Elsewhere Today 477
Aljazeera:
Blast at Pakistan election rally
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2008
18:01 MECCA TIME, 15:01 GMT
Thousands of Bhutto followers rallied in the south to re-launch the PPP's election campaign [AFP]
A suspected suicide bomber has killed up to 20 people and wounded at least 25 others at an election rally being held by an opposition party in northwest Pakistan.
The explosion on Saturday ripped through a crowd in the town of Chersadda, as they gathered to hear Afrasiab Khattak, leader of the Awami National party (ANP), speak.
Khattak told Dawn Television that he had survived the blast.
Imtiaz Gillani, information minister of North West Frontier Province, where the attack took place, said: "We have 16 confirmed dead including three security personnel and 25 wounded."
Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Pakistan, said: "While police sources are saying this was a suicide attack, witnesses said there was a crater on a side wall, suggesting the bomb may have been a planted device."
Last year, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, a former interior minister, survived two separate suicide bomb attacks in Charsadda that killed scores of people.
The ANP is a secular ethnic Pashtun group competing in the legislative elections on February 18.
Elections scheduled for January were postponed after Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, was assassinated on December 27.
PPP rally
In the south of the country, tens of thousands of Bhutto's followers rallied on Saturday in the town of Thatta, chanting "democracy is the best revenge".
Police estimated that a crowd of more than 100,000 people had gathered as the late opposition leader's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) re-launched its election campaign.
"She wanted to change the system and that is why the system has killed her," Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower and the de facto party leader, told supporters.
"The system is her killer, but she knew that even if she lost her life, people like you and me would complete her mission and take revenge."
Bhutto's supporters have accused Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, of being partly responsible for her death on the grounds that he did not assign her enough security.
Mehsud blamed
The government has blamed an al-Qaeda-linked tribal leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who is based in the South Waziristan region on the Afghan border, for Bhutto's killing and many of the other recent attacks across the country.
Mehsud, the most wanted man in Pakistan, has denied the charge.
Saturday's attack in Charsadda also comes at a time when Mehsud has declared a unilateral ceasefire nationwide.
Hyder said: "Tonight, the big question is who carried out the attack and why, and why so close to what is being considered the country's most crucial election in its history."
Security analysts fear more attacks will be launched in the run-up to the vote in an attempt to further destabilise the country.
Some Pakistanis fear that Musharraf, whose allies look set to perform poorly in the vote, might use violence as an excuse to postpone the elections again.
Lawyer protest
Separately, police used water cannons and tear gas to break up a protest by hundreds of lawyers who tried to march to the home of Pakistan's deposed chief justice in the capital, Islamabad.
Iftikhar Chaudhry was dismissed in November when Musharraf imposed emergency rule citing rising militancy and a meddling judiciary.
He has been kept under house arrest since then.
Seven people including four policemen were injured in Saturday's protest, a city official said.
Lawyers have been at the forefront of a campaign against Musharraf since March, when he first tried to dismiss Chaudhry.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5FC996F4-BCE0-457E-A0B8-E9A1F06F9255.htm
AllAfrica:
NNPC, Shell Disagree Over Downsizing
By Stanley Nkwazema, Abuja
This Day (Lagos) NEWS
9 February 2008
The management of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) is not comfortable with the ongoing restructuring at the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC).
An NNPC official said yesterday that the corporation, as the principal partner with a 51 per cent stake in the NNPC/Shell/Agip/Elf joint venture arrangement, should be properly briefed before an action of such a magnitude is taken by the Anglo-Dutch firm.
It also feels that Shell, which was yet to communicate the restructuring plan to the NNPC, cannot justify the plan.
The NNPC source said the restructuring would eat deeply into its coffers since it is expected that the bulk of the huge amount of money to be paid out to staff that will be affected by the exercise would come from funds meant for the JV programme.
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers Union (PENGASSAN) has also recently expressed doubts over the authenticity of the exercise and officials of the union were said to have contacted the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum over the issue.
PENGASSAN officials are expected in the House on Monday to interface with Shell, NNPC, the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) and the Federal Ministry of Labour over the issue.
Also yesterday, the committee confirmed that it had invited the Managing Director of SPDC, Mr Basil Omiyi, over its planned restructuring.
The House is worried that the plan could have a ripple effect on the oil industry as other companies may be tempted to follow suit as soon as the oil giant implements its plan.
Chairman of the committee, Honourable Tamarautare Brisibe who also confirmed the summon said all the parties would be given enough time to explain the critical issues involved since the exercise, if carried out,will certainly affect the oil industry in Nigeria.
He said: "Yes we have invited all of them including NNPC, Shell, DPR, PENGASSAN and the Ministry of Labour. They are expected to interface with us on Monday, February 11. We are concerned and should be provided with enough reasons why they must go ahead. All the parties involved would be given enough time to present their cases."
A top official of Shell yesterday confirmed receiving the summons by the lawmakers and said his management would honour the invitation to clear several doubts lingering over the plan to bring all its operations in Nigeria under one single unit.
He told THISDAY that Shell wants to join other players in the oil industry to streamline its operations by bringing together all its subsidiaries under one unit.
The restructuring he confirmed would be completed before the end of the year.
The Shell official said: "We want to bring all the operations under one unit. It is a global thing and it is unfortunate some jobs may have to go in the process. What we are doing presently is to look at the various positions to determine were cuts can be made.
"However, the exercise would be carried out in such a way that not more than the estimated 1,000 personnel planned for release may have to voluntarily retire from their positions as the incentives being offered would be too tempting to resist."
Omiyi and his directors are expected to appear before the House Committee on Petroleum on Monday to explain the planned downsizing.
It would be recalled that President Umaru Yar'Adua had, during his recent visit to Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum, met with the Group CEO of Shell, Jeron van der Veer and the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende to discuss its operations in Nigeria, the planned restructuring inclusive.
During the meeting, it emerged that the Anglo Dutch oil giant might have secured 'critical' concessions from the president over key federal government policies, which the firm considers to be unfavourable to its operations in Nigeria.
The major points of discussion during the meeting bordered on the controversial gas flare deadline, restiveness in the Niger Delta, the rising cost of production and the new investment policy of the government which may bring to an end the era of cash calls in joint venture operations.
Shell stated that it would consider divesting its operations with job cuts in the country.
But the Nigeria government is reported to have increased pressure on the oil firm by stating that it would press Shell to invest more in the country's downstream sector. The issue was presented as a request but is seen industry observers as an ultimatum.
Copyright © 2008 This Day. All rights reserved.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802090018.html
AlterNet: Global Warming:
Nine Things that Will Put us Over the Edge
By Steve Connor, The Independent UK
Posted on February 8, 2008
Nine ways in which the Earth could be tipped into a potentially dangerous state that could last for many centuries have been identified by scientists investigating how quickly global warming could run out of control.
A major international investigation by dozens of leading climate scientists has found that the "tipping points" for all nine scenarios - such as the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest - could occur within the next 100 years.
The scientists warn that climate change is likely to result in sudden and dramatic changes to some of the major geophysical elements of the Earth if global average temperatures continue to rise as a result of the predicted increase in emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
Most and probably all of the nine scenarios are likely to be irreversible on a human timescale once they pass a certain threshold of change, and the widespread effects of the transition to the new state will be felt for generations to come, the scientists said.
"Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change. Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic [man-made] climate change," they report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study came out of a 2005 meeting of 36 leading climate scientists who drew on the expertise of a further 52 specialists. It is believed to be the first time that scientists have attempted to assess the risks of what they have termed "tipping elements" in the Earth's climate system.
The nine elements range from the melting of polar ice sheets to the collapse of the Indian and West African monsoons. The effects of the changes could be equally varied, from a dramatic rise in sea levels that flood coastal regions to widespread crop failures and famine. Some of the tipping points may be close at hand, such as the point at which the disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic becomes inevitable, whereas others, such as the tipping point for the destruction of northern boreal forests, may take several more decades to be reached.
While scenarios such as the collapse of the Indian monsoon could occur within a few years, others, such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap or the West Antarctic ice sheet, may take several centuries to complete. "Our findings suggest that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point in this century under human-induced climate change," said Professor Timothy Lenton, of the University of East Anglia, who led the study.
A tipping point is defined as the point where a small increase in temperature or other change in the climate could trigger a disproportionately larger change in the future. Although there are many potential tipping points that could occur this century, it is still possible to avoid them with cuts in greenhouse gases, said Professor Lenton.
He added: "But we should be prepared to adapt ... and to design an early-warning system that alerts us to them in time."
Irreversible changes
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/76053/
Asia Times:
What 'Mrs Smith' didn't see in Iraq
By Sami Moubayed
Feb 9, 2008
DAMASCUS - United Nations Goodwill ambassador and Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie landed in Baghdad on Thursday, where she wanted to talk about refugees with members of the Nuri al-Maliki government. Speaking to CNN, the Oscar-winning actress said, "There are over 2 million displaced people - 58% of them below the age of 12 - and there never seems to be a real coherent plan to help them."
But there's nothing new in what Angelina is saying: the Iraqis have been saying this since 2003. She met with Maliki, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Refugees Minister Abdul-Samad Rahman Sultan, US commander General David Petraeus, and Staffan di Mistura, the head of the UN mission to Iraq.
One thing is clear: she is unimpressed by how both Iraqi authorities and US troops are dealing with the refugee crisis in Iraq and she is equally unimpressed at how they were dealing with the humanitarian problem as a whole in Iraq.
Twenty-four hours prior to Jolie's visit, hundreds of Iraqi actors and actresses had demonstrated in Baghdad, chanting against the prime minister, demanding better living and work conditions. Their demonstration - the first of its kind - was staged in front of the Iraqi National Theater (a national cultural landmark) in Baghdad. Hussein Basri, the president of the Artists' Syndicate, complained that "actors and actresses suffer from government negligence".
Actresses in particular are treated harshly by the increasingly religious society that surrounds them, with clerics condemning actresses as "immoral". Basri added that "the Iraqi theater has lost some of its finest performers due to immigration, or unemployment". The monthly salary of an actor or actress is comical, ranging from 100,000 dinars (US$67) to a maximum of 300,000 dinars.
Showing just how miserable their condition is, one needs to compare their income with the box-office success of Angelina's films - her showpiece Mr & Mrs Smith grossed $478 million worldwide. Or against the fact that Angelina makes up to $20 million a movie. As one of the world's top-paid actresses, she has also generously shared her wealth and adopted children from Cambodia to Vietnam.
Iraqi actresses don't have that luxury. If only they could be Angelina, they say to themselves - in looks, international appeal and income!
Maliki looked elsewhere
Maliki did nothing to help the actors and actresses. He heard out the Hollywood beauty, however, smiled - and then did nothing to answer her numerous concerns about Iraq. He was too busy this week changing the national holidays in Baghdad.
To avoid controversy, between Ba'athists, Shi'ites, Sunni tribesmen and fanatics, Maliki proposed making October 3 National Iraqi Day. This marks the date in which Iraq joined the League of Nations in 1932. For obvious reasons, several public holidays were canceled. First was April 7, marking the birth of the Ba'ath Party in 1947. So was February 8, marking the coup of 1963, which co-brought the Ba'athists to power in Baghdad. And finally, so was July 17, the date in which Saddam Hussein came to power, along with president Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, in 1968.
Several new holidays were added - thanks to the newfound status of Iraqi Shi'ites- including Shaaban 15 (Muslim calendar) marking the Shi'ite rebellion against Saddam in 1991, and 10 Muharaam, marking the religious holiday Ashura, revered by Shi'ites throughout the Muslim world.
Strangely, the authorities did not tamper with the national holiday on July 14, marking the bloody revolution that toppled the Iraqi throne in 1958 and killed King Faysal II, his uncle Prince Abdul Illah, prime minister Nuri al-Said, and the entire royal family - women and children, and pets included. The Maliki government, although not overly fond of the revolution, nevertheless observed it as the "birthday of the Iraqi republic".
Meanwhile, on the same day the new holidays were revealed to the public, 31 people were killed in different parts of the country - reminding Iraqi authorities of how difficult their reality was - and how correct Jolie was when observing the situation in Baghdad. While criticism was mounting on Maliki for his lack of action on a variety of issues related to reconciliation, he announced plans to rebuild the Golden Dome in Samara, which was destroyed in a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda in February 2006.
More damage was done to the holy shrine in June 2007. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization once described it as an "endangered world heritage site", claiming that reconstruction would cost no less than $8.4 million.
Though it's an important step, it comes as too little too late. It is long overdue, given that the bombing took place 24 months ago. It does nothing to heal the wounds of Sunnis, who have also complained that their mosques were ransacked, in some cases bombed, and their community leaders have been massacred by Shi'ite militias.
Rebuilding holy sites should start simultaneously for both Shi'ites and Sunnis, to heal open wounds and shake off the impression that many have that Maliki, as a sectarian prime minister, favors the Shi'ite community.
The Golden Dome is a must, no doubt about that, but where does prioritization come into play in Maliki's Iraq? What about the Iraqi actors actresses who make less than $100 a month? What about the 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria? Or the 700,000 in Jordan? Last week, on February 1, two Iraqi women blew themselves up in two consecutive terrorist attacks in Baghdad, killing 91 people.
Maliki's team said the two women were mentally retarded - downplaying the horrendous attack, claiming they did not know what they were doing when they entered the marketplace. Then came US officials who added this was the doing of Osama bin Laden, claiming he had run out of able-bodied men to carry out terrorist attacks, and had to rely on deranged women.
Both arguments overlooked the important fact that there is desperation in Iraq. One doesn't need to be mentally retarded - medically speaking - to carry out a suicide attack. One needs only to be properly indoctrinated and brainwashed by the millions of terrorists roaming in Iraq, either from Saddam's loyalists, al-Qaeda, or Shi'ite militiamen.
Recent polls show that 43% of all Iraqis live in "absolute poverty". That in itself is enough to cause severe depression and lead someone into terrorism. This week, Defense Ministry officials showed videos they had captured in a raid on al-Qaeda in December 2007. The videos were of little children, aged 11-15, being trained in combat and murder by al-Qaeda.
Childhood is being perverted in Iraq and so is the role of women, who instead of getting a good education, falling in love, developing professionally, getting married, end up blowing themselves and others up in a crowded Baghdad marketplace.
According to the London-based Opinion Research Business, 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion since March 2003. The cause of death was either directly or indirectly related to the war of 2003 and its aftermath - rather than natural causes.
Finally, Women's Affairs Minister Narmeen Othman said there are up to 2 million widows in Iraq, out of a total female population of 8.5 million aged between 15 and 80. Of this strikingly large number, only 84,000 receive assistance from the government (50,000-12,000 dinars a month). The two women who blew themselves up on February 1 might be one of the 2 million desperate Iraqi women who have been widowed as a result of the violence.
They might have also lost a brother, father or son. Under Saddam, widows were cared for by the government, and officers who married a widow were professionally rewarded by the Ba'athist regime.
Troubled reconciliation
Reconciliation in Iraq is not working. All the success stories from al-Anbar province - the one success story of George W Bush - are subject to collapse due to increased violence and lack of cooperation between the Ministry of Defense (controlled by Sunnis) and the Ministry of Interior (controlled by Shi'ites, allied to the prime minister).
Simply put, Interior Ministry officials, who control the police and security services, refuse to give Defense Ministry officials any duties - or information - about what they are doing in Anbar. To cover up for the increasing rift within Anbar province, which houses the now famous Anbar Awakening Council that is combating al-Qaeda, Maliki announced he would incorporate 12,000 Sunni militiamen into the Iraqi army and security services. They will be named, honorifically, Abna al-Iraq (The Sons of Iraq).
All of them, apparently, will be from the "Awakening Councils" that have mushroomed in Iraq over the past year, armed and funded by the Americans. In total they number 70,000 and the Iraqi government is expected to incorporate 20% of them, under the urging of the US administration. To date, only 240 members of the Awakening Councils have been allowed to join the Ministry of Interior.
Originally, Maliki had been very much opposed to the arming of Sunni tribesmen, claiming the minute they finished fighting al-Qaeda they would train their guns on the Americans and Shi'ites. His initial response to the arming of Sunni groups was ordering over 18,000 Shi'ite militias into the armed forces, in November 2007.
If the Sunnis were legitimizing their arms - he claimed - then so would he. He has apparently bent, due to US pressure, and agreed to "legitimize the arms" of the Sunnis as well, but given orders that they be incorporated into the Ministry of Interior, which is dominated by the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, a strong Shi'ite party that operates its own militia, the Badr Brigade.
Once the 12,000 Sunnis join the ministry, they will be further absorbed - then either expelled or eliminated - by the large number of Shi'ites who dominate the ministry. Last January, eight members of an Awakening Council were assassinated - a move that was supposedly taken with the tacit approval of the government. Since then, authorities have done nothing to investigate the murders. Several Sunni notables have accused Iran of masterminding the attack.
This is the part that Angelina Jolie did not see in Baghdad.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst. He is the author of Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (Cune Press 2005).
Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak02.html
Clarín:
El petróleo que sale con sangre
Por: Elisa M. Salzmann
09.02.2008
El próximo estreno de Petróleo sangriento, basada en la novela de Upton Sinclair ¡Petróleo!, recupera una etapa de la literatura estadounidense atravesada por el tono crítico. Tras la historia de un magnate del petróleo se esconde una objeción a la organización económica visualizada como opuesta a los ideales de progreso individual consagrados en la Declaración de la Independencia. Se trata de una narrativa de denuncia, tributaria del periodismo y la libertad de expresión.
La novela ya está entre nosotros, editada por Edhasa. La película se agazapa a la espera de varios Oscars y será estrenada aquí el jueves con el título Petróleo sangriento (There will be blood). Dirigida por Paul Thomas Anderson, está basada libremente en ¡Petróleo!, una de las casi cien novelas del escritor estadounidense Upton Sinclair. El rol del protagonista J. Arnold Ross, un magnate del petróleo, será interpretado por un casi irreconocible Daniel Day-Lewis.
¡Petróleo! es una novela clave del período progresista de 1904-1917 que representó una ruptura entre el viejo y el nuevo orden estadounidense. Si bien ayudó a fomentar el brote del socialismo como poder político y, presenció el surgimiento de grupos revolucionarios proletarios como IWW -Industrial Workers of the World- sus propios novelistas socialistas, como Jack London y Upton Sinclair, fueron los escritores más juveniles y románticos de la época, dice Alfred Kazin en su célebre estudio sobre la primera mitad del siglo XX En Tierra Nativa. Para Kazin, el período progresista fue hasta tal punto un depósito de todas las diferentes influencias que empezaban a presionar sobre la conciencia norteamericana -darwinismo einismo e imperialalismo, socialismo y materialismo-que aquellos que lo consideraban como un período dedicado a la denuncia y al combate contra los monopolios y la reforma legislativa, se asombrarían ante sus deleites de aventuras y romances de capa y espada. Pero este no es exactamente el caso de ¡Petróleo! publicada en 1927 por Upton Sinclair.
Monopolios y reformas
Corrían los primeros años del Siglo XX y los norteamericanos veían cómo la "libertad de acción económica en una sociedad de individuos libres", según figuraba en la Declaración de la Independencia, se desvanecía frente al monopolio. Los monopolios obsesionaron la imaginación del estadounidense medio y esto produjo un esfuerzo nacional en pro de la reforma. El monopolio era "la maldición de la enormidad" frente al individuo inerme; un "club de hombres ricos", que imponía una única ley de aceptación o de lo contrario miles de pequeños hombres de negocios irían a la ruina. La leyenda nacional de que cada uno podía hacer su fortuna y de que sólo la pereza y el descuido llegarían a arruinar al individuo ya no era creíble frente a la fuerza económica arrolladora del monopolio. Es en este momento donde aparecen los "denunciadores" y los espíritus afines en la novela aprovecharon la oportunidad.
La denuncia se hizo presente en la literatura y se manifestó en el rechazo de la riqueza ostentosa, el periodismo inundó la escena y se convirtió en la literatura de una nueva época. La figura de Theodore Roosevelt, que irradiaba indignación contra el "mal" y aliento al "bien", hizo respetable todo el movimiento reformista.
"Muckrakers"
Theodore Roosevelt se apropió de la figura "muckrakers" en 1906 en su discurso "El hombre con el rastrillo de estiércol" para aludir a las acusaciones de corrupción que, en su parecer, hacían ciertos periódicos con demasiada ligereza. El término lo toma de Pilgrim's Progress ("Viaje de los peregrinos"), del inglés John Bunyan, donde se aplica a la acción del hombre que recoge paja, palos y polvos en vez de las celestiales dádivas que se le ofrecen. El episodio lo menciona el editor y periodista Lincoln Steffens (1866-1936) en su autobiografía. El muck-raking se convirtió en una práctica importante cuando Steffens se dio cuenta de que necesitaba ayudantes para revelar escándalos vinculados con la vida y la corrupción de las grandes ciudades. Estos periodistas investigaron entre otras cuestiones, el monopolio de la carne, a los financistas de la época, los ferrocarriles, los abusos en el derecho penal, los negocios del gobierno; las historias de robos de patentes; la pobreza urbana.
Cuando el muckraking empezó a derivar hacia la ficción -llevando consigo el subsuelo romántico del período- se niveló la calidad de los muckrakers: porque les bastó haber aprendido algunos primeros hechos acerca de la sociedad de su patria, aun cuando no fueran novelistas ni llegaran a serlo. Con esa energía y optimismo pasaron del periodismo a la literatura.
Como dice Heinrich Straumann en La literatura norteamericana en el siglo XX "el movimiento de los muck-rakers es uno de los aspectos más característicos de principios del siglo XX en los EE.UU., y en sentido amplio, del modo de vivir norteamericano. Semejante movimiento sólo puede desarrollarse en un país en el que van juntas, por un lado, la sed de riqueza y por otro, un fuerte sentido moral combinado con un deseo de verdad y de libertad de expresión".
Representante de esta época es Frank Norris (1870-1902) de quien Borges en su Historia de la Literatura Norteamericana dice: "Creyó que ciertas fuerzas impersonales -el trigo, los ferrocarriles, la ley de oferta y la demanda- son más importantes que el individuo y acaban por dominarlo, pero también creyó en la inmortalidad". Norris que se volvió escritor naturalista por su odio a la literatura "pura" desarrollada en Europa después de Flaubert, publicó su novela Mc Teague en 1899 . De Sinclair no hay mención alguna en el particular estudio de Borges.
Upton Sinclair surgió a la fama con La Jungla (1906), la más poderosa de todas las novelas de los muck-rakers. Desde la publicación de The Jungle ( 1906) Upton Sinclair ha sido "un veneno para la complacencia norteamericana". La importancia de Sinclair para la literatura de preguerra es que desde su comienzo sintió una indignación personal contra la sociedad que veía y registraba; y pronto canalizó ese sentimiento hacia una crítica que lo llevó a escribir casi 100 novelas en las que nunca dejó de transmitir esa capacidad de indignación.
¡Oil!
Las casi 600 páginas de la novela ¡Petróleo! (1927) de Upton Sinclair representan otra de las verdades de lo enorme, ya que esta monopoliza la atención del lector con un ritmo lento y acompasado. Sus párrafos bien armados, sin sobresaltos; los capítulos con títulos y el lento discurrir de su narrador en tercera persona van llevando al lector a través de un tour no sólo nostálgico. Frente a este paciente lector se presenta la pareja del padre y el hijo, J. Arnold Ross y su heredero varón, Bunny.
Si bien el magnate del petróleo tiene una hija, Berta, y una ex esposa, tanto ellas, como su hermana, Emma, aparecen muy en segundo plano. (Cuestión de relevancia el rol secundario de las mujeres para un lector, para una lectora del siglo XXI.)
La época que describe Upton Sinclair en esta novela es la época que precede y sucede a la Primera Guerra Mundial. El hijo del petrolero entra en escena a los 7 años y hasta bien entrados los treinta sigue bajo la tutela de "Papá". El planteo de Sinclair es interesante porque esta dupla de padre e hijo le es funcional para desarrollar sin sutilezas cómo piensa y ejecuta un patrón petrolero, dueño de más de una veintena de pozos en el sur de California y, le sirve también, para mostrar, en la figura del hijo, cómo se gestan a la sombra de este padre-patrón, pensamientos y sentimientos en absoluta discordia con los del capitalista en ciernes. Sinclair acude a otra dupla para seguir en esta misma dirección y desplegar las diferencias entre un socialista y un comunista: Bun y Pablo Watkins respectivamente. Pero esto sólo llega hacia el final de la novela, cuando ya ambos han participado de la Gran Guerra. Centrada en estos tres personajes, Petróleo da cuenta de una época bastante épica para los tres involucrados en la trama social: el magnate, su príncipe heredero y "el mendigo". A medida que J. Arnold Ross se va haciendo de más y más pozos (llega a poseer una refinería), los conflictos sociales se complejizan y su hijo no siempre tiene la suficiente "maldad" como para entender los tejes y manejes de su padre: un coimero de ley. Lleno de sentencias, metódico, buen conductor y bien trajeado, entre su frases favoritas se destacan, "El engrase (el soborno) es más barato que el acero", y también: "Los negocios petrolíferos se parecen a las cosas celestiales, ya que son muchos los llamados y pocos los elegidos".
La parte sensible del relato la lleva Bun, a quien sigue no tan de cerca Eaton, su pedagogo a domicilio. Como para su padre, un auténtico self-made man, ni los libros ni los acontecimientos históricos tienen la mínima importancia, Ross no permite a su hijo perder tiempo en la escuela: para aprender el oficio de millonario, J. Arnold sale de excursión con el joven Bun. No obstante, la amistad con Pablo Watkins, lector de Thomas Paine, sindicalista y editor de un diario revolucionario, será crucial para la formación del joven.
On the Road
Estas salidas por las carreteras van mostrando anuncios de cámaras Kodak, emparedados de salchichas, anuncios de remates, carteles al rojo vivo.La descripción de los pueblos es bien pintoresca: "Cada pueblo se componía de 10, 100 o 1.000 manzanas perfectamente rectangulares, con un pabellón moderno, el jardín y una señora que usaba indefectiblemente una manguera de riego." La presencia de la máquina y las maquinarias corre en paralelo a la de los obreros; la mano de obra mexicana aparece para reparar caminos y con la primera perforación saltan los problemas: los obreros no sólo se lastiman, hay uno, Joe Ghunda, que muere; aunque el incendio de uno de los pozos no deja víctimas. La primera huelga y el esforzado triunfo de los obreros por lograr 8 horas de trabajo diario no doblegan las férreas convicciones de Arnold Ross. Después del 1914 se triplica el precio del petróleo y el afán del empresario supera todos los límites. El soborno también. (Sinclair se está refiriendo directamente al escándalo conocido como Teapot Dome en Wyoming durante la administración del presidente Warren G. Harding).
El mundo de las mujeres, aunque en segundo plano, se hace presente a través de una mirada anticuada y puritana. Todas las mujeres de clase alta que entran en escena están poseídas por una urgencia sexual arrolladora, además de sus modos y costumbres banales. Precursoras de las "flappers", estas mujeres asisten a escuelas caras donde inventan jergas inútiles.
A ochenta años de la publicación de ¡Petróleo!, los temas que denunciara Upton Sinclair siguen vigentes y esto tiene que ver con el impacto del filme. Novelas como esta llevan a repensar esos hechos del pasado que siguen incidiendo en el presente. Porque esta frase, escrita en 1927 y dicha por un personaje de novela nos suena bastante conocida hoy en día. "Ganaremos la guerra -decía el magnate-: la guerra actual, y todas que emprendamos... En cuanto a lo que venga después ya tendremos tiempo de tomar el mejor partido".
Copyright 1996-2008 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/notas/2008/02/09/01603262.html
Guardian:
Kenyan rivals close to deal, says Annan
Interactive guide: unrest in Kenya
David Batty and agencies
Friday February 8, 2008
Kenya's rival factions are close to a deal to end the violent unrest that has claimed 1,000 lives across the country, the former UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, said today.
Annan, who is chairing the talks between the president, Mwai Kibaki, and the opposition leader, Raila Odinga, said a settlement could be reached by early next week.
"I sincerely hope we will complete our work by early next week," he said. "We are making progress.
"We are all agreed that a political settlement is needed, a political settlement is necessary, and we are now in the process of discussing the details, working out the terms of the settlement. So you will have to be a little patient."
Annan said negotiations between the government and main opposition party would break for the weekend and resume on Monday. He said both sides had agreed to call a meeting of parliament next week so that MPs could be briefed on the progress of the talks.
He said: "We had a very good session today. There is no doubt about it. And I think it gives grounds for optimism. But the issues are still on the table and we will go back to them on Monday."
His comments came after government and opposition party officials denied claims they had reached a power-sharing deal. But both sides said significant progress had been made in settling the dispute over December's general election.
"I don't think it's really going to be a breakthrough, but rather an agreement of principles," a senior government official told Reuters. William Ruto, of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement, said: "There is positive news, but no final solution yet."
Asked whether they had agreed to share power in a government of national unity, he said: "I don't think so. That is not the case." Ruto had said a joint government had been agreed, although the details had yet to be drawn up.
Proposals under discussion earlier this week were thought to involve Kibaki continuing as president with Odinga serving as prime minister.
Odinga yesterday retreated from calls for Kibaki to step down.
He said: "We are saying that we are willing to give and take. Initially our stand was that we won the elections, and Mr Kibaki lost the elections, he should resign, and we should be sworn in, but we have said that we are not static on that point."
Mutula Kilonzo, a member of the government negotiating team, said talks were making good progress. He agreed with Annan's assessment that talks could not afford to fail.
"We cannot afford our people using bows and arrows, people being pulled out of buses to be asked 'which language do you speak?' and then being chopped," Kilonzo said.
Riots and attacks have killed more than 1,000 people and displaced 300,000 since the disputed election on December 27. Both sides accused each other of rigging the vote, and the dispute laid bare deep divisions over land, wealth and power that date from British colonial rule.
This week the two sides signed a two-page agreement on measures including helping more than 300,000 displaced people return to their homes.
They also welcomed a UN human rights team to investigate the violence, and agreed on Annan's plan for a truth and reconciliation commission.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,2254820,00.html
Jeune Afrique: Comment la France a prêté
main forte aux forces régulières tchadiennes
TCHAD - 8 février 2008 - par AFP
La France a apporté une assistance décisive au président tchadien Idriss Deby Itno et à l'Armée nationale tchadienne (ANT) depuis l'offensive de la rébellion lancée le 28 janvier, conjuguant un soutien logistique à une intense activité de renseignement.
Les six Mirage F1 et les deux appareils de reconnaissance Atlantique 2 prépositionnés sur l'aéroport de N'Djamena ont été les yeux d'Epervier, le dispositif mis en place en 1986 et qui perpétue une présence militaire française au Tchad quasi-permanente depuis l'indépendance en 1960.
Ces appareils ont reçu le renfort d'un Transall du Commandement des opérations spéciales (COS) équipé d'une caméra thermique.
"Nous avons été en l'air pratiquement 24H/24 pendant six jours", a indiqué le lieutenant-colonel Philippe Zivec, commandant du dispositif aérien. Tout ou partie des renseignements recueillis a ensuite été communiqué aux autorités tchadiennes par le canal de l'attaché de défense de l'ambassade de France.
Selon un pilote, ce dispositif a permis de "suivre en direct tous les combats".
Au titre d'un accord de coopération militaire, les forces françaises fournissent également du carburant, dont 200 m3 de kérosène par mois destinés à la petite armée de l'air tchadienne, ainsi que divers matériels et 10.000 rations de combat.
Cette aide permet à l'ANT de maintenir en état de marche ses pick-up (véhicules à plate-forme), quatre redoutables hélicoptères de fabrication soviétique et deux avions stationnés sur l'aéroport de N'Djamena mais surtout des tanks T-55, également de l'époque soviétique, qui lui ont assuré une puissance de feu précieuse dans la bataille de N'Djamena.
L'accord prévoit aussi une assistance médicale. A ce titre, une cinquantaine de soldats de l'ANT blessés dans les combats ont été soignés par des équipes françaises, certains ayant bénéficié d'évacuations sanitaires.
Ce soutien a été d'autant plus décisif que les rebelles, lorsqu'ils ont atteint N'Djamena samedi avant d'être repoussés, se trouvaient à plus de 800 km de leurs bases arrière du Soudan, privés de ravitaillement en munitions, vivres et essence.
Depuis le camp Kosseï, la principale base française au Tchad qui jouxte l'aéroport de N'Djamena, les éléments français, parmi lesquels 200 soldats des forces spéciales, ont effectué de nombreuses sorties sur le terrain pour évacuer les ressortissants étrangers pris au piège des combats.
Cette mission d'évacuation supposait de "tenir" l'aéroport de N'Djamena, seule voie de sortie, a souligné le colonel Paul Perié, commandant du dispositif Epervier. Au cours des combats, les militaires français postés aux abords de l'aéroport ont été "testés à plusieurs reprises" par la rébellion, a-t-il précisé, évoquant une "réponse graduée".
Selon lui, "la position d'un petit groupe de rebelles au nord-est de la piste qui tirait systématiquement sur nos avions au décollage a également été +arrosée+". Mais aucun soldat français n'a pris part aux combats, a-t-il souligné.
Avant de quitter N'Djamena, au terme d'une visite surprise de quelques heures mercredi marquée par une rencontre avec le président Deby, le ministre français de la Défense Hervé Morin avait souligné le soutien "sans faille" apporté par la France au "gouvernement légitime du Tchad".
Signe de l'importance des opérations de renseignement menées par la France, le ministre était accompagné du général Benoît Puga, sous-chef Opérations à l'état-major des armées et surtout ancien patron du COS.
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/
article_depeche.asp?art_cle=AFP02348commesennei0
Mail & Guardian: Harsh winter
kills more than 750 in Afghanistan
Kabul, Afghanistan
09 February 2008
More than 750 people have perished as a result of severe cold and heavy snowfalls this winter across Afghanistan, a government official said on Saturday.
The cold spell, the worst in decades in the impoverished and mountainous Central Asian country, has also killed nearly 230 000 cattle, said Noor Padshah Kohistani of the National Disaster Management Commission.
"Across the country, 763 people have died since the start of the winter due to cold weather and severe snowfalls," he said. The snowfalls have destroyed more than 500 houses and damaged more than 40 000, a disaster commission statement said.
The worst affected areas were the western provinces of Herat and Badghis, where many people had to have amputations because of frostbite, according to the state media.
Several families sold their children recently because they were unable to care for or feed them, media reports said.
Many key roads linking districts with provincial capitals have been blocked because of snow, hindering deliveries of supplies.
Reuters
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=
331892&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
New Statesman:
Attack on secularism
Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law are dangerous nonsense, and insult Brtain's Muslims, argues Martin O'Neill
Martin O'Neill
Published 09 February 2008
Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, is generally considered to be unusually intelligent for an Anglican prelate. His interventions in public debate are generally thoughtful and serious, and he has a background as a successful academic theologian. But his pronouncements this week on the prospect of adopting sharia law in the UK rank high in the list of the most unhelpful and perplexing utterances from a major public figure in recent years.
In a speech on Thursday night at the Royal Courts of Justice on 'Civil and Religious Law in England', Williams made the startling claim that giving official sanction to sharia in the UK was "unavoidable" if the Muslim community are not be "faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Accordingly, Williams advocates a system of "supplemental jurisdiction" in some areas of UK law – for example, regarding inheritance and family law – whereby the state would recognize the legitimacy of decisions made in religious courts according to sharia principles, and consider them as binding over members of the Muslim community.
The first thing to say about this suggestion is that it is deeply insulting to many law-abiding Muslims in this country. Williams suggests in the text of his speech that there is some kind of impossibility in Muslims maintaining loyalty to both their culture and to the British state whilst they are subjected solely to the jurisdiction of UK law. This is the most pernicious nonsense, and is the kind of thing that one expects to hear only from xenophobes and fundamentalists.
The UK has thousands of practising Muslim lawyers but, if Williams is correct, their commitment to the secular British legal system can be achieved only at the price of their loyalty to their religion and culture. To claim, as Williams does, that loyalty to Islam and to the British state are unsustainable under our current legal system is equivalent to saying that Muslims are loyal to their faith only if they insist on living under sharia law. Williams's claim would be even more insulting if it were not so implausible as to be easy to dismiss.
Thankfully, we have countless examples of serious-minded practising Muslims who reject Williams's outlandish claim and demonstrate its falsity by their ongoing allegiance to both their religion and to the laws of their country.
In his speech, Williams wisely counsels in favour of the "deconstruction of crude oppositions and mythologies". It is a shame that he offers this good advice immediately after offering a particularly crude opposition of his own.
A second peculiarity of Williams's position is that he argues for it by invoking the value of freedom. Giving sharia law an official status as a "supplemental jurisdiction" is presented by Williams as a way of giving "Muslim communities… the freedom to live under sharia law". But in invoking values such as freedom, we need to think first of the concrete freedoms of particular individuals, rather than the collective freedoms of abstractions such as "the Muslim community".
In order for sharia law to be integrated into the UK legal system, the judgements of sharia courts would need to be given the force of law.
That means that, for example, the decisions of a sharia court in conducting a divorce settlement would be legally binding. What then of the position of a Muslim woman who found herself granted a paltry settlement by a sharia court?
Well, it seems that things could go one of two ways. Either the decision of the sharia court is taken as final, and the woman has thereby lost the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the rest of her fellow citizens; or else she retains her rights and freedoms as a UK citizen, and can challenge that divorce settlement in a (secular) court of law.
If the former course is taken, then her individual rights and freedoms have been sacrificed, and we have the unwelcome spectre of a UK citizen being denied basic legal rights on the basis of her cultural or religious status. Under the latter option, where the decisions of sharia courts are denied any independent legal standing and treated as (at best) provisional, it is difficult to see how we would really have a 'supplemental jurisdiction' of sharia at all. Sharia courts would be treated simply as informal methods for dispute resolution, without any special legal status (just as they are at the moment). But the choice is stark: sharia courts can be given full legal status only at the cost of individual freedoms, and through the suspension of certain legal rights of a section of the population.
These are some of the reasons why Williams's suggestion is so pernicious. The reasons why it is so confused are equally revealing.
Williams says that: "If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights."
So, despite initial appearances, Williams clearly means to take the second of the two paths mentioned above: sharia would have standing only insofar as it was fully consistent with UK law, and involved no restriction on individual rights and freedoms. But this is not, then, a question of 'supplemental jurisdiction' rather, it is no jurisdiction at all. Williams wants to have it both ways: legal enactment of sharia, but only insofar as it leaves all our legal rights exactly as they already were. But that is not the same as bringing sharia judgements into UK law – it is merely licensing their ongoing application as a kind of optional and informal method for dispute resolution.
Sharia judgements gain their authority as putatively embodying the "eternal and absolute will of God for the universe and for its human inhabitants in particular" (to quote Williams). To put things bluntly, then, to suggest that sharia be taken into UK law is to suggest that one particular tradition's understanding of the will of God be given legal standing. It is then hard to see why the will of God should be ignored when it happens to contravene, say, existing UK divorce law or inheritance law. The consistent positions are embodied by either a fully secular or a fully theocratic jurisprudence. Williams's halfway house is a just the sort of well-meaning but incoherent muddle that its critics often diagnose in the thinking of the Church of England.
I'll end with a puzzle about Williams's view on sharia. Williams, let us not forget, is a Christian. He believes, I assume, that each of us is possessed of an immortal soul, and that the salvation of that soul is dependent on our embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ. He presumably also believes that, whatever might be said of their sophistication and of the richness of the tradition from which they spring, Muslim interpretations of the will of God are mistaken. In short, either sharia has a sound theological basis, or else the doctrines of the Church that Williams leads are themselves in fundamental error. So, what Williams is doing when he calls for sharia law to be incorporated into UK law is that he is supporting a legal system which he must, on pain of clear self-contradiction, consider to be misguided and illegitimate. Why on earth would he do such a thing?
The answer, I suggest, is an illuminating one. Williams's real aim is an attack on secularism. Giving Muslim legal traditions a privileged position in UK law is a way of attempting to de-legitimize a fully secular legal system. It is a way of protecting the special position of religion in British public life, and, with it, thereby protecting the grotesque anachronism of special status of the Church of England. If Williams really cared about the value commitments of his fellow citizens, whether Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or atheist, he should be campaigning relentlessly for the disestablishment of his own church.
For all his erudition and scholarship, only then would it be plausible to think that Rowan Williams was being truly serious.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200802090001
Página/12:
Del Boca y Sarkozy
Por Sandra Russo
Sábado, 09 de Febrero de 2008
“Si vuelves, lo anulo todo.” Quién sabe si efectivamente el presidente francés Nicolas Sarkozy envió ese mensaje de texto a su ex mujer Cecilia. Quién sabe si estaría, en ese caso, dispuesto a anular todo, o si lo envió a conciencia de que Cecilia, que ya está en otra cosa (bah, con otro hombre) no volvería, y fue un gesto más de la exagerada cortesía francesa. Quién sabe si no fue un pedido de Cecilia, humillada por su vertiginoso reemplazo. Quién sabe si Sarkozy se empeña en mostrar a Carla Bruni porque no logra superar el abandono de Cecilia. ¿Cómo saberlo? Esto es lo que tienen las noticias sobre la vida privada de la gente pública. Pueden circular impunemente, porque aunque los protagonistas hagan declaraciones y se exhiban haciendo esto o aquello, uno nunca puede acceder a la verdad. ¿Cuál es la verdad verdadera de las vidas privadas? Probablemente ni el propio Sarkozy pueda explicar el desmadre que armó con su victoria política, su divorcio, su noviazgo y su nuevo casamiento. Hasta ahora, todo indica que se dejó llevar. Como estrategia política, su actuación es deplorable: perder 13 puntos de popularidad en un par de semanas es una proeza kamikaze.
- - -
Cuando los historiadores franceses Philippe Aries y Georges Duby dieron forma a la Historia de la vida privada invirtieron el punto de vista desde el que se podía leer la historia. De los hechos puntuales, las batallas y las fechas, pasaron a investigar mentalidades. Qué comía un campesino medieval, cuál era el destino de las mujeres solteras en el Renacimiento, qué distribución tenían las primeras casas burguesas, en fin: cómo se vive, con quién, en qué términos, supuso un giro teórico: el interés pasó de lo público a lo privado, porque lo privado es una fuente inagotable de información acerca de las mentalidades de época. Y las mentalidades, o las subjetividades, como se las llama en las ciencias sociales, están moldeadas por estándares políticos.
Lo político y lo público estuvieron muchos siglos pegoteados. Pero ya tenemos claro que tanto lo público como lo privado dependen de lo político. Si Sarkozy está bajando vertiginosamente en las preferencias de los franceses, es porque los franceses han leído, en el colapso sentimental del presidente, banalidad, exageración, descontrol de esfínteres políticos.
- - -
La Historia de la vida privada permitió, en su momento, descubrir un universo que había sido evitado por otras historiografías. El mérito de Duby y sus discípulos fue comprender y hacer comprender que los actos privados se desarrollan en un marco social que acepta o repele determinadas conductas. Lo que nos hace felices o infelices, lo que nos distrae o lo que nos aburre, lo que nos ilusiona o lo que nos desilusiona es como una papa frita marcada: los individuos no hacemos más que volver a ponerla en aceite hirviendo. Tanto lo público como lo privado están marcados por un imaginario simbólico del que participamos sencillamente, sin hacer nada. El solo hecho de vivir hoy, y no hace cincuenta años o dentro de diez años, nos hace los que somos. Y hoy somos sujetos ávidos de la vida privada de los otros. No es una mirada de historiadores, claro. Es una hojeada casi lasciva sobre los aspectos más intrincados de las vidas privadas ajenas. Lo que hacen o lo que no hacen los otros nos habla de nuestras propias vidas.
- - -
Andrea del Boca interrumpió esta semana su programa La mamá del año para llorar y contar su drama personal. Así titularon los diarios y anunciaron los noticieros: “su drama personal”. La hija que tuvo con alguien con quien nunca formó pareja estaba de vacaciones con el padre en un lugar impreciso, y Andrea derramó en cámara esas lágrimas redondas que le salen por esos ojos que han vertido a lo largo de tantos años falsas lágrimas. Andrea del Boca no conduce ese programa por azar. Ella misma es la mamá del año todos los años, porque ése es el papel que representa desde que entró en guerra con el padre de su hija. ¿Cómo saber si es la verdad la que ella cuenta, si es posible que sea apenas una parte de la verdad, la que ella opta por hacer pública?
Otra vez y otro escenario para el eterno dilema de lo privado: fascina lo que se sabe a medias, lo que es pasible de ser adaptado al propio relato, lo que obliga, a los millones de interesados, a tomar un grotesco partido entre uno u otro. Es literalmente imposible saber la verdad. Lo que hay es en todo caso una representación de la verdad, una parte de la verdad, una astilla de la verdad. Porque lo privado no es privado en tanto es exhibido, y porque lo que se exhibe es editado por los propios protagonistas. Lo privado al estilo Del Boca o Sarkozy tiene bastante poco de privado. Casi no tiene nada. Hay personajes públicos que se autoacuchillan para mostrar sus vísceras. A los espectadores les encantan las vísceras. Se alimentan de ellas.
- - -
Sin embargo, estos dos casos difieren en un punto trascendente: Del Boca llora, Sarkozy ríe. La opinión pública rehén de las vísceras ajenas es proclive a la empatía con los que lloran. Los que ríen dan que pensar. Desde que empezó su romance con el presidente francés, Carla Bruni ríe junto a él. No le resulta fácil a esa opinión pública digerir la exhibición de la felicidad, aunque nadie tenga la menor idea de lo que realmente pasa. Como fuere, el mensaje de texto que fue publicado en todo el mundo le debe haber congelado la sonrisa a la ex modelo italiana. El mensaje no la ubica en el lugar de mujer irresistible, sino de premio consuelo. Y aunque nunca se sepa si Sarkozy sigue enamorado o no de Cecilia, lo que a Bruni la debe haber sobresaltado es que el mensaje se haga público. De esa trampa no se sale. Si algo se ventila tanto, sale el olor a azahar, pero también el olor a desperdicios.
© 2000-2008 www.pagina12.com.ar| Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-98660-2008-02-09.html
The Independent:
Seduced by the power of historic books
I prowl through parchment pages in search of the city I live in today
Robert Fisk
Saturday, 9 February 2008
That we should still use the great forests of the world to disseminate our wisdom in the age of the internet is somehow appropriate, our love of books linking us to the prehistorical age of dinosaurs and pterodactyls, when the planet really was green.
I don't care if the books are "foxed" – if pages are brown-stained by the damp of ages – and that's just as well because Beirut is a dirty city, and in my seafront apartment, a mixture of exhaust fumes, industrial grime and the damp of the Mediterranean "foxes" even my newest books within a year. I once thought of moving them to Europe, then realised that their deterioration was part of their story, that they would always wear their history of Lebanon on their covers.
That's one reason why I love the old second-hand bookshop that Habib Aboujaudeh runs on Bliss Street. It's seen hard times – just like 75-year-old Habib. During the civil war, thieves stole thousands of pounds' worth of books from his store in west Beirut. "I lived in Ashrafieh in the east and my books were being sold on the streets of Hamra," he tells me. "I don't know why they took them. They can't have made much money." In Khayat's Bookshop – Habib inherited the name of previous owners – the smell of wood mixes with the odour of old stones. The store was once stables for the horses of the American University of Beirut, which still stands across the road, an academy founded by a 19th-century Quaker called Bliss.
Unlike Lebanon, Habib's shop is a cocktail of religions and literary style. There are Bibles and treatises on Islamic jurisprudence, tawdry romances from the 1950s, science lectures and the works of Ayatollah Khomeini and children's books and postcards of pre-war Beirut in which large American cars motor past 1930s hotels. Here you can find Alistair MacLean's Guns of Navarone in French, and Albert Vulliez's account of Churchill's destruction of the Vichy French fleet in Mers el-Kébir on 3 July 1940. "A hateful decision," Churchill called it in his own history of the Second World War (also in Habib's shop), "the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
Several shelves contain paperback volumes of mathematics conference lectures. It would probably need a mathematician to understand them, but the visitor may browse through Homotopy Invariant Algebraic Structures on Topological Spaces by Boardman and Voigt (1973) or the minutes of the Romanian-Finnish Seminar on Complex Analysis (Bucharest, 1976) or even Commutative Harmonic Analysis (Marseilles, 1974), which just might be the ancestor of a more modern paper on Geometric Properties of Musical Rhythms. Alas, my favourite title of a mathematics paper – Deflating the Pentagon, which must have caused missing heartbeats in the US Department of Homeland Security – is nowhere to be found in Habib's shop.
But he does walk over to me with a massive volume, printed in 1890 and entitled Architectural Studies in Italy, number 49 out of only 150 copies, authored by William J Anderson, president of the Glasgow Architectural Association. "The Photo-Mechanical-Process and the printing are by Messrs McLure and Macdonald & Co Glasgow," the reader is solemnly informed, and by God, they knew how to print. Not in the glossiest of architectural volumes have I seen such fine and detailed drawings. "How much do you think it's worth?" Habib asks me quietly. I express my total ignorance. "Sometimes I sell a book and I regret selling it," he says mysteriously. "The person who loves a book – I sometimes sell it to him at half price. If I don't like him, I don't sell it to him for any price."
Habib sells me Ordeal in Algeria for £28. But written by Richard Brace, an American professor, and his writer wife Jane, two years before France's frightful colonial war came to an end in 1962, it's a snip for the wisdom it dispenses. It's amazing how much the Bruces got right. They emphasised the shamefulness of torture – utilised by the French with the same scientific enthusiasm as the Americans have shown in "waterboarding" their own Muslim victims.
And here is the author's prescient conclusion, in which readers may care to substitute America for France and think of another, even bloodier conflict: "Freedom from fear is the only environment in which people, particularly one lacking in breadth of political maturity, can express an honest voice. And how can this be obtained if one enemy ... refuses to negotiate with the other? How, on the other hand, can the rebels lay down their arms? One solution seems as impossible to the philosophy of the partisans as the other. And France will not recognise the international voice, the world sentiment rising against her ..."
Habib hopes, I think, that I will part with many more pounds for a far older and more precious tome which he hands to me. A View of the Levant: Particularly of Constantinople, Syria, Egypt & Greece by Charles Perry (dedicated to "the Right Honourable Earl of Sandwich, etc, etc"), was printed in 1743 for "T Woodward between the Temple Gates in Fleet Street and C Davis, near Middle Row in Holborn".
I prowl through its parchment pages for the city in which I live today. And of course, I find it. "Bayrut (which in the Time of the Romans was not wanting, but rather abundant in magnificent Buildings, as appears from the great Quantity of Granite Pillars, which lie dispersed up and down) is delightfully situated by the Sea-side, at the South Point of a spacious Bay; and 'tis encompass'd to the Landward with delightful Gardens which extend Three or Four Miles from the Bank of it; which are intersperss'd with most delightful Avenues... and pleasant Rivulets of Water in different Directions."
I am still considering a bid on this memory of a safer, greener Middle East. There is today only one garden left in Beirut and the "most delightful Avenues" are now canyons of traffic. True, the Roman ruins can still be seen downtown and my own flat is indeed "delightfully situated by the Sea-side". But I bet that books never "foxed" in those days.
©independent.co.uk
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/
robert-fisk-seduced-by-the-power-of-historic-books-780232.html
The Nation:
California Dreaming
by LAKSHMI CHAUDHRY
[from the February 25, 2008 issue]
"I've got a little piece of California in me," averred Barack Obama, staking a modest claim to what was rapidly emerging as the most precious piece of real estate in Super Tuesday's primaries. The state's First Lady was far more effusive in her assessment. "If Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," declared Maria Shriver in a fit of Kennedyesque munificence. "I mean, think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader."
At the time, Shriver's endorsement seemed prophetic, offered as it was at the ultimate "girl power" rally, headlined by Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, aimed at Hillary Clinton's most treasured constituency in the heart of what has long been considered-next to New York and Arkansas-her political backyard. With Ted Kennedy barnstorming across the state, wooing Latino voters in execrable Spanish, and a flurry of polls repeating the now-familiar election-eve pattern of surging Obama momentum, the Clinton "firewall" was beginning to look precarious. In the end, however, conventional wisdom and established strength triumphed at the ballot box. It was about women and Latino voters, after all, and they came out in large numbers on election day to award Hillary Clinton the state by a ten-point margin.
In many ways the California results marked the triumph of tribalism, with each constituency-blacks, Latinos, women, blue-collar workers, Asian-Americans, the young and the old-picking its side. But lost in the horse-race punditry, which thrives on slice-and-dice demographic calculations, are the darker implications of such herdlike behavior for both candidates.
According to the exit polls, women-55 percent of the primary voters-favored Clinton by a staggering 59 to 34 percent over Obama. Hillary's estrogen base is undoubtedly an unqualified asset for her campaign. (No one, for example, worries that having so many women supporters makes her the "female candidate.") But few are paying attention to the flip side of that gender equation. When it comes to gender gaps, the candidate who should be worried by the California results is Clinton, not Obama.
On the face of it, men seemed to split almost evenly between the two candidates, but the numbers (skewed by her across-the-board Latino support) disguise a disconnect with white men, who chose Obama by an astounding twenty-point margin. And California's male pro-Obama tilt reflects a national 50-to-44 percent split in his favor.
This male gender gap isn't new. "In particular, Hillary Clinton seems to turn off younger and moderate to conservative male Democrats. As many as one in five of them say there is no way they will support the former First Lady for the nomination," wrote the Pew Research Center's Andrew Kohut in his explanation for the strong pluralities of men who voted for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire. This resistance, however, if it persists, bodes ill for Clinton's future, especially in a general election, where women traditionally play a less decisive role. As Linda Hirshman recently pointed out in the New York Times, "With the possible exception of 1996, women have never voted a candidate into the White House when men thought the other guy should win. In the 2004 election, there was a gender gap in virtually every demographic-among old folks, married people, single people, squirrel hunters-but the gender gap still did not offset the robust men's vote."
Part of the reason is that men tend to lean Republican, unlike women, who make up an increasing share of the Democratic electorate. As Hirshman reveals, women also constitute a significant chunk of swing voters, with 62 percent of them identifying themselves as "purple or moderate." But given Obama's predominance among independents, there is as yet no evidence that Clinton will be able to attract enough female swing voters or Republicans in November to offset a male anti-Hillary bias. Women voters may be able to deliver her the Democratic nomination, but they won't be able to carry her all the way to the White House. For better or worse, if Clinton is the first female presidential nominee, she will have to work harder to build a coalition that bridges the gender divide.
While California points to a potential testosterone gap for Clinton, it offers a cautionary tale about race for Obama. For all the excitement over his strong performance among white voters-helped immensely by his gains among white men-his strategy of "transcendence," which may serve him well within a traditional black-white racial divide, may work to his detriment among other communities.
Take, for example, the Latino vote. After weeks of finger-pointing over white racism, California offered pundits the exotic delight of "ethnic" bigotry-the alleged Latino reluctance to vote for black leaders, a claim belied by the electoral success of African-American politicians, like former LA mayor Tom Bradley.
Obama had no such luck in California, where Latinos constituted an impressive 30 percent of the electorate and chose Clinton over Obama by an overwhelming margin of 67 to 32 percent, echoing the split in the Latino vote across all primaries on February 5. Obama's performance was remarkably poor for a candidate who ran to the left of his opponent on immigration, supporting driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants even at the risk of alienating independents and moderates. For all the talk about his youth appeal and a supposed generational divide among Latinos, he earned a mere 32 percent in the 18-to-29 age group. And no one seems to have paid attention to his equally weak showing among California's Asian-Americans (25 percent to Clinton's 71 percent).
The truly transcendent candidate is not one who merely speaks to white fears of racial difference but who also expresses a multicultural vision of America in all its diversity. In the months to come, Obama's advisers will rightly work on building his support among blue-collar white voters, a continuing weakness of his campaign in particular and the Democratic Party in general. But as long as Latinos and Asian-Americans appear to be an afterthought, simply demographic categories to be dealt with for electoral advantage, Obama will continue to have an unacknowledged "race problem" that has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
The message from the Golden State is the same for Clinton and Obama: they need, in different ways, to craft a more daring politics of transcendence if they want to bridge the divisions that are holding their candidacies back. It's time to rediscover their inner California.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/chaudhry
ZNet:
Of Grasshoppers and Men
By Khatchig Mouradian and Arundhati Roy
February, 08 2008
Arundhati Roy was born in 1959 in Shillong, India. She studied architecture in New Delhi, where she now lives, and has worked as a film designer, actor, and screenplay writer in India. Roy is the author of the novel The God of Small Things, (Random House/HarperPerennial) for which she received the 1997 Booker Prize. The novel has been translated into dozens of languages worldwide. She has written several non-fiction books: The Cost of Living (Random House/Modern Library), Power Politics (South End Press), War Talk (South End Press), and An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire (South End Press) and Public Power in the Age of Empire (Seven Stories/Open Media).
Roy was featured in the BBC television documentary, “Dam/age,” which chronicles her work in support of the struggle against big dams in India and the contempt of court case that led to a prolonged legal case against her and eventually a one-day jail sentence in spring 2002. A collection of interviews with Arundhati Roy by David Barsamian was published as The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile (South End Press). Roy is the recipient of the 2002 Lannan Foundation Cultural Freedom Prize.
On Jan. 18, 2008, Roy delivered the Hrant Dink memorial lecture at Bosphorus University in Istanbul. In her lecture, titled “Listening to Grasshoppers: Genocide, Denial and Celebration,” Roy reflected on the legacy of Hrant Dink and dealt with the history of the “genocidal impulse,” the Armenian genocide of 1915 and the killing of Muslims in Gujarat, India in 2002.
Speaking about the slain editor of the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, Roy said, “I never met Hrant Dink, a misfortune that will be mine for time to come. From what I know of him, of what he wrote, what he said and did, how he lived his life, I know that had I been here in Istanbul a year ago I would have been among the one hundred thousand people who walked with his coffin in dead silence through the wintry streets of this city, with banners saying, ‘We are all Armenians,’ ‘We are all Hrant Dink.’ Perhaps I’d have carried the one that said, ‘One and a half million plus one.’”
“I wonder what thoughts would have gone through my head as I walked beside his coffin,” she added. “Maybe I would have heard a reprise of the voice of Araxie Barsamian, mother of my friend David Barsamian, telling the story of what happened to her and her family. She was ten years old in 1915. She remembered the swarms of grasshoppers that arrived in her village, Dubne, which was north of the historic city Dikranagert, now Diyarbakir. The village elders were alarmed, she said, because they knew in their bones that the grasshoppers were a bad omen. They were right; the end came in a few months, when the wheat in the fields was ready for harvesting.”
In this interview, conducted by phone on Feb. 2, we talk about some of the issues she raised in her lecture and reflect on genocide and resistance.
Khatchig Mouradian—What was going through your head when you were writing the speech for the commemoration in Istanbul of Hrant Dink’s assassination?
Arundhati Roy—These days, we are going through a kind of psychotic convulsion in India. Genocide and its celebration are in the air. And it’s terrifying for me to watch people celebrating genocide every day. It was at a time when I was very struck by this celebration in India and the denial in Turkey that they asked me to go to Istanbul.
When I landed in Istanbul, I realized that there’s a very big difference between what Armenians, Turks and others could say outside Turkey—where everybody could be very direct about the Armenian genocide—and inside Turkey—where, Hrant Dink, for example, was trying to find a way of saying things in order to continue living. His idea was to speak out, but not to die.
In Istanbul, I spoke with people and I was very concerned not to give the impression that I flew in, made a speech, and flew out leaving everybody else in trouble. I was interested in helping to create an atmosphere where people could begin to talk about the Armenian genocide to each other. After all, that’s the project of the Armenians who are living in Turkey and trying to survive there.
At the same time, I was somebody who is involved quite deeply in issues in India and I didn’t want to be some global intellectual who flies in, makes some superficial statements and then flies out. I wanted to relate the issue to what I knew and what I fought for, and tried to push a little bit more and a little bit more. And this is not a simple thing to do.
K.M.—The story that weaves your lecture together is that of your friend, David Barsamian’s mother, Araxie Barsamian. In an interview, you say, “I think that a story is like the surface of water, and you can take whatever you want from it.” What did you take from the story of Araxie Barsamian?
A.R.—In fact, David happened to be in India just before I went to Turkey and we talked about the issue. It mattered to me that I knew him. I’m not saying that if I didn’t know him I wouldn’t have spoken, but it suddenly became something that was more personal. I was having the discussion with a friend that there are people who talk about politics that is informative and politics that is transformative. These are such silly separations because in Turkey, for example, everybody knows what happened. It’s just that there’s a silence around it and you’re not allowed to say what happened. And when you say it, it becomes transformative in itself. I made my point through the words of David’s mother instead of going and saying, “Look, that bullet that was meant to silence Hrant Dink actually made someone like myself take the trouble to go and read history. Whether I say it and I don’t say it, you and I know what happened, and if you want to maintain the silence, then people here will have to fight with that, as I will have to fight with the celebration around genocide in India.”
This is something that a novel writer does. How you say what you want to say is as important as what you want to say. By telling Araxie Barsamian’s story, the history comes alive. You could say that 1.5 million people were killed or you could say that the grasshoppers arrived in Araxie Barsamian’s village…
K.M.—You spoke about the difference between speaking about the Armenian genocide outside and inside Turkey. But in your speech, you are quite bold: You do not come off as trying to imply things rather than stating them outright. You are not trying to avoid using the term genocide…
A.R.—When I started speaking about the term “genocide,” defining it, then talking about the history of genocide and what’s happening in India today—how Indian fascists killed Muslim—I wanted to make it clear that that the genocidal impulse has cut across religions and that the same ugly, fascist rhetoric that the Turks used against the Armenians has been used by the Christians against the Indians, has been used by the Nazis against the Jews, and today, it is being used by Hindus against Muslims. Genocide is such a complex process. The genocidal impulse has never been related to just one culture or just one religion. I spoke about the Armenian genocide and its denial openly to the extent that I could without shutting down the audience.
I would like to note that in my readings, one problem I realized is that many scholars who have studied the Armenian genocide in detail—almost all of them—keep on insisting that it was the first genocide of the 20th century and, in asserting that, they deny the other genocides that took place—for example, the genocide against the Herrero people in 1904. So I was also trying to talk about the Armenian genocide without giving the impression that some victims are more worthy than others.
K.M.—How was your lecture received?
A.R.—The important thing was that it was received. It wasn’t blocked out. It wasn’t denied. People didn’t say, “Oh, here’s a person who has come here to tell us about our own past.” That’s because I wasn’t just talking about the past of Turkey. For me, that was the way of guaranteeing that my talk was received.
The biggest thing is that it was received. It was taken in and it was thought about. I saw many people in tears in the hall. And I hope that in some tiny, little way, it will change the way this subject is spoken of. I might be presuming too much…
K.M.—As you point out in your lecture, genocide and gross human rights violations have plagued us for centuries and they continue to do so. What has changed?
A.R.—I don’t think that there’s been that much change in the genocidal impulse. Technology and industrialization have only enabled human beings to kill each other in larger numbers. I talked about the slaughter of 2,000 Muslims in the state of Gujarat in India. It was all on TV.
About three months ago, the killers were caught on camera talking about how they decided how to target the Muslim community, how it was all planned, how the police was involved, how the chief ministers were involved, how they murdered, how they raped. It was actually broadcast on TV and it worked in the favor of that party. The people who voted for them said, “This is what they deserve.” So I actually feel that this notion of the liberal conscience, of human conscience, is a fake notion. Today in India we are on the verge of something terrible. Like I say in the article, the grasshoppers have landed, and there is a kind of shutting down and cutting off of the poor from their resources, herding them off their land and rivers. And people are just watching. Their eyes are open but they are looking the other way. And again and again we think of the fact that in Germany when Jews were being exterminated, people must have been taking their children to piano lessons, violin lessons, worrying about their children’s homework. That kind of absolute lack of conscience is still present today. No amount of appeal to conscience can make any change. The only way disaster can be averted is if the people who are on the receiving end of that can resist.
Khatchig Mouradian is a journalist, writer and translator, currently based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at: khatchigm@hotmail.com.
From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16454
posted by attilav at 20:02
2 Comments:
Hi, this is a good article
9:47 AM
[url=http://seahawksfootballstore.com/]Marshawn Lynch Women's Jersey[/url]
You could put on some rainforest or classical music and just sit quietly together for a little bit Fear and faith cannot coexist or control behavior togetherThink about the end user of your product or service Learn to trust yourself and allow the process to work for you
If they are happy and feeling well, then there's more kitty love for me Just when you believed having a puppy was simpler than an infant, he'll learn to pull those cupboard doors open! Think about installing locks or "child-proof" devices A memorable moment includes several items need to develop a system that helps your PC remain free of clutter and organized
[url=http://officialnflfalconsstore.com/]Roddy White Black Jersey[/url]
[url=http://official49ersjerseystore.com/]49ers Aldon Smith Jersey[/url]
9:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home