What is to be Done?

By GREGORY KAFOURY

Barack Obama arrived on the political scene with a smile as beautiful as salvation itself, like a visitor from an idealized future, one where the races have combined to a golden hue, sent here to show us the way.  Of course people fell in love with him.  Yet now we see Obama drawn into the great room where the Democratic/Corporate establishment dwells, and the door is slowly closing behind him.  This is not how it was supposed to be.

Obama has just opted out of public financing, the first presidential candidate to do so since 1972.  NewsHour’s Mark Shields, keeper of the flame for all that is good in the Democratic Party, called it “a flip-flop of epic proportions,” noting that Obama’s argument about a GOP financial advantage was “bogus.”  Shields even said it raised issues of Obama’s “character.” The New York Times editorialized that 2008 may now be “the year public financing died.”  In seizing a tactical advantage, Obama has handed an enormous strategic victory to corporate power.

Many progressives will argue that Obama, having raised huge amounts from small contributors, is akin to getting public financing, which liberates the candidate from dependence on corporate support.  Yet just the opposite is happening.  In the three weeks since Hillary Clinton fell upon her sword, Obama has lurched far to the right.  Consider:

- Obama announced a new financial team of supply-side economists led by Jason Furman, famous for declaring that it would be “damaging to working people” if Wal-Mart were to raise its wages and benefits.  Obama had recently criticized Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart board, declaring, “I won’t shop there.”  In the Audacity of Hope, he sympathized with “Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope they’ll have enough money to support their children.”

-When questioned in a Fortune interview about his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to protect workers and the environment, Obama replied, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

- In a close congressional primary race in Georgia, Obama endorsed a troglodyte incumbent – a “Bush enabler” – over an exemplary progressive insurgent.

- In a speech to the Israeli lobby, he moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas.  A day earlier, Obama had told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.

- Obama refused to criticize recent Israeli war maneuvers and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran.  He failed to even urge restraint.

- Just as a move was growing in the Senate to strip the House-passed Telecom bill of its immunity provisions, Obama declared his support for the House version.  Obama’s opposition to immunity had been our best hope to learn whose phones and emails had been wiretapped by the Bush administration, and to punish those Telecom companies that assisted this massive criminal enterprise.

Is he lost to us?  Was he ever ours to lose?

Progressives were all too eager to overlook the warning signs in Obama’s brief career, his support for the Patriot Act, for nuclear power, his vote against limiting credit card interest to 30%, his calls for increased defense spending, and his equivocation on full withdrawal from Iraq.  These decisions were mere matters of political expediency, we were assured, not to be taken seriously.

Yet how can political expediency explain Obama’s retreat on NAFTA?  Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all in play – how many of those voters have been broken on the wheel of NAFTA?  Those who contend that the real Obama will suddenly emerge after the election to overturn an imperial foreign policy and to bring justice to the home front, might be advised not to hold their breath.

Obama desperately needs pressure from the left, and he is amenable to pressure.  Once we on the left agree that this analysis is correct, then we must choose the correct strategy.

So far, blind support of Obama has yielded the same kind of benefits that we got from John Kerry.  With the united left in his pocket, Kerry went from a declared “anti-war” candidate to a thoroughly hawkish one, berating Bush for wimping out in the face of massive civilian casualties in Falluja, and promising to win the Iraq war.  Unconditional support for the Democratic nominee is unconditional surrender, with all the utter powerlessness that the terms imply.

As one alternative, we can complain, write and blog, for all these have their place.  But we are all too good at talking to ourselves, and disparate efforts without a focus are all too easily dismissed.

We must consider support for Ralph Nader’s campaign.  Nader has been as high as six percent in recent national polls, something he has achieved with only modest support from left intellectuals, and virtually no recognition by corporate media.

Yet Google has announced its intent to hold at least one presidential debate, and has set the bar at 10% support.  It is hard to imagine Obama or McCain snubbing Google, and the prospect of such a debate carries more promise than anything the left has seen in recent memory.

For those who claim that Nader can only hurt Obama, I suggest the opposite is true.  Gore and Kerry were both doomed by the accurate perception that they were corporate to the core.  People knew in their gut that these guys were not on their side.  (In 2004, Kerry fled from a living wage initiative in Florida; it passed nearly three to one.)  It must also be remembered that in 2000, when Nader was at 5%, a full 15% believed he was the best candidate.  More importantly, Nader’s positions are not just majoritarian ones, most enjoy overwhelming public support.  Full military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq, major reductions in the defense budget, a crackdown on corporate crime, single-payer health care, massive investment in renewable energy and conservation, a living wage – these would provide a platform that would send Obama to a historic victory, and all are available for the taking.

Those who insist we must work only within the Democratic Party have clearly failed to hold Obama to his promise.  We must get outside the box.  Obama needs a great big push, and we are the only ones who can give it to him.

Gregory Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon.  He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.

Les médias des Etats membres de l’OTAN accordent une très large couverture de l’élection présidentielle US. Ce faisant, ils transmettent un double message : l’avenir des peuples alliés se joue à Washington, et les Etats-Unis sont un modèle démocratique. Or, il est admis que l’élection présidentielle US est faussée par l’argent. L’édition 2008 a déjà coûté plus 1,5 milliards de dollars. Cependant cette critique est superficielle en ce qu’elle laisse croire que les moyens financiers font le vainqueur, alors que c’est peut-être l’inverse : l’argent va au vainqueur préalablement désigné. En réalité, remarque Thierry Meyssan, la classe dirigeante US manipule chaque étape du processus électoral, des primaires aux conventions, des listes électorales aux machines à voter. Aux Etats-Unis, la démocratie est une pure fiction.

par Thierry Meyssan – Les médias internationaux rendent compte en détail de la campagne présidentielle aux Etats-Unis. Il va de soi que ce pays est une démocratie, que McCain et Obama s’affrontent loyalement et que le choix des électeurs déterminera la politique future de Washington. Nous sommes donc invités à nous passionner pour ce feuilleton haut en couleurs avec ses conventions illuminées de stars, ses pluies de confettis, et ses clips TV assassins.

Pourtant, au cours des dernières années, les mêmes médias ont suggéré que le système ne fonctionne pas de cette manière. Ils observaient que la différence entre républicains et démocrates n’était guère plus évidente qu’entre Coca et Pepsi. Ils notaient que le président Bush n’avait pas l’envergure de la fonction et n’était au fond que la marionnette de puissants intérêts économiques. Ils s’étonnaient que des décisions aussi importantes que la guerre en Irak servent plus les intérêts de quelques multinationales et d’Israël que des Etats-Unis eux-mêmes.

D’où cette question faussement naïve : les Etats-Unis sont-ils vraiment la démocratie qu’ils prétendent être?

Le peuple états-unien n’est pas souverain

On serait tenté de répondre « oui » sans réfléchir, d’autant que par le passé, la gauche ne les critiquait pas sur ce point, mais uniquement sur l’absence de droits sociaux. Pour répondre plus précisément, il convient de définir ce qu’est une démocratie, de vérifier si la Constitution et sa mise en pratique correspondent à cette définition.

Classiquement, on distingue trois types de régimes politiques : la monarchie (le pouvoir d’un seul), l’oligarchie (le pouvoir d’une élite) et la démocratie (le pouvoir du peuple). Par démocratie, on entend un régime dans lequel le peuple est souverain. Celui-ci décide de son destin, soit directement, soit par l’intermédiaire de représentants élus ou tirés au sort.

La Déclaration d’indépendance des Etats-Unis, principalement rédigée par Thomas Jefferson, est d’essence démocratique. Elle s’inspire de la philosophie des Lumières, notamment des œuvres de John Locke. Elle affirme que « Les gouvernements sont établis parmi les hommes pour garantir ces droits [la vie, la liberté et la recherche du bonheur], et leur juste pouvoir émane du consentement des gouvernés. Toutes les fois qu’une forme de gouvernement devient destructive de ce but, le peuple a le droit de la changer ou de l’abolir et d’établir un nouveau gouvernement. »

Mais les élites, qui avaient besoin de lever des volontaires pour mener la guerre d’indépendance, changèrent de discours lorsqu’il s’agit de rédiger la Constitution. La Convention qui la rédigea fut surtout influencée par les « fédéralistes », au premier rang desquels Alexander Hamilton. Leur objectif était de rompre avec la naïveté bucolique de l’époque. Ils voulaient imposer un gouvernement central fort, adapté à l’ère industrielle, et tenir la « populace » à l’écart du pouvoir politique, car « Le peuple est turbulent et changeant, rarement il juge ou décide raisonnablement ».

Hamilton aurait souhaité la création d’une monarchie états-unienne mais, outre que cette formule n’était pas à la mode, ce projet était irréalisable en l’absence d’une classe aristocratique autochtone. Nourri des œuvres de Thomas Hobbes, il conçu donc, par défaut, un régime à la fois républicain et oligarchique. La Constitution est proclamée au nom du « peuple des Etats-unis », mais celui-ci n’est pas souverain pour autant. Le pouvoir appartient aux Etats fédérés, c’est-à-dire en pratique aux notables locaux.

Cet aspect essentiel du système politique US est aujourd’hui masqué par le recours au suffrage universel qui donne l’illusion de la souveraineté populaire. Cependant, on se souvient qu’en 2000, la Cour suprême considéra qu’elle n’avait pas à tenir compte du dépouillement du scrutin en Floride pour proclamer le résultat de l’élection présidentielle. Se fondant sur une épaisse jurisprudence, elle même basée sur la Bible et les Federalist Papers d’Hamilton, elle écarta la volonté des électeurs pour ne retenir que celle du gouverneur de Floride, en l’occurrence Jeb Bush. Ce basculement assura la victoire de George W. Bush, frère du précédent. Dans un système démocratique, la Cour suprême aurait attendu le résultat du dépouillement en Floride. Comme il s’avéra favorable à Albert Gore, celui-ci serait devenu le 43e président des Etats-Unis.
Les contradictions entre la Déclaration d’indépendance et la Constitution conduisirent trois membres de la Convention constituante à refuser de la signer. Pour sortir de la crise, un compromis fut trouvé sous la houlette du versatile James Madison : la Charte des droits. Dix amendements furent adoptés pour garantir les droits du justiciable face à l’arbitraire de l’Etat.

En définitive, les institutions tirent leur légitimité de leur origine populaire. Mais les citoyens n’ont pas vraiment leur mot à dire dans le choix de leurs dirigeants et des politiques mises en œuvres. ہ défaut, ils disposent de garanties judiciaires pour se protéger des excès de pouvoir.

Des primaires pour écarter les contestataires

Dans le spectacle de l’élection présidentielle que jouent actuellement les Etats-Unis, le premier acte fut les « primaires ». Une présentation superficielle laisse accroire que les deux grands partis politiques consultent leurs membres, Etat par Etat, pour choisir les délégués qui participeront aux conventions où ils désigneront leur candidat. C’est faux : d’une part, les primaires ne sont pas organisées par les partis, mais par les Etats, selon des règles propres à chacun d’eux ; d’autre part, dans la plupart des cas, ce ne sont pas les seuls adhérents du parti qui participent aux primaires.

Il y a six méthodes principales de primaires, plus des méthodes mixtes. Dans certains Etats, il faut être encarté au parti pour y participer, dans d’autres les sympathisants peuvent voter avec les militants, parfois tous les citoyens peuvent voter aux primaires des deux partis, parfois ils peuvent tous voter mais uniquement à la primaire du parti de leur choix, parfois les deux partis tiennent une primaire commune à un tour, d’autres fois encore à deux tours, Toutes les combinaisons de ces méthodes sont possibles. Chaque primaire, dans chaque Etat, a donc un sens différent.

Et puis il y a des Etats qui n’ont pas de primaires, mais des caucus. Par exemple, l’Iowa organise des scrutins distincts dans chacun de ses 99 comtés, qui élisent des délégués locaux, lesquels tiennent des primaires au second degré pour élire les délégués aux Conventions nationales.

Traditionnellement, ce cirque commence en février et dure six mois, mais cette année le Parti démocrate a modifié son calendrier. Il a avancé le début et voulu répartir les dates pour faire durer le plaisir presque une année complète.

A la fin, les délégués se retrouvent à la Convention de leur parti. Ils y sont rejoints par les super-délégués. Lesquels, contrairement à ce que leur dénomination laisse croire, ne sont délégués par personne. Ce sont des membres de droit, c’est-à-dire des notables et des apparatchiks. Les super-délégués représentent l’oligarchie et sont suffisamment nombreux pour faire pencher la balance dans un sens ou l’autre, en passant outre le résultat des primaires et des caucus. Ils sont environ 20 % à la convention démocrate et presque 25 % à la convention républicaine.

L’originalité du système, c’est que les délégués aux conventions étant majoritairement choisis par des gens extérieurs à leur parti, ils représentent à peu près la même sensibilité qu’ils soient démocrates ou républicains. Et comme si ce nivellement ne suffisait pas, les super-délégués —c’est-à-dire l’oligarchie— peuvent encore éliminer les originaux qui resteraient en lice. En définitive, les candidats désignés par les conventions seront absolument consensuels, pour ne pas dire « incolores, inodores et sans saveur ».

Alors que les médias US présentent ces primaires comme une extension du débat démocratique au sein des partis politiques, leur effet est inverse : elles visent à maintenir le statu quo en écartant tous les candidats qui ne soutiennent pas le système dans son ensemble.

Républicains et Démocrates : des partis jumeaux

Cet écrémage n’est possible que parce que les deux grands partis sont étroitement imbriqués dans l’appareil d’Etat. Pour toutes les décisions importantes, la Maison-Blanche recherche un « consensus bipartisan » en nommant une commission ad hoc composée à égalité de leaders des deux partis et co-présidée par un républicain et un démocrate, ce qui revient à toujours faire passer l’intérêt de l’oligarchie avant les choix politiques.

L’opposition entre les deux partis n’est qu’apparence puisqu’ils gèrent ensemble diverses institutions. Ainsi, la National Endowment for Democracy (NED), sorte de vitrine légale de la CIA, est gérée paritairement par les Républicains, les Démocrates, la principale fédération syndicale ouvrière (AFL-CIO) et la Chambre patronale de commerce. Les crédits alloués à la corruption des institutions politiques et syndicales dans le monde sont approuvés de manière bipartisane avant d’être distribués soit par l’intermédiaire de l’International Republican Institute de John McCain, soit par le National Democratic Institute for Foreign Affairs de Madeleine Albright. Dans ce cas précis, il n’y a qu’une seule politique US mise en œuvre par deux organes distincts à l’extérieur. La différence entre républicains et démocrates est une fiction qui n’existe que lorsque l’appareil d’Etat US s’adresse à l’étranger.

John McCain et Barack Obama saisissent d’ailleurs toutes les occasions pour montrer leur proximité idéologique aux Etats-uniens. Par exemple, ils ont mis en scène leur participation commune à la commémoration des attentats du 11 septembre. Ou encore ils ont publié un communiqué commun de soutien au plan Paulson de sauvetage de l’économie.

En théorie, les contestataires peuvent créer de nouveaux partis et présenter d’autres candidats à l’élection présidentielle. Mais en pratique, c’est impossible. Les conditions pour fonder un parti sont différentes d’un Etat à l’autre et il est impossible de les satisfaire toutes à la fois. Le barrage le plus efficace est celui du New Jersey où il faut réunir 10 % des citoyens pour pouvoir créer une nouvelle formation politique. Cette condition est irréalisable au départ et interdit définitivement aux petits partis de disposer d’une section dans cet Etat.

Quoi qu’il en soit, de petits partis ont été légalisés dans certains Etats. Lorsqu’ils auront désigné leur candidat à l’issue de leur convention fédérale, celui-ci ne pourra pas se présenter dans tout le pays, mais uniquement dans ces Etats, de sorte qu’il n’aura aucun espoir de parvenir à la Maison-Blanche. Si les démocrates ont désigné Barack Obama et les républicains John McCain, l’avocat des consommateurs Ralph Nader se présente en indépendant et l’ex-représentant Bob Barr représentera les libertariens. Il y aura aussi quantité de candidats dont les scores ne devraient pas atteindre 1 % à l’échelle fédérale, comme l’ex-représentante Cynthia McKinney pour les écologistes, l’ambassadeur Alan Keyes pour le Parti indépendant de Californie, le pasteur Chuck Baldwin pour le parti de la Constitution, etc. sans parler des trois candidats trotskistes Roger Calero pour le Parti des travailleurs, Gloria La Riva pour les scissionnistes du Parti pour le Socialisme, et Brian Moore pour les Socialistes-USA abondamment financés par la CIA. Au total, il devrait y avoir 15 à 18 candidats alors que les médias internationaux ne parlent que des 2 principaux, tant ils sont convaincus que les autres ne sont tolérés que pour donner l’illusion du pluralisme.

Le président sera élu le 15 décembre par 638 personnes

Les règles électorales sont volontairement complexes. Leur opacité tient les citoyens à distance de la décision. Essayons néanmoins de les résumer le plus clairement possible.

Le 4 novembre prochain, chaque Etat appellera aux urnes les citoyens résidant sur son territoire. En fonction de leur souhait, le gouverneur local désignera les membres du « Collège électoral présidentiel » qui représenteront son Etat. Ce sont ces 538 électeurs qui éliront à la majorité absolue, le 15 décembre, les prochains président et vice-président des Etats-Unis. Leurs suffrages sous enveloppe seront solennellement dépouillés le 6 janvier par le vice-président sortant en qualité de président temporaire du Sénat. Ce n’est qu’à ce moment-là que le nom du vainqueur sera proclamé.

Chaque Etat dispose d’autant d’électeurs qu’il a de représentants et de sénateurs au Congrès. Or, le nombre de ses représentants est proportionnel à l’importance de sa population, tandis que le nombre de ses sénateurs est fixe. Il s’ensuit que les citoyens des petits Etats sont beaucoup mieux représentés au Collège électoral présidentiel que ceux des grands Etats. Le Wyoming qui n’a que 0,5 millions habitants dispose de 3 électeurs, tandis que la Californie avec 36,5 millions d’habitants n’en a que 55. Les habitants du Wyoming sont donc 4 fois mieux représentés que ceux de Californie. Ce système électoral à deux degrés est profondément inégalitaire. Techniquement, il est possible de disposer de la majorité du Collège électoral présidentiel en n’ayant qu’un tiers des voix des citoyens.

D’une manière générale, le parti qui arrive en tête lors de la consultation populaire rafle tous les sièges de l’Etat au Collège électoral présidentiel. Par exemple, selon les sondages, les citoyens de Floride seraient aujourd’hui hésitants. Le candidat qui l’emportera dans cet Etat n’aura qu’un très faible pourcentage de voix d’avance, mais il pourra compter sur les 27 électeurs représentant la Floride au Collège électoral présidentiel, tandis que son concurrent n’en aura aucun. Toutefois, le Maine et le Nebraska font exception : ils utilisent quant à eux un système semi-proportionnel.

Au cours des dernières années, les candidats ont pris l’habitude de concentrer leur campagne électorale sur les Etats les plus peuplés et de délaisser les autres. Il suffit en effet de l’emporter dans les 11 principaux Etats pour devenir président.

En principe, les 538 électeurs doivent voter au sein du Collège électoral présidentiel comme ils s’y sont engagés devant l’Etat qui les a mandaté. Mais leur mandat n’est « impératif » que dans 24 Etats. Les autres peuvent donc changer d’avis au mépris de la volonté populaire. Le cas est rare, mais en 1836, 23 électeurs racistes censés voter pour le candidat démocrate se ravisèrent après avoir appris que son vice-président avait eu une liaison avec une noire.

Machines à voter, machines à truquer

Bien que ce vote à deux degrés soit un moyen supplémentaire pour renforcer le contrôle oligarchique des résultats, ce n’est plus suffisant aujourd’hui où les médias de masse nuisent à l’opacité du système. La classe dirigeante, perdant confiance dans ses propres institutions, a imaginé un mode radical de trucage : les machines à voter . Elles lui permettront d’éliminer les partis alternatifs et de choisir quelle équipe, républicaine ou démocrate, mettra en œuvre sa politique.

Dans les démocraties, le scrutin est l’affaire des citoyens. Généralement, des fonctionnaires communaux ou territoriaux tiennent le bureau de vote, mais ce sont les citoyens qui dépouillent les suffrages sous le regard de représentants des candidats. Aux Etats-Unis, la tenue des bureaux de vote est sous-traitée à des firmes privées. Pour réduire le personnel nécessaire au dépouillement, ces firmes peuvent avoir recours à des ordinateurs de vote. Leur usage est d’autant plus séduisant que souvent on procède à de nombreuses élections à la fois (président, parlementaires, maires, etc.) et que le dépouillement s’avère long et complexe.

Diverses études scientifiques sur ces machines, notamment celle du professeur Avi Rubin de la John Hopkins University, ont toutes conclues qu’elles n’offraient aucune garantie de sécurité. Il est enfantin et rapide de modifier les logiciels pour truquer les résultats sans laisser la moindre trace. La plupart des ordinateurs de vote utilisés aux USA ont été conçus par Global Election Systems (GES), sous l’autorité de Jeff Dean. Or cet informaticien a été condamné 23 fois pour avoir truqué des logiciels internet destinés à d’autres usages et avoir abusé de ses clients. L’usage de ce type de machine est incompatible avec le principe démocratique et il est surprenant que les citoyens US acceptent de participer à une telle mascarade.
Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, on a ajouté cette année une nouvelle occasion de trucage : le vote anticipé. Au lieu de tenir le scrutin en une journée, on l’a étalé sur un mois. Plus de 30 % des suffrages devraient ainsi être exprimés avant le 4 novembre, laissant tout le temps nécessaire pour procéder à des fraudes à grande échelle.

Choisir les citoyens

Malgré cette accumulation de manipulations, il reste cependant toujours une inconnue : la volonté des citoyens. La classe dirigeante WASP (White Anglo-Saxons Puritans) a donc à la fois créé des difficultés administratives pour s’inscrire sur les listes électorales et développé tout un arsenal juridique pour priver les pauvres de leurs droits civiques. Et souvent, dans un pays qui pratiquait il y a cinquante ans encore la discrimination raciale, les pauvres ce sont les gens de couleur.

Aہ défaut de pouvoir organiser un suffrage censitaire, plusieurs Etats ont édicté des lois supprimant les droits civiques des personnes condamnées pénalement pour une période déterminée. Au Kentucky et en Virginie l’interdiction est prononcée à vie. Certains Etats ont étendu cette privation aux personnes verbalisées pour des infractions au code de la route. Sachant l’injustice qui caractérise la Justice US, les criminels condamnés sont presque exclusivement des pauvres de couleur. Au Michigan, le législateur vient d’étendre la privation des droits civiques aux familles victimes de la crise des subprimes, qui n’ont pas été en mesure de payer les traites de leurs emprunts et dont on a confisqué la maison. Ainsi, non seulement les citoyens ne choisissent pas leurs dirigeants, mais ce sont les dirigeants qui choisissent leurs électeurs.

Il n’existe pas de statistiques permettant de distinguer les citoyens qui ne souhaitent pas voter, ceux qui ne sont pas parvenus à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales, et ceux qui ont été privés de leurs droits civiques. Toutefois, le résultat est là : en 2004, sur 215 millions de citoyens en âge de voter, seuls 122 millions se sont déplacés aux urnes (soit 56 % de participation). George W. Bush avait été triomphalement élu par 286 membres du Collège électoral présidentiel, mais il n’avait obtenu que 62 millions de voix citoyennes, soit 28 % des citoyens en âge de voter.

Démocratie de marché

Venons-en au contenu de la campagne électorale. Dans la plupart des pays du monde, les campagnes permettent de développer une vision politique et de la placer en concurrence avec d’autres. Il n’en est pas de même aux Etats-Unis parce que, comme dans l’ensemble des pays anglo-saxons, il va culturellement de soi qu’il n’existe pas d’intérêt général. Aussi, bien que la Constitution soit d’esprit républicain, sa pratique ne l’est pas.

Chaque candidat tente d’agréger autour de lui la plus vaste coalition d’intérêts particuliers et se vante des soutiens qu’il a reçu comme autant de preuves de sa capacité à gouverner. Il n’y a pas de place pour le débat d’idées au sens européen du terme. Les candidats ne défendent pas une vision du monde et n’ont pas de programme exhaustif. Ils ont des positions sur des sujets précis en fonction des intérêts qu’ils coalisent. Ils présentent leurs actions passées sur chaque sujet abordé comme des échantillons de leur future politique.

John McCain ne diffuse pas de plaquette récapitulative de ses positions. Au contraire Barack Obama a fait imprimer une brochure The Blueprint for Change, qui liste 15 sujets différents, mêlant sans hiérarchie des mesures en faveur de groupes de population (les vieux, les femmes, les anciens combattants, les ruraux) ; des mesures face à des problèmes (la morale, la pauvreté) ; et des politiques sectorielles (économie, fiscalité, politique étrangères). Cette manière de faire évite bien des déconvenues, mais elle dissocie les problèmes et empêche toute réforme globale. Le pragmatisme s’avère être une autre manière de défendre le statu quo.
ہ Washington, on se méfie du mot « démocratie ». Pour se distinguer de certains de ses usages (comme dans « démocratie populaire »), on préfère l’expression « démocratie de marché ». On souligne de la sorte que l’on ne conçoit pas de démocratie politique sans « libre marché « . On admet aussi implicitement que la compétition électorale est comparable à la vente en supermarché : des marques s’affrontent à coup de publicité pour écouler des produits identiques. En choisissant des emballages différents, le citoyen-consommateur fait la fortune des uns ou des autres, mais ne change rien pour lui : il achète toujours le même produit.

* * *

Les Pères fondateurs des Etats-Unis voulaient à la fois que leurs institutions soient légitimées par le peuple, et que celui-ci soit tenu à l’écart des choix politiques. Non seulement le pays n’a jamais été une démocratie, mais avec le temps la classe dirigeante a sophistiqué un système où l’élection présidentielle ne vise pas à exprimer l’opinion populaire, mais à manifester l’adhésion populaire aux institutions et à les re-légitimer. Les primaires permettent de sélectionner les candidats les plus conformistes, tandis que les ordinateurs de vote et le vote anticipé garantissent la possibilité de rectifier les résultats des urnes.

Ce système n’est pas sans rappeler celui de l’ancienne Union soviétique. Les notables locaux remplacent l’avant-garde du prolétariat pour constituer une élite qui tire les ficelles. Le scrutin à deux degrés rappelle le « centralisme démocratique », etc. Force est de constater que la vie politique US est un archaïsme de la Guerre froide. Comme l’a observé l’ancien président Mikhail Gorbatchev, les Etats-Unis ont besoin de faire leur perestroika pour tourner la page du passé et entrer dans l’ère de la modernité démocratique.

Si ce show régénère la société tous les quatre ans, il sert aussi à nettoyer l’image des Etats-Unis dans le monde. L’opinion publique internationale est invitée à suivre un spectacle qui fasse oublier les crimes précédents et lui redonne espoir. Cette année le casting est particulièrement réussi : un sémillant jeune noir assisté d’un vieux briscard de la politique contre un ancien combattant épaulé par une femme sans complexes. Déjà, la presse mondiale titre sur l’après-Bush comme si les guerres en Afghanistan et en Irak étaient des erreurs passagères imputables à la seule Administration sortante.

Thierry Meyssan
Analyste politique, fondateur du Réseau Voltaire. Dernier ouvrage paru : L’Effroyable imposture 2 (le remodelage du Proche-Orient et la guerre israélienne contre le Liban)

While there is the common feeling around the world that US power is falling, one has to define the concept of power before making such a claim.

What is power?

The power a country has can be divided into 3 main categories of power: Military, Economic and Political. Political power means to be able to have influence on other’s decisions and stands, and to be able to assume legitimity for your actions.

While it is true that the US legitimity and influence has decreased in the last 8 years, George W. Bush’s term in office is almost over. Obama or McCain give only 2 options: either they can restore the image of the US in the world, or they will keep it as low as it is right now.

Economically, the US still remains at the top 2 economic powers of this world. It is equal to that of the EU – as a whole. While the EU has the potentia of being divided on international politics, the US remains hence still the most powerful country in that aspect. Of course, third world countries keep growing at a faster pace than the Western countries. So is China and Russia. Nonetheless, the US remains dominant. Its currency is still used as the main international currency, used – even by Europe – to buy oil, take loans, etc. Japan had a taste of that power in the 1980s. While it was growing in an unprecedented manner, giving out loans to the US so that it could purchase Japanese goods. The US, noticing its trade deficit, decided to devaluate the dollar. Eventually, Japan has known a major economic crisis, and became one of the most endebted countries in the world. China is heading in the same direction…

However, when talking about military power, there is no reason to argue. The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total military expenditure, distantly followed by the UK, France, China, Russia and Japan.

The fact of the matter is, the US is still the most powerful country in the world, and is expected to remain at its place for the years to come.

Russia and China

The only two countries that may claim to contest that fact are Russia and China.

China, as a growing power, is a very complexe country. Although it has huge potential on the international scene, it remains reluctant to take a firm stand on many issues. It has had a very comprehensive and peace-oriented stand in the Darfur crisis, although her economical interests where at stake. It has also refused to take Russia’s side during the Georgian crisis. It is hence trying to remain at equal distance from all major powers. On the long run, that might change. But internal problems may arise.

Russia’s economy keeps growing, and it is willing to occupy the role it had during the Cold War. Two problems remain however. For the same reasons as it failed to win the Cold War, it might not succede in making of itself a major power again: the military expenditure must not be too high, or it might end up with the same crisis it had in the end of the 1980s. But military expenditure is essential if it is willing to assume the role of world superpower! Russia is hence in a dilemma… A second problem might also come forth. Although democratic change failed to concretise in the 1990s, there is nontheless a will to democratise the country. The dictatorial rule of Putin does not legitimise itself the same way as the communist ideology. In time, Russia is doomed to become democratic, or internal division will become predominant in this very large country.

Saying that the US is the greatest and only superpower in our world, does not mean it is hegemonic. If it is unable to bring about stability in Iraq, it certainly means it cannot bring stability in the world, not under its own rule at least. The US military strength is such that it is capable of destroying the military power of all its opponents – it destroyed Saddam’s regime in weeks – combined. But it is unable to shape the world the way it likes.

What are we expecting for the future?

Since the US is expected to keep its military power, we might not expect much change: we live in a chaotic world, where alliances may shift, but not majorly – the EU will remain the US main ally and vice-versa. Wars will still be fought on lines of tension – the Middle East, the Caucasus, potentially Central Asia, Africa… But the US, its allies, and the major powers will remain untouched, unless internal problems arise.

As a non-American, I was doubble as enthoused by him. Beside the obvious reasons – most non-Americans always prefer democrats to republicans – we all thought, just like many Americans, that the only fact that this candidate was black, would change a lot. Changing the image of the US, after 8 years of desaster, was to us essential.

This young man seemed to be more pragmatic on foreign policy than his predecessor and most other candidates (Kucinich and Paul excluded). He was for talking with the enemy, and wanted to pull out of Iraq!

But things started to change. He became more and more “integrated” into the traditional American stand, as weeks passed by: talking with the enemy didn’t include Hamas for instance – even though former President Carter didn’t see any problem with that. And having a peace-oriented foreign policy didn’t exclude other wars – Pakistan, Iran, more troops in Afghanistan, etc.. And when it came to Iraq, his brilliant plan was not so unheard of either: a retreat from Iraq meant that at least 60.000 troups would still remain – in the country – to fight the terrorists. His appearance at the AIPAC meeting – the American-Israeli lobby – where he promised to give Israel everything it asked for, was neither new nor innovative!

As it turns out, not only do I not see any difference between him and the other candidates, democrats or republicans, who all call for “change”, but I don’t even see a difference between his strategy and that of George Bush!

Also, all his rhetoric about change, representing the American people instead of big corporations, and most of his ideas about health-care, and so on, turned out to be just what it was: rhetoric…

An excellent paper written by VP independent candidate Matt Gonzales, cornered exactly what I felt, with details and numbers:

The Obama Craze: Count Me Out

MATT GONZALEZ / Beyond The Chron 27feb2008

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling them self a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here’s why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

CLASS ACTION REFORM:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions – most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations – all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work “off the clock,” four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.

LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.

MINING LAW OF 1872:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned: Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).

REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”

ENERGY POLICY:

On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.

SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Source

(The Daily Star)

Request aims to compensate environmental damage

By Dalila Mahdawi

Monday, September 08, 2008

BEIRUT: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has renewed calls for Israel to pay Lebanon around $1 billion in compensation for damage inflicted during the summer 2006 war with the Jewish state, news reports said on Saturday. The figure, which is based on calculations made by the World Bank, is intended to reimburse Lebanon for environmental and material damage it suffered during the war but most notably Israel’s bombing of the Jiyyeh power station, said the daily Al-Akhbar newspaper.

The attack, considered to be Lebanon’s worst ever environmental disaster, released between 12,500 and 15,000 tons of fuel oil into the Mediterranean Sea, polluting two-thirds of Lebanon’s coastline and endangering already vulnerable marine life. It also affected northern neighboring countries, including Syria.

Ban will present a report on the oil spill to the UN General Assembly before October this year, said Al-Akhbar. The report is said to include findings by the Lebanese National Center for Scientific Research and the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, both of which have gathered evidence in Lebanon showing the increase of such medical conditions as skin diseases and pneumonia following the war.

In addition to environmental destruction, Lebanon suffered substantial damage to its infrastructure during the 34-day war, in which 1,200 Lebanese – mostly civilians – were killed and 4,409 wounded. Throughout and following the conflict, Israel maintained a tight sea and air blockade on the country, hampering humanitarian assistance and evacuation efforts.

A report published by the UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon in November 2006 found that Israel had used “excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force” during the conflict, which followed Hizbullah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Israel has ignored all UN requests made since August 2007 to compensate Lebanon.

Lebanon also continues to suffer from the presence of unexploded cluster munitions. Israeli artillery and warplanes dropped an estimated 4 million cluster bombs over South Lebanon, most during the last 48 hours of the conflict – after a cease-fire was assured – the UN estimated. Earlier this month, the body responsible for de-mining efforts in Lebanon, the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Center, said it would be forced to halt its work due to a lack of funds.

The Lebanese government said 32 “vital points” came under attack, with 109 bridges, 137 roads and 137 factories targeted by Israeli air strikes. Thirty UN positions came under “direct attack,” added the report, resulting in the death of internationally “protected personnel.” A number of medical facilities and private homes also came under fire.

The UN report said it was “convinced” that the bombing of Jiyyeh was a “premeditated” attack and that it “considers that it will take years for Lebanon, with the help of the international community, to be able to rebuild all the damaged buildings and other facilities.” Israel’s actions, which the UN dubbed “collective punishment,” led to the internal displacement of 735,000 people and the evacuation of 230,000 others.

The report also stated that the “failure” of Israel “to take the necessary precautionary measures violated Israel’s obligations to protect the natural environment and the right to health. In particular it caused significant damage to the Byblos archaeological site, included in the UNESCO World Heritage list.”

Lebanon also continues to suffer from the presence of unexploded cluster munitions. Israeli artillery and warplanes dropped an estimated 4 million cluster bombs over South Lebanon, most during the last 48 hours of the conflict – after a cease-fire was assured – the UN estimated. Earlier this month, the body responsible for de-mining efforts in Lebanon, the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Center, said it would be forced to halt its work due to a lack of funds.

Israel has ignored all UN requests made since August 2007 to compensate Lebanon.

This news is particularly interesting when we consider the eventual compensations would be done to Lebanon’s efforts in cleaning up its shores, and not to the destruction of its infrastructure. Why? There are many reasons why Lebanon cannot ask for compensations. 1/ interpretation of who caused the war; 2/ peace treaty.

1/ Every Israeli violation, attack, invasion, occupation, has always been in response to a particular event, whether officiously or just officially. Every time Israel has invaded Lebanon, since its creation in 1948, it has pretended doing so in order to eliminate guerrilla fighting in South Lebanon. It used to be the PLO, either firing rockets, or simply using Lebanon as an assault base. Today it is Hezbollah…

Now according to international law, you can interpret it the way you want. International law requires a government to be liable for everything that happens on its territory. If whatever happens on its territory affects a neighboring country, the government, the state, is considered responsible. That is why Israel has on numerous accounts considered the Lebanese government as directly responsible for its negligence of security issues. In doing so, they are protecting themselves from international law: if they don’t hold the Lebanese government responsible, then they admit being wrong. This is the case for many international issues: Turkey and the PKK in Iraq, Syria and the fighting in North Lebanon, Colombia and Ecuador for the FARC. In the last two cases, the diplomatic relations are supposed to be “good” (meaning there is no state of war, and both countries are “sovereign”). But in the case of Israel and Turkey, they “accuse” the  neighboring governments of negligence, and that gives them the “right” (although that is wrong, even according to international standards. But it is their interpretation of what is “right”) to protect themselves by taking care of business themselves.

2/ Now on that last point: the invader may ultimately retreat and apologies, in order to build better relations with that country. Hence, it admits being in the wrong when it invaded its neighbor. In which case, a treaty is signed in which the invader agrees to pay for the reconstruction costs.

But since Israel and Lebanon are not at peace, but still officially at war, there’s no reason why Israel should pay Lebanon anything, regardless of the interpretation of “who invaded who”. In fact, even if Israel admits being the invader, Lebanon must agree to sign a peace treaty with Israel in order to get compensations…

The 1 billion dollar compensation the UN seeks to get, is not for the infrastructural destruction, but for the environmental destruction, which is shared by all regional countries, including countries with which Israel is at peace!

Hamid Karzai, front, arrives Thursday in a village in Herat province, reportedly the site of a U.S. attack.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Pakistan lashed out at the United States and the Afghan president spoke with President Bush after U.S. military strikes that leaders of the two nations say killed scores of civilians.

The Pakistani foreign minister accused the United States of perpetrating “cowardly acts against innocent civilians.”

U.S. military officials agree the attacks took place, saying they were targeting al Qaeda and Taliban militants, but disagree on the number of civilians killed.

It is rare for the U.S. military to send troops into Pakistan’s lawless tribal region, where al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have established bases. Militants launch attacks on Afghanistan from the mountainous region. Watch angry reaction from Pakistan »

U.S., coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan generally stay out of Pakistan except when they pursue high-value targets or insurgents who slip through the porous border.

According to a senior U.S. official, U.S. helicopters dropped troops Wednesday in the village of Angoor Adda in South Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan.

The operation was launched quickly, without a formal blessing from Pakistan’s government, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

He said the U.S. launched the operation only after it had sufficient intelligence to send troops into a potentially hostile area.

The official would not say if the strikes targeted a specific person, but officials said nothing indicated troops were targeting al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Local media reports said the troops came out of a chopper and fired on civilians. Pakistan military spokesman Maj. Murad Khan said Thursday that 15 civilians were killed.

Hours after the raid, Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad to issue a “strong protest.”

Pakistan also instructed its ambassador in Washington “to make a strong demarche to the U.S. authorities,” according to Pakistani’s Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi. A demarche is the diplomatic term for a position statement from one government to another, and is often a formal protest.

“Such cowardly acts against innocent civilians not only constitute a violation of the international humanitarian norms and the principles of the United Nations Charter but also fuel the fire of violence and hatred,” Qureshi told lawmakers Thursday.

The Pentagon has refused to comment officially, but some defense officials acknowledged U.S. military activity inside Pakistan. None of the officials confirmed any civilian deaths.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino refused to comment on the military operation when asked about it at a Thursday news conference. She stressed the U.S. position to work “in cooperation, coordination, with the Pakistanis to help go after the Taliban, which is a common enemy.”

The United States has a “very good” but “complex” relationship with Pakistan, said State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood on Thursday.

“Pakistan is an important ally of the United States in the war on terror. We will continue to work with Pakistan. It’s not an easy situation,” he said.

“The government of Pakistan takes the threat from the Taliban and al Qaeda very seriously, as we do. And we are looking at ways we can improve, we can enhance our cooperation in defeating these extremist elements that are operating … not only in Pakistan but across the border in Afghanistan,” Wood added.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force has denied involvement in the attack.

The senior U.S. official said American troops attacked three buildings where they believed top suspects were housed. They believe the targets were responsible for attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

There may have been women and children in the vicinity, but when the mission began, “everybody came out firing” from the compound, the official said.

Coalition and NATO forces have become frustrated with Pakistani leaders, saying they have not been proactive enough against militants, a claim denied by Pakistan — a nation in political flux after the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf.

Also, Karzai spoke to President Bush on Wednesday about a separate airstrike on August 22 that killed a disputed number of Afghan civilians in a province that borders Iran, according to the White House.

Afghanistan and the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan concluded that 90 civilians were killed in the strike in the western Afghan province of Herat. But the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said 30-35 Taliban militants and five to seven civilians were killed.

“President Bush told President Karzai that he grieves any time innocents die,” White House national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe said during a Wednesday videoconference.

Afghan ministers are demanding a review of international troops operating within Afghan borders.

This blog will cover issues from all around the world, depending on what conflict emerges. It will also cover issues that interest myself: US foreign and national politics, Middle Eastern issues, and Lebanon.

I hope it will be a succes, and I hope that you will enjoy reading my blog.

Dodzi