Elsewhere Today 464
Aljazeera:
Musharraf sets February poll date
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 08, 2007
14:54 MECCA TIME, 11:54 GMT
Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, has said elections will be held before February 15, and renewed his resolve to step down as the army chief, state television has reported.
National elections had originally been scheduled for January, but appeared in jeopardy after Musharraf imposed emergency rule on Saturday.
"We are looking at a date where we can dissolve all the assemblies simultaneously and hold the election simultaneously for the national assembly and four provincial assemblies," Musharraf told official media after chairing a meeting of the National Security Council on Thursday.
"Having calculated all this, we must hold elections before 15th of February 2008," he added.
"I have been saying for the last few months that elections will be held on schedule. There is no doubt in my mind that elections should be held on time as soon as possible."
It was my commitment and I am fulfiling it."
Crackdown
Hundreds of supporters of Benazir Bhutto have meanwhile been detained after the former prime minister called for protests against the state of emergency imposed in Pakistan.
At least 800 supporters were detained in the province of Punjab, Bhuttos' political stronghold, Jamil Soomro, Bhutto's spokesman, said.
"Police have launched a crackdown against our party workers at village, town and city level," he told the AFP news agency.
Other officials of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) said thousands have been arrested across the country.
"Well over 600 party activists have been arrested and many of our leaders have gone underground. The crackdown is continuing," Raza Rabbani, a senior party leader, said.
Police sources confirmed the arrests of only 140 PPP workers.
Meanwhile a court in Karachi has charged three politicians and a trade union leader with treason for condemning Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule, court officials said.
The four were remanded in custody for two weeks, two days after they were arrested for reportedly criticising Musharraf in addresses at the city's press club, the officials added.
Treason, or sedition, can lead to the death penalty in Pakistan.
Mass march planned
The PPP is planning to hold a public meeting in Rawalpindi, south of the capital Islamabad, on Friday to protest against the imposition of emergency rule.
Bhutto has also threatened to hold a mass march from Lahore to the capital on November 13, unless Musharraf quits as army chief and holds elections in January as previously scheduled.
However, police have told Bhutto's party they will not be allowed to stage rallies because of security concerns.
"All kinds of rallies have been banned because we have reports from intelligence agencies that seven to eight suicide bombers have sneaked into [the] Punjab," Saud Aziz, police chief of Rawalpindi, told Reuters on Thursday.
Meanwhile, an anti-terrorism court in Lahore has granted bail to more than 300 lawyers arrested during protests against emergency rule, their lawyers said on Thursday.
Another 20 senior lawyers and rights activists reportedly remain in detention in the city.
Lawyers have played a central part in protests against Musharraf, after he attempted to oust Iftikhar Chaudhry, Pakistan's chief justice, from office, sparking protests which led to the judge's temporary reinstatement by the supreme court before his sacking last week.
US criticism
On Wednesday George Bush, the US president, said he had personally told Musharraf to call elections and to "take your uniform off".
"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," he said.
It was Bush's first direct contact with Musharraf since the Pakistan president imposed emergency law.
Bush has been questioned on the soft stance taken on the military crackdown in Pakistan compared to the hard line when Myanmar's ruling generals crushed peaceful demonstrations.
In defending his response to both situations, Bush said different tactics were required "to achieve the common objective" because Pakistan, unlike Myanmar, was, he said, already on the path to democracy.
Also on Wednesday, police clashed with hundreds of PPP supporters who tried to overrun a security zone by parliament in Islamabad.
Supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz group, which is headed by Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister, also protested against Musharraf in the city of Lahore on Wednesday.
Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Pakistan, reported that members of the legal fraternity had also protested in Peshawar.
Source: Agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8F263E36-E82F-4868-8061-924DA789A1A7.htm
AllAfrica:
Oil Prices Near $100 a Barrel
By Jibrin Abubakar
Daily Trust (Abuja) NEWS
8 November 2007
Ahead of this weekend's scheduled summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), international oil prices yesterday reached an all-time record, breaking the $98 a barrel mark and rapidly approaching the psychologically important $100 mark.
Concerns in international markets over tight fuel stocks and a weak US dollar drove the rise in fuel prices. Analysts also said the ever-growing demand for oil by India and China is a major contributory factor to the new price regime.
Record oil prices come as President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua prepares to present the 2008 budget to a joint session of the National Assembly today. The budget is predicated on a $53.83 per barrel oil price. The new crude oil prices will also translate into greater income for Nigeria with an excess of $46 per barrel.
While the United Kingdom and China have increased their prices for local consumption, Daily Trust learnt that marketers are urging the Nigerian government to toe the line of these countries and jerk up the prices.
But another source told Daily Trust that the government cannot increase the prices of petroleum products because of the existing Petroleum Support Fund (PSF) meant to cushion their effect.
Saudi Arabia, the largest crude oil exporter had called for an increase in oil supplies to cope with rising demand in 2005. Saudi Arabia wants OPEC nations to produce an extra 500,000 barrels of oil a day, taking the total to 27.5 million barrels a day.
Speaking to the Daily Trust on phone yesterday, the Executive Secretary of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency, PPPRA, Dr. Oluwole Oluleye said the new increase will translate into more money coming into government's coffers but added that the activities of the Niger Delta militants may affect the oil windfall.
According to him, Nigeria has not been able to meet its quota of producing 2.4 million barrel a day because of the crisis in the Niger Delta region. "We cannot be blind to this unfolding reality because the NNPC gets its supply at an international price, but earlier the government had promised that it would not increase the fuel price for a period of 12 months," he said.
Asked if the $53.8 per barrel for 2007 budget projection was realistic, he said, "I think it is reasonable because the oil industry moves in a circle until it reaches it peak and starts declining." He however regretted that the new oil regime may intensify the scramble for alternative fuel sources in the western world. "Researchers on alternative fuels will be happy," he said.
Listing factors responsible for the increase in crude oil prices, he said: stocks are low in the US, the forces of supply and demand of which some of the countries are unable to meet their quotas, the war in Iraq, the Iranian nuclear crisis, as well as the Turkey-Iraq crisis. There has been military confrontation between Turkey and Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq.
Meanwhile, analysts say a big fall in US crude inventories might have been enough to push the price over $100 a barrel, but in the event, the figures from the Department of Energy showed a smaller than expected drop. US crude oil inventories fell by 800,000 barrels over the past week to 311.9 million barrels.
The dollar's current weakness has also seen prices of other commodities rise sharply, most notably gold, which is continuing near 27-year highs.
Separately yesterday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that the rapid economic growth in China and India could have devastating consequences for the world's energy supply. Calling on both countries to increase efforts to curb their demand for oil, petrol and natural gas, the IEA said the two countries would account for about 45% of the increase in global energy demand by 2030.
"How China and India respond to the rising threats to their energy security will also affect the rest of the world," said the Paris-based agency. The leading oil supplier in the world, producers' cartel OPEC, is under constant pressure to do something about the price bubble.
It recently bowed to pressure to pump more oil, agreeing to raise its production quotas by 500,000 barrels a day from November.
Reports suggest the move was forced through by Saudi Arabia and that few other OPEC members either have much stomach for increasing output or much capacity to spare. OPEC has said the market is "very well supplied" with crude and will continue to be so in the immediate future.
OPEC is an association of oil producing countries set up with the express purpose of influencing oil prices by controlling supplies. The 11-member oil body is to keep crude oil prices within a range, priced per barrel. To do that, the countries control the amount of crude oil they export and avoid flooding or squeezing the international marketplace.
The Bush administration has said it is "very concerned" about current price levels, at a time when the American economy is already expected to slow significantly next year.
Copyright © 2007 Daily Trust. All rights reserved.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200711080255.html
AlterNet:
Preparing for Life After Oil
By Michael T. Klare, The Nation
Posted on November 8, 2007
This past May, in an unheralded and almost unnoticed move, the Energy Department signaled a fundamental, near epochal shift in US and indeed world history: we are nearing the end of the Petroleum Age and have entered the Age of Insufficiency. The department stopped talking about "oil" in its projections of future petroleum availability and began speaking of "liquids." The global output of "liquids," the department indicated, would rise from 84 million barrels of oil equivalent (mboe) per day in 2005 to a projected 117.7 mboe in 2030 - barely enough to satisfy anticipated world demand of 117.6 mboe. Aside from suggesting the degree to which oil companies have ceased being mere suppliers of petroleum and are now purveyors of a wide variety of liquid products - including synthetic fuels derived from natural gas, corn, coal and other substances - this change hints at something more fundamental: we have entered a new era of intensified energy competition and growing reliance on the use of force to protect overseas sources of petroleum.
To appreciate the nature of the change, it is useful to probe a bit deeper into the Energy Department's curious terminology. "Liquids," the department explains in its International Energy Outlook for 2007, encompasses "conventional" petroleum as well as "unconventional" liquids - notably tar sands (bitumen), oil shale, biofuels, coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids. Once a relatively insignificant component of the energy business, these fuels have come to assume much greater importance as the output of conventional petroleum has faltered. Indeed, the Energy Department projects that unconventional liquids production will jump from a mere 2.4 mboe per day in 2005 to 10.5 in 2030, a fourfold increase. But the real story is not the impressive growth in unconventional fuels but the stagnation in conventional oil output. Looked at from this perspective, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the switch from "oil" to "liquids" in the department's terminology is a not so subtle attempt to disguise the fact that worldwide oil production is at or near its peak capacity and that we can soon expect a downturn in the global availability of conventional petroleum.
Petroleum is, of course, a finite substance, and geologists have long warned of its ultimate disappearance. The extraction of oil, like that of other nonrenewable resources, will follow a parabolic curve over time. Production rises quickly at first and then gradually slows until approximately half the original supply has been exhausted; at that point, a peak in sustainable output is attained and production begins an irreversible decline until it becomes too expensive to lift what little remains. Most oil geologists believe we have already reached the midway point in the depletion of the world's original petroleum inheritance and so are nearing a peak in global output; the only real debate is over how close we have come to that point, with some experts claiming we are at the peak now and others saying it is still a few years or maybe a decade away.
Until very recently, Energy Department analysts were firmly in the camp of those wild-eyed optimists who claimed that peak oil was so far in the future that we didn't really need to give it much thought. Putting aside the science of the matter, the promulgation of such a rose-colored view obviated any need to advocate improvements in automobile fuel efficiency or to accelerate progress on the development of alternative fuels. Given White House priorities, it is hardly surprising that this view prevailed in Washington.
In just the past six months, however, the signs of an imminent peak in conventional oil production have become impossible even for conservative industry analysts to ignore. These have come from the take-no-prisoners world of oil pricing and deal-making, on the one hand, and the analysis of international energy experts, on the other.
Most dramatic, perhaps, has been the spectacular rise in oil prices. The price of light, sweet crude crossed the longstanding psychological barrier of $80 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange for the first time in September, and has since risen to as high as $90. Many reasons have been cited for the rise in crude prices, including unrest in Nigeria's oil-producing Delta region, pipeline sabotage in Mexico, increased hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico and fears of Turkish attacks on Kurdish guerrilla sanctuaries in Iraq. But the underlying reality is that most oil-producing countries are pumping at maximum capacity and finding it increasingly difficult to boost production in the face of rising international demand.
Even a decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to boost production by 500,000 barrels per day failed to halt the upward momentum in prices. Concerned that an excessive rise in oil costs would trigger a worldwide recession and lower demand for their products, the OPEC countries agreed to increase their combined output at a meeting in Vienna on September 11. "We think that the market is a little bit high," explained Kuwait's acting oil minister, Mohammad al-Olaim. But the move did little to slow the rise in prices. Clearly, OPEC would have to undertake a much larger production increase to alter the market environment, and it is not at all clear that its members possess the capacity to do that - now or in the future.
A warning sign of another sort was provided by Kazakhstan's August decision to suspend development of the giant Kashagan oil region in its sector of the Caspian Sea, first initiated by a consortium of Western firms in the late '90s. Kashagan was said to be the most promising oil project since the discovery of oil in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in the late '60s. But the enterprise has encountered enormous technical problems and has yet to produce a barrel of oil. Frustrated by a failure to see any economic benefits from the project, the Kazakh government has cited environmental risks and cost overruns to justify suspending operations and demanding a greater say in the project.
Like the dramatic rise in oil prices, the Kashagan episode is an indication of the oil industry's growing difficulties in its efforts to boost production in the face of rising demand. "All the oil companies are struggling to grow production," Peter Hitchens of Teather & Greenwood brokerage told the Wall Street Journal in July. "It's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget."
That this industry debilitation is not a temporary problem but symptomatic of a long-term trend was confirmed in two important studies published this past summer by conservative industry organizations.
The first of these was released July 9 by the International Energy Agency (IEA), an affiliate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the club of major industrial powers. Titled Medium-Term Oil Market Report, it is a blunt assessment of the global supply-and-demand equation over the 2007-12 period. The news is not good.
Predicting that world economic activity will grow by an average of 4.5 percent per year during this period - much of it driven by unbridled growth in China, India and the Middle East - the report concludes that global oil demand will rise by 2.2 percent per year, pushing world oil consumption from approximately 86 million barrels per day in 2007 to 96 million in 2012. With luck and massive new investment, the oil industry will be able to increase output sufficiently to satisfy the higher level of demand anticipated for 2012 - barely. Beyond that, however, there appears little likelihood that the industry will be able to sustain any increase in demand. "Oil look[s] extremely tight in five years' time," the agency declared.
Underlying the report's general conclusion are a number of specific concerns. Most notably, it points to a worrisome decline in the yield of older fields in non-OPEC countries and a corresponding need for increased output from the OPEC countries, most of which are located in conflict-prone areas of the Middle East and Africa. The numbers involved are staggering. At first blush, it would seem that the need for an extra 10 million barrels per day between now and 2012 would translate into an added 2 million barrels per day in each of the next five years - a conceivably attainable goal. But that doesn't take into account the decline of older fields. According to the report, the world actually needs an extra 5 million: 3 million to make up for the decline in older fields plus the 2 million in added requirements. This is a daunting and possibly insurmountable challenge, especially when one considers that almost all of the additional petroleum will have to come from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, Kazakhstan and Venezuela - countries that do not inspire the sort of investor confidence that will be needed to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into new drilling rigs, pipelines and other essential infrastructure.
Similar causes for anxiety can be found in the second major study released last summer, Facing the Hard Truths About Energy, prepared by the National Petroleum Council, a major industry organization. Because it supposedly provided a "balanced" view of the nation's energy dilemma, the NPC report was widely praised on Capitol Hill and in the media; adding to its luster was the identity of its chief author, former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond.
Like the IEA report, the NPC study starts with the claim that, with the right mix of policies and higher investment, the industry is capable of satisfying US and international oil and natural gas demand. "Fortunately, the world is not running out of energy resources," the report bravely asserts. But obstacles to the development and delivery of these resources abound, so prudent policies and practices are urgently required. Although "there is no single, easy solution to the multiple challenges we face," the authors conclude, they are "confident that the prompt adoption of these strategies" will allow the United States to satisfy its long-term energy needs.
Read further into the report, however, and serious doubts emerge. Here again, worries arise from the growing difficulties of extracting oil and gas from less-favorable locations and the geopolitical risks associated with increased reliance on unfriendly and unstable suppliers. According to the NPC (using data acquired from the IEA), an estimated $20 trillion in new infrastructure will be needed over the next twenty-five years to ensure that sufficient energy is available to satisfy anticipated worldwide demand.
The report then states the obvious: "A stable and attractive investment climate will be necessary to attract adequate capital for evolution and expansion of the energy infrastructure." This is where any astute observer should begin to get truly alarmed, for, as the study notes, no such climate can be expected. As the center of gravity of world oil production shifts decisively to OPEC suppliers and state-centric energy producers like Russia, geopolitical rather than market factors will come to dominate the marketplace.
"These shifts pose profound implications for U.S. interests, strategies, and policy-making," the NPC report states. "Many of the expected changes could heighten risks to U.S. energy security in a world where U.S. influence is likely to decline as economic power shifts to other nations. In years to come, security threats to the world's main sources of oil and natural gas may worsen."
The implications are obvious: major investors are not likely to cough up the trillions of dollars needed to substantially boost production in the years ahead, suggesting that the global output of conventional petroleum will not reach the elevated levels predicted by the Energy Department but will soon begin an irreversible decline.
This conclusion leads to two obvious strategic impulses: first, the government will seek to ease the qualms of major energy investors by promising to protect their overseas investments through the deployment of American military forces; and second, the industry will seek to hedge its bets by shifting an ever-increasing share of its investment funds into the development of nonpetroleum liquids.
The New 'Washington Consensus'
The need for a vigorous US military role in protecting energy assets abroad has been a major theme in American foreign policy since 1945, when President Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia and promised to protect the kingdom in return for privileged access to Saudi oil.
In the most famous expression of this linkage, President Carter affirmed in January 1980 that the unimpeded flow of Persian Gulf oil is among this country's vital interests and that to protect this interest, the United States will employ "any means necessary, including military force." This principle was later cited by President Reagan as the rationale for "reflagging" Kuwaiti oil tankers with the American ensign during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and protecting them with US warships - a stance that led to sporadic clashes with Iran. The same principle was subsequently invoked by George H.W. Bush as a justification for the Gulf War of 1991.
In considering these past events, it is important to recognize that the use of military force to protect the flow of imported petroleum has generally enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Washington. Initially, this bipartisan outlook was largely focused on the Persian Gulf area, but since 1990, it has been extended to other areas as well. President Clinton eagerly pursued close military ties with the Caspian Sea oil states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan after the breakup of the USSR in 1991, while George W. Bush has avidly sought an increased US military presence in Africa's oil-producing regions, going so far as to favor the establishment of a US Africa Command (Africom) in February.
One might imagine that the current debacle in Iraq would shake this consensus, but there is no evidence that this is so. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case: possibly fearful that the chaos in Iraq will spread to other countries in the Gulf region, senior figures in both parties are calling for a reinvigorated US military role in the protection of foreign energy deliveries.
Perhaps the most explicit expression of this elite consensus is an independent task force report, National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, backed by many prominent Democrats and Republicans. It was released by the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), co-chaired by John Deutch, deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton Administration, and James Schlesinger, defense secretary in the Nixon and Ford administrations, in October 2006. The report warns of mounting perils to the safe flow of foreign oil. Concluding that the United States alone has the capacity to protect the global oil trade against the threat of violent obstruction, it argues the need for a strong US military presence in key producing areas and in the sea lanes that carry foreign oil to American shores.
An awareness of this new "Washington consensus" on the need to protect overseas oil supplies with American troops helps explain many recent developments in Washington. Most significant, it illuminates the strategic stance adopted by President Bush in justifying his determination to retain a potent US force in Iraq - and why the Democrats have found it so difficult to contest that stance.
Consider Bush's September 13 prime-time speech on Iraq. "If we were to be driven out of Iraq," he prophesied, "extremists of all strains would be emboldened.... Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply." And then came the kicker: "Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East." In other words, Iraq is no longer about democracy or WMDs or terrorism but about maintaining regional stability to ensure the safe flow of petroleum and keep the American economy on an even keel; it was almost as if he was speaking to the bipartisan crowd that backed the CFR report cited above.
It is very clear that the Democrats, or at least mainstream Democrats, are finding it exceedingly difficult to contest this argument head-on. In March, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton told the New York Times that Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region" and so "it is directly in opposition to our interests" for it to become a failed state or a pawn of Iran. This means, she continued, that it will be necessary to keep some US troops in Iraq indefinitely, to provide logistical and training support to the Iraqi military. Senator Barack Obama has also spoken of the need to maintain a robust US military presence in Iraq and the surrounding area. Thus, while calling for the withdrawal of most US combat brigades from Iraq proper, he has championed an "over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region."
Given this perspective, it is very hard for mainstream Democrats to challenge Bush when he says that an "enduring" US military presence is needed in Iraq or to change the Administration's current policy, barring a major military setback or some other unforeseen event. By the same token, it will be hard for the Democrats to avert a US attack on Iran if this can be portrayed as a necessary move to prevent Tehran from threatening the long-term safety of Persian Gulf oil supplies.
Nor can we anticipate a dramatic change in US policy in the Gulf region from the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. If anything, we should expect an increase in the use of military force to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in global supplies.
The Rush to Alternative Liquids
Although determined to keep expanding the supply of conventional petroleum for as long as possible, government and industry officials are aware that at some point these efforts will prove increasingly ineffective. They also know that public pressure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - thus slowing the accumulation of climate-changing greenhouse gases - and to avoid exposure to conflict in the Middle East is sure to increase in the years ahead. Accordingly, they are placing greater emphasis on the development of oil alternatives that can be procured at home or in neighboring Canada.
The new emphasis was first given national attention in Bush's latest State of the Union address. Stressing energy independence and the need to modernize fuel economy standards, he announced an ambitious plan to increase domestic production of ethanol and other biofuels. The Administration appears to favor several types of petroleum alternatives: ethanol derived from corn stover, switch grass and other nonfood crops (cellulosic ethanol); diesel derived largely from soybeans (biodiesel); and liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids), natural gas (gas-to-liquids) and oil shale. All of these methods are being tested in university laboratories and small-scale facilities, and will be applied in larger, commercial-sized ventures in coming years with support from various government agencies.
In February, for example, the Energy Department announced grants totaling $385 million for the construction of six pilot plants to manufacture cellulosic ethanol; when completed in 2012, these "biorefineries" will produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. (The United States already produces large quantities of ethanol by cooking and fermenting corn kernels, a process that consumes vast amounts of energy and squanders a valuable food crop while supplanting only a small share of our petroleum usage; the proposed cellulosic plants would use nonfood biomass as a feedstock and consume far less energy.)
Just as eager to develop petroleum alternatives are the large energy companies, all of which have set up laboratories or divisions to explore future energy options. BP has been especially aggressive; in 2005 it established BP Alternative Energy and set aside $8 billion for this purpose. This past February the new spinoff announced a $500 million grant - possibly the largest of its kind in history - to the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Illinois and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to establish an Energy Biosciences Institute with the aim of developing biofuels. BP said the institute "is expected to explore the application of bioscience [to] the production of new and cleaner energy, principally fuels for road transport."
Just about every large oil company is placing a heavy bet on Canadian tar sands - a gooey substance found in Canada's Alberta province that can be converted into synthetic petroleum - but only with enormous effort and expense. According to the Energy Department, Canadian bitumen production will rise from 1.1 mboe in 2005 to 3.6 mboe in 2030, an increase that is largely expected to be routed to the United States. Hoping to cash in on this bonanza, giant US corporations like Chevron are racing to buy up leases in the bitumen fields of northern Alberta.
But while attractive from a geopolitical perspective, extracting Canadian tar sands is environmentally destructive. It takes vast quantities of energy to recover the bitumen and convert it into a usable liquid, releasing three times as much greenhouse gases as conventional oil production; the resulting process leaves toxic water supplies and empty moonscapes in its wake. Although rarely covered in the US press, opposition in Canada to the environmental damage wreaked by these mammoth operations is growing.
Environmental factors loom large in yet another potential source of liquids being pursued by US energy firms, with strong government support: shale oil, or petroleum liquids pried from immature rock found in the Green River basin of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southern Wyoming. Government geologists claim that shale rock in the United States holds the equivalent of 2.1 trillion barrels of oil - the same as the original world supply of conventional petroleum. However, the only way to recover this alleged treasure is to strip-mine a vast wilderness area and heat the rock to 500 degrees Celsius, creating mountains of waste material in the process. Here too, opposition is growing to this massively destructive assault on the environment. Nevertheless, Shell Oil has established a pilot plant in Rio Blanco County in western Colorado with strong support from the Bush Administration.
Life After the Peak
And so we have a portrait of the global energy situation after the peak of conventional petroleum, with troops being rushed from one oil-producing hot spot to another and a growing share of our transportation fuel being supplied by nonpetroleum liquids of one sort or another. Exactly what form this future energy equation will take cannot be foreseen with precision, but it is obvious that the arduous process will shape American policy debates, domestic and foreign, for a long time.
As this brief assessment suggests, the passing of peak oil will have profound and lasting consequences for this country, with no easy solutions. In facing this future, we must, above all, disavow any simple answers, such as energy "independence" based on the pillage of America's remaining wilderness areas or the false promise of corn-based ethanol (which can supply only a tiny fraction of our transportation requirements). It is clear, moreover, that many of the fuel alternatives proposed by the Bush Administration pose significant dangers of their own and so should be examined carefully before vast public sums are committed to their development. The safest and most morally defensible course is to repudiate any "consensus" calling for the use of force to protect overseas petroleum supplies and to strive to conserve what remains of the world's oil by using less of it.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/66625/
Asia Times:
'Democracy' with one-party characteristics
By Kent Ewing
Nov 9, 2007
HONG KONG - In the wake of last month's 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, the leadership has stepped up its campaign to convince the world of the legitimacy of what might be called "democracy with Chinese characteristics". Using the party's chief mouthpiece, the People's Daily newspaper, one of the new-generation leaders has made a gallant attempt to portray China as a nation in which democracy is on the move.
In an article published last week, newly elected Politburo member Li Yuanchao wrote: "Democracy within the party is the lifeline of the party." Before his expatiation of more than 7,000 characters is finished, however, Li becomes hopelessly entangled in a web of his own contradictions. In the end, he winds up, like so many officials before him, simply justifying authoritarian one-party rule.
For example, figure out how Li's thoughts come together in this puzzling declaration of the party's mission: "While expanding democracy within the party, we must also uphold the unity of the party, and we must conscientiously abide by the party's political discipline, always be in agreement with the central committee and resolutely safeguard its authority to ensure that its resolutions and decisions are carried out effectively."
That sounds more like single-file obedience than democracy - but there is a method to the leadership's paradoxical madness. The push for so-called "intra-party democracy", which also featured prominently in President Hu Jintao's 190-minute address to the congress, has nothing to do with any notion of democratic government as it is understood or practiced in the rest of the world.
Indeed, the use of the word "democracy" by Chinese leaders is deliberately misleading, if not downright dishonest, as they aim to exploit its allure of individual freedom and choice only to enhance its opposite - the continuation of totalitarian rule.
As the party's new personnel chief, Li is the latest spokesman in this rhetorical ruse, but Hu has been playing with the word for years, and even his predecessor, the often imperious Jiang Zemin, showed a fondness for the curious phrase "democratic centralism".
Last month's congress served as the perfect symbol for this democracy paradox: while the Great Hall of the People was abuzz with talk of democratic reform throughout the week-long affair, which culminated with the presentation of the country's new leadership team, there was absolutely no evidence of that reform in any of the conference's Stalinist procedures.
Yes, the 204 members of the Central Committee were "elected", and it is nice to be informed by the official Xinhua News Agency that 8% of the nominees failed to win a seat on the committee. But how the election was conducted, how many votes were received by the different candidates and who did not make the cut - all that remains a mystery. And, of course, the selection of the 25-member Politburo and the nine leaders who sit on the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee is wrapped in even greater secrecy. To call this process democracy of any kind is to stand the word on its head.
That said, the party, which now boasts 74 million members, is becoming increasingly representative of the Chinese society it purports to serve. There is no longer any Marxist litmus test for acceptance; in fact, the aging ideologues on the left have been completely marginalized and made hardly a ripple at the recent congress. Thanks to Jiang's theory of "Three Represents", which allowed "red capitalists" into the party and was enshrined in the party constitution at its 16th Congress in 2002, membership is now seen more as a cachet than an indicator of one's communist credentials. While the common man still has no voice in China, elites from across the social spectrum are joining the party and changing its dynamics.
The "democracy" that Chinese leaders seek is really more of a system - imperfect at best right now - of checks and balances between these elite interests. As the system continues to develop, they hope it will help to curtail the rampant corruption that leaves the vast grass-roots population feeling helpless and exploited and thus threatens social stability.
From the leadership's point of view, extremists on either side of the debate about the country's future have been sidelined, and it is now time for a unified approach to tackling the big challenge of sustaining economic growth while reducing corruption and strengthening social stability. (And, if there is any time and energy to spare, the rapidly deteriorating environment may also get some much-needed attention.)
The trick over the five years before the next congress is to reform the party without loosening its grip on power. To achieve this goal, the party will embrace a much broader cross-section of Chinese society, but the game will be an elites-only contest.
While what is happening should not be mistaken for democracy, it does qualify as reform, and no one knows where such incremental change may lead in the long run. At present, however, economic prosperity and social stability are the paramount concerns in China. Given that a majority of the 1.3 billion people in this newly rich country are still waiting for the fruits of prosperity to fall, democracy - real democracy, that is - is just another word for chaos in the unspoken vocabulary of Chinese leaders.
For a true indication of where democratic ideals stand in the leadership's plan, do not look to the rhetoric that imbued last month's congress. Look instead to Peking University and to Hong Kong.
The university's famous Democracy Wall was demolished last week prior to an inspection by the Ministry of Education. While university officials denied any connection between the demolition and the inspection, the timing was certainly curious. The "wall" is really just a collection of bulletin boards erected on a triangular piece of land located at the center of the campus. Also called the Triangle, it became a gathering place for students during the Cultural Revolution, but in the 1980s its bulletin boards were plastered with posters supporting Western-style democracy. It served as a center for student protests in the lead-up to the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.
More recently, in 1999, students used the area to express their outrage over the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. It has long been seen as a place, however small, where the free exchange of ideas is welcome. Now it is gone.
At same time, in Hong Kong, the founding chairman of the city's Democratic Party, Martin Lee, has once again come under fierce attack from pro-Beijing politicians. This time the assault - running on two weeks now - comes as a reaction to an article Lee wrote for The Wall Street Journal urging US President George W Bush to use next summer's Olympic Games, which Beijing is hosting, to press China to improve its human rights record and to allow greater press and religious freedom. For his audacity, Lee has been branded a "traitor" of the Chinese nation.
Kent Ewing is a teacher and writer at Hong Kong International School. He can be reached at kewing@hkis.edu.hk.
Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IK09Ad01.html
Guardian: A pointless attack on liberty
that fuels the terror threat
Ministers set on locking people up without charge should listen to the Muslim mainstream, not the neocon fringe
Seumas Milne
Thursday November 8, 2007
The man has gone but his spirit lives on. Tony Blair's determination to turn the war on terror into a permanent undeclared state of emergency in Britain, where the "rules of the game have changed", ended in defeat two years ago when he failed to raise the limit on detention of terrorist suspects without charge from 14 to 90 days. With a parliamentary compromise of 28 days in the bag - already far longer than any other state in the western world - it might have been expected that his successor would be content to leave well alone. Not a bit of it. Gordon Brown is back for more, pressing the case this week for the right to imprison people without charge for 56 days, or however close to that figure he can manage.
What started a generation ago as a two-day limit on detention without charge, as exists for American citizens in the US, was fixed at seven days in 2000; ratcheted up to 14 in 2003; raised again to 28 in 2006; and is now heading for two months of effective internment. The arbitrariness of this ratcheting-up is obvious: in spite of the fact that we're talking about the country's most basic civil liberties, it has clearly been a matter of think of a number and double it.
Perhaps that's not so surprising, as nobody has been able to offer any evidence whatever that police investigations have been undermined by having to release or charge a suspect within four weeks. Indeed, despite much talk of the growing complexity of terror cases, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, has now conceded that no circumstance had yet arisen where "it has been necessary up to this point to go beyond 28 days". To all intents and purposes, the police and government case is simply that it might be a useful precaution for the future - or even a helpful "disruptive mechanism" when there is no real chance of a charge. And now that the human rights organisation Liberty and the opposition parties have offered an alternative of post-charge questioning (which carries its own dangers), ministers have pocketed the concession and pressed on regardless with their longer detention plans.
Most shamefully, it's widely acknowledged in Westminster that a key motivation for this latest assault on long-established rights and freedoms is Brown's determination to wrong-foot the Tories tactically and portray them as soft on terror. Given the trauma endured by Muslim prisoners - because of course that's who we're talking about, at least for now - locked up for weeks and then released without charge, it might seem to be a bit of rather costly political point-scoring. But then it follows the chaotic and counterproductive saga of prisoners locked up indefinitely without charge in Belmarsh in the same spirit, and the draconian control orders that the law lords last week called to be marginally watered down: the regime of 18-hour curfews, bans on phone, internet and personal contacts imposed on suspects without charge, or access to any evidence against them.
This week's Queen's speech proposal to press ahead with yet another extension of the power to lock people up without charge came hard on the heels of the lurid warm-up act from the new MI5 director general, Jonathan Evans, whose organisation will have doubled in size by 2011. In an inflammatory and highly ideological speech, he warned that 15-year-olds were being "groomed" for terror and that the number "we are seeing involved in terrorist-related activity" was now 2,000 - followed by the bizarre rider that "there are as many again that we don't yet know of".
Both figures should probably be taken with a pinch of salt, in the light of the British security and intelligence agencies' erratic record with intelligence over the years. Of course, there are underground jihadist elements prepared to stage violent attacks in Britain, as has already been brutally demonstrated. But the real surprise is how few attempts there have been since Blair joined George Bush's war on terror: one serious atrocity, two bungled outrages, and a series of unsuccessful plots of varying credibility does not even begin to match the scale of the IRA campaign of the previous three decades. Naturally the security services would like to claim credit for that, but given how easy it is to get hold of guns in Britain or bomb soft civilian or political targets, it is obvious that the numbers seriously committed to launching such attacks are fewer than Evans's figures suggest.
What is clear is that the assault on basic liberties represented by repeated extensions of pre-charge detention and control orders is out of all proportion to the reality of what is actually taking place. It also makes a mockery of the government's claim to be defending our freedom and way of life against al-Qaida, when in fact it is trading away another bit of freedom for every bomb attack or terror scare. The danger is not only that we lose valuable liberties, but that we create more terrorists in the process, by further alienating Muslim youth already radicalised by British and American aggression in the Muslim world. That was the message of last week's highly effective Channel 4 drama Britz, denounced by a government spokesman for ignoring the views of "moderate Muslims".
In fact, as polling shows, the kind of concerns expressed in Peter Kosminsky's film - about the impact of anti-terror laws and western foreign policy - do reflect mainstream British Muslim opinion, and it is the government which is failing to face up to that. In an increasingly Islamophobic climate, the support given by some ministers to those in the media and rightwing thinktanks arguing against engagement with representative organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain and non-violent Islamist groups is bound to backfire. Last week, for example, the Blairite cabinet minister Hazel Blears championed the former Islamist Ed Husain - who follows the neocon line on "Islamofascism" and criticises MI5's boss for "pussyfooting around" - as a "new voice" who "understands what needs to be done".
Picking people who are off the map of Muslim opinion to speak on British Muslims' behalf is a dangerous game that will do nothing to increase public safety. The biggest contribution this government could make to reduce the threat of jihadist terror attacks in Britain would be to withdraw occupation troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and end its support for dictatorships in the Muslim world. In the meantime, it could make a start by letting Muslims speak for themselves, instead of locking more of them up for longer without charge.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2207050,00.html
il manifesto:
Enzo Biagi, schiavo solo dei fatti
Era un giornalista scomodo inviso da Tambroni a Berlusconi. Licenziato, censurato, cacciato dalla Rai. Se ne va un altro pezzo di memoria storica
Norma Rangeri
Un uomo gentile, un partigiano di Giustizia e Libertà, un giornalista libero. Bisogna riconoscerlo: si è meritato il disprezzo di Berlusconi e dei suoi lacchè. Inutile sperare che, almeno in questi momenti, costoro abbiano il buon gusto di rimettersi in tasca le lacrime di coccodrillo. Le agenzie sono un fiume in piena.
Nonostante i capelli bianchi, con quell'espressione sorniona, quello sguardo impertinente dietro gli occhiali, Biagi sembrava un ragazzino. Non poteva trattenere la battuta, l'ironia, il disincanto. Qualità poco apprezzate nei salotti del giornalismo italiano, patria dei tromboncini sempre pronti a lanciare messaggi, poco in sintonia con quel cronista popolare («i messaggi? li porta il postino»). Tenere la schiena dritta gli è costato molto caro, non solo negli anni del berlusconismo, ma anche in quelli più remoti, così da annoverare un piccolo record di licenziamenti politici. A cominciare dal '52 quando lo cacciarono dal Resto del Carlino di Bologna perché troppo sovversivo, poi da Epoca, su ordine di Tambroni, per un articolo sui morti di Reggio Emilia, e, negli anni del primo centrosinistra quando fu lui stesso a dimettersi (caso raro) dal Telegiornale.
In uno dei suoi numerosi libri di memorie Biagi rievoca quell'esperienza professionale (anno 1961). E c'è un episodio che fotografa egregiamente il suo stile. Erano i giorni del congresso della Dc e suscitò scandalo la sua scelta di non riservargli il posto d'onore preferendo iniziare il telegiornale con la storia di Salvatore Gallo, un contadino siciliano morto in carcere dopo lunghi anni di ergastolo per aver ucciso il fratello. Scelse di aprire il notiziario con la cronaca di quel clamoroso errore giudiziario (il fratello del contadino non era morto) perché «secondo me questa storia interessava gli italiani più del congresso di Napoli».
In tutta evidenza non era adatto per quel posto, credeva, fin da allora, che la tv, il giornalismo, l'informazione dovessero essere al servizio della gente più che degli editori di riferimento. Su quella poltrona durò meno di un anno, lasciò il tg ma non perse tempo: inventò il primo rotocalco televisivo (RT), lo stesso titolo che avrebbe scelto, 45 anni dopo, per il suo rientro in Rai, lo scorso aprile, nella seconda serata di Raitre.
Nonostante l'ultima fase della vita non gli avesse risparmiato prove durissime (la morte della moglie e, a poca distanza, quella della figlia), aveva affrontato la fatica di tornare in televisione dopo i cinque anni di esilio berlusconiano. Per rendere possibile l'impresa, gli avevano portato le telecamere in casa, arredandone un ambiente come fosse uno studio televisivo. E da lì aveva ricominciato a fare cronaca con una puntata di Rt intitolata "Resistenza e resistenze", per non dimenticare «che una certa resistenza non è mai finita».
Nei festeggiamenti per i cinquant'anni di vita della Rai, in una patetica prima serata di Raiuno, il suo nome non venne nemmeno pronunciato dal conduttore. E l'orgoglioso Biagi non aveva voluto rimettere piede a Raiuno neppure quando Andriano Celentano lo invitò a Rockpolitik. Non poteva sopportare l'idea di apparire sulla rete diretta da Fabrizio Del Noce, l'uomo che per conto di Berlusconi, insieme al direttore generale Agostino Saccà e con il beneplacito del presidente Antonio Baldassarre, lo aveva cacciato dalla Rai chiudendo Il fatto, una delle rare innovazioni di successo dell'informazione televisiva pubblica. «Non c'è Biagi? se è per questo non c'è nemmeno Giorgino» (Saccà).
Vide lucidamente quel che era successo in Italia: «Quella di Berlusconi è un'operetta, ma arriverà dappertutto. Finirà per trovare nuovi fans» (2001). «Temevo una dittatura morbida, ma ho sbagliato aggettivo», «per le dittature vanno bene uomini piccoli, basta che abbiano le tv» (2003).
Quel programma gli somigliava moltissimo: poche parole, molti dati, schede ben disegnate, un tema o un personaggio, giornalisti di diverso orientamento chiamati a dire la loro. Cinque-sei minuti appena di informazione rigorosa, dopo mezz'ora di un telegiornale-spettacolo, infarcito di ragazze-calendario, cronaca nera e passerella di politici. I fatti come inizio di tutto, materia prima da scarnificare, ripulire dalle sovrabbondanze che ne offuscano la luce originaria, per poterlo poi offrire all'interpretazione e al commento.
Berlusconi, che pure Biagi fu il primo a intervistare nel 1986, in una puntata di Spot , a Il Fatto non ci volle mai andare. Quel giornalista che non pendeva dalle sue labbra, lo avrebbe messo in difficoltà, meglio stargli alla larga, e poi, magari licenziarlo per interposti caporali. «Ci sono tipi che non mi piacciono e la mia premura è farglielo sapere», diceva Biagi a chi gli chiedeva conto dell'ostilità di certi politici, e alla domanda maliziosa se ci fossero politici di cui avrebbe apprezzato le dimissioni, rispondeva: «non sono portato per le stragi».
Se ne sta andando una generazione di giornalisti, un pezzo della memoria nazionale. Difficile rimpiazzarli. Lo voglio salutare con una sua frase che, non se ne abbia a male, sembra rubata alla sceneggiatura del Dr.House: «Non si rimedia alla vita».
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/07-Novembre-2007/art66.html
Jeune Afrique: Le Nigeria réclame
40 milliards de dollars à trois grands cigarettiers
NIGERIA - 7 novembre 2007 - par AFP
Le gouvernement nigérian a déposé une plainte contre les trois principaux cigarettiers mondiaux à qui il réclame 40 milliards de dollars de dommages et intérêts pour compenser le coût de traitement des maladies liées au tabac, a-t-on indiqué mercredi de sources judiciaires.
Les trois compagnies concernées sont British American Tobacco Plc, Philip Morris International et International Tobacco Limited, accusées par le gouvernement d'avoir caché la nocivité du tabac et d'en avoir promu l'usage auprès de mineurs, selon le texte de la plainte que l'AFP a pu lire et qui a été déposée le 25 juillet.
Le gouvernement nigérian entend aussi obtenir une injonction forçant les compagnies à cesser de promouvoir et de vendre des cigarettes.
"Le gouvernement fédéral a intenté une action au civil (...) réclamant 40 milliards dollars aux trois plus grandes compagnies de tabac pour les dégâts causés sur la santé des Nigérians, en particulier les enfants", a indiqué Yemi Akinseye-George, qui était un responsable haut placé au ministère de la Justice au moment où la plainte a été déposée.
La prochaine audience devrait avoir lieu en janvier selon l'avocat du gouvernement fédéral, Me Babatunde Irukera, qui représente déjà les intérêts du Nigeria dans le procès intenté contre le groupe pharmaceutique américain Pfizer qu'Abuja accuse d'avoir mené des essais thérapeutiques mortels en 1996.
"C'est la première fois depuis toujours qu'un État africain porte plainte contre une compagnie de tabac", a souligné l'avocat.
"Le gouvernement fédéral accuse les compagnies de tabac de conspirer pour prendre les jeunes gens pour cible et de dissimuler la nature dangereuse de la cigarette depuis plusieurs années", a dit à l'AFP Me Irukera.
"Toutes les restrictions désormais imposées en Europe et aux Etats-Unis font que les compagnies de tabac poussent leur marché au Nigeria", a ajouté l'avocat.
Les dommages et intérêts doivent permettre de compenser le coût des soins que le Nigeria souhaite lancer pour que soient traitées les maladies liées au tabac.
Quatre Etats de la fédération (Lagos, Kano, Oyo et Gombe) ont également déposé une plainte similaire et trois autres entendent faire de même, a encore affirmé Me. Irukera.
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_
depeche.asp?art_cle=AFP34737lenigsreitt0
Mail & Guardian:
DRC experts hurry to test river for radiation
Joe Bavier | Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
08 November 2007
Environmental experts hurried to the south-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on Thursday to test water from a river where authorities suspect 18 tonnes of radioactive minerals were dumped last week.
Officials feared contamination of the river, an important source of drinking water for thousands of people in Katanga province, the vast Central African nation's mining heartland.
The team, including the Environment Minister and experts from the country's atomic energy agency and Environment Ministry, was due in the city of Likasi later on Thursday.
Congolese authorities opened an inquiry on Wednesday after it was found that radioactive copper and cobalt ore might have been offloaded into the Mura River, 10km from Likasi, a city with a population of 300 000.
Testing at the suspected dumping site on Thursday showed levels of radioactivity nearly 50 times the limit set for mineral exports from the DRC, which is barred from exporting uranium, provincial environment minister Therese Lukenge said.
"Unfortunately, this is the same source that leads to a pumping station that distributes water to the population. This is the water that is delivered to the whole city," Lukenge said by telephone from the banks of the Mura River.
She said most of the minerals had already been swept downstream, towards a pumping station for the city's water supply that is operated by the DRC's national copper and cobalt mining company, Gecamines.
"We have begun taking samples at the site we pump from to see the level of contamination. But we have not stopped pumping ... We only learned about this last night," said Gecamines's operations director in Likasi, Dieudonne Nduwa.
Abandoned mine
The minerals were seized in Likasi last month and included 17 tonnes of copper ore with radiation levels 50 times the tolerable limit, which were destined for the Chinese firm Magma.
Orders had been given to transfer them to a nearby abandoned uranium mine last week as a safety precaution.
However, Katanga's provincial mines minister said on Wednesday the minerals never reached the mine, and traces of the radioactive ore were discovered on a bridge spanning the Mura and along the river's banks.
"We will establish who is responsible, and once established we will arrest them. If the companies are in on it, we will take the appropriate measures," Environment Minister Didace Pembe said on Thursday.
He said residents will be told not to use water from the river if test results show dangerous levels of contamination.
Officials at Magma and at Congolese mining company Chemaf, from which smaller batches of less radioactive ore were taken, could not be reached for comment.
Ore mined in Katanga, home to one of the world's richest belts of copper and cobalt, habitually contains trace amounts of uranium and some foreign companies are believed to be particularly interested in these uranium-rich ores.
Congolese officials said the dumped materials are believed to come from the nearby Kolwezi area, home to projects by several foreign mining groups including Katanga Mining, Nikanor and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold.
Reuters
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=324385&area=/
breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/
New Statesman:
How to stop climate change: the easy way
Changing your light bulbs may not be enough to save a single polar bear, but there are things we can do collectively - and easily - that will really make a measurable difference in the battle against global warming. Mark Lynas has a three-part plan.
Mark Lynas
Published 08 November 2007
We have about 100 months left. If global greenhouse gas emissions have not begun to decline by the end of 2015, then our chances of restraining climate change to within the two degrees "safety line" - the level of warming below which the impacts are severe but tolerable - diminish day by day thereafter. This is what the latest science now demands: the peaking of emissions within eight years, worldwide cuts of 60 per cent by 2030, and 80 per cent or more by 2050. Above two degrees, our chances of crossing "tipping points" in the earth's system - such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, or the release of methane from thawing Siberian permafrost - is much higher.
Despite this urgent timetable, our roads continue to heave with traffic. Power companies draft blueprints for new coal-fired plants. The skies over England are criss-crossed with vapour trails from aircraft travelling some of the busiest routes in the world. Global emissions, far from decreasing, remain on a steep upward curve of almost exponential growth.
Sure, there are some encouraging signs. Media coverage of climate change remains high, and a worldwide popular movement - now perhaps upwards of a million people - is mobilising. But with so little time left, we must recognise that most people won't do anything to save the planet unless we make it much, much easier for them. This essay outlines my three-part strategy for stopping climate change - the easy way.
STEP ONE: Stop debating, start doing
Although there is now a very broad consensus on climate in the media and politics, opinion polls show that many people still harbour doubts about climate change. One of the peculiarities of the climate debate is that although more than 99 per cent of international climate change scientists agree on the causes of global warming, the denial lobby still only has to produce one contrarian to undermine the consensus in the public mind. Similarly, changes in our understanding can be magnified and distorted to suggest that, because we don't know everything, therefore we must know nothing. Thus, data from one glacier that apparently bucks the global trend can be wielded as a trump card against all the accumulated knowledge of climate science.
This partly reflects a perhaps healthy scepticism in the public mind about believing "experts". But there is also a darker force at work: doubt undermines responsibility for action. If you don't know for sure that global warming isn't caused by sunspots or cosmic rays, then it's OK to go on driving and flying without feeling as if you're doing something bad. When it comes to global warming, many people - subconsciously at least - actually want to be lied to.
This is where the psychology gets interesting. Most green campaigners assume that information leads to action, and that deeper knowledge will undermine denial. Actually, the reverse may well be true: the more disempowered that people feel about a huge, scary issue like climate change, the more unwilling they may be to believe it is a problem. This sounds illogical, but it makes sense. If people don't feel they can do very much about climate change, they will prefer to cling to any tempting doubts that are dangled their way. Presenting people with more gloom-and-doom scenarios, however true they might be, may thus serve to reinforce denial.
Most campaigners try to mitigate this by also offering people easy things they can do: the "just change your light bulbs" approach. However, most people intuitively understand that an enormous problem cannot be solved by a tiny solution; that changing your light bulbs will not save a single polar bear. They are right, of course. So how can we mobilise collective action on a sufficiently grand scale to make a measurable contribution to solving the problem?
The American political strategists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger make a specific proposal in a recent paper, and this forms the first plank of my three-part strategy to tackle global warming. Stop debating, they say, and start doing. Instead of confronting deeply established patterns of behaviour head on, let's start focusing on preparing for the impacts of global warming that are already inevitable. That means working on flood defences for vulnerable towns, helping to drought-proof agriculture and population centres, and adapting to sea-level rise in low-lying areas.
By sidestepping the tedious causality argument (is it us or natural cycles?), focusing on global warming preparedness can also help reopen the mitigation agenda. Shifting sandbags is empowering because you feel as if you're doing something tangible and useful. But accepting the need for adaptation and preparation implicitly involves accepting the reality of global warming, and therefore the eventual need to cut emissions. Many more people may be prepared to accept the change - the introduction of personal carbon allowances, for example - that this will inevitably mean.
In any case, adaptation is now essential because of the one degree or so of additional global warming that is already locked into the system thanks to past emissions. With proper planning, we can not only save thousands of human lives, but also try to protect natural ecosystems by establishing new "refuge" coral reefs in cooler waters or helping species to migrate as temperature zones shift.
STEP TWO: Focus on the big wins
But this is a long-term agenda, and we don't have much time. Hence my second proposal, which is for a much clearer focus on win-win strategies for immediate emissions reductions. These are things we would want to be doing anyway, even if global warming had never been thought of. Reducing deforestation in the tropics is a big win-win. Inherently desirable, this by itself would reduce global carbon emissions by 10 per cent or more. All it takes is money: we have to pay countries such as Brazil and Indonesia to leave their forests alone rather than chop them down to sell to us as plywood and furniture.
There are obvious win-win strategies in the domestic sector. Better insulation makes living conditions more comfortable and reduces fuel bills. Even without climate change we'd still want to be getting cars out of town centres to reduce air pollution and improve the urban experience. Getting more children to walk and cycle to school improves their physical health and helps to tackle obesity. Enforcing speed limits (and reducing them further) would save hundreds of lives a year, and give some respite from the incessant noise pollution of speeding traffic.
Quality-of-life issues are by their nature subjective, so we need to focus on things that most people will agree on. Partly, this depends on how an issue is framed: most people don't want motorists to be unjustifiably hounded, but nor are they likely to oppose a measure that is about saving children's lives. The ban on smoking in public, for instance, was accepted precisely because the issue was correctly framed, and quickly became imbued with a sense of inevitability.
There is also a high degree of consensus about the desirability of localisation: protecting and encouraging small shops and local businesses, privileging farmers' markets over supermarkets, helping build stronger and more cohesive communities by reducing the need for travel, and so on. The fact that all of these measures will also reduce carbon emissions simply underlines the need for a more determined approach to their implementation. A much longer-term agenda here might be the reconnecting of people with their place and surroundings, helping them feel more rooted in their communities and proud of what is distinctive about their own areas. We are bringing up children who often have no direct experience of nature any more. Tree houses are replaced with Nintendos, the unsupervised exercise of playing outdoors replaced with structured exercise of sporting events. The author Richard Louv terms this "nature deficit disorder" and asks whether this disconnection might have something to do with the alienation and boredom that many youngsters feel today.
STEP THREE: Use technology
But there are some areas of high-carbon behaviour that people will always be reluctant to give up, and this brings me to the third and final part of my strategy to deal with global warming - technology.
Today we face a situation where a global population of potentially nine billion or so by 2050 continues to demand a steadily increasing consumer lifestyle. There is nothing we can do to stop this, and nor should we try. But it does put humanity on a very real collision course with the planet, so we are going to have to throw every technological tool we have at the problem to try to meet people's aspirations without worsening our climatic predicament. Some of this will involve technology leapfrogging: helping developing countries skip over our dirty phase of industrialisation, by instal ling solar power in remote, off-grid areas of Africa and Asia, for example. We also need to help developing countries make choices that put fossil fuels at the bottom of the energy shopping list, by helping them use carbon capture and storage technology as well as nuclear power. Both have obvious drawbacks, but I would rather see China building two nuclear reactors a week than two coal-fired plants.
The localisation agenda can only go so far: in an age of carbon-fuelled globalisation, we need to figure out ways to transport people and goods long distances without increasing emissions. Aviation in particular is crying out for a techno-fix. Humanity went from the first manned flight in 1903 to putting a man on the moon in 1969. I think we should give the aviation industry 15 years to find a low- carbon way to shuttle people between continents - or get taxed out of existence. I believe with this kind of incentive, designers would come up with ideas none of us today could even conceive of.
The technological challenge is not just to come up with new inventions, but - in the words of Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala from Princeton University - "to scale up what we already know how to do". In their concept of "stabilisation wedges", each wedge represents a billion tonnes of carbon shaved off the upward trend of emissions over the next 50 years. Building two million one-megawatt wind turbines, for example, is a wedge, as are two million hectares of solar panels, a 700-fold increase from today's deployment. There are many more wedges in the fields of transport, power generation and energy efficiency. As the two researchers say, this reduces a "heroic challenge" merely to a set of "monumental tasks". No one said it would be easy.
Perhaps the most controversial technological option of all is one that we need to keep strictly in reserve for real emergencies - geo-engineering. Here, some proposals have more merit than others, whether they be seeding the oceans with iron filings or putting up solar mirrors in space. None of them is an alternative to reducing emissions, but one just might be a valuable piece of insurance against the worst-case climate change scenarios. Believe me, pretty much anything is better than five or six degrees of global warming.
This may seem like a depressing conclusion, but it's really an optimistic one. If we fail to reduce emissions quickly enough and find ourselves frying, we must throw everything we possibly can at the problem to counteract the warming process, however temporarily. At no point - I repeat, at no point - do we give up and admit that all is lost. If we go over two degrees, then we have to try and stop ourselves going over three. If we fail to stabilise emissions by 2015, then we have to try and stabilise them by 2016 or 2020. If people continue to demand economic growth, then we have to try to deliver than growth in a low-carbon way. It will never be too late. As long as people and nature remain alive on this planet, we will still have everything to fight for.
Mark Lynas is the New Statesman's environment correspondent, and author of "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet", published by Fourth Estate
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080026
Página/12:
Los 30.000 ladrillos de la memoria
EL MONUMENTO A LAS VICTIMAS DE LA DICTADURA
En el Parque de la Memoria, junto al Río de la Plata, se inauguró el monumento que forman cinco estelas de piedra que, vistas desde el cielo, tienen la forma de una herida y donde figuran los nombres de los desaparecidos. “Que los jueces dejen de ir y venir”, dijo el Presidente, que participó del acto.
Por Werner Pertot
Jueves, 08 de Noviembre de 2007
Gelman, Conti, Oesterheld, Donda. Una a una, el presidente Néstor Kirchner se detuvo frente a las placas con los nombres de los desaparecidos que se extendían sobre el muro gris. Antes de llegar al río, encontró la que estaba buscando: la de su amigo Carlos Labolita. “23 años”, decía. La presidenta electa Cristina Fernández de Kirchner la había visto antes, y no había podido resistirse a tocarla. Ambos presidieron la inauguración del Monumento a las Víctimas del Terrorismo de Estado, en el Parque de la Memoria. Los dos coincidieron en volver a criticar la lentitud de la Justicia, a la que la senadora consideró “agraviante para las víctimas y para la sociedad”. “Han pasado ese lamentable sacerdote y ese policía, ¿cuándo van a juzgar a los jefes?”, preguntó Kirchner, quien le pidió a los jueces “que dejen de ir y venir”.
Las cinco paredes con treinta mil placas –de las que 8718 ya llevan nombres– conforman el primer monumento a las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado. El proyecto se gestó en los noventa, mientras el gobierno de Carlos Menem trababa la posibilidad de un museo de la memoria en la ESMA. El parque, de 14 hectáreas, se comenzó a construir hace diez años con tierras ganadas al río en la costanera norte, cerca de Ciudad Universitaria.
Hoy tiene una entrada con las primeras esculturas y un centro de interpretación, donde se prevé que habrá una biblioteca, una medioteca y un lugar para conferencias. Erigidas frente al río, se destacan las cinco estelas grises que llevan los nombres de los desaparecidos y que, vistas desde el cielo, muestran la forma de una herida.
Una cascada bañaba uno de los muros de piedra, que contrasta con el verde del pasto, sobre el que se concentraron integrantes de los organismos de derechos humanos de distintas partes del país (había, incluso, un grupo de Jujuy). Los pañuelos blancos ocupaban toda la primera fila. Algunas de las madres usaba los paraguas para protegerse del sol; la mayoría traía flores para dejar en el monumento o para arrojar al río. Al final del acto, muchos fueron a buscar el nombre de su padre, hermano o amigo. Y a tocarlo.
Acompañados por el jefe de Gobierno, Jorge Telerman, y buena parte del gabinete nacional, los Kirchner recorrieron el monumento junto a las Madres y Abuelas. Los seguía también el ex jefe de Gobierno Aníbal Ibarra, quien recibió un cerrado aplauso por su impulso para que se concretase el Parque de la Memoria. Aunque llegó tarde, también estuvo presente la vicejefa electa Gabriela Michetti (ver pág. 4). Todos ocuparon sus lugares y Cristina sacó un abanico de colores, que no dejó de usar durante el acto. En contraste, vestía de un discreto blanco y negro.
“Tenemos un lugar para recordar a los desaparecidos, asesinados y caídos en combate en este país”, comenzó el fotógrafo Marcelo Brodsky, quien leyó un discurso consensuado por la Comisión pro Monumento, que integran Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Madres Línea Fundadora, APDH, Buena Memoria, CELS, Familiares de Desaparecidos y Detenidos por Razones Políticas, Fundación Memoria Histórica y Social Argentina, LADH, MEDH y Serpaj.
“Queremos más justicia, más celeridad en su trabajo, más juicios, más testimonios, más condenas”, destacó Brodsky. “Es deber del Estado realizar las investigaciones necesarias para identificar a los que todavía no están, así podremos seguir agregando los ladrillos aún en blanco”, reclamó. Se dirigió a los exiliados, a los nietos recuperados, a los ex presos políticos de la dictadura, y a quienes puedan aportar nombres que se agreguen al monumento. Taty Almeida, de Madres, subió al final del discurso para gritar “presente” por los desaparecidos.
“En la recorrida comentábamos que hoy era un día feliz. Todos vamos a tener un lugar para recordar. Vi al Presidente acariciar la placa de su amigo Labolita. Me vi a mí acariciando la de Dagmar Hagelin, mi amiga”, contó Telerman, con su estilo. “Cuando veníamos para acá, la presidenta electa me comentaba del Museo de Praga y de otros genocidios. Estos monumentos son para contestarle a los negacionistas”, interpretó.
Falta López
–¡¡Aparición de Julio López!! –comenzaron a gritar entre el público.
“Recién escuchaba un sentimiento que comparto: que aparezca Julio López”, empezó Kirchner, rápido de reflejos. “Es la llama viva de que la impunidad sigue vigente entre nosotros”, planteó. “Les puedo asegurar que hicimos todo lo que pudimos, pero... ¡cuántas trabas!”, advirtió el Presidente, sin dar mayores precisiones. “Seguro que los monstruos de ayer seguirán amenazando”, insistió.
“Me abrazo a todos los ladrillos”, dijo Kirchner, en referencia a las placas. “Aquí vi los miles de nombres de los desaparecidos, y les quisiera explicar lo que nos cuesta que la justicia despierte. ¡Que los jueces dejen de ir y venir!”, pidió el Presidente. “Yo veo que los más jerarcas no han pasado, o muy poquito”, remarcó Kirchner, quien intentó adelantarse a las críticas por inmiscuirse con la división de poderes. “No es mi intención entrometerme... Pero tampoco vi a los responsables civiles”, dijo, en probable referencia al ex ministro de Economía de la dictadura José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz. También se refirió sin nombrarlos al sacerdote Christian Von Wernich y al represor Miguel Etchecolatz.
“Tenemos una Corte independiente. Sería importante que toda la estructura judicial se movilice”, planteó Kirchner, quien retomó una de sus frases preferidas de la campaña (“yo sé que Cristina va a profundizar. Ella es más detallista en los temas jurídicos... Bah, en todo”). “Esto no divide a los argentinos. Al contrario, la justicia y la memoria unen. Que no haya delincuentes sueltos, une”, reafirmó.
Lo interrumpió un avión que despegaba de aeroparque. “El ruido de los aviones acompaña el sentido del recuerdo”, sostuvo, y mencionó los vuelos de la muerte. Por último, le prometió a las Madres que iba “a seguir trabajando” cuando deje la presidencia.
–¡Queeee hableeee! ¡Queeee hableeee! –le cantaron desde la tribuna a la presidenta.
“Muchas gracias”, se limitó a responder ella. Unos segundos después, enfrentó los micrófonos, mientras se retiraba. “Hay una necesidad de justicia, que las causas puedan desarrollarse no con esta lentitud, que es agraviante no sólo para las víctimas y los sobrevivientes, que tienen que relatar una, dos, tres, cuatro veces, casi como un nuevo martirio, sino para la sociedad”, sostuvo la senadora. Sobre el fondo del río, mientras comenzaba a llover, sólo quedaron las flores, que nunca alcanzan.
© 2000-2007 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-94343-2007-11-08.html
Página/12:
Memoria, Verdad y Justicia
Por Marcelo Brodsky *
Jueves, 08 de Noviembre de 2007
Hace diez años, el 10 de diciembre de 1997, en un momento en que la memoria no estaba en la agenda del Estado y en que aún regían las leyes de impunidad, tras la aprobación de la Constitución que dio a los porteños una institucionalidad propia e independiente, los organismos de derechos humanos iniciamos el proceso para que esta Ciudad Autónoma asumiera una política pública de memoria que reconociera a las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado. Nos dirigimos a los legisladores electos por primera vez en el marco de esta Constitución, para presentarles una iniciativa destinada a construir en las márgenes del Río de la Plata un Monumento y un Parque de Esculturas para recordar y reivindicar a las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado.
Pocos meses después, la primera Legislatura elegida en la ciudad de Buenos Aires aprobaba la ley que determina la creación del Parque de la Memoria y del Monumento a las Víctimas del Terrorismo de Estado. La ley creó también nuestra Comisión Pro Monumento, una entidad de nuevo tipo, con participación de los poderes Ejecutivo y Legislativo de la ciudad, de la Universidad de Buenos Aires y de organismos de derechos humanos, pionera en el país como modelo de gestión participativa.
La Comisión convocó a un concurso internacional de obras de arte en el que se presentaron 665 proyectos. Fueron elegidos doce, más otras seis obras de artistas reconocidos por su compromiso en la lucha por los derechos humanos invitados por la Comisión. El arte contemporáneo está presente porque apela al mismo tiempo a la sensibilidad y a la razón.
Se armó un equipo que trabajó durante seis años en la confección de la lista de nombres para incluir en el Monumento siguiendo un procedimiento estricto de verificación. Son los nombres de las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado, de los detenidos-desaparecidos, de los asesinados y de los caídos en combate. El Monumento incluye los nombres de los desaparecidos y asesinados en Argentina de cualquier nacionalidad, y los de los argentinos secuestrados y asesinados en el extranjero por las fuerzas represivas de la dictadura, en el marco del Plan Cóndor.
La arquitectura del Monumento traza una marca sobre el territorio de nuestra pampa en su confluencia con el río. La obra modifica el terreno y recupera la barranca ribereña, horadándola con la traza del Monumento. Una herida que no cierra avanza sobre la colina y se abre sobre el río, el mismo al que arrojaron a miles de personas. El Río de la Plata nos da el nombre de rioplatenses, define nuestra identidad, una identidad cargada de dolor que este parque contribuirá a transformar ayudándonos a comprender nuestra historia para transmitirla a nuestros hijos. Para que las nuevas generaciones de argentinos puedan aprender de nuestra experiencia y entender desde las entrañas la magnitud del terrorismo de Estado.
Memoria, Verdad y Justicia han sido los ejes centrales de construcción política de las organizaciones de derechos humanos de nuestro país en sus largos años de lucha. La forma que adquiere en este caso la Memoria es la de un Monumento a las víctimas. Esta obra deja claro, piedra sobre piedra que no los olvidamos y que reivindicamos su lucha y su compromiso de pelear por una Argentina justa y solidaria. Con alegría inauguramos este Monumento, porque los nombres que lo forman están presentes, están entre nosotros, no han sido olvidados. Están en cada nieto recuperado, en cada ronda de los jueves en la Plaza, en cada joven que se compromete activamente con una militancia social, estudiantil, política o cultural, en cada persona que trabaja para lograr que los ideales de justicia, igualdad y solidaridad por los que vivieron y lucharon sean una realidad.
Memoria, en la que este Monumento da un paso fundamental, al identificar en cada nombre a un caso único, una vida, una familia, un proyecto truncado. Cada nombre está escrito en un ladrillo único de piedra de pórfido de la Patagonia. Las piedras se pueden tocar y se dispuso que estén a la altura a la que puede llegar el brazo extendido de una persona de mediana estatura. Cada nombre se integra en un conjunto, en una generación, en miles de personas reales que vivieron y que encuentran en el Monumento una unidad y un reconocimiento, un único nombre común, y la posibilidad de narrar desde su silencio la historia de todos.
Verdad, en la que se ha venido trabajando año tras años, en los testimonios, en los Juicios de la Verdad, en la persistencia de los testigos, en el relato de los sobrevivientes. Verdad que siempre hemos reclamado y seguimos reclamando. ¿Qué pasó con cada uno? ¿Dónde están sus restos? ¿A quién le entregaron a los niños? ¿Cómo los llaman ahora? ¿Quién fue el responsable en cada caso? ¿Quién dio la orden? ¿Quién la ejecutó?
Y Justicia. Una Justicia que ha sido lenta, y que avanza tras la anulación y declaración de inconstitucionalidad de las leyes de impunidad. Queremos más justicia, más celeridad en su trabajo, más juicios, más testimonios, más condenas. Queremos justicia en todas las causas, con todos los recursos del Estado aplicados a acelerar los procesos. Queremos que el Nunca Más no sea una expresión de deseos, sino un logro concreto, material, tangible, un logro real de nuestro pueblo, un aprendizaje y un ejemplo.
Este parque envía un mensaje a América latina y al mundo. Hemos avanzado. Nuestra larga lucha por Memoria, Verdad y Justicia ha sido capaz de encontrar nuevas formas. Desde los escraches de HIJOS hasta el Teatro por la Identidad, desde las rondas de las Madres al debate por la transformación del espacio del terror de la ESMA y la construcción del Museo de la Memoria, nuestra sociedad ha sido capaz de reinventar sus métodos de lucha y hoy puede mostrar al mundo con orgullo que estamos trabajando por la memoria, que estamos avanzando en la aplicación de la justicia, que no olvidamos a los que cayeron luchando por un mundo justo frente a un Estado que se convirtió en terrorista y reprimió al movimiento popular para imponer su proyecto neoliberal. Los nombres permanecerán en la piedra de este Monumento cuando ninguno de nosotros sea recordado, están en la memoria colectiva y ya no saldrán de ese lugar. Esta política de Estado trasciende a la ciudad de Buenos Aires en la medida en que recuerda a los detenidos-desaparecidos de todo el país. Sus dimensiones y su valor simbólico son tan grandes, tan universales, tan contundentes que se extienden más allá de las fronteras argentinas. Es deber del Estado nacional realizar las investigaciones necesarias para identificar a los que todavía no están, así podremos seguir agregando en los ladrillos de pórfido aún en blanco los nombres que resulten de esa investigación.
Cada familia que tenga un desaparecido tendrá en el Parque de la Memoria un lugar donde recordar su nombre.
A los argentinos que dejaron el país, a los exiliados por razones políticas que se quedaron en otros países del mundo que les dieron acogida, les decimos que ahora tienen una nueva razón para venir. Los invitamos a visitar este Monumento, a reconocer a sus amigos, y a contarles a sus hijos por qué se fueron. Vengan, recorran las estelas, recuerden a los que están allí, cuenten cómo eran. Lo mismo decimos a los ex presos políticos de la dictadura. Seguramente muchos de sus amigos y compañeros están incluidos en el Monumento. Vengan a recordarlos. Cuenten cómo eran. Sigan haciendo libros, testimonios, películas, presentaciones, jornadas, recuperen las fotos, las historias, las anécdotas. Ayúdennos a no olvidar. A los nietos recuperados les decimos que aquí tienen un lugar para reconocer el nombre de sus padres verdaderos, para encontrar el nombre y el apellido recuperados en un lugar en el que estarán acompañados por miles de sus compañeros. Que a los 88 nietos recuperados se sumen muchos más que puedan tocar el nombre aún desconocido de sus padres es el deseo y el compromiso de nuestra Comisión.
De ahora en más, tanto para completar la obra como para que este parque pueda ejercer plenamente su función, necesitaremos el compromiso activo del Gobierno de la Ciudad y del Estado nacional.
El parque recibirá muchas visitas. Nuestra propuesta para las visitas protocolares es que las flores que se traigan en homenaje a los desaparecidos sean arrojadas al Río de la Plata. El río recibirá las flores como un recuerdo para todos. El Monumento no tiene cuerpos, sino nombres de compañeros. Los desaparecidos siguen desaparecidos pese a estar inscriptos en el Monumento y en nuestra memoria.
Las políticas de Estado y la acción de las organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos han confluido para la construcción del Parque de la Memoria y del Monumento a las Víctimas del Terrorismo de Estado que hoy estamos inaugurando. Sin embargo, la presencia fundamental que nos anima es la de los miles de argentinos cuyos nombres están inscriptos en estos muros y la lucha a la que dedicaron su vida.
¡30.000 detenidos desaparecidos! ¡Presentes! ¡Ahora y siempre!
* Extracto del discurso leído ayer en nombre de los organismos de derechos humanos que integran la Comisión pro Monumento a las Víctimas del Terrorismo de Estado.
© 2000-2007 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-94345-2007-11-08.html
Página/12:
Hacerse cargo de la historia
Por Luis Bruschtein
Jueves, 08 de Noviembre de 2007
Si extiendo la mano –solamente con extender la mano– en este lugar frente al río, me vuelve una cita en el bar La Fragata con una piba de ojos claros que cantaba tangos, eso lo supe después. Y si cierro los ojos, aquí en este lugar donde los reflejos saltan del río a los muros de granito, aparece un verano de mochilero en Valeria, compañeros de facultad y entre todos ellos, una sonrisa luminosa que surge de un rincón remoto, una sonrisa que hace tanto tiempo no me iluminaba.
El río respira y se agita como si guardara todas las vidas, los millones de conversaciones y trillones de risas y cuatrillones de miradas y palabras que hacen miles de vidas que fueron, como seres de agua que hacen ondas y reflejan el sol o se sumergen para hacer corrientes marinas. Una persona, porteño, argentino o extranjero, puede estar en silencio frente a esos muros y hablar con el río.
La mano puede apoyarse en cualquiera de los miles de nombres que están escritos en los muros, ordenados por año y por orden alfabético, y sentir una vida que parece provenir del río. Es un susurro en el viento o una gran carcajada entre los truenos de una tormenta. Es un instante brillante, vociferando en una manifestación, o una imagen fugaz, el último rostro de alguien que se fue escurriendo en el tiempo, o apenas una mano en el hombro, un abrazo, que son los materiales que forman los recuerdos que hacen la memoria.
Para todos esos nombres de las filas infinitas sobre los muros no hubo despedidas, no hay cementerio, no hay inscripción en una lápida sobre sus restos. No hay restos. Solamente hubo lugar en la memoria de madres, amigos y hermanos o hijos que los llevan ya como si fueran una parte de sus cuerpos. Ahora que hay un lugar con sus nombres, un lugar fuera de los cuerpos y cabezas que se han empecinado en retenerlos, resulta difícil transferirlos, soltarlos, y además aparecen otros y otros, desconocidos por casualidad, hermanados, compartidos, que nos hablan. Los que eran portados no se quedan en la piedra. Más aún, los desconocidos por casualidad que están en esos muros se acercan y se suman. Y tras el primer agobio –extrañamente– hay alivio.
Todos son de todos, igual que los nuestros, escritos en la piedra, quiere decir algo así como que ellos vivieron, ellos lucharon, ellos no fueron un podrido demonio, una lacra que no merecía nada, ni vida, ni hijos ni memoria ni nada. Quiere decir que no fueron rusos ni marcianos, que fueron nuestros, lo mejor de una generación que tomó un camino que había demarcado el devenir histórico perverso de esta misma sociedad como el único posible para construir un país justo y digno. Se puede criticar ese camino, pero para eso hay que mirar hacia dentro y no hacia fuera y hacerse cargo de esa historia.
© 2000-2007 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-94344-2007-11-08.html
Página/12:
Dios, el Tipo y la Compu
Por Enrique Medina
Jueves, 08 de Noviembre de 2007
Convencido de su verdad, el Tipo arremete contra Dios con todo el rosario de insultos aprendidos desde la infancia más marginal. El nexo es la Compu. Compu que hasta hace unos días era un balazo y ahora es un festival de pésimas y espeluznantes sorpresas. Sorpresa como el pito que suena inesperadamente, pito-alarma-ambulancia. Algo inusual y que el Tipo jamás en su vida de usuario había experimentado con tanto espanto. Recuerda el Tipo que el mismo sudor sufría cuando se colaba en el colectivo y justo llegaba el inspector con la maquinita de agujerear boletos legales. Y no es vana ni extrapolar la relación. No es vana porque hay un común denominador que enlaza la circunstancia: lo ilegal. Lo sabe el Tipo y por eso le retruca a Dios, porque éste no entiende que ciertos requisitos son puramente formales, como este programa insertado en la Compu, que nunca puede actualizarse. Buen argentino, al Tipo no le sería complicado explicar o exponer la filosofía del “derecho-social-adquirido-para-territorios-en-desarrollo”, pero por mejor que lo hiciera sabe que el Sumo Hacedor no lo aceptaría.
Aparece San Pedro y le impone a Dios requerimientos más urgentes: la baja del precio del petróleo, la escasez del agua, los incendios naturales, la tercera guerra mundial. Y Dios le dice que sí, pero con reticencia, que ya va, pero no, se queda mirando al Tipo que aprovecha los segundos de vida natural de la Compu para escribir el texto que con suma urgencia debe ofrecer para ganarse el pan. Y la Compu (seguramente para quedar bien con Dios) se vuelve a detener y vuelve a reiniciarse. Y así está el Tipo desde hace días luchando. Lejos de la desidia y nada desaprensivo, al contrario: ha llevado la Compu a reparación, ha quitado el Vista que tanto lo ha abrumado con mil problemas, y ha reinstalado el XP pero sin mucha suerte ya que el misterioso defecto que apaga y reinicia la Compu de manera indiscriminada ha sido tomado en cuenta por varios service que han cobrado lo suyo sin detectar el origen del error. Y por eso el Tipo putea y reputea a todo ser viviente y al mismísimo Dios que lo está mirando con ceño adusto y ahora extiende su índice de Michelángelo obligando a la Compu a ponerse en negro y volver a pitar-alarma-ambulancia. El Tipo se serena, no es boludo, sabe que Dios lo está controlando. Y aunque este jueguito esté justificado por la desprolijidad del Tipo, a éste no deja de darle en las bolas la perversidad impuesta por el Mandamás. Le da bronca que Dios no tenga en cuenta la configuración global del Tipo, que cada tanto da propinas, que respeta a los demás y que se ha mantenido por años hincha de un cuadrito de fútbol de mala muerte, en fin... Así que se calma, respira hondo, cuenta hasta diez, espera que la Compu termine el reinicio y abre rápido la página y sigue escribiendo y guardando, segundo a segundo. Así avanza, renglón a renglón; y guarda y guarda por si se corta la buena racha que sólo dura lo que una ilusión ambiciosa. Le han dicho que el equipo estaba sucio, lo limpiaron y pagó, le han dicho que el ventilador, que esto, que lo otro, nadie dio pie con bola, y encima de la impericia de los service ignorantes ahora debe, el Tipo, aguantar que el mismísimo Dios le haya echado el ojo. Y esto lo escribe, y guarda rápido para que quede constancia de su tenacidad y de la lucha desigual. De suerte, San Pedro reaparece y le dice a Dios que hay cosas importantes, gente importante esperando. Dios dice que sí, que ya va, pero antes apunta con el índice sixtino y la Compu vuelve a pitar-y-repitar como cuando San Pedro le pisó el dedo gordo a Dios y éste lo puteó y reputeó como lo hace el Tipo ahora que, rápido como el miedo injusto, pone papel para imprimir el texto así, apenas se reinicie la Compu, salva el trabajo; aprovechando que San Pedro se lo lleva de un brazo a Dios quien, humano al fin, no deja de apretar las cejas ni de mirar por sobre su hombro al pobre Tipo frente a la Compu.
© 2000-2007 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-94328-2007-11-08.html
The Independent:
Now doctors say it's good to be fat
After years of anti-obesity public health advice, a major new study causes an outcry by concluding that the overweight live longer
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 08 November 2007
A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.
The study, published yesterday in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association, runs counter to almost all other advice to consumers by saying that carrying a little extra flab – though not too much – might help people to live longer.
Struggling dieters, used to being told that staying thin is the best prescription for longevity, are likely to be confused this morning if not heartily relieved. While being a bit overweight may indeed increase your chances of dying from diabetes and kidney disease – conditions that are often linked with one another – the same is not true for a host of other ailments including cancer and heart disease, the report suggests.
In fact, scanning the whole gamut of diseases that could curtail your life, being over weight is, on balance, a good thing. The bottom line, the scientists say, is that modestly overweight people demonstrate a lower death rate than their peers who are underweight, obese or – most surprisingly – normal weight.
The findings will be hard to dismiss. They are the result of analysis of decades of data by federal researchers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not a study from a fringe group of scientists or sponsored by a fast-food chain.
Being overweight, the report asserts in its conclusions, "was associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality overall".
"The take-home message is that the relationship between fat and mortality is more complicated than we tend to think," said Katherine Flegal, the lead researcher. "It's not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation where excess weight just increases your mortality risk for any and all causes of death."
That the CDC has even published the report and thus threatened to muffle years of propaganda as to the health benefits of staying slender has enraged some medical experts.
"It's just rubbish," fumed Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight."
Not that the CDC results are an invitation to throw caution to the winds and take cream with everything. The scientists are careful to stress that the benefits they are describing are limited to those people who are merely overweight – which generally means being no more than 30 pounds heavier than is recommended for your height – and certainly do not carry over to those who fall into the category of obese.
Obesity has been declared one of the main threats to health in the US, including among children. Those considered obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, continue to run a higher risk of death, the study says, from a variety of ailments, including numerous cancers and heart disease. It said that being underweight increases the risk of ailments not including heart disease or cancer.
The scientists at the CDC first hinted at the upside of being overweight a few years ago. Since then, however, they have expanded the base of their analysis, with data that includes mortality figures from 2004, the last year for which numbers were available, for no fewer than 2.3 million American adults.
Highlighting how a bit of bulge might help you, the scientists said that in 2004 there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in the US than would have been expected if they were all considered to be of normal weight. Put slightly differently, those Americans who were merely overweight were up to about 40 per cent less likely than normal-weight people to die from a whole range of diseases and risks including emphysema, pneumonia, Alzheimer's, injuries and various infections.
Aside from escaping diseases, tipping the scales a little further may also help people recover from serious surgery, injuries and infections, Dr Flegal suggested. Such patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis.
Not everyone in the medical profession was surprised or angry about the study. "What this tells us is the hazards have been very much exaggerated," said Steven Blair, a professor of exercise science and biostatistics at the University of South Carolina, who has long argued that the case for dietary restraint has been taken too far.
"I believe the data," added Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who believes that a BMI of 25 to 30 – roughly the the so-called overweight range – "may be optimal".
Critics, however, were quick to point out that the study was concerned with mortality data only and did not take account of the quality of life benefits of keeping your weight down. The study "is not about health and sickness", noted the obesity researcher Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina.
The report "definitely won't be the last word", said Dr Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who pointed out, in a report released last week by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, that staying slim was the main recommendation for avoiding cancer.
Others in the American medical community, while a little bemused, were withholding judgement. "This is a very puzzling disconnect," said Dr JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.
The suggestion that a bit of extra weight may assist patients recovering from an infection or surgery was of no surprise to Dr Flegal. "You may also have more lean mass – more bone and muscle," she said. "If you are in an adverse situation, that could be good for you."
In their conclusions, the authors of the study note: "Overweight... may be associated with improved survival during recovery from adverse conditions, such as infections or medical procedures, and with improved prognosis for some diseases. Such findings may be due to greater nutritional reserves or higher lean body mass associated with overweight."
Those of us mostly likely to benefit from a little bulge beneath the belt, the study adds, are between 25 and 59 years old, although there were also some advantages for people over 60.
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3138352.ece
The Nation:
Our Man in Pakistan
truthdig by Robert Scheer
[posted online on November 7, 2007]
So, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, treated ever so respectfully by George Bush throughout his Administration, in which he became the first Pakistani leader to visit Camp David, has turned out to be just another crummy dictator. But he was our dictator, kind of a modern, even westernized one who could stand up to all those bearded Islamic terrorists.
Well, not exactly. Not that anyone bothered to remember, but Musharraf seized power in Pakistan, ending democratic rule, two years before the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to end his nation's support of the Taliban rulers next door, who were harboring Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Before that he was part of a military elite that had, as the 9/11 Commission report would later conclude, been one of the main sponsors of the Taliban. Nor did Musharraf as dictator-president do anything to undermine the nut cases that he continued to diplomatically recognize as the legitimate rulers of the neighboring country. "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban," the 9/11 Commission reported, adding: "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists. Musharraf agreed that Bin Laden was bad. But before 9/11, preserving good relations with the Taliban took precedence."
True, after 9/11 Musharraf did provide minimal support for the US invasion of Afghanistan in return for considerable aid and the lifting of the sanctions that had been imposed on his nation for developing nuclear weapons. Odd that a nation that had nuclear weapons and that had actively supported the terrorist haven in Afghanistan was welcomed back into America's good graces only three weeks after 9/11-at the very same time that the Bush Administration was drawing up plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was bin Laden's sworn enemy.
Oh, yes, sorry, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I forgot, there was that guy "Curveball," the guy in Germany who told us that Saddam had those mobile biological weapons labs that Colin Powell relied on so heavily in his UN address. But, as CBS's 60 Minutes reported Sunday, the German government had told the Bush Administration very clearly that its great weapons expert was a just another immigrant trying to hustle a green card.
As for nukes (the real WMD), although Iraq didn't have them, Pakistan did-at least seventy ready to explode-as well as the airplanes and missiles that could deliver them. Worse, the "father of the Islamic bomb," Abdul Qadeer Khan, whom the 9/11 Commission called Pakistan's most revered nuclear weapons expert, "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." It was Khan who provided the key technology, uranium enrichment materials crucial to the nuke programs of Libya, Iran and North Korea. And it was Musharraf who pardoned him, made him to this day unavailable to US intelligence agents and, after a very loose form of house arrest, recently announced that he was now, as in the slogan of Southwest Airlines, free to move about the country.
No problem-why hold a little nuclear proliferation against our favored dictator when he's doing such a good job denying Al Qaeda and other religious fanatics a base of operations in Pakistan? Except that he did nothing of the sort. The all-important Pakistan border territory adjoining Afghanistan is more hospitable now to terrorists than ever before. As for bin Laden and the others Bush was going to get "dead or alive," US experts routinely concede that those terrorists have found a haven on Musharraf's side of the border.
So where did the $10 billion go, and that's not counting covert funds, that Bush gave Musharraf to beef up his military to better combat the terrorists? Well, clearly the Pakistani army is very strong-just look at the martial law it has been able to impose on judges and other folks who actually believe in the rule of law. But wait, Musharraf will back down; a deal was all but brokered, and Benazir Bhutto, whose adherence to democracy is as compelling as her family's rich history of corruption, is waiting in the wings.
Condi Rice is on the phone, so hopefully Musharraf can be bought off and the free world once again served by the nation Bush designated "a major non-NATO ally." But there is a bright side, for one adviser traveling with Rice was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "Thank heavens for small favors," meaning that compared with Pakistan, "Iraq looks pretty good." Talk about lowered expectations.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/truthdig
Utne Reader:
Before the War
by Courtney Angela Brkic, from Dissent
Before the war, you worked in an office. You took care of your parents, who were getting older but still managed to tend their vegetable garden and read the newspaper every day. For your daughter’s 9th birthday, you bought her a bicycle. Your teenage son played soccer for a local team, and when you could, you went to cheer him on.
When the war started, you could not believe that such a thing was possible in this day and age. “It’s the 20th century,” you told your husband in disbelief. You did not understand how people could kill their neighbors. You blamed the politicians for this sudden contagion of nationalism. People will come to their senses, you reasoned, even as things got worse.
Finally, you sought refuge in the town—Srebrenica, the one the United Nations had disarmed and subsequently declared “safe.” You reasoned that if U.N. troops had disarmed it, they intended to protect it. It is only logical, you thought. And eventually several hundred Dutch troops were deployed there. You did not speak their language, and they did not speak yours, but they stood between you and those who wanted you dead.
Almost overnight, the old life slipped away. War brought massacres, starvation, and a siege that cut you off from food, medicine, and the basic necessities of human life. Sewage overflowed, disease spread, women died in childbirth. You traded everything you owned, including your wedding ring, for food. But the next day your children were hungry again.
When the town fell, men were separated from women, and you had only a few moments to say good-bye to your son, your husband, your father. You prayed fervently for a detention center or concentration camp—better alternatives than death—and for a future prisoner exchange that might, one day, reunite you.
Despite the fact that it was July, your son wore everything he owned: a sweater and socks you had knitted, a jacket, and heavy boots. Winters are brutal in eastern Bosnia, and somewhere in the future a sweater might save him from freezing to death. In his pocket was a photograph. Or a letter from his girlfriend. Or a prayer. Or a heel of stale bread. Or a small bag of salt. Or, miracle of miracles, an apple. And you wondered if he remembered the house, his grandparents’ vegetable garden, the childhood that you gave him before this nightmare began.
Author’s Note: When Srebrenica fell on July 11, 1995, requests by the Dutch battalion for air support were answered by the United Nations, but strikes were abandoned when the Bosnian Serb army threatened to kill Dutch hostages. Bosnian Muslim men and boys were shot beside pits and buried in mass graves. They were caught as they tried to flee, taken to warehouses and factories, and executed. In all, up to 8,000 were killed.
No one is sure how many people died in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s, but estimates range from 100,000 to 200,000—overwhelmingly Bosnian Muslims—with many hundreds of thousands more displaced. The problem with casualty figures is that they suggest that things can be quantified and boiled down to recognizable, if tragic, terms. Numbers can be disturbing or sobering. But they are never as chaotic as the realities they enumerate.
Courtney Angela Brkic is the author of Stillness and Other Stories and The Stone Fields. She teaches at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Excerpted from Dissent magazine (Summer 2007). Subscriptions: $24/yr. (4 issues) from Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834; www.dissentmagazine.org.
http://www.utne.com/2007-11-01/GreatWriting/Before-the-War.aspx
ZNet | Africa
Justice for Mau Mau Veterans
by Mukoma Ngugi; pambuzaka; November 07, 2007
As the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) prepares to sue the British Government for personal injuries sustained by survivors of the Mau Mau war for independence whilst in British detention camps in Kenya, Mukoma Wa Ngugi unravels the Colonial myths of Christianisation and civilization and exposes the reality of torture, murder, slavery, landlessness, dehumanization and internment.
In February 2008, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) will file a representative law-suit against Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) in the British High Court on behalf of the survivors of the Mau Mau war for independence.
The KHRC is suing HMG for “personal injuries sustained [by the survivors] while in detention camps of the Kenya Colonial Government which operated” under the direct authority of HMG during the State of Emergency (1952-60).
But to understand the law-suit in all its implications, we have to look at Africa’s historical relationship to the West and separate the image from the reality. The Enlightenment of the 1600’s sought to civilize Africans, introduce reason and logic to them, and equip them with the key to heaven through Christianization. The reality masked underneath this image was one of torture, murder and slavery.
Later, colonialism used the image of a gentle stewardship to guide Africans along until they were civilized. The reality, as the KHRC suit shows, was landlessness, torture and dehumanization, whole population internment, outright murder and mass killings.
For the Westerners and Africans alike who have sought comfort in the images, the reality difficult to take. But the reality has been well documented. Adam Hochschild, writing in King Leopold’s Ghost, estimates that 5 to 10 million Africans died as a direct result of Belgian colonization in the Congo in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. And chopping off hands, quite literally, was a form of public control.
And between 1904 and 1907, 65,000 Herero (80 percent of the total Herero population) were systematically eliminated by the Germans in Namibia. In Algeria, during the war of independence (1954 to 1962), the French routinely tortured and 'disappeared' FLN freedom fighters.
These random examples illustrate an alarmingly simple principle: One nation cannot occupy another and seek to control its resources without detaining, torturing, assassinating and terrorizing the occupied. A modern day example of this principle at work is Iraq today where torture and killings under the occupation of the United States are rampant, even though the U.S. wants to sell an image of spreading democracy.
Colonialism, Legacy and the Mau Mau
In Kenya, British colonialism followed this same principle. Caroline Elkins’ Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag and David Anderson’s Histories Of The Hanged: The Dirty War In Kenya document tortures, hangings rushed through kangaroo courts, detention camps, internments, and assassinations, not to mention psychological warfare through fear and intimidation.
Independence however did not bring justice for Kenyans - certainly not for the Mau Mau veterans. Kenyatta, even before being sworn as president in1963, had denounced the Mau Mau as terrorists. Contrary to British propaganda, Kenyatta was never a member of the Mau Mau. In an interview, Muthoni Wanyeki, Executive Director of the KHRC, said that:
"On coming to power, [Kenyatta] proceeded, through the land ownership policies(and practices) of his government (and himself), to betray everything that the Mau Mau had stood for and to entrench the landholding patterns established under the colony"[1]
It is not a surprise that Kenyatta by the early 1970’s had a few detentions and assassinations under his belt. In the words of politician J.M. Kariuki (assassinated in 1975), Kenyatta created a nation of ten millionaires and ten million beggars. He wanted the Mau Mau platform of Land and Freedom erased from Kenyan memory.
In 1978 President Moi took over when Kenyatta died and continued with the same dictatorial policies. Irony is such that in 1982, Mau Mau historian Maina Wa Kinyatti was imprisoned by the Moi government in the same Kamiti Prison where the British in 1957 hanged and buried the leader of the Mau Mau, Dedan Kimathi, in an unmarked grave.
It was not until the Kibaki government took over in 2002 that the colonial ban on the Mau Mau was removed. Finally in 2007 a statue of Kimathi stands on Kimathi Street, something unimaginable under the Kenyatta and Moi regimes.
But more important than a hero's acre or a monument is a reckoning with the colonial legacy of torture, dehumanization and pauperization. Mau Mau veterans that are still alive, along with their children and grandchildren, live in abject poverty, landless and without formal education.
The past and current Kenyan governments have as yet to ask the British government to at the very least issue an apology for the atrocities committed against the Kenyan people. The Moi and Kenyatta governments, dependent on Western aid and while maintaining a vicious elite system, were not in a position to pressure Britain for an apology. Or even to pressure HMG to reveal the exact location of Kimathi’s grave so that his widow, Mukami Kimathi, can bury him.
This dependent relationship has allowed the British to commit crimes against Kenyans with near impunity. Forty plus years since Kenya’s independence, the British Army still uses Northern Kenya for military exercises. As a result of leaving unexploded munitions behind, “hundreds of Maasai and Samburu tribes people - many of them children - are said to have been killed or maimed by unexploded bombs left by the British army at practice ranges in central Kenya over the past 50 years” the BBC reported [2] With the legal aid of Leigh Day and Co Advocates, 228 survivors took the UK government to the British High Court. In 2002, a settlement was reached in which the UK government agreed to pay 7 million dollars plus legal fees.
Economic Justice and Forgiveness
Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery[3] shows how Western economies grew at the expense of African slave labor. Walter Rodney in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa [4] updates the argument to include colonialism –Europe developed at the direct expense of Africa. Today we find that economic giants, Barclays Bank [5], J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhattan Bank [6] are direct beneficiaries of the slave trade.
Muthoni Wanyeki argues that “it has to be recognized that the UK (and all ex-colonisers) grew at great human expense and political-economic disruption and exploitation within the ex-colonies. It is on that recognition alone that current debates on 'aid'/'development financing', trade and investment can shift as they need to.” The call for forgiveness and reconciliation then has to rest on the realization that colonialism was first and foremost an exploitative economic relationship.
Because the former colonizers continue to benefit from colonialism, while the victims of colonization continue to live in poverty, the governments of former colonizers have a moral duty to rectify the historical wrong in the present time. On the basis that colonialism as an investment is still paying off, the British cannot argue that they are not personally responsible for atrocities committed by their parents – they have inherited the economic well-being of a colonial system. They need to do right by this history because it is living.
The British government has as yet to issue a formal apology for the atrocities it committed. In the same way that Clinton expressed shame and sorrow for slavery without offering a formal apology, so did Blair for colonialism. One can express sorrow, regret and shame for causing an accidental death, but surely this is not enough for a systematic exploitation that causes millions to suffer and die.
It should be stated clearly that the authoritarian governments of Kenyatta and Moi are guilty of suppressing Mau Mau memory. And that there were thousands of Kenyans who collaborated with the British. But it should also be said that collaborators did not create colonialism, it is colonialism that created its functionaries. The real crime is colonialism.
And because colonialism if we are to be honest with history is a crime against humanity, the British parliament should at the very least pass a bill offering a formal apology to its victims in Africa. And the apology should also make provision for restitution.
Truth, Restitution, Reconciliation and Justice
While revolutionary in attempting to heal a wounded nation, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission undermined the very concept of forgiveness and justice it espoused because it did not demand that the perpetrators address in word and deed the question of restitution. Muthoni Wanyeki on the TRC says that:
Within the human rights movement in Kenya (and in Africa more broadly), the TRC process in SA while hailed for its reconciliation potential has always been critiqued for its enabling of impunity and its lack of direct recognition of, compensation for survivors.
Even though a desired by-product, the struggle against apartheid was not waged solely for blacks to forgive whites, or for whites to ask forgiveness, but to bring economic, social and political equality for all South Africans. So then here is the irony of the TRC – the perpetrators go home to their mansions, the victims back to the township.
To put it differently, after the TRC hearings the victims go back to a life of poverty, they remain without the means to feed, cloth or educate their children. Freedom comes without the content – it’s just a name – it has no meaning. Under these circumstances, forgiveness, healing and justice cannot exist without restitution.
The British government, which had the largest empire in the world, has cause to fear losing the Mau Mau law-suit. Once it begins where it will end? In neighboring Uganda? India? Malaysia? Or Jamaica? And if the British lose, will this set precedence for the victims of French, Belgian or Portuguese colonialism? The British government knows that losing one law-suit will open closed colonial closets all over the world.
It is precisely because this lawsuit has huge implications for the victims of colonialism all over the world that it deserves the support of all those who understand that history is still acting on us and that justice cannot exist without some form of restitution even if it comes in the form of the whole truth.
Identifying the graves of the disappeared, so that their relatives can rest; the numbers of how many killed, so that nations account for their dead; the names of the guilty, so that they may be brought to justice or forgiven; initiating the return of what was stolen: all these issues resonate with formerly colonized peoples.
For Muthoni Wanyeki says that “We see this case as being part of the process of understanding and coming to terms with our past...particularly given that our past impacts so clearly and evidently on our present.” African people in the continent and Diaspora should support the Kenya Human Rights Committee by calling on the British government to account for its torture of Mau Mau detainees.
We have to become each other’s keeper of memory and see each atrocity perpetrated on the other as part our collective memory – whether we identify as Afro-Latino, African American, or African.
We have to make common cause because ultimately the struggle for the truth will not be won because the British High Court finds it just, or because the British Government decides to come to terms with its past, it will be won because victims across Africa, the Diaspora and other survivors of colonial atrocities will make common cause with the Mau Mau struggle and vice versa. Truth will come to light because we will have demanded justice and restitution before offering forgiveness.
It is only when an apology and restitution are offered, and the victim in turn forgives that for both the perpetrator and victim true healing can take place. For me, that is the truth of justice.
Notes
1. Wanyeki, Muthoni (Kenya Human Rights Commission Executive Director). Interview by Author via e-mail. October 15th, 2007.
2. UK pay-out for Kenya bomb victims. July 19th, 2002
3. Williams, Eric. Slavery and Capitalism. New York, Russell & Russell, 1961
4. Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, D.C. Howard University Press, 1981
5. Barclays admits possible link to slavery after reparation call. April 1, 2007
6. Corporations challenged by reparations activists February 21, 2002
* Kenyan writer Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Hurling Words at Consciousness (Africa World Press, 2006) and the forthcoming New Kenyan Fiction (Ishmael Reed Publications, 2008). He is a political columnist for the BBC Focus on Africa Magazine.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=14226
posted by attilav at 18:06
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home