[PEN-L:1591] Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment insightl03130305b293f79eb67d@[137.92.41.119]3.0.1.32.19981208115618.00a810b4@popserver.panix.com3.0.6.32.19981208112637.00793ac0@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu3.0.1.32.19981208100216.008ea5a0@popserver.panix.com3.0.6.32.19981208093919.007f7210@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu199812072258.RAA01417@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu19981207220933.8772.qmail@hotmail.com3.0.1.32.19981209111112.0091018c@popserver.panix.com3.0.1.32.19981210175351.00aafbdc@cc.newcastle.edu.au3.0.1.32.19981214155050.00ab2620@cc.newcastle.edu.au 3.0.1.32.19981216162448.00ac1d88@cc.newcastle.edu.au
ajit, please do send me a copy of your paper. looks interesting. what bit or bits do you want me to elaborate on re the stuff about value? regards, angela
[PEN-L:1635] Re: treatment of James Craven
I don't think these letters to Hasart is going to have any impact, that's why I'm not writing a second letter. I think the case should be taken up by civil liberties union or some such national level organization, and it should be written about in newspapers and magazines. I have a case too, in some sense more serious than Jim's. Someday I intend to write an article intitled, "My experience of an Australian University". Cheers, ajit sinha At 14:35 16/12/98 -0500, you wrote: Dear President Hasart, Dec. 16, 1998 Having written to you before regarding the situation of Professor James Craven, I am disappointed to learn that the result has been further harassment of him and an attack by Interim Vice-President Ramsey upon his ability to use Clark College email. Clearly his use has been related to his scholarly and educational activities at Clark College. This action by Interim Vice President Ramsey constitutes an unconscionalbe violation of both his academic freedom and civil rights.. It is a blot and stain upon the reputation of Clark College. The sooner this deplorable action is undone, the better for all concerned. Yours Sincerely, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Professor of Economics James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1636] Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment insight
At 02:08 17/12/98 +1100, you wrote: ajit, please do send me a copy of your paper. looks interesting. what bit or bits do you want me to elaborate on re the stuff about value? regards, angela ___ I'll need your postal address to send the paper. I was not talking avout "value" in particular, but rather your statements about the dialectics of labor and labor-power. Do we get somewhere thinking in this manner? And if so, where do we get? Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:1639] Re: Bombing of Iraq
A few reflections: 1. I think the "wag the dog" scenario is too generous for Clinton. I do not think that spineless jellyfish or his spindoctors are capable of masterminding something of that sort. Methinks, that poor excuse for a human being acted in his more usual-self fashion: by opportunistically sucking up to the pressure of the Pentagon hawks and big oil bigwigs in a desperate attempt to avoid impeachmet. 2. Who knows, maybe all that impeachment brouhaha was a Kisingeresque ploy devised by the said hawks and bigwigs to ascertain Clinton compliance? The standard liberal-democrat line that the impeachment ploy has been cooked only by a handlful of right wing characters is not very credible. 3. Until yesterday I was against the impeachment, today I am for it. What worse can be said of a nation where conservative Republicans appear more credible than their opposition? 5. It is quite interesting to hear various government types reiterating that "Saddam brought it upon himself." "She brought it upon herself" is also a standard excuse of wife batterers. Coincidence or far-reaching similarities in the mind-sets? 6. It just came to me that traveling around the world with a document showing the US logo on it is both disgraceful and unsafe. I think I need to renew my expired Polish passport. 7. Fuck the United States of America and its government. Wojtek
[PEN-L:1641] me on ABCNEWS.COM
I'm going to be doing a "chat" at 1:00 EST on the ABC News site, which will be mirrored (I think) on TheStreet.com. It looks like the URL will be http://chat.abcnews.go.com/chat/chat.dll?room=abc_Doug_henwood. It'd be nice to see some familiar pixels there. Doug
[PEN-L:1645] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
At 02:56 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Brad de Long wrote: You can think that the people who pushed through the Marshall Plan and the post-WWII economic order were as much cynical realists as George Kennan. But in my opinion at least you would be mistaken. And you can't say that these economic idealists were powerless--human rights, democracy, and economic development have continued to be at the center of the rhetoric (and sometimes--alas, too rarely--of the practice) of U.S. foreign policy. Nothing personal, Brad, but I find it hard to believe that people can be THAT naive. Do you really think that the country as committed to imperialist expnasion as the US, whose major export item throughout this century is war, would allow "idealists" to participate in foreign policy in the capacity other than window dressing? Or you are just playing a devil's advocate on this list? regards, wojtek
[PEN-L:1648] Re: George Kennan
It seems to me that any evaluation has to conclude on net that the projection of U.S. military power in the twentieth century has been a positive force--unless the person doing the evaluation sees positive aspects to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao that I do not see. Brad DeLong DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER 901 M STREET SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060 (NOTE: The following represents the views of the author and not necessarily the views of the Naval Historical Center.) Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993 by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Washington DC: Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993 Summary This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here. The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941. Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war. The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events, such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or legation, which later were considered normal peacetime practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the West. INSTANCES OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ABROAD, 1798-1993 (Note 1) The following list indicates approximately 234 times that the United States has utilized military forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. The list does not include covert actions or numerous instances in which U.S. forces have been stationed abroad since World War II in occupation forces or for participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, or routine military assistance or training operations. Because of differing judgments over the actions to be included, other lists may include more or fewer instances. (Note 2) The instances vary greatly in size of operation, legal authorization, and significance. The number of troops involved range from a few sailors or Marines landed to protect American lives and property to hundreds of thousands in Vietnam and millions in World War II. Some actions were of short duration and some lasted a number of years. In some instances a military officer acted without authorization; some actions were conducted solely under the President's powers as Chief Executive or Commander in Chief; other instances were authorized by Congress in some fashion; five were declared wars. For most of the instances listed, however, the status of the action under domestic or international law has not been addressed. Thus inclusion in this list does not connote either legality or significance. 1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts. 1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States. 1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers. 1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats
[PEN-L:1652] Re: Re: Bombing of Iraq
Wojtek writes: 2. Who knows, maybe all that impeachment brouhaha was a Kisingeresque ploy devised by the said hawks and bigwigs to ascertain Clinton compliance? The standard liberal-democrat line that the impeachment ploy has been cooked only by a handlful of right wing characters is not very credible. In general, I'd say that this is how Washington DC works. The GOPsters and other right-wing forces (including many Democrats) put pressure on the President in order to push him (or, in the future, her) to comply with their general program. The hawks have been on Clinton's case from the beginning, even before the current impeachment brouhaha, pushing him to comply with the party line. Like chickens, they peck at every sore in order to induce agreement. They exploited the "gays in the military" business to the max... Of course, Clinton _wanted_ to comply on foreign policy issues all along. He was a governor of Arkansas, with little or no experience in foreign policy and only a few vague memories of the antiwar movement (which to him mostly consisted of getting out of the draft). If he had favored a deviant foreign policy, he never would have made it through the primaries and never would have reaped all of those campaign contributions. The Monicagate business seems unique in that it represents the emotion combination of various issues that are not strictly military in nature. The "cultural right" that lambasted McGovern's presidential campaign over the three As (abortion, acid, amnesty for draft evaders) has a similar campaign against Clinton (abortion, not inhaling, draft evasion). These are the people who really _hate_ Clinton. It's more than simply a ploy to force him to comply. However, the cultural right's campaign (led by Starr and Mr. Hyde) meshes well with the military and foreign-policy right's campaign (which has less hatred involved) and the economic right's campaign (that of the Wall Street bunch, including the secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Fed). All of these forces have pushed Clinton to become the person we revile today. As noted, he's been more than willing to comply. The exception, I feel, is that he does have a core constituency that he can't abandon completely. Thus he has made fewer compromises on abortion rights and a few other issues (I wouldn't include the environment in that list). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:1653] Correspondence to Clark College on the Craven affair
December 15, 1998 Michele Cheung Editor Dark Night field notes P.O. Box 3629 Chicago, IL 60690-3629 Tana Hasart President Clark College 1800 McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98663 Dear President Hasart: It has come to my attention that my name and e-mail address have appeared on a December 9, 1998 directive from your Vice President of Instruction Chuck Ramsey to Professor Jim Craven in your Economics Dept. This directive orders Prof. Craven not to use your campus computer to contact me without obtaining Mr. Ramseys "written approval." I do not know what your differences or difficulties with Prof. Craven are, but I take great exception to one of your administrators including my name on this invidious list which strongly suggests an assumption on the part of Clark College that my communications with it are somehow suspect or unprofessional. Above my name along with many others are these words: "You are further directed, effective immediately, that you are to STOP [sic] using college resources, including any College computer, or the College e-mail system, either directly or indirectly, to send any communication or information to any of the following persons and/or addresses." Mr. Ramseys stated reason for this is that he "cannot see" how the e-mails sent to me and the others "have any relationship whatsoever" to Prof. Cravens responsibilities as a professor at Clark College. He further states "the matters discussed are not College business." I am familiar with most of the documents listed in this directive and although I cannot speak for others relation to your colleges business, I can certainly speak for my own. I am an editor for a quarterly magazine that looks to the economic as well as other explanations for what is happening in worldwide struggles for indigenous rights. We publish some of the most informed and respected writers today (such as Noam Chomsky). I am and have been a college instructor of English for the last fifteen years. As a consequence, I follow certain listservers to keep apprised of what the mainstream media does not cover. I notice several of those list-servers on Mr. Ramseys proscribed list. I would like to point out that it is part of my professional duty as an educator and a journalist to do so. I am morally certain it is part of Prof. Cravens. It is in fact on those very listservers that I became aware of Prof. Cravens excellent work in this field as well as his association with your college, which I gave credit for having the sense to employ him. I initiated contact with Prof. Craven, not the other way around, to ask him if he would write an article for our magazine (non-profit Prof. Craven does not earn anything by this). Publication in ones discipline is such an important aspect of faculty performance that it is almost a professional responsibility. The story I asked him to work up for us is current with day by day developments, which necessitated quite a bit of correspondence between us. I would also like to point out that we communicated not only through the colleges system, but on our personal systems. In the introductory blurb to Prof. Cravens piece we prominently state that he is a professor at Clark College. In other words, my running Prof. Cravens article redounds both to his credit and the colleges. So at first I could not imagine why your administration would wish to discourage journals from seeking to publish your facultys work. But a closer look at the directive shows that the correspondence Mr. Ramsey examined were all documents that had been copied to me, not directly addressed to me. It does not surprise me that Mr. Ramsey "cannot see" their relation to Prof. Cravens business with me. I find it very disturbing that I was not asked before being put on a "forbidden address" list. I will now explain it to you, hoping you can see the alarming potential for unintended offense this method of policing e-mail entails. In the middle of our project, Prof. Craven had his professional character attacked in a public forum frequented by many of our readers. His credibility and integrity in the world we move in is very much my business as an editor about to print his work associated with your colleges name. Attacked publicly, he answered publicly in the same forum. Prof. Craven is informed, responsive, dedicated and not a pushover on matters of principle. I can make a good guess that his very distinctive writing style alarmed Mr. Ramsey. However, I can assure you that if Prof. Craven had not been as free as he was with the information he sent to me and his audience on the list-servers in which his honesty was impugned, I would, in my professional capacity, have been checking it out before I put the name of my magazine behind his work and by extension, your colleges. It is not my decision to make, but from where I stand, Prof. Cravens defense of his credibility relates directly to college business, because his ability to participate in
[PEN-L:1656] Iraq raid may wreck START-2
Date sent:Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:31:01 -0500 (EST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kremlin says Iraq raid may wreck START-2 MOSCOW, Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. air strikes against Iraq may have wrecked chances of the Russian parliament agreeing to ratify the 1993 START-2 nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States, a senior Kremlin official said on Thursday. ``You can forget about START-2 ratification,'' Sergei Prikhodko, President Boris Yeltsin's deputy chief-of-staff for foreign affairs, was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass and RIA news agencies. He said he was basing his forecast on statements by members of the State Duma lower house on Thursday. Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, whose party is the biggest in parliament and has long been reluctant to ratify the START-2 treaty, said there was now ``no point'' in discussing it. He called for an increase in arms spending to counter what he called ``state terrorism'' on the part of the United States. But First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov, a moderate Communist who joined the government in September, was quoted as telling fellow party members they should ratify START-2 as soon as possible. The Kremlin has been urging ratification but the Duma has complained Russia simply cannot afford the costly process of taking missiles out of service without more financial help from the United States. Some Communists also argue Russia should not be reducing its defences. Prikhodko was also quoted as confirming that Russia had not been officially informed of the strikes before the attack on Iraq began, although he had been told of the plans by French President Jacques Chirac during a telephone conversation.
[PEN-L:1658] Re: Very Strange Argument
I reply (WS): I am not a historian, but was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a response to the US militarism in the region, specifically the threat of cutting off the Japanese oil supply lines? A decision to destroy the US navy was was a logical defensive movement on the part of Japan's military. Ummm... The U.S. embargoes exports of oil to Japan (because Japan continues its campaign to conquer China, and prepares to send its armies north into Siberia). A Japanese attack on the U.S. is a "logical defensive movement" in response? A very, very strange argument... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1661] Re: Re: Very Strange Argument
Ummm... The U.S. embargoes exports of oil to Japan (because Japan continues its campaign to conquer China, and prepares to send its armies north into Siberia). A Japanese attack on the U.S. is a "logical defensive movement" in response? A very, very strange argument... Brad DeLong To Have and Have Not Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War by Jonathan Marshall University of California Press, 1995 "An outstanding contribution to understanding the road to World War II in the Far East . . . an excellent historical narrative, with enough interesting detail to move even the strongest skeptic." --Laurence H. Shoup, author of The Carter Presidency and Beyond "Marshall deftly argues that the decisive turn in U.S. policy toward war with Japan came because Japan pressed upon raw materials vital to America. .. . . This work will be the definitive study of materials policy and the coming of the war." --Bruce Cumings, Northwestern University "Marshall moves the oil and mineral resources of Southeast Asia to the center stage. . . Both specialists and general readers will be very interested in the book's argument." --Leonard Liggio, George Mason University Jonathan Marshall makes a provocative statement: it was not ideological or national security considerations that led the United States into war with Japan in 1941. Instead, he argues, it was a struggle for access to Southeast Asia's vast storehouse of commodities--rubber, oil, and tin--that drew the U.S. into the conflict. Boldly departing from conventional wisdom, Marshall reexamines the political landscape of the time and recreates the mounting tension and fear that gripped U.S. officials in the months before the war. Unusual in its extensive use of previously ignored documents and studies, this work records the dilemmas of the Roosevelt administration: it initially hoped to avoid conflict with Japan and, after many diplomatic overtures, it came to see war as inevitable. Marshall also explores the ways that international conflicts often stem from rivalries over land, food, energy, and industry. His insights into "resource war," the competition for essential commodities, will shed new light on U.S. involvement in other conflicts--notably in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. Jonathan Marshall is the economics editor for the San Francisco Chronicle and coauthor (with Peter Dale Scott) of Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (California, 1991). | Published: JANUARY 1995 | 296 pages, 6 x 9" | Subject: HISTORY | Rights: World | ISBN (cloth): 0-520-08823-9 | Buy Book: $32.50 Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1662] Re: Re: Very Strange Argument
At 10:36 AM 12/17/98 -0800, Brad de Long wrote: I reply (WS): I am not a historian, but was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a response to the US militarism in the region, specifically the threat of cutting off the Japanese oil supply lines? A decision to destroy the US navy was was a logical defensive movement on the part of Japan's military. Ummm... The U.S. embargoes exports of oil to Japan (because Japan continues its campaign to conquer China, and prepares to send its armies north into Siberia). A Japanese attack on the U.S. is a "logical defensive movement" in response? A very, very strange argument... What is so strange about it? Imagine an industrialized country with no fuel supply, and facing two imperial powers, proven to use "gunboat diplomacy" in the past and threatening to use their navies again to cut off that country's oil supply lines. The only _logical_ response in that situation is to incapacitate your enemy's navy, no? Otherwise, you may as well turn the lights off and go home to watch your entire industry coming to a halt. That, of course, does not mean it is a morally justified response, but that is an entirely different story. Japan's imperial project is rather difficult to defend on moral grounds, but so are the imperial projects of the European powers or the US. That was the essence of my argument. You can defend each country's position by the logic of imperial expansion, but you cannot defend them on moral grounds as we commonly understand them, unless we assume some sort of tribal mentality of the we-good, them-bad variety. regards Wojtek
[PEN-L:1664] Re: treatment of James Craven
Ajit, You may be right. But, I figure every little bit helps. They need to have a barrage of pressure coming from a lot of directions. The report that the Chronicle of Higher Education is getting interested in Jim's case is the best news I've heard so far on this unfortunate matter. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:17:26 +1100 Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think these letters to Hasart is going to have any impact, that's why I'm not writing a second letter. I think the case should be taken up by civil liberties union or some such national level organization, and it should be written about in newspapers and magazines. I have a case too, in some sense more serious than Jim's. Someday I intend to write an article intitled, "My experience of an Australian University". Cheers, ajit sinha At 14:35 16/12/98 -0500, you wrote: Dear President Hasart, Dec. 16, 1998 Having written to you before regarding the situation of Professor James Craven, I am disappointed to learn that the result has been further harassment of him and an attack by Interim Vice-President Ramsey upon his ability to use Clark College email. Clearly his use has been related to his scholarly and educational activities at Clark College. This action by Interim Vice President Ramsey constitutes an unconscionalbe violation of both his academic freedom and civil rights.. It is a blot and stain upon the reputation of Clark College. The sooner this deplorable action is undone, the better for all concerned. Yours Sincerely, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Professor of Economics James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1665] Re: Re: Very Strange Argument
Wojtek, You don't have the timing right here. It was not a threat to cut off Japan's oil supplies. The US did so a full six months prior to Pearl Harbor. As I have explained in another post, FDR fully expected this to bring a Japanese attack on Philippines on the way to the Indonesian oil sources, which would bring the US into the war and allow FDR to fight the Germans, which he wished to do but for which there was little support in the US. The surprise was the strategic move by the Japanese to weaken the US naval fleet in anticipation of their southward move that they knew would bring forth retaliation by the US. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:20:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:36 AM 12/17/98 -0800, Brad de Long wrote: I reply (WS): I am not a historian, but was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a response to the US militarism in the region, specifically the threat of cutting off the Japanese oil supply lines? A decision to destroy the US navy was was a logical defensive movement on the part of Japan's military. Ummm... The U.S. embargoes exports of oil to Japan (because Japan continues its campaign to conquer China, and prepares to send its armies north into Siberia). A Japanese attack on the U.S. is a "logical defensive movement" in response? A very, very strange argument... What is so strange about it? Imagine an industrialized country with no fuel supply, and facing two imperial powers, proven to use "gunboat diplomacy" in the past and threatening to use their navies again to cut off that country's oil supply lines. The only _logical_ response in that situation is to incapacitate your enemy's navy, no? Otherwise, you may as well turn the lights off and go home to watch your entire industry coming to a halt. That, of course, does not mean it is a morally justified response, but that is an entirely different story. Japan's imperial project is rather difficult to defend on moral grounds, but so are the imperial projects of the European powers or the US. That was the essence of my argument. You can defend each country's position by the logic of imperial expansion, but you cannot defend them on moral grounds as we commonly understand them, unless we assume some sort of tribal mentality of the we-good, them-bad variety. regards Wojtek -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1668] Civil Society and US Business Community
In connection with the most recent international developments and in connection with some recent threads on the list - bombing in Iraq, globalization, civil society, international trade, global financial crisis - I assume it might be quite interesting to have a look at this revealing document: http://www.uscib.org/news/akspeech.htm - [Remarks by Abraham Katz - USCIB International Leadership Award Dinner 1998] or for those of you who are in a hurry: http://www.uscib.org/news/adrel98.htm [Press Release - Annual Dinner 1998 - December 8, 1998, New York, N.Y.] both on the website http://www.uscib.org [United States Council for International Business - We invite you to browse through these pages to get the latest on the USCIB and its services to the American business community.] Here is only one paragraph from the former document: "At the very time that globalization has brought to our country and the world unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, the opponents of business, the enemies of an open market system have marshalled a serious counter attack on further liberalization of trade and investment and on multinational companies as the main agents of globalization. These opponents call themselves the true representatives of civil society, a concept from which they seek to exclude business. This distorted concept of civil society has become the mantra of the millennium which our political leaders, both American and European as well as the top leaders of the main international organizations seem to have internalized. It has given a potent voice in national and international discourse to a loose alliance of groups ranging from responsible international environmental and trade union organizations to various religious, human rights and consumer lobbies, to entities consisting of one man with a computer and web site. What they have in common is a strong emotional bias against business and the free market. If you listen closely or read their statements on the internet, you find underneath the rhetoric not a single constructive idea. Globaphobia is being fed by liberal slices of globaloney." Indeed, here we have the view which is the very extreme opposite of all progressive movements in a nutshell, globally. An elaborated version had been published earlier by September 3, 1998 :"Civil Society and Trade Negotiations: A Business Perspective" [ http://www.uscib.org/policy/civsocst.htm ]. Its starting paragraphs: "The Clinton Administration has taken the lead in calling for the participation of 'civil society' in future trade negotiations, both in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The U.S. initiative has taken concrete form in the FTAA negotiations by the creation of a Government Committee on Civil Society. "The concept of civil society remains amorphous. The definition used in FTAA documentation includes business, but some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) see their groups, labor unions, and consumer activists as the only legitimate spokesmen for civil society, and would exclude business participation. Others resent the business community's influential role in past trade negotiations and want business to channel its views on the FTAA through the Civil Society Committee instead of through mechanisms such as the existing Business Forums. To both groups, business and industry represent the status quo, which they are seeking to change through political pressure on governments. "Business, environmental, labor, consumer, human rights and other groups all have the right to make their views known to governments on issues directly or indirectly affecting them. Consultation with civil society in this broad sense of the term is essential to ensuring the legitimacy of public policies. "That said, business plays a unique role in trade negotiations. Trade and investment negotiations are about setting parameters for international commerce. Governments need business' technical expertise to identify market access opportunities and barriers to the free flow of goods and services. One-issue groups cannot possibly provide the same breadth of advice needed by governments in any sophisticated trade negotiation. "Governments bear the responsibility for formulating consensus positions in trade negotiations. Business will continue to work with all elements of civil society on a voluntary basis to find common ground on international trade and investment issues. However, we think it highly unlikely that groups with markedly different perspectives will arrive at useful consensus positions. We question the utility of forums that would bring together all elements of civil society with U.S. and foreign trade negotiators. "If the U.S. and other governments wish to intensify public participation in trade policy, they should consult separately with business, labor, and other NGOs. This format is more likely to produce serious dialogue and minimize
[PEN-L:1669] Re: Craven followup
does someone have a copy of the infamous memo from Hasart et al. about Jim Craven's use of e-mail? I'd like to forward it to some civil libertarians. Send it directly to me, please, to avoid cluttering the list. Thanks ahead of time. At 11:53 AM 12/17/98 -0500, you wrote: Jim is running off to a big meeting and asked me to forward Michelle Cheung's letter to PEN-L. I don't think he'd mind if I also forwarded this: - Also, Chronicle of Higher Ed is getting on this--reporter contacted me aqnd I sent everything. Please thank Doug. Bear Chief just called me and Hasart misunderstood an e-mail and inquired if I was using College resources to set up paid employment to teach on the Reservation--more attempted cherrypicking. He is writing her back as I write this. Thanks. Now I'm offf to a meeting with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (Yakima, Umatilla, Nex Perce and Warm Springs Nations). Apparently the College want's an Indian on staff for "celebration-of-diversity" purposes but the Indian isn't supposed to live/act like a real one. Thanks, Jim - One other thing I'd mention. Jim has an article in the Winter '98 Dark Night Field Notes on the Makah controversy. It is a reply to Sea Shepherd's leader Paul Watson titled "Ecoimperialism: Real Whales, Real People". Dark Night is a peer-reviewed journal that includes Ward Churchill on the editorial board. Contact Dark Night, Box 3629, Chicago, Ill. 60690-3629 for subscription information. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1672] Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
As part of the pen-l process of prodding Brad to name names, I wrote: I still want to know who these "people" are. If they were standing for human rights, democracy, and economic development despite the poopstorm coming down on their heads during the Truman-McCarthy era, when the slightest dissent from the anti-Soviet line was punished as "com-simp" treason, they deserve to be celebrated and rewarded. Brad, please name these people! I'm willing to set up a shrine and burn candles. He finally responded: Keynes and White, Hoffman and Harriman, Vandenberg and Acheson and Marshall, Truman... I'll ignore the fact that Keynes was British and therefore not part of the _US_ foreign policy (or that his version of Bretton Woods was vetoed by the US and had little effect on the main thrust of US for. pol. at the time). The point I want to make (given the limits of time) is that Brad totally ignored the issue of what in hell is meant by "human rights, democracy, and economic development." These phrases are part of the class of words that I call "fuzzwords," i.e., words that everybody uses but almost no one defines (others include socialism, justice, freedom, human nature, capitalism, fascism, traditional values, the family, fairness). Unlike buzzwords, I think it's good to use fuzzwords. However, it's incumbent on us to _define_ what we mean by them. This is especially important for profession word-slingers such as Brad and myself. Just because everyone uses these words without defining them doesn't mean that we can escape trying to make an effort to attain at least a smidgeon of intellectual clarity. (One of the great things about Chomsky is that he is very clear about what he means by words. Similarly, one aspect of George Orwell's greatness (despite the last acts of his depressed and physically ill life, i.e., finking to Big Brother) was that he insisted on refusing to take words for granted, insisted on intellectual clarity.) Of course Keynes, White, Hoffman, Harriman, Vandenberg, Acheson, Marshall, and Truman were all in favor of "human rights, democracy, and economic development"! Isn't everyone? _Everyone_ is favor of world peace and the siblinghood of humankind (especially in this Holiday Season as our leaders drop gifts on the Iraqis). Everyone is opposed to child pornography, too (even those who go to beauty contests for tarted-up 6-year-old girls like the late Jon-Benet Ramsey). These fuzzwords can be stretched and stretched to mean a lot of different things. After all, didn't Stalin establish "people's democracies" in Eastern Europe? Didn't these states promote "economic development" and human rights like socialized medical care and universal education. The problem is that these guys have a different definition of "human rights, democracy, and economic development" than I do. I don't expect Brad to accept my definition of these terms (since after all he is a neoclassical economist). But it's important to acknowledge the fact that these fuzzwords mean something different to the powers that be than they do to the people on the street. Take Truman (please!) What were his definitions of "human rights, democracy, and economic development"? I don't know what he wrote on this subject. But a basic principle of life is that Actions speak louder than words. Even politicians tell us "don't look at what we say, look at what we do." So what were Truman's views of these principles _in practice_? Given the fact that he rose from local machine politics to the White House as part of FDR's efforts to distance himself from Henry Wallace and the more radical wing of the New Deal movement, I wouldn't be surprised if his definition of democracy involved the crabbed and partial democracy of the US, where the passive voters choose between pre-selected representatives of political-economic elites and freedom of the press belongs to those who own a press, where the whole process is biased in favor of big bucks. Though the phrase had not joined the fuzzword pantheon, his definition of "human rights" in practice involved the nuking or fire-bombing of civilian targets in Japan. It also involved the _initiation_ of the Truman-McCarthy era, by imposing loyalty checks on government employees. (Little did he know that the junior Senator from Wisconsin would pick up this ball and run with it, using it against Truman! Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.) And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the development of capitalism. that's enough for today. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1674] Re: Re: Re: Monsanto and BST in Canada
A curious related political tidbit to this BST thing is that one of the politicians opposed to it is Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, where dairy farmers would like to keep dairy prices up and are unimpressed as a group with BST. Feingold is also one of the leaders (along with McCain of Arizona) of the campaign finance reform movement, and along with Wellstone of Minnesota, one of the most progressive US senators out of a pretty sorry lot. He just barely won reelection in Wisconsin while refusing outside campaign financing. His opponent, right-wing and anti-environment Congressman Mark Neumann had massive outside financing from every special interest under the sun. One of his most widely played TV ads was of a scientist in a white coat running around after a cow's rear end, allegedly measuring cow farts. Apparently Feingold had voted for funding research on the relationship between methane production and global warming. In Wisconsin, this means cow farts. In any case, Feingold's victory was one of the few things I could cheer about in this pathetic political year. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:16:46 -0800 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken wrote: It is a growth hormone. The hormone increases milk production in cows. Some studies, however, indicate it may enter the bloodstream when people drink the milk and cause increased incidence of certain types of cancer. Some studies also indicate that it may cause health problems in the cows as well. ... there's additional problem: why promote the production of milk (with BST) when the dairy farmers want to keep milk prices up? The program seems to do nothing but encourage the death of the small dairies, along with causing the health problems referred to. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1677] Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
On Thu, December 17, 1998 at 14:24:29 (-0800) Brad De Long writes: And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the development of capitalism. We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or "social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever seen." The alternatives--whether laissez-faire during the Great Depression, Cuba in the era of the ten million ton sugar harvest, Yugoslavia under Tito, or the Soviet Union under Brezhnev--do look rather dismal, don't they? Ah yes, "The alternatives" --- there can be no other in this Manichean world --- to US-style "democracy" (as in, say Vietnam where we installed one client regime after another, or perhaps in Chile or Indonesia, ad nauseum, take your pick) is a command economy, the Gulag. If we *really* believed in self-determination, democracy, human rights, etc., we would have aided *pro-democracy* forces, and not have turned our backs on them when they would not cater to our needs. We would have fought *with* Ho Chi Minh, we would have fought *with* the Jesuits in El Salvador, we would have fought *against* Noriega when he was doing our dirty business, we would have fought *against* Suharto when he massacred hundreds of thousands of people first in Indonesia and then in East Timor, we would not have overthrown Mossadegh in Iran and installed the Shah. Social democracy isn't utopia, but it is a lot closer to it than the available alternatives have been... Again, social democracy, as in Vietnam, or Indonesia, or Guatemala, or El Salvador, Chile, Iran? Why don't you address these issues, Brad? Why didn't we fight with the good guys there? Bill
[PEN-L:1682] [Fwd: Job Announcement]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Hector Saez wrote: Please Post this job announcement on Pen-L. Wagner College, Staten Island, New York A0 General Economics F0 International Economics L0 Industrial Organization P0 Economic Systems R0 Urban/Regional Economics The Department of History, Political Science and Economics invites applications for one full-time tenure track opening at the assistant professor level, starting in the academic year 1999-2000. A Ph.D. is required. The preferred field is international economics with a regional specialization in Asia or Europe, and one of the following: urban/regional economics, industrial organization, political economy/institutional economics and comparative systems. A strong interest in public policy issues would be a plus. Teaching areas include introductory and intermediate undergraduate courses, and introductory economics and statistics courses at the MBA level. The teaching load is 7-8 courses per year. The candidate will be expected to participate in Wagner College's interdisciplinary Learning Communities and writing-intensive Reflective Tutorials, to teach applied courses to Business majors and MBA students and to foster experiential learning. The successful candidate will have excellent demonstrated teaching skills, a strong interest in interdisciplinary work, and good scholarship potential. A cover letter should have a description of teaching experience and interests, and include a curriculum vitae, and three references. Student and peer teaching evaluations would also be helpful. We will be interviewing at the ASSA meetings in New York City. The deadline for applications is Jan. 15th 1999. Wagner College is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer. Contact Jayne Dean, Chair of Economics Search Committee, Department of History, Political Science and Economics, Wagner College, One Campus Road, Staten Island, New York 10301; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or telephone (718) 390-3474. * Hector Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Economics 718.390.3265 (office) Parker Hall, Wagner College 718.390.3467 (fax) Staten Island, NY 10301 * -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:30:47 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Hector Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Job Announcement Please Post this job announcement on Pen-L. Wagner College, Staten Island, New York A0 General Economics F0 International Economics L0 Industrial Organization P0 Economic Systems R0 Urban/Regional Economics The Department of History, Political Science and Economics invites applications for one full-time tenure track opening at the assistant professor level, starting in the academic year 1999-2000. A Ph.D. is required. The preferred field is international economics with a regional specialization in Asia or Europe, and one of the following: urban/regional economics, industrial organization, political economy/institutional economics and comparative systems. A strong interest in public policy issues would be a plus. Teaching areas include introductory and intermediate undergraduate courses, and introductory economics and statistics courses at the MBA level. The teaching load is 7-8 courses per year. The candidate will be expected to participate in Wagner College's interdisciplinary Learning Communities and writing-intensive Reflective Tutorials, to teach applied courses to Business majors and MBA students and to foster experiential learning. The successful candidate will have excellent demonstrated teaching skills, a strong interest in interdisciplinary work, and good scholarship potential. A cover letter should have a description of teaching experience and interests, and include a curriculum vitae, and three references. Student and peer teaching evaluations would also be helpful. We will be interviewing at the ASSA meetings in New York City. The deadline for applications is Jan. 15th 1999. Wagner College is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer. Contact Jayne Dean, Chair of Economics Search Committee, Department of History, Political Science and Economics, Wagner College, One Campus Road, Staten Island, New York 10301; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or telephone (718) 390-3474. * Hector Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Economics 718.390.3265 (office) Parker Hall, Wagner College 718.390.3467 (fax) Staten Island, NY 10301
[PEN-L:1679] Re: Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
Brad, who is this "we"? You and Truman? Harry S Truman (to whom "his" referred in my sentence) was no social democrat! He was a right-wing member of the New Deal coalition (which makes him sort of left wing by today's standards). I'm surprised that you want to put yourself in the same league with the mad bomber of Hiroshima. I think Truman made a lot of big mistakes (Hiroshima among them), but did a lot more things right. It's hard to visit Seoul and then the DMZ (I've never been to Pyongyang), or Taipei and then Beijing, or Berlin and then Minsk and not come away feeling that we today owe a pretty big debt to Harry S Truman... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1676] Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
I wrote: And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the development of capitalism. Brad writes: We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or "social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever seen." Brad, who is this "we"? You and Truman? Harry S. Truman (to whom "his" referred in my sentence) was no social democrat! He was a right-wing member of the New Deal coalition (which makes him sort of left wing by today's standards). I'm surprised that you want to put yourself in the same league with the mad bomber of Hiroshima. The alternatives--whether laissez-faire during the Great Depression, Cuba in the era of the ten million ton sugar harvest, Yugoslavia under Tito, or the Soviet Union under Brezhnev--do look rather dismal, don't they? Sure, but then again, all social systems look rather dismal compared to heaven. Countries cannot simply choose to install heaven -- or social democracy. Such systems do not drop from the sky. They arise from specific historical circumstances, about which more below. Just one point on just one of your cases: Castro started out very much like a social democrat. But the US opposed that policy, first overthrowing the social democratically-minded Arbenz in Guatemala, pushing Castro to more radical, anti-US policies. When he came to power, the US then pushed him into the arms of the USSR, with the criminal blockade that still continues and, later, with efforts to sabotage the Cuban economy and kill Castro himself. The "10 million tons" was an effort to escape those Soviet arms while not falling under the US heel. Despite the paternalistic authoritarianism of the Castro government, the vast majority of the Cuban population supported him before this effort. (After all, would _you_ rather be poor in Mexico or poor in Cuba? Besides, he was and is a Cuban nationalist.) The 10 million ton effort netted much less than that (7 million? I forget) and severely disrupted the rest of the economy. It encouraged a radical and obvious fall in support for the regime. Castro publically admitted responsibility and apologized. More importantly, he moved to organize the Organizations of Popular Power, which were a small step toward increased democracy. Unfortunately, this step didn't go far, given resistance from the USSR and the political establishment (neither of which liked such reforms), at the same time that the continued US blockade made increased democracy very difficult. (It sure looks as if the US government _prefers_ authoritarianism in Cuba, given the way the power elite's policies promote authoritarianism at every term. Revealed preference and all that.) Even without the geopolitical situation, the Castroite movement would have had a lot of problems dealing with an underdeveloped economy that was excessively dependent on sugar exports (not to mention gambling and prostitution), which would have made the creation of social democracy _very_ hard. It was not Costa Rica. Even if Castro had wanted to be a social democrat in 1959, he couldn't have instituted tht kind of policy regime. Social democracy isn't utopia, but it is a lot closer to it than the available alternatives have been... I notice that you don't define "social democracy," so I'll add it to my list of fuzzwords -- and use my own definition. I define social democracy as capitalism plus a developed welfare state, using the oft-used definitions of those terms that are common on pen-l. (We don't need to define our terms all the time, just when they are in contention. I'll define my terms if you wish.) Note that I am not talking about social democratic rhetoric, tactics, programs, etc. I am talking about social democracy _in practice_. Every type of social organization needs a social basis, since (as mentioned) it can't simply be wished for. I see social democracy as a type of _class compromise_, in which the capitalist ruling class finds itself needing to compromise with a well-organized and class-conscious working-class movement, organized in a political party linked explicitly to labor unions. This happened in Western Europe (especially Sweden), but not the US, where the welfare state has always been extremely weak, a mere appendage of the warfare state. I should mention that social democracy typically organizes a capitalist national economy better than unfettered capitalism does, so I guess we agree on something. (My belief parallels Marx's and Keynes' view that laissez-faire capitalism can be very bad for the capitalists.) We should also note that social democracy can be internationally destructive, since it is nationalist (since as yet it is based in the nation-state). (Social democrats should note the similarity of the social base of social democracy and that of the trade wars of the 1920s or the imperialist expansion of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.) Such a
[PEN-L:1675] Re: craven, pinochet and iraq
Micheal laments: All the while, we remain unorganized Many of us on this list are taechers, and I imagine many of you, like me, fancy that every once in a while something happens in a student, something important, on the basis of the learning opportunites we structure. Not organizing, I know, but a bit-o-something to hold onto in the cold winter months. Here's my story from this semester's study abroad program here in Bolivia: It has been my experience that if you don't do your teaching job well, you hear about it immediately and vociferously from dissatisfied "customers". On the other hand, if you do alright, or even great, you might get a word or two at semester end, perhaps even a small gift (I got New York maple syrup this semester). At the risk of sounding whiney, the acknowledgement is seldom commensurate with the effort, concern, creativity, even love we put into our study abroad programs. But then, every once in a long while, and often quite unintentionally, acknowledgment comes, and with a power that makes even our best efforts seem small. Such was the case this semester, and Tito Tricot's (Chile AD) essay "Pinochet Must Pay For His Crimes -- It's Something Personal" and one young man's courage were the central elements. (I should mention that we spent some time looking at the Pinochet arrest this semester. The current president of Bolivia, Gen. Hugo Banzer, was a brutal dictator in the 70s and collaborated with Pinochet in hunting down, repatriating, torturing and killing people, a program know as "Operation Condor". Thus, when Pinochet was arrested, a lot of past history Banzer wants buried became daily front-page news.) The acknowledgement came in the introduction to a student's independent study project. The project was based on interviews and participant observation in the gay community of Cochabamba. The student took a long time to choose the subject; at first he wanted to look at problems of water and irrigation in neighboring arid valleys. Clearly he was struggling with whether to do something so close to his own feelings, sense of self, and in the context of study abroad group dynamics which can be intense. Once decided, he initially intended to do portraits of gay cochabambinos in order to give young gay people references in their own processes of coming out and being gay in Cochabamba. However, he found the context and material gathered did not lend itself to that format, and instead used the information gathered to write an introductory, accessible text on the experience and struggle of feeling gay, coming out, and being gay in Cochabamba today. It is meant as a support text for gay men in Cochabamba, and it is very well done, with lots of good quotes. In addition he did an accompanying paper explaining objectives, methods, and results of the process. The following is from the Introduction to the accompanying paper. --- Introduction From my personal journal, October 26th, 1998: "Though in general I've made it a rule to not write in retrospect, I think I should record the way I felt in Sucre Saturday night ... Sometimes those things that inspire us, that hurt us, that really make us think come in the most unexpected places. After a discussion of the Pinochet arrest, Tom read us an email from one of his Chilean friends [Tito's essay]. In chilling prose, it detailed the torture the man had endured during the Pinochet dictatorship. At first I felt disconnected and guilty. My life, it seemed, never had and never would feel such pain. Then I thought of Matthew Shepard, the gay man murdered recently in Wyoming, his tortured body lashed to a split rail fence. At that moment I felt a surge of fear and pride. At that moment, I realized that, like it or not, I too am part of a struggle. For some time now, I've fought, even rejected, my gay identity. To do so is to disgrace Matthew Shepard, in fact, to disgrace anyone who has ever felt the pain of oppression however big or small. As tears poured down my face, I realized the fight before me" After struggling with the decision of whether or not to do this project for weeks, now I ask myself how I could not. This is for Tom's friend in Chile, for Matthew Shepard, for my gay friends here in Bolivian and my friends back home. This is for every man and every woman who has ever lived in a society that chose to oppress them for whatever reason, be it the color of their skin or political ideology or for simply loving the wrong person. Most importantly, this is for me. It is an affirmation of who I am and who I am to become. I am part of a struggle. A struggle that doesn't end a the gates of my university or even at the borders of my own country. Though I am painfully aware that this project is only a small contribution to gay Bolivia's struggle for recognition and can not come close to solving all of it's problems, I think it is an important start. -- Tom Kruse
[PEN-L:1673] Re: Social Democracy and Utopia
And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the development of capitalism. We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or "social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever seen." The alternatives--whether laissez-faire during the Great Depression, Cuba in the era of the ten million ton sugar harvest, Yugoslavia under Tito, or the Soviet Union under Brezhnev--do look rather dismal, don't they? Social democracy isn't utopia, but it is a lot closer to it than the available alternatives have been... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1671] craven, pinochet and iraq
I see the three topics in my heading being symptomatic of the way power is thrown about today. A small college executive, fearing trouble about "radical" activitity on campus,wields all her power against an individual faculty member. Clinton fearing domestic (in a double sense?) problems bombs Iraq. On the other hand, we have no visible outside power making the British feel the need to stand up against the evils that the junta perpetuated; instead, Blair [god knows why] joins with Clinton on the bombing. All the while, we remain unorganized. We are left to respond to each individual outrage, but without ongoing organization, we have not been able to change the course of events. Again, I hope that the impeachment mires the Congress down for a year. They will more harm than good whenever they act. If Pinochet had returned to Chile, it would have created a rubber stamp precedent in which the U.S. would have been able to determine who was and who was not guilty of crimes against humanity. Certainly, Fidel, Khaddafi, Saddam and the usual suspects would have been first on the list. At least, I can still vent on pen-l, but I sure do with that we could apply our knowledge directly to accomplish something. I never cease to be amazed at the wide extent of information that people here (and on LBO and marxism) have. If this were an age of the information revolution we would win, but organization still counts and we are probably the most disorganized bunch of people around. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:1670] Re: Re: Re: Monsanto and BST in Canada
Ken wrote: It is a growth hormone. The hormone increases milk production in cows. Some studies, however, indicate it may enter the bloodstream when people drink the milk and cause increased incidence of certain types of cancer. Some studies also indicate that it may cause health problems in the cows as well. ... there's additional problem: why promote the production of milk (with BST) when the dairy farmers want to keep milk prices up? The program seems to do nothing but encourage the death of the small dairies, along with causing the health problems referred to. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1667] Re: Re: Re: Very Strange Argument
Well, the usual story that I have heard about the US and Japan and oil in WW II is not that the US needed it because we had it then. We were the Saudi Arabia of the world at that time, the great Saudi fields only having just begun to be developed in 1936. It was the 1950s when we became a net importer. Rather the story was that FDR wanted to get into the war but knew that he could only do so if it involved a conflict with Japan. Cutting off oil exports to Japan would force the Japanese to attack the then-Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, the only source of oil in the vicinity of any significance at that time. FDR figured that this would involve an initial attack on the then-US colony of the Philippines and that that would trigger US entry into the war. Well, the U.S. had been slowly turning up the pressure for a while--telling Japan to stop trying to conquer China or the U.S. would feel that it had to take further steps to put more pressure on Japan. Prohibiting the export of iron and steel scrap was one stage. Prohibiting the export of oil from the U.S. to Japan--and leaning on the Dutch government-in-exile to prohibit the export of oil from Indonesia to Japan--was another step, taken in the summer of 1941. It is not clear--even today--whether Roosevelt wanted to prohibit or just reduce the export of oil to Japan. It is clear that Roosevelt's directive, as implemented by Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson, amounted to an export ban. U.S. military and diplomatic planners thought that the Japanese might respond to the export prohibition in one of three ways: (Y1) first, sign a face-saving treaty with China, begin pulling back their army, and then appeal for the lifting of sanctions; (Y2) second, hunker down by greatly restricting civilian (and military) consumption of oil while still pressing for a decision in China; (Y3) third, attack south to conquer what is now Indonesia (and probably attack the Philippines along the way) thus providing the U.S. with a casus belli for entering World War II against Japan (and, Roosevelt would have hoped, Germany). It's false to the history to assume that people knew in advance that move X would call forth response Y. From Roosevelt's perspective (and from the Chinese perspective, and from my perspective) the genocidal course (maybe 5 million Chinese civilians dead? Maybe 10 million? We really don't know) of the Japanese invasion of China was a bad thing, and the mid-1941 oil embargo promised to do some good no matter which of the three likely responses the Japanese military decided upon. Of course, the Japanese did not respond to X with Y1, Y2, or Y3, but with Z--a full-scale offensive not just south to Indonesia but one east to Pearl Harbor that came very close to crippling the U.S. Pacific fleet. And we know now--or, at least, Akira Iriye thinks--that the U.S. embargo of oil to Japan did a great deal more good for the world than Roosevelt had intended. For the move that the Japanese military was planning in the summer of 1941 was a strike north from Manchuria to conquer Russia's Maritime province. This strike--that would have kept Siberian reserves out of the Battle of Moscow--was cancelled once the fact of the oil embargo became clear. So it is very possible that the Battle of Moscow--one of the key turning points of World War II--was one with a stroke of Dean Acheson's pen in the State, War, and Navy Building at 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1666] Clinton's constituency
At 08:15 AM 12/17/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote, inter alia: today. As noted, he's been more than willing to comply. The exception, I feel, is that he does have a core constituency that he can't abandon completely. Thus he has made fewer compromises on abortion rights and a few other issues (I wouldn't include the environment in that list). The question is whether he did not want to abandon that constituency or did not have an opportunity to do so (i.e. he was not pushed hard enough by corporate interests). It seems that "women and gay rights" are part of the corporate agenda (e.g. the GM Saturn division is appointing a woman to its CEO position and many corporations have adopted the domestic partneship policies) - although I wonder for what reason. One possibility is to thwart the formation of class-based politics, buth that is another issue. But again, the point is whether our fearless leader did not abandon their pro-choice constituency because he was not committed to do so or because he did not have an opportunity. Judging from the fact that he was willing to start a major international incidcent solely to avert impeachment (I do not belive there is a single word of truth in Pentagon bullshit about alleged Iraqi threat) - _anything_ goes if this President's position is endangered. Regards, Wojtek
[PEN-L:1663] Re: Re: Very Strange Argument
Well, the usual story that I have heard about the US and Japan and oil in WW II is not that the US needed it because we had it then. We were the Saudi Arabia of the world at that time, the great Saudi fields only having just begun to be developed in 1936. It was the 1950s when we became a net importer. Rather the story was that FDR wanted to get into the war but knew that he could only do so if it involved a conflict with Japan. Cutting off oil exports to Japan would force the Japanese to attack the then-Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, the only source of oil in the vicinity of any significance at that time. FDR figured that this would involve an initial attack on the then-US colony of the Philippines and that that would trigger US entry into the war. That was indeed the goal that Japan pursued, but adopted the strategy of attempting to knock out the main US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in advance of doing so, which did not work out as a bunch of it happened to be out floating around in the ocean when they hit. BTW, over 30 years ago, the late William Appleman Williams wrote a book (forget the title now) arguing that the US was in Vietnam to secure Southeast Asian tin supplies. That seemed farfetched to me then and still does today. Think general ant-communism had more to do with it. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:14:24 -0500 Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ummm... The U.S. embargoes exports of oil to Japan (because Japan continues its campaign to conquer China, and prepares to send its armies north into Siberia). A Japanese attack on the U.S. is a "logical defensive movement" in response? A very, very strange argument... Brad DeLong To Have and Have Not Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War by Jonathan Marshall University of California Press, 1995 "An outstanding contribution to understanding the road to World War II in the Far East . . . an excellent historical narrative, with enough interesting detail to move even the strongest skeptic." --Laurence H. Shoup, author of The Carter Presidency and Beyond "Marshall deftly argues that the decisive turn in U.S. policy toward war with Japan came because Japan pressed upon raw materials vital to America. . . . This work will be the definitive study of materials policy and the coming of the war." --Bruce Cumings, Northwestern University "Marshall moves the oil and mineral resources of Southeast Asia to the center stage. . . Both specialists and general readers will be very interested in the book's argument." --Leonard Liggio, George Mason University Jonathan Marshall makes a provocative statement: it was not ideological or national security considerations that led the United States into war with Japan in 1941. Instead, he argues, it was a struggle for access to Southeast Asia's vast storehouse of commodities--rubber, oil, and tin--that drew the U.S. into the conflict. Boldly departing from conventional wisdom, Marshall reexamines the political landscape of the time and recreates the mounting tension and fear that gripped U.S. officials in the months before the war. Unusual in its extensive use of previously ignored documents and studies, this work records the dilemmas of the Roosevelt administration: it initially hoped to avoid conflict with Japan and, after many diplomatic overtures, it came to see war as inevitable. Marshall also explores the ways that international conflicts often stem from rivalries over land, food, energy, and industry. His insights into "resource war," the competition for essential commodities, will shed new light on U.S. involvement in other conflicts--notably in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. Jonathan Marshall is the economics editor for the San Francisco Chronicle and coauthor (with Peter Dale Scott) of Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (California, 1991). | Published: JANUARY 1995 | 296 pages, 6 x 9" | Subject: HISTORY | Rights: World | ISBN (cloth): 0-520-08823-9 | Buy Book: $32.50 Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1659] Re: George Kennan
Wojtek: I reply (WS): I am not a historian, but was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a response to the US militarism in the region, specifically the threat of cutting off the Japanese oil supply lines? A decsion to destroy the US navy was was a logical defensive movement on the part of Japan's military. Dollar Diplomacy V-J Day: Remembering the Pacific War By Stephen R. Shalom It is often forgotten how much World War II in the Pacific was a war between colonial powers. The United States did not get involved until military bases on three of its colonial territories -- Hawaii, the Philippines, and Guam -- were attacked by the Japanese. The British and their dominions were drawn in by the attack on their colonies of Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong. And the Dutch declared war on Japan in anticipation of the assault on their colony, the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia). Before Pearl Harbor, Washington tightened its economic sanctions on Japan when it moved into northern Indochina in September 1940, and southern Indochina in July 1941 -- that is, when Tokyo encroached on the colonial domains of Vichy France. The only non-colonies attacked by Japan were Thailand and China. When Tokyo demanded that Thailand allow Japanese troops permission to use Thai soil for attacks on Burma and Malaya, Bangkok leaders allied with Japan and declared war on the United States and Britain, but they didnt mind the opportunity to regain Thai territory that France and Britain had taken at the beginning of the century and given to their Southeast Asian colonies. China was truly the main victim of Japanese aggression, but that aggression had been going on for ten years before Pearl Harbor with great brutality, though evoking little reaction from Washington and London. Now, it is not nice to seize the colonies of another country, but from the point of view of the colonial peoples the moral distinction between seizor and seizee are not so obvious. In much of Asia there was considerable sympathy for Japan, which was ousting the western colonialists. In the East Indies a nationalist leader acknowledged that a majority of his compatriots "rejoiced over Japanese victories." Before Japan had complete control, many Dutch planters had to "flee for their lives from natives who had been their servants for 100 years or more" in the words of a British officer on the spot. Even Nehru told Edgar Snow privately of his emotional sympathy for Japan. To many Asians it was tremendously inspiring to see other Asians decisively defeating and humiliating their arrogant European and American masters. When Japan had first moved to take over Manchuria in 1931-32, an internal U.S. State Department memorandum expressed concern: "Should Japan succeed in getting her way over the protests of the League of Nations and the United States and despite the admitted interests of Soviet Russia, white prestige throughout Asia would be dangerously shaken; the Asia for the Asiatics movement would be intensified; and the difficult position of the British in India would be rendered still more difficult of solution." The memorandum continued: "The United States, the Dominions and the British ruling classes are alike race-conscious, and the underlying instinct of the Anglo-Saxons is to preserve the Anglo-Saxon breed intact against the rising tide of color. Despite emotional appeals and jingo talk, the common British and American attitude towards the people of other colors is a fundamental factor in the present situation." Where westerners hoped to "effectively assert white-race authority in the Far East," to quote British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden in 1938, Asians yearned to end western pretensions of racial superiority. Japan had tried to get the principle of racial equality embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations, but the United States and Britain, along with South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, blocked it. In the United States, many laws discriminated against Asians. And when Congress passed the Exclusion Act of 1924 barring Japanese immigration in violation of an earlier U.S.-Japanese "Gentlemans Agreement," anti-American opinion in Japan was given a great boost. In 1935, the U.S. ambassador to Tokyo recommended against repealing the Exclusion Act. To do so, he warned, would be a sign of U.S. weakness (Americans presumably need to save face) and if Washington were to recognize Japan as an equal on immigration, some Japanese would ask why they shouldnt be viewed as equals in terms of their navy as well. Back in 1922, the United States, Britain, and Japan had agreed that the Japanese navy should only be allowed 60 percent of the capital ship tonnage of the other two powers -- an arrangement that provoked much resentment in Japan and which was engineered thanks to Washingtons reading of Japanese codes. The rationale given for the larger western navies was that they had distant possessions to protect, which is to say, since they
[PEN-L:1660] Re: Re: Re: Monsanto and BST in Canada
Wojtek What exactly is recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) and what is it used for? -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is a growth hormone. The hormone increases milk production in cows. The other concern flows from bst's use to increase milk production which means cows get very hungry and need a higher protein food than is possible from a grass or grain diet. To meet this need cows are being fed rendered cow, sheep and other animals. Animals that are turned into animal feed are often sick animals. This is essentially the way that humans in the UK (it is theorised) were infected with "mad cow disease." In the UK, children and a farmer were infected, and especially the former is considered very very rare. The concern is that the disease vector (prions or whatever) have crossed the species barrier into humans. There have been incidents in which minks were infected with "mad cow disease" or scrapie after being fed with other infected mammals. Other trans-species infections have also occurred - so why not to cows and thence to humans who eat CNS (central nervous system) tissue ground up in their hamburgers or naturally occurring in other tissues or infected during slaughter or through the ingestion of gelatin (take a look at ingredients on the food you eat (marshmallows, e.g,) and the vitamins and pills you take + you'll be amazed where all gelatin turns up. If trans-species transmission occurs (and since it has a very long latency period a lot of transmission could occur before it shows up), we'll have a serious problem on our hands. The problem is of enough seriousness -- even if of low likelihood -- that basic precautions by the meat, dairy and food industries to prevent its occurrence would seem prudent. Ellen Ellen J. Dannin Professor of Law California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (619) 525-1449 fax: (619) 696-
[PEN-L:1657] Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
At 08:05 AM 12/17/98 -0800, Brad deLong wrote: "Countries" aren't conscious beings with objectives that "allow"--such patterns of thought have been a principal cause of a lot of atrocities in this century, as people who should know better believe that by killing civilians in large numbers they are teaching a lesson to something called "Iraq" or "Germany" or "North Vietnam." There are factions within the U.S. government and within U.S. political society that take democracy, human rights, and economic development very, very seriously indeed. I reply (WS): True, countries are not conscious beings in the way humans are, but they form environment that profoundly affects human consciousness. My view of the motives of politcians and agents of the state is grounded in the model of human behaviour that portrays humans not as rational, but as rationalizing beings. That is, their decisions are for the most part driven by the circumstances and situations, rather than apriori intelelctual committments. Later on, however, the actors manufacture hindsight rationalizations about their "motives" to engage in that particular course of action. For that reason I do not put too much weight in memoirs of decision makers - they are most likely rationalizations that obscure rather than elucidate the actual dynamics of decision making. Moreover, I think that the dynamics set in motion by a particular country's political environment exerts a powerful influence on the thinking of policy makers -- regardless of their prior ideolgical committments. That is, if a country is amids imperialist expansion, internal or extrnal conflict, etc. that situation pretty much determines the range of actions that can be taken - an any politician will make a decision that fall within that range. Even the variablity within that range does not have to be a result of his/her aprior intellectual/ideolgical committment. A good case in point is the position of the German Left which, at the outbreak of the 1st World War, reversed its prior position and endorsed the German war effort (instead of taking advantage of the situation and bring the junker/capitalist rule down). Only few courageous individuals, such as Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Liebknecht, remained loyal to their convictions, and paid dearly for that committment. In that case, the dynamics of war profoundly changed the thinking of an entire social movement. On the other hand, the political dynamics set in motion can prevent individuals from realistic assessment of the situation. US policy toward Cuba is a good example. Cuba is no longer a threat to the US interests, and its mildly autocratic regime does not pose any significant threat to human rights, etc. Yet, the US policy toward that country is absolutely hysterical and disproportional to the circumstances - a typica example of cold war thinking. To summarize, I do not agree with the position you seemingly take that treats the views policy makers express prior to after leaving their offices as indicators of the course of policy they pursue (or are trying to) while in the office. Methink, what they do in the offcie is drivent for the most part by the situational logic, or the "country parameter" if you will. So yes, "countries" are not counscious beings, but their influence on the behavior and thinking of the conscious beings is more profound than some want to admit. But World War II--destroying Adolf Hitler and Japanese militarism? I reply (WS): I am not a historian, but was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a response to the US militarism in the region, specifically the threat of cutting off the Japanese oil supply lines? A decsion to destroy the US navy was was a logical defensive movement on the part of Japan's military. That, of course, should not be construed as exoneration of Japanese militarism and imperialism. But let's face it, the fact that Japanese were the "bad guys" does not automatically make the US "good guys." I think that the war in the Pacific can be more accurately compared to the war between two drug kingpins - both are "bad guys" fighting for turf. Korea--saving forty million people from the benevolent rule of the Great Leader? I reply (WS): Again, I do not think that the US intervetion in Korea was motivated by benevolence. By the same token, neither was the Russian support for the North. As I said before, this conflict is more like a turf battele between two drug kingpins, than a Manichaen struggle between Light and Darkness. Taiwan--using the seventh fleet to save a few more people from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? I reply (WS): I think you got your dates mixed up a bit. The Cultural Revolution started in 1968 and was mostly an internal power struggle rather than attempt to swallow Taiwan, so the 7th fleet could not do much in that situation, regardless of how badly one wanted to use it. As far as the Great Leap is concerned, did not Taiwan have one of
[PEN-L:1655] RUSSIA CONDEMNS ATTACKS ON IRAQ
Date sent:Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:00:05 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jamestown Foundation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 17 December 1998 Monitor - Vol.IV, No.233 Thursday, December 17, 1998 MONITOR -- A DAILY BRIEFING ON THE POST-SOVIET STATES RUSSIA CONDEMNS ATTACKS ON IRAQ. Russian diplomats last night harshly criticized yesterday's launching of air attacks on Iraq by U.S. and British forces. In a statement issued by Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov during a visit to Madrid, Moscow condemned the air strikes as a breach of the UN charter and called for the military actions to be terminated immediately. "No one has a right to act independently on behalf of the United Nations, still less to assume the functions of a judge of the world," Ivanov was quoted as saying. "We shall demand an immediate termination of the military action, which would make it possible to resume the political process to bring about a settlement of the Iraq crisis." Ivanov's statement also warned of the gravest consequences should Russian nationals currently in Baghdad be harmed by the air strikes. Ivanov broke off his visit to Spain yesterday in order to return to Moscow for consultations with the government (Itar-Tass, December 16). The angry Russian reaction to yesterday's air strikes came at the end of a day during which UN Security Council members met in an emergency session to discuss the latest crisis in Iraq. It was the third time that the council had met for that reason in the past fourteen months. Yesterday's meeting was occasioned by a report delivered to council members on Tuesday night by UNSCOM chief Richard Butler. Butler's report, which formed the basis for the decision by Washington and London yesterday to go forward with the attacks, bluntly accused Baghdad of having failed to honor a pledge given last month that it would cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors. Yesterday Butler ordered UNSCOM personnel out of Iraq in anticipation of the U.S. and British military actions (International agencies, December 16). Russia, which has long made clear its sympathy for Iraqi denunciations of the UNSCOM chief, yesterday criticized Butler harshly both for the substance of his report and for his decision to withdraw UN personnel from Iraq. In New York, Russia's UN ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly led a "line by line attack" on Butler's report during yesterday's UN Security Council meeting. Lavrov was said to have accused Butler of lying. He said that the UNSCOM chief had presented a far more positive picture of Iraqi cooperation with UN inspectors during a visit to Moscow by Butler on December 4 (International agencies, December 16; Washington Post, December 17). Foreign Minister Ivanov had expressed optimism after that meeting that sanctions against Iraq might soon be lifted (see the Monitor, December 8). Ivanov, meanwhile, suggested yesterday that Butler himself had been at least partly responsible for any Iraqi failures to cooperate with the UN. The Russian foreign minister accused Butler of "rudely exceeding his powers" in Iraq and of having conducted himself in a way that served "to aggravate the situation and fan up tension over Iraq." Ivanov said that Butler had exceeded his authority on previous occasions as well, and urged the UNSCOM chief to resign from his post if, in Ivanov's words, he was not up to the demands of the job (Washington Post, December 17). Russia was joined yesterday in its condemnation of the U.S. and British air strikes by China and France. The three countries have consistently been the Security Council's most forceful advocates for an easing of sanctions on Iraq. Russia and France, not coincidentally, stand to profit handsomely from a number of major business deals with Iraq which can be implemented only after the lifting of sanctions. Meanwhile, yesterday's air strikes won support across the political spectrum in Britain but not in the United States, where several congressional Republican leaders accused the Clinton administration of acting to divert an impending impeachment vote. Canada and Germany voiced their support for yesterday's military actions (International agencies, December 16).
[PEN-L:1654] Craven followup
Jim is running off to a big meeting and asked me to forward Michelle Cheung's letter to PEN-L. I don't think he'd mind if I also forwarded this: - Also, Chronicle of Higher Ed is getting on this--reporter contacted me aqnd I sent everything. Please thank Doug. Bear Chief just called me and Hasart misunderstood an e-mail and inquired if I was using College resources to set up paid employment to teach on the Reservation--more attempted cherrypicking. He is writing her back as I write this. Thanks. Now I'm offf to a meeting with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (Yakima, Umatilla, Nex Perce and Warm Springs Nations). Apparently the College want's an Indian on staff for "celebration-of-diversity" purposes but the Indian isn't supposed to live/act like a real one. Thanks, Jim - One other thing I'd mention. Jim has an article in the Winter '98 Dark Night Field Notes on the Makah controversy. It is a reply to Sea Shepherd's leader Paul Watson titled "Ecoimperialism: Real Whales, Real People". Dark Night is a peer-reviewed journal that includes Ward Churchill on the editorial board. Contact Dark Night, Box 3629, Chicago, Ill. 60690-3629 for subscription information. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1649] Re: Re: Re: me on ABCNEWS.COM
I heard that the passage of time was being delayed because of the war against Iraq... At 10:58 AM 12/17/98 -0500, you wrote: Rob Schaap wrote: Bewdy! What time (EST) is it right now? Mebbe I can sit up for this one. 11 AM EST right now. But by the time you get this that time will be inoperative. Doug Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:1650] Re: Re: Monsanto and BST in Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a growth hormone. The hormone increases milk production in cows. Some studies, however, indicate it may enter the bloodstream when people drink the milk and cause increased incidence of certain types of cancer. Some studies also indicate that it may cause health problems in the cows as well. BST has not been proven harmful. THe problem is that studies that show that it may be harmful have been overlooked or even suppressed as the documents show. More studies need to be done before we can be sure it is safe. As noted, you may already have BST in your bloodstream. Maybe you should go back to Poland, or come to Canada. CHeers, Ken Hanly What exactly is recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) and what is it used for? Wojtek
[PEN-L:1646] Re: Re: me on ABCNEWS.COM
Rob Schaap wrote: Bewdy! What time (EST) is it right now? Mebbe I can sit up for this one. 11 AM EST right now. But by the time you get this that time will be inoperative. Doug
[PEN-L:1642] Re: Monsanto and BST in Canada
What exactly is recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) and what is it used for? Wojtek
[PEN-L:1640] Re: Bombing of Iraq IV
. 6. It just came to me that traveling around the world with a document showing the US logo on it is both disgraceful and unsafe. I think I need to renew my expired Polish passport. 7. Fuck the United States of America and its government. Wojtek You'll have to stand in line and be patient, sir.
[PEN-L:1638] Hypocrisy on bio-chemical weapons
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK: A HISTORY OF BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS By Zoltan Grossman - 400s BC.: Spartan Greeks use sulfur fumes against enemy soldiers. 1346: Crimean Tatars catapult plague-infected corpses into Italian trade settlement. 1500s: Spanish conquistadors use biological warfare used against Native peoples. 1763: British Gen. Jeffrey Amherst orders use of smallpox blankets against Native peoples during Pontiac's Rebellion. 1800s: Blankets infected with smallpox deliberately given to Native Americans, causing widespread epidemics. 1907: Hague Convention outlaws chemical weapons; U.S. does not participate. 1914: World War I begins; poison gas produces 100,000 deaths, 900,000 injuries. 1920s: Britain uses chemical weapons in Iraq "as an experiment" against Kurdish rebels seeking independence; Winston Churchill "strongly" backs the use of "poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." 1928: Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare; most countries that ratify it prohibit only the first use of such weapons. 1935: Italy begins conquest of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), using mustard gas. 1936: Japan invades China, uses chemical weapons in war; German chemical labs produced the first nerve agent, Tabun 1939: World War II begins; neither side uses bio-chemical arms, due to fears of retaliation in kind. 1941: U.S. enters World War II; President Roosevelt pledges U.S. will not be first to use bio-chemical weapons. 1943: U.S. ship damaged by German bombing raid on Bari, Italy, leaks mustard gas, killing 1000. 1945: Germans use Zyklon-B in extermination of civilians. Japanese military discovered to have conducted biological warfare experiments on POWs, killing 3000. U.S. shields officers in charge from war crimes trials, in return for data. Soviets take over German nerve gas facility in Potsdam. The Nazis had stockpiles of nerve gas, against which the Allies had no defenses, and had also been working on blood agents. 1947: U.S. possesses germ warfare weapons; President Truman withdraws Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration. 1949: U.S. dismisses Soviet trials of Japanese for germ warfare as "propaganda." Army begins secret tests of biological agents in U.S. cities. 1950: Korean War begins; North Korea and China accuse U.S. of germ warfare--charges still not proven. San Francisco disease outbreak matching Army bacteria used on city. 1951: African-Americans exposed to potentially fatal simulant in Virginia test of race-specific fungal weapons. 1952: German chemical weapons researcher Walter Schreiber, working in Texas, exposed as a perpetrator of concentration canp experiments, and flees to Argentina. 1956: Army manual explicitly states that bio-chemical warfare is not banned. Rep. Gerald Ford wins policy change to give U.S. military "first strike" authority on chemical arms. 1959: House resolution against first use of bio-chemical weapons is defeated. 1961: Kennedy Adminsitration begins hike of chemical weapons spending from $75 million to more than $330 million. 1962: Chemical weapons loaded on U.S. planes during Cuban missile crisis. 1966: Army germ warfare experiment in New York subway system. 1968: Pentagon asks for the chance to use some its arsenal against civil rights and anti-war protesters to demonstrate the "efficacy" of the chemicals. "By using gas in civil situations, we accomplish two purposes: controlling crowds and also educating people on gas," said Maj. Gen. J.B. Medaris. "Now, everybody is being called savage if he just talks about it. But nerve gas is the only way I know of to sort out the guys in white hats from the ones in the black hats without killing any of them." 1969: Utah chemical weapons accident kills thousands of sheep; President Nixon declares U.S. moratorium on chemical weapons production and biological weapons possession. U.N. General Assembly bans use of herbicides (plant killers) and tear gasses in warfare; U.S. one of three opposing votes. U.S. has caused tear gas fatalities in Vietnamese guerrilla tunnels. 1971: U.S. ends direct use of herbicides such as Agent Orange; had spread over Indochinese forests, and destroyed at least six percent of South Vietnamese cropland, enough to feed 600,000 people for a year. U.S. intelligence source gives swine-flu virus to anti-Castro Cuban paramilitary group, which lands it on Cuba's southern coast (according to1977 newspaper reports). 1972: Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Cuba accuses CIA of instilling swine fever virus that leads to death of 500,000 hogs. 1974: U.S. finally ratifies 1928 Geneva Protocol. 1975: Indonesia annexes East Timor; planes spread herbicides on croplands. 1979: Washington Post reports on U.S. program against Cuban agriculture since 1962, including CIA biological warfare component. 1980: U.S. intelligence officials allege Soviet chemical use in Afghanistan, while admitting "no
[PEN-L:1637] Re: Re: Bombing of Iraq
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the correction. Maybe I voted the opposite to what I intended! Cheers, Ken Hanly In a message dated 12/16/1998 7:40:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://newsworld.cbc.ca --- it needed the colon, but what you really need is: http://newsworld.cbc.ca/cgi- bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/1998/12/16/iraq981216a#tally --- unfortunately you'll find that it's now 60-40 the other way . . . Big
