www.thenation.com Posted February 20, 2003 by Arundhati Roy

Following is an excerpt from Arundhati Roy's talk at the closing rally of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, on January 27. The full text will appear in her book War Talk, to be published in April by South End Press. --The Editors

So how do we resist "Empire"? The good news is that we're not doing too badly. There have been major victories. Here in Latin America you have had so many--in Bolivia, you have Cochabamba. In Peru, there was the uprising in Arequipa. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez is holding on, despite the US government's best efforts. And the world's gaze is on the people of Argentina, who are trying to refashion a country from the ashes of the havoc wrought by the IMF.

In India the movement against corporate globalization is gathering momentum and is poised to become the only real political force to counter religious fascism. As for corporate globalization's glittering ambassadors--Enron, Bechtel, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen--where were they last year, and where are they now? And of course here in Brazil we must ask, Who was the president last year, and Who is it now?

Still, many of us have dark moments of hopelessness and despair. We know that under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terrorism, the men in suits are hard at work. While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, we know that contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipelines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatized and George Bush is planning to go to war against Iraq.

If we look at this conflict as a straightforward eyeball to eyeball confrontation between Empire and those of us who are resisting it, it might seem that we are losing. But there is another way of looking at it. We, all of us gathered here, have, each in our own way, laid siege to Empire. We may not have stopped it in its tracks--yet--but we have stripped it down. We have made it drop its mask. We have forced it into the open. It now stands before us on the world's stage in all its brutish, iniquitous nakedness.

Empire may well go to war, but it's out in the open now--too ugly to behold its own reflection. Too ugly even to rally its own people. It won't be long before the majority of American people become our allies. In Washington this January, a quarter of a million people marched against the war on Iraq. Each month the protest is gathering momentum.

Before September 11, 2001, America had a secret history. Secret especially from its own people. But now America's secrets are history, and its history is public knowledge. It's street talk. Today, we know that every argument that is being used to escalate the war against Iraq is a lie--the most ludicrous of them being the US government's deep commitment to bring democracy to Iraq. Killing people to save them from dictatorship or ideological corruption is, of course, an old US government sport. Here in Latin America, you know that better than most.

Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, a murderer (whose worst excesses were supported by the governments of the United States and Britain). There's no doubt that Iraqis would be better off without him. But then, the whole world would be better off without a certain Mr. Bush. In fact, he is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. So, should we bomb Bush out of the White House?

It's more than clear that Bush is determined to go to war against Iraq, regardless of the facts--and regardless of international public opinion. In its recruitment drive for allies, the United States is prepared to invent facts. The charade with weapons inspectors is the US government's offensive, insulting concession to some twisted form of international etiquette. It's like leaving the "doggie door" open for last-minute "allies" or maybe the United Nations to crawl through. But for all intents and purposes, the New War against Iraq has begun.

What can we do? We can hone our memory, we can learn from our history. We can continue to build public opinion until it becomes a deafening roar. We can turn the war on Iraq into a fishbowl of the US government's excesses. We can expose George Bush and Tony Blair--and their allies--for the cowardly baby killers, water poisoners and pusillanimous long-distance bombers that they are. We can reinvent civil disobedience in a million different ways. In other words, we can come up with a million ways of becoming a collective pain in the ass. When George Bush says "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," we can say "No thank you." We can let him know that the people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs.

Our strategy should be not only to confront empire but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness--and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we're being brainwashed to believe. The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling--their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

www.republicons.org by: Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki African National Congress 3/1/2003   The XIII Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on the 24-25th February, 2003. Attended by almost 110 member countries, the Summit Meeting represented about two-thirds of the world's population and the membership of the United Nations. Made up essentially of the developing countries of the South, NAM is an important voice for the poor of the world, whose lives are defined by exclusion from many of the benefits of the process of globalisation.

As our readers will remember, the XII NAM Summit was held in Durban in 1998. It adopted the Durban Declaration, which, among other things, said: "We are the ones who have endured centuries of colonialism, oppression, exploitation and neglect. We have been the invisible people of the world. In recent times, spurred by our Movement and progressive forces, we see our rapid emergence from that condition. Indeed, our time has come."

However, our optimism with regard to the new epoch was moderated by the fact that a unipolar and rapidly globalising world had emerged.

Accordingly, we further observed in the same Durban Declaration that: "We now stand on the threshold of a new era, an era that offers great opportunity, yet poses special dangers for the developing world."

The XIII Summit Meeting adopted the Kuala Lumpur Declaration, which returned to this issue. Among other things it said: "With the end of the Cold War, the emergence of unipolarity, the trend towards unilateralism and the rise of new challenges and threats, such as international terrorism, it is imperative for the Movement to promote multilateralism, the better to defend the interests of developing countries and prevent their marginalisation.

"With increased globalisation and the rapid advance of science and technology, the world has changed dramatically. The rich and powerful countries exercise an inordinate influence in determining the nature and direction of international relations, including economic and trade relations, as well as the rules governing these relations, many of which are at the expense of the developing countries. It is imperative, therefore, that the Movement respond in ways that will ensure its continued relevance and usefulness to its members.Globalisation should lead to the prospering and empowering of the developing countries, not their continued impoverishment and dependence on the wealthy and developed world."

The XIII Summit Meeting took place at the time when the dark clouds of war are gathering over Iraq, a long-standing member of the Movement. Almost all the speakers at the Meeting addressed this burning question, on which the Summit Meeting issued a special Statement, which, among other things, said:

"We are fully cognisant of the concerns expressed by millions in our countries, as well as in other parts of the world, who reject war and believe, like we do, that war against Iraq will be a destabilising factor for the whole region, and that it would have far reaching political, economic and humanitarian consequences for all countries of the world, particularly the States in the region.

"We reiterate our commitment to the fundamental principles of the non-use of force and respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and security of all Member States of the United Nations. We reaffirm our commitment to exert our efforts to achieve a peaceful solution to the current situation."

It went on to "call on Iraq to continue to actively comply with Security Council resolution 1441 and all other relevant Security Council resolutions and to remain engaged in the process."

The concluding paragraph of the Statement Concerning Iraq said: "We believe that the peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis would ensure that the Security Council will also be in a position to ensure Iraq's sovereignty and the inviolability of its territorial integrity, political independence and security, and compliance with Paragraph 14 of its Resolution 687 on the establishment in the Middle East of a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free-zone, which includes Israel."

We should here note that 12 Middle East countries participated in the XIII NAM Summit Meeting.

As we met in Kuala Lumpur, our Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aziz Pahad, was in Baghdad leading the group of experts we had sent to Iraq, to share with their counterparts our experience relating to South Africa's elimination of weapons of mass destruction under international supervision.

We took this step to help Iraq realise precisely the objective sought by NAM and the UN Security Council, "actively to comply with Security Council resolution 1441 and all other relevant Security Council resolutions and to remain engaged in the process", to ensure the peaceful and speedy resolution of the issue of Iraq.

In the meantime, the continued deployment of troops in the Middle East by the US and the UK suggested that these two countries are determined to go to war against Iraq, at all costs.

A new draft resolution they, together with Spain, presented to the Security Council, even as the XIII NAM Summit Meeting was in session, sought to get the Security Council to agree that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 1441 and that it had "failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002)."

The draft resolution also requires the Security Council to recall that "it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations". Of course, the phrase, "serious consequences", has been interpreted by some members of the Security Council as meaning resort to war.

The current situation therefore suggests that even as the representatives of two-thirds of humanity, including those in the immediate neighbourhood of Iraq, were urging a peaceful resolution of the Iraq question, a few countries were determined to make the statement that war against Iraq is inevitable.

This indicates that the XIII NAM Summit Meeting was justified to draw attention to the global imbalance of power, when it said "the rich and powerful countries exercise an inordinate influence in determining the nature and direction of international relations".

The international media has played an important role in keeping the world informed about the developments on Iraq. This has included live television transmissions of the proceedings of the UN Security Council.

Nevertheless, the "inordinate influence" mentioned by NAM, showed up even in these transmissions.

For example, repeatedly, the television broadcasts cut off the African members of the Security Council as they were about to speak, so that the world never got to know what Africa, and the developing world, think. Even as the Iraq debate among the countries of the North rages on, there is hardly any mention of what the countries of the South feel and think.

In practice the point has been made that this issue will be resolved solely and exclusively on the basis of what the countries of the North decide, regardless of what more than two-thirds of the world's population, the citizens of the countries of the South, think or feel. The fact that some of these countries serve as members of the Security Council is little more than a small and irritating distraction.

Those who, in practice, uphold and perpetuate this practice globally are democratic countries, justly proud of the democratic rights their peoples enjoy. Regularly, because of their own experience, they find it necessary to make judgements about political practice in the countries of the South.

A great number of the most contentious issues in world politics relate to the countries of the South and members of NAM. These include Iraq, Palestine, North Korea, Cuba, Cote d'Ivoire, India and Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and so on.

A great number of the biggest challenges facing humanity have their epicentre in the countries of the South. These include poverty, underdevelopment, AIDS and other health challenges, famine, violent conflicts, and so on.

Those most affected by all these generic matters as well as those issues affecting individual countries, are members of NAM. They have repeatedly made the simple statement, as they did in Kuala Lumpur, that they have a right and duty to help find answers to these challenges.

They have repeatedly made the simple statement, as they did again in Kuala Lumpur, that they are ready to work with the countries of the North, in a partnership of equals, constructively to respond to these challenges.

A few years ago, they felt that, at last, their voice was beginning to be heard. That is why at the XII NAM Summit Meeting in Durban in 1998, they said "we have been the invisible people of the world. In recent times, spurred by our Movement and progressive forces, we see our rapid emergence from that condition. Indeed, our time has come."

However, developments since then have made the practical statement that this dream had to be deferred. Accordingly, at Kuala Lumpur in 2003, the countries of the South were constrained to state that "with the end of the Cold War, the emergence of unipolarity, the trend towards unilateralism and the rise of new challenges and threats, such as international terrorism, it is imperative for the Movement to promote multilateralism, the better to defend the interests of developing countries and prevent their marginalisation."

"Unipolarity" and "unilateralism" mean that one power, with a little help from its friends, takes decisions about what happens in the world, including our countries, without our participation. This represents an undemocratic "new" world order that turns us, once more, into "the invisible people of the world", living in fear of the consequences of responding to our consciences, because of our dependence on the wealthy and developed world.

"Multilateralism" and an effective United Nations mean that we would have the possibility to contribute to the solution of the problems facing humanity, including ourselves. This would mark the emergence of a new world order, characterised by the democratisation of the system of international relations and the availability of the space for the poor and powerless freely to speak their minds, in a world that is being integrated and made more interdependent by the unstoppable process of globalisation.

The processes relating to the question of Iraq confirm the disturbing reality that unilateralism, rather than multilateralism, has become the dominant tendency in world politics. They confirm the painful truth that economic, military, technological and other power constitutes the political engine that determines the fate of all humanity.

They make the statement, practically, that the voice of the people is not the voice of God. They tell the billions whose representatives gathered in Kuala Lumpur at the XIII NAM Summit Meeting, that their dream that they would cease to be "the invisible people of the world" must, perforce, be deferred.

Sooner or later, those who have the power to defer the dreams of billions of human beings will have to answer the question that Langston Hughes, the outstanding African-American poet, posed when he asked - "What happens to a dream deferred?"

"Does it dry up Like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore -. Does it stink like rotten meat?. Or does it explode?"

Thabo Mbeki is the President of The Republic of South Africa   For more information visit: www.anc.org.za

www.rabble.ca by Daron Letts February 24, 2003

Just a month ago, over 100,000 people from around the world gathered at the third annual World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to subvert neo-liberal debates and articulate revolutionary strategies.

Toronto-based documentary photographer, John Donoghue, cast his lens on swirling crowds as they erupted into spontaneous dancing Samba circles and mirthful street theatrics throughout the week. The streets were filled with a generation of Latin American youth, chanting and raising their fists in solidarity.

Donoghue’s previous photographic projects are visual accounts of communities that struggle to rebuild in spite of the social, economic and environmental wounds inflicted by neo-liberalism. His human rights work (and his camera) have taken him to a coffee plantation in Nicaragua, a Guatemalan refugee camp in Chiapas, a speech by Fidel Castro in Cuba, an election in El Salvador and Yunnan province in rural China.

While at the Social Forum, Donoghue managed to get into the press conference of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to see him pledge solidarity with the WSF and with Brazilian President Lula at Porto Alegre’s City Hall.

Venezuela at the time was still gripped by massive strikes attempting to pressure Chavez to step down. “I think that event was, in many ways, important for the people back in Venezuela, to see that Chavez was confident enough to leave the country at a time like that,” says Donoghue.

The photos Donoghue brought back to Toronto are a continuation of a theme that informs the body of his work: inner strength in the face of oppression.

“I am amazed by the positive energy that keeps people going,” he says, referring to the tightly packed streets of Porto Alegre during the opening WSF march. “There has to be a sense of community to deal with the hardship. I think that to really build a movement, that kind of energy is needed.”

As the U.S.-led re-invasion of Iraq unfolds, Donoghue plans to continue his photographic chronicle in the streets of New York and Washington, D.C.

www.rabble.ca

www.arabnews.com Dr. Khalid M. Batarafi

The late Indian leader Jawahar Lal Nehru said half a century ago: “Dealing with America, you have two choices: You either accept the authority of the Pentagon and lose your freedom, or the authority of Hollywood and lose your culture.”

Nehru was talking about better days: Now American hegemony, which started with the fall of the European empires after World War II, does not admit any choices.

Globalization has strengthened American dominance in trade, culture and information. It has also reinforced its position as a single world power following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern bloc, whose members joined NATO and the European Union.

The Sept. 11, 2001 events helped the US to take steps to deepen its hegemony and realize its plan of making the 21st century the American century.

Every action has a reaction, and it seems that the new administration which assumed power in Washington has been hasty in creating its new empire. They were rash in their push after the Sept. 11 attacks, expecting that the world would have no choice but to surrender. They forgot that the heirs of the former empires also have interests that have to be defended, and nurture experts capable of exposing the American plan.

It would be wrong to think that the position of the European governments is based on moral principles and that the people in the European streets demonstrated in support of them. Despite the anti-war marches in British, Italian, German, French and Swedish streets, their governments’ policy is dictated by self-interest.

After Washington strengthened its grip over oil sources in the Caspian Sea, Canada and Mexico (with the NAFTA accord) and in Nigeria by changing the government, and in Venezuela by supporting the revolution against the first democratically elected government there, and in Indonesia by weakening its economy, it was inevitable that it would seek control of the richest oil source in the Gulf by political, economic and military means.

Europe and Japan had the choices of Nehru’s India, but they opted for military and political alliance. They resisted successfully for some time, but failed in their cultural choice.

However, there still remains vast scope for choice and independence in the economic field, despite Washington’s dominance in international economic institutions such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

It seems that Europe’s patience began to wear thin after the US decided to establish a military base in Kabul, on the Caspian Sea and another in Baghdad near the Gulf, coming as it did on top of Washington’s economic dominance in North and South Americas, Central Africa, Central Asia and the Indonesian archipelago.

The American move is a threat to the new European empire project, the new Chinese awakening, Russian ambitions and Japanese moves to restore its economic power. If the American threat frightens these major powers, then what will be the situation of weaker countries?

Demonstrations in Europe, the US and other parts of the world were motivated by moral considerations and legitimate fears about the return of the rule of tanks and missiles, for which the world had paid dearly with the deaths of 100 million people. And elected leaders and politicians do respond to the demands of their people, provided the people insist on their demands and threaten their rulers’ seat in government.

But the main reason for this stand in opposition to the war is the growing fear of US expansionism. Who knows, this international awakening to America’s economic and political domination might be the beginning of a resistance movement, which, though late in the day and slow to rise, is nevertheless to be welcomed.

kbatarafi@al-madinah.com

thestar.com.my Saturday, February 22, 2003

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) - Cuba has been chosen to host the next summit of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement, officials said Saturday.

That means that Havana will receive the movement's presidency when it hosts the next summit in 2006, said Milos Alcalay, Venezuela's representative to the United Nations.

Cuba last hosted the summit in 1979.

The presidency is rotated every few years among the group's major regions: Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The decision to appoint Cuba was made by the movement's Caribbean and Latin American bloc during preparations for Non-Aligned Movement leaders summit Monday and Tuesday in Kuala Lumpur.

No other countries challenged Havana's bid, Alcalay said.

The communist island has spoken out against any U.S.-led attack on Iraq, which has been the focus of this year's summit.

South Africa is handing the presidency to Malaysia this year.

The movement was created in 1955 to pave a neutral path between the United States and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.

It is trying to reinvent itself as a forum for developing countries facing the onslaught of globalization. - AP