Just Say No to 350

 

[Jay Taber is an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, a correspondent to Forum for Global Exchange, and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal. Since 1994, he has served as communications director at Public Good Project, a volunteer network of researchers, analysts and activists engaged in defending democracy. As a consultant, he has assisted indigenous peoples in the European Court of Human Rights and at the United Nations. Email: tbarj [at] yahoo.com Website: www.jaytaber.com]

Green Economy, Red Herring

2012

by Clive Spash

This year sees Rio plus 20 years and much activity especially from United Nations (UN) related institutions to push forward various agendas which the environmentally concerned might welcome. The financial and banking crisis signals for many the tip of the iceberg of reality into which modern industrial economies must inevitably run. Growth of material and energy throughput is then doomed to sink. However, the reports and rhetoric prepared for Rio have little to do with attempts to revive the anti-growth and limits to growth discourse under de-growth or décroissance (a topic explored in a special issue of Environmental Values next year). No, the thrust of the argument being put on the agenda is that re-establishing growth as fast as possible is good, if not essential and unquestionable, but it should be a bit greener. We might venture to ask why this is deemed an adequate response to biophysical limits, increasing social inequity and general systems failure?

At the base of the international response is a dispute over ‘what is the problem?’ in the first place. If you are amongst the top few per cent of the worlds’ population who own the vast majority of its wealth and run its business interests then there is no problem. A financial crisis is just another opportunity to make money by switching assets (e.g., out of dollars or Euros and into gold) and then switching back when the time is ripe. War, famine and environmental disasters are all opportunities for the business men and women with the right goods and services in the right place at the right time. One man’s poverty is another man’s cheap labour and source of cost-efficient profit making. This line of thinking is what we now see being expressed far and wide as necessary to address environmental problems from climate change (Stern 2006) to biodiversity (TEEB2010) using newly created financial instruments (Spash 2010a; 2011).

The approach has been nicely encapsulated in the UN’s promotion of the ‘Green Economy’ with a more than 600 page report released last December. A UNEP policy brief aimed at informing Rio 2012 provides a succinct explanation of what this means:

In the transition to a Green Economy, policymakers should ensure that the full range of goods and services provided by ecosystems, including those which are currently non-monetised, are fully integrated in decision making and public policy. […] Placing a value on ecosystem services through mechanisms that facilitate investment in ecosystems will at the same time benefit local people and the private sector who are rewarded for good environmental stewardship. (UNEP 2011: 3)

Faith is required, namely faith in market mechanisms and the ability of technical experts to first value the environment and then capture those values with market institutions and private property rights. Yet the message is simultaneously intertwined with expressions of concern for the poor, the seriousness of environmentalproblems and the need for change. We are told that, the Green Economy ‘is a new development path that is based on sustainability principles and ecological economics’ (UNEP 2011: 2). The model is of course not new but involves rapid deployment of a growth stimulus package which is now Green because it will use ‘economic models for wealth creation, to focus increasingly on the value of ecosystem goods and services and natural capital’ (UNEP 2011: 7). ‘Compared with previous development paths, the uniqueness of a Green Economy is that it can directly turn natural capital into economic value whilst maintaining it, and conduct total cost accounting’ (UNEP 2011: 8). As if the smell of herring were not strong enough to lose the environmental trail, we are also informed that the aim is for ‘a common language of comprehensive ecosystem valuation’. The environment neatly slips off the agenda and is replaced by growth, jobs, capital investment and wealth accumulation. The environmentalists, conservation biologists and ecologists can be replaced by accountants.

Industrialisation and the spread of markets and consumerism was long ago recognised as corrosive of social and individual values. In this issue, Cannavò (2012) shows this concern formed an integral part of Jeffersonian Republicanism and the writings of Thoreau. The struggle for a more meaningful life which is environmentally benign is both a personal and community challenge. Thoreau’s ideal appears as a halfway house between living in towns to toil for needless luxuries and realising personal integrity and moral virtue from living in wild lands. What the Green Economy lacks is the essential reconnection with Nature that would put humans in context as members of a larger community of organisms. This divergence from conquering Nature is one that separates Thoreau from Jefferson, the environmentalist from the developer. The aim of Thoreau is to tread lightly on the planet while gaining basic requirements for personal flourishing, as exemplified by his experiment growing beans within a semi-wild natural setting. The point is rather different from maximising production while hoping to avoid destroying the basic systems upon which we depend.

The links between human social and environmental relationships are too easily neglected in favour of the simplistic splitting of the world into us and them, man and nature, culture and wilderness, economy and environment. As Matthews (2012) explains, the ontological human-animal distinction has been employed at various points in time to designate women, children, indigenous peoples, and ‘others’, as non-human. This serves to justify violence and oppression. Nature as object for economic exploitation falls within this same frame. Matthews calls for us to deconstruct how we think and conduct our lives so that we might feel, think and act differently.

The complexity of meanings of Nature is too easily brushed aside by calls for comprehensive total cost accounting. Ioris (2012) refers to the technobureaucratic rationality of monetisation and water pricing as removing the plurality of meanings associated with the allocation, use and conservation ofwater. Environmental economics is described as having subverted other values. He recognises a sentient ecology in which knowledge emerges out of feelings, sensitivities and skills developed through long experiences in particular environments. This bears a striking resemblance to Thoreau, and also attacks strong social constructivism as implying human cognition outside the world of Nature. At the same time Ioris argues for the values of water being generated from a perpetual interplay between individuals, their social groupings, and the multiple forms of socio-ecological interaction. Water takes on different meanings for different people. He concludes that systems of valuation are intensely politicised, involving struggles between groups. Thus, no single value dominates but multiple systems of values overlap and meaning is constantly reconstructed in relation to material, symbolic and discursive practices.

That the conceptualisation of reality is subject to contestation and change is exemplified by Van Assche, Bell and Teampau (2012). They argue that knowledge and power are intertwined. An imposed scientific discourse for environmental protection is shown to have in part alienated Romanians in the swamps of the Danube delta. The lack of trust in outside authorities creates a dismissive attitude to the value of wildlife and ecosystem protection. When this mixes with the personal experience of working directly in the swamplands and traditional and cultural values, the result can be confused and self-contradictory discourses. The same birds are at one moment described as beautiful and the next as ugly, while socio-economic problems are blamed on particular species that are derided as needing extermination because they compete with humans. The recent privatisation of common resources (fish and reed) that local people once depended upon did no more to help than earlier development plans and fish farms of the Soviet era. Both economic models have identical core features of growth and exploitation with an imposed technocentric value frame that fails to relate to local people.

Rejecting a single correct discourse challenges the traditional approach of science and claims to truth based upon objectivity. Western governments are increasingly aware of the potential for open scientific debate to undermine policy positions, which they claim are scientific, factually based and objective. Muzzling government scientists to prevent them talking to the media is now openly practised in Canada (Ghosh 2012) and was my personal experience in Australia (Spash 2010b). Contrary to the claims of the Green Economy, protection of the environment is in opposition to traditional economic interests and therefore the discourse must be controlled. Once again a series of dichotomies are employed to support a black-and-white, us-and-them mentality in which rhetoric replaces reason. Such a conflict is discussed by Robins (2012) for the case of genetically modified crops in Australia. The problem goes beyond one of different discourses and values and exposes changing reality through technology. The result is to remove whole ways of life and relationships to Nature.

A core of concern running through the papers in this issue relates to the metaphysical (ontological) questions of what exists, what are the primary entities of concern, what are their most general features and relationships? The ontological understanding of the world we inhabit appears challenged in a changing social and economic system that is undergoing crisis. One tendency, as seen in some of the papers, is to move from the realisation that knowledge is created in contested social and political contexts to assuming that all reality is a social construction. From there it is a small step to claiming all positions are equally valid. However, this seems to confuse ontology with epistemology. The distinction is between what exists and how we form knowledge about the world and what then is the meaning of truly knowing something.

The environmental movement has long depended upon scientific investigation, empirical evidence and the acceptance of a biophysical reality. At the same time the social context and community aspects of valuing and relating to the world are accepted and seen as important, from Thoreau’s good life to the social norms preventing littering, as investigated by Torgler, García-Valiñas and Macintyre (2012). The vision for the future must, then, combine social ecological and economic understanding – but not in some simplistic unifying language of a Green Economy, nor through denying basic realities.

Societal, economic and environmental crises are unified as the result of an old but common deception that growth is good, more is better and there can be more for everyone. In the Green Economy the poor are promised environmental riches, recycled materials and renewable energy can be exploited without environmental impact, and technology always finds a substitute for what runs out. All things can be made compatible by ignoring the basic contradiction between ever-expanding human activity and a finite world. The illusion grows thinner every day, but in Rio expect to see people wearing green tinted spectacles and waving smoked fish at each other.

 

[Clive Spash I am an economist who writes, researches and teaches on public policy with an emphasis on economic and environmental interactions. My main interests are interdisciplinary research on human behaviour, environmental values and the transformation of the world political economy to a more socially and environmentally just system.]

 

References

Cannavò, P. 2012. ‘The half-cultivated citizen: Thoreau at the nexus of republicanism and environmentalism’. Environmental Values 21(2): 101–124.

Ghosh, P. 2012. ‘Canadian government is “muzzling its scientists”’. Retrieved 22 February 2012, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468.

Ioris, A.A.R. 2012. ‘The positioned construction of water values: pluralism, positionality and praxis’. Environmental Values 21(2): 143–162.

Matthews, J. 2012. ‘Compassion, geography and the question of the animal’. Environmental Values 21(2): 125–142.

Robins, R. 2012. ‘The controversy over GM canola in Australia as an ontological politics’. Environmental Values 21(2): 185–208.

Spash, C.L. 2010a. ‘The brave new world of carbon trading’. New Political Economy 15(2): 169–195.

Spash, C.L. 2010b. ‘Censoring science in research officially’. Environmental Values 19(2): 141–146.

Spash, C.L. 2011. ‘Terrible economics, ecosystems and banking’. Environmental Values 20(2): 141–145.

Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. London, UK Government Economic Service.

TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Bonn, UNEP.

Torgler, B., M. García-Valiñas and A. Macintyre. 2012. ‘Justifiability of littering: an empirical investigation’. Environmental Values 21(2): 209–231.

UNEP 2011. ‘Restoring the natural foundation to sustain a Green Economy: A centurylong journey for ecosystem management’. International Ecosystem Management Partnership (IEMP) Policy Brief. Nairobi, UNEP: 30.

Van Aasche, K., S. Bell and P. Teampau. 2012. ‘Traumatic natures of the swamp: concepts of nature in the Romanian Danube Delta’. Environmental Values 21(2): 163–183.

 

 

The Four Degrees [Book Review: Don’t Even Think about It & This Changes Everything]

• Don’t Even Think about It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change by George Marshall
  Bloomsbury, 272 pp, £20.00, October 2014, ISBN 978 1 62040 133 0

 

• This Changes Everything: Capitalism v. The Climate by Naomi Klein
  Allen Lane, 576 pp, £20.00, September 2014, ISBN 978 1 84614 505 6

 

It was at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that governments first agreed to do something about climate change. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed at the summit, committed the wealthiest nations to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’. But the treaty wasn’t binding, so nothing changed and emissions continued to rise in line with the economic growth to which the wealthiest nations were also committed.

Governing and Demagoguery

Indian Country

November 10, 2014

by Rudolph C. Ryser

Reading the Glenn Morris comment in “Invader-States Hijacked UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” and Steven Newcomb’s “A Response to Glenn Morris’s Column” alongside Vice President Will Micklen’s “World Conference Takes Concrete Action to Benefit Indigenous Peoples” calls to mind the difference between “demagogues” and the people responsible for governing. “Demagogues” are essentially interested in their own narrow perspective at the expense of comity and deliberative agreement—they try to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason. Those who govern a nation either within the framework of a constitution or customary laws have a duty to seek comity and deliberative agreement toward a larger goal. Monsieurs Morris and Newcomb are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Vice President Micklin is responsible to his government and the 29,000 members of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. There is a difference.

In intergovernmental forums such as the United Nations and intertribal bodies such as the National Congress of American Indians one’s accountability counts. Those of us, who head non-governmental organizations, sit as academics, or who study international law may comment or suggest. We cannot and do not exercise the political authority and responsibility of a government. Vice President Micklin and other political leaders participated in the deliberations of the UN leading up to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. They had the duty and responsibility to engage the United Nations and individual UN Member states. That duty has deep roots in the foundational culture of each nation.

Demagoguery does perform a function. It can point out the extreme boundaries of social possibilities, excite emotions and often instill hostility in opponents. Monsieurs Morris (FULL DISCLOSURE: Glenn and I have been friends for years. Glenn was listed as a co-editor with Carol Minugh and me for “Indian Self-Governance,” a book published by the Center for World Indigenous Studies in 1989.) and Newcomb both take their turn in written comments to repeat what they have said numerous times in conversation and meetings. They repeat the tired and misleading complaints of the so-called North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC). Each raises his voice to condemn those tribal leaders as illegitimate. Neither demonstrated their willingness during the North American Indigenous Peoples Preparatory Meeting in February-March of 2013 to engage indigenous leaders in a colloquy concerning policy, priorities, or procedure for discussion. They don’t demonstrate that commitment now. Both of these gentlemen have chosen to harangue, speak half-truths, and otherwise demand agreement and compliance with their ideas while ignoring the interests of North American indigenous nations.  These two men, as much as several other unaccountable individuals in the so-called NAIPC deliberately sabotaged the process of developing a truly representative North American Regional body in the winter of 2013 that included indigenous governments in Canada and the United States thus forcing indigenous governments to act on their own.

Vice President Micklin’s Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes, and representatives of other nations (the Navajo Nation, the Quinault Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Mille Lacs Band, Miwok Nation, Oneida Nation Council of Chiefs, Yurok Tribe and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe) to what was supposed to be a North American Indigenous Peoples’ Preparatory Meeting at Sycuan in 2013.  These indigenous governments chose to send delegates to participate with non-representative indigenous people in good faith discussions.  They had the intent to agree to recommended themes and topics for the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.

What was originally billed as a “Preparatory Meeting” of the North American Region was quickly converted into a NAIPC meeting. An academic and a non-governmental organization director with a preconceived agenda controlled the meeting. The agenda was set by a small group of people including Monsieurs Morris and Newcomb. These two and their colleagues in the so-called NAIPC had preconceived notions for the final outcome of the Preparatory Meeting. They were intent on forcing their views for an outcome.  Those preconceived notions basically involved the small, unaccountable group’s decision to designate its members as THE representatives of North America.  There would be no discussion, compromise or consideration of the views or proposals offered by representatives of indigenous governments. The ruling clique hijacked the Preparatory Meeting. They had already decided what they were going to achieve applying their exclusionary approach to “consensus”—“agree with us or shut up!” The idea and possibility of a North American regional body representative of the indigenous nations and peoples in Canada and North America collapsed in 2013.

Unlike the UN World Conference that was all along a meeting of UN Member states and not a joint meeting with indigenous nations (how indeed could they hijack their own meeting?) the North American Regional Preparatory Meeting was supposed to be a joint meeting of indigenous nations and peoples. A small clique of unaccountable individuals hijacked it. The Preparatory Meeting was billed as an open meeting of delegates from throughout North America and became a meeting of the NAIPC made up of self-selected individuals sitting with indigenous government representatives from a number of nations. The pretense of a representative North American Preparatory meeting evaporated on the first day of the Preparatory Meeting. The so-called NAIPC went on to hold their meeting and claim participation of non-participating indigenous governments. It was a sham!

Indigenous government representatives left the “Preparatory Meeting” with a bitter, foul taste in their mouths having confronted an authoritarian clique of individuals. They were confronted with a group that demanded control and the authority to decide what policies would be offered to the United Nations conference.

The alternative for indigenous governments was to take initiatives on their own to engage the UN and UN Member states whether the conference was fully endorsed by its original proposers or not.  Vice President Micklin’s description reliably describes the results of those initiatives. Those outcomes are significant not only for indigenous peoples in North American, but throughout the world. Indigenous governments and responsible non-governmental organizations took the initiative. Even though I did not wholly agree with the indigenous governments’ strategy or proposals I support their effort. Acting in concert they worked to produce openings for indigenous peoples to achieve new levels of dialogue and negotiations in a world recognizably hostile to the rights of indigenous nations.

When faced with hostility demagogues definitely get the attention of opponents, but too often mislead the less well informed and outside hostility turns to unproductive rage. But indigenous nation leaders who must govern have the duty to seize the opportunity to strengthen and protect the rights and interests of the people they represent.  In so doing they must work to find common ground to convert hostility into accommodation. Vice President Micklin and other political leaders are working to establish political equality with Member UN States (as I described in my ICTMN column on September 22). They have made a first small step in that direction. Patience, political skill, and good timing are critical here. Morris and Newcomb would do well to pay close attention to the political leaders.

 

 

[Dr. Rudolph C. Ryser is the Chairman of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, a former Acting Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, a former staff member of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and Advisor to Chief George Manuel then President of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. He holds a doctorate in international relations, teaches Fourth World Geopolitics through the CWIS Certificate Program (www.cwis.org) and he is the author of “Indigenous Nations and Modern States” published by Routledge in 2012.]

 

 

 

UN Dishonest Broker

Public Good Project

August 10, 2014

 By Jay Taber

The announcement by the UN Secretary-General on this International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples that indigenous peoples can act as “powerful agents of progress” belies the fact that the UN — since adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 — has done everything in its power to see that indigenous nations and their delegates are excluded from meaningful participation at the UN. When indigenous diplomats have sought to contribute to discussions on climate change and industrial development in their territories, the UN has repeatedly used trickery and deceit to keep their voices silenced.

While it is technically true that as the Secretary-General says, “In order for them to contribute to our common future, we must secure their rights,” insinuating that the UN is actually working to do that is a fraudulent and misleading statement. If one looks at what UN agencies like the World Bank have done and are doing to indigenous peoples around the world, it is hard not to conclude that the Secretary-General’s bromides are nothing but a smoke screen to hide the UN’s real intentions–the assimilation of indigenous societies into the market system, and their eventual annihilation by modern states.

As noted in Netwar in the Big Apple: Wall St. vs the Indigenous Peoples Movement, psychological warfare by institutions like the UN includes the use of misleading statements (aka gray ops) to misdirect responsibility for the subjugation of indigenous nations by modern states. When the UN talks about its post-2015 development agenda, it is talking about totalitarian corporate control of the world’s resources, including those of indigenous peoples. When the Secretary-General did his part alongside Bill Gates, holding up the Millenium Development Goals banner at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he was part of the largest swindle in the history of humankind.

While it is true that, as the Secretary-General said, that many UN member states act with impunity in violation of UNDRIP, it is often with the UN’s blessing. When the UN showcased UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues chair Grand Chief Edward John as an example of empowering indigenous peoples, they neglected to note that Chief John — as First Nations Summit chair – made it his mission to undermine First Nations sovereignty in British Columbia, Canada, thus expediting their assimilation through privatization of their lands and resources. Indeed, willingness to further the corporate agenda was an essential criteria for his appointment by the UN.

Extinguishing Sovereignty of indigenous nations by Wall Street, the UN, its PR puppets, and its member states involves trickery, subterfuge, violence and fraud. Psychological warfare, that misleads civil society activists into thinking the UN is an honest broker, leaves indigenous leaders open to attack. UN propaganda in the run-up to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples next month in New York, is, like the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues — Designed to Deceive.

 

[As an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal, Jay Taber has assisted indigenous peoples seeking justice in such bodies as the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations. Since 1994, he has served as the administrative director of Public Good Project.]

 

Humanitarian Imperialism in Libya: Review of Slouching Towards Sirte by Damir Mirkovic

Zero Anthropology

March 13, 2014

Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa
Maximilian Forte
Montreal, Baraka Books, 2012
341 pp, $17.95 (paper), ISBN 978 -1 -926824-52 -9

The post-WW II anti-colonialism is now reversed with a neocolonial thrust to Middle-East and Africa. The case of recent attack on Libya by NATO powers in support of the rebels against the Gaddafi’s regime is the essence of Forte’s critical and scholarly treatment of this contemporary problem.

Several writers – notably, Sartre  (1968), Dedijer ( 1962 and 1968), Markusen (1987 ) Mirkovic ( 2000 ), Lifton (2011 ) – have intimated that modern wars are genocidal. A careful reading of Maximilian Forte’s new book leaves little doubt that the attacks by NATO on Libya in 2011 are a good illustration of this point. When a targeted group or society is of a different culture, race or religion and is not in a position to defend itself adequately, due to a huge difference in military power, the most essential characteristics of genocide are present. Slouching Towards Sirte is a scholarly and well-documented account that gives reader the impression that “humanitarian missions” and the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” are just an ideological facade and smokescreen used to mask the raw imposition of power and punishment on the nations whose leaders dare to oppose the “new world order” of liberal democracy.

Maximilian Forte is Associate Professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, and his speciality is political anthropology. The six chapters of this book deal with what the title implies: In its support of rebel forces against Gaddafi’s government, NATO forces attacked a sovereign country and a member of UN, inflicting a huge devastation, and all this under the pretext of promoting human rights and “the responsibility to protect”. Moreover, we learn from Forte’s book that NATO helped, and in fact made possible, the mass killing of black Africans (Libyans and guest workers from the south). Protection of civilians from Gaddafi’s forces sounds hollow in view of the fact that such statements and media reports were never substantiated. “Foreign military intervention did, however, enable the actual genocidal violence that was routinely sidelined in the mass media and was discussed at the UN only once regime change either had occurred fully, or was close to doing so. That was a horrific violence against black African migrants and black Libyans, singled out solely on the basis of their skin colour, and persecuted as such, which fits the definition of genocide much better than violence against protesters.” (p. 240-241).

Forte’s main thesis is the claim that the attack on Libya was not about human rights, neither entirely about oil, but about the destruction of Gaddafi’s pan-African initiative, with the objective of counteracting western neo-colonialism. This – in addition to Gaddafi’s antagonizing of the Arab world – activated the Pentagon Africa Command (AFRICOM) to plan and launch the campaign against African countries to ensure neo-colonial submission to western powers. This is no doubt an original and realistic claim, which the author supports by the facts and analysis he provides throughout the book. In arguing his point Forte does not omit the clear calculation by the US to eliminate from African soil competitors such as Russia and China. Moreover, Forte shows to what extent the (false) claims of human rights violations by Libya government were based on sheer rumours and wishful thinking that justified the NATO air bombardment.

The almost total destruction of Libya’s new capital city Sirte by the rebel forces and NATO air strikes is simply mind-boggling. To illustrate this, it suffices to quote two sentences from Chapter 1: “While observing the destruction of Sirte throughout the course of NATO’s intervention, and particularly in the period from late August to late October 2011, or when visiting the aftermath of the catastrophic shattering of this small city (varyingly described as containing between 70,000 and 150,000 inhabitants), journalists repeatedly noted just how far from grace Sirte has been taken down. … That the slaughter in Sirte should have barely raised an eyebrow among the kinds of Western audiences and opinion leaders who just a few months before clamoured for “humanitarian intervention,” is thus the more striking.” (p. 41). Additionally, many humanitarian organizations, such as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, including AVAAZ and the leftist groups in the West, including Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, have acquiesced in raw aggression and even supported it. If we give credence to the facts and evidence presented by the author, we are left with the impression of western powers not evolving and departing from their old racist-colonial attitudes of subjugation and domination, followed by identity-difference and concomitant deference, which are all conducive to genocide. Thus the new reign of terror imposed by the winning side, with the help of the NATO’s air power, is also reminiscent of the worst cases of fascism in twentieth-century Europe. If Forte is right, similar war crimes (against peace and humanity), for which the Nazi leaders were accused and convicted in Nuremberg, were recently perpetrated by the NATO leaders and with impunity.

On the other hand were the cases of strong condemnation of the intervention in Libya by prominent leaders and diplomats from Arica. Among others, the most prominent were Jacob Zuma, the South African President; former South African President Thabo Mbeki; Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni; Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, Ugandan permanent representative to the UN; and Dr. Chris Landsberg, Head of the Department of Politics at the University of Johannesburg. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela also condemned the attack, while Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe maintained friendly relations with Gaddafi.

The sources and data on which this book is based are varied and include published documents, press releases and journalistic accounts, reports of private intelligence firms, reports by human rights organizations, some NATO documents, first-hand reports of some of the foreign supporters of the Libyan government, UN documents and resolutions, and as a key sources, the U.S. Embassy cables published by WikiLeaks. The book has extensive references and a short Index. Numerous small photos are also included.

In the Preface, the author explains his understanding of the ethnographic requirement of “being there”, i.e. doing field research. He says that his focus is on the ideological smoke-screen raised across the world by the West. Therefore to him “being there” applies to all of us, because the “there” in question is “composed of our militaries, our ideologies, our fantasies of control, our preferred self-image” (p. 11). As Forte delineates his objective: “This book intends to sketch out this context, while providing a critique of the political culture of late imperialist societies in the West, the kind of morality that is refashioned for mass consumption, and the vision of humanity that is imbedded within NATO and U.S. foreign policy narratives.” (p. 11). Undoubtedly, the author has accomplished this objective successfully and by publishing this book has laid the ground-work for critical anthropology. On the whole, the book is a powerful argument against the humanitarian myth promoted by western powers to mask the imposition of their dominance on other societies. Unfortunately, this fact is ignored by many, who ostrich-like prefer to put their heads in sand.

Damir Mirkovic
Professor Emeritus, Sociology
Brandon University

 

---

 

Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa
Maximilian Forte
Paperback and E-book: 352 pages
Publisher: Baraka Books (November 28, 2012)

 

Rate this:

Libya’s Hell, Enabled by Canadian Humanitarians

Why ‘responsibility to protect’ is proving irresponsible.

The Tyee

Nov 25, 2013

By Murray Dobbin

Who will protect Libyans now? One of the darkest and most shameful chapters in Western military intervention continues to play out in spades in Libya. The latest news comes from Benghazi where one of the (literally hundreds) of murderous militias opened fire on peaceful, white-flag-bearing protesters (protesting militias), killing at least 20 and wounding over 130. And they didn’t use just small arms — it was rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and even an anti-aircraft gun. It was, even for a horribly violent context, a disgusting slaughter of innocents.

But we hear nothing from the international choir, led here by Lloyd Axworthy, which sang the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) hymn at the top of their lungs two years ago. The R2P, established by the UN in 2005, has lofty principles but in practice has been used as an excuse for any brutal assault on sovereign nations that serves the capitalist interests of the first world. Responsibility to protect states that sovereignty is not a right, but rests on the responsibility of governments to protect their populations. It is triggered by evidence of any one of four “mass atrocity” crimes: war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

None of these, of course, prevailed at the time of the Security Council’s vote in favour of establishing a “no fly” zone to protect civilians from Gadhafi’s fighter jets. But China and Russia abstained because of Western promises of going no further. That, of course, was a Big Lie as the real purpose soon revealed itself and regime change became the end game. When the country could have managed a ceasefire, NATO and Canada declared that could only happen if Gadhafi was gone in complete violation of Resolution 1973. And Canada happened to choose this particular conflict to invest heavily in — both morally and in material support. Stephen Harper made a huge show of our bombing efforts (over 1000 sorties) and boasted that Canada was “punching above its weight.”

Reckless and cynical

What is so infuriating in the history of this hideous “mission” is the complete lack of remorse or shame at what has been “accomplished.” Just like Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no regrets: Imperialism — especially “humanitarian imperialism” — will never admit to its crimes. But it can’t deny the facts, and for citizens attracted to the notion of “responsibility to protect,” the facts are important so that the next time this convenient principle is trotted out there will be more skepticism.

The key facts? There was no “mass rape” ordered by Gadhafi, a claim repeated many times by Hillary Clinton (and eventually refuted by Amnesty International, the UN and even the U.S. Army). There was no bombing of protesters (a fact admitted to by the CIA’s Robert Gates). There was no plan for a “massacre” in Benghazi. Gadhafi offered amnesty to any insurgents who laid down their arms — in contrast the “no mercy” theme played by the Western powers. All of these facts are to be found in Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa by Maximilian Forte. →

Economic Lessons From the Most Unlikely Country – Eritrea

“Very rational and analytic article. But I doubt if you are going to be heard by fellow African heads. Because, the majority of African leaders are too busy doing their homework (prescribed to them by Westerners and their stooges in Addis Ababa) to demonize the “bad good example”, the sister country of Eritrea.” – Sophia Testamariamm, analyst, writer

OWACHGIUD

October 26, 2013

Image: http://www.raimoq.com/eritrean-independence-day-is-african-liberation-day/

The recent drought and resultant famine that hit the horn of African countries has brought back Eritrea to the spotlight, with analysts saying Eritrea too is suffering silently, though Eritrea’s former Marxist rebel leader and current president Isaias Afwerki still maintains he is not ready to lead another “spoon fed” African country that relies on foreign aid as remedies to internal shortages. Eritrea is doing something unheard of in Africa – it is turning away millions of dollars in aid, including food donations from the World Food Programme. The poor country turned down offers of more than $200 million in aid from ‘hypocrite western donors’ last year alone. →

Historic Speech by Uruguayan President, Jose Mujica, in the UN [Video: Spanish & English]

Semana

September 25, 2013

 

FLASHBACK | Communique from COP

This pockmarked daybreak
Dawn gripped by night,
This is not that much-awaited light
For which friends set out filled with hope
– Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Many arrived in Durban with high hopes. They hoped that the sheer urgency of climate change, especially in Africa, would persuade world leaders and their representatives to take the necessary action to avert global catastrophe. They hoped that dissent inside the meetings would pressure the big polluters to atone for their sins. And they hoped that civil society on the outside would mobilize to change the course of history. Such hopes will haunt us all in the years to come, as we come to grips with the collective atrocity that was COP17. →