The Associated Press Saturday, December 28, 2002

(12-28) 09:15 PST (AP) --

Conflict holds center stage as the world begins a new year.

The United States and allies are mobilizing military forces for a possible war in Iraq, while American and other troops come under fire in Afghanistan a year after the Taliban's fall.

Israelis and Palestinians still shed blood. Ivory Coast, once the stable business hub of West Africa, is wracked by civil war. Political unrest threatens to escalate in Venezuela, Haiti and Nigeria. Tensions remain high between India and Pakistan.

The hunt for Osama bin Laden goes on, and al-Qaida bombers have staged deadly attacks in Asia and Africa, as governments press crackdowns on suspected terrorists.

Not all is grim. Long wars have stopped in three African nations -- Congo, Angola and Sierra Leone -- and in South Asia's Sri Lanka.

The Associated Press asked some of its correspondents around the world to assess the prospects for 2003. Here are their reports:

United Nations By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS -- All eyes will be on a report to the Security Council by U.N. weapons inspectors on Jan. 27, which is likely to play a key role in determining whether Iraq will face a U.S.-led war or be disarmed peacefully.

With inspectors back in Iraq after nearly four years, the question of whether Saddam Hussein can cooperate with them and stave off a new war will almost certainly dominate the United Nations' agenda early in 2003.

But there are many other issues vying for attention: increasing support for the war on terrorism, ending conflicts in Ivory Coast and Burundi, helping implement an outline for Israeli-Palestinian peace, getting Greek and Turkish Cypriots to agree on a reunification plan, nurturing economic recovery and democratic government in Afghanistan.

War and peace aren't the only items on the U.N. agenda.

The World Food Program is tackling an unprecedented hunger crisis in Africa, where 38 million people face starvation. There are refugee and human rights problems in Africa, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. The United Nations is holding conferences on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in April and on small arms in July.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan intends to focus more on Latin America's economic troubles and instability in Venezuela and Colombia. He will also be emphasizing that the global AIDS crisis is wiping out important development gains, especially in Africa.

The goals adopted by world leaders at the Millennium Summit remain high on the U.N. agenda -- halving the number of people living on a dollar a day, ensuring every child has an elementary school education, and halting the AIDS epidemic, all by 2015.

UNICEF is launching a campaign in 2003 to promote girls' education in the 25 countries with the worst records.

Middle East By DAN PERRY

JERUSALEM -- The Middle East could see big changes if the United States launches a war to topple Saddam Hussein and manages to coax Israelis and Palestinians toward ending their 27-month-old conflict.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is favored to win Israel's Jan. 28 election. But the result could well be another "unity government" formed with the moderate Labor Party led by Amram Mitzna, who favors a speedy Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

Sharon accepts the idea of Palestinian statehood but sets tough conditions and is mistrusted by the Palestinians because he oversaw harsh military measures against them and reoccupied the West Bank.

A Palestinian election planned for January will almost certainly be put off, but Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat will still face pressure to reform his government and perhaps even an Israeli move to expel him if suicide bombings continue.

The United States and other mediators are expected to push a peace "roadmap" that calls for an end to violence and the creation of a provisional Palestinian state as early as the coming year -- a goal many see as overly ambitious.

Optimists say the atmosphere in the Middle East will be more amenable to peacemaking if the U.S. military ousts the Iraqi regime.

With U.N. weapons inspectors still at work in Iraq, it remains unclear whether such an attack will take place, who America's allies would be, and how much resistance Saddam could muster. Even if Saddam is removed, controlling his bitterly divided country could prove an enormous task.

Meanwhile, there are fears of a rise in anti-Western terrorism in the region, exemplified by the October killing of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and the November killing of an American Christian missionary in Lebanon.

Latin America By JAMES ANDERSON

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela is flirting with civil war, putting attention on the poverty-driven turmoil that is testing many Latin American democracies.

Populist-authoritarian President Hugo Chavez, having survived a coup, is fighting a new effort to unseat him as Venezuela's economy sinks. There's a constitutional catch: Chavez was elected, and his term runs to 2007.

Global oil markets and Washington's Middle East plans could be disrupted if Venezuelan oil stays capped because of class warfare.

Brazil's government has taken a leftward turn with the election of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as president. Millions are poor and jobless, and blame their condition on a free-market policy. Investors worry Silva will dump that policy -- and default on Brazil's $230 billion foreign debt.

In Ecuador, with 60 percent of people living in poverty, the poor have been heartened by the presidential election victory of a former coup leader, Lucio Gutierrez, over a billionaire.

2003 will be the 39th year of war in Colombia, where President Alvaro Uribe promises to crack down hard on leftist rebels now exploding their bombs in Bogota. Right-wing paramilitaries are abiding by a cease-fire.

Mexican President Vicente Fox's promise to overturn 70 years of autocratic rule will be tested with midterm elections in 2003. Fox also is working to get Washington to loosen border rules for Mexican workers despite the campaign against terrorist groups.

Argentina remains in its worst economic slump, hoping a presidential election in April will produce a leader who can win international aid.

In Chile, with one of the region's most stable economies, President Ricardo Lagos is banking on new trade pacts with the United States and Europe to keep growth going.

Asia By ERIC TALMADGE

TOKYO -- A long and familiar list of problems dogs the world's most populous continent.

Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is believed on the loose somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan still face off over Kashmir. And North Korea is as unpredictable as ever.

While the U.S. military-led search for bin Laden drags on, echoes of terrorism reverberate through Asia.

In one of the closing tragedies of 2002, bombs outside a nightclub on the Indonesian island of Bali killed nearly 200 people, including many young Australian tourists.

American troops embarked on a six-month training mission to help the Philippines eradicate Abu Sayaff, a Muslim terrorist group with links to al-Qaida. But success was slim -- and more American involvement is likely in 2003.

Tensions that had India and Pakistan on the brink of war a year ago have cooled, but their dispute over Kashmir is unresolved and Indians are threatening action against Islamic militants operating out of Pakistan's portion of the Himalayan region.

A cease-fire is holding in Sri Lanka as peace talks seem to be making progress toward ending a 19-year civil war.

In East Asia, the enigmatic communist rulers of North Korea upped anxieties by admitting they are developing nuclear weapons.

For Japan, Asia's economic powerhouse, another hard year lies ahead. After a decade-long slowdown, it hobbles into 2003 with its stock market near a 19-year low, its unemployment rate at a postwar high of 5.6 percent and its political leaders unsure how to rejuvenate the world's second-largest economy.

China, meanwhile, greets the new year with a new look. In November, the Communist Party marked the end of Jiang Zemin's 13-year career as the country's top party man. Successor Hu Jintao, 59, an owlish engineer, must complete market overhauls that have seen more than 25 million workers laid off since 1998.

Africa By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

DAKAR, Senegal -- Two giants of Africa venture into 2003 facing fateful challenges: Ivory Coast, West Africa's economic hub, struggling with a once-unthinkable civil war, and Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, trying for its first democratic transfer of power.

A weak Ivorian government that had sought to cement its security by cosseting both pet ethnic groups and military branches lost on both counts. Northerners and army officers, the "outs" on President Laurent Gbagbo's in-and-out list, rebelled in September.

Ivory Coast, the world's largest cocoa producer, now is pulling in mercenaries and looking to former ruler France and others for help.

In Nigeria, President Olusegun Obasanjo, whose election in 1999 ended 15 years of brutal military rule, is desperately appealing for calm as his faction-riven nation heads toward elections expected in April.

Nigeria has never pulled off a civilian transfer of power, seeing the army take over in a series of coups. The nation of 120 million is home to 250 ethnic groups, and many people fear the vote will worsen ethnic, political and religious strife that has killed 10,000 since 1999.

In East Africa, elections have Kenyans facing life without Daniel arap Moi as president for the first time in 24 years. Zimbabwe is looking at more food shortages and more showdowns with white farmers, whose lands are being taken by President Robert Mugabe's government.

West and East Africa are taking roles as U.S. strategic interests. American investment soared in the west's Gulf of Guinea in 2002 as foreign oil companies drilled. U.S. troops have moved into Dijibouti and elsewhere in the east as bases in the war against terrorists.

Hopes are high that new peace will hold in Congo, Angola and Sierra Leone.

Europe By KIM HOUSEGO

PARIS -- European leaders will likely be forced into a delicate balancing act in 2003: paving the way for the European Union to expand into the former Soviet bloc while reassuring voters fearful of job losses, an influx of immigrants and terrorism.

With Europe mired in an economic slowdown, the EU faces an uphill battle to garner popular support for expansion amid growing concern over the costs and a potential loss of national identity.

The 15-nation EU must also overhaul its rules to avoid paralysis in decision-making when it adds 10 more members by 2004. Deep divisions over a proposed constitution aimed at giving the EU a stronger voice in world affairs also need resolving.

Despite the smooth launch of the EU's common currency last New Year's Day, the austere budget rules anchoring the euro are drawing criticism as governments struggle to spur their economies.

Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism and war cast a gloom.

France and Britain have repeatedly warned of possible terror strikes, while the EU held its first-ever Europe-wide training exercise against attacks that use weapons of mass destruction.

Europeans are deeply divided over a possible war with Iraq. While France has set tough conditions for it to join any U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Germany has ruled out participation. Britain, Washington's closest ally, firmly backs the U.S. hard line.

The new year threatens more strains in the still volatile Balkans. Failed presidential elections in Serbia risk stalling progress on reforms needed to revive the country after the era of former President Slobodan Milosevic, now on trial at the U.N. war crimes tribunal at The Hague, Netherlands.

Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States By JUDITH INGRAM

MOSCOW -- 2003 brings two watersheds for Russia: a peak in the nation's foreign debt payments and parliamentary elections that will pave the way for the presidential contest the following year.

Payment of the more than $15 billion in debt will tax the state budget, which has maintained a small surplus the last three years thanks to high world prices for oil.

The parliamentary campaign can be expected to slow long-anticipated reform of the natural gas and electricity utilities, since candidates will be loath to back changes that would bring consumer price rises. The vote also is likely to return a solid majority of seats to supporters of President Vladimir Putin, who is up for re-election in 2004.

With the Chechen war in its fourth year, the Kremlin plans a referendum on a Chechen constitution in the spring, followed by the election of a regional president. The rebels, behind the recent seizure of a Moscow theater, are likely to continue hit-and-run attacks.

Political tensions are likely to grow in Ukraine and Belarus, where both presidents have shorn the parliaments of any power. Both are under intense diplomatic pressure from the West over alleged human rights abuses and for allegedly helping Iraq.

The former Soviet republics of Central Asia are likewise volatile, with most leaders intensifying crackdowns on purported Islamic extremists and other opponents.

Presidential elections in two rival nations in the Caucasus -- Armenia and Azerbaijan -- are expected to return their leaders to office for a final term. Diplomats predict Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Geidar Aliev could make a final push in 2003 to settle their dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Caribbean By IAN JAMES

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- The new year promises possible trials for men held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and could bring a test of wills to Haiti as the government's opponents step up violent protests.

Nearly a year after hundreds of detainees began arriving at Guantanamo, they are still awaiting word on their fate. Washington says the men, accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime and al-Qaida, could be tried by tribunals, released or held indefinitely.

In Haiti, crushing poverty has most people entrapped in a daily search for food. The opposition accuses President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of doing little to solve the country's problems and wants him to resign. His opponents and supporters are increasingly clashing in the streets, but Aristide says he has brought relative peace after years of repeated coups and says he plans to serve out his term, which ends in 2006.

Hotel operators hope for a rebound in tourism throughout the Caribbean, where economies have been hurt by a drop in the number of travelers since the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

Persistent unemployment is driving young people to leave countries like St. Lucia and Dominica in search of work. Thousands of migrants still risk their lives in rickety boats sailing from Haiti and the neighboring Dominican Republic.

Socialist Cuba is working to further erode the U.S. trade embargo. Fidel Castro's government already is buying food, including chicken, wheat, rice and apples, under an exception to the sanctions.

Activists in Puerto Rico expect to celebrate the end of U.S. Navy bombing exercises on Vieques island in May. The Navy is looking for a new site to help train for future conflicts, while anti-terrorism efforts are giving new importance to security and immigration controls throughout the region.

Australia and the Pacific By MIKE CORDER

SYDNEY, Australia -- The Australian government begins the year concentrated on protecting the nation from terrorist attack.

The country was put on high alert in October after terror bombs wrecked two nightclubs on the Indonesian island of Bali and killed more than 180 people, including 88 Australians.

Prime Minister John Howard's conservative government has said its only major spending initiatives in 2003 will be on defense.

The country's farmers will be hoping that the worst drought in a century to hit Australia finally will break after wiping out billions of dollars worth of exports in 2002.

After winning re-election in 2002, New Zealand's Labor Prime Minister Helen Clark looks set to push on with social reform. While economic growth is expected to slow, the center-left administration will push for lower trade barriers for its farmers and manufacturers at the World Trade Organization and in regional and bilateral forums.

Early in 2003, off the northern city of Auckland, the finals of the America's Cup sailing regatta could see a New Zealand group become the first non-U.S. team to win the competition three straight times.

Fiji, the South Pacific's hotspot the past 17 years with three coups, faces a fresh challenge to the legality of its indigenous Fijian-led government. The ethnic Indian-dominated opposition Labor Party is seeking a court ruling that it has the right to seats in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase under the country's multiracial constitution.

The mid-Pacific nation of the Solomon Islands could face more unrest. Its economy continues to slide toward collapse following a mass exodus of foreign investors prompted by social unrest and lawlessness.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD: PLEASE JOIN US by Dictator Watch Sat, Dec 28 2002, 3:38pm www.dictatorwatch.org

Are you for democracy, or dictatorship? Are you part of the solution, or part of the problem? Do we ®¢ meaning all the life on Earth ®¢ do we live, or do we die?

You decide.

It is time for the people of the world to decide: which side are we as a species, and you as an individual, on? Things are rarely black and white, but in this case they are. The world ®¢ all of life ®¢ is at a crossroads. The coming century, regardless of the direction we choose, will be the most tumultuous the planet has ever seen. It will be characterized by a level of chaos hitherto unexperienced, with social conflict that makes the World Wars seem small by comparison, and with an extinction event among other species, which is already underway, with no precedent for the last sixty-five million years. Still, there is a choice. The magnitude of this catastrophe will vary, from the extreme to the unimaginable, depending on what we do now.

You have to decide. You cannot sit on the sides, or deny. There is no middle ground: denial is equivalent with complicity. (You do not necessarily have to be a front line activist, but if you have a lifestyle that has as its prerequisite environmental destruction and social dictatorship and inequality, then you have made your choice: the wrong one.)

Of course you could respond: why do anything? Why should we care, such as if other species die out? Evolution is working the way it always has. ThatÕs just the way things are.

The answer to this is that we are not machines, programmed to act in a certain way and in that way only. We have free will, which we use to make choices, and this will is grounded in reason. Using our reason, the advanced consciousness we have evolved, we can survey our world, understand it, and attempt to make the best choices among those that are available.

This raises the question, what measure should we use as our guide: what should be our goal? Some people have argued that the goal is the maximization of happiness. Society, particularly the media, regularly acts as if the goal is the avoidance of boredom. Another measure, though, which is not unrelated to the first, is the preservation and creation of value.

Over the last 3.5 billion years all manner of life forms and natural habitats have evolved on our planet. Similarly, in the last two hundred thousand years ®¢ the period of time since Homo sapiens evolved as a separate species ®¢ an extraordinary array of distinct human cultures have been established. This diversity represents what is truly unique and beautiful about the Earth: it constitutes the real value of our world.

Every time a species dies out, every time a natural habitat is cut down, every time a traditional human culture is ÒassimilatedÓ by the modern world, part of this value is irrevocably lost.

This concept of value can also be used to evaluate any actions that humans consider, as individuals and through groups. If such actions preserve environmental and cultural diversity, and establish the conditions in which they can continue to thrive, then they are acceptable. However, if the actions reduce the diversity and the potential for further development, even if only through indirect consequences, then they are not.

One view of the modern world says that we are progressing, inexorably. The modern system is one of Democracy combined with Capitalism, and while it suffers abuses, it has the ability to police or reform itself. It will, someday, lead us to the utopia of our dreams (or fantasies). Another view though is that our present conditions are already dire, and highly likely to get much, much worse. This perspective argues that there are social undercurrents of which we are for the most part unaware that are leading us not to utopia, but dystopia.

The basis of the latter view is that we do not look at things as they really are, that we confuse symptoms with problems. For example, right now America ®¢ the world ®¢ all of ÒCivilizationÓ ®¢ is at war with terrorism. We are also at war with drugs, and crime, and poverty. We have so many wars now that we have a war du jour. (Iraq!) This is absurd. Terrorism, drugs, crime and even poverty are merely symptoms, and symptoms can only be treated, not solved. We may treat them with guns, prisons, police, or welfare ®¢ whatever ®¢ but even if they seem to go away they will return. For the symptoms to be treated such that they never return, that they never can return, the underlying problems must be solved. It is time to address these problems.

One such problem is our lack of ethics. This applies to everyone ®¢ we all face the challenge of implementing ethical principles to guide our lives ®¢ but it is regularly clearest, and also the most magnified, with our leaders. The art of life, or one of the fundamental components of what is termed wisdom, is to recognize subtle distinctions. (As was mentioned, normally things are not black and white.) One example is the distinction between having an absolute set of ethical principles that you then apply in the different situations that you encounter, versus changing your principles to fit the situation, to satisfy your personal selfishness.

The United States Government is not principled: it is not ethical. It pretends to be the leading light of freedom, but this is a farce. US leaders change government policy to fit the situation, really, to satisfy their own personal objectives. These objectives in turn reflect the desires of their supporters, for the most part corporate supporters, who provide their campaign funding. Because of this connection US policy is not devoted to such goals as freedom, and equality, and the better world their widespread adoption would create. It is rarely even tailored to meet the more immediate needs of ordinary Americans.

Ethical principles are also regularly sacrificed to meet the needs of Ògeopolitics,Ó meaning ®¢ for the US and other democracies ®¢ that they will work with one dictatorial system to gain power over another, and then change their allegiance when a new opportunity presents itself. The US in particular has a long-standing policy, which is perhaps more active now than ever before, to cooperate, even conspire, with political dictatorships around the world if it has the potential to serve US interests (or, more accurately, the interests of US politicians).

The world at present is permeated with dictatorial systems, which are growing in power, and which the US refuses to confront. Indeed, under President Bush the US government is rapidly becoming a dictatorship itself, over all the people of America and all other nations, and also over the planetary ecology and all other forms of life.

Washington and Jefferson would be appalled at the depths to which America has sunk. The Tories have won. It took two hundred years, but it appears that the War for Independence, and the deeper war for equality and human rights on which it was based, were not conclusively decided. The Tories came back, insidiously, and now they have the power.

The main loci of political dictatorship around the world are Asian authoritarianism, of which China is the bulwark; Islamic theocracy, with its foundation in Saudi Arabia; and traditional tribal conflicts and dominations in Africa. In the Americas dictatorship also survives in isolated locations such as Cuba, although there is the potential for widespread resurgence beginning in such nations as Venezuela and Columbia.

China last year announced that it would always be a communist one party state, i.e., a dictatorship. Around Asia most nations are openly dictatorial, and increasingly accepted as legitimate in this form by the West. Islamist ideology is also growing in power ®¢ it has been given great impetus by Osama bin Laden and September 11, 2001 ®¢ leading to the call for more Islamic regimes and the installation of Islamic law (sharia), including in such countries as Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia. And, virtually all Islamic states, beginning with Saudi Arabia, remain committed to dictatorship: to rule by monarchs and mullahs, the repression of women, etc. Some would say that the religion itself is flawed, because it has an ineluctable connection to violence. The call for Jihad against infidels ®¢ unbelievers ®¢ can never be renounced since it came directly from God via the Prophet. And, for Africa, the division by the colonial powers of the continent using arbitrary national borders, thereby combining groups with long histories of conflict, guarantees that it will not soon achieve peace.

Building on this is the evolution that is occurring in social dictatorship, where power is shifting from traditional political and religious forms to modern economic ones. Multinational corporations and other economic entities, i.e., financial and supranational, are ascending in power and as they do they are reinforcing such historical structures. This is because political dictatorship represents their ideal operating environment. For corporations, they need only pay the requisite bribes and market monopolies are theirs for the asking, and, they can avoid all the social and environmental costs of their actions.

Of course, even with this change many deeper or systemic patterns still hold. Men still wield power over women; the rich over the poor; and the well-educated over the not well-educated.

Lastly, we have yet to see, through action (rather than just words), widespread adoption of a more benevolent attitude by humanity towards nature, to signal, finally, the end of our dictatorship over all other species of life. (This dictatorship continues in part because the modern economic system is predicated on massive exploitation and destruction of natural habitat.)

To recall terrorism, it is worth asking the question: what is a terrorist? One would suppose that it is someone who causes others to fear for their lives. If we were able to ask, what do you think other species would say about George Bush, (un-elected) head of the most powerful and influential country in the world, who opposes all new efforts to help them and who is rolling back the few protections that they have, which steps will certainly lead to their continued, wholesale, slaughter? Their blood would run cold. Terror would be a very apt word to describe their reaction. Furthermore, BushÕs own links to big business start with the energy industry, which along with the other extractive industries, including timber, mining and ranching, are the leading environmental terrorists on the planet. (Bush is also, of course, a rancher himself.)

As this suggests, there are all manner of linkages between the various dictatorial systems. For instance, the West, including the US and Europe, is appeasing China, such as through allowing it into the World Trade Organization and by awarding it the 2008 Olympics. In the process its many, many crimes, of the widest variety imaginable, have been overlooked. Western democracies have bowed to the demands of their corporations, to facilitate trade, which trade in turn funds the Chinese dictatorship, most importantly the military on which it is based. This makes it even more entrenched. (Instead of opposing it, we are assisting it.) China in turn funds and arms Pakistan (among many other dictatorial states, including North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Serbia under Milosevic), which itself arms the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and Kashmiri militants, who then attack the US, India and elsewhere. China also funds and arms Burma, which represses its people, supplies the world with heroin and methamphetamines, and grants safe haven to Pakistani nuclear experts who support bin Laden.

How can we so quickly have forgotten the price of appeasement: the lesson of Chamberlain and Hitler?

China is taking great steps to extend its imperial domain, and these steps ®¢ together with its increasing legitimacy ®¢ will doom the nations of Asia, starting with Tibet and excluding perhaps only India, to perpetual dictatorship. Such nations will never be able to escape the power of such a strong regional influence. China is also building an arsenal of nuclear-armed missiles that will be able to reach the United States, not to mention Taiwan. But this may be exactly what politicians such as President Bush want. They want a new Cold War (another war!). Rather than confront China now, and work to transform it to a democracy and eliminate this threat, they defer and allow the threat to increase. This will ensure that there is no effective opposition to funding a Star Wars program, and a larger and larger military, and also to such things as internal security measures that infringe civil liberties (ÒHomeland SecurityÓ). Knowingly or unknowingly, by following such a policy they are working to build the world envisioned in OrwellÕs 1984, with regional powers forever at war with each other, not for the purposes of conquest but as a means to create and justify repression at home.

The driving force that is ultimately behind all of this is the world of business, starting with the arms industry. Companies have established partnerships with the greatest political criminals history has ever seen (such as the businesses that worked for Hitler and Nazi Germany). The blood on the hands of the latter is money in the bank for the former. Contemporary links of this nature include BushÕs father, the former President, who was also at one point ambassador to China (and head of the CIA) and who is now a principal of the Carlyle Group, a leading investor in the country; and Vice President Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, which is active in Burma. Another company active in Burma is Unocal, which also had well developed plans to work with the Taleban in Afghanistan. But it is not only heavy industry that supports and funds political dictatorships. All manner of corporations actively solicit them. For example, Rupert Murdoch, who heads News Corp., one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, has extensive commercial interests in China and, at least in the past, has censored from his media negative accounts of the dictatorship. What we are experiencing is a new type of cabal: the leaders of nominally democratic nations are in bed with political dictators, major corporations, and supposed media watchdogs.

It has to be stopped, and since our leaders cannot be trusted, since our social checks and balances have failed, we, the ordinary people of the world, are going to have to do it. Even though individuals such as the current US President will come and go, there is no chance that this will lead to real improvement. This is because the system itself is flawed. It is this system, which selects and grooms our leaders and instills in them the ideology of oppression, that we must fight.

Said another way, our system of self-rule must be real self-rule, in other words, a direct democracy. And, we must use our voices to speak for those who in our political system have none, for all the species of the natural world.

The time to end dictatorship has come. Indeed, if we are not able to reverse the current trend, the developing supremacy of corporations over government, we may lose what small chance of success remains. It is not an overstatement to say that we are at the turning point in history. Homo sapiens may implode, and take all other species with it, or we can confront our problems and build something truly new. We must create a discontinuity: throw off what we have and who we are, and change. Now is the time to exceed our grasp.

The only solution is a mass, and voluntary, opting-out of the current system, and this in turn requires efforts to counter the brainwashing to which we are all exposed. We can start with identification: we must increase our accuracy thereof. When leaders are unethical they become dictators. They may not be recognized or named as such, but thatÕs what they are. It is not Chinese President Jiang Zemin, but Dictator Jiang Zemin (and also Mass Murderer Jiang Zemin). Similarly, it is not President Musharraf of Pakistan, or Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia, but Dictator. We also have Dictator Gates and Dictator Murdoch (and before them such individuals as Dictator Rockefeller), not to mention the anonymous dictators of the advertising industry. Then there is Dictator John Paul, and the Dictators ®¢ the sheiks and mullahs ®¢ of Saudi Arabia.

We must also better identify, or understand, ourselves. You will have to decide which side of history you are on. To repeat: are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

• If you believe humans have more rights than other species, you are part of the problem.
• If you accept without questioning what you are told, you are part of the problem. (This statement includes this letter: you should question everything.)
• If you believe the answer to every economic difficulty is to consume more, you are part of the problem.
• If you live in a sprawl house, you are part of the problem.
• If you are not seriously considering not having children, you are part of the problem.
• If you judge other people on the basis of characteristics that they cannot help having, rather than on their behavior as individuals, you are part of the problem.
• If you accept the status quo, if you do not actively oppose the wrongs that you see around you, you are part of the problem.
• If you yourself do wrong, if you lie and cheat and abuse and steal, you are part of the problem.

And so on and so on.

September 11th was a great tragedy, the latest in a long line of heart-wrenching traumas. There is no better way to honor the dead, from all such events, than to confront and defeat the parties responsible. But, there is no easy answer to, or even understanding of, such acts and conflict. Furthermore, political and media commentary and, subsequently, public opinion, always centers on the most superficial of appraisals. However, at any point in time, and certainly following a disaster of this magnitude, there is the possibility to dig deeper and go after the source.

An alternative view is that September 11th resulted from the clash of two dictatorial systems: Islamic extremism; and unregulated global capitalism and its assault on all traditional cultures and values, with the US as the leading proponent thereof. The specific justification that was given, which obscured this deeper phenomenon, was AmericaÕs unquestioning support of Israel over Palestine, where it finances and arms one side in a long-standing conflict even though both sides have legitimate concerns and have committed grievous wrongs.

(This support must be opposed, but not through murder! This is an example of the aforementioned discrimination, of the ability to recognize subtle distinctions. It is unacceptable to use unethical means to achieve an ethical end, in this case the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people.)

Prior to September 11th the US public was asleep. It had been lulled by the Ònews and entertainmentÓ it is offered, actually, force-fed, and more deeply by self-deception: a desire not to know (including to be ignorant of the effects of US foreign policy and the globalization of capitalism). Periodically, though, such slumber is disturbed. The outside world intrudes through an event that it is not possible to ignore.

Unfortunately, the shock of Sept 11th, the opportunity it represented, was not grasped. In other words, the victims died in vain. The event was manipulated to reinforce existing power structures. It was insufficient to instigate the general public to rise up and overthrow them.

More generally, the wars against terrorism, drugs, crime, and poverty are phony wars. They do not address the real problems. And, they have been publicized and politicized and through this structured to serve other purposes. They are not even being fought with victory as the goal (as if victory were possible).

Ultimately, what is at stake in our current predicament, the crossroads or turning point that we now face, is our deepest nature. Homo sapiens, like all other species, is motivated by selfishness. But given the abilities we have developed this selfishness has been magnified one million-fold to the detriment of everything, including ourselves. We must leave this form behind. While it is true that you will always, as an individual, think ÒyourÓ thoughts, it is not true that they must always be of yourself, of what ÒyouÓ want. Evolution demonstrates one truth: one must change ®¢ adapt ®¢ or die. Through actions, not only words, we must strive to evolve, to create a new post-human species, one with the governing ethic of selflessness, not selfishness, and cooperation, not competition.

More precisely, humanity is a species in transition. However, our entire social architecture is designed to hold us back.

• We have been indoctrinated to have faith in superstition and legend, when reason can and does show a better way to live (and purpose for living).
• We have been taught that political power should not be inherited, but persuaded that this is acceptable for economic power. Through this we have been deceived, since the one grants the other.
• We have been manipulated to become slaves to technology and to worship the belief that it will lead us forward, technology that is pursued solely as a means to earn profits. As a consequence, we have failed to recognize that such subservience to selfishness is in direct opposition to the evolution in ethics that is guided by our reason, and brain development.

Indeed, our entire social structure functions to serve one end ®¢ selfishness, and through this inequality, which reason tells us is the exact opposite of that for which we should strive.

In summary, humanity is now facing challenges that are more severe than any we have previously encountered (and which are also of our own making). Even worse, our prospects are slim. The forces of dictatorship have already amassed such great power that they are approaching invincibility. Still, our responsibility for life, for the future of the Earth (and to correct our own mistakes), demands that we try. Therefore, once again, you should ask yourself: which side are you on? For all individuals and groups who choose to be part of the solution, the time has come. We must marshal our resources and energy, and courage. We must work together, spread the word, and organize.

Life is the will to think and the courage to act, including for others. Now is the time to prove that we are alive.

Roland Watson for Dictator Watch 25 December 2002

Note: We are seeking endorsements for this letter, from individuals and groups. If you agree with its sentiments, if you yourself intend to work for what is right, please send us an endorsement at crossroads@dictatorwatch.org. (We would also like to hear from you if you disagree.) Please post the letter on any lists to which you belong, and forward it to your friends and family and other like-minded individuals. Lastly, if you can translate it to another language, please do so and then forward a copy to us. Thanks.

COMMENTS

mr watson one of your lines caused me to stop and ponder. by pondering iosaf on the nodes Sat, Dec 28 2002, 6:55pm

"""""The coming century, regardless of the direction we choose, will be the most tumultuous the planet has ever seen. It will be characterized by a level of chaos hitherto unexperienced, with social conflict that makes the World Wars seem small by comparison, and with an extinction event among other species, which is already underway, with no precedent for the last sixty-five million years. Still, there is a choice. The magnitude of this catastrophe will vary, from the extreme to the unimaginable, depending on what we do now.""""

Chaos and magnitude? Chaos is a constant particle of all thoughts on magnitude, there is no observed or theorised augmentation or recpricol deminution of Chaos.

There are many who have imagined magnitude and chaos and precedents within the time frame [I presume carbon dated / geological dated] 65 million years.

And we didn?t find any increase or decrease in Chaos.

And from our thoughts on Chaos and Magnitude we realised that what you do right now doesn?t really matter at all, that Mr Watson is a very existential delusion. Mr Watson in fact you might as well consider the magnitude of all those other languages you blythly suggest we translate your manifesto to and realise that the extinction of your civilisation based on the manifesto of slave owning tax evaders is unavoidable, and in that light I must say your idea of reducing human evolution and suffering within four lines to a time referential span of two world wars and 65 million years is by far the most silly christmas cracker I?ve yet pulled.

"Sure the whole worl is in a state of Chassis" Sean O?Casey I?ve commented b4 that that word Chassis is etymogolical uncertain and unaccounted for in P.K. Joyce?s English as we speak it in Ireland.

Alejandro Eggers Moreno, Pacific News Service, Dec 26, 2002 news.pacificnews.org

Those calling for early elections in Venezuela as a way to end the country's most recent crisis miss the point, writes PNS contributor Alejandro Eggers Moreno. Whether or not President Hugo Chavez would prevail in such elections, extreme tensions between rich and poor will remain, making the country a tinderbox.

The chorus calling for President Hugo Chavez to hold early elections in order to end his country's current crisis misses the point: Elections or not, Chavez or no Chavez, Venezuela's problems will likely remain, and could still possibly explode.

After weeks of trying to ignore Venezuela's escalating political instability and violence, demonstrated most recently in a strike by oil executives and workers, the Bush administration decided to step into the fray earlier this month by calling for early elections. Washington later admitted that any process should stay within Venezuela's constitutional limits, but still insisted that Chavez find an "electoral solution" to the current mess.

It's a position solidly in line with what much of the Chavez opposition demands -- though some have called for his immediate resignation -- and what nearly every third party to weigh in on the crisis has recommended, including Cesar Gaviria, Secretary General of the Organization of American States. The U.S. Congress has also struck the same chord. Richard Lugar, soon to be chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, insisted recently that the United States take a more aggressive stance and try to force elections in Venezuela.

While this insistence on a vague electoral solution to Venezuela's woes may look good -- especially after Washington's embarrassment over its support for the April coup attempt -- it is unlikely that early elections or any other electoral scheme would successfully resolve the crisis.

First and foremost, if elections were held today, Chavez might win. He maintains a solid and united base of support -- a recent poll put it at 36 percent -- concentrated among the country's poor, and he can mobilize his supporters quickly and effectively. His opposition, on the other hand, is united only on one issue -- its hostility towards the president.

The opposition ranges from conservative business and financial organizations to socialist groups such as Bandera Roja, which is farther to the left than Chavez himself. They often have little in common, and would be extremely hard-pressed to front a candidate who would be acceptable to all. Any sort of early elections would be likely to reveal the deep ideological rifts among the opposition, and might create between the groups the kind of tension and anger now reserved solely for Chavez.

Were Chavez to win, there is no reason to think any of the anti-Chavez forces would be any less hostile or the confrontations any less frequent or damaging. Nothing would be resolved.

Should Chavez lose, the situation could become even more dangerous. Chavez's supporters are as numerous and vocal as are those seeking to remove him, but have been afforded very little publicity by the staunchly anti-Chavez Venezuelan media. Even the commander of the army, General Julio Garcia Montoya, has come out publicly against the recent strike, ending opposition hopes that the military would turn against the president.

If Chavez were voted out of office in a special election, his supporters would likely see the act as a blatant disregard of both their interests and their constitutional rights. They voted Chavez into office, and thanks to expanded social services such as free public schools and subsidized food markets, they want him to stay there. His removal would severely antagonize over 30 percent of the population, virtually all from the poorest and most desperate sectors of society.

Further alienating those who now see Chavez as their only hope is not only dangerous for Venezuela, but risky for America as well. Disaffected Venezuelans, if left with nowhere else to turn, might form alliances with FARC, the leftist guerilla organization in neighboring Colombia on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Or they might try to disrupt the country's flow of oil.

If anything, a highly publicized, man-to-man face-off between Chavez and an opposition candidate would provide the ideal forum for the current simmering hostility to break out into open and armed conflict.

To truly increase stability and end political tensions, getting rid of Chavez is not enough. Instead, Venezuela -- and the United States and any other party that has an interest in the country's political health -- must address the conditions that allowed Chavez to rise to power in the first place. Previous Venezuelan administrations, riddled with corruption and content to adapt market policies that sacrificed the living standards of the bulk of the population in order to enrich a small business and financial elite, generated such anger that Chavez was able to take the presidency with the largest percentage of a democratic vote in Venezuelan history.

Any election that threatened to return the country to those conditions would simply fuel further hostility and intensify the current conflict.

The deep social rift that divides Venezuela must be addressed head on. No amount of voting, no change of leadership will alter the fact that two large segments of Venezuelan society hold diametrically opposed views with equal conviction.

Moreno (alejandro@strategicassessments.com) is vice president of Strategic Assessments Institute, a political and economic consulting firm in Los Angeles that specializes in Latin American affairs.

The Associated Press

Jamaica received 370,000 barrels of oil from Ecuador on Friday in an emergency shipment intended to help the country avoid a shortage caused by Venezuela's general strike.

In another consequence of the Venezuelan crisis, an oil refinery in Curacao that is one of the world's largest, shut down production Friday, company and union officials said.

Curacao's Refineria Isla, which receives most of its oil from Venezuela, is no longer processing gasoline, jet fuel, propane or oil lubricants, after shutting down its 37 refining plants, union president Elvis DeAndrade said.

The refinery, which employs more than 1,000 full-time, will not resume production until it can guarantee Venezuelan shipments of crude oil. The last two shipments of crude arrived last weekend, and there are no plans for more, the company has said.

In Jamaica, current oil reserves in Jamaica are lower than usual, enough to last only four more weeks, said Christopher Chin-Fatt of the state-run oil company PetroJam.

"This crude is coming just in time," Chin-Fatt said. "We have enough, but not as much as we'd like."

The shipment was originally scheduled to arrive Wednesday, but was delayed for undisclosed reasons.

Before the strike, Jamaica received 50 to 60 percent of its oil from Venezuela, or roughly 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per month.

Chin-Fatt would not disclose the cost of Friday's shipment. A similar-sized shipment is scheduled to arrive from Mexico in mid-January.

"But that's a little close," he said. "We're trying to advance that date."

Industry experts predict prices could soar higher as the strike continues in Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.

The strike, now nearly a month old, has crippled Venezuela's oil exports as opposition leaders try to force President Hugo Chavez to resign or call a referendum on his rule.

Raymond Wright, managing director of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, called an oil shortage in Jamaica unlikely, but said a prolonged strike would hurt the island. Since the strike, he said, Jamaica hasn't received benefits previously enjoyed under a long-standing agreement with Venezuela, such as no-interest loans and credits on shipments.

"Now we have to pay for all the oil up front," Wright said.

In the meantime, Wright said Jamaica would continue to buy oil from other countries.

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

View From Within by Lise Alves          Week of Dec 28, 2002 - Jan 03, 2003 Lise Alves is a Correspondent based in São Paulo for several media outlets, including Vatican Radio, CNS and the International Transport Journal. She has worked for "Marketplace" and the Christian Science Monitor radio services in the United States, and Deutsche Welle in Germany. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Journalism from the University of Maryland.

Brazil’s new President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has stated that one of the first priorities of his government will be to feed the hungry. And, as promised during the campaign, just days after winning the presidency Lula launched the “Fome Zero” program, which translates loosely to “No Hunger”. According to Lula, no Brazilian should have to go a day without breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Although his intentions are noble, this is not the first time the hunger problem takes front row center in a country as large as Brazil, known among other things for one of the world’s largest gaps between the poor and the rich. The idea of having as its first major project the eradication of hunger indicates that the Worker's Party (PT) is following through on its commitment to prioritize social programs, but it also reveals that the party has learned little from others’ past mistakes.

The difficulty begins with the lack of a clear definition, and because of it, the assumption that those who are poor are necessarily under-nourished. Many living under the so-called poverty line have already found means to obtain food, either through NGOs, government programs or family members. How, then, will the government determine who really can or should qualify for the benefit? What criteria will be used?

One of the proposed means to combat hunger is the distribution of stamps – much like food stamps in the U.S. – to those who live in poverty. But the problem with food stamps is that they don't necessarily end up used for their intended purpose. Some of the project’s biggest critics fear that stamps will end up transformed into a “parallel currency”, similar to what already happens in Brazil with public transportation stamps or "passes" employers give to workers as a benefit. One does not have to look too hard in any large Brazilian city to find improvised kiosks, where anyone can swap these stamps for cash. They're also accepted in lieu of cash by many businesses, although always at less than face value. An obvious question then, still to be answered, is how will Lula’s government prevent food stamps from turning into parallel money instead of actually being used to buy food for the undernourished?

During the election campaign, Lula's Worker's Party stated it opposed aid programs created by outgoing President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, which included giving out money and letting the recipients decide how best to use it. Those who created the "Fome Zero" program started out insisting on the concept of distributing food instead of money. That brought back visions of large food depots, with lines going around the block and people camping outside warehouses to receive their monthly share. It also brought back the prospect of suppliers overcharging the government for products, and corrupting public officials to maintain a supply cartel.

All of these are not figments of anyone's imagination, but very real difficulties faced in the not too distant past when similar programs were launched. Without a firm and well thought out game plan, it is very hard to imagine that the Worker's Party would be able to maintain sufficiently rigorous control of where these resources are really ending up. In other words, it's hard to see how the new administration might be successful where so many others have failed.

At this point – and this article was written just days before Lula takes office – actual details of the program have not been released, and the scenario remains murky. No one knows the exact logistics and specifics of the "Fome Zero" program – probably not even the group in charge of drawing up the project. All that's known is that the government has made fighting hunger a top priority. So far, it has yet to provide even the most basic information about how this will be accomplished – where the funds will come from, for example.

The original idea was to obtain revenues from the existing "Fund to Combat Poverty", but that fund has problems of its own. It has expanded out of control, and is now used to rescue just about any government assistance program that is unable to obtain funds elsewhere. Programs aimed at supervising indigenous lands, or the removal of polluting agents in hydro-basins, now resort to this fund and receive money intended to combat poverty.

The bottom line: the incoming government announced its first battle without studying the territory, or thinking through a strategy to combat the chosen enemy. There are far more questions than answers, leaving the population with a deja vu feeling of past administrations.

Related sites: Official transition website, created by the Worker's Party to provide details of the transition process (Portuguese only) transicao.lula.org.br www.infobrazil.com