http://www.imi-online.de/2011.php?id=2229
20.1.2011, Christoph Marischka
Kurz bevor im Bundestag Ende 2010 die Abstimmung über eine Verlängerung
der deutschen Beteiligung am EU-Marineeinsatz ATALANTA am Horn von
Afrika anstand, richtete sich ein ungewöhnlich breites Bündnis von
entwicklungspolitischen Gruppen und Menschenrechtsorganisationen mit
einem Positionspapier an die Abgeordneten. Die "Verteidigung der
maritimen Handelsinteressen" durch ATALANTA geschehe in einer "Art und
Weise, die aufgrund der bisherigen Erfahrungen berechtigten Anlass zu
der Vermutung gibt, dass [sie] die Gesamtlage noch verschlechtert".[1]
Trotzdem verlängerte der Bundestag mit 487 zu 68 Stimmen bei 12
Enthaltungen die Beteiligung der Bundeswehr an der EU-Mission zur
Pirateriebekämpfung. Zahlreiche andere Maßnahmen Deutschlands und der
EU, die zu einer weiteren Militarisierung und Destabilisierung der
Region beitragen, sind hingegen der Öffentlichkeit kaum bekannt und
entziehen sich auch der parlamentarischen Kontrolle. Im Mittelpunkt
steht dabei die Aufrüstung des Jemen, Äthiopiens, Ugandas und Kenias,
welche jeweils eigene Interessen in Somalia verfolgen.
AMISOM -- Bodentruppen der internationalen Gemeinschaft?
Das u.a. von Amnesty International und dem Evangelischen
Entwicklungsdienst (eed) eingebrachte Positionspapier übte auch scharfe
Kritik am Vorgehen der "internationalen Gemeinschaft" gegenüber Somalia
selbst: Die "Ausrüstungs- und Ausbildungsprogramme für bewaffnete Kräfte
der [Übergangsregierung] TFG steigern in der derzeitigen Lage in nicht
kontrollierbarer Weise das Gewaltpotenzial im Land... Die
internationale, aber auch die deutsche Strategie ist dabei vorrangig auf
die Unterstützung der TFG ausgerichtet. Dieser Ansatz ignoriert jedoch
alle Erfahrungen aus einer 19-jährigen Geschichte von Interventionen und
verkennt die Realität in Somalia".[2]
Hinsichtlich der Truppen der AU-Mission AMISOM, welche Teile der
somalischen Hauptstadt Mogadischu kontrollieren und quasi als der Fuß
der internationalen Gemeinschaft in der Tür zum somalischen Bürgerkrieg
fungieren, heißt es vorsichtig, diese "sollten nachdrücklich dazu
angehalten werden, internationales Humanitäres Völkerrecht und die
Menschenrechte zu beachten."[3] Was sich dahinter verbirgt, machte
wenige Tage später der humanitäre Nachrichtendienst der UN, IRIN,
deutlich. Nahezu täglich würden die AMISOM-Truppen Wohnviertel und den
wichtigsten Markt der Hauptstadt mit Mörsergranaten beschießen.[4] Dass
sie dabei nicht zwischen zivilen und militärischen Zielen unterscheiden,
wie es das humanitäre Völkerrecht vorschreibt, war zuvor schon von Human
Rights Watch[5], dem UNHCR und Amnesty International[6] kritisiert
worden. Dies ist v.a. deshalb brisant, weil der Einsatz der AMISOM
überwiegend von Deutschland und der EU finanziert wird, die zusätzlich
noch weitere Konfliktparteien im somalischen Bürgerkrieg ausrüsten und
unterstützen.
Die Aufrüstung des Bürgerkrieges
Auf eine Anfrage der Linksfraktion im Bundestag hin musste die
Bundesregierung einräumen, dass die Europäische Union bislang 142 Mio.
Euro alleine aus dem Europäischen Entwicklungsfonds für den Bürgerkrieg
in Somalia bereitgestellt hat.[7] Hinzu kommen bilaterale Beiträge der
Mitgliedsstaaten. Ein Großteil der Gelder fließt an die Einheiten der
AMISOM, die formal von der Afrikanischen Union koordiniert werden. Diese
wird wiederum zu einem Viertel (72 Mio. Euro) von der EU finanziert.
Obwohl der Bundesregierung bekannt ist, dass diese Einheiten häufig
keinen Sold erhalten oder diesen erst verspätet ausbezahlt bekommen,
schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen begehen und gegen das
Kriegsvölkerrecht verstoßen, übt sie keine Kritik an deren Finanzierung,
sondern verweist sie lediglich darauf, dass der militärische Gegner
ebenso rücksichtslos vorginge.[8] Deutschland trägt alleine ein Fünftel
der EU-Beiträge zur Unterstützung der AMISOM.
Militärhilfe für Äthiopien
Hinzu kommt die massive Unterstützung des Nachbarstaates Äthiopien durch
Deutschland. Äthiopien ist nicht nur für die Eskalation des
Bürgerkrieges in Somalia seit dessen Einmarsch im Winter 2006/2007
verantwortlich, sondern geht auch in seinem Inneren äußerst repressiv
gegen jegliche Opposition vor. Human Rights Watch belegte kürzlich in
dem Bericht "Entwicklung ohne Freiheit", wie dort westliche
Entwicklungshilfegelder für die brutale Unterdrückung der eigenen
Bevölkerung verwendet werden.[9] Auch das ARD-Magazin FAKT kritisierte
die enge Zusammenarbeit der Bundesregierung mit der Militärdiktatur in
Äthiopien.[10]
Dennoch gilt Äthiopien -- so die Bundesregierung in ihrer Antwort auf
die Kleine Anfrage -- in Deutschland als "grundsätzlich
förderungswürdiger Staat". Dementsprechend erhält es von Deutschland
militärische Ausstattungshilfe und wird durch eine "Beratergruppe" der
Bundeswehr unterstützt. Seit 1998 wurden 73 höherrangige äthiopische
Soldaten an Einrichtungen der Bundeswehr fortgebildet,[11] für 2011 bot
die Bundesregierung dem äthiopischen Militär erstmals ein "bilaterales
Kooperationsprogramm" an.[12] Ende Oktober nahm ein deutscher
Stabsoffizier an einer von der EU finanzierten Militärübung in der
Hauptstadt Addis Abeba teil, in dem ein AU-Einsatz auf einer fiktiven
Insel vor Somalia trainiert wurde.[13] Kurz zuvor hatte der
EU-Militärstab Addis Abeba besucht und Gespräche mit dem äthiopischen
Verteidigungsminister geführt.[14] Die äthiopischen Streitkräfte hatten
zuvor finanziert vom Auswärtigen Amt fast 1.000 somalische "Polizisten"
(tatsächlich handelte es sich dabei um Soldaten) ausgebildet, über deren
anschließenden Verbleib die Bundesregierung zunächst keine Angaben
machen konnte. Zuletzt gab sie als Aufenthaltsort der "Polizisten" das
Gebiet Gedo im Südwesten Somalias an, wo mit Äthiopien verbündete
Milizen operieren und es Ende Oktober zu schweren Gefechten kam, vor
denen bis zu 60.000 Menschen flohen.[15] Kenia verstärkte daraufhin
seine militärische Präsenz an der nahe gelegenen Grenze. In der Antwort
auf eine schriftliche Frage der Bundestagsabgeordneten Sevim Dagdelen
konnte Werner Hoyer, Staatssekretär im Auswärtigen Amt, nicht
ausschließen, dass die mit deutscher Hilfe ausgebildeten "Polizisten" an
den Gefechten beteiligt waren und bestätigte, dass weiterhin unklar ist,
wer deren Sold bezahlt.[16] Anschließende Recherchen des in Nairobi
tätigen Journalisten Marc Engelhardt brachten schließlich ans Licht,
dass "die für Somalias Verhältnisse hervorragend ausgebildeten
Sicherheitskräfte" hierbei sogar eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt
haben. Ziel der mit der Übergangsregierung verbündeten Miliz des
Warlords und Parlamentsabgeordneten Barre Aden Hiirale sei es, im Kampf
gegen die Aufständischen "eine zweite Front im Süden [zu] eröffnen".[17]
Ein gefährliches Unterfangen angesichts der Lage im Grenzgebiet zu
Äthiopien und Kenia, die beide Konfliktparteien im somalischen
Bürgerkrieg sind und leicht durch einen (erneuten) Einmarsch eine
weitere Eskalation des Bürgerkrieges auslösen könnten. Vielleicht
besteht jedoch auch genau darin die Strategie Deutschlands und der
Europäischen Union. Die UN Monitoring Group on Somalia hatte zumindest
schon im Frühjahr 2010 darauf hingewiesen, dass bis zu 80% der im
Ausland ausgebildeten Sicherheitskräfte sich mitsamt Ausrüstung anderen
Milizen anschließen oder desertieren würden und es auf absehbare Zeit
keine Perspektive gäbe, dass die Übergangsregierung ohne eine massive
Intervention von außen ihre Kontrolle über Somalia ausweiten könnte.[18]
Nordic Battlegroup startbereit?
Vor diesem Hintergrund erhält die Teilnahme einer kenianische
Eingreiftruppe, die zu einem großen Teil aus Kenianern somalischer
Herkunft bestehen soll, an einer Übung der Nordic Battlegroup der EU im
September 2010 in Schweden besondere Brisanz.[19] In Ihrer Antwort auf
eine Kleine Anfrage leugnete die Bundesregierung jede Kenntnis über
Inhalt der Übung und Sinn der kenianischen Beteiligung. Kenia erhält
u.a. Unterstützung aus dem EU-Stabilitätsinstrument, seit es sich bereit
erklärt hatte, somalischen Piraterieverdächtigen, die im Rahmen der
EU-Mission Atalanta festgenommen wurden, den Prozess zu machen. Kenia
beherbergt zudem das ebenfalls von der EU finanzierte International
Peace Support Training Centre, an dem das Personal der AMISOM mit
deutscher und britischer Unterstützung ausgebildet und ausgerüstet wird,
bevor es in Somalia zum Einsatz kommt.[20] In der kenianischen
Hauptstadt befindet sich zudem das Somalia-Büro der USA, über welches
die Rekrutierung und Bezahlung der Truppen der somalischen
Übergangsregierung koordiniert wird.
Uganda, Ausweitung der Kampfzone
Größter Truppensteller der AMISOM ist jedoch Uganda, das im Juli den
Gipfel der Afrikanischen Union ausrichtete und sich für eine massive
Ausweitung des AMISOM-Einsatzes auf 20.000 Soldaten stark macht. Kurz
zuvor war die ugandische Hauptstadt während des Endspiels der
Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft der Männer von Bombenanschlägen erschüttert
worden, die somalischen Rebellen zugerechnet werden. Die Bundesregierung
vermutet zwar dahinter das Interesse, Uganda "zur Beendigung von AMISOM
zu zwingen", sieht jedoch "keine Hinweise" für einen Zusammenhang mit
der EU-Militärmission EUTM Somalia.[21] Bei dieser "Ausbildungsmission"
werden in Uganda und gemeinsam mit dessen Streitkräften Soldaten für die
somalische Übergangsregierung -- u.a. im Häuserkampf -- ausgebildet.[22]
Deutschland beteiligt sich an diesem Einsatz mit bis zu zwanzig
Bundeswehrsoldaten und durch die Beteiligung an den gemeinsamen Kosten
der Mission. Dass in diesem Rahmen auch Minderjährige für den
anschließenden Kampfeinsatz in Mogadischu ausgebildet werden, kann die
Bundesregierung jedoch bis heute nicht ausschließen und verweist auf die
Verantwortung der AMISOM, des Somalia-Büros der USA in Nairobi und der
somalischen Übergangsregierung.[23] Letzterer wurde jedoch vom
UN-Generalsekretär, zuletzt in seinem Bericht über Kinder in bewaffneten
Konflikten vom 9.11.2010, vorgeworfen, Kindersoldaten zu rekrutieren und
mit Milizen zusammenzuarbeiten, die bis zur Hälfte aus Kindersoldaten
bestehen.[24] Auch Hinweise, wonach Rekruten für die EUTM in
Flüchtlingslagern geworben wurden, ist die Bundesregierung nicht
nachgegangen.
Obwohl mittlerweile die ersten knapp 1.000 Soldaten im Rahmen der EUTM
ausgebildet wurden, ist nach wie vor unklar, wie diese in die Truppen
der Übergangsregierung integriert und bezahlt werden sollen. De facto
handelt es sich bei den Soldaten der Übergangsregierung um die
Angehörigen verschiedener Milizen, die sich bis heute auch gelegentlich
untereinander bekämpfen und ihren Unterhalt u.a. durch Plünderungen und
die "Zuteilung" internationaler Hilfslieferungen verdienen. Als
Zwischenlösung wird gegenwärtig in Mogadischu von der Europäischen Union
der Bau eines "Reintegrationslagers" ("Al Jazeera Camp") finanziert, in
dem die von EU und Bundeswehr ausgebildeten Rekruten zunächst der AMISOM
unterstellt werden sollen, da die Truppen der Übergangsregierung
zunächst noch eine Befehlskette "etablieren" müssten. Es ist davon
auszugehen: Sie werden mitsamt ihren Waffen verschwinden oder
überlaufen, auf jeden Fall aber zu einer Eskalation beitragen.
Terrorbekämpfung im Jemen
Auch im Jemen an der gegenüberliegenden Küste des Golf von Aden
unterstützt die internationale Gemeinschaft eine hochgradig korrupte
Regierung auf Kosten der Bevölkerung. Der Jemen lebt fast ausschließlich
von Erdöl- und Erdgasreserven, die bald versiegen werden. Die Regierung
hat kaum Versuche unternommen, andere Einkommensquellen zu erschließen
und die Landwirtschaft nahezu zum Erliegen gebracht. Das von
Nahrungsmittelimporten abhängige Land wurde nicht nur von der globalen
Teuerung von Nahrungsmitteln 2008 stark betroffen, sondern auch von den
sinkenden Preisen für Öl und Gas im Zuge der anschließenden
Weltwirtschaftskrise. Die Lage der Bevölkerung hat sich massiv
verschlechtert, was wiederum zwei sehr unterschiedlichen Aufständen --
der Houthi-Rebellion im Norden und der tw. sezessionistische
"Süd-Bewegung" -- neuen Auftrieb gab. Die "internationale Gemeinschaft",
die eigens eine Gruppe "Freunde des Jemens" einrichtete, um ihre
Unterstützung für die Regierung zu organisieren, interessiert sich
jedoch nahezu ausschließlich für die angebliche Gefahr, die von der
Al-Kaida-Gruppe auf der arabischen Halbinsel ausgeht.[25] "Damit
verschärft sie die Tendenz der jemenitischen Regierung, Menschenrechte
Sicherheitsinteressen unterzuordnen", kritisierte Amnesty International
in einem Bericht vom August 2010: Viele der unter dem Applaus der
internationalen Gemeinschaft eingeführten Anti-Terror-Maßnahmen würden
sich in Wirklichkeit gegen die Zivilbevölkerung und die Aufstände
richten.[26]
Die USA haben unmittelbar nach dem gescheiterten Anschlag auf einem Flug
nach Detroit Ende 2009 die Rüstungsfirma Northrop Grumman beauftragt,
für 550 Mio. US$ saudische Spezialeinheiten auszubilden und für
Anti-Terrormaßnahmen u.a. im Jemen auszurüsten. Deutschland hingegen
leistet der jemenitischen Küstenwache militärische Amtshilfe, da sie
sich hiervon eine "Verbesserung der maritimen Sicherheit im Golf von
Aden" erhofft.[27] Tatsächlich werden die von der jemenitischen
Küstenwache festgenommenen mutmaßlichen Piraten im Jemen aber regelmäßig
zum Tode verurteilt. Zudem hat die Zeitschrift Foreign Policy im
November 2010 aufgedeckt, dass der Jemen Schiffe und Soldaten seiner
Küstenwache für je 55.000 US$ an Reedereien vermietet, um sichere
Schiffspassagen zu garantieren: frische Einkünfte für den Krieg gegen
den Terror.[28]
Mehr Geiseln als je zuvor
Massiv angestiegen war die Piraterie am Horn von Afrika erst im zweiten
Halbjahr 2008. Die Zahl der gemeldeten Vorfälle stieg von 10 im Jahr
2006 und 13 im Jahr 2007 im ersten Halbjahr 2008 auf 19 und dann
sprunghaft auf 73 im zweiten Halbjahr 2008 bzw. 100 im ersten Halbjahr
2009. Vor allem nahm im Jahr 2008 der Einsatz von Schusswaffen und
Raketenwerfern durch die Piraten massiv zu und damit auch die Anzahl der
getöteten und verwundeten Seeleute.[29] Einige der Waffen stammen von
der MV Faina, die im September 2008 Panzer, Flaks und containerweise
Kleinwaffen mit Unterstützung der USA über Kenia an den Südsudan liefern
sollte, vor der Küste Somalias jedoch gekapert wurde. Die Kleinwaffen
schafften die Piraten von Bord, die Panzer wurden später in Mombasa
entladen.[30] Im Januar 2011 meldete das International Maritime Bureau,
dass 2010 mehr Seeleute von Piraten als Geiseln genommen wurden, als je
zuvor.
Weiter so?
Die militärische Pirateriebekämpfung ist also erfolglos. Auch eine
Studie des Instituts für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der
Universität Hamburg mit dem bezeichnenden Titel "Somalia und Piraterie:
keine Lösung in Sicht, weder zu Wasser noch zu Land" stellt fest, dass
sie v.a. zur Professionalisierung der Piraten und einer Ausdehnung ihres
Operationsgebietes geführt hat.[31] Dennoch ist mit der Fortsetzung des
ATALANTA-Einsatzes zu rechnen. Erstens liefert dieser wichtige
Erfahrungen für den Kampf gegen illegale Migration und andere
asymmetrische Konfliktkonstellationen, bei denen sich die militärische
Aufklärung auf einzelne Individuen fokussiert. Dies gilt auch für die
Terrorbekämpfung, welche schleichend Teil des ATALANTA-Einsatzes wird,
da auch terroristische Gruppen in Jemen oder Somalia die maritime
Sicherheit am Golf von Aden bedrohen könnten. Zuletzt ist fraglich, ob
EU und NATO ihre militärische Präsenz an diesem Nadelöhr des Welthandels
unter geopolitischen Gesichtspunkten überhaupt noch drastisch reduzieren
können oder wollen, nachdem auch konkurrierende Mächte wie China und
Indien unter dem Vorwand der Pirateriebekämpfung ihre Seestreitkräfte
dort stationiert haben.
Auch für Jemen und Somalia sieht die Zukunft düster aus: Das
internationale Engagement läuft auf eine weitere Militarisierung beider
Staaten und der gesamten Region hinaus. Es fördert Regierungsformen, die
auf militärisch gestützter Repression einschließlich gezielter Tötungen
basieren und ihrerseits geeignet sind, Aufstände und Terrorismus zu
fördern und die Konflikte zu internationalisieren. Viel mehr noch als
Saudi-Arabien ein Interesse an einem schwachen, aber repressiven Jemen
hat, ist für Äthiopien ein starkes und stabiles Somalia ein Alptraum.
Dieses würde zweifelsfrei Territorialansprüche gegenüber Äthiopien
geltend machen. Dass gerade Saudi-Arabien und Äthiopien von USA und EU
als Stellvertreter bei ihren Stabilisierungsversuchen am Golf von Aden
genutzt werden, lässt Schlimmes erahnen.
Anmerkungen:
[1] Amnesty International, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst,
Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker, Save the Children Deutschland, World
Vision: "Somalia: Deutsches Engagement für eine politische Lösung
notwendig", gemeinsames Positionspapier vom November 2010.
[2] Ebd.
[3] Ebd.
[4] IRIN: Somalia - Accusations traded over rising casualties at
Mogadishu market, Meldung vom 2.12.2010:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91267
[5] Human Rights Watch: Harsh War, Harsh Peace - Abuses by al-Shabaab,
the Transitional Federal Government, and AMISOM in Somalia, Bericht vom
19.4.2010: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/04/19/harsh-war-harsh-peace
[6] Amnesty International: Somalia - Allegations of AU force firing on
civilians need investigating, Meldung vom 5.2.2009:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/498fe0671e.html
[7] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3784:
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/037/1703784.pdf
[8] Ebd.
[9] Human Rights Watch: Development without Freedom - How Aid
Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia, Bericht vom 19.10.2010:
http://www.hrw.org/node/93605
[10] Afrika-Politik - Wirtschaftliche Interessen haben Vorrang, Beitrag
in der Sendung FAKT im ARD vom 13.9.2010, Manuskript unter:
http://www.mdr.de/DL/7667541.PDF
[11] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3784.
[12] German-foreign-policy.com: Diktatorenhilfe, Meldung vom 4.10.2010.
[13] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3784.
[14] Rat der Europäischen Union: EU Security and Defence news, Ausgabe
#25 vom 8.10.2010:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/116985.pdf
[15] Dominic Johnson: An der somalischen Bürgerkriegsfront, Beitrag in
der tageszeitung vom 13.8.2010:
http://www.taz.de/1/politik/afrika/artikel/1/polizisten-wieder-aufgetaucht
[16] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3565:
dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/035/1703565.pdf
[17] Marc Engelhardt: Fit für den Krieg mit deutschem Geld, Beitrag in
der tageszeitung vom 25.11.2010:
http://www.taz.de/1/politik/afrika/artikel/1/fit-fuer-den-krieg-mit-deutschem-geld
[18] Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia pursuant to Security
Council resolution 1853 vom 26.2.2010:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2010/91
[19] Rat der Europäischen Union: EU Security and Defence news, Ausgabe
#26 vom 15.10.2010:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/117103.pdf
[20] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3784:
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/037/1703784.pdf
[21] Ebd.
[22] Ein sehr entlarvendes Video hierzu, das von der EU selbst stammt,
findet sich unter folgender URL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/eusecurityanddefence#p/a/u/0/wxVsHsuxWXs
[23] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/2615:
(http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/026/1702615.pdf
[24] UN-Generalversammlung: Children and armed conflict, Bericht des
Generalsekretärs vom 13.4.2010.
[25] Christoph Marischka: Al-Kaida in Ostafrika - Wie internationales
"Krisenmanagement" einen Mythos Realität werden lässt, in: AUSDRUCK (das
IMI-Magazin) Oktober 2010:
http://www.imi-online.de/download/CM-AUSDRUCK-10-2010.pdf
[26] Amnesty International: Yemen -- Cracking down under pressure,
Bericht vom 31.10.2010:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE31/010/2010/en
[27] Bundestags-Drucksache 17/2060.
[28] Ellen Knickmeyer: The Privateers of Yemen, Meldung vom 17.11.2010
auf www.foreignpolicy.com
[29] Christoph Marischka: Schuss vor den Bug oder Schlag ins Wasser?
Eskalation am Golf von Aden, in: AUSDRUCK August 2009:
http://imi-online.de/download/CM-Piraterie-4-09.pdf
[30] ARD: Das Geheimnis des Waffenschiffes Faina, Radiofeature von
Rainer Kahrs, Manuskript unter der URL:
web.ard.de/media/pdf/radio/radiofeature/waffenschiff_faina.pdf
[31] Kerstin Petretto: Somalia und Piraterie - keine Lösung in Sicht,
weder zu Wasser noch zu Land, Hamburger Informationen zur
Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik Ausgabe 49/2010.
Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2011
Kommunistische Arbeiterpartei Tunesiens:
Der einzige Weg, dies zu ändern, besteht darin, dass das tunesische Volk sein Schicksal in die eigenen Hände nimmt
Interview mit Genossen Hamma Hammadi
auszugsweise übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
auf Kommuniste n-online am 15. Januar 2011 – Genosse Hamma Hammadi ist der Sprecher der Kommunistischen Arbeiterpartei Tunesiens und Redakteur der seit 1990 verbotenen Zeitung Al Badil („Die Alternative“), welcher 10 Jahre in den Kerkern der Bourguiba und Ben Alis verbringen mußte und anschließend weitere 10 Jahre im Untergrund lebte und tätig war. Stets bereit zu kämpfen und zu siegen, seinen Gegnern zu trotzen. Wie er seine Angst vor einem Scheitern überwand? Er hatte nichts außer Schulden und somit nichts zu verlieren außer Zeit. Er entschied sich für den Kampf auf Leben und Tod. Und so kam er schließlich wieder heraus aus dem politischen Untergrund und gab am 17. Oktober 2009 dieses Interview.
Auf dem Flughafen von Karthago schlugen ihn die Büttel des Regimes zusammen. Er wurde massakriert und beschuldigt, ein Raufbold zu sein. Viele Jahre hatten sie ihn gesucht und zum gefährlichen Verbrecher und Staatsfeind Nummer 1 in Tunesien gestempelt. Wiederholt prangerte er Ben Ali und dessen Komplizen in aller Welt über Al Jazeera an.
F: Wollen Sie an den Präsidentschaftswahlen 2009 teilnehmen?
Genosse Hammami: Es wird gar keine geben. Es gibt einfach eine Volksabstimmung. Wer kann den Sieg des Generals mit fast 100% anzweifeln?
Seit dem Putsch vom 7. November 1987, dessen Urheber Ben Ali war, bleibt dieser Diktator Tunesiens Präsident auf Lebenszeit. Die drei anderen Kandidaten wurden von Ben Ali benannt. Das ist nichts weiter als Kosmetik.
Weder politisch noch rechtlich werden derzeit freie und transparente Wahlen ermöglicht. Hinter den Kulissen des pluralistisch sich gebenden Regimes tut Ben Ali alles, um das tunesische Volk und die demokratischen Kräfte zu erdrosseln. Die politische Polizei übt terroristisch die Herrschaft in der Gesellschaft aus. Die Justiz hat sich den Machthabern unterworfen und wird ständig benutzt, um politische Gegner, Gewerkschafter, Aktive und Menschenrechtler auszuschalten. Gleichzeitig gibt es Straffreiheit für Folterer und Mafiosi der Königsfamilie. Die Aktivitäten der Oppositionsparteien, von unabhängigen Vereinigungen und sonstigen Organisationen oder Personen rebellischer Art werden gewaltsam verboten. Die Meinungsfreiheit wird systematisch mißachtet. Die Massenmedien werden stark kontrolliert, Journalisten durch Berufsverbotsandrohung zum Schweigen gebracht bzw. eingeschüchtert, verfolgt und tätlich angegriffen.
Kürzlich veranstalteten Handlanger von Ben Ali einen Putsch gegen den demokratisch gewählten Vorstand der Nationalvereinigung der Journalisten. Unter all diesen Bedingungen sind die Worte von Ben Ali über freie und transparente Wahlen blanker Hohn. Der Diktator will die Weltöffentlichkeit über den wahren Willen des tunesischen Volkes und seiner demokratischen Kräfte täuschen. Er führt sich auf wie ein kleiner Goebbels und hat bei all dem keinen Mangel an Mitteln, denn finanzieren kann er sich großteils aus den Kassen des Staates und den öffentlichen Mitteln. So bedient er sich Kampagnen von Telegrammen, um Dankbarkeit für sein angeblich karitatives Wirken seitens politischer Organisationen, Vereine, Kulturschaffender, der Landwirtschaft und der Sportler des Landes vorzugaukeln oder ein Spektakel seiner Marionetten in Gestalt von Unternehmern und Gewerkschaften aufzuführen, welche eine pluralistisch anmutende angeblich moderne Einrichtung für Ben Ali und seiner Herrschaftsclique abgeben sollen.
Ben Ali kauft sich Artikel in der internationalen und einheimischen Presse und zahlt große Werbe-Anzeigen, um mit großem Tamtam Beweise für die Fortschritte Tunesiens unter Führung eben dieses Präsidenten zu konstruieren. Auszeichnungen und Medaillen für ausländische Organisationen werden oft nur zu dem Anlaß geschaffen, um sich dafür Lob und ständige Unterstützung für das Regime von Ben Ali zu erkaufen, ihn als Wahrer von humanitären Zielen und Menschenrechten in Tunesien und in der ganzen Welt darzustellen. Es wird vor nichts zurückgeschreckt, um die die Situation in Tunesien unter Ben Ali zu verschleiern und glauben zu machen, dass es absolut Konsens für ihn und die Fortsetzung mit seiner Person an der Spitze des Staates wegen angeblich allgemeinem Beifall für ihn gibt.
Diese Wahlen sollen legal sein? Die Rechtsinstrumente namens Präsidentschaftswahlen und Gesetze sind darauf abgestimmt sicherzustellen, dass Ben Alis Präsidentschaft lebenslänglich währt. Verfassungsgemäße Bedingungen können von dem Präsidentschaftskandidaten Ben Ali nicht erfüllt werden. (...)
Diese Wahlmaskerade bringt dem tunesischen Volk keinen Vorteil, weil ihm die Freiheit und alle Grundrechte entzogen bleiben. Das dient nur einer Handvoll Familien um Ben Ali wie seiner eigenen, den Trabelsi, den Matri die Mzabi die Oukil, M. Hiri, die Marbouk usw. Über sie hält er die Hand, unter ihrem Schutz sammelt er einen großen Teil des von den Menschen erarbeiteten Reichtums. Ben Ali hat laut Forbes ein geschätztes Vermögen von 500 Millionen Dollar bis 2007 angehäuft.
Die Demokratie ist der furchtbare Feind all dieser Ausplünderer. Sie fürchten jede Kritik, jede Verurteilung. Deshalb gibt es weder freie Presse noch unabhängige Justiz noch demokratische Wahlen oder deren Willen dazu.
Heute wird der Zerfall der Diktatur und ihre Isolierung unter den sozialen Folgen der Weltwirtschaftskrise immer offensichtlicher. Die Ben Ali überleben sich immer mehr. Da steht die Frage nach der Nachfolge an. Die Machtausübung wird immer repressiver. Der brutale Charakter der staatlichen Polizei tritt immer deutlicher zutage. Selbst die sich über die bevorstehenden Wahlen täuschen lassenden Menschen erkennen an, dass die Atmosphäre im Lande immer finsterer geworden ist, wenn wir es mit früheren Wahlen vergleichen.
Nicht zu vergessen ist bei all dem, dass Ben Ali und seine Bande den Schutz und die Unterstützung der westlichen Regierungen Frankreichs, der USA, Italiens usw. genießt. In Tunesien beteiligen sich über 3000 ausländische Firmen an der Ausplünderung der Reichtümer des Landes und an der Ausbeutung der Arbeiter. Diese ausländischen Unternehmen verbieten tunesischen Arbeitskräften die Wahrnehmung aller Grundrechte. Sie erfordern ein diktatorisch vorgehendes Regime zur Aufrechterhaltung dieser Ordnung und völligen Ausbeutung der tunesischen Arbeitskräfte.
Sarkozy feierte all dies 2007 mit Ben Ali als Demokratie. Berlusconi hieß erst kürzlich Ben Ali als seinen Freund willkommen. Die westlichen Regierung begrüßen es, dass eine diktatorische Macht in Tunesien ihre Interessen im Land und in der Region bedient. (...)
Wir riefen zum Boykott dieser Wahlfarce und zum Kampf für eine echte demokratische Wahl auf. Der Wechsel kann nur Werk des tunesischen Volkes sein. Es geht um ein politisches Programm zur Überwindung der Grundlagen der Diktatur, die Forderung nach einer verfassungsgebenden Versammlung. Dies als Grundlage für eine demokratische Republik Tunesien.
Heute setzt die Abhaltung freier Wahlen zunächst voraus, die lebenslange Präsidentschaft zu beenden. Ben Ali muß weg! Zweitens müssen alle Einschränkungen der Freiheit der Kandidatur entfernt werden. Drittens muß den Menschen die Freiheit gegeben werden, dass sie ihre eigenen Vertreter frei wählen können. (...)
Bei den Parlamentswahlen gibt es keine Unterschiede zu den Präsidentschaftswahlen. Politisch und rechtlich passiert da dasselbe. Wir wissen vorher, dass die RCD als Partei von Ben Ali 75% der Sitze gewinnen wird. Die übrigen 25% der Sitze werden dann wie immer durch den Präsidentenpalast auf die anderen Parteien der gewünschten politischen Landschaft verteilt, wobei es nur nach dem Grad an Loyalität geht. Freiheit gibt es also auch bei der Parlamentswahl nicht.
Die Verwaltung im Solde von Ben Ali filtert die Listen der anerkannten Parteien mit Schwerpunkt auf jene, die eine Zeile radikaler gegen das Regime sprachen. Unerwünschte Personen werden mit lächerlichen Vorwänden abgelehnt. Der Wahlkampf oppositioneller Parteien wird tausendfach behindert und gewaltsam verboten und unterdrückt. Berichterstattung in den Medien über oppositionelle Parteien findet so gut wie gar nicht statt. Fernseh-Spots der nicht loyalsten Parteien erscheinen zu Zeiten, in denen es garantiert nur sehr wenige Zuschauer gibt. Nicht selten wird einfach ihre Ausstrahlung abgebrochen. (...)
Kurz gesagt, alles ist darauf ausgerichtet, dass die Partei von Ben Ali ihre Hegemonie über die Abgeordnetenkammer behält, die Mitglieder dieser Kammer handverlesene Leute von Ben Ali sind, Berater und Mitglieder der anderen Kammer direkt vom Präsidenten ernannt werden. (...)
Die Wirtschaftskrise lastet schwer auf den Massen. Viele Betriebe sind geschlossen. Die Preise steigen rasant. Die öffentlichen Dienstleistungen verschlechtern sich immer mehr. In dieser Lage wollen junge Leute mit ihren Träumen illegal nach Europa, setzen sich tödlichem Risiko auf dem Mittelmeer aus und landen schließlich in Haftanstalten am anderen Ufer. Drogen, Kriminalität und insbesondere Diebstahl sind zu Geißeln der Gesellschaft geworden und betreffen vor allem junge Menschen. Für normale Arbeitende und selbst die kleinen Beamten und Kleinbauern ist es immer schwieriger geworden, ein halbwegs normales Leben zu führen. Immer häufiger sind sie gezwungen, einen zweiten Job zu suchen. Die Zeichen von Armut und Verelendung sind immer unübersehbarer geworden.
Der Aufstand im Gafsa-Bergbaubecken im Süden des Landes gegen die Massenarbeitslosigkeit, Armut und Korruption wurde brutal niedergeschlagen. Mindestens vier Jugendliche wurden von der Polizei getötet, Dutzende verletzt, hunderte Demonstrierende verhaftet, gefoltert und vor Gerichten scheinrechtlich verurteilt zu hohen Strafen. Die wichtigsten Anführer der Massenproteste, größtenteils Jugendliche und Gewerkschafter, sind immer noch unter übelsten Bedingungen in Gefängnissen.
Helfen Rechtsmittel gegen den Diktatur Ben Ali? Es gibt ihn nicht als völlig alleingelassenen Diktator. In den 53 Jahren seit der Unabhängigkeit Tunesiens waren nur zwei Präsidentschaftsdiktatoren und eine Partei an der politischen Macht. Der einzige Weg, dies zu ändern, besteht darin, dass das tunesische Volk sein Schicksal in die eigenen Hände nimmt. (...)
Quelle: Taoufik Ben Brik
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/
Hervorhebungen von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
Interview mit Genossen Hamma Hammadi
auszugsweise übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
auf Kommuniste n-online am 15. Januar 2011 – Genosse Hamma Hammadi ist der Sprecher der Kommunistischen Arbeiterpartei Tunesiens und Redakteur der seit 1990 verbotenen Zeitung Al Badil („Die Alternative“), welcher 10 Jahre in den Kerkern der Bourguiba und Ben Alis verbringen mußte und anschließend weitere 10 Jahre im Untergrund lebte und tätig war. Stets bereit zu kämpfen und zu siegen, seinen Gegnern zu trotzen. Wie er seine Angst vor einem Scheitern überwand? Er hatte nichts außer Schulden und somit nichts zu verlieren außer Zeit. Er entschied sich für den Kampf auf Leben und Tod. Und so kam er schließlich wieder heraus aus dem politischen Untergrund und gab am 17. Oktober 2009 dieses Interview.
Auf dem Flughafen von Karthago schlugen ihn die Büttel des Regimes zusammen. Er wurde massakriert und beschuldigt, ein Raufbold zu sein. Viele Jahre hatten sie ihn gesucht und zum gefährlichen Verbrecher und Staatsfeind Nummer 1 in Tunesien gestempelt. Wiederholt prangerte er Ben Ali und dessen Komplizen in aller Welt über Al Jazeera an.
F: Wollen Sie an den Präsidentschaftswahlen 2009 teilnehmen?
Genosse Hammami: Es wird gar keine geben. Es gibt einfach eine Volksabstimmung. Wer kann den Sieg des Generals mit fast 100% anzweifeln?
Seit dem Putsch vom 7. November 1987, dessen Urheber Ben Ali war, bleibt dieser Diktator Tunesiens Präsident auf Lebenszeit. Die drei anderen Kandidaten wurden von Ben Ali benannt. Das ist nichts weiter als Kosmetik.
Weder politisch noch rechtlich werden derzeit freie und transparente Wahlen ermöglicht. Hinter den Kulissen des pluralistisch sich gebenden Regimes tut Ben Ali alles, um das tunesische Volk und die demokratischen Kräfte zu erdrosseln. Die politische Polizei übt terroristisch die Herrschaft in der Gesellschaft aus. Die Justiz hat sich den Machthabern unterworfen und wird ständig benutzt, um politische Gegner, Gewerkschafter, Aktive und Menschenrechtler auszuschalten. Gleichzeitig gibt es Straffreiheit für Folterer und Mafiosi der Königsfamilie. Die Aktivitäten der Oppositionsparteien, von unabhängigen Vereinigungen und sonstigen Organisationen oder Personen rebellischer Art werden gewaltsam verboten. Die Meinungsfreiheit wird systematisch mißachtet. Die Massenmedien werden stark kontrolliert, Journalisten durch Berufsverbotsandrohung zum Schweigen gebracht bzw. eingeschüchtert, verfolgt und tätlich angegriffen.
Kürzlich veranstalteten Handlanger von Ben Ali einen Putsch gegen den demokratisch gewählten Vorstand der Nationalvereinigung der Journalisten. Unter all diesen Bedingungen sind die Worte von Ben Ali über freie und transparente Wahlen blanker Hohn. Der Diktator will die Weltöffentlichkeit über den wahren Willen des tunesischen Volkes und seiner demokratischen Kräfte täuschen. Er führt sich auf wie ein kleiner Goebbels und hat bei all dem keinen Mangel an Mitteln, denn finanzieren kann er sich großteils aus den Kassen des Staates und den öffentlichen Mitteln. So bedient er sich Kampagnen von Telegrammen, um Dankbarkeit für sein angeblich karitatives Wirken seitens politischer Organisationen, Vereine, Kulturschaffender, der Landwirtschaft und der Sportler des Landes vorzugaukeln oder ein Spektakel seiner Marionetten in Gestalt von Unternehmern und Gewerkschaften aufzuführen, welche eine pluralistisch anmutende angeblich moderne Einrichtung für Ben Ali und seiner Herrschaftsclique abgeben sollen.
Ben Ali kauft sich Artikel in der internationalen und einheimischen Presse und zahlt große Werbe-Anzeigen, um mit großem Tamtam Beweise für die Fortschritte Tunesiens unter Führung eben dieses Präsidenten zu konstruieren. Auszeichnungen und Medaillen für ausländische Organisationen werden oft nur zu dem Anlaß geschaffen, um sich dafür Lob und ständige Unterstützung für das Regime von Ben Ali zu erkaufen, ihn als Wahrer von humanitären Zielen und Menschenrechten in Tunesien und in der ganzen Welt darzustellen. Es wird vor nichts zurückgeschreckt, um die die Situation in Tunesien unter Ben Ali zu verschleiern und glauben zu machen, dass es absolut Konsens für ihn und die Fortsetzung mit seiner Person an der Spitze des Staates wegen angeblich allgemeinem Beifall für ihn gibt.
Diese Wahlen sollen legal sein? Die Rechtsinstrumente namens Präsidentschaftswahlen und Gesetze sind darauf abgestimmt sicherzustellen, dass Ben Alis Präsidentschaft lebenslänglich währt. Verfassungsgemäße Bedingungen können von dem Präsidentschaftskandidaten Ben Ali nicht erfüllt werden. (...)
Diese Wahlmaskerade bringt dem tunesischen Volk keinen Vorteil, weil ihm die Freiheit und alle Grundrechte entzogen bleiben. Das dient nur einer Handvoll Familien um Ben Ali wie seiner eigenen, den Trabelsi, den Matri die Mzabi die Oukil, M. Hiri, die Marbouk usw. Über sie hält er die Hand, unter ihrem Schutz sammelt er einen großen Teil des von den Menschen erarbeiteten Reichtums. Ben Ali hat laut Forbes ein geschätztes Vermögen von 500 Millionen Dollar bis 2007 angehäuft.
Die Demokratie ist der furchtbare Feind all dieser Ausplünderer. Sie fürchten jede Kritik, jede Verurteilung. Deshalb gibt es weder freie Presse noch unabhängige Justiz noch demokratische Wahlen oder deren Willen dazu.
Heute wird der Zerfall der Diktatur und ihre Isolierung unter den sozialen Folgen der Weltwirtschaftskrise immer offensichtlicher. Die Ben Ali überleben sich immer mehr. Da steht die Frage nach der Nachfolge an. Die Machtausübung wird immer repressiver. Der brutale Charakter der staatlichen Polizei tritt immer deutlicher zutage. Selbst die sich über die bevorstehenden Wahlen täuschen lassenden Menschen erkennen an, dass die Atmosphäre im Lande immer finsterer geworden ist, wenn wir es mit früheren Wahlen vergleichen.
Nicht zu vergessen ist bei all dem, dass Ben Ali und seine Bande den Schutz und die Unterstützung der westlichen Regierungen Frankreichs, der USA, Italiens usw. genießt. In Tunesien beteiligen sich über 3000 ausländische Firmen an der Ausplünderung der Reichtümer des Landes und an der Ausbeutung der Arbeiter. Diese ausländischen Unternehmen verbieten tunesischen Arbeitskräften die Wahrnehmung aller Grundrechte. Sie erfordern ein diktatorisch vorgehendes Regime zur Aufrechterhaltung dieser Ordnung und völligen Ausbeutung der tunesischen Arbeitskräfte.
Sarkozy feierte all dies 2007 mit Ben Ali als Demokratie. Berlusconi hieß erst kürzlich Ben Ali als seinen Freund willkommen. Die westlichen Regierung begrüßen es, dass eine diktatorische Macht in Tunesien ihre Interessen im Land und in der Region bedient. (...)
Wir riefen zum Boykott dieser Wahlfarce und zum Kampf für eine echte demokratische Wahl auf. Der Wechsel kann nur Werk des tunesischen Volkes sein. Es geht um ein politisches Programm zur Überwindung der Grundlagen der Diktatur, die Forderung nach einer verfassungsgebenden Versammlung. Dies als Grundlage für eine demokratische Republik Tunesien.
Heute setzt die Abhaltung freier Wahlen zunächst voraus, die lebenslange Präsidentschaft zu beenden. Ben Ali muß weg! Zweitens müssen alle Einschränkungen der Freiheit der Kandidatur entfernt werden. Drittens muß den Menschen die Freiheit gegeben werden, dass sie ihre eigenen Vertreter frei wählen können. (...)
Bei den Parlamentswahlen gibt es keine Unterschiede zu den Präsidentschaftswahlen. Politisch und rechtlich passiert da dasselbe. Wir wissen vorher, dass die RCD als Partei von Ben Ali 75% der Sitze gewinnen wird. Die übrigen 25% der Sitze werden dann wie immer durch den Präsidentenpalast auf die anderen Parteien der gewünschten politischen Landschaft verteilt, wobei es nur nach dem Grad an Loyalität geht. Freiheit gibt es also auch bei der Parlamentswahl nicht.
Die Verwaltung im Solde von Ben Ali filtert die Listen der anerkannten Parteien mit Schwerpunkt auf jene, die eine Zeile radikaler gegen das Regime sprachen. Unerwünschte Personen werden mit lächerlichen Vorwänden abgelehnt. Der Wahlkampf oppositioneller Parteien wird tausendfach behindert und gewaltsam verboten und unterdrückt. Berichterstattung in den Medien über oppositionelle Parteien findet so gut wie gar nicht statt. Fernseh-Spots der nicht loyalsten Parteien erscheinen zu Zeiten, in denen es garantiert nur sehr wenige Zuschauer gibt. Nicht selten wird einfach ihre Ausstrahlung abgebrochen. (...)
Kurz gesagt, alles ist darauf ausgerichtet, dass die Partei von Ben Ali ihre Hegemonie über die Abgeordnetenkammer behält, die Mitglieder dieser Kammer handverlesene Leute von Ben Ali sind, Berater und Mitglieder der anderen Kammer direkt vom Präsidenten ernannt werden. (...)
Die Wirtschaftskrise lastet schwer auf den Massen. Viele Betriebe sind geschlossen. Die Preise steigen rasant. Die öffentlichen Dienstleistungen verschlechtern sich immer mehr. In dieser Lage wollen junge Leute mit ihren Träumen illegal nach Europa, setzen sich tödlichem Risiko auf dem Mittelmeer aus und landen schließlich in Haftanstalten am anderen Ufer. Drogen, Kriminalität und insbesondere Diebstahl sind zu Geißeln der Gesellschaft geworden und betreffen vor allem junge Menschen. Für normale Arbeitende und selbst die kleinen Beamten und Kleinbauern ist es immer schwieriger geworden, ein halbwegs normales Leben zu führen. Immer häufiger sind sie gezwungen, einen zweiten Job zu suchen. Die Zeichen von Armut und Verelendung sind immer unübersehbarer geworden.
Der Aufstand im Gafsa-Bergbaubecken im Süden des Landes gegen die Massenarbeitslosigkeit, Armut und Korruption wurde brutal niedergeschlagen. Mindestens vier Jugendliche wurden von der Polizei getötet, Dutzende verletzt, hunderte Demonstrierende verhaftet, gefoltert und vor Gerichten scheinrechtlich verurteilt zu hohen Strafen. Die wichtigsten Anführer der Massenproteste, größtenteils Jugendliche und Gewerkschafter, sind immer noch unter übelsten Bedingungen in Gefängnissen.
Helfen Rechtsmittel gegen den Diktatur Ben Ali? Es gibt ihn nicht als völlig alleingelassenen Diktator. In den 53 Jahren seit der Unabhängigkeit Tunesiens waren nur zwei Präsidentschaftsdiktatoren und eine Partei an der politischen Macht. Der einzige Weg, dies zu ändern, besteht darin, dass das tunesische Volk sein Schicksal in die eigenen Hände nimmt. (...)
Quelle: Taoufik Ben Brik
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/
Hervorhebungen von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
India: Judicial inquiry into Azad murder?
17 January 2011. A World to Win News Service. The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that the Union (central) government and the state government of Andhra Pradesh must respond to two petitions demanding a judicial inquiry into the killings of Communist Party of India (Maoist) spokesperson Comrade Azad (Cherukuri Rajkumar) and journalist Hemchandra Pandey.
Azad and Pandey were captured and murdered on the night of July 1 2010, in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, close to Maharashtra by Indian security forces who subsequently announced that the two were killed in an armed "encounter", a claim often made when revolutionaries are illegally and secretly executed.
The Supreme Court was responding to a petition from Pandey's widow, Bineeta Pandey, and Swami Agnivesh, who had been involved in an exchange of letters with Azad, a leading member of the CPI(M), concerning the possibility of talks between the party and the government. India's Home (Interior) Minister had previously turned down a request from Agnivesh for an inquiry into the killing, arguing that such a move would be up to the Andhra Pradesh authorities.
On 14 January 2010 two Supreme Court justices gave the central and state governments six weeks to answer the questions raised in the two petitions, which cite post-mortem reports that both men were shot at very close range and fact-finding carried out by the Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations.
In explaining the ruling, one of the two judges on the bench, Aftab Alam, said; "Our Republic cannot bear the stain to kill its own children. We will issue notice. They [the governments] will have to respond. We hope there will be good and convincing answers to the questions [raised in the petitions]."
In a "Letter to comrades and friends of the Indian revolution" dated 30 November, the CPI(M) wrote, "losing comrade Azad is one of the biggest blows party and Indian revolution had suffered. Azad was one of the topmost leaders in our party. He has been leading the Indian revolution since a long time. In our country, People's War is intensifying with each passing day. With the aid and support of imperialists, particularly the American imperialists, the Indian reactionary ruling classes are trying to suppress the revolutionary movement and are carrying on ruthless atrocities in an unprecedented severe manner. In this war between the people and the ruling classes, the enemy had particularly schemed to murder our leaders and concentrated on comrades like Azad who are leading the revolution. It is as part of that conspiracy that comrade Azad was caught and killed in the most brutal and cowardly manner. Comrade Azad was leading the entire urban movement on behalf of our Central Committee and was also looking after political propaganda, party periodicals, party education and other such crucial responsibilities. He was a most experienced and popular mass leader. He maintained close relations with many comrades at various levels and with the revolutionary masses. In the midst of severe repression, he worked selflessly and unflinchingly in spite of the many risks involved. It is under such circumstances that the enemy came to know about his whereabouts somewhere and could catch him by laying in wait."
On 27 December 2010 the CPI(M) has issued a major statement calling for a united protest movement against the killing of Maoist leaders, the imprisonment of alleged Maoists and other activists and the general repressive climate the government is unleashing against a broad range of political opponents and critics in the context of the central government's Operation Green Hunt, a military offensive against the jungle areas where the Maoist-led revolution is strong among the tribal peoples.
These two statements and other CPI(M) documents can be found at www.bannedthought.net .
Azad and Pandey were captured and murdered on the night of July 1 2010, in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, close to Maharashtra by Indian security forces who subsequently announced that the two were killed in an armed "encounter", a claim often made when revolutionaries are illegally and secretly executed.
The Supreme Court was responding to a petition from Pandey's widow, Bineeta Pandey, and Swami Agnivesh, who had been involved in an exchange of letters with Azad, a leading member of the CPI(M), concerning the possibility of talks between the party and the government. India's Home (Interior) Minister had previously turned down a request from Agnivesh for an inquiry into the killing, arguing that such a move would be up to the Andhra Pradesh authorities.
On 14 January 2010 two Supreme Court justices gave the central and state governments six weeks to answer the questions raised in the two petitions, which cite post-mortem reports that both men were shot at very close range and fact-finding carried out by the Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations.
In explaining the ruling, one of the two judges on the bench, Aftab Alam, said; "Our Republic cannot bear the stain to kill its own children. We will issue notice. They [the governments] will have to respond. We hope there will be good and convincing answers to the questions [raised in the petitions]."
In a "Letter to comrades and friends of the Indian revolution" dated 30 November, the CPI(M) wrote, "losing comrade Azad is one of the biggest blows party and Indian revolution had suffered. Azad was one of the topmost leaders in our party. He has been leading the Indian revolution since a long time. In our country, People's War is intensifying with each passing day. With the aid and support of imperialists, particularly the American imperialists, the Indian reactionary ruling classes are trying to suppress the revolutionary movement and are carrying on ruthless atrocities in an unprecedented severe manner. In this war between the people and the ruling classes, the enemy had particularly schemed to murder our leaders and concentrated on comrades like Azad who are leading the revolution. It is as part of that conspiracy that comrade Azad was caught and killed in the most brutal and cowardly manner. Comrade Azad was leading the entire urban movement on behalf of our Central Committee and was also looking after political propaganda, party periodicals, party education and other such crucial responsibilities. He was a most experienced and popular mass leader. He maintained close relations with many comrades at various levels and with the revolutionary masses. In the midst of severe repression, he worked selflessly and unflinchingly in spite of the many risks involved. It is under such circumstances that the enemy came to know about his whereabouts somewhere and could catch him by laying in wait."
On 27 December 2010 the CPI(M) has issued a major statement calling for a united protest movement against the killing of Maoist leaders, the imprisonment of alleged Maoists and other activists and the general repressive climate the government is unleashing against a broad range of political opponents and critics in the context of the central government's Operation Green Hunt, a military offensive against the jungle areas where the Maoist-led revolution is strong among the tribal peoples.
These two statements and other CPI(M) documents can be found at www.bannedthought.net .
The good news from Tunisia
17 January 2011. A World to Win News Service. In a world sorely in need of good news and a Middle East that has seemed to be getting darker, a ray of light has broken through in Tunisia.
Instead of accepting being pressed down and passive, the masses of people seized the initiative and toppled a hated head of state who had long administered the country for the benefit of France, the other European powers and the U.S., a man who was backed by all of them until the very end. While the Tunisian events are not like, for instance, Iraq and Afghanistan, where the U.S. has suffered serious military setbacks, this is a movement where no reactionaries have hegemony, at least so far.
This is rare in today's world where imperialists and Islamic reactionaries too often monopolize the political stage. These events have brought hope not only to Tunisians but millions of other people sick of the unbearable status quo crushing the region and the globe.
For this reason Tunisians face a very difficult situation as the enforcers of today's world order and their present and possible future Tunisian underlings and allies manoeuvre to stuff the genie – the people – back into the bottle.
In less than a month events moved at such a dizzying pace that each day brought about new and unexpected situations. The cork began to loosen last 17 December in the town of Sidi Bouzid. The police confiscated the fruit and vegetables Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old unemployed university graduate, was selling in the street. When his efforts to protest through legal channels went unheeded, he set fire to himself in a front of local government offices. Security forces attacked demonstrating local students who put the blame for the young man's death on the regime.
This resonated deeply in a society where the schools have been churning out large numbers of graduates who seldom find a place in an economy subordinated to foreign investment, particularly tourism and low-wage garment and footwear manufacture for export. At first the protest movement was strongest in towns in the country's disadvantaged central and western regions. By late
December thousands of people in the capital and other coastal cities demonstrated in support of the youth in Sidi Bouzid. The demand for jobs quickly went over to a movement to topple the regime.
The movement drew in the educated classes – a strike by 95 percent of the country's lawyers and a demonstration by hundreds of them in front of the government palace in Tunis 6 January gave it impetus. But it also involved much of Tunisian society, including various classes, with little political differentiation. In January, especially during the second week, the protests became more confrontational. Demonstrators set up barricades and fought back against the security forces. In the working class Tunis suburb of Ettadhamen-Minihla people attacked government buildings. Their chant, "We are not afraid, we are not afraid, we are afraid only of god", revealed both a new mood of daring and determination and the persistence of traditional thinking. For the first time the army was deployed in several cities. Many dozens of people were killed in clashes with the police over the next days.
After first dismissing the crowds as "terrorists", President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali began to try to save his regime by offering them concessions. He visited the hospital room of the dying young man who had immolated himself. On 12 January he sacked the Interior Minister, claiming that orders for shooting people at Bouazizi's funeral and other demonstrators had been issued behind his back. The next day he promised not to run again in the 2014 elections. But the protests only became more defiant. On 14 January he fled, reportedly after the army chief of staff advised – or told – him to go.
As his last act, Ben Ali told a long-time loyal henchman, his prime minister Mohammed Ghannouchi, to replace him as head of state. This was not acceptable to the protesters. In a desperate attempt to cover the new government with the cloak of the rule of law, the courts declared that the speaker of parliament, the Ben Ali henchman Fouad Mebazaa, should become head of state, according to the constitution that Ben Ali had put in place. Mebazaa turned around and made ex-prime minister the new prime minister.
As things now stand, the situation is complicated. The police and armed militia that were Ben Ali's personal gang have been using their guns to cash in on their loyal service by looting. Their rear-guard action, including sniper fire on crowds, has had a (perhaps intended) political effect. It spurred a popular demand for order – neighbourhood self-protection committees sprang up – and helped divide those who now want stability from those still unsatisfied.
Ben Ali had reportedly recruited militia members from among petty criminals, and the police are certainly extortionist thugs at best, in addition to their role as the main force imposing repression and torture. The army has arrested the former Interior Minister and Ben Ali's head of security, accusing them of fomenting violence to prolong political instability.
At the same time the army is also trying to make the people back down. While armed forces units were briefly withdrawn from the streets just prior to Ben Ali's abdication and flight, reportedly because they did not want to use their tanks and armoured cars against the crowds, they have moved back in force. On 17 January came the announcement of a "unity government" in which the six key portfolios went to seasoned members of the ruling party and three other senior ministerial positions were given to opposition parties legal under Ben Ali. Several thousand people, including many trade union members, gathered in front of the Interior Ministry to chant that this new government did not meet the people's aspirations. They were attacked with clubs, water cannons, tear gas and warning shots.
Unhappiness in the Western capitals
This joyous explosion of the Tunisian people has brought unhappiness and deep concern to the Western governments. Nowhere is this more true than in France, where President Nicholas Sarkozy called an emergency meeting of his cabinet to plan what to do after the fall of Ben Ali.
As the newspaper Le Monde and other media have abundantly detailed, France supported Ben Ali to the bitter end. (See the Facebook page "Ben Ali Wall of Shame" – more than a third of Tunisia's 10 million people are said to have access to Facebook and Twitter.) Early on in his presidency, in 2008, Sarkozy feted the Tunisian tyrant with a super-delegation featuring Mrs Sarkozy and seven ministers. IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who hopes to be the opposition Socialist Party's next presidential candidate, visited to tout Tunisia's economy as a "model for emerging countries". Several French government ministers made statements supporting Ben Ali during his final days. The day before Ben Ali fled, Sarkozy's Interior Minister Michelle Alliot-Marie offered to send French police to "share French skills" and train their Tunisian counterparts in handling "security situations". Although in her statement for French public consumption she added that the police should preserve order and respect democratic rights, the official version of her statement left out this second clause, probably because it might embolden Ben Ali's opponents. In Tunis, people commented that the last thing they needed in fighting a "police state" was French police.
When the fleeing president's private plane approached Paris, Sarkozy apparently gave orders that it not be allowed to land. Members of Ben Ali's family who had been waiting for him in a luxury hotel at the Euro Disney amusement park were asked to leave. Finally, it was Saudi Arabia that gave Ben Ali shelter, probably to France's great relief. A leader of the fascist National Front criticized Sarkozy bitterly for betraying a great personal friend and a friend of France.
It could be said that the basic deal that kept Ben Ali in power so long was that France allowed him and especially his wife's family to enrich themselves obscenely as long as he efficiently performed his role as manager of France's Tunisian enterprise – not very different than a bank or other big corporation. In trying to protect France's man, Sarkozy was continuing the policy of all the French presidents of the right and left who came before him.
Tunisia's ties with France are not only financial. In fact other European powers (especially Italy) and the U.S. have also profited from Tunisia's enslavement to the world market and the economic boom under Ben Ali. But there are also political and cultural ties that have made Tunisia particularly pliable to Paris and therefore important to France's regional and global efforts.
France made Tunisia a "protectorate" by invading it in 1881 and ran it directly until 1957. But unlike Algeria, for instance, which France's ruling capitalists considered an integral part of their country, so that it had to win its independence through a long and hard-fought war, Tunisia became independent without a violent struggle (not unrelated to the war going on in much larger Algeria at the time), and slipped easily and quickly into the neocolonial mode. Its first president, Habid Bourguiba, was also a close "friend of France" from independence until 1987, when the senile old man was overthrown by his security chief, the military leader Ben Ali.
The U.S. did not see Ben Ali as their man the way France did, but Washington was not far behind in supporting him. The "Tunileaks" (WikiLeaks of cables to the U.S. State Department from the American embassy in Tunis) are very revealing in that regard. A report from the U.S. ambassador spread over a series of cables details the almost surreal degree to which Ben Ali's family used its power to accumulate personal wealth, so much so that "50 percent of the economic elite" are members of his and especially his wife's family. This is seen as making the regime more fragile than it would be with a broader-based ruling class. Yet the ambassador's main complaints centre around Ben Ali's failure to support American initiatives that might soften the country's ties with France, particularly in the educational and cultural fields.
The cables make the point that while Tunisia is small and without much regional influence, it is particularly useful to the U.S. in terms of its informal ties with Israel and its refusal to support the Palestinians, even in the purely rhetorical and hypocritical ways dear to some other Arab regimes. The ambassador also expressed appreciation for the regime's Westernised trappings (such as its adoption of French family law, including a ban on polygamy) and its apparent success in strangling Islamic fundamentalism. For these reasons, while continuing to express concern for what are seen as the regime's self-inflicted weaknesses, a later cable advises the U.S. State Department to "dial back the public criticism" and continue efforts to strengthen U.S. influence in the country in the context of supporting Ben Ali.
But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did have the very good luck to give a speech calling on Arab governments to reform the day before Ben Ali fell, and President Barack Obama was the first head of state to salute the developments. Under the guise of "promoting democracy" the U.S. will likely seek to advance its influence in Tunisia and the Arab world in the course of the present political turmoil.
Still, turmoil in the Middle East is what the U.S., France and all the big powers are united against. Tunisia does not have the strategic value to the U.S. as other "friends" such as Egypt, Algeria and Jordan, as the diplomatic cables point out, but what has broken out there does pose dangers for regimes that are crucial to continued U.S. regional control. It is no accident that the focus of Clinton's speech was the need to strengthen Arab regimes under the U.S.'s thumb in order to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The bright spots and dangers of the current situation
The best thing about the events in Tunisia is that for once the people themselves have stepped in and become the motor force driving events. As a reactionary Washington commentator pointed out, even if U.S. and Western interests are not necessarily threatened by the fall of Ben Ali in and of itself, those interests could be imperilled by the fact that he has been thrown out thanks to a popular upsurge and not allowed to go quietly in the kind of smooth transition that characterized the end of fascist regimes in Pinochet's Chile and Franco's Spain. (Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 17 January 2011)
Many commentators have said that the absence of a strong Islamic movement is one reason why the West is not more worried about what's going on there and hasn't tried to more directly intervene. Actually, there hasn't been much opportunity or means for the West to do that so far. But it is also true that it is a very good thing that this upsurge has been able, until now at least, to steer clear of the deadly dynamic that has kept the terms of struggle in other countries confined to open capitulation to imperialism versus a reactionary Islamic fundamentalist movement that does not truly break with the imperialist system even while upsetting the imperialist order.
Commentators have compared the events in Tunisia with the 1979 fall of the Shah of Iran. The revolutionary process there had the advantage of a much longer period of political turmoil and fighting before it was aborted by the installation of today's hated Islamic Republic. When the U.S. and the UK could no longer keep the Shah in power, they decided that an Islamic regime in Iran would be preferable to the uncertain and perhaps revolutionary alternatives, although they probably regretted that later. In the case of Tunisia, it is not impossible that the U.S. summed up those lessons and decided to pull the plug on Ben Ali before the situation became even more uncontrollable.
Explicitly examining the Tunisian situation from the angle of how to pursue U.S. interests, the academic Steven A. Cook wrote for the Web site of U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, "Whether the [Tunisian] military leaders are democrats is not the issue; rather, their concern seems to be that graft, corruption, and the practices of one of the worst police states in the Middle East proved to be a threat to social cohesion and stability." Cook deliberately overlooks the fact that U.S.-dependent regimes in the region like Egypt have killed and tortured many more people than in Tunisia. Probably he means that Ben Ali ran one of the most successful states in the region in terms of its ability to stifle opposition almost completely for 27 years – until a month ago, when these "practices" no longer worked. But his characterization of the role of the Tunisian military is both accurate and expresses the American imperialist point of view.
While various clans have disputed over the spoils, the Tunisian army has always been and is still the backbone of a comprador (imperialist-dependent) state and the ultimate guarantor of a whole imperialist-dominated economic, social and ideological order. In fact, given the country's geopolitical situation, it has little other reason to exist. If the army dumped Ben Ali and has tried to distance itself from his torturers and jailers, it is all the better to play that role. This is why one of the Wiki-leaked U.S. cables stresses the importance of American support for the "neutrality" of the Tunisian army vis a vis disputes among the "economic elite".
It is impossible to predict what concessions to popular demand the military behind Tunisia's governments of the day may feel compelled to grant, and to what degree such concessions may succeed – or fail – at quelling people's anger. It is very possible that they will have to allow more space for political debate and the people's will to be expressed than they normally do. But it is absolutely certain that the Tunisian armed forces and the imperialists will focus on preserving the existing state power.
The media are now arguing that this is the first Arab revolution. One reason why that is wrong is that so far, this has not been a revolution, strictly speaking, in the sense of bringing about fundamental change in social, political and economic relations, or even a thorough regime change. But lessons should be taken from earlier upheavals that toppled feudal monarchies (Egypt and Sudan, Iraq) and and neocolonial republics (Syria). For instance, while the U.S. was at certain points somewhat favourable to the nationalism of Egypt's Gamal Nasser, in terms of challenging British and French dominance of the Middle East, the U.S.'s objective was to make Egypt an American neocolony. Similarly, while the military coups in Syria and Iraq, with their nationalist trappings, created problems for some Western powers, neither of these countries experienced any liberation.
There is also the example of neighbouring Algeria in the 1990s, where the U.S. and the West at first backed political reform in order to achieve a more broad-based and stable comprador regime, and then dropped it when it became clear that Islamic elements would win elections. This helped provoke ten years of bloody and thoroughly reactionary strife in which both the regime and the fundamentalists slaughtered many thousands of people and both sides specifically targeted the intellectuals. The fact that many Algerians felt trapped and mortally threatened by both the comprador regime and its religious fanatic opponents played a major role in putting a damper on the popular struggles that had shaken Algeria in the 1980s. In fact, this experience had a big influence in bringing about a state of political depression in the Arab world.
The media have also enjoyed throwing around the term "Jasmine Revolution", in hopes that the Tunisian upsurge will take the path of the non-violent (on the part of the people) and totally non-revolutionary "colour revolutions" in former Soviet-bloc countries, most recently in Ukraine, which have brought nothing but disappointment, disillusionment and a new plunge into passivity for the people. That is one possibility, and the one for which the enforcers of the world order will do their best to impose, but that is not the only one now.
The Tunisian people have every reason to be happy and proud, but it's no use pretending that they don't face formidable obstacles. The imperialists and the various varieties of smaller reactionaries are going to interact with the people's movement in complex and perhaps unpredictable ways, seeking to slam shut the door that the people have opened through their struggle and sacrifice.
It is far from certain, but there are objective reasons to hope that the enemies of the Tunisian people will not be able to consolidate their grip for a while, and that this situation will continue to inspire and spur on other people and constrain the reactionaries' regional efforts, especially if the movement that brought down Ben Ali develops in a way that gives expression to the independent and revolutionary interests of the people in opposition to the imperialists and their system. The world needs more open doors like the one the Tunisian people have given us, and it needs breakthroughs to the other side.
Instead of accepting being pressed down and passive, the masses of people seized the initiative and toppled a hated head of state who had long administered the country for the benefit of France, the other European powers and the U.S., a man who was backed by all of them until the very end. While the Tunisian events are not like, for instance, Iraq and Afghanistan, where the U.S. has suffered serious military setbacks, this is a movement where no reactionaries have hegemony, at least so far.
This is rare in today's world where imperialists and Islamic reactionaries too often monopolize the political stage. These events have brought hope not only to Tunisians but millions of other people sick of the unbearable status quo crushing the region and the globe.
For this reason Tunisians face a very difficult situation as the enforcers of today's world order and their present and possible future Tunisian underlings and allies manoeuvre to stuff the genie – the people – back into the bottle.
In less than a month events moved at such a dizzying pace that each day brought about new and unexpected situations. The cork began to loosen last 17 December in the town of Sidi Bouzid. The police confiscated the fruit and vegetables Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old unemployed university graduate, was selling in the street. When his efforts to protest through legal channels went unheeded, he set fire to himself in a front of local government offices. Security forces attacked demonstrating local students who put the blame for the young man's death on the regime.
This resonated deeply in a society where the schools have been churning out large numbers of graduates who seldom find a place in an economy subordinated to foreign investment, particularly tourism and low-wage garment and footwear manufacture for export. At first the protest movement was strongest in towns in the country's disadvantaged central and western regions. By late
December thousands of people in the capital and other coastal cities demonstrated in support of the youth in Sidi Bouzid. The demand for jobs quickly went over to a movement to topple the regime.
The movement drew in the educated classes – a strike by 95 percent of the country's lawyers and a demonstration by hundreds of them in front of the government palace in Tunis 6 January gave it impetus. But it also involved much of Tunisian society, including various classes, with little political differentiation. In January, especially during the second week, the protests became more confrontational. Demonstrators set up barricades and fought back against the security forces. In the working class Tunis suburb of Ettadhamen-Minihla people attacked government buildings. Their chant, "We are not afraid, we are not afraid, we are afraid only of god", revealed both a new mood of daring and determination and the persistence of traditional thinking. For the first time the army was deployed in several cities. Many dozens of people were killed in clashes with the police over the next days.
After first dismissing the crowds as "terrorists", President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali began to try to save his regime by offering them concessions. He visited the hospital room of the dying young man who had immolated himself. On 12 January he sacked the Interior Minister, claiming that orders for shooting people at Bouazizi's funeral and other demonstrators had been issued behind his back. The next day he promised not to run again in the 2014 elections. But the protests only became more defiant. On 14 January he fled, reportedly after the army chief of staff advised – or told – him to go.
As his last act, Ben Ali told a long-time loyal henchman, his prime minister Mohammed Ghannouchi, to replace him as head of state. This was not acceptable to the protesters. In a desperate attempt to cover the new government with the cloak of the rule of law, the courts declared that the speaker of parliament, the Ben Ali henchman Fouad Mebazaa, should become head of state, according to the constitution that Ben Ali had put in place. Mebazaa turned around and made ex-prime minister the new prime minister.
As things now stand, the situation is complicated. The police and armed militia that were Ben Ali's personal gang have been using their guns to cash in on their loyal service by looting. Their rear-guard action, including sniper fire on crowds, has had a (perhaps intended) political effect. It spurred a popular demand for order – neighbourhood self-protection committees sprang up – and helped divide those who now want stability from those still unsatisfied.
Ben Ali had reportedly recruited militia members from among petty criminals, and the police are certainly extortionist thugs at best, in addition to their role as the main force imposing repression and torture. The army has arrested the former Interior Minister and Ben Ali's head of security, accusing them of fomenting violence to prolong political instability.
At the same time the army is also trying to make the people back down. While armed forces units were briefly withdrawn from the streets just prior to Ben Ali's abdication and flight, reportedly because they did not want to use their tanks and armoured cars against the crowds, they have moved back in force. On 17 January came the announcement of a "unity government" in which the six key portfolios went to seasoned members of the ruling party and three other senior ministerial positions were given to opposition parties legal under Ben Ali. Several thousand people, including many trade union members, gathered in front of the Interior Ministry to chant that this new government did not meet the people's aspirations. They were attacked with clubs, water cannons, tear gas and warning shots.
Unhappiness in the Western capitals
This joyous explosion of the Tunisian people has brought unhappiness and deep concern to the Western governments. Nowhere is this more true than in France, where President Nicholas Sarkozy called an emergency meeting of his cabinet to plan what to do after the fall of Ben Ali.
As the newspaper Le Monde and other media have abundantly detailed, France supported Ben Ali to the bitter end. (See the Facebook page "Ben Ali Wall of Shame" – more than a third of Tunisia's 10 million people are said to have access to Facebook and Twitter.) Early on in his presidency, in 2008, Sarkozy feted the Tunisian tyrant with a super-delegation featuring Mrs Sarkozy and seven ministers. IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who hopes to be the opposition Socialist Party's next presidential candidate, visited to tout Tunisia's economy as a "model for emerging countries". Several French government ministers made statements supporting Ben Ali during his final days. The day before Ben Ali fled, Sarkozy's Interior Minister Michelle Alliot-Marie offered to send French police to "share French skills" and train their Tunisian counterparts in handling "security situations". Although in her statement for French public consumption she added that the police should preserve order and respect democratic rights, the official version of her statement left out this second clause, probably because it might embolden Ben Ali's opponents. In Tunis, people commented that the last thing they needed in fighting a "police state" was French police.
When the fleeing president's private plane approached Paris, Sarkozy apparently gave orders that it not be allowed to land. Members of Ben Ali's family who had been waiting for him in a luxury hotel at the Euro Disney amusement park were asked to leave. Finally, it was Saudi Arabia that gave Ben Ali shelter, probably to France's great relief. A leader of the fascist National Front criticized Sarkozy bitterly for betraying a great personal friend and a friend of France.
It could be said that the basic deal that kept Ben Ali in power so long was that France allowed him and especially his wife's family to enrich themselves obscenely as long as he efficiently performed his role as manager of France's Tunisian enterprise – not very different than a bank or other big corporation. In trying to protect France's man, Sarkozy was continuing the policy of all the French presidents of the right and left who came before him.
Tunisia's ties with France are not only financial. In fact other European powers (especially Italy) and the U.S. have also profited from Tunisia's enslavement to the world market and the economic boom under Ben Ali. But there are also political and cultural ties that have made Tunisia particularly pliable to Paris and therefore important to France's regional and global efforts.
France made Tunisia a "protectorate" by invading it in 1881 and ran it directly until 1957. But unlike Algeria, for instance, which France's ruling capitalists considered an integral part of their country, so that it had to win its independence through a long and hard-fought war, Tunisia became independent without a violent struggle (not unrelated to the war going on in much larger Algeria at the time), and slipped easily and quickly into the neocolonial mode. Its first president, Habid Bourguiba, was also a close "friend of France" from independence until 1987, when the senile old man was overthrown by his security chief, the military leader Ben Ali.
The U.S. did not see Ben Ali as their man the way France did, but Washington was not far behind in supporting him. The "Tunileaks" (WikiLeaks of cables to the U.S. State Department from the American embassy in Tunis) are very revealing in that regard. A report from the U.S. ambassador spread over a series of cables details the almost surreal degree to which Ben Ali's family used its power to accumulate personal wealth, so much so that "50 percent of the economic elite" are members of his and especially his wife's family. This is seen as making the regime more fragile than it would be with a broader-based ruling class. Yet the ambassador's main complaints centre around Ben Ali's failure to support American initiatives that might soften the country's ties with France, particularly in the educational and cultural fields.
The cables make the point that while Tunisia is small and without much regional influence, it is particularly useful to the U.S. in terms of its informal ties with Israel and its refusal to support the Palestinians, even in the purely rhetorical and hypocritical ways dear to some other Arab regimes. The ambassador also expressed appreciation for the regime's Westernised trappings (such as its adoption of French family law, including a ban on polygamy) and its apparent success in strangling Islamic fundamentalism. For these reasons, while continuing to express concern for what are seen as the regime's self-inflicted weaknesses, a later cable advises the U.S. State Department to "dial back the public criticism" and continue efforts to strengthen U.S. influence in the country in the context of supporting Ben Ali.
But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did have the very good luck to give a speech calling on Arab governments to reform the day before Ben Ali fell, and President Barack Obama was the first head of state to salute the developments. Under the guise of "promoting democracy" the U.S. will likely seek to advance its influence in Tunisia and the Arab world in the course of the present political turmoil.
Still, turmoil in the Middle East is what the U.S., France and all the big powers are united against. Tunisia does not have the strategic value to the U.S. as other "friends" such as Egypt, Algeria and Jordan, as the diplomatic cables point out, but what has broken out there does pose dangers for regimes that are crucial to continued U.S. regional control. It is no accident that the focus of Clinton's speech was the need to strengthen Arab regimes under the U.S.'s thumb in order to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The bright spots and dangers of the current situation
The best thing about the events in Tunisia is that for once the people themselves have stepped in and become the motor force driving events. As a reactionary Washington commentator pointed out, even if U.S. and Western interests are not necessarily threatened by the fall of Ben Ali in and of itself, those interests could be imperilled by the fact that he has been thrown out thanks to a popular upsurge and not allowed to go quietly in the kind of smooth transition that characterized the end of fascist regimes in Pinochet's Chile and Franco's Spain. (Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 17 January 2011)
Many commentators have said that the absence of a strong Islamic movement is one reason why the West is not more worried about what's going on there and hasn't tried to more directly intervene. Actually, there hasn't been much opportunity or means for the West to do that so far. But it is also true that it is a very good thing that this upsurge has been able, until now at least, to steer clear of the deadly dynamic that has kept the terms of struggle in other countries confined to open capitulation to imperialism versus a reactionary Islamic fundamentalist movement that does not truly break with the imperialist system even while upsetting the imperialist order.
Commentators have compared the events in Tunisia with the 1979 fall of the Shah of Iran. The revolutionary process there had the advantage of a much longer period of political turmoil and fighting before it was aborted by the installation of today's hated Islamic Republic. When the U.S. and the UK could no longer keep the Shah in power, they decided that an Islamic regime in Iran would be preferable to the uncertain and perhaps revolutionary alternatives, although they probably regretted that later. In the case of Tunisia, it is not impossible that the U.S. summed up those lessons and decided to pull the plug on Ben Ali before the situation became even more uncontrollable.
Explicitly examining the Tunisian situation from the angle of how to pursue U.S. interests, the academic Steven A. Cook wrote for the Web site of U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, "Whether the [Tunisian] military leaders are democrats is not the issue; rather, their concern seems to be that graft, corruption, and the practices of one of the worst police states in the Middle East proved to be a threat to social cohesion and stability." Cook deliberately overlooks the fact that U.S.-dependent regimes in the region like Egypt have killed and tortured many more people than in Tunisia. Probably he means that Ben Ali ran one of the most successful states in the region in terms of its ability to stifle opposition almost completely for 27 years – until a month ago, when these "practices" no longer worked. But his characterization of the role of the Tunisian military is both accurate and expresses the American imperialist point of view.
While various clans have disputed over the spoils, the Tunisian army has always been and is still the backbone of a comprador (imperialist-dependent) state and the ultimate guarantor of a whole imperialist-dominated economic, social and ideological order. In fact, given the country's geopolitical situation, it has little other reason to exist. If the army dumped Ben Ali and has tried to distance itself from his torturers and jailers, it is all the better to play that role. This is why one of the Wiki-leaked U.S. cables stresses the importance of American support for the "neutrality" of the Tunisian army vis a vis disputes among the "economic elite".
It is impossible to predict what concessions to popular demand the military behind Tunisia's governments of the day may feel compelled to grant, and to what degree such concessions may succeed – or fail – at quelling people's anger. It is very possible that they will have to allow more space for political debate and the people's will to be expressed than they normally do. But it is absolutely certain that the Tunisian armed forces and the imperialists will focus on preserving the existing state power.
The media are now arguing that this is the first Arab revolution. One reason why that is wrong is that so far, this has not been a revolution, strictly speaking, in the sense of bringing about fundamental change in social, political and economic relations, or even a thorough regime change. But lessons should be taken from earlier upheavals that toppled feudal monarchies (Egypt and Sudan, Iraq) and and neocolonial republics (Syria). For instance, while the U.S. was at certain points somewhat favourable to the nationalism of Egypt's Gamal Nasser, in terms of challenging British and French dominance of the Middle East, the U.S.'s objective was to make Egypt an American neocolony. Similarly, while the military coups in Syria and Iraq, with their nationalist trappings, created problems for some Western powers, neither of these countries experienced any liberation.
There is also the example of neighbouring Algeria in the 1990s, where the U.S. and the West at first backed political reform in order to achieve a more broad-based and stable comprador regime, and then dropped it when it became clear that Islamic elements would win elections. This helped provoke ten years of bloody and thoroughly reactionary strife in which both the regime and the fundamentalists slaughtered many thousands of people and both sides specifically targeted the intellectuals. The fact that many Algerians felt trapped and mortally threatened by both the comprador regime and its religious fanatic opponents played a major role in putting a damper on the popular struggles that had shaken Algeria in the 1980s. In fact, this experience had a big influence in bringing about a state of political depression in the Arab world.
The media have also enjoyed throwing around the term "Jasmine Revolution", in hopes that the Tunisian upsurge will take the path of the non-violent (on the part of the people) and totally non-revolutionary "colour revolutions" in former Soviet-bloc countries, most recently in Ukraine, which have brought nothing but disappointment, disillusionment and a new plunge into passivity for the people. That is one possibility, and the one for which the enforcers of the world order will do their best to impose, but that is not the only one now.
The Tunisian people have every reason to be happy and proud, but it's no use pretending that they don't face formidable obstacles. The imperialists and the various varieties of smaller reactionaries are going to interact with the people's movement in complex and perhaps unpredictable ways, seeking to slam shut the door that the people have opened through their struggle and sacrifice.
It is far from certain, but there are objective reasons to hope that the enemies of the Tunisian people will not be able to consolidate their grip for a while, and that this situation will continue to inspire and spur on other people and constrain the reactionaries' regional efforts, especially if the movement that brought down Ben Ali develops in a way that gives expression to the independent and revolutionary interests of the people in opposition to the imperialists and their system. The world needs more open doors like the one the Tunisian people have given us, and it needs breakthroughs to the other side.
Sri Lanka: the global context and ideology of a triumphant regime
24 January 2011. A World to Win News Service. Following are excerpts from two articles, "Global Politics and the Sri Lankan Trajectory" and "A Contribution to the Debate between Rajpal Abeynayake and Malinda Senevirathne on the Role of the Moral Police," submitted by Surendra Rupasinghe, Secretary of the Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist). These selections focus on the interrelationship on the one hand between the political and economic situation in Sri Lank and international developments, and on the other the relationship between all this and a campaign being waged in the ideological sphere by the regime of President and Commander-in Chief Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has acquired enormous political power in the wake of the defeat of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE).
Introduction
The imperatives and the options of the Sri Lankan regime have to be identified within the logic of motion of the global political-economic-strategic order.
The present regime is trying to optimise the range of its policy options within the context of dramatic changes in the global political-economic-strategic order. The undisputed hegemony exercised by the U.S. as the sole superpower has entered into a new spiral of crisis.
U.S. hegemony is being challenged by new and rising global alliances and floating coalitions, particularly the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which links Russia with China, along with a host of countries. Sri Lanka enjoys observer status within this global configuration. There is an emerging global polarization between a bloc of powers led by the U.S. countered by Russia, where China and India play a decisive role. These movements are in constant motion and change, and they have not coalesced into hardened rival blocs. There is both contention and collusion, both unity and struggle between all these powers in their effort to gain decisive strategic advantage over all others.
A strategic balancing act
The Sri Lankan regime is trying to optimize its strategic options by exploiting this rivalry and contention between the various emerging power centres and blocs. Even as it bends towards Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Brazil, it conforms to the needs and dictates of the U.S., Japan and the West, and capitulates to the World Bank, the IMF and the Asian Development Bank. Even as it leans heavily on China, it takes great care to placate India by offering it also a juicy slice of the strategic pie. It profiles a pro-Iranian stance, while having entered into a military agreement with the U.S. Even as it declares solidarity with Palestine, it relies on Israel and its Mossad for military and strategic assistance. The regime exploits these contradictions and contentions based on the growing strategic importance of the island with respect to accessing and controlling the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean.
Role of regional and international players
The growing linkages being built up with China will, no doubt, exert pressure in deciding the future trajectory for Sri Lanka. China has afforded a line of credit to the tune of $3.4 billion. This is financing critical mega-projects, including the Hambantota harbour and the coal power plant in Puttalam – both of which are under way. The Hambantota harbour will be of immense value to China commercially. But, more importantly, this project opens up a strategic gateway for China to gain access to the vital Indian Ocean sea-lanes which contain traffic of some 70,000 ships a year, and to further penetrate the economic, political and strategic lifelines of Sri Lanka and Asia. This project is a vital part of the Chinese projection of Asiatic and global power.
This is why both India, the U.S.-Western bloc and Japan, are all in jitters and are making their counter-moves. India too is reaping benefits, economically, politically and strategically. India has offered lines of credit to finance railway reconstruction in the North ($800 million), a 500 MG thermal power plant in Trincomalee ($200 million), immediate relief, resettlement and reconstruction in the North-East ($110 million), housing construction in the North, East and Central Provinces ($220 million) and reconstruction of the Palaly airport and the Kankasanthurai harbour. India is to open up Consulate General offices in Jaffna and Hambantota. There is agreement to link up electricity grids in the two countries and to resume ferry services from between Colombo and Tuticorin and between Talaimannar and Ramesweram, alongside a bi-lateral trade agreement that is being drafted.
The U.S. and the European Union, along with the UN in the forefront, are trying to cajole the Sri Lankan regime by raising the issue of human rights, including war crimes, as a way of exerting pressure on the regime to link up more solidly with their own structures of global strategic design and political economy. The issue of war crimes has been taken up not for the love of humanity, but to mainly seize a stranglehold on the regime, to placate the Tamil diaspora and appear as defenders of human rights. The whole issue will be elegantly dropped, once Mahinda Rajapakse falls in line. So will the "Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission" also promoted by the U.S.
Let us not forget that all these international and regional powers – the US, EU, Japan, Russia, China, India and Pakistan and others – assisted the regime to wage war against the LTTE and the Tamil national liberation movement it represented. They gave critical assistance and support – politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily – without which such a devastating and decisive military solution would not have been possible. They are all also responsible for whatever war crimes and other violations of human rights that occurred, and for the continuing humanitarian catastrophe, along with the consolidation of a Sinhala-Buddhist hegemonic state. The point is that all these powers identified a clear strategic interest in backing the regime, which the regime is trying to balance and exploit.
At the same time, despite the balancing act carried out by the regime, it is moving steadily into a strategic dilemma or quagmire. Whom to rely on? Which way to turn? The intensifying crisis of global capitalism, along with its consequent intensification of rivalry and contention among all the various imperialist and rising global powers, will eventually compel the regime to make its irrevocable choice as to whom to decisively capitulate.
Realities and trajectories of the regime
Not a healthy, nor viable, trajectory. For the sake of its survival, the regime must infuse a massive, accelerated flow of foreign investment in order to generate and sustain a given, viable and rapid rate of development, however lop-sided, distorted, vulnerable and dependent that development might be. Without the injection and infusion of such a logic and dynamic, the whole system, and the political economy it sustains, is bound to jump gear and head for a crash, along with the regime. This logic and flow is absolutely and urgently necessary to pay off staggering debts, oil the ideological and repressive apparatus of the State, rake in fat commissions and profits and amass new fortunes, keep the train of loyal lackeys, ministers, advisers, bureaucrats and contractors happy, and to keep the masses at bay by throwing some crumbs along the way. The regime must come up with lucrative mega-projects that will allow the multi-national predators to make a fulfilling kill, so as to enthral the masses with the illusion of soaring prosperity, even as they are ground to dust to pay the cost of the skyscrapers. So, mega-projects must lead development.
In the meantime, opposition and resistance will intensify and break through the barricades of repression, once the people begin to understand the source of their poverty, misery and degradation and begin to regain and organize the struggle for their freedom. In the face of this, the regime must exercise political-ideological hegemony over all of society in order to consolidate undisputed political authority, security and stability. It must impose and police its moral code, based on the new Dharma, as propounded by the new religious authorities of the state. Politically and strategically, to stem mass resistance and rebellion, the regime must continuously rely on mobilizing a solid, hard-core, chauvinist political-ideological base. For this purpose, it must continuously mobilize dominant nation chauvinism in the name of patriotism, identified as the "Defence of the Land, Race, Language and Religion", equated as the "Defence of the Motherland". It must advance the banner of the undisputed supremacy of the Sinhala-Buddhist nation, in order to persistently mobilize its political-ideological vanguard and harness the hearts and minds of the oppressed Sinhala masses.
For these reasons, the regime cannot afford to address the burning need for a democratic political solution to the Tamil nation, nor address the national-democratic rights of the Muslim and the Hill Country Malayaga Tamil nationalities, nor still protect the rights of the various ethnic-religious communities. It must suppress and control all thought, feeling and action of the masses, lest they see the light of day. It must strive to keep the masses in utter ignorance, divided and deluded. The regime must conjure dreams and fantasies of mega-cities carved from out of the sea, while it lets the hundreds of thousand dispossessed and deprived victims of war suffer in hell. It must exercise an iron dictatorship over society in order to insist and command that the people shall endure all suffering, all indignities, all atrocities, all evil violations for the sake of perpetuating the regime. The logic and trajectory of the regime, and of Sri Lanka, is towards consolidating a military-police state, ruled by a crony, comprador-capitalist, dynastic oligarchy, out to enhance and perpetuate its power and privilege at whatever cost.
The moral police
There is a moral police being unleashed to police intimate, personal relations and sexual practices in order to enforce a culture of conformity, through instilling fear and subordination. Beyond that, there is a trend towards enforcing a puritanical political culture over society, under the banner of "advancing the cause of the Sinhala-Buddhist nation".
The reality of a moral police is no bogey. The fact is that the role of a moral police is integrally linked with a broader agenda of corralling, controlling and suppressing any form of resistance to the status quo. It is an integral part of a political-ideological-military strategy to rope in the people to believe in, and abide by, a given doctrinal religion, with its own intrinsic truths, laws and principles, that shall override any earthly law or constitution. A new doctrinal religion, infused by an all-consuming patriotism that will serve to legitimize and justify any and all crimes against humanity and against the people, as part of the sacred project to "liberate the motherland" from terrorists and traitors.
As a necessary part of this program and strategy of suppression, this doctrinal religion will reinforce patriarchy and imbibe obedience and subservience to (male) authority. It will nurture faith in supernatural beings and promote superstition and ritual. It will nourish faith in a karmic destiny, where you shall be bound to repent and pay for your past accumulated sins. It will identify the destiny of the family, the village, the town, city and the country, the people and all civilized life with the liberating role of the Supreme Benevolent Patriarch. The role of the moral police is to extend and strengthen the grip of the state and the regime in creating and maintaining such a subordinate, servile and slavish population under its supreme political, ideological and moral command.
This political agenda cannot be carried out without a solid base deep within the core Sinhala-Buddhist constituency. Blind, reactive, instinctive patriotism is the key to controlling and mobilizing the oppressed, mainly rural Sinhala masses to endure and pay the cost of the Mahinda Chintanaya project, a political-ideological project implemented by the regime to not only control, but mobilize the masses into a culture of blind faith and chauvinist patriotism that will ensure instinctive subservience and loyalty to the Supreme Benevolent Patriarch/King. The Mahinda Chintanaya regime – its ruling politics and ideology – crystallizes a particular historical process. It is a crystallization and culmination of a particular historical trajectory that has ruled over us since the transfer of state power by the British colonial power to its class of local comprador lackeys in the name of independence. Mahinda Chintanaya crystallizes, concentrates and culminates the feudal-colonial/comprador-capitalist ideology and politics crowned by the mantle of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy. In honouring its historical mission, the Mahinda Chintanaya regime has reconstructed the political-ideological structures, institutions and edifices of centralized, autocratic, hegemonic dictatorship to a new level.
In this respect, Mahinda Rajapakse, himself, is the one true heir to the UNP-SLFP historical legacy, which sanctioned the birth of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy and divided the country, while mortgaging the land and the people and enslaving them. He is the true inheritor of the ruling class in terms of exercising a ruthless comprador dictatorship over the masses. But he has exceeded all in terms of applying the science and art of deceit and deception, cunning manipulation and unmitigated repression in perpetuating his power. The hard fact is that the "Sinhalayas" have rallied around Mahinda’s banner of war, conquest and supremacy as the path to their liberation.
Following the centuries of colonial domination and depredation, deep in the subterranean subconscious of the popular Sinhala mind there is a sense of long-lost victory and a spirit of regaining lost pride and independence. There is a shared need to be liberated from the shackles of imperialism and feudal oppression, to be free of the scourge of endless poverty, deprivation and degradation. These genuine national-democratic aspirations of the Sinhala nation has been perverted into a form of patriotism in the service of the comprador ruling class. This has led to a spirit of joyous celebration over the military liquidation of the LTTE. There is a popular triumphal spirit of Mahinda Rajapakse as the conqueror who has vanquished the alien imposter and liberated the land and the people from hell and damnation. That was how the war was crafted and pursued – as a patriotic war to save the "Sinhala-Buddhist Nation and its Motherland" from the clutches of "Tamil separatist terrorism".
Along with the military liquidation of the LTTE, the destruction and eradication of the whole generative structure of the ideology and politics of separatism was to be the aim of the war. Ultimately, the war was aimed at eradicating the Tamil national liberation movement, root and branch, so there will not be a Tamil National Question to resolve. The "Sinhalayas" – rich and poor, en masse – supported this war led by Mahinda Rajapakse and are still supporting its ideology and politics with conviction.
The oppressed Sinhala masses, betrayed by the "Left" movement, without revolutionary leadership and organization, have fallen prey to this State ideology of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy. Mahinda Rajapakse's consummate political achievement lies in having exploited all the frustration, deprivation, alienation, degradation, exploitation and oppression generated by the system, ever endured by the Sinhala masses, into a torrential wave of support for a military victory over the LTTE and the "alien" Dravidayas! The progressive, anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people of Lanka has been perverted into that grotesque form of the oppressed killing each other to protect the oppressor state and system.
Mahinda – that is the combined energy and experience of the Indian RAW, the American CIA, the Israeli Mossad, the Pakistani ISI and the Sri Lankan Strategic Command – exploited also the fatal bourgeois-nationalist political and ideological limitations of the LTTE. Particularly, its reliance on the system of world imperialism to deliver liberation, and the negation of the role of the exploited and oppressed masses in waging revolutionary struggle and revolutionary warfare to rid the world of all forms domination, exploitation, oppression, violence and war.
Mahinda Rajapakse has introduced a new era. There is to be no more discussion of a Tamil National Question, or of any national question. There is declared to be only "One Country: One Nation". Enter Jaffna, and you will see! There is to be no protest or opposition to this agenda, lest one is to be classified as an agent of "separatist terrorism", as a traitor to the Motherland, to be branded and hounded as an enemy of the State. No one before him has had the courage to assert absolute-"monarchic", autocratic- hegemonic, comprador-Capitalist rule over the whole of society as Mahinda Rajapakse. No one before him has transformed the state into a modernized, politicized, militarized apparatus for the perpetuation of dynastic-oligarchic rule. No one had achieved such broad popular consensus over waging and winning the "war on terror". No one has emerged as the one, true undisputed guardian and saviour of the Sinhalayas. This is his historic achievement as the crystallization and concentration of the ideology and politics of Sinhala supremacy, which has formed the foundational structure of the modern feudal-colonial, comprador-capitalist state.
Introduction
The imperatives and the options of the Sri Lankan regime have to be identified within the logic of motion of the global political-economic-strategic order.
The present regime is trying to optimise the range of its policy options within the context of dramatic changes in the global political-economic-strategic order. The undisputed hegemony exercised by the U.S. as the sole superpower has entered into a new spiral of crisis.
U.S. hegemony is being challenged by new and rising global alliances and floating coalitions, particularly the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which links Russia with China, along with a host of countries. Sri Lanka enjoys observer status within this global configuration. There is an emerging global polarization between a bloc of powers led by the U.S. countered by Russia, where China and India play a decisive role. These movements are in constant motion and change, and they have not coalesced into hardened rival blocs. There is both contention and collusion, both unity and struggle between all these powers in their effort to gain decisive strategic advantage over all others.
A strategic balancing act
The Sri Lankan regime is trying to optimize its strategic options by exploiting this rivalry and contention between the various emerging power centres and blocs. Even as it bends towards Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Brazil, it conforms to the needs and dictates of the U.S., Japan and the West, and capitulates to the World Bank, the IMF and the Asian Development Bank. Even as it leans heavily on China, it takes great care to placate India by offering it also a juicy slice of the strategic pie. It profiles a pro-Iranian stance, while having entered into a military agreement with the U.S. Even as it declares solidarity with Palestine, it relies on Israel and its Mossad for military and strategic assistance. The regime exploits these contradictions and contentions based on the growing strategic importance of the island with respect to accessing and controlling the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean.
Role of regional and international players
The growing linkages being built up with China will, no doubt, exert pressure in deciding the future trajectory for Sri Lanka. China has afforded a line of credit to the tune of $3.4 billion. This is financing critical mega-projects, including the Hambantota harbour and the coal power plant in Puttalam – both of which are under way. The Hambantota harbour will be of immense value to China commercially. But, more importantly, this project opens up a strategic gateway for China to gain access to the vital Indian Ocean sea-lanes which contain traffic of some 70,000 ships a year, and to further penetrate the economic, political and strategic lifelines of Sri Lanka and Asia. This project is a vital part of the Chinese projection of Asiatic and global power.
This is why both India, the U.S.-Western bloc and Japan, are all in jitters and are making their counter-moves. India too is reaping benefits, economically, politically and strategically. India has offered lines of credit to finance railway reconstruction in the North ($800 million), a 500 MG thermal power plant in Trincomalee ($200 million), immediate relief, resettlement and reconstruction in the North-East ($110 million), housing construction in the North, East and Central Provinces ($220 million) and reconstruction of the Palaly airport and the Kankasanthurai harbour. India is to open up Consulate General offices in Jaffna and Hambantota. There is agreement to link up electricity grids in the two countries and to resume ferry services from between Colombo and Tuticorin and between Talaimannar and Ramesweram, alongside a bi-lateral trade agreement that is being drafted.
The U.S. and the European Union, along with the UN in the forefront, are trying to cajole the Sri Lankan regime by raising the issue of human rights, including war crimes, as a way of exerting pressure on the regime to link up more solidly with their own structures of global strategic design and political economy. The issue of war crimes has been taken up not for the love of humanity, but to mainly seize a stranglehold on the regime, to placate the Tamil diaspora and appear as defenders of human rights. The whole issue will be elegantly dropped, once Mahinda Rajapakse falls in line. So will the "Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission" also promoted by the U.S.
Let us not forget that all these international and regional powers – the US, EU, Japan, Russia, China, India and Pakistan and others – assisted the regime to wage war against the LTTE and the Tamil national liberation movement it represented. They gave critical assistance and support – politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily – without which such a devastating and decisive military solution would not have been possible. They are all also responsible for whatever war crimes and other violations of human rights that occurred, and for the continuing humanitarian catastrophe, along with the consolidation of a Sinhala-Buddhist hegemonic state. The point is that all these powers identified a clear strategic interest in backing the regime, which the regime is trying to balance and exploit.
At the same time, despite the balancing act carried out by the regime, it is moving steadily into a strategic dilemma or quagmire. Whom to rely on? Which way to turn? The intensifying crisis of global capitalism, along with its consequent intensification of rivalry and contention among all the various imperialist and rising global powers, will eventually compel the regime to make its irrevocable choice as to whom to decisively capitulate.
Realities and trajectories of the regime
Not a healthy, nor viable, trajectory. For the sake of its survival, the regime must infuse a massive, accelerated flow of foreign investment in order to generate and sustain a given, viable and rapid rate of development, however lop-sided, distorted, vulnerable and dependent that development might be. Without the injection and infusion of such a logic and dynamic, the whole system, and the political economy it sustains, is bound to jump gear and head for a crash, along with the regime. This logic and flow is absolutely and urgently necessary to pay off staggering debts, oil the ideological and repressive apparatus of the State, rake in fat commissions and profits and amass new fortunes, keep the train of loyal lackeys, ministers, advisers, bureaucrats and contractors happy, and to keep the masses at bay by throwing some crumbs along the way. The regime must come up with lucrative mega-projects that will allow the multi-national predators to make a fulfilling kill, so as to enthral the masses with the illusion of soaring prosperity, even as they are ground to dust to pay the cost of the skyscrapers. So, mega-projects must lead development.
In the meantime, opposition and resistance will intensify and break through the barricades of repression, once the people begin to understand the source of their poverty, misery and degradation and begin to regain and organize the struggle for their freedom. In the face of this, the regime must exercise political-ideological hegemony over all of society in order to consolidate undisputed political authority, security and stability. It must impose and police its moral code, based on the new Dharma, as propounded by the new religious authorities of the state. Politically and strategically, to stem mass resistance and rebellion, the regime must continuously rely on mobilizing a solid, hard-core, chauvinist political-ideological base. For this purpose, it must continuously mobilize dominant nation chauvinism in the name of patriotism, identified as the "Defence of the Land, Race, Language and Religion", equated as the "Defence of the Motherland". It must advance the banner of the undisputed supremacy of the Sinhala-Buddhist nation, in order to persistently mobilize its political-ideological vanguard and harness the hearts and minds of the oppressed Sinhala masses.
For these reasons, the regime cannot afford to address the burning need for a democratic political solution to the Tamil nation, nor address the national-democratic rights of the Muslim and the Hill Country Malayaga Tamil nationalities, nor still protect the rights of the various ethnic-religious communities. It must suppress and control all thought, feeling and action of the masses, lest they see the light of day. It must strive to keep the masses in utter ignorance, divided and deluded. The regime must conjure dreams and fantasies of mega-cities carved from out of the sea, while it lets the hundreds of thousand dispossessed and deprived victims of war suffer in hell. It must exercise an iron dictatorship over society in order to insist and command that the people shall endure all suffering, all indignities, all atrocities, all evil violations for the sake of perpetuating the regime. The logic and trajectory of the regime, and of Sri Lanka, is towards consolidating a military-police state, ruled by a crony, comprador-capitalist, dynastic oligarchy, out to enhance and perpetuate its power and privilege at whatever cost.
The moral police
There is a moral police being unleashed to police intimate, personal relations and sexual practices in order to enforce a culture of conformity, through instilling fear and subordination. Beyond that, there is a trend towards enforcing a puritanical political culture over society, under the banner of "advancing the cause of the Sinhala-Buddhist nation".
The reality of a moral police is no bogey. The fact is that the role of a moral police is integrally linked with a broader agenda of corralling, controlling and suppressing any form of resistance to the status quo. It is an integral part of a political-ideological-military strategy to rope in the people to believe in, and abide by, a given doctrinal religion, with its own intrinsic truths, laws and principles, that shall override any earthly law or constitution. A new doctrinal religion, infused by an all-consuming patriotism that will serve to legitimize and justify any and all crimes against humanity and against the people, as part of the sacred project to "liberate the motherland" from terrorists and traitors.
As a necessary part of this program and strategy of suppression, this doctrinal religion will reinforce patriarchy and imbibe obedience and subservience to (male) authority. It will nurture faith in supernatural beings and promote superstition and ritual. It will nourish faith in a karmic destiny, where you shall be bound to repent and pay for your past accumulated sins. It will identify the destiny of the family, the village, the town, city and the country, the people and all civilized life with the liberating role of the Supreme Benevolent Patriarch. The role of the moral police is to extend and strengthen the grip of the state and the regime in creating and maintaining such a subordinate, servile and slavish population under its supreme political, ideological and moral command.
This political agenda cannot be carried out without a solid base deep within the core Sinhala-Buddhist constituency. Blind, reactive, instinctive patriotism is the key to controlling and mobilizing the oppressed, mainly rural Sinhala masses to endure and pay the cost of the Mahinda Chintanaya project, a political-ideological project implemented by the regime to not only control, but mobilize the masses into a culture of blind faith and chauvinist patriotism that will ensure instinctive subservience and loyalty to the Supreme Benevolent Patriarch/King. The Mahinda Chintanaya regime – its ruling politics and ideology – crystallizes a particular historical process. It is a crystallization and culmination of a particular historical trajectory that has ruled over us since the transfer of state power by the British colonial power to its class of local comprador lackeys in the name of independence. Mahinda Chintanaya crystallizes, concentrates and culminates the feudal-colonial/comprador-capitalist ideology and politics crowned by the mantle of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy. In honouring its historical mission, the Mahinda Chintanaya regime has reconstructed the political-ideological structures, institutions and edifices of centralized, autocratic, hegemonic dictatorship to a new level.
In this respect, Mahinda Rajapakse, himself, is the one true heir to the UNP-SLFP historical legacy, which sanctioned the birth of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy and divided the country, while mortgaging the land and the people and enslaving them. He is the true inheritor of the ruling class in terms of exercising a ruthless comprador dictatorship over the masses. But he has exceeded all in terms of applying the science and art of deceit and deception, cunning manipulation and unmitigated repression in perpetuating his power. The hard fact is that the "Sinhalayas" have rallied around Mahinda’s banner of war, conquest and supremacy as the path to their liberation.
Following the centuries of colonial domination and depredation, deep in the subterranean subconscious of the popular Sinhala mind there is a sense of long-lost victory and a spirit of regaining lost pride and independence. There is a shared need to be liberated from the shackles of imperialism and feudal oppression, to be free of the scourge of endless poverty, deprivation and degradation. These genuine national-democratic aspirations of the Sinhala nation has been perverted into a form of patriotism in the service of the comprador ruling class. This has led to a spirit of joyous celebration over the military liquidation of the LTTE. There is a popular triumphal spirit of Mahinda Rajapakse as the conqueror who has vanquished the alien imposter and liberated the land and the people from hell and damnation. That was how the war was crafted and pursued – as a patriotic war to save the "Sinhala-Buddhist Nation and its Motherland" from the clutches of "Tamil separatist terrorism".
Along with the military liquidation of the LTTE, the destruction and eradication of the whole generative structure of the ideology and politics of separatism was to be the aim of the war. Ultimately, the war was aimed at eradicating the Tamil national liberation movement, root and branch, so there will not be a Tamil National Question to resolve. The "Sinhalayas" – rich and poor, en masse – supported this war led by Mahinda Rajapakse and are still supporting its ideology and politics with conviction.
The oppressed Sinhala masses, betrayed by the "Left" movement, without revolutionary leadership and organization, have fallen prey to this State ideology of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy. Mahinda Rajapakse's consummate political achievement lies in having exploited all the frustration, deprivation, alienation, degradation, exploitation and oppression generated by the system, ever endured by the Sinhala masses, into a torrential wave of support for a military victory over the LTTE and the "alien" Dravidayas! The progressive, anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people of Lanka has been perverted into that grotesque form of the oppressed killing each other to protect the oppressor state and system.
Mahinda – that is the combined energy and experience of the Indian RAW, the American CIA, the Israeli Mossad, the Pakistani ISI and the Sri Lankan Strategic Command – exploited also the fatal bourgeois-nationalist political and ideological limitations of the LTTE. Particularly, its reliance on the system of world imperialism to deliver liberation, and the negation of the role of the exploited and oppressed masses in waging revolutionary struggle and revolutionary warfare to rid the world of all forms domination, exploitation, oppression, violence and war.
Mahinda Rajapakse has introduced a new era. There is to be no more discussion of a Tamil National Question, or of any national question. There is declared to be only "One Country: One Nation". Enter Jaffna, and you will see! There is to be no protest or opposition to this agenda, lest one is to be classified as an agent of "separatist terrorism", as a traitor to the Motherland, to be branded and hounded as an enemy of the State. No one before him has had the courage to assert absolute-"monarchic", autocratic- hegemonic, comprador-Capitalist rule over the whole of society as Mahinda Rajapakse. No one before him has transformed the state into a modernized, politicized, militarized apparatus for the perpetuation of dynastic-oligarchic rule. No one had achieved such broad popular consensus over waging and winning the "war on terror". No one has emerged as the one, true undisputed guardian and saviour of the Sinhalayas. This is his historic achievement as the crystallization and concentration of the ideology and politics of Sinhala supremacy, which has formed the foundational structure of the modern feudal-colonial, comprador-capitalist state.
Murder in the West Bank: Corrections and amplifications
10 January 2011. A World to Win News Service. There are two mistakes in the article "West Bank: Israel meets non-violence with murder" in AWTWNS110103.
The Israeli soldier who deliberately shot Ashraf Abu Rahmeh in the foot as he stood, hooded, arms handcuffed behind his back and tied to a jeep, did not fire a tear gas projectile. It was a so-called "rubber bullet", a rubber-coated steel projectile, that left him with a limp since that day in 2008.
Tristian Anderson, the U.S. activist shot in the head with a tear gas cannister by an Israeli soldier in March 2009, is no longer in a coma. After three brain operations, the removal of part of his brain and months in a "minimally responsive state", "he has recovered some physical and mental functions." (Haaretz, 8 December 2010)
The Haaretz article points out that these "extended range" cannisters, with a range of 250 metres, are basically 40 mm artillery rounds. Anderson was shot from about 60 metres away. Ashraf's brother was killed when shot in the chest with such a projectile in April 2009.
We also reported on the death of Ashraf and Bassem's sister Jawaher Abu Rahmeh the day after she was gassed at the weekly protest that has been held since construction began on the wall cutting off Bilin villagers from their farmland. Ever since Israeli military officials gave an off-the-record briefing to selected pro-Israeli military journalists and bloggers, there have been a number of unsubstantiated claims in the media and floating on the Net suggesting that Jawaher's death was not due to the gassing but some "previous medical condition".
The Israeli military said that the fact that she underwent a complete medical exam shortly before she was killed, including a brain scan, might mean that she had cancer. But if, as they claim, their intelligence services have (illicitly) acquired her medical records, they know that her doctors saw no serious reason for concern after viewing the results. According to her family, she had sought medical attention because of a persistent ear ache. These facts seem to further indict Israel, not exonerate it.
This disinformation campaign has been accompanied by public lies by the Israeli government, such as the totally manufactured claim that the hospital released her shortly after she was gassed and that she died at home. In fact, doctors worked on her all night but could not save her.
What this pusillanimous media manipulation reveals is little about Jawaher and a great deal about the fact that Israeli contempt for justice is matched only by its disregard for truth.
If Jawaher did have some condition that contributed to her death, that would still not change the fact that she, like 12 others who have taken part in these protests over the last six years, died after being shot or tear gassed. Even if argued by a defence lawyer for Israel, this could at best only be construed as reckless disregard for human life. But in fact, the many deaths and serious injuries suffered by non-violent West Bank protesters would lead any fair-minded jury to conclude that Israel knew exactly what it was doing when it killed these people. In the case of the Abu Rahmeh family, the facts suggest that Israel has deliberately targeted at least some of them because of their prominent role in these demonstrations.
On 7 January 2011, as on every Friday, another protest took place in Bilin. Once again Israeli soldiers fired various potentially lethal weapons from behind the barbed-wire fence. Dozens of people suffered tear gas irritation. One of the organizers was hit by a gas cannister. Two people were left unconscious by the tear gas. One of them was the wife of Ahmed Abu Rahmeh, brother of Jawaher, Bassam and Ashraf. (International Middle East Media Center, imemc.org)
For more details about Israeli disinformation in this case, see "The Lede", the New York Times Web blog where its reporters post additional information that, whether due to editorial interference or self-censorship, doesn't make it into the daily newspaper (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com.2011/01/06/Israeli-bloggers-question-Israels-use-of-tear-gas-against-protesters ).
The Israeli soldier who deliberately shot Ashraf Abu Rahmeh in the foot as he stood, hooded, arms handcuffed behind his back and tied to a jeep, did not fire a tear gas projectile. It was a so-called "rubber bullet", a rubber-coated steel projectile, that left him with a limp since that day in 2008.
Tristian Anderson, the U.S. activist shot in the head with a tear gas cannister by an Israeli soldier in March 2009, is no longer in a coma. After three brain operations, the removal of part of his brain and months in a "minimally responsive state", "he has recovered some physical and mental functions." (Haaretz, 8 December 2010)
The Haaretz article points out that these "extended range" cannisters, with a range of 250 metres, are basically 40 mm artillery rounds. Anderson was shot from about 60 metres away. Ashraf's brother was killed when shot in the chest with such a projectile in April 2009.
We also reported on the death of Ashraf and Bassem's sister Jawaher Abu Rahmeh the day after she was gassed at the weekly protest that has been held since construction began on the wall cutting off Bilin villagers from their farmland. Ever since Israeli military officials gave an off-the-record briefing to selected pro-Israeli military journalists and bloggers, there have been a number of unsubstantiated claims in the media and floating on the Net suggesting that Jawaher's death was not due to the gassing but some "previous medical condition".
The Israeli military said that the fact that she underwent a complete medical exam shortly before she was killed, including a brain scan, might mean that she had cancer. But if, as they claim, their intelligence services have (illicitly) acquired her medical records, they know that her doctors saw no serious reason for concern after viewing the results. According to her family, she had sought medical attention because of a persistent ear ache. These facts seem to further indict Israel, not exonerate it.
This disinformation campaign has been accompanied by public lies by the Israeli government, such as the totally manufactured claim that the hospital released her shortly after she was gassed and that she died at home. In fact, doctors worked on her all night but could not save her.
What this pusillanimous media manipulation reveals is little about Jawaher and a great deal about the fact that Israeli contempt for justice is matched only by its disregard for truth.
If Jawaher did have some condition that contributed to her death, that would still not change the fact that she, like 12 others who have taken part in these protests over the last six years, died after being shot or tear gassed. Even if argued by a defence lawyer for Israel, this could at best only be construed as reckless disregard for human life. But in fact, the many deaths and serious injuries suffered by non-violent West Bank protesters would lead any fair-minded jury to conclude that Israel knew exactly what it was doing when it killed these people. In the case of the Abu Rahmeh family, the facts suggest that Israel has deliberately targeted at least some of them because of their prominent role in these demonstrations.
On 7 January 2011, as on every Friday, another protest took place in Bilin. Once again Israeli soldiers fired various potentially lethal weapons from behind the barbed-wire fence. Dozens of people suffered tear gas irritation. One of the organizers was hit by a gas cannister. Two people were left unconscious by the tear gas. One of them was the wife of Ahmed Abu Rahmeh, brother of Jawaher, Bassam and Ashraf. (International Middle East Media Center, imemc.org)
For more details about Israeli disinformation in this case, see "The Lede", the New York Times Web blog where its reporters post additional information that, whether due to editorial interference or self-censorship, doesn't make it into the daily newspaper (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com.2011/01/06/Israeli-bloggers-question-Israels-use-of-tear-gas-against-protesters ).
Falluja: the U.S. keeps killing after its troops have moved on
10 January 2011. A World to Win News Service. Two recent medical studies compare the long-term effects of the U.S.-led assaults on Falluja in 2004 to what the U.S. inflicted on Vietnam – and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The U.S.-led invaders moved into this town of a few hundred thousand people just north-west of Baghdad in April 2003 and took over a local secondary school to use as their headquarters. On the evening of 28 April several hundred townspeople defied a military curfew and staged a rally to demand that the school be reopened. Rocks were thrown. U.S. soldiers stationed on the roof opened fire on the crowd and kept shooting for a long time, killing 17 people and wounding more than 70. U.S. troops also fired on a demonstration held to protest these deaths two days later. The city became a focal point of early resistance to the American occupation.
In the two assaults on Falluja in 2004, U.S. military actions made it clear that the invaders were as anxious to punish the city and its inhabitants as to retake control and root out insurgent fighters. The city's political symbolism became crystallised in March 2004 when a military convoy carrying mercenaries from the infamous Blackwater company was ambushed and four of them killed, their charred bodies left on defiant display.
The U.S. launched the first all-out attack on Falluja shortly after. Homes, businesses and other buildings were bombed into ruins, but the invaders failed to take the city. The American military called it some of the heaviest urban combat its forces had engaged in since the battle of Hue in 1968, during the Vietnam war. By the time of the second assault in November, many fighters had left Falluja.
The U.S.'s lust for vengeance against a whole population was demonstrated by the weapons it used. Thermobaric bombs (a highly explosive mixture of fuel and air that has blast effects similar to tactical nuclear weapons) and other munitions were dropped to systematically demolish the houses and kill anyone in or near them. A modern version of napalm was also employed. Most infamous was the U.S.'s extensive and indiscriminate use of artillery shells filled with white phosphorous, an incendiary powder that sets fire to whatever it touches – and the fires cannot be put out with water. It also leaves behind a toxic residue.
The invaders made no distinction between fighters and the civilian population. In fact, U.S. troops stopped many civilians from leaving the besieged city. Their war-fighting tactics were meant, as in Vietnam, to kill all, burn all.
These facts were brought out by a few journalists in Iraq and abroad at the time. But recently new evidence has come out that the damage to Iraqis was worse and far more long-lasting than even most opponents of the occupation could imagine in 2004.
There have been recurring reports about birth defects among children born in Falluja. In January and February of 2010, three UK-based scientists organized a study to determine the facts. A trained research team accompanied by locally-trusted people was able to visit 711 homes in Falluja and worked with several thousand people to fill out a medical questionnaire. The researchers believe that the responses to questions were truthful because while confidential they could be cross-checked with medical records.
The survey revealed that since January 2005 the city's remaining population had suffered an enormous spike in infant mortality (80 children per thousand died in their first year, most probably due to congenital birth defects). This is about four times higher than in Egypt and eight times higher than in Kuwait. The study also found "alarming" cancer rates, including leukaemia, brain cancer and breast cancer, especially among people under 34. An unusually low proportion of children under four were boys (860 per 1000), suggesting that sudden genetic damage had killed many unborn males, since the male-female balance in children older than five was normal. The birth rate for women in Falluja was about 30 percent less in 2004-2008 than in comparable periods before. This, the study concluded, could be the result of both lower fertility and birth defects, providing additional indications of possible genetic damage.
Since the study confines itself to direct evidence, the authors of the peer-reviewed paper "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth-Sex Ratio in Falluja, Iraq, 2005-2009 (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2010 – 7) wrote that that their findings in and of themselves cannot conclusively show the cause or causes of this extremely unusual and suddenly-appearing situation. However, they make two points of fact. The first is the probability, based on the medical evidence, of toxic damage to genes as the common origin of the birth defects, infant deaths and cancers. The second is that this evidence of probable "genetic stress" appeared within a year of the assaults on Falluja. The sudden shift in the ratio of boys to girls in live births almost surely places the triggering event(s) in 2004.
The report discusses similar statistical manifestations among people exposed to atomic radiation in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion, UN troops exposed to depleted uranium shells in Bosnia and survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The U.S. admits it used depleted-uranium assault rifle and artillery rounds during the two 2004 attacks on Falluja. It shot thousands of tonnes of this material in Iraq during a few weeks of 2003 alone.
A new study covering 2010 is even more horrifying and convincing. Lead by four doctors and researchers (two working in Falluja and two abroad), this survey of four extended families conducted at Falluja General Hospital concludes that the percentage of babies born with malformations in that city since 2003 has reached 15 percent, about 11 times the normal rate. Even worse, rather than falling off, the percentage jumped in the first half of 2010.
The most common deformities are congenital heart defects, followed by neural tube (brain and spinal cord) and skeletal defects. This cannot be a matter of bad luck. The statistical probability of such a high concentration is close to zero. Further, the authors state, such cases are most often not mainly caused by heredity – the problem usually does not come from the parents' genes, but from damage to the unborn child's genes due to environmental factors and the conditions of pregnant mothers. The paper says that the nature of these deaths and their known correlation with war events strongly raises the question of "war contaminants", especially the poisoning of the environment due to metals, citing uranium as an example.
None of the parents in the particular families studied were wounded or trapped in rubble, nor is there "an obvious relationship to adjacent bombing/burning of their houses or to the activity of cleaning/recovery of injured-dead people or to personal acute symptoms with them having a child with birth defect in the following years," the paper points out.
"This suggests that the birth defect in these families might not be due directly to acute exposure [to contaminants], but could be associated to their long term exposure and body accumulation of toxicants which persist in the environment." ("Four Polygamous Families with Congenital Birth Defects from Fallujah, Iraq," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011 – 8)
In other words, the problem is likely to get worse.
In this sense, the continued process of the concentration of contaminants in the environment and their accumulation in human bodies could, as the report suggests, be similar to what happened with Agent Orange in Vietnam. The U.S. bombed much of South Vietnam with defoliants and herbicides (plant-killers) containing the toxic chemical dioxin. This was meant to get rid of the vegetation providing Vietnamese revolutionaries with cover from American attacks and kill peasants' crops, forcing them into the cities. According to Vietnamese authorities today, about 4.8 million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed and half a million children born with birth defects. (Globe and Mail, 12 July 2008. Also see Wikipedia, "Agent Orange".)
Now, three and a half decades after the end of the war, America's Agent Orange is continuing to kill Vietnamese. Not only are people who were exposed back then suffering horrible cancers today, and not only are their descendants afflicted by birth defects, including heartbreaking deformations, but there are increasing concentrations of the toxin among fish, animals and people. Not only have the last four decades been hell for many Vietnamese, despite the end of the war; scientists expect the next 40 years to see an enormous amount of new suffering.
In discussing depleted uranium, the latest research journal report says, "It is unclear whether its radiation-derived mutational effects or its chemical toxic effects are more relevant." Both lead to birth defects, from exposure to the parents before the child is conceived and exposure to the mother before it is born. The chemical toxic effects are at least as bad as those from radiation. And both will last for a very long time.
Depleted uranium is, in a way, today's moral equivalent to Agent Orange – a hi-tech fix to the problem of fighting unjust wars at a minimum cost to the oppressor by bringing into play the productive and technological superiority of the imperialist powers.
This by-product of making enriched uranium is now prized for rifle and artillery shells because it makes them better able to penetrate hard substances like metal and concrete. These projectiles catch fire after penetrating and are generally more deadly. It is known that the powder they release on impact is chemically toxic (poisonous) and radioactive (although much less than natural uranium, and not at all comparable to the bomb-quality metal). But the U.S. and its European allies will not allow so much as any discussion in the UN, the World Health Organization and other forums as to why it should not be used.
It took many years before scientific evidence that Agent Orange causes birth defects was accepted, and there is still resistance to the idea, not because the facts are unclear but because so much is at stake politically. Although these reports about Falluja are scientifically impeccable, writing and publishing them required courage because they, too, venture into what has been declared politically forbidden territory.
To help the people of Falluja, the new paper calls for further research into how the environmental contaminants work and the identification of families at risk. This would make it possible to provide help for those already affected and counselling for those families already identifiable as facing the likelihood of dead children and ruined lives. That, of course, is not likely to happen in the Iraq that the U.S. invasion and occupation has created. The U.S.-supported Iraqi authorities and their media tried to stop the earlier medical survey by labelling it "terrorist" and threatening to arrest people who cooperated with it.
This medical tragedy could be taken to stand for what the U.S. (and the UK and other allies) have done to Iraq. Although, from the media, you might think the war is over, there are still 50,000 U.S. troops there and it is not certain what the U.S. will be able to do or will be forced to do there within the broader context of its never-abandoned goals of Mid-Eastern domination and its face-off with Iran. But the toxic effects of the occupation are continuing to accumulate in Iraq and the region.
The U.S.-led invaders moved into this town of a few hundred thousand people just north-west of Baghdad in April 2003 and took over a local secondary school to use as their headquarters. On the evening of 28 April several hundred townspeople defied a military curfew and staged a rally to demand that the school be reopened. Rocks were thrown. U.S. soldiers stationed on the roof opened fire on the crowd and kept shooting for a long time, killing 17 people and wounding more than 70. U.S. troops also fired on a demonstration held to protest these deaths two days later. The city became a focal point of early resistance to the American occupation.
In the two assaults on Falluja in 2004, U.S. military actions made it clear that the invaders were as anxious to punish the city and its inhabitants as to retake control and root out insurgent fighters. The city's political symbolism became crystallised in March 2004 when a military convoy carrying mercenaries from the infamous Blackwater company was ambushed and four of them killed, their charred bodies left on defiant display.
The U.S. launched the first all-out attack on Falluja shortly after. Homes, businesses and other buildings were bombed into ruins, but the invaders failed to take the city. The American military called it some of the heaviest urban combat its forces had engaged in since the battle of Hue in 1968, during the Vietnam war. By the time of the second assault in November, many fighters had left Falluja.
The U.S.'s lust for vengeance against a whole population was demonstrated by the weapons it used. Thermobaric bombs (a highly explosive mixture of fuel and air that has blast effects similar to tactical nuclear weapons) and other munitions were dropped to systematically demolish the houses and kill anyone in or near them. A modern version of napalm was also employed. Most infamous was the U.S.'s extensive and indiscriminate use of artillery shells filled with white phosphorous, an incendiary powder that sets fire to whatever it touches – and the fires cannot be put out with water. It also leaves behind a toxic residue.
The invaders made no distinction between fighters and the civilian population. In fact, U.S. troops stopped many civilians from leaving the besieged city. Their war-fighting tactics were meant, as in Vietnam, to kill all, burn all.
These facts were brought out by a few journalists in Iraq and abroad at the time. But recently new evidence has come out that the damage to Iraqis was worse and far more long-lasting than even most opponents of the occupation could imagine in 2004.
There have been recurring reports about birth defects among children born in Falluja. In January and February of 2010, three UK-based scientists organized a study to determine the facts. A trained research team accompanied by locally-trusted people was able to visit 711 homes in Falluja and worked with several thousand people to fill out a medical questionnaire. The researchers believe that the responses to questions were truthful because while confidential they could be cross-checked with medical records.
The survey revealed that since January 2005 the city's remaining population had suffered an enormous spike in infant mortality (80 children per thousand died in their first year, most probably due to congenital birth defects). This is about four times higher than in Egypt and eight times higher than in Kuwait. The study also found "alarming" cancer rates, including leukaemia, brain cancer and breast cancer, especially among people under 34. An unusually low proportion of children under four were boys (860 per 1000), suggesting that sudden genetic damage had killed many unborn males, since the male-female balance in children older than five was normal. The birth rate for women in Falluja was about 30 percent less in 2004-2008 than in comparable periods before. This, the study concluded, could be the result of both lower fertility and birth defects, providing additional indications of possible genetic damage.
Since the study confines itself to direct evidence, the authors of the peer-reviewed paper "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth-Sex Ratio in Falluja, Iraq, 2005-2009 (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2010 – 7) wrote that that their findings in and of themselves cannot conclusively show the cause or causes of this extremely unusual and suddenly-appearing situation. However, they make two points of fact. The first is the probability, based on the medical evidence, of toxic damage to genes as the common origin of the birth defects, infant deaths and cancers. The second is that this evidence of probable "genetic stress" appeared within a year of the assaults on Falluja. The sudden shift in the ratio of boys to girls in live births almost surely places the triggering event(s) in 2004.
The report discusses similar statistical manifestations among people exposed to atomic radiation in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion, UN troops exposed to depleted uranium shells in Bosnia and survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The U.S. admits it used depleted-uranium assault rifle and artillery rounds during the two 2004 attacks on Falluja. It shot thousands of tonnes of this material in Iraq during a few weeks of 2003 alone.
A new study covering 2010 is even more horrifying and convincing. Lead by four doctors and researchers (two working in Falluja and two abroad), this survey of four extended families conducted at Falluja General Hospital concludes that the percentage of babies born with malformations in that city since 2003 has reached 15 percent, about 11 times the normal rate. Even worse, rather than falling off, the percentage jumped in the first half of 2010.
The most common deformities are congenital heart defects, followed by neural tube (brain and spinal cord) and skeletal defects. This cannot be a matter of bad luck. The statistical probability of such a high concentration is close to zero. Further, the authors state, such cases are most often not mainly caused by heredity – the problem usually does not come from the parents' genes, but from damage to the unborn child's genes due to environmental factors and the conditions of pregnant mothers. The paper says that the nature of these deaths and their known correlation with war events strongly raises the question of "war contaminants", especially the poisoning of the environment due to metals, citing uranium as an example.
None of the parents in the particular families studied were wounded or trapped in rubble, nor is there "an obvious relationship to adjacent bombing/burning of their houses or to the activity of cleaning/recovery of injured-dead people or to personal acute symptoms with them having a child with birth defect in the following years," the paper points out.
"This suggests that the birth defect in these families might not be due directly to acute exposure [to contaminants], but could be associated to their long term exposure and body accumulation of toxicants which persist in the environment." ("Four Polygamous Families with Congenital Birth Defects from Fallujah, Iraq," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011 – 8)
In other words, the problem is likely to get worse.
In this sense, the continued process of the concentration of contaminants in the environment and their accumulation in human bodies could, as the report suggests, be similar to what happened with Agent Orange in Vietnam. The U.S. bombed much of South Vietnam with defoliants and herbicides (plant-killers) containing the toxic chemical dioxin. This was meant to get rid of the vegetation providing Vietnamese revolutionaries with cover from American attacks and kill peasants' crops, forcing them into the cities. According to Vietnamese authorities today, about 4.8 million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed and half a million children born with birth defects. (Globe and Mail, 12 July 2008. Also see Wikipedia, "Agent Orange".)
Now, three and a half decades after the end of the war, America's Agent Orange is continuing to kill Vietnamese. Not only are people who were exposed back then suffering horrible cancers today, and not only are their descendants afflicted by birth defects, including heartbreaking deformations, but there are increasing concentrations of the toxin among fish, animals and people. Not only have the last four decades been hell for many Vietnamese, despite the end of the war; scientists expect the next 40 years to see an enormous amount of new suffering.
In discussing depleted uranium, the latest research journal report says, "It is unclear whether its radiation-derived mutational effects or its chemical toxic effects are more relevant." Both lead to birth defects, from exposure to the parents before the child is conceived and exposure to the mother before it is born. The chemical toxic effects are at least as bad as those from radiation. And both will last for a very long time.
Depleted uranium is, in a way, today's moral equivalent to Agent Orange – a hi-tech fix to the problem of fighting unjust wars at a minimum cost to the oppressor by bringing into play the productive and technological superiority of the imperialist powers.
This by-product of making enriched uranium is now prized for rifle and artillery shells because it makes them better able to penetrate hard substances like metal and concrete. These projectiles catch fire after penetrating and are generally more deadly. It is known that the powder they release on impact is chemically toxic (poisonous) and radioactive (although much less than natural uranium, and not at all comparable to the bomb-quality metal). But the U.S. and its European allies will not allow so much as any discussion in the UN, the World Health Organization and other forums as to why it should not be used.
It took many years before scientific evidence that Agent Orange causes birth defects was accepted, and there is still resistance to the idea, not because the facts are unclear but because so much is at stake politically. Although these reports about Falluja are scientifically impeccable, writing and publishing them required courage because they, too, venture into what has been declared politically forbidden territory.
To help the people of Falluja, the new paper calls for further research into how the environmental contaminants work and the identification of families at risk. This would make it possible to provide help for those already affected and counselling for those families already identifiable as facing the likelihood of dead children and ruined lives. That, of course, is not likely to happen in the Iraq that the U.S. invasion and occupation has created. The U.S.-supported Iraqi authorities and their media tried to stop the earlier medical survey by labelling it "terrorist" and threatening to arrest people who cooperated with it.
This medical tragedy could be taken to stand for what the U.S. (and the UK and other allies) have done to Iraq. Although, from the media, you might think the war is over, there are still 50,000 U.S. troops there and it is not certain what the U.S. will be able to do or will be forced to do there within the broader context of its never-abandoned goals of Mid-Eastern domination and its face-off with Iran. But the toxic effects of the occupation are continuing to accumulate in Iraq and the region.
Donnerstag, 6. Januar 2011
IMI-Analyse zum Galileo-Satellitennavigationssystem
IMI-Analyse 2010/042 - in: AUSDRUCk (Dezember 2010)
Galileo: Militaristenprojekt als Milliardengrab
http://www.imi-online.de/2010.php?id=2212
http://imi-online.de/download/ML-JW-Dezember10-Galileo.pdf
2.12.2010, Malte Lühmann und Jürgen Wagner
Die Ursprünge des europäischen Satellitennavigationssystems Galileo
reichen zurück bis ins Jahr 1998, in dem eine Machbarkeitsstudie der
EU-Kommission und der Europäischen Raumfahrtagentur angefertigt wurde.
Offiziell eingetütet wurde das Projekt schließlich durch eine
Entschließung des EU-Rates am 5. April 2001. Angekündigt als rein
ziviles -- und wirtschaftlich vernünftiges -- Vorhaben, sollten die
ersten drei Galileo-Satelliten ursprünglichen Planungen zufolge bereits
2006 in Betrieb genommen werden.
Vordergründig hieß es, man wolle sich eine Scheibe vom profitablen
Navigations-Kuchen abschneiden, den sich bislang allein das
amerikanische GPS-System einverleibt. Wie ein Mitte Oktober 2010 der
Presse zugespielter Bericht des Bundesfinanzministeriums zum "aktuellen
Sachstand bei Galileo" nun jedoch einräumt, werden nicht nur die Kosten
für den Aufbau des Systems erheblich höher sein als bislang angenommen,
vielmehr scheint man die Hoffnung aufgegeben zu haben, dass Galileo je
kostendeckend arbeiten wird: das jährliche Defizit wird im Bericht auf
horrende 750 Mio. Euro beziffert!
Dementsprechend deutlich titelte denn die Presse mit Sätzen wie "Fass
ohne Boden" (Frankfurter Rundschau), "Milliardengrab im All"
(Abendzeitung) oder "Dauerhafter Zuschussbetrieb statt Goldesel" (Heise
Online). Allerdings war dies alles absehbar, wie auch denjenigen, die
das Projekt verantwortlich auf den Weg gebracht haben, mehr als bewusst
gewesen sein dürfte. Das einfachste wäre nun, Galileo einfach
abzuschalten und sich so wenigstens die Defizite von jährlich 750 Mio.
zu sparen -- weshalb dies nicht geschieht, hat jedoch einen einfachen
Grund. Bei Galileo geht und ging es nie um ein rein ziviles,
kommerzielles Projekt, sondern stets lag der vorrangige "Nutzen" aus
Sicht seiner Befürworter in seinen militärischen Anwendungsbereichen.
Geradezu zynisch ist aber, dass inzwischen teils offen eingeräumt wird,
dass die von Anfang an geplante militärische Verwendung sogar verhindert
hat, ein kommerziell tragfähiges System aufzubauen.
*Explodierende Kosten
*
Für die Galileo-Entwicklungsphase veranschlagte die EU-Kommission 1,8
Mrd. Euro, für die Aufbauphase weitere 3,4 Mrd. Euro. Ursprünglich
zielte die Europäische Union darauf ab, von diesen 3,4 Mrd. lediglich
ein Drittel selbst aufbringen zu müssen, den Rest sollten private
Investoren beisteuern. Nachdem diese Investoren aber -- wen wundert's --
ausblieben, wurde das Geld aus verschiedenen Töpfen mühsam
zusammengeklaubt: 1 Mrd. aus dem Budget für die Transeuropäischen
Energie- und Verkehrsnetze (TEN), 1,6 Mrd. aus dem
EU-Landwirtschaftsfonds sowie 800 Mio. aus dem Forschungsetat. Brisant
ist dies u.a. auch deshalb, weil es sich bei Galileo auch um ein
militärisches Projekt handelt (siehe unten), der seinerzeit gültige
Vertrag von Nizza jedoch die Finanzierung von "Maßnahmen mit
militärischen oder verteidigungspolitischen Bezügen" aus dem EU-Haushalt
verbot (Art. 28 Abs. 3).
Der nun an die Presse gelangte Bericht des Finanzministeriums offenbart
zudem, dass die Kostenschätzungen -- vorsichtig formuliert -- extrem
optimistisch waren. Allein für die Aufbauphase würden Angaben der
EU-Kommission zufolge "zusätzliche Kosten von 1,5 bis 1,7 Milliarden
Euro" anfallen, die Fertigstellung verschiebe sich auf 2017 oder 2018.
Brisant ist der Bericht aber insbesondere deshalb, weil man von den
ursprünglich angepriesenen wirtschaftlichen Profiten, die das Projekt
abwerfen sollte, heute nichts mehr wissen will: "Die
Einnahmemöglichkeiten werden deutlich niedriger eingeschätzt als
ursprünglich erwartet, weil eine kommerzielle Verwertung der
Galileo-Dienste angesichts eines sich erst noch entwickelnden Marktes
und der kostenlos verfügbaren Dienstleistungen der anderen
Satellitennavigationssysteme schwierig ist." Was sich hier anbahnt,
nämlich dass Galileo ein gigantisches Zuschussprojekt wird, erhärtet der
Bericht schließlich auch mit konkreten Zahlen. Erwarteten Einnahmen von
100 Mio. Euro stehen Betriebskosten in Höhe von 850 Mio. gegenüber, ergo
ergebe sich laut Finanzministerium künftig "ein durchschnittlicher
jährlicher Mittelbedarf aus dem EU-Haushalt in Höhe von 750 Millionen
Euro für den Betrieb."
Nach der Veröffentlichung des Berichtes war die Empörung groß: Laut dem
SPD-Politiker Klaus Hageman, Vorsitzender des EU-Unterausschusses im
Haushaltsausschuss des Bundestages, sei es "ein Hammer, dass erst jetzt
-- nachdem die ersten Teilaufträge für die Satelliten vergeben sind --
ans Tageslicht kommt, dass Galileo kein Goldesel, sondern ein
dauerhafter Zuschussbetrieb werden wird." Tatsächlich sind diese und
andere Aussagen verantwortlicher Politiker jedoch mehr als lachhaft,
seit Jahren ist es mehr als klar, dass die Gesamtrechnung des Projektes
in Richtung der nun präsentierten Zahlen gehen wird. So berichtete der
Spiegel bereits am 12. Januar 2008 unter dem Titel "Europäischem
'Galileo'-Projekt droht Kostenexplosion" davon, die Kosten der
Aufbauphase würden auf mindestens 5 Mrd. Euro steigen. Auch dass Galileo
keinesfalls der angepriesene Goldesel sein würde, war lange bekannt,
sowohl in der Wirtschaft als auch in der Politik. So benannte eine
Mitteilung der EU-Kommission (Galileo am Scheideweg: Die Umsetzung der
europäischen GNSS-Programme) bereits 2007 die Ursache, weshalb sich die
Begeisterung von Privatunternehmen in das Galileo-Projekt zu
investieren, in engen Grenzen hielt: "Zu den Gründen zählen die
Unsicherheiten der kommerziellen Nutzung Galileos aufgrund der
Kostenfreiheit des GPS-Signals."
Nun ist es zwar schwer vorstellbar -- aber immerhin möglich --, dass
diese und andere Quellen, die schon vor Jahren das nun auch offiziell
vom Finanzministerium eingeräumte Finanzdebakel prognostizierten, aus
vollkommener Unfähigkeit nicht bekannt waren oder nicht zur Kenntnis
genommen wurden. Damit erklärt sich jedoch nicht, weshalb es derzeit
keinerlei Stimmen gibt, die sich dafür aussprechen, ein derartig
defizitäres Projekt, das jährlich mit einer Dreiviertelmilliarde zu
Buche schlägt, einfach stillschweigend zu beerdigen. Selbst ggf.
anfallende Konventionalstrafen dürften angesichts der horrenden
jährlichen Betriebskosten eher vernachlässigenswert sein. Die Antwort
ist relativ simpel: it's the military, stupid!
*Kostspieliges Militärprojekt*
Obwohl stets der zivile Charakter des Galileo-Systems hervorgehoben
wird, Galileo ermöglicht explizit auch eine militärische Nutzung und
durch dieses System werden künftig autonome -- d.h. unabhängig von GPS
und damit von den USA erfolgende -- EU-Militäreinsätze überhaupt erst
durchführbar: ein wesentlicher Schritt hin zu einer Militärmacht EUropa.
Insofern wundert es nicht, dass bereits der "Bericht über die
Europäische Sicherheitsstrategie und die ESVP" im Jahr 2008 angab, die
Europäische Union "erachtet es als notwendig, die Nutzung von Galileo
[...] für Sicherheits- und Verteidigungszwecke zu ermöglichen." Auch der
am 10. Juli 2008 vom Europäischen Parlament verabschiedete Bericht
"Weltraum und Sicherheit" (2008/2030(INI) "betont, dass Galileo für
eigenständige ESVP-Operationen, für die Gemeinsame Außen- und
Sicherheitspolitik (GASP) und für Europas eigene Sicherheit notwendig ist."
Im Endstadium soll Galileo fünf verschiedene Dienste anbieten können,
von einem frei zugänglichen Service bis hin zu einem streng
kontrollierten Öffentlich Regulierten Dienst ("Public Regulated Service"
-- PRS). Für diesen PRS gelten strenge Sicherheitsauflagen und wer eines
letzten Beweises bedurfte, dass Galileo explizit militärisch verwendet
werden soll, der bekam diesen kürzlich. Im Oktober 2010 veröffentlichte
die EU-Kommission ihren "Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des Europäischen
Parlaments und des Rates über die Regelung des Zugangs zum
öffentlich-staatlichen Dienst" (KOM(2010) 550 endgültig), aus der
eindeutig hervorgeht, dass nahezu jedes EU-Land gedenkt, den PRS für
militärische Anwendungen einzusetzen. Weiter geht aus dem
Kommissionsdokument hervor, dass der PRS zu etwa 50% militärisch genutzt
werden wird (plus weitere 20% für Bereiche der "inneren Sicherheit").
Angesichts dessen ist es geradezu unverschämt, mit welcher Ausdauer der
Mythos gepflegt wird, bei Galileo handele es sich um ein "ziviles System
unter ziviler Kontrolle", zuletzt etwa von der EU-Pressemitteilung
"Galileo: Sichere Satellitennavigation für Notfall- und
Sicherheitsdienste" (IP/10/1301, 8. Oktober 2010).
Ein regelrechter Hammer ist aber, was die Zeitschrift Technology Review
(7/2009) unter Berufung auf Aussagen von Hubert Reile, Programmdirektor
Weltraum beim Deutschen Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR),
offenbart. Ein Grund, weshalb Galileo derartig teuer wird, sind die
horrenden Baukosten, der andere ist, dass der kommerzielle Markt
aufgrund von mehr und mehr Anbietern immer unlukrativer wird. Beide
Probleme hätten durch einen Einstieg Chinas erheblich abgemildert werden
können, wenn, ja wenn man nicht unbedingt ein Militärsystem hätte haben
wollen. "Das Reich der Mitte war 2003 mit einem Beitrag von 280
Millionen Euro bei Galileo eingestiegen -- in der Hoffnung, ein
gleichberechtigter Partner zu sein. Als sich abzeichnete, dass Galileo
nicht nur zivil, sondern auch militärisch genutzt werden sollte, hätten
die Europäer aber nicht mehr mit den Chinesen auf allen Ebenen
zusammenarbeiten wollen, sagt DLR-Mann Hubert Reile. Die Reaktion: Die
noch junge Raumfahrtnation beschloss, ein eigenes System aufzubauen."
Kritiker wie Frank Slijper, die angaben, für Galileo sei von Anfang an
eine primär militärische Nutzung vorgesehen gewesen, lagen also richtig.
In seiner Studie "From Venus to Mars", die vom Transnational Institute
veröffentlicht wurde, trifft Slijper zudem folgende düsterere, aber wohl
zutreffende Prognose: "Europas eigenem Satellitennavigationssystem soll
selbstverständlich eine zentrale Rolle bei jeglichen künftigen
Militärinterventionen zukommen, die ein EU-Land involvieren. Es wird
demzufolge nicht die Frage sein, ob, sondern wann Galileo eingesetzt
wird, um Bomben und Raketen auf 'Terroristen' und andere als solche
wahrgenommene Feinde weit außerhalb Europas zu lenken."
Teils werden geradezu groteske argumentative Klimmzüge unternommen, um
dem Projekt dennoch irgendwie einen zivilen Charakter anzudichten. So
antwortete die EU-Kommission im November 2009 auf eine parlamentarische
Anfrage (E-4479/2009), inwieweit eine militärische Nutzung Galileos sich
angesichts des zivilen Charakters ausschließe folgendermaßen: "Der Rat
hat bereits mehrfach erklärt, dass es sich bei dem im Rahmen des
Galileo-Programms errichteten System um ein ziviles System handelt, das
unter ziviler Kontrolle steht. [...] Diese im Wesentlichen zivile
Bestimmung des Systems schließt jedoch nicht aus, dass es auch zu
militärischen Zwecken genutzt werden könnte." Unangefochtener Champion
ist hier aber ein Beitrag in der der Zeitschrift wehrtechnik (IV/2004),
der postulierte, Galileo sei ein ziviles System, denn "die Quelle der
Finanzierung ist dabei der Indikator." Dies quittierte die IMI-Studie
"Aus dem All in alle Welt: Weltraumpolitik für die Militärmacht Europa"
bereits vor über zwei Jahren mit einer Bewertung, die heute aktueller
ist denn je: "Für all jene, die dieser Logik nicht folgen wollen, ist
Galileo eben kein ziviles Projekt und auch nicht nur ein
militärisch-genutztes. Tatsächlich handelt es sich um eine Mischung aus
einem Rüstungsprojekt, das mit einem zivilen Infrastrukturvorhaben
verschmolzen wurde, um die anfallenden Kosten für die militärische
Nutzung auf zivile Budgets abzuwälzen. Es stellt als solches einen
wichtigen Beitrag dar, auf dem Weg zur Schaffung einer unabhängigen
europäischen Militärmacht, die ohne Rücksicht auf internationale Partner
ihre Interessen durchsetzen kann."
Galileo: Militaristenprojekt als Milliardengrab
http://www.imi-online.de/2010.php?id=2212
http://imi-online.de/download/ML-JW-Dezember10-Galileo.pdf
2.12.2010, Malte Lühmann und Jürgen Wagner
Die Ursprünge des europäischen Satellitennavigationssystems Galileo
reichen zurück bis ins Jahr 1998, in dem eine Machbarkeitsstudie der
EU-Kommission und der Europäischen Raumfahrtagentur angefertigt wurde.
Offiziell eingetütet wurde das Projekt schließlich durch eine
Entschließung des EU-Rates am 5. April 2001. Angekündigt als rein
ziviles -- und wirtschaftlich vernünftiges -- Vorhaben, sollten die
ersten drei Galileo-Satelliten ursprünglichen Planungen zufolge bereits
2006 in Betrieb genommen werden.
Vordergründig hieß es, man wolle sich eine Scheibe vom profitablen
Navigations-Kuchen abschneiden, den sich bislang allein das
amerikanische GPS-System einverleibt. Wie ein Mitte Oktober 2010 der
Presse zugespielter Bericht des Bundesfinanzministeriums zum "aktuellen
Sachstand bei Galileo" nun jedoch einräumt, werden nicht nur die Kosten
für den Aufbau des Systems erheblich höher sein als bislang angenommen,
vielmehr scheint man die Hoffnung aufgegeben zu haben, dass Galileo je
kostendeckend arbeiten wird: das jährliche Defizit wird im Bericht auf
horrende 750 Mio. Euro beziffert!
Dementsprechend deutlich titelte denn die Presse mit Sätzen wie "Fass
ohne Boden" (Frankfurter Rundschau), "Milliardengrab im All"
(Abendzeitung) oder "Dauerhafter Zuschussbetrieb statt Goldesel" (Heise
Online). Allerdings war dies alles absehbar, wie auch denjenigen, die
das Projekt verantwortlich auf den Weg gebracht haben, mehr als bewusst
gewesen sein dürfte. Das einfachste wäre nun, Galileo einfach
abzuschalten und sich so wenigstens die Defizite von jährlich 750 Mio.
zu sparen -- weshalb dies nicht geschieht, hat jedoch einen einfachen
Grund. Bei Galileo geht und ging es nie um ein rein ziviles,
kommerzielles Projekt, sondern stets lag der vorrangige "Nutzen" aus
Sicht seiner Befürworter in seinen militärischen Anwendungsbereichen.
Geradezu zynisch ist aber, dass inzwischen teils offen eingeräumt wird,
dass die von Anfang an geplante militärische Verwendung sogar verhindert
hat, ein kommerziell tragfähiges System aufzubauen.
*Explodierende Kosten
*
Für die Galileo-Entwicklungsphase veranschlagte die EU-Kommission 1,8
Mrd. Euro, für die Aufbauphase weitere 3,4 Mrd. Euro. Ursprünglich
zielte die Europäische Union darauf ab, von diesen 3,4 Mrd. lediglich
ein Drittel selbst aufbringen zu müssen, den Rest sollten private
Investoren beisteuern. Nachdem diese Investoren aber -- wen wundert's --
ausblieben, wurde das Geld aus verschiedenen Töpfen mühsam
zusammengeklaubt: 1 Mrd. aus dem Budget für die Transeuropäischen
Energie- und Verkehrsnetze (TEN), 1,6 Mrd. aus dem
EU-Landwirtschaftsfonds sowie 800 Mio. aus dem Forschungsetat. Brisant
ist dies u.a. auch deshalb, weil es sich bei Galileo auch um ein
militärisches Projekt handelt (siehe unten), der seinerzeit gültige
Vertrag von Nizza jedoch die Finanzierung von "Maßnahmen mit
militärischen oder verteidigungspolitischen Bezügen" aus dem EU-Haushalt
verbot (Art. 28 Abs. 3).
Der nun an die Presse gelangte Bericht des Finanzministeriums offenbart
zudem, dass die Kostenschätzungen -- vorsichtig formuliert -- extrem
optimistisch waren. Allein für die Aufbauphase würden Angaben der
EU-Kommission zufolge "zusätzliche Kosten von 1,5 bis 1,7 Milliarden
Euro" anfallen, die Fertigstellung verschiebe sich auf 2017 oder 2018.
Brisant ist der Bericht aber insbesondere deshalb, weil man von den
ursprünglich angepriesenen wirtschaftlichen Profiten, die das Projekt
abwerfen sollte, heute nichts mehr wissen will: "Die
Einnahmemöglichkeiten werden deutlich niedriger eingeschätzt als
ursprünglich erwartet, weil eine kommerzielle Verwertung der
Galileo-Dienste angesichts eines sich erst noch entwickelnden Marktes
und der kostenlos verfügbaren Dienstleistungen der anderen
Satellitennavigationssysteme schwierig ist." Was sich hier anbahnt,
nämlich dass Galileo ein gigantisches Zuschussprojekt wird, erhärtet der
Bericht schließlich auch mit konkreten Zahlen. Erwarteten Einnahmen von
100 Mio. Euro stehen Betriebskosten in Höhe von 850 Mio. gegenüber, ergo
ergebe sich laut Finanzministerium künftig "ein durchschnittlicher
jährlicher Mittelbedarf aus dem EU-Haushalt in Höhe von 750 Millionen
Euro für den Betrieb."
Nach der Veröffentlichung des Berichtes war die Empörung groß: Laut dem
SPD-Politiker Klaus Hageman, Vorsitzender des EU-Unterausschusses im
Haushaltsausschuss des Bundestages, sei es "ein Hammer, dass erst jetzt
-- nachdem die ersten Teilaufträge für die Satelliten vergeben sind --
ans Tageslicht kommt, dass Galileo kein Goldesel, sondern ein
dauerhafter Zuschussbetrieb werden wird." Tatsächlich sind diese und
andere Aussagen verantwortlicher Politiker jedoch mehr als lachhaft,
seit Jahren ist es mehr als klar, dass die Gesamtrechnung des Projektes
in Richtung der nun präsentierten Zahlen gehen wird. So berichtete der
Spiegel bereits am 12. Januar 2008 unter dem Titel "Europäischem
'Galileo'-Projekt droht Kostenexplosion" davon, die Kosten der
Aufbauphase würden auf mindestens 5 Mrd. Euro steigen. Auch dass Galileo
keinesfalls der angepriesene Goldesel sein würde, war lange bekannt,
sowohl in der Wirtschaft als auch in der Politik. So benannte eine
Mitteilung der EU-Kommission (Galileo am Scheideweg: Die Umsetzung der
europäischen GNSS-Programme) bereits 2007 die Ursache, weshalb sich die
Begeisterung von Privatunternehmen in das Galileo-Projekt zu
investieren, in engen Grenzen hielt: "Zu den Gründen zählen die
Unsicherheiten der kommerziellen Nutzung Galileos aufgrund der
Kostenfreiheit des GPS-Signals."
Nun ist es zwar schwer vorstellbar -- aber immerhin möglich --, dass
diese und andere Quellen, die schon vor Jahren das nun auch offiziell
vom Finanzministerium eingeräumte Finanzdebakel prognostizierten, aus
vollkommener Unfähigkeit nicht bekannt waren oder nicht zur Kenntnis
genommen wurden. Damit erklärt sich jedoch nicht, weshalb es derzeit
keinerlei Stimmen gibt, die sich dafür aussprechen, ein derartig
defizitäres Projekt, das jährlich mit einer Dreiviertelmilliarde zu
Buche schlägt, einfach stillschweigend zu beerdigen. Selbst ggf.
anfallende Konventionalstrafen dürften angesichts der horrenden
jährlichen Betriebskosten eher vernachlässigenswert sein. Die Antwort
ist relativ simpel: it's the military, stupid!
*Kostspieliges Militärprojekt*
Obwohl stets der zivile Charakter des Galileo-Systems hervorgehoben
wird, Galileo ermöglicht explizit auch eine militärische Nutzung und
durch dieses System werden künftig autonome -- d.h. unabhängig von GPS
und damit von den USA erfolgende -- EU-Militäreinsätze überhaupt erst
durchführbar: ein wesentlicher Schritt hin zu einer Militärmacht EUropa.
Insofern wundert es nicht, dass bereits der "Bericht über die
Europäische Sicherheitsstrategie und die ESVP" im Jahr 2008 angab, die
Europäische Union "erachtet es als notwendig, die Nutzung von Galileo
[...] für Sicherheits- und Verteidigungszwecke zu ermöglichen." Auch der
am 10. Juli 2008 vom Europäischen Parlament verabschiedete Bericht
"Weltraum und Sicherheit" (2008/2030(INI) "betont, dass Galileo für
eigenständige ESVP-Operationen, für die Gemeinsame Außen- und
Sicherheitspolitik (GASP) und für Europas eigene Sicherheit notwendig ist."
Im Endstadium soll Galileo fünf verschiedene Dienste anbieten können,
von einem frei zugänglichen Service bis hin zu einem streng
kontrollierten Öffentlich Regulierten Dienst ("Public Regulated Service"
-- PRS). Für diesen PRS gelten strenge Sicherheitsauflagen und wer eines
letzten Beweises bedurfte, dass Galileo explizit militärisch verwendet
werden soll, der bekam diesen kürzlich. Im Oktober 2010 veröffentlichte
die EU-Kommission ihren "Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des Europäischen
Parlaments und des Rates über die Regelung des Zugangs zum
öffentlich-staatlichen Dienst" (KOM(2010) 550 endgültig), aus der
eindeutig hervorgeht, dass nahezu jedes EU-Land gedenkt, den PRS für
militärische Anwendungen einzusetzen. Weiter geht aus dem
Kommissionsdokument hervor, dass der PRS zu etwa 50% militärisch genutzt
werden wird (plus weitere 20% für Bereiche der "inneren Sicherheit").
Angesichts dessen ist es geradezu unverschämt, mit welcher Ausdauer der
Mythos gepflegt wird, bei Galileo handele es sich um ein "ziviles System
unter ziviler Kontrolle", zuletzt etwa von der EU-Pressemitteilung
"Galileo: Sichere Satellitennavigation für Notfall- und
Sicherheitsdienste" (IP/10/1301, 8. Oktober 2010).
Ein regelrechter Hammer ist aber, was die Zeitschrift Technology Review
(7/2009) unter Berufung auf Aussagen von Hubert Reile, Programmdirektor
Weltraum beim Deutschen Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR),
offenbart. Ein Grund, weshalb Galileo derartig teuer wird, sind die
horrenden Baukosten, der andere ist, dass der kommerzielle Markt
aufgrund von mehr und mehr Anbietern immer unlukrativer wird. Beide
Probleme hätten durch einen Einstieg Chinas erheblich abgemildert werden
können, wenn, ja wenn man nicht unbedingt ein Militärsystem hätte haben
wollen. "Das Reich der Mitte war 2003 mit einem Beitrag von 280
Millionen Euro bei Galileo eingestiegen -- in der Hoffnung, ein
gleichberechtigter Partner zu sein. Als sich abzeichnete, dass Galileo
nicht nur zivil, sondern auch militärisch genutzt werden sollte, hätten
die Europäer aber nicht mehr mit den Chinesen auf allen Ebenen
zusammenarbeiten wollen, sagt DLR-Mann Hubert Reile. Die Reaktion: Die
noch junge Raumfahrtnation beschloss, ein eigenes System aufzubauen."
Kritiker wie Frank Slijper, die angaben, für Galileo sei von Anfang an
eine primär militärische Nutzung vorgesehen gewesen, lagen also richtig.
In seiner Studie "From Venus to Mars", die vom Transnational Institute
veröffentlicht wurde, trifft Slijper zudem folgende düsterere, aber wohl
zutreffende Prognose: "Europas eigenem Satellitennavigationssystem soll
selbstverständlich eine zentrale Rolle bei jeglichen künftigen
Militärinterventionen zukommen, die ein EU-Land involvieren. Es wird
demzufolge nicht die Frage sein, ob, sondern wann Galileo eingesetzt
wird, um Bomben und Raketen auf 'Terroristen' und andere als solche
wahrgenommene Feinde weit außerhalb Europas zu lenken."
Teils werden geradezu groteske argumentative Klimmzüge unternommen, um
dem Projekt dennoch irgendwie einen zivilen Charakter anzudichten. So
antwortete die EU-Kommission im November 2009 auf eine parlamentarische
Anfrage (E-4479/2009), inwieweit eine militärische Nutzung Galileos sich
angesichts des zivilen Charakters ausschließe folgendermaßen: "Der Rat
hat bereits mehrfach erklärt, dass es sich bei dem im Rahmen des
Galileo-Programms errichteten System um ein ziviles System handelt, das
unter ziviler Kontrolle steht. [...] Diese im Wesentlichen zivile
Bestimmung des Systems schließt jedoch nicht aus, dass es auch zu
militärischen Zwecken genutzt werden könnte." Unangefochtener Champion
ist hier aber ein Beitrag in der der Zeitschrift wehrtechnik (IV/2004),
der postulierte, Galileo sei ein ziviles System, denn "die Quelle der
Finanzierung ist dabei der Indikator." Dies quittierte die IMI-Studie
"Aus dem All in alle Welt: Weltraumpolitik für die Militärmacht Europa"
bereits vor über zwei Jahren mit einer Bewertung, die heute aktueller
ist denn je: "Für all jene, die dieser Logik nicht folgen wollen, ist
Galileo eben kein ziviles Projekt und auch nicht nur ein
militärisch-genutztes. Tatsächlich handelt es sich um eine Mischung aus
einem Rüstungsprojekt, das mit einem zivilen Infrastrukturvorhaben
verschmolzen wurde, um die anfallenden Kosten für die militärische
Nutzung auf zivile Budgets abzuwälzen. Es stellt als solches einen
wichtigen Beitrag dar, auf dem Weg zur Schaffung einer unabhängigen
europäischen Militärmacht, die ohne Rücksicht auf internationale Partner
ihre Interessen durchsetzen kann."
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)