked Mr 1% China about Mitt's announced currency/trade war against the Middle Kingdom. His laughter boomed all the way to the canyons and way deep into the Pacific. 

Rodeo, Beverly and Canon Drive are living demonstrations of the top 1/10th of 1% rolling in dough. They are back to 25% of the US's total income; that includes a sizeable lot of Tehrangeles - the Iranian-American diaspora. 

Tax rates for the 1/10th of the 1% are lower than ever; so let's party like it's ... 2007. At least in California, the overwhelming majority - following Hollywood's dictate - votes Obama. Translation, Thai-style: same same but different. 

It's pivoting time 

Crisscrossing Southern California, one suspects Mitt Romney may have employed a secret Hollywood hustler as ghost adviser; after all he's essentially paying his nearly $5 trillion-in-tax-cuts plan with a platinum card. Sounds like those Hollywood projects which are forever "in development". 

A Tax Policy Center (TPC) nonpartisan study has revealed that Romney's way to make his 20% below George W Bush-era levels tax cut plan "revenue neutral" - which would be to cap deductions at $17,000 - would raise just $1.7 trillion over 10 years. 

The TPC had to apologize for Mitt's trademark lack of specifics on just about everything regarding his plan, stressing that that makes the analysis imperfect. 

After Asia Times Online reported it last Thursday (see Mitt the Binder, Asia Times Online, October 19, 2012) the New York Times and other US websites are also waking up to Mitt's economic hit man, Glenn Hubbard. 

It's never enough to remember that professor Hubbard was key in justifying the humongous mortgage derivatives bubble at the heart of the Dubya-sanctioned Great Recession; call him the Toxic Derivative King. Palpable consequences include an astronomic $7 trillion - and counting - depreciation of home values, the over $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and perennial high unemployment, which the Romney campaign describes, with a straight face, as an Obama concoction. 

And yes; Hubbard was the ultimate architect of the Bush tax cuts. In terms of getting a cut himself, he is no slouch; only in 2011 he pocketed a cool $785,000 for sitting on three different corporate boards and as a consultant to Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. 

Now imagine Hubbard as Mitt's Secretary of the Treasury. Couple his financial weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) with Iran's non-existent WMDs as the pretext for the next US Middle East war, plus this three-month-old Los Angeles Times bombshellabout Romney financing Bain Capital with shady foreign funds and boasting returns worthy of a major crime syndicate, and we got the perfect plot advancement for our LA noir screenplay. 

To counter so much darkness, the Roving Eyemobile extended its trail - with a glance at Camp Pendleton where Marines get ready for that "pivoting" towards Asia-Pacific - all the way to the quintessential industrial-military complex town, San Diego, for a long, uplifting conversation with a blessed soul; Tom Feeley, the founder and editor of Information Clearing House - one of a select few, absolutely indispensable websites to learn about assorted Empire business. 

Tom's newsletter is now reaching 79,000 global daily readers - and counting, a great deal of them US expats quite familiar with Empire shenanigans. It doesn't take a James Joyce to truly appreciate an Irishman's conversation; ours, in a word, was priceless. We agreed that the whole geopolitical groove as it's moving increasingly resembles a Beckett play, minus the hieratic elegance. 

I ended this Southern California swing back "home" - as in the Frolic Room, Hollywood's ultimate dive, among drifters, punks and instant philosophers of the 47% variety. It certainly beats reading a RAND corporation report. 

The Frolic Room - with its superb neon sign - is where the real Black Dahlia used to sip her martinis in the 1940s, before she was delivered her Big Sleep, tragically, horrendously murdered. And now we wait - not for death, which is a certainty, but for Obama and Mitt to show us at least the glimpse of a worthy vision, a palpable dream. 

Forget it; a Hollywood lie is all we're gonna get. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). 

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com 

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

US Elections: America's Right Turn - by Stephen Lendman

Since the 1980s, neoliberalism dominated US politics under Democrats and Republicans. Bush I continued Reagan policies. Clinton hardened them. Bush II much more, and Obama so far matched Star Trek, going where no administration went before. Count the ways. They're manyfold, favoring business over popular interests, yet he's accused of being socialist.

On November 2, angry voters responded, shifting right despite favoring many left of center issues, a combination of outrage and angst overriding their best interests. Go figure because what they got will incense them more.

During hard times, election cycles repeat a common pattern. Angry voters throw out bums for new ones, discarding them next time around for still more, mindless of what an earlier article explained - that US democracy is fake. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Mock elections pretend to be real. The process is mere kabuki theater run by political consultants and PR wizards, supported by major media misreporting, featuring horse race issues, not real ones.

Everything is pre-scripted. Secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process. Party bosses chose candidates. Big money owns them. Key outcomes are predetermined, and cheated voters get the best democracy money can buy, each time no different than others.

Recall November 2008. Promising change after eight George Bush/Republican dominated years, Obama won the most convincing non-incumbent victory in over 50 years, sweeping Democrats to large majorities in both houses.

On election night, the mood celebrated hope for progressive change, an end to imperial wars, and a new day for America. When word came around 10PM, expectant thousands in Chicago's Grant Park erupted with chants of "yes we can," hoping Obama would deliver at a time of deepening economic duress. Two years later, disappointment, disillusion, frustration, and anger erupted over promises made, then broken, once again betting new faces will govern better than old ones. Think again.

New York Times writers took the lead reporting it, Jeff Zeleny and David Herszenhorn, for example, headlining, "Restive Voters Divide Power in Congress as GOP Surges to Control of House," saying:

They also came close in the Senate "as discontented voters, frustrated about the nation's continuing economic woes, turned sharply against President Obama just two years after catapulting him into the White House." It showed in how they "indiscriminately ousted Democratic incumbents who loyally supported Mr. Obama's agenda," decidedly anti-populist whether or not they know it.

Times writer Carl Hulse headlined "Republicans Oust(ed) Old and New Democrats Alike," throwing out babies with their bath water. It's what usually happens in hard times, especially when big money effectively manipulates minds, pushing them right, not left, that means over the cliff through planned austerity when massive stimulus and much more are needed.

Universal single-payer healthcare for one. Taking money out of politics another. Holding real elections, not fake ones. Giving Congress back what the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 mandates - the power to create money and control the value thereof, not Wall Street bankers using it to their advantage. They delivered hard times, transferring wealth from the majority to themselves. Obama and Congress support them, Republicans as guilty as Democrats.

The best Times writer Peter Baker could say was "Somewhere along the way, the apostle of change became its target, engulfed by the same currents that swept him to the White House two years ago." Instead of denouncing his shameless betrayal, he said only that he "must find a way to recalibrate with nothing less than his presidency on the line."

Shifting right, not left, is what he means, what Clinton called triangulation. Obama earlier promised austerity, more favors for business, hardline immigration policy, deficit reduction, continued imperial wars without saying it, and more for privilege, not people, buying into Reagan's "trickle down" economics, what, Bush I called "voodoo."

All a Times editorial could do say is that "voters....sent President Obama a loud message: They don't like how he's doing his job, they're even angrier at Congressional Democrats." Republicans exploited it "turning out their base....Democrats....fail(ing) to rally their own." Besides noting a shift right, hard issues weren't mentioned, instead saying "his opponents (were able) to spin and distort what Americans should see as genuine progress in very tough times."

For Wall Street, defense contractors, Big Oil, and other corporate favorites perhaps, not Main Street that drove voters for change. What's coming, however, will infuriate them, what no major media report will explain. For example:

-- greater than ever military spending;

-- expanded wars, perhaps to new theaters at a time most Americans want them ended;

-- privatizing Social Security and Medicare, letting Wall Street racketeers exploit them for profit, scamming the public at the same time;

-- privatizing public education as well as increasingly at the university level;

-- trashing labor rights;

-- hanging American workers out to dry;

-- ignoring growing millions facing foreclosure;

-- letting poverty and unemployment spiral out of control;

-- yet eliminating unemployment compensation and other social benefits, saying they're "unaffordable;" tax cuts for the rich, however, will be maintained;

-- enacting more police state laws on top of many in place; and

-- turning America darker, a reactionary direction pitting bread and butter issues against ruling elites, both parties offering bipartisan support, especially new incumbents and their leadership.

The big money backing them demands it, assuring they'll get what they bought. It's how US politics works, more than ever delivering the best democracy money can buy. As a result, American workers are on their own, out of luck, and unsupported by both parties. Democrats are no different than Republicans.

As a result, governance in America is dysfunctional. The electorate remains mindless to reality. Only grassroots activism might change things, sweeping all the bums out, electing progressive independents, reversing repressive and corporate friendly laws, as well as enacting a new constitution by national referendum, letting the electorate decide, not states or Washington.

A utopian vision? Absolutely, adopting working class France's 1968 slogan, "Be realistic, Ask for the Impossible" through collective political action, the only way "impossible" goals ever are reachable, social justice topping the list.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Midterm Miscarriage

World Beat

by JOHN FEFFER |

Even before the polls opened for voting in the U.S. midterm elections, the finger-pointing had already begun. The Obama agenda, instead of coming to term after four years, was suffering a miscarriage halfway through. The potential culprits were many and diverse.

President Barack Obama was to blame because his populist attempt to rally the economically disgruntled was too little and too late. The Supreme Court was to blame because it decimated campaign finance reform and allowed record amounts of money to distort the political process. The Democratic Party was to blame because it moved to the center in a misguided effort to win over independents. The Republican Party was to blame for arguing that "big government" is responsible for all of America's ills even while making government grind to a halt with obstructionist tactics. The tea party was to blame for, well, being itself. The media was to blame for focusing on trivia instead of the critical issues. The economy was to blame for not rebounding more quickly. The American people were to blame for turning certifiable nut jobs into viable political candidates.

Even comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were to blame for distracting hundreds of thousands of people from doing critical get-out-the-vote work and then failing to mention the election at all on the day of their rally on the Mall last weekend.

These fingers, however, were all pointed inward. Foreign policy played almost no role in this election. This is rather strange. After all, the United States is still involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The gargantuan military budget, even at this time of economic crisis, barely merits a mention in the news. (Check out this short film clip from director Iara Lee for information on military spending, featuring me and other Foreign Policy In Focus colleagues, that the TV news won't give you). Critical treaties, such as New START, hang in the balance. Negotiations with Iran and North Korea might be in the offing. We're coming up on another round of climate change negotiations in Cancun at the end of this month.

And yet, the elections will likely have a huge impact on U.S. foreign policy. A realigned Congress will alter how the United States engages (or doesn't) with the world.

The first likely victim of the elections will be New START, our latest arms control agreement with Russia. Senate Democrats have so far been unable to guarantee the 67 votes needed for passage. The one Republican who has promised to vote yes, Richard Lugar (R-IN), doubts the treaty will even come up for a vote in the lame-duck session if the Republicans pick up enough seats.

Although the arms control community is battling hard for New START, others are more skeptical of the agreement. The deals cut in the Senate to win passage, writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Darwin BondGraham in START: Arms Affirmation Treaty, "ensure that the military and its contractors will receive huge budget increases, including funding for a new plutonium bomb pit factory, a growing the missile defense program that is already as large as the NNSA nuclear weapons program, the conversion of nuclear-capable missiles into conventional strike weapons under the prompt global strike weapons program, and a new generation of submarines and jets to deploy the nuclear arsenal." Still, it could be worse. More Senate Republicans will give Jon Kyl (R-AZ) the leverage to push for even more money for nuclear modernization.

A second potential victim is the Obama administration's commitments on climate change. You might ask, what commitment? The administration backs a controversial market-based solution by which governments issue pollution permits. "The $127 billion global carbon trading market has become a lucrative marketplace for turning planetary salvation into business deals," writes FPIF columnist Laura Carlsen in Worlds Collide in Cancun Climate Talks. "The upshot is that the polluter is allowed to keep on polluting."

But more Republicans in the Senate will give tea party favorites Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK) more opportunities to voice their climate change denial. Both received significant campaign contributions from BP.

And then there's Obama's more diplomatic approach to various conflicts around the world. True, I find the administration's way of dealing with North Korea — lots of sticks, no carrots — too reminiscent of the early Bush years. But a Republican takeover of the House means that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) will take charge of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Known for her UN-bashing and unqualified support for Israel, Ros-Lehtinen prefers regime change strategies to the current containment approach the U.S. favors with North Korea. Led by the Florida hardliner, Congress will likely take more extreme positions toward China, Iran, Venezuela, and other nations.

Some might argue that Obama missed his golden opportunity to push through all the vital pieces of legislation on his agenda — including a jobs stimulus bill and a climate change bill — when he had a clear majority in both the House and Senate. But the Republicans used the arcane rules of the Senate to block as much as they could.

Bringing a bill to the floor of the Senate requires a cloture vote. According to this rule, adopted in 1917, 60 Senators have to agree to end debate before the body can vote by a simple majority on most bills. To block Obama, Michael Tomasky points out, Republicans have threatened a filibuster roughly twice as many times since 2007 as the Democrats did when Republicans controlled Congress during the Bush administration between 2003 and 2007.

Of course, the tilting of the playing field begins even before the senators take their seats. As FPIF contributor Caleb Rossiter argues, our electoral rules have long supported our imperial foreign policy. "Members of the U.S. House, by state laws, and the Senate, by a constitutional amendment in 1913, are chosen under a winner-takes-all rule," he writes in Is Obama a Turkey or an Eagle? "This reduces the representation in government of the anti-imperialist minority that would be present under a proportional election rule."

In many ways, the Obama administration's foreign policy has been a major disappointment. Even where he has achieved some success — negotiating with the Russians on arms control, putting climate change on the table — these have been very qualified victories. But after a few whiffs of the alternatives proposed by the newly ascendant Republicans, and those hawkish Democrats who consistently fall in behind them, we'll be waxing nostalgic about the good old days of Obama's first two years. It might not have been a golden age, but it sure beats the dark ages to come.

Failures of Leadership Abroad

There are obstructionists at home, and abroad. Take Israel. Any peace deal at the moment has to involve Benjamin Netanyahu, the country's right-wing leader. "The current right-wing government of Israel wants to negotiate with the Palestinians for their independent state as much as China wants to negotiate with Taiwan for its independent state," writes FPIF senior analyst Adil Shamoo in If Israel Wants Peace… So, don't expect Obama to get any foreign policy bump as a result of a Middle East peace deal any time soon.

Nearer to home, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pushed the ordinarily sensible neighbor to the north into unusually extreme positions. As FPIF senior analyst Ian Williams points out, Canada has until recently been a model international actor. Then Harper took over and began copying George W. Bush. "Canada showed hostility to Russia and China, more on atavistic Cold War grounds than because of any deep concern for human rights, since Ottawa developed a U.S.-style expediency on that subject," Williams writes in Canada on Ice: At the UN. "Its troops in Afghanistan handed over prisoners to the CIA. Its officials did nothing at all about Canadian citizens that the United States kidnapped in New York and sent for torture in the Middle East or held in Guantanamo."

Finally, to the south, communities are trying to rein in the Mexican military. In the village of Mini Numa, the Me'phaa Indigenous Peoples Organization struggle for day-to-day human rights, which includes flush toilets. "They want a fair share of the commons, basic services and resources with which to scrape out modestly improved lives," writes FPIF contributor Daniel Moss in Postcard from…Mini Numa. "But these assertions of dignity, no matter how mundane they may appear, are a slippery slope, deeply threatening to local politicians and their goons who enjoy the plunder opportunities offered by despotic control.

Is it really Much ado about nothing? by William Blum

What is there about the Iranian election of June 12 that has led to it being one of the leading stories in media around the world every day since? Elections whose results are seriously challenged have taken place in most countries at one time or another in recent decades. Countless Americans believe that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Republicans, and not just inside the voting machines and in the counting process, but prior to the actual voting as well with numerous Republican Party dirty tricks designed to keep poor and black voters off voting lists or away from polling stations. The fact that large numbers of Americans did not take to the streets day after day in protest, as in Iran, is not something we can be proud of. Perhaps if the CIA, the Agency for International Development (AID), several US government-run radio stations, and various other organizations supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (which was created to serve as a front for the CIA, literally) had been active in the United States, as they have been for years in Iran, major street protests would have taken place in the United States.

The classic "outside agitators" can not only foment dissent through propaganda, adding to already existing dissent, but they can serve to mobilize the public to strongly demonstrate against the government. In 1953, when the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they paid people to agitate in front of Mossadegh's residence and elsewhere and engage in acts of violence; some pretended to be supporters of Mossadegh while engaging in anti-religious actions. And it worked, remarkably well.¹ Since the end of World War II, the United States has seriously intervened in some 30 elections around the world, adding a new twist this time, twittering. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown of its service to keep information flowing from inside Iran, helping to mobilize protesters.² The New York Times reported: "An article published by the Web site True/Slant highlighted some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi was under house arrest (he was being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so)." ³

In recent years, the United States has been patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with warships, halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas or for other illegal reasons, financing and "educating" Iranian dissidents, using Iranian groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, kidnaping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, kidnaping Iranian military personnel in Iran and taking them to Iraq, continually spying and recruiting within Iran, manipulating Iran's currency and international financial transactions, and imposing various economic and political sanctions against the country.⁴

"I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," said US President Barack Obama with a straight face on June 23. "Some in the Iranian government [have been] accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd."⁵

"Never believe anything until it's officially denied," British writer Claud Cockburn famously said.

In his world-prominent speech to the Middle East on June 4, Obama mentioned that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." So we have the president of the United States admitting to a previous overthrow of the Iranian government while the United States is in the very midst of trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. This will serve as the best example of hypocrisy that's come along in quite a while.

So why the big international fuss over the Iranian election and street protests? There's only one answer. The obvious one. The announced winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Washington ODE, an Officially Designated Enemy, for not sufficiently respecting the Empire and its Israeli partner-in-crime; indeed, Ahmadinejad is one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy in the world.

So ingrained is this ODE response built into Washington's world view that it appears to matter not at all that Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election and very much supported by the protesters, while prime minister 1981-89, bore large responsibility for the attacks on the US embassy and military barracks in Beirut in 1983, which took the lives of more than 200 Americans, and the 1988 truck bombing of a US Navy installation in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons. Remarkably, a search of US newspaper and broadcast sources shows no mention of this during the current protests.⁶ However, the Washington Post saw fit to run a story on June 27 that declared: "the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms."

Can it be that no one in the Obama administration knows of Mousavi's background? And do none of them know about the violent government repression on June 5 in Peru of the peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement? A massacre that took the lives of between 20 and 25 indigenous people in the Amazon and wounded another 100.⁷ The Obama administration was silent on the Peruvian massacre because the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, is not an ODE.

And neither is Mousavi, despite his anti-American terrorist deeds, because he's opposed to Ahmadinejad, who competes with Hugo Chavez to be Washington's Number One ODE. Time magazine calls Mousavi a "moderate", and goes on to add: "It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged," offering as much evidence as the Iranian protestors; i.e., none at all.⁸ It cannot of course be proven that the Iranian election was totally honest, but the arguments given to support the charge of fraud are not very impressive, such as the much-repeated fact that the results were announced very soon after the polls closed. For decades in various countries election results have been condemned for being withheld for many hours or days. Some kind of dishonesty must be going on behind the scenes during the long delay it was argued. So now we're asked to believe that some kind of dishonesty must be going on because the results were released so quickly. It should be noted that the ballots listed only one electoral contest, with but four candidates.

Phil Wilayto, American peace activist and author of a book on Iran, has observed:

Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?⁹

All of which is of course not to say that Iran is not a relatively repressive society on social and religious issues, and it's this underlying reality which likely feeds much of the protest; indeed, many of the protesters may not even have strong views about the election per se, particularly since both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are members of the establishment, neither is any threat to the Islamic theocracy, and the election can be seen as the kind of power struggle you find in virtually every country. But that is not the issue I'm concerned with here. The issue is Washington's long-standing goal of regime change. If the exact same electoral outcome had taken place in a country that is an ally of the United States, how much of all the accusatory news coverage and speeches would have taken place? In fact, the exact same thing did happen in a country that is an ally of the United States, three years ago when Felipe Calderon appeared to have stolen the presidential election in Mexico and there were daily large protests for more than two months; but the American and international condemnation was virtually non-existent compared to what we see today in regard to Iran.

Iranian leaders undertook a recount of a random ten per cent of ballots and recertified Ahmadinejad as the winner. How honest the recount was I have no idea, but it's more than Americans got in 2000 and 2004.

1 William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 9

2. Associated Press, June 16, 2009

3. New York Times, June 21, 2009

4. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker magazine, June 29, 2008; ABC News, May 22, 2007; and Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch, June 19-21, 2009 for descriptions of some of these and other anti-Iran covert activities.

5. White House press conference, June 23, 2009

6. The only mention is by Jeff Stein in "CQ Politics" [Congressional Quarterly], online, June 22, 2009, "according to former CIA and military officials"

7. Center for International Policy (Washington, DC) report, June 16, 2009

8. Time magazine, June 29, 2009, p.26

9. AlterNet.org, June 14, 2009; Wilayto is the author of "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic"

A estratégica eleição no Líbano

por Lejeune Mirhan*

Esta semana poderíamos tratar de dois assuntos, ambos importantes: o cancelamento da visita do presidente do Irã ao Brasil, bem como as repercussões que ainda reverberam de suas declarações na Conferência anti-racista, vinda, inclusive de setores de esquerda e o giro que o fascista Avigdor Liebermann, chanceler de Israel faz pela Europa para falar contra o Estado palestino, mas, em função da data que a coluna vai ao ar – 7 de maio – estamos a um mês das estratégicas eleições libanesas. E sobre isso quero dar algumas opiniões.

Nasralláh, liderança emergente no Líbano

A democracia libanesa

Se analisarmos a política brasileira nem sempre conseguimos produzir documentos com a profundidade que desejamos, imagina tecermos uma análise da política interna libanesa. Estudamos o Oriente Médio há tempos, mas vivendo muito distante dessa realidade. Mas, apesar da complexidade, vamos nos arriscar.

O Líbano é um dos mais antigos e prósperos países árabes existentes no Oriente Médio. Viveu uma guerra civil que quase leva o país a uma divisão territorial e religiosa, a uma cantonização e que durou 15 longos anos. Inicia-se em 1975 e praticamente só é encerrada em 1990.

Não vamos aqui detalhar os atores e o processo que levou a essa guerra civil. Mas ela tem origem, por assim dizer, na imensa imigração e deslocamentos humanos palestinos na região do Sul do país, iniciados com a diáspora palestina desde 1948. Após a fundação da OLP, os grupos mais revolucionários e de esquerda, acabaram por se transferir para o Líbano, alterando de certa forma o já frágil equilíbrio que vinha sendo mantido entre as forças políticas e as correntes religiosas desde 1943.

Nessa guerra estiveram envolvidos membros de milícias cristãs, drusas, islâmicas (xiitas e sunitas), grupos que posteriormente dividiram-se e formaram novos agrupamentos políticos. Muitos desses ainda hoje possuem forte presença no cenário político-partidário libanês.

A paz começa a se desenhar a partir de uma reunião histórica na cidade de Taif na Arábia Saudita, ocorrida em setembro de 1989. Nessa cidade, reuniram-se 62 deputados libaneses, membro do Parlamento Libanês (cujas passagens, inclusive, foram financiadas pelo riquíssimo empresário Hafic Hariri, participante desse evento e desse acordo, posteriormente primeiro ministro e assassinado em 2005).

A proposta de estabelecer os acordos de paz entre as facções libanesas, entre as correntes políticas e religiosas, acabou sendo votada por 58 votos a quatro e o referido acordo foi assinado em 21 de outubro do mesmo ano na referida cidade. Ficou conhecido como os “Acordos de Taif”. Nele manteve-se a tradição de entregar a presidência do país a um cristão maronita (mais moderado) e houve um esvaziamento do poder da presidência. O primeiro ministro ficaria sempre com um muçulmano sunita e a presidência do parlamento ficaria sempre com um muçulmano xiita (este cargo foi ocupado por muitos anos por Nabi Berry). Com isso manteve-se uma tradição que veio do chamado Pacto Nacional Libanês de 1943.

No entanto, os grupos políticos que se digladiaram na guerra civil por 15 anos, mantiveram muitas das suas divergências após esse período. A presença da Síria, tanto na forma da influência política, como a presença militar com tropas, a pedido do governo libanês que se instaurou a partir de 1990, sempre gerou problemas políticos internos, sendo que algumas facções nunca aceitaram essa presença militar. Na verdade o centro da questão não era a presença da Síria ou não, mas sim o alinhamento e a influência do Líbano sob a órbita dos Estados Unidos. Nem se tratava mais de alinhamento com a União Soviética, pois no ano seguinte ao acordo, em 1991, esta desabaria completamente.

Assim, o centro da questão era ser um satélite dos EUA e consequentemente de Israel ou manter-se alinhado com os povos árabes, pela soberania e independência do Líbano. Em fevereiro de 2005, o líder de correntes sunitas e ex-ministro Hafic Hariri foi assassinado. Os oportunistas de plantão apontaram de imediato o dedo acusador para o governo da Síria, o que menos tinha interesses em que isso ocorresse. Isso, mais uma vez, rompe certo equilíbrio político existente. No entanto, esse episódio acabou por precipitar a saída das tropas sírias do Líbano. Movimentos de massa acabaram ocorrendo, protestos e no processo eleitoral, as forças mais conservadoras venceram as eleições. O Movimento “14 de Março”, liderado pelo filho do ex-primeiro ministro assassinado, Saad Hariri, acabou constituindo maioria no parlamento e a oposição ficou sendo liderada pelo Partido de Deus, chamado Hezbolláh, cujo líder é o xiita Hasan Nasralláh. Esse é o período que se chama de Revolução dos Cedros.

Bem ou mal, nos últimos anos, se contarmos de 1990 em diante, podemos dizer que o Líbano vive uma democracia estável, ainda que cheio de problemas. A liberdade partidária é ampla. Estima-se a existência de cem partidos políticos legalizados e aptos a concorrerem a um cargo eletivo. Apenas três partidos políticos são proscritos no Líbano (Guardiões dos Cedros; Partido Isolacionista Regressivo e Movimento Islâmico Amal, todos de extrema direita) (1).

Não quero aqui fornecer dados sobre as eleições de outros países árabes, como o Egito, Síria, Líbia, Tunísia, Argélia e mesmo Iraque (na época de Saddam), que são Repúblicas, mas cujas eleições seus presidentes sempre venceram as eleições com índices que chegam a 99% dos votos válidos. No Líbano isso jamais ocorreria, pela pluralidade política e ideológica que o país vive e mesmo pelas diferenças de correntes de opinião e religiosas existentes (é também uma república parlamentarista e o presidente é eleito indiretamente pelo parlamento). Por isso mesmo que o Hezbolláh não defende a instauração de uma República Islâmica no Líbano, porque isso nunca seria viável.

O quadro político atual

Apesar da profusão de partidos políticos (e há quem acha que nós no Brasil temos muitos partidos... apenas 27 para um parlamento com 594 cadeiras, sendo 513 na Câmara e 81 no Senado; no Líbano são 128 vagas na Câmara, não possuem senado e têm cem partidos!), formaram-se duas grandes coligações partidárias que concorrerão ás eleições.

São várias as correntes que participam do pleito e podem ser assim definidas: sunitas (pró-imperialistas e antiimperialistas); socialistas (conservadores, só no nome ou mais de esquerda); nacionalistas libaneses (direita) e nacionalistas sírios (de centro-esquerda); liberais (de direita) e social-liberais (direita); reformistas (de direita); federalistas; centristas; xiitas (antiimperialistas); nacionalistas árabes e nasseristas (patrióticos, de centro-esquerda); social-democratas (de direita); comunistas (todas as correntes existem vários que se proclamam comunistas, sendo que o maior de todos é o PC Libanês).

Sobre essas correntes, queremos tecer alguns comentários dentro dos blocos que a compõem.

1. Coligação “Aliança 14 de Março”

O nome deriva da data da chamada “Revolução dos Cedros”, no período que compreende o assassinato de Hariri em 14 de fevereiro e 14 de março de 2005, data de um mega comício feito em resposta ao também mega comício realizado em 8 de março pelo Hezbolláh. É o campo da direita e extrema direita. Possuem entre eles falangistas, drusos, maronitas entre outros.

Esta coligação possui hoje 64 deputados e tem o primeiro ministro Fouad Siniora (sunita). O líder é Saad Hariri, filho de Hafic. O Partido principal que encabeça a coligação é o Movimento Futuro e possui hoje sozinho 34 deputados. São seculares, mas majoritariamente sunitas e pró-imperialistas. Dessa coligação/aliança participam outros partidos importantes: Partido Socialista Progressista, cujo líder é Walid Jumblat, filho de Kamal Jumblat que, no passado, jogou papel importante, mas hoje se alinhou ao campo conservador; Forças Libanesas (extrema direita, cujo líder é Samir Geagea); Bloco de Trípoli e Democracia Radical. Ao todos, esse bloco possui 20 partidos e/ou movimentos.

Regra geral, esse campo, apesar de possuir a maioria no parlamento, é do campo conservador. Pode-se dizer que se alinham ideologicamente à direita. Ao todo a aliança possui 20 partidos e movimentos registrados. Eles pretendem manter o controle do governo, com a indicação do futuro primeiro Ministro, que deve ser sempre um sunita.

Na sua recente passagem pelo Líbano, a (desastrosa) Secretária de Estado dos Estados Unidos, cujas declarações tem sido muito ruins e que destoam do que o próprio presidente Obama tem falado, ela acabou por apoiar, de certa forma essa Aliança, ainda que não possa dar uma declaração de apoio total, pois além de ser ingerência interna na política de outro país soberano (ou que luta pela sua soberania), isso poderia tirar ainda mais votos dessa coligação.

Não temos acesso a pesquisas eleitorais, mas há indicadores de muito desgaste nessa aliança, na forma como o desastroso governo vem conduzindo o país. No bombardeio que Israel fez ao Líbano entre julho e agosto de 2006, esse agrupamento pouco fez para defender a soberania libanesa. A resistência foi encabeçada pelos militantes do Hezbolláh, que angariaram amplo prestígio na sociedade.

2. Coligação “8 de Março”

O nome deriva de um imenso comício realizado em 8 de março de 2005, quando mais de um milhão de pessoas foram às ruas de Beirute para agradecer a presença da Síria no Líbano, que acabava de se retirar. Aqui cabe o registro que o general cristão Michel Aoun, ainda que tenha integrado o campo mais conservador num primeiro momento, e que sempre foi anti-Síria quando esteve exilado na França por 15 anos, mas em 2006 muda de posição e integra esse campo oposicionista.

Assim, os principais líderes desse bloco, dessa Aliança são: Movimento Patriótico Livre, do general Aoun (cristão, mas oficialmente secular); Hezbolláh (xiita), cujo líder é Hassan Nasralláh; Movimento Amal (xiitas, mais moderados), cujo líder é Nabih Bérri. Há ainda a presença de cristão maronitas, armênios, seculares entre outros. Destaca-se aqui o Partido Comunista Libanês, cujo líder é Khaled Hadadi; a Liga dos Trabalhadores que se proclama comunista e nacionalista árabe União da Juventude Democrática Libanesa ligada ao PC Libanês. Esses agrupamentos não possuem deputados. Ao todo essa aliança tem hoje 56 deputados no parlamento e luta para fazer a maioria e governar o país. Ao todo, são 39 partidos e/ou movimentos e grupos que integram essa aliança. Registre-se a presença ainda do pequeno, mas com dois deputados Partido Socialista Árabe Baath e do Partido Nacional Social Sírio, com dois deputados e cujo líder é Assad Hardan.

Análise e perspectivas

Por esses dados, vemos que os dois maiores blocos que disputam as eleições, são integrados por 59 partidos políticos e/ou movimento e agrupamentos. Outras organizações político-partidárias perfazem mais 41 partidos, que possuem um deputado apenas e praticamente não tem chances de eleger parlamentares (a conta não fecha em 128 porque alguns deputados e partidos não concorrem às eleições).

A complexidade das eleições se explicam pelos acordos, tanto de Taif de 1989, incorporados à constituição de 1990, como pelos acordos assinados no ano passado, da qual todas as forças políticas dele participaram. Ficou conhecido como Acordos de Doha, assinado em 21 de maio de 2008, por iniciativa do Emir do Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani. Por esse acordo, ocorre praticamente uma divisão de vagas no parlamento libanês entre as correntes religiosas. Foi a partir desse acordo é que foi possível eleger o general Michel Suleiman, presidente do Líbano.

Como dissemos, não temos acesso às pesquisas de opinião sobre os blocos em disputa. Mas além do desgaste de ser governo da Aliança “14 de Março”, houve um fato semana passada que chamou a atenção tanto do povo libanês como da comunidade internacional que acompanha essas estratégicas eleições. A libertação de quatro generais ligados à inteligência libanesa, que ficaram presos por quatro longos anos sob a acusação – falsa – de terem conspirado para matar Hafic Hariri. O tribunal da ONU especialmente formado para apurar os episódios – que comentamos no mesmo ano de 2005 sobre esse assunto, que violou a soberania libanesa – determinou a libertação destes generais por absoluta falta de provas. Isso fortalece imensamente o campo oposicionista.

A grande mídia vai falar que o bloco “8 de Março” é ligado á Síria e ao Irã. Vão querer confundir os eleitores. A mudança de agenda – sinalizada inclusive pelo governo fascista de Israel – de querer discutir o Irã e seu programa nuclear (pacífico) ao invés de discutir a questão palestina, não dará certo. Não vai colar, pelo menos entre os libaneses. Estes estão vendo que é muito mais benéfico ser amigo e aliado da Síria e do Irã do que dos Estados Unidos e de Israel!

O que estará em jogo nestas eleições será a soberania do Líbano, defendida hoje com firmeza pelos xiitas do Hezbolláh de Nasralláh, pelo PC Libanês de Hadadi, pelos cristãos ligados ao Movimento Patriótico Livre do general Aoun e pelos xiitas do Amal, de Bérri. Não há mais do que dois campos em disputa. O outro lado, o outro campo é do imperialismo, ainda que possa ter siglas que se digam “socialistas” ou “democracia radical” ou ainda “democracia de esquerda”. Pura fraseologia de fachada dita progressista, mas que escondem interesses dos mais escusos e reacionários possíveis.

Um governo progressista a ser eleito em 7 de junho reconhecerá de imediato a legitimidade do Hezbolláh como movimento armado de libertação e de luta pela soberania e independência do Líbano. Espera-se que nunca mais o país possa estar sujeito às invasões perpetradas por Israel em sua fronteira Sul, ainda parcialmente ocupada pelo exército israelense. A Síria será tratada como sempre deveria ter sido tratada: como país irmão do Líbano, país árabe milenar, soberano e que defende a unidade árabe, contra as políticas imperiais, coloniais e sionistas na região. Guerrilheiros e lutadores libaneses da resistência não mais serão tratados como “terroristas”, mas como deveriam ter sido sempre tratados: como lutadores pela independência nacional, como patriotas e defensores da nação árabe e libanesa. São amigos do povo libanês e não inimigos, como grande parte da mídia os trata.

Tratar o Irã como inimigo é o maior erro que o governo libanês e seus aliados fazem no momento, como o governo de Israel. Esse país já cansou de propor que todo o Oriente Médio seja desnuclearizado. Isso afetaria profundamente Israel, que é uma das nove nações do mundo a ter bombas nucleares e isso as potências ocidentais nada falam a respeito.

Não adianta – e não colará na propaganda interna do Líbano – a tentativa de demonização que Israel vem fazendo do Irã, como diz o professor Franklin Lamb (2). Este estudioso das questões libanesas menciona uma recente pesquisa onde apenas 46% declararam que a “religião é extremamente importante para mim”, apesar de toda a divisão religiosa estabelecida. Na mesma pesquisa, 90% dos muçulmanos disseram respeitar as ideias dos cristãos libaneses. Ou seja, fica claro uma elevação da consciência política do povo e dos eleitores libaneses e que colocá-los contra o Hezbolláh, vinculando esse grupo ao Irã não irá influenciar o seu voto nas eleições. O libaneses sempre souberam conviver com as diferenças e as diversidades. Os muçulmanos em sua história também. Como sempre disse, o problema não é e nunca foi religioso, mas sim político, tanto no Líbano como na palestina.

No discurso de posse de Netanyahu ele disse algo mais ou menos assim, como sinalização de mudança clara de agenda, escondendo que a questão central é a criação do Estado Palestino: “o maior de todos os perigos para Israel e para toda a humanidade esta na possibilidade de surgir um governo radical armado com bombas atômicas”. Ora, é sabido que o arsenal israelense possui entre 250 e 400 ogivas nucleares e o atual governo é o mais fascista e direitista de toda a história de 61 anos de Israel (a completar em 14 de maio próximo). Terá sido uma confissão que Bibi fazia de seu próprio governo? Que libanês vai acreditar que o Irã é inimigo do Líbano na conjuntura atual?

Não tenho bola de cristal para prever resultados eleitorais. Mas, suspeito seriamente que a coligação “8 de Março”, de centro-esquerda, patriótica e nacionalista, progressista, sagrar-se-á vencedora. A Aliança “14 de Março” deve sair derrotada nas urnas. O que precisa ficar claro de uma vez por todas é que o Irã só é inimigo do sionismo, do racismo do governo de Israel, que discrimina os palestinos e os muçulmano em seu estado de caráter judeu. Acho que os libaneses devem estar atentos, mais do que nunca, à eventuais provocações, criação de factóides políticos que podem embotar as eleições. A seguir o rumo atual, a direita deve perder as eleições.

Não me cabe fazer escolhas nestas eleições, pois sou brasileiro. Isso é uma atribuição exclusiva do povo e dos eleitores libaneses. Apenas me cabe “torcer” por assim dizer. Espero, sinceramente, que nestas estratégicas eleições – que a mídia brasileira ainda ignora completamente – vençam os que defendem um Líbano progressista, soberano, verdadeiramente independente, dono de seus destinos, que reforce a sua vocação árabe e que esteja sempre unido e irmanado com todos os países e com o povo árabe no Oriente Médio. Esse é meu desejo sincero neste momento.

Até junho voltaremos mais a este tema.

Notas

(1) Não confundir Movimento Islâmico Amal, com o Movimento Amal, que tem 15 deputados e é de linha antiimperialista e contra Israel.

(2) Atualmente pesquisador sobre o Líbano e o seu artigo pode ser lido em http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb04172009.html cujo título é Iran Offers More Than Just Cash (O Irã oferece mais do que apenas dinheiro). Aqui se comenta que pode ajudar mais o Líbano, se Estados Unidos ou o próprio Irã.

---

*Lejeune Mirhan, Presidente do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de São Paulo, Escritor, Arabista e Professor Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa, Membro da International Sociological

---

* Opiniões aqui expressas não refletem, necessariamente, a opinião do site.

---