Episcopalian Crisis: Authority, Homosexuality & the Future of Anglicanism, Part I

By Jay Seltser

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

This the first part of a slightly edited essay that appeared in the May 19, 2006 issue of Commonweal, an independent Catholic journal of opinion edited and managed by lay Catholics.

Many Roman Catholics, ordained and lay, were understandably concerned when the Vatican issued its statement last fall barring men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from the priesthood. If a priest is faithful to his promise of chaste celibacy, what difference does it make if he understands himself to be homosexual? Many people thought it was celibacy, not sexual orientation, that mattered when it came to priestly discipline.

I share the feeling of many people in thinking it is unjust to bar celibate homosexuals from the priesthood. But Rome may have had multiple reasons for issuing such a divisive instruction. Among those possible reasons is the way in which the debate over homosexuality, and especially over the influence, status, and authority of homosexual priests and ministers, has roiled nearly every Protestant denomination. Most conspicuous among those churches where attitudes toward homosexuality pose a serious threat to ecclesial unity is the Anglican Communion.

At its 2003 General Convention, the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) voted to approve the consecration of Gene Robinson, an active homosexual living in a committed relationship, as bishop of New Hampshire. At the same time, the Anglican Church of Canada authorized the blessing of same-sex unions. A firestorm erupted, both in North America and worldwide across the Anglican Communion of thirty-eight loosely allied national and regional churches. Conservative and evangelical Episcopalians, especially Anglican primates in Africa, Asia, and South America, made their outrage and objections known in no uncertain terms. Many threatened to leave the Anglican Communion if Robinson’s ordination stood, or to try to exclude the American Episcopal Church from the Communion.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, sought to forestall outright schism. Williams, believed to be personally sympathetic to the ordination of homosexuals, urged caution on the ECUSA. He commissioned “The Windsor Report,” released in 2004, which urged the ECUSA to apologize for its actions and to embrace a moratorium on ordaining openly gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions. As Williams recently told the interviewer David Frost, changing church teaching and practice about homosexuality is not a step any one church in the Anglican Communion should undertake on its own. “For a change on that,” Williams said, “I think we would need, as a Communion, to have a far greater level of consensus than we in fact have. Which is why the American determination to go it alone is worrying.”

The forging of any broader consensus on the question of homosexuality seems unlikely. Liberal and conservative groups are already maneuvering to contest the disposition of church property if conservative Episcopal churches, and even dioceses, consequently leave the ECUSA and affiliate themselves with dioceses in Africa and elsewhere, as some already have. Few observers think the predominantly liberal ECUSA will back away from the ordination of more open or sexually active gay bishops, which many Episcopalians see as the logical extension of a struggle for equal rights that first led to the still contested ordination of women as priests and bishops. The Anglican Church in England, for example, although it ordains women as priests, has not yet, out of a concern for ecclesial unity, ordained a woman as bishop.

Looking at the impending implosion of the Anglican Communion, Rome, from its perspective, is perhaps more forward thinking than its critics suspect in trying to forestall any similar battle in the Catholic Church. Catholics who hope their church will change its teaching about homosexuality, the ordination of women, priestly celibacy and marriage, and contraception, while adopting a more collegial approach to the exercise of authority and greater respect for individual conscience, should be chastened by the current crisis in the Episcopal Church. As an Episcopalian who supports and is thankful for his church’s progressive stances on all these issues, I am nevertheless concerned about the health and integrity of my church.

Situating the ECUSA in the larger Anglican Communion is tricky. Without denying the sense of commonality with the rest of the Anglican churches, I suspect that most American Episcopalians could imagine themselves as a completely separate church, cut off from communion with the other Anglican churches, much more easily than Roman Catholics could think of themselves as a separate national church. As a result, the ECUSA is much freer to adopt changes and move in different directions even if it risks being out of step-and even out of communion-with more traditional members of its international fellowship. For Episcopalians, it may be easier to hold divergent views because there is seldom one official position or central authority to enforce the “orthodox” position. The Episcopal Church is democratic and pluralistic in its rules and decision making, and the authority vested in any individual or role is severely limited. General Conventions are held every three years, with clergy and lay participants being elected to the House of Deputies, and bishops meeting as the House of Bishops. The Episcopal Church mirrors the American political system in many respects; local dioceses, functioning with significant autonomy, elect their own bishops in a local convention representing lay and ordained members, and the decision must then be ratified by a national vote.

Episcopalian bishops have a form of authority that is much closer to what sociologists would call “influence” than “power.” The local parish selects its priest, with the bishop’s approval; bishops can help shape priorities but are usually unsuccessful if they move too far ahead of their parishes. Each diocese selects its own bishop, subject to the approval of a national convention. There is a presiding bishop of the U.S. church, and the archbishop of Canterbury is the most preeminent figure in the international Anglican Communion, but any suggestion that either of these figures approaches the pope in terms of power or even influence would be met with hilarious laughter.

For several reasons, the current situation with regard to gay bishops who are sexually active is a “perfect storm.” First, while liberal and conservative positions have long coexisted within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, the ordination of Bishop Robinson leaves less room for compromise than many earlier disputes. Bishops baptize, confirm, ordain other priests, and lay on their hands at the consecration of other bishops. Although their power is greatly attenuated by a church polity that mirrors, and in fact owes much of its design to, the American distrust of centralized authority, bishops are the key representatives of the local church. Still, an “illegitimate” bishop affects not only one diocese but the integrity of the entire religious community.

Second, the issue of homosexuality seems to present a stark contrast between different approaches to authority, and particularly to the role of the Bible in decision making. Although different approaches to Scripture can be finessed or compromised on many issues (such as the role of women in the church or the appropriate understanding of the Eucharist), conflict over the appropriateness of homosexual relationships is hard to avoid. A significant number of Episcopalians read Scripture quite literally, and insist that there is no appeal where Scripture speaks plainly and with one voice. Several biblical passages that appear to condemn homosexual behavior (at least for males) are regarded as determinative, especially when there are no corresponding passages that support homosexuality. To claim that the Bible allows homosexual behavior, or to ignore apparently clear statements of biblical morality, threatens the center of the community’s loyalty and adherence to the Word of God through the revelatory text.

On the other side, many Episcopalians insist that the specific words of Scripture must be placed in the context of broader historical or literary interpretation, current understandings of the nature of homosexuality, or the witness of Christians living in faithful relationships with a member of the same sex. Liberals argue either that Scripture, properly interpreted, allows room for a variety of sexual practices or norms, or that even if Scripture speaks unequivocally about sexual ethics, its guidance is not necessarily the final word for the church today. The more significant theological split is occasioned by the latter approach, which challenges not only a particular understanding of scriptural texts but the very authority of Scripture itself. The gap between the more conservative and more liberal perspectives is enormous, with little apparent middle ground.

Third, as in the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church is increasingly polarized along ideological lines. Theological or social disputes are seen in the context of the ongoing “culture wars” that seem to pit religious Americans against “secularists.” The political battles of the past decade and the media obsession with finding and reinforcing opposing views make compromise even harder. It is not surprising that people who read the newspapers and watch television talking heads who take extreme views on the issues of the day will be likely to carry such attitudes about conflict into their activities in their parishes and dioceses.

Finally, I think that while it is seldom acknowledged, the conflict over homosexuality frequently reveals a deep visceral distaste, even disgust, for the behaviors under consideration. Many other biblical prohibitions-against divorce, women speaking in church, eating certain foods-have been altered. People may oppose the practice of ordaining women or consecrating them as bishops, but few appear to be physically disgusted by the prospect. The apparently unequivocal nature of the condemnations of homosexuality found in the Bible is reinforced by the deeper “instinctive” conviction that homosexual behavior simply cannot be what God intends for his creation. And for those on the liberal side (where I am), there is often a similar, almost visceral, reaction that sees opponents as simply intolerant and homophobic.

Some of the debate in the Episcopal Church also focuses on process, on what Rowan Williams called the ECUSA’s “determination to go it alone.” Conservatives point to earlier pronouncements by the Anglican Communion saying the church was not ready to move ahead on this issue, and accuse the Americans of riding roughshod over both the precedents of the community and the feelings of other churches. Liberals insist that they have followed the established procedure for selecting and consecrating a bishop by receiving the required number of votes at both diocesan and national meetings, and that local dioceses and national churches have the right to take such steps.

Both sides may be narrowly correct but both are broadly misleading in their complaints about due process. It is hard to believe that opponents of Bishop Robinson’s consecration would have been less opposed if the church had delayed and tried to convince others of the rightness of this step. One noted conservative voice makes this clear when he writes that this is a “subject on which Bible Christians are not able to change their minds. Not because we are dinosaurs-but because we believe God has already spoken” (Paul Zahl, Understanding the Windsor Report). And on the other side, organizational autonomy and responsibility within a religious communion must mean more than simply justifying one’s actions on the basis of what the official policies allow one to do.

Given these disagreements, how can Episcopalians resolve their differences? Do we remain within an institution that appears to be falling apart, and one that each side experiences as betraying our own commitment to theological orthodoxy or fairness? As a heterosexual who does not view homosexuality as intrinsically sinful or abnormal, can I continue to value the orthodox tradition that is part of my religious identity within a polity that seems so confused about what the “Christian” church should do?

What Do the Failed Terror Plots in Germany Mean?

By Rorik Strindberg

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

The recent foiled terrorist plot in Germany has redefined the targets for Jihadists. Previously many Germans felt safe, because former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the Second Iraq War.(1) Statements from Bin Laden like “Why did we not attack Sweden?” made many think that Jihadists opposition to America was only based on disapproval of American Foreign Policy. The Germans and other European nations could tell themselves that if they did not bother the Muslim states, their would be no terrorism. One must remember that the only European Nations that experienced Post-September 11th terrorism attacks were Spain and England, both of whom participates in the Second Iraq War.

This thought is somewhat foolish, considering that the United States was not in Iraq or Afghanistan during September 11th.(2) Also, prior to September 11th the Middle East had not become any more of an important region in US foreign policy thinking since the Carter Doctrine, and less important since Presidents Carter and Reagan supported the Anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Northern Alliance and Mujahadine.(3) Sometimes one dose not have the option of supporting ideological allies.(4)

What are the reasons for the thwarted terrorist attacks in Germany? This is a question that one must ask. They don’t fit any of the “Legitimate” reasons for terrorist attacks on a Nation. Germans did not participate in the Second Iraq War. Germans were not in the Middle East, supposedly propping up illegitimate regimes. They did republish the Danish Cartoons that showed the profit Mohamed with a bomb on his head. Clearly an insensitive act, but how dose this justify killing individuals that had nothing to do with the publication? And why not attack Denmark, the Nation where the Cartoons were first published? Attacking Denmark would send a very clear message that more insensitive cartoons would cause terrorism.

One Good answer would be that the Jihadists are fractured. The implementation of policies like the monitoring of known terrorist cell phones and robbing Jihadists of a save haven like Afghanistan, must make communication between Jihadists almost impossible and very slow. A “Foreign Policy” cannot be conducted by one man, like Bin Laden. This has caused splinter groups that tend to be more extreme, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who through their brutal tactics have hurt their cause. Note, Bin Laden’s messages to Zarqawi to stop be-headings, because they hurt the cause. Also the Bombings in Jordan that killed one couple that was going to get married could not have helped. Is the German case an other splinter cell, the answer is almost definitely. Either the terrorists were disgruntled Muslim-Germans or Muslims not under the authority of Bin Laden. Either way the Jihadists were opposed to Western values/society and that is the motivation for their belligerence.

Having splinter cells will not allow the Jihadists to conduct a forgien policy. Having Al-Qaeda direct all of the attacks could send a simple message to the world. Don’t cooperate with America, and we won’t bother you. This would cause a greater rift in the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, and make European publics to have greater support for opposing American Policy. Now, Europeans are more likely to see this as a War from Jiahdists on Western values. It is hard to imagine even the people who most adamantly support passiveism, to curtail their own hard fought freedoms to appease Jihadists.

Notes

1. This is true but the Germans participated in the Second Iraq War in a very behind the since manner. Including using German Navy vessels to patrol the sea lanes that the Americans were prier to the War, and dispatching HASMAT teams to Kuwait.

2. It is hard to argue that the post-bellum containment of the Secular and Belligerent Iraq would offend Jihadist, because Saddam represented the type of governments that Jihadists desired to over through.

3. The First Gulf War conflict or Desert Shield/Desert Storm is an action committed in the spirit of the Carter Doctrine.

4. This policy was necessary to prove to the USSR that an other war would bankrupt the nation that consistently spent around 15% of its GDP on their military, to put this in to perspective the United States today spends about 4% of its GDP on the military. And to end the madness of MAD or mutual assured destruction.

The Oppression of Shudras in India, Part IV: Sections 7-8 of "Problem of Dalits"

By the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

This essay is taken from sections seven through eight of Resolution Adopted at the All India Convention on Problems of Dalits by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in New Delhi, India on Feb. 22, 2006.

7. IMMEDIATE TASKS

Taking into account the severity of the caste problem, Com. E. M. Namboodiripad wrote in 1979, “One has to realize that the building of India on modern democratic and secular lines requires an uncompromising struggle against the caste-based Hindu society and its culture. There is no question of secular democracy, not to speak of socialism, unless the very citadel of India’s ‘age-old’ civilization and culture, the division of society into a hierarchy of castes – is broken. In other words, the struggle for radical democracy and socialism cannot be separated from the struggle against caste society.”

On the basis of above understanding the convention calls upon all the units of the Party to take up the social issues as an important task of the Party. Party units should study the position of social oppression in their area and work out the concrete demands to organise campaign and struggles. The mass organisations should take up the specific problems of dalits and organise special campaigns and struggles to achieve their demands.

8. CHARTER OF DEMANDS

This convention sets out the following charter of demands to ensure a better life for the crores of dalits in our country and it calls upon them to join the common movement of all toiling, oppressed and exploited sections of our country to win these demands and also to effect a radical social, economic and political transformation of our country.

1. LAND REFORMS: The central and state governments mus immediately set in motion a process of land reforms whereby land will be redistributed to the landless agricultural labourers and poor peasants gratis. All loopholes in the present laws must be plugged. All schemes to reverse land reform legislation and give away land to multinational corporations and big business houses should be scrapped forthwith.

2. RESERVATIONS: All the backlogs in reserved seats and posts and in promotions for SCs, STs and OBCs must be filled forthwith with special recruitment drives. The three Constitutional amendments made to correct the three OMs issued in 1997 diluting reservations for SCs and STs should be implemented. The pre-1997 vacancies based roster should be restored. A comprehensive legislation covering all aspects of reservation for SCs/STs in employment and education both public and private institutions should be enacted.

3. SPECIAL COMPONENT PLAN: Special Component Plan should be properly implemented in all the states with proper allotment of funds according to the population of dalits. A National Commission should be set up to assess the real position of dalits including reservation. The state level commissions should be set up to oversee the implementation of all schemes connected with the SCs including reservation.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: Infrastructure development in the scheduled caste areas like road, water, health, culture and other needs has to be given proper importance. When allotting fund for infrastructure development, a separate allotment for scheduled caste areas should be provided.

A comprehensive National Programme of Minor Irrigation for all irrigable but unirrigated lands of SCs and STs through wells, community wells, bore-wells, community bore-wells and tubewells, bandheras, check-dams, lift, etc., should be immediately undertaken and implemented.

5. ROOTING OUT UNTOUCHABILITY: All forms of untouchability must be rooted out of the country by strengthening the relevant laws, ensuring their strict implementation and most importantly, by launching a mass movement of the people.

6. PROTECTION FROM ATROCITIES: The Central Government should amend and strengthen the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, providing for special courts with judges, investigating officers and public prosecutors unburdened by any other work. Social and economic boycott and blackmail should be included as substantive crimes. Full economic rehabilitation of victims and their survivors must be ensured.

7. EMPLOYMENT: The privatisation drive should be stopped as it leads to loot of national assets, greater unemployment, a curtailment of reservations and also a spurt in corruption. The Central Government should enact a bill to provide reservations in the private sector, which has been a long-standing demand of SCs and STs. Special schemes to provide self-employment to SC youth should be started. The Right to Work should be incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution.

8. EDUCATION: The commercialisation of education should be stopped since the massive fee and donation structure of private educational managements is something that socially and economically backward students cannot afford. For this, the central government must increase its own outlay on education to 6 % of the GDP. SC/ST students should be given special scholarships to pursue their studies. The stipends in Social Welfare hostels should be raised and the quality of these hostels improved. Steps should be taken to universalise primary education and expand secondary education. Special measures to curb the drop-out rate among SCs should be undertaken.

9. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS: The Minimum Wages Act for agricultural workers must be stringently implemented throughout the country. A comprehensive bill for agricultural workers is another long-standing demand and it must be enacted without delay. Homestead land must be provided for SCs, STs and agricultural workers.

10. RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME: The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act must be strictly implemented all over the country by involving the people, their mass organisations and the panchayati raj institutions. It should be extended to all districts and also to urban areas of the country.

11. PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: The public distribution system must be universalised to ensure food to all. Until this is done, BPL ration cards must be issued to all poor families, many of whom are from SCs and STs. The grain under the BPL scheme should be made available at Antyodaya prices.

12. CREDIT: Agricultural credit to peasants and agricultural workers must be made available at 4 % rate of interest. For SCs and STs in both rural and urban areas, credit facilities should be expanded and the credit given at concessional interest rates.

13. BONDED LABOUR AND CHILD LABOUR: The total liberation and full rehabilitation of bonded labourers must be ensured. The pernicious practice of child labour must be abolished and children properly rehabilitated and educated. Similarly, total liberation and full rehabilitation must be ensured for Safaqi Karmacharis who are engaged in scavenging.

14. SCAVENGERS: Ensure total liberation and full rehabilitation for scavengers (safai karamcharis), ban engagement of contract labour in safai services and other services where SC and ST numerically predominate and instead introduce necessary improvements by involving such Karamcharis; and reactivate the Central Monitoring Committee for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Safai Karamcharis and State, Municipal and District Level communities.

15. INTERCASTE MARRIAGES: Intercaste marriages should be encouraged by giving special subsidized housing and other facilities to married couples immediately after their marriage. We should consciously try to uphold such inter-caste marriages and make them an event of big social participation and sanction.

COUP D'ETAT IN THAILAND

Troops loyal to Thai army cheif General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin declared martial law in a coup last night against Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who right now is in New York because he was going to give a speech to the UN General Assembly. I've collected news articles from the Thai press as well as the press from Asia as well as from other news orgs around the world. To view more about this coup look at the news sites at the left-hand column in my blog.



Bangkok Post
Coup D'Etat
By Post Reporters

Troops loyal to army chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin last night staged a coup d'etat to oust caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was in New York and due to address the United Nations General Assembly. The coup makers called themselves the Democratic Reform Council, led by Gen Sonthi. In an announcement flashed across national television, they said they comprised the commanders of the three armed forces and the national police chief.

The council cited unprecedented division in the country, widespread suspicion of abuse of power, and activities bordering on lese majeste for taking power for a period they promised would be temporary.

Tanks and troops of the Fourth Cavalry Battalion moved into Government House and other strategic points in Bangkok, including the Royal Plaza.

The coup came after Mr Thaksin declared a state of emergency in Bangkok.

In a statement relayed from New York and carried by Channel 9, he sacked the army chief and put the armed forces supreme commander, Gen Ruengroj Mahasaranont, in charge of enforcing the state of emergency. Both were to report to Pol Gen Chidchai Wannasathit, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister whom Mr Thaksin named as acting prime minister.

The council said it had the situation under control and there was no resistance.

As of press time, it was not known how long the council would remain in power and when it would appoint an interim government.

The council revoked the State of Emergency declared by Mr Thaksin and imposed martial law at around 12.30.

Shortly afterwards, the council abrogated the 1997 constitution, dissolved the Constitution Court, the caretaker government and the Senate.

The council was reported to be based at army headquarters on Ratchadamnoen Nok avenue.

The council was reported to have blocked the website of a so-called fake media outlet calling itself The Reporter.

Mr Thaksin's statement was relayed at about 10.20 pm but was disrupted around 10 minutes later.

Sources later told the Bangkok Post that troops had burst into the offices of Channel 9 and told the station officers to stop running the statement.

Sources said Privy Council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda yesterday tried to mediate between troops loyal to the army chief and another army faction loyal to Mr Thaksin.

During the talks, Gen Prem was reported to have been summoned to the Royal Palace. Nothing more was known.

The council leaders were also summoned to the palace late last night.

Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkol were all in New York with Mr Thaksin.

Prime Minister's Office Minister Newin Chidchob, Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra and her son Panthongtae left for Singapore at about 9.00 pm.

Agriculture Minister Sudarat Keyuraphan and Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak are currently in France, and are likely to postpone their return.

Pol Gen Chidchai, Defence Minister Thammarak Isarangkura na Ayudhaya, Deputy Prime Minister Suwat Liptapanlop, Social Welfare Minister Wattana Muangsuk, PM's Office Minister Suranand Vejjajiva were reportedly at home at the time.

A cabinet source said the armed forces and police decided to stage the coup to avert a possible clash between an anti-Thaksin rally that the People's Alliance for Democracy planned to stage today, and members of the forestry police.

The source said the forestry police based at Khao Yai National Park were due to move into Bangkok today to quash the PAD-led protests.

The forestry police are equipped with HK 33 rifles and well trained for confrontations with the protesters.

The army last month asked the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department to return around 1,000 rifles, which were loaned to forest rangers several years ago. But Gen Sonthi at the time downplayed the political implications of a plan to take back of the rifles, saying the army was in dire need of weapons.

The source said several cabinet ministers had been alerted about the coup yesterday afternoon and many started to pack their belongings and left their offices for good.

In New York, government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee denied the coup had been successful, saying the seizure of TV station headquarters did not guarantee its success. Seizing power by means of a coup was no longer acceptable in the modern world.

He said the coup makers comprised people losing power and benefits but he refused to be specific. Mr Surapong denied the coup had anything to do with the military reshuffle, saying consideration of the reshuffle list had not been on Mr Thaksin's recent agenda.

He said Pol Gen Chidchai was not under arrest, as rumoured, because he had just spoken to him on the phone.

The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) is poised to face mass selling in today's trading amid fears that there could be a counter coup by supporters of Mr Thaksin, analysts said.
The Nation (Thailand)
Months of Rumors come True
By The Nation Staff

Fighting vehemently to ward off a coup plot against his government while he was still in New York, caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had to act first. He went on TV Channel 9 at about 10:20 PM in a voiceover to head off the coup at home by placing Bangkok under an emergency law.

Strangely enough, other TV channels did not cover the prime minister's speech. TV Channel 5 still aired a programme about the royal activities as if nothing had happened. But the Thais all knew that something very unusual was going on when Channel 5, controlled by the Royal Army, removed its usual programme from the air.

Rumours had swirled around the capital since the morning that a coup was imminent. There were unusual troop movements from the upcountry moving into Bangkok. The two persons who got the most attention from the Thaksin camp were Gen Sonthi Boonyaratklin, the army chief, and Gen Anupong Phaochinda, the head of the First Infantry Division.

The First Infantry Division had turned out to become the headquarters of unusual troop|movements. One military source said troops from Prachin Buri, which used to be under Gen Anupong, were arriving at the First Infantry Division on the Viphavadee Rangsit Road in the evening. They were joined by the troops of the Special Warfare Command from Lopburi, which used to be under the command of Gen Sonthi.

But the members of Class 10 of the Chulachom Klao Military Academy, who are loyal to Thaksin, were standing by. They knew that the final showdown had come. They got the Third and Fourth Calvary Battalion, the AntiAircraft Artillery prepared within their barracks.

There was a tense confrontation between the two opposing sides. Who would blink first?

Whoever moved first in this dangerous game could be charged with treason against the state or the Constitution.

A fuming Thaksin had realised all along that his battle against the Thai elite would boil down to this military confrontation. Through a voiceover heard over Channel 9, Thaksin read out the emergency statement ordering Gen Sonthi to report to the Office of the Prime Minister under the command of Pol Gen Chidchai Vanasaditya, the deputy prime minister.

This technically amounted to a removal of Sonthi from his powerful post. He then assigned Ruengroj Mahasaranond, the supreme commander, to be in charge of all aspects of security in Bangkok.

Thaksin learnt about the plot while he was in New York. At 9pm Bangkok time, he went to his hotel room and called the reporters from the Mass Communication Organisation of Thailand and Channel 11 to tell them that he would have an important message to tell them.

As it turned out, he would declare a state of emergency covering Bangkok in order to preempt a military coup at home. He thought he had an upper hand because he was an elected leader of a democratic country.

But logistics did not go his way. Thaksin planned to have his message sent via satellite signal to Channel 9. But he was told that it could not be done technically. It would work out better if he spoke over the phone directly to the TV channel.

Thaksin decided to switch to Channel 11 to air his state of emergency declaration. But before he could do so, the military took over Channel 11. The editors and reporters were taken to another room.

All the other statecontrolled TV stations, owned by the military, were ordered to stand by to air an important message.

But somehow Thaksin did not face a total blackout. He was allowed to air his state of emergency declaration on Channel 9, with a still photo of him accompanied by his live telephone speech.

Sources said the military confrontation could last until tomorrow while all the combat military personnel were summoned to station in their bases.

At the time of going to the press, nobody would dare predict the final outcome.

Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai appeared on CNN to try to calm the international audience, who had been wondering all along about the timing of the new election, about the political crisis in the capital. He said the army chief was trying to oust the democratically elected government and that Thaksin was still prime minister.

But a few minutes later, at 11pm, the Gen Sonthi camp effectively took over with tanks parking at all the strategic places around the capital.

A military coup was finally staged.

It was as much a military war as a media war for control of the time slot.

A statement was read out through all the TV channels that all the armed and police forces had taken control of Bangkok and the neighbouring areas without resistance. The names of the coup leaders, who called themselves a military reformist unit, were withheld. To maintain peace, the statement on behalf of the Political Reform Group sought cooperation from the public to maintain peace. It also apologised for any inconvenience the coup may cause to the Thai public.

At first, it looked like a deadlock situation, without any party showing an upper hand or a convincing victory as yet. The situation was very confusing and remained very fluid.

Troops supporting to the Thaksin camp still put up a resistance as of last night. There were reports that troops from Prachin Buri and Chacheongsao would move into the capital early this morning to fortify the position of Gen Sonthi.

As the day was over, it appeared that the Gen Sonthi camp gained the advantage. Gen Sonthi appeared from the shadow to make a countermove by announcing a state of emergency to override Thaksin's announcement earlier. He forbid any troop movements without his order.

Political sources said it would be interesting to see how the confrontation would develop and how the Thaksin camp would rally supporters to protest against the coup.

Nobody could predict the final outcome as Thaksin looked serious that he would fight to his political end. Thaksin could go to the UN to tell the whole world not to accept the coup at home.

The Sonthi camp has also crossed the threshold into uncharted territories.

Times of India
Army Coup in Thailand; State of Emergancy Declared
By Times Staff

BANGKOK: The Thai military launched a coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Tuesday night, circling his offices with tanks, seizing control of TV stations and declaring a provisional authority pledging loyalty to the king.

An announcement on Thai television declared that a 'Council of Administrative Reform' with King Bhumibol Adulyadej as head of state had seized power in Bangkok and nearby provinces without any resistance...Read More...

Asia Times (Hong Kong)
Military Coup Tumbles Thailand's Thaksin
By Shawn W. Crispin

BANGKOK - Caretaker Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted in a military coup on Tuesday evening, marking what appears to be a dramatic end to a political stalemate that has pitched the embattled politician against an opposition movement backed by conservative elements close to the Thai palace.

Troops loyal to Thai army commander General Sonthi Boonyaratklin, a palace loyalist, led the army-led putsch and surrounded Government House and parliament with tanks and troops. Thaksin, who was traveling in the United States, attempted to declare “a severe state of emergency” from New York and ordered Sonthi removed from his command...Read More...

New York Times
Thai Military Declares Martial Law
By Seth Mydans and Thomas Fuller contributions by John O'Neil

BANGKOK, Wednesday, Sept. 20 — Leaders of Thailand’s armed forces seized control of Bangkok on Tuesday night, suspended the constitution and declared martial law.

They ousted the Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, while he was in New York for a meeting of the United Nations. Mr. Thaksin had appeared on Thai television to declare a state of emergency but was cut off in mid-speech...Read More...

The Guardian (UK)
Coup as Army Seizes Power in Thailand
By John Aglionby and Ewen MacAskill

Thailand was thrown into turmoil today when the army sent tanks and troops into the capital to wrest power from the prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, while he was attending the United Nations general assembly in New York.

In the first military intervention for 15 years in the notoriously coup-prone country, the army threw a cordon of tanks round the government offices in Bangkok, seized control of television stations, and revoked the constitution. The coup leaders ordered all soldiers not involved to remain in their barracks. Hundreds of soldiers were deployed at crossroads and outside hotels and near the royal palace...Read More...

Mail & Guardian (South Africa)
Thai Army Seizes Power, Ousts Thaksin
By Pracha Hariraksapitak

The Thai army seized power on Tuesday without firing a shot, dismissed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government, revoked the Constitution and promised a swift return to democracy after political reforms.

Army Commander-in-Chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin took the reins of power without a government title after Thaksin telephoned a Thai television station from New York to announce a state of emergency in an apparent attempt to head off the coup...Read More...

Bishop Gumbleton Homily: U.S. Imperialism and the True Religion

By Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

Auxiliary Bishop Gumbleton, the longest serving bishop in the U.S., is a retired Catholic Auxiliary Bishop for the Archdiocese Detroit, MI. This homily was given last Saturday at Saint Leo Church in Detroit.

Perhaps you’re aware of the speech that [U.S. Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld gave earlier this week to a convention of the American Legion. It was a speech in which he was very harsh on critics of the war [in Iraq] and critics of the policy of the President and his administration. In fact, he went so far as to charge that people who are critics of the war and of President Bush, are guilty of what he said “is moral and intellectual confusion.” President Bush himself, didn’t use the same words but yesterday, in his radio speech, he repeated practically the same idea: If you’re not for the policy of this government, you’re morally confused, or you’re intellectually confused.

Now of course, Mr. Rumsfeld early in the week -- President Bush should have known by yesterday -- could not be aware that this very week the Pentagon was giving a report that indicates that over the last quarter of this year, the violence, the killing, the suffering of the people of Iraq has escalated beyond anything that it has reached before. This means there are thousands, when you add it all up, there are hundreds of thousands in fact, of people in Iraq who have suffered, died, who right now are without electricity, without clean water, who are homeless, without jobs, who are desperately poor. Last Sunday I read a report as you may recall from a person who wrote to me from Baghdad, “it’s a hellish situation.” Even the Pentagon reported that this week.

Probably President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld were not aware that this week, the Census Bureau would publish a five year report on what has happened to people in our country. Economically, we have a larger number of poor people -- and that number has grown in the last four years -- than we’ve had in many, many decades. The report about the city of Detroit was especially devastating. The number of poor people in our city has gone up dramatically; there’s about a quarter of a million people in this city who live below the poverty line, which means they have less than $19,000 for a family of four. The number of children in Detroit who are in poverty, it’s almost 50 percent, almost one out of two kids in Detroit is in poverty, which means they are not getting enough to eat, they’re not getting good health care, they’re not getting good education.

It’s a disaster. You might have to asked, “who is morally, intellectually confused”? Those who set the priorities for our country? Or those who happen to listen to what our scriptures tell us today? This is where we’ll get moral clarity.

Again President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld could not have dreamed, I suppose, that this very week, while they’re talking about who’s intellectually and morally confused, God’s scripture speaks about what is true religion. James says it very clearly: What is true religion? It’s to take care of those who are most vulnerable, the widows and the orphans, the poor. That’s true religion.

It’s reinforced by the other lessons today, that first lesson from the Book of Deuteronomy, where Moses is speaking to the people, it says, “Listen Israel, hear now the norms and laws that you may teach them and put them into practice and you will live and enter and take possession of the land which Yahweh the God of your ancestors gives you.” He goes on then to speak to them about what is the real law of God, and he describes how if you adhere to this law, God is close to you. Well, of course it’s: “Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul and all your mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.” There is nothing in it about doing violence to people, killing people, depriving people of what they need to live.

We don’t often, I think, reflect on the psalm response that we sing after the first reading, but today it’s especially helpful to reflect a little bit more upon it, because it too tells us what is true religion and where you are going to find moral clarity. “Oh God, who will dwell in your house and reside on your holy mountain.” In other words, who’s going to be close to God? Those who walk blamelessly and do what is just. Making it happen so that everyone has a chance to share in the goods of the earth that God gave for all. Those who speak truth from their hearts, who don’t dissemble and give false claims of progress in a war that is so evil. Those who control their words and who do no harm to their neighbors. Those are the ones that are close to God. Those who look down on evildoers but highly esteem God’s servants, who at all cost stand by a pledged word. Those that do all this, will never be shaken; they are the ones who are close to God, who are practicing true religion.

Of course, St. James, makes it very clear, I’ve mentioned already. In the sight of God, true, blameless religion lies in helping the orphans and widows in their need and keeping oneself from the world’s corruption.

Jesus, of course in the Gospel lesson, is also pointing out to us what is true religion. He’s saying it’s being careful of what is really important. What had happened is that the Pharisees, the teachers of the law who are described in the Gospel, they come from a tradition where -- it was with good intentions -- that the teachers of the law had built up a series of traditions, human laws, which were like a fence around the law of God. In other words, if you obeyed the human laws, then for sure you would never violate God’s law. But then over a period of time, those traditions became all important, and what they were trying to protect was lost. That’s why the Pharisees, the scribes, the teachers, would be so concerned about the fact that Jesus’ disciples didn’t do all the ritual purification that the law, the human law, required. But as Jesus pointed out, they were forgetting the heart of it all, the basic truth about what is God’s law: “Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind and all your strength and love your neighbor.” That’s what’s all important. And that’s where we’re failing.

When we carry on war against our neighbors, when we deprive the poor in our midst of what they need for a full human life, then surely we’re not practicing true religion.

But as we reflect on this, it’s important that we not simply think of ourselves, well of course now, we are morally superior; we know what is right and we know what is God’s law, and we know it forbids killing and violence and so on. No, we can’t think of ourselves as morally superior, because we have to listen again, very carefully, to what James says: “Be doers of the word, it’s not enough just to know what God teaches, but we have to act on it.”

That means, it seems to me, that we have to be more active in trying to oppose the violence and the killing that our country is carrying out. We have to be much more active in trying to change legislation. When the Congress comes back, they’re going to debate again a minimum wage law. You see the poor people in our country are not just people who are not working. They are people working full time getting paid the minimum wage, which comes to $10,712 a year if you work full time. That’s about half of the level of poverty for a family of four. There’s a current piece of legislation that will raise that minimum wage up to $7.25 over a three year period. It failed before the Congress broke for the summer recess. It was a good thing it failed, because the Republicans had added to the bill a tax relief for the richest of the people in our country that in over 10 years would cost a trillion dollars. This is absolutely evil. It just seems so incredibly evil that we let this kind of thing go on. And so when the Congress comes back, we have to do something, each of us, to try to make sure that our representatives in that Congress and in the Senate vote for what is just and what is right.

We have to be doers of the word. Tomorrow we have an opportunity. Poor people in our neighborhood will be here for their meal, and many of us are going to serve that meal. Many of us have supplied what will be served. That’s a good thing. In that way, we are doers of the Word. And I’m thankful that we do it, but again, we have to go beyond that. We have to change legislation, we have to change priorities in this country, if we’re really going to be doers of the Word.

True religion and reaching out to the poor. True religion is loving God with your whole heart, mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself. We must, each of us, become a doer of the Word of God and live true religion. Each day we carry out true religion with all of our minds and hearts and strength.

The Oppression of Shudras in India, Part III: Sections 4-6 of "Problem of Dalits"

By the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not neccessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibiliby of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

This essay is taken from sections four through six of Resolution Adopted at the All India Convention on Problems of Dalits by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in New Delhi, India on Feb. 22, 2006.

4. EFFECT OF LIBERALISATION POLICIES

With the onset of the imperialist-dictated policies of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation by the ruling classes of our country during the last decade and a half, the problems of dalits, adivasis, other backward castes and the working people as a whole have greatly aggravated. The drive to privatise the public sector has directly hit reservations for the SC/STs. The closure of thousands of mills and factories have rendered lakhs jobless and this has also hit dalits and other backward castes. The ban on recruitment to government and semi-government jobs that has been imposed in several states has also had an adverse effect. The growing commercialisation of education and health has kept innumerable people from both socially and economically backward sections out of these vital sectors. In this background, reservation in private sector has become very important because the joblessness among the SC and STs has witnessed a steady increase in the recent period.

The most disastrous effects of these policies can be seen in the deep agrarian crisis that has afflicted the rural sector. Rural employment has sharply fallen and this has hit dalits, adivasis and women the most. Mechanisation of agriculture has further compounded the problem. The real wages of agricultural workers, of whom a large proportion are dalits, have fallen in many states. No efforts are made to implement minimum wage legislation even where it exists, and periodic revision of minimum wage is also conspicuous by its absence. The dismantling of the public distribution system has increased hunger to alarming proportions. An overwhelming proportion of the malnutrition-related deaths of thousands of children in several states is from dalit and adivasi families. Thus, the neo-liberal policies have accentuated both the economic as well as the social divide in the country.

5. COMMUNIST STRUGGLES AGAINST CASTE & FEUDAL OPPRESSION

There is no doubt that due to the whole range of alternative polcies pursued by the Left-led state governments in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, the position of dalits and adivasis have markedly improved in these states. But even before the Left came to power in these states, Communist leaders staunchly fought on the issues relating to caste oppression. In Kerala, in the pre-independence period, Communist leaders, while leading class struggles, also led temple entry satyagrahas for the dalits in the teeth of upper caste opposition. In West Bengal, the Communists made conscious attempts in practice to carry forward the rich legacy of the glorious social reform movement in the state. In Tripura, too, the Communists raised the issue of caste oppression as an integral part of the class struggle. In Tamilnadu in East Thanjavur area the struggle led by communists against the class and caste oppression of dalits formed the base for a strong kisan movement.

It was in the great anti-feudal peasant struggles led by the Communists in the 1940s that India for the first time got a glimpse of the possibility of the annihilation of caste and communalism once and for all. Historic struggles like Telangana, Tebhaga, Punnapara Vayalar and others squarely targeted landlordism and imperialism and in this process, they succeeded in forging the unprecedented unity of all toilers, cutting across caste and religious lines. The struggle reached its highest point in Telangana. Thousands of villages were liberated from landlord rule and actual land redistribution to the landless was carried out. A large number of the beneficiaries of this land reform were dalits and adivasis, who got possession of land for the first time. The remarkable class unity of the peasantry that was forged in this struggle struck the first blows at caste and communal ideology and practice.

In more recent times, the CPI(M) and the mass organisations in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere have been leading a concerted statewide campaign and struggle for the last few years on the issues of untouchability and caste oppression. This is meeting with encouraging public response, with dalits being attracted to the Left.

6. THE POSITION OF DALITS IN LEFT-RULED STATES

The first Communist ministry in Kerala, the Left Front governments in West Bengal and Tripura and the Left Democratic Front regimes in Kerala took up land reforms as their priority task. They combined this by strengthening panchayati raj.

In West Bengal, of the more than 13.81 lakh acres of agricultural land vested in the state, 10.69 lakh acres have been distributed among 26.43 lakh people. The significant feature is that 56 per cent of the beneficiaries belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. This is almost double their proportion in the population. Of the land distributed, 4.48 lakh pattas were issued jointly to men and women and 52,000 pattas were meant exclusively for women. It is a creditable record that 18 per cent of the total ceiling surplus land of the country and 20 per cent of the total distributed land of the country is in West Bengal alone.

Besides this, the rights of nearly 15 lakh sharecroppers have been recorded, covering 11.08 lakh acres of land, and 5.44 lakh poor families have been given homestead land. Over 42 per cent of the recorded sharecroppers belonged to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Now nearly 72 per cent of the land in West Bengal is managed by poor and marginal farmers. As a result of land reforms and other measures taken by the Left Front government, agricultural production has increased by 250 per cent and more. Landless agricultural labour has been guaranteed a minimum wage and is provided with work during lean months. A large proportion of the beneficiaries of these measures naturally belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In the three-tier panchayat system, the representation of SCs, STs and women is considerably higher than the reserved quotas in both West Bengal and Tripura. Panchayat Raj institutions in these states are largely controlled by poor peasants and agricultural labourers, unlike in most other parts of the country, where they are in the grip of landlords and rich peasants.

The West Bengal LF government has also initiated a large number of schemes to specifically support dalits and adivasis. Scholarships are provided to 1.1 lakh dalit students and 80,000 adivasi students. 240 hostels for primary and secondary students from the dalit and adivasi communities have been constructed. 32,000 dalit students and 28,000 adivasi students are provided with expenses for living in hostels at the pre-secondary level. An SC/ST Development and Finance Corporation has been established to support poor dalit and adivasi families by providing finance for household-based self-employment schemes. As against the poor national average that we saw above, 26 % of primary teachers and 29 % of secondary teachers in West Bengal come from the scheduled castes. For scheduled tribes, the percentage is 9 and 11 respectively.

The Tripura Left Front government also has a creditable record in the upliftment of the SCs and STs. In 1991, while the overall literacy was 60.44 %, the SC literacy was 56.66 %. The 2001 census figures of literacy are not yet available, but they are expected to show a considerable increase. Female SC literacy doubled from 23.24 % in 1981 to 45.45 % in 1991. A striking feature in the state is that SCs are not confined exclusively to ‘Paras’ or ‘Bastis’ like in some other parts of the country. They by and large live and intermingle with each other. There are no bonded labourers among SCs in the state. Provision of minimum wage to agricultural labourers, many of whom are SCs, is stringently implemented. SC families are legally protected against exploitation by money-lenders. Reservations in services, posts and educational institutions are strictly monitored and implemented. All scavengers engaged in carrying night soil by head load were liberated in 1991 itself and special schemes were undertaken for their rehabilitation. In the small state of Tripura, 40,000 SC students are being given pre-matric scholarships by the government. 2000 meritorious SC students are being given the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Award each year. The sum of the award ranges from Rs. 400 to Rs. 1500 per annum. 30 hostels for SC boys and girls have been set up. Special schemes have been started for providing housing and medical assistance to SCs. Special development programmes for welfare of SCs are taken up and implemented every three years.

It is as a result of a long process of struggle combined with the above governmental measures, and an intensive ideological campaign by the Party and the Left that untouchability and caste oppression against dalits and adivasis have been reduced to a large extent in West Bengal and Tripura under Left Front rule. Atrocities against dalits and adivasis, which abound in many other parts of the country, are almost unheard of in these two states. Thus, in 2001, at the All India level, there were 33,503 cases of crimes committed against scheduled castes, of which 716 were murders, 1316 were rapes and 400 were abductions. In West Bengal that year, there were only 10 such crimes and in Tripura there were only 2 such crimes. In the same year, at the All India level, there were 6,217 cases of crimes committed against scheduled tribes, of which 167 were murders, 573 were rapes, and 67 were abductions. In West Bengal that year, there were only 2 such crimes and in Tripura there was not a single such crime. All this conclusively shows that it is only a Left alternative that can show the way to ending the age-old scourge of untouchability, caste oppression and social discrimination.

Filipino Youth and Students Unite with Workers and Immigrant Communities

By Princess Bustos
Chair
League of Filipino Students
San Francisco State University

League of Filipino Students-SFSU in an Anti-Imperialist, Pro-National Democracy, Pro-People organization representing the Youth and Student Sector. LFS-SFSU in an international chapter of LFS Philippines and is a member organization of BAYAN-USA (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan—New Patriotic Alliance).

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

(San Francisco, CA) League of Filipino Students—San Francisco State University stands in solidarity with workers and immigrant communities, and demand for just and genuine immigration reforms and better working conditions, health care and descent living wages for all! Although Labor Day is a day to commemorate the important economic contributions of workers and all employees, let us not be distracted by this bogus imperialist holiday and forget the intense exploitation and increasing discrimination that continues to exist in the work place, especially in areas with a high population of third world immigrants.

Historically, the immigrant population's participation in the United States workforce as cheap labor has helped increase the wealth of the number one imperialist country. Immigrant workers, both documented and undocumented have long been the backbone of the U.S. economy, but are rarely recognized and ridiculously used as scapegoats to distract the American public from the ever-growing dissent against US intervention and aggression in countries such as the Philippines, Palestine and other Third World nations.

The vicious imperialist interest of the comprador big-bourgeoisie is the primary force of exploitation for immigrants and workers in the U.S. and other countries, outsourcing companies and businesses thus increasing their profit, while at the same time recruiting professionals from third world countries and paying them cheap labor. As a result, both workers here and abroad face exploitation through globalization and free-trade agreements, which continue to suppress both the basic needs and rights of workers and immigrants—higher wages, right to unionize, health benefits, resources, better working conditions, and the like.

The youth and students also face the daunting effects of systematic oppression and US intervention in other countries. As billions of tax dollars are used to fund President Bush and his imperialist cronies' "War on Terrorism," his administration fails to provide adequate basic needs such as education and social services for the youth. In addition, U.S. tax dollars are also used to support other administration's "War on Terrorism," such as the fascist, number one puppet, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose human rights violations have surpassed even the late fascist dictator Ferdinand Marcos. U.S. tax dollars continue to fund the fake President GMA and her barbaric, pernicious, and undisciplined clique, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), headed by the ruthless murderer or berdugo as he is tagged, Major Jovito Palparan and the Philippine National Police (PNP). Their sole purpose is to repress and crush the National Democratic movement and people's growing opposition against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's puppet regime, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People's Army (NPA). However, the political killings and human rights violations continue to soar as both the AFP and PNP make no distinction between the legal mass movement and the underground movement, in the martial law-like government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

As U.S. imperialists continue to control the economics and politics of the Philippines, and other third world countries for their own interest, more will be forced to seek employment elsewhere to support their families. As workers, youth and immigrant tax dollars are used to sustain U.S. imperialism across the globe, exploitation and human rights violation throughout the third world will only worsen. The tentacles of U.S. imperialism know no boundaries and the money-hungry-imperialists only have two things in mind—PROFIT and EXPANSION!

LFS-SFSU stands in solidarity with the workers and immigrant communities all over the United States and across the globe in the fight against exploitation. LFS-SFSU stands in solidarity with the world wide mass movement to cut and end the merciless tentacles of imperialism. LFS-SFSU stands in solidarity with the oppressed masses all over the world and supports the resistance against the cruel and inhumane treatments of freedom loving people.

The Opression of Shudras in India, Part II: Sections 1-3 of "Problems of Dalits

By the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

This essay is taken from sections one through three of Resolution Adopted at the All India Convention on Problems of Dalits by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in New Delhi, India on Feb. 22, 2006.

1. A MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON CASTE OPPRESSION

The thoroughly reactionary varna and caste system has hounded Indian society for thousands of years. India is the only country in the world where such a system came into being and still exists. The varna and caste system was sanctified by Hindu religion and by Vedic scriptures. This was the main reason for its consolidation. The notorious text, Manusmriti, codified the then prevailing social norms and consigned the shudras, atishudras and women to a thoroughly unequal and miserable existence. The distinctiveness of the caste system was that it was hereditary, compulsory and endogamous. The worst affected by the caste system and its social oppression have been the dalits, or atishudras, or scheduled castes. Albeit in a different way, the adivasis or scheduled tribes in India have also faced social oppression over the ages. The stories of Shambuka in the Ramayana and of Ekalavya in the Mahabharata are classic testimonies of the non-egalitarian nature of Hindu society in ancient India.

Along with the curse of untouchability, the dalits had no right to have any property. They had to eat the foulest food, including leftovers thrown away by the higher varnas; they were not allowed to draw water from the common well; they were prohibited from entering temples; they were barred from the right to education and knowledge; they had to perform menial jobs for the higher castes; they were not allowed to use the common burial ground; they were not allowed to live in the main village inhabited by the upper varnas; and they were deprived of ownership rights to land and property, leading to the lack of access to all sources of economic mobility. Thus, dalits were subjected to both social exclusion and economic discrimination over the centuries. In one form or the other, this continues even today in most parts of the country.

As Comrade B.T. Ranadive pointed out “the three powerful class interests, the imperialists, the landlords and bourgeois leadership were acting as the defenders of the caste system, by protecting the landlord and pre-capitalist land system.” It will be seen from here that the interests of the bourgeois class rested in maintaining the status quo. There has been no basic change in caste system after nearly 60 years of independence after independence as the bourgeoisie compromised with landlordism fostered caste prejudices. After independence also, the basic structure of land relations, overhauling of which would have given a blow to untouchability and the caste system has not been changed.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw great social reformers like Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Sri Narayan Guru, Jyothiba Phule, Periyar E. V. Ramaswamy Naickar and others. These social reform movements conducted many struggles against the caste system, caste oppression and untouchability in many ways. But, despite the struggles against caste oppression, the social reform movement did not address the crucial issue of radical land reforms. It got delinked from the anti-imperialist struggle. The Congress-led national movement on its part, failed to take up radical social reform measures as part of the freedom movement.

Diametrically opposed to the progressive role of the reform movement was the thoroughly reactionary role on social issues that was played by the RSS and the Sangh Parivar ever since its inception. Apart from its rabid communal ideology, the RSS adopted a Brahmanical stance right from the beginning. With this understanding, the RSS opposed the amendments to the Hindu Code Bill after independence. The BJP’s opposition to the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations was also on this basis. Wherever the BJP is in power in the states, atrocities on Muslims, dalits and adivasis have increased markedly. At the same time in some areas, they sought to pit the poor people belonging to dalits and tribal community against Muslims and Christians. So, the fight against caste oppression and communalism are interlinked. The experience clearly shows the need to link the fight against caste oppression with the struggle against class exploitation. At the same time, the class struggle must include the struggle for the abolition of the caste system and all forms of social oppression. This is an important part of the democratic revolution.

2. THE CPI (M) ON THE CASTE QUESTION

The CPI(M) Programme updated in 2000 succinctly summarises the caste question as follows: “The bourgeois-landlord system has also failed to put an end to caste oppression. The worst sufferers are the scheduled castes. The dalits are subject to untouchability and other forms of discrimination despite these being declared unlawful. The growing consciousness among the dalits for emancipation is sought to be met with brutal oppression and atrocities. The assertion by the dalits has a democratic content reflecting the aspirations of the most oppressed sections of society. The backward castes have also asserted their rights in a caste-ridden society.

“At the same time a purely caste appeal which seeks to perpetuate caste divisions for the narrow aim of consolidating vote banks and detaching these downtrodden sections from the common democratic movement has also been at work. Many caste leaders and certain leaders of bourgeois political parties seek to utilise the polarisation on caste lines for narrow electoral gains and are hostile to building up the common movement of the oppressed sections of all castes. They ignore the basic class issues of land, wages and fight against landlordism, which is the basis for overthrowing the old order. “The problem of caste oppression and discrimination has a long history and is deeply rooted in the pre-capitalist social system. The society under capitalist development has compromised with the existing caste system. The Indian bourgeoisie itself fosters caste prejudices. Working class unity presupposes unity against the caste system and the oppression of dalits, since the vast majority of dalits are part of the labouring classes. To fight for the abolition of the caste system and all forms of social oppression through a social reform movement is an important part of the democratic revolution. The fight against caste oppression is interlinked with the struggle against class exploitation.”

The Political Resolution of the 18th Congress of the CPI(M) held in 2005 gives concrete guidance to the Party to take up caste and social issues. In the section titled “Caste Oppression and Dalits”, it says, “The caste system contains both social oppression and class exploitation. The dalits suffer from both types of exploitation in the worst form. 86.25 per cent of the scheduled caste households are landless and 49 per cent of the scheduled castes in the rural areas are agricultural workers. Communists who champion abolition of the caste system, eradication of untouchability and caste oppression have to be in the forefront in launching struggles against the denial of basic human rights. This struggle has to be combined with the struggle to end the landlord-dominated order which consigns the dalit rural masses to bondage. The issues of land, wages and employment must be taken up to unite different sections of the working people and the non-dalit rural poor must be made conscious of the evils of caste oppression and discrimination by a powerful democratic campaign. There are some dalit organisations and NGOs who seek to foster anti-communist feelings amongst the dalit masses and to detach them from the Left movement. Such sectarian and, in certain cases, foreign- funded activities must be countered and exposed by positively putting forth the Party’s stand on caste oppression and making special efforts to draw the dalit masses into common struggles.”

In the section titled “Fight Caste Appeal”, the Political Resolution says, “The intensification of the caste appeal and fragmentation of the working people on caste lines is a serious challenge to the Left and democratic movement. Taking up caste oppression, forging the common movement of the oppressed of all castes and taking up class issues of common concern must be combined with a bold campaign to highlight the pernicious effects of caste-based politics. The Party should work out concrete tactics in different areas taking into account the caste and class configurations. Electoral exigencies should not come in the way of the Party’s independent campaign against caste-based politics. Reservation is no panacea for the problems of caste and class exploitation. But they provide some limited and necessary relief within the existing order. Reservation should be extended to dalit Christians. In the context of the privatisation drive and the shrinkage of jobs in the government and public sector, reservations in the private sector for scheduled castes and tribes should be worked out after wide consultations.”

3. THE POSITION OF DALITS IN INDIA TODAY

According to the 2001 census, scheduled castes comprise 16.2 per cent of the total population of India, that is, they number over 17 crore. Scheduled tribes comprise 8.2 per cent of the population, that is, they number over 8 crore. Both together constitute 24.4 per cent of the Indian population, that is, they together number over 25 crore. The six states that have the highest percentage of scheduled caste population are Punjab (28.9), Himachal Pradesh (24.7), West Bengal (23.0), Uttar Pradesh (21.1), Haryana (19.3) and Tamil Nadu (19.0). The twelve states that have the largest number of scheduled castes are Uttar Pradesh (351.5 lakhs), West Bengal (184.5 lakhs), Bihar (130.5 lakhs), Andhra Pradesh (123.4 lakhs), Tamil Nadu (118.6 lakhs), Maharashtra (98.8 lakhs), Rajasthan (96.9 lakhs), Madhya Pradesh (91.6 lakhs), Karnataka (85.6 lakhs), Punjab (70.3 lakhs), Orissa (60.8 lakhs) and Haryana (40.9 lakhs). Almost every socio-economic indicator shows that the position of scheduled caste families is awful. In many cases their plight is getting worse. Let us have a look at some of the major indicators.

LAND: In 1991 70% of the total SC households were landless or near landless (owning less than one acre). This increased to 75% in 2000. In 1991, 13% of the rural SC households were landless. However, in 2000 this saw a decline and was 10%. As per the Agricultural Census of 1995-96, the bottom 61.6% of operational holdings accounted for only 17.2% of the total operated land area. As against this, the top 7.3% of operational holdings accounted for 40.1% of the total operated area. This gives an indication of land concentration in the hands of a few.

FIXED CAPITAL ASSETS: In 2000, about 28 % of SC households in rural areas had acquired some access to fixed capital assets (agricultural land and non-land assets). This was only half compared to 56 % for other non-SC/ST households who had some access to fixed capital assets. In the urban areas, the proportion was 27 % for SCs and 35.5 % for others.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR: In 2000, 49.06 % of the working SC population were agricultural labourers, as compared to 32.69 % for the STs and only 19.66 % for the others. This shows the preponderance of dalits in agricultural labour. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of agricultural labourers in India increased from 7.46 crore to 10.74 crore, and a large proportion of them were dalits. On the other hand, the average number of workdays available to an agricultural labourer slumped from 123 in 1981 to 70 in 2005.

CHILD LABOUR: It is reported that out of the 60 million child labour in India, 40 % come from SC families. Moreover, it is estimated that 80% of child labour engaged in carpet, matchstick and firecracker industries come from scheduled caste backgrounds. The tanning, colouring and leather processing, lifting dead animals, clearing human excreta, cleaning soiled clothes, collection of waste in slaughter houses and sale of toddy are some of the hereditary jobs generally pursued by Dalit children.

PER CAPITA INCOME: In 2000, as against the national average of Rs. 4485, the per capita income of SCs was Rs. 3,237. The average weekly wage earning of an SC worker was Rs. 174.50 compared to Rs. 197.05 for other non- SC/ST workers.
POVERTY: In 2000, 35.4 % of the SC population was below the poverty line in rural areas as against 21 % among others (‘Others’ everywhere means non-SC/ST); in urban areas the gap was larger – 39 % of SC as against only 15 % among others. The largest incidence of poverty in rural areas was among agricultural labour followed by non-agricultural labour, whereas in urban areas the largest incidence of poverty was among casual labour followed by self-employed households. The monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) for all household types was lower for SCs than others.
EMPLOYMENT: In 2000, the unemployment rate based on current daily status was 5 % for SCs as compared to 3.5 % for others in rural and urban areas. The wage labour households accounted for 61.4 % of all SC households in rural areas and 26 % in urban areas, as compared to 25.5 % and 7.45 % for other households.

RESERVATIONS: 15 % and 7.5 % of central government posts are reserved for SCs and STs respectively. For SCs, in Group A, only 10.15% posts were filled, in Group B it was 12.67 %, in Group C it was 16.15% and in Group D it was 21.26 %. The figures for STs were even lower, at 2.89 %, 2.68 %, 5.69 % and 6.48 % for the four groups respectively. Of the 544 judges in the High Courts, only 13 were SC and 4 were ST. Among school teachers all over the country, only 6.7 % were SC/STs, while among college and university teachers, only 2.6 % were SC/STs.

EDUCATION: In 2001, the literacy rate among SCs was 54.7 % and among STs it was 47.1 %, as against 68.8 % for others. Among women, the literacy rate for SCs was 41.9 %, for STs it was 34.8 % and for others it was 58.2 %. School attendance was about 10 % less among SC boys than other boys, and about 5 % less among SC girls than other girls. Several studies have observed discrimination against SCs in schools in various forms.

HEALTH: In 2000, the Infant Mortality Rate (child death before the age of 1) in SCs was 83 per 1000 live births as against 61.8 for the others, and the Child Mortality Rate (child death before the age of 5) was 119.3 for 1000 live births as against 82.6 for the others. These high rates among the SCs are closely linked with poverty, low educational status and discrimination in access to health services. In 1999, at least 75 % of SC women suffered from anaemia and more than 70 % SC womens’ deliveries took place at home. More than 75 % of SC children were anaemic and more than 50 % suffered from various degrees of malnutrition.

WOMEN: While dalit women share common problems of gender discrimination with their high caste counterparts, they also suffer from problems specific to them. Dalit women are the worst affected and suffer the three forms oppression -- caste, class and gender. As some of the above figures show, these relate to extremely low literacy and education levels, heavy dependence on wage labour, discrimination in employment and wages, heavy concentration in unskilled, low-paid and hazardous manual jobs, violence and sexual exploitation, being the victims of various forms of superstitions (like the devadasi system) etc.

SANITATION: Only 11 % of SC households and 7 % of ST households had access to sanitary facilities as against the national average of 29 %.

ELECTRICITY: Only 28 % of the SC population and 22 % of the ST population were users of electricity as against the national average of 48%.

ATROCITIES, UNTOUCHABILITY AND DISCRIMINATION: During 16 years between 1981 to 2000 for which records are available, a total of 3,57,945 cases of crime and atrocities were committed against the SCs. This comes to an annual average of about 22,371 crimes and atrocities per year. The break-up of the atrocities and violence for the year 2000 is as follows: 486 cases of murder, 3298 grievous hurt, 260 of arson, 1034 cases of rape and 18,664 cases of other offences. The practice of untouchability and social discrimination in the matter of use of public water bodies, water taps, temples, tea stalls, restaurants, community bath, roads and other social services continues to be of high magnitude.

Mesopotamia Burning, Part II

U.S. involvement in the Middle East didn’t just start with the first two Gulf Wars against Iraq but stretches back by more than half-a-century when the CIA and British SIS were involved in a coup to overthrow the elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. The roots of this coup stretch back all the way to 1901 when exclusive rights to drill in Iran’s southern provinces was giving to William Knox D’Arcy, who in 1908 struck oil during a time when the mighty British navy was starting to convert all of its ships from steam power to oil. Just before the outbreak of World War I the British Parliament voted in favor for allowing the British government to invest £2.2 million in order to by up 51% of the shares of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (latter the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC). This essentially gave Britain the right to exploit the oil resources of Iran any way it wanted since it had the majority of the company’s stock, consequently Britain only gave 16% of its oil revenue to the government of Iran until 1932 when Iran and Britain renegotiated its contracts, yet Britain still came out on top and Iran was still being exploited. (1)

The dispute between the British and Iran began in late 1948 when the Iranian government wanted to renegotiate its contract with the AIOC, which was not an unusual act to do and wouldn’t have been a large concern for the AIOC or the British government. Through these negotiations the Shah (the monarch of Iran) and Britain came up with a supplemental oil agreement on July 17, 1949.(2) But, on July 19, 1949 the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) took the unprecedented action in refusing to ratify the supplemental oil agreement which would have given some concessions to Iran but would still put Britain in control over the oil reserves in Iran,(3) and hence, control over what to do with the vast majority of the wealth accrued by those oil reserves. In March of 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh, then a member of the Majlis, submitted a bill to nationalize the AIOC and to pass control of Iran’s oil reserves from Britain to Iran. The bill was quickly passed and in late April Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister by the Majlis and his election was confirmed by being appointed to Prime Minister by the Shah.(4) Even though Iran wasn’t a top priority for the Truman administration the nationalizing of the oil industry in Iran caught the attention of the U.S. which was worried that the actions taken by the Majlis and the objections of Britain and the AIOC would “jeopardize Western access to oil.”(5) The effort to nationalize the oil industry in Iran was met with extreme hostility by the British government who threatened military action in order to protect their regional interests.(6) The Truman administration (and latter the Eisenhower administration) became concerned over how the British were handling the situation and accused the British of being reckless in their attempts to quell Iranian resistance to nationalizing the oil industry. Yet even with these criticisms the Truman administration began to consider a policy of overthrow in Iran in order to protect its “vital interests” in the region by planning “for the specific military, economic, diplomatic, and psychological measures which should be taken to support a non-communist Iranian government or to prevent all or part of Iran or adjacent areas from falling under communist domination...” and “Politico military discussion with the British government...”(7) The situation continued to deteriorate with Britain blockading Iran and Mossadegh ordering the expulsion of all British AIOC employees and claiming that nationalization of the oil industry was Iran’s sovereign right. Along with American plans to overthrow Mossadegh Britain was also planning an overthrow with the help of pro-British politicians, business interests, military officials, and powerful elites in Iran.(8) Along with British business interests, such as the AIOC trying to protect its monopoly in the region, American business interests were interested in Iran as well. U.S. oil companies within the Middle Eastern region tended to stay away from Iran due to the fact that, [1] the AIOC controlled most of the oil in the region and [2] because of the intense nationalism building up in the country against Western influence and business (i.e., neo-colonialism) many American oil CEOs saw the region as to volatile to do business and make a profit (business ties within the U.S. government were so strong that the CIA man in charge of the coup operation later became vice-president of Gulf Oil(9)). Yet with nationalist influence out of the way (such as Mossadegh and the Iranian National Front) this could pave the way for further oil exploration and exploitation in Iran by U.S. companies. In fact, after the coup, an agreement had been announced to give U.S. corporations a 40% share in Iran’s oil output.(10) On August 10, 1953, after much planning between the British and the U.S. the Shah agreed to talk to Iranian General Zahedi and a few other army officers involved in the coup plot, three days after that meeting the Shah signed a decree to support the CIA and SIS backed coup against Mossadegh.(11)

The coup began on August 15 but was met with disastrous results at first, with the Shah fleeing Iran to Baghdad. Immediately after the failed coup Mossadegh arrested key military leaders of the coup and in a fatal mistake decided to dissolved the Majlis. Yet on August 19 the tide started to turn with pro-Shah crowds building up in the streets in Tehran. Immediately the British and Americans began to exploit the situation(12) by using agents on the ground to actively participate these crowds and to lead and direct their anger against Mossadegh.(13) Eventually Mossadegh and his supporters were captured by the pro-Shah and General Zahedi forces and Mossadegh was put on trial and tried for treason and sentenced to three years of solitary confinement. After the fall of Mossadegh the Shah and the new Prime Minister Zahedi took absolute control over Iran and put in place a repressive and authoritarian regime that banned all forms of dissent and opposition against the government and allowed the AIOC to keep control of its oil and began to allow American corporations to drill for oil as well. With the destruction of democracy in Iran by the American and British governments (all though Mossadegh did take some authoritarian actions himself as well(14)) and the repressive policies of the Shah opposition began to, again, grow against the Shah, but instead of nationalist secular opposition that was more inclined to democracy this new opposition was more Islamic centered with rigid theocratic reactionist figures such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.(15) Instead of a country that was steeped in democracy, by 1979 Iran had been ruled over by an iron fisted dictator for a little over a quarter of a century. This stunting of the political process in 1953 due to the coup eventually led to the overthrow of the Shah and the Iranian Islamic revolution in where Iran, instead of being ruled by a secular monarch, or a democratic parliamentary government, was now ruled by a Shia Islamic theocracy. In was in direct consequence of the 1953 coup that the Iranian clerics rose to power in a country were political discussion was outlawed and the only alternative was hardened fundamentalist religious dissent.(16)

Shortly after the Iranian revolution in 1979 Saddam Hussein, who had just recently took power in Iraq after a Ba’ath party “purging” on July 22, 1979,(17) and who was also a secular dictator, began to worry about the events in Shia Iran (despite an earlier positive response) and his own hold of power as a Sunni secular dictator in a country that was predominantly Shia. After many hostile exchanges between the two countries Ayatollah Khomeini called upon Iraqi Shia’s to rise up against “Saddam’s government” on June 9, 1980. Boarder clashes between the two countries, which had been going on since April of that year, started to escalate into full blown battles involving heavy weapons such as artillery, air power, and tanks.(18) Because of the rhetoric coming from the Iranian leadership, and Hussein’s own personal goals, the Iraqi leadership decided to go forward and invade Iran. On September 22, 1980 Iraq invaded the western boarder region of Iran, the Khuzestan province. Some of the reasons for the war was that Hussein wanted to gain control over the oil producing region of Iran’s Khuzestan province, he also wanted to reassert Iraq’s sovereignty on both banks of the Shatt al-Arab river (a border region which was a demarcation line between the two countries after a 1975 agreement but earlier had been territory of Iraq which Iran disregarded as Iraqi territory despite a border agreement between the two countries in 1937(19)), and, of course, Hussein’s concern over attempts by the Islamic Shia government in Iran to incite rebellion within the Shia population in Iraq against their secular Sunni leader.(20) Early on in the war Iraq took the advantage when it took over the Khuzestan province and severed Iranian control from the entire region of the Shatt al-Arab river. At first, the initial strategy of the war for Iraq, as Efraim Karsh, a professor at King’s College, University of London, puts it, “focused almost exclusively on counter-force targets, taking care to avoid targets of value. It was only after Iran had started to strike strategic non-military targets in the Iraqi hinterland that Iraq responded in kind.”(21) Yet soon after these Iraqi gains the Iranian army counter-attacked and in May of 1982 Iran recaptured much of its territory causing an Iraqi retreat across the border. Soon after, both army’s fought bloody battles, but it was clear that a stalemate had developed between both sides.(22)

After the overthrow of the Shah, who was Washington’s biggest ally in the region, the United States started to become nervous over the prospect of the Islamic revolution in Iran sweeping to other allied countries in the Middle East (including all the way to Pakistan).(23) With Iran emerging as a threat to the region against U.S. client states (such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) and Iraq in the loose orbit of the Soviet Union (as the Soviet Union supplied arms to Iraq) a conflict between the two countries served U.S. interests since two powerful countries were concentrating on battling each other, thus creating an opportunity for the U.S. to setup a new foothold in the region.(24) Shortly after the start of the war the U.S. decided not to sell weapons to Iran and convinced Israel to not sell weapons to Iran either (Israel viewed Iraq as a greater threat) as long as Americans were still held hostage in the embassy in Tehran.(25) Despite Iraq’s ties with the Soviet Union Hussein decided to seek help from the U.S. after the Soviet Union cut off all arms exports to Iraq and Iran, which provided an opportunity for the U.S. to influence policy in Iraq and in turn help further influence the oil producing Middle Eastern region to a greater extent. Right before the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Morris Draper’s visit to Baghdad, despite no official diplomatic ties between the two countries, in April of 1981, William L. Eagleton wrote to the Department of State, “The atmosphere here is excellent following our decision not to sell arms to Iran. The increased Iraqi commerce and contacts with the U.S.,- mutual upgrading of diplomatic staffs and, most recently, HHE go ahead of five Boeing aircraft for Iraq...we now have a greater convergence of interests with Iraq than at any time since the revolution of 1958.”(26) (Referring to the overthrow of the conservative Hashemite monarchy in Iraq which originally had been set up by the British). With Iraq increasingly on the defensive due to Iranian “human-wave” tactics and the underestimating of Iranian strength the U.S. looked to put the balance of power back into Hussein’s hands, one way to do that was to remove Iraq from the State Department’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism” in 1982 (the Reagan administration further fought efforts from Congress to put Iraq back on the list in 1985).(27) Iraq also began using chemical weapons against Iran from Western corporations and U.S. subsidiaries, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, with the explicit knowledge of the U.S. government. Yet despite what the government said about Iraq having “acquired a CW [chemical weapons] production capability” and “Iraq’s almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]”(28) the United States decided to send Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq as a presidential envoy to meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and President Saddam Hussein in order to restore full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the U.S., which happened in 1984.(29) At the same time that Iraq was being given weapons from U.S. subsidiaries and other corporations from France and Britain the National Security Council, through Israel, was selling antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Iran to use against Iraq in order to use the money from those sales to aid the Contras in their fight against the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua which caused an uproar in November of 1986 and undermined Reagan’s image of being “tough against terrorism.”(30)


Despite this debacle and revelations from the media and activists during the mid-1980s the United States, along with Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Western nations and allies, continued to support Iraq in its war against the Shia Islamic government in Iran and turned a blind eye to Iraq’s continued use of chemical weapons relentlessly against Iranian troops, and, latter, the Iraqi Kurds in the north. With the support and with very little condemnation of its abhorrent tactics by the Western nations (the United States in 1986 voted against a U.N. Security Council resolution to condemn Iraq for it’s use of mustard gas(31)) Hussein started initiating a massive build-up of chemical and biological weapons, as well as reviving its nuclear program (which was set back due to an Israeli air strike in 1981), which by the time of the gulf war was on the verge of creating a nuclear explosive.(32) To further Iraq’s cause in the war the U.S. arranged large sums of money in the form of loans to help keep Iraq afloat due to its massive war expenditures by using its “client states” such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as venues in where Iraq could receive the money;(33) the U.S. also allowed “crop-spraying” helicopters to be sold to Iraq (which would be used against the Kurds in 1988),(34) let Dow Chemicals ship its chemicals to Iraq, and sent in air force personal to work with the Iraqi air force, “and approved technological exports to Iraq’s missile procurement agency to extend the” range of Iraq’s missiles. On top of this logistical support it also provided Iraq with military satellite data on Iranian troop movements and also helped Iraq form battle plans, despite its recent gassing of the Kurdish population. And in late 1987 to early 1988 U.S. forces participated in attacks against Iranian ships and oil rigs.(35)

The Iran-Iraq war finally officially ended in 1990 (after a 1988 ceasefire) with an estimated one to two million Iraqis and Iranians killed during the near 10 year war and around 100,000 Kurdish dead due to Hussein’s military and gas attacks.(36) With impressive economic growth during the 1970s due to rising oil costs around the world Iraq’s economy entered the close of the Iran-Iraq War in tatters with high unemployment, rising inflation, and massive amounts of foreign debt due to the inpouring of money during the war from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The oil revenues generated in 1980 to 1988 fell from $26 billion to $11 billion and concluded with a massive 9% drop in GDP from 1988 to 1989 (which already was at low levels to begin with). With the Iraqi state in crisis and owing billions of dollars to multiple foreign countries, including a substantial amount to Kuwait Hussein looked towards outside sources to help keep his state going, one country in particular, with large deposits of oil looked like a viable solution, Kuwait. (37)

Notes

1. Zahrani, Mostafa T. “The Coup That Changed the Middle East: Mossadeq v. The CIA in
Retrospect.” World Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (Summer 2002), 93-94.
2. Marsh, Steve. “The United States, Iran and Operation ‘Ajax’: Inverting Interpretative
Orthodoxy.” Middle Eastern Studies 39, no. 3 (July 2003), 2.
3. Zahrani, “The Coup That Changed the Middle East,” 94.
4. Koch, Scott A. “‘Zendebad, Shah!’: The Central Intelligence Agency and the Fall of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, August 1953.” Top Secrete Draft History, History Staff,
Central Intelligence Agency. June 1998. Available from The National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran980600.pdf (accessed August 26, 2006), 11.
5. Ibid., 9.
6. Marsh, “The United States, Iran and Operation ‘Ajax,’”
7. “United States Policy Regarding the Present Situation in Iran.” A Report to the National Security Council by the Executive Secretary. Nov. 20, 1952.
8. Zahrani, “The Coup That Changed the Middle East,” 94-95.
9. Monthly Research Unit for Political Economy. “Behind the War On Iraq.” Monthly Review 55, no. 1 (May 2003), 25.
10. Ibid., 96.
11. Risen, James. “Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran.” New York Times on the Web, 2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter2.html (accessed August 29, 2006).
12. Ibid., http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter4.html (Accessed August 29, 2006).
13. Wilber, Donald. “Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952-August 1953.” CIA Clandestine Service History, 70.
14. Koch, “ “‘Zendebad, Shah,” 6.
15. Zahrani, “The Coup That Changed the Middle East,” 97.
16. Ibid., 97-99.
17. “Saddam Hussein.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein.
18. Karsh, Efraim. “Military Power and Foreign Policy Goals: The Iran-Iraq War Revisted.”
International Affairs 64, no. 1 (Winter 1987/1988), 88.
19. Ibid., 85-86.
20. “Iran-Iraq War.” Encyclopedia Britannica (2006). Available from Encyclopedia Britannica
Online http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9042742 (accessed August 29, 2006); Karsh, “Military Power and Foreign Policy Goals,” 87.
21. Karsh, “Military Power and Foreign Policy Goals,” 92.
22. Rundle, Christopher. “The Iran/Iraq Conflict.” Asian Affairs 17, no. 2 (June 1986), 130.
23. Monthly Review Research Unit for Political Economy. “Behind the War On Iraq.” Monthly
Review 55, no. 1 (May 2003), 29; Falk, Richard. “America’s Pro-Iraqi Neutrality.” The Nation
231, no. 13 (Oct. 25, 1980), 398.
24. Monthly Review, “Behind the War On Iraq,” 29-30.
25. “Conversations with (censored).” United States Embassy in Israel Cable from Samuel W. Lewis
to Department of State. Dec. 12, 1980.
26. “Prospects for DAS Draper’s Visit to Baghdad.” United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable
from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. April 4, 1981, 2.
27. Monthly Review, “Behind the War On Iraq,” 30.
28. “Iraq Use of Chemical Weapons.” Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs
Information Memorandum from Jonathan T. Howe to George P. Shultz. Nov. 1, 1983.
29. “Rumsfeld Visit to Iraq.” Department of State Cable from Kenneth W. Dam to the United States Interests Section in Iraq. Dec. 7, 1983; “Talking Points for Amb. Rumsfeld’s Meeting with Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein.” United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the United States Embassy in Jordan. Dec. 14, 1983; “Rumssfeld’s Larger Meetin with Iraqi Deputy PM and FM [Tariq] Aziz.” Dec. 19, 1983; “Rumsfeld Mission: December 20 Meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.” United States Embassy in United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to Department of State. Dec. 21, 1983.
30. “Iran Contra Affair.” Encyclopedia Britannica (2006). Available from Encyclopedia
Britannica Online http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9042741 (accessed September 1, 2006).
31. Monthly Review, “Behind the War On Iraq,” 30.
32. Bahgat, Gawdat. “Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Iraq and Iran.” Journal of
Social, Political & Economic Studies 28, no. 4 (Winter 2003), 428.
33. Monthly Review, “Behind the War On Iraq,” 30.
34. “Bell Discussed Possible Helicopter Sale to Iraq.” United States Interests Section. Iraq Cable
from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. April 12, 1984.
35. Monthly Review, “Behind the War On Iraq,” 30-31.
36. “Iran-Iraq War.” Encyclopedia Britannica (2006). Available from Encyclopedia Britannica
Online http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9042742 (accessed August 29, 2006)
37. Alnasrawi, Abbas. “Oil, Sanctions, Debt and the Future.” Arab Studies Quarterly 23, no. 4
(Fall 2001), 6.