1. A regime that produces a death list of citizens abroad to be executed by its secret intelligence service, without arrest, without trial by a jury.
2. A regime that conducts surveillance at home and then uses that information to have an allied state abroad, one that flouts human rights, and tortures one of its citizens.
3. A regime that continues to operate secret detention centres where inmates are routinely denied the most basic rights to challenge the reasons why they have been imprisoned, without charge, and without representation.
4. A regime that is bent on maintaining war against other nations, including against peoples who never attacked it, thereby representing an obstacle to world peace.
5. A regime that routinely denies the legitimate claims and demands of its population, in order to favour a small cabal of elite bankers and industrialists, and thus also a regime that effectively renders elections little more than an expensive shadow play owned and operated by the billionaires who can engineer a win for their candidates.
6. A regime that persecutes those who believe that it is wrong to conceal the human rights abuses of their regime, that believe the world needs to know how that regime uses its troops to slaughter innocent civilians abroad, with neither reason nor remorse.
7. A regime that exercises pressure to round up the private details of Internet users, if they in any way conspired to reveal these facts.
8. A regime that harasses its citizens at airports, seizing their personal property, extracting information about a person’s activities and associations, and then targeting the person’s friends and colleagues, on the suspicion that the person may have peacefully opposed the state’s public lies.

(Answers: 1 – source, source, source; 2 – source, source, source, another example; 3 – source, source; 4 – example; 5 – example; 6 – example, example; 7 – source, source, source, source; 8 – example, example, example.)

Some might reply, “China,” except that points 1 and 4, at the very least, do not seem to readily apply. One might then have said, “Iran,” but only insofar as torture and net surveillance are concerned. In fact the list, as incomplete as it is, only describes the United States, and yesterday the U.S. government decided that the best way to respond to its overexposure by Wikileaks was to demonstrate and confirm that one’s lowest opinions of the regime, that the betrayal of democracy, the failure of liberalism, and the totalitarian bent of the state were all in fact correct. Consider what follows from such a realization, and ask if “working within the system” and “politics as usual” will suffice any more as anything other than naive desperation and self-deception. If such a list might have described to some a China or an Iran, then imagine what it says about the citizen that abides by it, knowing what we know, seeing what is put on display.

For those who have not yet had a chance to catch up with the news, yesterday Iceland Member of Parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir revealed via Twitter that the U.S. Department of Justice had gone to Twitter with a sealed order (hence, not to be communicated to the targets of their “criminal investigation”) demanding “all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the “means and source of payment,” including banking records and credit cards. It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present.” It was not just Jónsdóttir who was targeted, but also Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange, with the same information sought for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks’ Twitter account (neither Manning nor Assange have their own individual Twitter accounts). You can read the order itself here. Had Twitter not pushed back, and got the subpoena unsealed (read the order to unseal), thus permitting the targets to appeal the order, the information would have been quietly and secretly passed on to the U.S. Government, like perhaps other online media services have done already.

Those who have initially been targeted by this action–which seems to be part of an effort for the U.S. Government to actually do what every reasonable person advises it not to do, which is to pursue a case to criminalize the publishing of leaks (one example)–have offered a number of reasons of why they think this is happening. Jónsdóttir said “I think I am being given a message, almost like someone breathing in a phone.” She confirmed, “I have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong,” but not for that reason would she just “hand my information over willingly to DoJ.” Appelbaum asked: “I wonder if the subpoena is merely a front to legally introduce evidence captured by the confirmed NSA wiretaps two blocks from Twitter HQ?” Gonggrijp noted, “I would have guessed that the US government has more discreet and effective ways of getting my IP-number and credit card details, which is essentially all this would get them.” He added: “Heaven knows how many places have received similar subpoenas and just quietly submitted all they had on me.” Wikileaks itself, via its Twitter account, had this to say: “Note that we can assume Google & Facebook also have secret US government subpeonas. They make no comment. Did they fold?”

Wikileaks rightly points out:

“If the Iranian govt asked for DMs of Iranian activists, State Dept would be all over this violation of ‘Internet freedom’.”

At what point does one stop making excuses for the system? At what point do analyses begin to reflect that liberalism is dead (it was a short-term experiment in hegemony), that the war is intended to be permanent, that speech has been distorted or prostituted by the state, that the project of economic development and modernization has failed the majority of humanity, everywhere, utterly? And if you don’t want to talk about these things, what are you talking about?

“The United States will protect its people and advance our prosperity irrespective of the actions of any other nation…” President Barak Obama in National Security Strategy of the United States, 2010

The American Empire is not in decline.

It is rebooting for a new era of dominance.

The American Empire’s success depends on successfully converting the national American psyche into a sociopathic national consciousness (SNC). Once completed, America’s empire will be as successful as it is ruthless.

This conversion process is ad hoc and always the consequence of an “outside” event or “crisis” and the fear it engenders. The sociopath, as individual or collective, is opportunistic and reaps advantage from uncertainty. Sociopaths are in abundance at every level of American society.

For example, the response to 911 was mostly ill-conceived as the world now knows. But the fallout from that, though, is irreversible: state secrets, wire tapping, torture, leaders inciting fear in American society, terrorists around every corner threatening life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, fusion centers, laws conceived for punishing terrorists used on common criminals/vandals, war as meaningless, etc. Now more war is needed and so it’s cyberwar, helicopter gunships into Pakistan and Yemen, and that pesky homegrown terrorist problem (antiwar activists).

There is no end game for this state of affairs just as there is no stopping the conversion of America to a totally sociopathic empire.

In the USA, Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and the societies of Orwell’s 1984 and Zamyatin’s We are taking shape rapidly. The institutions/societies they created/portrayed are the inevitable result of a society based on a violence-in-the-name-of-good model and indispensible to a warring Empire like the USA. They are critical to its success.

Could it be otherwise? Is the American Empire an exception to the historical rule?

The conversion to the SNC can be seen everywhere.

Language is emptied of meaning, the national securitization of every aspect of life, and the increase of “action at a distance via technology” whether in inter-personnel relations or the execution of war in distant lands.

Examples abound: “too big to fail” as legitimate rationale, a “surge” is not an increase; “combat has ended” when it has not; the recession “is over” when it is not; “we do not torture” when we actually do; the two party system is competitive when it is not, the Tea Party is a grassroots creation when it is not, and so on.

President Obama has stated that national security and homeland security are now the same. Just so: food security, infrastructure security, neighborhood security, personal security, airport security, education security, and on and on. The Christian Easter Sunday normally sees children at the receiving end of an Easter Basket from parents loaded with candy. Now the Easter Basket has toy soldiers and military airplanes included.  A popular mouthwash states on its bottle, “Tooth Defense!”

Face-to-face, interpersonal communication is to be avoided if at all possible.  When it is witnessed at press conferences, military briefings, town halls, or the “Sunday morning talkies” on the MSM, the ground rules for the contestants make for a sterile and humorless event in which participants simply make noises at each other.

Americans hide in their I Phones, Blackberry’s and Cell Phones.  This scene is commonplace: talking in meat-space with friend, spouse, or fellow worker. In mid-conversation, a cell phone rings with the result that the person on the other end of phone overrides the near-flesh conversation. Even near-flesh experiences during which conversation does take place lacks any degree of substance. How was your weekend? Did you see “American Idol?” How about that football team? What’s the deal with Mel Gibson? Can you believe Lady Gaga?

No existential or ontological discussion here. It’s a nation of sociopaths, mechanical to the core. That’s ok because that what the Empire needs to move forward unencumbered with reality.

It is the SNC that will be America’s trump card in the game of global domination.

The American Sociopath

The American Empire depends on its people, said President Obama. What are the characteristics of the American people and their “leaders”?

Glibness and Superficial Charm and Manipulative and Cunning–They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self–Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

Pathological Lying–Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt–A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions–When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Need for Stimulation–Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy–Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature–Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, and no concern for their impact on others.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability–Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility –Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Is there any doubting America’s character?

Critics of the Empire: Convert Now!

Naysayers believe that the American way of consumption is at an end. The USA can’t continue to consume 25 percent of the Earth’s resources, they say. They point to the presence of new and powerful global competitors in Brazil, China, Russia, Turkey and India that are cutting into the sole source status that the USA once enjoyed around the globe. Profligate US government spending and the financial crisis of 2008 sapped America’s ability to shape its own future, just as it has wounded its ability to meddle in the affairs of other nations.

The naysayers fail to understand the ebbs and flows of building and sustaining an empire. There are constant setbacks and challenges. They also underestimate the American Way of Empire: an empire based on the principle of excessive violence, consumption and amusement. The American Empire’s mission is right there in the Declaration of Independence: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It’s an inalienable right.

When asking what Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington would think about the current state of the American Experiment as Empire, they undoubtedly would applaud it. Why?  Because they would be smart enough to understand that the speed of movement of people/resources and information/ideas around the globe is exactly what America is all about.  It’s simply a reflection of the pace of life in the USA.  Imagine it: Jefferson may have been able to pay off his debts rather than have died penniless. What living US president these days has ever gone broke?

The American Empire, just as its predatory predecessors (Greece, Rome, for example), proclaims—quite loudly–that its way of life is most noble, its technology preeminent, its political system unmatched, its culture and Gods supreme. An empire must shape the world in its own image, must conquer and enslave. The Gods favor conquerors, favor the emperor who orders destruction in the name of a good or a God, favors the citizens who go about their daily business or willingly sacrifice their existence for the Empire’s cause.

Empires tolerate internal dissent—“free press”–as part of the grand theater that is politics and entertainment. Allowing dissent legitimizes the destruction of the empire’s foes, internal and external (assassinating US citizens?) that are intolerant of dissent, who operate contrary to the empire’s ethos, who challenge the rule of violence.

The Price of Empire: Psychopathic, Vapid Culture

“Despair, feeding, as it always does, on phantasmagoria, is imperturbably leading literature to the rejection, en masse, of all divine and social laws, towards practical and theoretical evil.” Isadore Ducasse/Lautreamont

“The Korova Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultraviolence.” Alex from a Clockwork Orange

“It did not occur to me, ever, that people were good or that a man was capable of change, or that the world could be a better place through one’s taking pleasure in a look or a feeling or a gesture, or receiving another person’s love or kindness. Nothing was affirmative, the term ‘generosity of spirit’ applied to nothing, was a cliché, it was some kind of bad joke. Sex is mathematics. Individuality is no longer an issue. What does intelligence signify? Define reason. Desire is meaningless. Intellect is not a cure. Justice is dead. Fear, recrimination, innocence, sympathy, guilt, waste, failure, and grief, were things, emotions that no one really felt anymore. Reflection is useless, the world is senseless. Evil is its only permanence. God is not alive. Love can’t be trusted. Surface, surface, surface was all that anyone found meaning in … this was civilization as I saw it, colossal and jagged…” Bateman from American Psycho

“Sri Lanka has been a friend and democratic partner of the United States since gaining independence in 1948 and has supported U.S. military operations overseas such as during the first Gulf War. Commercial contacts go back to 1787, when New England sailors first anchored in Sri Lanka’s harbors to engage in trade. Sri Lanka is strategically located at the nexus of maritime trading routes connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia. It is directly in the middle of the ‘Old World,’ where an estimated half of the world’s container ships transit the Indian Ocean. American interests in the region include securing energy resources from the Persian Gulf and maintaining the free flow of trade in the Indian Ocean.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report, 2009.

Most Americans are not familiar with the long history of relations that Sri Lanka and the USA have together. In fact, most—and to be fair, a good deal of the world’s population—couldn’t pinpoint the country on a map even though Sri Lanka is one of the top trade partners of the USA.

Still, some may know Sri Lanka through the name Mathangi Arulpragasam, better known as M.I.A., a globally recognized musician/singer/artist. Many will remember that science fiction giant Arthur C. Clarke (2001 Space Odyssey) made his home in Sri Lanka. Perhaps a handful will know that Sri Lanka is a Cricket powerhouse.

Others may remember the 2004 Tsunami that destroyed large portions of the Sri Lankan coastline wiping out thousands of lives and leaving many more thousands internally displaced. Some will be familiar with the Sri Lankan’s military defeat of the LTTE—Tamil Tigers—in 2009 after roughly 26 years of conflict. The victory came with a burdensome price tag: thousands killed, nearly 460,000 Tamils/noncombatants confined in holding camps/displaced, and the horrible legacy that is one million landmines that dot former warfighting zones.

So what do they do in Sri Lanka besides producing excellent tea and Cricket players? Here is the industry/services breakdown for 2009:

Sri Lanka’s natural resource base consists of limestone, graphite, mineral sands, gems and phosphate.

The agricultural sector is 12.8 percent of GDP and includes rice, tea, rubber, coconut, and spices. The service industry is 58 percent with key sectors being tourism, wholesale and retail trade, transport, telecom and financial services. The industrial sector comprises 29.2% of GDP and includes garments and leather goods, rubber products, food processing, chemicals, refined petroleum, gems and jewelry, non-metallic mineral-based products and construction.

Major exports (amounting to $7 billion US) in 2009 were garments, tea, rubber products, jewelry and gems, refined petroleum, and coconuts. The main markets for those products were the USA ($ 1.54 billion US), the United Kingdom, India and Italy.

Major suppliers to the Sri Lankan economy were India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Iran, Malaysia, Japan, U.K., U.A.E., Belgium, Indonesia, South Korea and the USA (totaling $9.6 billion US of which $283 million was with the USA).

USA-India-China: Sri Lanka as Geopolitical/Economic Battlespace

For US policy makers and military planners, Sri Lanka has now become a top geopolitical priority. A sense of urgency is driving the grand brains in the White House and Pentagon to figure out how “not to lose Sri Lanka.” In short, that means an answer to the question, “How can we use Sri Lanka to further US national security interests in the Indian Ocean?”

“Friendly” economic competition (and the concomitant struggle for resources, markets, jobs) between the USA and China/India will inevitably move to military conflict at some future date. Why? There simply are not enough energy stores in the world to meet the needs of the three nations which, combined, make up 41 percent of the world’s population. And this excludes Indonesia and Brazil whom together make up just over 6 percent of the world’s population. The five nations make up 47 percent of the world’s population and their hunger for energy, raw materials, food, construction materials, “the better life”, is insatiable. All are pre-positioning for economic security which, of course, is an element of national security.

In State and Corporate governing circles within the five countries (USA, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil), there is a far graver threat to be dealt with: the prospect of restive populations revolting as their job prospects darken, social programs are cut, income inequality increases, and health/pension benefits become more restricted, even eliminated. Meanwhile, up above, the losing classes watch as their nation’s stock exchanges operate as though it’s business-as-usual. In this volatile environment, internal mass dissent/boycotts are, arguably, the number one threat to each nation’s security.

So where does Sri Lanka fit in?

“Indian threat perceptions have grown as China has become more active in South Asia. Sri Lanka is no exception,” said Maria Kuusisto of Eurasia Group in an interview with Kari Lispschutz of World Politics Review. “Chinese investment has expanded rapidly, including the strategically situated commercial deep-sea port in Hambantota — which is [Sri Lankan] President Mahendra “Mahinda” Rajapaksa’s home constituency — and the two-phase coal power plant in Norochcholai. During the civil war in Sri Lanka, Beijing provided unconditional diplomatic, economic and military support to the Sri Lankan government, winning significant goodwill in Colombo. And China is now offering to provide financing and technical expertise to the Sri Lankan government, which is pursuing an aggressive, multi-million dollar reconstruction program. New Delhi sees this Chinese maneuvering as an incursion into its historic sphere of influence, and is consequently trying to outbid the Chinese for strategically important infrastructure projects.”

While India and China solidify their relationships with Sri Lanka, the USA/West has had a muddled foreign policy that seems to always be fixated—no matter the region–on Iran and China. Writing in Future Directions International, Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe indicated that the European Union used the war crimes card following the defeat of the LTTE simply to punish Sri Lanka for its trade relations with Iran and China, not out of any great concern for human rights.

“Following the LTTE defeat in May, the EU sought to pursue a motion against Sri Lanka for war crimes investigations at the UN Human Rights Council, which collapsed when 29 countries of the 47-member council voted in solidarity with Sri Lanka. India itself came out strongly in support of Sri Lanka at the Council and later even criticized the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Commenting on Sri Lanka’s diplomatic feat, Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, Dayan Jayatillaka, said: ‘This is not a lesson that Sri Lanka taught the West. It is a victory of the developing countries and the global south. It was not a defeat of the Tiger Diaspora alone.

It was the defeat of a powerful bloc of forces. Geneva was a miniature diplomatic Dien Bien Phu or Bay of Pigs for the EU. The unfolding events earlier this year underscored the fact that Sri Lanka’s confrontation with the West, which has seen relations plummet to their lowest point since the 1970s, has had less to do with human rights and more to do with a fierce geopolitical struggle for influence. There is little doubt that Sri Lanka’s move to broaden relations with China and Iran, its rejection of Western demands in its internal affairs, the timing of its victory over the LTTE, and its acceptance in June 2009 as a Dialogue Partner to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) were crucial in influencing the West’s attempts to take punitive action against Sri Lanka — moves which served to further strengthen Sri Lanka’s relations with China.”

Senate Foreign Relations Report 2009: The Americans Are Coming! The Americans Are Coming!

The Sri Lanka Foundation (SLF) reports that former Sri Lankan military commander Sarath Fonseka was favored by the USA to win the Sri Lankan presidential election in 2010 over rival and current president Mahendra Rajapaksa. Fonseka was apparently awarded permanent residency in the USA, according to the SLF, and spent too much time hanging around Washington, DC during the LTTE conflict.

Fonseka is now charged with Criminal Breach of Trust by the Sri Lankan government under Sri Lanka’s Property Act.

Many Sri Lankans here in the USA and in Sri Lanka itself see Fonseka as a tool of the US government and Western interests. Others, of course, don’t.

The SLF derides the Senate Foreign Relations Report of 2009 (see link above, also known as The Kerry Report) as being the product of a dumbfounded US foreign/military policy establishment that was shocked when the Sri Lankan military defeated its LTTE nemesis. Their criticisms of US foreign policy practices (subterfuge, spreading money around via NGO’s, fanning the flames of class conflict) are certainly not without ample historical precedent.

The SLF views the purpose of the Kerry Report as this: “Their mission: to make recommendations to prevent further erosion of US security interests in the island and increase US leverage in Sri Lanka for securing longer term US strategic interests and expanding the number of tools available at Washington’s disposal.”

No problem there, that’s what the large nations do.

But then it gets very interesting. SLF goes on to say, “If the LTTE had succeeded, the US would have gained control of two thirds of Sri Lanka coastline, enabling them to secure Persian Gulf energy resources to Japan, interfere if and when the need arose, with the flow of these same resources to China, selectively interfere with free trade in the Indian Ocean, and undermine stability in India by provoking Tamil and Hindu sentiments in Tamil Nadu…To make matters worse, not only did President Rajapaksa destroy the cornerstone of US policy in the region [by defeat of the LTTE], but he was, as The Kerry Report identified, responsible for the country’s drift towards China (and the non-Western world), considered one of the biggest challengers to US hegemony of the world. All this threatens US national security interests, and President Rajapaksa is considered a threat to US National Security. US policy, the report states, has to be re-charted. A regime change is considered imperative: Rajapaksa must go.

The battle lines were drawn for January 26, 2010. The battle was not between Rajapaksa and Fonseka, but between Sri Lanka and the US. On May 18, 2009, Sri Lanka won a historic proxy war on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, defeating the scourge of terrorism [LTTE] and the threat of neocolonialism. Election day was crucial – Sri Lankans had to defeat the neocolonialist if they were to protect their victory at Nanthikadal.

The sovereignty of Sri Lanka is being challenged and is at stake…

With that in mind, it’s no wonder that Sri Lankan Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam (Cuba and Venezuela) urged Sri Lankans to study Latin American and USA relations. Writing in Why Latin America is Important for Sri Lanka she states,

“Whereas the economic performance of China and India impress most observers in Sri Lanka and much of our efforts are focused on warding off attacks from our former colonial masters and their allies who continue to have a stake in this country, we have failed to grasp the significance of the history that is being written in Latin America. Sri Lanka cannot remain indifferent to this evolution. The quality of its international relations cannot be appreciated through the narrow vision of those who judge its good health solely through the state of relations with Western powers. Sri Lankan foreign policy must take into account the reality of a world that is changing and Latin America as constituting an important factor in that change.”

Become the Switzerland of the Indian Ocean

How can Sri Lanka—with 21 million people, just .3 percent of the global populace—rebuild and reunite its tattered country after 26 years of war and a Tsunmai, while at the same time avoid Faustian economic and military bargains with the world’s giant nation-states? Can its leaders avoid the lure of bribes (in any form), the sweetheart deals that will inevitably be forthcoming, and the trappings of power?

Can the Sri Lankan people calm the ethnic turbulence between (Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim) that has plagued it and develop a common national consciousness/identity?

Can Sri Lanka avoid getting tangled in the competition between the world’s largest nations that will only escalate in the future?

DeSilva-Ranasinghe made this observation. “So far, at least, Sri Lanka appears to have successfully balanced the competing interests of India and China.” He cited the commentary of a former Sri Lankan diplomat named Jayantha Dhanapala on the delicate balancing act.

“There are elements in America and India who would like to raise the China bogey…This is not a zero sum game where our relationship with China is at the expense of our relationship with India. We cleverly balanced the relationship.”

How long that relationship can be balanced remains to be seen.

As they rebuild their country and amend their constitution, they would do well to look to Switzerland as an example of a neutral—even sane—nation state. Their survival may depend on it.

With the USA shifting focus and resources to the Indian Ocean, they’d best move quickly and warily.

by John Stanton

18 March 2010

“According to several government and civilian sources, [Michael] Furlong’s operation was funded under a $24.6 million contract by the Defense Department’s Joint IED Defeat Organization [JIEDDO], which was set up early in the Iraq war to combat insurgents’ roadside bombs. His operation was part of a larger military information program, called Capstone”, Karen DeYoung, Washington Post.

Before linking JIEDDO to Furlong’s program, it’s worth noting that the US Army Human Terrain System is in the midst of an Army 15-6 investigation. According to sources one area the investigator is looking at is the “management/leadership side and fraudulent time and attendance records.” Many in the program have high hopes for positive change.

Cultural Operations Research – Human Terrain System (COR-HTS) — now simply HTS — was originally funded by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Coincidently, JIEDDO was formerly under the command of Steve Fondacaro, who now runs the turbulent HTS program. JIEDDO received a punishing audit by the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO described JIEDDO as an ad hoc organization that did not identify, track or report all contractor personnel, and sorely lacked accounting controls. Those activities allegedly have found their way into the HTS program.

The Washington Post was correct on its JIEDDO findings and JIEDDO was a good place to bury Furlong’s program. Furlong confirmed the funding for his effort came through JIEDDO.

Sanlian Lifeweek

Pu Shi, a journalist for Sanlian Lifeweek Magazine in Beijing, has requested contact information for HTS personnel. The purpose is to explore issues associated with the alleged US government sponsorship of a private contractor assassin program allegedly run by Robert Furlong formerly of STRATCOM. Contractors perform every military task imaginable (even Personnel Recovery) so what’s the rub with hiring them to kill/capture undesirables?

At any rate, Pu Shi found this email address cioran123@yahoo.com (mine) in a message string at Men’s Journal. ”I found this email address at this website in the hope of finding Dr. Steve Fondacaro and staff [at] HTS. Please forward the email to Dr. Steve Fondacaro at your convenience.”

Famed journalist/author Robert Young Pelton had written an article on the Human Terrain System in February 2009 for MJ that caused a bit of controversy and a considerable amount of discussion. Steve Fondacaro, Program Manager of HTS, and Montgomery McFate, Senior Social Scientist, were incensed about the story and wrote to Men’s Journal questioning Pelton’s professionalism. One point of contention was Pelton’s assertion that the information collected by HTS could be used for a variety of purposes by US Army Brigade Commanders. One such use of that information is as intelligence that ultimately makes its way into the Kill Chain.

Pelton was absolutely correct on that point. But why does Pelton think his information was immune to finding its way into the Kill Chain? Given his survivalist background, it is extraordinarily difficult to accept that he was “tricked” by a 56 year old bureaucrat in the USA.

Pu Shi requested an interview with “Dr.” Steve Fondacaro and “staff” at HTS. That request was received on 16 March 2010 at roughly 6:45 PM (Eastern). I responded by pointing out that using me as a circuit to get to Mr. Fondacaro was ill-advised. But I did provide Pu Shi with the link to the Contact section of the HTS.mil website. I also offered other resources on HTS (pro-con) and suggested looking at the Washington Post’s coverage of the Furlong matter.

Four Questions for HTS Management

“To whom it may concern, I am a Chinese journalist working with Sanlian Lifeweek, one of the most widely circulated weekly magazines in China with 300,000 readers per week in more than 30 Chinese big cities. It is published by Sanlian Publishing House of China Publishing Group. Sanlian Publishing House was founded in the 1930s and is one of China’s largest publishing houses of long history. One of our topics this week is Mr. Michael D. Furlong’s private intelligence network and the role private contractors play in intelligence gathering in Afghanistan. We would really appreciate if he could kindly share your opinions with us. The interview questions are as follows, for his reference:

1. How and why has the former Army official, Michael D. Furlong’s private security network come into the attention of C.I.A. and the media? Does the surface of this episode imply some of the problems with intelligence work in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

2. Mr. Furlong is said, according American officials, to be using the network to gather intelligence to target militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the top military told the N.Y.Times that the intelligence collection is originally intended to gain a deeper understanding of the country and society. How is intelligence gathering targeted at militants and targeted at understanding a country different? How do you think Mr. Furlong’s work can be identified as tracking and killing militants?

3. What role do private contractors and companies play in intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and by large, in wars? Where is the line between the field of professional contractors and journalists and the field of military intelligence?

4. It seems that there have been frictions between the army and the freelancers in Afghanistan for long. What is behind these frictions?

Our press time is on Sunday midnight (we are 12-13 hours ahead of you). We would really appreciate if he could accept our interview. Thank you very much and we anticipate your reply!”

A Thousand Flowers Blossom From JIEDDO/HTS Efforts

This item appeared in a 2009 publication by the Rapid Reaction Technology Office titled Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism. Note that many aspects of HTS are being used for intelligence purposes. Many within HTS have argued all along that HTS is an intelligence effort.

Quoting directly from the publication:

SKOPE is a joint intelligence cell with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), SOCOM, and the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). It began with a specific request for sensors to help narrow the search space for terrorists and terror groups. The RRTO recommended the development of the SKOPE approach and was the sole funding source for the initial operating capability of the analytic cell. Currently the RRTO is developing new tools in response to specific requests from commanders based on the success and experience with this operational capability.

The SKOPE cell applies all-source, multi-intelligence analysis linked to a spot on Earth. Through its application of human terrain analysis, SKOPE incorporates aspects of the Human Terrain System (HTS), a new proof-of-concept program run by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and serving the joint community. The near-term focus of the HTS program is to improve the ability of the military to understand the highly complex, local sociocultural environment in areas of deployment. In the long term however, it is hoped that HTS will assist the U.S. government in understanding foreign countries and regions prior to an engagement within a region. According to the Army Web site, the HTS program represents the first time that social science research and advising have been done systematically, on a large scale, and at the brigade level.

[MF: For more, see the recently updated list of intelligence companies involved with HTS: Mapping the Terrain of War Corporatism: The Human Terrain System within the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex]

A view from the University of British Columbia

Aside from the extravagant natural beauty surrounding the campus, what is not shown in these photos is a campus that is smothered by endless flowering trees, with flowers one does not see elsewhere in Canada.

A view from the University of British Columbia

Thus, in a sense, the setting for our discussions could not have been worse.

To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that discussion concerning the Human Terrain System and the Minerva Research Initiative occurred in a formal venue outside of the United States. This did not impede the Human Terrain System from sending us one of their representatives, the very professional, diplomatic, and reserved Christopher A. King, who registered openly as a HTS member (printed on his badge) and handed out his HTS business cards. Christopher King came to Vancouver from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and he was “kind” enough to note that he learned of this event from this blog. We spent some time alone talking (and with my other fellow panelists, Catherine Besteman and Greg Feldman). Contrary to what some readers of this blog might have expected, there were no fireworks, no raised voices, but certainly no reconciliation either. Dr. King was interested in putting a face to this writing, and I think he will have to admit: the writing is prettier. What I suspect Dr. King discovered while here, is that there is much less ambiguity among Canadian academics, far less of the desperate search for contrived nuance because that’s where the alibis are to be found, and not much of the hastily painted gray areas, that one finds in the range of opinions about HTS among American anthropologists. Whenever I have spoken to Canadian audiences, the nearly unanimous reaction is one of outrage, disgust, and disbelief (no not towards me, I mean specifically towards HTS).

That the critical reactions from anthropologists have supposedly had an effect on HTS, contrary to what Mark Dawson suggested a while ago, was something suggested by Christopher King himself (I will not be producing a transcript from memory of everything he spoke about, not because I fear that he ever made the mistake of thinking that whatever he told me would not appear on this blog, but simply because if I did so it might lead others in the future to think that I will publicly report on everything they say in private — meanwhile, other HTS members, like one who posted on this blog today, are still willing to discuss HTS matters openly). Dr. King’s business card has the official designation of “social scientist” (which presumably is to change to “intelligence analyst” if the so-called “nationalization” of HTS is really occurring). He noted that HTS and the wider Pentagon establishment can live without anthropologists’ participation, and that some anthropologists in HTS do not even label themselves as such, but rather choose the broader term, “social scientist.” In Chris King’s case, he has a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii, and has served in Iraq, going back to before HTS was created.

The first of our sessions, titled “The Use of Culture and Anthropology in Counter-insurgency and Peacekeeping Operations,” and organized by Greg Feldman, consisted of what I, and at least some members of the audience who commented, thought were excellent papers. The panel was very well attended and a fair amount of discussion ensued. The formal abstract for the session as a whole was as follows:

Overseas military operations –whether for warfare or peacekeeping– are increasingly using academic knowledge of the culture and society of non-Western peoples. This development has invoked anthropology as a resource in cross-cultural outreach in order to facilitate relations between local peoples American and Western military forces. Proponents of the military’s use of cultural knowledge argue that it reduces the number of civilian casualties and expedites efforts to win over local populations lest otherwise innocent people be recruited by terrorist networks. Opponents argue that it constitutes an appropriation of anthropological knowledge for the purposes of expanding Western hegemony and reproducing global power hierarchies. This session will critique the military’s use of anthropological knowledge for these ends and explore other ways in which the discipline can enlarge the discussion of what “security” and “peace” could mean between peoples located in unequal power positions.

Richard Lee, professor emeritus in anthropology at the University of Toronto, led with his paper titled “Culture, Apartheid and War: Case Studies from South Africa and Israel,” a fairly courageous piece in these times when the “anti-Semitism” charge is thrown about against any and every academic (yours truly included) who dares to criticize or condemn Israeli aggression, human rights abuses, and Israel’s ongoing colonization of Palestinian lands. Dr. Lee devoted the bulk of his paper to drawing out the comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa, which Israel supported. If anything he notes that the comparison may be faulty on the grounds that the Israeli version of apartheid is far more vigorous, and brutal. He used the numerous public denunciations of those who lived under apartheid, such as Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, who have themselves made the Israeli-South African comparison, only to be promptly denounced by Israel’s extremist though mainstream Hasbara campaign as “bigots.” Lee criticized the “psycho-pathology” of contemporary Israeli Zionism in trying to lambast and intimidate all critics of the Zionist project as anti-Semitic. The paper largely stood apart from the rest in that it did not touch on the Human Terrain System or the militarization of anthropology.

Roberto J. González’s paper, “‘To Change Entire Societies’: Counterinsurgency Cults, ‘Tribes,’ and Anthropology,” was excellent. He could not be present, but his paper was read by Greg Feldman, and read perfectly. A large part of the paper was devoted to demystifying the renewed attempt to sell counterinsurgency (COIN), and the base tool of analysis that the focus on the “tribe” has become for COIN ethnography. González produced a well crafted critique of the cult of counterinsurgency as one driven by, to quote the words of Lt. Col. John Nagl, the aim “to change entire societies.” One of the analytical tools used for figuring out how to “change entire societies” is the well worn anthropological concept of “tribe” (and when I wrote about this here in a debate with a journalist, it was with keeping in mind the ample critiques mounted as far back as the 1960s by June Helm, Michael Moerman, Edmund Leach, and Morton Fried — the military is still stuck on ANTH 101 instead. Note also the vulgarization, if not underlying racism of the concept of “wild tribes” used by the Associated Press). As if the revival of outdated anthropological concepts was not enough, González informed us that some U.S. soldiers refer to Iraq and Afghanistan as “Indian Country” and the “Wild West.” That counterinsurgency programs in both of these countries have deliberately sought to conduct colonial “divide and rule” strategies, was also discussed in the paper. (The divide and rule is not just oriented along “tribal” or ethnic lines either, I would add, but also along the lines of gender, putting women and girls on the front line against the Taliban in a cynical and extremely dangerous exploitation of gender issues to advance imperialism.) I especially liked González’s conclusion, pertinent to our overall efforts at this conference:

Anthropologists might yet play a role in humanizing the human sciences by challenging persistent and damaging assumptions, often taking the form of propaganda perpetuated by the most powerful members of our society: the idea that counterinsurgency is a “gentler” form of warfare; the notion that Iraqis and Afghans are incapable of self-government (or “civilized” behavior); a belief in the inevitability of a “clash of civilizations” between the West and the rest; and the pernicious, stubborn ideology of American exceptionalism. Provided anthropologists and other social scientists can continue to work independently from government and the military, we can also contribute critical thought, reflection, and action.

Catherine Besteman’s “‘Beware of Those Bearing Gifts’: Anthropology and AFRICOM,” was also very engaging, and one of the best pieces I have come across that deals with AFRICOM so succinctly, while bringing the discussion around to HTS (thanks to Montgomery McFate for telegraphing this eventuality in an interview with Charlie Rose). Much of the paper focused on the emergence and construction of AFRICOM as essentially a militarization of what was previously a civilian component of American foreign policy, one that seems driven to create a situation of permanent war in Africa, and one developed with an eye on competition with China for control of the continent’s natural resources (we could add, following David Harvey’s analysis, that the U.S. uses its military to threaten to turn off the taps to natural resources that China’s industries need, as a form of leverage and to ensure continued lending from China). How might anthropologists get involved with civilian, humanitarian efforts? Besteman repeatedly emphasized that there are African civil society organizations, and those are the ones that anthropologists should join, should they be serious in their claims of “wanting to help.”

Greg Feldman’s “Slaying the Hydra: Challenging the Military’s “Cultural Turn” beyond the Human Terrain,” was very captivating and sharp. The two prongs of the paper were, (1) the unintentional limits of our response to HTS, and, (2), the basis of a stronger counterargument to the military’s “cultural turn”, of which HTS is only one manifestation. First, Feldman warned us of the limitations of a liberal critique of HTS, since it is founded on a liberal claim of wanting to develop cross-cultural understanding to achieve peace, one of the loud selling points used by anthropologists in their very own introductory courses in universities and colleges. Second, he warns that the defeat of HTS is not the defeat of the cultural turn by the U.S. military establishment, hence the reference to the Hydra. Most critically, Feldman ended his paper by explaining that the kind of difference desired by the West through multiculturalism and liberal aims of cross-cultural understanding, is a difference emptied of its substance, like wanting coffee without the caffeine, or beer without alcohol:

What Western powers call cultural understanding for the sake of peace is, in fact, a rejection of cultural difference and a violent one at that as it eviscerates the substance out of difference. Therefore, the argument necessary to undermine the Hydra’s logic is that liberalism and its multicultural embrace is itself an act of violence precisely because it seeks to eradicate the differences it claims to uphold. That is why anthropologists cannot support it.

Finally, as I spoke last, my paper titled “‘Useless Anthropology’: Strategies for Dealing with the Militarization of the Academy,” will be presented in full on this blog, in a subsequent posting, along with a copy of a related paper I presented last November. For now, let me say that the paper very much followed the outline presented in the abstract I submitted:

Useful, objective, and scientific, are again the buzzwords for an anthropology aligned with power, in the service of the national security state, furthering imperial agendas and removing the militarization of the academy beyond the sphere of “politics”. What are strategies and responses that can be envisioned and implemented? Possibilities range from changes to the nature and role of ethnography, institutional and individual responses to American hegemony in anthropology, activist research and writing, and collaborations reaching outside the academy. Ultimately, the key question is how we think about anthropology and its social positioning.

I will end here, for now, leaving the rest of the report from the conference for the next posting.

For example, I was curious to learn if a lot of people search for Adolf Hitler, that is, how popular he might remain as a historical figure, as compared to someone who I believe was genuinely loved by a far greater number of people, Mahatma Gandhi. The meaning of the results is not by any means unambiguous. What is interesting is that the popularity of the “Adolf Hitler,” and Hitler- and Nazi-related searches, is still vastly greater than for Gandhi. At the same time, the interest in Gandhi is steady, almost a straight line on the graph, while for Hitler the fluctuations are extreme, and the peaks seem to recur at the same time each year (is there a Hitler holiday?). (See the overall results here.)

Comparative worldwide popularity of online searches for "Adolf Hitler" (blue) and "Mahatma Gandhi" (red), for 2004-2009

Hitler is relatively more popular in web searches in Norway, Germany, and Nigeria, in that order. Gandhi, on the other hand, is most popular in India, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates (I assume the reason for the UAE being third is due to the presence of a large number of Indian workers). Gandhi is not just of interest along strict religious lines either, since the next top three areas of interest are Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and El Salvador, all three being predominantly Roman Catholic.

Relative regional interest in "Adolf Hitler," 2004-2009

Relative regional interest in "Mahatma Gandhi," 2004-2009

Having heard for sometime that “sex” and sex-related searches far outstripped any other searches conducted by web users, I had to check if relatively more searches for sex were registered compared with other burning issues of interest, both here in North America, and to varying extents worldwide. I thus compared sex with money, terrorism, and god. The results were surprising, to some degree. (See the overall results here.)

Sex, by very far, is a more popular search term than even money, terrorism, and god combined. Moreover, these interests seem to be stable in each case, which to me suggests that there is less room for ambiguity on the matter. That does not put all questions to rest, as the results cover up a great deal of complexity that ethnographic approaches would be better at uncovering.

Worldwide popularity of "sex" (blue), "money" (red), "terrorism" (orange), and "god" (green) in online searches, 2004-2009

What is interesting is that sex is the subject of greatest interest in Pakistan, Vietnam, and Bangladesh — and interestingly Sudan is in the top 10. Money is a prominent subject of online interest in the United Kingdom, the United States, and India. What about terrorism, which in my mind was a subject of especially intense interest in North America? No North American country ranks in the top 10. The top three are Pakistan, Ethiopia, and India. Trinidad and Tobago, where I did my research for several years, is ranked at 7.  When it comes to searching for god online, here the Caribbean dominates among the top three places with a popular interest in god: Jamaica, the Philippines, and Trinidad and Tobago, in that order. For me this is very interesting — after years of endless condemnations by local priests and media commentators on what they perceived to be the “lazy,” “carefree,” and “sexually debauched” lifestyle of Trinidadians, their Internet habits show that they are most interested in god, and terrorism, rather than sex and money — living in fear, rather than living in joy?

Relative regional interest in "sex" searches online, 2004-2009

Relative regional interest in "money" in online searches, 2004-2009

Relative regional interest in "terrorism" in online searches, 2004-2009

Relative regional interest in "god" in online searches, 2004-2009. Note that Jamaica (#1) and Trinidad & Tobago (#3), do not appear clearly on this map.

Questions, more than conclusions

It is not surprising that ethnographers should prefer to interact with living individuals, one on one, and spend large amounts of time learning about their everyday lives and immersing themselves in as much of their realities as possible. Looking at these statistics, by themselves, could lead one to arrive at some rather bizarre conclusions; they could also be the basis for some exciting new questions, both for online and offline ethnography.

For example, since the statistics show the relative interest in a given term for a given population, one has to ask: who tends to have greater Internet access in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sudan, with such large Muslim populations and such an interest in sex online? Sudan, in the grips of a civil war, has individuals searching for sex online in great numbers? Why? Is it to target something to ban, or is it a relief from death and conflict? Why is Hitler apparently so popular in Norwegian web searches — is it related to some of the aesthetics of “death metal” and “black metal”? Or is there a genuine social interest in Hitler broadly speaking? (I am worried of course that as a result of such statistics some might rush to the conclusion that “Norwegians are a bunch of Nazis…and Germans are at least closet Nazis.”)

What kind of “sex” are people looking for? Does it necessarily imply “pornography” (which is not a concept that is either universal in usage or meaning)? Given the industrialization of sex, through prostitution, films, strip clubs, and human trafficking, how are “sex” and “money” so easily and widely separated in the results shown above?

That a nation has relatively more people interested in “terrorism” means what? That they fear it, or that they feel they have been pinpointed in the international media as a source of it, and therefore persons check to see what is being said about their country with reference to “terrorism”? For example, given the high rate of rejection faced by Trinidadians applying for U.S. visas, the presence of groups such as the Jama’at al Muslimeen in Trinidad, and the tendency of other nations to produce travel advisories that could affect local tourism, might it be that this is the reason for such a seemingly heavy Trinidadian interest in terrorism, rather than an expression of their own “fear,” or that they might share the “national security” mindset of Washington elites?

In addition, these search statistics are based on the English words that were used, as far as I know, unless Google is providing automatic translation so as to compile globally comprehensive results (I am not aware of their doing this for these purposes). If, as I suspect, a search for “sex” is a search for sex in English, then the question that presents itself is of the “native point of view.” Is “sex” a popular search term for most Vietnamese, or just for the few who speak English, or for the few Anglophone expatriates living there who conduct their online searches in English? Or is “sex” universally used as an online search term, regardless of users’ native languages, since they might feel that the English search term might bring up more results? In addition, it seems that a particular search term must achieve a substantial (though unspecified) measure of popularity for the term to even appear in Google Insights’ results — therefore, would there be enough Anglophone expatriates in Vietnam searching for “sex” in English to account for the strong relative popularity of the search term there?

By choosing “sex” myself, and discovering that in comparison to other places that also search for “sex” Pakistan ranks highly, does that tell us anything about the overall value of “sex” in Pakistani online searches as a whole? No, because I do not know what are the top Internet search terms used by Pakistani web users, nor would I know what their particular interest in sex is (what if it is about the sexual reproduction of horses?), or whether it is about sex as a category rather than as an act. Moreover, other, more comprehensive and detailed studies of Internet pornography and sex statistics clearly show U.S. dominance in production of pornographic sites, which is what I expected,  with China being the world leader in pornography revenues, while a greater variety of sex search terms show that Bolivia and South Africa can appear to be leaders in searches (see here).

And what happened to the “borderless” world of “globalization” and “cultural flows”? Of course most of us knew this to be hype, even when produced by anthropologists for the consumption of other anthropologists. Borders, boundaries and barriers matter more than ever in our world. But do they matter so much that the interest in “sex” stops at Pakistan’s border with India?

Addendum:

Why does Ethiopia appear so frequently, both in these results and in the results shown in the previous post? Is this some sort of statistical anomaly that is the by product of Google Insights’ own particular ways of scaling and normalizing data?

Democratic Republic of Congo

I am grateful to Ken Anderson for notifying readers of this blog of his article published in The Public Record titled, “Imperial Clash on the Congo Resource Front” (16 December 2009). I had promised myself to feature this earlier, but as with so much other intended writing for this blog, a large backlog formed given the rush of current events. Having said that, Anderson’s article is very much current, about imperial wars by proxy masked by the media as “ethnic conflict,” part of what we might call a twenty-first century Scramble for Africa. Indeed, anthropology has been at the forefront of the demystification of the politics of the “tribe” since the 1960s, that to see this logic reinvented in the case of the mass media’s reporting on Afghanistan tells us how little we have progressed in furthering public understanding, even when journalists themselves are confronted with these arguments (as they were here on this blog).

AFRICOM (the U.S. military’s new Africa Command, which promises to incorporate new Human Terrain Teams), is firmly situated within this neo-colonial imbroglio between the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, U.S. mining corporations, and China. Anderson’s detailed research and careful analysis is well worth reading.

Given the copyright restrictions governing the article, I will only post select extracts below with my own annotations.

•••••••

Rwanda is one of the military contenders for securing access to Congo’s rich mineral deposits that are illegally extracted and provide vital inputs from everything from cell phones to jet turbines and Tomahawk missiles. With reference to Rwanda, Anderson points out:

Rwandan president Paul Kagame is essentially a US military asset planted in central Africa, having been trained at US military command school in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas up until the Uganda-backed invasion of Rwanda by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) in 1990. The invasion led to the installation of Kagame as president. He remains firmly entrenched in Kigali, with enthusiastic US support.

A United Nations panel that was charged with documenting the illegal extraction of mineral wealth from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), pointed to a complex array of military and corporate interests behind the violence in the region, noting there is,

an array of 119 different companies involved in mining operations and transportation of minerals, including 12 companies based in the United Kingdom, 9 United States firms, 21 companies based in Belgium, 12 in South Africa, 4 in Germany, 5 in Canada and 2 in Switzerland.  Many of the 29 companies that were found in violation of law, though registered in Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, were really just front operations for western firms operating in conjunction with local Ugandan, Rwandan and Congolese government officials.  Israeli firms operating in the Congo mining theatre had close ties to the government in Kinshasa, as well as to luminaries of the Democratic Party in the United States.

The so-called renegade armies operating in the region fund themselves by acting as gatekeepers for illegal resource extraction, while the Congolese national treasury crumbles and, with it, social spending. Anderson proceeds to criticize the narratives produced by dominant Western media, governments, and even some NGOs in producing “cover for western corporate involvement in the virulent, deadly corruption that sits at the heart of the Congolese wars.”

In 2006, when a reformist Joseph Kabila won office, a commitment was made to review all contracts with Western mining companies operating in the DRC. The result of the DRC’s review the following year came with a realignment of the DRC’s international connections, favouring China because China in return favoured local economic development without the political conditionalities of agencies such as the International Monetary Fund:

Subsequent to the announcement of the mining contract review, Kabila’s government announced that it would sign a multi-billion dollar agreement with the Chinese government (now standing at $9 billion) that would give the Chinese direct access to mineral resources in exchange for a host of infrastructure projects, including roads, hospitals and health care centers, schools, railroads, housing, and two hydroelectric projects.  This is not altruistic, obviously. The Sino-Congolese agreement consigns the Chinese a 68% share in the joint venture and the rights to two large cobalt and copper concessions, while the proposed road and rail systems will obviously be used for mineral transport.  Opposition parties criticized the deal, claiming that Kabila intended to “sell off our natural heritage to the detriment of several generations,” words that ring hollow in light of the organized plunder of recent years. In fact, considering how little Congo has received from western interests in the region, China’s planned expenditures would be a veritable boon to the country.  True to China’s diplomatic and business form in Africa and elsewhere, the deal came with no imposition of the kind of “political reform” that usually accompanies financial investment from western institutions such as the IMF.

As Western mining companies, which had benefited from illegal extraction within Congo, and that had recruited private militias, suddenly saw their stocks crumble, a new development occurred. In came AFRICOM, and competition against China was critical to this supposed “humanitarian” and “development” effort in the hands of the U.S. military and some suspiciously compliant American development NGOs (the term “non-governmental” is getting to be seriously abused beyond repair):

US State and Defense Department advisor, Dr. J. Peter Pham, informed Congress that AFRICOM necessarily would be focused on China’s movements in Africa and that China was the only “near-peer competitor” to the United States.

China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels, roughly a third of its imports, come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). … Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a three-year, $3 billion program in preferential loans and expanded aid for Africa. These funds come on top of the $3 billion in loans and $2 billion in export credits that Hu announced in October 2006 at the opening of the historic Beijing summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) which brought nearly fifty African heads of state and ministers to the Chinese capital. Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa, especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline, will increasingly become a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources.

Children mining coltan in Congo. Photograph by Mvemba Phezo Dizolele.

The DRC is a vital source of coltan ore, possessing 80% of the world’s supply, from which both niobium and tantalum are derived. The U.S. military exhausted its stockpile of tantalum in 2007, and has only refurbished it two thirds of its 2006 level. Tantalum is used in the manufacture of electronic capacitors.

As for some of the “rebel” armies, Anderson notes that while proclaiming their interest in defending themselves against ethnic violence and ethnic injustice, they occasionally add some “unusual” items to their lists of demands, such as this one, where in an interview a rebel general,

voiced his opposition to a $9 billion US deal that allows China access to Congo’s vast mineral reserves in exchange for infrastructure improvements.

Toward the conclusion of his article, Anderson is unsparing toward the mainstream media in the West and the hypocrisy of those will spare no passion in denouncing 19th century colonization of Africa, while turning a blind eye to the current wave of recolonization:

Current conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo are only the latest in a long and shameful legacy of western misemployment and exploitation.  Millions suffer, millions die, and our political class and complicit media organs shout and cry about all the ethnic tension they claim leads to this suffering.  Never are the operations and fortunes of western corporate interests mentioned, nor too the presence of US and European military troops who are there, aiding and abetting the slaughter.

Indeed, so ready are the powers that be, and their supporters, ready to absolve themselves that, as Anderson notes, Condoleeza Rice, adding to her repertoire of scandalous distortions, said that the U.S. was “dragged” into Iraq. We all need to do whatever we can to “drag” them out of their chosen interventions and wars of conquest. May severe economic crisis and worldwide resistance visit some “birth pangs” in the imperial household.

•••••••

Coltan Mining in the Congo

•••••••

Also see Ken Anderson’s robust blog on many related matters:

SHOCKFRONT.ORG

•••••••

RELATED REPORTS AND ANALYSES:

The UN’s Latest Disgrace in Eastern Congo

by Michael Keating
12 December 2008
Dissident Voice

“Looters’ War” in the Congo
UN report exposes role of Canadian mining companies

by Jooneed Khan
3 November 2008
The Dominion

Over Five Million Dead in Congo? Fifteen Hundred People Daily?
Behind the Numbers Redux: How Truth is Hidden, Even When it Seems to Be Told

by Keith Harmon Snow
4 February 2008
Dissident Voice

Canada in the Congo War:
Role of mining, resource extraction has been neglected

by Gwalgen Geordie Dent
14 May 2007
The Dominion

Mining the Congo:
Canadian mining companies in the DRC

by Gwalgen Geordie Dent
26 May 2007
The Dominion

_______