Cyprus on its knees.

Is Europe’s central bank misleading us over who's to blame for eurozone crisis?

Proper analysis of Mario Draghi's figures suggests Germany is a major cause of the crisis - not a wage productivity paragon

Andrew Watt for Social Europe Journal, part of the Guardian Comment Network 

guardian.co.uk, 

Wednesday 27 March 2013 05.30 EDT

Over the course of the last week's tense negotiations over a Cyprus bailout deal, much of the commentary has focused on the role of Europe's finance ministers. But perhaps closer attention should be paid to Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank. On 14 March Draghi made a presentation to heads of state and government on the economic situation in the euro area. His intent was to show the real reasons for the crisis and the counter-measures needed. In this he succeeded – although not in the way he intended.

Draghi presented two graphs that encapsulate his central argument: productivity growth in the surplus countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands) was higher than in the deficit countries (France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain). But wage growth was much faster in the latter group. Structural reforms and wage moderation lead to success; structural rigidities and greedy trade unions lead to failure. QED.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which reported the affair approvingly, the impact of Draghi's intervention was devastating. François Hollande, the French president, who had earlier been calling for an end to austerity and for growth impulses, was, according to the newspaper, completely silenced after the ECB president had so clearly demonstrated, with incontrovertible evidence, what was wrong in Europe – or rather in certain countries in the eurozone – and what must be done.

Things are not as they seem, however. Draghi's presentation contains a simple but fatal error – or should that be misrepresentation? As the note to the graphs indicates, the productivity measure is expressed in real terms. In other words, it shows how much more output an average worker produced in 2012 compared with 2000. So far so good. However, the wage measure that he uses, compensation per employee, is expressed in nominal terms (even if, interestingly, this is not expressly indicated on the slides). In other words, the productivity measure includes inflation, but the wage measure does not.

But this is absurd. Real productivity growth sets the benchmark for real wage growth. In a country where real wages increase in line with productivity, the shares of wages and profits in national income will remain constant. By contrast, when nominal wage growth tracks real productivity growth, which is apparently the role model suggested by the ECB president, the share of wage income in national income will permanently decrease. Moreover, real wages will decline continuously, if price inflation is higher than nominal wage growth.

In a country with inflation at the ECB target (1.9%) one would expect a gap to open up between the red and blue line in the ECB president's charts of 1.9% per year. Cumulated over the 12 years since the start of monetary union, for such a "benchmark country" the nominal wage-real productivity gap would represent almost 28%.

If Hollande had been aware of this, he need not have been silent at all. On the contrary, he could have pointed out that his country almost perfectly fits this benchmark: on Draghi's chart, the gap for France is about 32%. Similarly, the figure of 28% would need to be subtracted from the supposed competitiveness gaps of the other deficit countries, substantially reducing – although not eliminating – them.

Moreover – and this is the key point – using the correct figures transforms Germany from the wage-productivity paragon, as portrayed by the central bank, into what it really is: a country that has systematically undershot the stability norm for balanced growth in a monetary union, and thus been a major contributing factor to the crisis.

A case can be made that the presentation by the ECB president does indeed reveal the true nature of the crisis, albeit unintentionally. Senior economic policymakers in the European Union are either unaware of basic economic concepts or they are intentionally using misleading figures – to put it mildly – to force policymakers on to a course that suits their ideological preferences but which is inimical to the stability and recovery of the eurozone and, in this particular case, indeed, to their constitutional mandate.

Are 92% of all Americans wrong about what they believe to be the equitable distribution of wealth in the USA?

Income declining, inequality rising: Federal Reserve

By Bill Knight

Retired WIU Journalism Professor

Mar. 7, 2013 12:06 pm

Income from working "has been declining as a share of total income earned in the United States for the past three decades," according to a new analysis on income inequality from a very unlikely supporter of economic justice: the Federal Reserve.

It adds that the income share from "capital," in contrast, has been increasing.

This new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland examines both "labor" and "capital" income in America since 1980. "Labor" income includes all compensation from jobs: wages and salaries, pensions and benefits. "Capital" income comes not from working but from owning: ownership of assets, including interest, dividends and the capital gains from buying and selling stocks, bonds and other forms of property.

The end result, according to the piece by Margaret Jacobson and Filippo Occhino: Americans have been making less from work and more from wealth. But only a relative few Americans, the Cleveland Fed shows, have significant quantities of such wealth. The unsurprising consequence is that U.S. society has undergone a significant "spike in inequality" over the past generation.

Both authors are with the Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Jacobson is a research analyst and Occhino a senior research economist.

One outcome of labor's declining share has particularly raised concerns, they write. Since labor income is more evenly distributed across U.S. households than capital income, the decline made total income less evenly distributed and more concentrated at the top of the distribution, and this contributed to increased income inequality.

"We look at three different data sources and each provides broad evidence of the decline," they explained, "According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, labor's share of gross national income fluctuated around 67 percent during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, but it has declined since then and now stands at 63.8 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the ratio of compensation to output for the nonfarm business sector fluctuated around 65 percent until the early 1980s and has declined steadily since, from 63 percent during the 1980s and 1990s to 58.2 percent most recently. Finally, a 2011 study of income tax returns and demographic data by the Congressional Budget Office finds that labor's share of income decreased from 75 percent in 1979 to 67 percent in 2007.

"These three data sources … agree in indicating a significant drop of 3 to 8 percentage points in labor's share of income since the early 1980s, with the trend accelerating during the 2000s," they note. "As a result, total income inequality rose."

Inequality declined "up to the late 1970s," the continued, "but it has since reversed course. It rose sharply during the 1980s and early 1990s and currently is at near record-high levels."

Inequality affects a variety of other important economic variables, such as the composition of consumption and investment, tax revenue and government spending, government policies, economic mobility, human capital accumulation, and growth, the researchers say. Some economists have suggested that rising income inequality contributed to the debt accumulation and financial imbalances that led to the recent financial crisis.

"And, of course, income inequality is the focus of much attention as an indicator, albeit imperfect, of the inequality of lifetime income and welfare across households," they write.

Contact Bill at Bill.Knight@hotmail.com; his twice-weekly columns are archived at billknightcolumn.blogspot.com

Preventing another generation of war dead delivered to Dover should be the first priority of American patriots.

GOADING GULLIBLE AMERICA INTO WAR

By: Patrick J. Buchanan
3/22/2013 02:48 PM

As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad’s regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.

Two Israeli Cabinet members claimed credible evidence. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said, “It’s clear for us that (gas is) being used. … This … should be on the table in the discussions.”

Yet, 72 hours later, the United States still cannot confirm that gas was used, and Syria and Russia have called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to investigate whether it was used, and if so, by whom.

What’s going on here?

It does not require Inspector Clouseau to surmise this may be a fabrication to stampede the ever-gullible Americans into plunging into Syria to win the war for the al-Qaida-saturated Syrian rebels.

But sucking America into Syria’s civil war is only a near-term goal for the War Party, which is after larger game — greasing the skids for a U.S. war on Iran.

And lest we underestimate the War Party, the likelihood is they will get their war. For they have already gotten Obama to make concessions that are steering us inexorably toward such a war.

First, Obama was persuaded to declare it U.S. policy that, where Iran’s uranium-enrichment program is concerned, “All options are on the table!” Translation: Absent major concessions by Iran, proving she is not seeking a nuclear weapon, war against Iran is in the cards.

Yet, even as Obama parrots the mantra, “All options are on the table,” he has been persuaded to take off the table the option that won the Cold War, the George Kennan option of containment and deterrence.

Obama has been goaded into proclaiming that though America contained an evil empire that spanned 13 time zones and possessed thousands of nukes, containment cannot work with Iran.

Why not? Because the ayatollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, we are solemnly instructed, are religious fanatics who could easily opt for committing collective suicide should they get a bomb — by using that bomb on us.

This, of course, is to attribute to Iran’s leaders an insanity they have never exhibited. Not in memory has Iran started a war. Saddam attacked Iran, not the other way around. When the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini himself ordered the Iraq war ended for fear America was about to intervene on Baghdad’s side.

Now we come to the sinister role of the U.S. Senate in setting the table for war. Consider what Senate Joint Resolution 65, crafted at AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, and now being shopped around for signing by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Robert Menendez, does.

SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be “the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.”

Obama’s policy — no nuclear weapons in Iran — is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu’s policy — “no nuclear weapons capability” in Iran.

Now, as Iran already has that “capability” — as does Germany, Japan, South Korea and other nations who have forsworn nuclear weapons — what SR 65 does is authorize the United States to attack Iran — to stop her from what she is doing now. Yet, according to all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran does not have a nuclear bomb program.

Critically, SR 65 goes further and “urges that if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should … provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.”

Translation: Should Bibi attack Iran, the Senate urges the U.S. military to join in that attack. SR 65 is a blank check to Bibi to go to war with Iran, with a U.S. Senate commitment to join him.

Coupled with House Resolution 850, which calls for crushing new sanctions, SR 65 is designed to so enrage and humiliate Iran that her delegates walk out of negotiations — and war inevitably ensues.

Here then is War Party calendar and countdown.

First, rule out containment and deterrence of Iran, though that policy won the Cold War. Second, rule in a U.S. war on Iran if Tehran does not yield to all our demands in nuclear negotiations.

Third, ensure the negotiations fail by repeated insults, threats, sanctions, and intolerable demands that so humiliate the Iranians that, enraged, they say “to hell with it” and walk out of the talks.

Then, by default, the last “option” left for dealing with Iran — even if she still has not tested a bomb or enriched uranium to bomb grade — will be U.S. air strikes on Fordow and Natanz, cheered on by a War Party that dreams of this day and that war.

Preventing another generation of war dead delivered to Dover should be the first priority of American patriots.

“The girl, she was about 15…Tight…She hadn’t been touched yet… She was fucking prime… He started pimping her out for $50 bucks a shot…By the end of the day, he made $500 before she hung herself.”

‘

Facing Up to US War Crimes

March 24, 2013

CONSORTIUM NEWS

By glorifying or sanitizing war, U.S. officials and a complicit news media may insist they are shielding “the troops” from unfair criticism. But real democracy and simple human decency require that citizens know the full and often ugly truth, as Michael True notes in this review of Nick Turse’s Kill Anything That Moves.

By Michael True

The title of Nick Turse’s brilliant history, Kill Anything That Moves, was a commanding officer’s response to a soldier’s question, “Are we supposed to kill women and children?”

In contrast, an army criminal investigator’s response to a veteran, who revealed that American soldiers were abusing and killing Vietnamese civilians, was: “The United States has never condoned wanton killing or disregard for human life.”

Turse’s readable, indispensable, and, yes, deeply disturbing book may be the most important among thousands of books about the Vietnam War. A major achievement is its explaining how and why “atrocities perpetrated by US soldiers have essentially vanished from public memory.” In authenticity and power, it compares favorably with earlier accounts, such as Tim O’Brien’s novel, The Things They Carried, and Bruce Weigl’s poems, Song of Napalm.

Titles of chapters of Turse’s book convey a general sense of the grim and tragic accounts of the war: “A System of Suffering,” “Overkill,” “A Litany of Atrocities,” and “Unbound Misery.”  In the process, the author documents a commander’s standard operating procedure, including burying bad news, concealing violations of military law, and papering over miscarriages of justice.
In training before going to Vietnam, soldiers were taught to regard the Vietnamese as inferior, even inhuman, referring to them not as “the enemy,” but as “gooks” or “dinks.” This practice reflected the contempt with which the country was regarded by President Lyndon Johnson, who called Vietnam “a piddling piss-ant little country,” as well as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who referred to it as a “backward nation.”

In a representative account of civilians victimized by the troops, a mother returning home came upon the bodies of her son and two others riddled with bullets. They had been tending the family ducks, while their mother was away for a brief period. Encouraged to raise the body count in this way, one soldier amassed an estimated 1,500 “enemy killed-in-action,” by planting Chinese communist grenades on bodies so that they would be counted as enemy dead.

A particularly chilling, though not unrepresentative, account of an “industrial-scale slaughter” involved a two-star general. As field commander in the Mekong Delta, he “made the killing of civilians into standard operating procedure.” In an early briefing, he announced his plan “to begin killing 4,000, then 6,000 a month of these little bastards” then went on from there. As an associate said of another officer, for him, “body count was everything.”

Reasonable estimates account for 3.8 million violent war deaths, combatant and civilian, according to reports by Harvard Medical School and an Institute for Health Metrics and Education report. An official 1995 Vietnamese government report estimated more than 3 million deaths, a million of them civilians. Civilian victims of the war included 8,000-16,000 South Vietnamese paraplegics, 30,000-60,000 South Vietnamese left blind, and 83,000 to 166,000 South Vietnamese amputees. These estimates do not include the tens of thousands of Americans and North Vietnamese dead and wounded.

Some information about atrocities, though  “prematurely closed and buried,” was assembled by “Conduct of the War in Vietnam,” a task force established by the top commander in Vietnam and later Army Chief of Staff, General William Westmoreland. In what Turse describes as a “whitewash of a report,” it concluded that “criminal acts that occurred during General Westmoreland’s tenure in Vietnam … were neither wide-spread nor extensive enough to render him criminally responsible for their commission.”
More recently, other government officials have re-branded or dispatched the Vietnam War to the dustbin of history. Their re-writing of history perpetuates misleading accounts by reporters and irresponsible editors who ignored or withheld essential information from the beginning of American involvement in 1965.

In spite of efforts to silence them and to deprive the public of an accurate account of the war, many veterans, at considerable risk, gave detailed accounts of their own involvement and the policies that led to various war crimes. In 12 years of research, reading files and interviewing witnesses, Turse documented their testimonies. It included Jamie Henry’s testimony, at a press conference in 1970, that the murders at My Lai was only one of similar incidents that occurred “on a daily basis and differ from one another only in terms of numbers killed.”

The perspective that Turse brings to this history is truly a gift to public discourse. “Never having come to grips with what our country did during the Vietnam war,” he says, “we see its ghost arise anew with every successive intervention.”

In the conclusion, he asks questions that offer a means to our understanding its full implications, and other wars that followed: “Was Iraq the new Vietnam? Or was that Afghanistan? Do we see ‘light at the end of the tunnel’?  Are we winning ‘hearts and minds’? Is ‘counterinsurgency’ working? Are we applying ‘the lessons of Vietnam’? What are those lessons anyway?”

An obvious answer to these questions might be that those responsible for U.S. foreign policy never met a war they didn’t like. In spite of that fact, as Andrew Bacevich said, the Pentagon hasn’t won a war since 1945.

One wishes that every American citizen might read Kill Everything That Moves, and take to heart its account of a brutal, unnecessary war and the evil that we were responsible for. Sadly, we continue to be lied to about the full implications of U.S. foreign policy that undermine democratic governance.

Michael True is emeritus professor, American literature, Peace, Conflict, and Nonviolence Studies, Assumption College, and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.

Russian bank depositors, with investments worth €20bn, are expected to be severely hit by the losses, described last week by Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, as "unprofessional and dangerous". "We did not speak to Putin tonight. We will have to speak to the Russians at some point," said Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister.

Cyprus agrees €10bn bail-out deal with eurozone

Cyprus has agreed a last-ditch deal for a €10bn bail-out that will safeguard small savers, inflict heavy losses on uninsured depositors, including wealthy Russians, and keep the country in the eurozone.

By Bruno Waterfield, in Brussels TELEGRAPH

6:15AM GMT 25 Mar 2013

Popular Bank of Cyprus, also known as Laiki and the nation's second largest bank, will be shut as part of the deal, with the raid on uninsured Laiki depositors expected to raise €4.2bn.

The Bank of Cyprus, the island's largest lender, survives but investors not protected by the €100,000 deposit quarantee will suffer a major "haircut" – a forced loss on the value of their investment - over the coming weeks of up to 40pc.

Deposits above €100,000 in both banks, which are not guaranteed under EU law, will be frozen and used to resolve Laiki's debts and recapitalise Bank of Cyprus. The Bank of Cyprus must also assume over €9 bn in liabilities owed to the ECB by Laiki.

All deposits in Laiki Bank below €100,000 will be shifted to the Bank of Cyprus to create a "good bank". The rest will be placed in a "bad bank". The two banks account for around 50pc of deposits in the the banking system.

Officials said senior bondholders in Laiki would be wiped out and those in Bank of Cyprus would have to make a contribution.

The eurozone admitted early this morning that "no date is fixed" for banks to reopen in Cyprus and that they could remain closed after Tuesday, after a week of being closed.

Cyprus will today introduce unprecedented capital controls as the authorities scramble to prevent the collapse of the country's financial sector after the bailout deal.

President Nicos Anastasiades and heads of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund sealed the deal in the early hours of Monday and it was swiftly endorsed by eurozone finance ministers.

During emergency negotiations in Brussels last night, Mr Anastasiades threatened to pull his country out of the euro. He was warned that Cyprus faced disorderly default and exit from the EU single currency on Tuesday unless it bowed to the agreement - an agreement that will see almost half of the country's financial sector wiped out as part of the eurozone's strategy to restructure its economy by 2018.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, head of the Eurogroup of finance ministers, of the Netherlands, said: "We've put an end to the uncertainty that affected Cyprus and the euro area over the last few days."

Even the best-protected senior bondholders investing in Laiki Bank would see their holdings "wiped out", Mr Dijsselbloem said.

"Laiki bank will have to be resolved so yes, senior bond holders, along with the others, will basically be wiped out there," he said.

He said the Bank of Cyprus, the island's largest bank, needs to be recapitalised. "The contribution to this recapitalisation must come, inevitably, from senior bondholders, junior bondholders, shareholders and, to some extent, we don't know to what extent yet, also from uninsured depositors," Mr Dijsselbloem said.

Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, said the deal provided "a comprehensive and credible plan to deal with the current economic challenges in the country".

Russian bank depositors, with investments worth €20bn, are expected to be severely hit by the losses, described last week by Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, as "unprofessional and dangerous".

"We did not speak to Putin tonight. We will have to speak to the Russians at some point," said Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister.

The deal will not need the approval of the Cyprus parliament as the losses on large depositors will be achieved via a restructuring of Laiki and Bank of Cyprus and not a tax.

The Cypriot parliament has already voted through "generic" laws on bank resolution and capital controls, so no further vote will be needed to implement the new agreement.

Emergency legislation agreed at the weekend gives Cyprus the power to restrict all banking transactions, including cash withdrawals and the use of credit cards, alongside "any other measure necessary for reasons of public order and safety".

Last week a plan for a levy on all savings was rejected by the Cyprus parliament as "bank robbery" and provoked angry response from pensioners to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The new deal, reached after a week of turmoil that threatened to plunge the eurozone back into crisis, was a "much better" outcome, Mr Dijsselbloem said.

The final bail-out will also involve a Cypriot government austerity programme, privatisations and tax changes at a time of deepening recession given job losses at banks and companies losing out on deposits.

European Union euro Commissioner Olli Rehn said new economic forecasts for Cyprus would need drawn up quickly to take account of the deal.

Mr Rehn said the Cypriot government would decide when to lift capital controls, which saw daily withdrawal limits at cash machines reduced to as little as €100 a day on Sunday.

The European Central Bank had threatened to halt life-support funding for Cyprus on Monday if there was no deal, but Mr Dijsselbloem said he expected that support now to continue.

This latest deal means Cyprus becomes the fifth eurozone country to win international aid for its banks, after Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

European shares rallied at the open on Monday, following Asian markets earlier. Germany Dax and France's CAC jumped 1pc and 1.4pc. In London the FTSE rose 0.6pc to 6431. Eurozone banks, which own a large part of the region's sovereign debt and depend on the wholesale funding market, gained.

The euro also enjoyed a bounce in Asian trading, as investors bought on the back of a deal they hope will draw a line under the crisis

RIP 4th Amendment - “We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movement, constitutes a ‘search,’” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-justice majority last January.

White House to argue for GPS tracking without a warrant

March 22, 2013 22:38 RT

Lawyers for the Obama administration will argue next week that US authorities are not required to obtain a search warrant before attaching a GPS device to an individual’s car in order to keep tabs on them.

The case, set to be heard on Tuesday by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, comes over a year after a US Supreme Court decision failed to convince the Department of Justice that warrantless GPS tracking is an infringement on Americans' Constitutional rights.

“This case is the government’s primary hope that it does not need a judge’s approval to attach a GPS device to a car,” Catherine Crump, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told Wired magazine.

In January 2012 the Supreme Court overruled an Obama administration assertion that police should be permitted to affix a GPS device to a personal vehicle without a search warrant. Questions were left, however, when the Court declined to answer whether that type of search was unreasonable and when justices could not reach a consensus on how police would need to monitor a suspect before requesting a warrant.

“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movement, constitutes a ‘search,’” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-justice majority last January.

Scalia stipulated in the opinion that a warrant was not always necessary, but failed to mention any specific examples of when this would be the case.

Now prosecutors are honing on Scalia’s exact language, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision only specifies that the installation of a GPS constitutes a search, while the tracking that follows does not. The government argues that the Supreme Court has given police near free reign in allowing for search warrant exceptions.

Searches of students, individuals on probation and border crossings are among the proposed exceptions.

The argument resurfaced after Philadelphia brothers Harry, Michael and Mark Katzin were indicted for a string of late-night pharmacy burglaries in 2010. Suspicious of the Dodge Caravan they thought was used in the robberies, investigators monitored the vehicle with a GPS device for 48 hours and were able to trace the brothers' involvement.

Arguing in US v. Katzin, government prosecutors claimed that a law requiring them to seek a warrant would seriously impede investigations of terrorist suspects.

“Requiring a warrant and probable cause before officers may attach a GPS device to a vehicle, which is inherently mobile and may no longer be at the location observed when the warrant is obtained, would seriously impede the government’s ability to investigate drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes,” authorities said in court.

“Law enforcement officers could not use GPS devices to gather information to establish probable cause, which is often the most productive use of such devices. Thus, the balancing of law enforcement interests with the minimally intrusive nature of GPS installation and monitoring makes clear that a showing of reasonable suspicion suffices to permit use of a ‘slap-on’ device like that used in this case.”

While the ACLU accused the government of prosecutorial overreach in the case, it praised a new bill - the so-called 'GPS Act' - that would require law enforcement to get a warrant in order to access an individual’s GPS tracking history, whether it be from a vehicle device or a cell phone provider. The bill, which would not affect emergency services but would require police to prove probable cause, was reintroduced into Congress by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Kirk (R-IL) and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

In a statement, Wyden decried the government’s blind eye to police overreach.

“GPS technology has evolved into a useful commercial and law enforcement tool - but the rules for the use of that tool have not evolved with it,” he said. “The GPS Act provides law enforcement with a clear mandate for when to obtain a warrant for the geolocation information of an American…It protects the privacy and civil liberty of any American using a GPS-enabled device.”

Sucking America into Syria’s civil war is only a near-term goal for the War Party, which is after larger game — greasing the skids for a U.S. war on Iran. Review what we did to Iraq and the US cannon fodder in our military.

Iraq 10 Years Later: The Bitter Days Continue because Policy didn’t put People First (Al-Sheemary)

Posted on 03/23/2013 by Juan Cole

Banen Al-Sheemary ( @balsheem), a young Iraqi-American woman and activist, writes in a guest column for Informed Comment

Ten years today, I remember sitting in front of the television and watching the sky turn bright yellow because of the massive blasts. Silent, I turned away from the screen to see my parents’ reaction. Absolute silence. That was the first time my parents were without an opinion on something the news was covering. There was a sullen quietness as they watched their beloved country explode into flames. My twelve-year-old self had already been indoctrinated with the simple good guy, bad guy mentality, to which many Americans unfortunately adhere. I struggled to understand the logic behind the invasion of Iraq. Was Iraq a bad country? What had they done wrong? Why is it America’s right to invade and change it? I looked over at my parents again and I could tell their hearts were reeling. “Believe it. Liberation is coming,” said a confident George W. Bush as he spread more war propaganda in his visit to Dearborn. All I knew was that the ruthless Saddam Hussein would soon to be gone. What would become of Iraq? Under the guise of Operation Iraqi “Freedom,” the complete destruction began of what had been known as Iraq.

My family had fled Iraq as refugees in the early 1990s. March 20, 2003, is a bittersweet date for me, since it marked the day I could return to the country. But it is also the day “Shock and Awe” began CNN’s Wolf Blitzer stated that in his thirty years as a journalist, he had never witnessed anything like the attack on Baghdad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “shock and awe” warfare was a quick and easy solution, with no concern for civilian life.

The Cradle of Civilization was overtaken by incessant chaos, destruction, and death. In an instant, Iraq was forever changed. It is now home to 4.5 million orphans, two million widows, over four million refugees, while over half the population lives in slums. This was Iraq. As the Bush Administration boasted about its questionable accomplishments, all I could see was the Iraqi body count rise. The post-2003 Iraq is not the country my parents longed for. Barred from returning to Iraq until 2003, I will never know the country in which I was born as it was before sanctions and occupation warped it. I was too young to remember my family fleeing during the first invasion of Iraq. Before we fled, we got rid of all our belongings. My baby pictures were burned to ensure that when Saddam’s thugs checked, there would be no proof of my existence. It was as if my identity was erased, and until March 20th, 2003, I was locked away from this part of my life.

From Desert Storm, through the Clinton Administration, and into the 2003 occupation of Iraq, I still couldn’t trace the U.S. government’s plans for Iraq. But what I was sure of was every administration’s jingoistic attitude that shaped foreign policy and consistently disregarded human life. Iraq saw treacherous times in the nineties because of the imposition of history’s most comprehensive sanctions. Iraq was broken and denied any ability to thrive, even in the most basic of ways.

These brutal sanctions led to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. My older sister recalls Clinton’s secretary of state Madeleine K Albright’s infamous interview in which she was asked if the price of half a million Iraqi children was worth it. She simply said we think the price is worth it.” It was an easy decision for the Clinton Administration to make on behalf of all Iraqis, because Iraq was forced to pay. As young as I was, I understood that people of different religions and backgrounds weren’t treated as equals. This dangerous underlying notion, that certain people are more worthy of life than others, heavily shapes our foreign policy and is upheld from one administration to the next.

In retrospect, the amount of propaganda that fueled and attempted to legitimize the war was and is staggering. I recall watching the news and being angry at the distorted images of Iraq and its people. I now understand how the media engineered public opinion to justify the invasion. Maintaining the “us” versus “them” binary was crucial in validating the administration’s agenda and furthering the so called war on terror. Soon enough, I heard my classmates echo falsity and absurd CNN headlines. I’ll hold back on the silly names I’ve been called as a result of this. Hearing my parents’ stories about Iraq helped me put the pieces together. The story starts back in their young adult years.

My parents never experienced Iraq under sanctions. During the seventies and eighties, Iraq was a powerhouse of academia, with a thriving economy. In 1979, an Iraqi dinar was equal to $3.20. Nowadays, an Iraqi dinar is practically worthless. Saddam’s effort to lead in the Arab world led to many positive reforms, especially for women. My mother enjoyed free transportation to work as required by the state and a six month fully paid maternity leave. Despite his cruel methods of subjugation and obsession with monopolizing and maintaining power, his push to make Iraq the leader of the Arab world, meant economic and social reform. The build-up of the case against Saddam Hussein’s actions can be attributed to sanctions and paranoia as international pressure mounted on the regime. My family resides in southern Iraq and we are a people, amongst others, that have been brutally persecuted by Saddam’s party for decades.

Many of the conversations I have regarding Iraq revolve around “Well, Iraq is better now because Saddam is gone and America is there.” Sanctions, Saddam’s regime, and the American invasion and occupation left millions of Iraqis with broken homes, empty fridges and bleak prospects for the future. Whether under totalitarian rule or a foreign occupation, millions of Iraqis are still suffering. The choice and trite discussion of who Iraq is better under is irrelevant and ought to be put to rest.Ten years passed and in my privileged University of Michigan classes, discussions around this foolish debate and refuting the claim that oil was a decisive factor for invading, are still major topics. It was time for me to return and experience the Iraq of today.

January 2012 marked my first return to Iraq. Before my flight, I sat in the airport reading as the time passed. Hundreds of American soldiers returning from Iraq were received by family and friends, applause, and even a news crew. I shook my head because of what the soldiers represented to me. For many, they symbolize freedom, nobility, and honor. To Iraqis, they are the physical manifestation of terror, supremacism and occupation. I thought back to the times I was called un-American because of my critiques of America’s policies in Iraq and my nonexistent support for the military. I was “crazy” for not supporting the push to remove Saddam from power. People equated the administration’s bombing campaign with patriotism and justice, completely disregarding the consequences of war and foreign occupation. Iraq has become fragmented and pieced. I think of how long it will take to assemble the pieces back together; to try to bring together those shards of glass that once made a beautiful piece of work.

Nowadays, the occupation dictates every aspect of Iraqi life. The remnants of a brutal and careless invasion show on the faces of the people that live everyday as a struggle. Suicide and car bombings, fighting between armed militias, kidnappings, and snipers result in a feeling of despair and no sense of security. Simple everyday tasks like walking to a local market or sending children off to school become impossible. On my first day back in Iraq, massive explosions rocked Baghdad. I was awakened to the realities of this so called newly democratic country. Both the Iraqi and American governments promised many things for the people, like building a sewage system. The could not even fulfill this basic necessity. Inadequate water resources have caused massive death and disease in several cities. The two-hour electricity limit halts any work that needs to be done for the day. Birth defects will continue for decades because of the depleted uranium weaponry used by American soldiers. This was Iraq.

“The war in Iraq will soon belong to history” stated Barack Obama in an address marking the supposed end of the occupation of Iraq. America will remember it as history, but Iraqis live through it. I shy away from reading articles on the commemoration of the invasion of Iraq, written by journalists who don’t understand. I become frustrated and always stop after reading just the headline. I laugh at every mention of the lessons to be learned and how America can move forward. Iraq is stuck in a phase of despair, but we as Americans must learn from the occupation? I watch as oil companies, “defense contractors,” and corrupt government leaders profiteer off of an occupation that cut Iraq from any lifeline it had. The fortress called the U.S. embassy, staffed by thousands of foreign soldiers stands as a permanent reminder of the occupation.”

America is able to move forward, rebuilding its economy, but Iraq and its people, must endure the harsh and unwelcoming decades to come. A lesson to learn from Iraqis is one of human dignity and perseverance through trying times. Have we learned? In a new documentary covering Dick Cheney’s legacy, he mentions, “If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute.” And today, mainstream media outlets and the government aggressively continue to build a case against Iran, eerily reminiscent of what we saw ten years ago. We will never learn until we stop seeing people and countries as strategic plans, a means to an end, as valueless and unknown.

My first visit to Iraq was in 2012, because the occupation made it too dangerous to travel there. One afternoon, my uncle and I drove through Hilla. I forced him to speak about the occupation. After an hour of hearing horrendous stories of crimes committed by American soldiers, he tiredly says “We are nothing to them. To America, we are simply strategic. Through their eyes, our lives aren’t worth anything.” That was the end of the conversation. I noticed that Iraqis never speak of the occupation. It was as if it was a past memory. I sense that Iraqis have perseverance built within them because of the decades of unrest that they have lived through; they keep on living every day as they can. These are the Iraqis that are reconstructing what is rightfully theirs.

Everyday Iraqis have been partaking in reconstructing Iraq after a destructive occupation in which they were robbed of their agency, future and country. Iraqis create and expand projects as the current government continues to neglect the citizen’s needs. Upper class citizens and Iraqi expatriates living in the US or Britain play a role in funding these projects. Many social service facilities are being rebuilt, with a focus on widows, orphans, the elderly, and disabled. Whether it is building bridges or starting up a water filter company, these projects are opening doorways for job opportunities and steadily decreasing unemployment rates. Despite the lack of security and political and economic turmoil, the hardships that Iraqis face are slowly easing and will be solved by the resilient Iraqis who continue to resist and struggle for a better life. Iraqis are forging a path of their own to recreate their Iraq, one away from the government’s corrupted plans and free of the American occupation’s stifling grasp.

Ten long and painful years have passed.The orphan Mustafa from Baghdad says “I feel like a bird in a cage here. I wish there was someone to listen to us.” Indeed Iraqis are listening. I see the same resilience and perseverance in Iraqis, that I see in my parents. Years will pass before Iraq will prosper, but I see a future for Iraq because of the millions that are working for it. When I visit Iraq I smile and blink the tears away. The anger from my heart dissipates when I see shops open for business, human rights organizations assisting widows and orphans, and college students organizing for an event they’re sponsoring. It will come together. Justice and progress will flourish because the people demand it and they will succeed. This is Iraq.

—-

Banen Al-Sheemary has been active at the University of Michigan with Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, Iraqi Student Association, and Muslim Student Association’s Social Justice and Activism Committee

Voyager leaves the Solar System, again, for sure, this time, we think.