nettime's_conscientious_digestor on Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:32:19 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> [IRAQ] digested conscience [recktenwald, wark, valdes] |
Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de> Belgium - Keeper of the World's Conscience (fwd) "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark@hotmail.com> Military Globalism Ana Valdes <agora@algonet.se> from Irak - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:42:53 +0100 (CET) From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de> Subject: Belgium - Keeper of the World's Conscience (fwd) While we are waiting or not for this big bang in Bagdad, reminds to Entebbe multimedia, some real people realy dead, the Berlin TAZ last year had pictures of men eating men in Africa, all in Adidas stripes, now this: ............................................. Dear list members, I am a little bit 'fascinated' by the contemporary efforts by Belgium to assert the efficacy of international criminal law, not in the least by recent references to Belgian statutes in that regard. Although I have not seen any of the statutes, I cannot but wonder aloud, in what ways do those statutes seek to hold those Belgian contractors and agents accountable for exporting thousands of matchets to Rwanda between 1993 and 1994? Was the Belgian Act(together with its amendments) meant only to pursue and get hold of bratty dictators and small fish alone? Those who promote Belgian image-laundering through this list should remind the authorities to revisit those CAH etc that were aided by Belgians who still walk free on the streets of Brussels. So I think. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark@hotmail.com> Subject: Military Globalism Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:31:58 -0500 This is a useful little article that lays out the contradiction between what i would call the empire of commodity-space and that of strategy-space. It doesn't get to the dependence of both on the same vectoral capacities, but it has some juicy details about the contracting-out of post invasion Iraq.... Ken Wark Military Globalism by William Greider The Nation 31st March 2003 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=greider One of the first casualties of war may be those happy-talk forecasts of a robust recovery once the bombing starts in Iraq, but a far more momentous economic question accompanies Bush's invasion plans: Can free-market globalization survive in a world governed by one nation's overwhelming military power? The global economy has largely disappeared from political discussions in recent months as national leaders preoccupied themselves with warmaking. But the boosters of corporate-led globalization should understand that their vision of a New World Order is fundamentally imcompatible with George W. Bush's. Who is to rule the world's future--global markets or national governments? The regime of globalization promotes an unfettered marketplace as the dynamic instrument organizing international relations. The other regime relies on the old-fashioned military power of the nation-state--the United States alone in this case--to impose its will on others in the name of global order. One system promises the free flow of capital, goods and technologies across national boundaries, largely exempted from control by sovereign nations. The other system sets out to intervene in the private marketplace--by force of arms if it chooses--to countermand any market transactions it regards as threatening. In history, of course, capitalism has often advanced arm-in-arm with military interventions. But that system was known as colonialism--the fusion of commercial ambitions and military conquest. It contradicts the principles claimed for free- running globalization, or at least unmasks its high-minded pretensions. The outlines of this profound collision of purposes are now visible though not yet widely recognized, especially in Washington. Paul McCulley, a managing director of PIMCO, the world's largest bond investment fund, based in Newport Beach, California, observes the structural shift already under way in global governance, driven by the weakened condition of the global economy but also by the imperial ambitions of Washington. "American imperialism is, by definition, a retreat away from global capitalism, a retreat from the invisible hand of markets in favor of a more dominant role for the visible fist of governments," McCulley wrote. This is a "regime change" the warrior crowd may not have anticipated, but the consequences are implicit in their insistence that the United States will capture and take control of Iraq's oil, the second-largest petroleum reserves in the world. American statesmen grumble about the mercenary interests of the French, Russians and Chinese, whose companies currently have contracts for Iraqi oil production, but what of America's mercenary interests? The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon has already tapped Halliburton (the Vice President's old company) to manage after-action cleanup of the Iraqi oilfields. Industry analysts figure Halliburton and other US firms could share $1.5 billion in contracts. Meanwhile, the US Agency for International Development is seeking ambitious proposals from America's five largest construction companies (including Halliburton) to rebuild Iraq's roads and bridges, the electrical grid, housing, schools and hospitals after America's smart bombs finish their work (no foreigners need apply for the contract). American taxpayers will presumably pick up the tab, unless Washington instructs the US colonial general to seize Iraq's oil income as our own. The threat to globalization is not the wasted American dollars but Washington's readiness to mix US commercial interests with its self- appointed role as global protector. At a time when the US economy must borrow from abroad to sustain its own domestic consumption, this move is sure to deepen distrust among trading partners and foreign creditors--suspicions that will permeate every forum of the trading system. Americans who imagine that their government will manage Iraqi oil to insure cheap gasoline may be disillusioned too. As overseer of Iraq, the United States would doubtless act like other OPEC members, managing production to insure stable oil prices at around $26 a barrel. Anything less threatens oil-producing countries--and oil companies. The Bush White House, if it has any sense, will quickly pass off this role to some sort of international agency. Otherwise, it is going to be caught between the interests of US consumers and its buddies in the oil industry. The far more substantial conflict with globalization involves nuclear proliferation and Bush's commitment to fight the spread of so- called weapons of mass destruction on any front, with armed force if countries don't cooperate. It is good to see conservatives finally embrace the cause of nonproliferation, but they are about a generation late and used to be on the other side--defending multinational corporations against laws prohibiting export of defense-sensitive materials and machinery. Where did Saddam Hussein acquire his dangerous toxins? He bought them from European and American companies. Where did India and Pakistan get starter kits to develop nuclear weapons? Same place. For that matter, how did Israel get its nukes? In other words, to truly halt the spread of dangerous technologies, Washington will need much more than conquering armies. It will have to create an effective and intrusive set of export controls-- worldwide--that can monitor a vast range of industrial goods and prohibit many items from entering into the "free trade" system. A central quality of the globalizing economy is how fluidly it disperses advanced technologies from rich countries to poor countries--literally sharing the industrial tools of the wealthiest economies with many underdeveloped societies. In the broad sweep of human development, that aspect of globalization is virtuous (though it does dilute the advantages of the leading economies). Yet technology transfer cannot easily proceed if subjected to stringent regulatory controls by governments searching for forbidden weapons components. The controversies over Iraqi weapons illustrate why such rules are fiendishly difficult to devise and enforce. Was Saddam buying aluminum tubes and industrial magnets for a nuclear- bomb project or for standard uses in domestic centrifuges? The United States charged bomb- making motives; the UN inspectors endorsed Saddam's claim of innocence. Multiply these ambiguities and conflicting interpretations across thousands of industrial chemicals, hardware or software. Bush's desire to control the terms of trade--only nice countries can buy the dangerous stuff--sounds like Sisyphus on the Potomac. While Washington focused obsessively on war with Iraq, it seemed to forget for the moment that the global economy remains wounded and groaning. When the war is over, these troubling facts will return with brutal clarity. The worry is not only the weakened US economy, which props up global trade by playing the supportive role as "buyer of last resort" for other nations' exports. The global system itself has still not recovered from the great financial crisis of 1997-98; bank lending to emerging economies remains $177 billion below five years ago. Nor has the United States shaken off the deep wounds from its own bursting stock-market bubble. The economic arrows are pointing down again at present--even as the United States absorbs record trade deficits. If this White House understood what is at stake, Bush would be launching major public-works spending here in the homeland instead of bombing, then rebuilding, Iraq. If globalization's ardent advocates grasped the deeper economic implications of Bush's war, they too would be demanding to bring the troops home. ___________________________________________________ http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html ... we no longer have roots, we have aerials ... ___________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:24:43 +0100 From: Ana Valdes <agora@algonet.se> Subject: from Irak Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:54:33 -0500 (EST) The following message was forwarded by Dave Berrian. It is from Bettejo Passalaqua of Omak, WA. Hello everyone. I hope things are well for all of you. I am well. I received the wonderful news today that students at PSIS wrote back to students here in Iraq. I can't believe that the studetn's responses were pulled together so quickly. Great job!!! I understand from phone calls we have received from the States that the number of protesters to the war is phenomenal and that there is much civil disobedience in an effort to bring attention to the plight of the Iraqi people. All of us here are so grateful and humbled by the efforts and sacrifices of all of you there. It is perhaps the only chance that war might be averted. We are definitely standing on an edge slanted toward the abyss of war and its consequences, but the strong cry for peace keeps us from slipping downward. While all of us here on the team hold out hope for peace, we are also practical in our preparations, in a physical sense and in the emotional realm. We are very frugal with the money we have, as there is no telling how long our resources might need to stretch if there is some kind of seige. Prices raise daily, especially for the most essential items. The price of water went from 4250 dinar for 6 bottles to 8000 dinar in one day; the following day it increased to 10,000 dinar. Luckily, we have a large store of water already. But the average Iraqi couldn't afford to plan ahead like we have, and will not be able to pay the current prices. The cost of rides out of the country has also increased, and (if I understand correctly) there is a tax imposed on plane fares even if the tickets were purchased in advance. The other day I drive past the agency that grants passports to Iraqis, and there were a throng of people there. Mothers who are able to get passports and visas head for the borders with their children (and without money) while their husbands remain behind to protect their home. Every morning that I wake up I am grateful that the bombing has not begun yet, as none of us know when we go to bed whether tonight will be the night. I really can't imagine what it is like for the people of Iraq. I am choosing my presence here, and I think it is a totally different psychological dynamic than to have no choice in the matter. The bombing in Basra and the surrounding areas has increased. Jameel, who works here at the hotel, just returned from Basra and he said things are very bad. His family is there. Jameel always has a smile for everyone, but his smile cannot hide his sadness these days. For the most part, life goes on as though everything is normal. (As I have said many times, the people are used to dealing with great hardship and constant threat). But the effects of such an imminent threat is taking its toll in many ways. Pregnant women who can afford it are having cesarian sections so there babies will not be born during the bombing. Women are afraid they will not be able to make it to a hospital, or if they are the hospital staff will be overwhelmed with war casualties and will not have medical personnel to assist with deliveries. But the birth just gives cause for a different set of fears. Will there be clean water to care for the new child, will there be food available, will there be gas for cooking and sterilization, electricity??? And the most likely answer is no. I spoke with the assistant director at the hospital I visit yesterday and he said that these c-sections births are very dangerous for mother and child. To begin with, the babies are not ready to be born yet, so they are at greater risk for health problems. They are less immune to disease, less able to absord nutrients, and are likely to have breathing difficulties. And of course, the mothers are at greater risk for post operative problems such as infections and bleeding. He also said that many of the mothers who have children undergoing cancer treatments will stop the treatments and take their children home now. Most of the women have other children at home and feel they must return home to care for them during war. They feel it is better to allow their sick child to die rather than risk their other children being killed in a bombing. Can you imagine being forced to make such a choice. From what I have seen, these children in the hospital don't stand much of a chance anyway since all the needed medications are rarely available, but being forced to discontinue the treatments that are available is simply obscene. Something very special happened at the hospital yesterday. Mohommed is one of the four taxi drivers who most frequently provide transportation and other assistance to IPT. Mohommed is especially helpful-he knows everything there is to know about the city, where to find things, how to get done what needs to be done, etc... I really don't know what we would do without his help. He is also street savvy and there is a toughness about him, originating perhaps from his experiences in the war. (He was badly wounded in the war; he spent nearly a year recovering from his wounds. He went down the to Kuwait border with us and it was something of a pilgrimage of reconciliation with those bad times for him). Tough as he may seem, the first time he took us to the hospital for our program of arts and crafts with the young patients there, he was so saddened by their suffering that I avoided asking him to take us again. He asked to drive us and serve as interpreter, but I have told him no because it makes him too sad. But 2 days ago none of the other drivers was available and he insisted to take us. He remained pretty quiet and was anxious to leave once the 90 minutes we usually spend with them was up. Then yesterday he asked to take us again. (It is a good paying job and right now everyone is trying to earn as much extra money as possible). So he took us again. There were 3 children in the room we were working in, and it was only Kathy Kelly and I, so I just gave one of the children (Ali) some materials and he was more or less on his own. Soon enough, Mohammed was painting with the Ali and when the medicines which are injected into the ports (very painful) came around and Ali started crying, tough Mohammed got out the finger puppets and diverted Ali's attention by playing a finger puppet game with him. It was very moving to see. The other day in prayer I had the strongest desire to in some way wrap my arms around all the people of this city and protect them from the dangers of the days ahead. Of course, I can do nothing of the sort. But yesterday in prayer I had a sense that there were the spirits of angels all about us and all of them were crying upward in intercession. I could almost here the sweet though mournful sound of their sighing and weeping. It was a powerful experience and a feeling comes to me that prayer is the best arms of protection I can offer just now. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net