ANTI-IMMIGRATION

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

---

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

US Senate passes Democratic-backed version of anti-immigrant legislation

By Patrick Martin
27 May 2006

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Senate voted by 62 to 36 Thursday to approve anti-immigrant legislation based largely on the policies of Senate Democrats, who joined forces with a minority of the Republican caucus to win approval for the legislation.

The bill provides billions for a 370-mile-long fence along the US-Mexico border, for hiring new Border Patrol agents, and for new technology that would be used to prevent undocumented workers from obtaining jobs in the US, except as part of an officially sanctioned guest-worker program.

While depicted by the media as “moderate” and even humane, this is only by comparison to the bill which passed the House of Representatives last November, which defines every undocumented worker as a criminal felon, and also criminalizes all those who provide assistance to such immigrants, including charitable groups that operate soup kitchens, medical clinics, legal services and schools.

The major provisions of the Senate bill were drafted by leading Senate Democrats, headed by Edward Kennedy, longtime leader of the congressional liberals, and the principal advocate of a “compromise” bill that would have the support of a sizeable number of Republicans. Kennedy’s efforts were rewarded as 21 Republicans joined 41 Democrats and one pro-Democratic independent to pass the bill. Republican Senator John McCain was the principal co-sponsor of the bill, and the Bush White House gave its tacit support.

The result, however, is a reactionary abomination, in some aspects even more antidemocratic than the House bill. Both bills are animated by the spirit of repression, treating undocumented workers as criminals who must be punished, with the main difference being how far it is practical to go in mass roundups, jailings and deportations.

The House bill was drafted to satisfy the anti-immigrant bigotry of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party, where right-wing populism (including efforts to scapegoat immigrants for the increasingly difficult conditions facing American workers) combines with tacit or overt ethnic and racial bigotry. The Senate bill, on the other hand, is crafted to the specifications of American big business, which wants to retain access to a supply of super-exploited labor, particularly in agriculture, construction and food processing.

Unlike the House, the Senate bill provides for a guest-worker program, capped at 200,000 workers a year, to serve the needs of agribusiness, and it offers long-term illegal immigrants a chance at legalization, if they take English classes and pay back taxes and a substantial fine. The House bill would not legalize a single undocumented worker, requiring for its enforcement the deportation of an estimated 12 million people, which would represent one of the largest forced transfers of population in world history.

The Senate majority rejected the House “enforcement-only” plan as impractical, citing the difficulties of carrying such mass deportations, but it proposes a convoluted system of limited legalization that would be equally impossible to carry into practice. “Only” 2 million undocumented workers would be forcibly deported under the Senate plan—all those who have entered the country in the last two years.

Those with two to five years’ residence, an estimated 5 million more, would be required to return to their country of origin for at least a day, obtain a visa, and, if granted one, would be allowed to return to the US. Undocumented workers with more than five years’ residence, another 5 million people, would be allowed to stay, provided they complied with the complex and onerous eligibility provisions of the legislation.

These provisions were made more and more onerous during the past two weeks, as one reactionary amendment after another was approved in an effort to make the Senate bill more acceptable to the House Republicans.

One amendment raised by $500 the fine to be paid by the most “privileged” group of immigrants, those with more than five years’ residence, bringing the total to $3,250, an enormous sum for workers who occupy the bottom rung in the US workforce, as low-paid janitors, domestics, agricultural workers and construction laborers.

Another denied eligibility for the guest-worker program for any immigrant guilty of breaking any law, including misdemeanors and failing to obey a deportation order (a virtual Catch 22, since nearly every “illegal alien” has by definition violated some immigration-related law). For the first four years, a immigrant employed under the guest-worker could apply for permanent resident status only with the permission and sponsorship of his or her employer, making these workers even more vulnerable to exploitation.

There are numerous technical changes to the legal procedures used in prosecuting immigration cases, many of which have the effect of restricting the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers who are seeking refuge in the United States from repressive regimes. A refugee who worked using a false Social Security number—something nearly all undocumented workers are compelled to do—would be considered guilty of an “aggravated felony” and subject to summary deportation, regardless of the likelihood of repression, torture or even murder in the country of origin.

Border Patrol agents would have the power to arrest, jail and deport immigrants on the spot, without any legal review, within 100 miles of the Mexican or Canadian border, except for citizens of Mexico. The result would be to transform cities like Detroit, El Paso, San Diego and Buffalo into free-fire zones where immigrants could be seized and shipped across the border without any legal redress.

Perhaps the most ominous amendment, approved by a 58-40 vote, would require all employers to enroll in and use the Basic Pilot Program, a software program developed by the Department of Homeland Security which scans Social Security and immigration databases to verify a prospective employee’s legal status. Employers would be required to submit the Social Security numbers or immigrant identification numbers for all job applicants, including all US citizens, and confirm they were in the country legally.

The result would be an enormous database, controlled by the DHS, the huge domestic policing agency established to pursue the “war on terror” inside the US, and containing the employment information for every American. This would be a potentially invaluable tool for mass repression, particularly in the event of a new upsurge in the class struggle, in which work stoppages and other employment-based labor actions would undoubtedly play a significant role.

The Senate also voted by 83-16 for an amendment by ultra-right Republican Jefferson Davis Sessions of Alabama, calling for 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the US-Mexico border, and by 63 to 34 to declare English the “national language” of the United States, a symbolic slap in the face to the nearly 40 million Hispanic Americans.

While the Senate bill was denounced by immigrant and civil rights groups, leading Democrats praised it. The number two Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, declared, “There are plenty of things wrong with this bill, but there are plenty of things right with it.”

The actual prospects for final passage of a bill are very much in doubt, given the acute divisions within the Republican Party. In the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert has declared that he will not allow a vote on any immigration bill that does not have the support of “a majority of the majority”—at least 116 members of the Republican caucus. If such a rule had been applied in the Senate, there would have been no bill, since Republicans opposed the legislation by 32-23, and the victory margin came from the Democrats, who voted in favor by 41-4.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, voted for the bill, and said that he and his Democratic counterpart, Harry Reid, would appoint senators to the conference committee required to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. It is not even certain that the House Republicans will agree to have a conference committee, since the leadership is adamantly opposed to any form of legalization for the millions of undocumented workers now in the United States.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner denounced the Senate provisions as “amnesty” and called the Senate bill a “nonstarter.” It seems likely that the House will accept some form of guest-worker program, as demanded by agribusiness, but only one that requires the imported farm workers to return to Mexico as soon as they have picked the crops.

There is not a single big business politician in Congress—Democrat or Republican—who upholds the elementary democratic right of working people to live and work in the country of their choice.

---

Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

CHAVEZ SAYS US

Close Chavez: US is anti-democratic by Wednesday 24 May 2006 3:54 AM GMT Chavez is a vocal critic of the Iraq war The Venezuelan president has again criticised the United States, calling it an anti-democratic state. Hugo Chavez made the observation on Tuesday in front of a rally of cheering supporters. It was the latest salvo in a war of words between Washington and Caracas. He said the United States was making it impossible for there to be peace in the world, a comment he said was a response to recent criticism from George Bush, the US president. "We are very worried because your imperialist and war-like government is dangerously eroding the possibility of peace and life in the world," Chavez said. Chavez is a critic of the war on Iraq. Bush had said on Monday he was concerned about what he called the erosion of democracy in Venezuela and Bolivia. The US administration says that Chavez is trying to destabilise Latin America and the Venezuelan leader accuses the White House of planning to overthrow him to snatch the country's vast oil reserves. US empire Chavez told the rally: "The United States is now a country against its own people and against the people of the world. It is anti-democratic. "They called the 20th century the American Century. Fine. The 21st century will be called the century that saw the end of the North American empire." "They called the 20th century the American Century. Fine. The 21st century will be called the century that saw the end of the North American empire" Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan president Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, nationalised the country's energy industry on May 1, upsetting international investors. He and Chavez are close allies and, with Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba, have formed an alliance that aims to stifle what they say is US hegemony in the region. The US announced this month it would no longer sell arms to Venezuela, insisting the country had failed to co-operate in efforts to fight terrorism. Chavez denies that and has accused the US of being behind a botched 2002 coup that briefly toppled his government. US officials dismiss his accusations. Reuters By You can find this article at: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA5CCA6D-F1F2-4445-B9AD-DAF51AFC3BE3.htm

Close

DOMESTIC SPYING

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

---

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

Framework for a police state

US government phone spying targets all Americans

By the editorial board
12 May 2006

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

The exposure in Thursday’s USA Today of a vast and secret National Security Agency data base tracking the phone calls of hundreds of millions of Americans is further evidence of the advanced preparations for the establishment of a police state in the United States. The NSA database is a blueprint for political repression and intimidation on a massive scale.

The patently illegal government surveillance has nothing to do with preventing terrorist attacks, as claimed by President Bush and echoed by both the media and Democratic Party politicians who criticize various aspects of the program. It has been implemented by a state apparatus which sees its major opposition as coming from among the American people, not scattered bands of Islamic terrorists. At a time of growing social opposition, the government is systematically collecting data to find out what people are thinking and to whom they are talking.

The phone-tracking program has, according to the USA Today report, been underway since shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The three largest telecommunications companies in the US, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, agreed secretly to collaborate with the Bush administration and hand over to the NSA their records of every telephone call made by every one of their approximately 200 million customers. The program, carried out without court-issued warrants or Congressional oversight, is in flagrant violation of federal statutes as well as civil liberties guarantees laid down in the Bill of Rights.

It means that the government has at its disposal information concerning the personal, business and political relationships and activities of most Americans—information that can be turned over to the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon and other state agencies.

This program, as well as the previously leaked program of illegal NSA eavesdropping on international telephone and email communications, has been carried out with the knowledge and approval of leading members of Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Whatever protests are made by politicians in either party in the wake of the program’s exposure, and whatever congressional hearings are held, their primary purpose will be to provide political cover for the collaboration of Democrats as well as Republicans in an unprecedented attack on democratic rights.

Nothing will be done to halt the illegal spying or hold accountable those, beginning with Bush himself, who have systematically lied to the American people and broken the law in order to create the infrastructure of a police state.

The willing participation of major corporations in this operation underscores the erosion of any serious support within the American ruling elite as a whole for democratic rights, and the turn toward authoritarian forms of rule to suppress growing opposition among working people to the vast concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.

The secret surveillance program reported by USA Today goes far beyond the program for intercepting international phone calls which was revealed last December through a leak to the New York Times. In what one source for the USA Today story called “the largest database ever assembled in the world,” the NSA has compiled a record of nearly every phone call made in the United States since 9/11, combined with a historical record of phone calls going back for many years before. The records include the phone number from which each call was made, the number dialed, and the duration of the call.

While the name of the person making the call is supposedly not included in the NSA database, such information is easily obtained by cross-referencing with other government and commercial databases.

USA Today said the program did not involve actual listening to the conversations—a physical impossibility given the billions of calls monitored—but rather the amassing of information for data mining, in which complex software programs are used to find patterns in the calling. Having created “a database of every call ever made,” the NSA is in a position to track down the personal, business, social and political affiliations of any person targeted by the US government.

According to Leslie Cauley, the reporter who wrote the story, “Chances are that your cell phone calls, as well as your home phone calls, have been tracked.” She added in a press interview that there was a “high likelihood” that this information was being passed on to the FBI and CIA.

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth control local, long-distance and cell phone service in most of the country. A fourth company, the much smaller Qwest, has refused to participate in the NSA program. The Denver-based Qwest provides local phone service in 14 western states as well as long-distance service in some areas. According to the USA Today article, Qwest balked at going along with the NSA program because of its dubious legality.

The phone companies were asked to provide the complete past telephone history of all their customers, as well as regular updates of contemporary phone usage. This means that the NSA now possesses a historical database that extends back at least to the 1984 breakup of the old AT&T monopoly, if not back to the oldest records available. The lifetime telephone usage of virtually every living American is now in a government dossier.

The NSA database could be used to track down anyone associated with political organizations opposed to the policies of the Bush administration, such as socialist, antiwar, civil rights and civil liberties groups. Anyone in regular telephone contact with such organizations is undoubtedly flagged as a potential “terrorist” in the NSA database. In the event of a roundup of such political opponents, the database would supply the names and phone numbers of all those in close contact with those targeted for arrest, thus providing a road map for further arrests and detentions.

Searches of the NSA database could also pinpoint all those who regularly called selected countries overseas, thus generating a list of potential targets for immigration raids. The database could also be used to monitor phone calls made to the media—such as those from the whistleblowers who spoke to the Washington Post about secret CIA torture centers in Eastern Europe or who exposed the illegal NSA monitoring of international phone calls. The White House could also identify government employees who regularly call Democratic members of Congress.

The information could be used to intimidate and blackmail individuals and coerce them into informing on friends, relatives and business associates.

As with all its other attacks on democratic rights, the Bush administration is defending the massive NSA phone spying as an “anti-terrorist” measure. But it is preposterous to claim that the federal government needs information on the call patterns of every American in order to locate and monitor a handful of terrorists. Nor would there be any reason, in relation to anti-terrorist investigations, for the NSA to accumulate the records of phone calls made long before Al Qaeda came into existence.

President Bush essentially confirmed the USA Today report in a brief prepared statement issued Thursday after the article sparked a flurry of commentary in the media and on Capitol Hill. Bush did not deny the substance of the newspaper’s account, while claiming that all the administration’s surveillance actions are legal and are solely directed against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups. “The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities,” he claimed. “We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.”

The credibility of this statement can be judged by recalling what Bush said after the New York Times first reported the secret NSA warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls. Bush claimed at the time that only international phone calls made by or to terrorist suspects were being monitored. “In other words,” he said, “one end of the communication must be outside the United States.” It has since emerged that the NSA eavesdropped illegally on thousands of domestic phone calls as well.

Bush used a similarly deceptive formulation in his statement Thursday. “The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval,” he declared, although what USA Today reported did not concern listening to phone calls, but rather recording private call information, which is equally illegal under Section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act. The Bush administration did not seek approval for the call-monitoring program from the secret court set up under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just as it bypassed the FISA court for the warrantless phone-tapping.

Bush added this claim: “The intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.” The White House has briefed only a handful of members—although the legal requirement is for briefing of the entire membership of both Senate and House intelligence committees. Nonetheless, Bush has repeatedly cited the briefing of key Democrats on his administration’s domestic spying programs to highlight the collaboration of the Democrats, exposing the hypocrisy of their pro-forma protests.

On Monday, Bush demonstratively reaffirmed his intention to continue these programs by naming Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA, replacing Porter Goss, who was ousted last week. Hayden, now deputy director of national intelligence, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, and was therefore responsible for the establishment of the call-tracking program.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said that they would question Hayden about the program during his confirmation hearings, scheduled to begin next week. Hayden has vociferously defended the NSA program of warrantless interception of international phone calls. He called it “targeted and focused,” adding, “This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States.” The phone-tracking program, however, is the opposite: a massive dragnet targeting every telephone call placed by every person in the US.

Last month, during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that the White House might have the legal authority to order warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls as well as international calls. “I wouldn’t rule it out,” he said. Gonzales was not asked about tracking phone calls, only about listening in.

It is not yet known whether President Bush signed a secret executive order for the call-tracking, or whether the program was undertaken without such formal authorization. Bush did sign an executive order for the warrantless NSA wiretapping of international calls and emails.

The Bush administration has already moved to suppress one inquiry into illegal NSA spying. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) announced Wednesday that it was closing down an investigation into whether Justice Department lawyers took improper action in approving the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, on the grounds that the NSA refused to grant the OPR the security clearances required to proceed. In other words, those carrying out the illegal wiretapping used the “classified” stamp to block any investigation into their activities.

With each revelation of police state measures, the lack of any genuine commitment to democratic rights within the political establishment becomes more evident. Not a single leading Democrat, and none of the leading US newspapers, responded to last December’s exposure of NSA phone tapping by demanding that the program be halted. The Democratic leadership has opposed even a token resolution for Bush’s censure over the illegal operation.

Already the media and politicians of both parties have sought to downplay the significance of the phone-tracking program, while accepting uncritically the pretext that it is motivated by the vicissitudes of the so-called “war on terrorism.” The truth is that the program exposes the enormity and immediacy of the assault on the democratic rights of the American people.

This threat must not be underestimated. It is the outcome of a protracted breakdown of American democracy, rooted in the crisis of the capitalist system and the resulting malignant growth of social inequality.

The only social force that has a genuine interest in and commitment to democratic rights is the working class. Working people can defend these rights only by forging an independent socialist movement in opposition to the two-party system through which the corporate oligarchy maintains its rule.

---

Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

IMMIGRANT NEWS

Foreign ministers of Central American countries condemn U.S. border fence plan

By JASON LANGE

MEXICO CITY (AP) - The foreign ministers of four Central American countries condemned U.S. Senate plan to build hundreds of kilometres of triple-layered fence on the United States' southern border, saying it would not stop illegal immigration.

But although the top diplomats from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Mexico all slammed the proposal, they said their only action would be to make more declarations and send diplomatic notes.

In a joint news conference late Thursday in Mexico City, the five ministers said that building barriers is not the way to solve problems between neighbouring countries.

"The position of Mexico and the other countries is that walls will not make a difference in terms of the solution to the migration problem," said Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate approved a proposal to build 595 kilometres of triple-layer fencing along parts of the 3,200-kilometre border separating the U.S. and Mexico.

In the same session, the Senate agreed to give many illegal immigrants a shot at U.S. citizenship.

Guatemalan Foreign Minister Jorge Briz said that a major immigration reform in the United States is the only way to stop the human wave heading northward.

"All of us are looking for a comprehensive migratory regulation so that millions of Latin Americans can continue working in and supporting the United States economy," Briz said.

Earlier Thursday, Mexico's Foreign Relations Department sent a diplomatic note to the U.S. State Department outlining the country's concerns about the proposed barrier.

On Friday in Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said officials had received the letter, but hadn't had time to review or respond to it.

Honduran Foreign Minister Milton Jimenez said that he expected the five countries and other countries in South America and the Caribbean to issue a joint declaration on the matter soon.

Fox criticized the wall on Thursday.

"Building walls, constructing barriers on the border does not offer an efficient solution in a relationship of friends, neighbours and partners," Fox said in the border city of Tijuana. "We will go on defending the rights of our countrymen without rest or respite. With passion we will demand the full respect of their human rights."

On the border with Arizona, bedraggled migrants who had been turned back by the border patrol said that more fences would not keep them from crossing but only make smugglers charge more money for the trip.

WAR

The war to stop is the next one

11.05.2006

Source:

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/80115-war-0

Starting a war requires little more than a basic form of primeval intelligence. Stopping a war, however, may call for the concerted dedication of many superior human minds. It is consequently a simple but undeniable deduction that he who initiates a conflict is not likely to be the one to bring it to a timely end. The savagery in war is perhaps the point of separation that is needed today to cause civilized beings to take notice and hope that some intervention will soon occur. It often does, though world politicians tend to wait for the conflict to be categorized as a genocide, before tackling the matter in ad hoc committees, which then refer the matter to permanent committees. They, in time, may generate some diplomatic maneuvers following which, warnings are issued, through proper channels of course, and some military forces may flex some muscles, prior to the matter being referred back to diplomats and politicians. History is not a teacher, otherwise we would have learned something from it, but the cliché of "History repeats itself", clearly suggest that too often nothing is gained from having lived through the experience in the first instance. History is a journal, a diary of the politics, wars and loves of the powerful and their followers. The politics of the Biblical era were seldom wasteful of time. You either ran things or took orders. The scribes that later wrote about those times could not refer to specific dialogues leading to political or diplomatic solutions, since there were none. All leaders were "Deciders", equally subject to making harebrained decisions as some leaders are today. Some of those self proclaimed leaders did enjoy greater influence than others, particularly when they made it clear that God himself had selected them for private and personal conversations. One such leader reported that certain lands had been set aside by God for the benefit of his nation, lands which at the time had been occupied by another nation for over a thousand years. Such was the case for the land of Canaan, and that of course led to the extermination of most of the Canaanites, as chronicled in the book of Joshua, a genocidal incursion by any standards. Seriously, who can realistically believe that the universe's only God initiated regular chats with Joshua urging him to commit genocides? Since these circumstances were revealed many years after they occurred, in expectation of the next chapter I am trepidating with excitement at the thought of the revelations, which George W. Bush may share with us at some point in the future. The Bible is an account of God's relations with the population groups of the Middle Eastern regions, but it is also a reliable chronicle of the events of war, and as such it is also a powerful reminder that even among God-fearing people of the past, the acts of war and savagery were the dominant occurrences of those times. It is not surprising that the so-called religious right advocates of today believe that the current war has the approval of God himself, a view recently advocated by one of America's leading sectarian zanies. God has not been reported as having a serious discourse with any of us humans on this earth for thousands of years, and it would be irreverent to suggest that he had nothing else to say since his words were last reported. I personally choose to believe that God speaks to each of us who listen, on a daily basis, secretly and personally, and I seriously doubt that the voice that I hear is the same voice that might be proposing war to members of the enlightened Christian right. Once again, somebody must be making that up. Religious wars are philosophical wars and they have been and continue to be the plague of human kind. These wars began with a rush of religious fervor transforming itself to a nebulous power inebriating momentum and they ended after centuries when resistance was encountered of sufficient force to offset the conqueror's diminished capacities. Thus ended the great incursions of Muslims of the seventh century which spanned from China to Spain and which was guided at the outset by Abu Bekr, the Great Prophet Mohammad's chosen successor. In like manner, the militant insurgencies of Christian Popes and Kings against the occupiers of Jerusalem also came to their ultimate end. Many wars can be attributed directly to the will of identifiable individuals, but we will leave the world's history to the incisive words of H.G. Wells and mention but a few, such as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and a modern day crusader whose name historians, out of shame, may only enter as a footnote. It is not a simple task to identify individuals who are singly responsible for reestablishing peace. That was meant to be the responsibility of the United Nations which was intended to be a mechanism where all the world's countries would be members, thereby insuring that most problem which had the potential of leading to a war, would be solved through internal diplomacy, and coercion. Yet, here we are today, deeply involved in Iraq, endlessly meditating on a genocide in Sudan, incapable of moving on African famine, and all this, after passing on the infamous Rwandan genocide. We have to ask: "Is anybody home?" Army Generals, such as Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur. used massive military resources while inflicting and sustaining great personnel losses to achieve peace, and we do not belittle their great accomplishments. We would prefer, however, to present our badges for individual peacemaking accomplishments, to individuals whose foresight may well have saved many lives while also achieving a semblance of peace. Ronald Reagan may never receive full credit for his role leading to the cold war warming party. In the mid-eighties, he had theorized that he could avoid a war with the Soviet Union by increasing U.S. military spending to a level that their economy could not possibly match. In 1985, he spent $486.5 billion on military procurement, a record that withstood the test of time for 20 years. This flexing of muscles contributed significantly to the resolution of the cold war. General Wesley Clark, a giant intellect and for that reason misunderstood by surly bystander Generals, in cooperation with a sprightly Madeleine Albright, achieved a total victory in short order and limited casualties in the Bosnia Kosovo humanitarian conflicts, by waging an intense air war while resisting all efforts to turn it into a ground disaster. The role of George Bush senior and his very quick defense of Kuwait cannot be ignored, and his decision to avoid pursuing Iraqi forces into Iraq, severely criticized then, merits everyone's admiration today. Is it possible that he foresaw what we now all understand, exception made of course of George Jr. who is still trying to figure it out. The most significant instant "military" success in memory was the pre-emptive strike in Libya, when it was widely known that absolute ruler Qaddafi was interested in WMDs and had probably caused the Lockerbey airliner crash. Once again, in 1986, the Gipper, a true "Decider" and worthy of the name, made that decision, a nighttime air attack on the Qaddafi palace. He survived, but has been a model world citizen ever since. There have been other pre-emptive style strikes since the advent of modern warfare, some on the ground, and others from the air, but in either case they were quick and penetrating, and somehow, they all appear to have solved their particular problem. Cases in point are the quick interventions in Panama, Argentina, and Grenada. It is self evident however that planned wars with the dominant use of ground forces, did not achieve their desired success in Viet Nam, Korea, Somalia, and now Iraq, those scores being three humiliations and one nil. It also appears that war strategies incorporate some serious side issues for the military. The use of timely air strikes does very little to stimulate the use and procurement of Ground Army weapons, and since army Generals dominate the military and have mouths to feed in military procurement companies, we need to ask if war efficiency has not become a secondary concern to the well being of the U.S. ground forces military partners. The next War need not be a war, it could be stopped before it ever begins, and wars in progress can be curtailed, if powerful forces dedicated to peace decide to intervene intelligently. Medical science stipulates that cancerous cells must be surgically removed as early as possible and forest fires must be extinguished early as well. The same may be said of conflicts, especially when they are one sided, and a central figure is clearly the promoter of the unrest. The Libya/Serbia type of solution may appear inhumane when not directly provoked, but a lesson can be learned in this instance from the past. Though the Libyan attack had been clearly an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate a rogue leader, the botched job is in fact an important part of its success. Qaddafi, a wise man in his own way, was made to realize that this was part of what the future would hold for him if he did not mend his ways. There was no change of government and no ensuing baggage of problems which would have otherwise been created had inferior minds prevailed and an attempt made to create a new form of government. Could simulated near-miss attacks perhaps have been possible solutions to the problems presented by the likes of Idi Amin, Charles Taylor, Afghanistan War Lords, Robert Mugabe, Papa Doc, some dehumanized African leaders and rebels, and many other merciless dominators, thereby at least making an effort at preventing further bloodshed at their hands? Could simulated near-miss attacks provide a possible solution to some of today's problems? This is a profoundly disturbing thought but no more disturbing than some potential alternatives, which have been openly advocated by some nation leaders whose threats cannot be ignored, and whose good will it is impossible to imagine? Would such a strategy help in ending the bloodletting stalemate in Iraq? Could not coalition soldiers, who present an easy target for insurgents, be relieved of their patrol duties, and be reserved for swift and timely commando style raids with coordinated air strikes, in a manner not unlike the proven Israeli strategy in Palestine ? Is a degenerating status quo really the only possible strategy that the American coalition Generals can muster as a solution? Paul Forest PolForest@aol.com Discuss this article on Pravda.Ru English Forum

© 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

LATIN AMERICAN UPDATE

May 7, 2006 Advanced Search Resource Center of the Americas 3019 Minnehaha Ave Minneapolis, MN 55406-1931 (612) 276-0788

U.S. Funds Indigenous Persecution in Colombia By Veronica Cassidy [also published in The Glocalist and Twin Cities Daily Planet] While the U.S. funnels money to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to fight his country’s “War on Drugs,” Colombian paramilitaries closely associated with Uribe’s government are often forcing local farmers to plant coca—only to later invade their farms and villages to stop cocaine production. Afro-Colombian peace activist Bernado Vivas made this and other claims at two Twin Cities speeches in early November, one at Macalester College and the other at the Resource Center of the Americas. Originally scheduled to accompany Vivas was another Afro-Colombian activist, Orlando Valencia. However, Valencia was kidnapped by paramilitaries on October 15, after being denied a visa to visit the U.S. His body was discovered October 25. At his Twin Cities speeches, Vivas spoke sadly yet with stubborn optimism about Colombia’s situation. He described the disastrous effects of the civil war in his country, and of the U.S.’s “Plan Colombia,” as well as the role that multinational corporations play in terrorizing Colombian society. “Killed Like Rats” Afro-Colombians, or Colombians of African descent, make up as much as a quarter of Colombia’s population and have one of the most active indigenous rights movements in the country. Afro-Colombians live mainly in the northwest, on land that is greatly desired by multinational corporations for agro-industrial development. The precise number of Afro-Colombians is unknown as the national government plays down their numbers in an effort to further marginalize and disempower them, Vivas said. “We are persecuted, killed like rats because we get in the way of investment,” he said. Afro-Colombian and other indigenous groups have occupied buildings and farm estates throughout Colombia, as a part of protests to demand the return of their land. The connection between the Afro-Colombian community and the land is strong. “We love the land, respect it, and conserve it,” Vivas said. Plan Colombia But the Afro-Columbia movement goes beyond a struggle for land, he added, as a struggle for general peace and justice. The Afro-Colombian movement opposes the civil war; the policies of President Uribe’s government; the imposition of development projects; the U.S.’s “Plan Colombia” and “War on Drugs,” and the neoliberal agenda, Vivas said. Twenty-three Afro-Colombian communities in the northwestern Choco region had a total of 123,000 hectares of land (about 393,940 acres) seized by the government in 1997, displacing 7,800 people, to make room for the planting of African palm, the source of highly exported palm oil. The land is taken through corruption and false documents, Vivas said. They have tried to recover it through the judicial system, but leaders are terrorized so they will not continue to make their claims. A year after Vivas’s community’s land was partially returned, they were surrounded by armed forces who claimed guerrilla settlements were located in the area. The Afro-Colombian movement is just one of many struggles across Latin America that are threatening to undermine U.S. domination of the continent that arguably began in 1846, at the start of the Mexican-American War. Moving Photographs Manifest Destiny was the U.S. foreign policy of the day in 1846. Today’s “neoliberal” philosophy has many echoes of Manifest Destiny, but the consequences of neoliberalism are potentially far more damaging. Colombia is a case in point. Even mainstream U.S. media sources now describe Colombia as ravaged not only by civil war between the government and state-associated paramilitaries and Marxist guerrilla forces, but by a “War on Drugs” waged by the U.S. under the guise of Plan Colombia. In addition, Vivas described an ecocide in Colombia that is being caused by U.S.-trained soldiers who use planes, bought with U.S. money, to spray pesticides over areas where coca is believed to be grown. The real result of these operations, Vivas said, is not the elimination of cocaine, but the injury and death of thousands of innocent Colombian farmers and villagers. Vivas highlighted his argument with moving photos of some of those who have been murdered during these campaigns. He pointed out the hypocrisy of the “War on Drugs” by referring to well-known ties between President Uribe and drug traffickers. The paramilitaries, he said, who are supposedly fighting this “War on Drugs,” actually receive money from the drug trade. Development Projects Vivas pointed out the illegitimacy of this war, as indigenous Colombians have been growing coca for thousands of years. Chewing coca leaf is a traditional custom that serves as a source of nourishment and energy. Additionally, coca is not the only ingredient of cocaine. Yet, Vivas joked darkly, there have been no bombing of companies like Monsanto, which produce the other ingredients. Not that they should be bombed, he quickly added. The “War on Drugs” is less a moral crusade against the criminal drug trade, and more a means of getting what is wanted by multinational corporations trying to get their way in agro-industrial projects in Colombia, Vivas argued. Throughout the country, suspicion of coca cultivation is used as an excuse for seizing land which is then used for “development projects.” USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, helps fund these projects, Vivas said. “The problem in Colombia is not guerrillas or drug traffickers, it’s the imposition of development,” he said. “Guerrillas kill and displace, yes. We don’t share their view, but we are most concerned with state power that is there only to back up capitalist power.” A Pretty Word Because of his efforts to have his community’s land returned after government seizure, his demands for peace, and his refusal to align with the paramilitaries or guerrillas, Vivas has been the target of violence from state and rebel forces. The Zapatistas in Mexico, the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil, the Recovered Enterprises and Cooperatives and Unemployed Workers’ Movements in Argentina, and indigenous movements in Ecuador and Bolivia – all are among many similar movements sweeping the region in revolt against the domination of local societies and economies under the neoliberal rationale. “It’s a pretty word, democracy,” Vivas said. “In Colombia it means safety for foreign investment.” This is the perception in much of Latin America, and the desire for true, direct democracy, which incorporates traditionally marginalized groups, is at the heart of these movements. Displaced Peoples The many indigenous movements are now communicating and often working with each in a way that is sure to redefine the relationship between the U.S. and Latin America; between their societies and their governments; and perhaps even the very notions of statehood and capitalism. Vivas asked U.S. citizens to stand with the Afro-Colombians and other such movements across the region by educating themselves and others, and using their political influence to shape national policy. “Call your Congressmen and Senators and follow up on the aid you’re giving,” he said. “Because [that aid] is increasing the number of displaced peoples and orphans.” [Veronica Cassidy is a volunteer at the Resource Center of the Ameicas and a participant in the citizen journalism project. With reporting help from Mary Turck, Communications Director of the Resource Center of the Americas.] Home | About Us | Donate | Contact Us © 1995-2006 Resource Center of the Americas