Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Propaghandi Rules!!!


"A People's History Of The World"

At some turning point in history,
some fuckface recognized that knowledge tends to democratize cultures and societies
so the only thing to do was monopolize and confine it to priests,
clerics and elites (the rest resigned to serve),
cuz if the rabble heard the truth they'd organize against the power,
privilege and wealth hoarded by the few- for no one else.
And did it occur to you that it's almost exactly the same today?
And so if our schools won't teach us,
we'll have to teach ourselves to analyze and understand the systems of thought-control.
And share it with each other,
never sayed by brass rings or the threat of penalty.
I'll promise you- you promise me-
not to sell each other out to murderers, to thieves...
who've manufactured our delusion that you and me participate meaningfully
in the process of running our own lives.
Yeah, you can vote however the fuck you want,
but power still calls all the shots.
And believe it or not, even if (real) democracy broke loose,
power could/would just "make the economy scream" until we vote responsibly.

If Socialism Fails: The Spectre of 21st Century Barbarism


By Ian Angus.

From the first day it appeared online, Climate and Capitalism’s masthead has carried the slogan “Ecosocialism or Barbarism: there is no third way.” We’ve been quite clear that ecosocialism is not a new theory or brand of socialism — it is socialism with Marx’s important insights on ecology restored, socialism committed to the fight against ecological destruction. But why do we say that the alternative to ecosocialism is barbarism?

Marxists have used the word “barbarism” in various ways, but most often to describe actions or social conditions that are grossly inhumane, brutal, and violent. It is not a word we use lightly, because it implies not just bad behaviour but violations of the most important norms of human solidarity and civilized life. [1]

The slogan “Socialism or Barbarism” originated with the great German revolutionary socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg, who repeatedly raised it during World War I. It was a profound concept, one that has become ever more relevant as the years have passed.

Rosa Luxemburg spent her entire adult life organizing and educating the working class to fight for socialism. She was convinced that if socialism didn’t triumph, capitalism would become ever more barbaric, wiping out centuries of gains in civilization. In a major 1915 antiwar polemic, she referred to Friedrich Engels’ view that society must advance to socialism or revert to barbarism and then asked, “What does a ‘reversion to barbarism’ mean at the present stage of European civilization?”

She gave two related answers.

In the long run, she said, a continuation of capitalism would lead to the literal collapse of civilized society and the coming of a new Dark Age, similar to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire: “The collapse of all civilization as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration — a great cemetery.” (The Junius Pamphlet) [2]

By saying this, Rosa Luxemburg was reminding the revolutionary left that socialism is not inevitable, that if the socialist movement failed, capitalism might destroy modern civilization, leaving behind a much poorer and much harsher world. That wasn’t a new concept – it has been part of Marxist thought from its very beginning. In 1848, in The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. … that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

In Luxemburg’s words: “Humanity is facing the alternative: Dissolution and downfall in capitalist anarchy, or regeneration through the social revolution.” (A Call to the Workers of the World)

Capitalism’s Two Faces

But Luxemburg, again following the example of Marx and Engels, also used the term “barbarism” another way, to contrast capitalism’s loudly proclaimed noble ideals with its actual practice of torture, starvation, murder and war.

Marx many times described the two-sided nature of capitalist “progress.” In 1853, writing about British rule in India, he described the “profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization [that] lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked.”

Capitalist progress, he said, resembled a “hideous, pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain.” (The Future Results of British Rule in India)

Similarly, in a speech to radical workers in London in 1856, he said:

“On the one hand, there have started into life industrial and scientific forces, which no epoch of the former human history had ever suspected. On the other hand, there exist symptoms of decay, far surpassing the horrors recorded of the latter times of the Roman Empire.” (Speech at the Anniversary of the People’s Paper)

Immense improvements to the human condition have been made under capitalism — in health, culture, philosophy, literature, music and more. But capitalism has also led to starvation, destitution, mass violence, torture and even genocide — all on an unprecedented scale. As capitalism has expanded and aged, the barbarous side of its nature has come ever more to the fore.

Bourgeois society, which came to power promising equality, democracy, and human rights, has never had any compunction about throwing those ideals overboard to expand and protect its wealth and profits. That’s the view of barbarism that Rosa Luxemburg was primarily concerned about during World War I. She wrote:

“Shamed, dishonoured, wading in blood and dripping in filth, this capitalist society stands. Not as we usually see it, playing the roles of peace and righteousness, of order, of philosophy, of ethics — as a roaring beast, as an orgy of anarchy, as pestilential breath, devastating culture and humanity — so it appears in all its hideous nakedness …

“A look around us at this moment shows what the regression of bourgeois society into barbarism means. This world war is a regression into barbarism.” (The Junius Pamphlet)

For Luxemburg, barbarism wasn’t a future possibility. It was the present reality of imperialism, a reality that was destined to get much worse if socialism failed to stop it. Tragically, she was proven correct. The defeat of the German revolutions of 1917 to 1923, coupled with the isolation and degeneration of the Russian Revolution, opened the way to a century of genocide and constant war.

In 1933, Leon Trotsky described the rise of fascism as “capitalist society … puking up undigested barbarism.” (What is National Socialism?)

Later he wrote: “The delay of the socialist revolution engenders the indubitable phenomena of barbarism — chronic unemployment, pauperization of the petty bourgeoisie, fascism, finally wars of extermination which do not open up any new road.” (In Defense of Marxism)

More than 250 million people, most of them civilians, were killed in the wars of extermination and mass atrocities of the 20th Century. This century continues that record: in less than eight years over three million people have died in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Third World, and at least 700,000 have died in “natural” disasters.

As Luxemburg and Trotsky warned, barbarism is already upon us. Only mass action can stop barbarism from advancing, and only socialism can definitively defeat it. Their call to action is even more important today, when capitalism has added massive ecological destruction, primarily affecting the poor, to the wars and other horrors of the 20th Century.

21st Century Barbarism

That view has been expressed repeatedly and forcefully by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Speaking in Vienna in May 2006, he referred explicitly to Luxemburg’s words:

“The choice before humanity is socialism or barbarism. … When Rosa Luxemburg made this statement, she was speaking of a relatively distant future. But now the situation of the world is so bad that the threat to the human race is not in the future, but now.” [3]

A few months earlier, in Caracas, he argued that capitalism’s destruction of the environment gives particular urgency to the fight against barbarism today:

“I was remembering Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg and the phrase that each one of them, in their particular time and context put forward; the dilemma ‘socialism or barbarism.’ …

“I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet.

“I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don’t think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, “tomorrow could be too late, let’s do now what we need to do.” I don’t believe that this is an exaggeration. The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet.” [4]

Chavez and the revolutionary Bolivarian movement in Venezuela have proudly raised the banner of 21st Century Socialism to describe their goals. As these comments show, they are also raising a warning flag, that the alternative to socialism is 21st Century Barbarism — the barbarism of the previous century amplified and intensified by ecological crisis.

Climate Change and ‘Barbarization’

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been studying and reporting on climate change for two decades. Recently the Vice-Chair of the IPCC, Professor Mohan Munasinghe, gave a lecture at Cambridge University that described “a dystopic possible future world in which social problems are made much worse by the environmental consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions.”

He said: “Climate change is, or could be, the additional factor which will exacerbate the existing problems of poverty, environmental degradation, social polarisation and terrorism and it could lead to a very chaotic situation.”

“Barbarization,” Munasinghe said, is already underway. We face “a situation where the rich live in enclaves, protected, and the poor live outside in unsustainable conditions.” [5]

A common criticism of the IPCC is that its reports are too conservative, that they understate how fast climate change is occurring and how disastrous the effects may be. So when the Vice-Chair of the IPCC says that “barbarization” is already happening, no one should suggest that it’s an exaggeration.

The Present Reality of Barbarism

The idea of 21st Century Barbarism may seem farfetched. Even with food and fuel inflation, growing unemployment and housing crises, many working people in the advanced capitalist countries still enjoy a considerable degree of comfort and security.

But outside the protected enclaves of the global north, the reality of “barbarization” is all too evident.

  • 2.5 billion people, nearly half of the world’s population, survive on less than two dollars a day.
  • Over 850 million people are chronically undernourished and three times that many frequently go hungry.
  • Every hour of every day, 180 children die of hunger and 1200 die of preventable diseases.
  • Over half a million women die every year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. 99% of them are in the global south.
  • Over a billion people live in vast urban slums, without sanitation, sufficient living space, or durable housing.
  • 1.3 billion people have no safe water. 3 million die of water-related diseases every year.

The United Nations Human Development Report 2007-2008 warns that unmitigated climate change will lock the world’s poorest countries and their poorest citizens in a downward spiral, leaving hundreds of millions facing malnutrition, water scarcity, ecological threats, and a loss of livelihoods. [6]

In UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervi’s words: “Ultimately, climate change is a threat to humanity as a whole. But it is the poor, a constituency with no responsibility for the ecological debt we are running up, who face the immediate and most severe human costs.” [7]

Among the 21st Century threats identified by the Human Development Report:

  • The breakdown of agricultural systems as a result of increased exposure to drought, rising temperatures, and more erratic rainfall, leaving up to 600 million more people facing malnutrition.
  • An additional 1.8 billion people facing water stress by 2080, with large areas of South Asia and northern China facing a grave ecological crisis as a result of glacial retreat and changed rainfall patterns.
  • Displacement through flooding and tropical storm activity of up to 332 million people in coastal and low-lying areas. Over 70 million Bangladeshis, 22 million Vietnamese, and six million Egyptians could be affected by global warming-related flooding.
  • Expanding health risks, including up to 400 million more people facing the risk of malaria.

To these we can add the certainty that at least 100 million people will be added to the ranks of the permanently hungry this year as a result of food price inflation.

In the UN report, former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu echoes Munasinghe’s prediction of protected enclaves for the rich within a world of ecological destruction:

“While the citizens of the rich world are protected from harm, the poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed to the harsh reality of climate change in their everyday lives…. We are drifting into a world of ‘adaptation apartheid’.”

As capitalism continues with business as usual, climate change is fast expanding the gap between rich and poor between and within nations, and imposing unparalleled suffering on those least able to protect themselves. That is the reality of 21st Century Barbarism.

No society that permits that to happen can be called civilized. No social order that causes it to happen deserves to survive.

* * * * * * * *

Ian Angus is Editor of the online journal Climate and Capitalism, and an Associate Editor of Socialist Voice.

Footnotes

[1] In “Empire of Barbarism” (Monthly Review, December 2004), John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark provide an excellent account of the evolution of the word “barbarism” and its present-day implications.

The best discussion of Rosa Luxemburg’s use of the word is in Norman Geras, The Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg (NLB 1976), which unfortunately is out of print.

[2] The works of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg and Trotsky that are quoted in this article can be found online in the Marxists Internet Archive.

[3] Hands Off Venezuela, May 13, 2006

[4] Green Left Weekly, August 31, 2005

[5] “Expert warns climate change will lead to ‘barbarisation’” Guardian, May 15, 2008

[6] United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 2007/2008

[7] “Climate change threatens unprecedented human development reversals.” UNDP News Release, Nov. 27, 2007

Canada’s role in the Israel-Palestine conflict



By Bahija Réghaï


During his state visit to Canada , Israeli President Chaim Herzog was invited to address the Canadian parliament on June 27, 1989. He was introduced by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney with these words:

“Canada played a part in that process by participating in the United Nations Commission that proposed the partition of Palestine, by voting for Israel's membership in the UN and by contributing to the Middle East peace-keeping forces in the hope of stabilizing the region and of bringing peace to your country. Most of all, in the daring and difficult period of Israel's infancy, when your nation needed friends – true friends – Canada was there. Canada was there over 40 years ago and our friendship and support remain with you today.”

The Prime Minister was right. Canada was there with Canadian Justice Ivan Rand who wrote the partition resolution. Canada was at the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question created to examine the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) proposals.

Arabs felt, as Sami Hadawi wrote in Bitter Harvest, that “[B]y denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Syria proposed a draft resolution (A/C.1/405) requesting that the International Court of Justice give its legal opinion on the powers of the General Assembly on this question, and the international status of Palestine upon the termination of the mandate. The Arab draft resolution was rejected by 20 votes to 20, with 8 abstentions. Walid Khalidi writes that the draft counter resolution stating that the UN did have the authority to determine partition was carried by only 21 votes to 20 in the Ad Hoc Committee.

So, in spite of its reputation for fairness and respect for human rights, Canada was responsive to the concerns and interests of Zionists rather than those of Arabs, the majority and long-standing population in mandatory Palestine. Lester Pearson, Canada’s lead representative at UNSCOP who later wrote that he had learned in Sunday School that “the Jews belonged in Palestine,” used his immense diplomatic skills to navigate the resolution through in spite of strong objections from member states, advice from Middle East expert in Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth P. MacCallum, and the concern expressed by then Canadian Justice Minister James Ilsley. MacCallum predicted that the partition of Palestine would create chaos for 40 years. That was a conservative estimate.

UN Resolution 181 was never really fully respected or implemented. There was forced transfer of the Palestinian indigenous population and those Palestinians who were displaced, both inside Israel and outside, have not been allowed to return to this day. Private Palestinian land and property were expropriated as the borders of the self-declared state of Israel were forcibly expanded.

Israel declared itself a state on May 14, 1948, several hours before the British Mandate for Palestine came to an end, thus imposing by force “a settlement” that was not in accord with the following paragraph of the resolution:

“The Security Council determines as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution” (UNGA 181 November 29, 1947).

In fact, even before the British withdrew on May 15, 1948, before any possible intervention by Arab states, Zionists had occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine. No city or area allocated to the Jewish state under the Partition resolution was taken by Palestinians.

Canada was on the UN Security Council as a non-member during 1948 and 1949. The opportunity to rectify the injustice done to Palestinians was present, but nothing was done. For Canada, it seems that the issue was one of refugees only. It was only in 1973 that Canada stopped opposing the principle of Palestinian representation, with the implication that the Palestinian issue was political and that there was indeed a Palestinian people. In 1988, the European Community endorsed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, followed by la Francophonie. However, while all 41 other Francophonie states endorsed this Palestinian right, Canada did not.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which Canada helped draft as a member of the Security Council in 1967, requires that Israel withdraw from the territories it seized in the Six Day War of 1967, including East Jerusalem. This is our official policy. However, Canada has consistently resisted any attempt at addressing this or any other Israeli violation of international human rights and humanitarian law. This protection of Israel by Canada, and by the US veto, has undermined the institutions of the United Nations, made a mockery of the will of the international community, and contravenes the rule of law.

After Oslo was signed, only Israel was rewarded with a free trade agreement with Canada - a flawed agreement under which products from Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory are admitted into Canada, something the European Union doesn't do. Canada’s government thus violates its own policy.

Canada’s votes at the UN still deny Palestinians the unequivocal right to constitute their own independent state, insisting that this must be negotiated with Israel. In November 2007, Canada abstained from endorsing the “resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/62/L.63)” which was approved with 172 in favour, 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States) and 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji).

The “tilt” (as Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson called it) in foreign policy that became apparent under Prime Minister Paul Martin, was fully exposed under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The “war on terror” allowed the Harper government to give its imprimatur to the violations committed by Israel against the Lebanese people during the summer of 2006 and against the Palestinian population on an ongoing basis. Ibbitson explained that according to Harper’s Conservatives, Canadian foreign policy must be guided by an overriding commitment to "strong solidarity with our traditional allies - not just the United States, but Britain and Australia, NATO and Israel."

How did we come to accept such a flagrant disregard for the violation of human rights and the rule of law? Beyond the “Sunday School message that the Jews belonged in Palestine”, one has to look at both Zionist advocacy and the absence of a strong voice for the Palestinians. The media were able to expose Israeli violence during the first Intifada because they were able to circulate freely. However, they are almost absent from the closed off Palestinian territories today. When Israelis are targeted, TV reporters are on the scene immediately – not so for Palestinians. Editorial rooms of the main print media do not seem to reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including the Arab segment of Canadian society.

Add to this the Hasbara (Public Relations in Hebrew) campaign that Israel and its supporters have been running which includes paid trips to Israel for key elements of Canadian society (chiefs of police, MPs, provincial leaders and legislators, and their staff, heads of universities and departments, students), as well as the presence of Israeli representatives on campuses, use of intimidation tactics, and so on.

The asymmetry in messaging and advocacy capacity contributes not to peaceful co-existence or to robust debates as required in strong democracies, but rather to asymmetry in public policy and comprehension of the conflict.

So what do we do about this state of affairs? Official Canadian policy on the conflict calls for its resolution according to international legal standards, including UNSC 242. It rejects Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem. It rejects Israel’s construction of the wall and Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

Canada supports the “Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement”, as well as a solution to the refugees’ plight that “respects” their rights “in accordance with international law”.

However, Canada has still to live up to, implement and - as a responsible member of the international community and High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions - enforce its own policy. At the moment, Canada ’s policy pronouncements and diplomatic activity are selective and indeed violate its own stated standards.

In calling on Canada to uphold international law and encourage others to do the same, we may face some difficult choices and challenges. One is the question of boycotting Israeli products, as well as cultural and academic exchanges. CUPE Ontario and CUPW have taken brave stands in support of the boycott. But in doing so, they have faced severe criticism from those who choose to show friendship with Israel by overlooking its human rights abuses. Interestingly, progressive, human rights advocates among Israelis and Jews inside and outside of Israel have also taken a stance in support of the boycotts.

More difficult still is the question of Canadian aid to the Palestinian Authority. Before Oslo, Israel was solely and rightly responsible for the welfare of Palestinians living under its military occupation. The 1990s peace process changed this, as donors began supporting what they thought was a state-building exercise. However, Oslo was never intended to produce a Palestinian state, but instead sub-contracted management of the occupation to the Palestinian Authority – and by extension, to the international community who began financing it.

Yet, Israel has never had any respect for international efforts aimed at alleviating it of its responsibility under international law, but has deliberately destroyed valuable Palestinian infrastructure underwritten by foreign aid money. More disturbingly, the international community – including our Canadian government – has not called the Israeli government to account for this destruction.

The man-made crisis in Gaza and to a lesser extent in the West Bank has turned the self-sufficient population that needed no international aid during the first Intifada, into a population that is caged in by Israel and that relies extensively on an ever-dwindling humanitarian aid. Last year, Canada pledged $300M over 5 years, but there is a lack of transparency in how these funds have been or are being used. Much of international and Canadian aid monies to the Palestinian Authority are going to finance the PA’s security infrastructure instead of addressing the real needs of Palestinians. In this era of governmental accountability where aid investments are scrutinized ever more closely, we need to call our government to account for its expenditures in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Fourth Geneva Conventions were inspired by the atrocities visited on Europeans, Jews, Roma and other civilians under Nazi rule and military occupation. They were intended to hold to account military occupiers of territories not their own. The “never again” has to include protection of Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation. Our Canadian government must live up to its responsibilities as a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention now.

Words are powerful tools. As promoters of human rights we have to continue challenging the conventional terminology that fudges or hides the reality. No, it is not a ‘complex problem’ requiring ‘painful compromises on both sides.’ No, criticism of Israeli policies is not anti-Semitism. The term “Israel Lobby” has made fellow Canadians aware of the pro-Zionist agenda and its effects, and more Canadians now disagree with the Harper government’s uncritical support of Israel’s every action and omission. This is an important foundation on which to build.

Israel demands to be treated as an equal in the community of nations, and this requires being answerable to international norms and human rights standards. As Canadian citizens, we must hold our own government accountable for upholding and promoting these norms, including insisting that Israel’s government does the same.

Bahija Réghaï is a Canadian Human Rights activist based in Ottawa.

Friday, July 25, 2008

What Obama missed in the Middle East



By Ali Abunimah

When I and other Palestinian-Americans first knew Barack Obama in Chicago in the 1990s, he grasped the oppression faced by Palestinians under Israeli occupation. He understood that an honest broker cannot simultaneously be the main cheerleader, financier and arms supplier for one side in a conflict. He often attended Palestinian-American community events and heard about the Palestinian experience from perspectives stifled in mainstream discussion.

In recent months, Obama has sought to allay persistent concerns from pro-Israel groups by recasting himself as a stalwart backer of Israel and tacking ever closer to positions espoused by the powerful, hard-line pro-Israel lobby Aipac. He distanced himself from mainstream advisers because pro-Israel groups objected to their calls for even-handedness.

Like his Republican rival, senator John McCain, Obama gave staunch backing to Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon, which killed over 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the blockade and bombardment of the Gaza Strip, calling them “self defence”.

Every aspect of Obama’s visit to Palestine-Israel this week has seemed designed to further appease pro-Israel groups. Typically for an American aspirant to high office, he visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial and the Western Wall. He met the full spectrum of Israeli Jewish (though not Israeli Arab) political leaders. He travelled to the Israeli Jewish town of Sderot, which until last month’s ceasefire, frequently experienced rockets from the Gaza Strip. At every step, Obama warmly professed his support for Israel and condemned Palestinian violence.

Other than a cursory 45-minute visit to occupied Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians got little. According to an Abbas aide, Obama provided assurances that he would be “a constructive partner in the peace process.” Some observers took comfort in his promise that he would get engaged “starting from the minute I’m sworn into office”. Obama remained silent on the issue of Jerusalem, after boldly promising the “undivided” city to Israel as its capital in a speech to Aipac last month, and then appearing to backtrack amid a wave of outrage across the Arab world. But Obama missed the opportunity to visit Palestinian refugee camps, schools and even shopping malls to witness first-hand the devastation caused by the Israeli army and settlers, or to see how Palestinians cope under what many call “apartheid”.


This year alone, almost 500 Palestinians, including over 70 children, have been killed by the Israeli army – exceeding the total for 2007 and dwarfing the two-dozen Israelis killed in conflict-related violence. Obama said nothing about Israel’s relentless expansion of colonies on occupied land. Nor did he follow the courageous lead of former President Jimmy Carter and meet with the democratically elected Hamas leaders, even though Israel negotiated a ceasefire with them. That such steps are inconceivable shows how off-balance is the US debate on Palestine.

Many people I talk to are resigned to the conventional wisdom that aspiring national politicians cannot afford to be seen as sympathetic to the concerns of Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. They still hope that, if elected, Obama would display an even-handedness absent in the campaign.

Without entirely foreclosing the possibility of change in US policy, the reality is that the political pressures evident in a campaign do not magically disappear once the campaign is over. Nor is all change necessarily for the better. One risk is that a President Obama or President McCain would just bring back the Clinton-era approach where the United States effectively acted as “Israel’s lawyer”, as Aaron David Miller, a 25-year veteran of the US state department’s Middle East peace efforts, memorably put it. This led to a doubling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an upsurge in violence and the failed 2000 Camp David summit where Clinton tried to pressure Arafat into accepting a bantustan. A depressing feature of Obama’s visit was the prominent advisory role for Dennis Ross, the official in charge of the peace process under Clinton, and the founder of an Aipac-sponsored pro-Israel think-tank.

Whoever is elected will face a rapidly changing situation in Palestine-Israel. A number of shifts are taking place simultaneously. First, the consensus supporting the two-state solution is disintegrating as Israeli colonies have rendered it unachievable. Second, the traditional Palestinian national leadership is being eclipsed by new movements including Hamas. And, as western and Arab governments become more craven in the face of Israeli human rights violations, a Palestinian-led campaign modelled on the anti-apartheid strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions is building global civil society support. Finally, the demographic shift in Palestine-Israel toward an absolute Palestinian majority in all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be complete in the next three to five years.

Making peace in this new reality will take leaders ready to listen and talk to all sides in the conflict and to consider alternatives to the moribund two-state solution, such as power-sharing, confederation or a single democratic state. It will require, above all, the courage, imagination and political will to challenge the status quo of Israeli domination and Palestinian dispossession that has led to ever more violence with each passing year.

Ali Abunimah is the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and a fellow with the Palestine Centre in Washington, DC. This article is reproduced from ZNet and originally appeared in the Guardian

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Israel’s apartheid state laws acknowledged



By Stu Harrison

The latest extension to racist citizenship laws has turned Israel into an apartheid state, according to a June 29 report in Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The Citizenship Law (Temporary Order), introduced in 2003, establishes that the interior minister does not have the authority to approve residence in Israel for non-Jews. This destroys the rights for young Israeli and West Bank Palestinians, under 25 for women and 35 for men, to be able to marry and live together. The ban also covers Palestinians of all ages residing in Gaza.

The law was extended for the eighth time since 2003. In 2006, five judges in the High Court of Justice argued that the laws were unconstitutional. This bold move was opposed in a deciding vote by Justice Edmond Levy, who argued on the basis that the law was only two months from expiration.

Two years on, however, the laws still exist.

The decision from the Israeli government has been flanked by claims that it was purely for security purposes. The Haaretz report explains that the administration’s rationale for the laws relied on a belief that through implementing further citizenship laws, they could prevent “terrorists” being “planted” in the Israeli territory via marriage.

Haaretz journalist, Amos Schocken, argued in the June 29 report, entitled “Citizenship law makes Israel an apartheid state”, that, with the laws extension, the apartheid nature of the Israeli state needed to be acknowledged.

“The claim that there are characteristics of an apartheid state in Israel is widely heard in the Western world”, Schocken wrote. “The word apartheid is catchy and understood in many parts of the world, which makes it useful to send a message that we resent and which we claim has no connection with reality in Israel.

“However, we do not need to replicate exactly the characteristics of South African apartheid within discriminatory practices in civil rights in Israel in order to call Israel an apartheid state. The amendment to the Citizenship Law is exactly such a practice, and it is best that we not try to evade the truth: Its existence in our law books turns Israel into an apartheid state.”

The citizenship law’s extension comes on the back of a 2007 report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council that described Israel as an apartheid state. Its release caused great controversy as its author, John Dugard, was both a South African lawyer and the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The report stated that “It is difficult to resist the conclusion that many of Israel’s laws and practices violate the 1966 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination”. The report highlighted the way that the house and building demolitions, checkpoints, closed zones, Israeli “settler-only” roads and limited access to basic necessities in the occupied Palestinian territories has destroyed the “right to life” for Palestinians.

The extension to the latest round of apartheid laws has been followed by the US Congress approving a US$170 million extension in military aid to Israel, with $30 billion to be given over the next decade. It was a decision condemned by a July 2 Palestine Monitor report, which argues that in continuing to fund Israel, the US is violating its own international aid laws, which state “No assistance [ought to be given] to countries that violate human rights”.

Reproduced from Green Left Weekly

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Inside a living hell - Afghanistan



Each day is a harrowing experience for Afghan civilians, caught as they are between the State, insurgent forces, hired goons and private militia. The biggest tragedy of this war on terror is the spiralling toll of civilian casualties.

By Aunohita Mojumdar

It’s been a week since the blast and yet I have been unable to delete the names of Brig. Mehta and Venkat from my phone. A strange and illogical reluctance as if removing the names would cut the last chord of the relationship. For the third per son I knew, much longer than the two diplomats, their driver Niamat, I had no contact number. But even knowing he was dead, I looked for his ready smile and Salaam when I walked into the embassy. In five years of living in Afghanistan I have witnessed much violence and seen its sure and steady escalation, but never has it invaded my personal space with the immediacy that it did on July 7.

The result was a mixture of horror, followed by relief and immense guilt. Horror at the death of three persons I knew, followed by relief for the persons who were still alive and then a crushing sense of guilt. Guilt both because of the relief and guilt at the fact that this was the first time in witnessing all this violence that I had been so shaken, imagining this is what it must be like for Afghans every day — only so much worse. The virulent attack reinforced both how close the violence was and yet, how insulated I, as a foreigner, was from it.

Increasing violence

Each year since the parliamentary elections of 2005, Afghanistan has seen a spiralling toll of human lives. Initially, the resurgent Taliban burst out once again in the southern provinces, where they had their stronghold, engaging the international forces in conventional warfare. The escalated fighting was explained away by the military forces who said they were going into “new” areas, an admission that the initial operations against the Taliban in 2001 had a very limited mandate. Operation Enduring Freedom under U.S. command and control was narrowly restricted to the task of dealing with the “enemies” of the U.S., the Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. Not only did this rule out the deployment of troops for area stabilisation, or putting in place peace keeping soldiers, it also meant rearming and empowering the former war lords and commanders, some of them with records of public depredations much worse than the Taliban. The price for both tactics was the security of the Afghan citizen, which worsened as a result.

Since then, much of the focus of the conflict — whether the war on terror or the war against insurgency — has been on the security of the Afghan State but not the citizen. This has allowed the international military forces to portray the Taliban’s use of terror tactics — explosions, bombing and suicide attacks — as a positive curve in the war, since it apparently shows the desperation of the insurgents.

Soon after the Kandahar jail was attacked by the Taliban last month, and its inmates, including hundreds of Taliban fighters released, the top Canadian general Richard Hillier described it as a “small splash in the pond”, since he assessed that the incident had not made the Canadian soldiers insecure.

Ignoring civilian safety

The focus on the safety of the State and the international military forces protecting it has not just neglected citizens but also had high costs for civilian safety. It has allowed for prioritising force protection to the extent that civilian casualties that result from this are viewed with greater tolerance. “Escalation of force” just translates to allowing international military forces to fire on unarmed civilians approaching them, should they fear a threat. Until now the “escalation of force” has not killed any insurgent or suicide bombers. It has, however, killed many Afghans who did not perhaps understand the commands of the international forces, delivered in a foreign language, to keep a safe distance. It has also allowed the extensive use of air strikes in support of ground troops. A day before the attack on the Indian embassy, civilians were killed in an air strike by U.S.-led Coalition Forces on a wedding party in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar. An investigation by the Afghan parliament put the death toll of civilians at 47, including the bride, one more than the death toll of Monday. Two days earlier, 22 civilians including women and children had been killed in a U.S. Coalition air strike on Nuristan.

According to U.N. figures for 2007, out of a total of 1,500 civilians killed, 700 civilians were killed by anti-government forces, 629 by pro-government forces while the deaths of the remaining could not be attributed.

Though the international forces always dispute the numbers of civilian killings as well as dispute that those killed were civilians, the problems related to aerial strikes were further underlined this week when nine British soldiers were wounded in “friendly fire” after they called for air support. The British army termed it a confusing situation and the wounded were rushed to medical aid. Is the admission of confusion leading to wrong targeting made when it is Afghans who are mistakenly hit? Or is there an attempt to insist that those hit were the enemy, given the greater difficulty of distinguishing ordinary Afghans from the Taliban fighters?

Terror tactics

Also increasing the number of civilian casualties is the escalating use of suicide bombings in crowded places causing maximum civilian casualties. The day before the country condoled those killed in the embassy bombing in a ceremony in the Indian ambassador’s house on July 13, 24 persons were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Uruzgan province. According to the ICRC statement of July 9, 250 civilians were either killed or injured in incidents since July 4, a period of four days.

Anti-government terrorism or fighting between the militaries are not the only causes of insecurity. The difficulty of establishing the rule of law has meant an increasing lawlessness that jeopardises citizens. Kabul, for example, is awash with guns. So much so that some public places, like restaurants, are forced to put up signs asking for guns to be deposited outside, much the way cloaks, umbrellas and other paraphernalia are, in other countries. The guns are owned not just by the State security apparatus but by private security companies and individuals. All major international institutions and organisations rely on private security companies, many of whom hire demobilised gunmen — the soldiers of private militia — training and arming them to a high degree. The law on private security companies which came into existence remains nebulous. The extent of the duties of these companies is not clear or their right to the use of lethal force. As it is, they force private citizens and their vehicles off the roads using the threat of guns, block streets and behave brutishly with ordinary Afghans, their untrammelled authority only reigned in by better armed gunmen more loutish than they. The U.N. uses them as do international forces for the protection of their own military camps and for intelligence gathering which could, on occasion, include interrogation and torture. Answerable only to their employers, the gunmen function with rampant audacity and impunity, the difference in their behaviour determined only by the professionalism of their client. Some rare organisations insist on no public display of arms while others are happy to have their security companies behave as brutishly as they wish since they can deny having direct control on their behaviour.

International companies justify the use of these hired guns, pointing to the complete lack of professionalism of the Afghan police. Though considerable effort has gone into building up the Afghan National Army (ANA), there has been scant attention to the police until recently. This, despite the fact that they are often the citizen’s first brush with governance.

Ill-paid, ill-trained and tasked with performing duties well beyond their capacity, the police are often seen as little more than thugs in uniform who are rampantly corrupt. Citizens in trouble try their best to resolve disputes, fearing they will have to pay a higher price if the police is involved.

The police on the other hand, have, as an institution, paid the single largest price, losing more men than the army and being targeted by anti-government insurgents, criminals and drug barons as the first line of defence and a soft target. Unlike the ANA which is largely deployed in secure military posts with the support and backing of the international forces, often following rather than leading the assaults, the police are deployed in insecure locations and have inadequate protection and equipment. Despite the well established linkages between crime, the narcotics trade and insurgency, it is the police who are tasked with anti-narcotics operations with virtually no support.

Violent face of the State

To many, the police unfortunately also represent the violent face of the State along with the judicial system. With rule of law extremely weak, it is customs, often violent, which underpin the functioning of the justice system, often penalising the victims or dealing out summary justice to criminals.

Women who run away from home are considered to have violated the customs of the country and put behind bars, including rape victims forced into so-called marriages from the age of as little as seven years. Torture in detention is now a well-recorded phenomenon in the jails and detention centres of the Afghan judicial and intelligence system.

Current levels of alienation with the government and pro-government elements is at its highest since 2001. To reverse this, the State will have to substantially prove its bona fides as a source of security rather than a source of violence whether this comes through “collateral damage” or the violence meted out through the institutions of governance.

Uncoordinated operation

I lost a brother, a son, a daughter and a nephew, all living in one family. Foreign troops raided our house some two months ago at midnight. They thought we were terrorists. But everybody knows I am with the government as a police officer but still fell victim to the pro-government troops. They have not coordinated the operation with the governor and local police.

Alif Din, 53, police officer with the border police in Khost, Muqbil Wam village.

Confusing times

I was travelling from Kandahar to Kabul when the Taliban stopped the bus I was travelling in. The Taliban took me on their motorbikes to a mountainous area and we spent three nights in villages that I did not know.

They asked me if I was working with foreigners and I said I was just a local radio worker and that I am a good Muslim. I have grown a long beard and sympathise with the Taliban. They were suspicious until I assured them that I wouldn’t work with foreigners.

I was harassed. I saw (felt) my death in my own eyes. I was expecting them to behead me soon. I forgot everything in the world. I was just doing my best to know what they wanted from me and to know how to satisfy them. Death will come one day, but this kind of death by knife on my throat or shooting was the worst I could expect.

I feel that my own country and people are on the verge of death. Nobody is to be blamed. We kill ourselves. We don’t know who is our friend and who is the enemy.

Abdul Hadi Patmal, 29, from Kandahar city, working with radio Kilid, a private radio, in Kandahar. He was kidnapped on July 12 by Taliban from the Kabul-Kandahar highway.

Assault on dignity

I was detained for two months by the American troops. They raided our house last year. We have nothing to do with the Taliban, but the Americans said I was a Taliban fighter. The problem was that my father is an influential local tribal elder and somebody has misinformed the Americans about us. I was caught in an early morning raid on my home. My father, brothers and the children were beaten, insulted and threatened by the U.S. forces. I cannot forget the feeling for revenge when they were insulting my noble family that dark early morning.

I was taken to an unknown place, probably a local U.S. base in Ghazni, for interrogation. In the two months I languished there, I was asked why I was fighting with the Taliban and whether I knew the Taliban leaders in the area. I was deprived of sleep. I was tortured on the way and in custody. Later, when they found out I did not know any Taliban member and could not give them any information, they freed me.

That detention has made me change my mind about my life in my country. Living in my own land as a high-status family, we are still being attacked by foreign invaders. They are threatening our security and our dignity.

Mujeeb-ur-Rahman, 27, Ghazni province, Andar district, Khani Qala resident.

AUNOHITA MOJUMDARAUNOHITA MOJUMDAR IS A FREELANCE WRITER BASED IN KABUL.

Monday, July 21, 2008

UNITE HERE Local 75 Holiday Inn Walkout



UNITE HERE Local 75 members working at Holiday Inn Toronto-Airport East walk out of work in the second day of rolling actions to show strength and push negotiations forward.

The half-day walkout follows a similar action held at the Radisson Suites Airport yesterday which included support from hotel workers from across the GTA. The lunch-hour walkouts put the employer on notice while minimizing the impact on the guests.

Workers clad in union placards poured out of the Holiday Inn Toronto-Airport East chanting "The WORKERS UNITED!"

"We're determined to work together as hotel workers to raise the standards so we can support our families" states Julie Muise a front desk clerk at the Holiday Inn Toronto-Airport East, "Unfortunately, it seems that the big companies underestimate us and our unity."

Thousands of workers at scores of hotels throughout the GTA have succeeded in improving working conditions. Workers at the Radisson Suites Airport and Holiday Inn Airport East are mobilizing to join other hotel workers in raising overall industry standards.

Negotiations at a third UNITE HERE Local 75 hotel, the Fairmont Royal York are moving forward and the strike or lockout deadline has been pushed back to midnight July 27, 2008. All three hotels are owned or operated by affiliates of the Westmont Hospitality Group.

These actions are part of the "Hotel Workers Rising" campaign, also dubbed "Immigrant Workers Rising."

Workers at the Radisson Suites Airport and Holiday Inn Airport East,
members of UNITE HERE Local 75, are mobilizing to join other hotel workers
in raising overall industry standards.

Wages, benefits, workload, and job security of the primarily immigrant
workers at the Radisson Suites Airport and Holiday Inn Airport East, fall
far behind those negotiated by workers in many other hotels across the
GTA.

The workers at Radisson Suites Airport and Holiday Inn Airport East have
been in a legal strike or lockout position since midnight July 10, 2008.


For more information contact:
Sima Sahar Zerehi, Communications Specialist
Hotel Workers Rising Toronto, UNITE HERE! Local 75
Email: szerehi@unitehere.ca


Sunday, July 20, 2008

Why Afghanistan is Not the Good War


By RON JACOBS

It’s the perennial thorn in the colonialist’s side. It’s the war that won’t go away. It’s a wasp sting that swells, slowly choking the life out of the sting’s recipient. It is the nearly seven-year old occupation of Afghanistan by the United States and various NATO allies. Nearly forgotten by most Americans, the situation in that country has taken headlines away from the occupation of Iraq because of the resurgence of the anti-occupation forces. Nine US troops were killed in one day, easily topping any recent US fatality figures coming out of Iraq in recent months. The growing ferocity of the resistance was brought home to me when a young man whom I have been close to since he was three years old was removed from the battle zone with wounds serious enough to send him stateside for surgery and recovery. (He’s scheduled to get out of the Marines in October—hopefully he won’t get stop-lossed and sent back over there).

Like that wasp mentioned above, the Afghani resistance is not necessarily anything a Westerner can support wholeheartedly. Almost all of its elements, Taliban and otherwise, have a history of misogyny and antagonism toward values we consider essential to freedom. However, also like that wasp, their resistance to those attacking their lives and their homes is seen by them as essential to the survival of both. To carry the analogy a step further, the imperial forces arrayed against the Afghani resistance are like a predator insect that sets up a parasitic home on the host and then attempts to take over the host. There are those wasps that fight the invading parasite and there are those who merely exist within their nest. The US and NATO occupiers are the parasites hoping to install their host—represented in the person of Unocal president Karzai—on the people of Afghanistan. At this point the parasites have failed to achieve their goal. Because of this failure, the parasite army is planning to intensify their assault.

This is where we leave the analogy and ask why Washington thinks it can achieve what the British and the Soviets could not? The Afghanistan region has always been the piece of the puzzle known as the Great Game that refuses to fit into the proscribed plans of any colonial power. It is as if this particular puzzle piece was cut from another die. No matter how much firepower is brought upon the Afghani people, they have been able to resist any type of lasting fit into any of the pictures hoped for by the colonial power of the day. They have done so by manipulation of the invader’s desires and by playing the various invaders off each other; and they have done so through sheer determination and the unforgiving nature of the land. Most recently, they used the US secret services to fend off the domination of their capital by the Soviets, and now they are using their own devices to fend off the domination of their country desired by Washington.

Despite what the majority of the western media tells its readers and viewers, there is more to the Afghani resistance than the Taliban. In fact, according to a recent report in the US News and World Report, U.S. forces are facing an increasingly complex enemy here composed of Taliban fighters and powerful warlords who were once on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency. As a military official stated in the aforementioned article “You could almost describe the insurgency as having two branches. It’s the Taliban in the south and a ‘rainbow coalition’ in the east.” Add to this the various armed drug traders and their backers and you have a mix at least as volatile as that in Iraq during its worst periods over the last five years.

Despite the apparent failure of the armed approach taken by Washington in Afghanistan, both presidential candidates and the majority of Congress support not merely continuing this approach but intensifying it. McCain and Obama are not only in agreement that the Pentagon needs to send more troops into Afghanistan, they are also in agreement that it is the war that the US must win. Operating under the pretext that killing more Afghanis is somehow going to end the desire of Washington’s Islamist enemies to attack it has not only created the current stalemate in Afghanistan, it has also spread the anti-American resistance into the tribal areas of Pakistan and threatens to engulf the Pakistani city of Peshawar. The recent killings of civilians by US and NATO forces only adds to the resistance, especially when the US denies the killings ever happened.

As hinted at above, the Taliban and other resistance forces are difficult for most Westerners (and many others, as well) to support. Their stance against women and their distaste for certain values we consider essential to the human experience creates a quandary for some of us who understand the imperial nature of the US/NATO presence but find the fundamentalist society created by the Taliban in the wake of their defeat of the Soviets an undesirable alternative. Without going into the role the CIA and Pentagon played in the rise of the Taliban, suffice it to say they continue to exist primarily because they resist the imperial aggressor, not because the Afghani majority necessarily agrees with their understanding of Islam. Apparently less sophisticated than other religiously oriented anti-imperialist movements like Hamas and perhaps the Sadrist movement in Iraq that also feature a political wing more inclusive of those who don’t share either organization’s religious viewpoints, the Taliban would probably have no more political power than the polygamist Mormon sects in the US west if it weren’t for the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Back to US politics and Afghanistan. This is not the “good” war. It is just as wrong as the US adventure in Iraq. Likewise, it can not be won, no matter what the politicians and the generals say. The government put in Kabul by Washington is comparable to a new branch head of a multinational corporation. Its power is dependent on the whim of corporate headquarters and will never garner the support of those not on its payroll. There are clearly human rights being abused in Afghanistan, but those abuses are committed as much by the occupying forces as they are by the forces opposed to the occupier. The solution to Afghanistan begins, just like in Iraq, with the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the US military.

This article is reproduced from Counterpunch

Friday, July 18, 2008

The (Not-So) Sudden Crisis of the Global Food Ecomony



By Tony Weis

Canadian Dimension magazine, July/August 2008

Rapidly rising food prices are casting millions of the world’s poor into increasingly desperate circumstances of malnourishment and hunger. Various food-centred scenes of suffering and associated social tensions have become regular fixtures in the news in 2008: people staving off hunger pangs by eating mud in Haiti; guarded warehouses and grain shipments in the Philippines; export prohibitions in India; food rationing in Pakistan; and food-price riots in more than thirty countries across the Global South. Josette Sheeran, head of the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), recently likened the scale and suddenness of this humanitarian crisis to the 2004 tsunami in Asia, while noting that it is a crisis in which poor people still can often see “food on shelves, but … are priced out of the market.”

A Long-Term, Slow-Motion Crisis

The current rapid rise in food prices is both a manifestation and magnification of the contradictions of the global food economy. The global food economy is immensely imbalanced and unstable. In 2006, before food prices began to rise, 854 million people suffered from chronic hunger and malnourishment, which the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) described as a “covert famine.” At the same time, the World Health Organization was calling obesity a “global epidemic,” with the population of obese people topping one billion. The FAO estimated that enough food was produced to feed the world one-and-a-half times over. So, it should come as no great surprise that millions were becoming increasingly food-insecure amidst last year’s record grain harvest.

To appreciate the basic dynamics of the rise in prices and how these are magnifying global consumption imbalances, we need to focus on the system of production that dominates world trade in food, the industrial grain-livestock complex in the temperate world, and its chief actors, the transnational corporations (TNCs). More than half of the world’s agro-exports and an even larger share of the world’s grain and livestock exports come from a very small number of countries, like the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Australia and France, which together represent less than two per cent of the world’s farmers. The flipside of this is the precarious dependence upon grain imports in most of the world’s poorest countries.

On a global scale, the “Big Three” cereals alone (maize, rice and wheat) account for roughly 85 per cent of the world’s total grain harvest by volume, and roughly half of all plant-based calories (with soy, an oilseed, fast becoming the fourth great basic crop). The combination of improved strains of the Big Three and other key crops, plus an enormous rise in external inputs since the 1950s, brought about a rough tripling of world grain production over a time when world population was merely doubling. Amidst this increasing production and demand, inflation-adjusted prices of the Big Three cereals declined by sixty per cent from 1960 to 2000 — and from 1974 to 2005, the decline in world market prices for a total food index was even greater: an astonishing 75 per cent.

Industrial monocultures are inextricably linked to soaring farm-animal populations (growing much faster than the human population) and more meat-intensive consumption patterns, a relentless trend linked closely to affluence. The per-capita consumption of animal flesh on a global scale has roughly doubled in the past half century alone. Today, the “Big Three” livestock species (pigs, chickens and cattle) account for almost ninety per cent of all animal flesh produced in the world, and these animals are being increasingly reared in factory-like conditions and consume an expanding share of the world’s cereals and oilseeds, while large percentages of plant protein, carbohydrates and fibre are lost as crops are cycled through animals to produce food.

This trajectory clearly reflects some of the most elemental tendencies of industrial capitalism: the drives to standardize production systems, substitute technology for labour and achieve economies of scale. But it also entails a host of biophysical problems, as soil biochemistry, insects, weeds and plant and animal pathogens do not willingly cooperate with this radical simplification of life.

Industrial monocultures using heavy machinery effectively mine the soil, as bare ground between planted rows and mechanized ploughing, planting and spraying increase susceptibility to soil erosion and nutrient loss and create further problems with compaction. The loss of soil fertility means that industrial monocultures require the regular application of external sources of key nutrients, the biggest of which is synthetic nutrients. One clear indication of this dependence is the fact that, while global grain yields per hectare grew by a factor of 2.4 between 1950 and 1990, synthetic fertilizer use grew by a factor of ten. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer represents a large share of world fertilizer consumption, and after nitrogen the next most important soil nutrients lost are phosphorous and potassium, also replaced from a non-renewable base.

Further, because large-scale biological homogenization increases vulnerability to the rapid spread of pests, weeds and disease, industrial monocultures are dependent on a range of petrochemical-based pesticides and herbicides, while animal factories depend upon a growing volume of pharmaceuticals. All of these tend to have a treadmill effect, adding up to a diffuse but momentous toxic burden.

The ecological costs don’t end there. Industrial agriculture is also implicated in: the overdraft of rivers, streams and underground water supplies; the salinization of over-irrigated soils; the risks associated with genetic contamination where GMOs have been introduced; a host of pollution problems and the immeasurable suffering associated with factory farming; disease threats like avian flu and mad-cow disease; and large greenhouse-gas emissions.

Low-priced industrial foods bear no relation to the myriad costs to humans, animals and even the biophysical foundations of agriculture itself. Externalities represent an implicit subsidy to industrial agriculture, long compounded by the billions of dollars in explicit government subsidies concentrated on the largest farmers in the world’s agro-industrial heartlands.

The pressure to substitute labour with technology is part of a process in which value and decision-making in industrial agricultural systems have moved away from farms and farm communities. Agro-input corporations like Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta control increasing shares of global markets in chemicals, fertilizers, seeds and animal pharmaceuticals, and weave together input usage. Industrial methods are also entwined with rising “food miles” and the disarticulation of agricultural systems from place, culture and season, not to mention the increasing dominance of massive, corporate connections between farmers and consumers, from processors and distributors like Altria, Nestle, ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland to retailers ranging from Wal-Mart to McDonald’s.

Farmers in the world’s agro-industrial heartlands, like Canada, have found themselves trapped in a long-term rising-cost, falling-price squeeze. This has reduced margins, led to heavy debt loads and bankruptcies, and sped the concentration of landholding. The distortions of this system have also been increasingly projected outward, de-stabilizing more labour-intensive, low-input and biodiverse farming systems. In the 1960s, the world’s low-income countries collectively ran a considerable net agro-trade surplus, importing very little food. However, dependence on cheap, industrialized food imports was sown through aid, subsidized dumping and the distorted measure of efficiency, deflating the earnings of small, domestically-oriented producers ever since.

As dependence on food imports deepened with the economic prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the 1980s and 1990s and the onset of the World Trade Organization in 1995, the accompanying “logic” was that food security was best ensured by liberalizing markets to cheap imports and maximizing the generation of foreign exchange by exporting according to comparative advantage — the so-called “free-market approach to food security.” This counsel came in spite of the fact that the earnings from major tropical agro-exports like sugar, cotton, coffee, tea, cocoa, palm oil and groundnuts — which dominated the best agricultural land since colonial times — were mired in precipitous, long-term declines.

Today, the world’s low-income countries collectively run a sizable net agro-trade deficit, projected by the FAO to grow considerably in the coming decades. This picture is made much worse — and more uneven, yet — by climate change. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that increasing climatic variability and change will severely compromise agricultural productivity in many of the world’s poorest countries, including much of Sub-Saharan Africa.

In sum, the contradictions of the global food economy constitute a multi-dimensional crisis that was, until recently, unfolding in slow motion.

The Quickening Crisis

Steadily falling food prices accompanying expanding global food production have long been the veritable trump card of industrial capitalist agriculture, helping to brace it against the dislocation and social tensions induced. But the recent rise in global food prices marks the beginning of a new era of acute instability, with the rising costs and scarcity of fossil energy and derivatives being the proximate trigger, pulling industrial agriculture in two basic and opposed ways.

First, industrial agriculture is being conceived of as a technological fix for the shortage of liquid fuel posed by declining oil reserves. Many governments, led by the U.S., are pouring billions of dollars in subsidies into biofuels, and along with an emerging legion of corporate, auto and big-farmer interests are enthusiastically touting the potential of biofuels in future energy security (biofuel subsidies was also a key plank in Stephen Harper’s climate policy). However, increasing attention has been focused on the exceptionally poor energetic budgets of most of the “first generation” biofuels, like maize ethanol, when fossil-energy inputs (i.e. fertilizer, agro-chemicals, farm machinery, irrigation systems, fermenting/distilling, etc.) are weighed against biofuel outputs. “Second generation” biofuels are seen to hold the promise of better input-yield ratios, but these could still only substitute a modest share of current levels of oil consumption, and as yet represent a very small land area and investment relative to first-generation biofuels.

Though a dubious proposition, posing biofuels as a large-scale alternative to fossil fuels entails earmarking absolutely massive volumes of cereal grains. Here, the U.S. is front and centre, with forty per cent of world maize production and more than half of the world’s maize exports. The U.S. is now devoting more than one fifth of its maize harvest to biofuel production, even though this replaces only a miniscule fraction of its overall oil consumption. On a global scale, the share of global cereal production devoted to biofuels grew by fifteen per cent from 2006 to 2007 alone, and this trend is projected to continue rising, with the EU, China and India all having set ambitious targets for oil substitution with biofuels — even as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights recently described biofuels as a “crime against humanity.”

The second major implication of rising costs and scarcity of fossil energy and derivatives is their reverberation throughout the food system. As oil and gas prices rise, the implicit subsidy they provide to industrial agriculture falls, making significantly higher food prices inevitable — particularly as this pressure intersects with the growing draw on global grain supplies by biofuels and livestock consumption.

Yet, despite the mounting social tensions surrounding food, and the converging problems of peak oil, climate change, soil degradation and water shortages, the quickening crisis of industrial agriculture is not yet de-stabilizing the dominant actors (TNCs) and their imperatives of profit maximization, which direct the global food economy. Industrial grain and livestock production is still in the midst of a fossilized boom (Australia notwithstanding), with the profits of agro-input and agro-food TNCs growing as food insecurity worsens.

Related to this obscene dynamic are rising speculative capital flows into “hot” agricultural commodities, which some critics have blamed for pushing food prices higher still.
So, we can expect more regressive outcomes in the short term. Hence there is an urgent need for short-term emergency assistance. But beyond short-term band-aids, as in any systemic crisis there is hope of heightened consciousness, and that people may begin to see the systemic contradictions more clearly. While the heads of the World Bank and WTO recently claimed that the current problems stem from insufficient trade liberalization and insist that rising food prices point to the need to renew the stalled round of WTO negotiations, such ideological abstractions about the benefits of market integration to the world’s poor ring more hollow than ever.

In the longer-term, hopefully, in eroding the viability of farming by way of massive monocultures and factory farms and food durables traveling ever-greater distances with huge corporations directing the system, the biophysical crisis of industrial agriculture will create new spaces for progressive transformations. In these de-stabilizing spaces, various producer and consumer movements working both to challenge the dominant system and construct more equitable, (re-)localized and ecologically rational alternatives are likely to find increasingly fertile and common ground.

At the core of the struggles to build alternatives will be questions of how to redistribute land, prevent its re-accumulation and foster equitable and stable agrarian livelihoods. Agrarian reform is much more probable in many parts of the Global South, where it is typically discussed, than in heavily industrialized and de-populated rural landscapes like Canada. But as the system of industrial capitalist agriculture breaks down, it will become increasingly evident that agrarian reform is urgent here, too.

Further Reading

For further sources and discussion on this “long-term, slow-motion crisis,” see: Tony Weis, The Global Food Economy: The Battle for the Future of Farming (Zed Books, 2007)

For a big-picture context, see also: Raj Patel, Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World Food System (HarperCollins, 2008). More from this fabulous
scholar, writer and activist at rajpatel.org.

The ETC Group provides an excellent resource for tracking the concentration of corporate power in agriculture in its Oligopoly, Inc. reports, available at etcgroup.org.

The wildly regressive current dynamics are described in a recent report from GRAIN, entitled “Making a Killing from Hunger.” Find it here grain.org/articles/?id=39.

The bloody battle of Genoa


By Nick Davies - The Guardian

When 200,000 anti-globalisation protesters converged on the Italian city hosting the G8 summit in 2001, all but a handful came to demonstrate peacefully. Instead, many were beaten to a pulp by seemingly out-of-control riot police. But was there something more sinister at play? And will the victims ever see proper justice?

It was just before midnight when the first police officer hit Mark Covell, swiping his truncheon down on his left shoulder. Covell did his best to yell out in Italian that he was a journalist but, within seconds, he was surrounded by riot-squad officers thrashing him with their sticks. For a while, he managed to stay on his feet but then a baton blow to the knee sent him crashing to the pavement.

Lying on his face in the dark, bruised and scared, he was aware of police all around him, massing to attack the Diaz Pertini school building where 93 young demonstrators were bedding down on the floor for the night. Covell's best hope was that they would break through the chain around the front gates without paying him any more attention. If that happened, he could get up and limp across the street to the safety of the Indymedia centre, where he had spent the past three days filing reports on the G8 summit and on its violent policing.

It was at that moment that a police officer sauntered over to him and kicked him in the chest with such force that the entire lefthand side of his rib cage caved in, breaking half-a-dozen ribs whose splintered ends then shredded the membrane of his left lung. Covell, who is 5ft 8in and weighs less than eight stone, was lifted off the pavement and sent flying into the street. He heard the policeman laugh. The thought formed in Covell's mind: "I'm not going to make it."

The riot squad were still struggling with the gate, so a group of officers occupied the time by strolling over to use Covell as a football. This bout of kicking broke his left hand and damaged his spine. From somewhere behind him, Covell heard an officer shout that this was enough - "Basta! Basta!" - and he felt his body being dragged back on to the pavement.

Now, an armoured police van broke through the school gates and 150 police officers, most wearing crash helmets and carrying truncheons and shields, poured into the defenceless building. Two officers stopped to deal with Covell: one cracked him round the head with his baton; the other kicked him several times in the mouth, knocking out a dozen teeth. Covell passed out.

There are several good reasons why we should not forget what happened to Covell, then aged 33, that night in Genoa. The first is that he was only the beginning. By midnight on July 21 2001, those police officers were swarming through all four floors of the Diaz Pertini building, dispensing their special kind of discipline to its occupants, reducing the makeshift dormitories to what one officer later described as "a Mexican butcher's shop". They and their colleagues then illegally incarcerated their victims in a detention centre, which became a place of dark terror.

The second is that, seven years later, Covell and his fellow victims are still waiting for justice. On Monday, 15 police, prison guards and prison medics finally were convicted for their part in the violence - although it emerged yesterday that none of them would actually serve prison terms. In Italy, defendants don't go to jail until they have exhausted the appeals process; and in this case, the convictions and sentences will be wiped out by a statute of limitations next year. Meanwhile, the politicians who were responsible for the police, prison guards and prison medics have never had to explain themselves. Fundamental questions about why this happened remain unanswered - and they hint at the third and most important reason for remembering Genoa. This is not simply the story of law officers running riot, but of something uglier and more worrying beneath the surface.

The fact that this story can be told at all is testament to seven years of hard work, led by a dedicated and courageous public prosecutor, Emilio Zucca. Helped by Covell as well as his own staff, Zucca has gathered hundreds of witness statements and analysed 5,000 hours of video as well as thousands of photographs. Pieced together, they tell an irrefutable tale, which began to unfold as Covell lay bleeding on the ground.

The police poured into the Diaz Pertini school. Some of them were shouting "Black Bloc! We're going to kill you," but if they genuinely believed they were confronting the notorious Black Bloc of anarchists who had caused violent mayhem in parts of the city during demonstrations earlier in the day, they were mistaken. The school had been provided by the Genoa city council as a base for demonstrators who had nothing to do with the anarchists: they had even posted guards to make sure that none of them came in.

One of the first to see the riot squad bursting in was Michael Gieser, a 35-year-old Belgian economist, who subsequently described how he had just changed into his pyjamas and was queuing for the bathroom with his toothbrush in his hand when the raid began. Gieser believes in the power of dialogue and, at first, he walked towards them saying, "We need to talk." He saw the padded jackets, the riot clubs, the helmets and the bandanas concealing the policemen's faces, changed his mind and ran up the stairs to escape.

Others were slower. They were still in their sleeping bags. A group of 10 Spanish friends in the middle of the hall woke up to find themselves being battered with truncheons. They raised their hands in surrender. More officers piled in to beat their heads, cutting and bruising and breaking limbs, including the arm of a 65-year-old woman. At the side of the room, several young people were sitting at computers, sending emails home. One of them was Melanie Jonasch, a 28-year-old archaeology student from Berlin, who had volunteered to help out in the building and had not even been on a demonstration.

She still cannot remember what happened. But numerous other witnesses have described how officers set upon her, beating her head so hard with their sticks that she rapidly lost consciousness. When she fell to the ground, officers circled her, beating and kicking her limp body, banging her head against a near-by cupboard, leaving her finally in a pool of blood. Katherina Ottoway, who saw this happen, recalled: "She was trembling all over. Her eyes were open but upturned. I thought she was dying, that she could not survive this."

None of those who stayed on the ground floor escaped injury. As Zucca later put it in his prosecution report: "In the space of a few minutes, all the occupants on the ground floor had been reduced to complete helplessness, the groans of the wounded mingling with the sound of calls for an ambulance." In their fear, some victims lost control of their bowels. Then the officers of the law moved up the stairs. In the first-floor corridor they found a small group, including Gieser, still clutching his toothbrush: "Someone suggested lying down, to show there was no resistance. So I did. The police arrived and began beating us, one by one. I protected my head with my hands. I thought, 'I must survive.' People were shouting, 'Please stop.' I said the same thing ... It made me think of a pork butchery. We were being treated like animals, like pigs."

Officers broke down doors to the rooms leading off the corridors. In one, they found Dan McQuillan and Norman Blair, who had flown in from Stansted to show their support for, as McQuillan put it, "a free and equal society with people living in harmony with each other". The two Englishmen and their friend from New Zealand, Sam Buchanan, had heard the police attack on the ground floor and had tried to hide their bags and themselves under some tables in the corner of the dark room. A dozen officers broke in, caught them in a spotlight and, even as McQuillan stood up with his hands raised saying, "Take it easy, take it easy," they battered them into submission, inflicting numerous cuts and bruises and breaking McQuillan's wrist. Norman Blair recalled: "I could feel the venom and hatred from them."

Gieser was out in the corridor: "The scene around me was covered in blood, everywhere. A policeman shouted 'Basta!'. This word was like a window of hope. I understood it meant 'enough'. And yet they didn't stop. They continued with pleasure. In the end, they did stop, but it was like taking a toy away from a child, against their will."

By now, there were police officers on all four floors of the building, kicking and battering. Several victims describe a sort of system to the violence, with each officer beating each person he came across, then moving on to the next victim while his colleague moved up to continue beating the first. It seemed important that everybody must be hurt. Nicola Doherty, 26, a care worker from London, later described how her partner, Richard Moth, lay across her to protect her: "I could just hear blow after blow on his body. The police were also leaning over Rich so they could hit the parts of my body which were exposed." She tried to cover her head with her arm: they broke her wrist.

In one corridor, they ordered a group of young men and women to kneel, the easier to batter them around the head and shoulders. This was where Daniel Albrecht, a 21-year-old cello student from Berlin, had his head beaten so badly that he needed surgery to stop bleeding in his brain. Around the building, officers flipped their batons around, gripping the far end and using the right-angled handle as a hammer.

And in among this relentless violence, there were moments when the police preferred humiliation: the officer who stood spread-legged in front of a kneeling and injured woman, grabbed his groin and thrust it into her face before turning to do the same to Daniel Albrecht kneeling beside her; the officer who paused amid the beatings and took a knife to cut off hair from his victims, including Nicola Doherty; the constant shouting of insults; the officer who asked a group if they were OK and who reacted to the one who said "No" by handing out an extra beating.

A few escaped, at least for a while. Karl Boro made it up on to the roof but then made the mistake of coming back into the building, where he was treated to heavy bruising to his arms and legs, a fractured skull, and bleeding in his chest cavity. Jaraslaw Engel, from Poland, managed to use builders' scaffolding to get out of the school, but he was caught in the street by some police drivers who smashed him over the head, laid him on the ground and stood over him smoking while his blood ran out across the Tarmac.

Two of the last to be caught were a pair of German students, Lena Zuhlke, 24, and her partner Niels Martensen. They had hidden in a cleaners' cupboard on the top floor. They heard the police approaching, drumming their batons against the walls of the stairs. The cupboard door came open, Martensen was dragged out and beaten by a dozen officers standing in a semicircle around him. Zuhlke ran across the corridor and hid in the loo. Police officers saw her and followed her and dragged her out by her dreadlocks.

In the corridor, they set about her like dogs on a rabbit. She was beaten around the head then kicked from all sides on the floor, where she felt her rib cage collapsing. She was hauled up against the wall where one officer kneed her in the groin while others carried on lashing her with their batons. She slid down the wall and they hit her more on the ground: "They seemed to be enjoying themselves and, when I cried out in pain, it seemed to give them even more pleasure."

Police officers found a fire extinguisher and squirted its foam into Martensen's wounds. His partner was dragged by her hair and tossed down the stairs head-first. Eventually, they dragged Zuhlke into the ground-floor hall, where they had gathered dozens of prisoners from all over the building in a mess of blood and excrement. They threw her on top of two other people. They were not moving, and Zuhlke drowsily asked them if they were alive. They did not reply, and she lay there on her back, unable to move her right arm, unable to stop her left arm and her legs twitching, blood seeping out of her head wounds. A group of police officers walked by, and each one lifted the bandana which concealed his identity, leaned down and spat on her face.

Why would law officers behave with such contempt for the law? The simple answer may be the one which was soon being chanted outside the school building by sympathetic demonstrators who chose a word which they knew the police would understand: "Bastardi! Bastardi!" But something else was happening here - something that emerged more clearly over the next few days.

Covell and dozens of other victims of the raid were taken to the San Martino hospital, where police officers walked up and down the corridors, slapping their clubs into the palms of their hands, ordering the injured not to move around or look out of the window, keeping handcuffs on many of them and then, often with injuries still untended, shipping them across the city to join scores of others, from the Diaz school and from the street demonstrations, detained at the detention centre in the city's Bolzaneto district.

The signs of something uglier here were apparent first in superficial ways. Some officers had traditional fascist songs as ringtones on their mobile phones and talked enthusiastically about Mussolini and Pinochet. Repeatedly, they ordered prisoners to say "Viva il duce." Sometimes, they used threats to force them to sing fascist songs: "Un, due, tre. Viva Pinochet!"

The 222 people who were held at Bolzaneto were treated to a regime later described by public prosecutors as torture. On arrival, they were marked with felt-tip crosses on each cheek, and many were forced to walk between two parallel lines of officers who kicked and beat them. Most were herded into large cells, holding up to 30 people. Here, they were forced to stand for long periods, facing the wall with their hands up high and their legs spread. Those who failed to hold the position were shouted at, slapped and beaten. Mohammed Tabach has an artificial leg and, unable to hold the stress position, collapsed and was rewarded with two bursts of pepper spray in his face and, later, a particularly savage beating. Norman Blair later recalled standing like this and a guard asking him "Who is your government?" "The person before me had answered 'Polizei', so I said the same. I was afraid of being beaten."

Stefan Bauer dared to answer back: when a German-speaking guard asked where he was from, he said he was from the European Union and he had the right to go where he wanted. He was hauled out, beaten, given a face full of pepper spray, stripped naked and put under a cold shower. His clothes were taken away and he was returned to the freezing cell wearing only a flimsy hospital gown.

Shivering on the cold marble floors of the cells, the detainees were given few or no blankets, kept awake by guards, given little or no food and denied their statutory right to make phone calls and see a lawyer. They could hear crying and screaming from other cells.

Men and women with dreadlocks had their hair roughly cut off to the scalp. Marco Bistacchia was taken to an office, stripped naked, made to get down on all fours and told to bark like a dog and to shout "Viva la polizia Italiana!" He was sobbing too much to obey. An unnamed officer told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica that he had seen brother officers urinating on prisoners and beating them for refusing to sing Faccetta Nera, a Mussolini-era fascist song.

Ester Percivati, a young Turkish woman, recalled guards calling her a whore as she was marched to the toilet, where a woman officer forced her head down into the bowl and a male jeered "Nice arse! Would you like a truncheon up it?" Several women reported threats of rape, anal and vaginal.

Even the infirmary was dangerous. Richard Moth, covered in cuts and bruises after lying on top of his partner, was given stitches in his head and legs without anaesthetic - "an extremely painful and disturbing experience. I had to be held down." Prison medical staff were among those convicted of abuse on Monday.

All agree that this was not an attempt to get the detainees to talk, simply an exercise in creating fear. And it worked. In statements, prisoners later described their feeling of helplessness, of being cut off from the rest of the world in a place where there was no law and no rules. Indeed, the police forced their captives to sign statements, waiving all their legal rights. One man, David Larroquelle, testified that he refused and had three of his ribs broken. Percivati also refused and her face was slammed into the office wall, breaking her glasses and making her nose bleed.

The outside world was treated to some severely distorted accounts of all this. Lying in San Martino hospital the day after his beating, Covell came round to find his shoulder being shaken by a woman who, he understood, was from the British embassy. It was only when the man with her started taking photographs that he realised she was a reporter, from the Daily Mail. Its front page the next day ran an entirely false report describing him as having helped mastermind the riots. (Four long years later, the Mail eventually apologised and paid Covell damages for invasion of privacy.)

While his citizens were being beaten and tormented in illegal detention, spokesmen for the then prime minister, Tony Blair, declared: "The Italian police had a difficult job to do. The prime minister believes that they did that job."

The Italian police themselves fed the media with a rich diet of falsehood. Even as the bloody bodies were being carried out of the Diaz Pertini building on stretchers, police were telling reporters that the ambulances lined up in the street were nothing to do with the raid, and/or that the very obviously fresh injuries were old, and that the building had been full of violent extremists who had attacked officers.


The next day, senior officers held a press conference at which they announced that everybody in the building would be charged with aggressive resistance to arrest and conspiracy to cause destruction. In the event, the Italian courts dismissed every single attempted charge against every single person. That included Covell. Police attempts to charge him with a string of very serious offences were described by the public prosecutor, Enrico Zucca, as "grotesque".

At the same press conference, police displayed an array of what they described as weaponry. This included crowbars, hammers and nails which they themselves had taken from a builder's store next to the school; aluminium rucksack frames, which they presented as offensive weapons; 17 cameras; 13 pairs of swimming goggles; 10 pen-knives; and a bottle of sun-tan lotion. They also displayed two Molotov cocktails which, Zucca later concluded, had been found by police earlier in the day in another part of the city and planted in the Diaz Pertini building as the raid ended.

This public dishonesty was part of a wider effort to cover up what had happened. On the night of the raid, a force of 59 police entered the building opposite the Diaz Pertini, where Covell and others had been running their Indymedia centre and where, crucially, a group of lawyers had been based, gathering evidence about police attacks on the earlier demonstrations. Officers went into the lawyers' room, threatened the occupants, smashed their computers and seized hard drives. They also removed anything containing photographs or video tape.

With the courts refusing to charge the detainees, the police secured an order to deport all of them from the country, banning them from returning for five years. Thus, the witnesses were removed from the scene. Like the attempted charges, all the deportation orders were subsequently dismissed as illegal by the courts.

Zucca then fought his way through years of denial and obfuscation. In his formal report, he recorded that all the senior officers involved were denying playing any part: "Not a single official has confessed to holding a substantial command role in any aspects of the operation." One senior officer who was videoed at the scene explained that he was off duty and had just turned up to make sure his men were not being injured. Police statements were themselves changeable and contradictory, and were overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence of victims and numerous videos: "Not a single one of the 150 officers reportedly present has provided precise information regarding an individual episode."

Without Zucca, without the robust stance of the Italian courts, without Covell's intensive work assembling video records of the Diaz raid, the police might well have evaded responsibility and secured false charges and prison sentences against scores of their victims. Apart from the Bolzaneto trial which finished on Monday, 28 other officers, some very senior, are on trial for their part in the Diaz raid. And yet, justice has been compromised.

No Italian politician has been brought to book, in spite of the strong suggestion that the police acted as though somebody had promised them impunity. One minister visited Bolzaneto while the detainees were being mistreated and apparently saw nothing or, at least, saw nothing he thought he should stop. Another, Gianfranco Fini, former national secretary of the neo-fascist MSI party and the then deputy prime minister, was - according to media reports at the time - in police headquarters. He has never been required to explain what orders he gave.

Most of the several hundred law officers involved in Diaz and Bolzaneto have escaped without any discipline or criminal charge. None has been suspended; some have been promoted. None of the officers who were tried over Bolzaneto has been charged with torture - Italian law does not recognise the offence. Some senior officers who were originally going to be charged over the Diaz raid escaped trial because Zucca was simply unable to prove that a chain of command existed. Even now, the trial of the 28 officers who have been charged is in jeopardy because the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is pushing through legislation to delay all trials dealing with events that occurred before June 2002. Nobody has been charged with the violence inflicted on Covell. And as one of the victims' lawyers, Massimo Pastore, put it: "Nobody wants to listen to what this story has to say."

That is about fascism. There are plenty of rumours that the police and carabinieri and prison staff belonged to fascist groups, but no evidence to support that. Pastore argues that that misses the bigger point: "It is not just a matter of a few drunken fascists. This is mass behaviour by the police. No one said 'No.' This is a culture of fascism." At its heart, this involved what Zucca described in his report as "a situation in which every rule of law appears to have been suspended."

Fifty-two days after the attack on the Diaz school, 19 men used planes full of passengers as flying bombs and shifted the bedrock of assumptions on which western democracies had based their business. Since then, politicians who would never describe themselves as fascists have allowed the mass tapping of telephones and monitoring of emails, detention without trial, systematic torture, the calibrated drowning of detainees, unlimited house arrest and the targeted killing of suspects, while the procedure of extradition has been replaced by "extraordinary rendition". This isn't fascism with jack-booted dictators with foam on their lips. It's the pragmatism of nicely turned-out politicians. But the result looks very similar. Genoa tells us that when the state feels threatened, the rule of law can be suspended. Anywhere.