Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 12.14.05

[David Shove (shove001]

          P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R      12.14.05

1. Legislative issues 12.14 7:45am
2. NV peaceforce      12.14 8am
3. Historic StPaul    12.14 12noon
4. Moral/med/Katrina  12.14 12:15pm
5. Vigil/moral budget 12.14 6pm
6. No stadium         12.14 7pm
7. Anti-torture       12.14 7pm
8. AI StPaul          12.14 7:30pm
9. Duck & cover/film  12.14 9pm

10. John Ryan       - Madeleine Albright and US foreign policy
11. Brendan O'Neill - Why NATO bombed Serb TV
12. Benjamin Dangl  - Bolivian election/Latin America further to left

--------1 of 12--------

From: Darrell Gerber <darrellgerber [at] earthlink.net>
From: Minnesota Environmental Initiative [mailto:blue [at] mn-ei.org]
Subject: Legislative issues 12.14 7:45am

ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES FORUM   
7:45am-12noon Science Museum of Minnesota Saint Paul  

At MEI's upcoming Annual Legislative Issues forum, legislators and
policymakers will gather with a diverse audience of business, government
and nonprofit stakeholders for a discussion of the major environmental
issues under consideration in the upcoming legislative session. The
dialogue among presenters and attendees is designed to lead to creative
and collaborative solutions to Minnesota's most pressing environmental
challenges. Confirmed participants include:

Senator Steve Dille
Representative Rick Hansen
Representative Melissa Hortman
Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson
Representative Dennis Ozment
Senator Dallas Sams
Representative Kathy Tingelstad

Legislators and participants will discuss issues such as the future of
environmental funding, bonding, electronic waste, impaired waters,
mercury, the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources and how next
year's election results might affect environmental issues in Minnesota.
The forum will be an opportunity to pose questions to Minnesota's
legislative leaders. MEI has applied for Continuing Legal Education credit
for this event.
 
For an UPDATED AGENDA and REGISTRATION information >
http://www.mn-ei.org/policy/events.html


--------2 of 12--------

From: Sue Ann <mart1408 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: NV peaceforce 12.14 8am

Dec 14, 8 am to 9:30 "Hope in Cynical Times", with Rajiv Vora, Asia
Regional Coordinator of the Nonviolent Peaceforce.

Sponsored by People of Faith Peacemakers, meeting for light breakfast at
St. Martins Table, 2001 Riverside, Mpls West Bank.

Rajiv Vora is a preeminent interpreter of Gandhi's works.  He lives in
India and is on a national tour for the Nonviolent Peaceforce.  He and his
wife founded Swarajpeeth, a nonviolence research and training organization
based in Delhi, India, through which they support Tibetan and Burmese
refugees in their nonviolent struggles for justice.

Mr. Vora has worked with Muslim leaders to develop nonviolence training
for a Peace Army in the Indian Muslim community.

Nonviolent Peaceforce is a federation of over 90 Member Organizations from
around the world. In partnership with local groups, unarmed Nonviolent
Peaceforce Field Team members apply proven strategies to protect human
rights, deter violence, and help create space for local peacemakers to
carry out their work. The mission of the Nonviolent Peaceforce is to build
a trained, unarmed, international civilian peaceforce committed to
third-party nonviolent intervention.

www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org 612-871-0005
Sue Ann Martinson Nonviolent Peaceforce, 425 Oak Grove, Minneapolis MN
55403 Phone:  612-871-0005, Fax:  612-871-0006


--------3 of 12---------

From: Carol Carey <cmcarey [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Historic StPaul 12.14 12noon

HISTORIC SAINT PAUL presents
PRESERVATION TALKS  the Brown Bag Discussion Series
Wednesday December 14th at Landmark Center - 12N -1PM - Room 317.

Preserving Saint Paul's Cultural Heritage - We'll hear from a panel of
guests working on a variety of projects to preserve and share Saint Paul¹s
cultural heritage. Guests include:

 Lisa Tabor, CultureBrokers - African American Heritage Corridor Project
in Saint Paul.
 Anne Ketz, The 106 Group - St. Paul's Hidden Past: Oral Traditions and
Archaeological Resources.
 Charles Lenz, Minnesota Historical Society ­ Minnesota Tibetan Oral
History Project
 Brad Toll, Saint Paul Rivercenter Convention and Visitor Authority ­
Collaboration between cultural heritage resources and tourism, and current
activities of the Saint Paul Cultural Heritage Tourism Task Force.

The discussion will go beyond the importance of protecting historic
structures to building awareness of the cultural resources that define and
enrich our communities. This session will again be an excellent
opportunity for all interested in heritage preservation issues to network
and discuss current hot topics.

We hope to see you there...and by all means bring a lunch!


--------4 of 12--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: Moral/med/Katrina 12.14 12:15pm

Moral & Medical Reflections on Katrina
Program in Human Rights and Medicine Lecture:

Jim Hart, MD
Wednesday, December 14
12:15pm (pizza provided ca. 12:05 p.m.)
2-530 Moos Tower, University of Minnesota

The recent hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in an historically
unprecedented displacement of both population and medical capacity in the
US, While prior systems and initial governmental responses at all levels
were inadequate to the task, private-public support and NGO follow-up
contributed to a focused, organized effort that ameliorated the acute
situation.

One of the most integrated outside medical relief missions to Louisiana
was from Minnesota, organized through the Emergency Medical Reserve Corps
with the institutional support of the Mayo Clinic and University of
Minnesota.

This was a significant contribution. Yet systemic needs and displacements
require long-term solutions, or an acute crisis will wane only to be
abandoned to chronic insufficiencies. This raises a number of unsettling
questions concerning short-term commitments and efficacy in disaster
relief by outside medical and public health practitioners:

*   How do medical and moral dimensions meet in disaster care?
*   What is the relationship between short-term intervention and long term
    commitments?
*   Does disaster care present an opportunity for creative, positive
    transformation, both personal and systemic?

Jim Hart, MD, Associate Director of Public Health Medicine in the School
of Public Health and member of the University's Emergency Medical Reserve
Corps mission to Louisiana, will present his observations on these issues
from an on-the- ground perspective and invite your discussion.

Moos Tower is located on the East Bank Campus with an entrance on the
south side of Washington Avenue between Harvard Street SE and Church
Street SE with parking across the street in the Washington Avenue Ramp.


--------5 of 12--------

From: "newtbuster [at] prodigy.net" <newtbuster [at] prodigy.net>
Subject: Vigil/moral budget 12.14 6pm

  Vigil for a Moral Budget
  Wednesday December 14th
  Outside the office of Representative John Kline
  6:00 PM
  101 West Burnsville Parkway Suite 201
  Burnsville, MN
  From Sojourners:

There are moments in every generation when a society must decide on its
real moral principles. This is one of those points in history: When our
legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets
of justice and tell the truth.

Later this month, Congress will decide whether to pass a morally bankrupt
budget that cuts food assistance, health care, and other services to
families already struggling to make ends meet. Then Congress will decide
whether to give a Christmas bonus of tax breaks to the wealthiest
Americans (bah, humbug). Now is the moment when we as people of faith and
conscience must stand together for what is right.

Bring a candle & something to read - a reading, a poem, a prayer, etc -
if you like. Post meeting gathering at Benchwarmer Bob's (1 block away.)

National Sponsor : Sojourners @ http://www.sojo.net

Local Sponsors: Open Circle Church, Church of the Nativity, mnpACT!, Open
Circle Youth


--------6 of 12--------

From: Ron Holch <rrholch [at] attg.net>
Subject: No stadium 12.14 7pm

Taxpayers Against an Anoka County Vikings Stadium
Wednesday December 14, at 7pm

Centennial High School
Red Building - Room 104
4704 North Road
Circle Pines, MN

The red building is on the east end of the high school complex, and is set
back furthest from North Road.  The largest parking lots are near this
building.

No matter where you live in Minnesota, If you haven't already done so
please write your representatives and tell them we do not need to waste
more money on a special session to decide on stadium giveaways to
Billionaires.  Please continue to tell them we want a vote as required by
state law for any tax increase to pay for a stadium.  Write your local
paper too.

AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDE:
Fund Raising Ideas
Survey of Legislators
City resolutions to support Referendums updates
Website
Petition Promotion
No Stadium Tax Coalition Update

Any Questions, comments contact me at: Ron Holch rrholch [at] attg.net
<mailto:rrholch [at] attg.net>


--------7 of 12--------

From: Dave Bicking  <dave [at] colorstudy.com>
Subject: Anti-torture 12.14  7pm

This Wednesday 12/14, and every Wednesday, meeting of the anti- torture
group, T3: Tackling Torture at the Top (a sub-group of WAMM).  We have
changed our meeting time to the evening in order to accomodate the
schedules of our growing membership.

This week, and for the next few weeks until we find a suitable public
space, we will be meeting at 7pm in the home of Dave Bicking, 3211 22nd
Ave. S., Mpls (lower duplex).  (2 blocks south of Lake St, just west of
the LRT stop)  Anyone interested in stopping torture is welcome.

We have also added a new feature, starting this week:  we will have an
"educate ourselves" session before each meeting, starting at 6:30, for
anyone who is interested in learning more about the issues we are working
on.  We will share info and stay current about torture in the news.


--------8 of 12---------

From: Gabe Ormsby <gabeo [at] bitstream.net>
Subject: AI StPaul 12.14 7:30pm

AIUSA Group 640 (Saint Paul) meets Wednesday, December 14th, at 7:30
p.m. Mad Hatter Teahouse, 943 West 7th Street, Saint Paul.
http://www.aistpaul.org


-------9 of 12---------

From: Adam Sekuler <adam [at] mnfilmarts.org>
Subject: Duck & cover/film 12.14 9pm

PRESENTS
Search and Rescue
Lessons from the Playground
December 14 @ 9pm
Bryant Lake Bowl

A monthly collection of discarded ephemera from the University of
Minnesota Film Archive Search In Rescue in December re-discovers the
lessons from the playground.

The City that Waits To Die
Tuck, duck, and cover! Historic footage of the earthquake of 1906 and also
of Alaskan and Nagata quakes.
Laboratory experiments and animations show earthquake processes.

A Surprise For Jean
Jean's mother plans a surprise party for Jean on her sixth birthday.
While Jean and Frank are on an errand, Jean's friends come, hide and
surprise her when she gets back.

Let's Have A Parade
A how to for a kids parade... nothing short of brilliant!

Crusade For Freedom
Need we say more?

Resolving Disputes
50's playground film that we could all use a refresher on.

And of course the drinks....


---------10 of 12--------

An Honorary Degree in Child Sacrifice?
Madeleine Albright and US Foreign Policy
By JOHN RYAN
CounterPunch - Dec 10/11, 2005
http://www.counterpunch.org/ryan12102005.html

After all these years one would hope that Madeleine Albright, that baleful
specter who haunted us almost as destructively as the current crop of
malevolent functionaries, would have the decency to disappear, but no such
luck. She continues to get a series of honorary degrees and no one has
taken the time to put an effective spoke into her wretched wheel of
legacy. Her latest coup is to get an honorary degree in Canada this past
October from the University of Winnipeg.

When assessing a candidate for an honorary degree, a university would
supposedly select a distinguished individual who would be worthy of the
institution's highest honour and who would provide an inspirational
address to the graduands. Such a person must have a truly exemplary record
in all respects. It should not be someone whose laudatory achievements are
more than counterbalanced by the person's policies and actions, or support
for policies and actions, which have led to catastrophic consequences,
deserving of the most severe condemnation.

Madeleine Albright, in the course of her career as US Ambassador to the
United Nations and later as US Secretary of State, initiated or supported
policies on a number of matters that negatively altered the course of
history which in turn led to the deaths of massive numbers of people. With
such a record, how could this person be worthy of an honorary degree by a
Canadian university? What could such a person say to the graduands about
"humanitarian concerns" that wouldn't ooze of sheer hypocrisy? Considering
possible worthy Canadian candidates such as Stephen Lewis, General Romeo
Dallaire, or Mel Hurtig or many others, why was this notorious American
warhorse selected for honours by the University of Winnipeg?

It appears that during the University's vetting process, no one questioned
anything beyond Madeleine Albright's official paper credentials. As such
the dark side of her political career was never made known. An examination
of Albright's career is instructive since it reveals significant features
of American foreign policy which are not widely known, even by people on
the left. Albright played a particularly unsavory role in Rwanda, Iraq,
Yugoslavia, and East Timor. Disturbingly, few people realize that
Clinton's policies resulted in a far greater number of deaths in Iraq than
have occurred during the current Bush administration's assault on that
country. Even more disturbing is that Clinton's so-called "humanitarian
bombing" of Yugoslavia was supported by a large sector of people on the
left ­ who were totally misled largely by clever American propaganda.
Interestingly, an examination of Albright's career brings all this to
light.

Let us begin with the Rwanda genocide in 1994. A report released in 2000
by an international panel that had been commissioned by the Organization
of African Unity charged that the USA, France, and Belgium knew what was
happening but actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the
mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. Even the Catholic and
Anglican churches did nothing to discourage the killings. The full report,
Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide is on the web at
http://www.visiontv.ca/RememberRwanda/Report.pdf . The report challenges
President Clinton's claim that the USA's failure to act was due to
ignorance of the extent of the atrocities unfolding in Rwanda.

Pointedly the report states: "The Americans, led by US Ambassador
Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious
action by the UN. . . . and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright
advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly
refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined
genocide was in fact taking place" (Sections 10.11 and 10.16
http://www.africaaction.org/docs00/rwan0007.htm ). This action by itself
should have disqualified her for being considered for an honorary degree.

A further ignoble performance by Madeleine Albright deals with the issue
of sanctions on Iraq. Although she didn't initiate the sanctions, as US
Ambassador to the UN and later as Secretary of State, a good deal of her
career, in both capacities, was linked to maintaining the sanctions. The
unrelenting mean-minded toughness of her resolve was revealed in an
interview on 60 Minutes, on May 11, 1996. The interviewer Lesley Stahl
asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result
of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in
Hiroshima . . . Is the price worth it?" Albright's response: "I think that
is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

The draconian sanctions lasted some 13 years and were in their way as
devastating to Iraq as the current Bush administration's war on that
country. The full impact of the sanctions on Iraq is hard to determine but
UN and other reports indicate that within only the first eight years the
sanctions resulted in the death of about two million Iraqis, including the
death of perhaps a million children. In terms of lives lost, this
ill-advised policy, headed and largely enforced by the USA, was far more
devastating to Iraq than President Bush's invasion and occupation of that
country.

Through the years Madeleine Albright's response to critics of the
sanctions was that there had been no embargo on food or medicine and that
it was Saddam Hussein's misuse of resources that caused suffering for
Iraq's people. Her argument was disingenuous and essentially false.
Members of the sanctions committee, primarily those from Britain and the
USA, could veto or deny any shipment to Iraq if there was the slightest
suspicion that an item could have a "dual use" and be converted to a
warfare agent. On this basis, anti-cancer drugs, most basic medicines and
critical vaccines for children, stethoscopes and X-ray equipment,
scanners, all equipment and expertise to clean up depleted uranium
battlefields, chlorine for water purification, and even sanitary napkins
and pencils were banned or lost in a cynical delaying process.

The fact that almost all water treatment facilities and dams were
deliberately destroyed during the Gulf War bombing campaign, combined with
the subsequent ban on chlorine and water and sewage treatment equipment
and supplies, meant that there would be an explosion of infectious
water-borne diseases. Moreover, all of Iraq's vaccine facilities were
destroyed and until 2001 most vaccines for common infectious diseases were
blocked because of possible "dual use." To deliberately create conditions
for disease and then to withhold the treatment is little different morally
from actually engaging in outright biological warfare. Despite all this,
Madeleine Albright remained unmoved in her resolve to maintain the
sanctions.

Some of the best documented evidence of the effects of the sanctions
program was brought forward by a number of the highest ranking UN
officials who had been stationed in Iraq. In August 1998 Scott Ritter,
UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector, resigned from his position in protest of
US foreign policy in Iraq. In a subsequent book, Endgame, he discussed the
folly and immorality of the sanctions against Iraq. Denis Halliday, UN
Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Aid Co-ordinator in Iraq,
after 31 years of service with the UN, resigned in protest of the
sanctions in September 1998. His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, a 36-year
veteran of the UN, resigned for the same reason in February 2000, along
with Dr. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq.

In his resignation speech, Denis Halliday stated: "We are in the process
of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that.
It is illegal and immoral." He elaborated in a lengthy interview on April
17, 1999:

I consider sanctions have become in effect a form of warfare, a form of
warfare that is incompatible with the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on
targeting civilians. Sanctions do nothing but target civilians. . . . to
describe the death of 1, possibly 1.5 million people, to describe the
death of thousands of kids each month, to describe the death of almost
600,000 children since 1990 ­ what else is that but genocide? And it's not
a passive thing, it's not neglect, it's an act of decision making process
of the member states of the Security Council. They know what they're
doing. And Madeleine Albright has been on CBS Television's 60 Minutes
programme (May 11, 1996) and has justified, in a sense, the killing of
500,000 children. She claims that it's necessary, justified, to contain
Saddam Hussein, the same Saddam Hussein who was an ally of the USA and the
UK and others, who was bankrolled and provided military capacity by these
countries, who was provided the 'Seed Stock' for biological weapons,
provided by a company in Maryland and approved by the Pentagon and, I
think, by the Treasury Department. This is the same Saddam Hussein, and
now they can't talk to him. They are going to punish the Iraqi people
because they can't deal with this man. I mean, this is all to me
unjustified and unacceptable.

On February 13, 2000 Hans von Sponeck, as Humanitarian Aid Co-ordinator
for Iraq, stated: "As a UN official, I should not be expected to be silent
to that which I recognize as a true human tragedy that needs to be ended.
How long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all
of this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never
done?" Two days later he resigned in protest. In a subsequent interview,
he pointed out that although the sanctions were imposed by the UN Security
Council, of the total humanitarian supplies that had been blocked, 98
percent of them had been blocked by the USA.

If the sanctions were meant to somehow remove Saddam Hussein from power,
they actually had the effect of strengthening his position. Because of the
sanctions the bulk of the Iraqi population became totally dependent on
rations provided by the Hussein government and they were so demoralized
and weakened that there was no possibility of any revolt against the
regime. In response to Hussein's American-supported disastrous war in
Iran, followed by the debacle of the Kuwait invasion, a strong grassroots
opposition had emerged amongst the general Iraqi population. However,
because of the sanctions, the people were powerless to act. Without the
sanctions, the Iraqis may have deposed the Hussein regime, on their own,
in exactly the way the people of the Philippines removed Marcos in 1986
and the way the Indonesians deposed Suharto in 1998 ­ despite US support
for both dictators almost to the very end. So much for Madeleine
Albright's reputed strategic advice to President Clinton.

In Madeleine Albright's 2003 memoirs, Madam Secretary, she regrets the
response she made in the 1996 60 Minutes interview. She says, ". . . I
should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the
inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have
prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations" (p.
275). She then trots out the same tired flawed arguments she used
throughout the years for maintaining the sanctions. It's as if by
"reframing" the question, she could have brought back to life the 500,000
children and thereby exonerated her policies. And furthermore, to have
waited seven years before her "apology," does it not indicate that perhaps
her initial answer was sincere and that her belated apology was issued
with her legacy in mind?

A further instance of her unsuitability for being awarded an honorary
degree is the role she played in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the
bombing of that country in 1999.

Although Slovenia and Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia reasonably
peacefully, by March of 1992 it became evident that the secession of
Bosnia would lead directly to war. Under pressure from the international
diplomatic corps, the leaders of the Muslims, Serbs, and Croats met in
Lisbon on March 18, 1992 and signed a compromise agreement, which would
result in the cantonization of Bosnia on ethnic lines based on the Swiss
model. As James Bissett, the Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia at the
time, recounts (in a Winnipeg interview with Professor Paul Phillips on
May 29, 1999), "the entire diplomatic corps was very happy that the civil
war had been avoided ­ except the Americans. The American Ambassador,
William Zimmerman, immediately took off for Sarajevo to convince
Izetbegovic [the Bosnian Muslim leader] not to sign the agreement so that
with the support of the US he could become the first head of a European
Islamic state." By this action, the US effectively skewered the peace
deal. Izetbegovic complied, withdrew his signature from the agreement,
declared unilateral independence, and ignited the Bosnian civil war. The
vicious 3-year war ended with the Dayton Accords in November of 1995 on
conditions much worse for all Bosnian ethnic groups, politically and
economically, than those agreed to at Lisbon. This terrible and tragic war
that was almost avoided killed and wounded thousands of people, caused
billions of dollars of damage, destroyed the infrastructure of the
country, and left people bitterly divided for the foreseeable future. The
historical record places the responsibility squarely on the USA, but
through American control of propaganda, the blame was somehow placed on
the Serbs and on Milosevic.

So far it is not known on whose instructions Ambassador Zimmerman took the
fateful action which brought about the civil war. In 1992 Madeleine
Albright had been President of the Center for National Policy, but because
Clinton had always considered her to be an expert on the Balkans, he may
have sought her advice. However, from 1993 she had direct decisive
influence on the USA's Balkan policies. Colin Powell reports in his book,
My American Journey (p.576) that because there was no clear political
objective, he resisted her pressure on him to commit US military forces to
Bosnia. He cites her as saying to him: "What's the point of having this
superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" His
comment on this: "I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GI's were
not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board."

As for the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, this was clearly the result of
Madeleine Albright's initiative. She managed to convince President
Clinton, against the better judgment of the Pentagon, that a "little
bombing" of Yugoslavia would force Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet
"peace accord," which would allow NATO forces to occupy the entire
country, including Kosovo. This critical feature of the document was never
publicized in the West's mainstream media and this contributed to the
demonization of the Serbs. No country in the world would willingly agree
to be militarily occupied by foreign forces, let alone Yugoslavia with its
still vivid memories of Nazi occupation. The Rambouillet accord served as
an ultimatum for the country to surrender its sovereignty or be bombed
into submission. The Yugoslav government refused to sign ­ and the result
was a merciless 78-day bombing campaign which killed and injured thousands
of people and completely destroyed the country's entire social and
economic infrastructure. Yugoslavia's resolve forced NATO to drop its
Rambouillet objective, and it was only with Russia's diplomatic efforts
that a form of peace emerged and the bombing stopped.

The war on Yugoslavia was bizarre in a number of wide-ranging respects.
The bombing was carried out without the approval of the UN Security
Council, it was in violation of the UN Charter, it was in violation of the
US Constitution, it was in violation of almost every treaty signed by
Yugoslavia with European countries since World War I, and it was in
violation of the NATO Treaty itself, which requires NATO to settle
international disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of
force "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations." Not only was the launching of the aerial war on Yugoslavia
illegal, much of its actual conduct was equally illegal and in violation
of Geneva Conventions. The bombing of civilian infrastructure is a
violation of international law under various statutes.

To put this in a more stark perspective, Walter J. Rockler, in light of
his experience as a former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunal, had this to say to the American public (Chicago Tribune, May 23,
1999):

    The bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the
United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on
Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the
Nazis attacked Poland to prevent 'Polish atrocities' against Germans. The
United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and
decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok.
    The illegality of the aerial war on Yugoslavia, along with the way in
which it was conducted, is a matter of solid documented fact. Yugoslavia's
refusal to sign the American-drafted scandalous Rambouillet ultimatum was
the technical pretext for the bombing, but to get around the awkward fact
of the war's illegality and to get the general public on side, clever
propaganda portrayed the war as "humanitarian intervention." Much of this
was enabled by shrill reports that Slobobdan Milosevic's military were
conducting a campaign of genocide and that at least 100,000
Kosovo-Albanians had been exterminated and buried in mass graves in
Kosovo. This deliberate propaganda was so convincing that even
progressive-minded people and journals supported this "just war" against
the demonic Serbs.

Further analysis and documentation relating to the complex Yugoslavia
issue is precluded by space constraints. However, a reasonable summary is
provided by Canada's General Lewis Mackenzie in his article "We bombed the
wrong side?" (National Post, April 6, 2004):

    Those of us who warned that the West was being sucked in on the side
of an extremist, militant, Kosovo-Albanian independence movement were
dismissed as appeasers. The fact that the lead organization spearheading
the fight for independence, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was
universally designated a terrorist organization and known to be receiving
support from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was conveniently ignored. . . .

    Since the NATO/UN intervention in 1999, Kosovo has become the crime
capital of Europe. The sex slave trade is flourishing. The province has
become an invaluable transit point for drugs en route to Europe and North
America. Ironically, the majority of the drugs come from another state
"liberated" by the West, Afghanistan. Members of the demobilized, but not
eliminated, KLA are intimately involved in organized crime and the
government. . .

    The objective of the Albanians is to purge all non-Albanians,
including the international community's representatives, from Kosovo and
ultimately link up with mother Albania thereby achieving the goal of
"Greater Albania." The campaign started with their attacks on Serbian
security forces in the early 1990s and they were successful in turning
Milosevic's heavy-handed response into worldwide sympathy for their cause.
There was no genocide as claimed by the West -- the 100,000 allegedly
buried in mass graves turned out to be around 2,000, of all ethnic
origins, including those killed in combat during the war itself. . . .

    The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have
subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an
ethnically pure and independent Kosovo. We have never blamed them for
being the perpetrators of the violence in the early '90s and we continue
to portray them as the designated victim today in spite of evidence to the
contrary.

For people who really want to know what happened in Yugoslavia, there is
ample evidence to show that the pretext to bomb that country had been
fabricated in the same way as the weapons of mass destruction pretext was
fabricated for Iraq. Since Madeleine Albright engineered the bombing of
Yugoslavia, she continues to support the decision in exactly the way she
continues to support the sanctions on Iraq. The festering issue of Kosovo
is far from resolution and the undying irredentist Albanian dream of
creating a "Greater Albania" may yet plunge this area into a series of
Lebensraum wars with neighbouring states.  The reality of the frightening
ugliness in Kosovo hasn't registered on Madeleine Albright because this
past summer, while there, she declared, "I love the people of Kosovo!"

Finally there is Albright's role in the East Timor tragedy. Using almost
similar tactics the CIA launched coups in Iraq and Indonesia in the 1960's
and installed Saddam Hussein and General Suharto as pliant dictators. It
was done for identical reasons ­ to have these two murderous thugs kill
off the large emerging communist movements in both countries. Both
protégés excelled in their missions ­ the CIA later reported that Suharto
had carried out one of the great mass murders of the 20th century. In both
instances, the annihilation of the left was greeted with enthusiasm in the
West. With the USA's blessings, Suharto's military invaded East Timor in
December of 1975, and for the next 25 years subjected the Timorese to some
of the worst atrocities of the modern era. During this time, the USA
effectively blocked the United Nations from intervening, and allowed the
worst massacre relative to population since the Holocaust. When the
Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in August of 1999, it was
American foot-dragging that prevented the UN from sending armed
peacekeepers to prevent the Indonesian military from conducting vicious
reprisals. While Madeleine Albright was publicly shedding crocodile tears
about the ensuing massacre and destruction of the little country, she
cold-bloodedly carried out delaying tactics at the UN.

Although Madeleine Albright was a highly influential member of the Clinton
administration, it was of course the Clinton government that was
responsible for these various regressive and reactionary policies.
Nevertheless, she relished her position and was actually the architect of
many of the policies which she carried out with extraordinary zeal. As
such, these policies reflect on her as much as they do on the Clinton
government. With such a grossly tarnished record, how is it possible that
Madeleine Albright could be awarded an honorary degree by a Canadian
university? In putting forward her qualifications, a University of
Winnipeg newsletter states: ". . . she was named the first woman secretary
of state and became, to that time, the highest ranking woman in the
history of the US government. As Secretary, Albright reinforced America's
alliances, advocated democracy and human rights, and promoted American
trade and business, labor, and environmental standards abroad." To glibly
state that she "advocated democracy and human rights" without taking into
account the reality of her sordid record in exactly these fields is mind
boggling. Although there was a sizeable demonstration by students and
faculty denouncing both Albright and the university's decision to grant
her the degree, it was to no avail and the deed was done.

Overall, the University of Winnipeg has a reasonably good record in its
choices for honorary degrees, including the selection at the 2005 spring
convocation of Dr. John Polanyi, a Canadian Nobel prize winning scientist.
Aside from what's already been presented, the Albright decision raises
some further questions. When the University of Toronto awarded George Bush
Sr. an honorary degree in 1997, it just happened to coincide with a
substantial donation to the university from an American law firm where
Bush served as senior council. If there now should be some type of
financial payoff for the University of Winnipeg, it would merely be a
further example of increasing corporate incursion into university affairs
in our country. Moreover, with the choice of Madeleine Albright for an
honorary degree, are we now to look forward to the selection of other
American politicians, for example Henry Kissinger, and perhaps even
President George Bush Jr. some day?

[John Ryan, Ph.D., is a retired professor of geography and senior scholar
at the University of Winnipeg. A version of this article appeared earlier
in the form of a letter which John Ryan sent to administration officials
at the University of Winnipeg.]


---------11 of 12--------

Why NATO bombed Serb TV
By Brendan O'Neill
The Spectator (UK) - Dec. 6, 2005
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_archive.php?id=7013&issue=2005-12-03

Did George W. Bush make a tasteless gag about bombing al-Jazeera? Did Tony
Blair dutifully laugh?  How could two leaders of the free world think it
appropriate to jest about whacking pesky Arab journolists while a nation
Iraq burned under their watch? These are the questions being asked by
British journalists who are shocked by rumours of a conversation that
allegedly took place between Bush and Blair in April last year. I have a
different question: why do these journalists seem more outraged by this
President's alleged scurrilous aside about bombing a TV station than they
were by an earlier president's actual bombing of a TV station?

Six years ago President Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles to destroy a TV
studio and knock off some media workers, and it was no joke. At 2.20 am.
on 23 April 1999, at the height of the Kosovo campaign, the Nato alliance
led by Clinton and Blair destroyed the headquarters of Radio Television
Serbia (RTS) in central Belgrade. The missiles destroyed the entrance and
left at least one studio in ruins. More than 120 people were working in
the building at the time; 16 were killed and another 16 were injured all
of them civilian workers, mostly technicians and support staff.

The BBC's John Simpson described seeing 'the body of a make-up artist
lying in a dressing room'.  That was 27-year-old Yelitsa Munitlak, burned
to death in the small room where she applied make-up to the station's
newsreaders. She was so badly disfigured that her body could be identified
only by the rings she was wearing. One of the RTS technical team, trapped
between two collapsed concrete blocks, had to have both his legs amputated
at the scene. He died later in hospital.

Today journalists wonder whether Blair laughed at Bush's joke about
al-Jazeera, or perhaps even talked the President out of a serious 'plot'
to bomb the Arab channel.

Never mind all that. Here is what Blair said after the targeted killing of
media workers in Yugoslavia:  the media 'is the apparatus that keeps
Slobodan Milosevic in power and we are entirely justified as Nato allies
in damaging and taking on those targets'.

He was backed by Clare Short, who today poses as an anti-war warrior but
who six years ago was Blair's cheerleader-in-chief for bombing Yugoslavia.
After the attack on RTS she said, 'The propaganda machine is prolonging
the war and it's a legitimate target.' Tell that to the family of Yelitsa
Munitlak.

To add insult to grotesque injuries, Nato officials later tried to deny
that they had purposefully targeted a studio packed with civilian workers,
instead claiming they had meant to bomb the TV transmitter next door.
Yet according to the final report of the UN committee to review the Nato
bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 'Nato
intentionally bombed the central studio of the RTS broadcasting
corporation.' And as Amnesty International pointed out, 'intentionally
directing attacks against civilian objects is a war crime under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court'.

How did British journalists react to this 'war crime'?  Not very
honourably; certainly with far less rage than they have directed against
Bush and Blair for their alleged chat about al-Jazeera. Some in the media
who supported the Kosovo campaign kept silent about the attack. The
broadcasting union Bectu did not even comment on it.

There was almost a celebratory tone in the Guardian's initial coverage of
the bombing of RTS. In its first report on the attack (written by Martin
Kettle and Maggie O'Kane, both of whom supported 'punishing' the Serbs)
the paper repeated Nato's justifications for the attack without question:
'Nato targeted the heart of . . . Milosevic's power base early today by
bombing the headquarters of Serbian state television, taking it off the
air in the middle of a news bulletin.' It failed to say how camera
operators, soundmen and makeup girls were central to Milosevic's 'power
base'.  Some journalists criticised the bombing of RTS not because it was
criminal but because it provided a 'gift to Nato's critics'; in short, it
made their 'good war' look bad.

There were honourable exceptions to all this.  The National Union of
Journalists, for example, vigorously opposed the attack. But too many
journalists tried to squeeze this bombing of media workers into theirview
of the Kosovo campaign as a 'humanitarian' war. Yet the idea that you can
burn to death a make-up girl in the name of 'humanitarianism' is surely as
perverse if not more so than the thought of Bush and Blair talking about
bringing freedom to Iraq (which presumably includes freedom of speech)
while talking about blowing up journalists.


--------12 of 12--------

Showdown in the Andes: Bolivian Election Likely to Shift Latin America
Further to Left
By Benjamin Dangl
December 13, 2005
ZNet Commentary
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-12/13dangl.cfm
From: www.upsidedownworld.org

In Washington he's been referred to as a "narco-terrorist" and a "threat
to stability".  In Bolivia he's simply called "Evo."  For many in the
Andean country, Presidential candidate Evo Morales represents a way out of
poverty and marginalization.  He has pledged to nationalize the country's
natural gas reserves, reject any US-backed free trade agreement and join
the growing ranks of Latin America's left-of-center governments.  He makes
the Bush administration nervous and corporate investors cringe.

Yet when Bolivians head to the polls Morales is expected to win a
majority. However, the range of scenarios that could result from the
election suggests that the show may be far from over by the end of
Election Day on December 18th.

Morales is an indigenous, coca grower organizer, and congressman with the
Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party. More than any other leading
candidate, he represents the diverse demands of Bolivia's social
movements.  He has promised to change current gas exportation contracts
with multinational companies so that profits from the sale go to the
neediest sectors of society via social programs in areas such as education
and health care.

His platform includes setting up micro-credit lending programs,
cooperatively-run businesses and organizing a constitutional assembly to
rewrite the constitution with the participation of diverse social groups.
In a move which is unpopular in Washington, Morales opposes the military's
forced eradication of coca crops, an activity which is funded by the US
and has resulted in bloody conflicts and human rights violations.

The other main presidential contender is Jorge Quiroga, who was President
of Bolivia from 2001 to 2002 when he finished the term of Hugo Banzer, a
former dictator.  He was educated in Texas, has worked as an IBM executive
and believes in using troops and violence to combat protests.  The
unofficial favorite of the US Embassy in La Paz, Quiroga is expected to
use a hard-line approach on coca eradication, continue with the
privatization plan for the country's gas and work with the US to set up a
free trade agreement with Bolivia.

Possible Election Scenarios

Analysts in Bolivia expect Morales, who has consistently led in the polls,
to win roughly 36% of the vote. This will put him in first place among a
race between eight contenders, but it won't be enough to secure the
presidency.  The Bolivian constitution requires that the winner receive
more than 50% of the votes in order to become president.  If not, congress
decides between the top two contenders.

If the decision goes to congress, a series of last minute coalitions are
likely to form. In order to win support among the divided political
parties in congress, Quiroga is expected to ally with presidential
contender Samuel Doria Medina, the owner of the Burger King chain in
Bolivia.  Morales may also attempt to ally himself with Medina, a deal
which would secure the presidency for Morales, but would be unpopular
among protest sectors and his own supporters. If he wins a majority by
even one vote, Morales may lead protests demanding that congress ratify
his victory. Even if Quiroga wins outright, protests against his
presidency and subsequent policies are expected to ensue.

US military operations in neighboring Paraguay throw a complicating factor
into the equation. Hundreds of US troops arrived in Paraguay on July 1st
with planes, weapons and ammunition. Eyewitness reports from a journalist
with the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, prove that an airbase exists in
Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay, which is 200 kilometers from the border
with Bolivia and may be utilized by the US military.  Analysts in the
region claim these US troops could be poised for intervention in Bolivia
if Morales is elected. (1)

Bolivian Workers Union leader Jaime Solares has warned of US plans for a
military coup to frustrate the elections. Solares said the US Embassy
backs rightwing Jorge Quiroga in his bid for office, and will go as far as
necessary to prevent any other candidate's victory.

This set of possibilities indicates that even when the results are in on
December 18th Bolivia may not know who its president is for some time to
come.

Power From Below

Various social movements in Bolivia don't see the elections as an
opportunity for radical change. Some movement leaders argue that a Morales
victory will only create smaller obstacles than a Quiroga administration.

"No matter which way you look at it, the elections are not the solution
for meeting the demands of the population," said Oscar Olivera, a union
leader who led the revolt against Bechtel's water privatization in
Cochabamba in 2000.  He believes in the empowerment of the people over
giving more power to the government. "However, elections are a space that
has presented itself and which we, as autonomous social movements, are
taking up in order to accumulate forces to pass over this bridge - we are
preparing to enable ourselves firstly to recuperate all that is in the
hands of the transnationals and secondly, to find the space for the
political participation of working people." (2)

"We will not permit the right to assume control of the government,"
Olivera continued. "If Evo Morales wins by one vote, we will make sure
that that vote is respected, as a bridge in order to make possible the
demands of the population. But the right in this country will not return.
If it returns, the scenario will be one of imposing the demands of the
people by force and not via the democratic road that many want now." (3)

Complete Gas Nationalization on the Horizon?

The debate about what to do with Bolivia's natural gas reserves, which are
the second largest in Latin America, has resulted in numerous popular
uprisings against the corporate privatization of the gas. Protestors
demand that the gas be nationalized so that the profits can power a
political project similar to what President Hugo Chavez helped create in
Venezuela.  Though Morales is riding the wave of this gas nationalization
movement, it's still uncertain how far he will go with a nationalization
plan.

According to an interview conducted by New York Times Magazine writer
David Rieff, when Morales speaks of nationalization of Bolivia's natural
gas he isn't referring to total expropriation of the multinational gas
businesses in Bolivia. "Brazil is an interesting model" for cooperation
between the state and the private sector, Morales said, "so is China." (4)

Carlos Villegas, MAS's principal economic spokesman and a researcher at
the University of San Andrés in La Paz, told Rieff, "The current
contracts say that the multinationals own the resources when they're in
the ground and are free to set prices of natural gas and oil once it has
been extracted."  Morales intends to renegotiate these contracts and
enforce a law passed last March which reasserts national ownership of
resources.

Many Bolivians see the recuperation of the gas reserves as a way to
reverse the trend of corporate exploitation which has bombarded their
country.  For decades, as foreign companies reaped enormous profits from
Bolivian natural resources such as gold, rubber and tin, Bolivia struggled
on as one of the poorest countries in Latin America.  The movement to
nationalize the gas is an attempt to make sure history doesn't repeat
itself.

"The population," Villegas explained, "is demanding to know why these
resources haven't lifted the country out of poverty. And they blame the
privatization imposed by international lenders."

"We want the gas to be industrialized here in Bolivia," Teodoro Calle, a
Aymara street vender from El Alto, told North American Congress on Latin
America reporter Reed Lindsay in late October 2003. Calle had been shot in
the leg by the Bolivian military while protesting against a plan to export
natural gas to the United States. (5)

"Before, perhaps we agreed to everything, but not anymore," said Calle.
"People know now what's going on. But the government wants to sell the gas
abroad at the price of a dead chicken. That's why we're fighting. Every
neighbor, every Bolivian, that's why."

Sources of Instability

Michael Shifter, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy
group in Washington, said "People [in Washington] talk about [Morales] as
if he were the Osama bin Laden of Latin America." After a recent lecture
Shifter gave at a military institution, two American officers came up to
him and said that Morales "was a terrorist, a murderer, the worst thing
ever." Shifter replied that he had seen no evidence of this. "They told
me: 'You should. We have classified information: this guy is the worst
thing to happen in Latin America in a long time.'" (6)

On a plane to Paraguay on August 17th, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld discussed what he saw were the causes of rebellion in Bolivia,
"Any time you see issues involving stability in a country, it is something
that one wishes would be resolved in a democratic, peaceful way. There
certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in
the situation in Bolivia in unhelpful ways." (7)

US officials have yet to offer any evidence to support these claims.

Recent events in Bolivia illustrate that widespread poverty and the
growing political muscle of impoverished indigenous groups have
contributed to the country's unrest. The last five years in Bolivia have
seen numerous citizen revolts over policies that were exported to the
country from Washington.  In April 2000 the residents of Cochabamba
rebelled against water privatization pushed by the World Bank (the Bank
chief is chosen by the White House), and carried out by the Bechtel
corporation. In February 2003, thirty four Bolivians were killed during
protests against an income tax hike imposed by the International Monetary
Fund, (the US is the only single nation which holds a veto over the fund's
policies). In October 2003, over sixty Bolivians were killed in protests
against a plan to privatize and export the country's gas to California, a
deal supported by the US Embassy in Bolivia.

These events suggest that a Morales victory will lessen the instability in
the country by better-representing the political agenda of social
movements and allowing for more political participation among marginalized
groups.  Morales' attempt to respond to the demands of protest sectors has
given him vast support among a discontented populace.

The fact that many of Bolivia's social movements, as well as the Morales
campaign, are well-organized, grassroots responses to neo-liberal
economics and US foreign policy is disconcerting for the White House
which, on December 18th, is likely to find itself one step further away
from quelling the revolution in its own "backyard".

Benjamin Dangl has worked as a journalist in Bolivia and edits
www.UpsideDownWorld.org, an online magazine uncovering activism and
politics in Latin America, and www.TowardFreedom.com, a progressive
perspective on world events. Email: Ben(at)upsidedownworld.org

Sources

1. Benjamin Dangl, "Eyes on US Troops in Paraguay as Bolivian Election
Nears", Upside Down World, 11-16-05
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/116/1/

2. Federico Fuentes, "Bolivia: Oscar Olivera: 'We are preparing ourselves
for something big'", Green Left Weekly, 12-7-05
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/652/652p20b.htm

3. Fuentes

4. David Rieff, "Che's Second Coming?", NY Times Magazine, 12-20-05
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005H.shtml

5. Reed Lindsay, "Exporting Gas and Importing Demoracy in Bolivia", North
American Congress on Latin America, 11-05
http://www.nacla.org/art_display.php?art=2603#

6. Rieff

7. Benjamin Dangl, "Operation Latin American Freedom", Upside Down World,
10-16-05 http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/65/1/

[Why is the US so backward? Why is Latin America so progressive? Hope for
the future comes from there, and despair from the US. The rich are making
the US into a banana republic. When are we going to throw them off? -ed]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments