Watch Chandra Muzzafar American Empire at YouTube

By William Pfaff

Since the return of democracy in Spain, Spain’s political leaders and political society have demonstrated an extraordinary determination to start anew, after the crisis-afflicted 75 years that began with what the Spaniards have called “the catastrophe” – the collapse of the Spanish empire under blows from an exuberant and adolescent United States that believed it was coming of age as a world power. It’s evidence that empires end, but nations don’t, and resurrection is possible.

America’s transcontinental expansion following the Civil War and the garish joys of the Gilded Age gave Americans a taste for foreign adventure, whetted by the proximity and vulnerability of Cuba. And if Cuba, why not Puerto Rico, and the Philippines? Admiral Alfred Mahan, America’s prophet of naval power and of the economic necessity of colonialism, offered convincing economic reasons for American colonial expansion, and the failing Spanish empire was at hand.

A blow to it in the Caribbean, and another in Manila Bay, was enough for it to splinter and collapse. The Spanish Caribbean and the Philippines were ours.

Every empire has its day, and Spain’s phenomenal empire had its during the four centuries that followed the expeditions of Columbus, sailing westward. 1492, and the riches of South American gold, led eventually, and one can say inexorably, to failure in 1898. All things come to an end. You live to die, a principle unpopular among Americans. Read the rest of this entry »

by Chandra Muzaffar

As the protests fizzle out in the wake of the military junta’s violent crackdown, many are wondering whether there is any hope for change in Myanmar. Are the people of Myanmar condemned to eternal suffering? Is their ordeal and anguish some sort of bad karma from which there is no escape?

There is no reason for pessimism. Struggles against autocracies take a long while. When autocratic power is dressed up as a military dictatorship, the struggle becomes even more difficult.

Nonetheless, the people of Myanmar, it should not be forgotten, have, from time to time, revolted against military rule. In 1988, a popular uprising, triggered off by price increases of basic commodities and currency devaluation, was crushed mercilessly. The junta massacred some 3000 unarmed civilians. The uprising was spearheaded by students with monks playing a minor role.

Two years later when an election for delegates to a Constitutional Commission was held, the people rejected the military slate and chose instead candidates from the newly formed National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the ‘founding father’ of the nation. Though the military refused to accept the verdict and imprisoned a number of NLD officials, it could not ignore the fact that the people were against its dominance. Since 1990 there have been other smaller, sporadic protests in different parts of the country.

The August-September 2007 mass protest against the military junta, euphemistically called the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is reminiscent of the 1988 uprising in one sense. It was the skyrocketing of prices caused by a huge fuel hike that ignited popular anger. It proves yet again that economic discontent is often at the root of mass revolts.

To gauge the depth of popular anger one has to understand that poverty is widespread in Myanmar. A quarter of its 56 million population live on 1 US dollar a day. Wages are meagre. Basic amenities are inadequate. And unemployment is high.

Read More at The International Movement for A Just World (JUST)

By Chandra Muzaffar

Of the various proposals made so far on how one could coax the military junta in Myanmar to heed the voice of the people, the most feasible is perhaps the one that seeks to convene a conference of heads of Asian governments to be held under the auspices of the United Nations. The conference which will be attended by all ASEAN member states, China, India and Japan, would have as its immediate objective, the commencement of a serious dialogue between the junta and Myanmar’s popular and respected dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The dialogue would seek to achieve the following goals:-

1) The immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Suu Kyi herself.

2) Agreement on a transition plan which would witness the sharing of power for a period of time between the junta, on the one hand, and Suu Kyi, her National League for Democracy (NLD) and other citizens’ representatives, on the other, leading eventually to a full-fledged democratic system.

3) The legitimization of all political parties and political party activities.

4) The determination of a date for holding free and fair elections to a national legislature.

5) A pledge from the armed forces of Myanmar and all other groups and parties that they will accept the electoral verdict and respect the people’s choice.

No one should expect the junta to agree to a dialogue with the above aims— unless it is compelled to do so. . Myanmar’s fellow ASEAN members and China, India and Japan are in a position to force Myanmar to act. They do not have to resort to conventional trade or investment sanctions which from all accounts are not effective.

What they should do is:-

1) Freeze the bank accounts of the senior members of the junta and their families which according to some reports are still being maintained in leading banks in certain Asian cities.

2) Stop the sales of military equipment to the junta.

3) Stop the sales of communication equipment which may be used for the junta’s surveillance of protesters and dissidents.

The question we have to ask is whether Myanmar’s Asian neighbours are prepared to take any of the measures outlined here. Is there the political will to act? Or, are monetary and economic considerations more important than human lives and human dignity?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

President,

International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Malaysia

By Mara Hvistendahl

When China unveiled its’ ambitious renewable energy law in 2005, pledging that by 2020 15 percent of the country’s power would be drawn from renewable sources, it attracted more than a few raised eyebrows. Chinese leaders are fond of long-term plans and big targets. But how, exactly, did they plan to hit this target in the face of China’s fast-growing economy and energy consumption?

Two years later, this is now becoming clear.

In September, top energy planner Chen Deming said that the government would institute subsidies and tax breaks to encourage investment in renewables. The total price tag for the 15 percent target, he added, would be two trillion yuan — about $265 billion, or one-tenth of China’s 2006 GDP.

Sure enough, last week China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), China’s third largest petroleum company (best-known in the U.S. for its botched 2005 bid to buy American oil giant Unocal) announced plans to establish a 1,500 KW off-shore wind farm in Bohai Bay. With Beijing pushing renewables, CNOOC now aims to be “an energy company rather than just an oil company.” As company chairman Fu Chengyu told Xinhua, “[T]he national development mode decides the development of our company.” Strong government backing has Chinese companies convinced they can profit from renewable energy.

Read More at WorldChanging.com

By Philip S. Golub 

The ‘American Century’ only began 60 years ago. But it seems already to be over, with the disaster of Iraq forcing some of the United States’ ruling elites to realise that its hegemony has been severely weakened. But nobody seems to know what to do next, or even how to behave.

The disastrous outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a crisis in the power elite of the United States deeper than that resulting from defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago. Ironically, it is the very coalition of ultra-nationalists and neo-conservatives that coalesced in the 1970s, seeking to reverse the Vietnam syndrome, restore US power and revive “the will to victory”, that has caused the present crisis.

There has been no sustained popular mass protest as there was during the Vietnam war, probably because of the underclass sociology of the US’s volunteer army and the fact that the war is being funded by foreign financial flows (although no one knows how long that can continue). However, at the elite level the war has fractured the national security establishment that has run the US for six decades. The unprecedented public critique in 2006 by several retired senior officers over the conduct of the war, plus recurrent signs of dissent in the intelligence agencies and the State Department, reflects a much wider trend in elite opinion and key state institutions.

Read More in Le Monde Diplomatique

by Scott Shane, David Johnston, & James Risen

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

Read More in the New York Times

By Thom Shanker

The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.

The global arms market is highly competitive, with manufacturing nations seeking both to increase profits and to expand political influence through weapons sales to developing nations, which reached nearly $28.8 billion in 2006.

That sales total was a slight drop from the 2005 figure of $31.8 billion, a trend explained by the strain of rising fuel prices that prompted many developing states — except those that produce oil — to choose upgrading current arsenals over buying new weapons.

Read more here.

by Foreign Policy in Focus

Published by Foreign Policy in Focus, the report “Just Security” proposes an alternative foreign policy framework for the United States, and by extension those countries which fall within its orbit. The report states:

“Current U.S. foreign policy is unjust and breeds insecurity for all. In seeking an alternative, we should not revive the failed policies of the past. Instead, we should chart a new relationship between the United States and the world.

Our common future faces daunting challenges. War, poverty, terrorism, loose nukes, and climate change make us all feel less secure than a decade ago. The Bush adminis tration’s foreign policy has brought U.S. popularity in the world to new lows. At home, it has generated widespread dissatisfaction across the political spectrum.

Such widespread public dissatisfaction offers an opportunity to transform the national conversation from the framework of fear that has prevailed since 9/11 to a broader response to global ills and injustices.

The growing public awareness of the climate crisis, the need to address the Middle East in a comprehensive manner, the wasteful extravagance of military spending, the continued threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear use, and the corrosive effects of global inequality have revealed the inadequacies not only of current U.S. foreign policy but the Democratic Party’s 2006 “real security” doctrine as well.

With its emphasis on fighting wars, the Bush administration has insisted on focusing just on security. We must focus instead on a just security, because there can be no real security without justice. The United States should act as a global partner not a global boss. We must restore principles of fairness and equity into our international conduct.”

The full report and an executive summary are available from the Foreign Policy in Focuswebsite.

By Claudia Parsons

Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of “good” and “evil” and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances — social, economic or political — but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

The report was commissioned by security think tank EastWest Institute ahead of a conference on Thursday in New York titled “Towards a Common Response: New Thinking Against Violent Extremism and Radicalization.” The report will be updated and published after the conference.

The authors compared ideologies, recruitment tactics and responses to violent religious extremists in three places — Muslims in Britain, Jews in Israel and Christians in the United States.

“What is striking … is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence,” the report said.

It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as “the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity,” there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

“It is, in each situation, a case of ‘us’ versus ‘them,’” it said. “That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God’s law supersedes man’s law.”

Read more here.