Guantanamo Bay

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005

I advise anyone who is interested in the Guantanamo Bay issue to follow the link above. It is an extensive overview of the situation by Amnesty International, that can easily be downloaded onto your desktop in .pdf format. I want to congratulate AI for producing "Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power" and for keeping up the pressure on the U.S. government to grant these detainees a fair trial, and humane conditions of detention.

For a smaller, though still informative article, check out the April 2005 National Geographic issue and Jeannie Ralston's "No-Man's-Land".

The Guardian - Special Report: Israel and the Middle East

I would encourage people to follow the link below, and check out the Guardian's special report on Israel and the Palestinians. In particular, I suggest you read David Clark's August 22nd comment, entitled "For Sharon, Gaza was just the latest act of a long war":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/0,2759,377264,00.html

Quote

That is our starting point: rejection of a world that we feel to be wrong, negation of a world we feel to be negative.

Holloway, John
Change the World Without Taking Power: the Meaning of Revolution Today
Pluto Press, London, Sterling Virginia, 2002

Commentary on Information-Driven Economies

The following is a debate/dialogue between Rob Salkowitz and myself (Thomas), that began on August 21, 2005 after I read his article "The One-Dimensional Work World" which can be found at http://emphasisadded.com/2005/07/26.html

The exchange is an interesting one, and I suggest you begin by reading Salkowitz's article, following the link above, and continue by reading the exchange of thoughts in the order below.

Thomas (Aug 21, 2005)

The One-Dimensional Work World by Rob Salkowitz is cleverly written and insightful, though I found a few points I do not agree with. In the first place, the initial analogy implies (when inverted) that all people in our "information-driven society" who do not possess the set of skills required to become a part of the public-relations elite, are necessarily going to have to struggle for "minimum wage work" or "inferior social or economic status." I mean, is this really true? As far as I'm aware of, many labour-intensive jobs (i.e. plumbing, welding, brick-laying etc.) are paid fairly well, and for the most part carried out under safe conditions, even when compared to a lot of the jobs which are information-driven. I would go as far as saying that the working class individual (understood in this instance as he/she who performs manual work in industrialized countries) is part of what can be referred to as the aristocracy of the proletariat (as Lenin called them). Can we honestly say that today, working class as previously mentioned can be characterized as "the lowest-value rungs on the occupational ladder", one that is potentially revolutionary as a result of the exploitative conditions to which it is exposed on a daily basis? At least in those countries which form the core of the international capitalist system, we know this not to be the case. The working class has thus far failed to liberate itself from capitalism here. Whether this is a result of its own weaknesses, or a demonstration of capital's strength, matters little in this context. The bottom line is that workers (including but not only those involved in manual labour) have not broken the chains which imprison them, and thus there's a need for a vision. And so I ask myself, how credible is Rob Salkowitz’s presumably remorseful self-criticism that, despite the state of affairs to which he contributes through his work as opinion creator, he along with those like him are to be blamed? And isn't his conclusion that they should "accommodate a wider range of views and attitudes toward work" out of self-interest, essentially to preserve the present system, only a way to assure that a revolutionary agenda be pushed (yet again) into reformist channels? Rob Salkowitz doesn't seem to want a different society, but merely one characterized by a more lenient ruling class, where information workers ("intellectuals") such as him may continue to prosper in the long term, thus continuing to undermine the dream which they allegedly espouse on the working class’ behalf. Of course it is important to incorporate all opinions, particularly those committed to a radically different world. But it is important to do so with a clear motive. That is, it is important to do so to actually inspire people, to convince them that a different world is both possible and desirable, not to show our benevolent inclination by allowing a few articles of dissent here and there, out of self-interest as he says (and I would contest that to continue in such a way corresponds to our self-interest). I think that those who have had the opportunity (which remains in many ways a privilege) to study and then become part of the "intellectual class" have the moral duty to utilize their tools as opinion makers to help dismantle a system they know to be unjust. Let us become what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals", the ally of the working class, and cease to be bourgeois intellectuals committed to a fictional democracy.

(Salkowitz Aug 24, 2005)

This is a strong and well-considered response from a perspective I don't usually encounter. Thank you for taking the time. A response to a few of your comments, if I may:

1. Information and communication technology are irrefutably fueling the loss of manufacturing and low-skill information work jobs (e.g., call centers) from developed economies to low-cost labor markets. The usual solution to this problem offered by policy-makers and analysts (including myself, in my professional guise) is to retrain workers in low-value jobs to do higher-value work, presumably in other information-related fields. The more I think about this prospect, the less satisfactory I find the solution. See my related article today, here: http://emphasisadded.com/2005/08/24.html

2. In my view, blue collar jobs in construction, crafts, personal services and logistics will retain their earning power, but will require increasing levels of technological sophistication. Not every worker will consider these kinds of skills important, resulting in a narrowing of opportunity for those with less aptitude or interest in technology and process. I am a strong advocate for technology providers to create products that are as transparent as possible to skilled workers, to reduce this unnecessary level of training and distraction.

3. You write: “Rob Salkowitz doesn't seem to want a different society, but merely one characterized by a more lenient ruling class, where information workers ("intellectuals") such as him may continue to prosper in the long term, thus continuing to undermine the dream which they allegedly espouse on the working class’ behalf.” I recognize here the traditional Marxist description of the liberal bourgeoisie, to which I can only reply, “if the shoe fits, I will wear it.” For what it’s worth, I don’t presume to speak for the working class: I trust them to look after their own interests as I look after mine. However, from the perspective of bourgeois enlightened self-interest and my own moral/political values, a society where the rewards of productivity are distributed more evenly between labor and capital, and more broadly across the occupational range of labor, strikes me as more just and more desirable than the condition that we are now tending toward.

Thanks again for the thoughtful review. I will bookmark this page and post a link the next time I update my template.

Thomas (Aug 26, 2005)

The fact that numerous jobs are being outsourced to other countries is irrefutable. That is the beauty (or so we’re told) of capitalism, of globalization. It is a system based on profit, so why should it care whether workers in the U.S. or in Canada (for instance) are fired and told to upgrade their skills to meet the demands of the labour market? Now, not unlike you and many others I think that such a system is not the only way to go, and that there are alternatives. Where we disagree, I’m afraid, is on the kind of alternative.

From what I can see you’re coming from a liberal perspective while I’m coming from a socialist perspective. Nonetheless I think there’s room for compromise.

In the first place, people like you who are in a position to make a difference (by reaching an audience and influencing their opinion, setting the agenda so to speak) should begin by writing what they truly think. How much is your integrity worth? It’s one of those few things you cannot buy with a Master Card, and therefore priceless. Secondly, why do you say that you should look after your interests and the working class after its interests? From your article I gathered that we are all just people, and that despite our differences we should be able to live peacefully alongside one another and prosper. But the “looking after my own interests”, and not those of my neighbour because he is a welder, whereas I am a writer, conflicts with this main argument of yours. Such an attitude (self interest, and again I doubt it is in our interest to go down this road) reinforces the divisions which capitalism thrives on, and which we should try to destroy. If we become atomised consumers, each of us too busy looking after our own interests, we regress as a people and at the same time realize the dream of the capitalist system.

I believe it is possible to change, and even if we can only create a more lenient ruling class, I would welcome such an achievement. But this will not happen unless we are willing to change ourselves. “Intellectuals” should start by being honest with themselves and acting according to their principles. This has nothing to do with Marxist thought, it is in my opinion plain common sense.

I will be posting a critical article on the American educational system. I welcome your thoughts, and hope to continue the discussion. I have not read your newest article “Workforce Development and the Lessons of Urban Planning”, but I will do so shortly.

Foreign Policy of Major Powers

Below is a collection of foreign policy-related article summaries and general commentary of articles which appeared in some of the world's more reknown newspapers during the last six weeks.

General Comments

To this day, states remain the international order’s key political entities. Thus, when discussing foreign policy, we are dealing with states and the extension of their political elites’ interests in the international realm. Foreign policy analysis involves a fundamental exercise: dissecting a state’s behaviour from its rhetoric. That is, the analyst’s task should be to recognize, as critically and dispassionately as possible (exposing one’s sources and bias), what motivates a state’s behaviour beyond the principles which are claimed by that very state to underlie its foreign policy.

In this particular exercise, I collected two newspaper articles per week, in order to gain a basic understanding of current foreign policy issues. Though the topics are complex and varied, the weekly perusal of the world’s major newspapers reveals a few unassailable truisms. Namely, that the United States is the world’s hegemon, essentially omnipresent in all major foreign policy decisions even if only indirectly, and that the geo-political regions which draw most attention at present are the Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East. In particular, three issues can be seen as the current drivers of the world’s foreign policy activity in these regions: (1) the proliferation of nuclear programs in what are sometimes referred to as rogue states (i.e. Iran and North Korea), (2) the rise in terrorist activity by non-state actors, and the implications to the security and intelligence structures of states accused of perpetrating new forms of imperialism, and (3) the geo-political importance of these nations concerning the extraction of natural resources and the deployment of army forces to secure these.

Studying foreign policy remains relevant, and has perhaps become more important than ever. After the New York, Madrid and London terrorist attacks, and after the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the world is experiencing a "takeover" by the extremist camps. Understanding the foreign policy of the United States and of the world’s major powers, and their effects throughout the world (i.e. the death of thousands of innocent civilians, and giving fertile ground to groups such as al-Qaeda in the Arab world), seems essential if citizens around the globe are to shape and preserve the world they live in.

Valli, Bernardo
Ma le Armi non Bastano
La Repubblica
July 8, 2005

This article appeared in La Repubblica immediately following the first series of the London terrorist attacks. Beyond condemning the vileness of the action, Valli’s analysis points to the seemingly trouble-free ability of groups such as Al Qaeda to find fertile ground and enroll new recruits. In light of the attacks on Madrid and London, he goes on to purport that the strategy of the international community, and in particular of those nations belonging to the G8 to fight terrorism, requires a shift: from one based on rhetoric, to one based on international cooperation.

Younge, Gary
Blair’s Blowback
The Guardian
July 11, 2005

In this article, Gary Younge essentially attacks Britain’s foreign policy, and shows that to remove the London attacks from their greater context is a mistake. That is, to be able to understand the cause of the attacks on London (without in any way excusing such acts), Tony Blair’s government should review its own behaviour in Iraq, where along with the United States it is primarily responsible for the death of 100,000 Iraqis. He concludes with a quote by Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister, which sums up his argument: "The net result of the war on terror is more war and more terror."

Editorial
Going Nowhere on North Korea
The New York Times
July 16, 2005

In this Editorial, the New York Times condemns what has been the Bush administration’s approach to North Korea and its eagerness to establish a nuclear program. In fact, it is claimed that thus far the rhetoric about North Korea by Bush and his team has been detrimental. The New York Times goes on to show that in order to stop Pyongyang’s production of nuclear weapons, and secure its compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States should offer North Korea "formal security guarantees and significant economic assistance."

Charara, Walid
Constructive Instability
Le Monde Diplomatique
July, 2005

Charara’s article deals with U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. He argues that Bush bases this policy on the work of people such as Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis, and Fouad Ajami. As the title suggests, the United States is not interested in stability in the region, but rather an instability that will allow the U.S. to exploit the divisions within the Arab World according to its own interests (i.e. petroleum). Charara cites Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq as examples of this strategy, which can be summed up in dividing and conquering.

Editorial
A New Nuclear Era
The Washington Post
July 20, 2005

This Washington Post editorial explores the pros and cons (from an American perspective) of the Bush administration’s willingness to aid India in building nuclear power plants and importing advanced weapons. It seems clear that the U.S. is interested in promoting the rise of India in the 21st Century as a potential counterweight to China in the region. However, such a shift in policy may ostracize Pakistan’s nationalists even further and promote anti-American feelings, along with the possibility that Russia will be more likely to sell weapons to Iran and China will be less tough on North Korea.

Editorial
The Asian Power Game
Sydney Morning Herald
July 25, 2005

This Sydney Morning Herald editorial, not unlike the one above, looks at the consequences of the U.S endorsing India as part of the world’s nuclear-possessing nations. Here too, the U.S. is seen as favouring India to counter China’s growth as the regional main power. Despite the aesthetic of having established a partnership with the "world’s largest democracy", the move is characterized as Washington’s way of trading international nuclear regulations for geo-political advantages.

Bole-Richard, Michel
Aprés des années d’échanges aigres-doux entre Paris et Jérusalem, l’heure de la détente est venue
Le Monde
July 26, 2005

The article focuses on the potential thaw of Franco-Israeli relations, and the significance of Ariel Sharon’s recent visit in this context. In the last few years, the relationship between the two countries has not been a positive one, but with Israel’s intentions to pull out of Gaza and the French support for resolution 1559 regarding the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, things seem (according to Bole-Richard) to be changing.

Wall, David
Bound by a Common Cause
The Japan Times
August 1, 2005

The article relates a recent meeting between Russian and Chinese heads of state to enhance the "friendship treaty" of 2001 and form a strategic partnership which includes, along with economic and intelligence cooperation, military partnership. In addition, a Sino-Russian relationship seems to have formed to demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia (as the recent SCO summit seems to suggest). David Wall claims that these latest developments, are a move to push the international order towards a situation of multipolarity.

Golts, Alexander
A Graceless Exit for Russia
The Moscow Times
August 2, 2005

According to Alexander Golts, Russia’s reluctance to remove its military presence from Central Asia reflects one of the country’s foreign policy goals: to maintain its influence vis-à-vis the United States in a region known for its geo-political importance (i.e. Afghanistan) and natural resources (i.e. natural gas). However, Golts believes the attempt to be futile, adding that "the Kremlin’s stubbornness will likely end in humiliation when the troops are sent packing all the same."

Hoagland, Jim
Ousted from Uzbekistan: Our Global Strategy Trips Over Cold War Reflexes
The Washington Post
August 6, 2005

In this article, the topic is still Central Asia (see previous article) but seen from a U.S. foreign policy perspective. In particular, the issue is Uzbekistan’s president Islam A. Karimov’s request that the United States remove its troops from his country. Hoagland maintains that by agreeing to such a withdrawal, the U.S. has not budged to the Uzbek request without motive. In his opinion, this was done in order to send a message that Karimov’s usefulness has largely eroded, and that the U.S. might seek to remove him from power in the not-so-distant future.

Bobin, Frédéric
Ombres Chinoises Sur Deux Crises Nucléaires
Le Monde
August 13, 2005

According to Bobin, China’s aims to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear program are not born out of concern for the international community. As China’s appetite for energy grows, and as U.S. presence in Central Asia threatens such a need, Beijing will try to act as a responsible actor alongside South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia. In addition, China’s commitment is due to a real anxiety: that the nuclearization of North Korea will lead to a regional arms race, thereby undermining China’s strategic interests. It remains to be seen whether such international cooperation will bear fruit in the near future, as time is running out.

Freeman, Colin
Iran ‘Kept EU Talking’ While it Finished Nuclear Plant
The Daily Telegraph
August 14, 2005

The possibility that Iran will be next on the UN Security Council’s blacklist is examined by Freeman in this article. The country’s foreign minister’s latest remarks on how the European Union (and particularly the role of the UK, France and Germany) gave Iran the extra time needed to continue in its development of a nuclear program, are portrayed as instigating the U.S. to take military action in the near future.