Saswat Blog
All that's Left!
Third World
A Review of "The Darker Nations"
By Saswat Pattanayak
[Originally published in
Radical Notes, 18 March 2007]
Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, The New Press, New York, 2007. Hardcover, 384 pp. Amazon/NP
The Darker Nations is a critical historiography of the Third World. Vijay Prashad's deeply instructive as well as occasionally mordant looks at events and processes that made up the history of oppressed peoples in the 20th century comprise this brilliant work. It is a book profound for being peremptory, and absolutely necessary for being so relevant today that it is imperative for activists and researchers alike.
For one, the various assumptions that form a dominant paradigm of Eurocentrism need radical reproving. Yet that would merely amount to a criticism of the thesis itself. Prashad goes beyond that and proposes an alternative narration to the history - not just of the Third World, but also through its lenses, the peoples' history of the world during the last century. Darker Nations in some ways could be appositely used to speak for aspirations of the oppressed everywhere. In this sense, the book is a celebration of collective hope, even as it traces the demise of a grand project based on it.
I
The thesis of the book circles around the Third World as a unique project on its own. Even as there have been far too many usages of "First" and "Second" Worlds in contrasts, the reader is never lost darker nationsto the main point: that is, the Third World was not merely in response or reaction to the prevailing 'cold war' grand narration, but it was more importantly an independent culmination out of unique historical necessities to combat neocolonialism and to promote internationalist nationalism.
To that extent, the author has conducted painful researches and unearthed valuable and often less quoted documents. The book thus does justice to the Suez Canal nationalization controversy and credits Nasser for his motives beyond cold war considerations. It brings Nehru alive through his letter drafted for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that argued against nuclearism, appealing to both Kennedy and Khrushchev. The book researches Che Guevara's UN speech that assumed a necessary political standpoint for all oppressed countries: "As Marxists, we maintain that peaceful co-existence does not include co-existence between exploiters and exploited, between oppressors and oppressed."
What, then, was common to the Third World? For the nationalist leaders, the fact that they were all colonized. Prashad writes, "For them, the nation had to be constructed out of two elements: the history of their struggles against colonialism, and their program for the creation of justice....The Third World form of nationalism is thus better understood as an internationalist nationalism." (p.12)
Prashad's assessment of "neopatriarchy" and domestic capitalism in the third world is quite worthwhile. This book is clearly a critical document for collective introspection of the oppressed peoples than an empty glorification of a united umbrella. In this sense, it is a necessary and long awaited work, which while marking the sites of struggle does not lose sight of the continuing struggles.
The author has cleverly named the chapters after the various sites of significance. Clever, because the chapters (Paris, New Delhi, Bali etc.,) have less to do with specific descriptions of the cities of those times than they have to do with bringing these otherwise disparate places together in context - at times stretching the contexts well out of bounds of the chapter title; at times celebrating the specificity with a poem by Neruda. One would be tempted to verify the header of the page several times while going through the texts just to make sure that she is in the right page. Yet such deliberate discursions are wisely scheduled to make for chapters that elucidate points contextually, rendering Prashad into a master narrator.
Illustratively, the author makes clear the intent of the book at the end of "Paris" chapter and perhaps leading one to wonder how much of the chapter was actually devoted to Paris. Of course that's the idea of a project, the professor would convince us: each section needs to have scope for a flow into the next without exhausting every specific reference. It's a project after all. A process, not a few events.
The book covers all that it promises to: Brussels meeting of "League against Imperialism", Afro-Asian gathering at Bandung, Women's conference at Cairo, NAM at Belgrade and Tricontinental Conference at Havana.
Prashad unearths the role of international communists in formation of the Brussels conference - a landmark event patronized by Einstein and attended by 37 countries/colonies. He writes about Pan-Africanism, Pan-Americanism, and Pan-Asianism in the context of colonial dominations, along with deconstructing the Kuomintang massacres of communists that might have contributed to severance of the ties between the Comintern and several nationalist leaders.
Prashad quotes W.E.B. DuBois in relation to Pan-Africanism within the Brussels context, although he omits Paul Robeson's solidarity with the colored peoples at Bandung. It was in 1955 that Robeson sent his famous greetings to Bandung: "...peoples come from the shores of the Ganges and the Nile, the Yangtse and the Niger. Nations of the vast Pacific waters, greetings on this historic occasion. It is my profound conviction that the very fact of the convening of the Conference of Asian and African nations at Bandung, Indonesia, in itself will be recorded as an historic turning point in all world affairs." Heralding it as a history-making conference, Robeson expressed, "Indeed the fact that the Asian and African nations, possessing similar yet different cultures, have come together to solve their common problems must stand as a shining example to the rest of the world."
Prashad aptly summarizes what Bandung achieved: "a format for what would eventually become Afro-Asian and then Afro-Asian-Latin American group in the UN." He also takes a stab at the inherent weaknesses of the member countries that lost moral grounds because of several reasons, from murdering communists to hoarding weapons, despite agreeing on some basic precepts of "cultural cooperation".
"Principle Problem" of Raul Prebisch is explained in context to economic policies, in the crucial introduction to the role of UNCTAD, of which he was the founding general secretary. If Buenos Aires is visited for economics, Tehran is the metaphoric site of cultural struggles. Khrushchev's betrayal of cultural workers in face of opposition to Shah regime is well articulated in a chapter that describes "roots of the Third World intellectual's quandary was how to create a new self in the new nations", thus reinforcing nationalism, democracy and rationalism.
Prashad's political argument that the relationship between Third World and Second turned tumultuous after the demise of Stalin may draw some criticisms, but he amply demonstrates its foundations. He argues that the "new leadership led by Khrushchev and Bulganin adopted peaceful co-existence and pledged their support to the bourgeois nationalist regimes (often against the domestic Communists). The unclear situation suggested that the USSR seemed keener to push its own national interests than those of the national Communist parties to which it pledged verbal fealty" (p. 97).
Prashad makes a point that is vital to understanding of the Third World formation and crisis. In the Soviet Union, the Second World indeed "had an attitude toward the former colonies that in some ways mimicked that of the First World." But this did not necessarily require pitiful stance at the Third World recipients. Prashad argues quoting Sauvy and Nkrumah that the Third World was not "prone, silent or unable to speak" before the powers. It was an independent political platform on its own, which according to Nehru stood for "political independence, nonviolent international relations, and the cultivation of the UN as the principle institution for planetary justice."
So he asks, "What about the two-thirds who remained outside the East-West circles; what of those 2 billion people?" The narration of the author is instructive in a poetic sense. As obviously gigantic is the scope of such an inquisitiveness, he offers a plethora of factors/voices that could have been representing this Third World.
The book analyzes the various complexities of state politics in the Third World countries. It correctly mentions the several betrayals of communist workers in the hands of Moscow and Peking leaderships in the aftermath of Stalin and Mao. The book describes accurately the growing militarization of the developing nations. Prashad, while upholding the vision of the Third World, well encapsulates the elements of utopianism inherently present in some of the documents.
As an instance, the Arusha Declaration validated the twin principles of liberty and equality, individual rights and collective well-being. Prashad argues, "The main problem with the Arusha-TANU project, however, came not in its goals but in its implementation." Though defying academic limitations, he does not give away credence to neoliberal economists/politicians like Rajaratnam of Singapore. Even as he describes the feud between Singapore on one extreme and Cuba on another, Prashad instructs us wisely about the pitfalls of economic liberalization. "The abandonment of economic sovereignty lost the national liberation regimes one of their two principal pillars of legitimacy. When IMF-led globalization became the modus operandi, the elites of the postcolonial world adopted a hidebound and ruthless xenophobia that masqueraded as patriotism", Prashad writes.
Succinctly enough, Prashad encapsulates the present scenario: "The mecca of IMF-driven globalization is therefore in the ability to open one's economy to stateless, soulless corporations while blaming the failure of well-being on religious, ethnic, sexual, and other minorities. That is the mecca of the post-Third World era."
II
Prashad's ending of the book with an obituary to Third World would have perhaps perplexed the writer he invokes in the beginning of his work: Franz Fanon. He even quotes the prophetic statements from The Wretched of the Earth: "The Third World today faces Europe like a colossal mass whose project should be to try to resolve the problems to which Europe has not been able to find the answers."
Prashad's persistent declaration in the book about demise of the Third World may bring back nostalgic chords, but would not undermine Fanon's question. Have the problems that bore out of colonialism been resolved? The answer is no. Has Europe or the USA been able to find the answers yet? The answer is no.
In that case, is it not too early to declare the Third World a dead project? Moreover, is the author at times tending to air the lost leaders' voices over the struggling peoples'?
No doubt, Prashad's book is unique in its stress on women's movements in the Third World - an aspect that's comfortably overlooked when such taxonomies are applied to political texts. In his Cairo chapter, Prashad examines the role of women in Third World liberation struggles - from Rameshwari Nehru to Aisha Abdul-Rahman. This is significantly noteworthy, as women have joined the guerrilla wars as well as street protests in almost all of the Third World countries. And yet many progressive forces have difficulties in understanding gender relations, thereby resulting in mere "state feminisms". However, was this chapter written because Cairo had women members on its podium necessitating a mention/discussion, or because a tribute to women activists is necessary to understand the Third World project? In either way, the book does not employ a lens of the women to understand the movement, although does a commendable job at understanding women struggles through the lens of the Third World. Considering that only this chapter has a portion devoted to a few women activists in context to Cairo, while the rest of the book mostly quotes the three "titans" or famous "fives" in explaining the history, I would say there are quite a few questions unanswered still.
The chief criticism against this work would primarily come from two quarters: One, from a strictly Third Wave (interesting how the growth of Third Wave coincides with the recognition of the Third World) feminist critique: independent struggles by women could have been much better encompassed within this book, given its scope. Prashad does a cursory mention of the alternative movement (considering that third-world women had a movement within, and against the larger movement) limiting it to a chapter and focusing on a couple of eminent speakers. Would the Third World have been different had the precepts for it not written by the "titans" and "giants", but by women comrades who were voices of resentments against the hierarchies of nationalist and communist parties? Prashad does not dwell on this aspect.
Two, the criticism may become more scathing from the perspectives of militant activists. Third World, like Rome, was not built in a day. And certainly not through some leaders of few countries. Prashad is arguably right in crediting the giants and bringing forth the canons, but at the same time, these very leaders certainly rode the wave of success utilizing the larger unrest that was recognized by the anti-status-quo forces, often united through guerrilla wars, and almost going unnoticed after making vital impacts. Would the Third World have been different had the precepts for it not written by the giants, but by the larger oppressed peoples engaged in organized and otherwise struggles? We do not know for sure, but it would have been worthwhile to ponder over that a bit more than the book does.
The more crucial question then, is if such precepts were actually already written (or worked on with) by the peoples who did not find mentions in the historical documents that Prashad cites towards the book's end spanning 60 pages. The focus of the book, although is in continuance of Prashadisque tradition of Afro-Asian unity, is slightly away from Africa. In fact, Mandela is mentioned just once in the book (that too as a pure travesty - citing a Ruth First memorial). The truth is Third World texts had been written in South Africa as well as in Nepal. However, such underground struggles went largely amiss from the work. Sure, the book by the author's admission is inexhaustive and merely illustrative, but even a 300-page work could have inculcated some unknown peoples' movements than chronicling lesser known leaders' engagements.
Ironically enough, before proceeding to Havana chapter, Prashad mentions "From the early 1960s to the late 1970s, the rhetorical denunciation of imperialism reached its apogee even as the Third World began to lose its voice". This is a dangerous statement to make if one considers that indeed from the 1970s onwards, the peoples voice in the Third World had immensely proliferated. No doubt the leaders - those giants who we find exalted throughout the work - had fallen to deaths or arrests, but the period thereafter also signaled the end of dominant and diplomatic voices, and somewhere alongside highlighted the obscure and powerful ones.
People who spoke truth to power were the people on the streets that challenged the nationalist parties which came to power in the pretext of newfound freedom from the foreign rulers. The growth of domestic capitalist classes in comfortable alliance with these nationalist parties were indication enough that the new powers were no less different from the old ones, except in their make-up and "patriotism". In fact, these illusive weapons of nationalism and patriotism helped strengthen exploitative capitalism on basis of trusts of the "own" people. Such betrayals of faiths, notwithstanding goodwill of the famous leaders, were also being fought against on a daily basis in the Third World. Beyond the conferences and meetings and gatherings of Third World leaders under different names, there were large-scale protests of poverty and unemployment. Beyond the famous rhetoric of anti-nuclearism (while proliferating conventional weapons domestically) and socialist development (while harassing voices of dissent at home), people had on their own formed two classes in the society. The haves went to the ruling elites that apparently "voiced" the Third World for few years, and the have-nots remained with the unknown millions of peoples whose only commonality was their resentment against the power-grabbers. Be it Nehru or Indira in India, Sukarno or Suharto in Indonesia, the popular imagination went beyond such leaders that treaded the careful path all the while claiming to be representing the Third World.
Third World was neither the name of a place nor merely a documented project. And certainly it did not die. Considering that its origin was a necessity in itself, a necessity borne of conditions of colonialism, about which Sartre (another contextually grand omission from the book except for one mention - his writings on neocolonialism were far more instructive) writes in the preface to Albert Memmi's 'The Colonizer and the Colonized': "Colonialism denies human rights to people it has subjugated by violence, and whom it keeps in poverty and ignorance by force, therefore, as Marx would say, in a state of 'sub-humanity'." This sub-humanity does not see its history changing with the midnight bells of colonialist departures. It takes quite a while for the real freedom to be conquested for even after the colonialists are gone. This is why South Africa's period of struggle just began after Mandela came to power. South Africa's Third World status will not die anytime soon.
So the assumption that "the Third World began to lose its voice" may have been made a little too early. Keeping in line of the eloquent narration of events as Prashad has done (for example, referring to revived "armed struggle not only as a tactic of anticolonialism but significantly as a strategy in itself"), the book perhaps wished away the Third World before examining its overbearing presence today. Do we have a Second World? I have no answer to that. But if the name Third World was admittedly accepted by the oppressed people of several continents basing on their historical heritage, then the phrase is as relevant today as it was before. Perhaps some countries would want not a place in it. Earlier, China was a question. Today, Singapore is. All the same, for the rest of the countries, nothing much has changed, except that the capitalist exploitation has intensified and expanded manifold, the national regimes have lost faith and people are more politically conscious.
If the Third World was imagined out of former colonies and if the colonial problem was chiefly an economic one, then the Third World has become even all the more relevant today. Simplistic as it may sound, there is a greater need for Afro-Asian-Latin solidarity today in the world than ever before. And Prashad, a remarkably profound scholar who gave to us treasures of arguments through his previous works about the need for alliances of the oppressed, would be among the firsts to acknowledge the necessity of such unity.
III
However, apart from remaining in want of more comprehensive analysis of women's movements and of peoples' liberation movements (both-dually oppressed by former colonizers as well as the nationalist rulers, and more importantly conflicted between the both - male and female comrades), the book also offers cursory looks at the external roles played by the First World in maintaining indirect subjugation of the Third.
Prashad rightly critiques the predominant views held by leftists about the role of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He argues that such a minimalist assumption renders people of the Third World insignificant and often passive audience in the larger world stage. Whereas he is absolutely correct in this critique - largely identified by the radical feminist movements worldwide - there is no harm in going through the roles of the CIA that have been well documented in a work that does chronicle interactions of the Third World "leaders" with the First World instigators. Many conflicting situations have been initiated and fuelled through CIA interventions in the Third World politics and that should have found a deserved mention. For instance, a critique of the Nixon administration vis-à-vis the Third World (including the recently released notes with Kissinger) is found lacking.
One need not subscribe to conspiracy theories to gain insights about how the First World allies in the "neocolonial" period have acted towards the Third World: less through coercion, and more through lucrative measures such as economic aids, western education and religion. Prashad misses out on the role of the Catholic Church that was the first body to significantly recognize the Third World as an entity worth pondering over. The large money, the pool of debts that would crumble the economic backbone of the Third World came from the consent of the Vatican during the early 1960s.
Prashad mentions religion quite casually, when he describes how "Mother Teresa would soon get more positive airtime as the white savior of the dark hordes than would the self-directed projects of the Third World nationalist governments." Immediately following this, he goes on to make references to military invasions and embargoes.
Here the book could have made a crucial connection between the recognition of the Third World by the First World through the Catholic Church decisions. Mother Teresa's airtimes were neither incidental nor were to be seen only through a liberal critique. The missing piece is that Vatican Council II which was the 21st ecumenical (general) council of the Roman Catholic Church was crucial to recognition of the Third World in an official manner.
In fact this council brought the most far-reaching reforms within the Catholic Church in 1000 years. This most significant reform movement in the world's leading religion was brought forth during its four sessions in Rome during (the first Council after its suspension in 1870). The idea was to aim for aggiornamento (renewal and updating of Catholic life and teaching). Such a vital step was taken by the Vatican as a result of emergence of the Third World. This council altered the nature of the church from being a European-centered institution to become a worldwide one so as to acknowledge the Third World countries, where it counted most of its followers. Mother Teresa and her likes were thus byproducts of this acceptance of the third force in the world.
Prashad says that Nehru, Sukarno and Nasser among other leaders did not use Third World to describe their domains, but does not corroborate their reasons, if any. For the framework of this book, the constant usages of "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" is imperative, but considering that Prashad is eager to lash out against the "camp mentality" or "East-West" conflicts, he does avoid a critical exposition of the limitations that such three "Worlds" may bring for the readers.
One way to understand why the three "worlds" were not sufficient explanations (although necessary at many junctures) is to detail how the three worlds could not be thus compartmentalized either in degree or by their types. More importantly, the countries thus categorized under such headings definitely had uniquely different histories (colonial and otherwise), treated differently by their respective partners in their perceived specific worlds. On the one hand, Singapore had a different colonial experience than India. On the other, China's Security Council membership put it on a unique platform, and there is no comparing between Soviet Union and Hungary. What is vital to this discussion is also the fact that there was not a yardstick that was used to specify categories either for the First, the Second or the Third. As much as the Third World was a movement against colonialism, such a usage of categories would still render it as a site affected by Eurocentric worldviews.
Prashad says Nehru et al., instead of calling themselves to be part of the Third World, "spoke of themselves" as the NAM, G-77 or the colonized continents. Although accurate, here the author's own argument that kickstarts the book will be subject to questioning. Prashad says in the first line of the book, "The Third World was not a place. It was a project". And yet he compares the project with some conferences and places (continents) to bring home the point that the leaders evaded "Third World". Certainly there were other reasons why all Third World titans did not prefer the phrase (if at all). And that, we are still unsure of.
The author writes: "The phrase 'East-West conflict' distorts the history of the Cold War because it makes it seem as if the First and Second Worlds confronted each other in a condition of equality." He contends that the USSR was socially and economically way behind due to its unique recent history. "The dominant classes in the First World used the shortages and repression in the USSR as an instructive tool to wield over the heads of their own working class, and so on both economic and political grounds the First World bore advantages over the Second." Whereas this could be one truth, it does underscore the fact that more countries on the earth joined the Second World than they could be declared as the First World also because of the lacunae starkly evident in the First World. Whereas massive racism was predominant in the First World, economic depression and political censorships in the capitalist countries also contributed to popularity of the Second World.
A connection between the third world "project" and the United Nations (UN) is well established in the book. What perhaps amiss is a discussion on manners in which either of them might have contributed to the downfall of the other. Prashad says, "Today there is no such vehicle for local dreams". The larger question then would be if the United Nations played a role in obliterating its dependant. On the other hand, a stark reality in the post-Iraq scene is the redundancy of a forum such as the United Nations today that effectively has no role either in shaping a collective conscience or implementing a pro-people agenda. Least of all, the UN has failed to safeguard the sovereign nations from external aggressions. It has failed to overcome the elitism of its Security Council, almost unquestionably letting the powerful countries to run their own little League of Nations inside the UN. Amidst such cynicism that the UN has contributed to, what responsibilities must the Third World project shoulder.
Amidst several responsibilities, the Third World still has to its credit a Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool (NANAP), a fact that is missing a mention in the book. Over 40 news agencies in non-aligned countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have pooled their resources for the exchange of news reports and information to defy the vertical information flow of corporate media. The "Pool" was adopted at the Fourth Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Algiers in 1973. During that period, the New World Information and Communication Order was also proposed to democratize the knowledge domain of the world. No doubt, UNESCO was criticized by the American and European intellectuals, but the MacBride Commission succeeded in recognizing the divergent voices of the Third World in order to challenge the media hegemony world over. Responsibilities of the Third World still include an informed opposition to militarization, providing alternative channels to western corporate media, campaigning for need-based distribution of world resources, and most of all, representing the popular voices of dissent, opposition and celebrations. One wonders if the struggles to attain the above has waned any bit, if looked from the peoples' perspectives. And in this context, the Third World still holds hopes, possibilities and victory. One is perhaps disappointed if the Third World is perceived to be voicing only a limited elite constituency - often opposed to the peoples' dissents.
IV
Hence, finally, the book questions not the constitution of the Third World itself. If it was brought around through its various leaderships under certain historical period, what expectations should we have of this "project"? Were such leaders to be expected to play the truly internationalist roles, and to what avail? In the preliminary draft thesis on the National and the Colonial Questions, for the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin wrote: "Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal, petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest intact, whereas proletarian internationalism demands, first, that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world-wide scale, and, second, that a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital." Between the elite internationalism founded on peaceful co-existence and peoples' internationalism based upon rejection of the international capitalist order, did the Third World got somewhere hijacked or we refuse to acknowledge its existence because we already defined its proponents?
Needless to state, the criticisms above demand for more literature for inclusion into the book, than specifically target the author's works. Such a case arises only because the book is an extraordinarily brilliant effort that is bound to encourage readers to plunge more into the relevance of the subject. All of that credit goes to the humanely written, accessibly crafted work that shuns academic elitism and genuinely attempts at a peoples' history of the oppressed world.
[Originally published in
Radical Notes, 18 March 2007]
Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, The New Press, New York, 2007. Hardcover, 384 pp. Amazon/NP
The Darker Nations is a critical historiography of the Third World. Vijay Prashad's deeply instructive as well as occasionally mordant looks at events and processes that made up the history of oppressed peoples in the 20th century comprise this brilliant work. It is a book profound for being peremptory, and absolutely necessary for being so relevant today that it is imperative for activists and researchers alike.
For one, the various assumptions that form a dominant paradigm of Eurocentrism need radical reproving. Yet that would merely amount to a criticism of the thesis itself. Prashad goes beyond that and proposes an alternative narration to the history - not just of the Third World, but also through its lenses, the peoples' history of the world during the last century. Darker Nations in some ways could be appositely used to speak for aspirations of the oppressed everywhere. In this sense, the book is a celebration of collective hope, even as it traces the demise of a grand project based on it.
I
The thesis of the book circles around the Third World as a unique project on its own. Even as there have been far too many usages of "First" and "Second" Worlds in contrasts, the reader is never lost darker nationsto the main point: that is, the Third World was not merely in response or reaction to the prevailing 'cold war' grand narration, but it was more importantly an independent culmination out of unique historical necessities to combat neocolonialism and to promote internationalist nationalism.
To that extent, the author has conducted painful researches and unearthed valuable and often less quoted documents. The book thus does justice to the Suez Canal nationalization controversy and credits Nasser for his motives beyond cold war considerations. It brings Nehru alive through his letter drafted for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that argued against nuclearism, appealing to both Kennedy and Khrushchev. The book researches Che Guevara's UN speech that assumed a necessary political standpoint for all oppressed countries: "As Marxists, we maintain that peaceful co-existence does not include co-existence between exploiters and exploited, between oppressors and oppressed."
What, then, was common to the Third World? For the nationalist leaders, the fact that they were all colonized. Prashad writes, "For them, the nation had to be constructed out of two elements: the history of their struggles against colonialism, and their program for the creation of justice....The Third World form of nationalism is thus better understood as an internationalist nationalism." (p.12)
Prashad's assessment of "neopatriarchy" and domestic capitalism in the third world is quite worthwhile. This book is clearly a critical document for collective introspection of the oppressed peoples than an empty glorification of a united umbrella. In this sense, it is a necessary and long awaited work, which while marking the sites of struggle does not lose sight of the continuing struggles.
The author has cleverly named the chapters after the various sites of significance. Clever, because the chapters (Paris, New Delhi, Bali etc.,) have less to do with specific descriptions of the cities of those times than they have to do with bringing these otherwise disparate places together in context - at times stretching the contexts well out of bounds of the chapter title; at times celebrating the specificity with a poem by Neruda. One would be tempted to verify the header of the page several times while going through the texts just to make sure that she is in the right page. Yet such deliberate discursions are wisely scheduled to make for chapters that elucidate points contextually, rendering Prashad into a master narrator.
Illustratively, the author makes clear the intent of the book at the end of "Paris" chapter and perhaps leading one to wonder how much of the chapter was actually devoted to Paris. Of course that's the idea of a project, the professor would convince us: each section needs to have scope for a flow into the next without exhausting every specific reference. It's a project after all. A process, not a few events.
The book covers all that it promises to: Brussels meeting of "League against Imperialism", Afro-Asian gathering at Bandung, Women's conference at Cairo, NAM at Belgrade and Tricontinental Conference at Havana.
Prashad unearths the role of international communists in formation of the Brussels conference - a landmark event patronized by Einstein and attended by 37 countries/colonies. He writes about Pan-Africanism, Pan-Americanism, and Pan-Asianism in the context of colonial dominations, along with deconstructing the Kuomintang massacres of communists that might have contributed to severance of the ties between the Comintern and several nationalist leaders.
Prashad quotes W.E.B. DuBois in relation to Pan-Africanism within the Brussels context, although he omits Paul Robeson's solidarity with the colored peoples at Bandung. It was in 1955 that Robeson sent his famous greetings to Bandung: "...peoples come from the shores of the Ganges and the Nile, the Yangtse and the Niger. Nations of the vast Pacific waters, greetings on this historic occasion. It is my profound conviction that the very fact of the convening of the Conference of Asian and African nations at Bandung, Indonesia, in itself will be recorded as an historic turning point in all world affairs." Heralding it as a history-making conference, Robeson expressed, "Indeed the fact that the Asian and African nations, possessing similar yet different cultures, have come together to solve their common problems must stand as a shining example to the rest of the world."
Prashad aptly summarizes what Bandung achieved: "a format for what would eventually become Afro-Asian and then Afro-Asian-Latin American group in the UN." He also takes a stab at the inherent weaknesses of the member countries that lost moral grounds because of several reasons, from murdering communists to hoarding weapons, despite agreeing on some basic precepts of "cultural cooperation".
"Principle Problem" of Raul Prebisch is explained in context to economic policies, in the crucial introduction to the role of UNCTAD, of which he was the founding general secretary. If Buenos Aires is visited for economics, Tehran is the metaphoric site of cultural struggles. Khrushchev's betrayal of cultural workers in face of opposition to Shah regime is well articulated in a chapter that describes "roots of the Third World intellectual's quandary was how to create a new self in the new nations", thus reinforcing nationalism, democracy and rationalism.
Prashad's political argument that the relationship between Third World and Second turned tumultuous after the demise of Stalin may draw some criticisms, but he amply demonstrates its foundations. He argues that the "new leadership led by Khrushchev and Bulganin adopted peaceful co-existence and pledged their support to the bourgeois nationalist regimes (often against the domestic Communists). The unclear situation suggested that the USSR seemed keener to push its own national interests than those of the national Communist parties to which it pledged verbal fealty" (p. 97).
Prashad makes a point that is vital to understanding of the Third World formation and crisis. In the Soviet Union, the Second World indeed "had an attitude toward the former colonies that in some ways mimicked that of the First World." But this did not necessarily require pitiful stance at the Third World recipients. Prashad argues quoting Sauvy and Nkrumah that the Third World was not "prone, silent or unable to speak" before the powers. It was an independent political platform on its own, which according to Nehru stood for "political independence, nonviolent international relations, and the cultivation of the UN as the principle institution for planetary justice."
So he asks, "What about the two-thirds who remained outside the East-West circles; what of those 2 billion people?" The narration of the author is instructive in a poetic sense. As obviously gigantic is the scope of such an inquisitiveness, he offers a plethora of factors/voices that could have been representing this Third World.
The book analyzes the various complexities of state politics in the Third World countries. It correctly mentions the several betrayals of communist workers in the hands of Moscow and Peking leaderships in the aftermath of Stalin and Mao. The book describes accurately the growing militarization of the developing nations. Prashad, while upholding the vision of the Third World, well encapsulates the elements of utopianism inherently present in some of the documents.
As an instance, the Arusha Declaration validated the twin principles of liberty and equality, individual rights and collective well-being. Prashad argues, "The main problem with the Arusha-TANU project, however, came not in its goals but in its implementation." Though defying academic limitations, he does not give away credence to neoliberal economists/politicians like Rajaratnam of Singapore. Even as he describes the feud between Singapore on one extreme and Cuba on another, Prashad instructs us wisely about the pitfalls of economic liberalization. "The abandonment of economic sovereignty lost the national liberation regimes one of their two principal pillars of legitimacy. When IMF-led globalization became the modus operandi, the elites of the postcolonial world adopted a hidebound and ruthless xenophobia that masqueraded as patriotism", Prashad writes.
Succinctly enough, Prashad encapsulates the present scenario: "The mecca of IMF-driven globalization is therefore in the ability to open one's economy to stateless, soulless corporations while blaming the failure of well-being on religious, ethnic, sexual, and other minorities. That is the mecca of the post-Third World era."
II
Prashad's ending of the book with an obituary to Third World would have perhaps perplexed the writer he invokes in the beginning of his work: Franz Fanon. He even quotes the prophetic statements from The Wretched of the Earth: "The Third World today faces Europe like a colossal mass whose project should be to try to resolve the problems to which Europe has not been able to find the answers."
Prashad's persistent declaration in the book about demise of the Third World may bring back nostalgic chords, but would not undermine Fanon's question. Have the problems that bore out of colonialism been resolved? The answer is no. Has Europe or the USA been able to find the answers yet? The answer is no.
In that case, is it not too early to declare the Third World a dead project? Moreover, is the author at times tending to air the lost leaders' voices over the struggling peoples'?
No doubt, Prashad's book is unique in its stress on women's movements in the Third World - an aspect that's comfortably overlooked when such taxonomies are applied to political texts. In his Cairo chapter, Prashad examines the role of women in Third World liberation struggles - from Rameshwari Nehru to Aisha Abdul-Rahman. This is significantly noteworthy, as women have joined the guerrilla wars as well as street protests in almost all of the Third World countries. And yet many progressive forces have difficulties in understanding gender relations, thereby resulting in mere "state feminisms". However, was this chapter written because Cairo had women members on its podium necessitating a mention/discussion, or because a tribute to women activists is necessary to understand the Third World project? In either way, the book does not employ a lens of the women to understand the movement, although does a commendable job at understanding women struggles through the lens of the Third World. Considering that only this chapter has a portion devoted to a few women activists in context to Cairo, while the rest of the book mostly quotes the three "titans" or famous "fives" in explaining the history, I would say there are quite a few questions unanswered still.
The chief criticism against this work would primarily come from two quarters: One, from a strictly Third Wave (interesting how the growth of Third Wave coincides with the recognition of the Third World) feminist critique: independent struggles by women could have been much better encompassed within this book, given its scope. Prashad does a cursory mention of the alternative movement (considering that third-world women had a movement within, and against the larger movement) limiting it to a chapter and focusing on a couple of eminent speakers. Would the Third World have been different had the precepts for it not written by the "titans" and "giants", but by women comrades who were voices of resentments against the hierarchies of nationalist and communist parties? Prashad does not dwell on this aspect.
Two, the criticism may become more scathing from the perspectives of militant activists. Third World, like Rome, was not built in a day. And certainly not through some leaders of few countries. Prashad is arguably right in crediting the giants and bringing forth the canons, but at the same time, these very leaders certainly rode the wave of success utilizing the larger unrest that was recognized by the anti-status-quo forces, often united through guerrilla wars, and almost going unnoticed after making vital impacts. Would the Third World have been different had the precepts for it not written by the giants, but by the larger oppressed peoples engaged in organized and otherwise struggles? We do not know for sure, but it would have been worthwhile to ponder over that a bit more than the book does.
The more crucial question then, is if such precepts were actually already written (or worked on with) by the peoples who did not find mentions in the historical documents that Prashad cites towards the book's end spanning 60 pages. The focus of the book, although is in continuance of Prashadisque tradition of Afro-Asian unity, is slightly away from Africa. In fact, Mandela is mentioned just once in the book (that too as a pure travesty - citing a Ruth First memorial). The truth is Third World texts had been written in South Africa as well as in Nepal. However, such underground struggles went largely amiss from the work. Sure, the book by the author's admission is inexhaustive and merely illustrative, but even a 300-page work could have inculcated some unknown peoples' movements than chronicling lesser known leaders' engagements.
Ironically enough, before proceeding to Havana chapter, Prashad mentions "From the early 1960s to the late 1970s, the rhetorical denunciation of imperialism reached its apogee even as the Third World began to lose its voice". This is a dangerous statement to make if one considers that indeed from the 1970s onwards, the peoples voice in the Third World had immensely proliferated. No doubt the leaders - those giants who we find exalted throughout the work - had fallen to deaths or arrests, but the period thereafter also signaled the end of dominant and diplomatic voices, and somewhere alongside highlighted the obscure and powerful ones.
People who spoke truth to power were the people on the streets that challenged the nationalist parties which came to power in the pretext of newfound freedom from the foreign rulers. The growth of domestic capitalist classes in comfortable alliance with these nationalist parties were indication enough that the new powers were no less different from the old ones, except in their make-up and "patriotism". In fact, these illusive weapons of nationalism and patriotism helped strengthen exploitative capitalism on basis of trusts of the "own" people. Such betrayals of faiths, notwithstanding goodwill of the famous leaders, were also being fought against on a daily basis in the Third World. Beyond the conferences and meetings and gatherings of Third World leaders under different names, there were large-scale protests of poverty and unemployment. Beyond the famous rhetoric of anti-nuclearism (while proliferating conventional weapons domestically) and socialist development (while harassing voices of dissent at home), people had on their own formed two classes in the society. The haves went to the ruling elites that apparently "voiced" the Third World for few years, and the have-nots remained with the unknown millions of peoples whose only commonality was their resentment against the power-grabbers. Be it Nehru or Indira in India, Sukarno or Suharto in Indonesia, the popular imagination went beyond such leaders that treaded the careful path all the while claiming to be representing the Third World.
Third World was neither the name of a place nor merely a documented project. And certainly it did not die. Considering that its origin was a necessity in itself, a necessity borne of conditions of colonialism, about which Sartre (another contextually grand omission from the book except for one mention - his writings on neocolonialism were far more instructive) writes in the preface to Albert Memmi's 'The Colonizer and the Colonized': "Colonialism denies human rights to people it has subjugated by violence, and whom it keeps in poverty and ignorance by force, therefore, as Marx would say, in a state of 'sub-humanity'." This sub-humanity does not see its history changing with the midnight bells of colonialist departures. It takes quite a while for the real freedom to be conquested for even after the colonialists are gone. This is why South Africa's period of struggle just began after Mandela came to power. South Africa's Third World status will not die anytime soon.
So the assumption that "the Third World began to lose its voice" may have been made a little too early. Keeping in line of the eloquent narration of events as Prashad has done (for example, referring to revived "armed struggle not only as a tactic of anticolonialism but significantly as a strategy in itself"), the book perhaps wished away the Third World before examining its overbearing presence today. Do we have a Second World? I have no answer to that. But if the name Third World was admittedly accepted by the oppressed people of several continents basing on their historical heritage, then the phrase is as relevant today as it was before. Perhaps some countries would want not a place in it. Earlier, China was a question. Today, Singapore is. All the same, for the rest of the countries, nothing much has changed, except that the capitalist exploitation has intensified and expanded manifold, the national regimes have lost faith and people are more politically conscious.
If the Third World was imagined out of former colonies and if the colonial problem was chiefly an economic one, then the Third World has become even all the more relevant today. Simplistic as it may sound, there is a greater need for Afro-Asian-Latin solidarity today in the world than ever before. And Prashad, a remarkably profound scholar who gave to us treasures of arguments through his previous works about the need for alliances of the oppressed, would be among the firsts to acknowledge the necessity of such unity.
III
However, apart from remaining in want of more comprehensive analysis of women's movements and of peoples' liberation movements (both-dually oppressed by former colonizers as well as the nationalist rulers, and more importantly conflicted between the both - male and female comrades), the book also offers cursory looks at the external roles played by the First World in maintaining indirect subjugation of the Third.
Prashad rightly critiques the predominant views held by leftists about the role of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He argues that such a minimalist assumption renders people of the Third World insignificant and often passive audience in the larger world stage. Whereas he is absolutely correct in this critique - largely identified by the radical feminist movements worldwide - there is no harm in going through the roles of the CIA that have been well documented in a work that does chronicle interactions of the Third World "leaders" with the First World instigators. Many conflicting situations have been initiated and fuelled through CIA interventions in the Third World politics and that should have found a deserved mention. For instance, a critique of the Nixon administration vis-à-vis the Third World (including the recently released notes with Kissinger) is found lacking.
One need not subscribe to conspiracy theories to gain insights about how the First World allies in the "neocolonial" period have acted towards the Third World: less through coercion, and more through lucrative measures such as economic aids, western education and religion. Prashad misses out on the role of the Catholic Church that was the first body to significantly recognize the Third World as an entity worth pondering over. The large money, the pool of debts that would crumble the economic backbone of the Third World came from the consent of the Vatican during the early 1960s.
Prashad mentions religion quite casually, when he describes how "Mother Teresa would soon get more positive airtime as the white savior of the dark hordes than would the self-directed projects of the Third World nationalist governments." Immediately following this, he goes on to make references to military invasions and embargoes.
Here the book could have made a crucial connection between the recognition of the Third World by the First World through the Catholic Church decisions. Mother Teresa's airtimes were neither incidental nor were to be seen only through a liberal critique. The missing piece is that Vatican Council II which was the 21st ecumenical (general) council of the Roman Catholic Church was crucial to recognition of the Third World in an official manner.
In fact this council brought the most far-reaching reforms within the Catholic Church in 1000 years. This most significant reform movement in the world's leading religion was brought forth during its four sessions in Rome during (the first Council after its suspension in 1870). The idea was to aim for aggiornamento (renewal and updating of Catholic life and teaching). Such a vital step was taken by the Vatican as a result of emergence of the Third World. This council altered the nature of the church from being a European-centered institution to become a worldwide one so as to acknowledge the Third World countries, where it counted most of its followers. Mother Teresa and her likes were thus byproducts of this acceptance of the third force in the world.
Prashad says that Nehru, Sukarno and Nasser among other leaders did not use Third World to describe their domains, but does not corroborate their reasons, if any. For the framework of this book, the constant usages of "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" is imperative, but considering that Prashad is eager to lash out against the "camp mentality" or "East-West" conflicts, he does avoid a critical exposition of the limitations that such three "Worlds" may bring for the readers.
One way to understand why the three "worlds" were not sufficient explanations (although necessary at many junctures) is to detail how the three worlds could not be thus compartmentalized either in degree or by their types. More importantly, the countries thus categorized under such headings definitely had uniquely different histories (colonial and otherwise), treated differently by their respective partners in their perceived specific worlds. On the one hand, Singapore had a different colonial experience than India. On the other, China's Security Council membership put it on a unique platform, and there is no comparing between Soviet Union and Hungary. What is vital to this discussion is also the fact that there was not a yardstick that was used to specify categories either for the First, the Second or the Third. As much as the Third World was a movement against colonialism, such a usage of categories would still render it as a site affected by Eurocentric worldviews.
Prashad says Nehru et al., instead of calling themselves to be part of the Third World, "spoke of themselves" as the NAM, G-77 or the colonized continents. Although accurate, here the author's own argument that kickstarts the book will be subject to questioning. Prashad says in the first line of the book, "The Third World was not a place. It was a project". And yet he compares the project with some conferences and places (continents) to bring home the point that the leaders evaded "Third World". Certainly there were other reasons why all Third World titans did not prefer the phrase (if at all). And that, we are still unsure of.
The author writes: "The phrase 'East-West conflict' distorts the history of the Cold War because it makes it seem as if the First and Second Worlds confronted each other in a condition of equality." He contends that the USSR was socially and economically way behind due to its unique recent history. "The dominant classes in the First World used the shortages and repression in the USSR as an instructive tool to wield over the heads of their own working class, and so on both economic and political grounds the First World bore advantages over the Second." Whereas this could be one truth, it does underscore the fact that more countries on the earth joined the Second World than they could be declared as the First World also because of the lacunae starkly evident in the First World. Whereas massive racism was predominant in the First World, economic depression and political censorships in the capitalist countries also contributed to popularity of the Second World.
A connection between the third world "project" and the United Nations (UN) is well established in the book. What perhaps amiss is a discussion on manners in which either of them might have contributed to the downfall of the other. Prashad says, "Today there is no such vehicle for local dreams". The larger question then would be if the United Nations played a role in obliterating its dependant. On the other hand, a stark reality in the post-Iraq scene is the redundancy of a forum such as the United Nations today that effectively has no role either in shaping a collective conscience or implementing a pro-people agenda. Least of all, the UN has failed to safeguard the sovereign nations from external aggressions. It has failed to overcome the elitism of its Security Council, almost unquestionably letting the powerful countries to run their own little League of Nations inside the UN. Amidst such cynicism that the UN has contributed to, what responsibilities must the Third World project shoulder.
Amidst several responsibilities, the Third World still has to its credit a Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool (NANAP), a fact that is missing a mention in the book. Over 40 news agencies in non-aligned countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have pooled their resources for the exchange of news reports and information to defy the vertical information flow of corporate media. The "Pool" was adopted at the Fourth Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Algiers in 1973. During that period, the New World Information and Communication Order was also proposed to democratize the knowledge domain of the world. No doubt, UNESCO was criticized by the American and European intellectuals, but the MacBride Commission succeeded in recognizing the divergent voices of the Third World in order to challenge the media hegemony world over. Responsibilities of the Third World still include an informed opposition to militarization, providing alternative channels to western corporate media, campaigning for need-based distribution of world resources, and most of all, representing the popular voices of dissent, opposition and celebrations. One wonders if the struggles to attain the above has waned any bit, if looked from the peoples' perspectives. And in this context, the Third World still holds hopes, possibilities and victory. One is perhaps disappointed if the Third World is perceived to be voicing only a limited elite constituency - often opposed to the peoples' dissents.
IV
Hence, finally, the book questions not the constitution of the Third World itself. If it was brought around through its various leaderships under certain historical period, what expectations should we have of this "project"? Were such leaders to be expected to play the truly internationalist roles, and to what avail? In the preliminary draft thesis on the National and the Colonial Questions, for the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin wrote: "Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal, petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest intact, whereas proletarian internationalism demands, first, that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world-wide scale, and, second, that a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital." Between the elite internationalism founded on peaceful co-existence and peoples' internationalism based upon rejection of the international capitalist order, did the Third World got somewhere hijacked or we refuse to acknowledge its existence because we already defined its proponents?
Needless to state, the criticisms above demand for more literature for inclusion into the book, than specifically target the author's works. Such a case arises only because the book is an extraordinarily brilliant effort that is bound to encourage readers to plunge more into the relevance of the subject. All of that credit goes to the humanely written, accessibly crafted work that shuns academic elitism and genuinely attempts at a peoples' history of the oppressed world.
|
The UN has to Go. Ban Ki-moon or Not.
By Saswat Pattanayak
Today marks the beginning of a new era. The demise of United Nations as we ever knew it. With Kofi Annan, the last conscience keeper of the largest global association formally retiring yesterday, the hopes that the UN has some utilities any longer are tarnished.
Far from being skeptical, this is perhaps a desired opinion. After all, do we really need a United Nations that functions as a casino for a few fraud whitejackers—those conmen who own the place and its crooked tables?
The UN has been converted into the League of Nations of 21st Century. Like the Axis powers using the League to further their war goals, the UN is being categorically used these days for the mere purpose of legitimizing imperialist war as “democratic” crusades.
I recently visited the UN Headquarters to pay my tribute to the rich legacy it inherited from ‘The Declaration of the United Nations’ signed exactly 65 years ago, on January 1, 1942. Comrade Stalin, the then Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year’ and the most celebrated icon in the US for having stopped Hitler, had initiated the idea of creating a global peacemaking organization. And much as Einstein’s expressed desire, the major powers—Soviet Union, United States and United Kingdom—assumed responsibility of their actions to shape a global organization. The idea would subsequently be furthered by internationalists in Africa and Asia, from Robeson to Nasser to Nehru. Peace and sovereignty proved to be the foundations of this high and unique ideal.
Not anymore, sad as it may sound. The relevance of the UN as a pillar of global conscience had waned since three decades now, with revisionism within communist bloc and resignations among non-aligned front. Sovereignty of independent states no more featured on the UN agenda. And consequently, annihilation of peace concept at the alter of destroying sovereignty took precedence.
But what is worse now is that even the foundations have changed. The UN ideals have been replaced while an American ally takes over as new Secretary General today (after competing with other petty candidates, most prominently the Indian representative Shashi Tharoor—that infamous SaiBaba and sly Godmen promoter). South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon ends up joining a UN that’s based on sycophancy, wars and unipolarism, as best exhibited by the veto powers vested in the hands of its Security Council that’s no more than a conglomerate of power abusing business empires. Ban Ki-moon is the famous chair of the CTBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) commission that has binding effects on all the countries, save for the rogue powerful nations. In fact, it is to get North Korea to sign the treaty, that such a commission was founded. But will he be able to force the US to at least ratify the treaty? Seemingly, it will be quite the contrary. The US is not North Korea, after all. So, the Security Council thought Ban Ki-moon was the only contestant who did not need a veto against him.
And no wonder, the UN today is not just a replica of failure to keep peace and uphold sovereignty, but has been reduced to become an instrument of nepotism for the European-American chamber of UN council that legitimizes international and illegal aggressions.
A result of such nepotism, Kofi Annan, in his farewell speech last month clearly emphasized his ignorance about how the peace processes work. Annan placed beautifully his naïve arguments and vast hearsay rhetoric all the while as he stood silently for the wars to tear apart the world in last 10 years of his tenure. None should be surprised. Annan had got it entirely wrong. After all, he was nominated to play his role, after the make-believe showdown between the US and France got over in terms of their chosen one.
In the speech, he began by eulogizing Truman who according to him was the force behind the United Nations. That’s because Annan looked up a lame history textbook to trace the year the UN was founded formally. And 1945 was Truman’s time. Alas, while paying tribute to Truman, Annan forgot that the UN was planned since long time by Stalin and FDR and Churchill, much before Truman had any such idea. Instead Truman was only six months into his presidentship when UN was formed in ’45, and indeed he was the man behind the downfall of UN ideals.
Annan recollects: “Truman's name will for ever be associated with the memory of far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavor.”
He conveniently forgets that Truman Doctrine, the infamous anti-communist propaganda lies, was the cornerstone of UN fallibility. Not to mention his legacy of usage of Atom Bomb, not to end the World War II, but to herald the so-called Cold War. Truman was not the “master-builder” of the United Nations, as Annan recollects. Rather, he was the master-builder of a war fanatic organization called North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the elite association of war mongers that he founded in 1949, that would subsequently prove nemesis to the ideals of the United Nations and land UN in such a precarious condition today.
Kofi Annan, the last failed secretary general also misread the history of UN role in peacekeeping, which is why, his own attempts at curbing assaults on Iraq despite WMD myths failed pathetically. According to Annan, Marshall Plan the hateful red-scare treaty was a success, and not just that, the Korean War was an instance of wisdom!
Dangerous omission of critical historical knowledge leads us to pathetic leaderships. The lip-serviced fashionable criticism of American hegemony is far from the desired objective. Despite Annan’s farewell speech being nothing more than a glorification of Truman legacies, the mainstream media portrayed that as critical of America’s stance in Iraq. This is utter ridiculous. At any stretch of imagination, if Truman was right, as the two-term secretary general would point out, then I wonder where did the Bush regimes go wrong.
UN needs not just leaderships that have astute knowledge of world history and processes of war and peace, but also great visionaries who can implement changes on accords of social justice. Not stooges of an elite club of capitalists and neo-liberal bullshitters on the elite security council.
At the very least, the veto powers of these powers have to go, now that these 15 members have proved themselves to be perfectly incapable of holding a moral position of authority with their shrewd, cruel and crude methods at handling Iraq to mention just the latest, and the democratization must begin. UN must be tuned to actually prevent wars, withdraw engaged troops, collect arrears from defaulting countries (the US tops the list with $1.25 billion default) and radically engage in returning the lands to the landless (in much of Africa and Asia where the populations have been evacuated and countries have been forced into debt traps).
Else, it has to go. We urgently need to replace this League of United Nations. If we don’t want to see another series of inactions perpetuating mass scale imperialistic wars, then the time to act is now.
Today marks the beginning of a new era. The demise of United Nations as we ever knew it. With Kofi Annan, the last conscience keeper of the largest global association formally retiring yesterday, the hopes that the UN has some utilities any longer are tarnished.
Far from being skeptical, this is perhaps a desired opinion. After all, do we really need a United Nations that functions as a casino for a few fraud whitejackers—those conmen who own the place and its crooked tables?
The UN has been converted into the League of Nations of 21st Century. Like the Axis powers using the League to further their war goals, the UN is being categorically used these days for the mere purpose of legitimizing imperialist war as “democratic” crusades.
I recently visited the UN Headquarters to pay my tribute to the rich legacy it inherited from ‘The Declaration of the United Nations’ signed exactly 65 years ago, on January 1, 1942. Comrade Stalin, the then Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year’ and the most celebrated icon in the US for having stopped Hitler, had initiated the idea of creating a global peacemaking organization. And much as Einstein’s expressed desire, the major powers—Soviet Union, United States and United Kingdom—assumed responsibility of their actions to shape a global organization. The idea would subsequently be furthered by internationalists in Africa and Asia, from Robeson to Nasser to Nehru. Peace and sovereignty proved to be the foundations of this high and unique ideal.
Not anymore, sad as it may sound. The relevance of the UN as a pillar of global conscience had waned since three decades now, with revisionism within communist bloc and resignations among non-aligned front. Sovereignty of independent states no more featured on the UN agenda. And consequently, annihilation of peace concept at the alter of destroying sovereignty took precedence.
But what is worse now is that even the foundations have changed. The UN ideals have been replaced while an American ally takes over as new Secretary General today (after competing with other petty candidates, most prominently the Indian representative Shashi Tharoor—that infamous SaiBaba and sly Godmen promoter). South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon ends up joining a UN that’s based on sycophancy, wars and unipolarism, as best exhibited by the veto powers vested in the hands of its Security Council that’s no more than a conglomerate of power abusing business empires. Ban Ki-moon is the famous chair of the CTBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) commission that has binding effects on all the countries, save for the rogue powerful nations. In fact, it is to get North Korea to sign the treaty, that such a commission was founded. But will he be able to force the US to at least ratify the treaty? Seemingly, it will be quite the contrary. The US is not North Korea, after all. So, the Security Council thought Ban Ki-moon was the only contestant who did not need a veto against him.
And no wonder, the UN today is not just a replica of failure to keep peace and uphold sovereignty, but has been reduced to become an instrument of nepotism for the European-American chamber of UN council that legitimizes international and illegal aggressions.
A result of such nepotism, Kofi Annan, in his farewell speech last month clearly emphasized his ignorance about how the peace processes work. Annan placed beautifully his naïve arguments and vast hearsay rhetoric all the while as he stood silently for the wars to tear apart the world in last 10 years of his tenure. None should be surprised. Annan had got it entirely wrong. After all, he was nominated to play his role, after the make-believe showdown between the US and France got over in terms of their chosen one.
In the speech, he began by eulogizing Truman who according to him was the force behind the United Nations. That’s because Annan looked up a lame history textbook to trace the year the UN was founded formally. And 1945 was Truman’s time. Alas, while paying tribute to Truman, Annan forgot that the UN was planned since long time by Stalin and FDR and Churchill, much before Truman had any such idea. Instead Truman was only six months into his presidentship when UN was formed in ’45, and indeed he was the man behind the downfall of UN ideals.
Annan recollects: “Truman's name will for ever be associated with the memory of far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavor.”
He conveniently forgets that Truman Doctrine, the infamous anti-communist propaganda lies, was the cornerstone of UN fallibility. Not to mention his legacy of usage of Atom Bomb, not to end the World War II, but to herald the so-called Cold War. Truman was not the “master-builder” of the United Nations, as Annan recollects. Rather, he was the master-builder of a war fanatic organization called North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the elite association of war mongers that he founded in 1949, that would subsequently prove nemesis to the ideals of the United Nations and land UN in such a precarious condition today.
Kofi Annan, the last failed secretary general also misread the history of UN role in peacekeeping, which is why, his own attempts at curbing assaults on Iraq despite WMD myths failed pathetically. According to Annan, Marshall Plan the hateful red-scare treaty was a success, and not just that, the Korean War was an instance of wisdom!
Dangerous omission of critical historical knowledge leads us to pathetic leaderships. The lip-serviced fashionable criticism of American hegemony is far from the desired objective. Despite Annan’s farewell speech being nothing more than a glorification of Truman legacies, the mainstream media portrayed that as critical of America’s stance in Iraq. This is utter ridiculous. At any stretch of imagination, if Truman was right, as the two-term secretary general would point out, then I wonder where did the Bush regimes go wrong.
UN needs not just leaderships that have astute knowledge of world history and processes of war and peace, but also great visionaries who can implement changes on accords of social justice. Not stooges of an elite club of capitalists and neo-liberal bullshitters on the elite security council.
At the very least, the veto powers of these powers have to go, now that these 15 members have proved themselves to be perfectly incapable of holding a moral position of authority with their shrewd, cruel and crude methods at handling Iraq to mention just the latest, and the democratization must begin. UN must be tuned to actually prevent wars, withdraw engaged troops, collect arrears from defaulting countries (the US tops the list with $1.25 billion default) and radically engage in returning the lands to the landless (in much of Africa and Asia where the populations have been evacuated and countries have been forced into debt traps).
Else, it has to go. We urgently need to replace this League of United Nations. If we don’t want to see another series of inactions perpetuating mass scale imperialistic wars, then the time to act is now.
Nepal: Ode to Revolution!
By Saswat Pattanayak
As Nepal is declared normal, I find something is clearly missing...and I thought....
People of Nepal have finally “gained victory”
Although why the Crown relented appears a mystery
After weeks of active resistance; in face of military excesses
Took 14 deaths for the King to grant freedom to his subjects
Just when I thought, a specter was almost haunting Nepal
A specter of hope, and struggle to erase writings off the wall
The Monarchy has now heeded to its Big Brothers in crime
And the world media are already replacing remnants of grime
For the comrades: before the battle is won, the war has been lost!
Powers have hijacked the purpose of resistance at every single cost!
For I believe, freedom is ours to possess; not for the Royals to offer
Even as they recreate their myths, and even as we continue to suffer…!
As Nepal is declared normal, I find something is clearly missing...and I thought....
People of Nepal have finally “gained victory”
Although why the Crown relented appears a mystery
After weeks of active resistance; in face of military excesses
Took 14 deaths for the King to grant freedom to his subjects
Just when I thought, a specter was almost haunting Nepal
A specter of hope, and struggle to erase writings off the wall
The Monarchy has now heeded to its Big Brothers in crime
And the world media are already replacing remnants of grime
For the comrades: before the battle is won, the war has been lost!
Powers have hijacked the purpose of resistance at every single cost!
For I believe, freedom is ours to possess; not for the Royals to offer
Even as they recreate their myths, and even as we continue to suffer…!
Nepal: Whose side are you on?
By Saswat Pattanayak
Fellow blogger Mahesh Poudyal sent me a link indicating a hope that Nepal’s big brother might at last, have decided to take peoples’ side now! I went carefully through the Indian foreign secretary Shyam Sharan’s statements that he was alluding to. And although I certainly stand by Mahesh’ sentiments and support his enthusiasm, I may have to disagree with some of his optimism.
What Sharan says in regards to Nepal is two-fold. One, he offers an apology for a diplomatic faux pas. Yes, India had officially chosen to support the twin pillar of ‘monarchy and democracy’. At least one element, the monarchy, was something that huge majority of Nepalese people had got thoroughly fed up of. And Sharan’s recent statement that everything should be rather left for people of Nepal to decide is a poor rejoinder to correct the official stance. Two, even as he said it, this was an apology that was not meant to be. Because Indian administration still continues its big-brotherly demeanor towards Nepal, even within this narrative. I will explain the stances.
Apology:
The twin pillars of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy is a hoax. Sharan, and every matured Indian strategist knows that no place can have both a democracy and a monarchy at the same time. Or at least when they are together, the existence is based upon dominance of one over another. In Sweden, the monarchy is a misnomer. And in Saudi Arabia, the democracy is.
The reason why Government of India officially lends support to the twin pillars is to maintain the status quo. For the alternative, long struggled for by the militant leftists, has simply not been an acceptable position for India. So India would rather have a Hindu royal killer call the shots, than have godless landless communists take over.
It was this apprehension that always led India’s cautious stance towards its neighbors and dealing with them through its Shark (spelled SAARC) diplomacy. The ruling elites of India, forever afraid of its own peoples’ movements clearly have never understood the resentments of peoples of neighboring countries against their own ruling elites. Except for a brief period when Indira Gandhi decisively stood with Bangladeshi peoples, India has always continued its apathy towards neighboring peoples’ struggle against their ruling class. And so, the administration’s ‘welcoming’ Nepalese King’s suggestions should not have left Indian foreign secretary chuckling after a day. India rendered a rather much delayed reaction only after the consistently engaged active resistance led by brave Nepalese peoples on the streets that invited global attention.
And Sharan, chose the biggest diplomatic line that’s never practiced, as the quick fix remedy: We have nothing to do with another country’s problems. Let their people decide.
Not an apology:
It’s well known that Indian administration welcomed Nepalese monarchy, even though it did not have a necessity to lend a supportive ear to a brutal anti-democratic regime. And yet, at the same breadth, upon this realization, India has officially never condemned the monarchy for its anti-people stances, even as now, there is a necessity to offer some constructive criticisms, at the very least. When India mouths ‘words of support’ to the unjust regime, then Sharan does not see it as an interference! Only when despite pricking conscience, India decides to remain silent, then the bureaucrat justifies it on grounds of non-interference policy! Nice for the dynasty. Unfair to the people who are braving police atrocities just so that someone will take notice and come to aid.
But with due respects, Mr Sharan’s sentiments are suspect. “Not accepting or refusing” King’s offer does not amount to “not taking sides”. Every diplomat of any worth should know that indifference means taking sides of the present ruling class. By not “condemning” in strongest possible words the police atrocities of Nepalese monarchy, its inhuman curfew impositions that has claimed more than a dozen civilian lives in the hands of perpetrators, and its continued state of emergency that has paralyzed peoples’ liberties –India has actively demonstrated its role in letting things remain the way they are, in effect, in favor of the monarchy.
Not only India has chosen sides to support the monarchy, simply by not supporting the people who are on the streets now, it has also chosen to amplify its anti-people stance too, by condemning the Maoists. Sharan says, “When we said India stands for multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy, we were reflecting nothing more than what the people of Nepal themselves and the political parties themselves had committed to. So, you should not take this as something that was prescribed by the Government of India.”
This is the classic case of double-talk. Obviously, for Sharan, ‘people’ must be a different breed. For he and his likes have always conveniently overlooked the people who have been oppressed and murdered because of anti-people regime in Nepal. For, these are not the people who have ever welcomed “constitutional monarchy” as much as Indian administration has fancied.
Naturally enough, Sharan says, “We are in touch with the political parties and we have been in touch with the Palace as well essentially to try and play as constructive a role as we can to defuse the situation. We have not been in touch with the Maoists.” That the Government of India is in touch with the Palace and yet not in touch with the main opposition, the Maoists, says a lot about the governmental bias. For more than decade, Maoists have been the only group of people protesting monarchy on matters of principles, and Indian administration has not just ignored them, but also condemned them from time to time. Within its own territory, Indian government has outlawed any such outfit too. Sharan knows only too well, that unlike anywhere else in the world, Maoists have a huge support base in Nepal among common people. So is there an official line?
Sharan says, “If there are negotiations through which the Maoists can be brought into the political mainstream, but on the basis of the principles of multiparty democracy and on the clear abandonment of violence as a political tool, I think this is something that should be welcomed. So, yes, certainly there is a need for them to be brought into the political mainstream but it has to be on the basis of the principle of multiparty democracy and the renunciation of violence.”
It’s another classic case of big-brother arrogance. First to think that “multiparty democracy” is the solution, is to address the event, not the issue. India, the greatest multiparty democracy in the world, is a cruel joke in the name of participatory governance. Of course the bureaucrats gain the most from such system in India, and hence Sharan may not see the problem as yet. But people in Indian subcontinent know only too well, the fallacies of multiparty democracies in countries that do not have basic living amenities. No country is yet ripe for a true electoral democracy, simply because the developing economies (and large parts of first world as well) are just full of ignorant people devoid of any critical knowledge to distinguish one party from another. In so-called democracies, they merely end up voting one rogue or the other. And because enticing words like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are so addictive, and have a subsuming power to overwhelm people to sense of inaction, they are the least challenged terms as well. They are the most effective way to maintain ruling class status quo and ruling elites everywhere always benefit from such rhetoric.
Secondly, Sharan knows he is beating around the bush deliberately when he talks of bringing Maoists to “mainstream politics” through clear abandonment of violence as a political tool. First this is deliberate because he knows that left wing political activists are not “mainstream” politicians, and neither are they going to preach Gandhism (nor does nuclear power state India does, btw). Second, Sharan needs to remind himself that India is cozily in touch with the “Palace” which is owned by a violent oppressor of the first degree, who is a trigger-happy police-state ruler. Before actually “interfering” with Nepalese peoples’ aspirations of supporting the so-called violent Maoists who get killed every now and then, over the Palace, (out of the 14 deaths, Maoists did not kill a single person. 13 were killed civilians killed by ruling power!), Indian administration needs to mend its own ways.
Fellow blogger Mahesh Poudyal sent me a link indicating a hope that Nepal’s big brother might at last, have decided to take peoples’ side now! I went carefully through the Indian foreign secretary Shyam Sharan’s statements that he was alluding to. And although I certainly stand by Mahesh’ sentiments and support his enthusiasm, I may have to disagree with some of his optimism.
What Sharan says in regards to Nepal is two-fold. One, he offers an apology for a diplomatic faux pas. Yes, India had officially chosen to support the twin pillar of ‘monarchy and democracy’. At least one element, the monarchy, was something that huge majority of Nepalese people had got thoroughly fed up of. And Sharan’s recent statement that everything should be rather left for people of Nepal to decide is a poor rejoinder to correct the official stance. Two, even as he said it, this was an apology that was not meant to be. Because Indian administration still continues its big-brotherly demeanor towards Nepal, even within this narrative. I will explain the stances.
Apology:
The twin pillars of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy is a hoax. Sharan, and every matured Indian strategist knows that no place can have both a democracy and a monarchy at the same time. Or at least when they are together, the existence is based upon dominance of one over another. In Sweden, the monarchy is a misnomer. And in Saudi Arabia, the democracy is.
The reason why Government of India officially lends support to the twin pillars is to maintain the status quo. For the alternative, long struggled for by the militant leftists, has simply not been an acceptable position for India. So India would rather have a Hindu royal killer call the shots, than have godless landless communists take over.
It was this apprehension that always led India’s cautious stance towards its neighbors and dealing with them through its Shark (spelled SAARC) diplomacy. The ruling elites of India, forever afraid of its own peoples’ movements clearly have never understood the resentments of peoples of neighboring countries against their own ruling elites. Except for a brief period when Indira Gandhi decisively stood with Bangladeshi peoples, India has always continued its apathy towards neighboring peoples’ struggle against their ruling class. And so, the administration’s ‘welcoming’ Nepalese King’s suggestions should not have left Indian foreign secretary chuckling after a day. India rendered a rather much delayed reaction only after the consistently engaged active resistance led by brave Nepalese peoples on the streets that invited global attention.
And Sharan, chose the biggest diplomatic line that’s never practiced, as the quick fix remedy: We have nothing to do with another country’s problems. Let their people decide.
Not an apology:
It’s well known that Indian administration welcomed Nepalese monarchy, even though it did not have a necessity to lend a supportive ear to a brutal anti-democratic regime. And yet, at the same breadth, upon this realization, India has officially never condemned the monarchy for its anti-people stances, even as now, there is a necessity to offer some constructive criticisms, at the very least. When India mouths ‘words of support’ to the unjust regime, then Sharan does not see it as an interference! Only when despite pricking conscience, India decides to remain silent, then the bureaucrat justifies it on grounds of non-interference policy! Nice for the dynasty. Unfair to the people who are braving police atrocities just so that someone will take notice and come to aid.
But with due respects, Mr Sharan’s sentiments are suspect. “Not accepting or refusing” King’s offer does not amount to “not taking sides”. Every diplomat of any worth should know that indifference means taking sides of the present ruling class. By not “condemning” in strongest possible words the police atrocities of Nepalese monarchy, its inhuman curfew impositions that has claimed more than a dozen civilian lives in the hands of perpetrators, and its continued state of emergency that has paralyzed peoples’ liberties –India has actively demonstrated its role in letting things remain the way they are, in effect, in favor of the monarchy.
Not only India has chosen sides to support the monarchy, simply by not supporting the people who are on the streets now, it has also chosen to amplify its anti-people stance too, by condemning the Maoists. Sharan says, “When we said India stands for multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy, we were reflecting nothing more than what the people of Nepal themselves and the political parties themselves had committed to. So, you should not take this as something that was prescribed by the Government of India.”
This is the classic case of double-talk. Obviously, for Sharan, ‘people’ must be a different breed. For he and his likes have always conveniently overlooked the people who have been oppressed and murdered because of anti-people regime in Nepal. For, these are not the people who have ever welcomed “constitutional monarchy” as much as Indian administration has fancied.
Naturally enough, Sharan says, “We are in touch with the political parties and we have been in touch with the Palace as well essentially to try and play as constructive a role as we can to defuse the situation. We have not been in touch with the Maoists.” That the Government of India is in touch with the Palace and yet not in touch with the main opposition, the Maoists, says a lot about the governmental bias. For more than decade, Maoists have been the only group of people protesting monarchy on matters of principles, and Indian administration has not just ignored them, but also condemned them from time to time. Within its own territory, Indian government has outlawed any such outfit too. Sharan knows only too well, that unlike anywhere else in the world, Maoists have a huge support base in Nepal among common people. So is there an official line?
Sharan says, “If there are negotiations through which the Maoists can be brought into the political mainstream, but on the basis of the principles of multiparty democracy and on the clear abandonment of violence as a political tool, I think this is something that should be welcomed. So, yes, certainly there is a need for them to be brought into the political mainstream but it has to be on the basis of the principle of multiparty democracy and the renunciation of violence.”
It’s another classic case of big-brother arrogance. First to think that “multiparty democracy” is the solution, is to address the event, not the issue. India, the greatest multiparty democracy in the world, is a cruel joke in the name of participatory governance. Of course the bureaucrats gain the most from such system in India, and hence Sharan may not see the problem as yet. But people in Indian subcontinent know only too well, the fallacies of multiparty democracies in countries that do not have basic living amenities. No country is yet ripe for a true electoral democracy, simply because the developing economies (and large parts of first world as well) are just full of ignorant people devoid of any critical knowledge to distinguish one party from another. In so-called democracies, they merely end up voting one rogue or the other. And because enticing words like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are so addictive, and have a subsuming power to overwhelm people to sense of inaction, they are the least challenged terms as well. They are the most effective way to maintain ruling class status quo and ruling elites everywhere always benefit from such rhetoric.
Secondly, Sharan knows he is beating around the bush deliberately when he talks of bringing Maoists to “mainstream politics” through clear abandonment of violence as a political tool. First this is deliberate because he knows that left wing political activists are not “mainstream” politicians, and neither are they going to preach Gandhism (nor does nuclear power state India does, btw). Second, Sharan needs to remind himself that India is cozily in touch with the “Palace” which is owned by a violent oppressor of the first degree, who is a trigger-happy police-state ruler. Before actually “interfering” with Nepalese peoples’ aspirations of supporting the so-called violent Maoists who get killed every now and then, over the Palace, (out of the 14 deaths, Maoists did not kill a single person. 13 were killed civilians killed by ruling power!), Indian administration needs to mend its own ways.
Nepal Burning!
So who do the largest democracies of the world
recognize? The power of the monarch, or the power of
the people?
Who do the India, USA, EU listen to? The Nepali
royal's roars, or the Nepali subjects' pleas?
Whose ways and manners the so-called civilized
approve of? The gun-trotting police hounds; the
abusers of basic human rights; the murderers of
hapless civilians; the killers of women, children,
the unemployed youth; the police dogs of a royal
murderer-aggressor; the oppressors of teeming unheard
millions?
Or
the marginalized voices long silenced; the women who
refuse to anymore tolerate; the children with the
non-violent weapon of protest; the organized
unemployed; the unduly browbeaten; the peoples who
remind the rest of the world that if not for
'advanced' world's stoic privileged indifference,
they would be also be enjoying lives of dignity.
More power to the Nepalese peoples for freedom,
liberty, and ‘real’ democracy—-none of which is ever
bestowed, nor negotiated, nor offered as a
compromise.
The white American freedom was not ‘granted’ through
negotiations with the Kings of England, the elite
French liberty was not attained via cowardly
compromise either, the bourgeois Indian democracy was
not gifted by well-meaning British—each of them were
snatched, and millions sacrificed their lives in
protest against the oppressors.
‘Tis time, the preachers of today realized the only options they have left the Nepalese (and so many indigenous peoples in India too) are sense of frustration, alienation and revolution.
More pictures here....
Divided States of Europe
By Saswat Pattanayak
The European Union will stay a wishful nightmare. After the French, the Dutch have now stomped down the proposed bill to create the second elite world of “United States of Europe,” throwing the Britain on the spot.
This clearly is a major victory against the capitalist propagandists who intended to use the Union as a commercial and defense weapon. Three cheers to the grassroots activism shown by the working class population of French and the Dutch who have time and again defeated the interests of classicist, elitist and colonialist ruling classes of their countries.
History bears witness to the recent past misadventures of the European colonialists in the Third World countries. The French occupation of Indo-China and Algeria are gross reminders of how blissfully draconic have stayed a certain section of imperialists even towards the 1970s. South Africa was more recent an example of ravaged peoples who were allowed seats of power only in the 1990s. Of course, not with a condition that the brute rulers would leave the land and compensate the exploited people with their dues. Rather, in an unenviable situation where the former rulers continued to dominate all economic sectors and refused to let go of any privileges.
Lest history also be forgotten for convenience, some progressive people have come up against any coalition of the hegemonists in the Europe any more. No more allies and axis this time, they triumphantly have declared.
But I do not think all people voted against such proposed legislation out of an altruistic intention of not going the American way. On the contrary, learning from history, it could be well argued that self-interests inherent in nationalistic prides (therefore, racial and fascistic) have led to such decision on most parts. Because as it appears, the solution does not lie in not believing in a union of colonialist states, the solution instead lies in building up the coalition of a world body that would address global concern from local standpoints. And of course a world body which would punish unapologetic apostles of lynching, for example, and punish the oppressive war-wagers.
Unless the Dutch and the French fellow citizens not demand for a referendum to disband the NATO and join a global coalition of working class people to form a World Body without an elitist security council, its not believable that the intentions of our awakened peoples are in the desirable direction, and not in yet another dangerously nationalist, segregationist path.
And no one is even asking for a referendum to see how many come forward to apologize for the bloody history of interventionist policies historically taken up in the name of NATO, and before that, White Pride.
The European Union will stay a wishful nightmare. After the French, the Dutch have now stomped down the proposed bill to create the second elite world of “United States of Europe,” throwing the Britain on the spot.
This clearly is a major victory against the capitalist propagandists who intended to use the Union as a commercial and defense weapon. Three cheers to the grassroots activism shown by the working class population of French and the Dutch who have time and again defeated the interests of classicist, elitist and colonialist ruling classes of their countries.
History bears witness to the recent past misadventures of the European colonialists in the Third World countries. The French occupation of Indo-China and Algeria are gross reminders of how blissfully draconic have stayed a certain section of imperialists even towards the 1970s. South Africa was more recent an example of ravaged peoples who were allowed seats of power only in the 1990s. Of course, not with a condition that the brute rulers would leave the land and compensate the exploited people with their dues. Rather, in an unenviable situation where the former rulers continued to dominate all economic sectors and refused to let go of any privileges.
Lest history also be forgotten for convenience, some progressive people have come up against any coalition of the hegemonists in the Europe any more. No more allies and axis this time, they triumphantly have declared.
But I do not think all people voted against such proposed legislation out of an altruistic intention of not going the American way. On the contrary, learning from history, it could be well argued that self-interests inherent in nationalistic prides (therefore, racial and fascistic) have led to such decision on most parts. Because as it appears, the solution does not lie in not believing in a union of colonialist states, the solution instead lies in building up the coalition of a world body that would address global concern from local standpoints. And of course a world body which would punish unapologetic apostles of lynching, for example, and punish the oppressive war-wagers.
Unless the Dutch and the French fellow citizens not demand for a referendum to disband the NATO and join a global coalition of working class people to form a World Body without an elitist security council, its not believable that the intentions of our awakened peoples are in the desirable direction, and not in yet another dangerously nationalist, segregationist path.
And no one is even asking for a referendum to see how many come forward to apologize for the bloody history of interventionist policies historically taken up in the name of NATO, and before that, White Pride.
Jun 2007
May 2007
Apr 2007
Mar 2007
Feb 2007
Jan 2007
Dec 2006
Nov 2006
Oct 2006
Sep 2006
Aug 2006
Jul 2006
Jun 2006
May 2006
Apr 2006
Mar 2006
Feb 2006
Jan 2006
Dec 2005
Nov 2005
Oct 2005
Sep 2005
Aug 2005
Jul 2005
Jun 2005
May 2005
Apr 2005
Mar 2005
Feb 2005
Jan 2005
Dec 2004
Nov 2004
Oct 2004
Sep 2004
Aug 2004
Jul 2004
Jun 2004
May 2004
Apr 2004
Mar 2004
Feb 2004
Jan 2004
Dec 2003
Nov 2003
Oct 2003
Sep 2003
Aug 2003
Jul 2003
Jun 2003
May 2007
Apr 2007
Mar 2007
Feb 2007
Jan 2007
Dec 2006
Nov 2006
Oct 2006
Sep 2006
Aug 2006
Jul 2006
Jun 2006
May 2006
Apr 2006
Mar 2006
Feb 2006
Jan 2006
Dec 2005
Nov 2005
Oct 2005
Sep 2005
Aug 2005
Jul 2005
Jun 2005
May 2005
Apr 2005
Mar 2005
Feb 2005
Jan 2005
Dec 2004
Nov 2004
Oct 2004
Sep 2004
Aug 2004
Jul 2004
Jun 2004
May 2004
Apr 2004
Mar 2004
Feb 2004
Jan 2004
Dec 2003
Nov 2003
Oct 2003
Sep 2003
Aug 2003
Jul 2003
Jun 2003
- Academic
- Activism
- Afghanistan
- Africa
- Atheism
- Australia
- Black Power
- Blog
- Bollywood
- Bush
- Canada
- Capitalism
- Casteism
- Chile
- China
- Christianity
- Cold War
- Colonialism
- Communism
- Cuba
- Economics
- Environment
- EU
- Feminism
- Film
- France
- G-8
- Greece
- Haiti
- Health
- Hinduism
- History
- Humor
- Immigrant
- Imperialism
- India
- Indigenous
- Interview
- Iran
- Iraq
- Islam
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Law
- Lebanon
- LGBT
- Literature
- Media
- Music
- Nepal
- News
- Orissa
- Pakistan
- Peace
- Philosophy
- Poem
- Quote
- Racism
- Russia
- Saswat
- Sports
- Technology
- Terrorism
- Third World
- Uganda
- UK
- UN
- Urdu
- USA
- USSR
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- War