ECOLOGY CANADIAN POLITICS:

OPPOSITION TO THE NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE:

The oil company Enbridge has recently joined BP on the "most unwanted list" of corporate vandals because of its pipeline spill in Michigan. Not content with playing second fiddle to the head capo of corporate crime, however, Enbridge has for some time been preparing a made in Canada potential disaster to put it up with the big boys. I refer to the planned 'Northern Gateway Pipeline' from the Alberta Oil Sands to the Pacific coast in British Columbia. This project has attracted a wide variety of opposition from environmental groups to first nations whose lands will be threatened by the development. It has even been opposed by the BC Central Coast Chamber of Commerce because of the dangers that it hazards. The Pembina Institute, a Canadian think tank concerned with energy policy, has produced a very critical report outlining the problems with this project as well as with another proposed northern pipelines. Consult that website for further details.

Canadian labour, in the person of the BC section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE BC) has also come out in opposition to Northern Gateway. Here's their statement from the website of CUPE BC.

CLCLCLCLCL
CUPE BC opposes Enbridge tanker plans to navigate off coast
BURNABY—Citing this week’s Enbridge oil spill that has threatened a Michigan river and the earlier disaster by British Petroleum that devastated the U.S. Gulf Coast, the B.C. division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees today joined First Nations and environmental groups in voicing opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.

The project would involve super tankers carrying bitumen from the Alberta tar sands and navigating the coast of British Columbia, including the fragile Great Bear Rainforest.

CUPE BC says that any potential benefits of the Enbridge plan are outweighed by the high risk of another disaster like the BP oil spill. Enbridge itself has lost credibility in recent days with a pipeline leak that resulted in more than 3 million litres of oil flowing into the Kalamazoo River in southern Michigan, coating birds and fish.

“As we’ve seen in Michigan and the Gulf coast, any kind of oil spill on our coast would have a tremendous impact on the natural environment and would impact wildlife, including salmon and the Kermode bear which is unique to the Great Bear Rainforest,” says CUPE BC diversity vice-president (aboriginal workers) Leanne Louie. “With the BP oil spill, the damage is irreversible. We can’t let that happen here.”

Penetration of the B.C. coastline by oil tankers is only part of a massive plan to build a 1,150-kilometre underground pipeline that will result in the transportation of 525,000 barrels of oil each day across Alberta and B.C. The federal government and its joint review panel are currently reviewing Enbridge’s application for the project despite the B.C. government’s 2006 promise to protect the Great Bear Rainforest.

“Enbridge claims there is minimal risk of an oil spill. In reality, it’s not if but when an oil spill will occur,” says Sheryl Burns, co-chair of the CUPE BC environment committee. “The Campbell government says it wants to fight climate change. But by supporting the Enbridge application it’s doing precisely the opposite, since the pipeline will be a major incentive for increased production of climate-damaging oil from the tar sands. We should be creating green jobs instead that will employ British Columbians while also protecting our environment.”

In a letter to Premier Gordon Campbell, CUPE BC president Barry O’Neill reminds the premier of B.C.’s promise in 2006 to protect the Great Bear Rainforest. “We urge the provincial government to oppose the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project altogether and honour the Great Bear Rainforest agreement it signed,” writes O’Neill.

HUMOUR:

THE AXLES OF EVIL:

HUMOUR:

OBAMA'S PLAN B:

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

OBAMA'S WARS:

Here's a little piece shamelessly stolen from the Anarkismo website. In this piece author Wayne Price gives his opinion about how anarchists should react to what, to true believers, may seem like a "betrayal" on the part of the Obama administration of the hopes that they had placed in this one man. To say the least such "hopes" (and fears) were the beliefs solely of the ideological left and the ideological right. Most ordinary Americans knew very well that, in electing their Emperor, they were doing just that...electing their Emperor whom they trusted to preserve the general balance of power in the world (and more importantly correct some serious domestic imbalances). The way in which the Roman Empire progressed from Roman or Latin Emperors to provincial Emperors and finally to "barbarian" Emperors should be instructive. Through all these changes the Roman Empire remained...the Roman Empire, whoever was at its head.

Personally I am undecided about how I view the following essay. Mercifully, my own opinion, and any other anarchist's opinion in North America is very much beside the point. There are few countries in the world (Spain, France ?, Italy ?) where anarchists are in a position to speak to even a small (5%) of the general population and receive a respectful hearing. In this vacuum anarchists far too often fall back on the sad leftist habit of trying very much to appear "right" instead of being effective. The history of developed countries (and underdeveloped ones as well) is littered with a history of "brilliant analyses" (some of which were correct and some of which were grossly wrong without their adherents ever admitting it). The question about "what to say" and, most importantly, "when to say it" is not even on the horizon of North American anarchism. For myself I hope that I will live long enough to see this change. I see no reason why other countries cannot follow the lead of Spain, whatever the advantages of the Spanish anarchists, especially those of the CGT. If we ever achieve the happy state of actually having at least a small amount of influence then the question of what authors such as the following are saying is "politic" would assume a much greater importance than whether they are (provisionally) right or (provisionally) wrong.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama's Imperial War - An Anarchist Response:

by Wayne Price
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Obama's Imperial War
An Anarchist Response

The expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan is not due to the personal qualities of Obama but to the social system he serves: the national state and the capitalist economy. The nature of the situation guarantees that the system will act irrationally. Anarchists should participate in building a broad movement against the war, while raising our political program.

In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.

After 3 months of consultations and deliberation, President Obama has announced that he is going to do what he had promised to do during his campaign for president—namely to expand the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not have been inevitable (since he broke many of his campaign promises already, such as ending overseas prisons, openness in government, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a health care plan which covers everyone, an economic plan for working people, etc.). But it was probable.

As has been pointed out, his stated reasons for the war do not make much sense: in order to get out of Afghanistan, the US will send more troops into Afghanistan. The US needs to fight Al Queda, even though there are now only about 100 Queda militants left in Afghanistan; the Queda base is mostly in Pakistan (which Obama slurred over by speaking of “the border”) but the US will not be sending troops there (just secret attacks by drone missiles and CIA operatives). More generally, the US supposedly has to strengthen the resolve of the government of Pakistan…by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The US hopes to win over the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending more non-Muslim, only-English-speaking, troops, which is sure to antagonize the people of the region. In 18 months, the US forces are supposed to transform the Karzai regime from one of the most corrupt, incompetent, and illegitimate states on earth, to a stable government (never mind a democracy). The effects of the mistaken US policies of 8 years can be reversed in 18 months (on the assumption that US forces will really “start” to withdraw in 18 months; promises are cheap; the US is still in Iraq). All of this is simply unbelievable and it is hard to think that an intelligent man such as Obama believes any of it.

Why then, really, is the US sending more troops into the region? Closer to Obama’s thinking are the expressions in his December 1, West Point, address, when he announced his program, where he spoke about the US as a global power with an economy which competes on the world market. Thus he remarked that “competition within the global economy has grown more fierce….Our prosperity…will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the past.” Implicit in these statements is an awareness that the US is no longer the economic power it was “in the past.” While still having the largest national economy, the US is now a de-industrializing debtor nation, losing out in world competition to Europe and Asia. This has been made worse by the global Great Recession, which has exposed the decay of the whole international capitalist system. The US ruling class, its layer of rich people, is not happy about this.

So they turn to the one asset they still have, which is the mighty military force of the US state—more powerful than any potential combination of opponent states. By throwing its weight around, the US hopes to re-achieve world dominance, or at least to slow its decline in world power. Obama reminded his listeners that the US has long been the dominant world power. “Our country has borne a special burden in global affairs ….More than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for six decades…” This is modified by the hypocritical words,”But unlike the great powers of old, we have not sough world domination.” He can say this because the US has not ruled through open “ownership” of colonies (leaving aside Puerto Rico and a few other places) but by economically dominating the world market, so that all must buy and sell on the US’ terms (“neocolonialism”). But whenever “necessary,” this has been backed up by military force, as shown in two imperialist world wars and a large number of invasions of smaller, weaker, nations.

Therefore it cannot accept being kicked in the teeth by small groups of terrorists living in caves, nor let petty dictatorships thumb their noses at the US. Nor can they afford to let regions which dominate the world petroleum supply fall into chaos, or at least outside of US rule, given the centrality of oil for the capitalist industrial economy. This includes both the Middle East and Northwest Asia (which may have important oil pipelines go through it). (Molly Note- "Northwest Asia" already has several important pipelines. I assume the author refers to 'Central Asia' )

Irrational behavior will result from being in situations which cannot be rationally dealt with. The US ruling class must try to dominate the world, economically and therefore politically and militarily, due to world competition. But it cannot dominate the world and is losing out in international competition. It must try to control the oppressed nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but it cannot control them. The result is a contradictory and irrational foreign policy. This was apparent under the stupid George W. Bush, with his ideologically fanatic advisers. It is still obvious under the intelligent and reasonable Barack Obama.

The result is likely to be disastrous (as it was in the Vietnam war, also waged by moderate Democrats—in fact most US wars have been waged by Democrats, starting with World War I). In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, many people have been killed or wounded or their lives disrupted—mostly the nationally-oppressed people but also many US soldiers. Now very many more will be killed. Not to speak of the wealth which will be destroyed, both in the attacked countries and in the US (Obama says the war will cost $1 trillion).

And in the background is the threat of nuclear war—not only does the US have nuclear weapons but so does Pakistan and its long-time opponent and neighbor India. Also, in the same region, the US is threatening to attack Iran, for supposedly working toward nuclear weapons, and there are similar threats by the US ally Israel, which does have nuclear weapons. Will nuclear bombs be used in the near future? I doubt it; but time marches on and sooner or later they will be used. (The Bush administration made an effort to make smaller “bunker-blasting” nuclear bombs, which could be used in small wars such as in Iraq. These would have erased the gap between nuclear and conventional weapons. I do not know where this stands at the moment.) Liberals have called on the US to lead a world-wide crusade to abolish all nuclear weapons. Obama has given lip service to this idea, but nothing will come of it because the US state cannot give up any of its power to threaten the rest of the world.

We revolutionary anarchists must oppose these wars will all our might. While the system cannot stop making wars, it can be forced to end particular wars. This can be done by raising the price which the state must pay for that war. If the capitalist politicians feel that young people are becoming radicalized and militant, that labor is becoming restless, that soldiers are potentially mutinous, and that the local peoples will not stop resisting--then they will finally decide to end the war (as in Vietnam).

We should participate in broader “peace” movement, joining it in its mass marches and demonstrations. Often we radicals get tired of demonstrations, seeing how little they accomplish; but we should not forget how exciting they can be for newer layers of antiwar activists. However this does not mean that we cover up our program. In particular we must oppose the leaders of this movement (liberals, social democrats, and Marxist-Leninists) for their capitulation to the Democratic Party. For years now, they have held back the movement by focusing on electing and supporting liberal Democrats.

We need to point to those who have the real power to end the war: the soldiers and other military forces and the working class. There has been increasing discontent among rank-and=file military and their families about the war. We should have a positive attitude toward this, as opposed to a moralistic superiority toward ordinary soldiers, who are usually victims of the poverty draft.. Similarly, there has been much discontent with the wars among working people and their families. We can at least support the idea of strikes against the war, war production, and the transportation of war material. We should oppose any use of the war as an excuse for union-busting or wage-lowering.

The force most directly opposing US imperialism in these regions are the people. We should make clear our solidarity with the nationally oppressed people (who are mostly workers, peasants, and small businesspeople). We should defend their right to resist US aggression. We should not be “neutral” between the mightiest imperial power and the oppressed people of Afghanistan. But this does not require any support or endorsement for any particular organization or leadership. We are certainly not “for” the Taliban, which is viciously misogynist, anti-labor, and statist. We do not want them to get their state again. However, that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide, not for the US state nor for Western anarchists.

We should be willing to work with anyone who will oppose the wars, while openly expressing our own program: the end of the state, of international capitalism (imperialism), and of all forms of oppression.

@@@@@@@@@@

Here is another article that comes Molly's way via Anarkismo but was originally published at the African website Pambazuka News. It lays out what are tghe likely plans of the US Empire in the next imperial field of action-Africa.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama moves ahead with AFRICOM:
Concerned over the supply of oil to the US and a supposed need to continue the global 'War on Terror', President Barack Obama has essentially maintained the militarised approach to Africa that was the hallmark of his immediate predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, writes Daniel Volman. The escalation of AFRICOM (United States African Command) activities, argues Volman, underlines a troubling commitment to an approach based on might and dominance, one entirely at the expense of promoting sustainable economic development and democracy.

In his 11 July 2009 speech in Accra, Ghana, US President Barack Obama declared, 'America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.'

And yet all the available evidence demonstrates that he is determined to continue the expansion of US military activity on the continent initiated by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and dramatically escalated by President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. While many expected the Obama administration to adopt a security policy toward Africa that would be far less militaristic and unilateral than that pursued by his predecessor, the facts show that he is in fact essentially following the same policy that has guided US military involvement in Africa for more than a decade.

The clearest indication of President Obama’s intentions for AFRICOM (United States African Command) and for America’s military involvement in Africa is provided by the budget requests for the 2010 financial year submitted by the Departments of State and Defense to Congress in May 2009. The State Department budget request – which includes funding for all US arms sales, military training, and other security assistance programmes – proposes major increases in funding for US arms sales to a number of African countries through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme. The budget proposes to increase FMF funding for sub-Saharan African counties more than 300 per cent, from just over US$8.2 million to more than US$25.5 million, with additional increases in funding for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Chad (US$500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$2.5 million), Djibouti (US$2.5 million), Ethiopia (US$3 million), Kenya (US$1 million), Liberia (US$9 million), Morocco (US$9 million), Nigeria (US$1.4 million), South Africa (US$800,000) and the Africa Regional Program (US$2.8 million).

The same trend is evident in the Obama administration's request for funding for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. The budget request for the IMET programme proposes to increase funding for African countries by nearly 17 per cent, from just under US$14 million to more than US$16 million, with additional increases for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$950,000), Chad (US$400,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$500,000), Djibouti (US$350,000), Ethiopia (US$775,000), Equatorial Guinea (US$40,000), Ghana (US$850,000), Liberia (US$525,000), Libya (US$250,000), Mali (US$350,000), Morocco (US$1.9 million), Niger (US$250,000), Nigeria (US$1.1 million), Rwanda (US$500,000), Senegal (US$1.1 million), South Africa (US$900,000) and Uganda (US$550,000).

The Obama administration also proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The 2010 financial year budget proposes to increase funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership – from US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to US$20 million in 2010 – and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$10 million in the 2010 financial year.

It also includes US$42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords (CPAs) in southern Sudan, US$10 million to help create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, US$21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo and the rehabilitation of the military base at Kisangani), and US$3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad and the Central African Republic.

And it includes US$67 million to support the African Union mission in Somalia, along with a request for US$96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for the GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) – which provides training and equipment to a number of African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities – and the Obama administration has requested US$96.8 million for ACOTA activities in the 2010 financial year.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s budget request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programmes contains US$24 million for Sudan to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan and to assist programmes to stabilise Darfur by providing technical assistance and training for southern Sudan’s criminal justice sector and law enforcement institutions as well as contributing to UN civilian police and formed police units in southern Sudan and Darfur. It also includes funds for police reforms in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); for training, infrastructure, and equipment for police units in Liberia; to operate the American-run International Law Academy in Gaborone, Botswana; and to create a Regional Security Training Center for West, Central and North Africa.

And the Obama administration is also asking for funding to be provided through the INCLE programs for the first time to provide security assistance to countries participating in the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$970,000), Cape Verde (US$2 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$1.7 million), Ethiopia (US$500,000), Gambia (US$450,00), Ghana (US$500,000), Guinea-Bissau (US$3 million), Liberia (US$8 million), Morocco (US$2 million), Nigeria (US$2 million), Sierre Leone (US$250,000), Sudan (US$24 million), Uganda (US$385,000), and the Africa Regional Program (US$4.5 million).

The Obama administration also proposes to increase funding for counterterrorism programmes. These include the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program – which provides training to countries throughout the world – the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification, Secure Comparison, and Evaluation System Program – which supports identification and watch listing systems to 18 countries (including Kenya) – the Counterterrorism Financing Program, which helps partner countries throughout the world stop the flow of money to terrorists – and the Counterterrorism Engagement Program, which is intended to strengthen ties with key political leaders throughout the world and 'build political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared counterterrorism challenges'. The Obama administration’s budget request requests increased funding for Kenya (from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$8 million in the 2010 financial year), for South Africa (a new programme for US$1 million), and the Africa Regional programme (from almost US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to more than US$20 million in the 2010 financial year).

The Obama administration proposed 2010 budget for the Department of Defense requests US$278 million in operation and maintenance funds to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration is also requesting US$263 million to provide additional manpower, airlift and communications support to AFRICOM. In addition, the administration is requesting US$60 million to fund CJTF-HOA operations in the 2010 financial year and US$249 million to pay for the operation of the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and for facilities modifications, along with US$41.8 for major base improvement construction projects.

The administration has requested some US$400 million for Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) programmes, some US$200 million for Security and Stabilization Assistance (Section 1207) programmes, and some US$1 million for the Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund. This money will be used primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for emergency training and equipment, the services of personnel from the State Department and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi and Afghani armed forces, but it will be available for the use of AFRICOM as well.
The administration’s budget request also contains US$1.9 billion to buy three littoral combat ships and another US$373 million to buy two joint high speed vessels, ships that will play a crucial role in US Navy operations off the coast of Africa. In addition, the administration has requested US$10.5 million to pay for naval deployments in west and central Africa in the 2010 financial year and another US$10 million for naval operations in east Africa.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to Nigeria during her tour of Africa in August 2009, she met with Ojo Maduekwe, the foreign minister, and Godwin Abbe, the new minister of defence. In her remarks after the meeting, she was asked what the US government intended to do to help the Nigerian government establish stability and security in the Niger Delta. 'Well, the defence minister was present at the second larger meeting that the foreign minister convened,' she said, 'and he had some very specific suggestions as to how the United States could assist the Nigerian government in their efforts, which we think are very promising, to try to bring peace and stability to the Niger Delta. We will be following up on those. There is nothing that has been decided. But we have a very good working relationship between our two militaries. So I will be talking with my counterpart, the secretary of defense, and we will, through our joint efforts, through our bi-national commission mechanism, determine what Nigeria would want from us for help, because we know this is an internal matter, we know this is up to the Nigerian people and their government to resolve, and then look to see how we would offer that assistance.' Thus, in addition to the security assistance programmes in the budget request for the 2010 financial year, the Obama administration is now considering providing even more military support to the Nigerian government for use in the Niger Delta if the current amnesty programme collapses, as many analysts expect, and the government resumes military operations against insurgent forces in this vital oil-producing region (which produces 10 per cent of America’s total oil imports).

Another indication of the Obama administration’s intentions are provided by its decision to expand US military involvement in Somalia as well as its decision to continue the Bush administration’s policy of unilateral military attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in that country. In June 2009, a senior State Department official (presumed to have been Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson) revealed that the Obama administration had initiated a programme of indirect military support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia (the internationally recognised government of the country, although it only exercises control over a small part of the capital, Mogadishu) and a few other towns in the southern part of the country).

According to the official, the US government was providing funding to the TFG to finance weapons purchases and had also asked the governments of Uganda and Burundi, which have deployed troops to Mogadishu under an African Union mandate to protect the TFG, to transfer weaponry from their own stockpiles to the armed forces of the TFG in exchange for promises that the US government would reimburse them. In addition, the US government made its base in Djibouti available to other governments for them to provide military training to the armed forces of the TFG.

During her visit to Kenya in August 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US government would 'continue to provide equipment and training to the TFG', stating 'very early in the administration, I made the decision, which the president supported, to accelerate and provide aid to the TFG'. She went on to declare that al-Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group fighting to overthrow the TFG, was 'a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda and other foreign military networks' and that they 'see Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism'.

'There is no doubt', Secretary Clinton stated 'that al-Shabaab wants to obtain control over Somalia to use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near.' Thus, 'if al-Shabaab were to obtain a haven in Somalia, which would then attract al-Qaeda and other terrorist actors, it would be a threat to the United States.'

The US government arranged for the delivery of an initial supply of approximately 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition worth approximately US$10 million to the TFG between May and August of 2009 from the stockpiles of the African Union peacekeeping force, along with between US$1 million and US$2 million in cash to the TFG to finance its own arms purchase, and the delivery of another 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition over the following months. A number of other governments – including Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and France – are also reported to have sent military personnel to the US base in Djibouti to provide military training to TFG troops.

According to a report by the Associated Press, American officials 'say the US military is not conducting the training and will not put any forces in Somalia'. Other countries were conducting the training, the Associated Press reported, because 'the [Obama] administration is making a concerted effort to avoid putting any American footprint in Somalia, which would risk alienating allies and add to charges by Islamic extremists of a Western takeover.' However, it has since become clear that most of the arms and training has been transferred to al-Shabaab, either by Islamic militants who had infiltrated the TFG military forces or as a result of the sale of the weapons and ammunition on the black market.

Then, in August, US Special Forces troops attacked and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an alleged al-Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 as well as other al-Qaeda operations in east Africa. The US Special Forces troops carried out the attack from onboard several helicopters that had been launched from a US Navy warship off the Somali coast, using machine guns and automatic assault rifles to strafe a convoy of four-wheel drive vehicles carrying Nabhan and his retinue. Following the initial assault, the helicopters landed so that their troops could seize Nabhan’s body for positive identification. It is likely that the Obama administration will conduct further military operations in Somalia since, in the words of Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, the deputy commander of AFRICOM, 'the threat posed by al-Shabaab is something that we pay very, very close attention to.'

And in October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali that was delivered on 20 October 2009. The package – valued at US$4.5 to US$5 million (2.3 billion CFA) and which includes 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment – is intended to enhance Mali's ability to transport and communicate with internal security (counter-insurgency) units throughout the country and control its borders. The security assistance package is officially known as the 'Counter Terrorism Train and Equip' (CTTE) programme. Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.

In addition, between April and June of 2009, 300 US Special Forces personnel were deployed to Mali to train Malian military forces at three local bases and, according to Lt Col Louis Sombora, deputy commander of Mali's 33rd Parachute Regiment (which was the recipient of the new US military aid package), more than 95 per cent of his soldiers have received US military training. And in early November 2009, US Air Force Brigadier General Michael W. Callan, vice commander of the US Air Force Africa (the Air Force contingent based in Europe and dedicated to AFRICOM), visited Mali along with other US military personnel in order to inspect local military forces (including the 33rd Parachute Regiment) and tour local military facilities.

According to Lt Col Marshall Mantiply, defense attaché at the US Embassy in Bamako, 'we are working with the Mali ministry of defence on a ten-year plan' to enhance the country's military capabilities.

The aid package to Mali is just the latest instance of America’s growing military involvement in the Sahel region. In his testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Africa hearing on 'Counter-terrorism in the Sahel' on 17 November 2009, Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson identified Mali – along with Algeria and Mauritania – as one of the 'key countries' in the region for the US counterterrorism strategy. 'We believe that our work with Mali to support more professional units capable of improving the security environment in the country will have future benefits if they are sustained', he stated.

It is clear, therefore, that President Barack Obama has decided to follow the path marked out for AFRICOM by the Clinton and Bush administrations, based on the use of military force to ensure that America can satisfy its continuing addiction to oil and to deal with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups, rather than to chart a new path passed on a partnership with the people of Africa and other countries that have a stake on the continent (including China) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights in Africa and a global energy order based on the use of clean, safe and renewable resources.

This is the consequence of two factors. To begin with, President Obama genuinely believes in the strategy of the global 'War on Terror' and thinks that Africa must be a central battlefield in America’s military campaign against al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. Many analysts believe that terrorism does not constitute a significant threat to America’s national security interests and that it would be far more effective to treat terrorism as a crime and to reduce the threat of terrorism by employing traditional law enforcement techniques. But, as demonstrated by the president’s decision to escalate US military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali, the Obama administration is determined to use military force instead, despite the fact that – as US military analysts argue – this only helps to strengthen terrorist groups and jeopardises other US security interests.

And with regard to America’s growing dependence on African oil supplies, President Obama understands the danger of relying upon the importation of a vital resource from unstable countries ruled by repressive, undemocratic regimes and the necessity of reducing America’s reliance on the use of oil and other non-renewable sources of energy. But, for understandable reasons, he has concluded that there is simply very little that he can do to achieve this goal during the limited time that he will be in office. He knows that it will take at least several decades to make the radical changes that will be necessary to develop alternative sources of energy, particularly to fuel cars and other means of transportation (if this is even technically feasible). And he knows that – in the meantime – public support for his presidency and for his party depends on the continued supply of reliable and relatively inexpensive supplies of gas and other petroleum-based energy to the American people, more than any other single factor. In the event of a substantial disruption in the supply of oil from Nigeria or any other major African supplier, he realises that he will be under irresistible political pressure to employ the only instrument that he has at his disposal – US military forces – to try to keep Africa’s oil flowing.

Professional military officers also know that the repressive, undemocratic regimes upon which the United States relies to maintain oil production are likely to fail and that they are almost certain to find themselves sent into combat in Africa – whether they like it or not – if this leads to a major disruption of oil exports, and are already working on plans for direct military intervention in Africa. Thus, in May 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command conducted a war game scenario for Nigeria during war game exercise that it conducts each year at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The scenario – set in the hypothetical year 2013 – was designed to test the ability of the United States to respond to a crisis in Nigeria in which the Nigerian government fragments and rival factions within the Nigerian military begin fighting for control of the Niger Delta, creating so much violence and chaos that it would be impossible to continue oil production. The participants concluded that there was little the United States could do to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict and that, in the end, they would probably be ordered to send up to 20,000 American troops into the Niger Delta in what the participants clearly recognised would be a futile attempt to get the oil flowing again. The fact that the participants in the Nigerian war games decided to go public with this information suggests that they believe that this scenario is likely to become a reality in the near future and that their only hope of avoiding this is to tell the public in the hope that this will prevent the order from being issued.

But the professional military officers who would actually have to lead their troops into Africa are not the only people who understand that America’s reliance on the military to solve the energy dilemma and the threat of terrorism is a dangerous mistake. Members of the US Congress are also increasingly sceptical about this strategy and are beginning to give AFRICOM the critical scrutiny it deserves. Moreover, a number of concerned organisations and individuals in the United States and in Africa came together in August 2006 to create the Resist AFRICOM campaign in order to educate the American people about AFRICOM and to mobilise public and congressional opposition to the new command. The Resist AFRICOM campaign will continue to press the Obama administration to abandon its plan for AFRICOM and to pursue a policy toward Africa based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa, international cooperation, democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is a specialist on US military policy in Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than 30 years.
Related Link: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/60921

CANADIAN POLITICS/AMERICAN POLITICS:

TAR SANDS OPPONENTS APPEAL RULING:

As the supply of conventional oil declines energy companies are increasingly looking not just to unconventional areas for drilling (such as the Arctic Ocean) but also to unconventional sources such as the Alberta Tar/Oil Sands. Petroleum extraction from bituminous deposits is such areas is controversial for many different reasons-its effect on the local ecology being the primary question. In recent years the American government has looked at the Alberta Tar Sands as a potentially significant (there may be more oil in this area than under Saudi Arabia) and, above all "strategically safe" (given a couple of weeks the US Marines could probably walk to the area in question) source of petroleum. Reliance on this source, however, has met with considerable opposition, not just within Alberta but also within the USA itself. The simple fact is that petroleum extraction from areas such as the Tar Sands is inevitably the dirtiest way to get oil, both in its effect on the local ecosystem and in terms of its contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. The greatest barrier to the tar sands development is that there simply is not enough water available to meet the needs of even a fraction of the proposed (let alone the potential) development. This, of course, raises the question of whether some substantial water engineering projects- such as diverting much of the flow of the Mackenzie River south- may not be part of the hidden agenda of the oil companies and governments.

The opposition in the USA is now appealing the recent Presidential Permit for a pipeline to the USA from the Tar Sands. Here's the story from the Act Up in Saskatchewan website.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
International Coalition Appeals Tar Sands Pipeline Permit:
Contributed by Jim Elliott
On August 20th, an international coalition of environmental and aboriginal organizations have vowed to challenge a permit given to a pipeline to bring the dirtiest oil on earth from the Tar Sands in Alberta to the United States.

“The State Department has rubber-stamped a project that will mean more air, water and global warming pollution, particularly in the communities near refineries that will process this dirty oil,” said Earthjustice attorney Sarah Burt. “The project’s environmental review fails to show how construction of the Alberta Clipper is in the national interest. We will go to court to make sure that all the impacts of this pipeline are considered.”

The groups involved in the challenge are Earthjustice, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club of the United States. They pointed out in their statements today that this decision to allow the pipeline contradicts President Obama’s promise to cut global warming pollution and America’s addiction to oil while investing in a clean energy future.

The intended plan is to allow Enbridge, a Canadian company, to build the Alberta Clipper pipeline across northern Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin and the Southern Lights pipeline to carry hazardous liquids back into Canada.

The continued support of the Tar Sands development in Alberta is creating an environmental catastrophe, with toxic tailings ponds so large they can be seen from space and plans to strip away the forests and peat lands in an area the size of Florida. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from Tar Sands production are three times that of conventional crude oil and it contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen and five times more lead than conventional oil. These toxins are released into the U.S. air and water when the crude oil is processed into fuels by refineries. So, in addition to the toxic mess and damage inflicted on Alberta and Saskatchewan, this proposal will expand the number of point sources for increased pollution.

“The tar sands pipeline connects U.S. refiners and consumers with the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive crude oil on earth,” said Kevin Reuther, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy’s legal director. “Tar sands crude is causing massive environmental degradation in Canada and results in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions. This is the absolute wrong step to take if we want to create a greener energy future.”

It is said that building this pipeline to the United States would be in the national interest of the United States. If fact, these pipelines would hurt the United States. By having this pipeline cross the border, it will entrench the United States to depend on this dirty oil for as long as it flows. It will also obligate Canada to continue to provide oil in the same proportion as it now provides for the forseeable future even when the Tar Sands are depleted.

“Importing dirty tar sands oil is not in our national interest,” said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope. “At a time when concern is growing about the national security threat posed by global warming, it doesn’t make sense to open our gates to one of the dirtiest fuels on earth. This pipeline will lock America into a dirty energy infrastructure for years to come. This is exactly the kind of project the State Department should be protecting us from.”

Many of the same groups involved in this court challenge are also appealing the U. S. Forest Service permission to allow the pipeline to cross parts of the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota. In addition, a group of tribal members have apparently gathered enough signatures on a petition to hold a referendum on the Leech Lake tribal council’s agreement to allow the line through tribal land.

"We are saddened by the news that the Presidential Permit was signed today,” said Marty Cobenais of the Indigenous Environmental Network, a Bemidji, Mn.-based non-profit. “The voices and rights of the Leech Lake Band members are not being listened to by the Obama Administration. According to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Constitution they are allowed to hold a referendum vote and allow the members to decide to accept the agreement with Enbridge or not. Nearly 700 signatures were obtained. If they vote against the agreement, the pipeline route would have to go around the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation, which would require a new Environmental Impact Study, plus other permits including a new Presidential Permit.

“This project is being approved without all the federal regulations completed. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is still waiting to receive a completed application from Enbridge Energy and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe to begin their approval process for allotment lands affected by these pipelines.”

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS-MANITOBA/USA:

CANADIAN NATIVE BANDS TO PETITION OBAMA ABOUT PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION:

Poor Obama. He hasn't even yet been crowned as emperor, but the petitions from all and sundry are coming at him. One of these is from natives here in Manitoba. Like other bands across the western provinces members of Treaty One First nations are disturbed that the new oil pipelines being constructed to supply the USA are being bulldozed through without proper concern for aboriginal claims. The following has also made the rounds of the internet, but I reproduce the call from the Treaty One First Nations from the online newsmagazine Straight Goods. Molly is extremely doubtful that the President-Elect will actually do anything about these native claims, but, as a means of raising the issue in the public eye, tomorrow's demonstration in Washington DC is a winner.

..............................

Canada's First Nations to demonstrate in Washington, DC:
Protests over oil exploitation spur visit to the "Great White Father."
from Manitoba Treaty One First Nations
In the tradition of delegations of American Indians traveling in the late 1800s to Washington, DC to meet the "Great White Father," Chiefs from Canada's First Nations will be traveling to the US capitol to seek the support of President Elect Obama in their fight for Human Rights. On January 8, a First Nations delegation of Chiefs from across Canada will conduct a procession on horseback at the National Mall in Washington DC to deliver their message, followed by a Press Conference.

"We are hopeful that President-Elect Obama will embrace the attitude of respect, compassion and support by engaging in the accountability of equitable and fair trade between the United States, the Indian Nations and the Canadian Government," stated Chief Glenn Hudson of Peguis First Nation, a spokesman for Treaty One.

The oil that Canada sells the US is stolen from indigenous lands, constituting a security breach for the United States, Canada and the First Nations.

"Canada is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States," added Chief Hudson.

"America needs to purchase 14 million barrels of foreign oil every day, and maintaining a steady supply of oil is a national security issue for the US. So far, Canada pays little or no royalties to indigenous people for resources."

Chiefs from the seven First Nations of Treaty One announced a decision to assemble the delegation of Chiefs to deliver a message of oil and human rights to President-Elect Obama. During the election campaign President-Elect Barack Obama talked of his concerns with "dirty oil" from Canada and made many of positive statements on a new relationship with Native America.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, over eighty percent of all Canadian exports flow to the US Canada remained the largest exporter to the US of total petroleum in September, exporting 2.364 million barrels per day. The second largest petroleum exporter to the US was Saudi Arabia with 1.431 million barrels per day.

Two major pipelines — the Enbridge Alberta Clipper and the TransCanada Keystone Project — are being constructed through three provinces to carry an additional 1.9 million barrels of oil per day to the US by 2012. The two pipelines are of grave importance to American energy needs given the increasing instability of other foreign sources of oil.

Canada supplies the United States with 65 percent more oil per day than Saudi Arabia, yet the stability of oil supply from Canada has never been of concern to Americans. The oil that the US is purchasing from Canada is stolen from indigenous lands, constituting a security breach for the United States, Canada and the First Nations.

In September, two blockades by First Nations in the Province of Saskatchewan sent shockwaves through the industry as construction was halted for four and six days at two sites. Chief Barry Kennedy of Carry the Kettle First Nation (Treaty Four) and Chief Sheldon Wuttunee of Red Pheasant First Nation (Treaty Six) in Saskatchewan organized the blockades. The First Nations are currently in negotiations with the pipelines.

Treaty One will send invitations to Chiefs from all three prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Invitations will also go to British Columbia where First Nations are fighting the proposed Gateway Pipeline. Gateway will pipe oil to the Pacific to be sent on Ocean Tankers to China and western United States.

On the American side, invitations to speak in Washington will go to four tribes from North and South Dakota. The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, the Rosebud Sioux, Santee Sioux and Yankton Sioux Tribes recently launched a US lawsuit to stop the TransCanada pipeline.

The First Nations delegation of Chiefs seeks President-Elect Obama to apply international pressure on Canada — the largest supplier of crude oil to the US — to share resource wealth with the indigenous people of Canada, the original and rightful owners of the resources. An emergency resolution at the national Assembly of First Nations in the December 2008 Summit in Ottawa will debate the proposed Declaration on Oil. The AFN is the national political representative of 633 First Nations in Canada.

While the United States recognizes property in its Bill of Rights and recognizes Treaties as the "law of the land" in its constitution, Canada omits the Right to Property in its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The United States and Canada both voted against the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights, an issue that will surely confront the newly elected President of the United States.

About Treaty One First Nations in Manitoba. Treaty One territory is 16,700 square miles, (10 million acres) directly in the path of both Enbridge and TransCanada pipelines. The pipelines are currently being constructed through Treaty One territory without any prior approval by the indigenous people.

ECONOMICS:

CLASS AND OIL:

The ever increasing price of oil and hence other forms of energy use- gasoline, home heating,etc.- inevitably, in class society, affect those at the lower end of the economic scale more. Here's an article from LibCom, a British anarchist communist site, about the effect on the average Briton.

....................

UK: One in four will live in fuel poverty:

Over 14 million people could find themselves in fuel poverty in the near future, if new figures from gas giant Centrica predicting a 70% rise in gas prices prove accurate - nearly a quarter of the population.

Around 4.5 million households are currently living in fuel poverty, equating to around 10.4 million people according to the government’s 2002 figures from the Household Survey, but another 1.6 million homes are likely to be added as prices continue to rise.

The direct cost increase, already up 40% this year on top of rises from 2007, would equate to a gas bill of £1,300 for the average household. People are defined as being in fuel poverty if they spend more than 10% of their annual budget on energy.

Prices look set to continue at such levels indefinitely or rise further as oil prices, which gas is linked to, continue to remain high. The figures have contributed to a significant rise in financial problems for some of the most vulnerable houses, as people struggle with a lower availability of loans, high petrol costs and pay settlements which are failing to match inflation.

Last month Centrica announced it was on track to make a £1.9bn profit from its 15.9 million-strong customer base, down from £2.2bn last year.

AMERICAN POLITICS:

BUSH TRIES TO DO A "FUNNY":

Molly is not of the opinion that the soon-to-be-retired president of the USA is an "idiot", though she knows that many are of that point of view. In actual fact Bush is probably no more and no less "stupid" than any world leader on the scene today. Here in Canada it has been decades !! since we have had an "intellectual"-Pierre Trudeau- in power, and even further decades since we have had an honest and intelligent populist-John Diefenbaker (never mind his weirdness) in the seat of authority. Most countries that I am familiar with are even less privileged than my own. Pondering deep thoughts is hardly a qualification for high office in the modern world; it's actually a detriment.

All that being said, even if I don't consider Bush to be an "idiot", I think that few could argue with the term "asshole" as applied to the Emperor. There is a certain unpleasant arrogance that emanates from the persona of Georgy-Poo, and the following incident, reported by the Oil Change International website, of his actions at the recent G8 summit in Hokkaido, Japan is instructive. A "ha-ha" is only funny when somebody is laughing with you. Georgie's attempt at comedy comes across as more of a spit in the eye of the world than as a bon-mot. Read on.

.......................

‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter

’Published by Andy Rowell

July 10th, 2008 And so begins George’s long walk into the history books. He has months left in his Presidency. He has finished his farewell tour of Europe and finished his final G8 meeting.

In his final few months, he may be responsible for yet another foreign policy disaster if the US attacks Iran, but when the dust settles his refusal to accept climate change as a serious issue will be up there with Iraq as part of his fundamentally flawed legacy.

Bush has failed to show any meaningful leadership on climate change, instead he has prevaricated and preached falsehoods taken from his buddies in the oil industry. He gave a millimeter or two at the Summit, by saying that he would “seriously consider” a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. But it was a millimeter when it should have been a mile.

True to the last, he signed off the G8 with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept targets by telling his fellow leaders: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

Although it was meant to be a private joke, the Independent put it more bluntly as a “two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry.”

The only hope lies that many people are already looking beyond Bush to the next President for meaningful and rapid action on climate change. But even here the experts wonder what the next President can meaningfully offer.

David G. Victor, an expert on climate policy at Stanford University, tells today’s New York Times. “Nearly every government is looking beyond Bush, and while they are hopeful that the next president will surely be more constructive on this issue, they don’t know what the president can really bring to the table. It is hard for the U.S. president to negotiate with strength when his ability to offer commitments hinges on national legislation that he does not control.”
So maybe the best thing that the next US President can bring to the table is the fact that they are not George W. Bush. And that would at least be a start.

CALGARY:

DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE CORPORATE TAR SANDS:

For non-Canadians who may read this board the Alberta Tar Sands is Canada's largest energy project, perhaps the largest in the western hemisphere. It is estimated that there is more oil locked in the sands of the Athabasca region of Alberta than there are under Saudi Arabia. The problem is that they are more difficult to extract than the "drill and pump" reservoirs traditionally associated with the oil business. So difficult in fact that they may meet a natural limit in that the area simply doesn't have enough of the water needed for the process. So difficult in fact that nuclear power has been proposed as a solution for the energy needed for extraction. For those unfamiliar with the project(s) there is a Wikipedia article of the subject which also names all the present corporate players.

The environmental costs of the tar sands project are as large as the corporate scale. Many, from locals to people far away, have taken up opposition to the project. Here are three examples for those interested in reading further on the subject:

1)Oil Sands Watch

2)Oil Sands Truth

3)Tar Sands Time Out

This coming June 16 a coalition of organizations including the Council of Canadians, Sierra Club, Forest Ethics, Keepers of the Athabasca and Greenpeace will be on hand to demonstrate against a Oil and Gas Investment Symposium being held in Calgary Alberta by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Here is the announcement from the Council of Canadians. It should be understood that Molly doesn't agree with the overall politics of the CoC, but their efforts in this cause are laudable.

.................................

On June 16th a coalition of efforts, including the Sierra Club, Forest Ethics, Keepers of the Athabasca and Greenpeace will be hosting an activity in Calgary to draw attention to the devastation from the Tar Sands for the environment and downstream communities.

***
Rally Against the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers -
Investors in the Destructive and Toxic Tar Sands!
Environmental and Human Rights Abuses Ignored While Profits Soar
Hey folks!
As Alberta quickly gains an international reputation as a climate criminal, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is holding an Oil and Gas Investment Symposium in Calgary from June 16-18.

PLEASE JOIN US on June 16, 2008, at 11am in front of the Hyatt Calgary

The event will bring together over 85 companies and 375 investors from Canada, the USA, and around the world - many of these folks being active and big funders in the Tar Sands, with others looking to expand into that market. This year, a bunch of different groups are looking to send them a clear message: Don't Invest in the Toxic Tar Sands!!!

While people living in communities downstream from tar sands developments continue to experience devastatingly high rates of rare cancers, while Alberta's lands and waters are contaminated with cancer-causing toxins and are transformed from pristine Boreal forest into what former Alberta Premier Lougheed refers to as a "moonscape," investors in the industry and corporations continue to make record profits.

Just weeks after 500 ducks died landing on a toxic tailings pond in Alberta's tar sands region, and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced his government's intention to launch a $25 million advertising campaign to depict Alberta as an "Environmentally-friendly" province to the rest of the world, investors in the most destructive project on Earth are gathering to promote their interests and ensure the tar sands continue to expand, at the expense of the environment and the health of downstream communities!

We want these companies and investors, as well as the public to know that when you invest in the tar sands, you are investing in one of the dirtiest and deadliest energy projects in the world, as well as promoting human rights abuses and environmental destruction. And we want them to know that there will be no more business as usual when it comes to the tar sands, as Canadians mobilize to stand in solidarity with downstream communities to say No New Approvals and demand action and justice now when it comes to the critical issues of community health, the environment, and the water.

PLEASE JOIN US on June 16, 2008, at 11am in front of the Hyatt Calgary (Steven's Avenue entrance) and stand with us as we send a message to investors in the tar sands that their money is NOT safe, and is funding massive environmental and human rights violations!
Sheila Muxlow
Prairie Organizer
Council of Canadians
#34 - 9912, 106 Street
Edmonton, AB T5K 1C5
Toll Free 1.877.729.4500
Office Phone 780.429.4500
Fax 780.429.4501
Mobile Phone 780.233.2528

Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ~Paulo Freire

Lost Opportunities of 9/11
Many countries, peoples and movements lost opportunities due to the events of 9/11. Either that or they left opportunities untouched. The losers come from all points of the geographic and political spectrum. As I said I'd like to explore what was lost. This will be in no particular order, and what is said below doesn't mean that I approve of the ultimate goals of any of the collection of losers that I will present. When I do I'll try and make it as plain as possible.
So, beginning in the refrain of "I could do it better", let's look at the self interests of the American Empire. This whole matter is actually quite well hashed out in the popular and intellectual press of many different countries, and I don't expect that I'll say anything new here.
The American government was presented with an unprecedented "gift" by the events of 9/11. This was perhaps the ONLY time since the second world war that the USA received pretty well universal sympathy, at least from other governments-both "friends" and "competitors". Even Cuba. More determined and ideological opponents such as Iran maintained a polite silence. The sympathy was actually pretty reflective of public as opposed to government opinion in most countries as well. Even in the Middle East those who "celebrated" the attacks were a distinct minority, and the general population rejected them for at least "tactical" reasons.
It's perhaps symptomatic of the decline of politics in a worldwide sense that the American government had a George Bush at the helm in this moment rather than a person who could act as a "statesman". The era of the "statesman" has really been over for some decades. To my knowledge there is only one such item in power today. I imply no sympathy for the decaying dictatorship which he tends when I nominate Castro for this accolade. His junior partner, Chavez of Venezuela, is more of a clown and megalomaniac than old Fidel, and he hardly inspires the "vision" that old Fidel's revolutionary model did when it was still vital. the only other living statesman that I can think of is the retired Nelson Mandela.
Talent simply doesn't come to the halls of power anymore. A truly statesman-like American president could have parlayed the sympathy the USA received because of the events into a much more refined project for the "second American century" that American ideologues dream of. The configuration of events might have been rather different than what we see today. There was no reason why Saddam Hussein could not have once more become the American puppet he once was, and why he could not have become the regional counterweight to the ideologues of Iran that is so lacking today. The history of the American imperium has been marked for decades by alliances of convenience. Deadly communist foes such as China or the Kymer Rouge have ended up receiving American support just as surely as Saddam once did.
No doubt the imperium would still be an empire, with all that implies, but you can be assured that its machinations would be better covered with the cloak of "ethics" and "multilateralism" than the shredded image that America projects today. Those in control of the US government at the time were blinded by their ideology. From a simple real-politic point of view they can be seen as the intellectual pygmies they are when placed beside a truly intelligent advocate of the American Empire such as Henry Kissinger. Even more they were blinded by hubris, by an almost total overestimation of their power and even popularity. It would be hard to imagine Kissinger making such a mistake. Detente with China occurred because the US government of the time realized in a totally realistic way that it could not afford to wage a cold war against BOTH the Soviet Union and the PRC. There was a realistic understanding of the limits of American power that is lacking in the present American rulers.
Middle Eastern oil could have been much more securely in the American pocket with BOTH Iraq and Saudi Arabia as client states. The crusade against Islamic fundamentalism would be far more effective with Saddam's coterie of murderers on the American side. With the diversion of American forces and interests from the latter to the former objective BOTH objectives have now become exceedingly precarious. The reaction of the "Arab street" that the USA's actions constitute a crusade against "all" of Islam has been echoed by a loss of sympathy amongst non-Islamic countries. They can plainly see that the ultimate targets of America's wars in the Middle East is actually their own economies. Very few world government leaders express this bluntly, but it is an unstated reality behind growing scepticism elsewhere, whether in Europe, China or Russia.
Once more, the USA could have gained from the opportunity presented by the events of 9/11, but they foolishly frittered away their advantage by overstepping sensible limits on the reality of their power. They were one loser. The conservative movement in the USA mirrored this debacle on a domestic scale. The invasion of Iraq destroyed an opportunity that they had to become hegemonic in domestic politics- perhaps for decades to come. The liberal opposition has made a comeback because the conservatives were too foolish and arrogant.
These opportunities that were lost will never come again short of the success of Al Queda in actually deploying a real weapon of mass destruction- less likely than some Americans imagine- or a total loss of realism on the part of a future Iran armed with nuclear weapons. this is also unlikely for a number of reasons. Given the probable course of events in the near future the lost will never be recovered.
More on other losers later.