Friday, April 30, 2004
Cognitive Dissonance
Trouble is, though:
A year ago I did give the speech from the carrier saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein.
And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq.
-- George W. Bush, April 29, 2004
And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq.
-- George W. Bush, April 29, 2004
Trouble is, though:
Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.
-- Julian Borger, the London Guardian
-- Julian Borger, the London Guardian
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Damascus Disorder
It's been more than two decades since the Syrian government faced serious internal revolt. Back in the late 1970s and early '80s, though, the Muslim Brotherhood rose up against secular strongman Hafez Al Assad. He crushed them. The end came in 1982, in Hama, a pretty town in the north of the country that also happened to be the center of Islamic resistance. First, Syrian security forces shelled the town. Then they stormed the Old City, slaughtering the inhabitants -- man, woman, and child. By the time Assad's men had finished their work, some 20,000 were dead.
Syria has been pretty quiet since then. Not surprisingly, when I passed through Hama back in 1997 as a traveler, nobody much wanted to talk about what happened in 1982.
So it's a little surprising to hear of terrorist attacks in Damascus. To be sure, Assad's son, Bashar, the opthamologist-turned-reluctant dictator, isn't anywhere near as ruthless or as smart as his father was. But it's hard to say what's going on, and most of the interested players aren't very trustworthy. The Syrians say it's Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists -- reasonable, given the regime's history, its support (despite what the U.S. says publicly) for the White House's war on terror, and the fact that the attack took place near the British embassy and a former UN building. The Americans, however, call it a "charade" to head off looming U.S. sanctions. Other possible culprits: Kurdish separatists, the Israelis, even warring factions within the Syrian government. So take your pick. As the Guardian's Ewen Mcaskill notes, though,
With bodies and other evidence at its disposal, the Syrian government will quickly be able to establish who was responsible. But the version given to the west will be the one that suits the country's immediate political needs rather than the one that is necessarily truthful.
It's been more than two decades since the Syrian government faced serious internal revolt. Back in the late 1970s and early '80s, though, the Muslim Brotherhood rose up against secular strongman Hafez Al Assad. He crushed them. The end came in 1982, in Hama, a pretty town in the north of the country that also happened to be the center of Islamic resistance. First, Syrian security forces shelled the town. Then they stormed the Old City, slaughtering the inhabitants -- man, woman, and child. By the time Assad's men had finished their work, some 20,000 were dead.
Syria has been pretty quiet since then. Not surprisingly, when I passed through Hama back in 1997 as a traveler, nobody much wanted to talk about what happened in 1982.
So it's a little surprising to hear of terrorist attacks in Damascus. To be sure, Assad's son, Bashar, the opthamologist-turned-reluctant dictator, isn't anywhere near as ruthless or as smart as his father was. But it's hard to say what's going on, and most of the interested players aren't very trustworthy. The Syrians say it's Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists -- reasonable, given the regime's history, its support (despite what the U.S. says publicly) for the White House's war on terror, and the fact that the attack took place near the British embassy and a former UN building. The Americans, however, call it a "charade" to head off looming U.S. sanctions. Other possible culprits: Kurdish separatists, the Israelis, even warring factions within the Syrian government. So take your pick. As the Guardian's Ewen Mcaskill notes, though,
With bodies and other evidence at its disposal, the Syrian government will quickly be able to establish who was responsible. But the version given to the west will be the one that suits the country's immediate political needs rather than the one that is necessarily truthful.
Rulemaking Gone Awry
Professional photographers, it now seems, are required to get a
permit to shoot anything, anywhere, within Cape Town city limits. Why? Well, it seems the powers-that-be have decided to cash in on the mother city's sudden popularity as a backdrop for movies and car commercials. Amazingly, though, more or less no one is exempted. As Gavin Foster observes, "Anybody who takes the trouble to post a 36-page list of film and photographic rules on their website is obviously being shitty with serious intent.
Professional photographers, it now seems, are required to get a
permit to shoot anything, anywhere, within Cape Town city limits. Why? Well, it seems the powers-that-be have decided to cash in on the mother city's sudden popularity as a backdrop for movies and car commercials. Amazingly, though, more or less no one is exempted. As Gavin Foster observes, "Anybody who takes the trouble to post a 36-page list of film and photographic rules on their website is obviously being shitty with serious intent.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Bad Company
So this is the kind of guy who's working for the Pentagon in Iraq?
A security contractor killed in Iraq last week was once one of South Africa's most secret covert agents, his identity guarded so closely that even the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not discover the extent of his involvement in apartheid's silent wars.
Gray Branfield, 55, admitted to being part of a death squad which gunned down Joe Gqabi, the ANC's chief representative and Umkhonto weSizwe operational head in Zimbabwe on July 31 1981. Gqabi was shot 19 times when three assassins ambushed him as he reversed down the driveway of his Harare home.
(via Tom Dispatch.com)
So this is the kind of guy who's working for the Pentagon in Iraq?
A security contractor killed in Iraq last week was once one of South Africa's most secret covert agents, his identity guarded so closely that even the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not discover the extent of his involvement in apartheid's silent wars.
Gray Branfield, 55, admitted to being part of a death squad which gunned down Joe Gqabi, the ANC's chief representative and Umkhonto weSizwe operational head in Zimbabwe on July 31 1981. Gqabi was shot 19 times when three assassins ambushed him as he reversed down the driveway of his Harare home.
(via Tom Dispatch.com)
One in Eight ...
South African children are orphans. Many of them are HIV-positive. Just about all of them need help. Alli Mitchell's Orphan Awareness Productions hopes to do just that with a full-length documentary feature. Currently, she has a short, powerful demo video making the rounds, and she's trying to drum up the funds for a return trip later this year. If you're so inclined, drop her a line and help her finish her film.
South African children are orphans. Many of them are HIV-positive. Just about all of them need help. Alli Mitchell's Orphan Awareness Productions hopes to do just that with a full-length documentary feature. Currently, she has a short, powerful demo video making the rounds, and she's trying to drum up the funds for a return trip later this year. If you're so inclined, drop her a line and help her finish her film.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Chinks in the Armor?
A few weeks ago, I wrote on the Egyptian state security trial of antiwar protester Ashraf Ibrahim, and its near-perfect illustration of Hosni Mubarak's uncanny ability to maintain unquestioned control while permitting just enough dissent to avoid embarrassing his American sponsors. It's a common practice the world over, of course, but Mubarak, after more than two decades in office, has it down to a science.
As Tamir Moustafa notes in Middle East Report, however, things might be changing in Cairo. This year's protests, though smaller than last year's, quickly moved from denouncing the American occupation of Iraq to condemnations of Egypt's corrupt, thuggish rulers. And while the protests weren't huge -- Moustafa observes that the 5,000-strong security forces easily outnumbered the demonstrators -- they've spilled from the traditionally allowed boundaries of the university grounds and into the city's main squares. What's more, demonstrators have begun singling out members of Mubaraks' cabinet for special ridicule -- an unheard-of practice just a few years ago.
Citing price increases that have rendered staples like beans expensive and turned meat into an unattainable luxury for many Egyptians, the crowd aimed its anger directly at Prime Minister Atef Ebeid. "Atef, a kilo of beans now costs six pounds! Atef, a kilo of meat is over thirty pounds! Atef, the people of Egypt [are forced to] eat bricks!" Protest leaders underlined the staggering economic disparity between rich and poor by calling out to the crowd, "They wear the latest fashions!" To which the crowd responded, "And we live ten to a room!"
Mubarak has clearly decided to allow this sort of protest to occur. Maybe he's scared not to?
A quick plug: Middle East Report is one of the best sources out there for regionwide political analysis. (Full disclosure: I wrote a few pieces for them back in the day, when I was working in the Occupied Territories. You can read them here and here.)
A few weeks ago, I wrote on the Egyptian state security trial of antiwar protester Ashraf Ibrahim, and its near-perfect illustration of Hosni Mubarak's uncanny ability to maintain unquestioned control while permitting just enough dissent to avoid embarrassing his American sponsors. It's a common practice the world over, of course, but Mubarak, after more than two decades in office, has it down to a science.
As Tamir Moustafa notes in Middle East Report, however, things might be changing in Cairo. This year's protests, though smaller than last year's, quickly moved from denouncing the American occupation of Iraq to condemnations of Egypt's corrupt, thuggish rulers. And while the protests weren't huge -- Moustafa observes that the 5,000-strong security forces easily outnumbered the demonstrators -- they've spilled from the traditionally allowed boundaries of the university grounds and into the city's main squares. What's more, demonstrators have begun singling out members of Mubaraks' cabinet for special ridicule -- an unheard-of practice just a few years ago.
Citing price increases that have rendered staples like beans expensive and turned meat into an unattainable luxury for many Egyptians, the crowd aimed its anger directly at Prime Minister Atef Ebeid. "Atef, a kilo of beans now costs six pounds! Atef, a kilo of meat is over thirty pounds! Atef, the people of Egypt [are forced to] eat bricks!" Protest leaders underlined the staggering economic disparity between rich and poor by calling out to the crowd, "They wear the latest fashions!" To which the crowd responded, "And we live ten to a room!"
Mubarak has clearly decided to allow this sort of protest to occur. Maybe he's scared not to?
A quick plug: Middle East Report is one of the best sources out there for regionwide political analysis. (Full disclosure: I wrote a few pieces for them back in the day, when I was working in the Occupied Territories. You can read them here and here.)
Thursday, April 22, 2004
'It's All Small News but It's All Bad News'
In a depressing slice-of-life dispatch in Mother Jones.com, freelancer Nir Rosen offers a glimpse of day-to-day existence in Baghdad, recently voted the "world's worst city to live in."
All day and all night, Baghdad shakes with explosions; explosions from bombs, from rocket-propelled grenades, from artillery, from guns. But it's usually impossible to figure out just where the firing is taking place, even if you're foolish enough to search for the fighting after dark, when gangs and feral dogs own the streets. There are systematic assassinations of policemen, translators, local officials, and anybody associated with the American occupiers. In the Sunni neighborhood of Aadhamiya, the Americans come under attack on a nightly basis, and.the streets erupt in cheers and whistles at the sounds of the first explosions. Most of the time, the Americans stay behind their concrete walls and big guns. But the Iraqi police have only handguns and a few AK-47's to use against a foe armed with car bombs and heavy weaponry. So the new Iraqi police are hunted at all times in all places, and they are losing every day.
Update, 4.23.04:Dan Murphy, blogging for the Christian Science Monitor, offers a similar -- and no less frightening -- analysis of the situation:
Sitting with a group of friends here a few nights ago, I realized how blasé we'd become about the new conditions. None of us had eaten out in the evening for at least a month. We agreed that the two-hour drive south to Najaf had become too dangerous to attempt. The journalists among us agreed that our work increasingly relied on phone calls to Iraqis on the scene, rather than real reportage of what we could see and touch. And everyone nodded knowingly when two NGO workers said they'd be leaving the country because it has become too dangerous to conduct their reconstruction work here.
In essence, I feel we've become boiled frogs. Toss the frog into boiling water, and he jumps right out again, or at least tries. But put him in lukewarm water and slowly turns up the heat and he barely notices until he's cooked. Rather than overestimate the problems (a common journalistic temptation), I've begun to wonder if we're not understating them, notwithstanding the letters from readers who accuse our paper, and many others, of being Chicken Littles.
In a depressing slice-of-life dispatch in Mother Jones.com, freelancer Nir Rosen offers a glimpse of day-to-day existence in Baghdad, recently voted the "world's worst city to live in."
All day and all night, Baghdad shakes with explosions; explosions from bombs, from rocket-propelled grenades, from artillery, from guns. But it's usually impossible to figure out just where the firing is taking place, even if you're foolish enough to search for the fighting after dark, when gangs and feral dogs own the streets. There are systematic assassinations of policemen, translators, local officials, and anybody associated with the American occupiers. In the Sunni neighborhood of Aadhamiya, the Americans come under attack on a nightly basis, and.the streets erupt in cheers and whistles at the sounds of the first explosions. Most of the time, the Americans stay behind their concrete walls and big guns. But the Iraqi police have only handguns and a few AK-47's to use against a foe armed with car bombs and heavy weaponry. So the new Iraqi police are hunted at all times in all places, and they are losing every day.
Update, 4.23.04:Dan Murphy, blogging for the Christian Science Monitor, offers a similar -- and no less frightening -- analysis of the situation:
Sitting with a group of friends here a few nights ago, I realized how blasé we'd become about the new conditions. None of us had eaten out in the evening for at least a month. We agreed that the two-hour drive south to Najaf had become too dangerous to attempt. The journalists among us agreed that our work increasingly relied on phone calls to Iraqis on the scene, rather than real reportage of what we could see and touch. And everyone nodded knowingly when two NGO workers said they'd be leaving the country because it has become too dangerous to conduct their reconstruction work here.
In essence, I feel we've become boiled frogs. Toss the frog into boiling water, and he jumps right out again, or at least tries. But put him in lukewarm water and slowly turns up the heat and he barely notices until he's cooked. Rather than overestimate the problems (a common journalistic temptation), I've begun to wonder if we're not understating them, notwithstanding the letters from readers who accuse our paper, and many others, of being Chicken Littles.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Meanwhile in Sudan
The killing continues, and the world stalls for time. Under the terms of the Sudan Peace Act, President Bush is required to declare to Congress whether the Arab-led Sudanese government and the rebel SPLA -- the two main players in Sudan's endless, genocidal civil war -- are making progress toward peace.
If Bush found the government was not negotiating in good faith, he could punish it by moving to block oil revenues and loans through international financial institutions, seeking a UN arms embargo and downgrading diplomatic ties.
US officials who asked not to be named said it was likely that Bush would declare the two sides to be negotiating in good faith and hence not impose any sanctions on the government.
"We still think there's a chance for them to reach an agreement soon so I don't think we're going to take any drastic or heavy-handed measures that jeopardise the possibility of an agreement," said one US official. "It would surprise me if we were to impose sanctions at this ... delicate moment."
This, however, doesn't sound like "good faith":
Government forces and ethnic Arab militias, known as "janjawid", have murdered thousands of black villagers in the country's west, forcing close to one million others to flee to other parts of Sudan or across the border to neighbouring Chad.
As I noted about a month ago, government-armed militias are clearly still on the rampage, ceasefire or no ceasefire, and the conflict is now being compared to Rwanda's genocide with alarming regularity. As U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan Mukesh Kapila said earlier this month, "The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved." Sanctions are an option, but lip service from Khartoum appears to be good enough for Washington. And unfortunately, as we saw in Rwanda, nothing gets done without at least a little backing from Washington.
All of which makes me think of "It Was Just Boys Walking," the second installment of Dave Egger's biography of Dominic Arou, one of Sudan's Lost Boys (southern war orphans who escaped by walking thousands of miles to Ethiopia), in the most recent Believer magazine. Sadly, it's not available online, but here's a bit:
We'd go into some places where there were fields, where they have grain, and we'd get food from there and eat it. When we get some leaves of trees or some fruits, we'd carry them. When I had something that I'm eating, and I had nothing to carry it with, I would take my T-shirt off and carry it there. That T-shirt was my blanket; it was my bag; it was my everything.
The killing continues, and the world stalls for time. Under the terms of the Sudan Peace Act, President Bush is required to declare to Congress whether the Arab-led Sudanese government and the rebel SPLA -- the two main players in Sudan's endless, genocidal civil war -- are making progress toward peace.
If Bush found the government was not negotiating in good faith, he could punish it by moving to block oil revenues and loans through international financial institutions, seeking a UN arms embargo and downgrading diplomatic ties.
US officials who asked not to be named said it was likely that Bush would declare the two sides to be negotiating in good faith and hence not impose any sanctions on the government.
"We still think there's a chance for them to reach an agreement soon so I don't think we're going to take any drastic or heavy-handed measures that jeopardise the possibility of an agreement," said one US official. "It would surprise me if we were to impose sanctions at this ... delicate moment."
This, however, doesn't sound like "good faith":
Government forces and ethnic Arab militias, known as "janjawid", have murdered thousands of black villagers in the country's west, forcing close to one million others to flee to other parts of Sudan or across the border to neighbouring Chad.
As I noted about a month ago, government-armed militias are clearly still on the rampage, ceasefire or no ceasefire, and the conflict is now being compared to Rwanda's genocide with alarming regularity. As U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan Mukesh Kapila said earlier this month, "The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved." Sanctions are an option, but lip service from Khartoum appears to be good enough for Washington. And unfortunately, as we saw in Rwanda, nothing gets done without at least a little backing from Washington.
All of which makes me think of "It Was Just Boys Walking," the second installment of Dave Egger's biography of Dominic Arou, one of Sudan's Lost Boys (southern war orphans who escaped by walking thousands of miles to Ethiopia), in the most recent Believer magazine. Sadly, it's not available online, but here's a bit:
We'd go into some places where there were fields, where they have grain, and we'd get food from there and eat it. When we get some leaves of trees or some fruits, we'd carry them. When I had something that I'm eating, and I had nothing to carry it with, I would take my T-shirt off and carry it there. That T-shirt was my blanket; it was my bag; it was my everything.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Oh, How the Mighty Have Fallen!
For years, Iraqi defector and neoconservative darling Dr. Khidir Hamza was a go-to guy if you needed a scary story about Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons programs. Once one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Hamza defected in 1994 and, aided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, began spinning his apocalyptic tales for anyone who would listen. He even wrote a book, Saddam's Bombmaker, which quickly became one of the war party's sacred texts. While plenty of people doubted Hamza's claims, they were good enough for the Bush administration's war planners. Hamza did well for himself, too: when Baghdad fell last year, he landed a cushy job as a top adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, where he was partly responsible for overseeing the country's nuclear and military industries.
Last month, though, the Coalition Provisional Authority fired him. Was it because U.S. forces haven't found any evidence to back up Hamza's overheated WMD tales? Maybe, although nobody in Washington has been fired for making false claims, and Ahmed Chalabi is still scheming away in Baghdad, congressional investigations be damned. Instead, as the London Independent's Patrick Cockburn reports, simple incompetence might have done Hamza in:
"It was not a successful appointment, according to sources within the ministry. Dr Hamza seldom turned up for work. He obstructed others from doing their jobs. On 4 March, his contract was not renewed by the CPA. It is now trying to evict him from his house in the heavily guarded 'Green Zone' where the CPA has its headquarters.
No one should worry for Hamza's future, though. As Cockburn notes, "He could not be contacted by the Independent but is believed to have taken up a job with a U.S. company."
(originally posted at Mother Jones.com, 4/20/04)
For years, Iraqi defector and neoconservative darling Dr. Khidir Hamza was a go-to guy if you needed a scary story about Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons programs. Once one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Hamza defected in 1994 and, aided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, began spinning his apocalyptic tales for anyone who would listen. He even wrote a book, Saddam's Bombmaker, which quickly became one of the war party's sacred texts. While plenty of people doubted Hamza's claims, they were good enough for the Bush administration's war planners. Hamza did well for himself, too: when Baghdad fell last year, he landed a cushy job as a top adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, where he was partly responsible for overseeing the country's nuclear and military industries.
Last month, though, the Coalition Provisional Authority fired him. Was it because U.S. forces haven't found any evidence to back up Hamza's overheated WMD tales? Maybe, although nobody in Washington has been fired for making false claims, and Ahmed Chalabi is still scheming away in Baghdad, congressional investigations be damned. Instead, as the London Independent's Patrick Cockburn reports, simple incompetence might have done Hamza in:
"It was not a successful appointment, according to sources within the ministry. Dr Hamza seldom turned up for work. He obstructed others from doing their jobs. On 4 March, his contract was not renewed by the CPA. It is now trying to evict him from his house in the heavily guarded 'Green Zone' where the CPA has its headquarters.
No one should worry for Hamza's future, though. As Cockburn notes, "He could not be contacted by the Independent but is believed to have taken up a job with a U.S. company."
(originally posted at Mother Jones.com, 4/20/04)
Monday, April 19, 2004
An ANC Landslide
The final results from South Africa's elections are in, and the numbers aren't really that surprising. For the first time, the African National Congress took more than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, and Tony Leon's Democratic Alliance cemented its position as the voice of SA's minorities, with a bit more than 12 percent of the overall vote. The New National Party, descendant of the country's apartheid-era rulers, has officially ceased to matter: this time around, it polled less than two percent.
So is South Africa headed towards a one-party state? Most likely. Does it matter? Not yet. Andrew at Southern Cross sums it up nicely:
First off, lest anybody had any doubts, the ANC is now the only real player in town. The election amounted to little more than a referendum on their rule over the last ten years. The fact that they managed to increase their share of the vote despite concerns about a two thirds majority and the mishandling of such issues as HIV/AIDS means that they can look forward to ruling the country for a generation at least. Nevertheless, I don't buy the argument that winning 70 percent is evidence of the ANC's making major inroads into the opposition. I think their increased share of the national vote is in part a reflection of South Africa's changing demographic profile. Which is to say that since blacks constitute an increasing proportion of the total electorate it should not surprise us that the ANC's share of the vote went up. The 70 percent is also, of course, a result of the ANC's successful campaign to win Zulu votes in KZN. The DA likewise, although pushing up their share of the vote by 3 percent or so have also battled to move beyond their traditional support base. The election confirms that they are now the party of South Africa's minorities rather than simply a white party and as such they could, with some justification I think, claim to be more multi-racial than the ANC. Nevertheless, this doesn't amount to much. For those of us hoping that this election might mark the beginning of the end to racially motivated voting there is not much to draw solace from here. South Africa still votes along racial lines, despite what all the spin doctoring to the contrary might have you believe.
What should we make of the fact that the ANC now has a two thirds majority? The two-thirds majority could, in theory, allow them to change the constitution in cases where the constitutional court finds against them or where the constitution itself prevents them from doing something that they want to. The constitution currently prevents the president from serving more than two terms, so they could change it if Mbeki decides to run again but, so far, they've promised that they have no intention of doing this. At the moment I'm inclined to believe them on this.
The final results from South Africa's elections are in, and the numbers aren't really that surprising. For the first time, the African National Congress took more than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, and Tony Leon's Democratic Alliance cemented its position as the voice of SA's minorities, with a bit more than 12 percent of the overall vote. The New National Party, descendant of the country's apartheid-era rulers, has officially ceased to matter: this time around, it polled less than two percent.
So is South Africa headed towards a one-party state? Most likely. Does it matter? Not yet. Andrew at Southern Cross sums it up nicely:
First off, lest anybody had any doubts, the ANC is now the only real player in town. The election amounted to little more than a referendum on their rule over the last ten years. The fact that they managed to increase their share of the vote despite concerns about a two thirds majority and the mishandling of such issues as HIV/AIDS means that they can look forward to ruling the country for a generation at least. Nevertheless, I don't buy the argument that winning 70 percent is evidence of the ANC's making major inroads into the opposition. I think their increased share of the national vote is in part a reflection of South Africa's changing demographic profile. Which is to say that since blacks constitute an increasing proportion of the total electorate it should not surprise us that the ANC's share of the vote went up. The 70 percent is also, of course, a result of the ANC's successful campaign to win Zulu votes in KZN. The DA likewise, although pushing up their share of the vote by 3 percent or so have also battled to move beyond their traditional support base. The election confirms that they are now the party of South Africa's minorities rather than simply a white party and as such they could, with some justification I think, claim to be more multi-racial than the ANC. Nevertheless, this doesn't amount to much. For those of us hoping that this election might mark the beginning of the end to racially motivated voting there is not much to draw solace from here. South Africa still votes along racial lines, despite what all the spin doctoring to the contrary might have you believe.
What should we make of the fact that the ANC now has a two thirds majority? The two-thirds majority could, in theory, allow them to change the constitution in cases where the constitutional court finds against them or where the constitution itself prevents them from doing something that they want to. The constitution currently prevents the president from serving more than two terms, so they could change it if Mbeki decides to run again but, so far, they've promised that they have no intention of doing this. At the moment I'm inclined to believe them on this.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Authority Stealing
Last night, I went to the opening of "Black President: The Art and Legacy of Fela Anikulapo Kuti" in SF. Great stuff: a stage-filling afrobeat band, djs, art (including storyboards by Fela's longtime album cover artist, with one about a werewolf hopping on a Lagos city bus). Repeatedly jailed, beaten, and harrassed by Nigeria's military rulers for his politics (current president Olesegun Obasanjo, by the way, was in charge when soldiers stormed Fela's house and threw his mother out the window), Fela was a hero to millions. A moment of silence, please, as we all pause to remember Fela and his work.
Last night, I went to the opening of "Black President: The Art and Legacy of Fela Anikulapo Kuti" in SF. Great stuff: a stage-filling afrobeat band, djs, art (including storyboards by Fela's longtime album cover artist, with one about a werewolf hopping on a Lagos city bus). Repeatedly jailed, beaten, and harrassed by Nigeria's military rulers for his politics (current president Olesegun Obasanjo, by the way, was in charge when soldiers stormed Fela's house and threw his mother out the window), Fela was a hero to millions. A moment of silence, please, as we all pause to remember Fela and his work.
Friday, April 16, 2004
The State of Things
Middle East expert Juan Cole's piece in Salon is the single best analysis I've seen on the last few weeks in Iraq and Palestine/Israel -- and what they mean for the US. While it's worth sitting through Salon's commercial to read the whole thing, here's the short version: it's really, really bad news.
Before the war, Bush connected nonexistent dots between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Now he and his neoconservative brain trust are mapping the Iraq conflict onto the Likud Party agenda in Palestine. This time, however, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and one that will have devastating repercussions for U.S. interests in both Iraq and the entire Arab world.
...
Combined with the American military assault on Fallujah, Bush's embrace of Sharon's position succeeded in making America, in Arab eyes, virtually indistinguishable from Israel. The Egyptian daily al-Jumhuriyyah spoke for many Arabs when it observed in the wake of the Bush-Sharon accord, "the victims being killed daily in Palestine and Iraq are due to the continuation of the occupation ... Violence and extremism have increased as a natural response to the brutality of the occupation."
Middle East expert Juan Cole's piece in Salon is the single best analysis I've seen on the last few weeks in Iraq and Palestine/Israel -- and what they mean for the US. While it's worth sitting through Salon's commercial to read the whole thing, here's the short version: it's really, really bad news.
Before the war, Bush connected nonexistent dots between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Now he and his neoconservative brain trust are mapping the Iraq conflict onto the Likud Party agenda in Palestine. This time, however, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and one that will have devastating repercussions for U.S. interests in both Iraq and the entire Arab world.
...
Combined with the American military assault on Fallujah, Bush's embrace of Sharon's position succeeded in making America, in Arab eyes, virtually indistinguishable from Israel. The Egyptian daily al-Jumhuriyyah spoke for many Arabs when it observed in the wake of the Bush-Sharon accord, "the victims being killed daily in Palestine and Iraq are due to the continuation of the occupation ... Violence and extremism have increased as a natural response to the brutality of the occupation."
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Arik's Wish List
Earlier today, George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers finally laid to rest any vestige of the notion that the US is an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. What's that, you say? Washington never was an honest broker? Well, now it's official.
Today, Ariel Sharon got just about everything he could have wanted. George W. Bush signed off on Sharon's plan, in which Israel leaves Gaza in exchange for free reign to do whatever it wants in the West Bank. Bush also rejected the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel, and gave Sharon carte blanche to build his separation wall wherever he pleases. Herewith, a few of the key passages from Bush's statement.
What this means, of course, is that Washington will no longer hold Israel to the 1967 borders -- the foundation of the "land for peace" negotiating process and nearly 40 years of US policy. Bush has given Sharon a free hand to continue building settlements in the West Bank -- in exchange for what? Basically, nothing:
As always, what's required of the Palestinians -- you know, the people under military occupation, hemmed in by checkpoints and without a working government -- is complete surrender.
Update: Since Wednesday, I've seen a lot of commentary along the lines of "This isn't really a big deal because it only acknowledges what many observers expected anyway: that Israel's so-called "realities on the ground" will never be fully uprooted in any final peace deal." This is true as far as it goes -- there's no way the Israelis would evacuate the inner-ring Jerusalem settlements, for instance -- but the baseline for negotiations had always been the 1967 borders. Bush's letter is important precisely because it makes Israeli annexation of huge portions of the West Bank the starting point for future negotiations. You only need to look at a settlement map to see that any deal that preserves most of the existing West Bank settlements also makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. And as Billmon noted in a typically excellent post:
Earlier today, George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers finally laid to rest any vestige of the notion that the US is an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. What's that, you say? Washington never was an honest broker? Well, now it's official.
Today, Ariel Sharon got just about everything he could have wanted. George W. Bush signed off on Sharon's plan, in which Israel leaves Gaza in exchange for free reign to do whatever it wants in the West Bank. Bush also rejected the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel, and gave Sharon carte blanche to build his separation wall wherever he pleases. Herewith, a few of the key passages from Bush's statement.
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
What this means, of course, is that Washington will no longer hold Israel to the 1967 borders -- the foundation of the "land for peace" negotiating process and nearly 40 years of US policy. Bush has given Sharon a free hand to continue building settlements in the West Bank -- in exchange for what? Basically, nothing:
The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity, removing unauthorized outposts, and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.
As always, what's required of the Palestinians -- you know, the people under military occupation, hemmed in by checkpoints and without a working government -- is complete surrender.
Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.
Update: Since Wednesday, I've seen a lot of commentary along the lines of "This isn't really a big deal because it only acknowledges what many observers expected anyway: that Israel's so-called "realities on the ground" will never be fully uprooted in any final peace deal." This is true as far as it goes -- there's no way the Israelis would evacuate the inner-ring Jerusalem settlements, for instance -- but the baseline for negotiations had always been the 1967 borders. Bush's letter is important precisely because it makes Israeli annexation of huge portions of the West Bank the starting point for future negotiations. You only need to look at a settlement map to see that any deal that preserves most of the existing West Bank settlements also makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. And as Billmon noted in a typically excellent post:
But the worst thing about this neocon smash-and-grab job is that it's probably irreversible. In the loopy world of the "special relationship," a presidential statement like this is regarded as the equivalent of a treaty with Israel ("Ratification? We don't need no stinkin' ratification!") It's a commitment that can't be walked back by any subsequent administration -- not without triggering the mother of all battles with the America Israel Political Action Committee and its various assets and instrumentalities on Capitol Hill.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
The Breakdown
The new issue of South Africa's premier electronica/hip hop mag is out now. To indulge in a little dollar-store sociology: it's a look inside an urban culture that's a mix of African, European and, yes, increasingly American influences. Check it out.
The new issue of South Africa's premier electronica/hip hop mag is out now. To indulge in a little dollar-store sociology: it's a look inside an urban culture that's a mix of African, European and, yes, increasingly American influences. Check it out.
Good Answer
-- from George W. Bush's press conference, April 13, 2004
Q Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
THE PRESIDENT: We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing; he's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
Q I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
THE PRESIDENT: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.
Let's see --
Q Mr. President --
-- from George W. Bush's press conference, April 13, 2004
'Black Man's Wish'
A great M&G piece on the rise of the post-apartheid black middle class, and on the work that still needs to be done.
A great M&G piece on the rise of the post-apartheid black middle class, and on the work that still needs to be done.
In townships they call it Black Man's Wish, the make of car whose initials translate into gleaming, incontrovertible proof that you have made it. To buy a BMW is to say your Soweto days are probably over.
So there was a sense of ceremony at Johannesburg City Auto when Nomsa Philiso was handed the keys to her first BMW, a 320i series.
Ms Philiso (35) stroked the dashboard, eased deep into the leather upholstery and flicked the ignition. "It feels good. It feels right," she said. "But I'm still your typical black single mum -- who is now driving a BMW." She then flung her head back and laughed at the joke.
...
But critics find two big problems in this rosy picture of black advancement. The new elite are a facade for whites to retain economic control, they say, and far too many black people remain mired in desperate poverty without hope of work.
Despite the government's Black Economic Empowerment scheme, which encourages companies to cede controlling stakes to black firms, fewer than 30 of 450 organisations listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange had significant black ownership, according to the BusinessMap Foundation, a research body.
White males still dominate the boardroom but in so-called "cappuccino" deals black people are sprinkled into visible but powerless positions.
Road Safety for You and Me
All in all, it seems to have been a pretty good Easter weekend for South Africa's fantastically bloody highway system. SA's roads rank as the fourth most dangerous in the world, and the reasons are legion -- drunkenness, bad cars, bad training, etc. So the early returns show that only 34 people were killed in Kwazulu-Natal, for example, this past weekend. A pretty good showing.
The stats come from Arrive Alive, a nifty little one-stop shop for all of your African auto safety needs. There's even a section on carjacking. Sure it's paranoid, but it's also unsurprising in a country that logged some 30,000 carjackings in the past two years. So if you're wondering what to do when a man points a gun at you and asks for your car, here's the straight dope:
Like the old Tony Allen song says, "You've gotta look to your left / You've gotta look to your right / You've gotta look to your back / You've gotta look to your front ... "
All in all, it seems to have been a pretty good Easter weekend for South Africa's fantastically bloody highway system. SA's roads rank as the fourth most dangerous in the world, and the reasons are legion -- drunkenness, bad cars, bad training, etc. So the early returns show that only 34 people were killed in Kwazulu-Natal, for example, this past weekend. A pretty good showing.
The stats come from Arrive Alive, a nifty little one-stop shop for all of your African auto safety needs. There's even a section on carjacking. Sure it's paranoid, but it's also unsurprising in a country that logged some 30,000 carjackings in the past two years. So if you're wondering what to do when a man points a gun at you and asks for your car, here's the straight dope:
-- If approached by a stranger while in your vehicle, drive off if possible or use your hooter to attract attention.
--Lock your doors, close your windows and do not have bags or briefcases visible in the vehicle. Use the boot for this. Cell phone should also not be visible.
--There are times and days that these items are visible in the vehicle. Try and open the window they might “smash & grab” about 3 cm, so the window can absorb the sudden impact. If you’ve left your stopping distance you may be able to escape.
--Always be on the alert for potential danger, and be on the lookout for possible escape routes and safe refuge along the way.
--When approaching a red traffic light at night, slow down so that you only reach it when it turns green.
--Do not take anything from people standing at traffic lights or places where they gather (job seekers on gathering points). Perpetrators are usually standing among these people.
--Make sure you are not followed. If you suspect you are being followed, drive to the nearest Police Station or any busy public area.
--If any person or vehicle in a high-risk area arouses your suspicions, treat it as hostile and take appropriate action, e.g. when approaching a red traffic light, slow down, check for oncoming traffic and if clear, drive through the intersection. [...]
Like the old Tony Allen song says, "You've gotta look to your left / You've gotta look to your right / You've gotta look to your back / You've gotta look to your front ... "
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Cloud Cuckoo Land
"I think one way to think about it is a year ago we liberated this country from a totalitarian regime, and we are working now on replacing that regime with a sovereign, democratic government. And we are making tremendous progress on that path as we move closer and closer to June 30th, but along that path there are going to be small pockets in this country and small extremist organizations that are going to try to throw us off that path. When I say "us," I say that collectively: the coalition and the Iraqi people."
-- Dan Senor, CPA senior spokesman, April 8
"This week in Iraq, our coalition forces have faced challenges, and taken the fight to the enemy. And our offensive will continue in the weeks ahead.
As the June 30th date for Iraqi sovereignty draws near, a small faction is attempting to derail Iraqi democracy and seize power. In some cities, Saddam supporters and terrorists have struck against coalition forces.
...
Coalition forces are conducting a multi-city offensive. In Fallujah, Marines of Operation Vigilant Resolve are taking control of the city, block by block. Further south, troops of Operation Resolute Sword have taken the initiative from al-Sadr's militia. Our coalition's quick reaction forces are finding and engaging the enemy. Prisoners are being taken, and intelligence is being gathered. Our decisive actions will continue until these enemies of democracy are dealt with."
-- George W. Bush, April 10
"In Kufa, a palm-lined town on the Euphrates, bearded Shiite militiamen who swear their allegiance to a rebel cleric are driving around in police cars. American officials had just bought those police cars. American soldiers had just trained the policemen who had been riding in them."
-- Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times, April 11
"We've taken to sleeping in the living room again. We put up the heavy drapes the day before yesterday and E. and I re-taped the windows looking out into the garden. This time, I made them use the clear tape so that the view wouldn't be marred with long, brown strips of tape. We sleep in the living room because it is the safest room in the house and the only room that will hold the whole family comfortably.
...
The hostage situations are a mess. I watch television and it feels like I'm watching another country. All I can think is, "We've become one of *those* countries..." You know- the ones where hostages are taken on a daily basis and governments warn their civilians of visiting or entering the country. It's especially sad because even during those long years during the blockade and in between wars and bombings, there were never any attacks on foreigners. [...]"
-- Riverbend, April 11
"I think one way to think about it is a year ago we liberated this country from a totalitarian regime, and we are working now on replacing that regime with a sovereign, democratic government. And we are making tremendous progress on that path as we move closer and closer to June 30th, but along that path there are going to be small pockets in this country and small extremist organizations that are going to try to throw us off that path. When I say "us," I say that collectively: the coalition and the Iraqi people."
-- Dan Senor, CPA senior spokesman, April 8
"This week in Iraq, our coalition forces have faced challenges, and taken the fight to the enemy. And our offensive will continue in the weeks ahead.
As the June 30th date for Iraqi sovereignty draws near, a small faction is attempting to derail Iraqi democracy and seize power. In some cities, Saddam supporters and terrorists have struck against coalition forces.
...
Coalition forces are conducting a multi-city offensive. In Fallujah, Marines of Operation Vigilant Resolve are taking control of the city, block by block. Further south, troops of Operation Resolute Sword have taken the initiative from al-Sadr's militia. Our coalition's quick reaction forces are finding and engaging the enemy. Prisoners are being taken, and intelligence is being gathered. Our decisive actions will continue until these enemies of democracy are dealt with."
-- George W. Bush, April 10
"In Kufa, a palm-lined town on the Euphrates, bearded Shiite militiamen who swear their allegiance to a rebel cleric are driving around in police cars. American officials had just bought those police cars. American soldiers had just trained the policemen who had been riding in them."
-- Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times, April 11
"We've taken to sleeping in the living room again. We put up the heavy drapes the day before yesterday and E. and I re-taped the windows looking out into the garden. This time, I made them use the clear tape so that the view wouldn't be marred with long, brown strips of tape. We sleep in the living room because it is the safest room in the house and the only room that will hold the whole family comfortably.
...
The hostage situations are a mess. I watch television and it feels like I'm watching another country. All I can think is, "We've become one of *those* countries..." You know- the ones where hostages are taken on a daily basis and governments warn their civilians of visiting or entering the country. It's especially sad because even during those long years during the blockade and in between wars and bombings, there were never any attacks on foreigners. [...]"
-- Riverbend, April 11
Saturday, April 10, 2004
In Memoriam
Gito Baloi, bassist and songwriter for the seminal SA jazz trio Tananas, was shot dead last weekend in Jo'burg's city center. He was on his way back from playing a show in Pretoria.
It's not easy to find Tananas' work outside of SA and Europe, but here's a live MP3 (scroll down to 'Makweru').
Gito Baloi, bassist and songwriter for the seminal SA jazz trio Tananas, was shot dead last weekend in Jo'burg's city center. He was on his way back from playing a show in Pretoria.
It's not easy to find Tananas' work outside of SA and Europe, but here's a live MP3 (scroll down to 'Makweru').
Friday, April 09, 2004
Bob's Way
An unsettling piece in today's Mail and Guardian: Zimbabwe has sent land-reform "experts" to Namibia to help with the expropriation of white farms.
Like Zimbabwe, Namibia's small population of white farmers owns a lot of the land, and the 'willing seller, willing buyer' program now in place has at times moved with excruciating slowness. I have little sympathy for the white farmers, really -- I find their case only slightly more persuasive than that of the Israeli settlers. The fact is, though, this small group of whites is one of Namibia's economic engines. And we've all seen what happened to Zimbabwe's economy since Comrade Bob's lawless, chaotic farm invasions began some four years ago (Zim dollars make better toilet paper than money these days). It hasn't been good for anyone besides Mugabe's ruling clique. So why is Namibia going this route? Well, the story offers a clue:
There's something of the "old boy network" in all of this, too. The former black liberation leaders -- all of them a bit long in the tooth now -- stick together. It's disappointing, though, to see Nujoma make the same mistakes Mugabe and the rest have made. Because Namibia's independence came so late (1991), it seemed possible that SWAPO and Nujoma might have learned a thing or two about governance. Instead, he's imitating the other heroes cum dictators that have afflicted Africa for decades.
An unsettling piece in today's Mail and Guardian: Zimbabwe has sent land-reform "experts" to Namibia to help with the expropriation of white farms.
"Ndali-Che Kamati, the Namibian ambassador to Harare, said it was hoped that President Robert Mugabe's regime would be able to help the government of Sam Nujoma.
"We just started implementing our land reform and in that regard we have a lot to learn from the Zimbabwean experience," Kamati told Zimbabwe's government-controlled daily The Herald."
Like Zimbabwe, Namibia's small population of white farmers owns a lot of the land, and the 'willing seller, willing buyer' program now in place has at times moved with excruciating slowness. I have little sympathy for the white farmers, really -- I find their case only slightly more persuasive than that of the Israeli settlers. The fact is, though, this small group of whites is one of Namibia's economic engines. And we've all seen what happened to Zimbabwe's economy since Comrade Bob's lawless, chaotic farm invasions began some four years ago (Zim dollars make better toilet paper than money these days). It hasn't been good for anyone besides Mugabe's ruling clique. So why is Namibia going this route? Well, the story offers a clue:
"Namibia's President Nujoma has copied many of Mugabe's policies, including tirades against gay people, sending troops to Congo's war, building a lavish palace and altering the constitution to extend his time in power."
There's something of the "old boy network" in all of this, too. The former black liberation leaders -- all of them a bit long in the tooth now -- stick together. It's disappointing, though, to see Nujoma make the same mistakes Mugabe and the rest have made. Because Namibia's independence came so late (1991), it seemed possible that SWAPO and Nujoma might have learned a thing or two about governance. Instead, he's imitating the other heroes cum dictators that have afflicted Africa for decades.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
All Together Now
It's long been the CPA's worst nightmare in Iraq: Sunni and Shia uniting against the US occupation.
While it's still early days, that reality might have arrived. It remains to be seen if the nascent Sunni-Shia thaw is anything more than a marriage of convenience -- in which they unite just long enough to fight the Americans -- but this AFP report makes it clear that the two sects have begun to work together on the ground -- in this case, to help deliver food to Fallujah, the Sunni heartland town at the center of much of the recent fighting.
Al Sadr and Yassin: a lovely combination, and one the US should start getting used to. Marriage of convenience or not, this one isn't likely to go back in the box.
It's long been the CPA's worst nightmare in Iraq: Sunni and Shia uniting against the US occupation.
While it's still early days, that reality might have arrived. It remains to be seen if the nascent Sunni-Shia thaw is anything more than a marriage of convenience -- in which they unite just long enough to fight the Americans -- but this AFP report makes it clear that the two sects have begun to work together on the ground -- in this case, to help deliver food to Fallujah, the Sunni heartland town at the center of much of the recent fighting.
"THOUSANDS of Sunni and Shiite Muslims forced their way through US military checkpoints Thursday to ferry food and medical supplies to the besieged Sunni bastion of Fallujah where US marines are trying to crush insurgents.
Troops in armoured vehicles tried to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the town located 50 kilometers west of Baghdad.
But US forces were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops.
...
The cross-community demonstration of support for Fallujah had been organized by Baghdad clerics both Sunni and Shiite amid reports that the death toll in the town had reached 105 since late Tuesday.
...
"No Sunnis, no Shiites, yes for Islamic unity," the marchers chanted. "We are Sunni and Shiite brothers and will never sell our country."
They carried portaits of Shiite radical leader Moqtada Sadr, as well as pictures of Sunni icon, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Palestinian Hamas group who was assassinated in an Israeli air raid last month."
Al Sadr and Yassin: a lovely combination, and one the US should start getting used to. Marriage of convenience or not, this one isn't likely to go back in the box.
