” زنانه شدن بازار کار” به مثابه شدت بهره‌کشی از نیروی کار: زهره اسدپور

نوشته شده در ژوئن 22, 2013 به وسیلهٔ

 jahanezanan.wordpress.com

در تحلیل سوسیال فمینیستی از فرودستی زنان در جامعه بر نقش سرمایه‌داری و مردسالاری و تعامل پیچیده‌ی این دو با هم تاکید می‌شود. به عنوان مثال گرچه سرمایه‌داری در دوره‌های متعددی بر حضور زنان در بازار کار تاکید کرده است و از آن حمایت کرده است، اما از سوی دیگر نه تنها با این باور مردسالارانه که “نقش” و ” وظیفه ” اصلی زنان در خانه داری و شوهرداری است مقابله نکرده است که با اتکا به آن از زنان نیروی کار ارزان قیمتی ساخته است که می‌توان با حضور بالقوه و بالفعل آنان بازار را کنترل کرد و به سود بیش‌تری دست یافت. به عبارت دیگر آن‌چه که ویژگی‌های اشتغال زنان شناخته می‌شود- کم‌تر تشکل یافتگی، دستمزد کم‌تر، اشتغال در مشاغل پایین‌تر در سلسله مراتب شغلی، اشتغال در مشاغل کاربر، …همه گی ناشی از درهم تنیدگی و تعامل مردسالاری و سرمایه‌داری است که در نظامی پیچیده به بهره کشی از زنان می‌پردازند.

از دیگر سو، یکی از رایج‌ترین شاخص‌ها برای قابل فهم کردن نابرابری جنسیتی در جامعه،اشاره به میزان حضور کم‌تر زنان در بازار کار است. به این معنا که این حضور نابرابر به عنوان نتیجه ی عملکرد عوامل محدود کننده و فرودست سازنده زنان شناخته می‌شود. در نتیجه از میزان بالاتراشتغال زنان به معنای عقب نشینی نسبی عوامل فرودست سازاستقبال می‌شود.

اما در سال‌های اخیر با گسترش جهانی سازی میزان مشارکت زنان در بازار کارجهان به شدت افزایش یافته است. پرسش فمینیستی در این حوزه این است که آیا می‌توان یک باره از این پدیده به عنوان عقب نشینی عوامل فرو دست ساز استقبال کرد یا باید با احتیاط بیش‌تری با این پدیده مواجه شد؟ به عبارت دیگر آیا این حضور بیش‌تر خود عرصه ای جدید برای بهره کشی از زنان فراهم نکرده است؟

 

پیش از هر چیز باید دید چه توضیحاتی برای “زنانه شدن بازار کار” وجود دارد. به عنوان مثال السون(۱۹۹۹)[۱] معتقد است باید با پذیرش جهش در میزان اشتغال زنان با احتیاط مواجه شد و علاوه بر این به تمامی آن را مثبت ارزیابی نکرد. زیرا گاه افزایش میزان اشتغال زنان در کشورهای مختلف، به خصوص در کشورهای در حال توسعه ناشی از بازبینی شیوه‌های جمع آوری اطلاعات دراین کشور‌ها است، و نه سیاست‌های تشویقی و یا رفع موانع در راه اشتغال زنان. به عنوان مثال در پاکستان بازبینی شیوه‌های جمع آوری اطلاعات اشتغال، موجب شد تا میزان اشتغال از ۱۴ درصد به حدود ۵۰ درصد جهش یابد. در مواردی نیز که این آمار نه ناشی از ترمیم شیوه‌های جمع‌آوری اطلاعات، بلکه ناشی از حضور واقعی بیش‌تر زنان در بازار کار بوده است، نمی‌توان تاثیر جهانی سازی و سیاست‌های نولیبرالیستی را نادیده گرفت. سیاست‌هایی که گرچه زنان را به بازار کار کشانده است، اما آسیب‌های فراوانی را نیز برزنان وارد کرده است. به عنوان مثال در شیلی حضور بیش‌تر زنان در بازار کار ناشی از انهدام اقتصاد خود کفا و معیشتی و الحاق به شیوه ی تولید سرمایه‌دارانه بوده است. (همان)در بخش‌های وسیعی از این کشور زنان روستایی ای که در اقتصاد معیشتی و البته نه در برابر دستمزد فعال بودند، با گسترش جهانی سازی و حذف موانع بر سر حضور شرکت‌های چند ملیتی از یک سو مجبور به واگذاری باغ‌ها و مزرعه‌های خود به شرکت‌های چند ملیتی شدند و از سویی دیگر خود نیز برای بقا در شرایطی به مراتب سخت‌تر به کار دستمزدی در همان مزارع و باغ‌ها پرداختند. در بنگلادش نیز جهانی سازی و سیاست‌های نولیبرالیستی در ارتقای میزان اشتغال زنان بسیار موثر بوده است. تاثیر این سیاست‌ها در حذف موانع بر سر راه سرمایه گذاری خارجی و مقررات زدایی از بازار کار در جهت دسترسی بیش‌تر به کارگر ارزان قیمت، از یک سو و خروج سرمایه ازکشور‌های متروپل به جستجوی سود بیش‌تر و کارگر ارزان تر و انتقال صنایع کاربر که به تخصص بالایی نیز نیاز نداشتند به کشورهای در حال توسعه موجب شد تا این کشور به محل تولید لباس‌های ارزان قیمت برای شرکت‌های بزرگ غربی تبدیل شود. جهانی سازی همچنین با گسترش الگوی اشتغال نیمه وقت، نیز به حضور بیش‌تر زنان در بازار کار منجر شده است. الگوی اشتغال نیمه وقت، از آن جایی که راه گریزی است از مقررات سخت گیرانه اشتغال، به الگویی سود آور به خصوص در کشورهای توسعه یافته که بر رعایت مقررات کار با سخت گیری بیش‌تری نظارت می‌شود، تبدیل شده است. از سوی دیگر اشتغال نیمه وقت اساسن الگویی است که ” زنانه ” تلقی” می‌شود. زیرا زنانی که “وظیفه اصلی آنان” خانه داری و بچه داری است، می‌توانند با اشتغال نیمه وقت، هم به کار “اصلی ” خود بپردازند و هم زمان اشتغال را با زمان فراغت خود از کارهای منزل تنظیم کنند. زنان در مشاغل نیمه وقت طبیعتن به مراتب کم‌تر از مشاغل تمام وقت دستمزد می‌گیرند و امکان ارتقای شغلی بسیار ناچیزی نیز دارند و به همین میزان قدرت چانه زنی کم‌تری نیز به نسبت زنانی که در مشاغل تمام وقت مشغولند ، در خانواده دارند. در نتیجه، گرچه حضور گسترده زنان در مشاغل نیمه وقت به میزان اشتغال زنان افزوده است ، اما این حضور مزایای کم‌تری نسبت به الگوهای دیگر برای زنان شاغل به همراه دارد.

 

با توجه به آن چه که گفته شد، به نظر می‌رسد اگر از تاثیر اصلاح شیوه‌های گردآوری اطلاعات اشتغال صرف نظر کنیم، عمده‌ی ارتقای میزان اشتغال زنان متاثر از جهانی سازی است. به عبارت دیگر، جهانی سازی بیش از هرچیز به گسترش مشاغل پرکارتر- هم‌چون مشاغل مربوط به تولید لباس‌های ارزان قیمت در بنگلادش- و مشاغل کم درآمدتر- هم‌چون مشاغل نیمه وقت در کشورهای توسعه یافته- که امکان ارتقای شغلی کم‌تری نیز دارند، منجر شده است.

 

با ارجاع به تحلیل سوسیال فمینیستی در توزیع زنان در بازار کار و حضور بیش‌تر زنان در مشاغل سطوح پایین منزلتی می‌توان در یافت که علت آن چه زنانه شدن بازار کار نامیده شده است، در واقع نتیجه گسترش فرصت‌های شغلی در سطوح پایین تر سلسله مراتب شغلی است، سطوحی که عمدتن توسط زنان – و نه مردان – اشغال می‌شود. در ادامه با جزییات بیش‌تری به شرایط کار زنان در صنعت دوزندگی بنگلادش – به عنوان نمونه‌ای از عملکرد جهانی سازی در ایجاد شغل‌های زنانه – می‌پردازیم.

 

نگاهی گذرا به صنعت دوزندگی در بنگلادش

صنعت تولید لباس‌های ارزان قیمت در بنگلادش در اواخردهه ی ۷۰ با پیشی گرفتن از صنعت پارچه بافی در این کشور به ستون فقرات صنعتی بنگلادش تبدیل شد[۲]. این صنعت بیش از ۷۶ درصد از صادرات این کشور را تشکیل می‌دهد. بیش از ۷۸ درصد از سرمایه گذاری خارجی در بنگلادش، و ۸۶ درصد از اشتغال در این کشور، به این بخش اختصاص می‌یابد[۳]. اشتیاق سرمایه گذاران خارجی به سرمایه‌گذاری در این بخش تا به آن حد است که در سال ۲۰۰۶ تنها ۲% از شرکت‌های دوزندگی صاحبانی بومی داشتند و باقی کاملن یا بخشی در تملک سرمایه گذاران خارجی بودند.

 

متوسط ساعت کار در این صنعت بین ۹ تا ۱۲ ساعت در روز است و گاه این زمان به ۱۶ ساعت نیز می‌رسد. کارگران هیچ اضافه کاری ای بابت ساعاتی که ببیش‌تر مانده اند دریافت نمی‌کنند[۴]. عمدتا هیچ قرار داد کاری ای بین کارگر و کارفرما منعقد نمی‌شود و کارگران به سادگی استخدام و اخراج می‌شوند. دفاع متشکل از منافع کارگران نیزفراز و نشیب‌های فراوانی در بنگلادش داشته است. به عنوان مثال تاریخ فعالیت‌های اتحادیه‌های کارگری در بنگلادش، ملغمه ای است ازممنوعیت، بازداشت، مبارزه و آزاد سازی فعالیت و البته همچنان فشارهای سخت امنیتی[۵].

 

زنان در صنعت تولید لباس بنگلادش

به نظر می‌رسد سرمایه‌داری در حوزه‌های مختلف رابطه‌های متفاوتی با مردسالاری را شکل می‌دهد، گاه با تضعیف مردسالاری زنان را از خانه‌ها بیرون می‌کشاند و در محل کار آنان را استثمار می‌کند و هم زمان در محل کار، از الگوهای مردسالارانه که به کار استثمار بیش‌تر زنان می‌آید بهره می‌برد و این الگوها را بیش از پیش تقویت و پشتیبانی می‌کند. به عنوان مثال، گرچه خروج زن از خانه به قصد کار، مردسالاری سنتی بنگلادش را که بر خانه نشینی زن تاکید داشت لرزانده است، اما همان مبانی مردسالاری برای فشار بیش‌تر بر زنان در محل کار مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. محل کار زنان کاملن از منظر عموم پوشیده است، و از محل کار مردان هم جدا است و به شدت تحت نظارت و کنترل قرار دارد[۶].

 

صنعت تولید لباس ارزان قیمت در بنگلادش اساسن صنعتی زنانه است. ۸۵ % شاغلان این صنعت را زنان تشکیل می‌دهند. اغلب این کارگران بسیار جوان هستند و درصد قابل توجهی از آنان مجردند و در سنین کودکی کار در این صنعت را شروع کرده‌اند. در گزارشی که در سال ۹۶ منتشر شد، مشخص شد که ۶۰% این کارگران بین ۱۶ تا ۲۰ سال سن دارند و بین ۷۰ تا ۷۵% آنان مجرداند[۷]. برآورد می‌شود بیش از یک سوم زنان مجرد شاغل در این بخش زیر ۱۵ سال و در سنینی هستند که قاعدتن می‌بایست مشغول تحصیل در مدرسه باشند[۸].

 

کار سخت و برای زمان طولانی نیز از دیگر ویژگی‌های کار زنان در این بخش است. یافته‌های پژوهش‌ها نشان می‌دهد که در موارد فراوانی زنان کارگر تا سه نیمه شب به کار مشغولند، در حالی که می‌بایست صبح روز بعد کار را در ساعت ۸ صبح شروع کنند. مقررات زدایی از بازار کار به هدف جذب سرمایه خارجی به سهل گیری در رعایت استانداردهای حهانی کار منجر می‌شود. اما در موردهای فراوانی حتی همین قانون‌هایی که با استانداردهای جهانی فاصله دارند نیز رعایت نمی‌شود. به عنوان مثال گاهی از زنان خواسته می‌شود تا بدون حتی یک روز تعطیلی یک ماه متوالی کار کنند. در حالی که طبق قانون حداقل بعد از هر۱۰ روز کاری باید یک روز تعطیل در نظر گرفته شود[۹]. نقض متداول قانون نیم بند کار، به این خلاصه نمی‌شود. علی رغم این که قانون یک ساعت وقت نهار در نظر گرفته است و در مراکز کارگری متراکم، کارفرما موظف است که محل خاصی را برای نهار خوری در نظر بگیرد، اما هیچ کدام از این کارخانه‌های دوزندگی غذاخوری ندارند و زنان مجبورند تا درکنار ماشین‌های دوزندگی غذا بخورند. زمانی که برای نهار خوردن آنان اختصاص یافته است، به جای یک ساعت که طبق قانون پیش بینی شده است ، نیم ساعت است[۱۰]. زنان هم‌چنین از مرخصی زایمان نیز برخوردار نیستند، آن‌ها “داوطلبانه” و در نتیجه بدون حقوق در زمان زایمان برای دو هفته کار را ترک می‌کنند و پس از آن اگر کس دیگری جایگزین نشده باشد به محل کار بازمی‌گردند. زنان شاغل در کارگاه‌ها و کارخانه‌های دوزندگی اغلب در زاغه‌های حومه‌ی شهرها زندگی می‌کنند و رفت و آمد به محل کار چه از بعد امنیتی و چه از بعد اقتصادی از دغدغه‌های مهم آنان است. در چنین شرایطی آنان گرچه مجبورند تا دیروقت کار کنند اما امکانات حمل و نقل ویژه ای برایشان در نظر گرفته نشده است. علی‌رغم تصریح قانون برای وجود مهد کودک، چنین محلی در کارگاه‌ها وجود ندارد. حتی زنانی که کودکان خود را شیر می‌دهند نیز از تسهیلات شیرخوارگاه در محل کار برخوردار نیستند و آنها که به علت بیماری از پروسه تولید عقب می‌مانند از کار اخراج می‌شوند[۱۱].

 

ضعف یا فقدان دفاع متشکل از حقوق کاریکی دیگر از ویژگی‌های اشتغال زنان است. در بنگلادش اغلب زنان با اتحادیه‌های کارگری آشنا نیستند. در یک پژوهش در این مورد، زنان متاهل و سرپرست خانوار حتی از سخن گفتن از اتحادیه نیز می‌هراسیدند. به نظر می‌رسد این موضوع ناشی از سرکوب شدید اتحادیه‌های کارگری از یک سو و بی تجربه‌گی زنان در دفاع متشکل از حقوق کارگری خود و مهم‌تر از همه به علت بی توجهی اتحادیه‌های عمدتن مردانه کارگری به خواسته‌های ویژه‌ی زنان باشد. بنا بر این عجیب نیست که تنها سه درصد از زنان در اتحادیه‌های کارگری عضو هستند[۱۲].

 

یکی دیگر از ویژگی‌های اشتغال زنان، تجمع آنان در مشاغل کم مهارت است. این ویژگی در صنعت دوزندگی نیز دیده می‌شود. گفته می‌شود بیش از ۵۰ درصد مشاغل در صنعت دوزندگی نیازی به هیچ گونه مهارتی ندارند.

با نگاهی گذرا به وضعیت زنان در صنعت تولید لباس ارزان قیمت در بنگلادش به نظر می‌رسد که شرایط آنان را می‌توان ملغمه‌ای از کار سخت و طاقت فرسا برای ساعاتی طولانی که حتی حق و حقوق نیم بند قانونی نیز در آن رعایت نمی‌شود دانست. ملغمه‌ای که در کنار فقدان دفاع متشکل از حقوق کار، حاصل آن برای کارفرمایان سودآوری بیش‌تر است.

شرایط زنان کارگر دوزنده در بنگلادش، فرجامی است که پذیرش سیاست‌های نولیبرالیستی جهانی سازی برای زنان کشورهای مختلف رقم زده است. و از این رو است که دیگر باید میدان اصلی مبارزه برای رفع فرودستی زنان بیش از پیش به محل کار منتقل شود. به عبارت دیگر جهانی سازی به خودی خود حضور بیش‌تر زنان در بازار کار را فراهم کرده است، حضوری که البته با بهره کشی بیش‌تر از زنان همراه است. شاید دیگر پس از این باید مبارزات فمینیستی بیش از این که میزان حضور زنان در بازار کار را هدف بگیرد به چگونگی این حضور- به مثابه عرصه‌ی اصلی تعامل مردسالاری و سرمایه‌داری در فرودست سازی زنان – معطوف شود.

——————————————————————————–

[۱] Elson, D. (1999) ‘Labour markets as Gendered Institutions: Equality, Efficiency and Empowerment Issues’, in World Development, Vol. 27, No. 3: 611-627

[2] Khanna, Pragya(2011)’Making Labour Voice Heard During an Industrial Crisis: Worker’s struggles in Bangladesh Garment Industry’ in Labour, Capital and Society 44:2

[3] همان

[۴] همان

[۵] همان

[۶] همان

[۷] Wahra & Rahman(1996)’A right to live: Girl Workersin the Bangladesh Garment Industry’ in Gender and Development, Vol.3, No.2

[8] Tamaly &Wickramayanake(1996)’Women Workers in Garment Industryin Dhaka, Bangladesh ‘ in Development in Practice, vol.6, No.2

[9] همان

[۱۰] همان

[۱۱] همان

[۱۲] همان

صفحه اصلی
درباره ما
تماس با ما
همکاری با مهرگان
دانلود مجله
عضویت در خبرنامه

مطالب این شماره
سقوط آزاد اقتصاد ایران!

تحریریه

فروپاشی اقتصاد ایران:طوفان که در راه است!-بخش ۳

احمد سیف

جنبش طبقاتی و جنبش اجتماعی

فریبرز مسعودی

مارکس، کینز، هایک و بحران سرمایه‌داری– بخش دوم و سوم

آدام بوث «مسعود امیدی»

دیوید هاروی؛ اقتصاد سیاسیِ فضا

آندِرزه زیِلِنیک «ترجمه مریم امیری»

جنگ و محیط زیست

اکرم پدرام‌نیا

بررسی قوانین تکامل اجتماعی

سید محمد صدرالغروی

خاورمیانه جدید و نولیبرالیسم عثمانی

فرشته دلاور

سوریه زمین بازی جنگ‌های وکالتی – فرقه‌ای

اردشیر زارعی قنواتی

جهانی کردن و وضعیت کارگران

احمد سیف

زنانه شدن بازار کار

زهره اسدپور

خشونت جهانی و روزمره شده، از بنگلادش تا تکزاس

مینا خانلرزاده

استراتژی چریکی راست در ونزوئلا

آتیلیو . ا . بورون «ترجمه: بابک پاکزاد»

نقل مطالب مجله با ذکر نام پدید آورنده و منبع آزاد است.
contact@mehreganmag.com

کره زمین  4 میلیارد و 600 میلیون (4/6میلیارد) سال عمر دارد. بزبانی دیگر اگر این رقم را ساده نمائیم و 46 سال بشماریم ما انسانها 4 ساعت بیشتر نیست که روی کره زمین هستیم , انقلاب صنعتی یک دقیقه پیش شروع شده و ما در این مدت نیمی از جنگلها را نابود کرده ایم!!!! 

 

ترجمه از: پیمان پایدار

اگر مردی یک بار زن باش....

بايد باكره باشى
بايد پاك باشى!
براى آسايش خاطر مردانى كه پيش از تو پرده ها دريده اند !
... چرايش را نميدانى فقط ميدانى قانون است، سنت است ، دين است
قانون و سنت را ميدانى مردان
ساخته اند

اما در خلوت
مى انديشى به مرد بودن خدا و گاهى فكر ميكنى شايدخدا را نيز مردان ساخته اند!!

من زنم ...

با دست هایی که دیگر دلخوش به النگو هایی نیست
که زرق و برقش شخصیتم باشد
من زنم .... و به همان اندازه از هوا سهم میبرم که ریه های تو
میدانی ؟ درد آور است من آزاد نباشم که تو به گناه نیفتی
قوس های بدنم به چشم هایت بیشتر از تفکرم می آیند
دردم می آید باید لباسم را با میزان ایمان شما تنظیم کنم

دردم می آید ژست روشنفکریت تنها برای دختران غریبه است
به خواهر و مادرت که میرسی قیصر
می شوی

دردم می آید در تختخواب با تمام عقیده هایم موافقی
و صبح ها از دنده دیگری از خواب پا میشوی
تمام حرف هایت عوض میشود

دردم می آید
نمی فهمی
تفکر فروشی بدتر از تن فروشی است

حیف که ناموس برای تو وسط پا است
نه تفکر
حیف که فاحشه ی مغزی بودن
بی اهمیت تر از فاحشه تنی است

من محتاج درک شدن نیستم,
دردم می آید خر فرض شوم

دردم می آید آنقدر خوب سر وجدانت کلاه میگذاری
و هر بار که آزادیم را محدود میکنی
میگویی من به تو اطمینان دارم اما اجتماع خراب است

نسل تو هم که اصلا مسول خرابی هایش نبود
میدانی ؟

دلم از مادر هایمان میگیرد
بدبخت هایی بودند که حتی میترسیدند باور کنند حقشان پایمال شده
خیانت نمیکردند ..

نه برای اینکه از زندگی راضی بودند
نه ...

خیانت هم شهامت میخواست ...

نسل تو از مادر هایمان همه چیز را گرفت
جایش النگو داد ...

مادرم از خدا میترسد ...

از لقمه ی حرام میترسد ...
از همه چیز میترسد
تو هم که خوب میدانی ترساندن بهترین ابزار کنترل است
دردم می آید ...

این را هم بخوانی میگویی اغراق است
ببینم فردا که دختر مردم زیر پاهای گشت ارشاد به جرم موی بازش کتک میخورد
باز هم همین را میگویی

ببینم آنجا هم
اندازه ی درون خانه ، غیرت داری ؟؟

دردم می آید که به قول شما تمام زن های اطرافتان خرابند ...
و آنهایی هم که نیستند همه فامیل های خودتانند ....
مادرت اگر روزی جرات پیدا کرد ازش بپرس

از سكس با پدر راضی بود ؟؟؟

بیچاره سرخ می شود ...

و جوابش را...
باور کن به خودش هم نمی دهد...........
دردم می آید

از این همه بی کسی دردم می آید

زنده ياد:سيمين دانشور

Presidential Rule by Deception: Obama, the Master Con-man

By Prof. James Petras

Global Research, June 24, 2013

Introduction
In an electoral system, run by and for a corporate oligarchy, deception and demagoguery are essential elements – entertaining the people while working for the wealthy.
Every US President has engaged, in one fashion or another, in ‘play acting’ to secure popular approval, neutralize hostility and distract voters from the reactionary substance of their foreign and domestic policies.

Every substantive policy is accompanied by a ‘down home’ folksy message to win public approval. This happened with President ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s revival of large-scale proxy wars in Afghanistan in the post-Viet Nam War period; Ronald Reagan’s genocidal wars in Central America, George Bush Sr.’s savaging of Iraq in the First Gulf War; ‘Bill’ Clinton’s decimation of social welfare in the US while bombing civilians in Yugoslavia and deregulating Wall Street; George Bush Jr.’s invasion and partition of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempted coup in Venezuela and massive tax cuts for the rich; and Barack Obama’s staggering bailout of the biggest Wall Street speculators, unprecedented launching of five consecutive wars, and arrest and deportation of millions of immigrant workers. Each President has elaborated a style in order to ingratiate himself with the public while pursuing his reactionary agenda.
In rhetoric, appearance and in public persona, it is ‘de rigueur’ for US Presidents to present themselves as an ‘everyman’ while committing political actions – including war crimes worthy of prosecution.

Each President, in his ‘play acting’, develops a style suitable to the times. They constantly strive to overcome the public’s suspicion and potential hostility to their overt and covert policies designed to build empire as domestic conditions deteriorate. However, not all play acting is the same: each President’s ‘populist’ style in defense of oligarchic interests has its characteristic nuances.
The Carter Feint: ‘Human Rights’ Wars in the Post-Viet Nam War Era
‘Jimmy’ Carter was elected President at a time of the greatest mass anti-war upheaval in US history. His campaign projected a soft-spoken, conciliatory President from humble roots reaching out to the anti-war electorate and solemnly pledging to uphold human rights against domestic militarists and their overseas despotic allies. To that end, he appointed a liberal human rights advocate Pat Derian to the State Department and a veteran Cold Warrior, Zbigniew (Zbig) Brzezinski, as National Security Advisor and foreign policy strategist.

Duplicity reared its head immediately: Carter openly criticized the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua – while privately telling the dictator to ignore the public criticisms and assuring him of continuing US support.[1] As the Sandinista revolution advanced toward victory, Carter convoked a meeting of Latin American leaders urging them to join in a joint military intervention with the US to ‘save lives’ and to prevent the popular Nicaraguan revolution from taking power and dismantling the dictator’s army. It soon became clear to the leaders of Latin America that Carter’s mission was a thinly- veiled ‘humanitarian’ version of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ and they declined. When Carter realized that, without the fig leaf of Latin American participation, a US-led invasion would arouse universal opposition, he abandoned the project. The political climate would not support a unilateral US invasion so soon after the end of the war in Indochina .

However, Carter soon re-launched the Cold War, reviving military spending and pouring billions of dollars into funding, arming and training tens of thousands of fundamentalist Jihadists from around the world to invade Afghanistan and overthrow its leftist, secular government.

Carter’s policy of re-militarization and launching of large-scale and long-term secret CIA operations in alliance with the most brutal dictators and monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was accompanied by sanctimonious speeches about human rights and token appeals to protect ‘civilians’. In this regard, Carter became our founding father of the double discourse: a con man that publically condemned the jailing and torture by Pinochet of political opponents in Chile while orchestrating what would become a decade-long blood bath in Afghanistan with millions of victims.
Reagan: Geniality with Genocide
Up until the ascendancy of Barack Obama, the avuncular President, Ronald Reagan, was acknowledged as the ‘master con-man’, by virtue of his Hollywood acting experience. Reagan was and remained a disciplined and hardened backer of policies designed to concentrate wealth while smashing unions, even as he entertained the flag-waving hard hat construction workers with his jokes about ‘limousine liberals’ and Cadillac welfare queens. The knowing wink and clever two-liners were matched by an adaptation of morality tales from his cowboy films. Reagan, in his role as ‘the righteous sheriff’, backed the mercenary contras as they invaded Nicaragua and destroyed schools and clinics and the genocidal military dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala who murdered hundreds of thousands of Indians and peasants.

Uncle Reagan’s friendly chats would describe how he had stopped the communist ‘outlaws’ (peasants, workers and Indians) of Central America from flooding across the Rio Grande and invading California and Texas. His tales resonated with mass audiences familiar with the racist Hollywood cowboy film version of unshaven Mexican bandits crossing the ‘ US ’ border. The clean-shaven, straight-talking, ‘stand-up for America’ President Ronald Reagan was elected and re-elected by a resounding majority in the midst of CIA-backed mujahedeen victories over the government and secular civil structure of Afghanistan, Pentagon- supported Israeli slaughter of Palestinian refugees in their camps in Lebanon and the mass genocide of scores of thousands of indigenous villagers in Guatemala.

When news reports seeped out about the mass graves of poor villagers in Guatemala , Reagan resorted to colloquial language right out of a Hollywood film to defend General Rios Mont : “He’s getting a bum rap”. In defending the brutal dictator of Guatemala , Reagan replaced Carter’s sanctimonious phrasing in favor of down-to-earth macho talk of a no-nonsense sheriff.

In substance, both Carter and Reagan were rebuilding the US war machine after the debacle of Viet Nam ; they were setting up a global network of client dictators, Muslim fundamentalists and hypocritical Anglo-American humanitarians interventionists.
 

Bush Senior: Uni-Polarity and the Ticket to Uncontested Imperial Conquests

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US and Western Europe re-conquered, pillaged and neo-colonized Eastern Europe . West Germany annexed East Germany . And a predator-gangster oligarchy in Russia seized over a trillion dollars of public assets, impoverishing millions and laundered the illicit funds via elaborate banking operations on Wall Street and in London and Tel Aviv.
 

President George Bush Sr. embraced the doctrine of a unipolar world – free from rival super-power constraints and independent Third World resistance. ‘Poppy’ Bush believed the US could impose its will by force anywhere and at any time without fear of retaliation. He believed he was heir to a new imperial order of free markets, free elections and unrestrained plunder. The first war he would launch would be in the Middle East – the invasion, massive bombing and destruction of Iraq . It was followed by an unprecedented expansion of NATO bases in the countries of Eastern Europe . The spread of neo-liberalism led to the naked pillage of public assets throughout Latin American and Eastern Europe . The Empire ruled the Muslim world through an arc of client dictators from Tunisia , Egypt , and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan .
 

Bush adopted the persona of the ‘happy warrior’ – the invincible American President who had triumphed over the Evil Empire. Meanwhile, the domestic economy deteriorated under the enormous costs of the massive military build-up and gave rise to a crisis that hurt the electorate. Bush’s personal rigidity and lack of theatricality prevented him from playing the con-man – unlike his predecessor, the actor Reagan. Even as he extolled the prowess of the US military, his career as an ‘insider’ corporate operative and CIA director did not provide him with the demagogic skills necessary for a successful re-election.

While Bush celebrated his overseas victories, he failed to attract a popular following: His pinched face and wooden upper-crust smile was no match for ‘Cowboy’ Reagan’s street corner geniality or even ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s pious intonations of human rights and Christian values ... Deception and demagoguery are crucial elements in a re-election campaign – and so Bush, Sr. gave way for the next Presidential con-man-in-chief, Bill Clinton.

The Clinton-Con: Black Churches , Welfare Cuts and the Wall Street Warrior
Bill Clinton, like Ronald Reagan, turned out to be a Wall Street populist .With his folksy Arkansas intonations he preached messages of hope in black churches while diligently applying the free-market lessons he had learned from his Wall Street mentors. Tooting the saxophone and oozing compassion, Clinton told the poor that he could ‘feel their pain’, while inflicting misery on single mothers forced to leave their children and take minimum-wage jobs in order to retain any public assistance. He joined hands with labor union bosses at Labor Day festivities, while fast-tracking job-killing free-trade treaties (like NAFTA) that devastated the American working class. Bill Clinton enthusiastically sent bombers over Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities for several weeks, destroying its factories, hospitals, schools, power plants, radio and TV stations and bridges, as well as the Chinese Embassy, in support of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army and its separatist war against Belgrade . Clinton bombed civilians and their vital infrastructure, a war crime in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’, to the ecstatic cheers of many Western liberals, progressives, social democrats and not a few Marxists as well as many Jihadists. On the home front, this self-proclaimed ‘people’s candidate’ ripped to shreds all restraints on banking speculation by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, New Deal legislation enacted to protect against massive banking swindles. This opened the floodgates to massive financial manipulation, which destroyed the pensions of many millions of workers.[2]

Clinton’s policies laid the groundwork for the information technology and Stock Market crash of 2000-01. His appointee, Alan Greenspan, created the conditions leading to speculative financial frenzy and subsequent economic crash of 2008. Bill Clinton’s stand-up comic performances in black churches, his back slapping encounters with labor bureaucrats and his embrace of feminists and others just raised the rhetorical bar for future aspiring Wall Street warlords in the White House. It would take eight years and the election of Barack Hussein Obama to finally surpass Bill Clinton as Con-Man-In Chief.

Bush Junior: A Yale Man with a Texas Drawl
President George Bush, Junior’s regime launched two major wars and backed two Israeli assaults on Palestinian civilians trapped in Gaza – the world’s largest open-air prison. He virtually eliminated taxes on billionaires while overseeing the geometrical growth of the domestic police state apparatus; and he unleashed the biggest speculative bubble and crash since the Great Depression. He lowered the living standards for all Americans except the top 10% of the population – and despite these disasters and despite his lack-luster performance as a con-man, he was re-elected.

His handlers and backers did their best to market their boy: his Ivy League credentials and New England background was replaced by a transparently phony Texas accent; tinny, whiney sound bites, reminiscent of his father’s, were replaced by a Texas ‘ranchers’ homely drawl. His ‘just-folks’ grammatical mistakes may have been mocked by the liberals but they resonated deeply with fundamentalist Christians – who would never have recognized the Phillips Exeter Academy-Yale Skull and Bones boy in their Commander-in Chief.
President Bush, Jr. was decked out in the uniform of a ‘Top Gun’ fighter pilot to polish his military credentials tarnished by revelations that the millionaire-playboy had gone AWOL during his service in the National Guard. His silly ‘Mission Accomplished’ claim that the Iraq war had been won in the first months after the invasion was rudely corrected by the huge outbreak of Iraqi resistance against the occupier. Bush handed over foreign policymaking, especially pertaining to the Middle East , to a small army of Jewish Zionists, aided and abetted by notorious militarists, like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Most major political events were handled by his Cabinet thugs – Secretary of State Colin Powell shamelessly fabricated the ‘evidence’ of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in his performance before the United Nations. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz invented Afghanistan ’s ties to the planners of 9/11.

Cheney and his Zionist troika of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and ‘Scooter’ Libby trumpeted the ‘global war on terror’ while Michael Chertoff, Michael Mukasey and Stuart Levey conducted a domestic war against the Bill of Rights and US Constitutional freedoms, defending torture, jailing thousands of Muslims, punishing businesses trading with Iran and labeling US opponents of Israel’s war crimes as ‘security threats’. Bush, Jr. just nodded his approval, letting the “big fellas have a piece of the action”. With Junior, there was no peace demagoguery just plain talk to plain folks and- “Let the bombs fall and the Capital flow”. Bush did not have to go preaching to black churches (he had a black Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to do his dirty work without the cant); Bush never claimed that Israel got the ‘bum rap’ when it was charged with genocidal crimes. Under Bush, Jr., war criminals did not have to ‘sugar-coat’ their crimes. While occupying the White House, Bush signed off on the multi-trillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street and then just went off to tend his cows and chop wood at the Texas ranch.

Bush’s ‘style’ was a combination of ‘laid back’ and ‘straight forward’: he simply committed war crimes, protected Wall Street swindles and expanded the police state, without claiming otherwise. As the endless wars dragged on, as the stock market flopped under its own fraud and manipulation and the increasingly repressive legislation provoked debate, Bush just shrugged his shoulders and finished out his term in office without flourish or fanfare: “Y’all can’t win ‘em all. Let the next guy try his hand”.
Barack Obama: The Master of Deceit
From the beginning of his Presidential campaign, Obama demonstrated his proficiency as the master of all cons. He spoke passionately against torture while consulting with the torturers; he condemned Wall Street speculators while appointing key Street operatives as economic advisers. He promised a new deal in the Middle East , especially for Palestinians and then appointed a dual citizen, Israeli-US, Rahm Emmanuel (son of an Israeli Irgun terrorist) to be his most intimate Presidential advisor. Honolulu born and bred, Barack modulated his voice according to the audience, adopting a Baptist minister’s cadence for the black audiences while assuming the professorial tone of an Ivy League lawyer for his Wall Street contributors.

He hob-knobbed with Hollywood celebrities and Silicon billionaires, who bankrolled the fairy tale of his ‘historic breakthrough’ – the First Afro-American President who would speak for all Americans – nay for the entire world! Millions of giddy camp followers, white, black, old and young, the trade unionists and community activists alike were willingly deceived. They had chosen to disregard the fact that Barack Obama’s key advisers were rabid militarists, big bankers, corporate CEO’s, die-hard Zionists and Wall Street manipulators.

Indeed Obama’s supporters were enchanted by the phony rhetoric, the demagogy, the ‘populist style’, and the fake ‘authenticities’. Here was the man who promised to end the wars, close the torture concentration camp in Guantanamo , bring Wall Street to heel, repeal the Patriot Act and restore the Bill of Rights. And he was ‘their guy’ – shooting hoops in an urban playground – something Bush had never done! In truth, Barack Hussein Obama did a lot that Bush never dared to do – he surpassed Bush by far in committing war crimes against humanity – pushing for more military adventures abroad and police state repression at home. He exceeded by far any President in US history in assuming dictatorial police powers, in waging multiple wars while directing the massive transfer of state revenues to Wall Street bankers. President Obama, hands down, will be regarded as the greatest con-man President in American history. The Carters, Reagans and Clintons all pale in comparison: the enormous gap between style and substance, promise and performance, peace and war, capital and labor has never been greater.
It is President Obama’s hollow eloquence that raised the hopes of millions at home and abroad only to condemn them to an inferno of endless wars. It is the perversity of his rhetoric which attracts the Latino vote with promises of immigrant citizenship while his policy has been fill detention centers with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers and their families. His soaring rhetoric promising justice for Muslims in Cairo was followed by the bloody bombing of Tripoli, the torture and slaughter of the Libyan patriot President Gadhafi; the broken promises to the Palestinians contrasts with the embrace of the bloody Israeli warlords.

Obama far out-paced President Bush’s drone attacks in Pakistan , Yemen and Afghanistan , bombings which targeted farmers, whole families and famished orphans in their schools. Soaring moral and ethical pronouncements accompany Obama’s arming and praising the 40,000 Muslim fundamentalist mercenaries sent to degrade and shatter the secular Syrian state. The pretexts for mass killing fall from his lips like maggots on a rotten corpse: his blatant lies about the use of poison gas in Syria as the government in Damascus confronts a foreign mercenary invasion; the lurid tales of fabricated massacres in Benghazi ( Libya ) and the false claims of stolen elections in Venezuela . Obama’s rhetoric converts executioners into victims and victims into executioners.

President Barack Obama promised a comprehensive health care overhaul for America and then presented the electorate with a confusing series of obligatory payments for plans designed by for-profit private health insurance companies. Obama ‘defended social security’ by raising the age of retirement, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of workers in hazardous occupations would die before ever receiving any benefits after a lifetime of obligatory contributions. Obama solemnly promised to defend Medicare and then proposed to reduce its budget by a trillion dollars over a decade.

Obama claims a presidential prerogative of ‘defending American interests’ by ordering the assassination of whomever his million-member secret police state apparatus designates as a security threat – including American citizens – without trial, without recourse to habeas corpus.

In the White House Rose Garden President Barack Obama strolls arm-in-arm with his wife and children, a family man, true to his promises… While in Aleppo a young teen, a street vendor, is beheaded before his parents and neighbors by fanatical ‘freedom-fighters’ praised and supported by the President. The boy’s alleged crime was blasphemy. The murdered teen has joined the scores of thousands of Syrians killed and the hundreds of thousands who will join them, as Obama has decided to openly arm the mercenaries.

Casual, open collar, President Obama jokes as he walks and talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the sumptuous estate of a California billionaire, offering friendship and peace – shaking hands for the cameras with a scorpion in his palm. The smiling Obama has ceaselessly dispatched his envoys to Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa to incite claims and conflicts against Beijing . Obama believes that his own ‘personal magic’ will blind the Chinese to the fact that China is being encircled by US air and maritime bases. He seems to believe that the Chinese will ignore his efforts to forge US-centered trade pacts which specifically exclude China .

The master ‘confidence-man’ sincerely believes in his power to move and mystify the public, pick the pockets of his adversaries and make his victims believe they have been in the presence of a world-class statesman. In fact, Obama has been playing the role of a street hustler living off the earnings and lives of his people while handing them over to his corporate bosses and pimps for Israel .

Obama fills internment camps with hundreds of thousands of Latino immigrant workers while promising a ‘roadmap to citizenship’ to the cheers of Mexican-American Democratic Party vote hustlers!
Obama received 95% of the Afro-American votes, while the income gap between blacks and whites widens and unemployment and poverty figures soar. Obama, the first ‘Afro-American President’, has bombed and intervened in more African countries, backing mercenary armies in Libya and Somalia and establishing more military bases throughout the black continent than the last five ‘white’ Presidents ... So much for the self-proclaimed “historic breakthrough of a Black President ending centuries of racism”.

It’s enough for Obama to appoint other black police state thugs and foreign interventionists, like Eric Holder and Susan Rice, to win the cheers of liberals even as their own security files grow in the data warehouses of the world’s biggest spying agencies.
One cynic, commenting on the long-standing love affair between Obama and white liberals, observed that ‘the more he screws them the better they like him ... Even as he marches them off to jail, they would take care to note on his behalf, that the barred windows have curtains – something Bush would never have allowed.’

Conclusion
For sheer span of broken promises, of systematic lies in pursuit of wars and financial manipulation in the name of peace and social justice , of consistent and bold aggrandizement of executive power over the life and death of US citizens in the name of security, Obama has set the standard of political deception and demagogy far beyond past and probable future US Presidentes.

The political context of his ascent to power and his deep links to the military-financial-Zionist networks insured his success as a premier confidence man.
President George Bush, Jr., the cringing, fading war-monger engaged in prolonged, costly wars and facing the collapse of the entire banking and financial sector, provided Candidate Obama with an easy target. Obama exploited the mass revulsion of the American people, longing for change. His soaring rhetoric and vacuous promise of ‘change’ attracted millions of young activists ... The problem is that in their enthusiasm and blind adherence to ‘identity politics’ with its claims that all ‘blacks’ and ‘women’ are oppressed and therefore guaranteed to promote peace and justice — facilitated Obama’s con-game and political hustle.

Obama, once in office, not only deepened and widened the scope of President Bush, Jr’s wars, massive spy apparatus and corporate profiteering; he bamboozled the vast majority of his liberal-labor supporters in the Democratic Party! Barack Obama conned the Democratic Party Congressional liberals and they, in turn, conned their constituents into supporting this fraud.
The costs of President Obama’s two-faced policies are enormous: democracy has given way to a police state openly defended by the President and Congressional leaders; Wall Street’s recovery and corporate profiteering is fast destroying public health and social security. Barack Obama’s multiple endless wars and interventions are destroying vast cities, infrastructure, entire cultures while and killing and impoverishing millions of people from Libya to Palestine , from Syria to Iran . The economic sanctions against Iran , the provocative encirclement and isolation of China , and the campaign to destabilize Venezuela are the centerpieces of Obama’s ‘pivot to empire’. These policies portend even greater world-shattering catastrophes.

Unmasking the con-man is a first step requiring that we expose the tricks of the con-game. The politics of deception and demagogy thrives by directing popular attention to style and rhetoric, not substance. The solemn and pious cant of ‘Jimmy’ Carter distracted from his launch of the rabid Jihadists against the secular administration of Afghanistan . Uncle Ronald Reagan’s geniality and populist TV patter covered-up his blood baths in Central America and mass firing of the unionized air controllers and jailing of union leaders. ‘Bill’ Clinton’s show of empathy for the poor and embrace of ‘feel-good’ politics neutralized opposition as he bombed Yugoslavia into a pre-industrial age while his domestic policies kicked vulnerable single mothers from welfare programs. They all paled before the grand con-master Obama, billed as the ‘first black’ President, a community organizer (who disowned his sponsor into the black communities of Chicago, Rev. Wright, for his anti-war, anti-imperial stand) has capitalized on his racial credentials to garner the vote of guilty-ridden, soft-headed liberals and marginalized blacks in order to serve the interests of Wall Street and Israel.
 

Disarming these con-men and women requires exposing the nature of their demagogic populist styles and focusing on substantive politics. The decisive criteria need to be class politics that are defined by fundamental class alignments, between capital and labor regarding budgets, income, taxes, social spending, financing and property rights. ‘Shooting hoops’ in ghetto playgrounds is a con-man’s distraction while his budget cuts close hospitals and schools in black and poor neighborhoods.
 

The extravaganzas, featuring sports and entertainment celebrities to promote imperial wars, are the ‘con’ to undermine international solidarity for war victims and the unemployed. President Obama, the confidence man, is still performing while sowing destruction.

It’s time for the deceived, the disillusioned and the deprived to stand-up and shout! “We are deceived no more. Its time you were put on trial for Crimes against Humanity!”

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

GLOBAL RESEARCH | PO Box 55019 | 11 Notre-Dame Ouest | Montreal | QC | H2Y 4A7 | Canada

کانون مدافعان حقوق کارگر: بیانیه کانون مدافعان حقوق کارگر به مناسبت روز جهانی لغو کار کودک

kanoonmodafean1.blogspot.com

مرگم نگرانم نمی کند
نگرانی ام از همسرم است
که بعد از من با این تلنبار هیچ تنها می ماند
می خواهم به او بفهمانم که تمام شبهایی که کنارش خوابیدم
حتا تمام آن جروبحث های بی سروته
... همه برایم با شکوه بودند.
و آن دو کلمه ی دشواری که هیچ وقت جرات گفتن شان را نداشتم
دوستت دارم.
سوختن در آب،غرق شدن در آتش

 

چارلز بوکفسکی

حسین فدایی٬ دبیرکل «جمعیت ایثارگران» با تشریح ۱۱ هدف نظام از برگزاری انتخابات ریاست جمهوری سال ۹۲ گفته :" نظام با این «مهندسی عالی» انتخابات می‌خواست نشان دهد «مردم علی‌رغم فشارها، تنگناها و سختی‌های اقتصادی پای کار نظام هستند و جریان فتنه اشتباه کرده و جریان انحراف هم اشتباه می‌کند.»

انتخابات ۹۲ به گونه‌ای مهندسی شده بود که مشارکت حداکثری رقم بخورد | دیگربان

www.digarban.com

‏حسین فدایی٬ دبیرکل «جمعیت ایثارگران» با تشریح ۱۱ هدف نظام از برگزاری انتخابات ریاست جمهوری سال ۹۲ گفته این دوره از انتخابات به گونه‌ای مهندسی شده بود که «مشارکت حداکثری» رقم بخورد

‏گزارشی درباره اعــــدام ٥٩ شهروند مهابادی در روز دوازدهم خرداد ١٣٦٢‏

 متهم ردیف اول در این جنایت حمید رضا جلایی پور است.
اما حمید رضا جلایی پور کیست؟ او متولد ۱۳۳۶ تهران است و اکنون استاد جامعه شناسی دانشگاه تهران میباشد . او از همان آغاز انقلاب عازم کردستان می شود، زمانی که در سن بیست و یک سالگی قرار داشت.او در این باره به خبر نگار نییوزویک می گوید؛ ” آنروز‌ها کشور در دست دانشجویان بود. به یاد دارم که در آن دوران حتی ریشم هم در نیامده بود!”

*****************************

حمید رضا جلایی پور کیست؟ - سپیده دم

sepidedam.com

‏گزارشی درباره اعــــدام ٥٩ شهروند مهابادی در روز دوازدهم خرداد ١٣٦٢‏

"حکومتها از تمامی تکنولوژی های موجود در دسترسشان استفاده میکنند تا با دشمن اصلیشان- مردم خودشان- مبارزه کنند  " : نوام چامسکی    

ترجمه از : پیمان پایدار

The Lies of Empire: Don’t Believe

a Word They Say

By Glen Ford

“Washington was the Godfather of international jihadism, its sugar daddy since at least the early Eighties in Afghanistan.”

The rulers would have you believe that the world is becoming more complex and dangerous all the time, compelling the United States to abandon previous (and largely fictional) norms of domestic and international legality in order to preserve civilization. In truth, what they are desperately seeking to maintain is the global dominance of U.S. and European finance capital and the racist world order from which it sprang.

 

The contradictions of centuries have ripened, overwhelming the capacity of the “West” to contain the new forces abroad in the world. Therefore, there must be endless, unconstrained war – endless, in the sense that it is a last ditch battle to fend off the end of imperialism, and unconstrained, in that the imperialists recognize no legal or moral boundaries to their use of military force, their only remaining advantage.

 

“A war of caricatures.”

 

To mask these simple truths, the U.S. and its corporate propaganda services invent counter-realities, scenarios of impending doomsdays filled with super-villains and more armies of darkness than J.R.R. Tolkien could ever imagine. Indeed, nothing is left to the imagination, lest the people’s minds wander into the realm of truth or stumble upon a realization of their own self-interest, which is quite different than the destinies of Wall Street or the Project for a New American Century (updated, Obama “humanitarian” version). It is a war of caricatures.

                  

Saddam “must go” – and so he went, along with a million other Iraqis. Gaddafi “must go” – and he soon departed (“We came, we saw, he died,” quipped Hillary), along with tens of thousands of Black Libyans marked for extermination. “Assad must go” – but he hasn’t left yet, requiring the U.S. and its allies to increase the arms flow to jihadist armies whose mottos translate roughly as “the western infidels must also go…next.” Afghanistan’s Soviet-aligned government was the first on the U.S. “must go” list to be toppled by the jihadist international network created as a joint venture of the Americans, Saudis and Pakistanis, in the early Eighties – a network whose very existence now requires that Constitutional law “must go” in the American homeland.

 

“International law must go.”

 

Naturally, in order to facilitate all these exits of governments of sovereign states, international law, as we have known it “must go.” In its place is substituted the doctrine of “humanitarian” military intervention or “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), a rehash of the “White Man’s Burden” designed to nullify smaller powers’ rights to national sovereignty at the whim of the superpower.

 

The entire continent of Africa has fallen under the R2P umbrella (without ever having fully emerged from the colonial sphere – but, that’s the whole point, isn’t it?). Somalia achieved a brief period of peace, in 2006, under a broadly based Islamic Courts regime that had defeated an array of warlords backed by the U.S. Washington struck back late that year through its client state, Ethiopia. The Americans invoked both the Islamist enemy and “Responsibility to Protect” to justify an invasion that plunged Somalia into what UN observers called “the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa – worse than Darfur.” Eventually, the U.S. enlisted the African Union, itself, as the nominal authority in a CIA-led Somalia mission that has militarized the whole Horn of Africa.

 

U.S. proxies set off inter-communal bloodletting in Rwanda in 1994, a conflagration that served as pretext for Rwandan and Ugandan invasion of the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo and the loss of six million lives – all under the protection, funding and guidance of a succession of U.S. administrations in mock atonement for the much smaller “genocide” in Rwanda. President Obama sent Special Forces on permanent duty to the region in search of another caricature, Joseph Kony, whose only central casting defect is his rabid Christianity but whose convenient presence in the bush justifies stationing Green Berets in Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

 

“The entire continent of Africa has fallen

 under the R2P umbrella.”

 

Muammar Gaddafi’s exorcism in Libya energized jihadists all across the northern tier of Africa, as far as northern Nigeria, giving a green light to a French colonial renaissance and further expansion of AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command. Only five years after its official inception, AFRICOM reigns supreme on the continent, with ties to the militaries of all but two African countries: the nemesis states Eritrea and Zimbabwe. (They “must go,” eventually.)

 

New age Euro-American law holds sway over Africa in the form of the International Criminal Court. The Court’s dockets are reserved for Africans, whose supposed civilizational deficits monopolize the global judiciary’s resources. This, too, is R2P, in robes.

                  

Back in Syria, the reluctant domino, blood samples taken from alleged victims of chemical weapons are sent to the Americans by jihadists in their employ to prove that Assad really, really, must go. Obama announces that he is going to do what he has actually been doing for a very long time: send weapons to the “rebels.” The Washington Post, forgetting its duty to follow the administration’s scripted timelines, reports that the decision to go public about arms transfers to jihadists was made two weeks before the “proof” arrived.

 

“Only five years after its official inception, AFRICOM reigns supreme on the continent.”

 

The lies become jumbled and are quickly superseded by new fictions to justify no-fly, but the targeted caricatures remain front and center, to be hooted and hollered over, once dead. It is only the lies that make these situations seem complex: the lies that cover up multiple U.S. genocides in Africa, to paint a canvas of humanitarian concern, when the simple truth is that the Americans and Europeans have established military dominion over the continent for their own greedy purposes. The lies that have attempted to camouflage a succession of brazen aggressions against unoffending secular Arab governments in order to remove any obstacles to U.S. domination of North Africa and the Near East. And, the lie that has become central to the U.S. global offensive since 9/11: that the U.S. is engaged in a global war against armed jihadists. In fact, the jihadists are American-contracted foot soldiers in an Arab world in which the U.S. is hated by the people at-large. Washington was the Godfather of international jihadism, its sugar daddy since at least the early Eighties in Afghanistan – and now, once again quite openly so in Syria as in Libya, at least for the time being.

 

The simple truth is, the U.S. is at war for continued hegemony over the planet, for the preservation of the imperial system and its finance capitalist rulers. In such a war, everyone, everywhere is a potential enemy, including the home population.

 

That’s why Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and, now, Edward Snowden are considered so dangerous; because they undermine popular consent for the government’s lies-based policies. The administration has sent its operatives to Capital Hill and all the corporate pseudo-journalistic outlets to explain how its mega-data mining of phones and the Internet has prevented “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11,” including at least 10 “homeland-based threats,” as mouthed by National Security Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander. The details are, of course, secret.

 

“The actual ‘terrorist’ threat on U.S. soil is clearly relatively slight.”

 

However, what we do know about U.S. domestic “terror” spying is enough to dismiss the whole premise for the NSA’s vast algorithmic enterprises. The actual “terrorist” threat on U.S. soil is clearly relatively slight. Otherwise, why would the FBI have to manufacture homegrown jihadists by staging elaborate stings of homeless Black men in Miami who couldn’t put together bus fare to Chicago, much less bomb the Sears tower? Why must they entice and entrap marginal people with no capacity for clandestine warfare, and no previous inclination, into schemes to bomb synagogues and shoot down military aircraft, as in Newburgh, New York? Why this steady stream of government-invented terror, if the real thing is so abundant? If the FBI, with NSA assistance, is discovering significant numbers of real terrorists, wouldn’t we be watching a corresponding number of triumphal perp-walks? Of course we would. The only logical conclusion is that terror is a near-negligible domestic threat, wholly unsuited to the NSA’s full-spectrum spying on virtually every American.

 

So, what are they looking for? Patterns. Patterns of thought and behavior that algorithmically reveal the existence of cohorts of people that might, as a group, or a living network, create problems for the State in the future. People who do not necessarily know each other, but whose patterns of life make them potentially problematic to the rulers, possibly in some future crisis, or some future manufactured crisis. A propensity to dissent, for example. The size of these suspect cohorts, these pattern-based groups, can be as large or small as the defining criteria inputted by the programmer. So, what kind of Americans would the programmers be interested in?

 

Ask Edward Snowden. He's the only one talking.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford