Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine
UKWatch.net - 30 Apr 2008
Naomi Klein is at her best in explaining the relentless onslaught of neoliberal policies all over the world, and their genesis in academic circles in the USA, particularly surrounding the economist Milton Friedman. Her basic thesis is that the doctrine of neoliberalism has come to dominate the world by using periods of massive public disorientation following collective shock ? wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters ? to push through unpopular neoliberal reforms. However, this thesis is not without its flaws. Klein?s strongest insight is the analogy between psychological damage through torture, and physical damage through neoliberalism. She quotes CIA manuals on torture practices and draws illuminative parallels with neoliberalism: ?Like the terrrorized prisoner who gives up the names of comrades and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise fiercely protect.? This is a novel and instructive analogy ? and goes some way to highlighting the close connections between psychological and physical damage that are neglected by so many other commentators. However, this analogy could be usefully applied much further. For Klein the ?disaster capitalists? lie in wait, ready to jump onto ?disasters? when they emerge. While this is no doubt the case for ?natural? disasters, most disasters are not natural, but are an intrinsic parts of the economic, political and social system we live in, and are increasingly frequent as neoliberalism extends its reach across the world. I would argue for a greater degree of culpability of neoliberalism and its advocates for creating the shocks in the first place – a culpability akin to that of the torturer. Yet Klein shies away taking her own analogy to its logical conclusion. For torture is not merely about the creation of sudden terror, but the normalisation and generalisation of states of fear amongst all who would resist. Similarly neo-liberal ?shocks? are merely particular moments in a much longer-term and more generalised attempt to control populations, by normalising fear and insecurity so much that they become part of our everyday experience. This seems to betray an overly narrow framework behind Klein?s analysis; she does not seem to take into account the wider dimensions of how power as a whole operates within a political, social and economic system, wider than just neoliberalism or corporations. This makes the book, despite its 466 pages, feel disappointingly partial, and limited in its analytical and historical scope. For Klein, neoliberalism is basically the rule of the market and corporations over the state, and therefore over the people. In this scenario, corporations and the state are in direct competition with each other, which leads her to neglect the role of states and state power in facilitating elite power using the market, and more recently, using neoliberalism. This makes her explanation of neoliberalism?s dominance seem incomplete; arguing, as she does, that it is based on the power of opportunistic shock, rather than other, more historically embedded mechanisms. Not everyone has been ?shocked? into submission to neoliberalism. There have also been a host of other, often more hidden and insidious attempts to make people give up what it is in their interests to hold onto. These include ideological apparatuses such as education, control of the media, knowledge and information, think-tanks, the co-option of civil society, and repressive apparatuses such the police, the courts, governments, prisons etc. The power of corporations is enabled by a host of power mechanisms, stemming from a relationship of mutual benefit between elites, but this isn?t evident in Klein?s analysis. Her oversight ensures that she does not analyse the wider context of the shock doctrine she dissects. For Klein, the use of shock is a sign of strength of the neoliberal project. However, it can also be argued to be a sign of weakness. Liberalism is no longer enough to keep populations in check and keep economic growth rising, so a more extreme form has emerged, one which it is increasingly difficult to secure consent for. Iraq is a case in point: a country which had to be deliberately ?shocked and awed? into submission, making the companies and states behind it extremely unpopular, and unleashing a powerful Iraqi resistance, which puts the entire mission in jeopardy. Klein sees this as a shock operation, deliberately manufactured by neoliberal (and neo-conservative) architects, but she does not see this as a contradiction of her thesis, more a ?notable exception?. However, it seems more plausible to see the destruction and ?reconstruction? of Iraq as proof that neoliberalism is being pushed to its limit ? forced to reveal itself as a force that creates the disasters required to shock subjects into releasing to corporations their resources, their wealth and their labour. Capitalism needs to constantly expand: exploiting and creating ?disasters? with neoliberal shock treatment is the latest weapon to do this. But it is a weapon which weakens the enterprise by exposing its in-built violence, and risks the effectiveness of the other ?softer? weapons. Just as torture is an extreme form of repression, so neoliberal shock treatment is an extreme form of liberal capitalism. But Klein fails to locate ?disaster capitalism? more broadly in the historical continuities and systemic features of contemporary capitalism. In doing so, she downplays both the everyday violence and the weaknesses of the current world order.

What Does Gus Know?
UKWatch.net - 30 Apr 2008
In the sporadic debate about when we will have an inquiry into the Iraq war, something very important has been forgotten. Last year, just before he became prime minister, Gordon Brown announced that he had asked cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell to ensure that a debacle like the Iraq dossier would never happen again (not in those words, of course). I wrote here that the question of who really wrote the dossier went to the heart of what Sir Gus had been asked to find out. At the time, Brown said it was too early to hold a full inquiry but that there were “lessons to be learned for the future”. So what did Gus teach Gordon? Two weeks ago, I wrote to Sir Gus, inviting him to pass on what he had found out regarding the influence of “communications professionals”, special advisers and politicians on the dossier. I invited him to do so in the interests of transparency, arguing that public confidence in open government and government itself would be better served by a voluntary disclosure than by having the information dragged out by means of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have not had a reply and so today I’ve submitted a new FOIA request to the Cabinet Office in these terms. I can imagine that they might try to string it out as usual and use one of the many exemptions in the Act. In fact, there is one exemption based on an intention to publish something “at some time future date, whether determined or not”. You can have the truth – just not yet. Putting it that way would make the politics of concealment hard to justify. In March, the House of Commons held a debate on a Tory motion for an inquiry now. The government’s position is that an inquiry cannot take place until all troops have left Iraq. Conveniently, they aren’t leaving any time soon and most aren’t doing much either. Interestingly, it was reported last week that special forces (eg, the SAS) are engaged in Basra. Of course, the British government has a policy of not commenting on the activities of its special forces, except when it suits them to feed misinformation to the media. This raises the intriguing possibility that the 4,100 visible troops might come home some time, but there will still be no inquiry because of some unseen activity that we can’t be told about and may not actually be happening. The main – quite preposterous – argument for delaying an inquiry is that it would distract people involved in the ongoing “overwatch” operation. In his letter promising an inquiry, Brown showed the weakness of his “not yet” argument by resorting to preposterous hyperbole: “the whole effort of the government and the armed forces is directed towards supporting the people and government of Iraq.” You could point out that this is rather worrying for the troops in Afghanistan – and explains why Gordon has taken his eye off the ball elsewhere – but it’s also quite laughable to suggest that a democracy cannot ask how and why it went to war because some of its troops are engaged in a training mission. Not to mention that we have already had four inquiries along the way. Professor Peter Hennessy has said that a paragraph in Brown’s new national security strategy was “the nearest we are going to get to an apology from the government for the way Tony Blair took this country to war in Iraq.” Brown has so far only hinted that the dossier was “sexed up”, but did say sorry yesterday over the 10p tax rate. Hennessy argued that: “[...] we must have a proper inquiry into the road to the Iraq war, the invasion and its aftermath if Gordon Brown means what he says in [the strategy]. He can do no less; and we can wait no longer.” The thing about the promise of a future inquiry is that it changes the dynamics of the debate. Where people say, with some justification, “this was all a long time ago”, the government’s line is now that it is too early to start digging into it. But whatever Sir Gus has found out, he has already found out. Any attempt to conceal an existing account of exactly how the case for war was “sexed up” would make very clear that it’s not learning the lessons but sharing the knowledge that’s being delayed until, say, after the next election. Or, perhaps, there never was any attempt to “learn lessons”. Perhaps the whole thing was just another dodgy PR stunt.

Safety Crisis at Nuclear Bomb Factory
UKWatch.net - 30 Apr 2008
Some rather shocking news has emerged. Britain’s Atomic Weapons Establishment has just had to admit that it stopped ‘live nuclear work’ at its Burghfield plant last December owing to safety problems. Reported by the Scottish Sunday Herald at the weekend, this is apparently the first time that the MoD has ever had to stop working on nuclear weapons. The Burghfield factory is located close to Aldermaston in Berkshire. Six years ago, the government’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate discovered over 1,000 saftey flaws. Since then, the AWE management has failed to deal with the problems, hence the shut down of the problem sector. Last year, documents released under freedom of information law showed that the NII was concerned about a huge range of problems. AWE missed a number of NII deadlines to remedy the problems, but the MoD allowed them to go ahead with regular work anyway, deeming it to be too necessary to disrupt. But AWE was so slow that in the end the MoD had to call a halt. According to a recent NII report, ?AWE has agreed that no live nuclear work will be carried out until the necessary fixes are in place.? But Burghfield isn’t the only offender. The report also showed that Aldermaston was included in the inspection process toward the end of last year. Of 59 inspections made, in only two instances were the facilities found to be ?good?, 43 were deemed ?adequate? and 14 ?had potential improvements identified?. So not only are our nuclear weapons illegal, immoral, a waste of money and utterly useless in meeting any real security needs, we now know their production facilities are dangerous, poorly maintained, and a risk to the workforce and the population as a whole. What is the government thinking of? Time to disarm.

Sr. Ellen Francis, OSH plans to co-lead a Peace Delegation to Iran, August 15-30, 2008
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 30 Apr 2008
Summary: The purpose of this delegation, sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), is to seek alternatives to the current political standoff between the United States and Iranian governments and to affirm friendship and solidarity between the people of the United States and the people of Iran. This will be the eighth Iran Peace Delegation to be sponsored by FOR. source: The Order of Saint Helena read more

Back from Haiti, Rev. Jesse Jackson Calls for Emergency Food Aid to a Starving Nation Devastated by Longtime US-Led Interference, Subversion
Democracy Now - 30 Apr 2008
Reverend Jesse Jackson has just returned from Haiti, where the World Food Program is warning of a “major crisis” if international donors fail to help feed Haiti’s poor. Prices of rice, beans and cooking oil have doubled in the past few months. The soaring food prices have had a devastating effect: two-thirds of Haitians live on less than a dollar a day, and 47 percent are undernourished. We speak to Rev. Jackson about the US responsibility to feed a nation long targeted by Western subversion. Rev. Jackson also shares his thoughts on the recent fallout between Democratic candidate Barack Obama and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. [includes rush transcript]

May Day: Tens of Thousands Prepare to March Across the Country as Labor Struggle Linked to Immigrants Rights
Democracy Now - 30 Apr 2008
Tens of thousands are expected to march in cities across the country today, linking immigrant rights to May Day for the third year in a row. The major demands include legal status for undocumented migrant workers and an end to the raids and deportations that have torn families apart. We speak to Anike Tourse of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. [includes rush transcript]

US Citizens, Lawful Residents Sue Government for Illegal Detention in LA Immigration Raid
Democracy Now - 30 Apr 2008
In what’s believed to be a first, a group of US citizens and lawful residents have brought claims against the government for being illegally detained during an ICE raid earlier this year. If the claims are successful, this legal strategy could force the Department of Homeland Security to change its policy about workplace raids. [includes rush transcript]

Defying Employers, Antiwar Dockworkers Plan to Shut Down West Coast Ports
Democracy Now - 30 Apr 2008
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union has been organizing to shut down ports on the West Coast today, May Day, to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But yesterday an arbitrator ordered the union to tell its members that they must report to work today. We speak to Clarence Thomas, an executive board member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 and a member of US Labor Against the War. [includes rush transcript]

Headlines for May 1, 2008
Democracy Now - 30 Apr 2008
Casualties Mount in Ongoing US Assault on Sadr City, US Death Toll Highest in 7 Months, 5 Years Since ?Mission Accomplished?, US: Iran ?Most Active? State Sponsor of ?Terrorism?, Palestinian Factions Accept Gaza Truce with Israel, UN: Gaza at ?Point of Explosion?, 10 Killed in US Airstrikes on Somalia, Iran Complains to UN over Clinton Comments, Venezuela Marks May Day with Min. Wage Hike, Peruvian Women Rally Against Rising Food Prices, Agricultural Firms Post Record Quarterly Profits, Scandal-Linked GSA Head Resigns, ?Robocalls? Discourage African American Votes in North Carolina, Barrick Gold Sues Canadian Publisher over Book Alleging Abuses