Friday, January 31, 2014

Ukraine -- Ready for Some Insanity?


Ukraine


 


Illustration:  The "lesser" coat of arms of Ukraine.  Why "lesser"?  I haven't the slightest idea.


          As mentioned below, corporate media coverage in the United States, not surprisingly, has largely ignored what has been going on in Ukraine (or, the Ukraine as it was called) except for visuals depicting flames, demonstrations, and police.  We had come to the conclusion that almost nobody in this country knew squat about what was going on over there, leaving a dribble of semi-liberal and right-wing Republican cant about liberty and freedom and the like.  The truth is, almost nobody who is not from the Ukraine knows what is going on over there.  None of them understand what a Ukrainian is, nor what any agenda concerning anyone is.



          I’ll start out by repeating that I am not making any of this stuff up.  I couldn’t.  For example, I know that many Ukrainians could all of a sudden decide to visit this site.  A few months ago, for several days, hundreds of them visited.  Then they disappeared.  The same thing happened with Moldavia, of all places, about a year ago.  I do not know why and I’m no longer trying to figure it out, either. 



          So, let me straighten this out right now, just to make everyone ridiculous.  I have to qualify this by mentioning that the only Ukrainians I have ever met were in Chicago or nearby in Illinois.  Still, they stand out enough to make a fairly reasonable sample, at least of the extremes possible, and probably the rest as well.  In addition, there have been some I’ve seen in various contexts on television, including those discussing the situation as it is now and some simply appearing as they were.



          I have to say that Ukrainian women can have a physical beauty unmatched anywhere.  It is not simply a matter of type, either.  They can be tall and slender with long straight flowing flaxen hair and blue eyes or medium height with a taut muscularity and wide flashing alert eyes with dark hair.  Some could even be irresistibly attractive even with six toes.  It just doesn’t seem to last long, although they do have a talent for self-preservation -- if that is their goal.   The men, well, nothing special, but them I never did look much.  All of them talked about the Ukraine as being the “breadbasket of the Soviet Union,” with no idea or concern that I couldn’t care less about terms such as “breadbasket.” 



          Now that we have gotten over that, we can talk about the people in general.  About 40% of them seem to be quite insane, insane in an overly “romantic delusion” sort of way, as if they expected Lord Byron to pop in any moment and write about them.  



Take, for example, their last President, a woman, straight and thin, with long, blonde hair that she had in one long pigtail that she wrapped around the top of her head live some sort of giant beehive.  Many of the mass want her back and out of jail.  Another 40% are very loyal to Russia and what it offers.  The remaining 20% are supposedly undecided, but it is also quite possible that they are unable to formulate clearly understandable positions. 



For example, I once knew one who kept telling me that her mother often slept with other men while her father was very sick, but did watch.  She said this to me in an apparent attempt to explain her own sexual frigidity.  I was completely confused, but it was clear I could not push the matter further.  Years later I think she was trying to say that she felt ill at ease because she was an illegitimate child and that I should know this before things went further.  I am still not sure.  I no longer care.  Forget it.  Sorry I mentioned it.



          Now the present leader, in response to the mob’s demands, first fired his prime minister.  That wasn’t enough.  They wanted him to resign and then go to prison.  Seriously.  So, right now he is taking some “sick days.”   No, as I said, I’m not making this up.  I also doubt that he will decide to go to prison on his own.



          So, what is the big fuss about?  Well, it started with about 40% inclined to join the European Union, presumably to become “European,” or get more Lady Gaga CDs.  Your guess is as good as mine.  The EU offers them a paltry (comparatively) sum and expects a program of “austerity” in return.  They would have to be idiots to accept that, but then that is what they think they want.  I guess.



          Another part is anti-Putin sentiment.  They don’t like him, although the aid they receive from Russia is far in excess of that they would get from the EU and it has no “austerity” requirements.  Another condition demanded by the EU is that they have nothing to do with Russia. 



          But there is more to it than that: underlying all of this is a lunatic right-wing group or faction of National Socialists (yeah, that’s another term for “Nazis”) is using this whole thing to establish the social identity of Ukraine and eliminate socialists, Jews, Polish, and so on.  They have pretty much taken over the movement right now.  The woman with the pigtail tiara mentioned above is a favorite of those who believe in the Fatherland, or Her Breadbasketness, or whatever.  It’s the home of the Indo-European family of languages as well, gotta give them that.  Ukraine Über alles.



          Of course, it is ridiculous to assert that there is some sort of purity associated with any country and its people, but in Ukraine, the idea is insane, and hence loved by the fanatic portion of the population.  This is just one more aspect of their romanticism, this aspect worthy of Spengler, in his Preußentum und Sozialismus, not even Byronic.  Just to point this out, I am appending a brief history of the area, dating back to pre-historic times.[i]



          In the interview below, there is one of the Ukrainian nutjobs, balanced with Stephen Cohen, perhaps the only persona able to speak with any sense of realism about the current situation.  The first guy should be seen as an example of the 40% who are insane.  Anyway, here goes:


Debate: Is Ukraine’s Opposition a Democratic Movement or a Force of Right-Wing Extremism?

Ukrainian anti-government protesters have rejected an amnesty bill aimed at ending the country’s political unrest, refusing to vacate occupied government buildings and dismantle their street blockades in exchange for the release of jailed activists. The demonstrations in the Ukraine are collectively referred to as "Euromaidan." They began in late November after President Viktor Yanukovych reversed his decision to sign a long-awaited trade deal with the European Union to forge stronger ties with Russia instead. While the Ukrainian opposition has been hailed in the West as a democratic, grassroots movement, we host a debate on whether the rush to back opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin obscures a more complex reality beneath the surface. We are joined by two guests: Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University; and Anton Shekhovtsov, a Ukrainian citizen and University College London researcher who has just returned from observing the protests in Kiev.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Ukraine, where thousands of anti-government demonstrators have constructed what amounts to a self-sufficient protest city within the capital, Kiev. The standoff prompted the country’s prime minister to resign on Tuesday. Its parliament has agreed to repeal a round of laws that cracked down on dissent. On Wednesday, lawmakers offered an amnesty to protesters who have been arrested during the standoff, but only on the condition that activists vacate buildings they’ve occupied in Kiev and other parts of Ukraine. This is the speaker of the Parliament, Volodymyr Rybak.
VOLODYMYR RYBAK: [translated] Let me remind you that yesterday we have approved the bill number 4007 about the law of Ukraine that ceased to be in force. We have also agreed to discuss today the questions related to the "removal of the negative consequences and non-admission pursuit" and punishment of persons in relation to the events, which took place during peaceful rallies. So, I come up with a proposition to vote on legislation without discussion. I ask people’s deputies to vote.
AMY GOODMAN: The government’s amnesty offer was an attempt to get people to remove their barricades and tents from the main protest zone in Kiev. But so far, demonstrators have vowed to continue their occupation.
STEPAN: [translated] If the authorities had shown honesty, according to the mandate they were given, we would trust them. But now they have compromised the guarantees. We have no trust in these authorities. We have doubts in their honesty and decency, and that’s why it’s risky. So we are not leaving. That’s for sure.
VASIL: [translated] People came here so that all of them would be gone, so that the president would be gone and the government would be gone. We need full change. We cannot go on like this.
AMY GOODMAN: The demonstrations in Ukraine are collectively referred to as "Euromaidan." They began in late November after President Viktor Yanukovych reversed his decision to sign a long-awaited trade deal with the European Union in a move that favored stronger ties with Russia instead. The protests rapidly grew in size after a violent police crackdown. While nationalists led the demonstrations at first, others have since joined the movement. At least five protesters have been killed in clashes with police; hundreds have been injured. Police have also attacked dozens of journalists, destroyed their equipment. As tensions continued to increase on Wednesday, Ukraine’s first post-independence president, Leonid Kravchuk, emphasized the seriousness of the crisis.
LEONID KRAVCHUK: [translated] The situation is, frankly, very dramatic. All the world acknowledges, and Ukraine acknowledges, that the state is on the brink of civil war. There are parallel authorities in the country, and there is a de facto uprising. When the power is taken over, which is a real fact, when the power is falling down and the constitutional authorities refuse to honor their responsibilities, it becomes clear that this is a fall of the power. This is simply a revolution.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests.
Here in New York, Stephen Cohen is with us, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book,Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is now out in paperback. He recently wrote "A Letter to 'The New York Times'" that was critical of its editorial on Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s role in the country.
Joining us from London, Anton Shekhovtsov, a Ukrainian citizen who just got back earlier this month from observing the protests in Kiev. He’s a researcher at the University College London specializing in studying the far right. He recently wrote apiece titled "What the West Should Know About the Euromaidan’s Far Right Element."
Anton Shekhovtsov, Stephen Cohen, welcome both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Anton in London. What should people understand?
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: Well, first of all, thank you for the invitation toDemocracy Now!
I wrote the piece to highlight a very dangerous trend, in my opinion, is that many people in the West buy into Russian propaganda which is saying that Euromaidan is infiltrated by the neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. And this is completely untrue. There is a far-right element in the Euromaidan protests, but it is a minor element. And Euromaidan protest is basically a multicultural, democratic movement which is trying to build a new Ukraine, a democratic Ukraine. And sometimes, by the name "far right," there goes Ukrainian nationalism, and Ukrainian nationalism has—its main thrust is building of a truly independent Ukraine, a Ukraine which would be a national democratic state and not a colony of Russia, as Ukrainian nationalists think Ukraine is.
So the move towards Europe is a move towards democracy and away from the authoritarianism of Russia and its projected Eurasian union, which would unite several authoritarian states, like Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. So Ukrainians do not want this. They want to be away from authoritarianism, and they struggle for democracy now in Ukraine. So, basically, Ukraine is now a front line of democratic Europe. And they’re not—Ukrainians are not only fighting for their own freedom, but they are fighting to stop authoritarianism to spread westwards.
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Cohen, what is your take on what’s happening in Ukraine right now?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it’s not what Anton said. Where to begin? Can we begin at the beginning? What’s happening in Ukraine, what’s been unfolding since November in the streets, is probably the single most important international story underway today. It may impact for a very long time the geopolitics of Europe, Russia, American-Russian relations, and a lot more. At the same time, media coverage of this story, particularly in the United States, has been exceedingly misleading, very close to what Anton just told you. I would characterize Anton’s characterization, to be as polite as I can, as half-true. But a half-truth is an untruth.
The realities are, there is no "the Ukraine." All this talk about Ukraine is on the front line of democracy—there are at least two Ukraines. One tilts toward Poland and Lithuania, the West, the European Union; the other toward Russia. This is not my notion. This is what every public opinion poll has told us since this crisis unfolded, that about 40 percent of Ukrainians want to go west, 40 percent want to stay with Russia, and, as usually true in these polls, 20 percent just don’t know or they’re not sure.
Who precipitated this crisis? It was the European Union, in this sense. It gave the Ukrainian government, which, by the way, is a democratically elected government—if you overthrow this government, just like they overthrew Morsi in Egypt, you’re dealing a serious blow to democracy. So if the crowd manages to essentially carry out a coup d’état from the streets, that’s what democracy is not about. But here’s what the European Union did back in November. It told the government of Ukraine, "If you want to sign an economic relationship with us, you cannot sign one with Russia." Why not? Putin has said, "Why don’t the three of us have an arrangement? We’ll help Ukraine. The West will help Ukraine." The chancellor of Germany, Merkel, at first thought that was a good idea, but she backed down for various political reasons. So, essentially, Ukraine was given an ultimatum: sign the EU economic agreement or else.
Now, what was that agreement? It would have been an economic catastrophe for Ukraine. I’m not talking about the intellectuals or the people who are well placed, about ordinary Ukrainians. The Ukrainian economy is on the brink of a meltdown. It needed billions of dollars. What did the European Union offer them? The same austerity policies that are ravaging Europe, and nothing more—$600 million. It needed billions and billions.
There’s one other thing. If you read the protocols of the European offer to Ukraine, which has been interpreted in the West as just about civilizational change, escaping Russia, economics, democracy, there is a big clause on military cooperation. In effect, by signing this, Ukraine would have had to abide by NATO’s military policies. What would that mean? That would mean drawing a new Cold War line, which used to be in Berlin, right through the heart of Slavic civilization, on Russia’s borders. So that’s where we’re at to now.
One other point: These right-wing people, whom Anton thinks are not significant, all reports—and I don’t know when he was in Ukraine, maybe it was long ago and things have gone—but the reports that are coming out of Ukraine are the following. One, the moderates—that’s the former heavyweight champion boxer, Vitali Klitschko, and others—have lost control of the street. They’ve asked the people who have been attacking the police with Molotov cocktails, and to vacate the buildings they’ve occupied, to stop. And the street will not stop, partly because—I’d say largely because—the street in Kiev is now controlled by these right-wing extremists. And that extremism has spread to western Ukraine, where these people are occupying government buildings. So, in fact, you have a political civil war underway.
What is the face of these people, this right wing? A, they hate Europe as much as they hate Russia. Their official statement is: Europe is homosexuals, Jews and the decay of the Ukrainian state. They want nothing to do with Europe. They want nothing to do with Russia. I’m talking about this—it’s not a fringe, but this very right-wing thing. What does their political activity include? It includes writing on buildings in western Ukraine, "Jews live here." That’s exactly what the Nazis wrote on the homes of Jews when they occupied Ukraine. A priest who represents part of the political movement in western Ukraine—Putin quoted this, but it doesn’t make it false. It doesn’t make it false; it’s been verified. A western Ukrainian priest said, "We, Ukraine, will not be governed by Negroes, Jews or Russians." So, these people have now come to the fore.
The first victims of any revolution—I don’t know if this is a revolution, but the first victims of any revolution are the moderates. And the moderates have lost control of what they created, helped by the European Union and the American government back in November. And so, now anything is possible, including two Ukraines.
AMY GOODMAN: Anton Shekhovtsov, can you respond to Professor Stephen Cohen?
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: Yes. So, this is basically what I said, as I called as a distortion in the Western media. I don’t know if Professor Cohen have been in Ukraine. I’ve been to Ukraine just a few days ago. I haven’t seen that the right-wingers have taken control of the streets. The streets are controlled by Euromaidan, which is ideologically very different. There is a right-wing element, but this is the element which is only a minor component of Euromaidan. And if you remember the Solidarity movement in the ’80s in Poland, it also comprised some right-wing elements, but in the end they built a democratic national—national democratic Poland.
As for the neo-Nazis and anti-Semites in western Ukraine, there are some, but at the same time, if you talk to them, if you interview them, and if you read their demands, you will not find any discrimination laws among their demands. What they demand is the national democratic state, independent from Russia. Even if they say that they are against the European Union, they at the same time support the pro-European protests. And this is partly what Euromaidan is about.
And then, again, there are many false reports about the beatings of representatives of national minorities in Ukraine. And mostly these reports are all false. They are being spread by Russian-backed propagandists, like Viktor Medvedchuk, leader of the pro-Eurasian, pro-Russian party, Ukrainski Vybir, Ukrainian Choice. So, these people, they’re trying to distort the image of Euromaidan and picture it as something very violent, as something very right-wing, although the right-wing element, as I said, is a minor element at Euromaidan.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Richard Cohen—
STEPHEN COHEN: Stephen.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Stephen Cohen—
STEPHEN COHEN: Richard Cohen writes for The Washington Post. We are completely different people.
AMY GOODMAN: But he’s not a professor, so—
STEPHEN COHEN: No, we’re still different people.
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to what he’s saying? And also talk about how people are informed here, largely through the media, the media coverage of what’s happening in Ukraine.
STEPHEN COHEN: I’ve already responded to what Anton has said. To me, it’s a fundamental misrepresentation, and it raises questions in my mind, though he’s entitled to his political allegiances, who he represents in Ukraine. He is clear where he stands. But even the American media, which deleted this right-wing element for two months, now has gotten worried about it. There was an article in Time magazine, I think the day before yesterday. I think, because I saw it on the Internet, but today’sNew York Times, January 30th New York Times editorial, is now worried about these people. So, Anton is not worried about them, for his own reasons, but the plain reality is that the so-called moderates, who are democratic, have lost control of the situation.
And here’s the evidence. The moderate leaders, including Klitschko, the boxer, who wants to be president of Ukraine, entered into a negotiation with Yanukovych, the democratically elected president of Ukraine. And what did he offer them? He offered them a coalition government, which is a traditional democratic solution to such a crisis. He said, "We will give Klitschko and the other Ukrainian democratic leader the prime ministership and the deputy prime ministership." That’s a colossal concession. It’s power sharing. That’s what you do in a crisis. They didn’t accept. Now, they didn’t accept for several reasons.
AMY GOODMAN: The protesters didn’t accept.
STEPHEN COHEN: No, wait a minute. Klitschko and the other democratic leader didn’t accept. One reason, the main reason, is the street wouldn’t accept it. And since both of these guys want to be president, when there’s elections in 2015, if there are elections, they’re not going to go against the street. They’ve become captives of the street. Now, the street, increasingly, is in the control of these right-wingers.
Let me make a point, and it would be interesting to hear what Anton thinks about this. Many young thugs in the street are trying to kill policemen. They’re throwing Molotov cocktails at them. They’re beating them up. Now, the police are brutal also. But name me one democratic country that would allow mobs to attack policemen in the street of a capital city and not crack down? And, in fact, the Ukrainian police haven’t cracked down.
AMY GOODMAN: Anton Shekhovtsov, your response?
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: Well, the police has already cracked down on the protesters at the end of November, when peaceful protesters were brutally beaten by the riot police. They did not do anything except for staying on the Independence Square in Kiev, and they were beaten up. And some people have disappeared. And since then, since the end of November, there are tens of, dozens of people who have been kidnapped by the police, and now they are found sometimes frozen to death with their hands tied at their backs. So, there is a whole campaign of state terror going on in Ukraine. And more than five people were killed already.
And Arseniy Yatsenyuk, one of the whom—one of the politicians whom Professor Cohen called the moderates, he was offered a position of prime minister. But Ukraine is a presidential republic, so the whole power, the whole political power, is in the hands of President Viktor Yanukovych. So this position is not really powerful. A prime minister does not have any influence on politics and on the way Ukraine develops.
STEPHEN COHEN: Amy, I—
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: So, it wasn’t really a concession.
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, Anton may have been in Ukraine a week ago, but he’s completely out of touch. Part of the deal that Yanukovych offered the moderates was to change the constitution to deprive the president of the power he now has and switch it to the prime minister. So—
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: This is completely untrue. This is simply untrue.
STEPHEN COHEN: Please—it’s not untrue. I mean, I’ve read the documents. I’ve read the speech. It hasn’t gone through. It’s still at the Parliament. They may vote on it; they may not. But you’re simply not representing the situation correctly.
ANTON SHEKHOVTSOV: Well, I am representing the situation correctly, because I’ve been there. I’ve seen all the documents that were being discussed in the Parliament. And President Yanukovych never offered to go back to the constitution of 2004, which would reintroduce the parliamentary republic. He wants all the power he’s got during three years of his rule. He has now control of all the oligarchic business in Ukraine. He’s trying to build—he was trying to build a whole business empire and give his family and the oligarchs and businessmen connected to the family all the economic power in Ukraine. So, of course, he is now—will be fighting 'til death, because if he loses, his family is losing—will lose all the money that they've stolen from Ukrainian people and invested it in European banks, invested it in European businesses, as well as American businesses, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to—I want to get Stephen Cohen’s response to last month Senators John McCain and Christopher Murphy visiting the protesters at their hub in Kiev’s Independence Square and voicing support for their cause.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY: We are here to tell you that the American people and the United States Congress stands with the people of Ukraine.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I am a Republican. Senator Murphy is a Democrat. We are here together speaking for the American people in solidarity with you.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Stephen Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, that’s Anton’s position. I mean, Anton represents—at least his description of the situation—the mainstream American media political view of what’s going on in Ukraine. And when I say "mainstream," I mean it extends from the right wing in America to MSNBC, to the so-called liberals and progressives, to Bill Maher, who did this on his show the other night. There’s no alternative voice in America, except what I’m trying to say to you today. It’s wrong—it’s wrong factually, it’s wrong in terms of policy—for McCain to go, as he’s done in other countries. He once said, "We’re all Georgians." Now he’s saying, "We’re all Ukrainians." If he understands the situation in Ukraine—and he may not—then he’s being reckless.
But a true understanding of Ukraine begins with the fact that there are at least two Ukraines, two legitimate Ukraines, culturally, politically, ethnically, economically, culturally. This isn’t Putin’s fault. This isn’t Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine’s fault. It’s either God’s fault, or it’s history’s fault. This is what came down through the centuries. The situation has been explosive since the end of the Soviet Union 22 years ago. When Western politicians go there, they’re playing with fire, metaphorically, and now they have real fire.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this is about the media’s vilification of Putin?
STEPHEN COHEN: I think that the vilification of Putin in this country, demonization, is the worst press coverage by the American media of Russia that I’ve seen in my 40 years of studying Russia and contributing to the media. It’s simply almost insane. This idea that he’s a thug—
AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds.
STEPHEN COHEN: —and that explains everything, passes for analysis in America today—
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank you very much, Stephen Cohen, as well as Anton Shekhovtsov, for joining us to talk about Ukraine. We’ll continue to follow it.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


           

         
         
         



[i]Human settlement in Ukraine and its vicinity dates back to 32,000 BCE, with evidence of the Gravettian culture in the Crimean Mountains.[19][20] By 4,500 BCE, the Neolithic Cucuteni-Trypillian Cultureflourished in a wide area that included parts of modern Ukraine including Trypillia and the entireDnieper-Dniester region. During the Iron Age, the land was inhabited by Cimmerians, Scythians, andSarmatians.[21] Between 700 BC and 200 BC it was part of the Scythian Kingdom, or Scythia.
Later, colonies of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, and the Byzantine Empire, such as Tyras, Olbia, andHermonassa, were founded, beginning in the 6th century BC, on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea, and thrived well into the 6th century AD. The Goths stayed in the area but came under the sway of the Huns from the 370s AD. In the 7th century AD, the territory of eastern Ukraine was the center ofOld Great Bulgaria. At the end of the century, the majority of Bulgar tribes migrated in different directions, and the Khazars took over much of the land.


-->

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

MOSES V. ISRAEL

One of you sent this, and it makes the point all by itself:




'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses. When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' 
He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. 
When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. 
An Israeli had stolen them.'
 
The Israeli representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are you talking about? The Israelis weren't there then.' 
The Palestinian representative smiled and said: 
'And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech.'




Corporate and Military Interests hidden in the SOTU






I missed the SOTU, or State of the Union speech because I was able to watch the opening episodes of The Borgias, a much more realistic version of how politics works.  However, here is some commentary on it so that nobody feels left out.





WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014

"A Silent Coup": Jeremy Scahill & Bob Herbert on Corporate, Military Interests Shaping Obama’s SOTU

On issues from domestic inequality to foreign policy, President Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union with a vow to take action on his own should Congress stonewall progress on his agenda. But will Obama’s policies go far enough? We host a roundtable with three guests: Jeremy Scahill, producer and writer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield" and senior investigative reporter at First Look Media, which will launch in the coming months; Bob Herbert, distinguished senior fellow with Demos; and Lorella Praeli, director of advocacy and policy at the United We Dream coalition.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Jeremy Scahill—his film, Dirty Wars, has just been nominated for an Oscar; Bob Herbert with us, former New York Timescolumnist, now with Demos; and Lorella Praeli with the United We Dream coalition. Nermeen?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We’re continuing our coverage of President Obama’s State of the Union address. During Tuesday’s speech, he announced an executive action to raise the minimum wage for some federal contract workers from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour, because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty.
Of course, to reach millions more, Congress does need to get on board. Today, the federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. And Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It’s easy to remember, 10-10. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It does not involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say yes. Give America a raise.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Bob Herbert, can you respond to that, the significance of this raise for some federal workers?
BOB HERBERT: Sure. I think it’s symbolically significant. So, it’s not going to take effect until new contracts come up, so federal contract workers will have to be paid at least a minimum of $10.10 an hour. The reason I think it’s symbolically significant is because it keeps a spotlight on the issue of the minimum wage, on the issue of employment going forward.
You know, to Jeremy’s point about the State of the Union essentially being a propaganda speech, which is absolutely true, what you didn’t hear there was really what the state of the economy is for ordinary Americans, for working people in this country. You didn’t hear anything about poverty, for example. So, for years now, the American people have made it clear, in poll after poll and in other ways, that employment is their top priority. I mean, people need jobs. But neither party, presidents from either party and Congress, whether it’s in the control of the Republicans or the Democrats, have had a sustained, effective job creation program in this country. And the United States is never going to get out of its morass until it’s able to put people back to work.
We now have nearly 50 million people who are officially poor in the United States, according to federal guidelines. Another 50 million people are just a notch or two above the official poverty rate. That’s nearly a third of the entire population that’s poor or near poor. One out of every three black children in the United States is poor. If you just walk a few blocks from this studio, every day you will see enormous lines wrapped around the corner for soup kitchens and that sort of thing. And that’s the case in places across this country. None of that was addressed. And none of the initiatives that the president has offered, and nothing that the Republicans have offered in years, would begin to address this state of distress among American working people and among the poor.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Just to give us an idea, Bob Herbert, how many employees does the federal government have through contractors?
BOB HERBERT: Well, it’s interesting. It was actually Demos that—it was a Demos initiative that put the spotlight on this $10.10 initiative, because Demos was the first organization to point out that the federal government, through its contractors, employs nearly two million low-wage workers, which is more than Wal-Mart and McDonald’s combined. So, if you could get this initiative expanded to cover all of the workers who are contracted to work for the federal government, then you would help an enormous number of people.
AMY GOODMAN: Mention of unions? I saw Richard Trumka in the audience.
BOB HERBERT: You know, get me started on unions. One of the reasons American workers are in such a deep state of distress is because they have no clout in the workplace. They are not organized, and they are not represented, so they cannot fight for their own interests. Corporations are organized every which way from sundown, and they have tremendous amounts of money. They have a lot a political clout and that sort of thing.
Workers go to work. You know, it’s just one man or one woman, you know, against an employer in a terrible job market. So you’re afraid to even ask for a raise, even if you deserve a raise, because you think the employer is going to say to you, "Take a hike." And then you go out there in this terrible job market, and there’s no jobs to be had. If workers were organized, then they would be able to have clout. You’d be able to bring pressure not just on employers, not just on corporations, but also on the federal government to get legislation passed that would be beneficial to workers.
And one of the most important things you could do is to just enforce the laws that are on the books that have to do with labor organizing. I mean, so, if you’re in an organization, a corporation, a plant, that sort of thing, where workers are not organized, do not belong to a labor union, they want to organize—the majority of the workers want to organize—the corporations fight you every step of the way. And they use a tremendous number—amount of unfair tactics. That’s illegal, but the federal government has not enforced the laws.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about international trade policy and how that relates. In his State of the Union, President Obama also sought fast-track authority to give lawmakers an up-or-down vote on the trade deals such as TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment, and open new markets to new goods stamped "Made in the U.S.A." Listen, China and Europe aren’t standing on the sidelines. And neither should we.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama in his fifth State of the Union address. We just returned from Japan, Bob Herbert. There, there’s a huge discussion about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Here, most people, if you asked them, they wouldn’t even know what it is.
BOB HERBERT: Well, one of the things that’s a problem in this country is because the economic situation has been so stagnant for most people for so long and because the government has been—the government in Washington has been so dysfunctional, that Americans have really tuned out. And also, I don’t think that the press has done a good job at all on trade agreements, if you go all the way back to NAFTA in the 1990s. So people essentially don’t even understand these agreements. But what they do understand is that they have not been helpful to the vast majority of workers over all these years. So...
JEREMY SCAHILL: Can I just make a comment?
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, you know, what Obama was doing there—in his last major address that he gave, he—at the United Nations General Assembly, he laid out this sort of forceful defense of American empire, and even went so far as to say that the U.S. will use its military might to continue to secure energy resources. In this speech, it was a pretty forceful defense of a neoliberal economic agenda. And, you know, what Bob is saying about corporations resonates on a foreign policy level, as well.
What is widely being considered to be the most moving part of last night was when this U.S. Army Ranger was addressed in the crowd and who was severely wounded and had done 10 tours. Think about that for a moment—10 tours in these war zones. You know, this young American spent his entire adult life in these combat zones. And, you know, the issue of how veterans are treated in this country is one thing, but at the end of the day, did he benefit from these wars? Does the average American benefit from the continuation of these wars? No. Who benefits? That’s the most important question we all have to ask. It’s corporations.
BOB HERBERT: Exactly.
JEREMY SCAHILL: War corporations, the Halliburtons of the world, the Boeings. John Kerry, yesterday it was announced, is giving these awards for corporate excellence around the world. He’s giving them to Citibank, to Apache, to Boeing, to Coca-Cola. And so you have this neoliberal economic agenda, which is sort of the hidden hand, in many ways, of the U.S. empire, and then you have this iron fist of U.S. militarism that is being sold to the American public, and increasingly to the world, as national security policy.
And so, you know, when I see that Army Ranger who’s wounded like that, the first thing that just occurs to me is: Who has benefited from all of this? When corporations control our political process in this country through a legalized form of corruption that’s called campaign finance, what does that say about the state of our democracy? In a way, there already has been a coup in this country, but it’s been a silent coup. And it reminds me of that famous line from the great movie The Usual Suspects. At the end of it, Kevin Spacey’s character says the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. In many ways, a coup has happened, and the brilliance of it is that it’s not sparking major uprisings because we’ve been pacified and taught to just accept this as how things work. We have two parties in this country, the minimum wage is going to be the minimum wage, and corporations are in control, and these wars are fought in our name, but without our consent.
BOB HERBERT: And the flipside of who benefits is the suffering that is so tremendous out there among the warriors who have been sent over to fight these wars since late 2001. And so, you just have hundreds of thousands of people who have—men and women, who have come back from the combat zones, who have terrible, disabling injuries, who are going to have to be cared for—we have an obligation to care for them—in many cases, for the rest of their lives. We have to pay, as a society, to care for these folks. You know, it’s probably—Joe Stiglitz has estimated that now these wars are probably going cost cumulatively $4 trillion or more. None of this has been really explored clearly or properly explained to the American public.
JEREMY SCAHILL: You know, just a small sort of side point on this, you know, when we talk about the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, the conventional military, a story that very seldom gets attention is the connection between a paramilitarization of law enforcement inside of the United States and increasing use of what they call counterterrorism tactics on SWAT-style operations in the U.S. The military is donating a lot of its equipment to local police agencies and other so-called law enforcement agencies, and the communities that are most at risk here are communities of color and poor communities. Everything is about war—the war on drugs, the war on crime.
BOB HERBERT: Right.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And war requires some kind of a militarized response. And that’s what we’re seeing. This is deeply connected to the wars abroad, the wars at home, as well.
BOB HERBERT: And this is actually going into our public schools, where you have that type of militarized behavior going on actually in public schools. That’s how you get the school-to-prison pipeline that people are talking about.
AMY GOODMAN: On Afghanistan, President Obama said, "If the Afghan government signs a security agreement that we have negotiated, a small force of Americans could remain in Afghanistan with NATO allies." But the latest news says the Pentagon has proposed up to 10,000 troops remaining behind, Jeremy.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, and if you look at what sort of various senior anonymous military officials have been saying for several years now, they’ve known that the withdrawal is not really going to be a withdrawal. Yes, we’re going to see the Marines pull out. We’re going to have this thing where journalists can ride on the tanks, like they did out of Iraq. But at the end of the day, this is an Afghanization of a U.S. policy. So, what’s going to happen is that you’re going to have these advise-and-assist squads of highly trained U.S. special ops and CIA personnel accompanying Afghan units, and they’re going to try to have the Afghans do the fighting and dying and killing on behalf of U.S. policy. But what I think should be of greater concern to the American public is that you are going to have these strike forces in place. It’s taken as conventional wisdom now that the U.S. is out of Iraq. Actually, the U.S. has a massive paramilitary presence inside of Iraq and is going to continue to have one inside of Afghanistan. So, these wars are going to continue on for at least another generation, albeit on a sort of covert, hidden-hand manner of doing it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what’s the justification, Jeremy, for keeping troops in Afghanistan?
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, there is no counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan anymore. I mean, no one wants to talk about this, because you’re going to be accused of being sympathetic to the Taliban. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization with global aspirations. The Taliban has a constituency, has a greater constituency than the U.S., arguably than Hamid Karzai, who the U.S. recognizes as the president. And I think the Taliban is a morally reprehensible group of individuals, but they do have indigenous support. And the reason that they’re fighting right now is because the U.S. and NATO are in their country. And so, to sort of imply that what we’re doing there is countering terrorists, when in the first months of the Obama administration his own national security adviser said there are less than a hundred al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, we should be asking that question that John Kerry asked in 1971: Who wants to be the last to die for this failed war? What do they tell the families of the soldiers who die from here until they pull out the conventional military?
AMY GOODMAN: Now, the significance of that, for people who don’t remember, John Kerry, who is the secretary of state and formerly senator, was—fought in Vietnam, and when he came home, he was strongly opposed to the war in Vietnam, and he testified before Congress asking that question.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, I’d love to see 1971 John Kerry questioning, you know, 2014 John Kerry at a hearing about all these policies that he’s having to sell as secretary of state around the world.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014

"Dirty Wars" Filmmaker Jeremy Scahill on the "Drone President" & Obama’s Whitewashing of NSA Spying

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on the United States to "move off a permanent war footing," citing his recent limits on the use of drones, his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and his effort to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay. Obama also vowed to reform National Security Agency surveillance programs to ensure that "the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated." Jeremy Scahill, whose Oscar-nominated film "Dirty Wars" tackles the U.S. drone war and targeted killings abroad, says Obama has been a "drone president" whose operations have killed large numbers of civilians. On NSA reform, Scahill says "the parameters of the debate in Washington are: Should we figure out a way to streamline this and sell it to the American people, or should we do more surveillance?"

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Let’s go back to President Obama’s State of the Union. Here he talks about his counterterrorism strategy.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, even as we aggressively pursue terrorist networks, through more targeted efforts and by building the capacity of our foreign partners, America must move off a permanent war footing. That’s why I’ve imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence. That’s why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs, because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. And with the Afghan War ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military actions, but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Jeremy Scahill, your response?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, on this issue of Obama and Guantánamo, you know, he gets hit a lot from the left in the United States for the failure to close Guantánamo. And part of it is, I think, a little bit disingenuous. On the one hand, I think Obama has not fought hard enough to close Guantánamo. He hasn’t used his political capital in any prioritized way to make that happen, and there are ways that he could have done it. But the Republicans and some Democrats have long been blocking the funding. But the fact is that we had several dozen prisoners who had been cleared for release from Guantánamo on a hunger strike, and the president basically stood idly by while these individuals were being very brutally force-fed. I mean, you can go online and see the hip-hop artist Mos Def doing—being force-fed. He couldn’t take more than a few seconds of the tube going through his nose. And I think if you—you know, I encourage people to watch that to get a sense of what it means when we’re talking about the force-feeding of prisoners at Guantánamo. So, you know, on the one hand, Obama has failed to close it; on the other hand, the Republicans have really obstructed it. And I think, at the end of the day, it’s a combination of those two factors that lead to that.
On this issue of the drones and the permanent war footing, I mean, Obama has been the drone president. And his line with liberals is sort of "Trust me. I know what I’m doing. I’m monitoring this. I’m doing everything I can to make sure that civilians aren’t killed." But time and time again, we see incidents where large numbers of civilians are being killed, and there seems to be no public accounting for how this happened. They say that they investigate when civilians are killed, and yet we are now two years, almost, removed from the killing of this 16-year-old kid, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who appears to have been killed because of who his father was, was killed in a drone strike while having dinner with his teenage cousin and some other young people from their tribe while they were sitting down for dinner, killed in a drone strike.
AMY GOODMAN: Two weeks after—
JEREMY SCAHILL: Two weeks after his father had been killed. His father is a separate issue. And I think it was extraordinary that Obama sentenced an American citizen to death without even charging him with a crime related to terrorism, and served as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, but that’s a separate issue from this kid. What was his crime that he committed, other than sitting there having dinner with his cousin and other teenagers? The White House told me that when—that they review all cases when civilians are killed. Where is that review? I’ve asked for it, and the White House said they won’t confirm or deny that there has been a review of that case. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions here.
And on the NSA issue, I mean, the panel that was empowered to investigate this was a setup from the beginning. It was largely made up of intelligence industry people, part of the, you know, intelligence- or spying-industrial complex. And the end results of it are going to be largely a whitewashing of these operations. And, you know, the Republicans want Obama to go further than the NSA is already going. So the parameters of the debate in Washington are: Should we figure out a way to streamline this and sell it to the American people, or should we do more surveillance, which is what a lot of the Republicans want?
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of the NSA, on this issue that’s being debated even within the White House, the attorney general, Eric Holder, this question of whether Edward Snowden should be pardoned, talk more about what’s happening inside, and then what he’s demanding.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, first of all, Representative Mike Rogers, who is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, made a public allegation that Edward Snowden is an agent for the Russian government and that the Russian intelligence services, the FSB, may have been involved with Snowden prior to Snowden taking the documents and giving them to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. My understanding—and, of course, I work with Glenn and Laura—is that Edward Snowden did not take a single document with him to Moscow and that he is not cooperating at all with any aspects of the Russian intelligence apparatus. So, these are scurrilous, unfounded, unproven allegations being made by the head of the most important committee in the U.S. Congress when it comes to these matters.
Edward Snowden’s lawyer, one of his lawyers, legal advisers, Jesselyn Radack, was onMeet the Press, you know, with David Gregory, and David Gregory was basically saying, you know, "How is Snowden suffering?" I mean, this is a guy that gave up, probably forever, life in the free world. I wouldn’t want to be stuck in Moscow if I were him. But here’s my question for David Gregory. "Mr. Glenn Greenwald, don’t you think you should be prosecuted for this?" I mean, that’s what Gregory said when Glenn Greenwald was on Meet the Press_. NBC News—you should go to their website—just did a major exposénews/2014/01/27/22469304-snowden-docs-reveal-british-spies-snooped-on-youtube-and-facebook with Glenn Greenwald on the British intelligence services tapping into pipelines and monitoring social media sites and YouTube and other things. David Gregory should have on the NBC journalists. Richard Esposito, the head of the investigations division, should have to sit in front of David Gregory on Meet the Press and be asked, "Richard Esposito, don’t you think you should be going to prison for having done this story?" I mean, let’s be fair here with the Meet the Press release. They should actually have to ask tough questions of their own people.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, before we win—on Dirty Wars, your film—it’s astounding, it’s been nominated for an Oscar—what would an Oscar win mean?
JEREMY SCAHILL: You know, when it was announced, I mean, I was the only person from our team with the stomach to watch the actual ceremony on CNN. I had to rewind it, because I was shocked. But the first thing I thought of is what this could possibly mean to this family in Afghanistan, where two pregnant women were killed in a botched U.S. night raid, and then they watched, the survivors watched, as the bullets were dug out of their pregnant bodies by U.S. soldiers, or the families of the drone strike victims that you see in our film, or the people who were in Yemen in this village of al-Majalah—
AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds.
JEREMY SCAHILL: —where 14 women and 21 children were killed. A win would mean that their stories would be told, and it would send a message that we actually do care in this society about what happens on the other side of our missiles and bombs.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. Jeremy Scahill is starting a new news organization. It will be launching in the next weeks. And his film,Dirty Wars, has been nominated for an Oscar. Bob Herbert has been with us, distinguished senior fellow with Demos, former New York Times columnist. And I want to thank Lorella Praeli with the United We Dream coalition.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->