Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 04.26.06

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     04.26.06

1. Iran talk CLOSED  4.26 CLOSED

2. OutFrontMN/lobby  4.27 9:30am
3. David Halberstam  4.27 12noon
4. LaborBowl/kids    4.27 4pm
5. Eagan peace vigil 4.27 4:30pm
6. Northtown vigil   4.27 5pm
7. Arabic classes    4.27 6pm
8. Take back night   4.27 6:30pm
9. Armenia/genocide  4.27-28 7pm
10. Is Iran next?    4.27 7pm
11. Globe/race/ed    4.27 7pm
12. Modern Islam     4.27-29 7:15pm
13. Stadium/Leg      4.27

14. Noam Chomsky - Failed states

--------1 of 14---------

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:13:44 EDT
From: MJShahidiusa [at] aol.com
Subject: Iran talk CLOSED 4.26 CLOSED

The Forum at the UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA on 04/26/06 at 7:30 p.m. is a
class and closed to general public. Please accept my apologies for the
incorrect information. Please notify your contacts of this. I am very
sorry about it.


--------2 of 14--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: OutFrontMN/lobby 4.27 9:30am

Please Join HRC and OutFront Minnesota to Lobby for Fairness at the State
Capitol*

The anti-marriage amendment may have been voted down in committee, but
supporters have vowed to bring it to a vote this session nonetheless. To
stop this from happening, it is critical that all fair-minded Minnesotans
stand together at this year's justFair Lobby Day to build the momentum we
need to keep the amendment off the ballot and achieve victory at the end
of session.

The justFair Lobby Day at the State Capitol on Thursday, April 27, is your
chance to join with other fair-minded citizens in speaking out for
equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Minnesotans. Attend
policy updates that morning, share your story with your legislators, and
at noon join thousands at the Rally for Fairness on the Capitol lawn.
Please register now at: http://www.outfront.org/action/lobbyday.html
<http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/3da3To11RR51/>

Thursday April 27, 2006
State Capitol, St. Paul, MN*

Educational sessions between 9:30 and 11:45
Rally for Fairness at noon
Meetings with state representatives and senators throughout the day.

Dining Out for Life
<http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/xda3To11RmbZ/>,a fundraiser taking
place that day across the Twin Cities to raise money for HIV/AIDS services

This day is critical in the fight for fairness and equality for Minnesota,
and we need your help to achieve success!

Beyond signing up to participate, you can help us encourage fair-minded
people from across the state to stand together at this crucial moment.
Here are some concrete steps you can take right now:

   1. Learn more about the anti-marriage amendment by clicking here
      <http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/37a3To11RR5q/>.
   2. Download and print the Lobby Day flyer
      <http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/xpa3To11RmbC/> to post where
      you think like-minded people might see it.  You could also print
      out many to distribute at the events you attend.
   3. Add the following text to calendars and newsletters:
      OutFront Minnesota's justFair Lobby Day
      Thursday April 27, 2006
      Rally for Fairness at noon
      State Capitol, St. Paul, MN
   4. If you haven't already, sign the TogetherMinnesota!
      <http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/x1a3To11RmbK/> Resolution
      against the anti-marriage amendment and encourage other
      individuals and organizations to sign on as well.
   5. Organize a car pool or charter a bus to take people from your
      district to the Capitol.


--------3 of 14--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: David Halberstam 4.27 12noon

April 27 - Westminster Town Hall Forum: The Meaning of America: America
and the Sources of Its Strength.  12noon
Speaker: David Halberstam

David Halberstam is a legendary figure in American journalism. A graduate
of Harvard University, he joined The New York Times in 1960 and was
awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Vietnam War. His
landmark trilogy of books on power in America, The Best and the Brightest,
The Powers That Be, and The Reckoning, received wide critical acclaim. He
is the author of fourteen best selling books, including The Next Century,
where he explores the American agenda for the 21st century; The Fifties,
which examines the decade he considers seminal in shaping America today;
and War in a Time of Peace, which recounts the impact of Vietnam on
current U.S. foreign policy. Recently he served as general editor and a
contributing writer for a collection of essays entitled Defining a Nation:
Our America and the Sources of Its Strength.

Before the forum:
The Forum is preceded by a concert at 11:30am: The Sacred Voice.

After the forum:
Books by the presenter will be available for purchase. This season, the
Town Hall Forum offers a facilitated small group discussion after every
forum for those seeking further discussion on the topic presented.

For more information, to request a brochure, or to learn how you can
contribute to the Westminster Town Hall Forum, email smckenna [at] wpc-mpls.org
or call 612.332.3421. Location: Westminster Sanctuary, Westminster
Presbyterian Church, 1200 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403


--------4 of 14--------

From: stpaulunions.org <llwright [at] stpaulunions.org>
Subject: LaborBowl/kids 4.27 4pm

Attention All Union Members
Ninth Annual Labor Bowl for Kids? Sake

The Saint Paul Area Trades and Labor Assembly's AFL-CIO Community Services
program and the Greater Twin Cities United Way are partnering with Big
Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Twin Cities (BBBS) in the Ninth Annual
Labor Bowl for Kids? Sake (LBFKS).

Union members value children and want to ensure every child has the chance
to be happy and successful. Please consider participating in LBFKS
scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 2006 at its new location - Midway Pro
Bowl, 1556 University Avenue West - Midway Shopping Center, Saint Paul.
Bowling times are at 4pm and 6:30pm. If these times do not work for you,
contact BBBS to schedule your own bowl.

You Can Help By:

? Promoting this event at your membership/stewards/committee meetings as
well as in union newsletters, flyers, e-mail and bulletin boards.

? Forming four or five person union/family/friend bowling teams to
participate in this event. NOTE: Even if you are unable to form a team,
all individuals are welcome to participate and join the fun.

? Providing union door prizes for the event.

? Making a cash donation to support other bowlers if you are unable to
participate. Please send checks to BBBS, 2006 Labor Bowl, 2550 University
Ave, Ste 410N, St. Paul, MN 55114 or contribute online at
www.bigstwincities.org/LBFKS.html .

For other creative ways to support local children or to register to bowl,
please contact Abbey at BBBS by calling 651-789-2434 or by email
amackenzie [at] bigstwincities.org. Thank you for your support of this youth
initiative!


--------5 of 14--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <skograce [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Eagan peace vigil 4.27 4:30pm

CANDLELIGHT PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs
and candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends
south of the river speaking out against war.


--------6 of 14--------

From: EKalamboki [at] aol.com
Subject: Northtown vigil 4.27 5pm

NORTHTOWN Peace Vigil every Thursday 5-6pm, at the intersection of Co. Hwy
10 and University Ave NE (SE corner across from Denny's), in Blaine.

Communities situated near the Northtown Mall include: Blaine, Mounds View,
New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, Arden Hills, Spring Lake Park, Fridley,
and Coon Rapids.  We'll have extra signs.

For more information people can contact Evangelos Kalambokidis by phone or
email: (763)574-9615, ekalamboki [at] aol.com.


--------7 of 14--------

From: mizna-announce <mizna-announce [at] mizna.org>
Subject: Arabic classes 4.27 6pm

This is your last chance to register for the 8 week Arabic classes this
Spring. There is still room available in Arabic I and Arabic II classes
which start NEXT WEEK. Register today if you want to secure a spot!

Arabic I:  Thursdays, April 27 - June 19 (8 weeks): 6 - 7:30 pm

Arabic II: Mondays, April 24 - June 12 (8 weeks): 6 - 7:30 pm

To register go here:  http://www.mizna.org/classes/index.html

Mizna -- a forum for Arab American art.  Visit our website to learn more:
http://www.mizna.org or email us at Mizna [at] Mizna.org


--------8 of 14--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] Visi.com>
Subject: Take back the night 4.27 6:30pm

THUR APRIL 27: TAKE BACK THE NIGHT
March and Rally begins at 6:30pm
Loring Park

MPIRG's Take Back the Night is a march and rally to protest the fear and
violence that women encounter in their daily lives. Take Back the Night
will raise awareness of the problems of violence against women. It will
also celebrate survivors and unite people who wish to work together to
make our communities safer.

For more information see:
http://www.mpirg.org/tbtn/take_back_the_night_2006.htm


--------9 of 14--------

From: Stephen Feinstein <feins001 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: Armenia/genocide 4.27-28 7pm

Conference on the Armenian Genocide
April 27 - 28, 2006

This is a special conference for teachers in conjunction with CHGS,
Armenian Committee of Minnesota, Facing History and Ourselves of
Brookline, MA. Teachers interested are urged to enroll as soon as
possible. There is no charge for the event. Part of the event will also be
the exhibition of the new "Teaching Trunks" on the Armenian Genocide,
available for schools interested in having a short or long curriculum on
the Genocide of 1915 and its effects. The Teaching Trunk project was made
possible by a grant from the Cafesjian Family Foundation of Minneapolis.

Public is also invited.

Location: St. Sahag Armenian Church
203 N. Howell Street
St. Paul, MN 55104-5964

St Sahag Church is located on Howell one block South of Marshall Avenue,
between Cretin Avenue and Fairview. see Mapquest

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" -
Adolf Hitler-August 22, 1939

Adolf Hitler's famous words on the eve of his invasion of Poland are a
call to action. They reminds us that remembrance of the past is vital for
preventing genocide in the future. They also reminds us that massacre and
other forms of mass killing called genocide after 1943 is always possible
and preventable.

This educational conference seeks to bring together a host of learners, be
they teachers, scholars, students, and other community members who want to
deepen their understanding of genocide-what it is, why it occurs, where it
happens, how it happens, and what can be done to prevent it from
happening. Using a comparative approach, participants will learn that
millions of people's lives have been shattered and destroyed by genocidal
actions committed in both the 20th and 21st centuries. Participants will
also learn how to convey lessons of genocide to future generations of
students.

Schedule of events:

1. Thursday, April 27, 2006 from 7-9pm.
**Featured Film: "Everyone's Not Here: Families of the Armenian Genocide"
A panel of genocide scholars/teachers including University of Minnesota
Visiting Professor Taner Akcam and Center for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies Director Stephen Feinstein (Department of History), Southwest
State University Professor Eric Markusen (Department of Sociology), and
Mary Johnson (Senior Historian, Facing History and Ourselves) will discuss
the legacy of jurist Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word "Genocide."

2. Friday, April 28, 2006 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Mary Johnson, Senior Historian, will lead the day's educational activities
which will focus on how to teach genocide using a comparative approach.
She will discuss specific teaching strategies useful for the Armenian
Genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide. She will highlight
specific ways that teachers can incorporate the teaching of genocide in
their curriculum as well as promoting social activism by students.

3. Friday, April 28, 2006 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
**Community Forum and Pot-Luck Dinner**
Minnesota educators are invited to share their experiences in teaching the
Armenian Genocide-what they know and don't know about the issue, and why
it is significant to teach about it in the framework of Holocaust
education and comparative genocide.. In addition, historians, Taner Akcam,
Stephen Feinstein, and Mary Johnson, with Lou Ann Matossian of the
Armenian Cultural Organization of Minnesota will discuss the educational
challenges posed by genocide deniers and highlight local and national
efforts to confront this denial.
If you are interested in attending this conference, please contact Vicky
Knickerbocker at 612-626-2404 or knick002 [at] umn.edu


--------10 of 14--------

From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Is Iran next? 4.27 7pm

April 27, 7pm - "Is Iran Next?" will be the title of a public forum on
this date at St. Joseph Parish Community, SW corner of 36th Avenue N.
and Boone, New Hope.

Speaker, Jay Shahidi, is the founder and current president to the
Iranian-American Society of Minnesota, community activist in a variety of
areas including landmines and the environment, and small business owner.
Jay has spent time in his native Iran twice in recent months and will
share what he has learned about the present mood and fears of the Iranian
people. All welcome.  Sponsored by NW Neighbors for Peace. Carole Rydberg,
763-546-5368.

[America's wealthy don't have enough wealth - yachts, jets, mansions, call
girls/boys - and may have to kill a few hundred thousand Iranians to get
it. All in a day's "work" for our elite; you can't make golden omelets
without breaking non-elite heads. -ed]


--------11 of 14--------

From: Seehwa Cho <seehwac [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Globe/race/ed 4.27 7pm

Globalization, Race and Education
William H. Watkins, Ph.D. University of Illinois,
Chicago
7pm Thursday April 27

University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis Campus Terrence Murphy Hall,
Thornton Auditorium 1000 LaSalle Ave., Minneapolis, MN (Corner of 10th
Street and LaSalle Avenue)

Globalization is widely discussed and yet rarely understood. Those
promoting globalization are attempting to re-order racial politics and the
management and distribution of knowledge. Race and schooling have always
been interconnected in America. Efforts at school privatization and
expanding gentrification are reshaping the racial, material and cultural
landscape of the nation. Changes in technology, neo-liberal politics,
urban demography and militarism are impacting race and education in
profound ways.

Schooling is central to the agenda of the new social engineers. Drawing
from recent social science research, William H. Watkins will explore
globalization's effect on race and public education and challenge
long-standing beliefs about the system of education in the United States.
Born in Harlem and raised in South Central Los Angeles, Watkins brings a
unique perspective to the world of education. His years fighting for
social justice and freedom coupled with his trailblazing research, writing
and critique of education in the United States informs audiences in an
unforgettable, no-holds-barred manner. His research and writings are rich
and provocative as they weave through the historical underpinnings of
contemporary education.

A former high school teacher, William "Bill" H. Watkins completed the
Ph.D. in 1986, University of Illinois at Chicago. He served on the College
of Education and Black Studies faculties at the University of Utah before
returning to the College of Education at the University of Illinois at
Chicago in 1995. Watkins is the author of The White Architects of Black
Education (2001) and lead editor of Race and Education (2001). Numerous
articles, chapters, essays and reviews have appeared in scholarly
journals, books, encyclopedias and the popular press. Watkins has
presented papers, lectured and traveled widely throughout North America,
Central America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean.
His life's work is dedicated to equality, social justice and peace.

Register for this FREE event today!
www.stthomas.edu/education/events/julianparker


--------12 of 14--------

From: Khaldoun Samman <ibnsubhi [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Modern Islam 4.27-29 7:15pm

"Islam and the Modern Orientalist World-System" Understanding Modern Islam
April 27-29, 2006 at Macalester

Macalester College presents "Islam and the Modern Orientalist
World-System" Thursday - Saturday, April 27-29, in Weyerhaeuser Memorial
Chapel and the John B. Davis Lecture Hall in the Ruth Stricker Dayton
Campus Center.

The conference premise is as follows: The word "Islam" has been
transformed radically by the modern world-system.  Zones that were once
part of the core of the "ancient world system(s)" - with the Muslim world
at its center - disappeared in the nineteenth century, relegating the
Mughal, Qajar, and Ottoman empires to the margins of a Western-centric
world, subordinated to European and American power.  World-Systems
analysis has been a useful tool in coming to terms with the fact that the
world is politically, economically, and culturally stratified, with race
constituting the very epicenter of the stratification.

The conference will feature many well-known scholars including:

Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University, who will talk about "The Political
Construction of the Concept of Islam in the Modern World-System" 7:15pm
Thu April 27, Weyerhaeuser Memorial Chapel;

Marnia Lazreg, Hunter College of the City University of New York, whose
talk is titled, "Women: The Trojan Horse of Islam and Geopolitics"
10:50am, Fri April 28, John B. Davis Lecture Hall

Joseph Massad, Columbia University, who will talk about: "Civilized or
Decadent?  Time and the Culture of Arabs" 1:10pm, Fri April 28, John B.
Davis Lecture Hall.

Other conference topics include: "Muslims as minorities in Europe and the
United States"; "Islam as an autonomous 'civilization' vs. Islam as part
of a larger world-civilization" and "Crisis of the modern Orientalist
world-system and the rise of Islamist movements."

Free and Open to the Public For more info visit the conference website:
http://www.macalester.edu/mesa/


--------13 of 14--------

From: Dann Dobson <dddobson1 [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Stadium/Leg 4.27

On Thursday, April 27th the Senate Tax Committee will hear the Twins
Stadium Bill. This may be the last change to stop this train wreak. Please
plan to attend and testify.

Dann Dobson No Stadium Tax Coalition dddobson1 [at] yahoo.com 651-227-4376

TENTATIVE
Tax Committee
Chair, Senator Lawrence Pogemiller
One Half Hour After Session, Room 15 Capitol
Agenda: SF 2297 - Kelley: Stadium Bill

Please note: This meeting is tentative and contingent on the length
of the floor session. [The Leg usually involves lots of waiting and false
signals - ed]

Erin Campbell Legislative Assistant Senator Larry Pogemiller 651-296-7809


--------14 of 14--------

A major essay from ZNet author, Noam Chomsky. It is an expanded version of
the afterword to his new book Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the
Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books, 2006).

Afterword: Failed States
Noam Chomsky

We began by considering four critical issues that should rank high on the
agenda of those concerned with the prospects for a decent future. Two of
them are literally matters of survival: nuclear war and environmental
disaster. The first danger is ever-present, beyond imagination, and in
principle avoidable; practical ways to proceed are understood. The second
is longer-term, and there is much uncertainty about how a serious crisis
can be averted, or at least mitigated, though it is clear enough that the
longer the delay in confronting the tasks, they harder they will be. And
again, sensible measures to proceed are well known.

The third major crisis is that the government of the global superpower is
acting in ways that enhance these threats, and others as well, such as the
threat of terrorism by enemies. That conclusion, unfortunately all too
credible, brings to prominence a fourth critical issue: the growing
democratic deficit, the gap between public will and public policy, a sign
of the increasing failure of formal democratic institutions to function as
they would in a democratic culture with vitality and substance. This last
issue is both threatening and hopeful. It is threatening because it
increases the dangers posed by the first three imminent crises, apart from
being intolerable in itself. It is hopeful because it can be overcome, and
again, practical ways to proceed are well understood, and have often been
implemented under far more difficult circumstances than those faced in the
industrial societies today.

No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing
democratic deficit at home is accompanied by declaration of messianic
missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. Declarations of noble
intent by systems of power are rarely complete fabrication, and the same
is true in this case. Under some conditions, forms of democracy are
acceptable. Abroad, as the leading scholar-advocate of "democracy
promotion" concludes from his inquiries, we find a "strong line of
continuity," extending to the present moment: democracy is sometimes
acceptable, but if and only if it is consistent with strategic and
economic interests (Thomas Carothers). Much the same holds at home, where
democracy is valued by power and privilege insofar as it "protects the
opulent minority from the majority," as Madison held.

As the strong line of continuity illustrates, the policy planning spectrum
is narrow. The basic dilemma facing policy makers is sometimes candidly
recognized at its dovish liberal extreme, for example, by Robert Pastor,
President Carter's national security advisor for Latin America. He
explained why the administration had to support the murderous and corrupt
Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and when that proved impossible, to try at
least to maintain the US-trained National Guard even as it was massacring
the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy,"
killing some 40,000 people. The reason was the familiar one: "The United
States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the
region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It
wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect
U.S. interests adversely." The Cold War was scarcely relevant, but once
again we find the dominant operative principle, illustrated copiously
throughout history.

Similar dilemmas faced Bush administration planners after their invasion
of Iraq. They want Iraqis "to act independently, except when doing so
would affect U.S. interests adversely." Iraq must therefore be sovereign
and democratic, but within limits. It must somehow be constructed as an
obedient client state, much in the manner of the traditional order in
Central America, where the experiences that shape foreign policy planners
are the richest and most instructive. These experiences are particularly
alive for the current administration, with its firm roots in the cruel and
savage Reagan years, when "democracy enhancement" programs were able to
restore "the basic order of....quite undemocratic societies," tolerating
only "limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk
upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States
has long been allied" (Carothers) - by means of mass slaughter, torture,
and barbarism At a very general level, the pattern is not unfamiliar
throughout history, reaching to the opposite extreme of modern
institutional structures.

The Kremlin was able to maintain satellites that were run by domestic
political and military forces, with the iron fist poised if needed.
Germany was able to do much the same in occupied Europe even while it was
at war, as did fascist Japan in Manchuria (its Manchukuo). Fascist Italy
achieved similar results in North Africa while carrying out virtual
genocide that in no way harmed its favorable image in the West and
possibly inspired Hitler: for example in Libya from 1929-1933, a campaign
waged with unspeakable brutality and ethnic cleansing on a grand scale.
Traditional imperial and neo-colonial systems illustrate many variations
on similar themes.

To achieve the traditional goals in Iraq has proven to be surprisingly
difficult, despite unusually favorable circumstances, as already reviewed.
The dilemma of combining a measure of independence with firm control arose
in a stark form not long after the invasion, as mass non-violent
resistance compelled the invaders to accept far more Iraqi initiative than
they had anticipated, or desired. The outcome even began to evoke the
nightmarish prospect of a more or less democratic and sovereign Iraq
taking its place in a loose Shiite alliance comprising Iran, Shiite Iraq,
and possibly the nearby Shiite-dominated regions of Saudi Arabia,
controlling most of the world's oil and independent of Washington. Even
the thought of such an outcome evokes memories of the near hysteria over
Nasser-led secular nationalism in 1958, particularly when Iraq broke free
of Anglo-American domination of the vast energy resources of the Middle
East. It was feared that the "contagion" might spread even to Saudi
Arabia, where the extremist fundamentalist regime has the task of ensuring
that this "stupendous source of strategic power," "one of the greatest
material prizes in world history," remains firmly in US hands. It still
performs this role, but with increasing uncertainty.

It could become even worse. Washington's dedicated efforts to punish Iran
for overthrowing the tyranny of the Shah in 1979 might backfire. Iran does
have options. Iran might give up on hopes that Europe could become
independent of the US, and turn eastward. If that happens, Iran will have
reasons, which have rarely been discussed in Western commentary on the
confrontation over Iranian uranium enrichment programs. In a rare break
from the silence, the reasons are discussed by Selig Harrison, a leading
specialist on these topics. "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the
European Union were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the US,
has failed to honour," Harrison observes:

Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment efforts temporarily pending
the outcome of discussions on a permanent enrichment ban. The EU promised
to put forward proposals for economic incentives and security guarantees
in return for a permanent ban but subsequently refused to discuss security
issues. The language of the joint declaration that launched the
negotiations on November 14 2004, was unambiguous. "A mutually acceptable
agreement," it said, would not only provide "objective guarantees" that
Iran's nuclear programme is "exclusively for peaceful purposes" but would
"equally provide firm commitments on security issues."

The phrase "security issues" is a thinly veiled reference to the threats
by the US and Israel to bomb Iran, and the well-publicized preparations to
carry out such an attack. The model regularly adduced is Israel's bombing
of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, which appears to have initiated
Saddam's nuclear weapons programs, another demonstration that violence
tends to elicit violence in reaction. Any attempt to execute similar plans
against Iran could lead to immediate violence, as is surely understood in
Washington. During a visit to Teheran, the influential Shiite cleric
Moqtada Sadr warned that his militia would defend Iran in the case of any
attack, "one of the strongest signs yet," the Washington Post reported,
"that Iraq could become a battleground in any Western conflict with Iran,
raising the specter of Iraqi Shiite militias -- or perhaps even the
U.S.-trained Shiite-dominated military -- taking on American troops here
in sympathy with Iran." The Sadrist bloc, which registered substantial
gains in the December 2005 elections, may soon become the most powerful
single political force in Iraq. It is consciously pursuing the model of
other successful Islamist groups, such as Hamas in Palestine, combining
strong resistance to military occupation with grassroots social organizing
and service to the poor.

Washington's unwillingness to allow regional security issues to be
considered, tolerated by Europe, is nothing new, not just in the case of
Iran. It has arisen repeatedly in the confrontation with Iraq as well,
with serious consequences, ever since Saddam became an enemy in 1990. In
the background, raising very serious security concerns, is the matter of
Israeli nuclear weapons, a topic that Washington bars from international
consideration in violation of firm agreements and Security Council
resolutions. Beyond that lurks what Harrison rightly describes as "the
central problem facing the global non-proliferation regime": the failure
of the nuclear states to live up to their NPT obligation "to phase out
their own nuclear weapons" -- and in Washington's case, formal rejection
of the obligation.

Unlike Europe, China refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary
reason for the growing fear of China on the part of US planners, which
also poses a dilemma: steps toward confrontation are inhibited by US
corporate reliance on China as an export platform and growing market, as
well as China's financial reserves, reported to be approaching Japan's in
scale. Much of Iran's oil already goes to China, and China is providing
Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as a deterrent to US
designs. Still more uncomfortable for Washington is the fact that "the
Sino-Saudi relationship has developed dramatically," the Financial Times
reports, including Chinese military aid to Saudi Arabia and gas
exploration rights for China. By 2005, Saudi Arabia provided about 17
percent of China's oil imports. Chinese and Saudi oil companies have
signed deals for drilling and construction of a huge refinery (with Exxon
Mobil as a partner). A January 2006 visit by Saudi King Abdullah to
Beijing was expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding
calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two
countries in oil, natural gas, and investment," the Wall Street Journal
reported.

Indian analyst Aijaz Ahmad observes that Iran could "emerge as the virtual
lynchpin in the making, over the next decade or so, of what China and
Russia have come to regard as an absolutely indispensable Asian Energy
Security Grid, for breaking Western control of the world's energy supplies
and securing the great industrial revolution of Asia." South Korea and
Southeast Asian countries are likely to join, possibly Japan as well. A
crucial question is how India will react. It rejected US pressures to
withdraw from an oil pipeline deal with Iran, though it is still
vacillating on grounds of security within Pakistani Baluchistan. Meanwhile
Pakistan has pledged to build the pipeline whatever India decides (and
presumably against US wishes). On the other hand, India joined the US and
EU in voting for an anti-Iranian resolution at the IAEA, joining also in
their hypocrisy, since India rejects the NPT regime to which Iran, so far,
appears to be largely conforming. Ahmad reports that India may have
secretly reversed its stand at the IAEA after Iran briefly threatened to
terminate a $20 billion gas deal. Washington later "warned India that
Delhi's own nuclear deal with the US could be ditched if the Indian
government did not vote to refer Tehran to the United Nations Security
Council," the Financial Times reported, eliciting a sharp rejoinder from
the Indian foreign ministry and an evasive tempering of the warning by the
US Embassy.

India too has options. It may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer
to join a more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with growing
ties to Middle East oil producers. In a series of informative
commentaries, the deputy editor of The Hindu observes that "if the 21st
century is to be an `Asian century', Asia's passivity in the energy sector
has to end." Though it "hosts the world's largest producers and fastest
growing consumers of energy," Asia still relies "on institutions, trading
frameworks and armed forces from outside the region in order to trade with
itself," a debilitating heritage from the imperial era. The key is
India-China cooperation. In 2005, he points out, "India and China have
managed to confound analysts around the world by turning their
much-vaunted rivalry for the acquisition of oil and gas assets in third
countries into a nascent partnership that could alter the basic dynamics
of the global energy market." A January 2006 agreement signed in Beijing
"cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology
but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that
eventually could alter fundamental equations in the world's oil and
natural gas sector." At a meeting in New Delhi of Asian energy producers
and consumers a few months earlier, India had "unveiled an ambitious $22.4
billion pan-Asian gas grid and oil security pipeline system" extending
throughout all of Asia, from Siberian fields through Central Asia and to
the Middle East energy giants, also integrating the consumer states.
Furthermore, Asian countries "hold more than two trillion dollars worth of
foreign reserves," overwhelmingly denominated in dollars, though prudence
suggests diversification. A first step, already being contemplated, is an
Asian oil market trading in euros. The impact on the international
financial system and the balance of global power could be significant. The
US "sees India as the weakest link in the emerging Asian chain," he
continues, and is "trying actively to divert New Delhi away from the task
of creating new regional architecture by dangling the nuclear carrot and
the promise of world power status in alliance with itself." If the Asian
project is to succeed, he warns, "India will have to resist these
allurements." Similar questions arise with regard to the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization formed in 2001 as a Russia-China-based
counterweight to the expansion of US power into former Soviet Central
Asia, now evolving "rapidly toward a regional security bloc [that] could
soon induct new members such as India, Pakistan, and Iran," long-time
Moscow correspondent Fred Weir reports, perhaps becoming a "Eurasian
military confederacy to rival NATO."

The prospect that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence
has seriously troubled US planners since World War II, and concerns have
significantly increased as the "tripolar order" has continued to evolve,
along with new and important south-south interactions (Brazil, South
Africa, India, and others), and rapidly growing EU engagement with China -
perhaps now, or soon, each other's largest trading partners.

US intelligence has projected that the US, while controlling Middle East
oil for the traditional reasons, will itself rely mainly on more stable
Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa, Western hemisphere). Control of
Middle East oil is now far from a sure thing, and these expectations are
also threatened by developments in the Western hemisphere, accelerated by
Bush administration policies that have left the US remarkably isolated in
the global arena. The Bush administration has even succeeded in alienating
Canada, an impressive feat. Canada's relations with the US are more
"strained and combative" than ever before as a result of Washington's
rejection of Nafta decisions favoring Canada, Joel Brinkley reports.
"Partly as a result, Canada is working hard to build up its relationship
with China [and] some officials are saying Canada may shift a significant
portion of its trade, particularly oil, from the United States to China."
Canada's minister of natural resources said that within a few years
one-quarter of the oil that Canada now sends to the US may go to China
instead. In a further blow to Washington's energy policies, the leading
oil exporter in the hemisphere, Venezuela, has forged probably the closest
relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to
sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce
dependence on the openly hostile US government. Latin America as a whole
is increasing trade and other relations with China, with some setbacks,
but likely expansion, in particular for raw materials exporters like
Brazil and Chile.

Meanwhile Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close, each relying
on its comparative advantage. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in
return Cuba organizes literacy and health programs, sending thousands of
highly skilled professionals, teachers and doctors, who work in the
poorest and most neglected areas, as they do elsewhere in the third world.
Joint Cuba-Venezuela projects are also having a considerable impact in the
Caribbean countries, where Cuban doctors are providing health care to
thousands of people who had no hope of receiving it, with Venezuelan
funding. Operation Miracle, as it is called, is described by Jamaica's
ambassador to Cuba as "an example of integration and south-south
co-operation," and is generating great enthusiasm among the poor majority.
The US and Mexico apparently toyed with the idea of an oil subsidy to
counter Venezuelan petro-diplomacy, but do not seem to have pursued it.
Cuban medical assistance is also being welcomed elsewhere. One of the most
horrendous tragedies of recent years was the October 2005 earthquake in
Pakistan. In addition to the huge toll, unknown numbers of survivors have
to face brutal winter weather with little shelter, food or medical
assistance. There has been extensive coverage of Western aid, but one has
to turn to the South Asian press to read that "Cuba has provided the
largest contingent of doctors and paramedics to Pakistan," paying all the
costs (perhaps with Venezuelan funding), and that President Musharraf of
Pakistan expressed his "deep gratitude" to Fidel Castro for the "spirit
and compassion" of the Cuban medical teams. These are reported to comprise
more than 1000 trained personnel, 44 percent of them women, who remained
to work in remote mountain villages, "living in tents in freezing weather
and in an alien culture" after the Western aid teams had been withdrawn,
setting up 19 field hospitals and working 12-hour shifts.

Some analysts have suggested that Cuba and Venezuela might even unite, a
step towards further integration of Latin America in a bloc that is more
independent from the US. Venezuela has joined Mercosur, the South American
customs union, a move described by Argentine President Néstor Kirchner as
"a milestone" in the development of this trading bloc, and welcomed as
opening "a new chapter in our integration" by Brazilian President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva. Independent experts say that "adding Venezuela to
the bloc furthers its geopolitical vision of eventually spreading Mercosur
to the rest of the region." At a meeting in Uruguay convened to mark
Venezuela's formal entry into Mercosur, Venezuelan president Chávez said
that the organization must be "politicized": "We cannot allow this to be
purely an economic project, one for the elites and for the transnational
companies," a not very oblique reference to the US-sponsored "Free Trade
Agreement for the Americas," which has aroused strong public opposition.
Venezuela also supplied Argentina with fuel oil to help stave off an
energy crisis, and bought almost a third of Argentine debt issued in 2005,
one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the
controls of the IMF after two decades of disastrous effects of conformity
to the rules imposed by the US-dominated international financial
institutions. The IMF has "acted towards our country as a promoter and a
vehicle of policies that caused poverty and pain among the Argentine
people," President Kirchner said in announcing his decision to pay almost
$1 trillion to rid itself of the IMF forever. Radically violated IMF
rules, Argentina enjoyed a substantial economic recovery from the disaster
left by IMF policies.

Steps toward independent regional integration advanced further with the
election of Evo Morales in Bolivia in December 2005. He became the first
indigenous president in Bolivia, where a majority identify themselves with
indigenous groups. Morales moved quickly to reach a series of energy
accords with Venezuela. The Financial Times reported that these "are
expected to underpin forthcoming radical reforms to Bolivia's economy and
energy sector" with its huge gas reserves, second only to Venezuela's in
South America. Morales too committed himself to reverse the neoliberal
policies that Bolivia had pursued rigorously for 25 years, leaving the
country with lower per capita income than at the outset. Adherence to the
neoliberal programs was interrupted during this period only when popular
discontent compelled the government to abandon them, as when it followed
World Bank advice to privatize water supply and "get prices right" --
incidentally, to deprive the poor of access to water.

Venezuelan "subversion," as it is described in Washington, is extending to
the US as well. Perhaps that calls for expansion of the policies of
"containment" of Venezuela ordered by Bush in March 2005. In November
2005, the Washington Post reported, a group of Senators sent a letter "to
nine big oil companies: With huge increases in winter heating bills
expected, the letter read, we want you to donate some of your record
profits to help low-income people cover those costs." They received one
response: from CITGO, the Venezuelan-controlled company. CITGO offered to
provide low-cost oil to low-income residents of Boston, later to the Bronx
and elsewhere. Chávez is only doing it "for political gain," the State
Department responded; it is "somewhat akin to the government of Cuba
offering scholarships to medical school in Cuba to disadvantaged American
youth." Quite unlike aid from the US and other countries, which is
pure-hearted altruism. It is not clear that these subtleties will be
appreciated by the recipients of the "12 million gallons of discounted
home-heating oil [provided by CITGO] to local charities and 45,000
low-income families in Massachusetts." The oil is distributed to poor
people facing a 30-50 percent rise in oil prices, with fuel assistance
"woefully underfunded, so this is a major shot in the arm for people who
otherwise wouldn't get through the winter," according to the director of
MassEnergyConsumer Alliance, which will distribute low-cost oil to
"homeless shelters, food banks, and low-income housing groups." He also
"said he hoped the deal would present `a friendly challenge' to US oil
companies -- which recently reported record quarterly profits -- to use
their windfall to help poor families survive the winter," apparently in
vain.

Though Central America was largely disciplined by Reaganite violence and
terror, the rest of the hemisphere is falling out of control, particularly
from Venezuela to Argentina, which was the poster-child of the IMF and the
Treasury Department until its economy collapsed under the policies they
imposed. As noted, Argentina did manage to recover, but only by defying
IMF orders, which does not please international creditors or Washington.
Much of the region has left-center governments. The indigenous populations
have become much more active and influential, particularly in Bolivia and
Ecuador, both major energy producers, where they either want oil and gas
to be domestically controlled or, in some cases, oppose production
altogether. Many indigenous people apparently do not see any reason why
their lives, societies, and cultures should be disrupted or destroyed so
that New Yorkers can sit in their SUVs in traffic gridlock. Some are even
calling for an "Indian nation" in South America. Meanwhile the internal
economic integration that is underway is reversing patterns that trace
back to the Spanish conquests, with Latin American elites and economies
linked to the imperial powers but not to one another. Along with growing
south-south interaction on a broader scale, these developments are
strongly influenced by popular organizations that are coming together in
the unprecedented international global justice movements, ludicrously
called "anti-globalization" because they favor globalization that
privileges the interests of people, not investors and financial
institutions. For many reasons, the system of US global dominance is
fragile, even apart from the damage inflicted to it by Bush planners.

One consequence is that the Bush administration's pursuit of the
traditional policies of deterring democracy, called "democracy promotion"
in the doctrinal system, face new obstacles. It is no longer as easy as
before to resort to military coups and international terrorism to
overthrow democratically elected governments, as Bush planners learned
ruefully in 2002 in Venezuela. The "strong line of continuity" must be
pursued in other ways, for the most part. In Iraq, as we have seen, mass
non-violent resistance compelled Washington and London to permit the
elections they had sought to block by a series of schemes. The subsequent
effort to subvert the unwanted elections by providing substantial
advantages to the administration's favorite candidate, and expelling the
independent media, also failed. Problems still remain beyond those usually
discussed. The Iraqi labor movement is making considerable progress
despite the opposition of the occupation authorities. The situation is
rather like Europe and Japan after World War II, when a primary goal of
the US and UK was to undermine independent labor movements - as at home,
for similar reasons: organized labor contributes in essential ways to
functioning democracy with popular engagement. Many of the measures
adopted at that time - withholding food, supporting fascist police, etc. -
are no longer available. Nor is it possible today to rely on the labor
bureaucracy of AIFLD to help undermine unions. Today, some American unions
are supporting Iraqi workers, just as they do in Colombia, where more
union activists are murdered than anywhere in the world but at least now
receive support from the United Steelworkers of America and others, while
Washington continues to provide enormous funding for the government, which
bears a large part of the responsibility.

The problem of elections arose in Palestine much in the way it did in
Iraq. As already discussed, the Bush administration refused to permit
elections until the death of Yasser Arafat, aware that the wrong man would
win so that elections would not conform to the democratic vision that
animates policy. After Arafat's death, the administration agreed to
respond to the popular pressure for elections, expecting that its favored
candidates in the Palestinian Authority would win. To promote this
outcome, Washington resorted to much the same modes of subversion as in
Iraq, and often before. The national press reported that Washington used
USAID as an "invisible conduit" in an effort to "increase the popularity
of the Palestinian Authority on the eve of crucial elections in which the
governing party faces a serious challenge from the radical Islamic group
Hamas," spending "about $1.9 million of its yearly $400 million in aid to
the Palestinians on dozens of quick projects before elections this week to
bolster the governing Fatah faction's image with voters and strengthen its
hand in competing with the militant faction Hamas." As is normal, the US
consulate in East Jerusalem assured the press that the concealed efforts
to promote Fatah were merely intended "to enhance democratic institutions
and support democratic actors, not just Fatah." In the US or any Western
country, even a hint of such foreign interference would destroy a
candidate, but deeply rooted imperial mentality legitimates such routine
measures of subversion of elections elsewhere. However, the attempt to
subvert the elections again resoundingly failed.

The US and Israeli governments now have to adjust to dealing somehow with
a radical Islamic party that approaches their traditional rejectionist
stance, though not entirely, at least if Hamas really does mean to agree
to an indefinite truce on the international border as its leaders state.
The idea is completely foreign to the US and Israel, which insist that any
political outcome must include Israeli takeover of substantial parts of
the West Bank (and the forgotten Golan Heights). Hamas's refusal to accept
Israel's "right to exist" mirrors the refusal of Washington and Jerusalem
to accept Palestine's "right to exist" - a concept unknown in
international affairs; Mexico accepts the existence of the US, but not its
abstract "right to exist" on almost half of Mexico, acquired by conquest.
Hamas's formal commitment to "destroy Israel" places it on a par with the
US and Israel, which vowed formally that there could be no "additional
Palestinian state" (in addition to Jordan) until they relaxed their
extreme rejectionist stand partially in the past few years, in the manner
already reviewed. Although Hamas has not said so, it would come as no
great surprise if Hamas were to agree to allow Jews to remain in scattered
cantons in the present Israel, while Palestine constructs huge settlement
and infrastructure projects to take over the valuable land and resources,
effectively breaking Israel up into unviable cantons, virtually separated
from one another and from some small part of Jerusalem where Jews would
also be allowed to remain. And they might agree to call the fragments "a
state." If such proposals were made, we would -- rightly -- regard them as
a reversion to Nazism, a fact that might elicit some thoughts. If such
proposals are made, Hamas's position would be essentially like that of the
US and Israel for the past five years. Before that, they refused to
consider even this impoverished form of "statehood." It is entirely fair
to describe Hamas as radical, extremist, and violent, and as a serious
threat to peace and a just political settlement. But the organization
hardly is alone in this stance.

Elsewhere traditional means of undermining democracy have succeeded. In
Haiti, the Bush administration's favorite "democracy-building group, the
International Republican Institute," worked assiduously to promote the
fortunes of the opposition to President Aristide. The project was helped
by the withholding of desperately needed aid on grounds that were dubious
at best. When it seemed that Aristide would probably win any genuine
election, Washington and the opposition chose to withdraw, a standard
device to discredit elections that are going to come out the wrong way:
Nicaragua in 1984 and Venezuela in December 2005 are examples that should
be familiar. Then followed a military coup by former state terrorists
based in the Dominican Republic (which Washington claims to have known
nothing about), expulsion of the President to South Africa, and a reign of
horrifying terror and violence, vastly exceeding anything under the
elected government that Washington helped to overthrow. The miserable fate
of Haiti is traceable in no slight measure to US intervention through the
past century, joined by France in 2004, perhaps because President Chirac
was offended by Aristide's request for some extremely limited compensation
for France's own hideous crimes in Haiti, which surpass anything since, a
considerable claim to fame.

The persistence of the strong line of continuity to the present again
reveals that the US is very much like other powerful states. It pursues
the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic
population, to the accompaniment of impressive rhetorical flourishes about
its exceptional dedication to the highest values.  That is practically a
historical universal, and the reason why sensible people pay scant
attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, or accolades by
their followers. They are predictable, therefore carry virtually no
information.

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but
do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that
charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to
the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that
reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the US have
already been mentioned: (1) accept the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court and the World Court; (2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto
protocols; (3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; (4) rely
on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in
confronting the grave threats of terror; (5) keep to the traditional
interpretation of the UN Charter: the use of force is legitimate only when
ordered by the Security Council or when the country is under imminent
threat of attack, in accord with Article 51; (6) give up the Security
Council veto, and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as
the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers disagree;
(7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social
spending: health, education, renewable energy, and so on. For people who
believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear
to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the
overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy; in
most cases, to a bipartisan consensus. To be sure, we cannot be very
confident about the state of public opinion on matters such as these,
because of another essential feature of the democratic deficit: the topics
scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little
known. In a highly atomized society, the public is therefore largely
deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions.

Another conservative and useful suggestion is that facts, logic, and
elementary moral principles should matter. Those who take the trouble to
adhere to that suggestion will soon be led to abandon a good part of
familiar doctrine, though it us surely much easier to repeat self-serving
mantras. And there are other simple truths. They do not answer every
problem by any means. But they do carry us some distance toward developing
more specific and detailed answers, as is constantly done. More important,
they open the way to implement them, opportunities that are readily within
our grasp if we can free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and
imposed illusion.

Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism,
hopelessness and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial
progress in the unending question for justice and freedom in recent years,
leaving a legacy that can easily be carried forward from a higher plane
than before. Opportunities for education and organizing abound. As in the
past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or
won by intermittent actions - attending a few demonstrations or pushing a
lever in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as
"democratic politics." As always in the past, the tasks require dedicated
day-by-day engagement to create -- in part re-create -- the basis for a
functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role in
determining policies, not only in the political arena from which it is
largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is
excluded in principle. There are many ways to promote democracy at home,
carrying it to new dimensions. Opportunities are ample, and failure to
grasp them is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for
the world, and for future generations.

Copyright 2006 by Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His
latest books are Failed States, Imperial Ambitions, and Hegemony or
Survival, all in the American Empire Project series of Metropolitan Books,
9-11 (Seven Stories Press), Understanding Power (New Press), and New
Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind (Cambridge University Press).
He lives in Lexington, Massachusetts, and is a professor in the Department
of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.


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

   - 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