Labels

alam (8) amal (100) anak (293) anak yatim (118) bilingual (22) bisnis dan pelayanan (6) budaya (7) dakwah (84) dhuafa (18) for fun (12) Gene (218) guru (57) hadiths (10) halal-haram (24) Hoax dan Rekayasa (34) hukum (68) hukum islam (53) indonesia (564) islam (546) jakarta (34) kekerasan terhadap anak (351) kesehatan (96) Kisah Dakwah (10) Kisah Sedekah (11) konsultasi (11) kontroversi (5) korupsi (27) KPK (16) Kristen (14) lingkungan (19) mohon bantuan (40) muallaf (48) my books (2) orang tua (7) palestina (34) pemerintah (136) Pemilu 2009 (63) pendidikan (497) pengumuman (27) perang (10) perbandingan agama (11) pernikahan (10) pesantren (32) politik (127) Politik Indonesia (53) Progam Sosial (60) puasa (38) renungan (171) Sejarah (5) sekolah (74) shalat (7) sosial (321) tanya-jawab (15) taubat (6) umum (13) Virus Corona (24)

07 June, 2007

John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire"

Transkrip/Artikel ini sangat panjang tetapi juga sangat menarik.
Coba membacanya pelan-pelan (kalau kurang lancar dalam bahasa Inggris).
Mau tahu siapa yang menguasaikan dunia ini? Baca saja...


John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth About Global Corruption"
Interview With Amy Goodman
Democracy Now!

Tuesday 05 June 2007

Today, we spend the hour with a man who claims to have worked deep inside the forces driving corporate globalization. In his first book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", John Perkins told the story of his work as a highly paid consultant hired to strong-arm leaders into creating policy favorable to the U.S. government and corporations - what he calls the "corporatocracy." John Perkins has just come out with a new book. It's called "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption." [includes rush transcript] Hundreds of thousands of protesters are gathering in Germany ahead of tomorrow's G8 meeting of the world's richest nations. The three-day summit is being held in the coastal resort of Heiligendamm. German police have spent $18 million dollars to erect an eight-mile-long, two-meter-high fence around the meeting site. Global warming will be high on the agenda. Going into the meeting, President Bush has proposed to sideline the UN-backed Kyoto Accords and set voluntary targets on reducing emissions of greenhouse gas. Other top issues will include foreign aid and new trade deals.

Today, we spend the hour with a man who claims to have worked deep inside the forces driving corporate globalization. In his first book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", John Perkins told the story of his work as a highly paid consultant hired to strong-arm leaders into creating policy favorable to the U.S. government and corporations - what he calls the "corporatocracy." Perkins says he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then taking over their economies.

John Perkins has just come out with a new book. It's called "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption." John Perkins joins me now in the firehouse studio.

John Perkins, From 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described "economic hit man." He is the author of the new book "The Secret History of the American Empire."

Transcript

Amy Goodman: Hundreds of thousands of protesters are gathering in Germany ahead of tomorrow's G8 meeting of the world's richest nations. The three-day summit is being held in the coastal resort of Heiligendamm. German police have spent $18 million to erect an eight-mile-long, two-meter-high fence around the meeting site.

Global warming will be high on the agenda. Going into the meeting, President Bush has proposed to sideline the UN-backed Kyoto Accords and set voluntary targets on reducing emissions of greenhouse gas. Other top issues will include foreign aid and new trade deals.

Today, we spend the hour with a man who claims to have worked deep inside the forces driving corporate globalization. In his first book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins told the story of his work as a highly paid consultant hired to strong-arm leaders into creating policy favorable to the US government and corporations, what he calls the "corporatocracy." John Perkins says he helped the US cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then taking over their economies. John Perkins has just come out with his second book on this issue. It's called The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals and the Truth about Global Corruption. John Perkins joins us now in the firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

John Perkins: Thank you, Amy. It's great to be here.

Amy Goodman: Well, before we go further, "economic hit men" - for those who haven't heard you describe this, let alone describe yourself as this, what do you mean?

John Perkins: Well, really, I think it's fair to say that since World War II, we economic hit men have managed to create the world's first truly global empire, and we've done it primarily without the military, unlike other empires in history. We've done it through economics very subtly.

We work many different ways, but perhaps the most common one is that we will identify a third world country that has resources our corporations covet, such as oil, and then we arrange a huge loan to that country from the World Bank or one of its sister organizations. The money never actually goes to the country. It goes instead to US corporations, who build big infrastructure projects - power grids, industrial parks, harbors, highways - things that benefit a few very rich people but do not reach the poor at all. The poor aren't connected to the power grids. They don't have the skills to get jobs in industrial parks. But they and the whole country are left holding this huge debt, and it's such a big bet that the country can't possibly repay it. So at some point in time, we economic hit men go back to the country and say, "Look, you know, you owe us a lot of money. You can't pay your debt, so you've got to give us a pound of flesh."

Amy Goodman: And explain your history. What made you an economic hit man?

John Perkins: Well, when I graduated from business school at Boston University, I was recruited by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and perhaps most secretive spy organization.

Amy Goodman: People sometimes think the CIA is that, but the NSA, many times larger.

John Perkins: Yeah, it is larger. It's much larger. At least it was in those days. And it's very, very secretive. We all - there's a lot of rumors. We know quite a lot about the CIA, I think, but we know very, very little about the NSA. It claims to only work in a cryptography, you know, encoding and decoding messages, but in fact we all know that they're the people who have been listening in on our telephone conversations. That's come out recently. And they're a very, very secretive organization.

They put me through a series of tests, very extensive tests, lie detector tests, psychological tests, during my last year in college. And I think it's fair to say that they identified me as a good potential economic hit man. They also identified a number of weaknesses in my character that would make it relatively easy for them to hook me, to bring me in. And I think those weaknesses, I [inaudible] might call, the three big drugs of our culture: money, power and sex. Who amongst us doesn't have one of them? I had all three at the time.

And then I joined the Peace Corps. I was encouraged to do that by the National Security Agency. I spent three years in Ecuador living with indigenous people in the Amazon and the Andes, people who today and at that time were beginning to fight the oil companies. In fact, the largest environmental lawsuit in the history of the world has just been brought by these people against Texaco, Chevron. And that was incredibly good training for what I was to do.

And then, while I was still in the Peace Corps, I was brought in and recruited into a US private corporation called Charles T. Main, a consulting firm out of Boston of about 2,000 employees, very low-profile firm that did a tremendous amount of work of what I came to understand was the work of economic hit men, as I described it earlier, and that's the role I began to fulfill and eventually kind of rose to the top of that organization as its chief economist.

Amy Goodman: And how did that tie to the NSA? Was there a connection?

John Perkins: You know, that's what's very interesting about this whole system, Amy, is that there's no direct connection. The NSA had interviewed me, identified me and then essentially turned me over to this private corporation. It's a very subtle and very smart system, whereby it's the private industry that goes out and does this work. So if we're caught doing something, if we're caught bribing or corrupting local officials in some country, it's blamed on private industry, not on the US government.

And it's interesting that in the few instances when economic hit men fail, what we call "the jackals," who are people who come in to overthrow governments or assassinate their leaders, also come out of private industry. These are not CIA employees. We all have this image of the 007, the government agent hired to kill, you know, with license to kill, but these days the government agents, in my experience, don't do that. It's done by private consultants that are brought in to do this work. And I've known a number of these individuals personally and still do.

Amy Goodman: In your book, The Secret History of the American Empire, you talk about taking on global power at every level. Right now, we're seeing these mass protests taking place in Germany ahead of the G8 meeting. Talk about the significance of these.

John Perkins: Well, I think it's extremely significant. Something is happening in the world today, which is very, very important. Yeah, as we watched the headlines this morning, you know, what we can absolutely say is we live in a very dangerous world. It's also a very small world, where we're able to immediately know what's going on in Germany or in the middle of the Amazon or anywhere else. And we're beginning to finally understand around the world, I think, that the only way my children or grandchildren or any child or grandchild anywhere on this planet is going to be able to have a peaceful, stable and sustainable world is if every child has that. The G8 hasn't got that yet.

Amy Goodman: Explain what the Group of Eight are.

John Perkins: Well, the Group of Eight are the wealthiest countries in the world, and basically they run the world. And the leader is the United States, and it's actually the corporations within these companies - countries, excuse me - that run it. It's not the governments, because, after all, the governments serve at the pleasure of the corporations. In our own country, we know that the next two final presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat alike, are going to each have to raise something like half a billion dollars. And that's not going to come from me and you. Primarily that's going to come from the people who own and run our big corporations. They're totally beholden to the government. So the G8 really is this group of countries that represent the biggest multinational corporations in the world and really serve at their behest.

And what we're seeing now in Europe - and we're seeing it very strongly in Latin America, we're seeing it in the Middle East - we're seeing this huge undercurrent of resistance, of protest, against this empire that's been built out of this. And it's been such a subtle empire that people haven't been aware of it, because it wasn't built by the military. It was built by economic hit men. Most of us aren't aware of it. Most Americans have no idea that these incredible lifestyles that we all lead are because we're part of a very vicious empire that literally enslaves people around the world, misuses people. But we're beginning to understand this. And the Europeans and the Latin Americans are at the forefront of this understanding.

Amy Goodman: Well, we're going to talk to you about Congo, about Lebanon, about the Middle East, about Latin America, much of what you cover in The Secret History of the American Empire, when we come back.

[break]

Amy Goodman: Our guest is John Perkins. From 1971 to '81, he worked for the international consulting firm of Charles T. Main, where he was a self-described "economic hit man." His new book is called The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals and the Truth about Global Corruption. Let's talk back, going to Latin America, about this ChevronTexaco lawsuit.

John Perkins: Well, that's extremely significant. When I was sent to Ecuador as a Peace Corps volunteer in 1968, Texaco had just gone into Ecuador, and the promise to the Ecuadorian people at that time from Texaco and their own politicians and the World Bank was oil is going to pull this country out of poverty. And people believed it. I believed it at the time. The exact opposite has happened. Oil has made the country much more impoverished, while Texaco has made fortunes off this. It's also destroyed vast areas of the Amazon rainforest.

So the lawsuit today that's being brought by a New York lawyer and some Ecuadorian lawyers - Steve Donziger here in New York - is for $6 billion, the largest environmental lawsuit in the history of the world, in the name of 30,000 Ecuadorian people against Texaco, which is now owned by Chevron, for dumping over eighteen billion gallons of toxic waste into the Ecuadorian rainforest. That's thirty times more than the Exxon Valdez. And dozens and dozens of people have died and are continuing to die of cancer and other pollution-related diseases in this area of the Amazon. So all this oil has come out of this area, and it's the poorest area of one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. And the irony of that is just so amazing.

But what I think - one of the really significant things about this, Amy, is that this law firm has taken this on, not pro bono, but they expect if they win the case, which they expect to do, to make a lot of money off of it, which is a philosophical decision. It isn't because they wanted to get rich off this. It's because they want to encourage other law firms to do similar things in Nigeria and in Indonesia and in Bolivia, in Venezuela and many other places. So they want to see a business grow out of this, of law firms going in and defending poor people, knowing that they can get a payoff from the big companies who have acted so terribly, terribly, terribly irresponsibly in the past.

And Steve Donziger, the attorney - I was in Ecuador with him just two weeks ago - and one of the very touching things he said is - he's an American attorney with, you know, very good credentials, and he says, "You know, I've seen a lot of companies make mistakes and then try to defend themselves in law courts." And he said, "That's one thing. But in this case, Texaco didn't make mistakes. This was done with intent. They knew what they were doing. To save a few bucks, they killed a lot of people." And now they're going to be forced to pay for that, to take responsibility for that, and hopefully open the door to make many companies take responsibility for the wanton destruction that's occurred.

Amy Goodman: Let's talk about Latin America and its leaders, like Jaime Roldos. Talk about him and his significance. You wrote about him in your first book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

John Perkins: Yeah, Jaime Roldos was an amazing man. After many years of military dictators in Ecuador, US puppet dictators, there was a democratic election, and one man, Jaime Roldos, ran on a platform that said Ecuadorian resources ought to be used to help the Ecuadorian people, and specifically oil, which at that time was just coming in. This was in the late '70s. And I was sent to Ecuador, and I was also sent at the same time to Panama to work with Omar Torrijos, to bring these men around, to corrupt them, basically, to change their minds.

You know, in the case of Jaime Roldos, he won the election by a landslide, and now he started to put into action his policy, his promises, and was going to tax the oil companies. If they weren't willing to give much more of their profits back to the Ecuadorian people, then he threatened to nationalize them. So I was sent down, along with other economic hit men - I played a fairly minor role in that case and a major one in Panama with Torrijos - but we were sent into these countries to get these men to change their policies, to go against their own campaign promises. And basically what you do is you tell them, "Look, you know, if you play our game, I can make you and your family very healthy. I can make sure that you get very rich. If you don't play our game, if you follow your campaign promises, you may go the way of Allende in Chile or Arbenz in Guatemala or Lumumba in the Congo." On and on, we can list all these presidents that we've either overthrown or assassinated because they didn't play our game. But Jaime would not come around, Jaime Roldos. He stayed uncorruptible, as did Omar Torrijos.

And both of these - and from an economic hit man perspective, this was very disturbing, because not only did I know I was likely to fail at my job, but I knew that if I failed, something dire was going to happen: the jackals would come in, and they would either overthrow these men or assassinate them. And in both cases, these men were assassinated, I have no doubt. They died in airplane crashes two months apart from each other in 1981 - single plane; their own private planes crashed.

Amy Goodman: Explain more what happened with Omar Torrijos.

John Perkins: Well, Omar, again, was very stalwartly standing up to the United States, demanding that the Panama Canal should be owned by Panamanians. And I spent a lot of time with Torrijos, and I liked him very, very much as an individual. He was extremely charismatic, extremely courageous and very nationalistic about wanting to get the best for his people. And I couldn't corrupt him. I tried everything I could possibly do to bring him around. And as I was failing, I was also very concerned that something would happen to him. And sure enough - it was interesting that Jaime Roldos's plane crashed in May, and Torrijos said - got his family together and said, "I'm probably next, but I'm ready to go. We've now got the Canal turned over." He had signed a treaty with Jimmy Carter to get the Canal in Panamanian hands. He said, "I've accomplished my job, and I'm ready to go now." And he had a dream about being in a plane that hit a mountain. And within two months after it happened to Roldos, it happened to Torrijos also.

Amy Goodman: And you met with both these men?

John Perkins: Yes, I'd met with both of them.

Amy Goodman: What were your conversations like?

John Perkins: Well, especially with Torrijos, I spent a lot of time with him in some formal meetings and also at cocktail parties and barbecues - he was big on things like that - and was constantly trying to get him to come around to our side and letting him know that if he did, he and his family would get some very lucrative contracts, would become very wealthy, and, you know, warning him. And he didn't really need much warning, because he knew what would be likely to happen if he didn't. And his attitude was, "I want to get done what I can in my lifetime, and then so be it."

And it's been interesting, Amy, that since I wrote the book Confessions, Marta Roldos, who's Jaime's daughter, has come to the United States to meet with me, and I just spent time with her in Ecuador. She is now a member of parliament in Ecuador, just elected, and she married Omar Torrijos's nephew. And it's really interesting to hear their stories about what was going on - she was seventeen at the time her parents - her mother was also in the plane that her father died in; the two of them died in that plane - and then to hear her talk about how her husband, Omar's nephew, was in that meeting when the family was called together and Omar said, "I'm probably next, but I'm ready to go. I've done my job. I've done what I could do for my people. So I'm ready to go, if that's what has to happen."

Amy Goodman: So what were your conversations at the time with other so-called economic hit men? I mean, you became the chief consultant at Charles Main.

John Perkins: Chief economist.

Amy Goodman: Chief economist.

John Perkins: Right. Well, you know, when I was with other people that - we could be sitting at a table, say, in the Hotel Panama, knowing that we're both here to win these guys over, but we also had our official jobs, which were to do studies on the economy, to show how if the country accepted the loan, it was going to improve its gross national product. We would talk about those kinds of things. It's, I suspect, a little bit like if two CIA agents, spies, get together or have a beer together, they don't really talk about what they're really doing beneath the surface, but they've got an official job, too, and that's what you focus on. And, in fact, the two, in my case, are very closely linked.

So we were producing these economic reports that would prove to the World Bank and would prove to Omar Torrijos that if he accepted these huge loans, then his country's gross national product would just mushroom and pull his people out of poverty. And we produced these reports, which made sense from a mathematical econometric standpoint. And, in fact, it often happened that with these loans, the GNP, the gross national product, did increase.

But what also was true, and what Omar knew and Jaime Roldos knew and I was coming to know very strongly, was that even if the general economy increased, the poor people with these loans would get poorer. The rich would make all the money, because most of the poor people weren't even tied into the gross national product. A lot of them didn't even make income. They were living off subsistence farming. They benefited nothing, but they were left holding the debt, and because of these huge debts, their country in the long term would not be able to provide them with healthcare, education and other social services.

Amy Goodman: Talk about Congo.

John Perkins: Oh, boy. The whole story of Africa and the Congo is such a devastating and sad one. And it's the hidden story, really. We in the United States don't even talk about Africa. We don't think about Africa. You know, Congo has something called coltan, which probably most of your listeners may not have even heard of, but every cell phone and laptop computer has coltan in it. And several million people in the last few years in the Congo have been killed over coltan, because you and I and all of us in the G8 countries demand low - or at least we want to see our computers inexpensive and our cell phones inexpensive. And, of course, the companies that make these sell them on that basis, that "Oh, here, mine's $200 less than the other company." But in order to do that, these people in the Congo are being enslaved. The miners, the people mining coltan, they're being killed. There's these vast wars going on to provide us with cheap coltan.

And I have to say, you know, if we want to live in a safe world, we need to be - we must be willing, and, in fact, we must demand that we pay higher prices for things like laptop computers and cell phones and that a good share of that money go back to the people who are mining the coltan. And that's true of oil. It's true of so many resources that we are not paying the true cost, and there's millions of people around the world suffering from that. Roughly 50,000 people die every single day from hunger or hunger-related diseases and curable diseases that they don't get the medicines for, simply because they're part of a system that demands that they put in long hours, and they get very, very low pay, so we can have things cheaper in this country. And the Congo is an incredibly potent example of that.

Amy Goodman: You talk about the so-called defeats in Vietnam and Iraq and what they mean for corporations.

John Perkins: Yeah, well, that's - yeah, we, you and I, look at them as defeats, perhaps, and certainly anybody who lost a child or a sibling or a spouse in these countries look at them as disasters, as defeats, but the corporations made a huge amount of money off Vietnam, the military industry, huge corporations, the construction companies. And, of course, they're doing it in a very, very big way in Iraq. So the corporatocracy, the people that are in fact insisting that our young men and women continue to go to Iraq and fight, they're making a tremendous amount of money. These are not failures for them; they're successes from a very strong economic standpoint. And I know that sounds cynical. I am cynical about these things. I've been there. I've seen it. And, you know, we must learn not to put up with that anymore. All of us.

Amy Goodman: We're talking to John Perkins. His book is The Secret History of the American Empire. It's the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 Israeli-Arab war. You talk about Israel being a Fortress America in the Middle East.

John Perkins: I think it's very sad and very telling, once again, that the Israeli people, for the most part, are led to believe that they've been given this land as a payoff, basically, for the Holocaust, because they deserve to be recompensed. And, of course, the Holocaust was terrible, and they do deserve to be taken care of and recompensed and have stability.

But why would we locate that place in the middle of the Arab world, their traditional enemies? Why would we locate that place in such an unstable area? It's because it is serving as a huge fortress for us in the biggest oil fields known in the world today, and we knew this when Israel was located there. And I think the Israeli people have been terribly exploited in this process.

So, in fact, we built this vast military base, armed camp, in the middle of the Middle Eastern oil fields that are surrounded by the Arab communities, and in the process, we've obviously created a tremendous amount of resentment and anger and a situation that it's very difficult to see any positive outcome there. But the fact of the matter is, our having this military base in Israel has been a huge defense for us. It's been a place where we could really launch attacks, rely on. It's been our equivalent of the Crusaders' castles in the Middle East. And it's very, very sad. I think it's extremely sad for the Israeli people that they're caught up in all of this. I think it's extremely sad for the American people. It's extremely sad for the world that this is going on.

Amy Goodman: As we crisscross the globe, John Perkins, which is exaclty what you did in your years as an international consultant, having been groomed by the National Security Agency, but then becoming a top economist in an international consulting firm, you have also written books about Shamanism. You also write about Tibet. Where does Tibet fit into this picture?

John Perkins: Well, you know, I was just in Tibet a couple of years ago, and it was an interesting thing, because I took a group of about thirty people into Tibet with me as part of a non-profit organization. I was leading the trip. And some of these people had been in the Amazon with me, been to other places. And, of course, Tibet right now is - it's very depressing, because the Chinese presence is extremely strong, and you see how the Tibetan culture has been put down. And you're always aware that there's Chinese soldiers and spies all around you. And many of the people on the trip came to the realization, yeah, this terrible here. "Free Tibet," we all know about that, but the ones who had been with me on a trip to the Amazon, where the oil companies and our own military are doing the same things, said, "But doesn't this remind us of what we're doing in so much of the world?" And it's something we tend to forget.

We can all wave banners about "Free Tibet," which we should, but how about freeing the countries that are under our thumb, too? And certainly Tibet is not nearly - well, I hate to say it this way, because some people might disagree with me, but I think Iraq is in worse shape than Tibet is these days, although both of them are in pretty bad shape. But so, what we saw in Tibet is that same kind of model that we're implementing around the world. And yet, most Americans are not aware that we're doing it. They're aware that the Chinese are doing it, but not aware that we're doing it on actually a much bigger level than the Chinese are.

Amy Goodman: John Perkins, talk about your transformation. You were making a lot of money. You were traveling the world. You were in a position where you were meeting presidents and prime ministers of countries, bringing them to their knees. What made you change, and then, ultimately, the decision to write about it?

John Perkins: You know, Amy, when I first got started - I grew up - three, four hundred years of Yankee Calvinism - in New Hampshire and Vermont, with very strong moral principles, came from a pretty conservative Republican family. And all during the ten years that I was an economic hit man, from '71 to '81, I was pretty young, but it bothered my conscience. And yet, everybody was telling me I was doing the right thing. Like you said, presidents of countries, the president of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, patted me on the back. And I was asked to lecture at Harvard and many other places about what I was doing. And what I was doing was not illegal - should be, but it isn't. And yet, in my heart, it always tore at my conscience. I'd been a Peace Corps volunteer. I saw. And as time went by and I began to understand more and more, it got to be more and more difficult for me to continue doing this. I had a staff of about four dozen people working for me. Things were building up.

And then, one day I was on vacation, sailing in the Virgin Islands, and I anchored my little boat off the St. John Island, and I took the dinghy in, and I climbed this mountain on St. John Island in the Virgin Islands up to this old sugar cane plantation in ruins. And it was beautiful. Bougainville. The sun was setting. I sat there and felt very peaceful. And then suddenly, I realized that this plantation had been built on the bones of thousands of slaves. And then I realized that the whole hemisphere had been built on the bones of millions of the slaves. And I got very angry and sad. And then, it suddenly struck me that I was continuing that same process and that I was a slaver, that I was making the same thing happen in a slightly - in a different way, more subtle way, but just as bad in terms of its outcome. And at that point, I made the decision I would never do it again. And I went back to Boston a couple of days later and quit.

Amy Goodman: We're talking to John Perkins, worked for Chas Main International Consulting Firm, self-described "economic hit man," now has written a new book called The Secret History of the American Empire. When we come back from break, we'll talk about - well, from quitting the American empire to taking it on. Stay with us.

[break]

Amy Goodman: We're talking to John Perkins. His second book on the issue of economic hit men is called The Secret History of the American Empire. John Perkins is a New York Times bestselling author. His book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man took this country by storm.

So, you quit, but that was one step. Writing about it was another. Talk about your attempts over time.

John Perkins: Oh, yes. After I quit, I tried several times to write the book that became Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and each time I reached out to other economic hit men I had worked with or jackals to try to get their stories, word got out and I was threatened. I had a young daughter at the time. She's now twenty-five. And I also was offered some bribe. In fact, I accepted a bribe of about a half a million dollars. It's what's called a legal bribe, but it's a bribe, and it was given to me with the condition that I not write the book. There was no question about that. I describe it in detail.

And I assuaged my guilt by putting a lot of that money into nonprofits I had formed - Dream Change and Pachamama Alliance - that are helping Amazonian people fight oil companies, so to assuage my guilt some. But I didn't write the story. And this happened a number of times, and I would find one excuse or another, and I wrote other books about indigenous people. I worked with these people. I wrote the books you mentioned earlier about Shamanism and so forth, and so I kind of, you know, distracted myself and assuaged my guilt and went on with this.

And then, on 9/11, I was in the Amazon with the Shuar people, had taken a group of nonprofit people in to learn from indigenous people in the Amazon. But shortly after that, I came up to New York to Ground Zero, and as I stood there looking down into that terrible pit, that smoldering - and it still smelled of burning flesh - I realized that I had to write the book, I could no longer defer, that the American people had no understanding of why so many people around the world are angry and frustrated and terrified, and that I had to take responsibility for what happened at 9/11. In fact, we all have to take a certain responsibility, which is not in any way to condone mass murder by anybody ever - I'm not condoning that in any way - but I did realize that the American people needed to understand why there's so much anger around the world. I had to write the book.

So this time I didn't tell anyone I was writing it, and even my wife and daughter, they knew I was writing something, but they didn't know what. I didn't reach out to other people. It made it a little more difficult to write it. But finally I got it in the hands of a very good New York agent, and he sent it out to publishers. At that point, this manuscript becomes my best insurance policy, as at that point if something strange happens to me, including now, suddenly the book will sell. Even though it's been a bestseller for a long time, it will sell a lot more copies, if something - people sometimes laugh and say, "Do you worry that your publisher may be trying to assassinate you, because it would certainly help book sales?" I don't worry about it. But, you know, so at that point, once I got the manuscript there, it became my insurance policy.

Amy Goodman: You write "A jackal is born," about Jack Corbin. Who is he?

John Perkins: Well, Jack Corbin - and that's not his real name, but he's a real person - he's alive and well today, working for us in Iraq. But he is a jackal, he is an assassin. And one of the most fascinating stories, I think, involves Seychelles, which is a small county, an island country, off the coast of Africa. And it happens to be located where Diego Garcia, one of the United States's most strategic air bases, is located.

There's a long history behind Diego Garcia. But in the late '70s, Seychelles had a president that was very friendly to us, James Mancham, and he was overthrown in a bloodless coup by [France-Albert] Rene, a socialist. And [France-Albert] Rene threatened to get us out of Diego Garcia, to expose the real facts behind the terrible things that went on to put us in Diego Garcia. There's a lot of details that I won't get into now.

In any case, I was called down to Washington to meet with a bunch of retired generals and admirals, who were trying - who were all working as economic hit men for consulting firms, and they were prepping me to go in and corrupt [France-Albert] Rene and bring him around to our side. But before doing that, they wanted to find out whether he was really corruptible or not. And it was sort of interesting that they - one of these generals had a young protégé, a young man, and the general had noticed that a high diplomat from Seychelles in Washington had a young wife who was not very happy. So this young man was sent in to seduce the wife and compromise her and get information from her, which is a fairly common tactic. Sex is a big thing in this game of diplomacy and economic hit people. And sort of an interesting bi-story here is that one time at lunch this general came back, and he said, "You know, I think you economic hit men have a much tougher job than you women counterpart, because," he said, "now this woman, the diplomat's wife, is buying into this with the young man, but she wants to be convinced that he loves her. So, you know, my god, you know, I'd give the keys to the Pentagon to a young lady just for some good sex. I don't need to be convinced that she loves me. But I guess that's the difference between men and women." That's what he said. Kind of interesting. Anyway, in the end, the young man did get the information from the wife, and the information was that [France-Albert] René was not corruptible. There was no point in even trying.

Amy Goodman: Also, Diego Garcia is very significant as a military base.

John Perkins: Extremely significant. And it was used - it's being used in Afghanistan and Iraq and sorties that we fly in to Africa or any part of that world. In any case, I was called off the job, and a little while later a team of assassins were sent in from South Africa - forty-five, forty-six, I can't remember the exact number - were sent in as a rugby team to bring in Christmas gifts to children of the Seychelles, but their real job was to overthrow the government and assassinate Rene. At the time, I didn't know these individuals. Now, I know Jack Corbin. I know him very well, personally. I've met him since. Our paths crossed back then, but we didn't know each other.

Amy Goodman: What exactly did he do?

John Perkins: Well, the team went in, and they were apprehended at the airport. A security guard discovered a hidden weapon on one of them. A huge gun battle broke out at the Mahi airport, and these mercenaries were surrounded by perhaps a thousand soldiers on the outside. Jack told me it was one of the few times in his life where he figured he was going to die and had time to think about it. Many times he could have died, but he just reacted quickly. And they didn't know what to do, but eventually an Air India 707 came into view and asked permission to land, and they gave it permission to land. As soon as it landed, they hijacked it, and they flew it back to Durban, South Africa.

And I'm now watching this on the national news. This was now on US national news, and I'm knowing that this is - I didn't know what was going to happen when I was called off the case, but now I'm seeing it unfold. And to the world, what we saw is this plane, Air India 707, flies into Durban, South Africa, surrounded by South African security guards. The men on the plane give themselves up. They march off. They're sent to court and then sentenced to prison, and some, I think, to execution, and that's the end of the story, as far as we know.

Now that I know Jack, what actually happened was when the plane was surrounded, the security forces got on the telephone with the plane and discovered there was their good friends, their teachers in fact, on the plane. They worked out a deal. The men gave themselves up. They did spend three months in prison. They had their own wing with television, etc., and then were quietly released after three months. A lot of those same men, that team, a lot of them today are in Iraq working for us there, doing things that, you know, our soldiers are forbidden from doing. And they're making very good money doing it.

Amy Goodman: Who is this man, so-called Jack Corbin, working for today in Iraq?

John Perkins: Well, he works for a private company in Iraq that has a contract, you know, that comes through the Pentagon, CIA, one of those organizations. So, like so much of this work, there's a tremendous, as you've reported on this program, a tremendous number of these mercenaries there. Jack Corbin and his people are at the very top of that level. They're the extremely skilled ones who do the really delicate work. We've also got a lot of people working for Blackwater and others that, you know, are not quite as skilled and are just out there doing kind of the grunt work. But there's all kinds at that level.

Amy Goodman: Bechtel, Bolivia, the water wars. You're based in the Bay Area, where Bechtel is based, and the continent you know best, South America.

John Perkins: Yeah, well, you know, Bechtel was given the franchise to own and operate the water system of Cochabamba, Bolivia, third largest city in that country. And the World Bank forced this to happen. It's so sad. When it happened, suddenly the price of water quadrupled for some people, went up by tremendous amounts. People could no longer afford water. Cochabamba is a pretty poor city. There's sections of it that are extremely poor.

And so, the people took to the streets. They rebelled against this. There were riots. And Bechtel dug in its heels, but eventually they threw Bechtel out of Bolivia. Bechtel then sued Bolivia for $50 million in a European court, because they couldn't sue in a US court, because of the laws between Bolivia and the US. And then Evo Morales was elected president of Bolivia, and very shortly after that, Bechtel dropped its lawsuit. But it was interesting that the lawsuit was for lost profits that they hadn't been able to realize because they had been thrown out for doing things that were so onerous to the people there.

Amy Goodman: John Perkins, what do you see as the solutions right now?

John Perkins: Well, you know, Amy, this empire that we've created really has an emperor, and it's not the president of this country. The President serves, you know, for a short period of time. But it doesn't really matter whether we have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House or running Congress; the empire goes on, because it's really run by what I call the corporatocracy, which is a group of men who run our biggest corporations. This isn't a conspiracy theory. They don't need to conspire. They all know what serves their best interest. But they really are the equivalent of the emperor, because they do not serve at the wish of the people, they're not democratically elected, they don't serve any limited term. They essentially answer to no one, except their own boards, and most corporate CEOs actually run their boards, rather than the other way around. And they are the power behind this.

And so, if we want to turn this around, we have to impact them very strongly, which means that we have to change the corporations, which is their power base. And what I feel very strongly is that today corporations exists for the primary purpose of making large profits, making a few very rich people a lot richer on a quarterly basis, on a daily basis, on a very short-term basis. That shouldn't be. There is no reason for that to be.

Corporations have been defined as individuals. Individuals have to be good citizens. Corporations need to be good citizens. They need to take - their primary goal must be to take care of their employees, their customers and all the people around the world who provide the resources that go into making this world run, and to take care of the environments and the communities where those people live.

We must get the corporations to redefine themselves, and I think it's very realistic that we can do so. Every corporate executive out there is smart enough to realize that he's running a very failed system. As an economist, as a rational person, nobody can conclude anything otherwise. If you look at the fact that less than 5% of the world's population live in the United States and we consume more than 25% of the world's resources and create over 30% of its major pollution, you can only conclude that we've created a very flawed and failed system. This is not a model that can be sold to the Chinese or the Indians or the Africans or the Middle Easterners or the Latin Americans. We can't even continue with it ourselves. It has to change. And corporate executives know that. They're smart individuals. I believe that they want to see change.

And when we have really pushed them to change, we've been extremely successful. For example, we've got them to clean up rivers that were terribly polluted in the 1970s in this country. We got them to get rid of the aerosol cans that were destroying the ozone layer. We got them to change their policies toward hiring and promoting minorities and women. We've gotten them to put seatbelts in cars and airbags, against their initial resistance. We've got them to change tremendously in any specific area where we've set out to do that.

Now, it behooves us, we must convince them that their corporations need to be institutions to make this a better world, rather than institutions that serve a few very rich people and their goal is to make those people even richer. We need to turn this around. We must.

Amy Goodman: I want to ask one last quick question on Ecuador, and that is the death of Ecuador's Defense Minister Guadalupe Larriva, who died in a helicopter crash last year near the Manta US Air Base installation. Do you know anything about that?

John Perkins: Well, yeah. I just came from Ecuador, and everybody is talking about it, because the same thing happened to Jaime Roldos's minister of defense before he was assassinated. And the fact that it happened next to the US air base in Manta and it was a freak crash, two helicopters collidng, the similarities between what happened to Jaime Roldos, people all through Ecuador are saying this was a warning to Rafael Correa, the new president of Ecuador.

Amy Goodman: We're going to have to leave it there. John Perkins, thanks for joining us. John Perkins's new book is called The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals and the Truth about Global Corruption.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060607H.shtml

02 June, 2007

Dream home of India's richest man


Ingin tahu bagaimana orang kaya bisa menghabiskan uangnya? Baca saja. Satu MILYAR dolar untuk rumah keluarga? No problem!

Inilah kehidupan orang kafir: mencari kenikmatan sebanyak-banyaknya untuk diri sendiri. Orang lain biarkan saja menderita. Sayangnya, banyak orang muslim memiliki sikap seperti ini juga…

Dream home of India's richest man

By Zubair Ahmed
BBC News, Mumbai



WHAT WILL BE INSIDE?

Six floors for parking

An entertainment floor complete with a mini theatre

Three helipads

A health floor with athletics and swimming facilities

Details have emerged of a huge new building in Mumbai that is being built by India's richest man, Mukesh Ambani.

His skyscraper home in the city will be over 170m tall and will have an army of 600 staff to manage it.

Its 27 floors on a 4,532 sq metre plot will provide a panoramic view of the entire city of Mumbai (Bombay) once it is completed next year.

With the country's economy soaring, India's commercial city is poised to have many more such skyscrapers.

Construction of the family home is well under way.

'Full view'

The son of a former petrol pump attendant who went on to build a business empire, Mukesh Ambani is reportedly spending $1bn on his new home.

Legend has it that Mr Ambani - the chairman, and largest shareholder of Reliance Industries, India's largest private sector company - wants to enjoy a "full view" of the Arabian Sea.

So his architects came up with the idea of a 27-storey home.

The first six floors will serve as car parks. A health club will be built on the next two and the few floors above that will house hundreds of staff.

Fifty-year-old Mr Ambani and his family will occupy the top floors of the building which will also have a helipad and swimming pools.

Critics say it is an obscene display of wealth, especially in a city where more than half the inhabitants live on the pavements.

Architects believe that the construction of high-rises will provide a long-term solution to the problem of sheltering the city's homeless, especially when development land is in short supply.

One architect who is constructing a building which will be even taller than that planned by Mr Ambani told the BBC that Mumbai will soon be "littered with high-rises" as the government strives to shift slum dwellers into tower blocks.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/6712605.stm

Published: 2007/06/01 16:41:34 GMT

© BBC MMVII

27 May, 2007

Jihad Pendidikan


Jihad Pendidikan
oleh Jaya Suprana

BAGI yang tidak menghayati hakiki maknanya, banyak prestasi yang tercatat di Museum Rekor Indonesia atau Muri terkesan remeh, sepele, bahkan janggal. Termasuk di antaranya Kabupaten Jembrana, Bali, sebagai penerima piagam penghargaan Muri atas prestasi sebagai kabupaten pertama yang berhasil menyelenggarakan pendidikan secara cuma-cuma bagi segenap warganya.

NAMUN bagi yang mau dan mampu menghayati maknanya, prestasi Kabupaten Jembrana layak dikagumi sebagai Jihad Pendidikan yang merupakan teladan dan bukti nyata bahwa menyelenggarakan pendidikan secara cuma-cuma bagi setiap warga negara Indonesia-sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Dasar (UUD) 1945 versi sebelum maupun setelah amandemen-sebenarnya bukan sesuatu utopia nan mustahil!

Meski jelas tersurat dan tersirat dalam UUD 1945-versi mana pun-bahwa setiap warga memiliki hak atas pendidikan, pada kenyataannya hak atas pendidikan itu diingkari dengan fakta bahwa setiap warga Indonesia hanya memiliki kewajiban atas pendidikan, dalam makna kewajiban memikul biaya pendidikan, bahkan masih ditambah biaya-biaya yang sebenarnya tidak wajib dipikul sebab tidak mutlak langsung terkait pada pendidikan, seperti seragam, uang gedung, dan buku pelajaran yang terus-menerus diganti dan wajib dibeli. Para penyelenggara dan "ahli" pendidikan lazim beranggapan bahwa pendidikan itu butuh, bahkan rakus biaya, maka mahal, maka layak divonis sulit bahkan mustahil diselenggarakan secara cuma-cuma bagi para warga.

Para guru, jika mendengar angan-angan bahwa pendidikan akan diselenggarakan secara gratis, langsung alergi derita- makin-parah akibat khawatir mereka juga harus menggratiskan jasa mereka, padahal mereka sudah dipaksa menjadi Pahlawan Tanpa Tanda Jasa! Maklum, di masa pendidikan wajib dibayar (mahal lagi!) oleh para warga saja, mutu kehidupan para guru-akibat kebocoran administratif di sana sini-sudah di bawah garis kemiskinan, bayangkan skala malapetaka yang terjadi jika pendidikan malah digratiskan!

Pihak Depdiknas sendiri, termasuk segenap departemen yang tergabung dalam koordinasi Kesejahteraan Rakyat, cenderung menganggap bahwa pendidikan cuma-cuma masih merupakan utopia, suatu cita- cita mulia yang mungkin baru akan berhasil di masa nun jauh di depan, di masa bangsa Indonesia sudah masuk kelompok negara maju, seperti Jerman. Kesejahteraan rakyat ditingkatkan dulu sampai tingkat tertentu, baru pasal hak warga atas pendidikan sesuai yang tertera dalam UUD 1945 benar-benar dapat dijabarkan pada kenyataan. Jadi, rakyat disejahterakan dulu, baru boleh berhak untuk memperoleh pendidikan, bukan sebaliknya.

Seperti memang sudah lazimnya terjadi pada masalah-masalah nusa dan bangsa yang hakiki sekaligus akut, tampaknya hak rakyat atas pendidikan lebih banyak diperdebatkan dengan kecenderungan luar biasa enggan ketimbang benar-benar diupayakan untuk diselesaikan apalagi sampai tuntas.

Fakta

Lain halnya dengan yang terjadi di Kabupaten Jembrana, Bali. Di kantor kabupaten terletak di pantai barat, dengan perbendaharaan wisata relatif paling minim maka tergolong kabupaten paling miskin di Bali, masalah pendidikan ternyata bukan asyik diperjanjikan atau sibuk diseminarkan, tetapi segera dikaji, ditelaah, direncanakan, lalu langsung dijabarkan dengan langkah-langkah nyata.

Ketika diangkat menjadi Bupati Jembrana, Prof drg I Gede Winasa bukan bingung mencari cara demi memperkaya diri, tetapi demi menyejahterakan rakyatnya. Pejabat kabupaten jenis langka ini juga tidak cengeng meratapi dana penghasilan daerahnya yang kebetulan termasuk relative miskin, akibat minimnya obyek wisata di tengah gemerlap wisata Pulau Bali, tetapi langsung mengoptimalkan efisiensi dan efektivitas dana yang sudah ada, di samping ikhtiar mencari atau bahkan mencipta sumber dana (halal!) yang belum ada.

Bupati Jembrana langsung nyata gigih membasmi korupsi, bukan dengan janji atau slogan atau sekadar membentuk tim, tetapi dengan keteladanan sikap dan perilaku dirinya sendiri, sambil menindak tegas, tanpa kompromi atau pandang bulu, siapa saja yang masih nekat berani melakukan korupsi.

I Gede Winasa juga layak memperoleh penghargaan Muri atas prestasi satu-satunya bupati yang menuntut gajinya diturunkan. Untuk kendaraan dinasnya, Bupati "Tidak Lazim" Jembrana ini juga tidak minta yang baru, tetapi cukup Toyota Hardtop tahun 1978 saja.

Dari total Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah Jembrana untuk tahun 2003 yang hanya Rp 232 miliar, Sang Bupati mengalokasikan anggaran pendidikan (termasuk gaji PNS-nya) 34,27 persen yang ternyata mampu menjabarkan program pendidikan berupa pembebasan biaya pendidikan SD, SLTP, SLTA; pembangunan dan pemugaran gedung sekolah; beasiswa untuk para guru guna melanjutkan pendidikan; peningkatan kesejahteraan guru lewat peningkatan insentif; pemberian bonus tahunan, dan penyelenggaraan Sekolah Kajian.

Bagi yang skeptis, mutu pendidikan merosot akibat penggratisan pendidikan, silakan menyimak bukti terukur kinerja pendidikan di Jembrana seperti angka drop-out turun menjadi 0,03 persen (nilai rata-rata nasional 1 persen), dan hasil ujian akhir sekolah maupun nasional dengan tingkat kelulusan 98,84 persen termasuk kelompok tertinggi di Indonesia.

Meski demikian, bukan berarti Bupati Jembrana hanya miopik terobsesi masalah pendidikan. Sebab, demi kesejahteraan rakyat Jembrana, masih ada program pembebasan biaya kesehatan bagi segenap warga, pembebasan biaya penerbitan KTP (yang berasuransi!), pemberian dana talangan pertanian di samping pembebasan PBB untuk lahan pertanian, pelayanan perizinan satu atap, pemberlakuan owner estimate, pemberian bonus tahunan bagi PNS, pemberlakuan standardisasi satuan harga barang pembelian pemda, efisiensi kendaraan dan rumah dinas, pendirian industri penyulingan air laut menjadi air minum, dan aneka langkah spektakuler lainnya.

Makna terakbar prestasi superlatif I Gede Winasa sebagai Bupati Jembrana pemrakarsa Jihad Pendidikan adalah membuktikan dengan sikap, perilaku, dan langkah nyata bahwa cita-cita terluhur bangsa Indonesia, yakni masyarakat adil dan makmur, bukan sekadar suatu slogan impian utopis yang mustahil dicapai secara nyata. Apalagi sekadar menyelenggarakan pendidikan secara cuma- cuma demi menjunjung tinggi hak setiap warga memperoleh pendidikan (masih ditambah fasilitas pelayanan kesehatan gratis), jelas nyata dibuktikan di Kabupaten Jembrana-dengan segala kekurangan dan keterbatasan dana-apabila benar-benar mau, pasti mampu dilaksanakan. Jika tidak dilaksanakan, berarti bukan akibat tidak mampu, tetapi sekadar tidak mau belaka.

Jaya Suprana,

Budayawan

26 May, 2007

Three animal or plant species become extinct every hour


By Alister Doyle
Reuters

Wednesday 23 May 2007

Oslo - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

Scientists and environmentalists issued reports about threats to creatures and plants including right whales, Iberian lynxes, wild potatoes and peanuts on May 22, the International Day for Biological Diversity.

"Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement. Global warming is adding to threats such as land clearance for farms or cities, pollution and rising human populations.

"The global response to these challenges needs to move much more rapidly, and with more determination at all levels - global, national and local," he said.

Many experts reckon the world will fail to meet the goal set by world leaders at an Earth Summit in 2002 of a "significant reduction" by 2010 in the rate of species losses. "We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinctions since the disappearance of the dinosaurs," said Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, perhaps after a meteorite struck.

"Extinction rates are rising by a factor of up to 1,000 above natural rates. Every hour, three species disappear. Every day, up to 150 species are lost. Every year, between 18,000 and 55,000 species become extinct," he said.

"The cause: human activities."

Dodo

A "Red List" of endangered species, however, lists only 784 species driven to extinction since 1500 - ranging from the dodo bird of Mauritius to the golden toad of Costa Rica.

Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the list compiled by the World Conservation Union grouping 83 governments as well as scientists and environmental organisations, said the hugely varying figures might both be right, in their way.

"The UN figures are based on loss of habitats, estimates of how many species lived there and so will have been lost," he told Reuters. "Ours are more empirical - those species we knew were there but cannot find."

UN climate experts say global warming, blamed mainly on human use of fossil fuels, will wreck habitats by drying out the Amazon rainforest, for instance, or by melting polar ice.

The World Conservation Union also said that one in every six land mammals in Europe was under threat of extinction, including the Iberian lynx, Arctic fox and the Mediterranean monk seal.

"The results of the report highlight the challenge we currently face to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010," European Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

Europe's goal is to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, tougher than the global target of slowing losses.

Another report by a group of farm researchers said that global warming may drive many wild varieties of plants such as potatoes and peanuts to extinction by mid-century, wiping out traits that might help modern crops resist pests or disease.

The WWF conservation group and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said that whales, dolphins and porpoises were "facing increasing threats from climate change" because of factors such as rising sea temperatures.

A survey in Britain said climate change might actually help some of the nation's rare wildlife and plants - such as the greater horseshoe bat and the turtle dove - to spread to new areas even as others faced threats to their survival.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/052307EA.shtml

Money Does Not Buy Happiness


By Annie Kahn
Le Monde

Monday 21 May 2007

Work more to earn more is the watchword of the new government. As though it were self-evident that earning more is a guarantee of universally-desired happiness.

Some American economists have recently proved the opposite. To the question, "Would you be happier if you were richer?" 2002 Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman and four of his colleagues from Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies (CEPS) answer in the negative. "When this question is posed by itself, people exaggerate its importance. They think they'll be happier if they earn a higher salary. But it's an optical illusion," the authors assert.

An illusion, certainly, but not for everyone. For the authors' conclusions are valid only for "middle class" households that earn over 50,000 dollars (37,000 Euros) a year. For those households, an increase in income translates only barely into well-being. Below the $50,000 threshold, on the other hand, increases in salary and in contentment seem to go hand in hand.

To explain their conclusions, the American economists emphasize that it's not the absolute value of income that makes people happy or unhappy, but rather the gap between theirs and their neighbors. In other words, to be rich among the rich is not of any great benefit; or worse, can make people very unhappy, since one still frequently encounters someone still richer than oneself. Moreover, the authors deem that the consumption of material goods does not increase the sense of well-being. Finally, they assert, the leisure pastimes of the well-to-do (shopping, going to the gym ...) generate tension and stress.

So then why do CEOs negotiate severance compensation, gilded retirement packages, and other golden parachutes that add up to astonishing sums? They are victims of this optical effect, explain the Princeton economists. They overestimate the increase in pleasure they will be able to extract from that money by thinking that the happiness they feel at the moment they are accorded those sums will last. In the long run, that is not the case.

The OCDE draws similar conclusions in its Panorama of Society. A population's "degree of satisfaction" is not necessarily linked to a country's GDP. Mexicans declare themselves happy to live while Mexico's GDP is relatively weak. In Japan, the opposite holds true. "People's well-being depends to a large degree on the situation of the collective to which they belong and on their relations with that collective," concludes the OCDE.

The French population is also less happy with its fate than its GDP would suggest. The French are complainers and that's no optical illusion.


Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052307G.shtml

23 May, 2007

We're No. 1! : A Nation of Firsts Arms the World


By Frida Berrigan
TomDispatch.com

Sunday 20 May 2007

They don't call us the sole superpower for nothing. Paul Wolfowitz might be looking for a new job right now, but the term he used to describe the pervasiveness of U.S. might back when he was a mere deputy secretary of defense - hyperpower - still fits the bill.

Face it, the United States is a proud nation of firsts. Among them:

First in Oil Consumption:

The United States burns up 20.7 million barrels per day, the equivalent of the oil consumption of China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and India combined.

First in Carbon Dioxide Emissions:

Each year, world polluters pump 24,126,416,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the environment. The United States and its territories are responsible for 5.8 billion metric tons of this, more than China (3.3 billion), Russia (1.4 billion) and India (1.2 billion) combined.

First in External Debt:

The United States owes $10.040 trillion, nearly a quarter of the global debt total of $44 trillion.

First in Military Expenditures:

The White House has requested $481 billion for the Department of Defense for 2008, but this huge figure does not come close to representing total U.S. military expenditures projected for the coming year. To get a sense of the resources allocated to the military, the costs of the global war on terrorism, of the building, refurbishing, or maintaining of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and other expenses also need to be factored in. Military analyst Winslow Wheeler did the math recently: "Add $142 billion to cover the anticipated costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; add $17 billion requested for nuclear weapons costs in the Department of Energy; add another $5 billion for miscellaneous defense costs in other agencies…. and you get a grand total of $647 billion for 2008."

Taking another approach to the use of U.S. resources, Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Business School lecturer Linda Bilmes added to known costs of the war in Iraq invisible costs like its impact on global oil prices as well as the long-term cost of health care for wounded veterans and came up with a price tag of between 1 trillion and $2.2 trillion.

If we turned what the United States will spend on the military in 2008 into small bills, we could give each one of the world's more than 1 billion teenagers and young adults an Xbox 360 with wireless controller (power supply in remote rural areas not included) and two video games to play: maybe Gears of War and Command and Conquerwould be appropriate. But if we're committed to fighting obesity, maybe Dance Dance Revolution would be a better bet. The United States alone spends what the rest of the world combined devotes to military expenditures.

First in Weapons Sales:

Since 2001, U.S. global military sales have normally totaled between $10 and $13 billion. That's a lot of weapons, but in fiscal year 2006, the Pentagon broke its own recent record, inking arms sales agreements worth $21 billion. It almost goes without saying that this is significantly more than any other nation in the world.

In this gold-medal tally of firsts, there can be no question that things that go bang in the night are our proudest products. No one makes more of them or sells them more effectively than we do. When it comes to the sorts of firsts that once went with a classic civilian manufacturing base, however, gold medals are in short supply. To take an example:

Not First in Automobiles:

Once, Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford ruled the domestic and global roost, setting the standard for the automotive industry. Not any more. In 2006, the U.S. imported almost $150 billion more in vehicles and auto parts than it sent abroad. Automotive analyst Joe Barker told the Boston Globe, "it's a very tough environment" for the so-called Detroit Three. "In times of softening demand, consumers typically will look to brands that they trust and rely on. Consumers trust and rely on Japanese brands."

Not Even First in Bulk Goods:

The Department of Commerce recently announced total March exports of $126.2 billion and total imports of $190.1 billion, resulting in a goods and services deficit of $63.9 billion. This is a $6 billion increase over February.

But why be gloomy? Stick with arms sales and it's dawn in America every day of the year. Sometimes, the weapons industry pretends that it's like any other trade - especially when it's pushing our congressional representatives (as it always does) for fewer restrictions and regulations. But don't be fooled. Arms aren't automobiles or refrigerators. They're sui generis; they are the way the USA can always be number one - and everyone wants them. The odds that, in your lifetime, there will ever be a $128 billion trade deficit in weapons are essentially nil.

Arms are our real gold-medal event.

First in Sales of Surface-to-Air Missiles:

Between 2001 and 2005, the United States delivered 2,099 surface-to-air missiles like the "Sparrow" and the "AMRAAM" to nations in the developing world, 20% more than Russia, the next largest supplier.

First in Sales of Military Ships:

During that same period, the U.S. sent 10 "major surface combatants" like aircraft carriers and destroyers to developing nations. Collectively, the four major European weapons producers shipped thirteen. (And we were first in the anti-ship missiles that go along with such ships, with nearly double (338) the exports of the next largest supplier Russia (180).

First in Military Training:

A thoughtful empire knows that it is not enough to send weapons; you have to teach people how to use them. The Pentagon plans on training the militaries of 138 nations in 2008 at a cost of nearly $90 million. No other nation comes close.

First in Private Military Personnel:

According to bestselling author Jeremy Scahill, there are at least 126,000 private military personnel deployed alongside uniformed military personnel in Iraq alone. Of the more than sixty major companies that supply such personnel worldwide, more than 40 are U.S. based.

Rest assured, governments around the world, often at each others' throats, will want U.S. weapons long after their people have turned up their noses at a range of once dominant American consumer goods.

Just a few days ago, for instance, the "trade" publication Defense News reported that Turkey and the United States signed a $1.78 billion deal for Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter planes. As it happens, these planes are already ubiquitous - Israel flies them, so does the United Arab Emirates, Poland, South Korea, Venezuela, Oman and Portugal, not to speak of most other modern air forces. In many ways, F-16 is not just a high-tech fighter jet, it's also a symbol of U.S. backing and friendship. Buying our weaponry is one of the few ways you can actually join the American imperial project!

In order to remain number one in the competitive jet field, Lockheed Martin, for example, does far more than just sell airplanes. TAI - Turkey's aerospace corporation - will receive a boost with this sale, because Lockheed Martin is handing over responsibility for parts of production, assembly, and testing to Turkish workers. The Turkish Air Force already has 215 F-16 fighter planes and plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well, in a deal estimated at $10.7 billion over the next 15 years.

$10.7 billion on fighter planes for a country that ranks 94th on the United Nations' Human Development Index, below Lebanon, Colombia, and Grenada, and far below all the European nations that Ankara is courting as it seeks to join the European Union - now that's a real American sales job for you!

Here's the strange thing, though: This genuine, gold-medal manufacturing-and-sales job on weapons simply never gets the attention it deserves. As a result, most Americans have no idea how proud they should be of our weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon - essentially our global sales force - that makes sure our weapons travel the planet and regularly demonstrates their value in small wars from Latin America to Central Asia.

Of course, there's tons of data on the weapons trade, but who knows about any of it? I'm typical here. I help produce one of a dozen or so sober annual (or semi-annual) reports quantifying the business of war-making. In my case: the Arms Trade Resource Center report, U.S. Weapons at War: Fueling Conflict or Promoting Freedom? These reports get desultory, obligatory press attention - but only once in a blue moon do they get the sort of full-court-press treatment that befits our number one product line.

Dense collections of facts, percentages, and comparisons don't seem to fit particularly well into the usual patchwork of front-page stories. And yet the mainstream press is a glory ride, compared to the TV News, which hardly acknowledges most of the time that the weapons business even exists.

In any case, that inside-the-fold, fact-heavy, wonky news story on the arms trade, however useful, can't possibly convey the gold-medal feel of a business that has always preferred the shadows to the sun. No reader checking out such a piece is going to feel much - except maybe overwhelmed by facts. The connection between the factory that makes a weapons system and the community where that weapon "does its duty" is invariably missing-in-action, as are the relationships among the companies making the weapons and the generals (on-duty and retired) and politicians making the deals, or raking in their own cut of the profits for themselves and/or their constituencies. In other words, our most successful (and most deadly) export remains our most invisible one.

Maybe the only way to break through this paralysis of analysis would be to stop talking about weapons exports as a trade at all. Maybe we shouldn't be using economic language to describe it. Yes, the weapons industry has associations, lobby groups, and trade shows. They have the same tri-fold exhibits, scale models, and picked-over buffets as any other industry; still, maybe we have to stop thinking about the export of fighter planes and precision-guided missiles as if they were so many widgets and start thinking about them in another language entirely - the language of drugs.

After all, what does a drug dealer do? He creates a need and then fills it. He encourages an appetite or (even more lucratively) an addiction and then feeds it.

Arms dealers do the same thing. They suggest to foreign officials that their military just might need a slight upgrade. After all, they'll point out, haven't you noticed that your neighbor just upgraded in jets, submarines, and tanks? And didn't you guys fight a war a few years back? Doesn't that make you feel insecure? And why feel insecure for another moment when, for just a few billion bucks, we'll get you suited up with the latest model military… even better than what we sold them - or you the last time around.

Why does Turkey, which already has 215 fighter planes, need 100 extras in an even higher-tech version? It doesn't… but Lockheed Martin, working the Pentagon, made them think they did.

We don't need stronger arms control laws, we need a global sobriety coach - and some kind of 12-step program for the dealer-nation as well.

---------

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052107F.shtml

Carter Criticizes Bush and Blair on War in Iraq


Reuters

Sunday 20 May 2007

Washington - Former President Jimmy Carter criticized George W. Bush's presidency in interviews released Saturday as "the worst in history" in international relations and faulted Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain for his loyal relationship with Mr. Bush.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Mr. Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said in a telephone interview with The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette from the Carter Center in Atlanta.

"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me," Mr. Carter told the newspaper.

In an interview on BBC radio, he criticized Mr. Blair for his close relations with the president, particularly concerning the Iraq war.

"Abominable," he said when asked how he would characterize Mr. Blair's relationship with Mr. Bush. "Loyal, blind, apparently subservient."

Mr. Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981 and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his charitable work, was an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq before it was begun in 2003.

"I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," he said.

In the newspaper interview, Mr. Carter said Mr. Bush has taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said.

The White House declined to comment on his statements.

Mr. Carter told the BBC that if Mr. Blair had opposed the invasion he could have reduced the ensuing harm by making it tougher for Washington to shrug off critics, even if the British prime minister had not been able to stop the war. "It would certainly have assuaged the problems" that have arisen, he said.

He characterized one of the defenses of the Bush administration in America and worldwide" as "O.K., we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us."

Mr. Carter told the BBC that the combined support of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for the war "has prolonged the war and increased the tragedy that has resulted."

In the newspaper interview, Mr. Carter, who brokered the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, also criticized Mr. Bush's Middle East policies. "For the first time since Israel was founded, we've had zero peace talks to try to bring a resolution of differences in the Middle East," he said. "That's a radical departure from the past."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052007Z.shtml

21 May, 2007

Don't Be Fooled by Propaganda



by Charley Reese


There is an ongoing slander campaign against Islam, claiming that it is a religion that promotes violence and hinting that it seeks world conquest.Before you buy the malarkey that is being produced by people with their own agendas or prejudices or who are just plain ignoramuses, follow these few suggestions:

Compare the history of Islam with the history of Europe, which for centuries was called Christendom. An objective look will show you that Christendom wins by a landslide when it comes to violence and wars. After all, Europe and its offspring did not come to dominate the world, including the Islamic countries, because they practiced the gentle virtues of Jesus.

As for the common practice of cherry-picking Scripture from holy writings and presenting it out of context, just check out what Christians call the Old Testament. There you will find God advocating a double standard of morality, condoning slavery, ordering the Israelites to commit genocide and committing infanticide himself on a mass scale. I don't believe you will find anything comparable in the Quran.

The word "jihad," which is so over-used these days, has, like a lot of words, more than one meaning. It means basically to struggle, but this can be personal or spiritual, or a peaceful political struggle. Only if Islam is attacked are Muslims required to defend it.

As for that obnoxious propaganda term "Islamo-fascist," just recall that fascism is a European invention by nominal Christians. To my knowledge, the only fascist governments ever to exist on this planet were all European and nominally Christian.

Another canard is that Islam promotes forced conversion. Not so. Even when the Arab empire was expanding, rarely were any of the conquered people forced to convert. The Quran even forbids it, as I recall. Naturally, once Muslims were in charge, a lot of people decided it was in their own self-interest to convert, but this is just one of the sleazy aspects of human nature.

I remember when Florida elected its first Republican governor of the 20th century. I saw plenty of people crawl out from under their rocks and convert to the Republican Party, drawn by the smell of patronage. With some rare exceptions, human beings always act in what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be in their self-interest.

It was Christian Europe that slaughtered the Jews, and nothing remotely resembling the Holocaust is to be found in the history of Islam. In fact, during the past, when Jews were being persecuted by Christian Europe, they frequently fled to and found sanctuary in the Muslim countries. Until Israel was established, practically every Muslim country had sizable Jewish populations dating back centuries. And there are still Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries.

A final suggestion is that when you hear some individual radical Muslim being quoted, just remember he is one of a billion people and speaks only for himself and his small following. And be wary of the quotations he uses, for they are often deliberately fabricated or distorted.

If Muslims really desired to conquer the world, don't you think it's strange that we've been living in peace with them for nearly a millennium and a half, except for those times when we attacked them (the Crusades, the European colonial movement and our invasion of Iraq)? Don't forget either that some of the countries the Bush administration calls allies are themselves Muslim – Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

You have nothing to fear from Islam. The al-Qaida movement is a tiny percentage of Muslims and wouldn't be the force it is except for the fact that the Bush administration has gone out of its way to make all of Osama bin Laden's propaganda become true.

May 5, 2007

Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.

Source: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=21857

15 May, 2007

Bullying Di Sekolah



Menyedihkan sekali ini:

The latest research by non-profit organization the Sejiwa Foundation, conducted in three cities, revealed that 27.5 percent of interviewed teachers considered bullying to be harmless to children's psychological wellbeing.

18.3 percent of respondents also said bullying was normal and should not be policed [= tidak perlu dicegah] by teachers. (Jakarta Post, 8 May, 2007)

Masa!!!???!!!

Bullying = mengganggu anak lain dengan cara mengejek, menghinakan, mengacam, memeras, mendorong, memukul, menganiaya, menyiksa, dan bahkan juga menghajar sampai mati. (Kata “bullying” ini tidak punya terjemahan yang persis sama dalam bahasa Indonesia)

27.5% dari guru yang disurvei menganggap bahwa bullying tidak mengganggu keadaan psikologis anak kecil????????!!!!!!!!!!!?????

Astagfirullah al adzim!!

Bagaimana anak bisa belajar kalau dia dalam keadaan tertekan? Bagaimana bisa berhasil kalau ada yang mengancam dan memukulnya setiap hari? Kok bisa dianggap “normal” atau “biasa” oleh ¼ dari para guru??

Kok guru bisa menyatakan bahwa ini bukan tugas guru untuk mencegahnya?

Kok orang dewasa yang mempunyai otak (guru) bisa melihat anak kecil yang diancam dan dianiaya, tanpa ada rasa kasih sayang atau kepedulian yang muncul di hatinya dan tanpa ada keinginan untuk membela anak yang tidak berdosa yang ditindas dan diteror oleh orang lain?

Bangsa apa ini? Bukannya penuh dengan orang Islam? Bukannya mayoritas dari guru ini beragama Islam?

"We have also questioned teachers and the principal but have found no indications of negligence," he added.

Benar? Atau barangkali lebih tepat mengatakan:

“Kita sudah memeriksa para guru dan kepala sekolah, tetapi mereka tidak siap mengakui bahwa mereka adalah orang lalai yang tidak pedulikan muridnya dengan cukup baik. Dan sekarang karena salah satu muridnya sudah wafat karena ‘bullying’, mereka tidak ingin disalahkan, padahal mereka sudah lama mengetahui bahwa ada geng anak yang suka mengancam dan menghajar anak lain yang lebih kecil. Tapi jangan salahkan para guru ya! Mereka lagi sibuk di ruang guru pada saat murid malang itu sedang dibunuh. Mereka tidak perlu bertanggung-jawab. Mereka tidak salah.”

Saya merasa sangat sedih sebagai seorang guru pada saat saya baca hasil survei ini dari orang yang juga menyebutkan diri “Guru”. Apakah mereka ini guru? Atau penjaga anak di suatu gedung yang kebetulan dinamakan “sekolah”?

Apakah ini yang terbaik untuk masa depan bangsa ini? Yang jelas, para guru ini yang tidak melihat ada efek buruk dari ‘bullying’ perlu training sehingga mereka bisa paham. Dan kalau mereka belum paham juga setelah training selesai, saya siap memukul dan membanting badan mereka sampai mereka mengatakan “paham”. Barangkali kalau mereka sendiri dipukul pada saat belajar, baru mereka akan menjadi sanggup memahami apa yang dirasakan anak kecil yang mereka jaga (atau tidak jaga) di sekolah.

Insya Allah mereka akan menjadi paham sebelum anak anda atau anak tetangga anda menjadi korban berikut.

Boleh kita minta Menteri Pendidikan baru yang peduli pada pendidikan, sehingga dia siap melakukan perbaikan dengan secepatnya….?

Kapan ya…?

*******************************

When it comes to bullying, ignorance is not bliss

City News - May 08, 2007

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Who is to blame when children become violent? Fathers often beam with pride when their sons show off their macho side while mothers react with joy when their brave daughters tell them stories of how they bettered a boy at school. Little do we realize that the smallest violence can lead to devastating loss.

"Ma, I'm getting beaten up, Ma. I'm getting beaten up," Edo Renaldo, 8, mumbled while taking an afternoon nap. What at first looked like a mere fever turned into tragedy for the second grader and his parents Theresia Leli and Yohanes last week. "When I checked, I noticed bruises on his neck, waist and on both of his thighs," Yohanes told the daily Warta Kota on Friday. After she insisted Edo tell her what really happened, the boy said he had been beaten up by four of his seniors at school.

On April 28, Edo, an unfit child, was exhausted after PE class. He went to the toilets where a boy a year older than him knocked him off of his feet while three female classmates stomped on him, Leli said. The bullying continued after Edo returned to the classroom, where he was pushed in the chest by one of the girls.

Edo passed away a week later.

No conclusive cause has been found for Edo's death. But doctors have said they found a 10-centimeter rupture to Edo's intestines during autopsy. East Jakarta police resort head Sr. Comr. Robinson Manurung said the final result of the autopsy would come out within the next two weeks. "We have questioned the four students as well as teachers," Manurung said. During questioning the students, who were accompanied by their parents, admitted having beaten up Edo, Manurung said.

"We have also questioned teachers and the principal but have found no indications of negligence," he added.

Meanwhile, Edo's parents said they were disappointed with the school's response to their complaints about their son's injuries. "They said it was normal for someone to have bruises after working out," Leli said.

A study from Plan International Indonesia indicated that such violence in schools ranked second after domestic violence. The latest research by non-profit organization the Sejiwa Foundation, conducted in three cities, revealed that 27.5 percent of interviewed teachers considered bullying to be harmless to children's psychological wellbeing. 18.3 percent of respondents also said bullying was normal and should not be policed by teachers.

Bullying by nature is a reaction to perceived difference: being too attractive, too fat, too shy or having different cultural background, psychologist Ratna Djuwita said. A private school principal whose institution mainstreamed bullying prevention efforts, Ratna's message has long been when it comes to bullying that "ignorance is not bliss."

National Commission for Child Protection chairman Arist Merdeka Sirait said the Child Protection Law stipulated that schools be held responsible for any violence on their premises. "Whatever the form (of violence) and whoever does it, schools should be violence-free zones and should protect their students," he said. (01)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20070508.C01

08 May, 2007

Anak berumur 8 tahun masuk penjara…


Sungguh menyedihkan anak ini ada di penjara. Seharusnya tidak. Kenapa tidak ada peraturan atau hukum khusus untuk anak di negara ini? Dan kalau ada, kenapa tidak dijalankan? Sayang masa depan anak ini menjadi rusak, padahal di jelas2 pintar. Bisa nggak kita mulaikan sebuah petisi untuk mengajak pemerintah/Hakim Agung melakukan Judicial Review terhadap kasus ini? Bikin petisi: "Lepaskan Arif!"?

Harus dipertanyakan apakah dia adalah orang yang berbahaya bagi masyarakat? Sepertinya tidak. Kalau begitu kenapa masuk penjara? Allah sendiri tidak menghukum anak kecil disebabkan dosa2nya. Kenapa kita mau melebihi Allah dengan hukuman tersebut?


Ada pembunuh lari dari penjara menggunakan tape uli...

Posted by Reza on Apr 23, '07 10:10 PM for everyone

Terus terang, meski sudah beberapa kali mengadakan penelitian Kriminal di LP, pengalaman kali ini adalah pengalaman pertama saya ngobrol langsung dengan seseorang yang didakwa kasus pembunuhan berencana. Dengan jantung dag dig dug, pikiran saya melayang-layang mengira-ngira gambaran orang yang akan saya temui. Sudah terbayang muka keji hanibal lecter, juga penjahat-penjahat berjenggot palsu ala sinetron, dan gambaran-gambaran pembunuh berdarah dingin lain yang sering saya temui di cerita TV.

Well, akhirnya setelah menunggu sekian lama berharap-harap cemas, salah satu sipir membawa seorang anak kehadapan saya.Yup, benar seorang anak berumur 8 tahun. Tingginya tidak lebih dari pinggang orang dewasa dengan wajah yang diliputi senyum malu-malu. Matanya teduh dengan gerak-gerik yang sopan.

Saya pun membaca berkas kasusnya yang diserahkan oleh sipir itu. Sebelum masuk penjara ternyata ia adalah juara kelas di sekolahnya, juara menggambar, jago bermain suling, juara mengaji dan azan di tingkat kanak-kanak. Kemampuan berhitungnya lumayan menonjol. Bahkan dari balik sekolah di dalam penjara pun nilai sekolahnya tercatat kedua terbesar tingkat provinsi. Lantas kenapa ia sampai membunuh? Dengan rencana pula?

Kasus ini terjadi ketika Arif sebut saja nama anak ini begitu, belum genap berusia tujuh tahun. Ayahnya yang berdagang di sebuah pasar di daerah bekasi, dihabisi kepala preman yang menguasai daerah itu. Latar belakangnya karena si ayah enggan membayar uang ‘keamanan’ yang begitu tinggi. Berita ini rupanya sampai di telinga Arif. Malam esok harinya setelah ayahnya dikebumikan ia mendatangi tempat mangkal preman tersebut. Bermodalkan pisau dapur ia menantang orang yang membunuh ayahnya.

“siapa yang bunuh ayah saya!” teriaknya kepada orang yang ada di tempat itu.

“Gue terus kenapa?” ujar kepala preman yang membunuh ayahnya sambil disambut gelak tawa di belakangnya.

Tanpa banyak bicara anak kecil itu sambil melompat menghunuskan pisau ke perut si preman. Dan tepat mengenai ulu hatinya, pria berbadan besar itu jatuh tersungkur ke tanah. Arif pun langsung lari pulang ke rumah setelahnya. Akhirnya selesai sholat subuh esok paginya ia digelandang ke kantor polisi.

“Arif nih sering bikin repot petugas di Lapas!” ujar kepala lapas yang ikut menemani saya mewawancarai arif sambil tersenyum. Ternyata sejak di penjara dua tahun lalu. Anak ini sudah tiga kali melarikan diri dari selnya. Dan caranya pun menurut saya tergolong ajaib.

Pelarian pertama dilakukannya dengan cara yang tak terpikirkan siapapun. Setiap pagi sampah-sampah dari Lapas itu di jemput oleh mobil kebersihan. Sadar akan hal ini, diam-diam Arif menyelinap ke dalam salah satu kantung sampah. Hasilnya 1-0 untuk Arif. Ia berhasil keluar dari penjara.

Pelarian kedua lebih kreatif lagi. Anak yang doyan baca ini pernah membaca artikel tentang fermentasi makanan tape (ingat loh waktu wawancara usianya baru 8 tahun). Dari situ ia mendapat informasi bahwa tape mengandung hawa panas yang bersifat destruktif terhadap benda keras. Kebetulan pula di Lapas anak ini disediakan tape uli dua kali dalam seminggu. Setiap disediakan tape, arif selalu berpuasa karena jatah tape itu dibalurkannya ke dinding tembok sel tahanannya. Hasilnya setelah empat bulan, tembok penjara itu menjadi lunak seperti tanah liat. Satu buah lubang berhasil dibuatnya. 2-0 untuk arif. Ia keluar penjara ke dua kalinya.

Pelarian ke tiganya dilakukan ala Mission Imposible. Arif yang ditugasi membersihkan kamar mandi melihat ember sebagai sebuah solusi. Besi yang berfungsi sebagai pegangan ember itu di simpannya di dalam kamarnya. Tahu bahwa dirinya sudah diawasi sangat ketat, Arif memilih tempat persembunyian paling aman sebelum memutuskan untuk kabur. Ruang kepala Lapas menjadi pilihannya. Alasannya jelas, karena tidak pernah satu pun penjaga berani memeriksa ruangan ini. Ketika tengah malam ia menyelinap keluar dengan menggunakan besi pegangan ember untuk membuka pintu dan gembok. Jangan tanya saya bagaimana caranya, pokoknya tahu-tahu ia sudah di luar. 3-0 untuk Arif.

Lantas kenapa ia bisa tertangkap lagi? Rupanya kepintaran itu masih berada di sebuah kepala bocah. Pelarian-pelariannya didorong dari rasa kangennya terhadap ibunya. Anak ini keluar dari penjara hanya untuk ke rumah sang ibunda tercinta. Jadi dari Lapas tanggerang ia menumpang-numpang mobil omprengan dan juga berjalan kaki sekian kilometer dengan satu tujuan, pulang!

Karena itu pula pada pelarian Arif yang ketiga, kepala Lapas yang juga seorang ibu ini meminta anak buahnya untuk tidak segera menjemput Arif. Hasilnya dua hari kemudian Arif kembali lagi ke lapas sambil membawa surat untuk kepala Lapas yang ditulisnya sendiri.

Ibu kepala Arif minta maaf, tapi Arif kangen sama ibu Arif. Tulisnya singkat.

Seorang anak cerdas yang harus terkurung dipenjara. Tapi, saya tidak lantas berpikir bahwa ia tidak benar-benar bersalah dan harus dibebaskan. Bagaimanapun juga ia telah menghilangkan nyawa seseorang. Tapi saya hanya berandai-andai jika saja, polisi bertindak cepat menangkap pembunuh si ayah (secepat polisi menangkap si Arif) pastinya saat ini anak pintar dan rajin itu tidak akan berada di tempat seperti ini. Dan kreativitasnya yang tinggi itu bisa berguna untuk hal yang lain. Sayangnya si Arif itu cuma anak pedagang sayur miskin sementara si preman yang dibunuhnya selalu setia menyetor kepada pihak berwajib setempat. Itulah yang namanya keadilan!

http://rgardino.multiply.com/journal/item/28

06 May, 2007

Survei Tentara AS: Tidak Keberatan dengan Penyiksaan


Washington Post melaporkan bahwa tentara AS di Iraq telah mengikuti survei resmi dari Pentagon. Hasilnya:

· 2/3 dari tentara di Iraq percaya bahwa penyiksaan diperbolehkan kalau akan menghasilkan informasi yang penting tentang “insurgent” (penyerang).

· 4/10 akan setuju dengan penyiksaan bila dianggap bisa menyelamatkan nyawa prajurit lain.

· 2/3 dari Marinir [termasuk pasukan paling terlatih dan elit] dan 1/2 dari tentara biasa menyatakan tidak akan melaporkan rekan yang sengaja menganiaya/mengganggu orang sipil atau merusakkan barang milik orang sipil tanpa alasan yang benar.

· Kurang dari 1/2 dari marinir dan prajurit biasa percaya bahwa orang sipil [“non-combatant” = orang tua, ibu, anak, lelaki tidak bersenjata] harus diperlakuan dengan kehormatan dan kesopanan.

· 10% dari prajurit mengaku telah memperlakukan orang sipil secara tidak benar, dengan menendang mereka atau merusakkan barang milik mereka.

· Petugas menegaskan bahwa semua pengakuan ini atau hasil survei tidak sesuai dengan peraturan dan etika tentara AS yang melarang penyiksaan terhadap tahanan perang dan pengangguan terhadap orang sipil.

· Hasil studi ini juga menerangkan bahwa makin lama prajurit ditugaskan di daerah perang, dan makin sedikit waktunya di rumah di AS, makin mungkin prajurit itu akan mengalami gangguan mental seperti trauma kombat, stres, dan depresi. Belakangan ini, Pentagon telah mengirim pasukan yang sama ke Iraq berkali-kali [berarti masing2 prajurit kena “tour of duty” beberapa kali] dan juga memperpanjang durasi tour of duty tersebut menjadi 15 bulan dari 12 bulan sebelumnya.

· Tugas ini lebih berat daripada yang dialami pasukan AS di Perang Dunia II. Sekarang, ada Marinir dan prajurit yang harus melakukan “combat operation” setiap hari, dari 10-12 jam per hari, untuk berbulan-bulan. Ini pertama kali dalam sejarah tentara AS bahwa prajurit dan marinir harus menghabiskan waktu selama 6-7 bulan di garis depan.

· Dari hasil survei, 20% dari prajurit dan 15 % dari marinir sedang menderita dari depresi atau stres. 40% dari pasukan melaporkan “low morale” (perasaan tidak semangat) di dalam unitnya.

· Gangguan terhadap keluarga militer juga muncul. 20% dari prajurit melaporkan ada niat untuk cerai atau berpisah dengan isteri. Jumlah ini meningkat dari jumlah 15% tahun kemarin. Isteri dan anak sering memberikan komentar “Bapak sudah berubah dan tidak sama dengan orang yang berangkat ke Iraq.” [maksudnya, telah terjadi perubahan mental/sikap sebagai hasil dari keterlibatannya di dalam perang.]

· Sersan Scott Shore (Pensiunan) mengaku sering mengalami mimpi buruk, dan itu salah satu faktor dalam perceriaannya. Dia mengaku tidak suka berada di keramaian orang, tidak suka membawa mobil dan banyak hal yang lain karena selalu merasa takut akan diserang secara tiba-tiba (padahal sekarang dia berada di AS).

Mau berkomentar apa lagi? Hasil usaha sendiri! Selamat deh.

Sumber:

Troops at Odds With Ethics Standards

By Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson

The Washington Post

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050507Z.shtml

04 May, 2007

US to Make History Trying Alleged Child War Criminal


By Mark Tran
The Guardian UK

Wednesday 25 April 2007


A human rights group today attacked a US decision to file murder charges against a Canadian national and alleged Taliban fighter who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15.

Omar Khadr was wounded by US soldiers during a battle near Khost, Afghanistan, and taken into US custody in July 2002. He has spent most of the past five years in the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay.

During his capture he was shot three times and is nearly blind in one eye as a result of his injuries. The US military says Mr Khadr threw a grenade that killed a US Green Beret sergeant, Christopher Speer, and wounded another sergeant, Layne Morris.

Mr Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyer, Marine lieutenant colonel Colby Vokey, said the US would become the first country in modern history to try a war crimes suspect who was a child at the time of the alleged violations if a trial went ahead.

Mr Khadr has been charged with murder, attempted murder, providing support to terrorism, conspiracy and spying under rules for military trials adopted last year. The conspiracy charge is based on acts allegedly committed before Mr Khadr was 10, according to his defence team.

Amnesty International strongly criticised the decision to subject Mr Khadr to a military tribunal.

"To have held a 15-year-old boy in the harsh and lawless conditions of Guantánamo for five years has already been a travesty of justice - and to put him before an unfair 'military commission' trial simply adds to a disgraceful record in his case," said the Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen.

Ms Allen said the US authorities should transfer his case to a civilian federal court on the US mainland.

Toronto-born Mr Khadr faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The Pentagon said Mr Khadr must be held accountable.

"The defence department will continue to uphold the law and bring unlawful enemy combatants to justice through the military commissions process," it said.

Mr Speer's widow and Mr Morris filed a civil lawsuit against Mr Khadr and his father. In February, a judge awarded them $102.6m (£51m).

Dennis Edney, a Canadian lawyer for Mr Khadr's family, said the new tribunal system, which allows coerced and hearsay evidence, "provides Mr Khadr with almost no chance of proving his innocence.

"The aim is to provide a showcase to justify the US administration decision to arrest Mr. Khadr and other men like him in the first place," Mr Edney told the Associated Press.

Mr Khadr's attorneys urged Canada and the US to negotiate a "political resolution" of the case to spare Mr Khadr a guaranteed conviction by "one of the greatest show trials on earth".

Several of Mr Khadr's family members have been accused of ties to Islamist extremists. His Egyptian-born father, Ahmad Said al-Khadr, was killed in Pakistan in 2003 alongside senior al-Qaida operatives and Canada is holding Mr Khadr's brother Abdullah on a US extradition warrant accusing him of supplying weapons to al-Qaida.

Mr Khadr will be the second prisoner to face terror charges under new military tribunals after the US supreme court in June struck down the previous military tribunal system at Guantánamo as unconstitutional. Congress then passed a law establishing a new system, which is also being challenged.

In March, the military tribunal at Guantánamo sentenced an Australian, David Hicks, to nine months in prison after he pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism - the first conviction at a US war crimes trial since the second world war.

Under an agreement with the court, he will serve his sentence in an Australian prison, but must remain silent about any alleged abuse while in US custody. Prosecutors say they plan to charge as many as 80 of the 370 men held at Guantánamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

"We are increasingly concerned that with 80% of Guantánamo detainees now held in solitary confinement, there is mounting evidence that some are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown," Amnesty said.

Source: Truthout

22 April, 2007

George Galloway speaking about War in Iraq

The Best Testimony of The 21st Century


British MP George Galloway speaking before the US Senate about the War in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9AbVbYAAYk

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...