L.F. BROWN

Greenland having it blue

By L.F. Brown
20 October 2004

"We have to swallow pretty large-sized camels to achieve our goals."

Mikaela Engel, Greenland’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, on Greenland's pursuit of independence

Greenland is caught in quite a vicious circle. When the social-democratic Siumut (“Forward”) party and the socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit (“Inuit Brotherhood”) party formed a coalition government in 2002, independence from Denmark seemed a little step closer. The Siumut party got 28.7% of the votes, retaining their leading party status, with their leader Hans Enoksen clinching the Prime Minister post. The Inuit Ataqatigiit party received 25.5% of the votes, with their leader Josef Motzfeldt (not to be confused with Greenland’s first PM, Jonathan Motzfeldt, who held the post from 1979 to 1991 and from 1997 to 2002) becoming Deputy Prime Minister. With widespread public support for independence, the two parties, who both have advocated for more local control over the world's largest island, put aside various public political spats and decided to hold a referendum on the matter in 2005.

Denmark, which has control over Greenland's foreign affairs, defence, justice system, as well as its mineral and oil resource management, favours granting the already semi-autonomous Greenland more autonomy but is not willing to go all the way by giving it sovereignty and thus true independence. Greenland (population 56,000) was officially a colony of Denmark from 1814 (when Norway was separated from Denmark after the Napoleonic Wars) until 1953, when it was incorporated into the Kingdom, with home rule status being granted in 1979.

While support in Greenland for independence is broad, many are of the opinion that only once the country is able to stand on its own two feet economically should independence be sought. The crutch is Danish aid, which will make up 57% (at about US$8,670 per person) of Greenland’s 2005 budget. A recently set up joint Greenland-Denmark commission has been looking into ways that Greenland can dramatically cut down on government spending and government involvement in providing jobs, reduce their dependence on fishing, and instead concentrate on mining, oil and tourism. As long as the current standard of living is not damaged, most locals would then be keen for a split from the Danes.

The United States’ Thule military base in the northwest, which has been around since 1953 and was the subject of a defence treaty signed in 1951 between Denmark and the US, is seen as another potential source of income for Greenland. It was once a key installation during the Cold War, housing up to 10,000 mainly American personnel, along with fighter jets and bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, taking up several-hundred square kilometres of space. While Greenland was promised that nuclear weapons would not be kept there, a secret memo was found in the 1990s contradicting that promise. It now only has about 550 personnel, 150 of them Americans. But it is still important, serving as a key radar facility and listening post, capable of covering 5000 kilometres (including Russian territory). And in August the US, Denmark and Greenland signed an agreement that would allow modernisation of the base’s radar facilities, which can detect Ballistic Missiles as well as Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. But, as before, there was no agreement for the US to pay for its use of the base. Also missing was an agreement to clean up the mess caused by previously held US bases, although it was agreed that from then on there would be environmental and technical cooperation, as well as the chance of increased economic and trade ties.

The US military base has always been a hot potato in Greenland. When the base was completed in 1953 the Danish government relocated a local Inuit community away from their traditional hunting and fishing grounds. Fifty years later, the 900-strong community is still fighting the move. Last year the Danish Supreme Court upheld a court case that had been brought against Danish authorities, with a small payout given in compensation. Not satisfied, they took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg earlier this year. The US had already given back some of the surrounding areas to Danish and local authorities.

There is huge controversy over the prospect that the Thule base could be used in the future as part of the proposed national missile defence system, which the US hopes would be able to intercept missiles, this possibly making Greenland a more obvious target. After the agreement was signed US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that, at this point, the US is “just interested in the software and minor hardware improvements to the system that Greenland is aware of and that Denmark is aware of.” Deputy PM Josef Motzfeldt was quoted as saying that “we haven't said 'yes' to the use (of modernized radar installations) in this missile defense system, which would call for new negotiations." The new agreement states that the US must “consult and inform Denmark and Greenland prior to the implementation of any significant changes to the United States military operations or facilities in Greenland.” Mr Powell then went on to say the “United States and Greenland and the Home Rule government, we are friends and partners and what we want to do is consult. We don't want to do anything that would put at risk a very strong relationship that we've had for these many, many years. So I think the word "consult" means just that, consult, and try to reach accommodation on any issue that might be in dispute, as we have done over the years.”

And while there is great trepidation over how the Thule base may develop in the future, and the influence that the US already has had over Greenland’s internal affairs, it is the world’s greatest power that seems to be Greenland’s greatest ally in their quest for independence, with Deputy PM Josef Motzfeldt having noted a recent shift in the diplomatic winds (Greenland looks to US in quest for independence, Agence France-Presse, 26 September 2004):

Following an agreement on the modernization of the base last month however, Greenlanders have begun seeing the superpower across the Atlantic as a potential ally in their quest for self-determination.

"It was (US Secretary of State) Colin Powell who demanded that we sit at the negotiating table during the (ongoing) overhaul of the 1951 Danish-American Defense Treaty concerning Greenland, to the great surprise of Denmark's foreign minister," Motzfeldt said.

"Washington recognizes us as an equal partner, which is not yet the case with Denmark," he added, pointing out that US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) after taking power in 2001 had even sent a letter requesting closer cooperation on the Thule base and other issues directly to Greenland's local government, and not, as tradition dictates, through Copenhagen.

As I said. And how do you square one?

http://lfbrown.typepad.com

A morning in September

By L.F. Brown
10 September 2004

A few moments before a quarter past ten this Thursday morning, Suryadi, a gardener from Pondok Labu, South Jakarta, was attending to the Australian embassy as he has done so for the last four years, perhaps thinking about bringing his wife Yuyut and their five year old son Sedri to the embassy’s swimming pool during the weekend.

At a nearby construction site, 46-year old Mughofir, a father of two, took a break with his new workmates. He had recently moved back to Jakarta after a stint in the industrial city of Medan in tropical Sumatra, Indonesia’s largest island.

Asep Syaifuddin, a 32-year old surveyor with Bank Indonesia Internasional Finance, who lived in North Jakarta with his wife Nur Komariyah and their two children, aged five-years-old and eight-months-old, was about to pass the embassy on his motorcycle on his way to meet a client at the Great River International Plaza.

On another motorcycle was Rina Dewi Puspita, an accountancy student in her twenties at Perbanas College of Economics. She was also from North Jakarta, where she lived with her family. Usually she would have been getting driven in a car by her family’s driver, 31-year old Suyatno, but as she was running late she got him to take her on his motorcycle.

From the back of the motorcycle she might have seen 24-year old security guard Anton Sujarwo, from the Muktiharjo area of Central Lampung in southern Sumatra, at the front gate, near a queue of people waiting to get in.

And in that queue were 27-year-old mother Maria Eva Kumalawati and her 5-year-old daughter Manny Bambina, there to pick up Manny’s new Australian passport. Manny, whose father is Australian and lives in Sydney, had been granted citizenship nine days earlier.

A few moments later two successful visa applicants, 28-year-old Suri Rahayi and 30-year-old Budi Hariyanto, took another step away from the embassy, saw a flash of light and threw themselves to the ground, just before a huge explosion rocked the entrance to the embassy. They, like many others in the vicinity were to get up soon after, except for Suryadi and Mughofir and Maria and Anton and Asep and Rina and Suyatno. Manny now fights to do the same.

http://lfbrown.typepad.com

The same old history and Michael Moore

By L.F. Brown
29 August 2004

It’s been a great couple of months for Michael Moore and his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The box office is great and its impact, culturally and politically, endures and spreads. It might even contribute to John Kerry unseating George W. Bush from the presidency of the United States in the November elections. Indeed, it could be The Beginning of History and perhaps Change The Course of Civilization.

Or so novelist and critic John Berger speculates in “The beginning of history” (The Guardian, 24 August) and, it is safe to say, wishes. Well, who wouldn’t want a new history and a better course for the world? Up to now it’s been mostly awful. Times of wars and shed blood have been often and swiftly achieved, outweighing times of peace and prosperity that have been relatively brief and slowly reached. And who better to prepare the way than an independent voice, someone who can identify with those who are usually not spoken for, or to? But I was meant to be talking about Michael Moore here. According to Mr. Berger:

“Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in a political programme on the programme's own ground. For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a significant part in creating the event. To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn't deserve the attention it is receiving. It's simply to remind ourselves that within the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily wall of lies and half-truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions - as if they'd been waiting for it.”

While it is clear from the article that he holds Mr. Bush in severe contempt, I’m not sure whether it quite matches the contempt he has for the “millions.” That Mr. Berger is unaware of the heated debate over the film, with quite convincing allegations of distortions, fabrications and misrepresentations in Mr. Moore’s latest work, is highly doubtful. In fact, much the same things were said about his previous work, Bowling for Columbine, although the errors were more blatant in that particular case. Yet Mr. Moore is held as a shining example to the rest of us, with no caveats included. But Mr. Berger has this covered, or so he thinks:

“What makes it an event is the fact that it is an effective and independent intervention into immediate world politics. Today it is rare for an artist to succeed in making such an intervention, and in interrupting the prepared, prevaricating statements of politicians. Its immediate aim is to make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November. To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.”

Now I certainly learnt something new by finding out what the correct definition of propaganda is, but bypass his semantics, replace “propaganda” with “misleading” and his point is exactly what? Perhaps it is that you are either with us or against us. That Mr. Moore had to use half-truths to smash through other half-truths has the grounds for an interesting discussion, one that defenders of Mr. Moore rarely seem to get into. It is the message that counts, so it goes, not the messenger or his portrayal of it. So what are some fudging of the facts, misrepresentations and hazy logic, as long as the goal is righteous? The “millions” should apparently just be fooled. And what if some notice these discrepancies between facts and half-truths? There is surely a chance that the impact of the message would be discounted or even dismissed.

A more charitable version of this argument is that while Mr. Moore is being less than honest, at least he is widening the political discourse to those who would not be otherwise interested. While more appealing and slightly less condescending, it is still wrong but insightful. In this seemingly worldwide determination to ensure that there are not four more years of Bush, pragmatism trumps veracity. That Mr. Kerry, when it mattered, supported Mr. Bush’s proposals, despite his twisting and turning after the fact, isn’t widely considered worthy of much discussion. And that many are uncertain about exactly what Mr. Kerry proposes as an alternative is quietly forgotten.

This airbrushing out of mere inconveniences is typical of Mr. Berger’s article:

“The film proposes that the White House and Pentagon were taken over in the first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations: a stark scenario which is closer to the truth than most nuanced editorials.”

But this is Moore-country stuff. For a start, The House of Saud was a main target in the film, ostensibly a corrupt influence justified by the need for a steady source of oil. The truth about “the corporations” is that they have always had influence in the White House, just like unions or any other special interest group. But this conceals the fact that while many corporations have had interests in the government, so many haven’t. And in Mr. Berger’s new history, all previous administrations have been saints. Would he argue that Bill Clinton’s savage bombing of Serbia was not thug-like?

Or perhaps his new history would rewrite the past much like Mr. Moore is inclined to do. After all, in Mr. Moore’s previous film, Bowling for Columbine, the indictment of NATO’s Kosovo campaign was strong. Yet, a couple of years later, when the Democratic party’s presidential nominee’s race was under way, Mr. Moore publicly campaigned for General Wesley Clark, the man in charge of the very bombing campaign he was so critical of earlier. In an open letter called “The Bombing of Kosovo” he gleefully bashed those conservatives who were publicly against the war. Whether he was right or not doesn’t erase his own hypocrisy, rendering his letter a virtual post-dated self-indictment:

“Now, it is time for all of us to stop Clinton and his disgusting, hypocritical fellow democrats who support him in this war. It is amazing to watch all these "liberal" congress members line up behind the President. In a way, I'm glad it's happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans. Aren't you getting a kick watching the Pat Buchanans and the Henry Hydes sounding like pacifists! These politicians can change stripes at the drop of a hat (or bomb) because, ultimately, they are the same animal, participants in a one-party system that tries to fool the people by going by two names ("Democrat" and "Republican").”

His antipathy to the Democrats disappeared when he was given the opportunity to gain prime seats at the recent party nomination convention. In the same letter he had interesting things to say about those who did and did not go to Vietnam, reversing his position a couple of years later when it came to Mr. Bush and General Clark:

“What a sad, pathetic man Bill Clinton is. Though many have criticized him for dodging the draft, I actually admired the fact that he refused to go and kill Vietnamese. Not all of us from the working class had that luxury, and tens of thousands of our brothers died for absolutely no damn reason. For this "anti-war" President to order such a misguided, ruthless -- and, yes, cowardly -- attack from the air is a disappointment of massive proportions.”

And while he was to again express his compassion for his “brothers” when it came to the Iraq war, for example in Fahrenheit 9/11, he was not reluctant to engage in a kind of fratricide when it suited:

“I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”

So much for his “example.” And for all his talk of concern for the working class, his prescriptions, essentially more government intervention and less free markets, would do much more harm than good. Unfortunately, Mr. Berger has fallen into the same trap:

“There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than either of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war. Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared end of history, one of the main theses of Marx's interpretation of history again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the catastrophes being lived. It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11 announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer? There is no future for any civilisation anywhere in the world today which ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what it became. It's a film that deeply wants America to survive.”

The war’s pretext has now shifted from being the serving of the “global interests of the corporations” to some kind of circus performance for the disillusioned American audience, all part of a continuation of “ceaseless war.” Yet his prescription, presumably a new variation of socialism, will still be total war, on all aspects of people’s lives. Marx’s interpretation of history, that an increasingly impoverished working class - due to the iniquities of capitalism - would rise up and overthrow the existing order, was proved wrong when capitalism managed to improve dramatically the lot of the majority of the immiserated where it was adequately attempted. When adherents of Marx tried to create a new world in the economically backward Russia, quite contrary to his belief that it would first be tried in an advanced capitalist nation, it proved an unmitigated disaster. To recover from the ill effects of its nationalising War Communism, Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, which was a return to some kind of free market system. While this improved matters on the economic front to a degree, the brutality and incessant interventionism of the Soviet regime continued.

Mr. Berger asks how much longer can the poor be ignored. The short answer is that as long as the common denominator in most catastrophes, the institution of government, is uncritically praised, the poor as well as ceaseless wars will be longer with us. The same too goes for false prophets.

http://lfbrown.typepad.com