portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Iraqocide a freeping dream

The Bush- Clinton- Bush- American legacy of genocide
ZNet | A Community of People Committed to Social Change


A People Betrayed


ZNet Top
Home







by John Pilger
Independent (London)
February 23, 2003

Print-Friendly Version
Email This Article To A Friend


Dr Al-Ali is a cancer specialist at Basra's hospital and a
member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians. He has a neat
moustache and a kindly, furrowed face. His starched white
coat, like the collar of his shirt, is frayed.

"Before the Gulf War, we had only three or four deaths in a
month from cancer," he said. "Now it's 30 to 35 patients dying
every month, and that's just in my department. That is a
12-fold increase in cancer mortality. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the
population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. That's
almost half the population.

"Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. We don't know
the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to
conduct a proper survey, or even test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We strongly
suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right
across the southern battlefields. Whatever the cause, it is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects
are new to us.

"The mushrooms grow huge, and the fish in what was once a beautiful river are inedible. Even
the grapes in my garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

Along the corridor, I met Dr Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician. At another time, she might have
been described as an effervescent personality; now she, too, has a melancholy expression that
does not change; it is the face of Iraq. "This is Ali Raffa Asswadi," she said, stopping to take the
hand of a wasted boy I guessed to be about four years old. "He is nine. He has leukaemia. Now we
can't treat him. Only some of the drugs are available. We get drugs for two or three weeks, and
then they stop when the shipments stop. Unless you continue a
course, the treatment is useless. We can't even give blood
transfusions, because there are not enough blood bags."

Dr Hassen keeps a photo album of the children she is trying to save and those she has been
unable to save. "This is Talum Saleh," she said, turning to a photograph of a boy in a blue pullover
and with sparkling eyes. "He is five-and-a-half years old. This is a case of Hodgkin's disease.
Normally a patient with Hodgkin's can expect to live and the cure can be 95 per cent. But if the
drugs are not available, complications set in, and death follows. This boy had a beautiful nature.
He died."

I said, "As we were walking, I noticed you stop and put your face to the wall." "Yes, I was
emotional ... I am a doctor; I am not supposed to cry, but I cry every day, because this is torture.
These children could live; they could live and grow up; and when you see your son and daughter in
front of you, dying, what happens to you?" I said, "What do you say to those in the West who
deny the connection between depleted uranium and the deformities of these children?" "That is not
true. How much proof do they want? There is every relation between congenital malformation
and depleted uranium. Before 1991, we saw nothing like this at all. If there is no connection, why
have these things not happened before? Most of these children have no family history of cancer.

"I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. It is almost exactly the same here; we have an
increased percentage of congenital malformation, an increase of malignancy, leukaemia, brain
tumours: the same."

Under the economic embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council, now in its 14th
year, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to decontaminate its battlefields from the 1991 Gulf War.

Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, told me: "I am
like many people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body.
Most of my team are now dead.

"We face an issue to be confronted by people in the West, those with a sense of right and wrong:
first, the decision by the US and Britain to use a weapon of mass destruction: depeleted uranium.
When a tank fired its shells, each round carried over 4,500g of solid uranium. What happened in
the Gulf was a form of nuclear warfare."

In 1991, a United Kingdom Atomic Eneregy Authority document reported that if 8 per cent of the
depleted uranium fired in the Gulf War was inhaled, it could cause "500,000 potential deaths". In the
promised attack on Iraq, the United States will again use depleted uranium, and so will Britain,
regardless of its denials.

Professor Rokke says he has watched Iraqi officials pleading with American and British officials
to ease the embargo, if only to allow decontaminating and cancer assessment equipment to be
imported. "They
described the deaths and horrific deformities, and they were
rebuffed," he said. "It was pathetic."

The United Nations Sanctions Committee in New York, set up by the Security Council to
administer the embargo, is dominated by the Americans, who are backed by the British.
Washington has vetoed or delayed a range of vital medical equipment, chemotherapy drugs, even
pain-killers. (In the jargon of denial, "blocked" equals vetoed, and "on hold" means delayed, or
maybe blocked.) In Baghdad, I sat in a clinic as doctors received parents and their children, many
of them grey-skinned and bald, some of them dying. After every second or third examination, Dr
Lekaa Fasseh Ozeer, the young oncologist, wrote in
English: "No drugs available." I asked her to jot down in my notebook a list of drugs the hospital had
ordered, but had not received, or had received intermittently. She filled a page.

I had been filming in Iraq for my documentary Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq. Back in
London, I showed Dr Ozeer's list to Professor Karol Sikora who, as chief of the cancer programme
of the World Health Organisation (WHO), wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested
radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United
States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion
that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons.

Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. They are very standard. When I came
back from Iraq last year, with a group of experts I drew up a list of 17 drugs deemed essential for
cancer treatment. We informed the UN that there was no possibility of converting these drugs
into chemical warfare agents. We heard nothing more.

"The saddest thing I saw in Iraq was children dying because there was no chemotherapy and no
pain control. It seemed crazy they couldn't have morphine, because for everybody with cancer pain,
it is the best drug. When I was there, they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go round 200
patients in pain. They would receive a particular anti-cancer drug, but then get only little bits of
drugs here and there, and so you can't have any planning. It's bizarre."

I told him that one of the doctors had been especially upset because the UN Sanctions Committee
had banned nitrous oxide as "weapons dual use"; yet this was used in caesarean sections to stop
bleeding, and perhaps save a mother's life. "I can see no logic to banning that," he said. "I am not an
armaments expert, but the amounts used would be so small that, even if you collected all the drugs
supply for the whole nation and pooled it, it is difficult to see how you could make any chemical
warfare device out of it."

Denis Halliday is a courtly Irishman who spent 34 years with the UN, latterly as Assistant
Secretary-General. When he resigned in 1998 as the UN's Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq in
protest at the effects of the embargo on the civilian population, it was, he wrote, "because the
policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire
society. It is as simple as that ... Five thousand children are dying every month ... I don't want to
administer a programme that results in figures like these."

Since I met Halliday, I have been struck by the principle behind his carefully chosen,
uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the
definition of
genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and
adults. We all know that the regime
- Saddam Hussein - is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been
strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of
untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here
undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.
History will slaughter those responsible."

In the UN, Mr Halliday broke a long collective silence. On 13
February, 2000, Hans Von Sponeck, who had succeeded him as
Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Baghdad, resigned. Like Halliday, he had been with the UN for more
than 30 years. "How long," he asked, "should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such
punishment for something they have never done?" Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the
World Food Programme in Iraq, another UN agency, resigned, saying that she, too, could no longer
tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people.

The resignations were unprecedented. All three were saying the
unsayable: that the West was responsible for mass deaths, estimated by Halliday to be more than
a million. While food and medicines are technically exempt, the Sanctions Committee has frequently
vetoed and delayed requests for baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer drugs,
oxygen tents, X-ray machines. Sixteen heart and lung machines were put "on hold" because they
contained computer chips. A fleet of ambulances was held up because their equipment included
vacuum flasks, which keep medical supplies cold; vacuum flasks are designated "dual use" by
the Sanctions Committee, meaning they could possibly be used in weapons manufacture. Cleaning
materials, such as chlorine, are "dual use", as is the graphite used in pencils; as are
wheelbarrows, it seems, considering the frequency of their appearance on the list of "holds".

As of October 2001, 1,010 contracts for humanitarian supplies, worth $3.85bn, were "on hold"
by the Sanctions Committee. They included items related to food, health, water and sanitation,
agriculture and education. This has now risen to goods worth more than $5bn. This is rarely
reported in the West.

When Denis Halliday was the senior United Nations official in Iraq, a display cabinet stood in the
foyer of his office. It contained a bag of wheat, some congealed cooking oil, bars of soap and a
few other household necessities. "It was a pitiful sight," he said, "and it represented the monthly
ration that we were allowed to spend. I added cheese to lift the protein content, but there was
simply not enough money left over from the amount we were allowed to spend, which came from
the revenue Iraq was allowed to make from its oil."

He describes food shipments as "an exercise in duplicity". A shipment that the Americans claim
allows for 2,300 calories per person per day may well allow for only 2,000 calories, or less. "What's
missing," he said, "will be animal proteins, minerals and vitamins. As most Iraqis have no other
source of income, food has become a medium of exchange; it gets sold for other necessities,
further lowering the calorie intake. You also have to get clothes and shoes for your kids to go to
school. You've then got malnourished mothers who cannot breastfeed, and they pick up bad
water.

What is needed is investment in water treatment and distribution,
electric power for food processing, storage and refrigeration,
education and agriculture." His successor, Hans Von Sponeck,
calculates that the Oil for Food Programme allows $100 (63) for each person to live on for a year.
This figure also has to help pay for the entire society's infrastructure and essential services, such
as power and water.

"It is simply not possible to live on such an amount," Mr Von Sponeck told me. "Set that pittance
against the lack of clean water, the fact that electricity fails for up to 22 hours a day, and the
majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of trying to get from day to day,
and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the
past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable."

The cost in lives is staggering. A study by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) found
that between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths above the anticipated rate among Iraqi
children under five years of age. This, on average, is 5,200 preventable under-five deaths per
month.

Hans Von Sponeck said, "Some 167 Iraqi children are dying every day." Denis Halliday said, "If you
include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million." A melancholia shrouds people.
I felt it at Baghdad's evening auctions, where intimate possessions are sold to buy food and
medicines. Television sets are common. A woman with two infants watched their pushchairs go
for pennies. A man who had collected doves since he was 15 came with his last bird; the cage
would go next.

My film crew and I had come to pry, yet we were made welcome; or people merely deferred to
our presence, as the downcast do. During three weeks in Iraq, only once was I the brunt of
someone's anguish. "Why are you killing the children?" shouted a man in the street. "Why are you
bombing us? What have we done to you?" Through the glass doors of the Baghdad offices of
Unicef you can read the following mission
statement: "Above all, survival, hope, development, respect, dignity, equality and justice for women
and children."

Fortunately, the children in the street outside, with their pencil limbs and long thin faces, cannot
read English, and perhaps cannot read at all. "The change in such a short time is unparalleled, in my
experience," Dr Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me.

"In 1989, the literacy rate was more than 90 per cent; parents were fined for failing to send their
children to school. The phenomenon of street children was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage
where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall wellbeing of human beings, including
children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20 per cent."

Dr Singh, diminutive, grey-haired and, with her precision, sounding like the teacher she once was
in India, has spent most of her working life with Unicef. She took me to a typical primary school in
Saddam City, where Baghdad's majority and poorest live. We approached along a flooded street,
the city's drainage and water distribution system having collapsed since the Gulf War bombing.
The headmaster, Ali Hassoon, guided us around the puddles of raw sewage in the playground and
pointed to the high-water mark on the wall. "In the winter it comes up to here. That's when we
evacuate.

We stay for as long as possible but, without desks, the children have to sit on bricks. I am worried
about the buildings coming down." As we talked, an air-raid siren sounded in the distance.The school
is on the edge of a vast industrial cemetery. The pumps in the sewage treatment plants and the
reservoirs of potable water are silent, save for a few wheezing at a fraction of their capacity.
Those that were not bombed have since disintegrated; spare parts from their British, French and
German manufacturers are permanently "on hold".

Before 1991, Baghdad"s water was as safe as any in the developed world. Today, drawn
untreated from the Tigris, it is lethal. Just before Christmas 1999, the Department of Trade and
Industry in London restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against
diphtheria and yellow fever.

Dr Kim Howells told Parliament why. His title of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Competition and Consumer Affairs perfectly suited his Orwellian reply. The children's vaccines
were, he said, "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".

American and British aircraft operate over Iraq in what their governments have unilaterally
declared "no fly zones". This means that only they and their allies can fly there. The designated
areas are in the north, around Mosul, to the border with Turkey, and from just south of Baghdad to
the Kuwaiti border. The US and British governments insist the no fly zones are "legal", claiming that
they are part of, or supported by, the Security Council's Resolution 688.

There is a great deal of fog about this, the kind generated by the Foreign Office when its
statements are challenged. There is no reference to no fly zones in Security Council
resolutions, which suggests they have no basis in international law.

I went to Paris and asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the
Secretary-General of the UN in 1992, when the resolution was passed. "The issue of no fly zones
was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word," he said. "They offer no legitimacy to
countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq." "Does that mean they are illegal?" I asked. "They are
illegal," he replied.

The scale of the bombing in the no fly zones is astonishing. Between July 1998 and January 2000,
American air force and naval aircraft flew 36,000 sorties over Iraq, including 24,000 combat
missions. In 1999 alone, American and British aircraft dropped more than 1,800 bombs and hit 450
targets. The cost to British taxpayers is more than 800m.

There is bombing almost every day: it is the longest Anglo-American aerial campaign since the
Second World War; yet it is mostly ignored by the British and American media. In a rare
acknowledgement, The New York Times reported, "American warplanes have methodically and
with virtually no public discussion been attacking Iraq ... pilots have flown about two-thirds as
many missions as Nato pilots flew over Yugoslavia in 78 days of around-the-clock war there."

The purpose of the no fly zones, according to the British and American governments, is to protect
the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south against Saddam Hussein's forces. The aircraft are
performing a "vital humanitarian task", says Tony Blair, that will give "minority peoples the hope of
freedom and the right to determine their own destinies".

Like much of Blair's rhetoric on Iraq, it is simply false. In nothern Kurdish Iraq, I interviewed
members of a family who had lost their grandfather, their father and four brothers and sisters
when a "coalition" aircraft dive-bombed them and the sheep they were tending. The attack was
investigated and verified by Hans Von Sponeck who drove there especially from Baghdad.
Dozens of similar attacks - on shepherds, farmers, fishermen - are described in a document
prepared by the UN Security Section.

The US faced a "genuine dilemma" in Iraq, reported The Wall Street Journal. "After eight years of
enforcing a no fly zone in ... Iraq, few military targets remain. 'We're down to the last outhouse,' one
US official protested. 'There are still some things left, but not many.'"

There are still children left. Six children died when an American missile hit Al Jumohria, a
community in Basra's poorest residential
area: 63 people were injured, a number of them badly burned. "Collateral damage," said the
Pentagon. I walked down the street where the missile had struck in the early hours; it had followed
the line of houses, destroying one after the other. I met the father of two sisters, aged eight
and 10, who were photographed by a local wedding photographer shortly after the attack. They are
in their nightdresses, one with a bow in her hair, their bodies entombed in the rubble of their
homes, where they had been bombed to death in their beds. These images haunt me.

I flew on to New York for an interview with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United
Nations. He appears an oddly diffident man, so softly spoken as to be almost inaudible.

"As the Secretary-General of the United Nations which is imposing this blockade on Iraq," I said,
"what do you say to the parents of the children who are dying?" His reply was that the Security
Council was considering "smart sanctions", which would "target the leaders" rather than act as "a
blunt instrument that impacts on children". I said the UN was set up to help people, not harm them,
and he replied, "Please do not judge us by what has happened in Iraq."

I walked to the office of Peter van Walsum, the Netherlands' ambassador to the UN and the
chairman of the Sanctions Committee. What impressed me about this diplomat with life-and-death
powers over 22 million people half a world away was that, like liberal politicians in the West, he
seemed to hold two diametrically opposed thoughts in his mind. On the one hand, he spoke of Iraq
as if everybody were Saddam Hussein; on the other, he seemed to believe that most Iraqis were
victims, held hostage to the intransigence of a dictator.

I asked him why the civilian population should be punished for Saddam Hussein's crimes. "It's a
difficult problem," he replied. "You should realise that sanctions are one of the curative measures
that the Security Council has at its disposal ... and obviously they hurt. They are like a military
measure." "Who do they hurt?" "Well, this, of course, is the problem ... but with military action, too,
you have the eternal problem of collateral damage." "So an entire nation is collateral damage. Is
that correct?" "No, I am saying that sanctions have [similar] effects. We have to study this further."

"Do you believe that people have human rights no matter where they live and under what
system?" I asked. "Yes." "Doesn't that mean that the sanctions you are imposing are violating the
human rights of millions of people?" "It's also documented the Iraqi regime has committed very
serious human rights breaches ..."

"There is no doubt about that," I said. "But what's the difference in principle between human rights
violations committed by the regime and those caused by your committee?" "It's a very complex
issue, Mr Pilger."

"What do you say to those who describe sanctions that have caused so many deaths as
'weapons of mass destruction' as lethal as chemical weapons?" "I don't think that's a fair
comparison." "Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?" "I don't think that's a
very fair question. We are talking about a situation caused by a government that overran its
neighbour, and has weapons of mass destruction."

"Then why aren't there sanctions on Israel [which] occupies much of Palestine and attacks
Lebanon almost every day of the week? Why aren't there sanctions on Turkey, which has displaced
three million Kurds and caused the deaths of 30,000 Kurds?" "Well, there are many countries that
do things that we are not happy with. We can't be everywhere. I repeat, it's complex." "How much
power does the United States exercise over your committee?" "We operate by consensus." "And
what if the Americans object?" "We don"t operate."

There is little doubt that if Saddam Hussein saw political advantage in starving and otherwise
denying his people, he would do so. It is hardly surprising that he has looked after himself, his inner
circle and, above all, his military and security apparatus.

His palaces and spooks, like the cartoon portraits of himself, are everywhere. Unlike other
tyrants, however, he not only survived, but before the Gulf War enjoyed a measure of popularity by
buying off his people with the benefits from Iraq's oil revenue. Having exiled or murdered his
opponents, more than any Arab leader he used the riches of oil to modernise the civilian
infrastructure, building first-rate hospitals, schools and universities.

In this way he fostered a relatively large, healthy, well-fed, well-educated middle class.
Before sanctions, Iraqis consumed more than 3,000 calories each per day; 92 per cent of people
had safe water and 93 per cent enjoyed free health care. Adult literacy was one of the highest in
the world, at around 95 per cent. According to the Economist's Intelligence Unit, "the Iraqi welfare
state was, until recently, among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab world."

It is said the only true beneficiary of sanctions is Saddam Hussein. He has used the embargo to
centralise state power, and so reinforce his direct control over people's lives. With most Iraqis now
dependent on the state food rationing system, organised political dissent is all but unthinkable. In any
case, for most Iraqis, it is cancelled by the sense of grievance and anger they feel towards the
external enemy, western governments.

In the relatively open and pro-Western society that existed in Iraq before 1991, there was
always the prospect of an uprising, as the Kurdish and Shia rebellions that year showed. In
today's state of
siege, there is none. That is the unsung achievement of the
Anglo-American blockade.

The economic blockade on Iraq must be lifted for no other reason than that it is immoral, its
consequences inhuman. When that happens, says the former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter,
"the weapons inspectors must go back into Iraq and complete their mandate, which should be
reconfigured. It was originally drawn up for quantitative disarmament, to account for every nut,
screw, bolt, document that exists in Iraq. As long as Iraq didn't account for that, it was not in
compliance and there was no progress.

"We should change that mandate to qualitative disarmament. Does Iraq have a chemical weapons
programme today? No. Does Iraq have a long-range missile programme today? No. Nuclear? No.
Biological? No. Is Iraq qualitatively disarmed? Yes. So we should get on with monitoring Iraq to
ensure they do not reconstitute any of this capability."

Even before the machinations in the UN Security Council in October and November 2002, Iraq had
already accepted back inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the time of
writing, a new
resolution, forced through the Security Council by a Bush
administration campaign of bribery and coercion, has seen a contingent of weapons inspectors at
work in Iraq. Led by the Swedish diplomat Hans Blix, the inspectors have extraordinary powers,
which, for example, require Iraq to "confess" to possessing equipment never banned by previous
resolutions. In spite of a torrent of disnformation from Washington and Whitehall, they have found,
as one inspector put it, "zilch".

An attack is next; we have no right to call it a "war". The "enemy" is a nation of whom almost half the
population are children, a nation who offer us no threat and with whom we have no quarrel. The
fate of countless innocent lives now depends on vestiges of self-respect among the so-called
international (non-American) community, and on free journalists to tell the truth and not merely
channel and echo the propaganda of great power.

It is seldom reported that UN Security Resolution 687 that enforces the embargo on Iraq also says
that Iraq's disarmament should be a step "towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone
free from weapons of mass destruction ..." In other words, if Iraq gives up, or has given up, its
doomsday weapons, so should Israel. After 11 September 2001, making relentless demands on
Iraq, then attacking it, while turning a blind eye to Israel will endanger us all.

"The longer the sanctions go on," said Denis Halliday, "[the more] we are likely to see the emergence
of a generation who will regard Saddam Hussein as too moderate and too willing to listen to the
West."

On my last night in Iraq, I went to the Rabat Hall in the centre of Baghdad to watch the Iraqi
National Orchestra rehearse. I had wanted to meet Mohammed Amin Ezzat, the conductor, whose
personal tragedy epitomises the punishment of his people. Because the power supply is so
intermittent, Iraqis have been forced to use cheap kerosene lamps for lighting, heating and cooking;
and these frequently explode. This is what happened to Mohammed Amin Ezzat's wife, Jenan,
who was engulfed in flames.

"I saw my wife burn completely before my eyes," he said. " I threw myself on her in order to
extinguish the flames, but it was no use. She died. I sometimes wish I had died with her." He
stood on his conductor's podium, his badly burnt left arm unmoving, the fingers fused together.

The orchestra was rehearsing Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite, and there was a strange discord.
Reeds were missing from clarinets and strings from violins. "We can't get them from abroad," he
said. "Someone has decreed they are not allowed." The musical scores are ragged, like ancient
parchment. The musicians cannot get paper.

Only two members of the original orchestra are left; the rest have set out on the long, dangerous
road to Jordan and beyond. "You cannot blame them," he said. "The suffering in our country is too
great. But why has it not been stopped?"

It was a question I put to Denis Halliday one evening in New York. We were standing, just the two of
us, in the great modernist theatre that is the General Assembly at the UN. "This is where the real
world is represented," he said.

"One state, one vote. By contrast, the Security Council has five permanent members which have
veto rights. There is no democracy there. Had the issue of sanctions on Iraq gone to the General
Assembly, it would have been overturned by a very large majority.

"We have to change the United Nations, to reclaim what is ours. The genocide in Iraq is the test of
our will. All of us have to break the
silence: to make those responsible, in Washington and London, aware that history will slaughter
them."

This is an edited extract from John Pilger's latest book, 'The New Rulers of the World', published
next month by Verso, as a fully updated paperback at GBP 8.


Print-Friendly Version
Email This Article To A Friend
ZNet Top | Home
most socialist contries are a toxic dump 01.Mar.2003 17:11

hbb

Iraq is a socialist/stalinist state. Most socialist states don't give a shit about the environment, they are too busy selling anything they can just to stay afloat in a capitalist world.

Go to Minsk and lick a river,

Go to poland, Kiev, etc and see what kind of cancer rates these people have from the polution.

Iraqi is no different, except for the fact that they have a lot of oil wells.

The US army didn't shoot any DU in Smolinsk that I'm aware of..

to 'hbb' 01.Mar.2003 17:37

skeptic

Imported Cathode-Ray Tubes in China dumped along the Liangjiang River.
Photo: Copyright Stefan Irvine

"Most socialist states don't give a shit about the environment"

and capitalist ones *do*?

ply your spam somewhere else.

as if people like you, 'hbb' "care" about any types of industrial pollution, occurring anywhere.

the international trade in toxic waste is primarily generated by the large, wealthy capitalist nations, who sell it to other poorer, less-developed (sometimes socialist) countries for burial and 'disposal'.

 http://www.ban.org./
====================

 http://www.greenpeace.org/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=3990

Toxic trade

Greenpeace has documented hundreds of cases where developed countries have traded or transferred toxic waste problems to developing countries.

Instead of receiving clean technologies, too often developing countries receive toxic waste, products and technologies.

Currently the main focus of our work on toxic trade is stopping the dumping of dirty ships in Asia for shipbreaking.

This type of trade is immoral and environmentally destructive to the receiving countries and their people. It also prevents developed countries from investing in real solutions to pollution, and developing future markets in more appropriate technologies or products.

The most blatant offence has been the export of toxic wastes from developed to developing countries. Greenpeace has sought a ban on this type of toxic trade and achieved it through an international treaty called the Basel Convention.

The convention came into force in 1992 but it was a weak treaty. In 1994, a unique coalition of developing countries, and some from eastern and western Europe along with Greenpeace, managed to pass by consensus what has come to be known as the Basel Ban.

This became law in 1998 and banned waste transfer to developing countries. Greenpeace is now campaigning to:

Prevent governments and companies circumventing the ban by practices such as ship breaking;

Promote clean production;

Halt the production and trade of toxic products such as the UN Environmental Programme list of the dirty dozen (the 12 most toxic persistent pollutants); and

Stop toxic technologies such as incineration.

to 'hbb'
to 'hbb'

another thing, 'hbb' 01.Mar.2003 17:58

skeptic

how do you think we even have any types of environmental regulations

AT ALL

here in the United States, or in Western Europe?

no thanks to the capitalists, who have opposed, diluted, and coopted such initiatives from their inception.

Bu$h and Co. are right now setting the clock back decades in US environmental laws (arsenic, lead, etc.)
another thing, 'hbb'
another thing, 'hbb'

But China is not socialist.... 01.Mar.2003 19:29

Pancho

...or communist, or revolutionary, or progressive. Nor was the USSR after the newly risen working-class lost power to Stalin's state-capitalist bureaucracy in the 1920s. Nor were the former "socialist" regimes of Eastern Europe socialist. Nor is Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam socialist today. Nor are these countries "a little bit" socialist, or "moving toward" socialism! They certainly ARE state-capitalist. They pretend to be socialist (i.e., they're revisionist), just as the AFL-CIO bureacrats pretend to represent the interests of the masses of workers in this country. Revolutionary-minded people seeking an alternative to the horrors of capitalism need to learn to distinguish between real Marxism-Leninism and its revisionist counterfeits.

The truth about socialism. 01.Mar.2003 20:16

che's ghost

The truth about socialism.

Poncho, you poor misguided soul. These are socialist societies. Or, should I say they are all the result of having a population that feels its getting screwed by its current government , has a socialist revolution, then gets picked clean by the people who float to the top. It is enviable in system like that.

For every Trotsky, there is always a Stalin lurking in the corner, waiting plunge an ice pick in his intellectual eggheaded skull.

For every Che Guevara, there is a Castro..

So these may not be Academic By the book socialist countries that Marx had wet dreams about, but they are REAL WORLD results of those wet dreams.

The argument that these countries would be socialist utopias and workers paradises if only greedy capitalist countries didn't sabotage them before they ever got started is bullshit too.

Any system that expects people to work hard, and produce just because it's a good thing will never ever work, unless its on a volunteer basis, like a small commune or a Kibbutz. But when the will of the masses is forced on the common people for the "collective" good, there can only be one outcome. A dictator will find his way to the top, and make all of these people wish they had their old corrupt government back.

It works great if you are a honey bee, or an army ant, but human beings are more complex, humans love, hate, are greedy, they care for each other, dream, etc. Honey bees don't do any of these things.

There is a good Movie called "Stalin", it stars Robert Duvall, and has one several golden globe awards. It is based on the book Stalin's daughter wrote.

It should be required viewing for anyone interested in social change.

The intellectual do-gooders always seem to be exiled by the street smart power-mongers in a system like communism.

If you know of an example where this hasn't occurred, I would love to hear it. (in the sense of a countries government, and not a hippie commune in Oregon)

Hippie Crap Saves The World 01.Mar.2003 20:56

Mark Morford mmorford@sfgate.com

Hippie Crap Saves The World

Can better orgasms and upping your personal vibe really thwart BushCo idiocy?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 28, 2003

URL:  http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Wanna know what conservatives really hate?

What makes everyone from harmless GOP dittoheads to ultra-right-wing nutjobs full of rage and hiss and homophobia and blind jingoism roll their eyes and throw up their hands and scamper for their Bibles for reassurance that life is still repressed and we're still going to war and Dubya is still smackin' 'round the envurment along with them wimmin and homosekshuls and furriners?

Why, hippie crap, of course. New-age babble about love and peace and godless pagan prayer, organic foods and sustainable trees and chakras, divinity and luscious goddesses and soul paths and upping your personal vibration to counter all the venomous hatred slinging about the culture like some sort of conservative, fearmongering weapon of mass depression. Man, they just hate that.

The incessant drive to war, the blank-eyed young soldiers, the drab oil fields, the terse U.N. debates, Rumsfeld's ink-black eyes, the violence and 9/11 and Osama in hiding, Saddam's sneering and Shrub's smirking and Dick Cheney's defibrillator cranking on 11 -- these events are considered "real," they are tangible and raw and ugly and happening right now and we've got the pictures to prove it, all over the media, grainy and grim and mean, CNN and Fox News and frowning pundits and 100-point newspaper headlines, so you know it must be true.

Then there's you, walking through your daily life right now, eating and laughing and screwing and paying rent and thinking for yourself, filtering the onslaught and trying to remain connected to something divine and universal and authentic, all while straining to put this national trend toward violence and warmongering into some sort of acceptable frame.

You are not "real" in this same way. This is the feeling. Your experience is somehow irrelevant; what you do and how you maneuver this daily treachery is an insignificant side note to the big ugly daily political machinations because hey, it's war. It's the Big Boys. Angry White Men with very serious penis issues. All that matters is the machine, and the money, and the oil, and the WMD and the drumbeat rhetoric.

Which is, of course, utter BS. Here is what conservatives hate most: the idea that you really can, and do, make a difference. That you, hopefully working to align yourself with something deeper and more informed and perhaps not exactly Christian, or corporate, not exactly lockstep mainstream flag-waving God-fearing asexual consumer drone, you can affect the world, directly, right now, in ways you might not even realize, in ways that make them tremble and wince, in how much you laugh and love and eat and sleep and screw and breathe and in how deeply you penetrate into the soul's raison d'etre. But you gotta work at it. And it ain't easy. See? Fluffy new-age crap. They really hate that.

Here is the great fallacy of the American ethos, the one that powers SUV purchases and spawns a billion McDonald's franchises and gun purchases and Adam Sandler movies: it is the notion that Americans exist in a freewheelin' vacuum, that our daily choices don't, in fact, affect the world, and our neighbors, and our children, and the environment and our own bodies.

It is the idea that those very choices -- foods you eat, cars you drive, shows you watch, personal relations you have, waste you create, choices you make -- can't, in a very real and immediate way, erode your divine links, spit on your spiritual spark, taint your mystical meat. Every single one, every single time.

In other words, in buying that gun, smacking that child, abusing that spouse, screaming at that neighbor, buying that thuggish SUV, supporting that war, wishing death upon all them damn furriners, you may think you're exercising your God-given all-'Murkin right to do/say/drive whatever the hell you want because you're an American goddammit and no one will tell you how to live so back off.

Not quite. Rather, you are also injecting a deliberate dose of bitter bile straight into the cultural bloodstream, actually -- and quite literally -- lowering the general vibration of the human collective cause, casting your vote for small-mindedness and solipsism and violence. Yep, you are. And yes indeed, your vote counts.

Here is the gist: The world consists of energy, billions of swirling masses of it contained in living vessels -- that's you -- and aimed out to the world, often radiating at random, intermingling, interacting, often uncontrolled and unaware, an enormous dizzying gorgeous complex kaleidoscopic organism of human interaction and interplay. We are abuzz. We are electric. We possess actual psychic and electromagnetic force. Duh. It's a fact.

It comes down to simple physics. Negative begets negative. Positive begets positive. War begets war, peace begets peace, Britney begets Christina begets N'Sync begets People magazine begets "Joe Millionaire" begets 10 million Prozac prescriptions begets a billion dumbed-down mind-sets, embittered souls. In a nutshell.

ShrubCo blindly steers the nation like a giant careening Hummer toward the history-mauling notion of preemptive violence, of attacking anyone who might somehow threaten the U.S. even before such a threat is tangible. He beats the war drum, staffs his administration with enough hawks to start 1,000 wars, slams the environment, cuts women's rights, etcetera and so on -- this all turns that swirling mass of energy that much more dark, vicious, angry, dumb.

And the world begins to follow. The culture darkens, people run scared, reactionary, depressed. The negative feeds upon itself, the tide turns, you are hit more and more frequently with that overwhelming feeling that we are in dire and ugly and powder-keg times, worse than ever, emotionally raw, politically appalling, spiritually hollow. Sound familiar?

Whereas notions of peace, individual thought, reason, simple acts of attuned mindfulness, of buying products and foods that sustain the planet, of making really good messy enthusiastic generous love, of regular laughter in the face of scowling Ashcroft or Cheney's corporate henchmen, of reading deeply and recalling wisdom people like the Dalai Lama talk about all the time -- these things literally up your anima's vibration, add positive energy back in, turn the collective volume back up.

That postcoital buzz? That post-party feel-good vibe? That genuine laughter? That gratuitously kind thing you did for that stranger? That celebration of your body and your sex and love and spirit in spite of mainstream religious puling and finger wagging? That deep meditative solitude? Bingo. That's the vibe you want. That's the vibe we all need. That's the vibration that makes all the difference.

But it's also the one that takes serious work and determination and you gotta do it every single day and it can only come from you. This sort of luminous divine power is messy and raw and hot and attaining more of it can be the most difficult thing you've ever done. But really, what else is there?

Look. Mystics and healers and sages and scientists and philosophers across the spiritual spectrum have known it for millennia: More advanced and enlightened souls -- and cultures -- vibrate at a higher level, a more bright and rigorous pitch. It's true. Bliss and joy and notions of peace and healing and laughter and personal choice, these things crank up the vibe. War and angst and fear and self-fulfilling prophecies of war and preemptive strikes and Jenna Bush, these things slam it down.

So then. You want to really annoy the conservative warmongering powers that be? Work your ass off to pump up the vibration. It's deeply personal. It's hard work. It means re-evaluating what you do and how you do it and how you treat others, the planet, what you buy and what you eat. It means learning. And it also means loving harder, more raw and real, minimal BS, minimal waste, figuring out true messy ugly slippery gorgeous divinity for yourself, on your own terms, and then sharing it with the world.

Man, they really hate that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.