Hiroshima.
Naar aanleiding van Fouad Laroui’s bewering in De Groene Amsterdammer dat ‘terroristen’ slechts ‘labiele psychopaten’ zijn met al dan niet ‘een bomgordel,’ wil ik deze docent Frans aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam verzoeken te reageren op feiten die beschreven worden in een artikel van de journalist Arjun Walia op de website Collective Evolution van 19 maart 2016. Onder de titel
THE REAL REASON AMERICA DROPPED
THE ATOMIC BOMB. IT WAS NOT TO
END THE WAR
schreef Walia het volgende:
On August 6, 1945, the world, sadly, entered the atomic age. Without warning, a single nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima killed about 90,000 people instantly and injured many others — who then died from radiation sickness. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians.
‘The Library of Congress adds roughly 60 million pages to its holdings each year, a huge cache of information for the public. However, also each year, the U.S. Government classifies nearly ten times that amount –- an estimated 560 million pages of documents. For scholars engaged in political, historical, scientific, or any other archival work, the grim reality is that most of their government’s activities are secret.’
–- Richard Dolan, historian, author (you can read more about what is known as the ‘black budget’ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/31/snowden-reveals-first-ever-public-disclosure-of-secret-black-budget-programs/)
The point above is significant. How can we really know anything about American history if a considerable portion of it remains classified? That being said, how can we really know anything about American history when we have so many examples of dishonesty and misinformation? What will the history books say about 9/11? We will have to wait and see, but what our history books tell us about the atomic bomb and why it was dropped seems to be a complete lie, at least according to some very credible sources.
We are often taught that the use of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment, but judging by the statements of many high ranking political and military personnel, this is simply not the case.
General/President Dwight Eisenhower discusses this in his 1963 memoir, ‘The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313).’ When he was informed in mid-July 1945 by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb, he was deeply troubled.
‘I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”’ http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
‘The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing… I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.’ http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Given what I mentioned at the start of this article, I think it’s also important to note that Eisenhower also said (in his farewell address) that:
‘In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist… Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful message and goals.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Did this ‘misplaced power’ influence the decision to drop the atomic bomb? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it seems absurd to not consider the possibility.
‘Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.’ -– Woodrow Wilson, from his book ‘The New Freedom (1913)’
Another great example comes from General Douglas MacArthur, who sent a 40-page memorandum to President Roosevelt that clearly outlines five different surrender overtures from high ranking Japanese officials. This memo was also revealed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times on August 19th, 1945. Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo stated these terms:
• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan.
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees
• Surrender of designated war criminals
Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden and Portugal, who were neutral at the time. They also approached Soviet Russia’s leaders ‘with a view of terminating the war if possible by September.’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
Here is a quote from Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Ellis Zacharias:
‘Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/god-damn-americas-media-r_b_91773.html
Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:
‘It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan… The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.’ http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
There have also been some disturbing remarks like this one:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a ‘toy and they wanted to try it out…’ He further stated that ‘the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment’ and that it was ‘a mistake to ever drop it.’ http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
He said this despite the fact that most prominent scientists were completely against it. The scientists involved with the Manhattan project even wrote to the Secretary of Defense to try to encourage him not to drop the bomb.
So ask yourself, why did they really drop the bomb? A number of theories have been proposed;history.com outlines how it could have been dropped to demonstrate a new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviets, ultimately serving as a show of military strength. In 2005, ‘New Scientist’ alluded to the same thing, claiming that it was done to kick start the Cold War.
‘The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that (quite apart from the inaccuracy of this figure, as noted by Samuel Walker) most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.’
-– Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland Professor of Political Economy, former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State http://www.garalperovitz.com/2011/08/on-the-sixty-sixth-anniversary-of-the-bombing-of-hiroshima/
What’s My Point?
What I am trying to do here is get readers to think. If it was clearly unnecessary to drop the bomb if it didn’t have to be done, then what is the justification? Despite the fierce opposition from the various military and political leaders and the fact that Japan was ready to surrender, it was still dropped.
War does not serve a purpose in our world, but the unfortunate reality is that there are many people who thrive and profit off of conflict. 9/11 is a perfect example — a supposed ‘terrorist’ attack used to justify the infiltration of the Middle East.
There are more oddities, like the information suggesting that both sides of the war were funded by the same group. You can read more about that here: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/
Have we learned from our mistake? The fact that nuclear weapons even exist is a discouraging fact, and I am ashamed to be part of a race who has developed so many of them. It would be great if we could use our brilliant minds/science to advance ourselves as a civilization, not destroy it.
We need to learn from our history, not accept textbook explanations that paint a false picture of it. That being said, we have come a long way since 1945; it’s clear that the majority of people on this planet prefer to live in a peaceful world, so why are there so many obstacles in place preventing us from doing so?
Hiroshima.
Voordat ik enkele vragen dr. ir. Fouad Laroui voorleg zal ik eerst enige achtergrondinformatie geven. Wikipedia meldt ondermeer het volgende:
Fouad Laroui (1958 -) is a Moroccan economist and writer, born in Oujda, Morocco. After his studies in the Lycée Lyautey (Casablanca), he joined the prestigious École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (Paris, France), where he studied engineering. After having worked in the Office Cherifien des Phosphates company in Khouribga (Morocco), he moved to the United Kingdom where he spent several years in Cambridge and York. Later he obtained a PhD in economics and moved to Amsterdam where he is currently teaching econometrics and environmental science. In addition, he is devoted to writing.
Kortom, het betreft hier een geschoolde man die over de nodige levenservaring beschikt, gezien het feit dat hij tenminste 57 jaar oud is. Interessant is dat Laroui gewerkt heeft voor het ‘Office Cherifien des Phosphates,’ een staatsconcern dat ‘the world’s leading producer’ is ‘of phosphate rock and phosphoric acid as well as one of the leading global fertilizer players.’ Zonder fosfaat, grondstof van kunstmest, zou de landbouw wereldwijd van de ene op de andere dag ineenstorten. Het concern waarvoor Laroui werkte, is niet alleen actief in Marokko, maar ook in de door Marokko bezette West Sahara, waar een grote hoeveelheid fosfaat ligt. De Christian Science Monitor berichtte op 24 januari 2013 dat:
In remote Western Sahara, prized phosphate drives controversial investments.
Morocco's mining of the lucrative fertilizer ingredient in occupied Western Sahara has sparked charges it is violating international law – and that global customers are looking the other way.
By Kristen Chick, Correspondent.
LAAYOUNE AND BOUCRAA, WESTERN SAHARA — At the end of a pier stretching more than a mile-and-a-half into the Atlantic Ocean from Laayoune, a 75,000-ton tanker vessel rocks slowly in the ocean swells, creaking and groaning as it takes on a new load.
A long spout pours phosphate from a conveyor belt into the ship's hold, and some of the powdery substance spills into the air like dust, coating the deck of the vessel and stinging as it blows in the strong wind. By the next day, this tanker, called the Double Rejoice, will be on its way across the Atlantic to Baton Rouge, La., where its load of phosphate will be delivered to PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, the American subsidiary of PotashCorp, the biggest fertilizer company in the world.
Phosphate is a key ingredient in the fertilizer that helps makes it possible to feed the world's growing population. The world's supply of phosphate is concentrated in just a handful of countries, with more than three-fourths of that in Morocco and Western Sahara. But exploiting Western Sahara's supply of this critical resource is controversial.
Once a Spanish colony, Western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco since 1976, and roiled by regional power politics and an independence movement that waged a guerrilla war until a cease-fire in 1991. With Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara unrecognized by the UN, many in the international community argue that Morocco is violating international law by exploiting the territory's resources – and that global companies should not be party to that.
Morocco is about to become the world’s newest owner of America’s main battle tank, the M-1 Abrams... The Kingdom of Morocco will modernize its military fleet and receive M-1A1 Abram[s] tanks from the U.S. Army as part of a foreign military sales case coordinated by the Army Security Assistance Command. The case includes associated spare parts, equipment, logistical support and training.
Ook de volgende informatie over de alledaagse realiteit waarbinnen Fouad Laroui als werknemer functioneerde en z’n toenmalige werkgever ‘Office Cherifien des Phosphates,’ nog steeds opereert, is typerend voor het grote geopolitieke machtsspel waarbij zwakkere naties worden geterroriseerd door sterkere, zonder dat de westerse mainstream media hier doorgaans aandacht aan besteden. 12 mei 2015 meldde de Amerikaanse hoogleraar Stephen Zunes, die internationaal wordt gezien als ‘leading critic of United States policy,’ dat
For more than a half-century, a series of United Nations resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice have underscored the rights of inhabitants of countries under colonial rule or foreign military occupation. Among these is the right to ‘freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources,’ which ‘must be based on the principles of equality and of the right of peoples and nations to self-determination.’
As far back as 1962, the United Nations determined that ‘the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned,’ and ‘violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’ This reflects the longstanding legal principle, reiterated subsequently by the General Assembly, that ‘the right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories… to enjoyment of their natural resources and their right to dispose of those resources in their best interest.’
Similarly, a series of decisions by the International Court of Justice regarding Namibia, Nauru, East Timor and Palestine has further codified the rights of non-self-governing people to control over their own natural resources.
Perhaps the most serious contemporary violation of this longstanding international legal principle involves the nation of Western Sahara, the former Spanish colony invaded, occupied, and annexed by Morocco in 1975. Morocco has ignored a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions and a landmark World Court decision underscoring the right of the Western Saharan people -- who are ethnically and linguistically distinct from most Moroccans -- to self-determination. However, France and the United States, veto-wielding permanent members of that body and longstanding allies of Morocco, have blocked the United Nations from enforcing its resolutions,
aldus dr. Zunes, medeauteur van het boek Western Sahara. War Nationalism & Conflict Irresolution (2010). Gezien Laroui’s opvattingen over terreur is het tevens belangrijk te weten dat
most of the infrastructure development in the occupied territory has not been designed to enhance the standard of living of the Western Saharan people, but has instead involved the elaborate internal security system of military bases, police facilities, prisons, surveillance, and related repressive apparatuses; housing construction, subsidies, and other support for Moroccan settlers; and airport, seaport, and other transportation facilities designed to accelerate resource extraction. More fundamentally, the decisions on how to use the proceeds from the mines and fisheries are being made by the Moroccan government in the capital of Rabat, not by the subjugated population.
In 2002, then U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Hans Corell determined that the exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara is a ‘violation of the international law principles applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories.’
Unfortunately, this did not stop mining companies, oil companies, and fishing fleets from Morocco, Europe and the United States from effectively stealing from the people of Western Sahara -- or from trying to influence political leaders.
For example, the Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP), a Moroccan government-owned mining company that controls one of the world's largest phosphate mines in the occupied Western Sahara, is the primary donor to the Clinton Global Initiative conference last week in Marrakech. This and other support provided to the Clinton Foundation by OCP -- now totaling as much as $5 million -- has raised some eyebrows, given Hillary Clinton's efforts as secretary of state to push the Obama administration to recognize Morocco's illegal annexation of the territory through a dubious ‘autonomy’ plan promoted by King Mohammed VI that would deny the people of Western Sahara the option of independence as international law requires.
About five years ago, opposition from Michael Posner, then assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights, along with some key Democratic senators and members of the National Security Council convinced the White House to instead encourage further U.N.-led negotiations between Morocco and the Western Saharan government-in-exile, known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR.) The SADR has been recognized by scores of governments and is a full member state of the African Union, whose Peace and Security Council has called for a ‘global boycott of products of companies involved in the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara.’
Since leaving office, Hillary Clinton -- now the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination -- has continued her outspoken support for the autocratic monarchy. When she announced the Marrakesh meeting last fall, she praised Morocco as a ‘vital hub for economic and cultural exchange,’ thanking the regime ‘for welcoming us and for its hospitality.’ A number of key supporters, such as attorney Justin Gray and former Congressman Toby Moffett, are registered lobbyists for the Moroccan regime.
This has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill. ‘You've heard of blood diamonds, but in many ways you could say that OCP is shipping blood phosphate,’ Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., said. ‘Western Sahara was taken over by Morocco to exploit its resources and this is one of the principal companies involved in that effort.’
Pitts and New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, sent a letter to the Clinton Foundation, saying, ‘Out of respect for internationally recognized human rights norms, the Clinton Global Initiative should discontinue its coordination with OCP and return any accepted money from the enterprise.’ The foundation did not respond.
As an attorney well-versed in international affairs, Clinton is no doubt aware of the legal and moral issues regarding the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara and the seeming impropriety of her foundation accepting money from a government-owned company illegally exploiting the natural resources of a non-self-governing territory.
That she is willing to do so anyway raises some troubling questions.
Dat Marokko al decennialang het internationaal recht en de mensenrechten in West Sahara schendt, is uitgebreid gedocumenteerd. Het jaarrapport 2015/2016 van Amnesty International stelt dan ook vast dat zowel in Marokko als in Westers Sahara:
The authorities restricted rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, arresting and prosecuting critics, harassing human rights groups and forcibly dispersing protests. Torture and other ill-treatment and unfair trials were reported. Women continued to face discrimination. Migrants and asylum-seekers were arbitrarily arrested and subjected to unnecessary and excessive use of force. Courts continued to impose death sentences; there were no executions.
Laroui, aan beide zijden geflankeerd door één van zijn boeken.
Fouad Laroui is dus betrokken geweest bij het illegaal delven van ‘bloed fosfaat,’ zoals het Republikeinse lid van het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden Joe Pitts dit noemde. Dit is evenwel niet de reden geweest waarom hij naar het Westen vertrok, tenminste als ik afga op zijn eigen woorden. Hoewel onduidelijk blijft waarom hij ineens zijn goede baan bij het Marokkaanse staatsbedrijf ‘Office Cherifien des Phosphates’ opgaf, verklaarde hij in 2006 tegenover Vrij Nederland naar Amsterdam te zijn gekomen omdat hier sprake was van
een mate van individualiteit – waarbij je met rust gelaten werd. Niemand die zich met je bezighield, of je nu goed of slecht gekleed was of halfnaakt rondliep door Amsterdam. Een verademing, vergeleken met Marokko of Frankrijk.
Die uitspraak maakt het raadsel alleen maar groter, wat betreft vrijheid verschillen immers Marokko en Frankrijk hemelsbreed van elkaar. Frankrijk is een EU-land en het individu moet zich er aan dezelfde rechtsregels en mores houden als in Nederland. Desondanks maakt Laroui een scherp onderscheid, want
Nederland was, toen ik in 1990 arriveerde – ik overdrijf niet – een paradijs. Omdat je als individu vrij was en je kon ontplooien.
Met andere woorden, niet omdat hij de rechten van de autochtone bevolking van West Sahara schond vertrok hij naar het Westen, maar omdat hij in Amsterdam geen hinder ondervond van de gemeenschap. Pas hier werd hij volgens eigen zeggen: ‘met rust gelaten. Niemand die zich met je bezighield.’ Ondanks zijn scholing en ervaring beseft Laroui kennelijk niet dat zoals alles in het leven ook deze levenshouding natuurlijk een schaduwkant, te weten de vervreemding, de eenzaamheid, en de onverschilligheid. Maar voor deze werkelijkheid heeft Laroui geen oog, immers bij aankomst was voor hem Nederland, zonder overdrijven, ‘een paradijs.’ Vergeleken met de Marokkaanse staatsterreur in West Sahara is Nederland vanzelfsprekend een elysium, maar het is potsierlijk om dit van Laroui te vernemen, aangezien hij voor een staatsconcern van het Marokkaanse regime werkte dat betrokken was bij de roof van fosfaat uit het bezette land van een ander. Het blijft evenwel een gotspe dat juist Laroui zijn eigen vrijheid en autonomie zo waardevol acht, en Nederland de hemel in prijst. De stad waarin ik al bijna een halve eeuw woon is en was zeker geen ‘paradijs,’ maar een centrum waar al het goede als weerzinwekkende van de mens zich voltrekt. Men dient niet te vergeten dat tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog uit Amsterdam procentueel twee maal zoveel joodse burgers werden gedeporteerd als uit België, en driemaal zoveel als uit Frankrijk. Met andere woorden: een ‘paradijs’ op aarde is een puberale fictie.
Welnu, aangezien Fouad Laroui tegenover Vrij Nederland benadrukte dat als er kritiek op zijn meningen is, hij dan bestreden ‘wil’ worden ‘met logische argumenten’ om‘aan te tonen dat wat ik zeg niet klopt.’ Hij voegde hieraan toe dat pas dan sprake van ’een debat’ kan zijn. Ik deel die mening volledig. Vandaar dat ik hem verzoek te reageren op enkele voor de hand liggende vragen. Meneer Laroui, het Westen wordt niet alleen gekenmerkt door het ‘individualisme,’ dat u zo bewondert, maar tevens door de twijfel aan dogma’s. Opmerkelijk is dat hoewel het ‘individualisme’ wordt verheerlijkt, tegelijkertijd het conformisme wordt afgedwongen, zoals de grootste westerse denkers de afgelopen eeuwen hebben duidelijk gemaakt. Hetzelfde geldt voor de moed om te durven twijfelen aan dogma’s. Ikzelf ben elf jaar ouder dan u, en ben zonder een nauw omlijnde ideologie of religie groot gebracht. Vooral mijn moeder wees mij op het belang van een humanistische levenswijze en aan het doorslaggevende belang van de twijfel aan doctrines. Zij deed dit met name door mij te introduceren in de wereld-literatuur. Bovendien heb ik als tiener en adolescent de hervormingsgezinde jaren zestig en begin jaren zeventig meegemaakt. Die tijd heeft bijgedragen aan mijn vorming als geschoold en kritisch mens. Daardoor merkte ik al snel in de jaren tachtig hoe de twijfel, één van de pilaren van de westerse cultuur, door het neoliberale kapitalisme werd vernietigd, om plaats te maken voor het ideologische fundamentalisme van de huidige machthebbers en hun hun woordvoerders van de mainstream-media. De Verbeelding aan de Macht, werd de Verbeelding van de Macht, met als gevolg de problemen waarmee de mensheid vandaag de dag geconfronteerd wordt. De stand van zaken werd wat mij betreft het treffendst omschreven door de Britse auteur John Berger die in februari 2003 in Le Monde diplomatique over ‘The pain of living in the present world’ onder andere het volgende poneerde:
People everywhere -- under very different conditions -- are asking themselves -- where are we? The question is historical not geographical. What are we living through? Where are we being taken? What have we lost? How to continue without a plausible vision of the future? Why have we lost any view of what is beyond a lifetime?
The well-heeled experts answer: Globalization. Post-Modernism. Communications Revolution. Economic Liberalism. The terms are tautological and evasive. To the anguished question of Where are we? the experts murmur: Nowhere!
Might it not be better to see and declare that we are living through the most tyrannical -- because the most pervasive -- chaos that has ever existed? It's not easy to grasp the nature of the tyranny, for its power structure (ranging from the 200 largest multinational corporations to the Pentagon) is interlocking and diffuse, dictatorial yet anonymous, ubiquitous yet placeless. It tyrannizes from offshore -- not only in terms of fiscal law, but in terms of any political control beyond its own. Its aim to delocalize the entire world. It's ideological strategy -- besides which Bin Laden's is a fairy tale -- is to undermine the extent so that everything collapses into its special version of the virtual, from the realm of which -- and this is the tyranny's credo -- there will be a never-ending source of profit.
Dit is wat de u en de uwen die in het Westen ‘een paradijs’ menen te zien, volledig ontgaat. Elk systeem kent een schaduwzijde, die verzwegen wordt door de propagandisten van de politiek en de commerciële media. De verpolitiekte westerse 'vrije pers' is te ideologisch georiënteerd om de realiteit weer te geven. Het opmerkelijke is nu dat alleen de kunstzinnigen in staat zijn de werkelijkheid te verwoorden of te verbeelden. Alleen zij weten de eerlijkheid op te brengen om de het dagelijks bestaan te beschrijven. In zijn essaybundel Hold Everything Dear: Dispatches on Survival and Resistance (2008) stelt Berger het als volgt:
Democracy is a proposal (rarely realized) about decision making; it has little to do with election campaigns. It's promise is that political decisions be made after, and in the light of, consultation with the governed. This is dependent upon the governed being adequately informed about the issues in question, and upon the decision-makers having the capacity and will to listen and take account of what they have heard. Democracy should not be confused with the 'freedom' of binary choices, the publication of opinion polls or the crowding of people into statistics…
Both military and economic strategists now realize that the media play a crucial role -- not so in defeating the current enemy as in foreclosing and preventing mutiny, protest or desertion. Any tyranny's manipulation of the media is an index of its fears...
Every form of contestation against the tyranny is comprehensible. Dialogue with it is impossible. For us to live and die properly, things have to be named properly. Let us reclaim our words.
Vanuit dit besef stel ik de volgende vragen aan dr. ir. Fouad Laroui:
Meneer Laroui,
- Hoe is het te verklaren dat een geschoold mens als u een gewillig en onmisbaar schakeltje kon zijn in een concern van een staat die met geweld een land bezet om daar ondermeer de grondstof fosfor te stelen? En dit alles terwijl u uw eigen autonomie zo lief heeft?
2. Nu duidelijk is dat de twee Amerikaanse kernbommen niet uit militaire maar vanwege politieke redenen op Japanse steden zijn gegooid, kan de conclusie niet anders zijn dan dat er sprake is geweest van massaal terrorisme. Ik hanteer voor het begrip terrorisme de definitie van het Amerikaanse Leger Handboek, namelijk ’het bewust geplande gebruik van geweld of dreiging van geweld om doelen te bereiken die politiek, religieus, of ideologisch van aard zijn.’ Er vanuit gaande dat u terroristen als ‘labiele psychopaten’ met of zonder ‘een bomgordel’ typeert, is de voor de hand liggende vraag: hoe kwalificeert u het westerse geweld waarbij — in het geval van Hiroshima en Nagasaki — tenminste 200.000 burgers, in strijd met het internationaal recht, werden vermoord? Meent u dat Washington en Brussel, waar het hoofdkwartier van de NAVO is gevestigd, bestaat uit ‘labiele psychopaten’ die met massavernietigingswapens, waaronder kernbommen, de mensheid chanteren en zo nodig zullen uitroeien? Zo nee, waarom niet, oftewel, wat is dan het fundamentele verschil tussen een ‘bomgordel’ en een ‘kernbom’? Zo ja, waarom spreekt u zich hier niet over uit in De Groene Amsterdammer terwijl u dit wel doet over de kleinschalig opererende terroristen in Madrid, Londen, Parijs, en Brussel? Ik zie uw antwoord met spanning tegemoet, aangezien ook ik een echt ‘debat’ toejuich. Het zou onze totalitaire technocratie weer de schijn van een democratie kunnen geven.
In afwachting van uw antwoord,
vriendelijke groet,
Stan van Houcke,
Amsterdam.
Morocco must answer for human rights abuses in Western Sahara
Brahim Dahane
Twenty-three of those arrested by Moroccan police two years ago and subsequently tortured still languish in jail awaiting trial
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten