By Swathi Ramakrishnan

The central Indian a state of Chattisgarh was formed when the sixteen Chhattisgarhi-speaking southeastern districts of Madhya Pradesh gained statehood on November 1, 2000. It is a heavily tribal populated area (with only 20% of its 20 million population residing in urban areas), which is extremely rich in minerals and forest resources.

The new state government immediately entered into contracts with several industrial houses such as the Tata and Essar to set up mines and ore processing plants on land leased from the state. This situation where the state claims rights to the land and the people who live on that land are treated as peripheral to the national economy, created a perfect situation for strengthening the Maoist insurgency in the state.

The Naxalite-Maoist movement is a violent underground insurgency primarily composed of the most marginalized Dalit and tribal communities of India. The Naxalite insurgency, which is active in 13 out of the 29 states in India, is at its strongest in Chattisgarh. This forms a threat to the state's plans for heavy industry and profits in this region.

To counter the Naxalites, the state formed a counterinsurgency Salwa Judum campaign to intimidate Naxalite sympathizers and supporters. This vigilante group accompanied by State Forces forced people to leave their villages and move into Camps in Chattisgarh and neighboring states. More than 40,000 people live in temporary camps where they cannot adequately support themselves and their families.

In addition, the state formed and amended draconian laws such as Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2005(CSPSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2008(UAPA) which led to the arrest and prosecution of many human right activists like Dr. Binayak Sen, Kopa Kunjum and others who dared to challenge and critique state violence and repression. Read more »

By Frank Gage

For some time now the U.S. Military has gone into our schools to recruit students for military service. They use many different tactics to seduce our children. Military recruiters show video games, throw parties and make big promises. They promise money for college, job training, discipline, travel and other enticements.

They mislead youth about military service and say it is glamorous and heroic. The most popular and patriotic promise they make is the chance to “serve your country.” I am not only a veteran, but devoted to my country, and let me be very clear, anyone in the military today is not fighting for their country. They are fighting for big oil and major Corporations.  Let me prove my point.

Since Bush & Cheney invaded Iraq in 2003 most of the big reconstruction projects have been awarded by the United States. According to the New York Times, starting this month, many new contracts are expected to be awarded for drilling hundreds of new wells, repairing thousands of miles of pipeline and building several giant floating oil terminals in the Persian Gulf and possibly a new port. KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, has been awarded over $24 Billion since the war started in 2003.

We did not go to war with Iraq because of 9/11; we started the war so we could secure and control this oil rich nation. Oh, by the way, there were never any “Weapons of Mass Destruction”; even Bush admitted that. (Remember hearing lately that the United States is accusing Iran of making weapons of mass destruction? Sound familiar?) Afghanistan doesn’t have much oil, but they do have location. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate for the construction of pipelines.

Afghanistan  is on the border of Iran and Turkmenistan, which have the 2nd and 3rd largest natural gas reserves in the world. According to a report by the Institute for Afghan Studies, oil and gas in the Caspian Sea and the surrounding area is worth roughly $3 trillion. Read more »

By Cliff Cawthon

The imperial aspirations of Governor Patterson will not solve the budget crisis. Recently, he has proposed emergency measures that would give him unilateral power to create the next state budget; which was “was rejected practically instantly” (11/25/09, Buffalo News). Public services do not have to suffer, yet the solution requires restructuring and redistribution of funds from the top to the bottom; something that the powers that be have never done without political demands being made by grassroots motion and calling on whatever political insurgency (i.e. progressive legislators) can be mustered.

According to the Buffalo News, on Dec. 3rd, “New York's Senate has joined the Assembly in approving a measure to reduce the state's budget deficit by about $2.8 billion” (“NY Lawmakers Approve Deficit Cutting Plan”) and thereafter, the article cited the Governor’s specific desire to cut education and hospital funding. These two sectors are extremely vital to the lives of everyday people, and it is extremely dire when the health and the intellectual growth of a population are sacrificed when according to word of mouth, in the wake of 2008 SUNY tuition increase, the governor ordered thousand dollar wine glasses.

What’s to be done? In Berkeley, CA at UC Berkeley on November19th, the Regents board announced a tuition hike by 32% and the cutting of 38 custodial jobs, and in response according to the San Francisco Indymedia the students occupied the University. The occupation ended on the 21st amongst three days (18th-21st) of planned demonstrations with a tuition freeze and 38 custodial jobs (11/21/09, San Francisco Chronicle). Their occupation was complemented by a 250 strong mass lobby here, in Manchester, England. Under the banners of Unions and the newly formed Manchester for Jobs and Education, we stood against 127 job cuts and the £180 million in education de-funding ($296 million). Across the board, acts of student militancy and organization of both workers and students have begun. To defend our interests, especially in a city with three big universities (UB, BSC, and Canisus College) and a sizeable Community college (ECC) we have to invest our energy towards movement at the bottom.  Read more »

By Tom Vrabel 

We often hear in American political rhetoric that the war in Iraq is unjust, but that Afghanistan is the “good war”. It is important that we, as a nation, become aware that this is a false claim and that the War in Afghanistan has detrimental effects on Afghan civilian populations. It is not worth American tax-payer’s dollars and is threatening our safety as a nation. We should move towards a timetable for withdrawal of troops and reject the recent request to increase troops by 40,000.

Although it may seem tempting to send more troops to the region in an attempt to stabilize it, this would not improve the situation. Afghanistan has a history of resisting foreign occupiers. During the Soviet-Afghan war the Soviets deployed nearly 500,000 troops into Afghanistan. After ten years of a bloody war the Soviets were forced to withdraw troops. This reinforces the idea that we cannot solve the problem in Afghanistan through military means. Afghanistan has gained the nickname “The graveyard of empires” for a reason; over its history it has shown that it cannot be conquered by force. We must not go wrong where the Soviets did in the twentieth century, or where the British did in the nineteenth century.

It is at this crucial time in history that our policy on Afghanistan should be reconsidered, and we must realize that this war only empowers the Taliban. The Taliban gets considerable membership from people who have seen their houses bombed or friends die in the war. If one of America's major concerns is to dismantle the Taliban, then we cannot forget how the Taliban gained power in the mid 1990’s, by promising to end the violent power struggle between the U.S-funded Mujahedeen and other warlords. The same thing is happening now in the eastern region of Afghanistan, and is spreading all across the nation.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban”. The United States support in Afghanistan is being hindered severely by the occupation. In fact, according to a poll done by ABC News in 2005 83% of Afghans had a favorable view of America but by 2009 this number has slipped to 47%. Read more »

By George Besch

The US prides itself on this adherence to economic rationalism and market capitalism, but I have come to wonder why our government hasn't shown us its cost-benefit analyses on alternative policies for keeping its citizenry materially secure and safe from “terrorism”. The previous administration describes September 11th, 2001 as a “wake up call”, and views the war in Afghanistan and subsequent invasion of Iraq as a response to that. But would these events even have occurred if we’d applied our supposed economic rationalism before they took place?

I’ve spent time on five continents while carrying out feasibility studies for clients ranging from national governments to small farmers. I got to meet many of the people who would be affected by those studies: heads-of-state and other elected officials, bureaucrats, CEOs, employees, union workers, and the tillers of the land who had no ownership or rights under their system of governance.

While varied, their opinions about the United States of America often made distinction between “the people” and “the US government”.  It was not uncommon to hear, “we like Americans, but not your government”. Traveled readers have undoubtedly experienced the same. “The US government” to those in other countries often means military and/or economic hegemony, applied directly or via aid to their own corrupt and too often brutal governments and corporations. Read more »