coluichedubita: October 2006

Aljazeera:
Iraqi PM criticises raid on Sadr City

Wednesday 25 October 2006, 14:48 Makka Time, 11:48 GMT

The Iraqi prime minister has criticised a raid carried out by US and Iraqi forces on the Sadr City area of Baghdad, a stronghold of the Mahdi Army Shia militia.

Nuri al-Maliki told a press conference in Baghdad on Wednesday that he would demand clarification from the US on the raid, distancing himself from it as he has done in many previous operations in Shia areas.

"This is an issue to be revised with the multinational forces so that it would not occur again. There should be co-ordination in any military operation."

However, a US military statement claimed that Wednesday's raid had taken place with the permission of the Iraqi government.

"Special Iraqi Army forces, supported by coalition advisers, conducted a raid authorised by the government of Iraq in Sadr City," the military said in a statement.

Sadr City is a bastion of the Mahdi Army, a Shia militia loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

US appeal

The disagreement comes a day after Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, called on Iraqi leaders to act to rein in militia groups.

Iraqi special forces, backed by US advisers and helicopter gunships, launched the operation to "capture a top illegal armed group commander" in Sadr City, the US military said.

The raiding party came under fire and was forced to call in an air strike to protect itself, a statement from the US military said.

Witnesses said the gun battle lasted more than two hours, and an Iraqi interior ministry official said that four civilians had been killed.

'Bloody cycle'

Al-Maliki had earlier said his government would "strike hard" against militias that challenge the authority of the state.

The Iraqi prime minister appealed to neighbouring states to cease meddling in Iraq's domestic affairs - an apparent reference to Iran and Syria, which are accused by the US and Iraqi officials of aiding Sunni and Shia armed groups.

He blamed foreign fighters in groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party government for driving much of the current violence that grips the country.

"I would like to state here that the root of the battle we are fighting in Iraq and the root of the bloody cycle that we are undergoing is the presence of terror organisations that have arrived in the country."

Agencies

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/168DDB68-46BC-4592-BDFC-6638CE7DCEC4.htm

allAfrica:
Witness Pins Down France On Genocide

By Edwin Musoni
The New Times (Kigali) NEWS
October 25, 2006

The first witness testifying against the alleged involvement of the French government in the genocide that left close to one million people dead has said that he witnessed France's illegal arrest and detention of the senior RPA/F officials including President Paul Kagame. The former Rwandan Ambassador to France, Ambassador Jacque Bihozagara took the number one witness stand yesterday to give a chronology of events of the French leading to, or during the genocide. "In 1992, we went to France, with Kagame (the President), Aloysia Inyumba, Patrick Mazimphaka and Colonel Emmanuel Ndahiro. Our purpose of visit was to advise the Paris government to pull out from the war that was going on in Rwanda" testified Bihozagara

He added, "In our first evening in Paris, Colonel Ndahiro disappeared. We spent the whole night looking for him and in the morning, the French police stormed our hotel and they roughly and rudely checked our rooms"

Bihozagara said that at the hotel, the police brought with them Colonel Ndahiro as a captive.

"Later on; they took him (Col Ndahiro) and Kagame but the French did not handcuff Kagame. This was a total illegal arrest" he said

"They were arrested and detained for about ten hours and then they were released" he said, adding that the four later went to Paul Bijou, who was in charge of the Central African countries to enlighten him about the war in Rwanda and the need of France not to be involved.

"It was really hard for us to convince him because he was a hardliner" Bihozagara says

In his three hour testimony, Bihozagara also pointed out that General Marcel Gatsinzi and other two ambassadors were representing Juvenal Habyarimana's regime in the earlier talks with the RPA.

By then, Congo Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) was the mediator in the talks before President Mobuto Seseko was discovered to be siding with President Habyarimana. The talks were later shifted to Arusha, Tanzania and the country was given the task of facilitator.

"During the Arusha talks, the Habyarimana representatives had an agent in hotel Meridien; Arusha where they were residing. The secret agent was advising Habyarimana representatives about the next step of the talks," said Bihozagara.

Speaking about France's move to lobby from European Union to intervene in Rwanda, Bihozagara said that after Francois Mitterrand's government realised that they were losing the war, they called on 15 members of the EU, requesting them to intervene and stop the RPA advancement.

"After getting the information about the French's move, I immediately sent a detailed fax in the meeting room where all the 15 countries had met. The fax was mentioning the role played by France in inciting the genocide, their interest in Rwanda and how the massacres were being perpetrated" he said, adding that immediately after the 15 countries received the fax in the meeting room; they all moved out, including Italy that had earlier expressed more support to France.

Bihozagara also says that, later, after the French lost the move, they decided to intervene on their own and landed their strong Jaguar air fighters in Kisangani and Goma but it was too late for them because the RPA was in control of all the strategic points.

He also said that the French government has continuously denied the genocide and sheltering the implementers of the mass killings. Many French scholars have been supported and sponsored to write book refuting the genocide.

The witness also said that the former French President, Mitterrand, said that what was happening in Rwanda was between the lords and the servants and that was the reason why his government was helping the servants because they were weak.

Later in the day, two other witnesses including Jean Marie Gatabazi; a Member of Parliament and another Senator who could not be identified by press time also testified against the French government.

The Commission of Inquiry into the alleged complicity of the French government in the Rwandan genocide is holding the public hearing of testimonies and 25 witnesses including several Rwandan government officials are expected to testify. The Commission is headed by Jean de Dieu Mucyo. Last year, a former French soldier alleged that French troops had trained Rwandan militia two years prior to the genocide. Currently; a French military tribunal is investigating claims by six Rwandans who filed a case accusing French troops of facilitating the genocide.

Particularly, the French army is said to have facilitated the mass murder of Tutsi civilians who had staged a strong resistance in Bisesero hills in the former Kibuye province, now the Western province. For years, Kigali has repeatedly accused Paris of abetting the genocide, but France has denied having a hand in the genocide in which over one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were horribly slaughtered.

Copyright © 2006 The New Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

http://allafrica.com/stories/200610250013.html

allAfrica:
Rebels Demand Six Weeks' Truce

By Frank Nyakairu, Juba
The Monitor (Kampala) NEWS
October 25, 2006

THE Lord's Resistance Army rebels have demanded an extension of the historic August 26 truce signed between the government and the LRA, to allow them relocate to another assembly point.

In a new position paper presented yesterday, the rebel delegation demanded six more weeks of truce, during which their scattered forces in South Sudan and northern Uganda can move to Ri-Kwangba, their preferred assembly point at the DR-Congo-Sudan border.

"We want all our troops to be moved to Ri-Kwangba so that we avoid the unnecessary confrontation with the UPDF soldiers who are deployed all over South Sudan and we think it will take six weeks for all our troops to move to Ri-Kwangba," LRA spokesman Godfrey Ayo said.

He said some LRA troops are still stuck in some parts of northern Uganda although he did not mention the locations.

The rebels also want the UPDF, which has several bases in South Sudan, to limit their movement to the military bases.

"They are all over and as our forces are moving, they clash with them. A case in point which could have been avoided is the unfortunate death of Capt. Sam Mugarura," Ayo said.

Yesterday, the two warring protagonists at the Juba talks submitted reactions to a harmonised paper by the chief mediator, Dr Riek Machar, who doubles as the South Sudan Vice President.

A source on the mediation team said the rebels' request for its troops to cross the River Nile to the Western Equatoria, was flatly rejected.

In making the case for a crossover, the rebels had argued that Owiny-Ki-bul, the other South Sudan assembly point, was infested with mines and not safe for assembly.

The government, however, insisted that the rebels assemble at the designated points of Ri-Kwangba and Owiny-Ki-bul.

"There is no reason for letting the LRA cross to Ri-Kwangba. They want us to misunderstand their intentions," a government negotiator who preferred anonymity said.

It also emerged that the mediators have stepped up efforts in correcting the loopholes of the strained Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which a report on its adherence disclosed that both parties had violated. "We are now specifying areas [for assembly] using coordinators where we expect the rebels to assemble," a source on the mediation team, said.

UPDF deployment

Following last week's ambushes in which 40 civilians were killed outside Juba town, the UPDF has deployed heavily on the highways right from Juba town.

The clashes, which were initially blamed on the LRA, are now being blamed on the South Sudan Armed Forces [SAF], Khartoum's national army.

While it is evidently clear that the talks, which started three months ago have suffered severe setbacks resulting in protest walkouts by both parties, Machar, in an interview with the BBC on Monday, expressed optimism over the success of the talks and said both parties are willing to end the 20-year conflict peacefully.

"You are aware that we have signed an agreement. This is still being implemented with difficulties and now we are trying to find the root causes of these difficulties," Machar said.

"We have four issues remaining. We hope we will handle them in two days and then seriously tackle the issue of accountability because the two parties want to sign an agreement which embraces justice not one that condones impunity." Commenting about President Yoweri Museveni's seven-hour weekend visit to Juba, which apparently opened a can of worms in Khartoum, Machar said the visit boosted the peace process albeit allegations by the rebel delegation that Museveni had insulted them.

"The visit of the President to Juba gave a push to the talks," he said. The rebels' apparent rage, Machar said, could be blamed on the fact that "they are not privy to the discussions we had with him [Museveni]."

"My main job is to ensure that there is peace in South Sudan by ensuring that there are no more fighting groups in the region including northern Uganda which can spill over to South Sudan," he said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Bishops from northern Uganda joined the chorus in praise of Museveni's short visit and said it showed that he is genuinely concerned about the plight of the people in the region.

Museveni praised

"We are grateful that the President personally travelled to Juba for the talks. It shows how genuine he is for peace. We shall support all government efforts and work together to redevelop northern Uganda," Archbishop John Baptist Odama said, while meeting Vice President Gilbert Bukenya in Gulu yesterday morning.

Bukenya said he was utterly disappointed by the continued non-attendance of Joseph Kony, the LRA leader and Otti, his deputy, at the Juba talks.

The two LRA top leaders have deliberately chosen to stay away from Juba over fears of their security and have relied on delegates at the talks.

"I can see light at the end of the tunnel for northern Uganda but it is threatened to be blocked," Bukenya said. "I was disappointed. Either Otti or Kony should have been in Juba to show commitment to the peace process."

Additional reporting by EMMANUEL GYEZAHO

Copyright © 2006 The Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

http://allafrica.com/stories/200610240859.html

AlterNet: "The Hell with Red/Blue;
People Want Out of Iraq and Solutions"

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown
Posted on October 25, 2006

I'm out on the political trail, rambling back and forth across America in support of good grassroots groups, good issues, and a surprising number of good populist candidates. I spent practically all of September on the hustings, beginning with a two-day, five-city barnstorming tour across the Hawkeye State to support a savvy and scrappy coalition called Sensible Iowans (a redundancy if ever I heard one), and I ended the month at a spirited rally with a large crowd of feisty Democrats in (of all places) Kennebunkport, Maine - yes, right in the home nest of the plutocratic Bush clan! No doubt Homeland Security upped the local color code to "Bright Red" for that one!

I'll be crisscrossing the country again this month through Election day, from New Hampshire to California and all sorts of places in between. Since I'm literally a rambling man these days, I offer some random political thoughts, observations, and tidbits from my travels.

The political climate

Among the political cognoscenti, it's fashionable these days to dis the body politic - aka, you and me. We are disparaged as being a bunch of clueless and malleable rubes who care more about who wins the latest "Survivor" matchup than who wins Congress. Of course, these pundits, consultants, lobbyists, and politicos spend way too much of their time in cocktail chit-chat rooms inhaling each others' hot breath.

From my viewpoint out here in the hinterland, it's the cognoscenti who are the clueless ones. The people of America are soooooo much bigger than the politics that are being served up to us by the elites. I find that people everywhere are fed up with the red-state/blue-state hokum that passes for political discourse in our country, and they're in something of a purple rage about the system's abject failure to address the BIG matters that are on people's minds, particularly such populist issues as:

* Falling wages and falling middle-class opportunities.

* Lousy health care, or none at all.

* A collapsing national infrastructure, from water systems and roads to school buildings and parks.

* Corporate greed unleashed.

* Money-corrupted politics and government.

* The death of the Common Good.

Mainstream polls confirm that these are big worries for the majority of folks, and that the public is growing more and more alienated from the economic and political elites in charge. Sixty-three percent of Americans now say that our country is "off on the wrong track" (APIpsos poll), 67 percent are "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the U.S." (Gallup Poll), and 51 percent expect that the next generation will be worse off economically.

People are aching for a politics that matters to them and offers a path to an America in which they matter again. That would be Big Politics. But this year we're mostly getting another campaign of small-ball and low-ball politics, featuring such manipulative mindlessness as the Bushites trying to label all of their war critics "appeasers."

War whoops

Tony Snow, Bush's PR flak, tried to do a mini-McCarthy on the war issue by declaring in September that there are "some" in the Democratic party "who say that we shouldn't fight the [terrorists]; we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda; we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda; and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda." Goodness gracious, Tony, give us the names of these traitorous Democrats so we can hunt them down like the filthy varmints they are!

Alas, poor Tony could not produce a single name.

And then Dick Cheney was unleashed. Snarling and snapping at Democrats who're calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the Veep flashed his crooked sneer and barked that these dastardly Democrats are out to "validate the al Qaeda strategy and invite more terrorist attacks" on America. Thank you, Dick. Now go back to your dungeon.

Next up was Donnie Rumsfeld. What a sputtering old goose he's become! The Pentagon chief is all honked off that we plebes have dared to criticize his handling of the war on terrorism, especially his disastrous diversion into Iraq. So, he has resorted to questioning our patriotism. Last month, he petulantly referred to us dissenters as people who always "blame America."

No, Rummy, we blame you! Indeed, we dissenters areAmerica- 61% of the people now oppose your Iraq war, 58% say it has not been worth the lives we've lost, and 75% say Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. We the People blame you, George, "Buckshot" Cheney, and the entire Bushite menagerie of warmongers, ideological nutballs, war profiteers, and chickenhawks for squandering American lives, treasury and reputation. It's time to say the obvious - our so-called "leaders" are losers.

Think about it: First they lost Osama. They almost won Afghanistan, but they got distracted and lost it, too. Then they lost Iraq to civil war and theocracy. Here at home, they lost New Orleans. Hell, they even lost Pluto - one-ninth of our solar system is gone!

The poor GOP

I'm actually feeling a twinge of compassion for the Repubs. Poor babies, they're trying to run this year with a Gibraltar of weighty political negatives piled on their backs, including Iraq, Halliburton, Iran, congressional corruption, oil profits, CEO pay, corporate scandals, minimum wage, off-shored jobs, trade scams, rising poverty, Katrina, health care, prescription drugs, Social Security privatization, tax boondoggles, national debt, torture, NSA spying, secret prisons, and "signing statements."

Most GOP congressional candidates who are in competitive races are scampering as fast as they can to get away from the Bush-Cheney-Rummy troika, which is about as popular this fall as E. coli spinach. Bush's approval rating is still stuck down at 37 percent (even after his September "Blitz of Fear" designed to spook voters into going Republican).

A new Associated Press-Ipsos survey of Southern women, a group that has backed George since 2000 because of his "religious values," finds that Bush's war is trumping his purported religiosity. Only 32 percent of women in the region still support his handling of both Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, three out of five Southern women say they'll vote for Democrats next month. An indication of how Bush has fallen from favor with these ladies comes from a Georgia mother of three, Barbara Knight, who has been a Republican since birth. "I think history will show him to be the worst president since Ulysses S. Grant," she said. Oh, that stings! In the deep South, you can't fall any lower than Grant.

The Republicans, however, do have one secret weapon they're counting on to maintain their control of the House and Senate: Democrats.

Where's the spark

This should be an easy year for Dems, a landslide year, but - with important exceptions - they continue to practice the politics of equivocation. Take health care. A Zogby poll taken in May in the swing state of Pennsylvania asked if the government should assure that every working American has health coverage. Sixty-nine percent shouted "Yes!" Yet when Sen. Hillary Clinton announced in June that she was going to tackle the health-care issue, she limited her bill to a minimalist, incremental, convoluted approach that would reach only low-income children, leaving more than 40 million Americans uncovered. She meekly mumbled that she can only "do what the political reality permits me to do… what the body politic will bear."

Yoo-hoo, Hillary, the body politic is so far ahead of you that it's pathetic - as is your gutless bill.

Most appalling is the overall failure of today's Democrats to claim their historic roots as the Party of the People. The issue of class makes these delicate Dems queasy, so they give up the huge political advantage that could be theirs simply by being Democrats - by taking on Bush Incorporated.

The Democratic wussiness, of course, is the direct result of their leaders' thirst for corporate campaign funds. Indeed, the party has shown little willingness to take a swing at public financing of elections - the one reform that would take the big, corrupting money out of politics, putting regular folks on a more level playing field with the special interests. Several states already have public financing of their elections, and Zogby's Pennsylvania poll found that applying this approach to congressional elections is favored by 52 percent of Americans. The unavoidable truth is that too many of the party's lawmakers have become upscale "New Democrats," more comfortable with CEOS than working stiffs and perfectly content to go along with the contrived corporate wisdom on everything from globalization to privatization. Few have the stomach to go after the "economic royalists," as FDR branded the money powers of his day. They roundly castigated Roosevelt, a man who was born to wealth, as a traitor to his class. Asked if the enmity of his peers perturbed him, he fired right back, "I welcome their hatred." We could use some of that rousing populist spark.

Consider, too, the example of another unabashed Democrat, Harry Truman. At the start of his 1948 presidential race against Republican Robert Taft, he was given no chance to win. Undaunted, he went to the people with his cross-country whistle-stop tour, taking on Wall Street, calling for national health care, and becoming "Give ‘em Hell" Harry. As he began this historic trip, he told his sister, "It will be the greatest campaign any president ever made. Win, lose or draw, people will know where I stand and a record will be made for future action by the Democratic party."

Scary tidbit

Florida's infamous Katherine Harris, now running for the U.S. Senate, has claimed that "God is the one who chooses our rulers." Good Lord! God chose her? And Dick Cheney? And Tom DeLay? Surely there can't be a god as mean and vindictive as that.

Scarier tidbit

One of the most frequent questions I'm asked on the road is whether Bush/Rove will push us into a war with Iran as an "October Surprise" to goose up GOP election chances. Doing so would seem insane, since our country's military, treasury, and patience are stretched to the breaking point… but insanity is no longer out of reach for this bunch. Indeed, Time reported late last month that the Pentagon's chief of naval operations has asked admirals to review plans for blockading two key Iranian ports, and a covey of minesweepers and other ships have received a "Prepare to Deploy" order for the west coast of Iran. Stay tuned.

The mayor speaks

The hottest, most honest speech I've heard from a Democrat in a long time came a month ago from a place deep in the red heart of Bush country: Utah.

The day before Bush was to speak to a carefully chosen group of military officers in Salt Lake City, some 4,000 Utahns poured into that city's Washington Square for an anti-war rally. Standing with them was Salt Lake City's two-term Democratic mayor, Rocky Anderson. He delivered a stemwinder, blistering the Bushites and inspiring "little d" democrats to stand tall:

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism. A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president. That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience - a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid - afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.

And that was just for openers! You can read the whole speech here.

Making votes count

In my rambling around, I've noticed a positive electoral phenomenon: In several states, including Minnesota, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada, progressives are running for secretary of state, the office that runs the election process.

Nothing is more basic to democracy than the vote itself. Yet the unchecked spread of corporateowned machines has reduced the ballot in many places to a "faith-based" exercise! Also, there are organized campaigns to intimidate and harass voters and to create needless legal barriers to voter participation. All this in a country with a president piously preaching democracy to others around the world.

So the race is on! Reformers are vying to bring these offices back to their nonpartisan function of enhancing voter registration and participation while instilling confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the results. In each case, the reformers are promising a verifiable paper trail for all voting machines, public access to the computer programs that control the machines, and audits of the results posted by the machines. They also support aggressive efforts to assure maximum civic participation in our elections, including putting a stop to voter intimidation.

To learn more about the issues and candidates in these races, visit the independent Secretary of State Project at www.secstateproject.org.

Fighting Bob

On September 9, I took part in what I think is the Best Little Political Event in America - though it's no longer little. It's the annual "Fighting Bob Fest," named for the old-time progressive leader Fighting Bob LaFollette, and held at the county fairgrounds in Baraboo, Wisconsin. It's a day-long, family-friendly mix of hell-raising speeches, foot-stomping music, hands-on political workshops, savory food, grassroots-organizing sessions, great local beer (it always help to lubricate the movement!), some 100 activist organizations…and just plain fun.

Organized by Ed Garvey - a dynamic and jocular prairie populist from Madison - Bob Fest drew some 6,000 people from a four-state area. Among the speakers were Granny D, Tom Harkin, Amy Goodman, John Nichols, Tammy Baldwin, John Stauber, and Greg Palast. Plus a few words from yours truly.

There have now been five Bob Fests, and I've been to four. I go because it's thoroughly enjoyable, engaging, and energizing. People love it because it "puts the party back in politics" and is a highly productive day of down-home democracy in action.

The beauty of Bob Fest is that it's a moveable feast - you can team up with others to create your own version of it in your state or city. Go to www.fightingbobfest.org to learn about it. If you get serious about putting together such a "county fair" of activism and fun in your area, the good folks at Bob Fest are willing to give you some tips and to share their experiences. Let the good times roll… and let democracy flow!

Final tidbit

The latest New York Times/CBS poll of registered voters finds that Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-led Congress, with only 25 percent approving of the way it is doing its job. Seventy-seven percent (including 65 percent of Republicans!) say that Congress members do not deserve re-election and that it's "time for new people" to be in charge.

From "The Hightower Lowdown," , edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, September 2006. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/43188/

Guardian:
We evacuate the territory of the left at our peril

The 1956 commemoration and neoliberal austerity policies have handed the streets of Budapest to rightwing extremists

Gyula Hegyi
Wednesday October 25, 2006

Until recently, foreign observers tended to see Hungary as a boring democracy - and Hungarian politicians liked to give lessons on "western values" to their Serbian, Slovakian or Romanian colleagues. Pictures of burning buildings in Budapest and the smell of civil war have put paid to those illusions, surprising not only the foreign public, but many Hungarians as well.

The trigger for the violent demonstrations was the leaked remarks by the prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, that he had lied about the country's economic situation in the run-up to this year's general election. But the underlying reasons are more complex.

The commemoration of the 1956 uprising and the impact of the government's economic austerity programme coincided with each other. In the nostalgic memory of 1956, peaceful people demonstrated and brave youngsters fought against Soviet tanks. In reality that's only one - albeit important and heroic - side of events. The sometimes forgotten other side of the story was the lynching of communists, anti-semitic slogans and the revival of Nazi ideology among some extremist groups. They belonged to a small minority in 1956 as well as in 2006, but at crucial moments the voice of extremists sounds louder. Far-right groups used the opportunity of the 50th anniversary this Monday to rally on the streets of Budapest once more.

Gyurcsany's Socialist party declares itself to be the descendant of Imre Nagy, the reformist communist leader in 1956, but according to the hard right it is still the old, communist "non-Hungarian" (ie Jewish) enemy of the nation. Gyurcsany put tremendous effort into holding a major commemoration of what he, and even Hungarian law, deems a "revolution" (though for many ordinary people is still an "uprising" - a mixture of both heroic and shameful events). But on Monday the rioters occupied the stage, stole the show and demonstrated that 1956 is still an open wound in Hungary.

When it comes to the controversy over economic reforms, there is an artificially deep gap between the government (made up of Socialists and Liberals) and the main opposition party, Fidesz. The present government wants to abolish the huge budget deficit and cut back the state bureaucracy with its wasteful "welfare state". Gyurcsany, a self-made man, believes that social-democratic values can go together with neoliberal reforms.

But many left-leaning voters are unhappy with unlimited privatisation and welfare cuts. The market-orientated approach and language of some Socialist ministers is alien to traditional Socialist supporters. As the Socialist government retreats from leftwing values, the rightwing forces try to fill the space with social and anti-western demagogy. Since there is no other leftwing party in parliament, the Socialists' lost voters either have nowhere to go, or look to the right.

The Socialists' problem is not so much the reform of the welfare system itself, but their lack of clear leftwing goals. They follow everything seen as a necessary step towards "Europe", be it market-oriented reforms, consolidated budgets or health service privatisation. But they are failing to show how welfare reform can create a fairer society.

Meanwhile, the rightwing Fidesz keeps its doors open to the extreme right. In fact, former prime minister Viktor Orban encouraged the rioters in front of the Hungarian parliament. One of the organisers of the demonstrations has been the so-called Sixty-Four Counties Movement, which demands the return of all the territories Hungary lost in 1920 and now belong to Austria, Slovakia and Romania. Orban accepts the support of these kinds of movements and failed to speak out against the anti-semitic speeches and Nazi flags at the rallies, but sent his people to hold talks with the demonstrators on further cooperation. As a formally "conservative" politician, he even uses the old slogans of state socialism. Sometimes he calls for the renationalisation of foreign companies, which - together with his anti-communist slogans - makes an interesting mixture of left and rightwing demagogy.

When Hungary applied to join the European Union, the idea of a "social Europe" was all the rage and Hungarians voted in favour in the belief that EU enlargement would distribute funds among the new member states in the spirit of "solidarity". But growing international competition and the EU's internal troubles have minimised the social transfers. No doubt western European leaders are not happy to see their followers in central and eastern Europe under threat from nationalists and populists. But they do not have many tools to help them.

There is only one short-term solution to the political crisis in Hungary: Gyurcsany should stay in office. Democratic elections cannot be overruled by riots. But he also has to win back the hearts and minds of Hungarians. If the price of radical reform is failure and anarchy, there has to be a safer way to reduce the deficit. As we have seen in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, if socialists evacuate the traditional territory of the left, they will leave the field open to nationalists, religious fundamentalists and rightwing extremists.

· Gyula Hegyi is a Hungarian Socialist member of the European parliament

ghegyi@europarl.eu.int

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1930662,00.html

Guardian: Germany shocked
by photos of soldiers posing with skull

Jess Smee in Berlin
Wednesday October 25, 2006

Photographs of German soldiers posing with a human skull in Afghanistan triggered outrage in Germany today and cast a shadow over government plans to raise its military profile worldwide.

The Bild newspaper, printed a close-up of an unidentified soldier smiling and holding up a skull. Under the headline “German soldiers desecrate the dead”, other photos showed the skull balanced on a jeep and a soldier holding the skull next to his exposed penis.

Germany’s top-selling newspaper said the shots were taken three years ago and showed German peacekeepers near the Afghani capital, Kabul.

The scandal erupted on the day the government unveiled a white paper outlining a bigger role for German troops on international missions. For Germany, this represents a big step forward and extends a recent softening of the nation’s postwar caution regarding direct military participation overseas.

The defence minister, Franz Josef Jung, said there would be a thorough inquiry into the case which had “angered and disgusted” the government.

“Anyone who behaves this way has no place in the German forces,” he said.

Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the inspector general of federal defence forces, said two men were being questioned.

The 133-page white paper said that the country will retain compulsory military service, and Mr Jung insisted that Germany should divert more troops to “necessary and sensible” international tasks. Germany, which currently spends around 9% of its federal budget on defence, will send more troops on international missions. The country has some 9,000 soldiers deployed globally. Under the plans this could rise to 14,000 troops.

“This can be seen as a sign of Germany’s increasing focus on global politics,” said Jochen Thies, a security policy expert at German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. “However, I do not think that it is a coincidence that these photos appeared on the same day. These things are likely to be connected in a bid to spark debate.”

A month ago, the German navy began patrolling Lebanese waters in one of its most sensitive deployments since the second world war. The Bundeswehr has also backed international forces in Kosovo and in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It has about 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan who are due to stay for another year. But, the government ruled out their deployment in the volatile southern regions, opting instead to keep the troops stationed in the north.

The Bild’s photographs come at an awkward time for the German military. A week ago, lawmakers launched a separate inquiry into allegations that its special forces in Afghanistan abused a prisoner who has since returned to Germany after being imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1931378,00.html

Guardian:
British naval fleet sails into Freetown

As the UK stages naval exercises off Sierra Leone, Julia MacKenzie finds out how the locals feel about their latest visitors

Julia MacKenzie in Freetown
Wednesday October 25, 2006

Nearly five years after the war in Sierra Leone ended, British battleships are looming on the horizon once again.

These are the forces that are often the first to enter a crisis situation. So what are they doing moored off Freetown?

Exercise Green Eagle is currently the UK's largest deployment of amphibious troops, involving 17 warships and 900 marines and using nearly one-tenth of British naval manpower. It will last until early November.

For most people in Freetown, the sight of their former colonial masters is a welcome one, particularly because of the impact of their much-needed custom.

Sierra Leoneans are still mindful that it was the British that brought an end to the decade-long civil war. It was here that Tony Blair first tried out the doctrine of intervention, and the apparent success of the policy laid the way for later interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Green Eagle is officially a training exercise designed to improve the skills of both British and Sierra Leonean forces, working together.

But despite a concerted media campaign by British forces to that effect, many locals here believe differently.

As with every news event in Sierra Leone, the rumour mill has been in overdrive for several weeks now and, in the city's bars and nightclubs, a number of contradictory theories, from the likely to the lunatic, have been advanced to explain the "real" reason behind the appearance of the troops.

At least one prominent member of the local elite I spoke to firmly believes the real reason behind the exercise is to establish a permanent British naval base in Freetown.

Others have claimed that, without doubt, the British are preparing to drill for oil offshore, or even to launch a coup in neighbouring Guinea, which teeters on the brink of instability. None of these are likely, or even possible.

The most widely held theory is that, with less than a year to go until the elections, the timing of the manoeuvres is far from a coincidence.

The Navy denies that the exercise is designed to send a signal to locals, saying it was planned well before elections were even announced.

But most people here still see Green Eagle as a way of offering reassurance that the British could be on the ground within days, if not hours, if the expected trouble comes at election time next year.

After the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces at the end of last year, a show of military strength from the UK is welcome.

For some commentators, the appearance of British forces offers more than reassurance. According to Charles Mambu, the head of the Civil Society Movement, a prominent local human rights group, Green Eagle is a warning for any rogue elements within the army in Sierra Leone.

"They must respect the civil government at all times," he said. "No Sierra Leonean army will ever venture again to take power from the people at the barrel of a gun."

Although the war has been over for nearly five years, the part played by both sides in the atrocities that took place remains fresh in the collective memory. Many of the central protagonists await trial at the UN-backed special court.

These aren't the only views that can be heard in Freetown about what the British are really up to.

Wild speculation about most things is one of the frustrating but entertaining features of life in Sierra Leone. For everything that happens here, there will always be someone who will let you in on an alternative explanation of events, however implausible that might be.

Whether it be the real reason for the ban on the importation of chicken into Freetown, why the rainy season is taking so long this year, or how it is that the teller is unable to dispense the correct amount of cash when you change money at the bank, it is an indication of the ongoing uncertainty and insecurity that distinguishes life for most people in the country.

Improvement in the living conditions of ordinary people has been slow since hostilities ended.

Basic amenities, from the electrical grid to the water supply, still barely function. The road system is in disrepair, and getting about, even in the capital city, requires a four-wheel drive.

Sierra Leone is bottom of the league tables in indices of deprivation. With one of the highest maternal death rates in the world and a health system destroyed by the war, it faces an ongoing health crisis.

There is high unemployment, little in the way of industry, and a whole generation of ex-combatants with nothing better to do than hang out in volatile groups on street corners.

With elections looming and the peace dividend largely spent, Sierra Leone's people want to see progress - and soon.

The UK contributes £40m a year in development assistance - the largest UK investment in per capita terms in Africa, but it cannot replace an entire infrastructure.

In the face of corruption, bad governance and endemic poverty, it will be some time before most of the population sees the benefits of the hard work being done here.

These are the real issues Sierra Leone must face if it is to make the transition from emergency conditions to a developing nation and retain its fragile grip on peace.

In the meantime, the British warships are moored in the bay, but it will take more than the watchful presence of UK forces to resolve the complex challenges that lie ahead.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/westafrica/story/0,,1931130,00.html

Harper's Magazine:
Weekly Review

Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. By Gemma Sieff

President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, which suspends the right of habeas corpus for terrorism suspects and grants immunity to CIA interrogators and government officials, such as President Bush, for violations of the War Crimes Act. [NYT][Chicago Sun-Times] Domestic security officials notified seven football stadiums of a discredited threat of radiological bomb attacks out of an “abundance of caution,” [NYT] and the United States Coast Guard announced plans to mount 7.62 mm, M-240B machine guns on official boats in the Great Lakes. Rear Adm. John E. Crowley Jr. said, “I don’t know when or if something might happen on the Great Lakes, but I don’t want to learn the hard way.” [NYT] Furry crabs were found in Chesapeake Bay. [Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo] The mid-month tally for U.S. troops killed in Iraq was 79, making October the deadliest month this year for American soldiers. [AP via WBOC] The first Eskimo was killed in the Iraq war; it took 20 men a full day to dig his grave through the permafrost in a town 350 miles north of the Arctic Circle. [NYT] The Maine National Guard has been offering “Flat Daddies” and “Flat Mommies,” life-size cardboard cutouts of deployed service members, to spouses, children, and relatives waiting for them to return. [Boston Globe] A Gypsy pressure group filed suit to stop British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's latest film from being shown in Germany. The group accuses him of antiziganism, or hostility to gypsies; Cohen's fictional alter-ego Borat claimed that Gypsies had molested his horse. [Reuters via Yahoo][Wikipedia] During a debate with his Democratic rival, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana said that President Bush (who this week compared Iraq to Vietnam) has a secret plan for winning the war, but that Bush is not going to share his plan with the world.[Billings Gazette][FT] White House press secretary Tony Snow compared the President to “one of those guys at the gym who plays about 40 chessboards at once.”[NYT]

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan collapsed from fasting during Ramadan. His security staff rushed him unconscious to the hospital and accidentally locked him in his car; they fought for ten minutes to break the car's reinforced windows with a sledgehammer and chisel. [AFP via NYT] A Denver woman was ruled criminally insane for stabbing her 21-month-old granddaughter 62 times with a butcher knife after she received “spiritual messages from the geese flying overhead.”[Denver Post] A convicted killer on Texas death row committed suicide 15 hours before he was supposed to die by lethal injection by slitting his jugular vein with a makeshift blade; prison authorities found the message “I didn't do it” smeared in blood on the walls of his cell. [AP via MSNBC] An Ohio cult leader who shot and killed a family of five as they stood in a pit dug inside his barn contested his upcoming lethal injection on the grounds that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to execute a fat man. [Reuters via NYT][CNN] Coca-Cola announced plans to market a new calorie-burning green tea beverage called Enviga,[NBC] and the mayor of Paris auctioned off City Hall's most expensive wines in favor of serving “little democratic wines.” [IHT via NYT] In Panama, 22 people died from ingesting poisoned cough syrup that contained the industrial chemical diethylene glycol, rather than the safe solvent glycerin glycol.[NYT] More than 4,500 tons of polluted material, residue from the toxic sludge dumped in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, in August, have been collected since a clean-up effort began in September. [AFP via KeepMedia] Scientists identified more than 200 oceanic dead zones. [local6.com] The king of Spain denied that he had shot and killed a drunken bear.[IHT via NYT]

Las Vegas magnate Steve Wynn elbowed a hole through Picasso's “Le Reve,” a painting he had just sold for a record $139 million. [BBC] Two subway trains collided at a station in Rome, killing one person and injuring more than 100.[AP via Yahoo] In Sri Lanka, Tamil rebels drove a truck full of explosives into a convoy of military buses, killing 92 sailors. [AP via Newsday] Nearly four months after the arraignment of PFC Steven D. Green, eight other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division faced courts-martial in Kentucky for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her family in March. [NYT] In New York a developmentally disabled handyman was hospitalized after two teenagers sodomized him at a bowling alley with a plumbing snake,[WNBC] and a Catholic priest acknowledged having had an intimate, two-year relationship with Mark Foley when the now-disgraced Republican congressman was a twelve-year-old altar boy. [Washington Post] An exhibit at the Oslo Natural History Museum displayed homosexual behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, and whales. Radical Christian critics said organizers of the exhibition should “burn in hell.” [Reuters via ABC News] China insisted that the U.N. request, rather than require, countries to inspect North Korean cargo. An American expert called the sanctions “kabuki theater,” and North Korea called them a “declaration of war.” [NYT] In South Korea, where scientists announced the development of a new genetically altered strain of adenovirus capable of destroying cancer cells,[AFP via Breitbart] the government warned that North Korea might be preparing to conduct a second nuclear test. [FT] The Boy Scouts introduced a new merit badge for learning how copyright law applies to pirated movies and music. [SFGate] In New York City, CBGB closed, but the Russian Tea Room will reopen. [AP via USA Today][NYT] Scotland Yard and the British Home Office misplaced two “extremely dangerous” terrorism suspects. One escaped from a secure psychiatric unit, and neither can be named for legal reasons. [Guardian online] The U.S. Postal Service announced that it would phase out 23,000 stamp vending machines by 2010. [AP via NYT] A Massachusetts elementary school banned tag.[CBS News]

This is Weekly Review by Gemma Sieff, published Tuesday, October 24, 2006. It is part of Weekly Review for 2006, which is part of Weekly Review, which is part of Harpers.org.

Written By
Sieff, Gemma

Permanent URL
http://harpers.org/WeeklyReview2006-10-24.html

il manifesto:
Gracile, amaro, aspro, le tre note di un'autobiografia

«Volevo la luna» di Pietro Ingrao. Il ritratto privato di un uomo pubblico. Dalla clandestinità antifascista alla lunga militanza nel gruppo dirigente comunista. Dai ricordi dell'amata Laura alle domande sul fallimento del Pci

Rossana Rossanda

Quando Pietro Ingrao pubblicò, nel 1986, il suo primo volume di versi (Il dubbio dei vincitori, Mondadori) qualcuno si offuscò: ma come, era il dirigente comunista più amato, fermo, il sicuro punto di riferimento nella crisi del partito, ed ecco che rivelava una sua dimensione personale, tumultuosa e inquietante, che cercava un raggiungimento nella forma, era come se dicesse: non appartengo tutto a voi, mia comunità politica.
Oggi, riandando sulla sua vita (Volevo la luna, Einaudi, pp.376, euro 18,75) egli scosta da sé di nuovo l'icona di leader del popolo e padre della patria, infrangibile, quello che nella copertina parla alla folla, il volto asseverativo e la mano alzata in esortazione. L'icona - dicono le sue pagine - è la cristallizzazione forzosa d'un percorso, interiore e pubblico, nel quale, al momento dei bilanci le priorità e i pesi si ridistribuiscono, e molto rischia di apparire vanità. Ingrao sa di essere un uomo pubblico, e ci tiene, anche se gli pare un poco cedere alla lusinga, ma quel che ha raggiunto va soppesato e gli errori vanno ammessi. E' una vita autentica.
Il titolo stesso pone un interrogativo. Voleva l'irraggiungibile o che quel che voleva è rimasto distante? La risposta è sospesa. Penso ai versi di Eluard: «Et s'il était à refaire, je referais ce chemin». Sì, se si trattasse di rifarla, rifarebbe quella strada. Con qualche illusione o protervia comunista di meno. E quale ne è l'esito? Il suo attuale compagno di partito, Fausto Bertinotti, non cessa di citare i versi di Kavafis in Itaca: importante non è l'approdo, è il viaggio. Ma l'approdo dà senso al viaggio. L'approdo di Ingrao è che la rivoluzione degli oppressi contro l'oppressione, che resta da compiere, sarà diversa dall'immaginato dalla sua passata milizia e il suo soggetto sarà plurimo. Per strada rimane, con le sue macerie, il leninismo-stalinismo, coppia di sostantivi che non aveva incontrato ancora. E la violenza.

Un ritiro senza clamori

Diversamente dal suo ultimo lavoro di indagine, Appuntamenti di fine secolo (manifestolibri), che si interrogava prima di altri sulla precarizzazione del lavoro, Volevo la luna scandisce sulla esperienza personale cinquanta anni di storia del Novecento. Dall'infanzia in una famiglia meridionale di signori poveri, contraddizione significativa, alla formazione intellettuale e politica ormai giovane nella (gracile) resistenza romana, alla lunga militanza al vertice del Pci, che diventa nel dopoguerra scontro (aspro) con l'arroganza del ceto dominante e fra i campi in cui il mondo è diviso. Poi sarà la (amara) divisione nel partito, preludio di una più vasta sconfitta, fino alla uccisione di Moro. Perché la morte di Moro? Ingrao non era stato un fervente del compromesso storico, conosceva abbastanza la Democrazia cristiana per dubitarne, lo aveva detto a Berlinguer, non era stato ascoltato e si era fatto da parte. La ragione è interiore: da quell'anno non accetterà più alcun incarico dal Pci, a cominciare dalla presidenza della Camera che il partito gli vorrebbe imporre una seconda volta, dopo avervelo mandato anche per toglierselo dattorno alle Botteghe Oscure. Sente «il bisogno di riflettere sul fallimento della strategia del Pci in Italia», sull'Europa, sul mondo che cambia. C'è da studiare, cercare, capire. E' politica, ma non più un «fare politico». Ingrao, se ha dubitato della «alta febbre del fare», non si è mai illuso su che cosa sia o non sia il fare politico. Si ritira senza clamori. Nel libro sono poche righe asciutte, prima di chiudersi sulla figura solitaria e emblematica del disperso di Marburg nel racconto di Nuto Revelli.
Non è a causa dell'età che chiude con la milizia attiva; ha sì e no sessant'anni e del resto ancora un paio d'anni fa raggiungeva una manifestazione traversando Roma intasata sul sellino posteriore di una motocicletta. Lasciava per il dubbio, lungamente maturato, sulla capacità del partito di intendere il volgere degli eventi e di farvi fronte. Allora non ne ha parlato, né oggi getta la responsabilità su questo o quello. E non perché sia arrivato alla conclusione, credo, che fin dall'origine il tentativo comunista era destinato a fallire, che c'era il verme nel frutto. Nel tramonto della sinistra che è stata anche sua è sempre attento al sorgere di quelli che per primo ha chiamato «i nuovi soggetti». Ma da un pezzo deve aver cessato di credere che il Pci li intendesse, e non crede che qualcuno altro li abbia intesi meglio. Vano, quando non pericoloso, dev'essergli sembrato il tormentarsi degli anni '70. L'aggettivo che gli viene sotto la penna più spesso è ormai «amaro». Ma non ha risentimenti. Anch'egli ha mancato, sbagliato.
Dove? Nella «soggezione» al modo di essere del partito. Essa gli pesa di più che gli errori di analisi e previsione, dei quali esso è una causa. Se oggi non propone una lettura diversa del mutare dei rapporti di forza, dagli anni sessanta in poi, è perché la partita è complessa, non gliene sfugge la dimensione ed è sua ferma convinzione che soltanto un grande partito - non un coacervo di opinione, ma un «intellettuale collettivo» - avrebbe potuto farvi fronte. E neppure sottolinea di aver personalmente affacciato interrogativi e risposte. E' troppo severo con se stesso: molti di noi lo sanno più attento di ogni altro dirigente al mutare delle cose, su cui ha molto ragionato e scritto. Se mai è irresoluto nel trarne le conseguenze quando il partito non le trae. Ingrao è sempre un poco oltre e fuori dalla linea, ma è convinto che non si fa politica da soli. Come se gli parlasse dentro il brechtiano: «Compagno, non avere ragione senza di noi».
Tanto più che c'è una consonanza fra la sua formazione e quella del vertice comunista italiano, in particolare della sua generazione: l'impronta morale, antifascista, nazional-popolare più che marxista, l'acuta sensibilità per gli oppressi più che per gli sfruttati, più per le vessazione dei padroni o dell'apparato repressivo dello stato più che per il meccanismo capitalistico di produzione, che gli appare astratto, dunque pressoché inumano. Umanesimo contro «economicismo» è la «via italiana», e di economicismo mi ha sempre rimproverato. Questo accento, cui è stato piegato (perché piegabile) anche Gramsci e nella discussione interna è malamente tradotto nella contesa fra meridionalisti nazional-popolari e settentrional-cosmopoliti, è stato determinante nel Pci assai più della ubbidienza alla vulgata marxista-leninista dell'Urss. In Ingrao è rafforzato da quello «storicismo assoluto», che è il contrario del determinismo (i popperiani nulla ne hanno capito) e viene dal post-hegelismo filtrato da Labriola e Gramsci. La calorosa scoperta del nonno garibaldino incontra una Weltanschaung segnata dall'intreccio fra risorgimento, antifascismo, democrazia e oppressioni del presente.

Il corpo e il sangue del partito

Nell'esperienza soggettiva, i rapporti nel partito pesano di più delle scelte del partito. La sua è una appartenenza, calda, diretta, imponente. Con la base e con il gruppo dirigente, che non sono la stessa cosa. La base è parente del popolo, della massa, che il vertice interpreta e dirige, sollecita e frena; in essa la memoria ritaglia i singoli, uomini e donne con nome e cognome, con i quali ha condiviso giorni e speranze, allegrie o angosce, azioni e riflessioni indimenticabili. Dagli inizi con il gruppo romano, a mezzo fra generazionale, amicale e politico, e poi - nell'insensato giro della prima clandestinità - con Salvatore di Benedetto che lo nasconde a Milano o il vecchio pastore che lo copre nella Sila. Poi saranno le centinaia di persone, individui compagni, incontrati nei decenni di lavoro a l'Unità o in segreteria o alla Camera (dalla quale Ingrao s'è mosso come nessuno, ricordo un incontro di lavoro collettivo con l'assemblea della Montedison di Castellanza). La base è la pluralità del paese vivente, che si raggruma nelle istituzioni locali, nei comuni, terminali appunto plurimi di tradizione secolare e modernità. Essi sono il corpo, il sangue del partito. Altro è il gruppo dirigente, nel quale Ingrao è proiettato quasi subito. E' un vertice pervaso della propria responsabilità, al quale si è cooptati e nel quale si sperimenta la solidarietà del lavoro comune, un certo senso di missione storica e la discussione quotidiana sul fare. E questa, se spesso converge, altre volte si fa scontro, reso drammatico dalla gerarchia e da un centralismo per il quale il solo balenare di una divergenza sarebbe la catastrofe, spaccherebbe tutto.
Una sola volta Ingrao lo sfida, all'XI congresso, dove presenta un'ipotesi di modello di sviluppo e di alleanze opposta a quella amendoliana (ma nel libro la ricorda appena) e una innovazione di metodo, la legittimazione del dissenso (nel libro il ricordo è vivissimo). Che venga accolto da applausi scroscianti dai delegati poco conta di fronte al gelo del gruppo dirigente. Vuol dire che ha perso; quello è il perimetro vero del confronto. Non tenterà in alcun modo di sollevare o dividere l'assemblea e sopporterà senza reagire la grandine di punizioni che segue su di lui e sui suoi. Non protesta perché ancora oggi pensa di avere violato un interdetto: è vero che eravamo una frazione, scrive. Frazione per aver discusso con quattro o cinque di noi, e per aver confrontato con Lucio Magri il discorso da pronunciare all'XI congresso? Magari ci fossimo mossi come frazione, non lo abbiamo fatto. Non abbiamo cercato di riunire una sola volta i compagni che sentivamo più vicini. Conoscevamo tutti e ci conoscevano tutti, sarebbe stato uno scontro acerbo, ma non ci fu. Ci fu la sua solitaria sfida. Ogni «ingraiano» si mosse da solo, più o meno felicemente, per rispetto di un leader che pareva volere tutto il partito o niente.
Sarà così anche più tardi, dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino, cui queste memorie non arrivano. Ingrao rifiuta il cambiamento del nome del partito, sa che vuol dire cambiamento di identità e collocazione. Ma quando si coagulano attorno a lui le speranze di una rottura e ricominciamento - una Rifondazione diretta da lui invece che da Armando Cossutta - non se la sente. Il compagno Ingrao non è uno scissionista. La passione urta con il metodo, introiettati tutti e due. Metterà per l'ultima volta tutto il suo peso contro la guerra del Golfo. Poi uscirà dal partito, da solo, senza consultare nessuno.

La ferrea appartenenza

Oggi sente questa immobilità come una colpa, ma più per alcune discriminanti d'ordine etico che su questa o quella analisi da cui pure dipendevano il presente e il futuro del Pci. Il suo giudizio sui compagni della direzione è generoso, fin indulgente con chi gli aveva fatto guerra, come Amendola di cui ricorda una brutta minaccia senza farne il nome. Soltanto da uno di essi si sente lontano, Togliatti, che non chiama «il compagno Togliatti». Lo chiama «quel capo». Quel capo ha mentito, tacendo o parlando, quel capo ha brindato all'invasione di Budapest, quel capo ha impedito la discussione sul 1956 definendola come un attacco contro lui medesimo e con ciò azzittendo tutti. L'Ingrao di oggi non si perdona di aver taciuto, peggio di avere scritto a favore dell'invasione dell'Ungheria - eppure non taceva per viltà, ma per patita (aspra, amara) condivisione del metodo interno, per una contraddizione fra due principi di lotta. Molti anni dopo fu il solo comunista di rilievo che intervenisse al secondo convegno de il manifesto sull'est, dove di perifrasi non se ne usava nessuna. Ma era il 1981 ed egli era fuori del gruppo dirigente.
Tale è la priorità delle relazioni. In un partito o in un gruppo essa significa appartenenza. Un tempo noi dicevamo più freddamente adesione. Appartenenza è un legame più profondo, comporta vincoli che la mera razionalità non sospetta. Ingrao si accusa di tradimento per aver votato nel 1969 la esclusione del gruppo de il manifesto dal Comitato centrale. Ma quale tradimento? Era evidente che non avrebbe partecipato alla nostra impresa. Non aveva approvato i pochi di noi che erano riusciti a parlare dalla tribuna del XII congresso. Quando gli dicemmo della rivista ci ammonì che, malgrado la rassicurazione di Berlinguer, saremmo stati sicuramente sanzionati. Ci separammo nel modo più limpido e amichevole. Se qualcuno si sentì abbandonato fu molto più tardi, dopo il 1989, ad Arco, quando con qualche ragione si attendeva da lui il lancio di un nuovo inizio.
Per questo ultimo Ingrao, che «parte da sé», la relazione con l'altro vivente, persona o gruppo, è il rapporto essenziale, attraverso il quale filtra la verità dell'esperienza pubblica e privata. E' questo che fa sbiadire nelle sue pagine i lineamenti della posta su cui volta per volta si è giocato il destino nostro, e del paese, ed oltre di esso: quale era la discriminate che si profilava dopo la morte di Togliatti, che è stato realmente il partito di Berlinguer, quale consistenza aveva, al di là dei colloqui di vertice, l'incontro fra Dc e Pci, cattolici e comunisti, come si è andata disegnando la crisi dei socialismi reali e la risposta di un neoliberismo alle insorgenze degli ultimi anni '60 e dei '70 - come matura insomma, attraverso quali passaggi, la crisi epocale del comunismo. Le sue pagine echeggiano il rombo del mondo come si sente il frastuono d'una mareggiata, disegnano i grandi motivi della umana sofferenza e del riscatto; non li analizzano più. Il tempo delle scelte è passato.
Di assoluto e dolce resta la famiglia, radice e luogo del ritorno. Laura, la compagna della vita, Laura spesso più forte e avvertita di lui (non perciò le dà retta, sempre maschio italiano è), Laura che risolve, Laura madre che se la deve sbrigare con i loro cinque rampolli, Laura che è la passione e l'occhio indulgente. E le figlie, tramite fisico del 1968 romano, conosciuto soltanto attraverso di loro, il figlio cui ha dato il suo nome nella resistenza (e neanche questo Togliatti aveva capito), la grande tribù degli Ingrao nella grande vecchia casa a Lenola. E poi gli scorci di fogliame e sole e mare che irrompono negli anni e nel ricordo, la felicità del corpo. E' il primato della persona in una esperienza che più pubblica non sarebbe potuta essere.
Questo è Pietro Ingrao visto oggi da Pietro Ingrao. Poi ce ne è un altro, simile e dissimile, quello che ha traversato dall'interno la prova politica di molti fra noi. La serie di ritratti che gli fece negli anni Ottanta Alberto Olivetti, e sono stati troppo brevemente esposti all'Auditorium di Roma in occasione dei suoi novanta anni, dicono di lui più delle migliaia di fotografie che ne accompagnano l'itinerario come una scia.

http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/24-Ottobre-2006/art61.html

il manifesto:
Un montonero sui banchi del parlamento

Un dialogo con l'argentino Miguel Bonasso, autore di «Diario di un clandestino»

Geraldina Colotti

«Questo è un grande dirigente operaio, Raimundo Ongaro... Questo invece si chiama Bernardo Neustadt, un giornalista della destra, che mi denunciò alla polizia e mi fece arrestare. È ancora vivo. E questo è Carlitos Mugica, teologo della liberazione. Apparteneva all'oligarchia, ma negli anni '70 sposò la causa dei poveri, come Juan Carlos Alsogaraye, figlio del generale che compare qui sotto: il guerrigliero e il generale, questa è la storia».
Sulla terrazza della Fao, a Roma, Miguel Bonasso - ex dirigente del gruppo armato argentino Montoneros, giornalista e scrittore, oggi deputato del Partito della rivoluzione democratica - sfoglia il suo Diario di un clandestino, appena tradotto da Pino Cacucci per Tropea (pp. 308, euro 16). Lo stile è quello di Ricordo della morte: teso e scabro. Le emozioni lasciano un bruciore, una ferita inguaribile lungo la piaga del tempo. E il contesto è ancora l'«Argentina della rabbia», uomini e donne in lotta per mantenere se stessi, altri che ostentano fino alla fine la maschera del vincitore. Ma qui il protagonista di Recuerdo de la muerte, Jaime Dri, compare col suo volto in una galleria di ritratti, storia vera per frammenti, di cui solo il prologo costituisce artificio letterario. Il libro, infatti, ha inizio in Messico alla fine degli anni '90, dove un uomo in esilio scopre un manoscritto dimenticato e viene risucchiato dai ricordi. Bonasso allora ridiventa el cogote come veniva soprannominato per via del grosso collo. Il suo nombre de guerra figura agli atti della polizia politica. «È la mia scheda segnaletica ai servizi segreti» - dice indicando una foto. «Dopo la caduta del dittatore Somoza in Nicaragua, un compagno dell'Erp, che era nei servizi di sicurezza sandinisti, l'ha trovata tra le informative inviate a Somoza dall'esercito argentino». E ride, questo marcantonio dagli occhi penetranti, lo sguardo di un bambino che l'abbia scampata bella. Tra poco, parlerà al IV Convegno mondiale di artisti e intellettuali «in difesa dell'umanità», organizzato a Roma dal Venezuela di Hugo Chávez. Al presidente venezuelano - «un uomo espansivo, dal cuore grande e molto senso dell'umorismo» - Bonasso ha dedicato parte del volume Entrevistas con Líderes de America, comparso in allegato all'edizione argentina di Le Monde diplomatique. Altro líder intervistato è Fidel Castro: «Il Comandante è un amico - racconta adesso l'ex montonero - una volta mi ha ricevuto in pigiama, perché quando è uscito il libro di Ignacio Ramonet, Fidel Castro, biografia a dos voces, gli avevo detto che ero invidioso di Ignacio». E «malgrado alcuni errori», quella cubana è la società «più a misura d'uomo e di donna» che Bonasso abbia conosciuto, «un paese in cui i medici vanno nel mondo a lavorare gratis» Sostituire un uomo come Fidel - dice ancora il deputato - non è possibile, «ma i quadri dirigenti ci sono. Giovani e motivati. La rivoluzione tiene».
Nel libro compaiono anche Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas e Néstor Kirchner, attuale presidente argentino. «Con il presidente abbiamo serie differenze di vedute - afferma Bonasso - ma è l'unico a non aver perseguito i movimenti sociali. Riconosciamo l'importanza del suo impegno per la difesa della memoria storica del paese. Ha abolito l'impunità, e per questo temiamo sia in pericolo. Il testimone Julio Lopez è scomparso un mese fa, dopo aver deposto contro l'aguzzino Miguel Etchecolatz, condannato all'ergastolo per una sequela di delitti. Forse è il primo desaparecido dell'Argentina democratica. Sono tornati gli squadroni della morte, ben mascherati nelle tante milizie private in cui prospera l'estrema destra. L'ombra degli anni '70 non ci abbandona». E se un colpo di stato alla maniera di prima non è più pensabile, perché Kirchner «ha fatto pulizia nella marina da guerra e nell'aviazione militare, e perché il popolo ha ormai a cuore la propria libertà», si respira «un clima torbido».
Si temono le «ingerenze democratiche» del Nordamerica, che possono destabilizzare il paese anche screditando il presidente. Una tattica «in atto in tutta l'America latina che questo anno si reca alle urne. Noi andremo a votare nel 2007. Per quella data, la destra in guanti bianchi vuole creare una sua coalizione, e presenta Kirchner come un caudillo che impedisce la libertà di espressione». Bonasso rievoca poi una sua recente battaglia per impedire l'ingresso in parlamento di un ex-torturatore, eletto con 400.000 preferenze: «Ho presentato una proposta di legge che vieti a tutti i repressori di accedere al potere». Ma non è solo sul fronte della memoria che Miguel Bonasso connota il suo impegno. «Come presidente della Comisión nacional de recurso natural ho fatto una legge per l'emergenza forestale: negli ultimi settant'anni abbiamo distrutto il settanta per cento della foresta, messo in pericolo l'esistenza dei popoli originari, minacciati dal cianuro usato per estrarre l'oro dalle miniere». E come dimenticare la marcia di Mar del Plata, che Bonasso ha organizzato l'anno scorso coinvolgendo Maradona nell'opposizione a Bush? Da quando è tornato dall'esilio el cogote non ha avuto vita facile: attentati, minacce, e la possibilità che, nonostante la scorta, qualcuno lo faccia fuori quando meno se l'aspetta. Il suo libro, che incrocia storia collettiva e storia individuale, mostra quante volte egli sia sopravvissuto: «Nel '74 dirigevo un giornale che vendeva 150.000 copie al giorno. È durato nove mesi, poi l'hanno chiuso, ma prima mi hanno messo una bomba nell'appartamento e una in redazione. Vedi? - indica un'altra foto - è stato il capo della polizia federale e dell'Alleanza anticomunista argentina»...
Oggi, il deputato Miguel Bonasso, eletto al primo turno «dopo due mesi di campagna con il dieci per cento dei voti», vive a Buenos Aires. Nel 2007 - dice - potrebbe guidare lo schieramento di centrosinistra e presentarsi come sindaco della città: «Io non sono un pentito, compañera - conclude sorridendo - oggi sono cambiati i metodi, ma gli ideali restano. Del resto, mi hanno votato per questo».

http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/24-Ottobre-2006/art64.html

Jeune Afrique: Le Niger envisage d'expulser
au moins 100.000 Arabes vers le Tchad

NIGER - 25 octobre 2006 – AFP

Le Niger envisage d'expulser rapidement au moins 100.000 Arabes Mahamides vers le Tchad, en raison des problèmes entre cette communauté et les populations nigériennes de la région frontalière de Diffa, a annoncé mercredi un ministre du gouvernement nigérien.

Les Arabes sont dans la région, pour certains, depuis plus de trente ans, depuis la grande sécheresse de 1974

Ils sont arrivés du Tchad et circulent librement dans la région qui englobe le sud-est Nigérien, le Tchad et le nord Nigéria.

Selon une source proche dossier, cette expulsion massive devrait avoir lieu dans les cinq prochains jours.

"Les Arabes Mahamites seront raccompagnés à la frontière par des militaires mais l'évacuation se fera de façon "pacifique," a pour sa part affirmé le ministre de l'intérieur Mounkaila Modi.

"C'est un plan du gouvernement qui a demandé à ces éleveurs de repartir au Tchad", a précisé sous couvert d'anonymat ce ministre, joint par téléphone de Lagos.

"Il y a souvent des rixes et des bagarres avec ces gens qui sortent alors les armes. Le président (nigérien Mamadou) Tandja tient beaucoup à la sécurité dans cette région", a poursuivi le ministre.

Selon Siyelim Ben Hameda, un député originaire de la région, tout a commencé par une pétition signée par des chefs locaux traditionnels de la région de Diffa et N-guigmi qui se plaignaient des Arabes Mahamites. Ce n'était pas la première pétition de ce genre.

© Jeuneafrique.com 2006

http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_depeche.asp?
art_cle=AFP05246lenigdahcte0

Jeune Afrique: Tir de missile contre un avion
de reconnaissance de l'armée française

TCHAD - 24 octobre 2006 – AFP

Un avion de reconnaissance Breguet Atlantique 2 de l'armée française a été la cible, sans être touché, d'un tir de missile sol-air, lundi dans l'est du Tchad, région où opère la rébellion au régime de N'Djaména, a-t-on appris mardi de source militaire française.

"Un appareil a détecté avec ses senseurs un départ de missile lundi matin" lors d'un vol de reconnaissance "dans l'est du Tchad", a indiqué le commandant Christophe Prazuck, de l'état-major des armées françaises à Paris

Le tir n'a pas mis l'appareil en danger, selon le porte-parole, qui a souligné que "les mesures de précaution (des avions français) les prémunissent contre ce type de menace".

Ce tir est considéré comme hostile par l'armée française, aucun autre appareil ne se trouvant dans ce secteur, que patrouillent quotidiennement les appareils français.

Le type de missile tiré n'a pas été déterminé, mais l'hypothèse d'un missile portatif de type SAM-7 est "cohérente" avec l'armement utilisé dans le conflit tchadien, selon l'officier.

Aucune mesure de rétorsion particulière n'a été prise suite à l'incident, a poursuivi le porte-parole, tout en soulignant que les autorités restaient "vigilantes" sur la situation.

La zone est du Tchad, près de la frontière soudanaise, est toujours "d'une grande instabilité", a-t-il encore souligné.

Les rebelles tchadiens hostiles au président Idriss Deby Itno ont repris ces derniers jours leurs opérations militaires dans l'extrême est du Tchad, en occupant brièvement deux villes importantes du pays.

La France dispose d'un peu plus d'un millier d'hommes et de Mirages F-1 au Tchad dans le cadre du dispositif Epervier, mis en place en 1986.

Les forces françaises mènent notamment des missions d'assistance, en matière de transport, technique et "d'information", aux forces armées tchadiennes, mais ne participent pas aux combats, selon le ministère de la Défense.

Ces missions se poursuivent et n'ont en rien été modifiées par le tir de missile de lundi, a souligné le commandant Prazuck, en affirmant n'avoir "pas plus d'éléments" sur les combats entre forces gouvernementales et rebelles.

© Jeuneafrique.com 2006

http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_depeche.asp?
art_cle=AFP24446tirdeesiana0

Página/12:
Los independientes no quieren guerra

CRECE EL APOYO A LOS DEMOCRATAS EN EE.UU. POR EL FRACASO EN IRAK

Por Rupert Cornwell*
Desde Washington, Miércoles, 25 de Octubre de 2006

Los votantes independientes se están uniendo a los demócratas ante la proximidad de las elecciones legislativas de mitad de término. Esto fortalece la perspectiva de una victoria resonante del partido en la Cámara de Representantes y alimenta las esperanzas de que podría capturar también al Senado. De acuerdo con una devastadora encuesta en el Washington Post de ayer, los autoproclamados independientes –que componen un tercio más o menos del electorado– dicen ahora que votarán por los demócratas y no por los republicanos en su distrito congresional, por un margen de 59 por ciento a 31 por ciento, generalmente citando como la razón principal de la desilusión la guerra con Irak.

Sin embargo, el cambio de opinión no refleja un aumento en el afecto por los demócratas. La mitad de los independientes que habían cambiado de parecer dijo que su voto sería en protesta por las políticas republicanas. Sólo el 22 por ciento dijo que adoptaba entusiastamente a los demócratas. En los últimos días, el presidente Bush ha estado tratando al máximo de instalar el tema de sus supuestos éxitos con la economía, usando una serie de apariciones públicas para señalar un continuo y sólido crecimiento, un aumento firme en los empleos y un alza en Wall Street, que ha visto cómo el Dow alcanzaba la marca de 12.000 por primera vez.

Ayer, los miembros de la campaña del presidente convocaron a un grupo de conductores de radio conservadores –cruciales para conseguir el voto republicano el 7 de noviembre– para difundir el mensaje a los fieles, desde una carpa en el parque de la Casa Blanca, de que todavía no todo está perdido. Pero la constante corriente de malas noticias, y no sólo desde Irak, está ahogando los hechos positivos que cada tanto aparecen. Casi todos los días los republicanos reciben un nuevo golpe, ya sea nueva evidencia de caos en Irak, un nuevo giro de uno de los recientes escándalos éticos, de corrupción o de sexo que están asolando al partido en el Congreso, o las recientes declaraciones en un libro de un ex asistente de la Casa Blanca acerca de que los funcionarios de la administración menospreciaban en privado a los conservadores cristianos –afectando potencialmente un distrito electoral vital–.

Los puntos de aprobación del presidente Bush han caído mientras tanto a 35 y 37 por ciento en dos encuestas publicadas esta semana, un nivel cercano al más bajo y que amenaza, por asociación, con manchar a cada candidato republicano. Todo se reduce a una sombría lectura para los estrategas republicanos. En cada encuesta los demócratas logran más, desde su percibida habilidad para manejar la crisis de Irak y tratar con el terrorismo hasta su capacidad para ofrecer liderazgos efectivos. La ventaja “genérica” de los demócratas sobre los republicanos en el voto legislativo está ahora en un 13 por ciento –más alta que la ventaja republicana antes de las legislativas de mitad de término de 1994, cuando los demócratas perdieron un record de 52 bancas y con ellas el largo control del partido por 40 años en la Cámara de Representantes–.

La subsecuente redistribución de los distritos redujo el potencial de tales cambios. Pero muchos importantes republicanos conceden ahora que los demócratas probablemente obtengan una ganancia neta de quince bancas requeridas para la más estrecha de las victorias. El partido está ahora virtiendo dinero en algunas de las cuarenta bancas republicanas que piensa que son vulnerables, algunas de ellas en regiones como el sudoeste, que previamente parecía invulnerable. Apenas menos oprobiosa para los republicanos es la perspectiva en el Senado. Hasta hace poco, se presumía que los demócratas harían un buen papel –pero no tan bueno como para ganar seis bancas para el directo control de la cámara de cien miembros–. Pero todo puede ser, dicen los analistas. Desde hace tiempo los demócratas han mantenido una ventaja en Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio y Montana. Sus candidatos ahora están cabeza a cabeza por bancas republicanas en el Senado en Missouri, Virginia y Tennessee.

* De The Independent de Gran Bretaña. Especial para Página/12.
Traducción: Celita Doyhambéhère

© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-75082-2006-10-25.html

Página/12: Chávez propuso que Bolivia
ocupe el asiento en el Consejo de la ONU

Después de 35 votaciones, los candidatos Venezuela y Guatemala retirarían sus candidaturas en favor de terceros países con más consenso.

Miércoles, 25 de Octubre de 2006

El presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, desistió de la candidatura de su país al Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas y la cedió a Bolivia, según dijo hoy el presidente boliviano, Evo Morales. El mandatario boliviano aseguró que la determinación venezolana le fue transmitida por Chávez ayer por teléfono, debido a que no ha podido obtener tras 35 votaciones los dos tercios necesarios en la Asamblea General de la ONU para que Venezuela logre un puesto no permanente en el Consejo de Seguridad.

“El compañero Hugo Chávez dice (que) para buscar consenso él deja la candidatura a Bolivia”, expresó Morales. La sorpresiva declaración fue hecha por el jefe de Estado en un acto en la ciudad de El Alto, vecina a La Paz, donde entregó a pequeños productores maquinaria adquirida con crédito del gobierno venezolano. Morales dejó entrever que acepta la candidatura de Bolivia al puesto no permanente de Latinoamérica. Por su parte, Guatemala también declinaría hoy su candidatura, que fue apoyada por Estados Unidos, en favor de Costa Rica, según informaron fuentes diplomáticas a este diario. Un tercer candidato de consenso podría surgir si ninguna de las alternativas consigue los votos necesarios.

“Ojalá podamos conseguir dos tercios”, dijo el gobernante boliviano.

Venezuela y Guatemala compiten por ocupar en el Consejo de Seguridad por dos años el puesto que corresponde a Latinoamérica, pero después de 35 rondas de votación, ninguno alcanzó los dos tercios necesarios (124 votos). El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, declaró esta mañana en Caracas que su país mantenía su candidatura, pero que dejaba la puerta abierta a una retirada si se daban tres condiciones:

“Sólo podríamos considerar esa opción si Guatemala renuncia, si Estados Unidos cesa en su grosero chantaje a otros gobiernos del mundo y si se abre un proceso transparente de conversaciones”, dijo Maduro al canal estatal Venezolana de Televisión. Añadió que Caracas podría aceptar una alternativa de consenso, a pesar de que cuenta “con el apoyo de casi el 80 por ciento de los países latinoamericanos y del Caribe”.

“Siempre estamos dispuestos a conversar, pero si no se dan esas condiciones, mantendremos nuestra candidatura”, expresó Maduro.

La revelación del mandatario boliviano se produce horas después de que él mismo comprometiera su apoyo “a muerte” a Venezuela en la carrera por una silla en el Consejo de Seguridad. “Anoche, primero me llamó el embajador de Venezuela (Julio Montes). Segundo, me llamó el comandante Chávez y me dice (que) como no ha podido nuestro hermano Hugo Chávez, Venezuela, conseguir dos tercios para el consejo de seguridad”, cede su lugar a Bolivia.

La Asamblea General debía reunirse este miércoles para una nueva ronda de votaciones, luego de una pausa de cinco días. Las votaciones se aplazaron el jueves después de que ninguno de los dos consiguiera los apoyos necesarios, aunque Guatemala se impuso en todas las votaciones, excepto en una, en la que se registró un empate. La tregua en el voto coincidió con tímidas expresiones de apertura de los dos países a un tercer candidato latinoamericano para ocupar el escaño de miembro no permanente en 2007 y 2008 en sustitución de Argentina. Paraguay, Uruguay o Costa Rica –que aspira a ingresar en el Consejo de Seguridad a principios de 2008 en sustitución de Perú– fueron algunos de los nombres más evocados.

El canciller guatemalteco Gert Rosenthal, que ha regresado a su país tras haber pasado en Nueva York la primera semana de votaciones, esgrimió su ventaja para no abandonar y lamentó que su candidatura haya sido asociada a Washington. “Llevamos una ventaja tan considerable que si esto fuera un proceso normal no polarizado, lo que corresponde es que el país que va a la zaga, en este caso Venezuela, renuncie a su candidatura y permita que el que va a la delantera asuma el puesto”, dijo Rosenthal.

© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-75083-2006-10-25.html

Página/12:
¿Es increíble “Montecristo”?

Por Sandra Russo
Miércoles, 25 de Octubre de 2006

Al año siguiente del furor de Resistiré, Telefé no pudo superar su propia apuesta. El deseo, que repetía un cierto clima que mezclaba romance con suspenso, no anduvo, pese a que este año Natalia Oreiro está probando en el 13 que ella es reina allí donde hay comedia. Cuando empezaron a llegar a las redacciones los rumores sobre la trama con la que volvía a la pantalla Pablo Echarri, más de uno –y me incluyo– pensó que iba a tratarse de un enorme disparate: partir de la adaptación libre de la novela de Alejandro Dumas para hablar de la apropiación de niños durante la dictadura. ¡Y con Pablo Echarri!

Sobre este chico se han hecho muchas bromas desde que participó en una publicidad de champú anticaspa. Y si hablamos del Boca-River de los galanes, él viene a ser el bostero, claro, mientras Facundo Arana es el millonario. El morocho argentino de Dominico frente al rubio saxofonista de zona norte. Si algo hay que reconocerle a Echarri, y a esta altura como una virtud de su personalidad y no de un golpe de suerte, es que pertenece al grupo reducido de las estrellas con dos dedos de frente (bastante más que el promedio). Es la segunda vez que Echarri gana porque acepta correrse del centro para ubicarse en uno de los laterales de una historia bien contada y bien actuada por todos. Los mejores productos que ha dado la ficción argentina reciente tienen en común esa clave: la rejerarquización de los elencos, a conciencia de que no hay roles menores que, mal llevados, no pudran todo.

¿Pero partir de Montecristo para hablar de la apropiación de niños durante la dictadura? Solamente a autores de televisión se les podía ocurrir semejante extravagancia. Y es precisamente esa extravagancia, ese arrebato de desprecio por la verosimilitud, la que permite a la televisión, como medio, levantar un vuelo insólito, imprevisto, socialmente rico, lleno de vasos comunicantes, cuando un acierto toma forma y se amplifica hacia un lado y hacia el otro de una multitudinaria platea espectadora.

Montecristo funciona. La trama hace un permanente trabajo de equilibrista entre lo asombroso y lo increíble. Es increíble que Santiago haya estado durante diez años preso en un agujero sucio de Marruecos. Partiendo de ahí, de ese disparador televisivo, lo increíble empezó a ser que fueran cotidianamente narradas, con una sutileza y un respeto actoral empático con la problemática, escenas en las que una chica tiene por primera vez la sospecha de ser hija de desaparecidos. O una en la que una ex detenida le cuenta a su hijo que era sacada de Campo de Mayo para tener relaciones sexuales forzadas con un militar. O una en la que un ex activo colaboracionista de la dictadura decide eliminar a un testigo clave en el juicio que se está llevando en su contra, muchos años después de sus crímenes.

Mientras Julio López sigue desaparecido y esa verdad no estalla como una bomba neutrónica en nuestras cabezas, mientras ese hecho es en sí mismo increíble y esta sociedad se lo ha tomado literalmente, y actúa como si eso no hubiese sucedido (fuera de los organismos de derechos humanos, el tema López se extingue, horrorosamente se extingue), en la ficción de Montecristo Laura desaparece. Ha sido secuestrada muchos años después y aquellas víctimas que habían logrado estabilizar sus vidas reviven el castigo inaudito de no saber: no saben si ella y su hijo están secuestrados y vale la pena seguir buscándolos o si es el momento de quebrarse y renunciar.

Montecristo recrea cada noche para millones de personas los núcleos de maldad y crueldad que regían en los ’70. Escenifica para los jóvenes qué esconde la palabra “apropiación”. Le da forma a la intimidad de incontables dramas familiares que tuvieron su cara doméstica. Traduce el lenguaje político al lenguaje del melodrama, pero se mantiene fiel al lenguaje emotivo de esos casos: no hay deformación ni exageración en el repertorio de emociones que exhibe.

La historia que relata Montecristo todavía no terminó.

© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-75073-2006-10-25.html

pambazuka.org: Political assassination
as a strategy against liberation movements

Victoria Brittain (2006-10-19)

The use of political assassination against liberation movements has changed the course of history in a number of countries in Africa and continues to devastate the Middle East, writes Victoria Brittain. The current power relations between the Third World and the dominant Western and imperialist powers, are a product of the war of attrition which the West has waged, particularly by political assassinations, which have robbed Africa and the Middle East of some of their great leaders, and weakened their important political organisations.

Selective and systematic political assassination against liberation movements has changed the course of history in a number of countries in Africa, and the Middle East, and profoundly affected regional politics. And with those changes have come even more significant ones on the wider canvas of Third World history.

More important still, the current power relations between the Third World in general, and the dominant Western and imperialist powers, are to a considerable extent a product of the war of attrition which the West has waged, particularly by political assassinations, which have robbed Africa and the Middle East of some of their great leaders, and weakened their important political organisations.

And there may be another legacy of these political assassinations and the loss of leaders over the preceding two generations. Today, opposition to the new colonialism has become so fragmented, sectarian, de-politicised, marginalized, leaderless, as to give birth to the suicide bomber as a widespread phenomenon –most strikingly in opposition to the US occupation of Iraq, as well as in Palestine.

For anyone who did not live the hopeful, febrile, political life in and around the African liberation movements of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, it may be hard to imagine their power over imaginations and political and social aspirations far beyond their own continent – including in Europe and in the US – and the magic of a handful of their leaders.

Two key liberation movements to consider in particular are South Africa’s African National Congress, and the Palestinians’ Fatah movement and various Palestinian splinter groups.

The different trajectory of the two mainly reflects the difference in their fundamental strategic position in the world: the Palestinians have the great disadvantage of being players in the key area of attempted US dominance of world oil supplies, and of being pitted against the US’s most important world ally. Additionally, the Middle East has been the most deeply penetrated area of the world by Western imperialist interests – well before the creation of the state of Israel.

But before going into those two cases in some detail: some reminders of the immense scope of the use of political assassination against the struggle of liberation movements to end colonialism in Africa, by giving just a very few examples.

Take first, as the context, four related highly professional assassinations, spread over nearly 30 years, mainly unsolved, but all presumed linked to the extreme right and former intelligence services in France. The last gasps of neo-colonialist violence played out here: Ben Barka; Felix Moumie of Cameroon, poisoned in Geneva in 1960 by a French secret service agent; Henri Curiel, the militant anti-imperialist, shot in his apartment building in Paris in May 1978, and Dulcie September, the ANC’s representative in Paris - shot in the back ten years later by a 22 calibre rifle with a silencer – the latter two, soft targets, with no protection, despite numerous death threats.

Charismatic leaders from countries as different as Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Cameroon, and Congo, who each had an influence that went far beyond their own countries, were assassinated in the interests of the colonial powers, even if the assassins themselves were sometimes recruited in local groups funded from the West. Amilcar Cabral, Eduardo Mondlane, Felix Moumie, and Patrice Lumumba, (though the latter was not leading a liberation movement, but was elected head of the post-colonial government less than a year before) were all murdered by the forces or allies of their current or former colonial power, because they threatened its future influence, not to say continuing control, over the economy and ideology in the country in question. Their brutal disappearances from the African political scene had a much bigger impact than their countries’ mainly modest weight would have intimated.

Amilcar Cabral was the leader of the PAIGC, (Partido Africano da Independencia da Guiné e Cabo Verde) the liberation movement fighting for independence from Portugal of the two small West African overseas territories. Cabral was, by far, the best-known and most revered intellectual influence on all African liberation movements. He was shot in his car arriving at his house in Conakry –PAIGC’s headquarters - on 20 january 1973, by a dissident of his own movement, manipulated by the Portuguese.

Cabral’s famous speech at the TriContinental conference in Havana in 1966 had revealed him to the world as a key theoretician among Third World revolutionaries at that exhilarating, hopeful, moment of history. He was also exceptional in action. It was in Guinea-Bissau that the Portuguese colonial army suffered its most crushing defeats, which later sparked the military revolt and the “Carnation Revolution” in Lisbon. Cabral was the living example of an exemplary revolutionary, whose movement was based as deeply among the peasants and future beneficiaries of the transformation of his society, as the Chinese leaders of the long march. He also reached urban cadres with the example of identifying with the peasants and giving up class privileges. Cabral’s charisma, intellectual brilliance, and influence within Africa, have never been even nearly matched on the continent in the 33 years since his death.

Eduardo Mondlane, leader of the Frelimo liberation movement, was killed, by a parcel bomb in Dar es Salaam – Frelimo’s headquarters - on February 3 1969, by agents of the PIDE – the hated and feared Portuguese political police struck here too. Mondlane was a US-educated, highly sophisticated leader who took on the leadership of Frelimo at its founding in 1964. Frelimo had the real possibility of being a liberation movement, and then a government, which could transform its backward strip of southeast Africa economically and socially far beyond the dreams and ambitions of most others in the post-colonial moment.

Would Mondlane, if he had been leading the country through the years of unrelenting South African destabilisation, have got to the point where Mozambique had to agree to Nkomati? This was the 1984 agreement that expelled the ANC from Mozambique - one of the strands of history that led the South African liberation movement to negotiate with the apartheid regime from a position of military weakness.

The subsequent histories of the other two countries who lost their key leaders so prematurely in the 1960s – Cameroon and Congo/Zaire –show more dramatic effects. In both, divided, factional, weak governments came to power, open to extreme manipulation by external forces, notably, the US and France in the Cold War period. Though because of the very complex ethnic structures of both Cameroon and Congo, and the size and wealth of the latter, it cannot be certain that either Moumie or Lumumba would necessarily have been successful in holding their countries together, or maintaining the independent anti-imperialist policies they espoused.

But since their violent deaths both have carried mythic status in Africa, and the evocation of their names brings nostalgia for a dream of real independence, of hopes, of justice, which never came.

In Cameroon, Felix Moumie was the successor to Reuben Um Nyobe as leader of the radical nationalist UPC, which had 10 000 peasant fighters in the bush and a movement strong enough to continue fighting for some years against the first independent government, the pro-French neo-colonialist regime of Ahmadou Ahidjo.

Moumie was murdered by thallium poisoning in Geneva on October 15 1960. His killer was a French agent, William Bechtel, who posed as a journalist to meet Moumie in a restaurant.

In Congo, Patrice Lumumba the radical nationalist leader, elected Prime Minister just before Congo’s independence from Belgium, was killed on January 17 1961. Lumumba’s assassination had been attempted on several previous occasions by the CIA, and it was finally carried out by agents of the Belgian government, including senior serving Belgian officials, acting with his Congolese political rivals, with the support of the Americans.

Lumumba had been crudely and erroneously tagged a communist by the US, which portrayed him as an extraordinarily dangerous individual. Lumumba’s error – in Western eyes - was his ambition of forming a unified state in which Congo’s huge riches would be used for indigenous development, rather than being exported massively to the West. In addition he had made overtures for assistance to the USSR.

In 1963 – old-style - the independent minded Togolese leader, Sylvanus Olympio, was killed in a coup lead by Colonel Etienne Eyadema, a veteran of the French army in Algeria, who took power four years later and for the next 40 years headed a neo-colonial regime strongly supported by Paris.

South Africa suffered some thousands of deaths – uncounted and often anonymous - of its commanders and cadres, assassinated in exile in ANC camps and offices in neighbouring countries, or by death squads inside the country. Dozens of individuals were targeted, mainly in the second rank of leaders. The assassination campaign by the apartheid regime aimed to take out the movement’s best brains, and to sap the will power of the rank and file to organise against apartheid. Ironically the ANC did not lose their top leaders in this dirty war, partly because many of them, like Nelson Mandela, were in prison on Robben Island. And even those top leaders in exile who were certainly frequently targeted, escaped that fate.

Those killed included men such as the young anti-apartheid activist Siphiwe Mtimkulu, poisoned by thallium in 1981, or leaders of organisations such as teacher Mathew Goniwe, the United Democratic Front regional organiser in the Eastern Cape, stabbed to death, mutilated and burned with three others, on the way to a meeting, in June 1985.

The confession of a former policeman, Butana Almond Nofemela in October 1989, that he had been part of a death squad, finally blew the lid off the secret policy, and gave some indication of its range. There were at least 50 such assassinations between august 1977 and November 1989.

A secret unit of the South African Defence Forces, the extraordinarily-named, Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB), was finally revealed as responsible for many hundreds of targeted killings inside the country, and across the region. Cassius Make of the ANC’s national executive, and Paul Dikeledi, a member of the ANC’s armed wing, for instance, were just two of those key people shot dead in Swaziland in 1987 by a squad who brazenly crossed the border for the purpose.

Such assassinations were of course also intended by South Africa to send out warnings to host governments of the liberation movements, of the high price of the alliance against continued white rule. All the frontline states suffered such assaults. Killings of ANC cadres, including women and children, went on continuously through the 1970s and 80s in Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Zambia, the ANC headquarters. The regime relentlessly used spies and created collaborators to facilitate these killings.

In Zimbabwe in august 1981 the ANC representative, Joe Gqabi, who had spent years on Robben Island, was assassinated. He was killed outside his house in Harare, probably by former Selous Scouts who had joined the SADF. The New Zealand born priest, and ANC member Father Michael Lapsley lost both hands in a letter bomb attack in Harare, shortly after the ANC had moved him from Lesotho because of direct threats against him.

Mozambique saw many, many such killings of ANC people. South Africa made repeated raids, including by air, into Maputo against the ANC. In January 1981 they killed 13 cadres, in 1983 they killed 6 people, though only one was ANC, and bombed the ANC office wounding 5 cadres, one ANC cadre working at the radio was poisoned. They went for high profile South African exiles too, whose individual deaths might affect the course of the movement. In August 1982, Ruth First, wife of the communist party leader and army commander, Joe Slovo, and herself an influential anti-apartheid activist voice, was killed by a letter bomb sent to her university office. In 1987, Albie Sachs, another such internationally-known voice and a lawyer, was seriously wounded though not killed in a car bombing in which he lost his right arm and one eye. Sachs went on to be an eminent member of the Constitutional Court in post-apartheid South Africa, charged with overseeing the creation of a state that respected the law.

All these political assassinations over the years were undoubtedly successful in weakening the ANC and its allies, the UDF and COSATU, so that the eventual transfer of power was on much more favourable terms to the old regime, than had been envisaged during the armed struggle.

But all of this bloodshed is eclipsed in scale by the Israeli assassinations of Palestinians – part of the massive bloodletting in the Middle East that has, since 1977 under Menachem Begin, marked the struggle for Greater Israel, and the inevitable balkanisation of the Arab world. This began from the 1956 attempt by Britain, France and Israel to destroy Nasser, the Arab champion of the day.

Political assassinations have been, and still are, the backbone of Israeli counter-terrorism policy, and, in addition, there have been systematic assassinations of the Palestinian leaders keenest to negotiate with Israel. The highest level of the Israeli political/military establishment has been personally involved in many of the most important strikes.

Of the four founding fathers of Fatah, only one, Yasser Arafat, escaped assassination. Or did he? The use of sophisticated poison by Israeli assassins was revealed in 1997 when a Hamas leader, Khalid Mash’al, was poisoned in Amman by two Mossad agents (who had travelled on false Canadian passports and who were captured).

Mash’al was only saved when a furious King Hussein demanded, and received, the poison antidote from Israel. Others had no such escape from their fate: Muhamed Yusif al Najjar was killed by Israeli commandos in Beirut in 1973 – led by Ehud Barak, later Prime Minister, disguised as a woman. Abu Jihad, the PLO’s foreign minister, was killed in his house at the PLO headquarters in Tunis by a sea-borne Israeli military squad led by General Moshe Yaalon, later chief of staff. Abu Iyad, Fatah’s intelligence chief, with one of his senior intelligence officials, Abu al Hol, was gunned down in his house in Tunis in January 1991 on the eve of the Gulf war, by Hamza Abu Zaid, a dissident Fatah member who had been recruited by Abu Nidal.

In his deeply researched book, Abu Nidal, A Gun for Hire, the British Middle East expert, Patrick Seale, explored the thesis that Abu Iyad had put to him the previous year: that Abu Nidal was working with the Israelis. Nidal himself admitted penetration of his organisation by Mossad.

If Seale is correct, and he makes a very detailed and persuasive case, the Israelis were using, with Abu Nidal’s group, a particularly ruthless version of the classic infiltration and manipulation techniques with double agents much favoured by the South Africans (see above). The Israelis over the years have penetrated every single Palestinian organisation, and the use of collaborators has been a painfully corroding theme through Palestinian society.

In southern Lebanon, Hizbollah and Amal both had leaders assassinated by Israel in an extension of the war against the Palestinians. These actions, often coordinated by the US and sometimes financed by Saudi Arabia did not always succeed but they raised the stakes, for instance, notably, with the March 1985 massive car bomb in Beirut near the apartment block of Hizbollah’s spiritual leader, Sheik Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, which missed him, but killed 80 people and wounded two hundred. Elsewhere in Lebanon thousands of Palestinians died in the war of the camps, and in the Abu Nidal killings of about 600 young men in 1987/88.

The dramatic impact on Palestinian history of political assassination comes not only from the top leadership cases cited, but from the assassinations of five leading Fatah doves between 1978 and 1983 by Abu Nidal. All five had publicly spoken in favour of dialogue with Israel, and all represented Fatah abroad: Said Hammami, PLO representative in London, Ali Yassin, ambassador in Kuwait, Nain Khudr, representative in Brussels, Izz al-Din Qalaq, representative in Paris, and Arafat’s confidant, Dr Issam Sartawi, killed in Lisbon during a conference on Palestine.

All five would certainly have held prominent positions in the Palestinian team that conducted the eventual negotiations with the Israelis. Their murders gave Israel its double goal: ending any chance of such negotiations taking place, and ensuring the continuation of the PLO’s international pariah status with the label of a terrorist organisation.

Other PLO representatives were also assassinated in Cyprus, Beirut, Rome, Paris (two more), and in Malta. And there were other attempts that failed.

Throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ two intifadas, scores of Palestinians in less prominent local leadership positions were targeted and killed by undercover Israeli hit squads with incalculable impact on the political coherence of the resistance to the Occupation.

With the beginning of the twenty first century Israeli assassination tactics became more violent, more reckless of the consequences for civilians, and heedless of any international censure. The leader of the PFLP was the first victim of the flamboyant style that became their new trademark. On august 27 2001 Secretary-General Abu Ali Mustafa was assassinated by a missile attack on his office in Ramallah after he returned to the West Bank after 32 years in exile.

In conclusion:

Since the Tricontinental era, in terms of self-confidence and intellectual freedom, of power relations with the West, of the gap between rich and poor, of optimism for justice, the legacy of the inspired liberation movements of the nineteen sixties, seventies and eighties has been deeply disappointing. All the material indicators are worse too in Africa and the Middle East, and the situation is compounded by a brain drain that runs directly contrary to the nationalist ideals of the earlier generations.

The Arab world is neither united nor free, much of it a series of shattered societies, headed by discredited and contested elites. Nothing illustrates this better than the current situation of the US occupation and destruction of a former regional giant - Iraq. Iraq’s great history and civilisation has come to its lowest ebb as one client government, manipulated from Washington, has succeeded another, and a new generation of resistance has been born. The daily diet of suicide bombings, carried out both by Iraqis and by jihadis of other Arab nationalities, has its roots in the depoliticisation imperialism worked so hard to produce in so much of the Third World, most notably by its political assassination policy.

• This a shortened version of an article in Race and Class Volume 48 (1) 2006, based on a paper given in a colloquium in Paris in late 2005, on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Moroccan opposition leader Ben Barka.

• Victoria Brittain is a journalist. She worked at the Guardian for 20 years, mainly covering Africa and Third World economic and political issues.

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/37899

The Independent:
US in Iraq: We're out of here

America signals dramatic shift in strategy, saying Iraq will assume responsibility for security in '12 to 18 months'

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington and Colin Brown
Published: 25 October 2006

In the firmest indication yet of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, America's most senior general there and its top civilian official have drawn the outlines of a political and military plan that could see a substantial pullout of US troops within 12 to 18 months.

Yesterday's announcement looked like a strategy change carrying implications for British troops in Iraq, although President Bush's aides deny any "dramatic shifts" in policy. It came after Mr Bush's spokesman acknowledged on Monday that the President had cut and run from his signature promise that America would "stay the course" in Iraq.

In a joint press conference in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, laid out a series of political steps that he claimed had been agreed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, including a crackdown on militias, a peace offer to insurgents and a plan for sharing oil revenues. The measures, to be taken over the next year, would amount to a new "national compact" between the Iraqi factions, he said. At the same time, General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, said the training of Iraqi security forces - essential for any orderly US departure - was 75 per cent complete. Within 12 to 18 months, he said, they would emerge as "the dominant force in Iraq", even though some residual US military presence would be needed (as President Bush himself has indicated).

The rare joint press conference took place amid deepening political turmoil in Washington, where leading members of Mr Bush's own Republican party are demanding a radical rethink of US strategy in Iraq. They argue that current policies have all but failed, as sectarian and anti-American violence threaten to overwhelm the country.

Coming after the White House formally abandoned Mr Bush's previous "stay the course" formulation for US policy, the appearance by Mr Khalilzad and General Casey seemed part of a carefully choreographed exercise to signal, without explicitly saying so, that a timetable for pull-out - long rejected by the President - was in fact taking shape.

The clear purpose was twofold: to reassure voters a fortnight before mid-term elections that the administration had a workable policy for Iraq and that, all appearances to the contrary, that policy was achieving some success. Though 90 US troops have been killed this month, and Iraqi civilian deaths are running at 100 a day or more, General Casey maintained that 90 per cent of the attacks were occurring within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad.

But even he acknowledged the timetable was at the mercy of events on the ground, which Washington was largely powerless to shape. American troop levels might actually have to be increased to cope with the continuing violence in Baghdad, where a return to order is vital if the country is to be stabilised.

Tony Blair, in step with US policy, reassured the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, on Monday that the UK would not "cut and run" from Iraq.

The Prime Minister will face a challenge today from backbench MPs who have scheduled a debate on the Iraq exit strategy. But it will not enable MPs to vote on the issue. "We had a debate and a vote to take us into Iraq. We should have one now to take us out," said one Labour MP.

Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, is expected to repeat the Prime Minister's insistence that British troops will stay "until the job is done".

Mr Khalilzad offered no certainty of a political settlement, and mentioned no timetable for disarming the Shia militias. This is the issue which could tear asunder Mr Maliki's government, some of whose members have ties with the largest of the militias.

Instead, Mr Khalilzad outlined a series of steps to be taken within "the coming weeks", including a law on dividing oil revenues, action to achieve "reconciliation" with discontented Sunni Muslims and former Baathists, and a firm date for provincial elections.

But neither the ambassador nor General Casey made clear what might happen if the Iraqi government and the emerging security forces did not live up to US expectations. On both scores, there are strong doubts.

Washington has not disguised its frustration with Mr Maliki's government and its refusal to confront the militias. And it is only eight months since the Pentagon was forced to admit that the only Iraqi battalion deemed capable of fighting on its own had been reclassified as needing the back-up of US forces.

John Pike, the director of the Washington-based studies group Global Security.Org, said: "I think they are saying that Americans are going to be there for 18 more months, but we can start to draw that number down before the next presidential election."

But pressures for a significant pull-out much sooner are intensifying. Iraq threatens to drag Republicans to humiliating defeat at the 7 November elections, while Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has become the latest senior Republican to turn on the White House. He said yesterday: "We're on the verge of chaos."

A poll shows more than two-thirds of Americans think the war was a mistake. A mere 20 per cent believe the US is winning, compared to 40 per cent 12 months ago. In an editorial yesterday, The New York Times said Iraq could become "the worst foreign policy debacle in American history". Stressing what was at stake, Mr Khalilzad called Iraq "the defining challenge of our era" which would "profoundly shape... the future of the world."

A changing message

'The US and our allies have prevailed. Now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country'

President Bush, 1 May 2003

'We must stay the course, because the end result is in our interest'

President Bush, 13 April 2004

'This is not "stay the course" but constant motion '

Bush spokesman, 23 October 2004

'This violence is going to go on for a long time'

Stephen Hadley, US National Security Adviser, yesterday

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1927145.ece

The Independent: From 'mission accomplished'
to mission impossible for the Iraqis

Patrick Cockburn
Published: 25 October 2006

"It sounds like a face-saving way of announcing a withdrawal," commented an Iraqi political leader yesterday on hearing that the US military commander in Iraq and the chief American envoy in Baghdad had said that Iraqi police and army should be able to take charge of security in a year or 18 months.

Yet the only real strength of the Iraqi government is the US army. In theory, it has 264,000 soldiers and police under its command. In practice they obey the orders of their communal leaders in so far as they obey anybody.

There is still a hopeless lack of realism in statements from senior American officials. It is as if the taste of defeat is too bitter. "This Mehdi Army militia group has to be brought under control," said the US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad at a press conference in Baghdad yesterday. But in the past few months most of the Shia districts in Baghdad - and Shia are the majority in the capital - have come under the control of the Mehdi Army, the militia of the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. It is all so different from that moment of exuberant imperial hubris in May 2003 when President George Bush announced mission accomplished in Iraq.

Where did the US go wrong? Saddam Hussein's government collapsed almost without a fight. Iraqis would not fight for him. Iraqis may not have welcomed American tanks with sweets and rose petals but they were very glad to see the back of their own disaster-prone leader.

The greatest American mistake was to turn what could have been presented as liberation into an occupation. The US effectively dissolved the Iraqi state. It has since been said by US generals - many of whom now claim to have been opponents of the invasion all along - that given a larger US army and a more competent occupation regime, all might still have been well. This is doubtful. The five million Sunni Arabs were always going to fight the occupation. The only Iraqi community to support it were the five million Kurds. The Shia wanted to use it to gain the power their 60 per cent of the Iraqi population warranted but they never liked it.

One theme has been constant throughout the past three-and-a-half years - the Iraqi government has always been weak. For this, the US and Britain were largely responsible. They wanted an Iraqi government which was strong towards the insurgents but otherwise compliant to what the White House and Downing Street wanted. All Iraqi governments, unelected and elected, have been tainted and de-legitimised by being dependent on the US. This is as true of the government of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki today as it was when sovereignty was supposedly handed back to Iraq under the prime minister Iyad Allawi in June 2004. Real authority had remained in the hands of the US. The result was a government whose ministers could not move outside the Green Zone. They showed great enthusiasm for press conferences abroad where they breathed defiance at the insurgents and agreed with everything said by Mr Bush or Tony Blair.

The government can do nothing because it only came into existence after ministries were divided up between the political parties after prolonged negotiations. Each ministry is a bastion of that party, a source of jobs and money. The government can implement no policy because of these deep divisions. The government cannot turn on the militias because they are too strong.

It is also true that almost all parties that make up the government have their own militias: the Kurds have the Peshmerga; the Shia have the Mehdi Army and the Badr Organisation; the Sunni have the insurgents. In areas of Iraq where civil war is already raging or where it is impending, people look to these militias to defend their homes and not to the police or regular army.

The US has lost more than 500 of its soldiers, dead and wounded, this month. Every month this year the combined figure - more telling than that for dead alone - has been creeping up, as the area of US control is diminishing. The handover of security to Iraqi government forces - the long-trumpeted aim of American and British policy - is, in practice, a handover to the local militias.

The problem for the US and British is that many Iraqi leaders outside the government think the British and Americans are on the run. Wait, they say, and they will become even weaker. The US is talking to senior Baath party military officials in Saudi Arabia and Jordan who control the insurgency if anybody does. But it is unlikely that they would call a ceasefire except on terms wholly unacceptable to other Iraqis.

Can the US extract itself from Iraq? Probably it could but only with great loss of face which the present administration could not endure after its boasts of victory three-and-a-half years ago.

The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn is published this month

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1927098.ece

coluichedubita

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Elsewhere Today (413)

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives