Subject: ON THE DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE TO NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM AND
MILITARISM : FROM THE CENTER FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF AMERICAN
INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, GRENOB LE, FRANCE.
28 May 2004
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The recent mail at our Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements includes : Item A, reference to a new "blog" [e.g. web log] from Bagdhad offering (via inexpensive high tech hardware) unprecedented war coverage, as "raw material" for the study of war resistance and human tragedy, which was sent to us by our graduate student Barbara Buffet; Item B, an appeal for signatures (IMMEDIATELY) for a petition to be delivered very soon to the new candidates for the European Parliament; and, Item C, an interview with Noam Chomsky on War Crimes, the "Bush Doctrine," and the U.S. political economy in western Asia, from zmag.com.
Meanwhile, readers are invited to visit the radical web site below at
HEREINREALITY.COM, to learn
more about the Carlyle Group, International Ruling Class Associations,
New International Investment Opportunities, and Class Struggle, which now
has been carried to its advanced stages in the global arena, where a small
group of owners of capital are attempting to make policy (through the Bush
administration) which is unacceptable to billions of unorganized people,
including hundreds of millions of U. S. and European citizens, who are
themselves the offspring of modern imperialist culture over the past 500
years. Please visit : http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Université de Grenoble3
From Barbara Buffet :
25 May 2004
Here is something that might interest you...
Sur ce site ils racontent tous les deux leur histoire à Bagdad
au jour le jour.
Dave is an American soldier stationed in Baghdad who got sick from depleted uranium that the military gave him. Lorna is an embedded journalist with a big mouth and a lot of sass. We have put both of their blogs on a common site www.weaponsofmisdirection.com
Albert Mitzman :
26 May 2004
Just as the Spanish elections showed the strength of popular hostility to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and the French regional elections, the vigour of resistance to neoliberal-inspired "reform", the coming European Parliament elections are likely to be a referendum on the validity of the American model for Europe. In the light of this situation, the Amsterdam-based Citizens' Initiative For A Social Europe has issued an appeal For A Different Europe, which we plan to publicise in the media just before the elections, and send on to the new MEPs of the three Left blocs. Rather than suggesting a vote for one party or another, we hope the electorate in the
various countries will judge party programs and individual candidates on the basis of the criteria we outline, and choose accordingly. We want to stimulate the formation of a popular front against neoliberalism and for a social Europe in the EP, and, at a minimum, create a critical international forum that will (via a website) remain in contact with the EP Left parliamentarians.
I would be most pleased if you would sign the appeal and give it to others to sign, hopefully through your mailing list.
(All supporters of this appeal should contact directly (and very quickly) : email@example.com ).
Chère amie, cher ami,
Redoutez-vous que, en l'absence d'une forte représentation de Gauche dans le Parlement Européen, le discours sur l'Europe ne puisse être dominé par le choix entre un Atlantisme néolibéral et un populisme de droite, xénophobe et nationaliste?
Pensez-vous comme nous que les citoyens de l'Europe doivent inverser la participation scandaleusement basse des élections Européennes de 1999 pour commencer la reconquête de l'Europe sur les forces conservatrices?
Croyez-vous que tous les groupements de la Gauche au nouveau Parlement doivent s'unir pour créer un Europe solidaire et écologique?
Si vous répondez "Oui" à ces questions, lisez l'appel "Pour une Europe différente" ci-dessous que nous enverrons début juin, avec les noms de ceux qui le soutiennent, aux médias et aux membres candidats du Parlement Européen.
Si vous voulez indiquer votre soutien, répondez à firstname.lastname@example.org
De plus, vous pouvez nous aidez en nous envoyant les noms et les courriers électroniques d'autres personnes susceptibles d'être intéressées.
Cet appel a été lancé par "Citizens' Initiative For A Social Europe" (Amsterdam). Il est diffusé dans les milieux scientifiques, littéraires, médiatiques et artistiques de plusieurs pays Européens.
Avec nos meilleurs voeux,
POUR UNE EUROPE DIFFÉRENTE
En juin 2004, tous les États membres de l'Union européenne tiendront des élections au Parlement européen. L'aversion très répandue contre l'arrogance des pouvoirs américains offre à la gauche une excellente occasion de positionner l'Europe à l'envers de l'utopie néolibérale du marché libre, utopie qui relève de l'autorité économique et militaire des États-Unis.
Les possibilités d'influence au niveau européen sont indispensables pour changer la dérive néolibérale émanant de Bruxelles: la plus grande partie de la législation économique nationale pour des « réformes » favorables au commerce -- la déréglementation, la privatisation et la diminution du bien-être social, soutenues tant par les gouvernements du centre-droit que par ceux du centre-gauche - repose sur une législation européenne qui conduit à la subordination du gouvernement aux intérêts des entreprises.
Briser le carcan que les entreprises ont imposé à la politique sociale européenne nécessite une gauche renforcée et consciente des enjeux environnementaux au sein d'un Parlement européen vigoureux, un Parlement capable d'exiger un rôle plus important pour l'unique institution démocratiquement élue dans le système européen, et désireux d'inverser les priorités actuelles de la déréglementation et de la privatisation. Une Europe fondée sur la démocratie et la solidarité est d'autant plus nécessaire que l'UE vient de s'élargir à 25 États membres.
· Un Parlement européen progressiste pourrait mettre en oeuvre un programme social européen capable de revitaliser les protections de la santé, de la vieillesse et du chômage, actuellement menacées dans le monde entier. Un Parlement européen progressiste pourrait réduire la semaine de travail plutôt que la main d'oeuvre, contrôler la délocalisation des emplois et la spéculation financière, et accélérer l'investissement de l'UE dans la santé, les transports et l'enseignement et publics.
Cette Europe pourrait réconcilier les objectifs sociaux de la
gauche avec les impératifs du bon-sens environnemental, réalisant
ainsi une avancée des forces critiques qui sont montées en
Europe depuis que la chute de l'empire soviétique a mis fin à
la Guerre Froide. Cette Europe pourrait augmenter le financement européen
de sources d'énergie durables, affiner la législation
contre la pollution, mettre fin aux risques du nucléaire et d'aliments génétiquement manipulés, et prescrire une agriculture responsable sur le plan écologique.
Ces programmes sont essentiels puisque sans politiques visibles et effectives pour une Europe sociale et verte, les Européens seront pris en étau entre le populisme protectionniste de l'extrême-droite et un bellicisme atlantique opportuniste. Où il n'y a plus de garanties d'une existence digne et durable, l'insécurité sociale suscite l'hostilité xénophobe, sapant et déshonorant l'engagement de l'Europe pour les droits universels de l'homme. La gauche doit exprimer le souhait des peuples européens de ne pas échanger leurs États providence contre des États belliqueux.
· Au lieu de s'exclure du reste de l'humanité, une Europe sociale pourrait ouvertement se confronter aux politiques commerciales néolibérales à l'échelle mondiale, proposant aux pays du Sud une alternative à la domination économique du Nord. Cette Europe pourrait recourir à sa richesse, à ses idées, à sa créativité pour aider les peuples d'Asie, d'Afrique et d'Amérique latine à développer leur économie dans leurs propres termes au lieu de ceux d'investisseurs multinationaux.
Nous pensons qu'une alliance entre un électorat européen informé et un Parlement européen investi de plus de pouvoirs peut et droit rénover l'Europe, dans la perspective du bien-être de ses peuples et en tant que modèle pour l'avenir de notre planète.
Michael Krätke (Sciences Politiques, UvA [Université d'Amsterdam]), Joep Leerssen (Études Européennes, UvA), Arthur Mitzman (Histoire [emeritus], UvA) Citizens' Initiative For A Social Europe.
Pour indiquer votre soutien à cet appel: <email@example.com>
Co-signé le 26 mai par:
PAYS BAS: Farouk Achour (author), Kiki Amsberg (documentary film maker), Wim Bartels (Interchurch Peace Council [IKV]), Lily van den Bergh (filmmaker), Alexander von Bormann (Professor of German Literature [emeritus], University of Amsterdam [UvA]), Jesse Bos (Wethouder (alderman), Amsterdam-North), Brid Brennan (Trans National Insitute [TNI]), Daniel Chavez (TNI), Hinde Chergui (jurist), René Danen (Amsterdam Anders/De Groenen), Fiona Dove (TNI), Roel van Duijn (Groen Links [Green
Left Party]), Frances Gouda (History and Gender Studies, UvA), Godelieve van Heteren (PvdA), Olivier Hoedeman (Corporate Europe Observatory), James Paul Kahan (professor of psychology and policy analyst), Gabriel Kolko (historian), Joyce Kolko (historian), Rudi Künzel (History, UvA), Solange Leibovici (Comparative Literature, UvA), Machteld Löwenstein (art historian), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (sociologist), Luciano Pitzalis (Globalization Festival), Rachel Ploem, Gary Price (retired consultant), Inez Schreurs (coaching practice), Rob Simons (journalist), Joost Smiers (Professor, Utrecht School of the Arts), David Sogge (TNI), Aafke Steenhuis (writer and artist), Marleen Wessel (law student, UvA), Henri L.J.A. van de Vall (Stop de Bezetting [Stop The Occupation]), Mr. Berend C. Vis (Facultyof Law, University of Groningen), Ruth Wertheim (publiciste), Karel van Wolferen (Political Science, UvA).
BELGIQUE: Albena Azmanova (sociologist), Philippe van Parijs (basic income advocate), Myriam Vander Stichele (historian).
ALLEMAGNE: Elizabeth Abendroth, Konrad Boehmer, (composer), Claus Offe (sociologist, Humboldt Universität), Frieder Otto Wolf (philosopher).
FRANCE: Susan George (writer), Michael Löwy (sociologist, CNRS), Kapil Raj,
(historian of science, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris), Francis McCollum Feeley (Professeur d'Etudes américaines, Université de Grenoble3).
ANGLETERRE: Peter Gowan (editorial board, New Left Review), Bob Jessop (political scientist, Lancaster University), Hilary Wainwright (editor, Red Pepper).
ESPAGNE: Francisco Fernández Buey (sociologist, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona)."
Amsterdam, May 26, 2004
Are you concerned that in the absence of a strong progressive voice in the coming European Parliament, discourse on Europe will be dominated by the choice between neoliberal-militarist Atlanticism and xenophobic, protectionist populism?
Do you think, as we do, that Europe's citizens must reverse the scandalously low turnout of the 1999 European parliamentary elections to begin a recapture of Europe from conservative forces?
Do you think that all the groupings of the Left in the new Parliament should join forces to work toward a socially and ecologically responsible Europe?
If your answer to these questions is 'Yes', please read the following international appeal, circulated in several countries and prepared by Citizens' Initiative for a Social Europe. The Appeal will be released to the media and sent to the candidate members of the European Parliament in the week before the elections. If you wish to add your name to it, please reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org and let us know. You could also help us by sending the names and addresses of others we might write to.
Arthur Mitzman, for Citizens' Initiative for a Social Europe
FOR A DIFFERENT EUROPE
In June 2004, all member-states of the European Union will hold elections to the European Parliament. Popular disgust at the arrogance of American power offers the Left a major chance to begin the reconquest of Europe from corporate neoliberalism, a free market utopia linked to the global economic and military dominance of the United States.
Leverage at the European level is indispensable for changing the neoliberal drift emanating from Brussels: Most of the national economic legislation for pro-business "reforms" -- deregulation, privatisation and diminution of social welfare, promoted by both center-right and center-left governments -- is based on EU law that leads to the subordination of government to corporate interests.
Breaking the corporate strangle-hold on European social policy requires a strengthened and environmentally aware Left in a purposeful European Parliament, a Parliament capable of demanding a larger role for the only democratically elected institution in the European scheme and willing to reverse the current priorities of deregulation and privatisation. A Europe based on democracy and solidarity is all the more necessary in the light of the current expansion of the EU to 25 member nations.
· A progressive European Parliament could implement a European social program revitalizing protections for health, old age and unemployment currently menaced everywhere. It could reduce the work week rather than the work force, control outsourcing of jobs and financial speculation, and accelerate EU investment in public transportation, public education and public health.
· Such a Europe could unite the social goals of the left to the imperatives of environmental wisdom, thus creating a breakthrough for the critical forces that have been germinating in Europe ever since the collapse of the Soviet empire ended the Cold War. It could increase European funding for sustainable energy sources, sharpen anti-pollution legislation, end the continent-wide menaces of nuclear power and genetically manipulated foods, and mandate an ecologically responsible agriculture.
· These programs are essential since without visible, effective
policies for a social and green Europe, Europeans will be trapped between
the protectionist populism of the Far Right and an opportunistic Atlanticist
bellicism. Where guarantees for a decent and sustainable existence break
down, social insecurity breeds xenophobic hostility, undermining and dishonoring
Europe's commitment to universal human rights. The Left must articulate
the desire of the peoples of Europe not to exchange their
welfare states for warfare states.
· Instead of closing itself off from the rest of humankind, a Social Europe could openly confront neoliberal trade policies on a world scale, offering the countries of the global South an alternative to corporate domination by the global North. It could use the wealth and creative idealism of Europe to help the peoples of Asia, Africa and South America develop their economies on their own terms, not on those of multinational investors.
We believe that an alliance between an informed European electorate and an empowered European Parliament can and must reshape Europe for the welfare of its peoples and as a model for the global future.
Michael Krätke (political science, UvA [University of Amsterdam]), Joep Leerssen (European Studies, UvA), Arthur Mitzman (History [emeritus], UvA)
Issued by Citizens' Initiative For A Social Europe. If you wish to co-sign, write to <email@example.com>.
Co-signers as of May 25:
NETHERLANDS: Farouk Achour (author), Kiki Amsberg (documentary film maker), Wim Bartels (Interchurch Peace Council [IKV]), Lily van den Bergh (filmmaker), Alexander von Bormann (Professor of German Literature [emeritus], University of
Amsterdam [UvA]), Jesse Bos (Wethouder [Alderman], Amsterdam-North), Brid Brennan (Trans National Insitute [TNI]),
Daniel Chavez (TNI), Hinde Chergui (jurist), René Danen (Amsterdam Anders/De Groene), Fiona Dove (TNI), Roel van Duijn
(Groen Links [Green Left Party]), Frances Gouda (History and Gender Studies, UvA), Godelieve van Heteren (PvdA), Olivier Hoedeman (Corporate Europe Observatory), James Paul Kahan (professor of psychology and policy analyst), Gabriel Kolko (historian), Joyce Kolko (historian), Rudi Künzel (History, UvA), Solange Leibovici (Comparative Literature, UvA), Machteld Löwenstein (art historian), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (sociologist), Luciano Pitzalis (Globalization Festival), Rachel Ploem, Gary Price (retired consultant), Inez Schreurs (coaching practice), Rob Simons (journalist), Joost Smiers (Professor, Utrecht School of the Arts), David Sogge (TNI), Aafke Steenhuis (writer and artist), Marleen Wessel (law student, UvA), Henri L.J.A. van de Vall (Stop de Bezetting [Stop The Occupation]), Mr. Berend C. Vis (Faculty of Law, University of Groningen), Ruth Wertheim (publiciste), Karel van Wolferen (Political Science, UvA).
BELGIUM: Albena Azmanova (sociologist), Philippe van Parijs (basic income advocate), Myriam Vander Stichele (historian).
GERMANY: Elizabeth Abendroth, Konrad Boehmer, (composer), Claus Offe (sociologist, Humboldt Universität), Frieder Otto
FRANCE: Susan George (writer), Michael Löwy (sociologist, CNRS), Francis McCollum Feeley (Professeur d'Etudes
américaines, Université de Grenoble3).
ENGLAND: Peter Gowan (editorial board, New Left Review), Bob Jessop (political scientist, Lancaster University), Hilary
Wainwright (editor, Red Pepper).
SPAIN: Francisco Fernández Buey (sociologist, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona).
Issued by Citizens' Initiative For A Social Europe. If you wish to co-sign, write to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
from Noam Chomsky :
ZNet | Foreign Policy
Bush Doctrine : BBC Interview
by Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Paxman
May 21, 2004
If George Bush were to be judged by the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunals, he'd be hanged. So too, mind you, would every single American President since the end of the second world war, including Jimmy Carter.
The suggestion comes from the American linguist Noam Chomsky. His latest attack on the way his country behaves in the world is called Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance.
Jeremy Paxman met him at the British Museum, where they talked in the
Assyrian Galleries. He asked him whether he was
suggesting there was nothing new in the so-called Bush Doctrine.
Well, it depends. It is recognised to be revolutionary. Henry Kissinger for example described it as a revolutionary new doctrine
which tears to shreds the Westphalian System, the 17th century system of International Order and of course the UN Charter. But nevertheless, and has been very widely criticised within the foreign policy elite. But on narrow ground the doctrine is not really new, it's extreme.
What was the United States supposed to do after 9/11? It had been the victim of a grotesque, intentional attack, what was it
supposed to do but try...?
Why pick 9/11? Why not pick 1993. Actually the fact that the terrorist act succeeded in September 11th did not alter the risk
analysis. In 1993, similar groups, US trained Jihadi's came very close to blowing up the World Trade Center, with better
planning, they probably would have killed tens of thousands of people. Since then it was known that this is very likely. In fact right through the 90's there was technical literature predicting it, and we know what to do. What you do is police work. Police work is the way to stop terrorist acts and it succeeded.
But you are suggesting the United States in that sense is the author of Its own Nemesis.
Well, first of all this is not my opinion. It's the opinion of just about every specialist on terrorism. Take a look, say at Jason
Burke's recent book on Al-Qaeda which is just the best book there is. He runs through the record of how each act of violence
has increased recruitment financing mobilisation, what he says is, I'm quoting him, that each act of violence is a small victory for
But why do you imagine George Bush behaves like this?
Because I don't think they care that much about terror, in fact we know that. Take say the invasion of Iraq, it was predicted by
just about every specialist in intelligence agencies that the invasion of Iraq would increase the threat of Al-Qaeda style terror
which is exactly what happened. The point is that...
Then why would he do it?
Because invading Iraq has value in Itself, I mean establishing...
Well what value?
Establishing the first secure military base in a dependant client state at the heart of the energy producing region of the world.
Don't you even think that the people of Iraq are better off having got rid of a dictator?
They got rid of two brutal regimes, one that we are supposed to talk about, the other one we are not suppose to talk about. The two brutal regimes were Saddam Hussein's and the US-British sanctions, which were devastating society, had killed hundreds of thousands of people, were forcing people to be reliant on Saddam Hussein. Now the sanctions could obviously have been turned to weapons rather than destroying society without an invasion. If that had happened it is not at all impossible that the people of Iraq would have sent Saddam Hussein the same way to the same fate as other monsters supported by the US and Britain. Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, there's a long list of them. In fact the westerners who know Iraq best were predicting this all along.
You seem to be suggesting or implying, perhaps I'm being unfair to you, but you seem to be implying there is some equivalence
between democratically elected heads of state like George Bush or Prime Ministers like Tony Blair and regimes in places like
The term moral equivalence is an interesting one, it was invented I think by Jeane Kirkpatrick as a method of trying to prevent
criticism of foreign policy and state decisions. It is a meaningless notion, there is no moral equivalence what so ever.
If it is preferable for an individual to live in a liberal democracy, is there benefit to be gained by spreading the values of that
democracy however you can?
That reminds me of the question that Ghandi was once asked about western civilisation, what did he think of it. He said yeah, it
would be a good idea. In fact it would be a good idea to spread the values of liberal democracy. But that's not what the US and Britain are trying to do. It's not what they've done in the past. Take a look at the regions under their domination. They don't
spread liberal democracy. What they spread is dependence and subordination. Furthermore it's well-known that this is a large
part of the reason for the great opposition to US policy within the Middle East. In fact this was known in the 1950's.
But there is a whole slur of countries in eastern Europe right now that would say we are better off now than we were when we
were living under the Soviet Empire. As a consequence of how the west behaved.
And there is a lot of countries in US domains, like Central America, the Caribbean who wish that they could be free of American domination. We don't pay much attention to what happens there but they do. In the 1980s when the current incumbents were in their Reganite phase. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Central America. The US carried out a massive terrorist attack against Nicaragua, mainly as a war on the church. They assassinated an Archbishop and murdered six leading Jesuit intellectuals. This is in El Salvador. It was a monstrous period. What did they impose? Was it liberal democracies? No.
You've mentioned on two or three occasions this relationship between the United States and Britain. Do you understand why
Tony Blair behaved as he did over Afghanistan and Iraq?
Well, if you look at the British diplomatic history, back in the 1940s, Britain had to make a decision. Britain had been the major
world power, the United States though by far the richest country in the world was not a major actor in the global scene, except
regionally. By the Second World War it was obvious the US was going to be the dominant power, everyone knew that. Britain
had to make a choice. Was it going to be part of what would ultimately be a Europe that might move towards independence, or
would it be what the Foreign Office called a junior partner to the United States? Well it essentially made that choice to be a junior partner to the United States.
So during the Cuban missile crisis for example, you look at the declassified
record, they treated Britain with total contempt.
Harold McMillan wasn't even informed of what was going on and Britain's existence was at stake. It was dangerous. One high
official, probably Dean Acheson and he's not identified, described Britain as in his words "Our lieutenant, the fashionable word is partner". Well the British would like to hear the fashionable word, but the masters use the actual word. Those are choices Britain has to make. I mean why Blair decided, I couldn't say.
Noam Chomsky, thank you.
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research at CEIMSA
Université de Grenoble-3