Feb 102011
 

By Stephen Lendman

              [print_link]

Perhaps George Bernard Shaw was thinking of Obama’s administration when he said, “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for the appointment of the corrupt few.” 

Obama upholds the tradition and then some, doing more harm globally in two years than most of history’s tinpot despots in decades, yet most of it gets little attention. Imagine what’s planned ahead. Already, his legacy includes:

• breaking every key promise he made across the board;

• looting the nation’s wealth, wrecking the economy, and consigning growing millions to impoverishment  without jobs, homes, savings, social services, or futures; 

• enacting greater Wall Street empowerment, disguised as financial reform;

• expanding unbridled militarism through continued foreign wars, occupations, and stepped up aggression on new fronts with the largest defense budget in history – greater than the rest of the world combined at a time America has no enemies;

• partnering with Israel’s regional reign of terror, occupation, and imperial designs;

• presiding over a bogus democracy under a homeland police state apparatus;

• continuing the worst of the Bush administration’s lawlessness and torture policies;

• targeting whistleblowers, dissenters, Muslims, and environmental and animal rights activists called terrorists;

• illegally spying on Americans as aggressively as George Bush;

• sacrificing Net Neutrality for greater corporate control and profits;

• destroying decades of hard won labor rights;

• eroding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other New Deal and Great Society social gains;

• trying to control the media more aggressively than Nixon, according to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas;

• refusing help for budget-stricken states like California, Illinois, Michigan and New York; forcing them to impose austerity by gutting welfare programs, education, health care for the poor, and other vital services at a time they’re most needed;

• proliferating commodified education nationally, ending government responsibility for it, and making it another business profit center;

• enacting healthcare reform that taxes more, provides less, places profits above human need, and makes a dysfunctional system worse;

• passing agribusiness empowerment at the expense of small farmers and consumers, disguised as food safety modernization;

• instituting coup d’etat regime change in Honduras against its democratically elected president;

• plundering Haiti, ignoring its needs, rigging its elections, and refusing to let Jean-Bertrand Aristide return;

• supporting some of the world’s most ruthless, corrupt tyrants; and

• planning American-style regime change in Egypt, its vice president of torture in charge; continuing old policies surrounded by Washington-controlled new faces, denying Egyptian masses freedoms they’re willing to die for.

Since taking office, Obama fronted for wealth, power, and imperial poison globally, including hardline homeland control. No wonder James Petras called him:  ”the greatest con-man in recent history,” comparing him to “Melville’s Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket. He gives thanks as he packs you off to fight wars in the Middle East on behalf of a foreign country. He solemnly mouths vacuous pieties while he empties your Social Security funds to bail out the arch financiers who swindled your pension investments. He appoints and praises the architects of collapsed pyramid schemes to high office while promising” better times ahead.

He also called him “America’s first Jewish president,” Israel’s man, delivering unconditional support for policies harming America. He “crossed the River Jordan,” backing its “colonial power in a strategic region of the” world, no matter how threatening “to world peace (and) US democratic values….”

Even New York Times writers Helene Cooper and Mark Landler noticed in their February 4 article headlined, “US Trying to Balance Israel’s Needs in the Face of Egyptian Reform,” saying:

Besides whatever emerges in Egypt, its street protests  “are rocking an even more fundamental relationship for the United States – its (unconditional) 60-year alliance with Israel.” Former “peace negotiator” Daniel Levy worries about:   ”apres Mubarak, le deluge,” saying that’s “the core of what is the American interest in this. It’s Israel” uber alles. “It’s not worry about whether the Egyptians are going to close down the Suez Canal, or even the narrower terror issue.”

White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, assured Israeli officials that “our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable,” no matter the risk to our own. Imagine, however, the irony of Israel, Washington, and Western powers voicing concern about emerging democracy in Egypt, revealing their commitment to prevent it.

Imagine the courage of millions of Egyptians facing off against commonplace regime torture, disappearances, assassinations and other abuses to assure absolute autocratic control. 

US State Department Report Exposes Egypt’s Human Rights Abuses Under Mubarak

On March 11, 2010, the US State Department documented them in its “2009 Human Rights Report: Egypt,” accessed through the following link:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136067.htm

Abuses covered included:

• “arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life;

• disappearance(s);

• torture, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

• (horrific) prison and detention center conditions;

• arbitrary arrest(s) and detention(s);

• (the corrupt, brutal) police and security apparatus;

• (lawless) arrest procedures and treatment while in detention;

• denial of fair public trial(s);

• (lawless) trial procedures;

• (numerous) political prisoners and detainees;

• (corrupt courts denying) civil judicial procedures and remedies;

• (restricted) freedom of speech and press;

• (lack of) Internet freedom;

• (restricted) academic freedom and cultural events;

• (impeded) freedom of assembly;

• (obstructed) freedom of association;

• (compromised exercise of) freedom of religion;

• societal abuses and discrimination;

• (few) protectio(s for) refugees (and asylum seekers);

• (denied) political rights, (including) the right of citizens to change their government;

• (undemocratic) elections and political participation;

• official corruption and (lack of) government transparency;

• governmental attitude regarding international and (NGO) investigation(s) of alleged violations of human rights;

• discrimination, societal abuses, and trafficking in persons;

• (no legal protections for) persons with disabilities;

• societal abuses, discrimination, and acts of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity; (and)

• other societal violence or discrimination,” including highly restricted worker rights.

In its “Situation of Human Rights in Egypt 2009″ report, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) covered the same ground as the State Department, documenting specific numbers of violations by type.

Nonetheless, despite three decades of Mubarak’s autocratic brutality, Reuters (on January 29, 2011) cited the Congressional Research Service saying Washington “has given Egypt an average of $2 billion annually since 1979,” making it America’s “second largest recipient of US aid after Israel.”

Egypt’s military gets most of it, largely for internal control for a nation with no foreign threat. A recently WikiLeaks released 2009 US embassy cable said:

“President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the USD 1.3 billion in annual FMF as ‘untouchable compensation’ for making and maintaining peace with Israel. The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the US military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace.”

The funding is also recycled to US defense contractors, supplying military goods and services. Moreover, in 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said military aid to Egypt comes “without conditions. And that is our sustained position.”

Waltzing with Despots – Rich, Corrupt Ones

On February 4, London Guardian writer Phillip Inman headlined, “Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts,” adding:

Mubarak stashed his wealth in UK and Swiss banks as well as US, UK, and Red Sea coast property. “According to a report last year in the Arabic newspaper Al Khabar, (he) has properties in Manhattan and exclusive Beverly Hills addresses on Rodeo Drive. His sons, Gamal and Alaa, are also billionaires.”

Durham University’s Professor Christopher Davidson said he, his wife and sons accumulated massive wealth through business partnerships with foreign investors and companies, dating back to when he was in the military and in a position to benefit from corporate corruption, giving back more than he got.

He’s also invested in Egyptian real estate, including choice Sharm el-Sheikh properties. Like other global despots and corporate bosses, he amassed his fortune the old-fashioned way. He stole it, stashing most discretely offshore.

Egypt Under Mubarak: Key Washington Offshore Rendition/Torture Destination

On February 4, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen headlined, “Obama’s gambit: Holding Egypt for Holder,” saying:

Torture/renditions date from the Clinton administration. “In fact, Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, now Obama’s Attorney General, was the first Department of Justice official to write a legal brief authorizing the rendition of alleged terrorists from third countries by the CIA to Egypt for purposes of interrogation and torture.”

Moreover, Egypt specializes in disappearances after torture and interrogations are completed. For his part, “Holder has long been a coddler of torturous regimes,” including Egypt’s. 

Its methods include “hanging prisoners by all four limbs and placing electric nodules on their genitals, nipples and feet. The CIA paid Egypt handsomely to carry out the torture program,” its own specialty since the 1950s.

In the 1990s, Holder and then White House chief of staff Leon Panetta signed off on CIA renditions to Egypt. As head of the agency under Obama, Panetta publicly endorsed it globally, despite administration pledges to end torture.

Notably, Omar Suleiman, now Egypt’s vice president and the man Washington wants to lead an interim government, ran Egypt’s torture program for the CIA as General Intelligence Directorate (EGID) head. He also maintains close ties with Mossad on issues relating to Palestine and Syria, as well being allied with other Arab intelligence service chiefs serving imperial Washington.

Obama’s waffling on Mubarak “is intended to buy time for the CIA to appropriate the Egyptian government’s torture and rendition files that date back to Holder’s original authorization….” Moreover, Secretary of State Clinton wants her husband protected, and Panetta has the same aim.

“The CIA has embarked on a policy of suppressing the Egyptian revolution until all potentially (incriminating) documents and computer files” are moved to Washington. Its working “behind the scenes in Egypt advising the security forces and army” to buy time and secure plausible deniability of complicity with the worst of Mubarak’s crimes, backed, of course, by generous US aid.

A Final Comment

Throughout Egypt, millions courageously keep protesting for democratic freedoms, including free and open elections for candidates they choose. In contrast, old order Egyptians, imperial Washington, other Western powers, and Israel are determined to prevent it.

On February 6, Al Jazeera headlined, “Egypt impasse continues,” saying:

“Banks and businesses are re-opening, but the pro-democracy protesters are still out there,” their demands so far unmet. They face long odds against determined pressure to deny them. Moreover, even with partial success, holding it will be precarious at best. Dark forces never quit. They have ferocious power, and aren’t shy about using it.

As a result, democratic freedoms never come easily. Often, armed insurrections are needed, but also well organized mass actions. In America, it took decades of struggle to end slavery. Women needed a century of activism to be enfranchised. Sustained freedom marches won civil rights, and only after many years of organizing, taking to the streets, going on strike, holding boycotts, battling police and National Guard forces, and paying with their blood and lives did workers win real rights. All of it came bottom up, none top down, and in all cases effective leadership was essential.

So far, Egyptians are courageously committed. Whether it’s enough to prevail is very much up for grabs against Egyptian and imperial might. 

Yet global rallies visibly show support, including on February 5, an international mobilization day in solidarity with Egyptian, Tunisian and others in the region wanting freedom.

A Facebook statement says:

“History speaks once. Now is our time. Now is our moment. We must take to the streets and stand in solidarity” with millions “across the Arab world and in the centers of power.” If not for Western imperial aid, “these dictatorships would have fallen long ago.”

Courageous protestors are determined to succeed now. Maybe, just maybe, their time has come. And imagine that spirit spreading globally, including throughout developed countries. They’re more rhetorical than real democracies, especially in America where millions yearn, but don’t rally for real change.
__________________ 

STEPHEN LENDMAN lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 102011
 

Vallen’s engagé art images eloquently trace the criminal history of Ronald Reagan’s imperial presidency

BY MARK VALLEN
[print_link]

Editor’s Note: With this post, we extend a warm welcome to Mark as a new member of The Greanville Post editorial team. We look forward to more essays on social realism, its place in today’s U.S. culture, and the great heritage of other engagé artists, notably the great Mexican muralists.

R  O  N  A  L  D   R  E  A  G  A  N   would have turned 100 on Sunday, February 6, 2011, and many U.S. citizens are celebrating this centenary from coast to coast with frenzied idolization, praise, and adulation for the “Great Communicator.”

BELOW: “Nuclear Cowboy” – Mark Vallen 1985. Offset flyer. 8.5 x 14 inches.

As my beloved country undergoes another bout of historical amnesia that is every bit as debilitating as the Alzheimer’s disease our acclaimed 40th President was known to have suffered from, a comforting blanket of forgetfulness descends upon the land. As Reagan himself affirmed in 1988, “facts are stupid things,” but oh what the passage of time and a little bit of corporate propaganda can do to wipe away silly truths.

Memories of Reagan supporting the rightist lunatic Generalissimos and terrorist death squads of Central America have been banished. Likewise, all recollections of his financing, training, and arming Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan have been forgotten; so too his support of the white minority racist regime in South Africa. All unhappy episodes from the B-actor’s mediocre career have been erased, and America is once again stuck in “Re-Ron” mode.

Lending a helping hand to relieve us of historic recall, is none other than that newly celebrated orator, President Obama. A day before his 2011 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama published an op-ed piece in USA Today that praised “the sense of confidence and optimism President Reagan never failed to communicate to the American people (….)

He understood that it is always ‘Morning in America.’ That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.” Who can resist our Nobel Laureate President’s inducement to fall into deep, unwakeable slumber? Certainly not America’s feeble liberal class, now falling all over itself in order to sound “Reaganesque.”

It is difficult to avoid being caught up in the hero-worship surrounding Ronald Reagan, and I feel compelled to deepen the national exaltation of the “The Gipper” with my own burnt offerings. But I must warn you dear reader, my version of the Reagan chronicles might seem decidedly heretical. My alternate take on his saga is here conveyed through the graphics I created during his time in office. Mind you, the images I have selected for this article are but a smattering of the anti-Reagan artworks I created during his ignoble reign, yet they help provide a more complete picture of the period, for the so-called “Teflon President” faced broad, implacable, and widespread opposition to his backward-looking and retrograde policies.

My intentionally crude Xerox photomontage, Nuclear Cowboy (see above), was used as the central image for a flyer that announced a mass protest against President Reagan at a $1,000 dollar a plate fundraising dinner for the G.O.P. at the L.A. Century Plaza Hotel, August 22, 1985.
The text outside of the image running up the left-side of the flyer reads, “There will be a soup-line for those who cannot attend the G.O.P. dinner.”

The protest was organized and sponsored by a variety of organizations, from the Alliance For Survival and the Coalition For A Free South Africa, to Jews United For Peace and Justice and the Committee In Solidarity With The People of El Salvador (CISPES). Reagan addressed the fundraiser, and the demonstration was attended by approximately 10,000 protestors, making it one of the major rallies against the policies of Reagan to be held in Los Angeles during the 1980s.

Just two months prior to the protest, Reagan escalated his illegal and unilateral war against Nicaragua by declaring a crippling economic embargo against the Central American nation, accusing its leftist Sandinista government of backing “armed insurrection, terrorism, and subversion in neighboring countries.” Reagan declared his embargo after the U.S. Congress had rejected his request for tens of millions of dollars for the “Contra” guerrillas the White House had organized, financed, armed, and directed in military attacks against Nicaragua.

LEFT: “Soldier Of Fortune” – Mark Vallen. 1985. Photomontage. 8.5 x 11 inches.

Soldier Of Fortune was my parody photomontage flyer lambasting the militaristic policies of the Reagan administration. I altered a cover of the rightwing magazine, Soldier of Fortune (an extreme rightist publication in the U.S. that openly recruited American mercenaries in the early 80s to fight in South Africa, Afghanistan, and Central America), inserting a photomontage of Reagan as the supreme mercenary commando, along with some tantalizingly jingoistic headlines. The tagline of “Shock Battalion” appearing at the bottom of the photomontage was the name of an arts collective I founded in the 1980s that primarily unleashed anonymous creative acts. The flyer was published as a color Xerox print.

“America Wins! Raiders of Grenada,” was a reference to Reagan’s 1983 military invasion of the island nation of Grenada, which was viewed by the world community as a flagrant violation of international law. The invasion was a classic example of U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean, and the assault was roundly condemned by the United Nations General Assembly, not to mention U.S. allies Canada and the United Kingdom. Reagan’s invasion of Grenada was the first major U.S. military action since the Vietnam war, and many were convinced Reagan would invade Nicaragua next – hence the headline in my parody, “Nicaragua Next: Shooting the Sandinistas, Our New National Pastime.” Also included as a headline was Reagan’s infamous “joke” about nuking the Soviet Union, “The Bombing Begins In Five Minutes.”

While campaigning for re-election in 1984, Reagan let slip his “witticism” to radio technicians while preparing for his weekly Saturday address on National Public Radio. The Commando in Chief’s quip went as follows; “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The recorded jibe was leaked and people around the world were naturally horrified. The Soviet Red Army was actually placed on high alert after hearing of the crack-pot remark. The joke soon found its way onto flyers, posters, and protest signs around the globe. Musicians Jerry Harrison (Talking Heads) and Bootsy Collins (Parliament-Funkadelic) sampled Reagan’s sinister comment, turning it into a 1984 hit dance record titled “Five Minutes.”Harrison and Collins released their record under the name “Bonzo goes to Washington,” a reference to Reagan’s starring role in the 1951 B-movie, Bedtime for Bonzo.


RIGHT: “Divest Now!” – Mark Vallen. 1985. Offset flyer. 8.5 x 11 inches.
Divest Now! was a flyer I created in 1985 for the anti-apartheid student movement then active on the campus of UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles).

At the time students throughout California were engaged in an aggressive campaign to force the UC system to “divest,” i.e., to withdraw the huge financial investments made in the apartheid regime of South Africa.

The UC Regents supported apartheid by investing 30% of the UC system’s portfolio in corporations and financial institutions that conducted $1.7 billion worth of business transactions with South Africa.

Through unrelenting militant struggle the students eventually forced the UC system to divest their holdings in South Africa, helping to pave the way for the total collapse of the rotten apartheid regime.

My flyer announced an “Evening of Cultural Resistance” in celebration of the student occupation of the UCLA administration building, a takeover that demanded divestment, the release of Nelson Mandela, and an end to all U.S. military and financial support to the racist South African regime. The event took place in “Mandela City,” a tent encampment students had illegally set-up adjacent to the administration building. During that evening’s staging in front of a hundred striking students, I performed a multi-projection antiwar slide show, and singer-songwriter Carole King dropped in unannounced to lend her support and sing a few songs. The performer listed as “Hollywatts,” would in the future go on to use his real name, Roger Guenveur Smith, appearing in several productions by Director Spike Lee.

It must be noted that L.A. student opposition to UC investment in apartheid was also part of the broader national and international refusal to accept Reagan’s support of the criminal South African regime. Reagan maintained a very friendly relationship with that government, considering it an ally in his fanatical crusade against “communism.”  The Reagan administration viewed Nelson Mandela’s ANC (African National Congress) as a “terrorist” organization under the influence of the Soviet Union, and Reagan himself vetoed a congressional bill to impose economic sanctions against the government of South Africa.

LEFT: “We Abhor Apartheid” – Mark Vallen. 1985. Offset flyer. 8.5 x 11 inches.

We Abhor Apartheid was another street flyer I created in 1985 as a satirical barb aimed at Reagan’s policy of propping up the South African racists.
I self-published five thousand copies of this flyer, all of which were distributed throughout Los Angeles.
By depicting Reagan in the company of other well known “opponents” of racism, the mocking image made fun of Reagan’s hypocritical avowal “that apartheid is very repugnant to us.”

In a 1985 radio interview with WSB Radio of Atlanta, Georgia, Reagan said the regime in South Africa had “eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country, the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated, that has all been eliminated.” That was of course a bald-faced lie. In the same interview the “Great Communicator” went on to sound off about South Africa, “I have to say that for us to believe the Soviet Union is not, in its usual style, stirring up the pot and waiting in the wings for whatever advantage they can take, we’d be very innocent, naive, if we didn’t believe that they’re there.”

LEFT: “March Rally/Marcha y Mitin – Mark Vallen. 1985. Offset poster on newsprint. 13.5 x 22 inches. Poster announcing a mass antiwar demonstration in downtown Los Angeles.

March Rally/Marcha y Mitin, was a drawing I created for the “April 20 Coalition.” In opposition to the reactionary policies of Reagan, the national protest group organized mass demonstrations in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that took place on April 20, 1985. My commissioned pencil drawing reflected the central demands of the protest; no U.S. intervention in Central America, an end to the arms race, and stopping U.S. support for the racist regime in South Africa. My drawing was published as a bilingual pull-out poster in the L.A. Coalition’s broadsheet newspaper, of which some 10,000 copies were published. Thousands of copies of this poster were circulated in L.A., with many appearing on city walls.

The signs depicted in my drawing were accurate representations of placards and posters carried by protestors at the time, some of which I had designed myself, such as the silkscreen posters “No Más Guerra,” and “Solidaridad con el Pueblo de Guatemala.” As a historical/political time capsule, the most astonishing facet of my poster has to do with the left opposition’s call for a liberated South Africa. The African American portrayed in my drawing of course carries a sign that reads, “Free South Africa – End Racism,” but he also wears a set of buttons that read; “Free Mandela,” “Smash Apartheid,” and “Forward Ever, Backwards Never.” That the Reagan administration opposed Nelson Mandela and instead supported the racist jailers of the apartheid regime, is everything one need know about Reagan and his henchmen. Assisting the victory of South Africa’s freedom struggle was one of the U.S. left’s greatest achievements; the objective of stopping militarism and building a just society has yet to be fully realized.

LEFT: “Stop The War In Central America” – Mark Vallen. 1986. Offset flyer. 8.5 x 11 inches.

Stop The War in Central America was originally a large pencil drawing I created in 1986 to express my opposition to Reagan’s policy of military intervention in Central America. The focal point in the artwork are three skeletal figures inspired by the Dia de los Muertos drawings of the great Mexican artist, José Guadalupe Posada (1852-1913), only my skeletons represent the Escuadrones de la Muerte (Squadrons of Death) unleashed by Reagan in the nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua. They are clothed in U.S. supplied military uniforms that have dollar signs as their camouflage pattern. Clutching U.S. supplied M-16 automatic rifles in their decomposing hands, they move threateningly towards the viewer. In the wake of the deathly trio one can see the graveyards of countless victims, the skyline blackened with acrid smoke and bomb-blasts. I published this unsettling image as a flyer and a poster.

The flyer announced a mass demonstration scheduled to take place in downtown Los Angeles on November 1, 1986, and 5,000 copies of my self-published flyer were distributed throughout L.A. I simultaneously printed a 22.5 x 28 inch poster of the drawing that did not include the text announcing the rally; that poster had a run of 1,000. Around 20,000 people ultimately participated in the Nov. 1 mass protest. That same month, a U.S. military cargo plane was shot down over Nicaragua killing the three U.S. mercenaries serving as its crew. One “merc,” Eugene Hasenfus, survived the crash and was captured in the jungle by the Sandinistas. The plane was on a covert U.S. operation delivering weapons to the anti-Sandinista “Contra” guerrillas, military aid that the U.S. Congress had expressly forbidden in the 1982 Boland Amendment.

“No Aid For Contra Terror” – Mark Vallen 1986. Offset flyer. 8.5 x 14 inches. Flyer based on the artist’s original silkscreen print.

My silkscreen image, No Aid For Contra Terror, was also created in April of 1986. Around 200 of the 18.5 x 22.5 inch posters were printed and distributed across Los Angeles.

I reduced the artwork, combined it with text announcing a mass anti-war demonstration on the Westside of L.A. on April 5, 1986, and published five thousand 8.5 x 14 inch flyers for citywide distribution; some 5,000 people participated in the protest.

Reagan, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA, insisted they had nothing to do with the arms supply to the Contras exposed by the shooting down of the cargo plane over Nicaragua – but the incident started the unraveling of what would become known as the “Iran-Contra Affair,” or “Contra-Gate.” The scandal involved the Reagan administration selling sophisticated weapons to the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, which was subject to a U.S. arms embargo, then using the profits from the sales to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” army, an undertaking forbidden by the U.S. Congress. Reagan denied having any knowledge concerning the secret arms deal with Iran or the illegal arming of the Contras, a denial that allowed for only one of two possibilities; Reagan willfully acted in contravention of U.S. law, or he was totally inept in his duties as President of the United States. Several members of the Reagan White House that were involved in Iran-Contra were charged and convicted of breaking the law, but their convictions were either vacated on appeal, or later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

LEFT: “U.S. Out Of Central America” – Mark Vallen 1986. Photomontage offset flyer. 4 x 6.5 inches.
U.S. Out Of Central America was a small, 4 x 6.5 inch flyer I designed announcing an anti-war demonstration scheduled to take place on March 24, 1986 in downtown Los Angeles.
The crude “ripped and torn”aesthetic of punk was most apparent in this diminutive flyer, for which I took no credit (much of my political and punk artwork at the time was done anonymously).
In my rudimentary Xeroxed photomontage I combined a photograph of a smiling Reagan pointing at a book, with a horrific photo of Salvadorans that had been beheaded and mutilated by the U.S. backed Salvadoran military. I self-published 5,000 of these rough little broadsides, and distributed them all across L.A.

The works shown in this essay were of an activist nature, made for the street, mostly displaying a rough and ready, unrefined angry aesthetic born of urgency. These works of mine were part of an avalanche of protest art created by dissident artists during the bleak days of “Reaganism.” We are today revisited by that miserabilist political philosophy, and contemporary artists must meet its rising challenge.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MARK VALLEN is a working professional artist and political activist residing in Los Angeles, California.  Mark’s blog, Art for Change, in his own words, “is not about the art scene in my city, nor does it specifically focus on my own works. My writings on art exhibits, theory, philosophy, history, news, other artists, and a myriad of topics related to aesthetics, spotlight the role art and culture plays in shaping society.  What differentiates my web log from other sites dealing with art is not just the emphasis I place upon social engagement and activism, but the fact that I am a painter who writes about and advocates a new social realism for the 21st century. This could not be otherwise, since I am an artist deeply influenced by the likes of Goya, the German Expressionists, the Mexican Muralists, and the American social realist school of the 1930s and 1940s.”  Mark’s main site, which displays more of his art, is located at http://www.markvallen.com/ .

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 102011
 

Media Advisory from FAIR

Duvalier = Aristide?
Equation of dictator with popular ex-president distorts Haitian history, reality
2/10/11
[print_link]
It was certainly surprising to see former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (left) return to the country on January 16. To say he has blood on his hands is an understatement: The Duvalier regimes were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and widespread torture (Human Rights Watch, 1/17/11), and stole half a billion dollars from the country (Miami Herald, 1/17/11).
Soon thereafter, former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide announced his intention to return to his country from exile. Aristide, twice elected and twice overthrown by coups [stealthily supported by the U.S.], remains a popular figure in Haitian politics. His first stint in office was remarkably peaceful (Extra!, 11-12/94); his second, during which he faced armed attacks that eventually succeeded in overthrowing his government, was scarcely more violent (Extra!, 7-8/06). But some media accounts are expressing concern about Aristide’s return, in effect equating him with the bloody Duvalier.
____________________________

The guided imbecility of American journalists—guided because it’s fostered by a culture of subservience to imperial “truths”, which requires constant deformation of reality, and bolstered by a deeply-ingrained chauvinism well larded with plentiful ignorance—is almost always a major obfuscating factor when it comes to their coverage of the world.  American journalists, relative to their enormous resources, are not just second rate, they’re probably fourth rate or below. By and large, a pathetic lot.—Eds
____________________________


USA Today
columnist DeWayne Wickham wrote a piece on February 8 headlined “U.S. Meekly Allows Despots to Return to Haiti.” Wickham recounted some of the horrors of Duvalier’s reign of terror, but for some unfathomable reason decided that Aristide poses a comparable menace to Haiti: His return might “push Haiti closer to turmoil,” and the two of them are “old troublemakers…returning at a time when Haiti’s democracy is most vulnerable to the havoc they almost certainly will produce.” RIGHT: Baby Doc enjoys the good life in France. With $500 stolen millions, that was never an issue.
Wickham seemed mostly concerned about democracy:

With another round of voting scheduled for March 20, the thing Haiti needs more than anything else now is a level of stability and calm. But what it’s likely to get once Aristide returns–and once he and Duvalier rally their old supporters to their side–will be a return to the bloody factionalism that punctuated their time at the helm of Haiti’s government.

It might be worth pointing out that Aristide’s Lavalas party–still enormously popular–was banned from participating in last year’s election, which as a result had the lowest turnout of any election held in the Western Hemisphere in the last 60 years (Sun Sentinel, 1/23/11).
The Duvalier = Aristide equation could be seen elsewhere. A New York Times report (2/9/11) by Damien Cave warned that “experts inside and outside Haiti fear that the presence of the two former leaders could further destabilize the country.” The Times went on to note that “members of the international community expressed concern that Mr. Aristide…could create widespread instability at a precarious moment.” The story does note that Aristide was “beloved by the poor but criticized by many.” Given that 80 percent of Haitians live under the poverty line (CIA World Factbook, 1/12/11), it’s hard to know what to make of that.

ABOVE: As is customary for the abject American press, Reuters here, too, toes the official line, captioning this photo with the following insidious comment: The United States fears a possible return home to Haiti by exiled former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide before a deciding presidential election next month would be an “unfortunate distraction” and potentially divisive, the State Department said on Wednesday…” 
A short L.A. Times piece (2/8/11) conveyed a similar message: Aristide “has broad popular support but remains a polarizing figure in Haiti.” That article also equated Duvalier and Aristide, reporting that “the return of the two former leaders comes at an unsteady moment for the country.”
One would hope reporters could find a way to make a meaningful distinction between a ruthless, bloody dictator and a popular elected president. It’s absurd to lump them together as “two former leaders” or, as the USA Today headline put it, “despots.”

BONUS: The Duvaliers’ Reign of Terror
(Wikipedia)

Tonton Macoutes was a Haitian paramilitary force created in 1959 by President François ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier. In 1970, the militia was renamed Milice de Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale (Militia of National Security Volunteers , MVSN)[1] .

Haitians called this force the “Tonton Macoutes,” after the Haitian Creole mythological Tonton Macoute (Uncle Gunnysackbogeymanwho kidnaps and punishes unruly children by snaring them in a gunnysack (Macoute) and carrying them off to be consumed at breakfast.

Reign of terror

The force was created in 1959, only two years after François Duvalier became president, due to the threat posed to the dictator by the regular armed forces. After an attempted coup d’etat against him in 1958, Duvalier disbanded the army and all law enforcement agencies in Haiti, and executed all high-ranking generals. The new militia wore straw hats, blue denim shirts and dark glasses, and were armed with machetes and guns.

Duvalier employed the Tonton Macoutes in a reign of terror against any opponents, including those who proposed progressive social systems.[1] Those who spoke out against Duvalier would disappear at night, or were sometimes attacked in broad daylight. Tonton Macoutes often stoned and burned people alive. Many times the corpses were put on display, often hung in trees for everyone to see. Family members who tried to remove the bodies for proper burial often disappeared themselves, never to be seen again. They were believed to have been abducted and killed by the MVSN, who were called the “Tonton Macoutes” as a result. Anyone who challenged the MVSN risked assassination. Their unrestrained state terrorism was accompanied by corruption, extortion and personal aggrandizement among the leadership.

Luckner Cambronne was a particularly fierce head of the “Tonton Macoutes” throughout the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, his cruelty earned him the nickname “Vampire of the Caribbean”. He profited by extortion carried out by his henchmen and by supplying corpses and blood to universities and hospitals in the United States. After Duvalier’s death, he was ordered into exile by Duvalier’s widow, Simone, and son. Cambronne left Haiti in 1971 for Miami, Florida, where he died on 20 September 2006 at the age of 77.[2]

The victims of Tonton Macoutes could range from a woman in the poorest of neighborhoods who had the temerity to support an opposing politician to a businessman who refused to “donate” money for public works (which were the source of profit for corrupt officials and even the dictator himself). Tonton Macoutes murdered over 60,000 Haitians.

The militia existed under Jean-Claude, the son and successor of François Duvalier, until the younger Duvalier’s ouster in 1986. However, massacres led by paramilitary groups spawned from the Macoutes continued during the following decade. The most feared paramilitary group during the 1990s was FRAPH (Revolutionary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti) which Toronto Starjournalist Linda Diebel described as modern Tonton Macoutes and not as the political party they claimed to be.)[1]

All this, courtesy of the US.

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 102011
 

Posted By John Pilger On February 9, 2011
[print_link]
THE UPRISING IN EGYPT  is our theater of the possible. It is what people across the world have struggled for and their thought controllers have feared. Western commentators invariably misuse the words “we” and “us” to speak on behalf of those with power who see the rest of humanity as useful or expendable. The “we” and “us” are universal now. Tunisia came first, but the spectacle always promised to be Egyptian. 

As a reporter, I have felt this over the years. In Cairo’s Tahrir (Liberation) Square in 1970, the coffin of the great nationalist Gamal Abdul Nasser bobbed on an ocean of people who, under him, had glimpsed freedom. One of them, a teacher, described the disgraced past as “grown men chasing cricket balls for the British at the Cairo Club.” The parable was for all Arabs and much of the world. Three years later, the Egyptian Third Army crossed the Suez Canal and overran Israel’s fortresses in Sinai. Returning from this battlefield to Cairo, I joined a million others in Liberation Square. Their restored respect was like a presence – until the United States rearmed the Israelis and beckoned an Egyptian defeat. 

Thereafter, President Anwar Sadat became America’s man through the usual billion-dollar bribery and, for this, he was assassinated in 1980. Under his successor, Hosni Mubarak, dissenters came to Liberation Square at their peril. Enriched by Washington’s bag men, Mubarak’s latest American-Israeli project is the building of an underground wall behind which the Palestinians of Gaza are to be imprisoned forever. 

Today, the problem for the people in Liberation Square lies not in Egypt. On 6 February, the New York Times reported: “The Obama administration formally threw its weight behind a gradual transition in Egypt, backing attempts by the country’s vice president, General Omar Suleiman, to broker a compromise with opposition groups … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was important to support Mr. Suleiman as he seeks to defuse street protests…”

Having rescued him from would be assassins, Suleiman is, in effect, Mubarak’s bodyguard,. His other distinction, documented in Jane Mayer’s investigative book, The Dark Side, is as supervisor of American “rendition flights” to Egypt where people are tortured on demand of the CIA. He is also, as WikiLeaks reveals, a favorite in Tel Aviv. When President Obama was asked in 2009 if he regarded Mubarak as authoritarian, his swift reply was “no.” He called him a peacemaker, echoing that other great liberal tribune, Tony Blair, to whom Mubarak is “a force for good.”

The grisly Suleiman is now the peacemaker and the force for good, the man of “compromise” who will oversee the “gradual transition” and “defuse the protests.” This attempt to suffocate the Egyptian revolt will call on the fact that a substantial proportion of the population, from businessmen to journalists to petty officials, have provided its apparatus. In one sense, they reflect those in the Western liberal class who backed Obama’s “hope and change” and Blair’s equally bogus “political Cinemascope” (Henry Porter in the Guardian, 1995). No matter how different they appear and postulate, both groups are the domesticated backers and beneficiaries of the status quo.

In Britain, the BBC’s Today program is their voice. Here, serious diversions from the status quo are known as “Lord knows what.” On 28 January the Washington correspondent Paul Adams declared, “The Americans are in a very difficult situation. They do want to see some kind of democratic reform but they are also conscious that they need strong leaders capable of making decisions. They regard President Mubarak as an absolute bulwark, a key strategic ally in the region. Egypt is the country along with Israel on which American Middle East diplomacy absolutely hinges. They don’t want to see anything that smacks of a chaotic handover to frankly Lord knows what.”

Fear of Lord Knows What requires that the historical truth of American and British “diplomacy” as largely responsible for the suffering in the Middle East is suppressed or reversed. Forget the Balfour Declaration that led to the imposition of expansionist Israel. Forget secret Anglo-American sponsorship of Islamic jihadists as a “bulwark” against the democratic control of oil. Forget the overthrow of democracy in Iran and the installation of the tyrant Shah, and the slaughter and destruction in Iraq. Forget the American fighter jets, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and depleted uranium that are performance-tested on children in Gaza. And now, in the cause of preventing “chaos,” forget the denial of almost every basic civil liberty in Omar Suleiman’s contrite “new” regime in Cairo.

The uprising in Egypt has discredited every Western media stereotype about the Arabs. The courage, determination, eloquence, and grace of those in Liberation Square contrast with “our” specious fear-mongering with its al-Qaeda and Iran bogeys and iron-clad assumptions, bereft of irony, of the “moral leadership of the West.” It is not surprising that the recent source of truth about the imperial abuse of the Middle East, WikiLeaks, is itself subjected to craven, petty abuse in those self-congratulating newspapers that set the limits of elite liberal debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps they are worried. Across the world, public awareness is rising and bypassing them. In Washington and London, the regimes are fragile and barely democratic. Having long burned down societies abroad, they are now doing something similar at home, with lies and without a mandate. To their victims, the resistance in Cairo’s Liberation Square must seem an inspiration. “We won’t stop,” said the young Egyptian woman on TV, “we won’t go home.” Try kettling a million people in the center of London, bent on civil disobedience, and try imagining it could not happen.

Read more by John Pilger
    •    The War on WikiLeaks – January 14th, 2011
    •    Protect Assange, don’t abuse him – December 16th, 2010
    •    Why Are Wars Not Being Reported Honestly? – December 10th, 2010
    •    Vietnam: The Last Battle – December 2nd, 2010
    •    Chile’s Ghosts Are Not Being Rescued  – October 13th, 2010
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2011/02/09/the-revolt-in-egypt-is-coming-home/

Did you like this? Share it: