The unfolding events in Oaxaca, a state in southern Mexico, should be of great interest to Americans because the outcome will profoundly affect the future of Mexican society and U.S.-Mexican relations on issues including immigration.
Federal riot police, backed by tanks and helicopters, are preparing to attack protesters in the capital city, also called Oaxaca, to end the turbulent protests which have lasted for months.

President Vicente Fox ordered in the federales after three people were killed on Friday, including a New York photographer, Bradley Roland Will. He was shot twice in the abdomen by a plainclothes police officer, according to witnesses. According to an article in today’s (online) New York Times, Mr. Will was a well-known activist on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. He was filming for Indypendent, “a radical collective that published a weekly newspaper and maintained a Web site dedicated to subjects like immigration, the Iraq war and the struggles of the developing world.” The Times article continues:

“The Oaxaca attorney general, Lizbeth Cana, labeled the protesters urban guerrillas and said it was understandable that local people were lashing out at them violently. ‘The people are fed up with permanent violence, threats and kidnappings,’ she said, according to The Associated Press. But the mayor of a nearby town said the five men being detained for possible involvement in Mr. Will’s killing were not disgruntled ordinary local citizens but police officers and local officials.”

The struggle began in May, when the state’s 70,000 schoolteachers went on strike, as they have done in every year since 1980. This year the demands included higher pay, more schools in remote villages, and free breakfast and uniforms for all students.

According to an article in The American Prospect, “The strike mushroomed in size and significance this year after [Governor Ulises] Ruiz ordered the use of tear gas and police power on June 14 to try and disperse protestors. The violent police action outraged many in the city, and as a result the teachers’ union, in coalition with other groups including farmers’ cooperatives, Indian rights organizations, and revolutionary parties, revised their demands to include the governor stepping down from power.”

The teachers reached an agreement last week, but the protesters have not backed down from their demands that Ruiz be removed and corruption in government be eliminated.


The confrontation should be seen as a prelude to the impending crisis over presidential succession. On December 1st President Vicente Fox’s is due to hand over power to Felipe Calderon, of Fox’s PAN party, who the courts have said won July’s presidential election.

It’s a situation similar to that in this country in 2000, except that unlike the gutless Democrats here, the declared loser of the election, Manuel Lopez Obrador, has suggested that he will set up a parallel government and shadow cabinet. In sending the federal riot police to “restore order” in Oaxaca, Fox is also sending a clear message to the poor and disenfranchised of Mexico City and throughout the country, that any attempt to contest the succession of Calderon will meet with similar repression.

This is undoubtedly the most explosive situation Mexico has faced since 1968, when police massacred hundreds – perhaps thousands – of protesters in Tlatelolco, Mexico City.

Who will win? The answer was foreshadowed in the Times article which reported the following incident:
“Riot police stood in formation across the main highway leading to Mexico City, facing down protesters waving white flags and protest signs 20 feet away.
“A demonstrator, Gloria Juarez, approached the officers and stuck white roses and carnations in their black uniforms.
“‘It makes me sad that they want to kill my people,’ she said. ‘I want to change their hearts.’”
How many more Gloria Juarezes are there? And will the police and military heed their pleas?
Will Lopez Obrador play a role similar to that of Francisco Madero, who led the revolution that overthrew the Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz in 1911, only to be murdered less than two years later by the forces of reaction? That was followed by two decades of terrible bloodshed. Will the Mexican workers and their leaders have learned any lessons from that bitter experience?
And what will be the role of the Bush Administration? One important reason for the poverty and unrest in Mexico and the flight of workers northward is the draconian social policies imposed by the Washington-based World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Porfirio Diaz famously said: “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.” I doubt that Mexico is any closer to God, but it is much closer to the U.S. when you consider all the modern military technology of the juggernaut to the north. The American economy was expanding then; now we are the world’s leading debtor nation. And Bush is no Woodrow Wilson.

Thanks for the positive comments. No one brought up my new word, which I’ve decided for now to move from the text to the title. If it’s gonna fly, or go down in flames, it might as well be on top. If the piece gets published, it should be an attention-grabber

Thanks to Phil for the link to the Cal Thomas column. Go to Archives, Oct. 26:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?catid=1117

Below is a letter to the Anchorage Daily News. Tmesis may be over the top, but I couldn’t resist. After all, I really was dumbfounded. It’s a word I picked up from the NYT crossword. I once heard a previous editor of the puzzle (Eugene Maleska?) say that a good crossword is both entertaining and instructive. It’s a standard which I also find applicable in judging novels, movies, and other works of “art”. I apologize if there’s little entertainment in the following piece. As always, comments are welcome.
I would include Thomas’s column, but I didn’t find it online, and my typing skills prohibit such a major undertaking. Reading it was bad enough. I think you’ll get the drift. What I did discover is that Thomas is "the most widely syndicated op-ed columnist in the country, appearing in 540 newspapers."

Thanks to Phil for the link to the Cal Thomas column:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20061026tq--b-a.txt&catid=1117&code=tq--b

I was at a loss for words to describe my amazement at the column in Thursday’s opinion section by Cal Thomas, so I had to make one up. You can look up tmesis, right under Tlingit, and fill in the blank.)

To include “Rumsfeld” and “1984” in the same headline does more than evoke Orwellian images. Is Thomas so smitten with his master that he failed to do some basic homework? Or does he really think his selective view of history will go unnoticed by the reading public?
The Defense Secretary had invited “a small group of columnists” to lunch to discuss a speech he gave in October 1984. Thomas quotes him as saying that terrorism is “state-sponsored, by nations using it as a central element of their foreign policy.”

The brutal war between Iraq and Iran was in full swing, and the Reagan administration was desperate that Iran didn’t win it. Reagan had removed Iraq from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism”, and he was working to re-establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq, which had been severed following the Arab-Israeli Six Day War in 1967. A key role in this effort was played by President Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld.

By the summer of 1983 there was already overwhelming evidence that Iraq was using chemical weapons, including mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iranians. The U.S. government felt compelled to issue a denunciation of the attacks. After all, the Geneva Conventions do not look kindly on states that traffic in chemical weapons, or CW.

Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984. Earlier in the month, the State Department had issued a statement saying, “Available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.” The details of Rumsfeld’s visit were revealed in December 2003, in documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. They include a cable sent to Rumsfeld by then-Secretary of State George Schultz. In the cable, Rumsfeld was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement “was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs.” It was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire “to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq’s choosing” was “undiminished”. “This message bears reinforcing during your discussions.”

The Washington Post reported in December 2003:
“Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980.
“Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad [the first was in December 1983], to improve relations with Hussein.”
Twenty-four of the largest American corporations profited from the arms sales, and Iraqi scientists were invited to symposiums in California and New Mexico on nuclear weapons technology. The names of the companies, and their dealings, were included in Iraq’s report to the U.N. in December 2002, in the 8000 pages that Bush tried to expunge.
In short, while making speeches on the threat of global terrorism, Rumsfeld was doing his best to assist Saddam Hussein in obtaining “WMD”. We can also conclude that Rumsfeld had no more compunction about flouting the Geneva Conventions in 1984 than he does in 2006.
Another acolyte of the Prophet Donald, Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended the luncheon. A few days earlier, Pace had paid homage to his boss: “He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country.” It would all be comical were the issues (Iraq, separation of church and state, etc.) not so serious.

Saddam Hussein would be found guilty by any court in the civilized world of horrific crimes against his “own” and neighboring peoples. Are Iraqis better off without him? The great majority of them undoubtedly welcomed his ouster, but there can be even less doubt of the outcome if Iraqis were asked, “Which existence would you prefer, that of 2002 under Saddam, or that of 2006 under Bush?” 98 to 2, maybe?

Saddam is presently on trial for his genocidal campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq in 1988, during the final months of the Iran-Iraq War. Some 182,000 died in the campaign known as Anfal. Throughout the war, Saddam had a staunch ally in U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who dropped sanctions against the “state sponsor of terrorism”. European and American companies, including Dow Chemical and DuPont, profited from sales of technology and materials for biological, chemical, and conventional weapons.

Reagan’s vice-president, George H. W. Bush, had charge of the Iraq desk. As stories of horrific gassings began to emerge in 1984, the US formally “censured” Iraq but at the same time dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Hussein that its support for his war and for the normalisation of diplomatic relations was “undiminished”. The Commerce Department continued to approve sales of things like anthrax, and Iraqi scientists were invited to conferences on nuclear weapons technology.

Anfal could not have been such an outstanding “success” without satellite photos of potential targets provided by the U.S., and the massive disinformation campaign mounted by the U.S., based on the crude lie that Iran also used chemical weapons.

An insightful overview of this subject, by Joost Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch, is available at http://www.merip.org/mero/mero011805.html. The names of the 24 American corporations and their dealings with Iraq were first revealed by Andreas Zumach in "Die Tageszeitung", based on the 8,000 pages that Bush attempted to expunge from the official document submitted by Iraq to the U.N. in December 2002.

Bush is taking a calculated risk in putting Saddam Hussein on trial for the Anfal war crimes. Apparently he is confident that he can simply “pull the plug” if Saddam tries to bring up U.S. complicity. Perhaps this is why, for the second time in two trials, the presiding judge has been removed.

These removals alone constitute rather irrefutable proof that Saddam’s trials are occurring in a kangaroo court. The Iraqi victims certainly aren’t served by the show trials, and no competent observer anywhere, outside the Green Zone or Washington, takes them seriously.

To convince the world that true justice is being done, and to give the Iraqi people a hope for closure, the trials should be moved to a neutral country, say the Netherlands, at The Hague. But to accomplish the goals of justice and closure, room will have to be made alongside Saddam in the dock for George H.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and their surviving accomplices, many of whom still occupy positions of power in the White House.

Saddam is on trial for the mass murder of up to 200,000 of his countrymen. A recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and published in "The Lancet" estimates that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of Bush Junior’s illegal war. Surely, we’ll need another courtroom at The Hague to try him and his accomplices. Whatever Saddam gets goes three-fold for them, no?

Don’t forget to tune in to KSKA on Wednesday at 7:00p Alaska Daylight Time for our little debate. That’s 11:00p Eastern, 8:00p Pacific, 0300 Thu. GMT (0400 London time) and 0700 Baghdad time, unless you folks have already turned back your clocks.

Hang in there, Baghdadis. I’ll try to send a small ray of hope.

So, Mr. Ratigan, is the world a better, safer place with Saddam Hussein removed from power?

Before going into my (current) final answer to the question, let me recount a story from an interview I did in August with Mike Mason of radio station KBBI in Homer. As far as I know, none of this interview was ever aired.

Mr. Mason said, “Let’s talk about mass murder.” My ears pricked up. Now we’re getting down to it. Mason continued: “Saddam is accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Have you seen the tape where several people are sentenced to death by Saddam and removed from the courtroom? Moments later, gunshots are heard.” I confessed that I had not seen this tape, but Mike assured me that he had, and he could vouch for its authenticity. He then asked, “Didn’t the U.S. have a responsibility to remove this mass murderer?”

[In July of 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that shortly before assuming power as “Interim Prime Minister”, Iyad Allawi had personally shot and killed six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station. Though firing at point-blank range, a seventh man survived. The story was reported by one of Australia’s most respected journalists, Paul McGough. It concludes:
“US officials in Iraq have not made an outright denial of the allegations. An emailed response to questions from the Herald to the US ambassador, John Negroponte, said: ‘If we attempted to refute each [rumour], we would have no time for other business. As far as this embassy's press office is concerned, this case is closed.’”
Links to the original story and an interview with McGough by Australian Broadcasting can be found in the Wikipedia articles on Allawi or the Iraq Interim Government. I strongly urge readers to check them out.
This is not a digression: Allawi, who planned terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians while on the CIA payroll in the 1990’s, is now the leading candidate to become dictator following the upcoming coup, which I predict will be shortly after (or before?) November 7th. The gloves will come off then: no more silly talk of Iraq as "a beacon for democracy in the Middle East".]

My answer to Mike Mason went like this: “I am certainly not going to defend Saddam Hussein or attempt to prevent the Iraqi people from obtaining justice, but remember that during the 1980’s, when many of the atrocities took place, he had the full backing of the Republican administrations in Washington, which also gave him the green light for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990; that over 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions during the Clinton years; and that over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the current war and occupation. I agree that we must bring mass murderers to justice, but our first responsibility is to deal with the mass murderers in our own country.”

I wondered at the time if my answer might have been a bit too strong for Mike Mason's or KBBI's stomach. I'm relying on memory here, but they can clarify the exact language used by simply airing the interview, or this portion of it.

My answer to the question at the top will be the subject of my next post.

Thanks to everyone for the encouraging words in the comments section and in personal letters. The positive reinforcement is important to me. I also wish to thank everyone who has supported the campaign, with special thanks to those who have contributed financially. It’s been a humbling experience. My first contribution came from the Juneau Pro-Choice Alliance, whose small check was less important than their endorsement (with highest marks).
Thanks again. I’m never so “high” that I can’t use a shot in the arm.

The debate this Wednesday on the show “Running” will be available on-line from the Anchorage public radio station KSKA: http://kska.org/kska-listen.html. I don't know if other public radio or TV stations will carry it, so outside the Anchorage area you’ll have to go on-line, at least to hear it live. I’m listening to them right now, loud and clear. Get your friends around the computer and tune in. I predict that sparks will fly!

The Department of Defense has a service where military personnel, or anyone else, can call to listen to statements recorded by the various candidates. After overcoming some technical glitches, I got something recorded yesterday, and it’s available now. There was one rather serious slip (I said “top military leaders” when I meant to say “top military lawyers”) so I redid it today, but it may not get posted till next week. All in all, I was reasonably pleased with it. My opening statement on Wednesday will pretty much repeat the first minute, while my closing statement will differ a bit from the second minute. The number is: 800-438-8683. You’ll have to navigate a sea of prompts (to get started, the first two are “1”). When you get to the Alaska House race (District “1”) I am “03”, Independent. Then hit “01”. Good luck! Anyhow, it’s free. Check it out!
The only other candidates you can hear are the Green and the Libertarian. Benson and Young have not participated, last time I checked.

Speaking of our top military leaders, our inspirational quote for the day is from Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on his boss Donald Rumsfeld:

“He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country.”

It is said that Rumsfeld cannot tolerate criticism and his "advisors" say "yes" only when spoken to. So…in a cesspool, what rises to the top?