* Read Part I
The devastating effects of Agent Orange are a blemish on the US national record and an obstacle impeding true reconciliation between the US government and both Vietnamese and American victims of the toxic herbicide For this reason, issues of international law, justice, and corporate and governmental responsibility must be addressed clearly and directly. Those who are currently suffering from the poisonous effects of Agent Orange, though, have found that the struggle for justice can be as toxic.
"I died in Vietnam, but I didn't even know it," announced veteran helicopter crew chief Paul Reutershan when he appeared on the Today show in the spring of 1978, according to Fred Wilcox in Waiting for an Army to Die. Reutershan, a helicopter crew chief and self-described "health nut" who did not smoke or drink, died at the age of 28 of virulent abdominal cancer. However, before he died, he contacted a personal injury lawyer and launched the first lawsuit against the chemical manufacturers that produced Agent Orange, a lawsuit that would grow into some of the largest and most important litigation of the time. Awareness of Agent Orange spread rapidly due to this lawsuit and the data collected by Maude DeVictor, an employee in the Benefits Division of the VA's Chicago office. DeVictor began keeping track of chemical-related complaints, despite the orders of her supervisor to stop, and the data she collected became the source for the 1978 CBS documentary, Agent Orange, the Deadly Fog. By May of 1979, a class action suit filed by the lawyer Victor Yannacone against seven chemical manufacturers included 4,000 claims and continued to grow.
The case would drag on for six tumultuous and costly years, concluding in 1984 with what was the largest tort settlement in history. According to Peter Schuck in Agent Orange on Trial, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and five other chemical manufacturers paid $180 million to over 50,000 veterans, but still denied liability. Few of the plaintiffs ever received more than $5,000. While this was an important case with an impressive cash settlement, it did little to satisfy the afflicted veterans or to address the politics of responsibility. The corporations were never found guilty nor did they admit wrongdoing. Further, due to the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Feres/Stencel immunity doctrine, the veterans were unable to file a lawsuit against the federal government or the military. To this day, the political issues of Agent Orange have been mishandled, evaded, and ignored.
While achieving a modicum of justice took many years for American veterans, Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange have less hope of seeing any form of justice in the near future. In 2004, several of these victims, led by the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), filed a federal lawsuit against 37 US defoliant producers that created and distributed Agent Orange. The case was dismissed on March 10th of 2005 because of a variety of factors that led the Judge to conclude in his 233-page decision that no domestic or international law had been violated. The lawsuit sought "billions of dollars in damages and environmental cleanup, on behalf of . . . four million Vietnamese victims." The ruling was met with great disappointment from Vietnamese citizens, the Vietnamese government, and American veterans who helped the Vietnamese victims, some of whom were formerly Vietcong, file the lawsuit.
Of the ruling, Nguyen Trong Nhan, the Vice-President of VAVA, says, "We are disappointed . . . [Judge] Weinstein has turned a blind eye before the obvious truth . . . We just want justice, nothing more." One problem that plagued the plaintiffs is that of causation -- of proving that Agent Orange directly led to their health problems -- an obstacle exacerbated by the lack of funding with which research could be conducted among other scientific factors. Perhaps even more crucial to the outcome of the case was the fact that "the court had come under heavy lobbying from the US Justice Department to rule against the plaintiffs, because of Washington's fears of the legal precedent it would set in other countries ravaged by US military interventions." John McAuliff of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development (FRD), which supported the lawsuit, echoed this unpleasant reality when he said, "Judge Weinstein has made it easier for our country to continue to evade moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions . . . We constantly hold other countries responsible, but never ourselves." Though this ruling is a setback for the Agent Orange victims, it is not an unexpected one. The magnitude of this unprecedented situation and its international scope make it incompatible with the technicalities and minutiae of the American justice system. No court has the precedent or the jurisdiction to adequately seek justice on such a large and multi-dimensional scale. The call for accountability must be made to the government that launched the war in Vietnam and left a deadly, toxic legacy.
While all calls for governmental accountability or reparations entail at least a degree of symbolic justice, the situation in Vietnam is unique in that it also demands relatively clear-cut and practical action. The lawsuit brings at least some attention to the fact that there are still heavily contaminated "hot-spots" in Vietnam afflicting new victims.
The spraying of Agent Orange covered a vast amount of space and cleaning up only three of the most contaminated "hotspots" will cost as much as $60 million. Only recently has the US pledged to contribute to this cause, in the amount of just $300,000. Pledges from the US to aid these efforts with scientific research have been common, but actual results have been few. In the past several years, Congress has charged the National Academy of Sciences with studying the health effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population, but this underfinanced research is a low priority and "at least two joint research efforts have fallen through," one as recently as February of 2005. Almost all of the decontamination efforts have come from non-profit organizations like the Ford Foundation and international bodies like the United Nations Development Programme.
The suffering that continues because of American policy in Vietnam and the lack of assistance from the US or admission of responsibility emphasizes the federal government's preference of global power and hegemony over international law, reconciliation, and moral concerns. The lawsuit on behalf of Vietnamese victims transcends mere legal matters; as VAVA President Dang Vu Hiep says, "The suit is not only for the life of Vietnamese Agent Orange victims, but also for the legitimate rights of all victims in many other countries, including the United States . . . We believe that conscience and justice are still respected in this earth." The American people tend to agree with him.
According to a Zogby Poll from 2004, 79.1 percent of Americans agree that the chemical companies should have had to pay compensation to American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and 51.3 percent agree that Vietnamese victims should receive US compensation. From a moral standpoint, 64.4 percent agree that the US government "has a moral responsibility to compensate US servicemen and Vietnamese civilians who were affected by Agent Orange." People 18 to 29 years old were the demographic most likely to endorse compensation for the victims, demonstrating a commitment of the younger generations to reconciliation and foreign policy conducted within a framework of morality.
While the Justice Department heavily supported the chemical companies in court against the Vietnamese victims, claiming that a ruling against the firms "could cripple the president's power to direct the military," many American Vietnam War veterans see reparations as indispensable to achieving reconciliation, both on a personal level and an international one. American veteran Chuck Searcy has been in Vietnam for ten years cleaning up "unexploded ordnance" from what was the demilitarized zone as part of Project Renew. Searcy says, "It wasn't so much about undoing what had been done. That was impossible. But we could build on the ashes and the bones of the war -- build on the hopes for the future, better understanding and reconciliation." Despite the US government's occasional rhetoric about human rights and reconciliation, these wounds are likely to remain open, as most paths to healing diverge in some way with American might and dominance.
The Vietnam War, in conjunction with US military aggression elsewhere in the world in the Cold War and post-Cold War era, demonstrates that American interests and priorities are more aligned with military power and economic dominance than they are with international law or human rights. In response to the use of Agent Orange, resolutions were introduced in the United Nations as early as 1966 "charging the United States with violations of the 1925 Geneva Protocol limiting the use of chemical and biological weapons," according to Schuck. Perhaps more than any other nation, the United States is rigidly averse to having its course of military action influenced by international norms. It is for this reason that the US did not sign the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, and that the US is "in near total isolation in [opposing] the global effort to ban [land] mines," according to Human Rights Watch. The unwillingness of the US to sincerely endorse international law or embrace an international justice system is well conveyed by former Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues David Scheffer, who says, "There is a reality, and the reality is that the United States is a global military power and presence. Other countries are not. We are."
The failure of domestic courts to provide justice or adequate compensation to victims of Agent Orange reinforces the need for political solutions that are grounded in international norms. The often amoral interplay between global "justice" and global "power" makes it necessary for the international community and the citizens of the US to insist on the protection of human rights and fundamental respect for human life. In her book Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, Martha Minow asserts, "Forever after [the Vietnam War era], efforts to create tribunals for war crimes would raise questions from many inside the United States about its own accountability to such tribunals." For nations with power and resources, nationalism and unrestrained decision-making tend to supersede justice.
The best that can emerge from trials like those regarding Agent Orange are revivals of discourse surrounding US actions in Vietnam and empowered movements that call for dedication to human rights and international law. Yet, in situations like this, trials alone have very limited potential for effecting positive and permanent change. It is the US government that must, in addition to compensating victims and helping to detoxify Vietnam, face the past by publicly committing to the prevention of such abuses in the future.
One of the most important ways to do this is to rethink opposition to a standing International Criminal Court, which, if given sufficient powers of prosecution, would enable the punishment of war criminals fairly and efficiently and aid the cause of reconciliation. Though US objections to this court, particularly from the current Bush administration and former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, center around a fear of a new judicial body threatening American sovereignty and eroding the Constitution, these concerns are largely unfounded unless international law is breached. The International Criminal Court operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning that it only functions if a state is charged with an international crime and fails to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute. Even abominations of justice -- like the show trial of William Calley (but not of any senior officers) for ordering the murder of approximately 500 civilians in the hamlet of Song My in 1968, which resulted in a life sentence that soon became three days in prison -- would be considered "investigation" and "prosecution."
Instead of a commitment to justice in Vietnam, the United States has sought "reconciliation" through the gospel of international commerce. After the US and Vietnam entered into a bilateral trade agreement in 2000, President Clinton delivered a speech extolling the act's significance: "This is another historic step in the process of . . . reconciliation and healing between our nations. Improvements in the relationship . . . have depended from the beginning upon progress in determining the fate of American who did not return from the war . . . Since 1993, we have undertaken 39 joint recovery operations in Vietnam, and [40 are] underway as we speak . . . And we, too, have sought to help Vietnam in its own search for answers . . . "
Exactly what answers have been given to the Vietnamese is unclear. During Clinton's visit to Hanoi, Vietnamese President Tran Duc Long asked the US "to acknowledge its responsibility to de-mine, detoxify former military bases and provide assistance to Agent Orange victims." No answer was given. Clearly, settling the American conscience about MIAs in Vietnam outweighs the lingering poison that contaminates swaths of the nation.
Not only are diplomatic and economic relations inadequate in achieving reconciliation, but they have the potential of adding further injustice by distorting the historical record. According to the Asia Times, "The Vietnamese government, which for decades publicly documented the impact of Agent Orange on civilian populations at its War Crimes Museum in Hanoi, recently toned down the exhibition in line with a warming trend in relations with Washington." With no justice, accountability, or compensation over the Agent Orange assaults, truth and historical memory are all the people of Vietnam have. Documentation of Agent Orange's tragic effects, especially on generation after generation of children, must be maintained and made publicly available in order for the gravity and criminality of such foreign policy decisions to be understood.
The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is undoubtedly one of the most shameful foreign policy disasters in American history and one for which justice is unlikely to be achieved. Agent Orange, though unique in the continuous harm that it causes, was only one aspect of a larger catastrophe. Colonel David Hackworth, a decorated veteran, says "Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go. There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the number of bodies you counted." The United States has failed to repair the damage it caused, hold war criminals accountable, provide compensation to victims, and make a commitment to human rights and international law to prevent the recurrence of the atrocities in Vietnam. As the woeful past is rationalized, distorted, and denied, the victims of Agent Orange become not just casualties of war, but casualties of memory and injustice -- the Vietnam War's most toxic legacy.
Aaron Sussman is the co-founder and Executive Editor of Incite Magazine; he can be contacted at Aaron@InciteMagazine.org. For more of Sussman's work, visit www.ACrowdedFire.com.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
As Bush's War Strategy Shifts to Iran, Facist Christian Zionists Gear Up for the Apocalypse
By Sarah Posner, AlterNet
Christian Zionists are dancing the hora in San Antonio. Armageddon appears to be at hand.
As George W. Bush sets his sights on Iran, even Republicans are wondering how to constitutionally contain the trigger-happy king. But for an influential group of Christian fundamentalists -- White House allies that garner not only feel-good meetings with the President's liaisons to the "faith-based" community but also serious discussions with Bush's national security staff -- an attack on Iran is just what God ordered.
Biblical literalists, convened together through San Antonio megapastor John Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI), are now seeing the fruits of their yearlong campaign to convince the Bush administration to attack Iran.
Hagee came to Washington last summer on the warpath, and many Republicans -- and even a few Democrats -- welcomed him as an alleged supporter of Israel. More than 3,500 CUFI members fanned out across the Capitol to meet with their congressional delegations. Televangelist power brokers, like rising star Rod Parsley of Ohio, who serve as directors of CUFI, now proudly display photographs of their meetings with senators, brows furrowed over the seriousness of the task at hand. But probably Hagee's most important meeting was smaller and not public, at the White House with deputy national security adviser and Iran Contra player Elliott Abrams.
Did the two men talk dispensationalism or diplomacy? That the president's top national security advisor on Middle East policy met with the popular author of a best-selling book that claims that God requires a war with Iran demonstrates just how intensely politics trumps policy (and human lives) for this unhinged administration. Emboldened, Hagee returned to San Antonio fretting that "most Americans are simply not aware that the battle for Western Civilization is engaged" and "don't want to believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against mighty America. They will!" As the bloody fighting between Israel and Hezbollah raged last August, Hagee organized a grassroots lobbying campaign to blitz the White House switchboard with callers opposed to a cease-fire. Members were urged to call the White House to "congratulate" Bush on using the term "Islamofascists" and on his "moral clarity."
Armed with blood-red rhetoric and the hubris of the politically connected, Hagee filled his 5,000-seat church for a weekend-long event culminating in his Night to Honor Israel in October. To an eager audience preparing for the end times, analogies to Hitler and denouncement of "appeasement" were flying. Anti-Muslim rhetoric was at a fevered pitch. All of it was dressed up as love and benevolence for God's chosen people. But what masqueraded as Biblically mandated generosity toward the Jews was nothing more than a political rally for a war not just against Iran, but against Islam, and for the dominance of Christianity (Hagee's brand, of course).
By the end of the year, Hagee was warning his followers that Iran was "reloading for the next war," claiming that he had "reason to believe that Iran will face a military preemptive strike from Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," and denouncing the Iraq Study Group as "anti-Israel." Although he had spent nearly a year claiming that Iran intended to destroy Israel, Hagee, in rejecting the ISG's recommendation to diplomatically engage Iran, fumed, "America's problems with Iran have nothing to do with Israel. Iran's president has said he intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States of America. My father's generation would have considered this statement a declaration of war and bombed Iran by this time."
Bush knows Hagee's minions are locked and loaded for a war to end not only all wars, but the world. He might have already signed a secret executive order authorizing military action against Iran. But last week Bush nonetheless lamely tried to bring the rest of the country on board with his tried (but by no means true) device of uttering the words "Iran," "nuclear weapons" and "9/11" in the same breath.
His saber rattling won't work for the majority of Americans outraged by his conduct of the Iraq war and opposed to its escalation. But for his listeners gearing up for the end times -- a segment of American evangelicals increasingly united around this issue -- Bush fired up the grandiose rhetoric of a final showdown: "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time."
Sarah Posner has covered the religious right for the American Prospect, the Gadflyer, and AlterNet. She is at work on a book about televangelists in politics.
Christian Zionists are dancing the hora in San Antonio. Armageddon appears to be at hand.
As George W. Bush sets his sights on Iran, even Republicans are wondering how to constitutionally contain the trigger-happy king. But for an influential group of Christian fundamentalists -- White House allies that garner not only feel-good meetings with the President's liaisons to the "faith-based" community but also serious discussions with Bush's national security staff -- an attack on Iran is just what God ordered.
Biblical literalists, convened together through San Antonio megapastor John Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI), are now seeing the fruits of their yearlong campaign to convince the Bush administration to attack Iran.
Hagee came to Washington last summer on the warpath, and many Republicans -- and even a few Democrats -- welcomed him as an alleged supporter of Israel. More than 3,500 CUFI members fanned out across the Capitol to meet with their congressional delegations. Televangelist power brokers, like rising star Rod Parsley of Ohio, who serve as directors of CUFI, now proudly display photographs of their meetings with senators, brows furrowed over the seriousness of the task at hand. But probably Hagee's most important meeting was smaller and not public, at the White House with deputy national security adviser and Iran Contra player Elliott Abrams.
Did the two men talk dispensationalism or diplomacy? That the president's top national security advisor on Middle East policy met with the popular author of a best-selling book that claims that God requires a war with Iran demonstrates just how intensely politics trumps policy (and human lives) for this unhinged administration. Emboldened, Hagee returned to San Antonio fretting that "most Americans are simply not aware that the battle for Western Civilization is engaged" and "don't want to believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against mighty America. They will!" As the bloody fighting between Israel and Hezbollah raged last August, Hagee organized a grassroots lobbying campaign to blitz the White House switchboard with callers opposed to a cease-fire. Members were urged to call the White House to "congratulate" Bush on using the term "Islamofascists" and on his "moral clarity."
Armed with blood-red rhetoric and the hubris of the politically connected, Hagee filled his 5,000-seat church for a weekend-long event culminating in his Night to Honor Israel in October. To an eager audience preparing for the end times, analogies to Hitler and denouncement of "appeasement" were flying. Anti-Muslim rhetoric was at a fevered pitch. All of it was dressed up as love and benevolence for God's chosen people. But what masqueraded as Biblically mandated generosity toward the Jews was nothing more than a political rally for a war not just against Iran, but against Islam, and for the dominance of Christianity (Hagee's brand, of course).
By the end of the year, Hagee was warning his followers that Iran was "reloading for the next war," claiming that he had "reason to believe that Iran will face a military preemptive strike from Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," and denouncing the Iraq Study Group as "anti-Israel." Although he had spent nearly a year claiming that Iran intended to destroy Israel, Hagee, in rejecting the ISG's recommendation to diplomatically engage Iran, fumed, "America's problems with Iran have nothing to do with Israel. Iran's president has said he intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States of America. My father's generation would have considered this statement a declaration of war and bombed Iran by this time."
Bush knows Hagee's minions are locked and loaded for a war to end not only all wars, but the world. He might have already signed a secret executive order authorizing military action against Iran. But last week Bush nonetheless lamely tried to bring the rest of the country on board with his tried (but by no means true) device of uttering the words "Iran," "nuclear weapons" and "9/11" in the same breath.
His saber rattling won't work for the majority of Americans outraged by his conduct of the Iraq war and opposed to its escalation. But for his listeners gearing up for the end times -- a segment of American evangelicals increasingly united around this issue -- Bush fired up the grandiose rhetoric of a final showdown: "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time."
Sarah Posner has covered the religious right for the American Prospect, the Gadflyer, and AlterNet. She is at work on a book about televangelists in politics.
Terror and starvation in Gaza - John Pilger on the genocide that is engulfing Palestine as bystanders silently look on
01/18/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- A genocide is engulfing the people of Gaza while a silence engulfs its bystanders. "Some 1.4 million people, mostly children, are piled up in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, with no freedom of movement, no place to run and no space to hide," wrote the former senior UN relief official Jan Egeland and Jan Eliasson, then foreign minister of Sweden, in Le Figaro. They described a people "living in a cage", cut off by land, sea and air, with no reliable power and little water, and tortured by hunger and disease and incessant attacks by Israeli troops and planes.
Egeland and Eliasson wrote this four months ago in an attempt to break the silence in Europe, whose obedient alliance with the United States and Israel has sought to reverse the democratic result that brought Hamas to power in last year's Palestinian elections. The horror in Gaza has since been compounded: a family of 18 has died beneath a 500lb US/Israeli bomb; unarmed women have been mown down at point-blank range. Dr David Halpin, one of the few Britons to break what he calls "this medieval siege", reported the killing of 57 children by artillery, rockets and small arms and was shown evidence that civilians are Israel's true targets, as in Leba non last summer. A friend in Gaza, Dr Mona el-Farra, emailed: "I see the effects of the relentless sonic booms [a collective punishment by the Israeli air force] and artillery on my 13-year-old daughter. At night, she shivers with fear. Then both of us end up crouching on the floor. I try to make her feel safe, but when the bombs sound I flinch and scream . . ."
When I was last in Gaza, Dr Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, showed me the results of a remarkable survey. "The statistic I personally find unbearable," he said, "is that 99.4 per cent of the children we studied suffer trauma. Once you look at the rates of exposure to trauma you see why: 99.2 per cent of their homes were bombarded; 97.5 per cent were exposed to tear gas; 96.6 per cent witnessed shootings; 95.8 per cent witnessed bombardment and funerals; almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed." Dahlan invited me to sit in on one of his clinics. There were 30 children, all of them traumatised. He gave each a pencil and paper and asked them to draw. They drew pictures of grotesque acts of terror and of women streaming tears.
The excuse for the latest Israeli terror was the capture last June of an Israeli soldier, a member of an illegal occupation, by the Palestinian resistance. This was news. The kidnapping by Israel a few days earlier of two Palestinians - two of thousands taken over the years - was not news. A historian and two foreign journalists have reported the truth about Gaza. All three are Israeli. They are frequently called traitors. The historian Ilan Pappe has documented that "the genocidal policy [in Gaza] is not formulated in a vacuum" but part of Zionism's deliberate, historic ethnic cleansing. Gideon Levy and Amira Hass are reporters on the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In November, Levy described how the people of Gaza were beginning to starve to death: "There are thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people, unable to receive any treatment . . . The shadows of human beings roam the ruins . . . They only know the [Israeli army] will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions." Hass, who has lived in Gaza, describes it as a prison that shames her people. She recalls how her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle-train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "[She] saw these German women looking at the pris oners, just looking," she wrote. "This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'."
"Looking from the side" is what those of us do who are cowed into silence by the threat of being called anti-Semitic. Looking from the side is what too many western Jews do, while those Jews who honour the humane traditions of Judaism and say, "Not in our name!" are abused as "self-despising". Looking from the side is what almost the entire US Congress does, in thrall to or intimidated by a vicious Zionist "lobby". Looking from the side is what "even-handed" journalists do as they excuse the lawlessness that is the source of Israeli atrocities and suppress the historic shifts in the Palestinian resistance, such as the implicit recognition of Israel by Hamas. The people of Gaza cry out for better.
This article was first published by the New Statesman - http://www.newstatesman.com
Egeland and Eliasson wrote this four months ago in an attempt to break the silence in Europe, whose obedient alliance with the United States and Israel has sought to reverse the democratic result that brought Hamas to power in last year's Palestinian elections. The horror in Gaza has since been compounded: a family of 18 has died beneath a 500lb US/Israeli bomb; unarmed women have been mown down at point-blank range. Dr David Halpin, one of the few Britons to break what he calls "this medieval siege", reported the killing of 57 children by artillery, rockets and small arms and was shown evidence that civilians are Israel's true targets, as in Leba non last summer. A friend in Gaza, Dr Mona el-Farra, emailed: "I see the effects of the relentless sonic booms [a collective punishment by the Israeli air force] and artillery on my 13-year-old daughter. At night, she shivers with fear. Then both of us end up crouching on the floor. I try to make her feel safe, but when the bombs sound I flinch and scream . . ."
When I was last in Gaza, Dr Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, showed me the results of a remarkable survey. "The statistic I personally find unbearable," he said, "is that 99.4 per cent of the children we studied suffer trauma. Once you look at the rates of exposure to trauma you see why: 99.2 per cent of their homes were bombarded; 97.5 per cent were exposed to tear gas; 96.6 per cent witnessed shootings; 95.8 per cent witnessed bombardment and funerals; almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed." Dahlan invited me to sit in on one of his clinics. There were 30 children, all of them traumatised. He gave each a pencil and paper and asked them to draw. They drew pictures of grotesque acts of terror and of women streaming tears.
The excuse for the latest Israeli terror was the capture last June of an Israeli soldier, a member of an illegal occupation, by the Palestinian resistance. This was news. The kidnapping by Israel a few days earlier of two Palestinians - two of thousands taken over the years - was not news. A historian and two foreign journalists have reported the truth about Gaza. All three are Israeli. They are frequently called traitors. The historian Ilan Pappe has documented that "the genocidal policy [in Gaza] is not formulated in a vacuum" but part of Zionism's deliberate, historic ethnic cleansing. Gideon Levy and Amira Hass are reporters on the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In November, Levy described how the people of Gaza were beginning to starve to death: "There are thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people, unable to receive any treatment . . . The shadows of human beings roam the ruins . . . They only know the [Israeli army] will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions." Hass, who has lived in Gaza, describes it as a prison that shames her people. She recalls how her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle-train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "[She] saw these German women looking at the pris oners, just looking," she wrote. "This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'."
"Looking from the side" is what those of us do who are cowed into silence by the threat of being called anti-Semitic. Looking from the side is what too many western Jews do, while those Jews who honour the humane traditions of Judaism and say, "Not in our name!" are abused as "self-despising". Looking from the side is what almost the entire US Congress does, in thrall to or intimidated by a vicious Zionist "lobby". Looking from the side is what "even-handed" journalists do as they excuse the lawlessness that is the source of Israeli atrocities and suppress the historic shifts in the Palestinian resistance, such as the implicit recognition of Israel by Hamas. The people of Gaza cry out for better.
This article was first published by the New Statesman - http://www.newstatesman.com
Is The U.S. Planning a Horrific Global Nuclear War? By Michel Chossudovsky
01/17/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".
Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners).
The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the "war theatre".
"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions
While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible" (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":
"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.
...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')
We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with "theater" commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional "war theaters".
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled 'Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike' , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies...
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional "war theaters", very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week: January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build "a safer World" and combat terrorism. Although Chirac has made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", i.e. countries such as Iran which allegedly possess WMD.
"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, 'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War' , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.…" (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM) "theater" strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, [http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy] , italics added)
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism" and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the "Battle for Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into "Islamic terrorism". Western governments are now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the West" In the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region… You can never say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized (reminiscent of demonization against the Jews under the Nazi Germany propaganda machine during World War II), casually identified with "Islamic terrorists", who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the "civilized World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America's humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a Critical Cross-roads:
Implications of Iran as an ally of Russia and China
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defence system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western mass-media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
Resistance to the Neo-fascist objectives of neo-conservative elites
The "anti-war movement" is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands" of the "international community". These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighbourhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, "expressing concern over Iran's nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
About the author
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, [www.globalresearch.ca] . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".
Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners).
The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the "war theatre".
"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions
While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible" (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":
"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.
...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')
We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with "theater" commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional "war theaters".
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled 'Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike' , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies...
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional "war theaters", very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week: January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build "a safer World" and combat terrorism. Although Chirac has made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", i.e. countries such as Iran which allegedly possess WMD.
"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, 'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War' , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.…" (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM) "theater" strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, [http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy] , italics added)
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism" and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the "Battle for Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into "Islamic terrorism". Western governments are now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the West" In the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region… You can never say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized (reminiscent of demonization against the Jews under the Nazi Germany propaganda machine during World War II), casually identified with "Islamic terrorists", who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the "civilized World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America's humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a Critical Cross-roads:
Implications of Iran as an ally of Russia and China
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defence system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western mass-media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
Resistance to the Neo-fascist objectives of neo-conservative elites
The "anti-war movement" is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands" of the "international community". These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighbourhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, "expressing concern over Iran's nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
About the author
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, [www.globalresearch.ca] . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Discurso de posesión del presidente de Ecuador Rafael Correa: ¡Apunchik ñukanchik llaktata bediciachun!
Discurso de posesión del presidente de Ecuador
Queridos Compatriotas:
Hace ya más de 50 años, cuando nuestro país estaba devastado por la guerra y el caos, el gran Benjamín Carrión expresaba la necesidad de volver a tener Patria. Esta frase fue la inspiración de un puñado de ciudadanos que decidimos liberarnos de los grupos que han mantenido secuestrada a la Patria, y así emprender la lucha por una Revolución Ciudadana, consistente en el cambio radical, profundo y rápido del sistema político, económico y social vigente, sistema perverso que ha destruido nuestra democracia, nuestra economía y nuestra sociedad.
De esta forma empezamos esta cruzada llamada Alianza PAIS, más que con un lema de campaña, con una esperanza: la Patria Vuelve, y, con ella, vuelve el trabajo, vuelve la justicia, vuelven los millones de hermanos y hermanas expulsados de su propia tierra en esa tragedia nacional llamada migración.
Esta esperanza de unos cuantos se expandió cual fuego en pajonal, y se convirtió en la esperanza y decisión de todos los ecuatorianos que, en Noviembre 26 del 2006, escribieron una gesta heroica en el país y empezaron una nueva historia. Hoy, la patria ya es de todos.
Sin embargo, la lucha recién empieza. Noviembre 26 no fue un punto de llegada, fue un punto de partida, La Revolución Ciudadana recién se ha iniciado y nadie la podrá parar, mientras tengamos a un pueblo unido y decidido a cambiar.
Eje I.- Revolución constitucional
El primer eje de esa revolución ciudadana es la revolución constitucional. El mandato de la ciudadanía fue claro: queremos una transformación profunda, nuestras clases dirigentes han fracasado, queremos una democracia donde se oiga nuestra voz, donde nuestros representantes entiendan que son nuestros mandatarios, y que los ciudadanos somos sus mandantes.
La institucionalidad política del Ecuador ha colapsado, algunas veces por su diseño anacrónico y caduco, otras por las garras de la corrupción y las voracidades políticas. El reparto que refleja la Constitución vigente, a través de la politización de autoridades de control, tribunales, etc., ha desestabilizado e inmovilizado al país. El Congreso Nacional, supuestamente máxima expresión de la democracia representativa, no es percibido por la ciudadanía como su representante. Por el contrario, su pérdida de credibilidad refleja el desencanto de millones de hombres y mujeres que ansían un cambio. Las reformas anheladas no pueden limitarse a maquillajes. América Latina y el Ecuador no están viviendo una época de cambios, están viviendo un verdadero cambio de época. El momento histórico de la Patria y de toda el continente, exige una nueva Constitución que prepare al país para el Siglo XXI, una vez superado el dogma neoliberal y las democracias de plastilina que sometieron personas, vidas y sociedades a las entelequias del mercado.
El instrumento fundamental para este cambio es la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. En pocos minutos más, cumpliendo el mandato que el pueblo ecuatoriano me entregara el 26 de Noviembre pasado, y en uso de las atribuciones que la actual Constitución Política del Estado me confiere, convocaré a la consulta popular para que el soberano, el pueblo ecuatoriano, ordene o niegue esa Asamblea Nacional Constituyente de plenos poderes que busque superar el bloqueo político, económico y social en el que el país se encuentra.
Gracias al respaldo mayoritario a nuestra propuesta de transformación, las resistencias de algunas fuerzas políticas tradicionales han dado paso a un consenso de aceptación a nuestro proyecto, sin que haya mediado para ello ningún acuerdo oscuro o subterráneo. No negociaré con nadie la dignidad de la Patria. La Patria ya no está en venta. El oprobio del pasado histórico, con la venta de la bandera o pactos que canjeaban votos por prebendas, ha terminado para siempre.
Eje II.- Lucha contra la corrupción
El segundo eje de la revolución ciudadana es la lucha contra la corrupción, mal enraizado en nuestra sociedad, pero también exacerbado por modelos, políticas y doctrinas que ensalzaron el egoísmo, la competencia y la avaricia como el motor del desarrollo social.
Estas aberraciones también tuvieron fuertes efectos en la seguridad ciudadana y en los niveles de violencia, no solo por la inequidad y pauperización que las políticas aplicadas en los últimos años han generado, sino también porque si la competencia es buena en lo económico, ¿por qué no también competir en las calles? Para esa lucha contra la corrupción hemos buscado y seguimos buscando los mejores hombres y mujeres que con manos limpias, mentes lúcidas y corazones ardientes por la Patria, dirijan las diferentes instituciones del Estado, y, desde ahí, con todo el respaldo político de la Presidencia de la República, eliminen, con su ejemplo y su consagración ciudadana, este nefasto mal.
De igual manera, se mejorará la información del sector público, con proyectos como el gobierno electrónico, para que los ciudadanos puedan saber en qué se utilizan sus dineros, comparar precios unitarios de las compras públicas, etc. Endureceremos leyes que impidan la corrupción, como la Ley de Enriquecimiento Ilícito, y se la extenderá al sector privado, que también deberá justificar de dónde proviene su riqueza. Sin embargo, la lucha contra la corrupción debe ser la lucha de todo un pueblo, por lo que se organizarán veedurías ciudadanas en las instituciones susceptibles a la corrupción.
El perdón y olvido a nivel social, se llama impunidad, por lo que jamás olvidaremos los crímenes de los banqueros corruptos que nos quebraron, los atentados contra los derechos humanos, y otros tantos delitos y atracos aún sin sancionar.
Por otro lado, hay varias formas de corrupción, desde lucrar con dineros del Estado, hasta la evasión de impuestos, pasando por comportamientos, estructuras y, paradójicamente, leyes corruptas.
¿Acaso no fue corrupción los 18 jubilados muertos que tuvimos en el 2003 cuando pidieron por cerca de 2 meses un incremento de sus míseras pensiones? No los olvidamos, compañeros jubilados. ¿Acaso no fue corrupción el canje de deuda del año 2000, que explícitamente buscó mejorar el precio de los bonos en beneficio de los acreedores, mientras que el país estaba destruido? ¿Acaso no es corrupción la existencia de bancos centrales completamente autónomos, cuya opulencia es un insulto a la pobreza de nuestra gente, y que, además, no responden a controles democráticos, pero sí a burocracias internacionales? ¿Acaso no fue corrupción la Ley de Garantía de Depósitos, impuesta por el poder político de los banqueros, que obligó al Estado a garantizar el 100% de los depósitos bancarios, sin límites de monto, días antes de la quiebra generalizada de los bancos? Todo esto nos llevó a la dolarización de la economía, cuando en 1999 el Banco Central triplicó la emisión monetaria para el salvataje bancario. Hoy, ya no tenemos moneda nacional, no está más la simbología heroica del Mariscal de Ayacucho, pero los culpables de esta destrucción, la banca y el Banco Central, están más prósperos que nunca.
¿Acaso no es corrupción la existencia de leyes absurdas como la Ley de Transparencia Fiscal, que limita cualquier gasto, menos el servicio de la deuda?.
¿Acaso no fue corrupción esa barbaridad llamada Fondo de Estabilización, Inversión y Reducción del Endeudamiento Público -el tristemente célebre FEIREP- que con los recursos de la nueva extracción petrolera garantizaba el pago de deuda y recompraba ésta en forma anticipada y pre anunciada? De esta forma, nos han robado nuestro dinero, nuestros recursos naturales, nuestra soberanía... Pese a que la mayoría de estos hechos, por haber estado amparados en leyes corruptas, quedarán en la impunidad, el 26 de Noviembre del 2006 el pueblo ecuatoriano ya condenó a sus autores y actores al basurero de la historia.
Eje III Revolución Económica.
La política económica seguida por Ecuador desde finales de los ochenta se enmarcó fielmente en el paradigma de desarrollo dominante en América Latina, llamado 'neoliberalismo', con las inconsistencias propias de la corrupción, necesidad de mantener la subordinación económica y exigencia de servir la deuda externa. Todo este recetario de políticas obedeció al llamado 'Consenso de Washington', supuesto consenso en el que, para vergüenza de América Latina, ni siquiera participamos los latinoamericanos. Sin embargo, dichas 'políticas' no fueron solo impuestas, sino también agenciosamente aplaudidas, sin reflexión alguna, por nuestras élites y tecnocracias.
Los resultados de estas políticas están a la vista, y después de quince años de aplicación, las consecuencias han sido desastrosas. El Ecuador apenas ha crecido en términos per cápita en los últimos tres lustros, la inequidad ha aumentado, y el desempleo se ha duplicado con relación a las cifras de inicios de los noventa, pese a la masiva emigración de compatriotas ocurrida en los últimos años.
Se llegó al absurdo de defender como 'prudentes' políticas que destruyeron empleo, como aquellas aplicadas en los años 2003-2004. El dogmatismo fue tan grande, que se llamó 'populismo' a cualquier cosa que no entendiera el dogmatismo neoliberal. Por el contrario, cualquier cantinflada en función del mercado y del capital, se la asumió como 'técnica', en un verdadero 'populismo del capital'. Recordemos a manera de ejemplos, los bancos centrales autónomos y sin control democrático, el simplismo del libre comercio, las privatizaciones, la dolarización y tantas otras barbaridades.
Estas políticas han podido mantenerse sobre la base de engaños y actitudes antidemocráticas por parte de los beneficiarios de las mismas, con total respaldo de organismos multilaterales, los cuales disfrazaron de ciencia a una simple ideología, y cuyas supuestas investigaciones científicas se acercaron más a multimillonarias campañas de marketing ideológico que a trabajos académicos. Estos organismos también se convirtieron en representantes de los acreedores y en brazos ejecutores de la política exterior de determinados países, por lo que, además del fracaso económico, también se ha mermado la soberanía y representatividad del sistema democrático, siendo ésta una de las principales fuentes de ingobernabilidad en el país, incomprensible para la tecnocracia.
Felizmente, como decía el General Eloy Alfaro, la hora más oscura es la más próxima a la aurora, y el nefasto ciclo neoliberal ha sido definitivamente superado por los pueblos de nuestra América, como lo demuestran los procesos de Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua y ahora Ecuador.
De esta forma, la nueva conducción económica del Ecuador priorizará una política digna y soberana, es decir, más que liberar mercados, liberar al país de los atavismos y poderosos intereses nacionales e internacionales que lo dominan; con una clara opción preferencial por los más pobres y postergados; y priorizando al ser humano sobre el capital.
Sin embargo, Ecuador y Latinoamérica deben buscar no solo una nueva estrategia, sino también una nueva concepción de desarrollo, que no refleje únicamente percepciones, experiencias e intereses de grupos y países dominantes; que no someta sociedades, vidas y personas a la entelequia del mercado; donde el Estado, la planificación y la acción colectiva recuperen su papel esencial para el progreso; donde se preserven activos intangibles pero fundamentales como el capital social; y donde las aparentes exigencias de la economía, no sean excluyentes y, peor aún, antagónicas del desarrollo social.
Política soberana de endeudamiento y manejo de la deuda pública.
Con respecto a la deuda externa, uno de los principales desafíos del Ecuador es vencer la cultura de endeudamiento que hemos adquirido a través de los años, y que nos ha llevado a una situación de sobre endeudamiento altamente costosa para el país.
Con la nueva política de endeudamiento el país deberá utilizar tanto ahorro interno cuanto sea posible, y solo endeudarse cuando sea estrictamente indispensable. Para ello, se redefinirá la política de endeudamiento con los organismos multilaterales y gobiernos, y los préstamos externos se usarán fundamentalmente para inversiones productivas que generen flujo de divisas para pagar los préstamos, mientras que los proyectos sociales se financiarían con recursos propios.
Sin embargo, no habrá solución integral al problema de la deuda mientras no haya reformas a la arquitectura financiera internacional, por lo que es necesaria una acción concertada de los países deudores para redefinir el criterio de sustentabilidad del servicio de la deuda, determinar la deuda externa ilegítima, así como promover la creación de un Tribunal Internacional de Arbitraje de Deuda Soberana. Desde un punto netamente financiero, la sustentabilidad del servicio de la deuda significa todo lo que un país pueda pagar sin comprometer flujos financieros futuros, independientemente de los niveles de bienestar al que someta a su población. Un criterio de sustentabilidad adecuadamente definido debe considerar implicaciones de bienestar, como por ejemplo, el servicio de deuda que permita a los países endeudados alcanzar las Metas del Milenio. Por otro lado, existe deuda externa ilegítima, adquirida en situaciones dudosas, que no se utilizó para los fines para los que fue contratada, o que ya ha sido pagada varias veces. Luego de definir adecuadamente el criterio de sustentabilidad y lo que es deuda ilegítima, un Tribunal Internacional, imparcial y transparente, debería decidir la deuda a pagar, la capacidad de pago y modo de pago de los países endeudados. Cabe indicar que en estos momentos, no existe dicho tercero imparcial y los países endeudados tienen que acudir al FMI, es decir, al representante de los acreedores.
Por otro lado, mientras los países latinoamericanos deben y transfieren ingentes cantidades de recursos al primer mundo, lo cual impide su desarrollo, al mismo tiempo, los países de la cuenca amazónica constituyen el pulmón del planeta, pulmón sin el cual la vida en la tierra se extinguiría. Sin embargo, por ser el aire puro un bien de libre acceso, nuestros países no reciben la justa compensación por el servicio que generan. Con dichos fondos, se podría pagar a los acreedores de los países endeudados generadores de medio ambiente, sin comprometer el desarrollo de estos últimos, dentro de una lógica no de caridad, sino de estricta justicia.
Disminuir dependencia y vulnerabilidad a través de la integración regional: El Banco del SUR.
Por otro lado, los países latinoamericanos ni siquiera necesitarían de una condonación de deuda, sino de una adecuada reestructuración y financiamiento de la misma. De hecho, en el caso de Ecuador, la transferencia neta con los organismos internacionales es negativa, es decir, en general es más lo que paga que lo que recibe de estos organismos. Es claro que no se puede hablar de ayuda para el desarrollo mientras esta situación continúe. Con la nueva política económica, Ecuador comenzará a independizarse de los organismos internacionales representantes de paradigmas e intereses extranjeros, más aún cuando los créditos multilaterales y el financiamiento en general, son las nuevas formas de subordinar a nuestros países.
Por otro lado, al mismo tiempo que los países latinoamericanos buscan financiamiento, la región tiene centenas de miles de millones de dólares en reservas invertidos en el primer mundo, lo cual constituye un verdadero absurdo. Por ello, el traer esas reservas a la región, juntarlas y administrarlas adecuadamente en un Banco del SUR, es decir, el inicio de una gran integración financiera, más que un imperativo económico, constituye un imperativo del sentido común y de soberanía. Para ello, por supuesto, deberá acabar ese sin sentido técnico de la autonomía de los bancos centrales, que, a espaldas de nuestros países, envían nuestras reservas fuera de la región.
El trabajo humano.
Como dice la encíclica Laboren Exercem de Juan Pablo II, el trabajo humano no es un factor más de producción, sino el fin mismo de la producción. Sin embargo, el neoliberalismo redujo al trabajo humano a un simple instrumento más que hay que utilizar o desechar en función de las necesidades de acumulación del capital. Para esto, se generalizaron en América Latina formas de explotación laboral bastante bien disfrazadas con eufemismos como 'flexibilazación laboral', 'tercerización', 'contratos por horas', etc. Cabe indicar que, de acuerdo a múltiples estudios, esta 'flexibilización laboral' ha sido una de las reformas que menos resultados ha dado en la región, sin que exista con ella mayor crecimiento, pero sí una mayor precarización de la fuerza laboral, y con ello, mayor desigualdad y pobreza. Pero incluso si la flexibilización hubiere dado resultado, no podemos rebajar la dignidad del trabajo humano a una simple mercancía. Ya es hora entiender que el principal bien que exigen nuestras sociedades es el bien moral, y que la explotación laboral, en aras de supuestas competitividades, es sencillamente inmoral. Uno de las principales razones para la explotación laboral ha sido la falacia de la competencia. Este es un principio ya bastante cuestionado entre agentes económicos al interior de un país, pero es un verdadero absurdo entre países, donde debe primar la lógica de la cooperación, de la complementaridad, de la coordinación, del desarrollo mutuo. Esta globalización neoliberal, inhumana y cruel, que nos quiere convertir en mercados y no en naciones, que nos quiere hacer tan solo consumidores y no ciudadanos del mundo, es muy similar en términos conceptuales al capitalismo salvaje de la Revolución Industrial, donde antes de que, por medio de la acción colectiva, las naciones lograsen en su interior leyes de protección laboral, la explotación no tuvo límites. Ya es hora de que, en la búsqueda de una nueva forma de integración que supere la visión puramente mercantilista, nuestros países adopten una legislación laboral regional, que recupere la centralidad del trabajo humano en el proceso productivo y en la vida de nuestras sociedades, y que evite este absurdo de competir deteriorando las condiciones laborales de nuestra gente. En todo caso, en Noviembre 26 del 2006, se firmó también la partida de defunción de la explotación laboral en el Ecuador, y sobretodo de esa farsa llamada 'tercerización'.
Eje IV La Revolución en Educación y Salud.
En cuanto a nuestro IV Eje, la revolución en las políticas sociales, partiremos del principio de que la inversión en el ser humano, además de ser un fin en sí mismo, constituye la mejor política para un crecimiento de largo plazo con equidad. Sin embargo, Ecuador es uno de los cinco países latinoamericanos con menor inversión social por habitante, siendo su gasto social per cápita aproximadamente la cuarta parte del promedio de la región. Es necesario, entonces, revertir esta situación, para lo cual se requiere liberar recursos de otras áreas, y básicamente del insoportable peso de la deuda externa. Por ello, iremos a una renegociación soberana y firme de la deuda externa ecuatoriana, y, sobretodo, de las inadmisibles condiciones que nos impusieron en el canje del año 2000.
No obstante lo anterior, los países exitosos no solo han tenido un alto capital humano, sino que también han sido sociedades motivadas, con energías intrínsecas, mirando juntos hacia los mismos objetivos, socialmente cohesionados, conjunto de características que se conocen como 'capital social'.
Lamentablemente, en las últimas décadas es claro el deterioro del capital social del Ecuador, fenómeno que en gran medida puede ser vinculado a una estrategia de desarrollo basada en el individualismo de mercado y a los programas de estabilización y ajuste estructural frecuentemente diseñados en función del cumplimiento de compromisos externos, obviando los grandes compromisos nacionales y de esta forma fracturando la cohesión social.
En consecuencia, nuestra política económica integrará explícitamente sus efectos sobre el capital humano y social, considerando su preservación como fundamental para el desarrollo y por encima de temporales y muchas veces aparentes logros económicos. En este sentido, la política social debe ser diseñada como una parte fundamental de la política económica, y no simplemente con un criterio asistencialista y como remiendo de esta última.
Otro costo desgarrador de la crisis: La Emigración Ecuatoriana.
Sin duda, el mayor costo del fracaso del modelo neoliberal y la consiguiente destrucción de empleo, ha sido la migración. En la historia política de América, una de las práticas más aberrantes fue la del destierro, que se inició con los mitimaes, en transplantes forzosos de comunidades que fueron disgregadas de su entorno original. La migración supone precisamente este tipo de ofensas a la humanidad, de desarraigos y desgarramientos familiares. Los exiliados de la pobreza, en nuestro país, suman millones, y, paradójicamente, son quienes, con el sudor de su frente, han mantenido viva la economía a través del envío de remesas, mientras los privilegiados despachan el dinero hacia el exterior. Solamente la banca ecuatoriana tiene cerca de dos mil millones de dólares de ahorro nacional depositados en el extranjero, en nombre, según su particular visión, de supuestas prudencias, eufemismo que disfraza su falta de confianza y compromiso con el país. Que a todos les quede claro: a este país lo mantienen los pobres.
Un agravante a esta situación consiste en que los millones de inmigrantes, pese a su esfuerzo de Patria y a sostener en gran parte la economía del país, ni siquiera tienen representación política. Esta situación inadmisible se empezará a corregir desde la próxima Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, donde habrá tres asambleístas por parte de esa Quinta Región del país: los hermanos migrantes. De igual manera se dará a los migrantes representación legislativa permanente, y se creará la Secretaría Nacional del Migrante, con rango de ministerios, para velar eficazmente por el bienestar de nuestros hermanos en el extranjero y de sus familias en la nación.
Sectores vulnerables de la sociedad
Otro sector de enorme vulnerabilidad en nuestra sociedad es el de la población carcelaria. Existe en ese laberinto de culpabilidad una suerte de ciego rumor del que emergen dolor, soledad y desamparo. Las leyes impuestas en los años noventa en la América Latina suponen que el problema de la droga solo tiene una salida: la represión, y aquel concepto, muchas veces agenciado por lacayos, impuso condenas aún más severas que las aplicadas a delitos contra la vida. Esas sentencias, para hacer méritos ante patrones extranjeros, jamás consideraron la naturaleza de la infracción, y, como consecuencia de ello, nuestra población carcelaria, en un alto porcentaje, no tiene rostro delincuencial, sino caras de madres solteras, de jefes de familia empobrecidos, de jóvenes sin trabajo, forzados por la miseria a transportar unos cuantos gramos de droga, por los que sufren penas de reclusión de 8, 12, 16 años. A esa población carcelaria no la olvidaremos. Como jamás podremos olvidar a las internas de la tercera edad sentenciadas por quienes quieren quedar bien con los patrones; a los extranjeros que se pudren en un suelo ajeno; a los niños que viven el calvario de pérdida de libertad de sus padres. No los olvidaremos.
Discriminación.
De igual manera lucharemos contra la discriminación en todas sus formas, sobretodo la de género y étnica. Aunque todavía nos falta mucho por hacer, ya hemos dado los primeros pasos al contar por primera vez en la historia con un gabinete donde más del 40% de sus miembros son mujeres, así como al tener el primer ministro afroecuatoriano de la historia del país, nuestro entrañable poeta Antonio Preciado.
Grupos más vulnerables.
Finalmente, no nos olvidamos de los niños de las calles, del trabajo infantil, de las madres solteras, de los enfermos terminales, de los discapacitados, y de tantos grupos postergados de nuestra sociedad. Para ellos, se creará la Secretaría de Solidaridad Ciudadana, a cargo de ese extraordinario hombre, patriota y compañero de lucha, nuestro Vicepresidente Lenín Moreno.
Eje V: rescate de la dignidad, soberanía y búsqueda de la integración latinoamericana.
Ecuador se integra desde hoy y de manera decidida a la construcción de la Gran Nación Sudamericana, aquella utopía de Bolívar y San Martín, que, gracias a la voluntad de nuestros pueblos, verá la luz, y, con sus centellas históricas será capaz de ofrecer otros horizontes de hermandad y fraternidad a los pueblos sudamericanos, pueblos justos, altivos, soberanos.
Cuando hace medio milenio los primeros europeos llegaron a las tierras que hoy se conocen como América, encontraron un paraíso donde los seres humanos vivían armónicamente con la naturaleza. Por miles de años, tribus, pueblos y civilizaciones fueron construyendo un mundo en el que la Paccha Mama, la madre tierra era respetada, porque era la madre primaria, la madre de todas las madres. Tres siglos de conquista y de colonia marcaron para siempre a los hombres y a la tierra americana.
Hace mas de dos siglos surgen los próceres, indígenas, negros, blancos y mestizos. Son los hijos del sol y la razón, en la que se destaca el médico, el precursor, el hombre universal, Eugenio Espejo, que representa el despertar primero de esta América insurgente.
Miranda consolida el pensamiento en propuesta estratégica y Simón Rodríguez entiende que las repúblicas sin republicanos se convertirán en simples republiquetas, como hoy, cuando parafraseamos al maestro y decimos: una nación sin ciudadanos no es una nación.
Por esos años, un 10 de Agosto de 1809, la llama se enciende en Quito, conocida desde entonces como Luz de América. Esa generación insumisa fue exterminada por los colonialistas, pero sería un hombre, único y genial, quien habría de emprender, desde Caracas, la heroica lucha de la independencia americana, acompañado de Manuela Sáenz, que tejió su bandera revolucionaria con retazos de amor, de talento y de decisión sublime.
Había un solo camino y Bolívar lo comprendió al condicionar nuestro destino común a la creación de 'Una Nación de Repúblicas hermanas'. Doscientos años han pasado sin que el sueño bolivariano pueda concretarse. ¿Tendremos que esperar doscientos años más para lograrlo? Recordando al propio Bolívar, cuando los temerosos y los pusilánimes le reclamaban su vehemencia por la causa de la independencia americana y le decían que había que esperar, el joven y futuro Libertador les respondió, ¿es que trescientos años de espera no son suficientes? Y años más tarde, el gran poeta Pablo Neruda, invocaba al Libertador, al decir:
Yo conocí a Bolívar una mañana larga
En la boca del Quinto regimiento
Padre, le dije
Eres o no eres o quién eres
Y mirando el cuartel de la montaña dijo
Despierto cada cien años cuando despierta el pueblo
Y fue 100 años después de la gesta libertaria bolivariana que volvió a despertar el pueblo, liderado por el General Eloy Alfaro -discípulo de Montalvo y amigo de Martí-, para quien 'en la demora estaba el peligro'. Ahora, a los cien años de última Presidencia de Alfaro, nuevamente ese despertar es incontenible y contagioso. Solamente ayer, en el páramo de Zumbahua, con nuestros hermanos indígenas, se repetía aquel coral rebelde y cívico que inunda las calles de América: 'Alerta, alerta, alerta que camina la espada de Bolívar por América Latina'
Ahora nos toca a nosotros, Señores Presidentes. Los pueblos no nos perdonarán si no logramos avanzar en la integración de Nuestra América, para usar la entrañable concepción de Martí. Por esta historia de sueños compartidos, el gobierno ecuatoriano manifiesta a sus hermanos su compromiso profundo con la integración de nuestros pueblos. Esperamos el regreso de Venezuela a la CAN, para que junto al Mercosur, a Chile, Surinam y Guayana, se concrete lo antes posible la institucionalización de la Comunidad Sudamericana y las acciones sociales, culturales, económicas y políticas tan enunciadas y ofrecidas en palabras se hagan carne y realidad.
El gobierno del Ecuador, como ustedes lo conocen ya, Señores Presidentes y representantes de los países sudamericanos, ofrece a Quito, Luz de América, como un espacio para la reflexión y construcción de la Comunidad Sudamericana. Que la futura Secretaría Permanente se instale en tierras ecuatorianas, si ustedes señores presidentes lo consideran oportuno y conveniente..
Hagamos honor al sacrificio de los próceres y libertadores y al clamor de nuestros pueblos para que Sudamérica se convierta en ejemplo ante el mundo de una Gran Nación Sustentable de Repúblicas Hermanas, para el bien nuestro y ejemplo para toda la humanidad.
Despedida
Queridos ecuatorianos y ecuatorianas: Llegó la hora. No hay que temer miedo. Aquel que caminó sobre la mar y calmó tempestades, también nos ayudará a superar estos difíciles pero esperanzadores momentos. No nos olvidemos que el Reino de Dios debe ser construido aquí, en la tierra. Pidan por mí para que el Señor me dé un corazón grande para amar, pero también fuerte para luchar. Martin Luther King decía que su sueño era ver una Norteamérica donde blancos y negros puedan compartir la escuela, la mesa, la Nación. Mi sueño, desde la humildad de mi Patria morena, es ver un país sin miseria, sin niños en la calle, una Patria sin opulencia, pero digna y feliz
Una Patria amiga, repartida entre todos. Ahora, con el corazón les repito: jamás defraudaré a mis compatriotas, y consagraré todo mi esfuerzo, con la ayuda de Dios y bajo las sombras libertarias de Bolívar y de Alfaro, a luchar por mi país, por esa Patria justa, altiva y soberana, que todos soñamos y que todos merecemos.
Dios bendiga al pueblo ecuatoriano. Mashikuna
Ñami punchaka chayashka
Shuk shikan, mushk llaktata shaychinaka usharinmari
Ñukanchik gobiernoka tukuy runakunapa gobiernomi kanka.
Pi mana ñukanchikta atinkakunachu.
¡Apunchik ñukanchik llaktata bediciachun!
"Más que liberar mercados, liberar al país de los atavismos y poderosos intereses nacionales e internacionales"
Rafael Correa
Queridos Compatriotas:
Hace ya más de 50 años, cuando nuestro país estaba devastado por la guerra y el caos, el gran Benjamín Carrión expresaba la necesidad de volver a tener Patria. Esta frase fue la inspiración de un puñado de ciudadanos que decidimos liberarnos de los grupos que han mantenido secuestrada a la Patria, y así emprender la lucha por una Revolución Ciudadana, consistente en el cambio radical, profundo y rápido del sistema político, económico y social vigente, sistema perverso que ha destruido nuestra democracia, nuestra economía y nuestra sociedad.
De esta forma empezamos esta cruzada llamada Alianza PAIS, más que con un lema de campaña, con una esperanza: la Patria Vuelve, y, con ella, vuelve el trabajo, vuelve la justicia, vuelven los millones de hermanos y hermanas expulsados de su propia tierra en esa tragedia nacional llamada migración.
Esta esperanza de unos cuantos se expandió cual fuego en pajonal, y se convirtió en la esperanza y decisión de todos los ecuatorianos que, en Noviembre 26 del 2006, escribieron una gesta heroica en el país y empezaron una nueva historia. Hoy, la patria ya es de todos.
Sin embargo, la lucha recién empieza. Noviembre 26 no fue un punto de llegada, fue un punto de partida, La Revolución Ciudadana recién se ha iniciado y nadie la podrá parar, mientras tengamos a un pueblo unido y decidido a cambiar.
Eje I.- Revolución constitucional
El primer eje de esa revolución ciudadana es la revolución constitucional. El mandato de la ciudadanía fue claro: queremos una transformación profunda, nuestras clases dirigentes han fracasado, queremos una democracia donde se oiga nuestra voz, donde nuestros representantes entiendan que son nuestros mandatarios, y que los ciudadanos somos sus mandantes.
La institucionalidad política del Ecuador ha colapsado, algunas veces por su diseño anacrónico y caduco, otras por las garras de la corrupción y las voracidades políticas. El reparto que refleja la Constitución vigente, a través de la politización de autoridades de control, tribunales, etc., ha desestabilizado e inmovilizado al país. El Congreso Nacional, supuestamente máxima expresión de la democracia representativa, no es percibido por la ciudadanía como su representante. Por el contrario, su pérdida de credibilidad refleja el desencanto de millones de hombres y mujeres que ansían un cambio. Las reformas anheladas no pueden limitarse a maquillajes. América Latina y el Ecuador no están viviendo una época de cambios, están viviendo un verdadero cambio de época. El momento histórico de la Patria y de toda el continente, exige una nueva Constitución que prepare al país para el Siglo XXI, una vez superado el dogma neoliberal y las democracias de plastilina que sometieron personas, vidas y sociedades a las entelequias del mercado.
El instrumento fundamental para este cambio es la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. En pocos minutos más, cumpliendo el mandato que el pueblo ecuatoriano me entregara el 26 de Noviembre pasado, y en uso de las atribuciones que la actual Constitución Política del Estado me confiere, convocaré a la consulta popular para que el soberano, el pueblo ecuatoriano, ordene o niegue esa Asamblea Nacional Constituyente de plenos poderes que busque superar el bloqueo político, económico y social en el que el país se encuentra.
Gracias al respaldo mayoritario a nuestra propuesta de transformación, las resistencias de algunas fuerzas políticas tradicionales han dado paso a un consenso de aceptación a nuestro proyecto, sin que haya mediado para ello ningún acuerdo oscuro o subterráneo. No negociaré con nadie la dignidad de la Patria. La Patria ya no está en venta. El oprobio del pasado histórico, con la venta de la bandera o pactos que canjeaban votos por prebendas, ha terminado para siempre.
Eje II.- Lucha contra la corrupción
El segundo eje de la revolución ciudadana es la lucha contra la corrupción, mal enraizado en nuestra sociedad, pero también exacerbado por modelos, políticas y doctrinas que ensalzaron el egoísmo, la competencia y la avaricia como el motor del desarrollo social.
Estas aberraciones también tuvieron fuertes efectos en la seguridad ciudadana y en los niveles de violencia, no solo por la inequidad y pauperización que las políticas aplicadas en los últimos años han generado, sino también porque si la competencia es buena en lo económico, ¿por qué no también competir en las calles? Para esa lucha contra la corrupción hemos buscado y seguimos buscando los mejores hombres y mujeres que con manos limpias, mentes lúcidas y corazones ardientes por la Patria, dirijan las diferentes instituciones del Estado, y, desde ahí, con todo el respaldo político de la Presidencia de la República, eliminen, con su ejemplo y su consagración ciudadana, este nefasto mal.
De igual manera, se mejorará la información del sector público, con proyectos como el gobierno electrónico, para que los ciudadanos puedan saber en qué se utilizan sus dineros, comparar precios unitarios de las compras públicas, etc. Endureceremos leyes que impidan la corrupción, como la Ley de Enriquecimiento Ilícito, y se la extenderá al sector privado, que también deberá justificar de dónde proviene su riqueza. Sin embargo, la lucha contra la corrupción debe ser la lucha de todo un pueblo, por lo que se organizarán veedurías ciudadanas en las instituciones susceptibles a la corrupción.
El perdón y olvido a nivel social, se llama impunidad, por lo que jamás olvidaremos los crímenes de los banqueros corruptos que nos quebraron, los atentados contra los derechos humanos, y otros tantos delitos y atracos aún sin sancionar.
Por otro lado, hay varias formas de corrupción, desde lucrar con dineros del Estado, hasta la evasión de impuestos, pasando por comportamientos, estructuras y, paradójicamente, leyes corruptas.
¿Acaso no fue corrupción los 18 jubilados muertos que tuvimos en el 2003 cuando pidieron por cerca de 2 meses un incremento de sus míseras pensiones? No los olvidamos, compañeros jubilados. ¿Acaso no fue corrupción el canje de deuda del año 2000, que explícitamente buscó mejorar el precio de los bonos en beneficio de los acreedores, mientras que el país estaba destruido? ¿Acaso no es corrupción la existencia de bancos centrales completamente autónomos, cuya opulencia es un insulto a la pobreza de nuestra gente, y que, además, no responden a controles democráticos, pero sí a burocracias internacionales? ¿Acaso no fue corrupción la Ley de Garantía de Depósitos, impuesta por el poder político de los banqueros, que obligó al Estado a garantizar el 100% de los depósitos bancarios, sin límites de monto, días antes de la quiebra generalizada de los bancos? Todo esto nos llevó a la dolarización de la economía, cuando en 1999 el Banco Central triplicó la emisión monetaria para el salvataje bancario. Hoy, ya no tenemos moneda nacional, no está más la simbología heroica del Mariscal de Ayacucho, pero los culpables de esta destrucción, la banca y el Banco Central, están más prósperos que nunca.
¿Acaso no es corrupción la existencia de leyes absurdas como la Ley de Transparencia Fiscal, que limita cualquier gasto, menos el servicio de la deuda?.
¿Acaso no fue corrupción esa barbaridad llamada Fondo de Estabilización, Inversión y Reducción del Endeudamiento Público -el tristemente célebre FEIREP- que con los recursos de la nueva extracción petrolera garantizaba el pago de deuda y recompraba ésta en forma anticipada y pre anunciada? De esta forma, nos han robado nuestro dinero, nuestros recursos naturales, nuestra soberanía... Pese a que la mayoría de estos hechos, por haber estado amparados en leyes corruptas, quedarán en la impunidad, el 26 de Noviembre del 2006 el pueblo ecuatoriano ya condenó a sus autores y actores al basurero de la historia.
Eje III Revolución Económica.
La política económica seguida por Ecuador desde finales de los ochenta se enmarcó fielmente en el paradigma de desarrollo dominante en América Latina, llamado 'neoliberalismo', con las inconsistencias propias de la corrupción, necesidad de mantener la subordinación económica y exigencia de servir la deuda externa. Todo este recetario de políticas obedeció al llamado 'Consenso de Washington', supuesto consenso en el que, para vergüenza de América Latina, ni siquiera participamos los latinoamericanos. Sin embargo, dichas 'políticas' no fueron solo impuestas, sino también agenciosamente aplaudidas, sin reflexión alguna, por nuestras élites y tecnocracias.
Los resultados de estas políticas están a la vista, y después de quince años de aplicación, las consecuencias han sido desastrosas. El Ecuador apenas ha crecido en términos per cápita en los últimos tres lustros, la inequidad ha aumentado, y el desempleo se ha duplicado con relación a las cifras de inicios de los noventa, pese a la masiva emigración de compatriotas ocurrida en los últimos años.
Se llegó al absurdo de defender como 'prudentes' políticas que destruyeron empleo, como aquellas aplicadas en los años 2003-2004. El dogmatismo fue tan grande, que se llamó 'populismo' a cualquier cosa que no entendiera el dogmatismo neoliberal. Por el contrario, cualquier cantinflada en función del mercado y del capital, se la asumió como 'técnica', en un verdadero 'populismo del capital'. Recordemos a manera de ejemplos, los bancos centrales autónomos y sin control democrático, el simplismo del libre comercio, las privatizaciones, la dolarización y tantas otras barbaridades.
Estas políticas han podido mantenerse sobre la base de engaños y actitudes antidemocráticas por parte de los beneficiarios de las mismas, con total respaldo de organismos multilaterales, los cuales disfrazaron de ciencia a una simple ideología, y cuyas supuestas investigaciones científicas se acercaron más a multimillonarias campañas de marketing ideológico que a trabajos académicos. Estos organismos también se convirtieron en representantes de los acreedores y en brazos ejecutores de la política exterior de determinados países, por lo que, además del fracaso económico, también se ha mermado la soberanía y representatividad del sistema democrático, siendo ésta una de las principales fuentes de ingobernabilidad en el país, incomprensible para la tecnocracia.
Felizmente, como decía el General Eloy Alfaro, la hora más oscura es la más próxima a la aurora, y el nefasto ciclo neoliberal ha sido definitivamente superado por los pueblos de nuestra América, como lo demuestran los procesos de Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua y ahora Ecuador.
De esta forma, la nueva conducción económica del Ecuador priorizará una política digna y soberana, es decir, más que liberar mercados, liberar al país de los atavismos y poderosos intereses nacionales e internacionales que lo dominan; con una clara opción preferencial por los más pobres y postergados; y priorizando al ser humano sobre el capital.
Sin embargo, Ecuador y Latinoamérica deben buscar no solo una nueva estrategia, sino también una nueva concepción de desarrollo, que no refleje únicamente percepciones, experiencias e intereses de grupos y países dominantes; que no someta sociedades, vidas y personas a la entelequia del mercado; donde el Estado, la planificación y la acción colectiva recuperen su papel esencial para el progreso; donde se preserven activos intangibles pero fundamentales como el capital social; y donde las aparentes exigencias de la economía, no sean excluyentes y, peor aún, antagónicas del desarrollo social.
Política soberana de endeudamiento y manejo de la deuda pública.
Con respecto a la deuda externa, uno de los principales desafíos del Ecuador es vencer la cultura de endeudamiento que hemos adquirido a través de los años, y que nos ha llevado a una situación de sobre endeudamiento altamente costosa para el país.
Con la nueva política de endeudamiento el país deberá utilizar tanto ahorro interno cuanto sea posible, y solo endeudarse cuando sea estrictamente indispensable. Para ello, se redefinirá la política de endeudamiento con los organismos multilaterales y gobiernos, y los préstamos externos se usarán fundamentalmente para inversiones productivas que generen flujo de divisas para pagar los préstamos, mientras que los proyectos sociales se financiarían con recursos propios.
Sin embargo, no habrá solución integral al problema de la deuda mientras no haya reformas a la arquitectura financiera internacional, por lo que es necesaria una acción concertada de los países deudores para redefinir el criterio de sustentabilidad del servicio de la deuda, determinar la deuda externa ilegítima, así como promover la creación de un Tribunal Internacional de Arbitraje de Deuda Soberana. Desde un punto netamente financiero, la sustentabilidad del servicio de la deuda significa todo lo que un país pueda pagar sin comprometer flujos financieros futuros, independientemente de los niveles de bienestar al que someta a su población. Un criterio de sustentabilidad adecuadamente definido debe considerar implicaciones de bienestar, como por ejemplo, el servicio de deuda que permita a los países endeudados alcanzar las Metas del Milenio. Por otro lado, existe deuda externa ilegítima, adquirida en situaciones dudosas, que no se utilizó para los fines para los que fue contratada, o que ya ha sido pagada varias veces. Luego de definir adecuadamente el criterio de sustentabilidad y lo que es deuda ilegítima, un Tribunal Internacional, imparcial y transparente, debería decidir la deuda a pagar, la capacidad de pago y modo de pago de los países endeudados. Cabe indicar que en estos momentos, no existe dicho tercero imparcial y los países endeudados tienen que acudir al FMI, es decir, al representante de los acreedores.
Por otro lado, mientras los países latinoamericanos deben y transfieren ingentes cantidades de recursos al primer mundo, lo cual impide su desarrollo, al mismo tiempo, los países de la cuenca amazónica constituyen el pulmón del planeta, pulmón sin el cual la vida en la tierra se extinguiría. Sin embargo, por ser el aire puro un bien de libre acceso, nuestros países no reciben la justa compensación por el servicio que generan. Con dichos fondos, se podría pagar a los acreedores de los países endeudados generadores de medio ambiente, sin comprometer el desarrollo de estos últimos, dentro de una lógica no de caridad, sino de estricta justicia.
Disminuir dependencia y vulnerabilidad a través de la integración regional: El Banco del SUR.
Por otro lado, los países latinoamericanos ni siquiera necesitarían de una condonación de deuda, sino de una adecuada reestructuración y financiamiento de la misma. De hecho, en el caso de Ecuador, la transferencia neta con los organismos internacionales es negativa, es decir, en general es más lo que paga que lo que recibe de estos organismos. Es claro que no se puede hablar de ayuda para el desarrollo mientras esta situación continúe. Con la nueva política económica, Ecuador comenzará a independizarse de los organismos internacionales representantes de paradigmas e intereses extranjeros, más aún cuando los créditos multilaterales y el financiamiento en general, son las nuevas formas de subordinar a nuestros países.
Por otro lado, al mismo tiempo que los países latinoamericanos buscan financiamiento, la región tiene centenas de miles de millones de dólares en reservas invertidos en el primer mundo, lo cual constituye un verdadero absurdo. Por ello, el traer esas reservas a la región, juntarlas y administrarlas adecuadamente en un Banco del SUR, es decir, el inicio de una gran integración financiera, más que un imperativo económico, constituye un imperativo del sentido común y de soberanía. Para ello, por supuesto, deberá acabar ese sin sentido técnico de la autonomía de los bancos centrales, que, a espaldas de nuestros países, envían nuestras reservas fuera de la región.
El trabajo humano.
Como dice la encíclica Laboren Exercem de Juan Pablo II, el trabajo humano no es un factor más de producción, sino el fin mismo de la producción. Sin embargo, el neoliberalismo redujo al trabajo humano a un simple instrumento más que hay que utilizar o desechar en función de las necesidades de acumulación del capital. Para esto, se generalizaron en América Latina formas de explotación laboral bastante bien disfrazadas con eufemismos como 'flexibilazación laboral', 'tercerización', 'contratos por horas', etc. Cabe indicar que, de acuerdo a múltiples estudios, esta 'flexibilización laboral' ha sido una de las reformas que menos resultados ha dado en la región, sin que exista con ella mayor crecimiento, pero sí una mayor precarización de la fuerza laboral, y con ello, mayor desigualdad y pobreza. Pero incluso si la flexibilización hubiere dado resultado, no podemos rebajar la dignidad del trabajo humano a una simple mercancía. Ya es hora entiender que el principal bien que exigen nuestras sociedades es el bien moral, y que la explotación laboral, en aras de supuestas competitividades, es sencillamente inmoral. Uno de las principales razones para la explotación laboral ha sido la falacia de la competencia. Este es un principio ya bastante cuestionado entre agentes económicos al interior de un país, pero es un verdadero absurdo entre países, donde debe primar la lógica de la cooperación, de la complementaridad, de la coordinación, del desarrollo mutuo. Esta globalización neoliberal, inhumana y cruel, que nos quiere convertir en mercados y no en naciones, que nos quiere hacer tan solo consumidores y no ciudadanos del mundo, es muy similar en términos conceptuales al capitalismo salvaje de la Revolución Industrial, donde antes de que, por medio de la acción colectiva, las naciones lograsen en su interior leyes de protección laboral, la explotación no tuvo límites. Ya es hora de que, en la búsqueda de una nueva forma de integración que supere la visión puramente mercantilista, nuestros países adopten una legislación laboral regional, que recupere la centralidad del trabajo humano en el proceso productivo y en la vida de nuestras sociedades, y que evite este absurdo de competir deteriorando las condiciones laborales de nuestra gente. En todo caso, en Noviembre 26 del 2006, se firmó también la partida de defunción de la explotación laboral en el Ecuador, y sobretodo de esa farsa llamada 'tercerización'.
Eje IV La Revolución en Educación y Salud.
En cuanto a nuestro IV Eje, la revolución en las políticas sociales, partiremos del principio de que la inversión en el ser humano, además de ser un fin en sí mismo, constituye la mejor política para un crecimiento de largo plazo con equidad. Sin embargo, Ecuador es uno de los cinco países latinoamericanos con menor inversión social por habitante, siendo su gasto social per cápita aproximadamente la cuarta parte del promedio de la región. Es necesario, entonces, revertir esta situación, para lo cual se requiere liberar recursos de otras áreas, y básicamente del insoportable peso de la deuda externa. Por ello, iremos a una renegociación soberana y firme de la deuda externa ecuatoriana, y, sobretodo, de las inadmisibles condiciones que nos impusieron en el canje del año 2000.
No obstante lo anterior, los países exitosos no solo han tenido un alto capital humano, sino que también han sido sociedades motivadas, con energías intrínsecas, mirando juntos hacia los mismos objetivos, socialmente cohesionados, conjunto de características que se conocen como 'capital social'.
Lamentablemente, en las últimas décadas es claro el deterioro del capital social del Ecuador, fenómeno que en gran medida puede ser vinculado a una estrategia de desarrollo basada en el individualismo de mercado y a los programas de estabilización y ajuste estructural frecuentemente diseñados en función del cumplimiento de compromisos externos, obviando los grandes compromisos nacionales y de esta forma fracturando la cohesión social.
En consecuencia, nuestra política económica integrará explícitamente sus efectos sobre el capital humano y social, considerando su preservación como fundamental para el desarrollo y por encima de temporales y muchas veces aparentes logros económicos. En este sentido, la política social debe ser diseñada como una parte fundamental de la política económica, y no simplemente con un criterio asistencialista y como remiendo de esta última.
Otro costo desgarrador de la crisis: La Emigración Ecuatoriana.
Sin duda, el mayor costo del fracaso del modelo neoliberal y la consiguiente destrucción de empleo, ha sido la migración. En la historia política de América, una de las práticas más aberrantes fue la del destierro, que se inició con los mitimaes, en transplantes forzosos de comunidades que fueron disgregadas de su entorno original. La migración supone precisamente este tipo de ofensas a la humanidad, de desarraigos y desgarramientos familiares. Los exiliados de la pobreza, en nuestro país, suman millones, y, paradójicamente, son quienes, con el sudor de su frente, han mantenido viva la economía a través del envío de remesas, mientras los privilegiados despachan el dinero hacia el exterior. Solamente la banca ecuatoriana tiene cerca de dos mil millones de dólares de ahorro nacional depositados en el extranjero, en nombre, según su particular visión, de supuestas prudencias, eufemismo que disfraza su falta de confianza y compromiso con el país. Que a todos les quede claro: a este país lo mantienen los pobres.
Un agravante a esta situación consiste en que los millones de inmigrantes, pese a su esfuerzo de Patria y a sostener en gran parte la economía del país, ni siquiera tienen representación política. Esta situación inadmisible se empezará a corregir desde la próxima Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, donde habrá tres asambleístas por parte de esa Quinta Región del país: los hermanos migrantes. De igual manera se dará a los migrantes representación legislativa permanente, y se creará la Secretaría Nacional del Migrante, con rango de ministerios, para velar eficazmente por el bienestar de nuestros hermanos en el extranjero y de sus familias en la nación.
Sectores vulnerables de la sociedad
Otro sector de enorme vulnerabilidad en nuestra sociedad es el de la población carcelaria. Existe en ese laberinto de culpabilidad una suerte de ciego rumor del que emergen dolor, soledad y desamparo. Las leyes impuestas en los años noventa en la América Latina suponen que el problema de la droga solo tiene una salida: la represión, y aquel concepto, muchas veces agenciado por lacayos, impuso condenas aún más severas que las aplicadas a delitos contra la vida. Esas sentencias, para hacer méritos ante patrones extranjeros, jamás consideraron la naturaleza de la infracción, y, como consecuencia de ello, nuestra población carcelaria, en un alto porcentaje, no tiene rostro delincuencial, sino caras de madres solteras, de jefes de familia empobrecidos, de jóvenes sin trabajo, forzados por la miseria a transportar unos cuantos gramos de droga, por los que sufren penas de reclusión de 8, 12, 16 años. A esa población carcelaria no la olvidaremos. Como jamás podremos olvidar a las internas de la tercera edad sentenciadas por quienes quieren quedar bien con los patrones; a los extranjeros que se pudren en un suelo ajeno; a los niños que viven el calvario de pérdida de libertad de sus padres. No los olvidaremos.
Discriminación.
De igual manera lucharemos contra la discriminación en todas sus formas, sobretodo la de género y étnica. Aunque todavía nos falta mucho por hacer, ya hemos dado los primeros pasos al contar por primera vez en la historia con un gabinete donde más del 40% de sus miembros son mujeres, así como al tener el primer ministro afroecuatoriano de la historia del país, nuestro entrañable poeta Antonio Preciado.
Grupos más vulnerables.
Finalmente, no nos olvidamos de los niños de las calles, del trabajo infantil, de las madres solteras, de los enfermos terminales, de los discapacitados, y de tantos grupos postergados de nuestra sociedad. Para ellos, se creará la Secretaría de Solidaridad Ciudadana, a cargo de ese extraordinario hombre, patriota y compañero de lucha, nuestro Vicepresidente Lenín Moreno.
Eje V: rescate de la dignidad, soberanía y búsqueda de la integración latinoamericana.
Ecuador se integra desde hoy y de manera decidida a la construcción de la Gran Nación Sudamericana, aquella utopía de Bolívar y San Martín, que, gracias a la voluntad de nuestros pueblos, verá la luz, y, con sus centellas históricas será capaz de ofrecer otros horizontes de hermandad y fraternidad a los pueblos sudamericanos, pueblos justos, altivos, soberanos.
Cuando hace medio milenio los primeros europeos llegaron a las tierras que hoy se conocen como América, encontraron un paraíso donde los seres humanos vivían armónicamente con la naturaleza. Por miles de años, tribus, pueblos y civilizaciones fueron construyendo un mundo en el que la Paccha Mama, la madre tierra era respetada, porque era la madre primaria, la madre de todas las madres. Tres siglos de conquista y de colonia marcaron para siempre a los hombres y a la tierra americana.
Hace mas de dos siglos surgen los próceres, indígenas, negros, blancos y mestizos. Son los hijos del sol y la razón, en la que se destaca el médico, el precursor, el hombre universal, Eugenio Espejo, que representa el despertar primero de esta América insurgente.
Miranda consolida el pensamiento en propuesta estratégica y Simón Rodríguez entiende que las repúblicas sin republicanos se convertirán en simples republiquetas, como hoy, cuando parafraseamos al maestro y decimos: una nación sin ciudadanos no es una nación.
Por esos años, un 10 de Agosto de 1809, la llama se enciende en Quito, conocida desde entonces como Luz de América. Esa generación insumisa fue exterminada por los colonialistas, pero sería un hombre, único y genial, quien habría de emprender, desde Caracas, la heroica lucha de la independencia americana, acompañado de Manuela Sáenz, que tejió su bandera revolucionaria con retazos de amor, de talento y de decisión sublime.
Había un solo camino y Bolívar lo comprendió al condicionar nuestro destino común a la creación de 'Una Nación de Repúblicas hermanas'. Doscientos años han pasado sin que el sueño bolivariano pueda concretarse. ¿Tendremos que esperar doscientos años más para lograrlo? Recordando al propio Bolívar, cuando los temerosos y los pusilánimes le reclamaban su vehemencia por la causa de la independencia americana y le decían que había que esperar, el joven y futuro Libertador les respondió, ¿es que trescientos años de espera no son suficientes? Y años más tarde, el gran poeta Pablo Neruda, invocaba al Libertador, al decir:
Yo conocí a Bolívar una mañana larga
En la boca del Quinto regimiento
Padre, le dije
Eres o no eres o quién eres
Y mirando el cuartel de la montaña dijo
Despierto cada cien años cuando despierta el pueblo
Y fue 100 años después de la gesta libertaria bolivariana que volvió a despertar el pueblo, liderado por el General Eloy Alfaro -discípulo de Montalvo y amigo de Martí-, para quien 'en la demora estaba el peligro'. Ahora, a los cien años de última Presidencia de Alfaro, nuevamente ese despertar es incontenible y contagioso. Solamente ayer, en el páramo de Zumbahua, con nuestros hermanos indígenas, se repetía aquel coral rebelde y cívico que inunda las calles de América: 'Alerta, alerta, alerta que camina la espada de Bolívar por América Latina'
Ahora nos toca a nosotros, Señores Presidentes. Los pueblos no nos perdonarán si no logramos avanzar en la integración de Nuestra América, para usar la entrañable concepción de Martí. Por esta historia de sueños compartidos, el gobierno ecuatoriano manifiesta a sus hermanos su compromiso profundo con la integración de nuestros pueblos. Esperamos el regreso de Venezuela a la CAN, para que junto al Mercosur, a Chile, Surinam y Guayana, se concrete lo antes posible la institucionalización de la Comunidad Sudamericana y las acciones sociales, culturales, económicas y políticas tan enunciadas y ofrecidas en palabras se hagan carne y realidad.
El gobierno del Ecuador, como ustedes lo conocen ya, Señores Presidentes y representantes de los países sudamericanos, ofrece a Quito, Luz de América, como un espacio para la reflexión y construcción de la Comunidad Sudamericana. Que la futura Secretaría Permanente se instale en tierras ecuatorianas, si ustedes señores presidentes lo consideran oportuno y conveniente..
Hagamos honor al sacrificio de los próceres y libertadores y al clamor de nuestros pueblos para que Sudamérica se convierta en ejemplo ante el mundo de una Gran Nación Sustentable de Repúblicas Hermanas, para el bien nuestro y ejemplo para toda la humanidad.
Despedida
Queridos ecuatorianos y ecuatorianas: Llegó la hora. No hay que temer miedo. Aquel que caminó sobre la mar y calmó tempestades, también nos ayudará a superar estos difíciles pero esperanzadores momentos. No nos olvidemos que el Reino de Dios debe ser construido aquí, en la tierra. Pidan por mí para que el Señor me dé un corazón grande para amar, pero también fuerte para luchar. Martin Luther King decía que su sueño era ver una Norteamérica donde blancos y negros puedan compartir la escuela, la mesa, la Nación. Mi sueño, desde la humildad de mi Patria morena, es ver un país sin miseria, sin niños en la calle, una Patria sin opulencia, pero digna y feliz
Una Patria amiga, repartida entre todos. Ahora, con el corazón les repito: jamás defraudaré a mis compatriotas, y consagraré todo mi esfuerzo, con la ayuda de Dios y bajo las sombras libertarias de Bolívar y de Alfaro, a luchar por mi país, por esa Patria justa, altiva y soberana, que todos soñamos y que todos merecemos.
Dios bendiga al pueblo ecuatoriano. Mashikuna
Ñami punchaka chayashka
Shuk shikan, mushk llaktata shaychinaka usharinmari
Ñukanchik gobiernoka tukuy runakunapa gobiernomi kanka.
Pi mana ñukanchikta atinkakunachu.
¡Apunchik ñukanchik llaktata bediciachun!
Statement from the Committee of Families of Victims of the Cuban Airliner Sabotage - The USA must try Posada as a terrorist
Havana. Januery 17, 2007
Statement from the Committee of Families of Victims of the Cuban Airliner Sabotage
The USA must try Posada as a terrorist
WITH stupor and indignation, we have learned that the United States Justice Department has indicted notorious terrorist Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles on seven charges, solely for having lied to immigration authorities when he applied for citizenship.
To our surprise, the charges make no reference to the fact that he is an actively dangerous international terrorist who, from the prison where he is being held is still bragging about the pain and mourning that he caused in the hearts of countless families throughout the world.
If we were to indifferently accept that Justice Department decision, we would become accomplices to the lies, we would accept the fact that important truths are not being told, and that would be an insult to the memory of the thousands of citizens who have lost their lives as the victims of terrorist actions.
To accept that the notorious international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles will only be tried as an inoffensive liar is to accept the outlandish idea that our families were never massacred in the mid-flight sabotage of a Cubana Aviation airliner. It is as if tourists visiting New York were told to go admire the beauty of the Twin Towers, as if those majestic buildings had never been destroyed on the fatal day of September 11, 2001.
We call on the United States government to honor the truth; we demand that the United States government makes public the documents it has in its possession, and that it reveals the terrorist character of Luis Posada Carriles.
We call on the United States government to either bring Luis Posada Carriles to trial as a terrorist, or to accept the extradition application submitted by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on June 15, 2005.
We do not want the notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to be tried solely for the lies he has told; we demand that the man who murdered our relatives with impunity be brought to justice, and that he be brought to trial for the truths that he has admitted to the United States media itself.
Statement from the Committee of Families of Victims of the Cuban Airliner Sabotage
The USA must try Posada as a terrorist
WITH stupor and indignation, we have learned that the United States Justice Department has indicted notorious terrorist Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles on seven charges, solely for having lied to immigration authorities when he applied for citizenship.
To our surprise, the charges make no reference to the fact that he is an actively dangerous international terrorist who, from the prison where he is being held is still bragging about the pain and mourning that he caused in the hearts of countless families throughout the world.
If we were to indifferently accept that Justice Department decision, we would become accomplices to the lies, we would accept the fact that important truths are not being told, and that would be an insult to the memory of the thousands of citizens who have lost their lives as the victims of terrorist actions.
To accept that the notorious international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles will only be tried as an inoffensive liar is to accept the outlandish idea that our families were never massacred in the mid-flight sabotage of a Cubana Aviation airliner. It is as if tourists visiting New York were told to go admire the beauty of the Twin Towers, as if those majestic buildings had never been destroyed on the fatal day of September 11, 2001.
We call on the United States government to honor the truth; we demand that the United States government makes public the documents it has in its possession, and that it reveals the terrorist character of Luis Posada Carriles.
We call on the United States government to either bring Luis Posada Carriles to trial as a terrorist, or to accept the extradition application submitted by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on June 15, 2005.
We do not want the notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to be tried solely for the lies he has told; we demand that the man who murdered our relatives with impunity be brought to justice, and that he be brought to trial for the truths that he has admitted to the United States media itself.
Spooks, Hoods & The Hidden Elite (trailer)
| Dear audience, My name is Wim Dankbaar. I am 45 and from the Netherlands. I have been interested in the JFK assassination since 1988, and I have learned a lot since then. The last 5 years I have been actively involved in a quest to unearth the truth of the JFK assassination. I have spent lots of time, energy and money on what I believe is an intriguing and noble cause. I could not have achieved this without the help and sacrifices of hundreds of others, building on their work and knowledge. I have authored a book and produced films on people with inside knowledge on the coup d' état that changed history and America, and probably the world. I have found that the people and their heirs, who seized power by killing Kennedy and covering up the truth, are still in power today. I have found these forces control corporate mass media channels to a certain degree. I have found they have assets to discredit the truth or prevent it from being shown through our so called free media. So what is in fact the big challenge to get the truth known? It is not to learn the truth, buth rather to present that truth to the public at large. This is the first 15 minutes + epilogue of a brand new, full fledged documentary of 2 hours that presents the most powerful (yet unknown) evidence you have ever seen for the plot to kill John F. Kennedy....... and take over his government. JFK was one of the most loved presidents in history, representing hope for freedom and democracy. The man telling the story, Chauncey Marvin Holt, is dead now and was a self admitted career criminal. But in some ways, at least in my view, he was also a good man. For having a conscience and for sharing his story. He knew he was going to die shortly. In fact he died 8 days after this recording. This was the last thing he wanted to do. For YOU and your children. Just one of the startling revelations in this film, is that the cuban exile militants, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, who are now being protected by the Bush administration (just google their names), were on Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was killed. You will further learn how Government Agencies and Organized Crime worked together. You can get the full DVD at http://jfkmurdersolved.com/spooks.htm For broadcast and/or distribution rights contact info@jfkmurdersolved.com Sincerely yours, Wim Dankbaar www.jfkmurdersolved.com | |
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Agent Orange, Toxic Injustice - Part I: What Was Done
by Aaron Sussman
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 16, 2007
Of the many atrocities and crimes committed by the United States in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, the military's use of Agent Orange has left the most destructive legacy, resulting in the ongoing suffering of Vietnamese citizens and US veterans. This is what was done.
War is Hell, but, for many, so is the aftermath, the ensuing "peace" that emerges out of war's dust and ashes. Long after the last bullet tears through the flesh of the last soldier, the Hell of pain, suffering, and trauma remains. Though military operations in the Vietnam War have been over for decades, the war continues to rage each day in the form of children born with severe deformities, desiccated land that was once rich and arable, and veterans on both sides of the conflict who frequently develop new symptoms and are constantly plagued by old ones. The devastating effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant used to thin out the Vietnam jungle and destroy enemy crops, are a blemish on the US national record and a glaring reminder of American foreign policy that has little respect for life and law. Decades later, the lethal effects linger, but there has been no justice.
In late 1961, despite strident objections from the State Department over the potential effects on civilians, the use of "burn down" herbicides in Vietnam was authorized by President Kennedy as part of "Operation Hades," which would soon become "Operation Ranch Hand." These defoliation and crop destruction efforts continued at a moderate pace until the war escalated in the mid-1960s. By early 1965, a new herbicide called "Agent Orange" was introduced.
Agent Orange is a combination of two chemicals that undergo a chlorinated chemical process, creating the by-product 2,3,7,8-TCDD, "the most toxic member of the family of chemicals known as dioxin." This form of dioxin, in fact, has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man." Peter Schuck writes in Agent Orange on Trial, "As early as 1952, Army officials had been informed by the Monsanto Chemical Company . . . that 2,4,5-T was contaminated by a toxic substance."
As American casualties in Vietnam mounted, it became increasingly clear that superior fire power had little consequence in a dense, guerilla-friendly jungle and that open-field combat would be to the Americans' advantage. For this reason, the US military scorched up to "25 percent of the country's forests with the deadly chemicals Agent Orange, and also Agent White, Blue, Pink and Purple," totaling approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides. In April of 1970, the military ceased all operations involving Agent Orange. The lasting damage, though, would be devastating and irreversible.
A generation born after the last US jet returned from Vietnam would become the most affected victims, as up to 150,000 "deformed children have been born to parents who were directly sprayed with Agent Orange or exposed through contaminated food and water."
In Vietnam, BBC News journalist Tom Fawthrop met what the "local villagers refer to as an Agent Orange baby" in the town of Cu Chi. As Fawthrop testifies, Tran Anh Kiet is 21 years old; "his feet, hands and limbs are twisted and deformed. He writhes in evident frustration, and his attempts at speech are confined to plaintive and pitiful grunts . . . He is an adult stuck inside the stunted body of a 15-year-old, with a mental age around six." Many journalists who visit Vietnam have similar encounters. Jill Schensul of New Jersey's The Record reports on her meeting with Nguyen Thi Lan and her five year old son, Minh. Nguyen lifts up Minh's T-shirt to show the American journalist the effects of US foreign policy: "Instead of the chubby belly of childhood, this torso is twisted, the skin taut over a gnarled rib cage that juts grotesquely from the right side of the chest . . . He cannot see, hear, or speak." Others write about children who are not allowed in school because their appearance frightens the other students, or babies whose life span only reaches a few hours, or adults who were children during the war and still randomly bleed from the ears and nose. There are countless horror stories like these in Vietnam, with new ones constantly emerging.
One public health study at Columbia University found that "up to 4.8 million Vietnamese were living in 3,181 villages that were directly showered with Agent Orange" and that dioxin levels are four times higher today than what was previously predicted. The most discouraging studies, though, are those that prove how toxic the environment still is in parts of Vietnam. In 2003, "Dr. Arnold Schecter, a leading expert in dioxin contamination in the US, sampled the soil [in the former military base Bien Hoa] . . . and found it contained TCCD levels that were 180 million times above the safe level set by the US Environmental Protection Agency." Today, as many as three million Vietnamese suffer from the effects of toxic herbicides, as do tens of thousands of American veterans.
While a variety of justifications and official doctrines have been employed by state officials to explain violent foreign policies, the injury inflicted by the US military on American soldiers in Vietnam stands as a unique source of shame. In Fred Wilcox's book Waiting for an Army to Die, he writes that, in addition to soldiers' own Agent Orange related ailments, at least 2,000 children with a range of deformities and birth defects have been born to Vietnam War veterans. Wilcox interviewed many veterans, including John Green, Ray Clark, and Jerry Strait. John Green, a medic in the war, says, "I really didn't know what they were spraying . . . Some of our food was undoubtedly sprayed with Agent Orange. But how were we to know? The army told us the stuff was harmless."
The government and the military denied the effects of Agent Orange on soldiers from the beginning and would deny adequate treatment for years. The Veterans Administration (VA), the second largest government bureaucracy with an annual budget of approximately $24 billion, was responsible for letting veterans' conditions worsen while their doctors withheld treatment. When veteran Ray Clark began urinating blood, the doctors at the VA "insisted [he] was putting ketchup and water in the specimen jars" so that he could receive disability and they told him the problem was "all in the mind," a refrain echoed to countless other ailing veterans. When former infantryman Jerry Strait, whose daughter was born with half a brain missing, visited the VA hospital to complain about severe headaches, he was told that it was "obviously due to war-related stress." He was never informed that "he spent more than three hundred days in the most heavily sprayed region of Vietnam or that the food he ate and water he drank may have been contaminated with dioxin." Jerry Strait and thousands more were poisoned by their own government. There was no accountability, no responsibility taken, and nowhere to turn.
It took almost two decades after the end of the war and years worth of litigation for the federal government to finally offer assistance to American victims of Agent Orange. Congress authorized financial assistance for veterans in 1991, but the government was careful in calling the link between Agent Orange and the veterans' health problems "presumptive," allowing the government to "effectively sidestep a de facto admission of guilt in Vietnam and avoid offering compensation to Vietnamese victims." The US government still maintains that "there are no conclusive links between Agent Orange and the severe health problems and birth defects that the Vietnamese attribute to dioxin."
The United States government has used every method of denial, stonewalling, and manipulation to hide the truth about the effects of Agent Orange. Even the paltry research that has been conducted has been riddled with problems. Despite investing $140 million into an Air Force Health Study on Agent Orange, "a design flaw . . . has resulted in a quarter-century of inaccurate findings," according to two scientists who were involved in the study. There was criticism of this research from the very beginning, as the journal Science expressed concern in 1979 that "there may be a conflict of interest in having the Air Force study itself . . . "
Many Vietnamese citizens and government officials have called upon the United States to admit wrongdoing, take responsibility, express contrition, and aid the process of reconciliation. Yet, American foreign policy is far too complex and riddled with human rights abuses for such an admittance or apology to be made without jeopardizing legal standing and ability to continue current practices. The United States could not apologize to Vietnam, for instance, while ignoring the fact that, in the same year that troops withdrew, the CIA and the Nixon administration helped orchestrate the military overthrow of democratically-elected President Salvador Allende in Chile to install Augusto Pinochet, one of the most brutal and murderous dictators of the 20th century. Nor would it be satisfactory for the US to apologize for Agent Orange, but not mention the terror-spreading Phoenix Program that resulted in the killing of up to 70,000 Vietnamese, many of whom were civilians and family of Vietcong, or the elite US Army unit, "Tiger Force," which, in the Central Highlands in 1967, committed the "longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War," killing hundreds of unarmed civilians, as reported by the Toledo Blade. It is unclear what the US could specifically apologize for in a war in which "every returning combat soldier can tell of similar incidents [to My Lai], if on a somewhat smaller scale," according to Robert Jay Lifton, a psychologist who extensively interviewed Vietnam veterans. Even more importantly for the US, apologizing for or openly acknowledging the damage caused by Agent Orange could adversely affect current practices in Iraq, most notably the use of white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah.
The use of Agent Orange was a tragedy and a crime that is recommitted everyday as Vietnamese citizens and US veterans suffer from the effects and pass them on to their children. One of the many unheeded "lessons" of Vietnam is that atrocities do not end with the war, but linger and fester. By not admitting the truth about what was done, the US allows the trauma of Vietnam to remain an open wound. By not taking steps towards justice and acknowledging what must now be done, the US allows Agent Orange to remain an open atrocity.
Aaron Sussman is the co-founder and Executive Editor of Incite Magazine; he can be contacted at Aaron@InciteMagazine.org. For more of Sussman's work, visit www.ACrowdedFire.com.
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 16, 2007
Of the many atrocities and crimes committed by the United States in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, the military's use of Agent Orange has left the most destructive legacy, resulting in the ongoing suffering of Vietnamese citizens and US veterans. This is what was done.
"This is the crime of which I accuse my country . . . and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it . . . But it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime."
-- James Baldwin, Letter to my Nephew on the 100th Anniversary of the Emancipation
War is Hell, but, for many, so is the aftermath, the ensuing "peace" that emerges out of war's dust and ashes. Long after the last bullet tears through the flesh of the last soldier, the Hell of pain, suffering, and trauma remains. Though military operations in the Vietnam War have been over for decades, the war continues to rage each day in the form of children born with severe deformities, desiccated land that was once rich and arable, and veterans on both sides of the conflict who frequently develop new symptoms and are constantly plagued by old ones. The devastating effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant used to thin out the Vietnam jungle and destroy enemy crops, are a blemish on the US national record and a glaring reminder of American foreign policy that has little respect for life and law. Decades later, the lethal effects linger, but there has been no justice.
In late 1961, despite strident objections from the State Department over the potential effects on civilians, the use of "burn down" herbicides in Vietnam was authorized by President Kennedy as part of "Operation Hades," which would soon become "Operation Ranch Hand." These defoliation and crop destruction efforts continued at a moderate pace until the war escalated in the mid-1960s. By early 1965, a new herbicide called "Agent Orange" was introduced.
Agent Orange is a combination of two chemicals that undergo a chlorinated chemical process, creating the by-product 2,3,7,8-TCDD, "the most toxic member of the family of chemicals known as dioxin." This form of dioxin, in fact, has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man." Peter Schuck writes in Agent Orange on Trial, "As early as 1952, Army officials had been informed by the Monsanto Chemical Company . . . that 2,4,5-T was contaminated by a toxic substance."
As American casualties in Vietnam mounted, it became increasingly clear that superior fire power had little consequence in a dense, guerilla-friendly jungle and that open-field combat would be to the Americans' advantage. For this reason, the US military scorched up to "25 percent of the country's forests with the deadly chemicals Agent Orange, and also Agent White, Blue, Pink and Purple," totaling approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides. In April of 1970, the military ceased all operations involving Agent Orange. The lasting damage, though, would be devastating and irreversible.
A generation born after the last US jet returned from Vietnam would become the most affected victims, as up to 150,000 "deformed children have been born to parents who were directly sprayed with Agent Orange or exposed through contaminated food and water."
In Vietnam, BBC News journalist Tom Fawthrop met what the "local villagers refer to as an Agent Orange baby" in the town of Cu Chi. As Fawthrop testifies, Tran Anh Kiet is 21 years old; "his feet, hands and limbs are twisted and deformed. He writhes in evident frustration, and his attempts at speech are confined to plaintive and pitiful grunts . . . He is an adult stuck inside the stunted body of a 15-year-old, with a mental age around six." Many journalists who visit Vietnam have similar encounters. Jill Schensul of New Jersey's The Record reports on her meeting with Nguyen Thi Lan and her five year old son, Minh. Nguyen lifts up Minh's T-shirt to show the American journalist the effects of US foreign policy: "Instead of the chubby belly of childhood, this torso is twisted, the skin taut over a gnarled rib cage that juts grotesquely from the right side of the chest . . . He cannot see, hear, or speak." Others write about children who are not allowed in school because their appearance frightens the other students, or babies whose life span only reaches a few hours, or adults who were children during the war and still randomly bleed from the ears and nose. There are countless horror stories like these in Vietnam, with new ones constantly emerging.
One public health study at Columbia University found that "up to 4.8 million Vietnamese were living in 3,181 villages that were directly showered with Agent Orange" and that dioxin levels are four times higher today than what was previously predicted. The most discouraging studies, though, are those that prove how toxic the environment still is in parts of Vietnam. In 2003, "Dr. Arnold Schecter, a leading expert in dioxin contamination in the US, sampled the soil [in the former military base Bien Hoa] . . . and found it contained TCCD levels that were 180 million times above the safe level set by the US Environmental Protection Agency." Today, as many as three million Vietnamese suffer from the effects of toxic herbicides, as do tens of thousands of American veterans.
While a variety of justifications and official doctrines have been employed by state officials to explain violent foreign policies, the injury inflicted by the US military on American soldiers in Vietnam stands as a unique source of shame. In Fred Wilcox's book Waiting for an Army to Die, he writes that, in addition to soldiers' own Agent Orange related ailments, at least 2,000 children with a range of deformities and birth defects have been born to Vietnam War veterans. Wilcox interviewed many veterans, including John Green, Ray Clark, and Jerry Strait. John Green, a medic in the war, says, "I really didn't know what they were spraying . . . Some of our food was undoubtedly sprayed with Agent Orange. But how were we to know? The army told us the stuff was harmless."
The government and the military denied the effects of Agent Orange on soldiers from the beginning and would deny adequate treatment for years. The Veterans Administration (VA), the second largest government bureaucracy with an annual budget of approximately $24 billion, was responsible for letting veterans' conditions worsen while their doctors withheld treatment. When veteran Ray Clark began urinating blood, the doctors at the VA "insisted [he] was putting ketchup and water in the specimen jars" so that he could receive disability and they told him the problem was "all in the mind," a refrain echoed to countless other ailing veterans. When former infantryman Jerry Strait, whose daughter was born with half a brain missing, visited the VA hospital to complain about severe headaches, he was told that it was "obviously due to war-related stress." He was never informed that "he spent more than three hundred days in the most heavily sprayed region of Vietnam or that the food he ate and water he drank may have been contaminated with dioxin." Jerry Strait and thousands more were poisoned by their own government. There was no accountability, no responsibility taken, and nowhere to turn.
It took almost two decades after the end of the war and years worth of litigation for the federal government to finally offer assistance to American victims of Agent Orange. Congress authorized financial assistance for veterans in 1991, but the government was careful in calling the link between Agent Orange and the veterans' health problems "presumptive," allowing the government to "effectively sidestep a de facto admission of guilt in Vietnam and avoid offering compensation to Vietnamese victims." The US government still maintains that "there are no conclusive links between Agent Orange and the severe health problems and birth defects that the Vietnamese attribute to dioxin."
The United States government has used every method of denial, stonewalling, and manipulation to hide the truth about the effects of Agent Orange. Even the paltry research that has been conducted has been riddled with problems. Despite investing $140 million into an Air Force Health Study on Agent Orange, "a design flaw . . . has resulted in a quarter-century of inaccurate findings," according to two scientists who were involved in the study. There was criticism of this research from the very beginning, as the journal Science expressed concern in 1979 that "there may be a conflict of interest in having the Air Force study itself . . . "
Many Vietnamese citizens and government officials have called upon the United States to admit wrongdoing, take responsibility, express contrition, and aid the process of reconciliation. Yet, American foreign policy is far too complex and riddled with human rights abuses for such an admittance or apology to be made without jeopardizing legal standing and ability to continue current practices. The United States could not apologize to Vietnam, for instance, while ignoring the fact that, in the same year that troops withdrew, the CIA and the Nixon administration helped orchestrate the military overthrow of democratically-elected President Salvador Allende in Chile to install Augusto Pinochet, one of the most brutal and murderous dictators of the 20th century. Nor would it be satisfactory for the US to apologize for Agent Orange, but not mention the terror-spreading Phoenix Program that resulted in the killing of up to 70,000 Vietnamese, many of whom were civilians and family of Vietcong, or the elite US Army unit, "Tiger Force," which, in the Central Highlands in 1967, committed the "longest series of atrocities in the Vietnam War," killing hundreds of unarmed civilians, as reported by the Toledo Blade. It is unclear what the US could specifically apologize for in a war in which "every returning combat soldier can tell of similar incidents [to My Lai], if on a somewhat smaller scale," according to Robert Jay Lifton, a psychologist who extensively interviewed Vietnam veterans. Even more importantly for the US, apologizing for or openly acknowledging the damage caused by Agent Orange could adversely affect current practices in Iraq, most notably the use of white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah.
The use of Agent Orange was a tragedy and a crime that is recommitted everyday as Vietnamese citizens and US veterans suffer from the effects and pass them on to their children. One of the many unheeded "lessons" of Vietnam is that atrocities do not end with the war, but linger and fester. By not admitting the truth about what was done, the US allows the trauma of Vietnam to remain an open wound. By not taking steps towards justice and acknowledging what must now be done, the US allows Agent Orange to remain an open atrocity.
Aaron Sussman is the co-founder and Executive Editor of Incite Magazine; he can be contacted at Aaron@InciteMagazine.org. For more of Sussman's work, visit www.ACrowdedFire.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)