Uncommon Thought Journal

UN-HABITAT, an agency of the United Nations, recently published a 218-page report entitled State of the World's Cities, 2010-2011. The report is full of statistics on the status of cities around the world and their demographics. It defines slum dwellers as those living in urban centers without one of the following: durable structures to protect them from climate, sufficient living area, sufficient access to water, access to sanitation facilities, and freedom from eviction.

Almost intentionally hidden in these statistics is one shocking fact about urban Iraqi populations. For the past few decades, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the percentage of the urban population living in slums in Iraq hovered just below 20 percent. Today, that percentage has risen to 53 percent: 11 million of the 19 million total urban dwellers. In the past decade, most countries have made progress toward reducing slum dwellers. But Iraq has gone rapidly and dangerously in the opposite direction.

According to the U.S. Census of 2000, 80 percent of the 285 million people living in the United States are urban dwellers. Those living in slums are well below 5 percent. If we translate the Iraqi statistic into the U.S. context, 121 million people in the United States would be living in slums.

If the United States had an unemployment rate of 25-50 percent and 121 million people living in slums, riots would ensue, the military would take over, and democracy would evaporate. So why are people in the United States not concerned and saddened by the conditions in Iraq? Because most people in the United States do not know what happened in Iraq and what is happening there now. Our government, including the current administration, looks the other way and perpetuates the myth that life has improved in post-invasion Iraq. Our major news media reinforces this message.

I had high hopes that the new administration would tell the truth to its citizens about why we invaded Iraq and what we are doing currently in the country. President Obama promised to move forward and not look to the past. However problematic this refusal to examine on the past -- particularly for historians -- the president should at least inform the U.S. public of the current conditions in Iraq. How else can we expect our government to formulate appropriate policy?

More extensive congressional hearings on Iraq might have allowed us to learn about the myths propagated about Iraq prior to the invasion and the extent of the damage and destruction our invasion brought on Iraq. We would have learned about the tremendous increase in urban poverty and the expansion of city slums. Such facts about the current conditions of Iraq would help U.S. citizens to better understand the impact of the quick U.S. withdraw and what are our moral responsibilities in Iraq should be.

Collapse

But even poor Abbas, a kind of Palestinian "step'n'fetch it" figure if ever there was one, wanted nothing to do with such talks while Israel continued stealing land. The American administration browbeat him for months, threatening him with loss of all aid, into attending.

The only genuinely elected government in any of the territories of Palestine, Hamas in Gaza, remains under Israel's brutal blockade and imprisonment - that is, those elected representatives who were not illegally arrested by Israel or murdered in assassinations or murdered in Operation Cast Lead.

Representatives for these "direct talks" on the Israeli side are from the Netanyahu government, a group of people who have not the least interest in what any normal person would call peace. The "foreign minister" qualifies surely as a David Duke figure.

Now David Duke in the United States - former Klu Klux Klan chief and minor politician - is treated anytime in the press as a lowlife. Avigdor Lieberman is every bit the hateful racist as Duke, but he is far more poisonous, being the foreign minister he is in a position to make his hate wreck the lives of millions. Because he is an Israeli, Lieberman is treated with respect he does not deserve.

Does anyone but a madman believe anything can come out of that set of circumstances?

The only possibility is that Abbas is virtually beaten down into signing something utterly inappropriate for his people. In that case, the "agreement" won't be worth the paper on which it is written.

This entire matter is utterly meaningless as statesmanship, it is brutal political theater, intended to please the Israel Lobby in the U.S. to get the Democrats through the mid-term elections without a catastrophic loss of campaign contributions.

_________________

Response to an uninformed comment:

The Six Day War was an elaborate black operation by Israel. It prodded the Arabs over and over with many aggressive acts into hostility, and then it attacked first.

The intention was to seize the lands not seized in 1948 with the terrors of Irgun and Stern - that is, to create Greater Israel, a self-defined concept that has always motivated Israel's government.

The attack on the USS Liberty, a US spy ship on station in the Mediterranean, was intended to blind the US administration while General Dayan turned around his armor to attack in the North.

It was not a "mistake." It was a deliberate two-hour attack on a well-marked ship, one moreover that Israel had been advised would be on station to guard against its ambitions.

Dayan felt that if he had the slot of time, he could achieve all Israel's goals of conquest, and he pretty much did, presenting the world with the fait accompli whose ghastly consequences we have endured since.

It was all a neat trick, wage a lightning war of conquest while getting sympathy as little David fighting off hoards of nasty Philistines, but Israel knew from its first planning it was sure to win.

And we've learned since that the "little David" image is a sentimental fairy tale: Israel behaves the part brutal bully in its part of the world, attacking and terrorizing every neighbor that it has, even now threatening people a thousand miles away who have never attacked anyone.

See:

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/was-einstein-right/

Collapse

Food security, however, does not equal food sovereignty, nor does it ensure that the roots of hunger in the world's poorest countries will be addressed. Feed the Future is likely to be yet another program that benefits large corporations and does little to address the real issues hindering agricultural growth in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Big Ag's Revolving Door

On June 14, 2010 USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah addressed a food security meeting of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Dakar, offering support

And while Shah admirably noted the role of women in agriculture and the importance of civil society in carrying out the FTF initiative, he stopped short of acknowledging the tremendous potential for agricultural development that already exists on the continent. For instance, there is the Tigray Project in Ethiopia that boosts food production through agro-ecological methods, and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Madagascar that uses organic and sustainable methods to increase rice yields as much as sevenfold. Instead, Shah spoke of new seed varieties introduced in Mali and the market viability of USAID-supported farming in Ghana.

This is hardly surprising coming from Shah, who recently served as the agricultural development director at the biotech-friendly Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is a primary funder of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which despite its sustainability rhetoric is a vehicle for the promotion of genetically modified (GM) seeds in Africa. The revolving door doesn't stop there, however. Obama has brought a squad of pro-biotech officials into his administration, including former Monsanto Vice President Michael Taylor and former vice president of the lobbying group CropLife, Islam Siddiqui.

Wrong Solutions and Ignored Histories

Therefore, it is no surprise to hear FTF officials talk about the power of new seed varieties in ending hunger in Africa, despite their potentially disastrous consequences. The history of GM seeds and the green revolution in Asia shows that such approaches serve only to augment the profits of corporations like Monsanto while driving small farmers into debt. Although the green revolution in Asia did boost yields, study after study on African agriculture proves that organic, non-GMO agriculture is "better for food security than most conventional systems and is more likely to be sustainable in the longer term." Farming with GM seeds and fertilizers is a very top-heavy method that does not address the true causes of hunger and instead approaches food insecurity as a profit-making opportunity. Mamadou Goita, the executive director of the Institute for Research and the Promotion of Alternatives in Development (IRPAD) based in Mali, recognizes that "as is always the case with Africa, once again the world is obsessed with addressing the consequences while blatantly ignoring the root causes of the problem."

Many of these roots of hunger were planted in the 1980s by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which bankrupted Africa of its crop diversity and traditional farming methods in favor of large-scale, market-led production. In fact, just as the United States began heavily subsidizing its own big industrial farms, the IMF prohibited African countries from subsidizing their own agricultural systems.

The result was a dumping of surplus goods such as rice and wheat from the United States into African economies. Local farmers couldn't compete with the prices and therefore couldn't sell their products even in their own communities. To make matters worse, many farmers had switched to export-worthy staples and away from traditional crops, making it even more difficult to feed their families.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Though the FTF initiative does encourage host country governments to consult with civil society, its tight relationship with companies like Monsanto will severely undermine local and regional sovereignty over food resources. Monsanto has a history of hooking poor farmers on seeds and accompanying herbicides and pesticides they cannot afford to buy. Furthermore, though the Danforth Plant Science Center, one of FTF's partners, may hail the creation of a nutrient- and protein-rich cassava plant, it fails to recognize that crop diversity -- and thus diet diversity -- is nature's best remedy for nutrient deficiencies. By introducing single, silver-bullet crops into African soils, FTF risks creating a continent of monocrops that contribute to environmental degradation and declining human health, and which put societies at great risk if the crop fails.

At a recent U.S. House of Representatives hearing on FTF, members of Congress raised very few of these questions about the risks of GM seeds. On the whole, they welcomed the testimony of representatives of Monsanto and the Danforth Plant Science Center, both of whom hailed the potential benefits of "better" seeds. Even if those seeds can produce higher yields in the short term, more food does not mean less hunger or less poverty and a green revolution will not cure the problem of chronic hunger in Africa. A more sustainable solution involves approaches such as using indigenous varieties of crops that are drought-tolerant, teaching farmers about organic methods of composting and fertilizing, and planting a diversity of crops, thereby generating healthier soil. The best thing the United States could do with FTF is to promote and enhance traditional, agro-ecological methods of farming -- but then again, that wouldn't be profitable for private companies like Monsanto.

Many in Africa remain skeptical of GM seeds, which are often seen as a neocolonial tool by developed nations to further exploit Africa's vast natural resources. Countries such as Zambia have opposed the importation of food aid that is genetically engineered, and groups like Biowatch in South Africa have led successful legal cases against Monsanto. However, GM crops are already cultivated on a large scale in South Africa, and the absence of a large scientific community in Africa has allowed GMO-producing companies to dominate the debate. International organizations such as GRAIN and Food First are attempting to elevate the concerns around GM seeds in Africa through advocacy and outreach. The information these organizations are producing, along with scientific studies that highlight the health and environmental risks of GM crops, should be widely circulated.

Ensuring Accountability on Positive Advancements

Feed the Future does get a few things right, such as working with agricultural extension services in each individual country, assisting in the construction of roads to help farmers get their products to market, and establishing irrigation systems in dry regions of the world. It also recognizes the importance of country-led development and the necessity of women's involvement in agriculture projects, both of which are foundational to any development initiative.

However, for these proposals to be successful, FTF must enforce strict accountability and transparency mechanisms, particularly in countries whose governments are notoriously inattentive to the needs and aspirations of their citizens. FTF has chosen 20 countries in which to begin its work; among them are countries like Uganda, whose President Yoweri Museveni is considered corrupt and undemocratic. Thus, for infrastructure projects and extension services to be effective, FTF must ensure funding is carefully monitored and that the outcomes are objectively evaluated.

The global food sovereignty movement is growing. All over the world, communities and farmers are taking greater ownership over their land and food. "Food sovereignty is the people's right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems," offering "a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime." It will be a central area of discussion during the World Social Forum in Dakar in February, moving individuals to organize around the right to control their food and trade systems. By joining this movement in the United States, individuals can act in solidarity with the struggles facing African farmers, consumers, and producers. It will take this and more to change the direction of U.S. agricultural policy abroad and programs like Feed the Future.

Instead of pushing the corporate-friendly elements of FTF, the U.S. government could do more to assist agricultural growth in the global south by targeting the roots of the problem. By enacting fair trade laws, ending subsidies to large agribusinesses in the United States, tackling the causes and consequences of climate change, and supporting community-led attempts to organically and sustainably grow food, Obama could begin to make a positive contribution to U.S. Africa policy. In its current state, FTF may be more of a boon to companies like Monsanto than to Africans facing the realities of hunger and poverty.

Collapse

Since Israel raided the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, the flimsy existence of Tel Aviv began to splinter as the world nations collectively and categorically reacted to the atrocious mass killing of 9 peace activists in the international waters by the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel's unlawful, brutal killing of the unarmed civilians aboard the Freedom Flotilla sparked such a remarkable international condemnation that even the most stalwart allies of Tel Aviv in the EU zone recalled their ambassadors from Israel and called for a thorough, detailed investigation of the incident which they described as offensive and violent. The international condemnations were so extensive and intensive that even the most pessimistic Israeli politicians couldn't envisage. Four countries downgraded their diplomatic relations with Israel - in addition to the four countries that had cut their diplomatic ties with Israel during the 22-day Gaza war of 2008-2009, Twelve Latin American countries condemned the Israeli actions, Twenty-one European countries protested Israel and Twelve non-Arab Asian countries officially disapproved Tel Aviv.

The precursor of global protests to Israel was Turkey which had lost 9 of its citizens in the raid. In an insightful, thought-provoking and appreciable statement before his country's parliament, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan strongly questioned Israel's impunity from the international laws and called for a decisive end to the illegal actions of this regime: "It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel's lawlessness. The international community must from now on say 'enough is enough'. Dry statements of condemnation are not enough ... There should be results."

At the beginning and when the first news was released, the extent of Israel's violence had not become clear to the public opinion; however, as the international peace activists began retelling the stories of their ordeal upon being deported by Tel Aviv to their respective countries, the world realized that a great calamity had taken place.

Upon his extradition to Istanbul, the Irish historian and activist Dr. Fintan Lane told the media about his terrible experience on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla which was unjustifiably attacked by the Israeli commandos on May 31: "when they boarded our boat, we resisted entirely peacefully. I sat on the floor and tried to reason with them, but the Israeli commandos physically attacked us. Fiachra (one of the Irish passengers aboard the flotilla) was dragged around the ground and I had a gun pointed in my face by a screaming commando. His mania was so intense that I genuinely feared for my life. Others received beatings."

The American peace activist and anti-imperialist speaker Kenneth O'Keefe was another passenger on board the Gaza aid convoy. He witnessed the death of two of his Turkish colleagues in person and was brutally harassed, tortured by the Israeli forces: "while in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted... in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out... and I was beaten again while in my cell."

Hassan Ghani, the 25-year-old Scottish journalist and media correspondent of the Press TV was also among the flotilla travelers. He was ruthlessly punished by the Israeli commandos in what he described as the "brutal Israeli assault" on the flotilla: "we didn't expect a ship with 32 different nationalities on board, with aid from 50 different countries on board, would be attacked in such a brutal manner... They began by throwing stun grenades on to the deck of the ship when people were in the middle of morning prayers. Then they began using rubber bullets, they tried to come aboard the ship from the side. People repelled the commandos with water cannons they had set up on the side of the ship. Then the Israelis used helicopters to drop people onto roof and there was scuffles on the roof. The Israeli solders had already opened fire on the ship, so people were grabbing anything they could to stop the attack in international waters."

Another painful account of the flotilla raid was retold by the prominent Swedish author Henning Mankell who described the Israeli actions as "committing murder": "they got very aggressive and ordered us to come down. There was one older man who was a little slow, so the Israelis attacked him with an electric stun gun. He was in a lot of pain. So was another passenger who was covered in paint after being hit with a paint ball missile. The commandos searched the ship thoroughly and emerged waving a razor and a metal-box cutting tool, which they claimed were "weapons" intended to be used against them. All the passengers were then herded into a group, with armed guards standing watch as the ship was taken to Israel When we got off... we were made to walk down a corridor of armed commandos who filmed all of us with cameras. They stole my mobile phone, my money, my clothes and my credit cards." Mankell said that he was held in a cell for 24 hours along with a Swedish Member of Parliament and then deported even "without his socks".

All of these accounts attest to the fact that Israel is being reprimanded by people from the four corners of the world who object to the inhuman policies and actions of Tel Aviv regardless of the nationality they belong to and the political stance they champion.

Today, it's known to everyone that Israel is a political entity which the United States supports in order to maintain its interests in the Middle East and subject the region's nations. In the other words, Israel plays the role of America's permanent representative in the Middle East and is entitled to resort to every possible mean to intimidate and bring under control the independent nations in the region. The fact is that Israel is a fragile and unstable political regime and every day of its shaky survival is hinged on the exertion of force and violating the rights of other nations. As the Iranian journalist Mohieddin Sajedi once noted, Israel cannot live without creating troubles. From mass killing to occupation, from assassination to the construction of illegal settlements, Israel continues to exist with illegal actions and this is what keeps them alive.

The main adversary of Israel is Iran. Israel has repeatedly warned Iran against the use of force and launch of a military strike on its nuclear facilities. The reason is clear. Iran is turning into an inspiring model for the independent nations around the world. Iran's 30-year-long resistance against imperialism and its courageous confrontation with the bullying superpowers has made it an example of victorious struggle with political arrogance and many independent nations on the face of world see Iran on the frontline of battle with the United States and its colonies such as Israel.

Iran is winning international popularity because it has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-sufficiency in nationalizing the nuclear energy. While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads in flagrant violation of the international law and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has made striking advancements in taking over the nuclear power and excelling in using it for peaceful purposes. The fact that Iran has succeeded in nationalizing the nuclear energy without the assistance of Western superpowers is indigestible for Israel which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; that's why it has warned Iran against a preemptive military strike; however, the reality is that a 70-million-strong army stands by the resistance movement of Iran and a coalition of powerful troops consisted of the independent nations around the world, stand by Iran against the collapsing Israel forever.

Collapse

Last spring, Antifascist Calling reported on the launch of the Pentagon's secretive X-37B mini space shuttle, a 29-foot long unmanned orbital test vehicle (OTV).

Built by Boeing Corporation, the multibillion dollar project was the culmination of a decades-long dream of Pentagon space warriors: to field a reusable spacecraft that combines an airplane's agility with the means to travel at 5 miles per second in orbit.

After the craft's successful April 22 launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) denied that the X-37B was a prototype for a near-earth weapons platform.

Back in 2005 however, The New York Times reported that General Lance W. Lord, then commander of AFSPC, told an Air Force conference that "space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. ... Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future."

And with no public debate whatsoever, new weapons programs spawned in the bowels of the Pentagon's black budget parallel universe are on coming on-line.

We do know however, that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) the secretive Defense Department satrapy that builds and flies America's fleet of spy satellites, is ramping up operations for the "most aggressive launch schedule that this organization has undertaken in the last 25 years," NRO director Bruce Carlson said in a speech at the National Space Symposium, according to Aviation Week.

Among the most heavily-outsourced American secret state agencies, NRO and its sister organization, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) are preparing the "battlespace" for new imperial adventures. The AllGov web site reported Friday that NGA "recently awarded $7.3 billion in contracts for its EnhancedView commercial imagery program, which is intended to yield higher resolution photos of earth targets than what is currently available to the military."

Reporters David Wallechinsky and Noel Brinkerhoff tell us that "DigitalGlobe operates three satellites capable of collecting imagery at resolutions of better than 1 meter, and GeoEye has two satellites in orbit that can photograph objects as small as half a meter in size." Perfect for zeroing-in on "anti-government forces" or perhaps pesky dissidents and whistleblowers here in the heimat.

A short blurb on AFSPC's web site hailing the space plane's orbital insertion was long on cheesy boilerplate but short on details of what the mission hoped to accomplish.

The Air Force informed us that "the X-37B ... will provide an 'on-orbit laboratory' test environment to prove new technology and components before those technologies are committed to operational satellite programs."

What that "test environment" might produce is anyone's guess and the Air Force isn't saying.

Prior to the launch however, AFSPC was far less coy, proclaiming "if these technologies on the vehicle prove to be as good as we estimate, it will make our access to space more responsive, perhaps cheaper, and push us in the vector toward being able to react to warfighter needs more quickly."

Such as bombing any point on earth in under an hour as the mad Prompt Global Strike program hopes to do, or, given the X-37B's diminutive profile, serving as an anti-satellite weapon that could threaten the space assets of other nations, particularly those of China and Russia.

While speculation as to what X-37B capabilities are have run the gamut from an orbital delivery system for conventional or nuclear weapons, to a satellite killing drone, to a relatively inexpensive means to launch mini-satellite swarms into orbit, the best guess is that all three are plausible hypotheses.

Despite contrary claims by the Obama administration, the "space superiority" that the Air Force lusts after include plans to weaponize space, imperialism's "high frontier." Or, as Gen. Lord would have it, the "freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack" in earth orbit.

"International Cooperation" and other Fairy Tales

Writing in The Diplomat, journalist David Axe reported last month that during the 2008 presidential campaign candidate Barack Obama made opposition to space-based weapons "part of his platform."

According to the changling's campaign material, "He [Obama] believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield."

"Yet just two years into the Obama presidency," Axe wrote, "it's clear that these noble sentiments aren't being matched by US deeds."

Brian Weeden, the author of a briefing paper for the Pentagon- and industry-connected Secure World Foundation (SWF), claims that the mini space plane "has near zero feasibility as an orbital weapons system for attacking targets on the ground."

Weeden alleges that the X-37B's payload bay is too small for carrying an effective space-launched weapon, and moves too slowly to carry out bombing runs when re-entering the atmosphere, unlike the hypersonic glide vehicle under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as a component of the Pentagon's "Prompt Global Strike" program.

Policy wonks such as Eric Sterner, an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Marshall Institute, a rightist think tank chock-a-block with former Cold Warriors, retired Pentagon clock-punchers and corporatist bag men, told Axe that "in theory" the X-37B could be weaponized or might be ideal for sneaking up on and probing, capturing, or even destroying an adversary's satellites.

"You open the payload bay, you can have in it anything you want, like a hard-point on an aircraft," Sterner told The Diplomat. "You can put sensors in there, satellites in there. You could stick munitions in there, provided they exist."

Sterner should know. After all, the Marshall Institute is pushing for the accelerated development of a "robust" U.S. missile defense system.

The Institute, along with right-wing grifters from the American Foreign Policy Council, the Claremont Institute, the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, High Frontier, the Institute of the North and a gaggle of defense corps, are the dark heart of the Rumsfeldian Independent Working Group (IWG).

Last year, the IWG published another in a series of alarmist screeds urging deployment of this exquisitely destabilizing first strike weapons system.

The group's 2009 report, Missile Defense, the Space Relationship & the Twenty-First Century, told us that "Missile defense has entered a new era. With the initial missile defense deployments, the decades-long debate over whether to protect the American people from the threat of ballistic missile attack was settled--and settled unequivocally in favor of missile defense."

Although the United States is a founding member of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and is a signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty banning orbital nuclear weapons, as the previous administration amply demonstrated, international treaties and agreements are so many worthless scraps of paper to be tossed aside when it inconveniences the Empire.

Ratcheting up tensions in the wake of the 9/11 provocation as plans to invade Iraq were secretly being hatched by the Bush crime family, at former SecDef Rumsfeld's insistence, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia and proclaimed that it would build--and deploy--a missile defense system.

With a cover story that the system would be based in Central Europe to "protect" NATO allies from a nonexistent "Iranian threat," Washington believes it has the right to threaten and cajole other nations because of its status as the world's "sole superpower."

Mikhail Barabanov, the editor of Arms Export magazine, believes that the "real motivation of the multibillion-dollar undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear missiles, Russia and China most of all," UPI reported.

Barabanov argued that "even a limited missile defense system injects a high degree of indeterminacy into the strategic plans of other countries and undermines the principle of mutual nuclear deterrence.

"With Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear arsenal significantly and China maintaining a low missile potential," Barabanov said that "the Americans' ability to down even a few dozen warheads could deprive the other side of guaranteed ability to cause the U.S. unacceptable damage in a nuclear war."

In response to the American threat, Barabanov wrote that "the only way to prevent a slow growth of the American strategic advantage is a significant increase in the purchase of new ballistic missiles by Russia."

America's drive for nuclear- and space superiority excludes any attempt to limit deployment of new weapons systems anywhere, including space. While Bush and his minions may have receded from the headlines, Washington militarists are up to their old tricks--and semantic parlor games--rebranded as "change."

In June, The New York Times reported that the administration will "consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies."

As with all things Obama however, the administration's "new space policy" mantra is more public relations puffery than substance.

Peter Marquez, director of space policy at the National Security Council told the Times that Washington would "oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access or use of space."

This of course, is a red herring since no other nation has sought to "prohibit or limit" America's "access or use of space" for peaceful purposes. As a means to preclude the prospect for negotiating a new arms control treaty for space, despite international backing by China, Russia and America's NATO allies, caveats and distortions by the NSC are deal killers.

"Those are the gates," Marquez told the Times, "that the arms control proposals must come through before we consider them." In other words, the global godfather has spoken so forget it.

If the U.S., as candidate Obama declared, is truly interested in stopping the "the slow slide towards a new battlefield," why then has the Pentagon embarked on a crash program to field a new generation of orbital weapons?

Washington's lack of transparency when it comes to the X-37B's potential to compromise other nations' satellite systems reveal that Obama's pledge to strengthen "international cooperation" for de-escalating conflicts in space, like his promise to close the Guantánamo Bay gulag, end torture or halt secret state domestic spying, are a cynical pack of lies.

Space Situational Awareness: Preparing the Orbital Battlespace

With the upcoming launch of the first in a series of spysats called the Space Based Surveillance System (SBSS) by AFSPC, we can expect more in the orbital dirty tricks department.

Built by usual suspects Boeing and Northrop Grumman for the Air Force, the SBSS, The Register tells us "is intended to make life much easier for the US air force Space Superiority Wing, which tries to keep tabs on all other nations' military 'space assets'."

In April, Defense Systems reported that AFSPC has "identified four pillars" of space situational awareness: "intelligence characterization, data integration and exploitation, threat warning, and attack reporting."

To address those "pillars," three new hardware programs are coming on-line: "the Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) space vehicle, Space Fence and Space Surveillance Telescope (SST)."

SBSS is viewed by Pentagon star warriors as an ideal spy platform because it "offers a resilient space-based capability that weather cannot affect. It doesn't have foreign basing issues. And it provides more timely revisit rates for high-interest objects at geosynchronous orbit."

Or, more realistically, given Pentagon proclivities to shoot first and analyze later, provide wannabe starship troopers with real-time targets for efficient takedown.

While deliberate meddling with other nation's satellites is strictly forbidden by international treaty, The Register informs us that "America might not be above a little bit of unattributable orbital naughtiness itself at some point in the future."

Indeed, "unattributable orbital naughtiness" is the name of the game. Last week, The Register reported that the Pentagon's new "'fractionated' swarm satellites--in which groups of small wirelessly-linked modules in orbit will replace today's large spacecraft--will be able to scatter to avoid enemy attacks and then reform into operational clusters."

According to a DARPA press release, "System F6 (Future, Fast, Flexible, Fractionated, Free-Flying Spacecraft) demonstrator program [will] emphasize development of an open and ubiquitous space architecture and an associated set of open standards. The fractionated spacecraft concept replaces large, monolithic space assets with clusters of smaller, wirelessly-interconnected modules that share resources to create, in effect, a 'virtual satellite'."

In other words, satswarms in constant communication with their Pentagon masters on the ground.

With an emphasis on "real-time, fault-tolerant resource sharing over wireless cross-links; algorithms for safe and agile multi-body cluster flight; persistent broadband communications between low earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft and the ground; and a robust and scalable multi-level information assurance architecture," DARPA believes the F6 program will "enable multiple payloads supplied by different agencies, services or even countries to share common infrastructure at multiple levels of security."

DARPAcrats say the project will "exploit benefits of democratization of innovation" and find better ways to kill people in the process. How's that for innovation!


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, Rowan's Avenger, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

Over the past five years, Iran has been recurrently under the threat of an imminent war which the mainstream media have overwhelmingly talked of; a war against Tehran to overthrow the Islamic Republic and bring to power a "democratic" regime which the "international community" favors.

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005 as the Iranian head of state, he made attempts to reverse the passive, submissive stance of Iran towards the Eastern and Western superpowers and proposed new theories for an innovative international order. He accelerated Iran's nuclear program and made remarkable advancements in nationalizing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran. He put forward insightful and astute questions: "why should Israel possess nuclear weapons in violation of the international law", "why should Israel occupy the lands which don't belong to it", "why should Israel repeatedly threaten its neighbors and wage wars against them", "why should Holocaust be used as a pretext to suppress the Palestinian nation?", "why should Iran be deprived of the peaceful uses of nuclear power while the United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China have thousands of nuclear weapons?"

These questions were not digestible for the United States and its stalwart allies around the world; therefore, some measures should be adopted to suffocate this man and the people he represents internationally. The reason was simple. Ahmadinejad and Iran would not make concessions and thus should be silenced at any cost. So, who is going to pay the price for silencing Iran? Are the military options plausible?

The answer is simply "no". Iran is different from Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the countries which Israel attacked during its period of existence in the Middle East. The people of Iran have demonstrated that they react to the aggressive powers categorically. So, the best option would be to stage an all-out psychological operation in which the means of coercion, falsification, distortion, fabrication and intimidation might be used.

The project was set off almost five years ago, when the U.S. and European mainstream media gradually began trumpeting for an imaginative war against Iran. The first man to set in motion the project was Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He told the media on February 19, 2005 that George Bush is laying the groundwork for an all-out attack against Iran: "President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons." With what was described as Ritter's "greatest skepticism", he also talked of the possibility of a regime change in Iran, pushed by the neoconservatives who were trying to persuade the ex-President Bush to broaden the extents of war to topple the Islamic Republic.

The primary threats looked so realistic and actual that even deceived the veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who wrote in a January 24, 2005 article in the New Yorker that U.S. is getting prepared to launch a military strike against Iran. He quoted a high-ranking intelligence official as telling him: Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah--we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

In 2006, the gossips were strongly suggesting that there'll be an attack against Iran, either by Israel or the United States. In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Major General Hamid Gul emphatically proclaimed that Iran will be attacked by the United States. Interestingly, he also specified the exact time of the attack. Talking to the Pakistani Parliament, he predicted that "America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October."

Along with the previous predictions, however, General Gul's prediction about an imminent assault on Iran transpired to be futile.

The same events continued to happen in 2007; futile predictions and empty threats, either by those who were involved in the conflict with Iran or those who did not have a role.

On January 24, 2007, the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum that there's a possibility of U.S. attacking Iran: "It's a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won't happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive.

The atmosphere created by the United States and its allies was so imposing and impressive that had influenced everyone, from the most pragmatic, down-to-earth journalists to the most adventurous, overconfident politicians. Quoting the Kuwaiti paper Arab Times, John Pilger wrote in a "New Statesman" article dated February 5, 2007 that Bush will attack Iran, and also gave the military details of the attack according to the statements of a Russian military official: "The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the U.S. will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean."

Untruthfulness and falsehood had pervaded the mainstream media and they had simply failed to take seriously the possibility of losing their reputation as a result of proposing unrealistic, improbable and pointless predictions. They were only after serving the interests of their governmental owners and trumpeting for a non-existing war which was about to be waged against Iran.

On March 5, 2007, the Reuters AlterNet quoted analysts that there could be a chance for a possible military strike against Iran. This time, the attacker was destined to remain unspecified: "Risk analysts say there could be an up to one-in-three chance that the United States or Israel will attack Iran by the end of this year, and markets may not be doing enough to hedge against the impact." This employment of the "United States or Israel" was the newest psychological operation tactic; spreading uncertainty and ambiguity to overawe and subdue Iran.

In 2008, the most entertaining charade of the game was initiated by John Bolton, a politician who seemed to be enormously interested in playing the role of a new Nostradamus. His prophecy was that Israel would attack Iran before the new U.S. President swears in. The magnificent foretelling by Mr. Bolton was grandiloquently featured by the Daily Telegraph in a report titled: "Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts".

Anyway, the new U.S. President swore in and nobody attacked Iran.

The war threats against Iran have been renewed several times since John Bolton publicized his prediction. The famous "proverb" of "all options are on the table" was uttered by the successor of George W. Bush; the same man whom we trusted in once for good and deceived all of us with his promise of change. Mr. Bolton's newest forecast has been released recently: Israel has until week's end to strike Iran's nuclear facility. The psychological warfare machinery is being activated again as each newspaper and website represents one arsenal. Jeffrey Goldberg is taking steps to become the Judith Miller of war against Iran and the world once again watches the funny advertisement of human rights by those who are terrifically massacring "humans" in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, getting prepared for a new bloodshed in Iran. The thing is not that Israel will attack Iran. The thing is that Israel won't dare attack Iran, but its unremitting propaganda won't cease. The thing is that we should hear these sentences incessantly: "Israel will attack Iran... will Israel attack Iran?"

Collapse

But in the age of Guantanamo-like gulags filled with bearded Muslim men, such principles are disregarded. The very ideals that have been celebrated in the United States for generations are being trampled upon, violated and abused.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can reference American ideals and speak of democracy while justifying the peculiar elections in Afghanistan, or the bewildering sectarian "democracy" underway in Iraq. However, when President Barack Obama made the seemingly dreadful mistake on August 13 of endorsing the right of Muslims to build a community center near Ground Zero, all hell broke loose.

Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York - echoing the sentiment of numerous others in congress, media and public - immediately denounced Obama's remarks. The very next day, the president was forced to explain to CNN the underlying intent of his comments. He laboriously delineated the difference between commenting on "the wisdom" of the project and upholding the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion.

The controversy is odd, as well as embarrassing, because the intention of building the community center and the mosque - which includes a lecture hall and a swimming pool - was meant as a gesture of goodwill, an attempt at cultural and religious dialogue. It signals the Muslim community's desire for inclusion. It is also an act of defiance.

Those who committed their evil deed in the name of religion, and those who lead major wars also in the name of religion are groups most disaffected by a community initiative aimed at rising over the superficial religious divides that have lead to major crimes and fueled criminal wars.

However, not all of those who against the approval of the mosque project are politically manipulative, ideologically or even religiously motivated. Some have innocently bought into the ridiculous media allegations and insinuations. They have been led to believe that building such a structure would be insensitive, betraying the memory of the September 11 victims (who also include Muslims), and could function as a symbolic message that the terrorists have won.

One fails to understand how a prayer room, a swimming pool and a lecture hall a few blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood represents a victory in the books of al-Qaeda's grand designs. But more importantly, such language suggests - if not confirms - that what is underway is nothing but a religious war. If that is the case, then Muslims, using the same logic, have the right to curtail the freedom and target minorities in Muslim countries because they profess religions that are supposedly hostile to Islam. But isn't that precisely what al-Qaeda - a group abhorred by most Muslims - among other zealot groups have been arguing, if not practicing?

It's unacceptable that after years of American wars in Muslim countries - which preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11 - and many more wars which killed, wounded and devastated millions, we are still stuck in the same terrible mentality. Many haven't yet matured to see through the tainted lenses of hate and prejudice, the logic of "us" and 'them'. The very mindset that led America to its political, economic, military and moral crises for years continues to prevail. The very same cheerleaders who supervised the demise of their country as a world leader are now carrying the torches and forks of intolerance against a mosque, a lecture hall and a swimming pool.

The Muslim community center project was meant to remain a local affair until Obama afforded his support during a Ramadan meal with members of the US Muslim community. His comments presented the perfect opportunity for a perfectly opportunistic group of politicians and media pundits. His words were twisted and manipulated to give the impression that he cared little about the victims of September 11. The US president was reduced to actually have to state that "the pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable ..."

However, as unbelievable, sad and self-defeating such a debate seems, it is also a wake-up call and a stark reminder of the kind of hatred and intolerance that gave that spot in lower Manhattan its dreadful name. Hatred and intolerance have also created uncountable other "ground zeros" in various Muslim lands, from Baghdad, to Gaza to Kabul and elsewhere.

Perhaps the controversy is a reminder of the issues we still need to urgently confront. We cannot indulge in the rhetoric of change, hope and audacity, while we remain at the same emotional and psychological standstill. We need to realize how such a fragile collective state of mind makes many of us so easily exploited and readily manipulated. This is the discussion that truly needs to commence, as boldly and urgently as possible.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

CB: So Michael, as a subscriber to Truth to Power's Daily News Digest, I know that every day you see the headlines regarding skyrocketing food prices. Can you say a bit about why you think this is happening?

MB: Well, I think what we're seeing with food prices, with spot shortages and commodities in various places around the world is just the beginning of a much larger situation. Fundamentally, what's happening is that as the cost of fossil fuels goes up, then the whole agricultural production system is affected because the whole system is dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizers for fuel, pesticides, and herbicides. The cost of all of these is going up, and we're just now reaching the point where, as the era of cheap fossil fuels ends, and as fossil fuels continue to become increasingly expensive, the entire global industrial agricultural system is going to collapse. We are seeing the very beginnings of that right now, and for most people, especially here in America, it seems very remote, but it will have tremendous impact here in this country within the next two or three years.

CB: What would you say to people who would argue that actually the price of oil has gone down and doesn't seem to be rising much?

MB: Well, the price of oil fluctuates a lot, but the trajectory is steadily upward. Since we've reached the point on the planet where we're beyond Peak Oil, that is, we've burned more than half the oil that's on the planet, it is inevitable that oil from here on out will be harder to get out of the ground and more and more expensive. This is not a bullet we can dodge.

CB: Currently Transition Colorado is working very hard at finalizing your first Eat Local Campaign for Boulder County. You have the Boulder County Commissioners on board and the Boulder City Council as well. Transition Colorado could have chosen to focus on a number of other issues this year. Why is this event so urgent, in your opinion, and what do you hope to accomplish by organizing it?

MB: As we've been emphasizing the need for relocalization and our community's needing to be able to meet our most essential needs locally instead of being dependent on globalized systems, we've seen that the area where we are most vulnerable here in Boulder County is food. At the moment we're spending about $700 million a year on food. From all that we can tell from the limited data that's available, less than 1% of that is being spent on food being grown in Boulder County. That's a tiny, tiny amount. So currently, our food shed, which is kind of like a watershed, stretches across the globe. We're bringing in food from China, South America, Europe, and as the industrial agricultural system begins to fail, we have no choice but to shrink our food shed to be much, much more local. And it looks like we don't have much time to do that. The impact on industrial agriculture will begin to unfold within the next two-three years, so we need to quickly rebuild local food and farming.

Fortunately, there has been a tremendous amount of work done by people like Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, and Joel Salatin-people who have been working on these issues for years and have helped to educate millions and millions of people about the importance of local, organic food. So there's a great readiness and a rising demand for locally grown, organic food. So what that means is that this is an area where we can have the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time. It's not everything that we need to do in terms of relocalization, but it is maybe the most important thing.

There are lots of reasons for this besides needing to meet our food needs locally. There's a benefit to health that comes from local, fresh, organic food. One of the most important but perhaps least recognized issues in the transitioning from an industrial, fossil fuels agricultural system to a localized organic system is that the latter will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're beginning to understand now that the way we grow and process our food, the way we ship it-all of that, contributes about 31% to our greenhouse gas emission. So here in Boulder, while there's a lot of effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through pretty advanced climate action plans, there is no discussion of the impact of food and farming and greenhouse gas emission. So this is one area where we can make a huge difference in a very short period of time. And since no one else locally is taking that issue on, we will and we are because we must. This is also an area where Transition initiatives around the country can demonstrate leadership.

CB: This leads me to ask the next question which is: What should individuals be doing in terms of creating their own food security? And what should neighborhoods and communities be doing to create food security for their place?

MB: For a long time now we've been saying that it's a good idea for everyone to learn to grow at least some of their own food. This is something that everyone can do, no matter where they live, even if they live in a high-rise apartment building. They can grow at least some of their food. Initially it's not so much about how much food they might each produce, but it's about learning the skills. It's about reconnecting with the natural processes and cycles of life and beginning to understand soil, how to build it and restore it. These are skills we have become very disconnected from and that will be essential for all of us in the future.

So we think that those kinds of skills are going to be more important to food security than storing up lots of food. We can always grow food. As we're compelled increasingly to eat seasonally again, we're going to have to learn how to preserve food from harvest so that we can consume it during the winter months. So we get to learn all those things like canning, drying food-ways that we can feed ourselves year-round. We've gotten so accustomed to being able to eat whatever we want anytime we want it. We just go to the grocery store. We've become totally dependent on this system, and we've lost those basic skills. That's the more real aspect of food security.

On a neighborhood level, I think one of the most important things we can do is to organize as neighbors to support each other. A lot of people can't have their own gardens. They might be able to have a window box garden or some tomato plants on their porch, but they can't really produce much. But community gardens can easily be organized. Again, it's not so much about the amount that's grown, but rather about the process of people working together and rebuilding those fundamental connections between people. Those kinds of connections have been at the heart of civilization from the beginning, and they have eroded away the last two hundred years or so.

On a broader level within a local food shed, let's say an area of a couple hundred miles or so, such as in Boulder County, we need to focus collectively on greatly increasing food production. 75% of our agricultural land here in Boulder County is being used either for pasture land for animals or to grow crops to feed animals. We need to be using much more of that land to grow food for our own people. Agriculture has gotten focused over the last century on exporting commodity crops to other countries and has totally lost site of the need to feed our own people. We need to reverse that priority and make the purpose of local farming and the whole food system to feed our own people first, then export surplus once those local needs have been met. It's a huge transition we have to go through, but that's ultimately where our food security will come from.

CB: One of the presentations you frequently do is entitled "The Extent of Our Predicament". In a few words, what is the extent of our predicament, and what should we be doing to deal with that predicament?

MB: First of all, what inspired me to talk about this is Gus Speth's book The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability where he concludes that we will never do what is necessary until we understand the full extent of our predicament. So I've been speaking more and more about our predicament in terms of first of all, the end of the age of cheap fossil fuels-the reality that we will never be able to replace the amount of energy we're burning in fossil fuels today and that we will have no choice but to dramatically reduce our energy consumption. That's the first realization that we have to come to.

The second is that climate change is going to change the face of the planet and will certainly change the trajectory of the human presence on the planet, and this will happen much more quickly and much more painfully than almost any of us is willing to think about. But we need to begin. Primarily because of our use of fossil fuels and our profligate burning of fossil fuels, we've unleashed profound changes in our climate that are probably going to give us the equivalent of a species near-death experience. The near-death experiences for many individuals will be a profound wake up call and will produce a shift from an aimless, dissipated, wasted life to a focus on purpose and service. Climate change is likely to be affording us as a species, that kind of opportunity.

The third aspect of our predicament is the reality is that our economic system will not recover but will go into a steeper decline, eventually plunging into an irreversible global depression that will last beyond our lifetimes. Of course, it's because our entire global economic system has been based on cheap fossil fuels and the American dollar. The whole system now is beginning to collapse. So we need to understand that the global systems on which we've come to depend are already failing, and they will fail dramatically in the future. So we have to rebuild from the ground up our capacity to live well, to live meaningfully, in a healthy and productive manner on this planet.

CB: Michael you often speak of the "evolutionary threshold" on which humanity stands in the present moment. What do you mean by this?

MB: I think that where we are as a species and what gives me hope perhaps, is the realization that we are a very young species in the universe. We are living in a time where we are beginning to emerge from our species adolescence into adulthood. It's not a very comfortable time just as is often the case for adolescents when they begin to shift into early adulthood, but that's what's up for us, and as we shift into adulthood, we'll have to live very, very differently. But seeing it that way is very good news because it means that as a species it means that we're not doomed, we're not fatally flawed-it just means that it's time for us to grow up together. Of course, in order to do that, we're going to have to make some pretty significant changes. We're going to have to put behind us our childish way of living, our very selfish way of living, but we certainly have an opportunity to begin to realize the potential and destiny of the human species.

There's no guarantee that we'll make this transition. In fact, there are a lot of reasons to doubt that we'll be able to do this. In our adolescence, the problems we've created for ourselves are so overwhelming that if we don't make the course correction very quickly, the window of opportunity will have passed, and we will not survive. But right now, the window is still open, and if enough people can wake up to our predicament and put into place the basic processes and structures that will enable what's best about the human species-what's the most important, what's the most precious about our species in order to survive beyond this transition, then ultimately humanity will fulfill its purpose and destiny.

CB: Thank you Michael for taking this time to talk about the crucial role of local food and farming. For readers in Boulder County, please attend the Eat Local Campaign. For readers elsewhere, check out the Eat Local website and think about how you might implement a local food and farming campaign in your place.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Brownlee is the Co-Director of Transition Colorado, Boulder County

Collapse

The people of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, whose countries were parts of the Greater Persia in ancient times, consider Iran as their cultural homeland and believe that the Iranian nation is the inheritor of their paternal legacy, the Persian civilization.

I had the opportunity to conduct an exclusive interview with the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran for the local weekly magazine last month in which I discovered for the first time that the roots of cordiality and affinity between Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan are so deep and robust that one can hardly imagine. The Tajikistani ambassador Ramadan Mirza talked of Iran so enthusiastically and passionately that I felt for a while that he is in actuality more Iranian than I am. He called Iran a brother nation several times, talked of Tehran as an ancient and respectable city, paid homage to the antiquity and preciousness of Persian language as the common heritage of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and told me of his early childhood's aspiration of visiting Iran. He told me that when, under the soviet dominance, he was attending the high school in Tajikistan, he read about the historical sites of Iran such as the mausoleum of Persian poet Saadi, the tomb of Cyrus the Great or the ancient site of Persepolis in his school textbooks and since then, it became his ambition to visit these sites one day. He said that when he was selected to his mission as the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran, his 50-year-long dream came true and he finally succeeded in visiting the sites which seemed to him unreachable and inaccessible long ago. Mr. Mirza told me that it is his honor to serve as his country's ambassador in Tehran where he can freely visit the four corners of Iran whenever he likes.

It was in this interview that Mr. Mirza revealed for the first time that the Tajikistani President Emomali Rahmon has formally asked his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Nowrouz festival of 2011 be held in Persepolis which is actually the native soil of Nowrouz.
Nowrouz is a set of ancient festivities held at the beginning of vernal equinox to mark the commencement of new solar year.

He also pointed to the fact the despite the longstanding dominance of Russia over the newly-established state of Tajikistan, the Tajik people has never forgotten their maternal Persian language. It's noteworthy that since Tajikistan was separated from the Greater Persia during the Russo-Persian wars of 1860s, the Soviet rulers launched a de-Persianization project in Tajikistan where almost everyone would speak Persian and write in the Iranian alphabet. The history of Russia's relations with Iran narrates the bitter story that the Eastern superpower never dealt with Iran in a sincere, truthful and loyal manner. Traditionally, the Iranian nation thinks of Russia as a betraying, hypocritical and oppressive state which has shown its hostility towards the Southern neighbor on various occasions. One clear instance is the de-Persianization project in which the national media outlets, schools, public offices and universities of Tajikistan were banned from using the Persian alphabet and forced to employ Cyrillic alphabet instead. This was an artificial and uninteresting incorporation of the Russian culture into Tajikistan which had been an inseparable constituent of Iran's large puzzle of cultural heritage since the establishment of Achaemenid dynasty 2500 years ago.

Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan have the capability to form a powerful political coalition. They share the same language, religion and cultural background and this is something which is a rarity in the contemporary world. They have common ideological objectives and since they've historically suffered from the subjugation of the superpowers, they seek independence and freedom. The closeness of the three countries is evident in their broad collaborations in various fields including academic exchanges, agricultural cooperation, military ties, financial relations and cultural collaborations. The three countries are slated to launch a trilateral Persian-language TV channel which is based in Dushanbe and will be broadcasting programs produced by each party. A long railway will be connecting the three countries in near future. All of them are the members of Organization of Islamic Conference and Non-Aligned Movement. They also sit at the same table in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as member states.

The joint declaration of the fourth summit of the heads of states of Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Republic of Tajikistan was compiled in 14 articles and signed by the three presidents who have planned to hold the fifth joint meeting in Afghanistan in 2011.

In the 5th article, the three brother countries emphasized the importance of trilateral financial relations and highlighted the expansion of economic transactions through empowering and assisting the merchants and investors of each country.

In the 7th article, the three parties supported the development of cultural, scientific and educational cooperation and underscored the significance of joint planning for collaboration in the fields of culture, literature, history, common cultural heritage and sports.

In the 9th article, they announced their complete readiness to combat extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and drug trafficking which pose serious threats to the security and stability of the three countries.

In the 11th article, the three countries stressed the importance of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and underlined the inalienable right of the NPT member states to use the nuclear power for peaceful purposes under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The fifth joint summit of the presidents of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan will be held next year and its date will be announced very soon.

Overall, it seems that the expansion of relations between the three Persian-speaking countries who are bound together through ancient cultural ties will serve to meet the interests of the Central Asian and Middle Eastern nations and contribute to the sustainable and durable stability and development in the region.

Collapse

The corporate bigwigs meanwhile are essentially using economic blackmail as they sit on trillions of dollars in cash, refusing to invest their capital and making great profits because they have cut workers and increased productivity. They want even more benefits from government that they think Republicans will give them.

No wonder that only 11 percent of people have confidence in Congress and most Americans are fed up with both major political parties. It is bewildering why more Americans are not openly condemning President Obama and his administration. Perhaps because there is no clear Republican that warrants support to replace him.

It seems that Obama has taken some power-narcotic and entered into a delusional mental state. He persists in talking as if the Great Recession is over and all is going just swell. His wife takes the kids for a vacation in Spain and soon the whole family will go up to a swank place in Cape Cod for another vacation and, of course, Obama likes to go out golfing frequently. Does any rational being perceive he really feels the pain that so many citizens feel? He lives the life of a typical rich and powerful corporate CEO, not a servant of the people.

Progressives often seem amazed and befuddled by Obama's persistent policies that take care of the business and financial sectors, apparently forgetting that when he campaigned for the presidency he took huge amounts of money from those people. If he does not appoint Elizabeth Warrant to head the new consumer protection financial agency Obama should be openly and loudly condemned by everyone on the left.

Obama finds self-satisfaction in making the argument that everything he has done is surely better than any Republican has done or would do. He misses the point that being better than the worst imaginable is not the same as doing a really first rate job that serves the interests of ordinary people and especially of those hit the hardest by the continuing recession. In many respects the economic conditions now savaging the nation are as bad as the Great Depression. The many millions facing hunger, no jobs, homelessness, foreclosure, inadequate better health care, bankruptcy and financial insecurity define a nation way down the toilet. The middle class has been murdered. We are now a two-class society with a rich Upper Class and a suffering Lower Class.

That billions and billions of dollars are still being spent on two unnecessary wars should make everyone feel as if they are living in a big insane asylum. All that money should be going to investment (especially public infrastructure) and jobs creation here in the USA.

No wonder that a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week found that nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, a majority disapproves of President Obama's handling of the economy, and nearly two-thirds expect the economy to get worse, which it will.

Even more important than Obama waking up to reality is that more Americans wake up to their nasty political reality. Voting in elections has become a political placebo. Electing more Republicans to Congress in the fall is nothing more than taking two aspirin when you are near death from starvation.

The real medicine needed for our delusional democracy is revolution that overthrows the two-party plutocracy. We need leaders for one, but there are none that most Americans could and should support, not even in the Tea Party movement. Time to learn from history: Even the greatest nations and societies end up losing their glory, wealth and power.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse