An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

The Brits made an imperial mess of Iraq back in 1930, now it is America’s turn!

We followed the fate of the French in Vietnam; are trying hard to imitate the Russians in Afghanistan; and now, our emulation-in-progress is of our beloved European cousins.  Who would ever think that it was an American philosopher (by way of Spain), George Santayana, who stated just a century ago, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  And American government leaders always seem to be the forgetful ones, although as it happens in all these cases, it is the American people who are condemned to pay the consequences in both blood and dollars.

We are not even speaking of millennia ago, or even centuries; only the recent past.  How can we be so forgetful as to how the British bamboozled a timid Iraqi Parliament, where the true nationalists lacked a voiced, into signing an agreement in 1930 that would have Iraq in turmoil with coup after coup until Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979?  And we all know what has happened since then.  Seventy-eight years later here we are, cramming down their throats an illegal “strategic alliance” that is similar in both content and tone to that Great Britain “imposed” on Iraq almost eight decades ago.

And I say illegal for both Iraq and the United States.  For Iraq, it’s a non-valid agreement since it will be contracted under duress from an occupier’s demands, whatever excuses are brought forward to obtain legitimacy.  For the US, it’s also an invalid pact unless it is subsequently ratified by the US Senate.  We are told that the wording in this strategic alliance has been crafted so as to “avoid such ratification.”  Nonsense, if the provisions in such agreement or alliance have the underlying intent of a treaty, it is a treaty; and as a treaty, constitutionally, it must be ratified.

True that the American Executive Branch has been operating for decades outside of the Constitution in taking the nation to war (undeclared war) and entering into treaties (or agreements) thanks to a spineless Senate and the de-facto consent of Americans, who really care little, or are brainwashed by the White House, unless the conflict turns sour.
It is remarkable that the two senators who will be contending for the highest office in the land next November, McCain and Obama, aren’t exercising their duty as senators, making this issue one of national concern, one to be handled with both transparency and care.  Malfeasance in office by members of the Senate made Bush’s invasion of Iraq fait accompli; once again, it will be malfeasance if the senate remains blind, deaf and mute to this travesty.

It is interesting that Barack Obama claims that “had he been a member of the Senate back in 2002, he would have voted against granting Bush permission to invade Iraq.”  Well, he is a member of the Senate now… but one hears little noise from him on this important issue, one that could keep the United States involved in the Middle East until the area runs out of oil or Israelis, whichever comes last .  Time for deeds, Sen. Obama!

Iraq does not appear to be willing to have the U.N. mandate extended beyond its current expiration date, at the end of this year; and the US really doesn’t care whether its effective control is through a mandate granted by the U.N. or an agreement with a government which may not be of unity or consensus.  The US must have a tacit control of Iraq’s oil while maintaining a solid military presence in that part of the world to counter not just Iran and its nuclear aspirations, but any “problems” that may emerge anywhere in Southwest Asia.

Although the hush-hush negotiations on the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) had reached an impasse by the second week in June – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki referring the deadlock on what his government felt were critical sovereignty issues – both Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (US) appear confident that an agreement will soon be reached since both countries are committed to a joint security pact.  Yes, we will have two caliphates out of Baghdad; one ran locally by Iraqis, the other ran by Americans as part of the Empire.

What remains to be seen, even if an agreement is reached, is whether the US Senate will once again capitulate to the White House, allowing its duties and responsibilities to be usurped by Imperator George W. Bush.  And whether the American people really give a damn now that they are paying over $4 per gallon of gasoline, soon projected to be $5, which when added to the other economic miseries the country is enduring calls for either a revolution or surrender.  My bet is on the latter.

Tags: american empire, Ben Tanosborn, colonialism, empire, Global, globalization, imperialism, military
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Imperialism, military, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
A yes answer to a question with such scary implications begs postponement ‘til another day… perhaps it is a question that should never be answered, not out loud.  Let’s just say that Uncle Sam has always appeared to the world as an affable, worldly relative that they never quite really knew, or understood; one who visited occasionally wearing fancy duds and displaying graying hairs – and cocky airs – exuding both stability and success; someone who made the world his oyster… and all the relatives envious.

Unfortunately, that uncle who visited his family during the last two decades was more of a jobless, penniless relative who had whittled away his fortune in fancy living and lousy gambling – warmongering and selective globalization may be more apropos – schemes.  And his visits started to be more frequent, now inviting one and all to share in his “good fortune”… apparently by investing in many of those schemes.

The reality of a recession is finally talked about by both imbecilic and sage members of America’s Hope Springs Eternal society, and that includes super-greedy Wall Street, a government in lying perpetuity and the amenable Fed.  Now, after all this time, when we know that we are already there… or, at least, at the entry way!

Actually it’s not the “R” word that scares me, but the possibility of the unmentionable capital “D” for depression.  An “R” with fair penmanship for much of the world, and a “D” with illegible calligraphy for the US of A!  Of course, there’s a chance that the White House and Congress might create enough hocus pocus – perhaps by “having” the Fed cut its rate 2 or even 3 points and throwing away another 150 to 200 billion dollars on the shoulders of future generations – to decelerate the economic bloodbath until past the November elections, but the observed (even if hidden by the government) rate of true inflation won’t allow smoke and mirrors to cloud reality, and America’s economy will appear buck naked before the world, directed behind curtains by the Wizard of Oz.

On Monday and Tuesday Asian and European markets gave us a preview of their own nervousness with the US, even if this nation’s share of the world’s GDP (now at just 28 percent) keeps, understandably, declining.  Combined losses averaged over 10 percent overseas, if mildly affected by Wall Street losses on Tuesday (1.1 and 2 percent for the Dow and NASDEQ), told us that America’s actions still weigh heavily in economic world affairs.  And it was also an icy reminder that the credit largesse by those creditor nations may soon be coming to an end.  Then, whose money will Americans be able to spend, er…waste?  Isn’t the US really following on the footsteps of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and third world nations whose economic policies America has criticized for so long?

America, the should-be creditor nation par excellence, has become instead a parasite to the savings of the world, becoming the largest debtor nation in the planet with only two possibilities left: one, allowing America’s creditors to liquidate the paper for hard assets, permitting once-proud Americans to become vassals to foreign capital; or two, change America’s consumption habits… and learn to live within our means.

The precarious economic fix does not seem to be understood by most economists, and even the very elite in the profession make questionable statements which seem out of the ballpark.  Like Paul Krugman, whose judgment I usually respect, asserting how complex the US economy is, when the adjective should have been deceptive.  Weren’t derivates supposed to have disappeared after the dot-com fiasco?   Instead, additional crooked financial instruments were allowed to debut without proper scrutiny by a hands-off government happy to see capitalism run amuck in predatory ways to once again redistribute wealth from middle-class to rich.  Not complex, Dr. Krugman, just deceptive!

And all the while, those in the trade-brotherhood of economics in solemn silence!

As I am writing this article engaged in the thought of the applicability of physics’ laws of thermodynamics to the art-science of economics, I came up with what I thought to be a proper term to describe it: econodynamics (or movement in economics).  After googling the word, however, I discovered that it wasn’t for me to coin, that it had been used once before, probably in a different context to mine, or in its seriousness.

For our purpose here, let’s just say that it would probably be worth considering if our graduate schools of economics required their Ph. D. candidates to have an academic background in engineering, at least through the junior year, with at least knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum physics – I might add that it has helped me.  Certainly a more appropriate complementary background than that of politics!  Knowledge about conservation of energy, entropy and absolute zero temperature (the three laws of thermodynamics) can certainly prove insightful to the understanding of economic growth, and the treatment of production, consumption and savings… plus much more.

Perhaps Arnold Sommerfeld, the German physicist, had it right, if this attribution to him is correct: “Thermodynamics is a funny subject.  The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all.  The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points.  The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more.”  Substitute thermodynamics with economics and you may understand what most economists are all about.

Religion, to have value for the human condition, must be much more than just faith.  In like fashion, economics should aspire to become more of a science, and its practitioners must be more than just charlatans, at someone’s service, with a fast sleight of hands.

Since both foreign policy and economic policy are thoroughly enmeshed in the US, an economic bloodbath coming sooner than later might give Americans a much needed push to finally clamor for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the two men at the top who have brought this nation to such level of plight and misery; concurrently heralding impending exits from both Afghanistan and Iraq; and also giving credence to the idea, that in the future, America will only be solicitous with Israel when that nation brings to a halt its dominance over Palestinians and engages in true negotiations for territorial co-existence in peace; that Israel will remain a good friend and ally but will not be allowed to hold the key to US foreign policy as it has done up to now.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, economics, empire, globalization
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Empire, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
If you are part of a noble lineage, or so consider yourself, you can be hot-blooded, cold-blooded … or both things at the same time.  For the rest of us who are often told that we travel on this earth on borrowed time, put on this earth to give added shine to the star of the blue-blooded, we are also allowed to be hot-blooded or cold-blooded, but only to a point; what is unquestionably forbidden is to rub elbows with the blue-blooded.

Mr. Chávez… can we ask you where you left your manners?  The King of Spain can say “shut-up” to anyone that royally pleases him, but that doesn’t mean you can rub elbows with him, or for you to dare put him at the level of Bolivia’s “Indian” Morales.  The throne has always been placed higher so that we can all see the monarch, even if “pygmies.”  Well, let’s put aside our sarcasm and go on!

The truth is that it’s about time that we hang our cojones between our legs (males, that is!) instead of putting them in storage, replacing them for manners that are irrelevant, and which in this 21st century are archaic if not absurd.  Royalty has reached the end of that rope we call obsolescence and, truth be said, the memories are not very pleasant.  The Spanish people, in their variety of Iberian nations, already said what had to be said back in April 1931, when they gave King Alfonso XIII a hand in packing for good his royal luggage.  It was Franco who returned Spain to the monarchy with his drafted succession law put into a referendum of dubious validity in 1947, giving it a tone of fidelity and putting Franco as regent, regency that would add another 28 years to his dictatorship.

And, as truth would have it, Don Juan Carlos I, even if one of the Bourbon dynasty, for those who firmly believe that the monarchy is a political aberration these days, the Spanish sovereign is just Franco’s heir.  Although there are those who credit the king with helping maintain peace and democracy in Spain, be it true or not, it is something that is likely being way overplayed.  Let’s give Spaniards proper credit for both their humanity and intelligence.  Spain needs only to respect, and symbolically bow to, its constitution, and nothing or no one else.

But let’s get to the crux of the matter: what President Chávez said that dazzled the king so much, and by annexed-diplomacy, José Luis Zapatero, who governs in his name.  Chávez is by temperament warm and passionate, a Latin hot-blood in politics and, I would suspect in other things; it is his nature… something which bothers a lot of people, and that includes every politician in the US for telling it like it is; but that’s his privilege, a privilege he has earned.  That has been the case with Fidel Castro, and others in history, who have swam against the current to try to save their peoples from drowning.

Perhaps many will say that Chávez had no right to call the former Spanish president, José María Aznar, a fascist.  The word fascist is super-loaded, and it’s true that all too often we overuse it in our lexicon; but let’s be somewhat indulgent; if people like Bush, Blair and Aznar gave us a Mussolini-dosage in the Azores, opening up the terror gates and giving true reasons for vengeance, are not fascist, can anyone else be baptized a fascist?  If the King of Spain, as head of state, elected or not, is allowed to participate in political matters of those sister nations of Spain in America, those Latin-American heads of state can say whatever pleases them, if they are truly brethren.  Aznar is just a poor wannabe that never quite made it, one who cannot claim the respect that he sent to hell as he embarrassingly licked George W. Bush’s boots.

By Royal Respect, the last word always belonged to the King of Clubs.  And if you are playing poker and are going “all-in” with your pot, you’d better know what you are doing.  At the end of the day, in this Ibero-American summit for 2007, the president and elected representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had the winning hand.  And if Don Juan Carlos still believes he has the winning hand, I truly think that he needs to make amends with the Venezuelan head of state, gaining a lot of followers as a result… putting aside, once and for all, that crown of his.
Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: democracy, economics, foreign policy, globalization, history, imperialism
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, Foreign Policy, History, Imperialism
No Comments »

A patch of cognition related to the right…

The question is not if there is a Power Elite.  It is how you conceptualize power.  I just do not think that it is fruitful to understand the dynamics of power - control and discipline - in a pre-Foucauldian fashion.  I do not think there is necessarily a collaborative effort on the part of the elite in society to coordinate their actions in an ongoing effort to preserve their status in society.  The implementation of power results from a complex process that involves a system that extends beyond the individual agents involved in propagating the imposition of structure upon the populace. 

The grammar school teacher who practices discipline and punishment over the subjects of his or her pedagogical practices is surely not cognizant of the consequences of his or her actions beyond the scope of their immediate effect.  Nevertheless, the unintended consequences of the grammar school teacher are to implant the subjects with behavioral dispositions, which homogenize the population in order to render individuals docile and confirmative and skilled.  In other words, ripe for the exploitation of the processes involved in the various modes of production in society. 

However, if power in society circulates in such a fashion, and the interests of the elites extend to every crevasse our lives, through the operations of those we do not necessarily want to blame, then towards, whom do we direct our energy, in opposition?  Journalists?  CEO’s?  Lou Dobbs?  Grammar school teachers? 

Globalization, which is spurred by free-trade and other universalistic discourses, is merely proliferating the discipline and punishment, which is tantamount to the concrete manifestations of power, that effectively maintain Empire.  What I am proposing would help to diminish the supply of fuel that energizes Empire, which relies on an ever increasing number of subjects for the purposes of exploitation.

Tags: american empire, foreign policy, foucault, globalization, power
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Russell Cole's Blog, foucault, Power, Empire
1 Comment »