Editors Blog

My first time in Poland I thought the Poles were 20 years behind the rest of the West in fashion trends. When I returned to the US I realized they were several months ahead. The seventies were back…

…I was also a little shocked by the Star of David stamped across the faces on the posters of the political candidates in whatever election was taking place at the time. That star said nothing but “Jew” - pure invective. I was back in the late thirties and early forties.

It looks like Evo Morales has just become Bolivia’s first indigenous president. This is a victory for all of Earth’s indigenous peoples

Morales gave a victrory speech on Sunday night. Here are a few words from:

“The indigenous movement, since its inception, is not exclusive. It is inclusive. This is what we live by. Through our government we will end discrimination. Xenophobia will end. Hate will end. And so will the scorn to which we have been submitted historicaly. We want to live together in ’so called’ diversity, changing the neo-liberal model and finsihing off the colonial state.”

At the close of his campaign a few days earlier he said his election would be a “nightmare for the United States.”

Over 50% of Bolivia’s population is indigenous. It has taken them some time to retake it from the neo-liberal colonialists. The indigenous peoples of the land mass US is estimated at 1.5% total population according to 2000 census stats - a very effective genocide.

According to my calculation, it will take approxiamtely 4 to 8 years for the indigenous peoples of the US to take it back. The implication is, of course, a prediction in line with that of Nostradamus - with a twist of Revelation.

Anyway….

Let Bolivia stand as a model for what the US could not become since it has become, for all Earthian purposes, the absolute pinnacle of neo-colonialsim and, dare I say, fascism.

On November 17, after a lecture at Syracuse Univeristy in NY regarding the latest attitude of the US government towards Syria, Pierre Maroun, Secretary General of the ALCC, demanded the UN Security Council respect its decisions and to implement all of its resolutions; diplomatically if possible, by force if necessary.

In response to the lecture and his comments I posed a series of questions to him which he was kind enough to take the time to answer. While I thoroughly intended to comment on his answers I have been too tied up - as of late - and do not want to delay the posting of his response, received on November 29, any further. I encourage y’all to send me, and/or Mr. Maroun your comments:

AR - Do you believe regime change in Syria is the responsibility of the US?

PM - I believe that regime change in any country should be the responsibility of the people of that country. However, a tyrant, oppressive, and radical regime like the Ba’ath of Syria, which killed thousands of its own people, occupied a neighboring country, and has been harboring, training, and exporting terrorism to the world is the responsibility of the United Nations, which the United States is a permanent member of its security council.

AR - Do you believe that committing more US citizens’ tax dollars to more war is appropriate?

PM - Committing US citizen’s tax dollars to fight terrorism abroad and to secure the US interest is money well spent. Had we done this earlier, we would not be paying billions of dollars to rebuild the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and we would have saved the lives of the 3000 innocent victims that fell on that horrible day.

AR - Do you think it is contradictory to criticize the Syrian government for meddling in Lebanese affairs while at the same time advocating that the US meddle in Syrian and other Middle Eastern affairs?

PM - When the US intervene in other countries affairs, it does it for the best interest of the people of that country and for world’s peace and security. We brought freedom and independence to Afghanistan; to Iraq; to the Lebanese; and so on. However, when Syria intervened in Lebanon’s affairs, it did so for its own interest. The Syrian troops bombed and destroyed entire towns; they massacred innocent people indiscriminately; and they corrupted the Lebanese regime beyond what the mind could imagine. Billions of dollars have been stolen from Lebanon; drug trafficking is a routine business in Syrian occupied territories; money laundering and counterfeiting foreign currencies are the norm in the Biqa’ Valley. Kidnapping, raping, and bombing are their favorite methods in which they use to terrorize the Lebanese population to keep them subjugated. Besides, Syria filled Lebanon with armed terrorist organizations and radical groups who take orders directly from their mentors in Syria. Accordingly, the security situation in the whole region is subject to the will and wishes of the Syrian Ba’ath regime. Now, this is meddling in other countries affairs, which we oppose. However, this is different from the US intervention which is aimed at its strategy to spread freedom and democracy.

AR - Do you think it is appropriate to use force against Syria incurring more civilian casualties and US and coalition casualties for a furthering of what appears to be a completely failed US Neo-conservative War-Hawk agenda?

PM - I respectfully disagree with the formation of your question. The US foreign policy in the greater Middle East is not a failure. On the contrary, it is a great success. If you ask the freed people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Lebanon about the new US policy, the majority will reply by asking: What took you so long to save us?

AR - Do you believe it is within the legal framework of the United States Constitution, the UN Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles (emphasis on the US Constitution) to use military force against a country which has not attacked the US or threatened it. Further, do you believe regime change is legal within the context of the US Constitution?

PM - When a rogue state becomes a danger to world peace and security, then it becomes, not only within the legal framework of international laws to change the given regime, but within the legal and ethical responsibility of the UN and the US to act. International laws, including the Nuremberg Principals, were put in place to prosecute tyrant leaders and to prevent state sponsored terrorism and not to provide them with an umbrella.

God gave equal rights and freedom to all mankind. However, many around the world have lost this gift due to aggression. The US is only helping these people regain their rights and freedom. No more; no less.

Thank you,

Pierre A. Maroun
Secretary General
American Lebanese Coordination Council
www.alcc-research.com
marounpierre@alcc-research.com
(727)641-9764

* * *

Rep Maurice Hinchey (D- NY) addresses Bush Administration foreign policy and the intelligence used to gain support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq (PL 107-243).

Watch it here - approx. 30 minutes (requires Real Player): rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq_wj120805_hinchey.rm

He discusses his resolution (H. RES 549 - more info at LOC) which is under consideration today in the House of Reps. Committee on International Relations. The purpose of his resolution is to “require the Adminstration to provide the Congresss with all of the information upon which the statement in the President’s State of the Union Address of January of 2003 were based”. ‘The statement’ in question - of course - has to do with Saddam Hussein seeking Uranium from Niger.

Addressing the current circumstances in Iraq, Hinchey continues to focus on the actions and intelligence used to justify a war that “was unnecessary, unjustified and frankly, immoral,” in an attempt to hold the Administration, and Congress, accountable and to keep the focus on what is ultimately the real issue at stake - an undermining of the US Constitution via a concentration of power in the executive branch.

Hinchey is hip to the Administrations agenda and notes the their number one foreign policy objective was the removal of Saddam Hussein for strategic purposes - a policy stated before Sept 11, 2001.