coluichedubita: Elsewhere Today 467

Aljazeera:
Death toll rises in Bangladesh

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2007
10:03 MECCA TIME, 7:03 GMT

At least 240 people have died after cyclone Sidr hit the towns of Patuakhali, Barguna and Jhalakathihere in southern Bangladesh.

The 240 kilometre per hour cyclone uprooted trees, destroyed homes and forced the evacuation of 650,000 villagers before weakening to a tropical storm on Friday.

"The death toll has risen to above 200 and we are still getting more reports of deaths," Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman, officer-in-charge of the control room at the ministry of relief and disaster management, told the AFP news agency.

Gale force winds and five-metre-high waves hit low-lying coastal areas and offshore islands in the cyclone's path.

Torrential rain also flooded some streets and stranded vehicles while strong winds sent billboards flying through the air in the capital Dhaka.

Sidr later weakened into a tropical storm and moved northeast across the country.

Skies remained overcast but wind speeds fell to 60 kilometres per hour according to officials at the Bangladeshi meteorological department in Dhaka.

Relief effort

Nabiha Chowdhury, a spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that government was better prepared in comparison with previous flood disasters.

"In terms of relief goods 400,000 water purification tablets have been sent to the affected coastal regions," she said.

"We have also allocated funds to the affected regions to buy dry food for the people. In addition, mobile medical teams are on standby to assist the people who are injured and to provide them with medicines."

Owen Fay, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Dhaka, said people in the capital were considering themselves lucky that the damage from the storm was less than they first feared.

"Over the past few days, even as the storm surge swelled up to 10 metres in low-lying areas of the country, a massive relief effort was underway," he said.

"This is a sharp contrast to what has happened to Bangladesh in the past."

Samarendra Karmakar, the meteorological department head, said the storm was as strong as the one in 1991 that sparked a tidal wave and killed an estimated 140,000 people.

But he said he was optimistic that a major effort this time to evacuate villages and place people in special shelters could mean Bangladesh would be spared a significant loss of life.

Vince Edwards from aid agency World Vision in Dhaka, told Al Jazeera that the extent of damage caused by the cyclone would become clearer in 24 hours.

"Houses and trees, 40-60% have been damaged, crops due for harvest in December have been lost and there is going to be a serious impact on household livelihoods", he said.

Cyclones, where water levels can rise above 5 metres, can cause immense devastation in low lying Bangladesh, a country of 140 million.

Nearly 10 million Bangladeshis live along the southern coast but the area has shelters for only about half a million.

Storms batter the poor south Asian country every year. A severe cyclone killed more than half a million people in 1970, while one in 1991, which generated a 6 metre storm surge, killed about 140,000 people.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D0C361E-5ED7-4BF2-BDF6-241C2456EA47.htm

AllAfrica:
Militants Bomb Shell's Oil Pipeline in Delta

By Emma Amaize, Port Harcourt
Vanguard (Lagos) NEWS
16 November 2007

MILITANTS in the early hours of yesterday blew up with explosives a crude oil delivery pipeline, belonging to the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in Delta State amidst fears that the execution of the multi-billion dollars Escravos Gas-to-Liquid project of the American oil giant, Chevron Nigeria Limited, may be truncated following a fresh threat by the people of oil-rich Ugborodo community, Warri South West local government area.

The militants who came in speedboats were reportedly armed to the teeth but there was no report of casualty or anybody taken hostage.

A source told Vanguard that the oil pipeline runs from South bank to Forcados Terminal but the details of the incident were still sketchy at the time of this report.

An official of the SPDC who preferred anonymity confirmed that the incident occurred at about 02.00 am, saying that the company was surprised, as for many months, militants had ceased fire in Delta State even though they were rampaging in other states.

A top operative of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger -Delta (MEND) in Delta State who was contacted yesterday evening said he was not aware of the incident.

Indeed, since Governor Uduaghan took over the affairs of the state, he has successfully engaged militants and brought them into the fold, and the attack came as a shock to the people of the state.

Copyright © 2007 Vanguard. All rights reserved.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200711160362.html

AlterNet:
We Can't Shop Our Way to Safety

By Erin Wiegand, AlterNet
Posted on November 16, 2007

Organic food has boomed in the last decade, moving from a tiny niche market to a $17 billion dollar industry. Those who can afford it are buying nontoxic and organic rugs, mattresses, and clothing. Almost half of all households in the US have purchased a water filter of one kind or another. Across the country, people are growing more concerned with the possibility that their food and water could actually make them sick - and are responding by buying more products with labels like "organic," "green," and "natural."

Is something wrong with this picture?

In Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves, Andrew Szasz argues that a consumerist response to environmental threats is not only inadequate, but also dangerous in the way it enables individuals to isolate themselves in what he calls an "inverted quarantine," focused more on protecting oneself in the short term than actually doing anything towards systemic change. Instead of viewing discrete sources of pollution as things to be contained and dealt with, Szasz says, we now view the environment itself - the air we breathe, the water we drink - as potentially hazardous, and are containing ourselves instead.

Szasz details some of the actual threats to us from pollution and environmental destruction, and makes a convincing case that we should, in fact, be worried about the water coming out of our tap and the pesticides used on conventional produce. But quarantine, he argues just as convincingly, simply doesn't work: standards for toxins in food, air, and water are too low, or aren't followed correctly; there are too many substances (and combinations of substances) that don't have any regulation at all. And even if you managed to eat only organic food and drink only filtered water (and if both of those things meant you were really not ingesting any toxins), you'd still have to deal with breathing air polluted by factories - or get an oxygen tank.

But that's not really the point: whether or not these products work, people seem to believe that they do, and are shopping accordingly. And that's where the real danger comes in. Regarding consumer goods as an acceptable solution to environmental problems effectively takes the weight off of those responsible for creating those problems; factories can go on polluting the skies and waterways as long as we have (or think we have) adequate filters and water purification systems. We buy organic instead of doing anything to stop the dumping of pesticides on crops, buy a Brita filter instead of taking action against the factories dumping toxic waste into the streams and the power plants contaminating our groundwater.

Szasz makes an interesting and lengthy comparison of this sort of consumer-based environmentalism to a different (and more literal) type of inverted quarantine: the nuclear panic that led to the widespread construction of fallout shelters in 1961. After a frenzy that lasted a few months, people began to realize that bomb shelters wouldn't really do anything to protect them from a nuclear explosion. Even if their shelters actually held together during the blast, the chances of surviving the fallout (or the weeks of isolation in a tiny, airtight bunker) were slim. And even survivors would emerge from the shelter into a poisoned, devastated world.

On top of the fact that the shelters were useless, some argued that shelters would actually increase the potential for nuclear war. The false sense of security afforded by the shelters, they suggested, would make the consequences of nuclear war seem more acceptable, and thus the public would be more forgiving of a hawkish political stance. And that's the essence of Szasz's argument as extrapolated to the current environmental crisis. What we're doing is not only useless and "a cruel illusion," as he puts it, but it invites even greater environmental destruction to go on unimpeded, because people believe that they are individually secure. It's that false sense of security that leads people to accept greater risks, whether in the case of nuclear war or the depletion of the ozone layer.

But the all-important point in this argument - one severely understated by Szasz - is the fact that this false sense of security is not something unintentionally or accidentally created. In the case of nuclear war, Szasz points out that the U.S. government had a large hand in fostering the nation's faith in bomb shelters; their nuclear posturing could only be effective if the U.S. population was prepared and willing to endure a counter-strike. Szasz writes, "If American citizens were willing to 'take it,' the nation's leaders could stand tall on the world's stage, free to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. They could 'negotiate from strength,' which meant, really, that they would not have to negotiate much at all; instead, they could insist that other nations bow to America's wishes."

When it comes to modern inverted quarantine, though, Szasz's examination of how the phenomenon has been created falls a little short. He acknowledges that corporations use inverted quarantine as part of their marketing plans, and notes that a large portion of the "inverted quarantine products" available for purchase are controlled by big corporations that have bought up and consolidated the market, but goes no further than that. Rather than identifying modern inverted quarantine as the result of business and government PR, he discusses it as if it were an organically-evolved concept.

Of course, it's a tricky question of cause-and-effect - is industry allowed to run rampant in its destruction of our environment because the public doesn't care enough, or do we not care enough because politicians and corporations have convinced us environmental protection isn't a priority?

Either way, one thing is clear: manipulated or not, the general population has largely succumbed to the idea that we can't or don't need to change the way we live, and that more and better products will become available for us to keep ourselves safe from an increasingly toxic world. That illusion, Szasz says, must be destroyed, and replaced by a real effort to protect our environment.

Szasz describes that effort, the opposite of the "inverted quarantine" approach, as the "social movement" approach, whose adherents "define problems as collective, and ... say that only systemic change can fix them." Unfortunately, Szasz's ideas about how we might individually respond to those collective problems are pretty limited. He describes a "political actor" as someone who, for example, "pays dues to an organization that lobbies to strengthen the Clean Air Act or votes for candidates who support clean air initiatives." He suggests that one can "e-mail congressmen and senators before key votes ... try to get the political system to acknowledge it and deal with it."

Szasz argues, quite rightly, that relying on consumer goods to protect us makes us blind to how we really are in danger of an environmental collapse. But just relying on politicians to take care of things can be similarly blinding - even if a senator helps to pass more legislation to regulate a particular toxic chemical or increase emissions standards, factories will keep spewing out toxic sludge (with a now-regulated amount of chemical X) and contributing to global warming (at perhaps a slightly slower rate). Small "victories" like that give us an illusion of greater safety, and that can be just as dangerous as believing your bottle of Evian is pure and pristine. It might help protect us in the short run, just as eating organic might keep some pesticides out of our bodies, but in the long run, institutionalized pollution and environmental destruction is allowed to continue, producing decidedly greater and greater threats to our individual and collective health.

The efficacy of his suggested activism aside, Szasz's argument for identifying and ridding ourselves of the illusory safety provided by inverted quarantine is unquestionably sound and needed. Even on a purely individual level, understanding that your shopping choices alone are not going to make you safer or healthier is certainly a crucial and positive step to take. But it also doesn't mean we shouldn't take our consumer choices to heart. Buy your organic apples and nontoxic dish soap, but do so with the knowledge that it's not enough - and act accordingly.

Erin Wiegand is a writer and editor living in Oakland, California. Currently a project editor at North Atlantic Books, she is also the former managing editor of LiP Magazine. Her writing has appeared in LiP and In These Times, and in two books: Tipping the Sacred Cow (AK Press) and In the Beginning (HarperCollins).

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/67706/

Asia Times:
Musharraf remains the US's best option

By M K Bhadrakumar
Nov 17, 2007

The visit by US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to Islamabad on Friday has a parallel in an extraordinary American mission jointly undertaken by the then-secretary of state Warren Christopher and national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Pakistani capital almost 28 years ago. The photograph of Brzezinski at the Khyber Pass peering down the sights of an AK-47 into Afghanistan under Soviet occupation still stands out in the annals of the Cold War.

Analogies are never quite in order in politics, but what is useful to remember is that the two top-ranking officials of the Jimmy Carter administration were actually dealing with a Pakistani regime much weaker than the one President General Pervez Musharraf presently heads. Pakistan wasn't a nuclear power in February 1980, and General Zia ul-Haq was the pariah of the international community.

Zia had all the infirmities that dictators were afflicted with - an abominable human-rights record, his nuclear intent, his aversion to pluralism, his dalliance with religious bigotry, to name a few. He ignored pleas from world capitals and executed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister. The Pakistani armed forces were in terrible shape, and the country's economy was losing steam. The US Congress' Symington Amendment barred all US economic and military aid to Pakistan.

US officials (and newspapers) were confident Zia would grab the Brzezinski-Christopher package offered as inducement for fighting a clandestine war in Afghanistan. In the event, it took a further 14 months for Washington to work out the terms and conditions for bringing Zia's regime on board. An account of the riveting drama was later made available to readers by the then vice chief of army staff, General K M Arif, in his memoirs, Working with Zia.

The salient point is that Zia simply decided he would be better off not dealing with the "lame duck" Carter. Like the George W Bush administration today, Carter's administration too was wounded in the loins. The Islamic revolution in Iran of 1979 had inflicted a near fatal wound on Carter. Zia patiently waited for the regime change in Washington that brought in Ronald Reagan. After all, Pakistan had a future to consider beyond Carter's term in office.

A 'transactional relationship'
Negroponte would do well to remember that episode of the Zia era when he flies in from Africa on Friday and sits down with Musharraf in Rawalpindi. He should disregard the cacophony that Musharraf has his "back against the wall", or that the people have risen in revolt and the Pakistani military is about to refuse orders to fire on them, or that the Taliban are looking over the walls of Army House in Rawalpindi. Equally, he is unlikely to get very far unless he correctly estimates the "check list" of the Pakistan armed forces. That was also the problem 28 years back.

Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and a presidential aspirant) correctly identified the problem when he said this week that the relationship between the US and Pakistan is "largely transactional - and this transaction isn't working for either party". Biden argued, "We [the US] must move beyond this transactional relationship - the exchange of aid for services - to the normal functional relationship we enjoy with all our other military allies and friendly nations."

What he means is that the US and Pakistan must end their illicit nocturnal relationship. Indeed, the problem is that the Pakistani regime doesn't like being treated as an occasional fling when Washington is in heat. It doesn't think it is getting from Washington what is its due as the US's unique "non-NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] ally" in the region, and as a nuclear power with a big standing.

This is not a problem restricted to the Pakistani military. Biden noted, "Many Pakistanis believe that the moment Osama bin Laden is gone, US interest will be gone with him." The perennial Pakistani grievance has been that America is not a reliable ally and that US support is purely tactical. Does it require much ingenuity to see why the Musharraf regime's participation in the "war on terror" remains ambivalent at best?

Biden put his finger neatly on another aspect of the problem when he sized up that Pakistan harbors a great grievance about "our blossoming relationship with rival India". The grievance takes an acute form when Washington brusquely tells Islamabad that it does not qualify for the sort of nuclear cooperation that it proposes to have with New Delhi. Curiously, while opinion in India seems divided about the proposed nuclear cooperation with the US, Pakistanis see it as a dream deal that they would give anything to secure. Pakistani interlocutors never tire of complimenting Indian officials for negotiating such a good deal.

Washington doesn't seem to notice the Pakistani military's sensitivities about the US's perceived step-motherly attitude. From the military's perspective, the US is forging a strategic partnership with India, which is bound to elevate the latter into a super league of world powers. In comparison, the Pakistani military is entrapped in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal tracts as a border militia.

Biden is right in saying it is time Washington addresses the core issues of the US-Pakistan relationship. The issue is not about Musharraf alone. There is doubtless a massive undercurrent of "anti-Americanism" in Pakistani society. Pakistani journalist and author Ahmed Rashid recently noted that the animus against the US runs "most markedly in the educated middle classes".

Democracy on Musharraf's terms
In sum, Musharraf and the Pakistani military would see no reason to succumb to US pressure tactics. The increasingly defiant tone, almost unwillingly, in Musharraf's stance with regard to Washington must be carefully noted. Anyone who thought Musharraf and Bush were dissimulating disagreement would have realized by now that is not the case. Through a series of deft maneuverings, Musharraf shook free of US shackles.

Conceivably, pushed against the wall, the Pakistani military would choose to wait (like Zia did) to open a fresh page with a new administration in Washington. Pakistan can afford to do that. As it is, 75% of all supplies for the US forces in Afghanistan flow through or over Pakistan, including 40% of all fuel. The Pentagon press secretary admitted on Wednesday that the supply lines are already "a real area of concern for our commanders in Afghanistan". Also, Islamabad cannot be unaware that apart from the Afghan war, regional tensions involving the US with Iran, Russia and Central Asia are likely to accentuate in the near term, which in turn will only increase US dependence on Pakistan.

The Pakistani corps commanders met in Rawalpindi on Sunday. Since then, through a series of public statements, Musharraf and people close to him have revealed much about what Negroponte
can hope to get done during his day-long visit, which will be the US diplomat's second visit to Pakistan within a month.

First, Negroponte will be off the mark if he imagines he can still catapult former prime minister Benazir Bhutto into high office. (She seems to pin residual hopes on Negroponte, though.) The army and the Punjabi-dominated establishment simply refuse to allow Bhutto to come into the corridors of power. The establishment sees Bhutto as a difficult personality - "the most corrupt, sluggish and extravagant politician in Pakistan", according to Musharraf's close confidante, Railway Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed - and as a spent force politically. Musharraf has publicly debunked her claims to popularity in Pakistan.

The establishment ensures that the country's democratic opposition won't rally around Bhutto. It is confident that elections set for January will go ahead with or without her participation. Meanwhile, Bhutto will need time to emerge from the pervasive cloud of public suspicion that she secretly consorts with the regime even now. Even if Bhutto wins majority support in the elections - which is highly unlikely - the present constitution doesn't allow her to become prime minister for a third time.

US pressure tactic won't work
Second, Negroponte may complain, but the regime remains adamant that the state of emergency is needed to ensure the smooth conduct of elections. The regime calculates that ultimately, political parties will participate in the elections regardless of the emergency.

Third, the regime will cut back on the "war on terror" if Negroponte tries any of his famous tricks learnt in previous diplomatic assignments (Honduras, Ferdinand Marcos' Philippines), like threatening to cut off military aid.

On the contrary, he may pick up from Rawalpindi a fresh list of demands for military aid. Musharraf told The New York Times on Tuesday that the military is finding it impossible to silence an amateur FM radio station run by the leading pro-Taliban religious leader in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah, for want of "technical means to do it". He underscored that the US must therefore give more aid. He also pointed out that out of 10 Cobra helicopters that the US has supplied, "We have only one that is serviceable. We need more support."

Fourth, Negroponte is bound to disturb a hornets' nest if he broaches, however diplomatically, the subject of the control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Islamabad has taken very seriously a report in the Washington Post that the Bush administration has drawn up "contingency plans" in the event the Pakistani military loses control of the weapons.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman promptly denounced the "irresponsible conjecture" and warned: "If there is any threat to our nuclear assets and sovereignty, we have the capacity to defend ourselves ... suffice it to say that Pakistan possesses adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its strategic assets and sovereignty."

Again, it must be understood that at every stage in recent months Musharraf has acted on the basis of decisions reached by the collegium of corps commanders. While propagandists (in Pakistan and abroad) may suggest that an army revolt against Musharraf is conceivable, the general indeed exudes the confidence of a military man who commands absolute loyalty. In any case, the Pakistani army has never witnessed a break in its chain of command at the top, nor staged a coup against one of its own.

In fact, it would be the height of folly for Washington to try to create dissensions within the Pakistani army, which is the only institution that transcends the various templates of ethnic, regional, and religious differences that threaten the country's unity and integrity. As long as the army stays united, the Pakistani state has inherent stability and a fair chance of outliving the weaknesses of its civilian institutions, democratic elections or any of the fragilities associated with civil society.

Musharraf was essentially right when he said this week, "The military is strong and very disciplined. As long as the armed forces of Pakistan remain united, which they will and are, no harm can come to Pakistan. The harm can come from the political dilemma. We have to resolve the political dilemma." Of course, as long as the armed forces remain united, the "Talibanization" of Pakistan will remain a very low probability - almost non-existent. The implications for regional stability are self-evident.

Persuasion may work
Thus, given the political gridlock ensuing from the breakdown of the Musharraf-Bhutto deal and the absence of any plan B, Negroponte will have to take a good second look at what is on offer from Musharraf - a continuation of the present ruling alliance with adjustments. He could always offer improvements. That's far from the best scenario possible, but there may be little choice in the matter.

Significantly, a caretaker government has already been sworn in on the eve of Negroponte's arrival, headed by Mohammad Mian Soomro, the chairman of the Pakistan Senate and a dependable hand. It is just as well that Negroponte is due to call on Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, cousin of the powerful leader of the present ruling alliance, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. Elahi is widely tipped as the next prime minister of Pakistan.

Finally, Negroponte will know that after all, Washington has ways to influence Musharraf, and there is no need to insult the general and unintentionally unleash the anger of the Pakistani military. Musharraf has already offered that the choice is entirely Bhutto's to be conciliatory or confrontational. Negroponte and Musharraf could find common ground in lifting the emergency as soon as possible - they could even agree on a date - or removing restrictions on the media and civil society, or, better still, releasing political leaders and activists from detention.

One thing is clear. The military is not with Bhutto, and the country doesn't seem to trust her. Musharraf happens to be the only acceptable game in Islamabad.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK17Df05.html

Clarín:
"El milonguero tiene necesidad de ficción"

ENTREVISTA A EDGARDO COZARINSKY

En su libro "Milongas", Edgardo Cozarinsky se ocupa del regreso del tango bailado, su público, sus templos. Entre la crónica, la ficción y la historia, habla también de las reacciones que este baile despertó en los intelectuales, desde Lugones hasta Güiraldes, Victoria Ocampo, Martínez Estrada y Cortázar.

EDUARDO POGORILES
10.11.2007 | Clarin.com | Revista Ñ

De entrada, Edgardo Cozarinsky aclara que los lectores de su libro serían, idealmente, los milongueros, "gente incapaz de indiferencia cuando a la madrugada, en cualquier salón de barrio, siguen con la mirada a una pareja mayor o a otra de jóvenes" en los pasos de un tango. Viejos y jóvenes coincidiendo en un espacio -la milonga, multiplicada hoy en tantos sitios de Buenos Aires- cumplen el ritual del baile. En esa convivencia de edades y de estilos de vida está cifrada la grandeza de este baile y de su escenario más íntimo: la milonga. Todo esto habla de un hecho cultural porque el baile del tango, "ese diálogo de cuerpos", está de regreso en la ciudad que lo vio nacer. Ha vuelto después de haber atravesado todos los estados de ánimo: los años de marginalidad hasta el triunfo en París antes de 1914, la época de oro de la década de 1940, el olvido y la marea baja de las décadas de 1960 a 1980, otro reconocimiento mundial -en París, en Nueva York, en muchas otras ciudades- desde 1983. Ahora que está de vuelta, dice Cozarinsky, "como todo carácter fuerte, este baile se enorgullece de aquello por lo cual fue atacado". El enigma de su sobrevivencia es, probablemente, el tema central de "Milongas", (Edhasa) el libro de Cozarinsky ilustrado con fotografías de Sebastián Freire, donde el autor intenta un cruce de géneros literarios: hay ficciones, hay crónicas -una recorrida por milongas de aquí y de Europa- además de historia. Paciente como un detective, Cozarinsky también trazó en su libro una arqueología del tango y de algunos de sus mitos. Por caso, el triunfo del tango en París; el milonguero Ricardo Güiraldes en el recuerdo de Victoria Ocampo, el Vaticano y el tango, el testimonio de aquellos intelectuales que -al mismo tiempo- amaron y odiaron este baile, como Martínez Estrada. Milonguero él mismo, Cozarinsky se detiene en aquellos que, desde la derecha o la izquierda cultural -Lugones y Gálvez, pero también Barletta y Arlt- acusaron al tango de ser "híbrido, sensual, agresivo, mórbido y escasamente argentino -entre tantas cosas más- cuando en realidad lo cultivaron los inmigrantes y sus hijos -italianos, judíos- tanto como los orilleros, aquellos provincianos que se acercaban a Buenos Aires. Desde fines del siglo XIX todos ellos, con este baile, le dieron música a una emoción y una identidad a esta ciudad". De eso habló Cozarinsky con Ñ.

«p-¿Quiso hacer un ensayo de interpretación sobre este baile? ¿Porqué lo ilustra con fotos?

«r-No, no escribí un ensayo. En todo momento quise evitar la pose, la opinión infundada, lo turístico. Las fotografías de Sebastián Freire son casi abstractas, captan cuerpos en movimiento, hay pequeñas metáforas, como ese par de zapatos que una mujer dejó bajo una mesa para calzarse los zapatos de tango y salir a la pista. La primera parte de mi libro está entre la ficción -hay dos cuentos- y la crónica de lo que vi en distintas milongas. En la segunda parte hice una búsqueda de archivos, como un detective que se mete con los fantasmas del tango -testimonios que se contradicen y nutren el mito- en la voz de intelectuales y artistas de distintas épocas. La idea era dar cuenta del mundo de la milonga, apelar a mi propia experiencia -siempre visito las milongas, acá, en Londres, Cracovia o Nueva York- para ver por qué este baile atraviesa a todas las edades. Me fascina esa mezcla de gente y de edades en las pistas, la gloria de la milonga está en esa mezcla. El verdadero milonguero no baila para ser visto en un escenario, baila para él y su pareja.

«p-¿A qué atribuye este retorno del tango bailado?

«r-Recordemos que el tango fue baile y solamente baile durante muchos años, el tango canción arranca en 1917 con "Mi noche triste". No estoy de acuerdo con quienes ven este auge de la milonga como algo inauténtico. Mi tema es el baile, no las letras de tango. El baile incluye a D'Arienzo y Canaro lo mismo que a Pugliese -uno de mis favoritos- pero yo no creo en ese lugar común que sostiene que el tango es una música dignificada por De Caro y Piazzolla. Este baile vuelve porque es fundamentalmente un diálogo de cuerpos donde el hombre propone y la mujer dispone. Nada que ver con el baile suelto de las discotecas. El tango pone en escena el deseo, pero además hay en los milongueros una necesidad de ficción -esa pequeña novela de tres minutos que viven los bailarines- donde ya no importa si el hombre tiene panza o la mujer no es linda. Martínez Estrada lo dijo hace años: "Quizá ninguna música se preste como el tango a la ensoñación, entra y se posesiona de todo el ser como un narcótico, es posible, a su compás, detener el pensamiento y dejar flotar el alma en el cuerpo".

«p-La cuestión de la puesta en escena del deseo puede ser perturbadora para algunos. De ahí vienen las primeras críticas...

«r-Claro, por los orígenes del tango en el prostíbulo y luego por el ambiente del cabaret. Este baile era símbolo de esa ciudad moderna, anárquica y repleta de inmigrantes, que se le escapaba de las manos a la elite gobernante. En la elite, algunos no pueden soportar que ya en 1913 -cuando triunfa el tango en París- se identifique a la Argentina con una música que es bailada por personas que hablan en cocoliche y frecuentan prostíbulos. Carlos Ibarguren opone el tango a eso que todavía no se llamaba folclore. "El tango no es propia mente argentino, es un producto híbrido o mestizo nacido en los arrabales y consistente en una mezcla de habanera tropical y de milonga falsificada, ¡cuán distante al crudo balanceo del tango es el noble y distinguido de la cueca!", dice Ibarguren. Pero ya en 1911 Ricardo Güiraldes -que era un gran milonguero y le enseñó a bailar a Victoria Ocampo- le dedica un poema al tango, donde lo llama "baile de la vida y de la muerte". Fíjese en otra ironía: en la década de 1920 las orquestas argentinas ya conocidas en París -como las de Manuel Pizarro, Genaro Espósito y Eduardo Bianco- tenían que interpretar el tango, una música acusada de no ser criolla, disfrazados de gauchos. Es que el sindicato francés de músicos no permitía actuar permanentemente a los extranjeros. Al vestirse de gauchos, las orquestas aparecían como un número de variedades y así evitaban problemas gremiales.

«p-En su libro usted destaca que Leopoldo Lugones, refiriéndose al tango, hablaba de "ese reptil de lupanar, tan injustamente llamado argentino". Manuel Gálvez decía que no había "nada tan repugnante como el tango argentino, su baile es grotesco y significa el más alto exponente de guaranguería nacional"...

«r-Es cierto, pero hay que contrastar eso con una conmovedora confesión que el propio Gálvez hace en su vejez: dice que en 1904 o 1905 él tocaba tangos al piano en la tertulia de Lugones. "Quienes me oían se asombraban de que yo, un joven distinguido, le diese a la música del arrabal tanto sabor, lo bailé pues, y bastante bien, con mucho sentimiento, según mis cómplices compañeras. Es que de veras lo sentía, sentía su alma, su color, su gusto a pecado", dice Gálvez en sus memorias. Esta ambivalencia se ve también en Borges: le gusta la milonga pero no soporta el tango, le parece sentimental, italianizante. A mí me gusta el tango justamente por eso, es emocional y desgarrado, tiene melodías dignas de Puccini, por algo convoca a tantos músicos de origen italiano y judío. Por otra parte, tampoco la izquierda ahorra críticas. Leónidas Barletta dice -y cito a Horacio Salas- que "el tango es una jeremiada de afeminados, el tardío despertar de una mujer inconsciente de su femineidad, es la música de unos degenerados que se niegan a usar ropas proletarias, cuyas mujeres de grasientos cabellos abandonan las fábricas por los burdeles".

«p-Usted dice que, en las distintas reacciones ante el tango, se puede leer un reflejo de la persona literaria que el escritor eligió encarnar. ¿Cómo encajan allí Victoria Ocampo y Cortázar?

«r-Victoria Ocampo confiesa, a sus 74 años, que el tango le gustó cuando empezó a bailarlo -"como baile descubrí su carácter inimitablemente argentino", dice ella- mientras anota, entre otros recuerdos, que lo vio bailar por primera vez en casa de su abuelo, ubicada donde hoy está el cine Ambassador, en Lavalle al 700. "La pareja bailó cara contra cara en medio de un silencio casi religioso, esa fue mi primera visión del tango y no comprendí por qué prohibían un baile tan solemne", cuenta en sus memorias. Las letras de tango, que a ella le parecían un poco sentimentaloides, están redimidas por el baile. Y dice que los campeones de las milongas que se hacían en la casa -con la orquesta de Fresedo, todos los jueves- eran nada menos que el escritor Ricardo Güiraldes -el milonguero "perfecto"- y Vicente Madero, hijo del vicepresidente de Julio Roca, Francisco Madero. Refiriéndose a Madero, ella dice que "cuando caminaba el tango, todo su cuerpo, al parecer inmóvil, seguía elásticamente el ritmo, lo vivía, lo comunicaba a su compañera que, contagiada, obedecía a ese perfecto y acompasado andar". En cuanto a Julio Cortázar, yo creo que el cuento "Las puertas del cielo" -publicado en "Bestiario" (1951)- está entre lo mejor que escribió. En la milonga que describe Cortázar se reconoce la famosa Enramada, en Palermo y durante el primer peronismo. Algunos leen "Las puertas del cielo" como un relato antiperonista, es posible, pero no agota la fascinación de este cuento. Yo me pregunto si no hay algo más tanguero que esa búsqueda de la mujer amada -que ha muerto- entre las parejas de una milonga, el tango es aquí el sueño de un regreso imposible. Estamos ante un tema clásico, la búsqueda de la amada inmortal, el sueño de recuperar a los muertos queridos. A mí me inspiró una película -"Crepúsculo rojo" (2003)- donde un hombre, en una ciudad desconocida, con el tango convoca a su novia muerta.

«p-¿No hay en esta visión romántica del mundo del baile una "melancolía de izquierda", como usted mismo dice recordando a Walter Benjamin?

«r-Es cierto que el destino de la mujer del cabaret era sórdido, hay piedad por ella en ciertos tangos, pero no hay rebelión. Está esa nostalgia del tiempo ido, esa seducción novelesca por el mundo de la mala vida. Pero yo no le reprocho al tango esa resignación. Creo que expresa una resignación muy argentina.

Copyright 1996-2007 Clarín.com - All rights reserved

http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/cultura/2007/11/10/u-02211.htm

Guardian:
Bangladesh cyclone kills more than 500

Gallery: Bangladesh cyclone
Interactive guide: Cyclone Sidr

Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
Friday November 16, 2007

Relief workers today struggled to reach devastated parts of Bangladesh after a powerful cyclone ripped through the country, leaving a trail of destruction that claimed more than 500 lives.

Cyclone Sidr hit the country's south-west coast yesterday after racing up the Bay of Bengal at a speed of 150 mph. It triggered a five metre (15ft) high tidal wave that washed away three coastal towns.

More than 600,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes to escape the winds and driving rain. The fury of the cyclone levelled villages, destroyed crops and sent telephone poles whirling into the sky across a dozen districts abutting the sea.

For most of yesterday electricity and telephone lines were cut across the country.

According to reports many towns in the countryside, where homes are often shacks made of bamboo and tin, were blown away in the cyclone.

"I cannot describe how devastating it was. It was like doomsday, the most frightening five hours of my life. I thought I would never see my family again," Mollik Tariqur, a businessman in the south-western district of Bagerhat, one of the worst-hit areas, told the AFP news agency.

"There is a trail of destruction everywhere. We can't even detect where our houses were; only a few are left and they do not have roofs," he said.

Aid agencies struggled to get relief to the devastated areas, event though much of Sidr's strength had dissipated. The country's meteorologists had downgraded the cyclone late last night to a tropical storm, its wind speed falling to just 37 mph.

Heather Blackwell, head of Oxfam in Bangladesh, said the cyclone would hit poorest people hardest.

"Many people live on sandbanks in the river delta, which can be easily flooded by tidal surges. A cyclone this strong can wash away the sandbanks, forcing families to abandon their homes, livestock and crops," she said.

Vince Edwards, the Bangladesh director of the Christian aid group World Vision, told Reuters that debris from the storm had blocked roads and rivers, making it difficult to reach all the areas that had been hit.

"There has been lot of damage to houses made of mud and bamboo and about 60% to 80% of trees [in affected parts] have been uprooted."

It is feared the death toll could rise. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs told reporters 1,000 fishermen were missing.

The Bangladesh navy has launched a search-and-rescue operation, while helicopters have begun ferrying relief supplies to offshore islands, according to the defence ministry.

The UN World Food Programme has begun distributing 98 tonnes of high-energy biscuits to storm victims.

Bangladesh, a low-lying delta region, is used to floods and cyclones. Entire villagers had been moved to safety in preparation for Sidr.

Bangladesh may have benefited from experience. Sidr was considered similar in strength to a 1991 storm that killed an estimated 130,000 people. Twenty years earlier half a million people died.

Last night, Bangladesh's main port, Chittagong, which handles 80% of external trade, reopened after two days. "We have [resumed] normal operations at the port as the storm crossed the coast overnight," a senior official told Reuters.

In the country's capital, Dhaka, Zia international airport reopened after 20 hours as the subsiding cyclone moved towards Assam in India.

Bangladesh's enormous neighbour escaped the worst of the cyclone. Mortaza Hossain, a government minister in West Bengal, said that just 100 mud houses in a forest close to Bangladesh had been damaged.

About 100,000 villagers in coastal areas of West Bengal would return home after being evacuated to 69 temporary camps, he added.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,,2212173,00.html

Internazionale:
Aspettando Annapolis

Per discutere seriamente di pace tra Israele e i palestinesi, bisogna partire dagli accordi di Taba del 2001

Noam Chomsky
Internazionale 719, 15 novembre 2007

I crimini commessi contro i palestinesi nei Territori occupati e altrove, soprattutto da quando l'anno scorso hanno votato "nel modo sbagliato" facendo vincere le elezioni ad Hamas, sono sconvolgenti. E gli unici sentimenti che provocano sono la rabbia e la voglia di reazioni estreme.

Ma questo non aiuterebbe le vittime. Anzi, probabilmente le danneggerebbe. Anche se è difficile rimanere impassibili di fronte a crimini così orribili – nei quali gli Stati Uniti sono direttamente coinvolti – le nostre azioni devono adattarsi alle condizioni del mondo reale.

La conferenza di Annapolis sulla questione israelo-palestinese organizzata dal presidente Bush sta per cominciare, ed è la prima iniziativa diplomatica del suo governo che potrebbe portare a risultati concreti su questo tema. Idealmente, i negoziati di Annapolis dovrebbero partire dal punto in cui ci si era fermati a Taba, in Egitto, nel 2001.

Quella settimana fu l'unico momento, in trent'anni, in cui gli Stati Uniti e Israele abbandonarono l'atteggiamento di chiusura che in seguito avrebbero ripreso e mantenuto, in splendido isolamento, fino a oggi.

A Taba si era quasi arrivati a un possibile accordo sulla formazione di due stati, con un ragionevole scambio di territori. La scusa inventata per interrompere le trattative fu che i palestinesi avevano rifiutato la generosa offerta di Israele. In realtà, la conferenza fu interrotta improvvisamente dal primo ministro israeliano Ehud Barak, proprio quando i negoziatori stavano per raggiungere un accordo.

Forse a Taba si era quasi riusciti a trovare una soluzione perché gli Stati Uniti non facevano i mediatori. La politica di Washington verso Israele e la Palestina è sempre stata contorta.

"Fin dal 1967, quando Israele vinse la Guerra dei sei giorni e occupò la Cisgiordania e la Striscia di Gaza, ogni amministrazione americana è stata ufficiosamente favorevole alla restituzione di quasi tutti quei territori per creare uno stato palestinese", ha osservato un paio di mesi fa Leslie Gelb sulla New York Times Book Review. Vi prego di notare la parola "ufficiosamente".

E perché non ufficialmente? Forse perché questa interpretazione conferma l'immagine confortante che gli Stati Uniti vogliono avere di se stessi come "onesti mediatori", i cui nobili sforzi sono frustrati dall'atteggiamento violento e irrazionale degli altri, e in particolare dei palestinesi.

Sappiamo invece quello che Washington ha dichiarato pubblicamente. Ha sempre respinto una soluzione del genere, fin dal 1976, quando gli Stati Uniti hanno messo il veto su una risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'Onu che suggeriva la creazione di due stati sulla base dei confini internazionali (Linea verde), confermando in sostanza una risoluzione precedente (la numero 242 del novembre 1967).

La soluzione dei due stati in base agli accordi quasi raggiunti a Taba ha ormai convinto tutto il mondo. Compresi i paesi arabi, che invocano la piena normalizzazione dei rapporti con Israele. Compreso l'Iran, che accetta la posizione della Lega araba.

Compreso Hamas, i cui leader hanno ripetutamente invocato la soluzione dei due stati, anche sulla stampa americana. Israele invece non ha mai ascoltato le richieste della comunità internazionale e gli Stati Uniti l'hanno sempre appoggiato.

George W. Bush è andato anche oltre, dichiarando che gli insediamenti illegali della Cisgiordania devono essere annessi a Israele. Ma la linea ufficiale statunitense rimane invariata: Bush, Condoleezza Rice e gli altri continuano a dire di voler realizzare il "sogno" di Bush di uno stato palestinese, e persistono nel loro nobile ruolo di "onesti mediatori".

La condotta di Israele, però, parla da sola: gli insediamenti, il muro, le chiusure, i checkpoint, le confische di terre arabe e tutto il resto. E queste cose accadono anche mentre si avvicina la conferenza di Annapolis. "Se il governo continua ad agire in questo modo, la conferenza di Annapolis perderà significato prima ancora di cominciare", scrive l'organizzazione pacifista israeliana Gush Shalom.

Qualunque proposta realistica deve prendere almeno come punto di partenza la soluzione dei due stati, in base alle linee generali stabilite a Taba. A quella conferenza sono seguiti dei negoziati informali che hanno portato a proposte più dettagliate, in particolare all'accordo di Ginevra del 2002, applaudito da quasi tutto il mondo ma respinto dagli Stati Uniti, che l'analista politico israeliano Amir Oren descrive come "il padrone che chiamiamo alleato". Senza il sostegno americano Israele non può realizzare i suoi obiettivi espansionistici: e questo rende noi americani responsabili.

Nelle prossime settimane, e a più lungo termine, c'è molto lavoro di informazione da fare tra i cittadini statunitensi, che sono molto ricettivi su questi temi, anche se sono inondati dalla propaganda e dalle menzogne. Non sarà facile. Ma con l'impegno e la costanza sono state realizzate imprese anche più difficili.

Internazionale viale Regina Margherita, 294 - 00198 Roma
tel +39 06 4417 301 • fax +39 06 4425 2718 • email posta@internazionale.it
Copyright • Privacy © Internazionale

http://www.internazionale.it/firme/articolo.php?id=17568

Jeune Afrique: Les sages disent "oui mais"
aux tests ADN, "non" aux statistiques raciales

FRANCE - 16 novembre 2007 - par AFP

Le Conseil constitutionnel a validé jeudi, sous réserves, le recours possible aux tests ADN pour le regroupement familial, point le plus litigieux du projet de loi sur l'immigration, mais a prohibé les statistiques à base ethnique prévues par ce texte.

Les sages - désormais onze puisque Jacques Chirac, membre de droit comme ancien chef de l'Etat a rejoint l'autre ex-président Valéry Giscard d'Estaing et les neuf membres nommés - ont ainsi à moitié satisfait les parlementaires qui les avaient saisis le 25 octobre.

Très attendue, leur décision boucle une longue bataille à l'Assemblée et au Sénat, sur fond de pétitions et protestations contre des tests génétiques comme preuve de filiation pour obtenir un visa.

Députés et sénateurs PS, PCF, PRG et Verts, mais aussi l'UDF-Modem François Bayrou, avaient demandé au Conseil de déclarer inconstitutionnels les articles 13 (ADN) et 63 (statistiques ethniques) du projet Hortefeux.

Ces dispositions avaient été introduites au cours du débat parlementaire via des amendements de députés UMP.

Le Premier ministre, François Fillon a d'ailleurs observé "avec satisfaction" que le texte initial avait, lui, été validé.

Le PS a jugé que les réserves du Conseil présidé par Jean-Louis Debré, rendent les tests ADN "inopérants", saluant dans l'interdiction de statistiques raciales "une victoire pour les républicains".

Mais le ministre Brice Hortefeux, proche du président Nicolas Sarkozy, s'est également réjoui d'une loi "entièrement approuvée", hormis "un article sur 65".

Thierry Mariani (UMP), auteur de l'amendement ADN, a invité ceux qui l'avaient "insulté" à l'"humilité".

Très critique, le PCF a accusé le Conseil d'être "droit dans les bottes de Sarkozy".

Le Conseil a encadré son "oui" aux tests de "réserves précises", qui s'imposeront aux autorités judiciaires et administratives.

"La filiation de l'enfant étranger reste soumise à la loi personnelle de la mère étrangère", a-t-il relevé.

En clair, la preuve de la filiation d'un enfant - biologique, reconnu, adopté...- se fait selon les modalités du pays maternel.

L'article 13, qui permet le test ADN en cas de doute sur les preuves fournies, n'a donc "pas pour effet de créer un droit spécial réservé aux étrangers", a jugé le Conseil. Ainsi la loi ne méconnaît pas le principe d'égalité.

Autre réserve: l'article 13 "ne dispense pas les autorités diplomatiques ou consulaires de vérifier au cas par cas les actes d'état-civil produits" par les demandeurs de regroupement familial. Ce travail de vérification devra précéder toute proposition de test ADN.

Le Conseil a voulu ainsi interdire "une application systématique du recours aux tests ADN".

Ce recours avait déjà été strictement encadré au Sénat, qui l'avait soumis à décision d'un juge, conduisant nombre d'observateurs à prédire une application très difficile.

Le Conseil a en revanche jugé contraire à la Constitution l'article autorisant des statistiques ethniques.

D'une part, parce qu'il méconnaît l'article 1 de la Constitution établissant "l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion". D'autre part, parce qu'il est "un "cavalier" législatif, sans lien avec le reste de la loi.

En ne se contentant pas de repousser l'article pour raison de forme, mais en plaidant aussi le fond, les sages coupent court à d'éventuels futurs projets autorisant des données fondées sur l'ethnie ou la race, a-t-on souligné au Conseil.

http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_
depeche.asp?art_cle=AFP12207lessaselaic0

Mail & Guardian: Report done
on France's alleged role in genocide

Kigali, Rwanda
16 November 2007

A special Rwandan commission handed over on Friday a 500-page report on France's alleged role in the country's 1994 genocide, the commission's president said.

"We have achieved the first task and we will wait for the president of the republic to pronounce on the veracity of this inquiry so that it can be made public," said commission president Jean de Dieu Mucyo.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame will likely offer his feedback on the study in the next month, he added.

Paris has already rejected the competency of the commission of historians and jurists tasked to assemble evidence of France's role in Rwanda's genocide that killed 800 000 people in just a few months.

The current, Tutsi-led government accuses Paris of having armed and trained the authors of the massacre, something that France denies.

Between last October and December, the commission organised public hearings of witnesses, notably former members of the Rwandan army, who implicated the French government in the slaughter. It had wanted to extend its inquiry to France.

The accusations have been traded both ways.

In November 2006, the French anti-terrorism Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere implicated Kagame in the 1994 assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, which sparked the slaughter. Kagame subsequently broke off diplomatic relations with France.

In August, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was ready to go to Rwanda as soon as a number of unspecified issues were ironed out.

While that has yet to happen, Kouchner met his Rwandan counterpart in September on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

In October, Kouchner said France had committed "mistakes" in Rwanda, while denying any French responsibility in the genocide.

Sapa-AFP

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_
news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=325174

New Statesman:
The forgotten fallen

Remembrance Day was marred by the unacknowledged deaths in Iraq - a genocide that threatens to outstrip the horrors of Rwanda in the numbers killed and displaced

John Pilger
Published 15 November 2007

On Remembrance Day 2007, the great and the good bowed their heads at the Cenotaph. Gen erals, politicians, newsreaders, football managers and stock-market traders wore their poppies. Hypocrisy was a presence. No one mentioned Iraq. No one uttered the slightest remorse for the fallen of that country. No one read the forbidden list.

The forbidden list documents, without favour, the part the British state and its court have played in the destruction of Iraq. Here it is:

1 Holocaust denial

On 25 October, Dai Davies MP asked Gordon Brown about civilian deaths in Iraq. Brown passed the question to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who passed it to his junior minister, Kim Howells, who replied: "We continue to believe that there are no comprehensive or reliable figures for deaths since March 2003." This was a deception. In October 2006, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. A Freedom of Information search revealed that the government, while publicly dismissing the study, secretly backed it as comprehensive and reliable. The chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Roy Anderson, called its methods "robust" and "close to best practice". Other senior governments officials secretly acknowledged the survey's "tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones". Since then, the British research polling agency, Opinion Research Business, has extrapolated a figure of 1.2 million deaths in Iraq. Thus, the scale of death caused by the British and US governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century.

2 Looting

The undeclared reason for the invasion of Iraq was the convergent ambitions of the neocons, or neo-fascists, in Washington and the far-right regimes of Israel. Both groups had long wanted Iraq crushed and the Middle East colonised to US and Israeli designs. The initial blueprint for this was the 1992 "Defence Planning Guidance", which outlined America's post-Cold War plans to dominate the Middle East and beyond. Its authors included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell, architects of the 2003 invasion. Following the invasion, Paul Bremer, a neocon fanatic, was given absolute civil authority in Baghdad and in a series of decrees turned the entire future Iraqi economy over to US corporations. As this was lawless, the corporate plunderers were given immunity from all forms of prosecution. The Blair government was fully com plicit and even objected when it looked as if UK companies might be excluded from the most profitable looting. British officials were awarded functionary colonial posts. A petroleum "law" will allow, in effect, foreign oil companies to approve their own contracts over Iraq's vast energy resources. This will complete the greatest theft since Hitler stripped his European conquests.

3 Destroying a nation's health

In 1999, I interviewed Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist at Basra city hospital. "Before the Gulf War," he said, "we had only three or four deaths in a month from cancer. Now it's 30 to 35 patients dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer." Iraq was then in the grip of an economic and humanitarian siege, initiated and driven by the US and Britain. The result, wrote Hans von Sponeck, the then chief UN humanitarian official in Baghdad, was "genocidal . . . practically an entire nation was subjected to poverty, death and destruction of its physical and mental foundations". Most of southern Iraq remains polluted with the toxic debris of British and American explosives, including uranium- 238 shells. Iraqi doctors pleaded in vain for help, citing the levels of leukaemia among children as the highest seen since Hiroshima. Professor Karol Sikora, chief of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme, wrote in the BMJ: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemo-therapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee]." In 1999, Kim Howells, then trade minister, effectively banned the export to Iraq of vaccines that would protect mostly children from diphtheria, tetanus and yellow fever, which, he said, "are capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".

Since 2003, apart from PR exercises for the embedded media, the British occupiers have made no attempt to re-equip and resupply hospitals that, prior to 1991, were regarded as the best in the Middle East. In July, Oxfam reported that 43 per cent of Iraqis were living in "absolute poverty". Under the occupation, malnutrition rates among children have spiralled to 28 per cent. A secret Defence Intelligence Agency document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities", reveals that the civilian water supply was deliberately targeted. As a result, the great majority of the population has neither access to running water nor sanitation - in a country where such basic services were once as universal as in Bri tain. "The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30 per cent compared to the Saddam Hussein era," said Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at Basra children's hospital. "Children are dying daily and no one is doing anything to help them." In January this year, nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations as an occupying power under UN Security Council Resolution 1483. Benn refused to see them.

4 Destroying a society

The UN estimates that 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country every month. The refugee crisis has now overtaken that of Darfur as the most catastrophic on earth. Half of Iraq's doctors have gone, along with engineers and teachers. The most literate society in the Middle East is being dismantled, piece by piece. Out of more than four million displaced people, Britain last year refused the majority of more than 1,000 Iraqis who applied to come here, while removing more "illegal" Iraqi refugees than any other European country. Thanks to tabloid-inspired legislation, Iraqis in Britain are often destitute, with no right to work and no support. They sleep and scavenge in parks. The government, says Amnesty, "is trying to starve them out of the country".

5 Propaganda

"See in my line of work," said George W Bush, "you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Standing outside 10 Downing Street on 9 April 2003, the BBC's then political editor, Andrew Marr, reported the fall of Baghdad as a victory speech. Tony Blair, he told viewers, "said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right. And it would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result." In the United States, similar travesties passed as journalism. The difference was that leading American journalists began to consider the consequences of the role they had played in the build-up to the invasion. Several told me they believed that had the media challenged and investigated Bush's and Blair's lies, instead of echoing and amplifying them, the invasion might not have happened. A European study found that, of the major western television networks, the BBC permitted less coverage of dissent than all of them. A second study found that the BBC consistently gave credence to government propaganda that weapons of mass destruction existed. Unlike the Sun, the BBC has credibility - as does, or did, the Observer.

On 14 October 2001, the Observer's front page said: "US hawks accuse Iraq over anthrax". This was entirely false. Supplied by US intelligence, it was part of the Observer's staunchly pro-war coverage, which included claiming a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, for which there was no credible evidence and which betrayed the paper's honourable past. One report over two pages was headlined: "The Iraqi connection". It, too, came from "intelligence sources" and was rubbish. The reporter, David Rose, concluded his barren inquiry with a heartfelt plea for an invasion. "There are occasions in history," he wrote, "when the use of force is both right and sensible." Rose has since written his mea culpa, including in these pages, confessing how he was used. Other journalists have still to admit how they were manipulated by their own credulous relationship with established power.

These days, Iraq is reported as if it is exclusively a civil war, with a US military "surge" aimed at bringing peace to the scrapping natives. The perversity of this is breathtaking. That sectarian violence is the product of a vicious divide-and-conquer policy is beyond doubt. As for the largely media myth of al-Qaeda, "most of the [American] pros will tell you", wrote Seymour Hersh, "that the foreign fighters are a couple per cent, and then they're sort of leaderless". That a poorly armed, audacious resistance has not only pinned down the world's most powerful army but has agreed an anti-sectarian, anti al-Qaeda agenda, which opposes attacks on civilians and calls for free elections, is not news.

6 The next blood letting

In the 1960s and 1970s, British governments secretly expelled the population of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean whose people have British nationality. Women and children were loaded on to vessels resembling slave ships and dumped in the slums of Mauritius, after their homeland was given to the Americans for a military base. Three times, the High Court has found this atrocity illegal, calling it a defiance of the Magna Carta and the Blair government's refusal to allow the people to go home "outrageous" and "repugnant". The government continues to use endless recourse to appeal, at the taxpayers' expense, to prevent upsetting Bush. The cruelty of this matches the fact that not only has the US repeatedly bombed Iraq from Diego Garcia, but at "Camp Justice", on the island, "al-Qaeda suspects" are "rendered" and "tortured", according to the Washington Post. Now the US Air Force is rushing to upgrade hangar facilities on the island so that stealth bombers can carry 14-tonne "bunker busting" bombs in an attack on Iran. Orchestrated propaganda in the media is critical to the success of this act of international piracy.

On 22 May, the front page of the Guardian carried the banner headline: "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq". This was a tract of unalloyed propaganda based entirely on anonymous US official sources. Through-out the media, other drums have taken up the beat. "Iran's nuclear ambitions" slips effortlessly from newsreaders' lips, no matter that the International Atomic Energy Agency refuted Washington's lies, no matter the echo of "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction", no matter that another bloodbath beckons.

Lest we forget.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711150033

Página/12:
Caseros

Por Hugo Soriani
Viernes, 16 de Noviembre de 2007

El Flecha Vilche se agacha a recoger una piedra que se llevará de recuerdo. Julio levanta un vidrio azul, culo de botella, que eran los que cubrían las ventanas para que el sol no pudiera colarse a una cárcel que hizo realidad la metáfora: los presos estaban sometidos a la sombra absoluta.

En Caseros la única luz salía de las esperanzas de los detenidos políticos, que aprendieron a resistir una estrategia de destrucción que, sin embargo, se llevó a dos de ellos.

Entre sus muros murieron Jorge Toledo y Eduardo Schiavone, vulnerados por el dolor, la tortura, la desolación y el ensañamiento de sus verdugos, que no fueron sólo los carceleros, sino también los médicos, sacerdotes y psiquiatras que los empujaron al suicidio combinando las más sofisticadas técnicas de aniquilamiento.

Caseros se inauguró en 1979, en abril. Hubo discurso de Alberto Rodríguez Varela, ministro de Justicia de la dictadura, fue bendecida por obispos y presentada a la sociedad como un modelo de establecimiento penal. Los diarios de la época así lo retrataron y la película que sobre la cárcel realizó Julio Raffo rescata el acto de inauguración con imágenes de archivo imperdibles.

Hasta los mismos detenidos llegaron a confundirse cuando empezaron a poblarla. Venían de otros infiernos: Sierra Chica, Rawson, Devoto, Magdalena, Coronda, y se impresionaban al entrar en Caseros y ver ascensores, mármoles y pisos de porcelanato más propios de un shopping que de una cárcel.

Luego, en los pabellones oscuros y las pequeñísimas celdas descubrían el cinismo del decorado. Olores fétidos, frío permanente, inmovilidad obligatoria, por el reducido espacio con el que contaban y por la prohibición absoluta de realizar cualquier ejercicio físico. Requisas diarias y violentas, sanciones, golpes, pésima comida. No se podía leer, tampoco hablar. Y la oscuridad absoluta. Siempre la oscuridad.

El uniforme azul, que era obligatorio llevar puesto, siempre resultaba grande o demasiado chico. La cabeza de los detenidos políticos era semanalmente rapada por peluqueros penitenciarios, tan diestros con la maquinita como otros con la picana.

En Caseros, por la falta de sol, el rostro de los presos se iba poniendo blanco, luego amarillo y por último el tono era un verdoso parecido al musgo que crecía por las paredes. Los presos que llegaban de Caseros a otras cárceles eran inconfundibles por su aspecto de cadáver y sólo el humor negro los ayudaba a soportar sus propios rostros frente al espejo.

Caseros fue el campo de concentración legal que la dictadura inauguró en un barrio, a diez minutos del centro de Buenos Aires. Por allí pasaron miles de presos políticos que describieron en detalle lo que aquí se reseña.

Sólo un puñado de ellos pudieron estar el miércoles por la mañana en el poco difundido acto con el que se concluyó su demolición. El jefe de Gobierno, Jorge Telerman, y el presidente Néstor Kirchner hablaron entre los escombros, ante la mirada conmovida de los sobrevivientes, que habían soñado un día como éste en la soledad de sus celdas.

Se terminaba de tirar abajo el edificio que se llevó muchos años de sus vidas y ellos estaban ahí con sus hijos, con sus familias, viendo cómo el Presidente hacía detonar la carga que derribaba un muro, símbolo de la demolición.

Joaquín, que tiene once años, se abraza con su papá que estuvo detenido casi diez, dos de los cuales fueron en Caseros. Paula, que tiene treinta y dos y que nació en la cárcel de Devoto, se abraza con su mamá Laura, que la vuelve a presentar, porque algunas de sus compañeras que están ahí la vieron nacer tras las rejas.

Los ex presos llevan con orgullo sus sobrenombres: El Mono, el Master, el Yoruga, Pepe, Biafra, el Ivo, Chirola, el Barba, Villa. Intercambian bromas y recuerdos, mientras repasan con exactitud el abecedario morse con el que se comunicaban en los años de plomo.

Las mujeres son más concretas: Carlota, Graciela, La Colo Dragui tratan de acercar proyectos, iniciativas, planes solidarios a las manos de Cristina Fernández, que se acerca a saludarlas.

El Flecha Vilche ya guardó en su bolsillo la piedra que se llevará de recuerdo y ahora, en una cárcel destruida y a cielo abierto, da rienda suelta a su pasión rockera y maldice no haber traído la guitarra, pero igual se anima. Caseros ya no existe, entonces Flecha canta y sus compañeros lo siguen “... y ya verás, las sombras que aquí estuvieron no estarán...”. La mañana se hace más tibia.

© 2000-2007 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-94733-2007-11-16.html

The Independent:
Record numbers seek new lives abroad

By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 16 November 2007

For decades it has been the dream of millions, but for an increasing number of Britons it is becoming a reality. New figures show the number of people leaving the country to start a new life abroad has reached record levels, with almost 600 emigrating every day.

Attracted by the prospect of better pay or warmer climes, 207,000 UK nationals left the country for good last year in search of a better quality of life. Australia, Spain and France were the most popular destinations, with the US and New Zealand also proving popular. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that with 591,000 people settling in this country in 2006, the UK's overall population grew by 191,000 in 2006.

The figures were hailed as proof that Britain in the 21st century has become a global hub for the mass movement of people, with record numbers moving in and out of the country.

Danny Sriskandarajah, the head of migration at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "More people are on the move than ever before, with a million emigrants and immigrants crossing our borders last year. This suggests the UK is seeing revolving turnstiles and not overrun floodgates."

The figures illustrate the pressures that ministers face as they try to defuse the politically explosive issue of immigration. With newcomers heading for all parts of the country, the report underlined the challenge that many communities face in absorbing immigrants. But Mr Sriskandarajah said politicians needed to beware of reacting hastily amid an increasingly heated debate. "The challenge for policymakers is to make the most of the opportunities that migration presents while minimising any negative impacts," he said.

The ONS said 207,000 UK nationals left Britain last year, equivalent to 567 every day. Another 193,000 foreigners returned home after settling in this country. The total number of people leaving Britain – 400,000 – was the highest recorded by the ONS.

Just over 100,000 were taking up a new job, with another 82,000 emigrating to find work. The rest were retiring, moving to be with relatives abroad or studying overseas. In the majority of cases, the moves – in and out of the country – were driven by financial reasons. "It is clear immigration is an economic phenomenon, with almost half of those immigrating and emigrating doing so for work-related reasons," said Mr Sriskandarajah. "This mobility will be increasingly important for the UK's long-term economic prospects."

Australia was by far the most popular destination, with 100,000 heading Down Under, Australians returning home after working in Britain and UK nationals emigrating. Some 56,000 people moved to Spain and 40,000 to France. More than 20,000 east European workers returned home, predominantly to Poland.

More people are on the move around the world than ever before and Britain is top of the list for many English-speaking migrants. Equally, the rise of multi-national companies is tempting more UK workers to take jobs abroad. And soaring numbers of British "baby boomers", retiring on comfortable pensions, are opting to join thousands of expatriate Britons already abroad.

The ONS statistics showed that 591,000 people arrived in 2006 – an increase of 5,000 on the year before. This prompted criticism from Tories of the Government's immigration policy and calls from anti-immigration campaigners for a tightening of border controls. But there were calls elsewhere for a more balanced approach.

Jeremy Browne, for the Liberal Democrats, accused the Tories of being "small in their outlook", adding: "We should celebrate the contribution that has been made by people from outside the UK while at the same time recognising the pressures on some public services."

His feelings were echoed by others who pointed out Britain's economic need for immigrants. Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the Local Government Association, said: "Migration is benefiting the country, generating in total over £40bn every year [but] the money that is being generated isn't necessarily finding its way back down to the local level."

Sarah Ormerod, 25: 'From the professional to the sociable, it's been brilliant'

Sarah Ormerod, 25, moved to France last year after clinching a place on a highly competitive scheme in which budding young civil servants move abroad in order to widen their professional experience and broaden their cultural horizons.

Leaving her home in south London for a flat in Strasbourg, she began studying at the elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration and then went on to complete various work placements in cities all over France, arriving eventually in Nice.

"I was given a fantastic opportunity to live in a different country and learn a different language," she says. "I was very keen to go because, career-wise, working abroad can be so worthwhile."

She has not regretted her decision. "My time in France has exceeded my expectations. From the purely professional, being ableto see how policy is made in other EU countries, for example, to the purely sociable, being able to spend the weekend on the beach instead of in Camberwell, it's been brilliant." The difference in cost of living has been a particularly welcome surprise: "For the amount I was paying for a room in the suburbs of London, I can rent a lovely flat just two minutes from the sea front."

It hasn't always been easy, however. Overcoming the stereotypes of the typical "Brit abroad" has proved a challenge. "Some people expect you to be overweight and a binge drinker," says Sarah, who is now working for local authorities in Nice. "Where I am now, in particular, it's hard not to be treated like another invader to the south of France, someone who's here just to inflate property prices."

But the good things far outweigh the problems. "People have been so welcoming. Once they know you're here to learn something about their country and that you want to put something back in to society, they're very keen to get to know you and hear about your experiences. I would recommend it to anyone."

Matt and Sam Brown: 'We only miss the warm beer and Pimms'

Matt Brown and his wife Sam swapped Banbury for Brisbane, only intending to stay a short while. But the Australian outdoors and sunshine proved too great a lure and the couple have no intention of leaving any time soon.

"It's a very healthy lifestyle. We're outdoors a lot and we exercise a lot more. We did a 12km run the other day and we would never have done that in the UK. It's so much easier to get out of bed when it's 25 degrees," says Matt, an IT consultant.

The couple moved to Australia with Matt's job but Sam soon found work with the state government's energy department. "The work-life balance is really better over here, people work to live," she said. "And when people are out enjoying themselves, they may drink but there's not that type of aggression, none of the crowds looking for a fight that you find in Burnley on a Friday night."

With lots of Aussie friends, birthday trips to Uluru, and Christmas looking out over Sydney harbour, there isn't much the couple have had time to miss from back home. "Oh apart from the warm beer," says Matt. "And Pimm's," adds Sam.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3166418.ece

The Nation:
Blackwater's Brothers

by JEREMY SCAHILL
[posted online on November 15, 2007]

Every day, new revelations emerge in the mounting scandal rocking the Bush Administration and the mercenary company Blackwater Worldwide. Much of the attention focuses on the now infamous shooting spree in Baghdad's Nisour Square on September 16, in which seventeen Iraqi civilians were killed and twenty-four wounded. FBI investigators are now alleging that fourteen were victims of unjustified and unprovoked shooting-some were shot while they were fleeing. Investigators also say they found nothing to substantiate Blackwater's claims of being fired on by Iraqis. This comes a month after a US Army investigation determined there was "no enemy activity involved" and labeled the shootings a "criminal event." But while Blackwater gets hammered in the press, the behind-the-scenes actions of the company's paymaster, the State Department, grow more scandalous by the minute.

Almost from the moment the Nisour Square shootings happened, the State Department has taken actions that give the impression of trying to cover up the incident. The department's initial report on the shooting was drafted by a Blackwater contractor on official US government stationery. The FBI was not dispatched to investigate the case until two weeks after the shootings, meaning that the initial investigation was in the hands of a non-law enforcement agency, the State Department, that just happens to be Blackwater's employer. In late October it emerged that the department had actually granted some Blackwater operatives "limited use immunity" in return for their statements on the shooting. Some Blackwater agents have reportedly refused to answer FBI questions, citing their State Department-granted "immunity." This means that their statements, and information gleaned from them, cannot be used to bring criminal charges against them. The State Department also offered to facilitate the payment of what amounted to hush money to victims of the shooting, which it has done on numerous occasions for Blackwater and other companies when they kill Iraqis.

Now this story has taken yet another dramatic twist. On Wednesday the State Department Inspector General, Howard "Cookie" Krongard, was in the hot seat on Capitol Hill, where he found himself being grilled by Representative Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. Krongard is the top State Department official charged with investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse. In addition to all of the questionable actions by the State Department in the Blackwater investigation, Krongard has faced charges that he impeded a Justice Department investigation into Blackwater over allegations the company was illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq. But the bombshell at the hearing was the revelation that Krongard's brother, Alvin "Buzzy" Krongard, recently accepted a position as a paid consultant for Blackwater, where he serves on the company's advisory board. Until his resignation in 2004, Buzzy was the number-three man at the Central Intelligence Agency (more on that later). Waxman's committee broke the news of Buzzy's Blackwater position as part of what can only be described as a masterful ambush of the Inspector General.

When Waxman revealed the conflict of interest with the brothers Krongard and Blackwater, alleging that Cookie Krongard had "concealed" his brother's relationship with Blackwater, the Inspector General told Waxman:

"I can tell you very frankly, I am not aware of any financial interest or position [my brother] has with respect to Blackwater. It couldn't possibly have affected anything I've done, because I don't believe it. And when these ugly rumors started recently, I specifically asked him. I do not believe it is true that he is a member of the advisory board, as you stated, and that is something I think I need to say."

This statement would quickly thrust Cookie Krongard, who was testifying under oath, in front of a firing line that would ultimately produce his recusal from the Blackwater investigation. Moments after Cookie Krongard denied that his brother had any involvement with Blackwater, the committee produced a letter from Blackwater CEO Erik Prince to Buzzy Krongard, dated July 26, inviting him to join the board and offering him a $3,500 honorarium per meeting attended plus all expenses paid. "Your experience and insight would be ideal to help our team determine where we are and where we are going," Prince wrote.

Cookie Krongard said his brother "has been involved in a lot of activities involving security. So it's no surprise that someone like Erik Prince would invite him to continue to support 'security, peace, and freedom.'" But Cookie Krongard insisted his brother had not accepted the position, saying, "I dispute that." Representative Elijah Cummings then produced a September 5 e-mail from Prince to Buzzy saying, "Welcome and thank you for accepting the invitation to be a member of the board." Cummings told Cookie, "Prince invited your brother to be at a board meeting to discuss strategic planning. And this meeting is taking place right now, in Williamsburg, Virginia, this week as we speak. Staff contacted the hotel to speak to your brother and the hotel confirmed that he was scheduled to be there."

Cookie replied that he was not aware of this, adding, "By the nature of my brother's work, you should understand that we have never discussed his work or my work, so I had no reason to even think that he had any involvement with Blackwater. But when these things surfaced, I called him and I asked him directly, he has told me he does not have any involvement, he does not have any financial interest. If you're telling me he does absolutely I would recuse myself" from the Blackwater investigation.

During a recess of the hearing, Cookie later said, he called his brother, who confirmed for him that he had indeed accepted a position on the Blackwater advisory board. Cookie abruptly announced he was recusing himself from all matters relating to Blackwater. But this is unlikely to be the end of Cookie's problems stemming from this scandal. He may actually have perjured himself. After the hearing, Buzzy Krongard told reporter Spencer Ackerman of TPM Muckraker that he had informed Cookie weeks ago of his position with Blackwater. "I had told my brother I was going on the advisory board," Buzzy said. "My brother says that is not the case. I stand by what I told my brother." When Ackerman asked Buzzy if Blackwater knew who his brother was when Prince offered him the advisory board position, Buzzy said, "You think I had to tell them? That they didn't know?" He added, "If [Cookie's] got integrity it's not gonna matter one way or other.... If he doesn't have integrity it's not gonna matter."

While Buzzy's new position on Blackwater's advisory board is indeed a salacious development, it is just the tip of the iceberg. In my book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, I explore in depth the relationship between Buzzy Krongard and Blackwater founder Erik Prince. The two men go back at least to 2002, when Buzzy helped jump-start Blackwater's ultra-profitable role as a provider of soldiers-for-hire in the "war on terror."

Though Blackwater was founded in 1997, Blackwater Security Consulting-its mercenary division-was incorporated in Delaware on January 22, 2002. Within months, as the United States occupied Afghanistan and began planning the Iraq invasion, Blackwater Security was already turning a profit, pulling in hundreds of thousands a month from a valuable CIA contract.

One of the players in forging that first Blackwater Security contract was Buzzy Krongard, at the time executive director of the CIA, the agency's number-three position. Krongard, who was named to that post in March 2001, had an unusual background for a spook, having spent most of his adult life as an investment banker. He had built up Alex.Brown, the country's oldest investment banking firm, into one of the most successful, and eventually sold it to Bankers Trust, from which he resigned in 1998. There have been some insinuations that Krongard was working undercover for the CIA years before he officially joined the agency in 1998 as a special adviser to George Tenet. But he won't reveal how he met the CIA director, except to say that it was through "mutual friends." The Princeton alum, Hall of Fame lacrosse player and former Marine boasts of having once punched a great white shark in the jaw; and he keeps one of its teeth on a chain and pictures of the animal in his office. Despite his bravado, some at the agency thought of Krongard as a wanna-be, according to a 2001 Newsweek story published shortly after his ascension to the number-three spot. "A wanna-be? Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. That's as much as you're going to get," Krongard responded.

While working under Tenet at the CIA, Krongard acted internally, reorganizing divisions and pushing for projects like an intelligence venture capital firm, but he did on occasion speak publicly. In October 2001, he declared, "The war will be won in large measure by forces you do not know about, in actions you will not see and in ways you may not want to know about, but we will prevail."

Some three years later, in January 2005, Krongard made news when he became the most senior Administration figure to articulate the benefits of having not killed or captured Osama bin Laden. "You can make the argument that we're better off with him [at large]," he said. "Because if something happens to bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.... He's turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind." Krongard also characterized bin Laden "not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist," saying, "Let's say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to bin Laden. And he'll say, 'Well, here's some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy.'"

It's not clear exactly what the original connection was between Prince and Krongard. Some have alleged that Krongard knew Prince's father. In a brief telephone interview conducted for my book, Krongard would only say he was "familiar" with Prince and Blackwater. A former Blackwater executive, however, asserted, "I know that Erik and Krongard were good buddies." Whatever Krongard's involvement, it was during his tenure at the CIA that Blackwater landed its first security contract, in April 2002. Krongard visited Kabul and said he realized the agency's new station there was sorely lacking security. Blackwater received a $5.4 million six-month no-bid contract to provide twenty security guards for the Kabul CIA station. Krongard said it was Blackwater's offering and not his connection to Prince that led to the company landing the contract, and that he talked to Prince about the contract but wasn't certain who called whom, that he was "not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg." He said that someone else was responsible for actually signing off on the CIA contract. "Blackwater got a contract because they were the first people that could get people on the ground," Krongard said in the interview. "We were under the gun, we did whatever it took when I came back from Kabul.... The only concern we had was getting the best security for our people. If we thought Martians could provide it, I guess we would have gone after them."

The relationship between Krongard and Prince apparently got chummier after the contract was signed. "Krongard came down and visited Blackwater, and I had to take his kids around and let them shoot on the firing range a number of times," said a former Blackwater executive in an interview for my book. "That was after the contract was signed, and he may have come down just to see the company that he had just hired." Prince apparently became consumed with the prospect of being involved with secretive operations in the "war on terror"-so much so that he personally deployed on the front lines. Prince joined Jamie Smith, a former CIA operative who originally headed up Blackwater Security Consulting, as part of the original twenty-man contingent Blackwater sent to fulfill its first CIA contract, which began in May 2002, according to Robert Young Pelton's book Licensed to Kill.

Since CIA and other intelligence and security contracts are "black" contracts, it's difficult to pin down exactly how much Blackwater began pulling in after that first Afghanistan contract, but Smith described it as a rapid period of growth for Blackwater. The company's work for the CIA and the military and Prince's political and military connections would provide Blackwater with important leverage in wooing what would become its largest confirmed client, the US State Department. "After that first contract went off, there was a lot of romancing with the State Department where they were just up the road, so we traveled up there a lot in Kabul and tried to sweet-talk them into letting us on board with them," Smith said in an interview. "Once the State Department came on and there was a contract there, that opened up some different doors. Once you get your foot in the door with a government outfit that has offices in countries all over the world, it's like-and this is probably a horrible analogy-but it's something maybe like the metastasis of a cancer. You know, once you get into the bloodstream you're going to be all over the body in just a couple of days, you know what I mean? So if you get in that pipeline, then everywhere that they've got a problem and an office, there's an opportunity."

A year later, Prince's mercenary operations would get the boost of a lifetime when Blackwater was handed a $27 million no-bid contract to serve as the elite bodyguards of the US occupation of Iraq. To date that arrangement has brought Blackwater about $1 billion in federal "security" contracts. Is it just a coincidence that one of the key players in securing Blackwater's role as the leading mercenary company of the Bush Administration has a brother whose job it was to oversee Blackwater? Or that the Inspector General stands accused of failing to do his duty and actually impeding federal investigations into the company's potentially criminal activities? Is there a connection between the Krongards and the State Department's systematic cover-up campaign for Blackwater? Unsurprisingly, Blackwater's spokesperson, Anne Tyrrell, said, "We do not see a conflict of interest." But these aren't questions for the company's PR people. These are questions that must be answered by the brothers Krongard under oath.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/scahill

ZNet | Ecology:
How Dry We Are

A Question No One Wants to Raise About Drought

by Tom Engelhardt; TomDispatch; November 16, 2007

Georgia's on my mind. Atlanta, Georgia. It's a city in trouble in a state in trouble in a region in trouble. Water trouble. Trouble big enough that the state government's moving fast. Just this week, backed up by a choir singing "Amazing Grace," accompanied by three protestant ministers, and 20 demonstrators from the Atlanta Freethought Society, Georgia's Baptist Governor Sonny Perdue led a crowd of hundreds in prayers for rain. "We've come together here," he said, "simply for one reason and one reason only: To very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm." It seems, however, that the Almighty - He "who can and will make a difference" - was otherwise occupied and the regional drought continued to threaten Atlanta, a metropolis of 5 million people (and growing fast), with the possibility that it might run out of water in as little as 80 days or as much as a year, if the rains don't come.

Here's a little summary of the situation today:

Water rationing has hit the capital. Car washing and lawn watering are prohibited within city limits. Harvests in the region have dropped by 15-30%. By the end of summer, local reservoirs and dams were holding 5% of their capacity.

Oops, that's not Atlanta, or even the southeastern U.S. That's Ankara, Turkey, hit by a fierce drought and high temperatures that also have had southern and southwestern Europe in their grip.

Sorry, let's try that again. Imagine this scenario:

Over the last decade, 15-20% decreases in precipitation have been recorded. These water losses have been accompanied by record temperatures and increasing wildfires in areas where populations have been growing rapidly. A fierce drought has settled in - of the hundred-year variety. Lawns can be watered but just for a few hours a day (and only by bucket); four-minute showers are the max allowed. Car washes are gone, though you can clean absolutely essential car windows and mirrors by hand.

Sound familiar? As it happens, that's not the American southeast either; that's a description of what's come to be called "The Big Dry" - the unprecedented drought that has swept huge parts of Australia, the worst in at least a century on an already notoriously dry continent, but also part of the world's breadbasket, where crops are now failing regularly and farms closing down.

In fact, on my way along the parched path toward Atlanta, Georgia, I found myself taking any number of drought-stricken detours. There's Moldova. (If you're like me, odds are you don't even know where that small, former Soviet republic falls on a map.) Like much of southern Europe, it experienced baking temperatures this summer, exceptionally low precipitation, sometimes far less than 50% of expected rainfall, failing crops and farms, and spreading wildfires. (The same was true, to one degree or another, of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, and - with its 100-year record scorching of Biblical proportions - Greece which lost 10% of its forest cover in a month-long fiery apocalypse, leaving "large tracts of countryside.... at risk of depopulation.")

Or how about Morocco, across the Mediterranean, which experienced 50% less rainfall than normal? Or the Canary Islands, those Spanish vacation spots in the Atlantic Ocean known to millions of visitors for their year-around mild climate which, this summer, morphed into 104 degree days, strong winds, and fierce wildfires. Eighty-six thousand acres were burnt to a crisp, engulfing some of the islands in flames and smoke that drove out thousands of tourists?

Or what about Mexico's Tehuacán Valley, where, thousands of years ago, corn was first domesticated as an agricultural crop. Even today, asking for "un Tehuacán" in a restaurant in Mexico still means getting the best bottled mineral water in the country. Unfortunately, the area hasn't had a good rain since 2003, and the ensuing drought conditions have made subsistence farming next to impossible, sending desperate locals northwards and across the border as illegal immigrants - some into southern California, itself just swept by monstrous Santa Ana-driven wildfires, fanned by prolonged drought conditions and fed tinder by new communities built deep into the wild lands where the fires gestate. And Tehuacán is but one disaster zone in a growing Mexican catastrophe. As Mike Davis has written, "Abandoned ranchitos and near-ghost towns throughout Coahuila, Chihuahua and Sonora testify to the relentless succession of dry years - beginning in the 1980s but assuming truly catastrophic intensity in the late 1990s - that has pushed hundreds of thousands of poor rural people toward the sweatshops of Ciudad Juárez and the barrios of Los Angeles."

According to the How Dry I Am Chart of "livability expert" Bert Sperling, four cities in Southern California, not parched Atlanta, top the national drought ratings: Los Angeles, San Diego, Oxnard, and Riverside. In addition, Pasadena has had the dubious honor, through September, of experiencing its driest year in history.

Resource Wars in the Homeland

"Resource wars" are things that happen elsewhere. We don't usually think of our country as water poor or imagine that "resource wars" might be applied as a description to various state and local governments in the southwest, southeast, or upper Midwest now fighting tooth and nail for previously shared water. And yet, "war" may not be a bad metaphor for what's on the horizon. According to the National Climate Data Center, federal officials have declared 43% of the contiguous U.S. to be in "moderate to extreme drought." Already, Sonny Perdue of Georgia is embroiled in an ever more bitter conflict - a "water war," as the headlines say - with the governors of Florida and Alabama, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, over the flow of water into and out of the Atlanta area.

He's hardly alone. After all, the Southwest is in the grips of what, according to Davis, some climatologists are terming a "'mega-drought,' even the 'worst in 500 years.'" More shockingly, he writes, such conditions may actually represent the region's new "normal weather." The upper Midwest is also in rainfall-shortage mode, with water levels at all the Great Lakes dropping unnervingly. The water level of Lake Superior, for instance, has fallen to the "lowest point on record for this time of year." (Notice, by the way, how many "records" are being set nationally and globally in these drought years; how many places are already beginning to push beyond history, which means beyond any reference point we have.)

And then there's the southeast, 26% of which, according to the National Weather Service, is in a state of "exceptional" drought, its most extreme category, and 78% of which is "drought-affected." We're talking here about a region normally considered rich in water resources setting a bevy of records for dryness. It has been the driest year on record for North Carolina and Tennessee, for instance, while 18 months of blue skies have led Georgia to break every historical record, wherever measured by "the percentage of moisture in the soil, the flow rate of rivers, [or] inches of rain."

Atlanta is hardly the only city or town in the region with a dwindling water supply. According to David Bracken of Raleigh's News & Observer, "17 North Carolina water systems, including Raleigh and Durham, have 100 or fewer days of water supply remaining before they reach the dregs." Rock Spring, South Carolina, "has been without water for a month. Farmers are hauling water by pickup truck to keep their cattle alive." The same is true for the tiny town of Orme, Tennessee, where the mayor turns on the water for only three hours a day.

And then, there's Atlanta, its metropolitan area "watered" mainly by a 1950s man-made reservoir, Lake Lanier, which, in dramatic photos, is turning into baked mud. Already with a population of five million and known for its uncontrolled growth (as well as lack of water planning), the city is expected to house another two million inhabitants by 2030. And yet, depending on which article you read, Atlanta will essentially run out of water by New Year's eve, in 80 days, in 120 days, or, according to the Army Corps of Engineers - which seems to find this reassuring - in 375 days, if the drought continues (as it may well do).

Okay, so let's try again:

Across the region, fountains sit "bone dry"; in small towns, "full-soak" baptisms have been stopped; car washes and laundromats are cutting hours or shutting down. Golf courses have resorted to watering only tees and greens. Campfires, stoves, and grills are banned in some national parks. The boats have left Lake Lanier and the metal detectors have arrived.

This is the verdant southeastern United States, which, thanks in part to a developing La Nina effect in the Pacific Ocean, now faces the likelihood of a drier than ever winter. And, to put this in context, keep in mind that 2007 "to date has been the warmest on record for land [and]... the seventh warmest year so far over the oceans, working out to the fourth warmest overall worldwide." Oh, and up in the Arctic sea, the ice pack reached its lowest level this September since satellite measurements were begun in 1979.

And Then?

And then, there's that question which has been nagging at me ever since this story first caught my attention in early October as it headed out of the regional press and slowly made its way toward the top of the nightly TV news and the front-pages of national newspapers; it's the question I've been waiting patiently for some environmental reporter(s) somewhere in the mainstream media to address; the question that seems to me so obvious I find it hard to believe everyone isn't thinking about it; the one you would automatically want to have answered - or at least gnawed on by thoughtful, expert reporters and knowledgeable pundits. Every day for the last month or more I've waited, as each piece on Atlanta ends at more or less the same point - with the dire possibility that the city's water will soon be gone - as though hitting a brick wall.

Not that there hasn't been some fine reportage - on the extremity of the situation, the overbuilding and overpopulating of the metropolitan region, the utter heedlessness that went with it, and the resource wars that have since engulfed it. Still, I've Googled around, read scores of pieces on the subject, and they all - even the one whose first paragraph asked, "What if Atlanta's faucets really do go dry?" - seem to end just where my question begins. It's as if, in each piece, the reporter had reached the edge of some precipice down which no one cares to look, lest we all go over.

Based on the record of the last seven years, we can take it for granted that the Bush administration hasn't the slightest desire to glance down; that no one in FEMA who matters has given the situation the thought it deserves; and that, on this subject, as on so many others, top administration officials are just hoping to make it to January 2009 without too many more scar marks. But, if not the federal government, shouldn't somebody be asking? Shouldn't somebody check out what's actually down there?

So let me ask it this way: And then?

And then what exactly can we expect? If the southeastern drought is already off the charts in Georgia, then, whether it's 80 days or 800 days, isn't there a possibility that Atlanta may one day in the not-so-distant future be without water? And what then?

Okay, they're trucking water into waterless Orme, Tennessee, but the town's mayor, Tony Reames, put the matter well, worrying about Atlanta. "We can survive. We're 145 people but you've got 4.5 million there. What are they going to do?"

What indeed? Has water ever been trucked in to so many people before? And what about industry including, in the case of Atlanta, Coca Cola, which is, after all, a business based on water? What about restaurants that need to wash their plates or doctors in hospitals who need to wash their hands?

Let's face it, with water, you're down to the basics. And if, as some say, we've passed the point not of "peak oil," but of "peak water" (and cheap water) on significant parts of the planet... well, what then?

I mean, I'm hardly an expert on this, but what exactly are we talking about here? Someday in the reasonably near future could Atlanta, or Phoenix, which in winter 2005-2006, went 143 days without a bit of rain, or Las Vegas become a Katrina minus the storm? Are we talking here about a new trail of tears? What exactly would happen to the poor of Atlanta? To Atlanta itself?

Certainly, you've seen the articles about what global warming might do in the future to fragile or low-lying areas of the world. Such pieces usually mention the possibility of enormous migrations of the poor and desperate. But we don't usually think about that in the "homeland." Maybe we should.

Or maybe, for all I know, if the drought continues, parts of the region will burn to a frizzle first, à la parts of southern California, before they can even experience the complete loss of water? Will we have hundred-year fire records in the South, without a Santa Ana wind in sight? And what then?

Mass Migrations?

Okay, excuse a terrible, even tasteless, sports analogy, but think of this as a major bowl game, and they've sent one of the water boys - me - to man the press booth. I mean, please. Why am I the one asking this? Where's the media's first team?

In my own admittedly limited search of the mainstream, I found only one vivid, thoughtful recent piece on this subject: "The Future Is Drying Up," by Jon Gertner, written for the New York Times Magazine. It focused on the southwestern drought and began to explore some of the "and thens," as in this brief passage on Colorado in which Gertner quotes Roger Pulwarty, a "highly regarded climatologist" at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

"The worst outcome.... would be mass migrations out of the region, along with bitter interstate court battles over the dwindling water supplies. But well before that, if too much water is siphoned from agriculture, farm towns and ranch towns will wither. Meanwhile, Colorado's largest industry, tourism, might collapse if river flows became a trickle during summertime."

Mass migrations, exfiltrations.... Stop a sec and take in that possibility and what exactly it might mean. After all, we do have some small idea, having, in recent years, lost one American city, New Orleans, at least temporarily.

Or consider another "and then" prediction: What if the prolonged drought in the southwest turns out, as Mike Davis wrote in the Nation magazine, to be "on the scale of the medieval catastrophes that contributed to the notorious collapse of the complex Anasazi societies at Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde during the twelfth century"?

What if, indeed.

I'm not simply being apocalyptic here. I'm just asking. It's not even that I expect answers. I'd just like to see a crew of folks with the necessary skills explore the "and then" question for the rest of us. Try to connect a few dots, or tell us if they don't connect, or just explain where the dots really are.

As the World Burns

Okay, since I'm griping on the subject, let me toss in another complaint. As this piece has indicated, the southeastern drought, unlike the famed cheese of childhood song, does not exactly stand alone. Such conditions, often involving record or near record temperatures, and record or near record wildfires, can be observed at numerous places across the planet. So why is it that, except at relatively obscure websites, you can hardly find a mainstream piece that mentions more than one drought at a time?

An honorable exception would be a recent Seattle Times column by Neal Peirce that brought together the southwestern and southeastern droughts, as well as the Western "flame zone," where "mega-fires" are increasingly the norm, in the context of global warming, in order to consider our seemingly willful "myopia about the future."

But you'd be hard-pressed to find many pieces in our major newspapers (or on the TV news) that put all (or even a number) of the extreme drought spots on the global map together in order to ask a simple question (even if its answer may prove complex indeed): Do they have anything in common? And if so, what? And if so, what then?

To find even tentative answers to such questions you have to leave the mainstream. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, for example, interviewed paleontologist and author of The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, Tim Flannery recently on the topic of a "world on fire." Flannery offered the following observation:

"It's not just the Southeast of the United States. Europe has had its great droughts and water shortages. Australia is in the grip of a drought that's almost unbelievable in its ferocity. Again, this is a global picture. We're just getting much less usable water than we did a decade or two or three decades ago. It's a sort of thing again that the climate models are predicting. In terms of the floods, again we see the same thing. You know, a warmer atmosphere is just a more energetic atmosphere. So if you ask me about a single flood event or a single fire event, it's really hard to make the connection, but take the bigger picture and you can see very clearly what's happening."

I know answers to the "and then" question are not easy or necessarily simple. But if drought - or call it "desertification" - becomes more widespread, more common in heavily populated parts of the globe already bursting at the seams (and with more people arriving daily), if whole regions no longer have the necessary water, how many trails of tears, how many of those mass migrations or civilizational collapses are possible? How much burning and suffering and misery are we likely to experience? And what then?

These are questions I can't answer; that the Bush administration is guaranteed to be desperately unwilling and unprepared to face; and that, as yet, the media has largely refused to consider in a serious way. And if the media can't face this and begin to connect some dots, why shouldn't Americans be in denial, too?

It's not that no one is thinking about, or doing work on, drought. I know that scientists have been asking the "and then" questions (or perhaps far more relevant ones that I can't even formulate); that somewhere people have been exploring, studying, writing about them. But how am I to find out?

Of course, all of us can wander the Internet; we can visit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has just set up a new website to help encourage drought coverage; we can drop in at blogs like RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress.org, which make a habit of keeping up with, or ahead of, such stories; or even, for instance, the Georgia Drought website of the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; or we can keep an eye on a new organization of journalists (well covered recently on the NPR show "On the Media"), Circle of Blue, who are planning to concentrate on water issues. But, believe me, even when you get to some of these sites, you may find yourself in an unknown landscape with no obvious water holes in view and no guides to lead you there.

In the meantime, there may be no trail of tears out of Atlanta; there may even be rain in the city's near future for all any of us know; but it's clear enough that, globally and possibly nationally, tragedy awaits. It's time to call in the first team to ask some questions.

Honestly, I don't demand answers. Just a little investigation, some thought, and a glimpse or two over that precipice as the world turns.... and bakes and burns.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, where this article first appeared, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=14306

coluichedubita

Friday, November 16, 2007

Elsewhere Today 467

0 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts