Tunisia: Demonstrations Reveal Corruption, Media Restrictions

Last week I reported on the issue of corruption as a global phenomenon that is severely hindering the ability of the international community to reach the UN millennium target of halving extreme poverty.

Tunisia is this week experiencing some of the convulsions that arise when corruption is left unchallenged, and when a lack of press freedom allows citizens little outlet but to take to the streets to vent their frustration.

The spark to the current unrest, which has seen street demonstrations and the death of two protesters, was the attempted public suicide of Mohammed Bouazizi, an unemployed university graduate, in the town of Sidi Bouzid in the centre of the country. Aj-Jazeera carries a rather grim photograph of the student in hospital covered entirely in bandages. 

If, as Al-jazeera reports, lawyers are among those who are now joining in the demonstration against government corruption, this would seem to indicate that the government is in serious trouble. President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was re-elected in 2009 in an election described by Human Rights watch as taking place in "an atmosphere of repression." The incumbent President received a reported 89% of the votes cast.

The President and his family are reported to be at the centre of the nation's political corruption, as revealed in a recent Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Tunis. Cable 08TUNIS679 contains the following revelations:

"President Ben Ali's extended family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption. Often  referred to as a quasi-mafia, an oblique mention of "the Family" is enough to indicate which family you mean....  Ben Ali's wife, Leila Ben Ali, and her extended family -- the Trabelsis -- provoke the greatest ire from Tunisians. Leila's brother Belhassen Trabelsi is the most notorious family member and is rumored to have been involved in a wide-range of corrupt schemes from the recent Banque de Tunisie board shakeup (Ref B) to property expropriation and extortion of bribes."

The corruption inside the ruling family has coloured day to day dealings in the economy , according to the leaked cable:

"Beyond the stories of the First Family's shady dealings, Tunisians report encountering low-level corruption as well in interactions with the police, customs, and a variety of government ministries."

Severe reporting restrictions on the country's media has meant that many protesters have turned to the Internet to report on the recent riots and to protest with others. A Facebook page supporting the demonstrators has attracted over 12,000 subscribers - though it is unclear how many are form within the country itself. 

Tunisian bloggers supporting the protests include Boukachen and Tunisian Girl, who is the owner of the image used above, used with permission under a creative commons licence.  Demonstrators are using the hashtag #sidibouzid to spread information about the protests on Twitter.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Wikileaks, Sweden, the Suicide Bomb and the CIA: Is There a Connection?

 

Source, Tomblanton 1957

Mainstream media outlets are generally making no connection between the terrorist attack in central Stockholm last week and current attempts by the Swedish authorities to extradite Wikileaks director Julian Assange.

The consensus view on the pre-Christmas bombings is that they were carried out by Iraqi-born Taimour Abdulwahab, apparently a British-based self-radicalised jihadist acting on his own initiative, though possibly with some logistical support from persons currently unknown.

There is, of course, an alternative and more disturbing view.

Respected Swedish academic Professor Ola Tunander is currently based at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), an independent peace studies institution which publishes numerous peer-reviewed articles on international relations, conflict resolution, foreign policy and peace studies.  

Professor Tunander's 2004 book, The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception Against Sweden in the 1980s makes the well-documented case that during the Cold War, British and American forces operated major submarine incursions into Swedish waters with the aim of creating the belief that these were Soviet ships acting aggressively. 

From the book's forward:

"Following the stranding of a Soviet Whiskey-class submarine in 1981 on the Swedish archipelago, a series of massive submarine intrusions took place within Swedish waters. However, the evidence for these appears to have been manipulated or simply invented. Classified documents and interviews point to covert Western, rather than Soviet activity.....

Ola Tunander's revelations make it clear that the United States and Britain ran a 'secret war' in Swedish waters. The number of Swedes perceiving the Soviet Union as a direct threat increased from 5-10 per cent in 1980 to 45 per cent in 1983. This Anglo-American 'secret war' was aimed at exerting political influence over Sweden. It was a risky enterprise, but perhaps the most successful covert operation of the entire Cold War."

Former US Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was also interviewed on Swedish television around the time of the publication of The Secret War and confirmed that American and British submarines had indeed been conducting operations against Swedish installations during the 1980s as a way of ensuring military (and civilian) "readiness" to counter the threat of Soviet expansion into the Baltic. The interview took place on  TV2 on 7 March 2000.

In an earlier article in the journal Cooperation and Conflict, Professor Tunander quotes former CIA Director James Schlesinger on the existence of a Swedish "dual state" in which the official "Political Sweden" is matched by the "Military Sweden" which is portrayed as seeking ever closer ties to the United States. The article reflects on the "supranational" structure which, despite the country's official policy of non-membership, ties Sweden inexorably into the NATO orbit and policy objectives. 

State Department cable 07STOCKHOLM506 on Wikileaks bluntly reveals this current political reality:

"While Sweden's official foreign policy doctrine emphasizes non-alignment, in practice Sweden is a pragmatic and strong partner with NATO"

and, in the same cable,

"Sweden's official security policy is non-participation in military alliances during peacetime and neutrality during wartime.  Its active participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace and its role in leading the European Union's 1,500 troops-strong Nordic Battle Group give the lie to the official policy."

At the 2004 Pan-European International Relations Conference held in the Netherlands, Professor Tunander presented a paper with the working title of  "The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order" . Building on the pioneering work of Hans Morgenthau from the 1950s, Tunander outlines the history since 1945 of CIA-backed terrorist incidents in mainland Europe. The aim of these actions was the fueling of anti-communist sentiment among European citizens, in order to strengthen US/NATO-lead attempts to contain and oppose communism on the continent and elsewhere:

"The Strategy of Tension, as we know it from Cold War Europe, has received a global dimension. During the Cold War, the US ‘dual security structure’ – with its specifically tasked units masquerading as ‘enemy forces’ – was developed by the US ‘security state’ in order to keep the political strength and the readiness and capability of the Western defences. Now, this structure has seemingly been made into a self-propelled mechanism that is able to transform the world order into a Pax Americana."

Swiss academic Dr Daniele Ganser has also written extensively about the existence of secret armies operating in Europe under American control during the early 1990s. His book NATO's Secret Armies outlines their history and deployment as agents of terror.

After outlining how this policy was applied in Italy and elsewhere in Europe from  the 1960s to 80s, Professer Trunandar then argues that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US-NATO elites required a "new enemy" in order to justify ongoing American hegemony. That enemy was radical Islam. 

CIA support for Osama bin Laden and his mujaheddin in the 1980s is a matter of public record. Later contact with the group took place in the Balkans in the 1990s and, according to several sources, as late as 2001. Trunandar provides details:

"The Saudi military intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal had several meetings with bin Laden and supported the Taliban economically. Bin Laden allegedly had a meeting with the CIA station chief in Dubai, Larry Mitchell, as late as on July 12, 2001, as well as with the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, while bin Laden was treated for his kidney problems at the American Hospital in Dubai (Von Bülow, 2003, p. 228. See also Richard Labeviere, 2001. ‘La CIA aurait recontré Ben Laden en juillet’, Le Figaro, November 1; Anthony Sampson, 2001. ‘CIA agent allegedly to have met Bin Laden in July’, Guardian, November 1; Elisabeth Bryant, 2001. ‘Report: bin Laden treated at US hospital’, United Press International, October 31) "

Fascinating though all of this is, none of it proves even a remote link between Taimour Abdulwahab, the CIA and the Pentagon's current crusade against Wikileaks.

Nonetheless, the history of CIA operations in Sweden does prove that

(a) American and British military forces have used "false wars" in Sweden as a way of manipulating popular opinion against America's enemies

(b) CIA strategic involvement with radical Islamic groups has been a proven reality until at least the start of this decade.

Beyond these facts, we are left only able to ask questions:

1. Why did Abdulwahab choose to commit his attack in Sweden rather than the UK? Although his parents apparently lived there, the practical challenges of carrying out a "lone" terror attack across international boarders must have been considerable. Why not target the Swedish embassy in London? Or IKEA?

2. What is the significance (if any) of the release of an official report on the Islamic terror threat in Sweden - three days after the Stockholm bombing?  The report was originally commissioned by the government in February. Was its release this week pure coincidence? Or was it timed to create maximum impact in the media in the week of Scandinavia's first suicide bombing, with the report's claims that up to 200 Swedish Muslims are currently advocating violent jihad ? 

3. Why was the Stockholm attack such a failure? Reports that the attacker's car - allegedly full of gas canisters - failed to blow up are attributed in many publications to the "amateurish" nature of his tactics. Considering what we know about the role of previous CIA covert operations in Sweden, is it not also plausible that those handling the attacker may have not wanted the car to blow up? This would make sense if their aim was not to kill but to create fear. Similar questions should be asked about the location of the car. It was not parked in the most obvious place to cause major casualties - with the heart of the shopping district being several hundred metres away. 

4. Why did Abdulwahab's device detonate when it did? If the aim was to create terror (with the minimum loss of Swedish lives), then the detonation of his belt bomb down a side street with no casualties could be seen as achieving this result. If Abdulwahab's claim that he had been training as a jihadist for four years are true (as relayed on the audio message he is alleged to have sent to the authorities minutes before the first blast), then it might appear surprising that such a lengthy training period resulted in the perpetrator being unable to create a device that could even blow himself up properly, let alone kill others. Eye witness reports claim that the bomber was still alive for a short while after his device exploded.    

5. How are we to account for reports on Sweden's The Local news site of alleged military knowledge of the attack in advance? The claim is made that a Swedish armed forces member was warned by a colleague two hours before the bomb blast, “If you can, avoid Drottninggatan today. A lot can happen there…just so you know."

6. Who was behind the fake bomb left at Kungstraedsgaarden metro station in Stockholm, on Christmas eve, two weeks after the suicide attack? A police officer is quoted by AFP as saying:  “It looked like a real bomb. Someone made it to frighten people.”

As for the connections with the Wikileaks saga, the following video reveals Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt claiming in a recent interview with Sir David Frost that he knows very little about the Assange case as it is not handled by his particular government department. This modest denial is strange considering the Minister's recent political history. Bildt has been heavily criticised in recent years for his membership of The Committee to Liberate Iraq, which was an American political lobby group aimed at the "replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government" in the years leading up to the US-lead invasion in 2003.

Other members of the Committee included Newt Gingrich, John McCain,  Richard Pearle (founder of the right-wing Project for a New American Century), and R James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. Bildt's participation is remarkable as, apart from one Iraqi, he  was virtually the only non-American of the 35-member Committee. Clearly, he was closely associated with many of the prime movers at the heart of efforts to ensure a US-lead invasion of Iraq, whose project has come under such fierce criticism, in part as a result of revelations from the Wikileaks site.

It is inconceivable that Bildt is not actively concerned about the Wikileaks phenomenon and, presumably, receiving the perspective of the United States government on the matter via their man in Stockholm, Matthew Barzun or indeed, from more senior American political figures.

.

Specific US Embassy cables released through the Wikileaks site that relate to Sweden have not portrayed the inner workings of the country's Foreign Ministry in a particularly positive light.

Cable 09STOCKHOLM194, for instance, notes that "the current Swedish political climate makes any formal terrorist screening agreement highly difficult" and notes that "existing informal arrangements are working well."

In other words, Mr Bildt's department (he became Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2006 after serving as Prime Minister from 1991-94 ) wished in the words of the Daily Telegraph to "avoid parliamentary scrutiny" of its discussions with the US over terrorism-related matters. The cable goes on to reveal that Sweden's continuing US visa-waiver entitlement was being officially linked to its co-operation on allowing access to information on Swedish nationals that might be of interest to American authorities in their counter-terrorism strategy, in line with Homeland Security Presidential Directive Hspd-6.

The cable reveals that the Swedish representative at an October 2008 meeting noted that it was "a particularly sensitive time politically in Sweden for issues involving government surveillance and personal privacy."

In a final, rather chilling conclusion in light of recent events, the leaked cable notes that,

In the longer term, while a changed political environment in Sweden might be more conducive to a formal agreement with the U.S., there is a very clear GOS [Government of Sweden?] belief that Sweden is not likely to be a direct target for terrorists and therefore has little to gain from an HSPD-6 agreement.

One could logically conclude from this statement, therefore, that  a terrorist attack in Sweden might help to move public and political opinion towards embracing a more formal information-sharing arrangement, which the cable reveals as being beneficial to the United States.

In conclusion, we have at this time no concrete evidence that the terror attack in Stockholm was supported or directed by the CIA. What we do have, however, is a political motive for such an event, a previous history of such events and a number of practical questions about the attack itself that warrant further investigation.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

What Next for the Student Movement?

Reproduced with permission under a creative commons licence from Our Kingdom. Written by Guy Aitchison.

The volcanic eruption of student anger and militancy in Britain over the last few months has blown the political space wide open, making a broad-based movement against austerity thinkable where previously there was only rumbling discontent. It has certainly been an exhilarating experience to be part of, but whether future historians look back on the heady period leading up to the parliamentary vote on tuition fees as the beginning of the fightback against the neoliberal juggernaut or the last desperate gasp of social democracy, will depend on the next steps the movement takes.

An extraordinary opportunity has been presented to us. Len McCluskey, general secretary of the biggest trade union, Unite, has called for an alliance between trade unions and the "magnificent students’ movement". This call, from the leader of the country’s biggest trade union, which echoes the countless personal messages of support delivered by unionists at the university occupations, is without parallel in the history of social activism in this country. 

With over seven million members, the labour movement represents by far the largest organised force in this country, and through the power of co-ordinated action, from strikes to occupations, to political mobilisation and education, is capable of putting serious pressure on the legitimacy and functioning of the state. 

The key question now is how to turn rhetorical expressions of solidarity into concrete relationships of support and co-operation, not only with trade unions, but with the full diversity of campaign groups that are springing up at a local and national level to fight the cuts. 

One important theoretical debate concerns whether the movement should strive to retain its hitherto organic and decentralised nature or whether this is merely a temporary phase before the inevitable discipline of central organisation and leadership. I hope to set out elsewhere the creative potential of networked organisation and the dangers of over-reliance on traditional hierarchies. Here I will confine myself to ten practical suggestions on the way forward. They are in no particular order of priority and come from a student perspective:

1. Convene nationwide meetings of the occupations, and then broaden these out to other groups. 

We need forums to strategise on the way ahead. Online networks have proven their efficacy, but the occupations also demonstrated the importance of a shared space and face-to-face interactions in fostering the strong bonds needed for concerted political campaigning and direct action. One of the most impressive political meetings I’ve taken part in was the Cambridge University occupation general assembly - a genuine "big society" get together of over 300 people from all backgrounds and walks of life, brought together to discuss how to oppose the cuts. There is no reason why these kinds of meetings can’t become a regular occurrence.

2. Educate each other, disseminate skills. 

The occupations served as fast-track apprenticeships in political activism. Thanks to them, hundreds of young people now have the skills and confidence to run democratic meetings, deal with the press, engage in non-violent resistance to bailiffs, and so on. We need to disseminate these skills further through workshops and informal instruction, across sectors as well as within them. At UCL occupation we were given a lesson in the community organising techniques of "power mapping" by a unionist from the TSSA. Students, in return, could offer their own knowledge and skills, such as how to organise through social media.

3. Build and strengthen links with school students. 

They have been the most radical and militant, leading from the front at the days of action. University students need to be forging links with students at local schools, giving talks to their societies, and encouraging them to get involved in activism. They are the ones who will suffer the brunt of cuts to EMA and university funding and many are keen to get involved. I expected ten pupils at a talk I gave to Camden School for Girls, with Jo Casserly, on the eve of their occupation – instead there were at least 100.

4. Keep it adventurous and creative. 

Think flashmobs, culture jamming, political art, the techniques of the Yes Men and the Situationist International. A group of Goldsmith’s graduates have formed the University for Strategic Optimism, a nomadic institution which pitches up and holds lectures in capitalist spaces such as Lloyds TSB and Tesco. As we saw in Parliament Square, even a calculated technique of state repression, such as the kettle, can be subverted and turned into a mini festival. We need more of this; anything satirical and subversive the authorities find difficult to handle.

5. Convince the wider student body. 

When you’re caught up in deliberative enclaves of the like-minded it can be easy to ignore the opinions of the wider student body. This is a mistake. Their support, even if only passive, is critical. Public talks, workshops, and informal persuasion can help bring them in. This is an attractive moment of political persuasion by example, but also argument; it needs to face outwards not be totally absorbed by itself.

6. Call for co-ordinated strike action. 

This will be a vital tool in defeating the government’s austerity programmes. Students should be making the political case for strikes in defence of jobs and the welfare state, as well as providing support for workers who withdraw their labour. At UCL occupation we organised delegations to attend the pickets of striking tube workers – this should become a regular activity.

7. Improve legal knowledge and anti-surveillance practices. 

We can expect a furious backlash from the police and the wider political and judicial establishment. The repression of student activists has already begun with police raids on suspected leaders. The Met are demanding ever more draconian powers and tools to deal with protesters, whilst Lib Dem politicians urge intrusive "intelligence" gathering operations designed to suppress legitimate dissent. We need more people trained in legal observation attending demos, and wider awareness of the techniques needed to foil police intelligence gathering, both online and off.

8. Beware sectarianism. 

As a political theory Phd student, I enjoy robust theoretical debate as much as the next activist, but one of the wonderful things about the occupations (at least the ones I witnessed) was how they prioritised practice over ideology. It would be a great shame to now descend into ideological fetishism or for different factions to move in and try and appropriate the anger and energy to grow themselves at the expense of the wider movement. This movement's openness and pluralism is a political strength; without it, it won't succeed in bringing in the larger public.

9. Become a networked participant. 

There has been something of a backlash against "clicktivism" of late (largely from those with little experience of digital activism) but it’s no coincidence that the most successful anti-cuts actions to date – the student protests and UK Uncut - are those that have harnessed the power of online networks. Join Twitter, join Flickr, work Facebook, set up a blog – and use online platforms such as False Economy to link up with other campaigners in your area and pool knowledge and resources. Start open mixed group websites for exchanging information, ideas and video reports and images. Participate in non-partisan websites such as OurKingdom or start your own.  

Ultimately, activists should consider moving their online operations from private social media conglomerates, inherently vulnerable to corporate and governmental pressure, to self-hosted, open source networks. The scandal of corporate connivance in the attack on Wikileaks and the recent "disappearance" of UK Uncut’s Facebook group underlines the urgency of such a switch.

10. Support the motion of No confidence in Aaron Porter, but don’t let it distract from the core task of building the movement. 

It would be nice to have a combative NUS President prepared to mobilise the organisation’s resources on behalf of students, but the real lesson of the last few weeks has been how ineffectual "leaders", desperate to appear responsible and safeguard their own careers, can be bypassed by taking autonomous action.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops

Dr. Arpad Pusztai was actually working on a $3 million grant from the U.K. government to figure out how to test for the safety of GMOs. And what he discovered quite accidentally is that genetically modified organisms are inherently unsafe. Within 10 days, his supposedly harmless GMO potatoes caused massive damage to rats—smaller brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, damaged immune system, etc. And what he discovered was it was the process, the generic process of genetic engineering, that was likely the cause of the problem. He went public with his concerns and was a hero.

And unfortunately, the Obama administration has not been better than the Bush administration, possibly worse.

The forced growing of GM crops in Europe as a result of political pressure by Monsanto and their allies in the US Department of Agriculture is, to me, a red line issue.

It's the sort of issue that, if they push it, we should retaliate against by  a mass boycott of all American foods.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• Leaked Reports Reveal US Threatened EU To Accept GMOs (bimchat.wordpress.com)
• Bush Admin Officials Advised Retaliation Against Europe For Rejecting GM Crops: Wikileaks (treehugger.com)
• USDA Recommends "Coexistence" with Monsanto: We Say Hell No! - Huffington Post (blog) (news.google.com)

World's Largest Wind Farm to be Built in Oregon

Image via Wikipedia

Generating a projected 845 megawatts of electricity per year, the world's largest on-land wind farm has been given permission to be built in eastern Oregon. Construction of the Shepherd’s Flat wind farm is expected to start in 2011, with $1.3 billion of US federal government money being invested into the project.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• World's Biggest Wind Farm Gets US Funding, Coming to Oregon (treehugger.com)
• World's largest wind farm gets $1.3b loan guarantee (eastoregonian.com)
• World's Largest Wind Farm Will Be Built in Oregon (inhabitat.com)

Thoughts on Britain's Proposed High Speed Rail Network

Image via Wikipedia

The Prime Minister confirmed today in Parliament that the government is committed to creating a High Speed Rail Network, connecting London with urban centres in the midlands and north of England, at an estimated cost of £30 bn.

Increasingly, the project is being framed in terms of bridging the north-south economic divide in England, by opening up business and employment opportunities to communities historically disconnected with the economic power house of London and the south east.

Although I instinctively tend to favour rail as a means of transport - especially as a more sustainable alternative to driving or flying - I do have misgivings about this particular project.

Billions of pounds of tax payers' money will be sunk into this project. Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond made this clear last month when he announced that,

“If we used financial accounting we would never have any public spending, we would build nothing and we would have no public services. We have to judge investing in projects like HS2 (High Speed 2) or schools and the health service, by the benefits they bring to society as a whole. Financial accounting would strike a dagger through the whole case for public sector investment.”

So, tax payers will be expected to subsidise this project. This at a time when public funds are being severely cut from some of the other public service that the minister cites.

The finished link is projected to enable commuters to travel between London and Leeds in one hour and twenty minutes. Which sounds wonderful, but there is a broader social development at work at the same time. Caps on the amount that recipients of housing benefit will be able to claim, for instance, will result, according to a report by the Chartered Institute of Housing, in most two-bedroom properties in the south of England becoming unaffordable to those in receipt of housing benefit by 2025. London itself, says the report, will be unaffordable within a decade. 

So, here we have the prospect of the poorest members of society - including many currently in employment - being forced out of the areas where they currently work in the southeast, into poorer areas in the north of England. If that were not bad enough, these economic migrants will then be required to pay for train tickets to the capital to continue accessing London's labour market. A peak-hours day return from London to Leeds is currently around £180. All of this will take place on rail tracks paid for by tax payers, while we cannot afford to pay for our young people to receive a university education.

There will of course be those individuals who benefit economically from the high speed rail link. But it is worth looking at the big picture first. 

Economist Kevin Carson has shown that the transport and communications infrastructure necessary to create and sustain the concept of a "national market" of goods and services in the C19 industrial revolution, was paid for primarily by the tax payer but disproportionately benefited large firms.

I have yet to see any convincing argument that would lead me to believe that this new rail infrastructure would operate along any different economic principles. 

An alternative approach would see the development of genuine local economies, as an alternative to the London-centric view of economic development underpinning the high speed rail proposals. And by local, I don't mean the Eric Pickles variety. 

 


 
 







If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• High speed rail - do we need it? (telegraph.co.uk)
• Network director says high- speed link is off the rails (walesonline.co.uk)
• Labour questions economic case for high-speed rail link (guardian.co.uk)
• Post Comment: Making the case for high speed rail (birminghampost.net)

Why Does the Media Ignore Persecuted Christians?

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Three Eye-Witnesses from the London Student Demo

A photo from an unknown source (above).






An audio file from Hannah Nicklin







And a brilliant piece of eye-witness reporting from Ian Dunt.

More useful than a photo of a Royal car covered in white paint, in my opinion.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Web Attacks and Student Protests: What's the Link?

Politics is getting really interesting again in Britain.

Street politics, I mean, rather than the managed politics of official parties and the Westminster Village.

When was the last time we saw the two top stories on the mainstream news programmes covering direct political action by ordinary citizens? The student demos and the web attacks against Visa, Mastercard and PayPal even managed to take priority over snow stories today!

It's been common in recent years to hear of decline in popular political activity - but this has tended to be measured primarily in terms of turnouts at elections and in membership of political parties.

Today's events reveal that a spirit of largely peaceful protest has started to galvanise sections of the population both in Britain and elsewhere.

Is there any connection between the apparently disparate actions of students and other protesters in central London and those hacking and coordinating DOS attacks on sites that have withdrawn their support for Wikipedia?

The theme that runs through both actions seems to be an anger against perceived economic and political elites who, in both cases, are being held responsible for presiding over a number of inter-related and unwelcome developments in Britain and America:

• the increased concentration of economic power in the hands of smaller numbers, and the corresponding increase in economic inequality
• the use of public money to subsidise the failures of banks
  
• aggressive overseas militaristic ventures
• restrictions on freedom of speech, particularly attempts to attack Wikileaks

All in all, interesting times.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Churches have Key Role in Combatting Corruption

On Global Anti-Corruption Day, Christian organisation Micah Challenge has published a report highlighting the widespread existence of corruption, its effect on maintaining extreme poverty, and its presence among western governments and businesses, not only among elites in donor-recipient societies.

Joel Edwards, the international director of Micah Challenge, commented: “Corruption is a like a tower block on a runway. It accounts for over a trillion dollars going missing, and is a massive barricade to the well being of the poorest people in the world." Edwards goes on to say that corruption is "difficult to define, complex in its treatment and entrenched in business and political systems. Simply put, corruption kills people.”

Micah urges Christians, churches and faith-based organisations to take a lead in identifying, reporting and resisting corruption at both individual, corporate, governmental and global levels.

Former Director of the UN Millennium Campaign, Salil Shetty, says in the foreword to the report: “The people in the front-end of the evangelical churches know that if public resources are managed in a transparent and accountable manner, there is nothing stopping the world from achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.”

Good Governance promo from Micah Challenge International on Vimeo.

An in-depth report in 2000 by The Corner House into the problem of global corruption and its contribution to the maintenance of extreme poverty identified a number of aspects of the problem that are often overlooked:

• "Growing corruption throughout the world is largely the result of the rapid privatisation of public enterprises" due to the injection of profit-based motives for the delivery of public services and corresponding weak regulatory frameworks.
• Bribes payed by western businesses to influence contracts are conservatively estimated to amount to $80 Billion per year, which is about twice the amount cited by the UN as needed to eradicate global poverty.
• The US State Department estimated in 1999 that 294 American companies paid $148bn in bribes to win contracts.
• Britain is cited as having a particular problem with corruption, fueled in large measure by large public sector contracts and partnerships. Compulsory contracting out of public services and the Private Finance Initiative brought in while John Major was Prime Minister and expanded under the Labour government, are cited as particular factors in sustaining this problem. Construction fraud alone has been put at an estimated £539 million per year. Weapons deals are also routinely subject to "commissions" to individuals representing the recipient country. The abandonment of a criminal investigation into the al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, in the dying months of the Blair government, are just one example of this high level corruption.
• Private confidential banking - often used by global elites to hide ill-gotten funds - is believed to be worth as much as $17 trillion worldwide, and has been experiencing "phenomenal growth" in recent decades.
  

Following years of sustained pressure, The World Bank in 1998 established its own Sanctions Committee to investigate allegations of corruption by companies contracted by the World Bank.

The Bank’s current list of ineligible firms and individuals contains around thirty British companies that have been ‘debarred’ due to corrupt activities. The countries with the most banned companies are the UK and Indonesia.

These British-registered companies include Chase Berkeley Cavendish Ltd, Case Technology Ltd, Agricultural Development Services Ltd, Consultants for International Development PLC, Cybertek International Ltd, Drill Technologies and Co, Economic Consulting Group, Engineering Projects International, International Development Projects Services, and West End Associates.

"The people in the front-end of the evangelical churches know that if public resources are managed in a transparent and accountable manner, there is nothing stopping the world from achieving the MDGs by 2015. Some of the poorest countries in the world, like Rwanda, are well on their way to achieving specific MDGs simply because the leadership at the highest level has prioritized the fight against mismanagement of public funds and shown their zero tolerance to corruption by personal example." Salil Shetty

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• World Bank graft chief calls for more action (reuters.com)
• Transparency International Poll: The World Is Getting More Corrupt (themoderatevoice.com)
• World 'is becoming more corrupt' (bbc.co.uk)

Open Letter to Australian Prime Minister

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• Open letter calls for Gillard to defend Assange - ABC Online (news.google.com)
• Chomsky signs Australian letter of support for Assange (thehimalayantimes.com)

US Adminstration Manipulated Copenhagen Climate Change Accord - Wikileaks

Image via Wikipedia

"Secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have revealed new details about how the United States manipulated last year’s climate talks in Copenhagen. The cables show how the United States sought dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming, how financial and other aid was used by countries to gain political backing, and how the United States mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the Copenhagen Accord."

Source and related video.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• "Report: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord" and related posts (hyscience.com)
• WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord (guardian.co.uk)
• An Inconvenient Wikileak (wtpotus.wordpress.com)

Obama administration moves to restore protection of American coasts from dangers of offshore drilling - Defenders of Wildlife

Image via Wikipedia

News that the American President has issued an executive order prohibiting further deep-water oil exploration or development off its Pacific, Atlantic or eastern Gulf of Mexico coasts is a significant and welcome move.

Lessons learned from the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster earlier this year appear to have been learned.

The Obama administration are allowing themselves some wriggle room, however, with plans for oil exploration in the Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, the order is not retrospective. Existing oil platforms will continue to operate in this high-risk open seas.

White House Policy Advisor Richard Charter, announcing the decision, has said that the ban would not apply to the Arctic, yet:

“We are confident that further scientific studies of the impacts of drilling in the Arctic will show that the drilling ban should be extended to this region as well.”

If so, this represents a very positive development from the federal government.

Now, we just need to see that green energy infrastructure and the promised high-speed train networks linking major urban areas in America, announced in the first hundred days of President Obama's term of office.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• In Big Reversal, Obama Takes (Some) Offshore Drilling Off the Table (environment.change.org)
• Obama: No Offshore Drilling in East Coast Waters (abcnews.go.com)
• Environment America Applauds Department of Interior Announcement Protecting Coasts from Expanded Offshore Drilling (yubanet.com)

The War Your Don't See

The War You Don't See trailer from John Pilger on Vimeo.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Fifa and the World Cup Bid: a Proposal

Image by blogcpolitic via Flickr

As an Englishman and a football fan, I find myself not terribly disappointed that we lost the bid for the 2018 world cup. I know that millions are.

For me, I long ago lost confidence in Fifa, which I see as a corrupt and unaccountable organisation, wedded to global capitalism and rife with cronyism. I find Sepp Blatter an unpleasant man with dictatorial tendencies and, frankly, I think the game of football is better served the less he is involved with it. A Fifa tournament taking place in the mafia state of Russia seems tragically appropriate.

Nonetheless, I do see an alternative.

We're not terribly good at this sort of thing in England, with our strong instincts to appear as the nice guys, but would the interests of the game be served if we withdrew from Fifa and put on our own world tournament - at a time and place of our choosing?

Mr Blatter would rant and rage and threaten unimaginable consequences over such a move but, in reality, would be powerless to stop it. This is the man who this week described Britain's free media as "evil" following the Panorama broadcast alleging corruption within Fifa.

There is a difference between football the sport and Fifa the organisation. They can be separated. Those of us who enjoy the game do not belong to Fifa. Sepp Blater has no authority over us. He doesn't own the sport - just the contracts with Emirates, Visa and Coca Cola.

We're free to do what we like with the beautiful game. The men in suits can get stuffed.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• World Cup 2018: Fifa president Sepp Blatter praises England's 'excellent and remarkable' bid (telegraph.co.uk)
• England lose with two votes (skysports.com)
• World Cup 2018: Fifa sticks together and damns the British media (guardian.co.uk)

Why Wikileaks is Good for Democracy

Image via Wikipedia

Information is the currency of democracy.
-Thomas Jefferson

Since 9/11, the US government, through Presidents Bush and Obama, has increasingly told the US public that "state secrets" will not be shared with citizens. Candidate Obama pledged to reduce the use of state secrets, but President Obama continued the Bush tradition. The courts, Congress and international allies have gone meekly along with the escalating secrecy demands of the US Executive.

By labeling tens of millions of documents secret, the US government has created a huge vacuum of information.

But information is the lifeblood of democracy. Information about government contributes to a healthy democracy. Transparency and accountability are essential elements of good government. Likewise, "a lack of government transparency and accountability undermines democracy and gives rise to cynicism and mistrust," according to a 2008 Harris survey commissioned by the Association of Government Accountants.

Into the secrecy vacuum stepped Private Bradley Manning, who, according to the Associated Press, was able to defeat "Pentagon security systems using little more than a Lady Gaga CD and a portable computer memory stick."

Manning apparently sent the information to Wikileaks - a nonprofit media organization that specializes in publishing leaked information. Wikileaks in turn shared the documents to other media around the world, including The New York Times, and published much of the documents' contents on its website.

Despite criminal investigations by the U.S. and other governments, it is not clear that media organizations like Wikileaks can be prosecuted in the U.S., in light of the First Amendment. Recall that the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Outraged politicians are claiming that the release of government information is the criminal equivalent of terrorism and puts innocent people's lives at risk. Many of those same politicians authorized the modern equivalent of carpet bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, the sacrifice of thousands of lives of soldiers and civilians and drone assaults on civilian areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Their anger at a document dump, no matter how extensive, is more than a little suspect.

Everyone, including Wikileaks and the other media reporting on what the documents reveal, hopes that no lives will be lost because of this flood of information. So far, it appears those hopes have been met: McClatchy Newspapers reported November 28, 2010, that "US officials conceded that they have no evidence to date that the [prior] release of documents led to anyone's death."

The U.S. has been going in the wrong direction for years by classifying millions of documents as secrets. Wikileaks and other media that report these so-called secrets will embarrass people, yes. Wikileaks and other media will make leaders uncomfortable, yes. But embarrassment and discomfort are small prices to pay for a healthier democracy.

Wikileaks has the potential to make transparency and accountability more robust in the U.S. That is good for democracy.

Written by Bill Quigley and re-produced under a Creative Commons Licence from Truth Out

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.