Johann Hari

Haven't we seen this movie before? Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state - Mississippi - yet the battle for the Democratic nomination is set to stretch out on to the far horizon.
   As the comedian Bill Maher says, in a reference to John McCain's age, 'It's a bad sign when the Democratic campaign is set to last longer than the Republican nominee.' But the looming ending to this story feels flatly familiar - like a slo-mo remake of Florida in the year 2000.
   It is clear the Clintons are determined to get this nomination, any way, any how. If they have to do it by falsely claiming to have won states like Florida and Michigan - where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, because there was an agreement by all the candidates to punish the states for holding early primaries - then they will. If they have to do it by overturning the will of the Democratic electorate by appealing to the unelected super-delegates - a group of party functionaries who seem likely to hold the balance - then they will. If they have to do it by pandering to racist sentiments - dismissing Obama as akin to the black firebrand Jesse Jackson, or by leaking images of Obama in African tribal dress - then they will do it.
   Some American liberals have been suddenly, violently disillusioned by the Clintons' tactics over the past few months. But in reality, for people who could see beyond political tribalism, the nature of the Clintons has been plain for a long time.
   The idea that Clinton was 'the first black President' was always implicitly racist: so screwing around, riffing well in speeches and liking fried chicken makes you black now? In fact, Bill Clinton was prepared to lash black people whenever it was politically convenient, with the quiescence of Hillary. Just after receiving the Democratic nomination for President, Governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to authorise the execution of a black man, Ricky Ray Rector, who was so profoundly mentally disabled that he told the guards to keep his last meal so he could have it tomorrow.
   Attacking blacks when an election neared became a habit: in 1996, Clinton signed a package of welfare reform that effectively abolished benefits for poor women after a two-year time-limit. They are disproportionately black - and as a recession hits now, they will suffer severely.
   Of course you have to make compromises to achieve power. But at some point, on some issues, you have to say - no, I can't. I can't execute this mentally disabled black guy. I can't plunge millions of kids into poverty. I can't still insist I was right to back the war in Iraq, when it has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis. The Clintons don't have that gagging reflex.
   Instead, they chose to turn themselves into weathervanes, pointing whichever way the winds of mega-power blow them. This meant that on all the great issues of their time - global warming, spiralling inequality, the foolish 'war on drugs' - the Clintons fed and fuelled the right. Hillary is following this approach to the letter. While promising in public to 'take on the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies', she is in fact shovelling more of their cash into her campaign than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Fortune magazine recently ran an adoring cover story calling her 'the candidate of business'.
   Why did it take us so long to see them for what they are? Partly, it is because the Clintons were blessed with a parade of even greater grotesques as enemies. The right couldn't attack the Clintons on their genuine scandalous behaviour, because they supported it all: the executions, the abolition of benefits, the crackdowns. So they contrived nonsense scandals, like Whitewater and Monicagate. Today, many of them are serving up stale sexism against Hillary: right-wing host Tucker Carlson has announced, 'There's something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.'
   And partly, it is because the nightmare of the Bush years has made even the Clinton years seem like a halcyon heyday.
   Think about the symbolism for the watching world if the Clintons manage to snatch this nomination. The people in a majority of states in America will have shown they are ready to embrace a black man as President - only for some white guys in suits to hand it to the wife of the ex-President. Their arguments in their own defence will seem feeble. The idea that Hillary is more 'experienced' seems to me both anti-feminist and untrue. How does being married to a man make you 'experienced' in his job? As the stand-up comedian Chris Rock said in a recent gig, 'I don't get it. I've been married for 10 years - but if my wife came out here on stage now, you wouldn't laugh.'
   I am not starry-eyed about Barack Obama. He wouldn't have been my choice for nominee - I was a John Edwards man - and he has made plenty of ugly compromises himself. To give just one example: in 2005, he voted for the Class Action Fairness Act, which stripped away the ability of ordinary citizens to seek compensation from huge corporations. There was only one group who wanted this: the CEOs of the very Wall Street mega-firms that Obama takes millions from in practice today.
   But there is considerable evidence that President Obama would be more susceptible to pressure from progressives than Hillary. To pluck one policy area: Bill Clinton increased jail terms for drug possession, creating a situation where one in nine black men between the age of 20 and 35 is now in prison at any given time. Obama, by contrast, was arguing for the full decriminalisation of marijuana as recently as 2004, and has refused to indulge in this deranged tough-on-crime escalation.
   If the Clintons prevail, there will be a worse effect still: the US will be much more likely to have another Republican President. Most major polls show Obama is more likely to beat John McCain. The Republicans are desperate for a Hillary candidacy, knowing it is the one thing that can unite their base behind McCain. The far-right radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have begged their listeners to go out and vote for her in the Democratic primaries; the National Review ran a front-page pleading, 'Please vote for this woman'.
   Hillary would be unable to make an election issue out of McCain's greatest weakness - his support for the invasion of Iraq - because she (like me) made the same dumb mistake. She would have to fall back on reinforcing right-wing ideas by bragging about her 'toughness'. The enthusiasm Obama has stirred among first-time voters would leech away.
   With their latest lunge at power, the Clintons have shown us how they should be remembered when the end credits roll - as a greasy stain on the bright blue dress of the Democratic Party.
   j.hari@independent.co.uk

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Why Afghan-Iraq wars have hit dead ends?

Johann Hari

On the website of the British Foreign Office, a small photograph recently appeared. It shows Kim Howells, our Foreign Office minister, looking into the camera, smiling, as he is surrounded by gun-yielding men accused of murder. He had not been taken hostage. No, he was there to represent a government that gives these men money and military aid.
   By tracing the story of this photograph, we can trace the worst aspects of British foreign policy - and find clues to why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have crashed into their current bloody dead-end.
   Howells was in Colombia, a country locked in one of the nastiest civil wars of the past century. It began more than 40 years ago, when some parts of the hungry, mixed-race majority began to fight against the fact that a tiny, white, land-owning elite held virtually all the country's wealth. Since then, it has hardened into a conflict between two gnarled human rights-abusing wings.
   To the left, there are a slew of guerrilla groups - most prominently the FARC and the ELN - who fund themselves by kidnapping, extortion and 'taxing' drug-producers.
   To the right, there is the Colombian government and the right-wing paramilitary death-squads it has unleashed against any community of civilians suspected of leftish sympathies, or of challenging the elite. That's why to be a trade unionist in Colombia - organising for better wages and working conditions for your colleagues - is to carry a tombstone on your back: more are murdered there than in the rest of the world combined. Between them, these violent wings have killed more than 30,000 people and driven three million people from their homes.
   Howells - our representative - was posing with some of those alleged to be the worst abusers. He was huddled with the High Mountain Brigades, who Amnesty International says have been involved in hunting down and murdering trade unionists.
   Here's what our taxes help deliver to ordinary Colombians. On 10 January, at 10.30am, Colombian soldiers wearing balaclavas burst into the house of Rosa Maria Zapata, a 56-year-old indigenous woman. When the soldiers pointed their guns at her and barked that they wanted to know where the guerrillas were, she screamed back that she didn't know; she doesn't know any guerrillas. They told her she was hiding weapons for the FARC. They told her they knew. She howled and protested. So they started searching - and a moment later she heard gunfire. The police announced they had killed the guerrilla. She went running - and found her severely disabled 22-year-old son dead.
   The British pro-peace group Justice for Colombia believes these soldiers received British training. They have documented 36 other civilians murdered by potentially British-trained forces in a six-month period, and they are asking the Foreign Office to outline exactly where our money goes.
   How has Kim Howells responded? Easy. He says his critics 'support FARC, a band of gangsters and drug smugglers', and that FARC is responsible for 'most' of the murders in Colombia. In reality, Justice For Colombia is supported by more than half of all Labour MPs, and opposes all violence within Colombia. And the FARC - while unequivocally disgusting - is responsible for far fewer murders than the government and right-wing death squads, according to every major study.
   So how did this happen? How did a minister in a Labour government end up parroting the propaganda of the Colombian hard-right? The British government says they have become the second biggest military donor to Colombia - after the US - because they want to promote human rights there. But if you had a few million pounds to support human rights in that country, the idea you would support the High Mountain Brigades is simply surreal.
   No - the explanations for British backing lie elsewhere. The first is a desire to support the United States, because we project our power by being a loyal adjunct to American military might. If Britain wasn't offering these funds, the Bush administration would be alone in the world in backing the Colombian military.
   We also do it to support the global 'war on drugs'. Since Bill Clinton's presidency, the US has been spraying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of chemical poisons onto the vast tracts of Colombia where the coca leaves essential for cocaine production are grown. All plants and trees die in their wake. Birth defects and cancer rates are rising. And the effect on drug production? It simply moves to another area. Drug production is so profitable and so popular that it cannot be fumigated off the face of the real world. Drug prohibition simply hands great swathes of the Colombian economy to armed criminal gangs, from the FARC to the right. It ensures they will always have enough money to buy enough guns to preserve their patches of territory.
   There is another way. More and more Colombians believe it is only by bringing drugs into the legal economy - where they can be controlled and taxed by the state - that the guerrillas and paramilitaries can be stripped of their cash-flow. From the current Conservative Interior Minister, Carlos Holguin, to the former Attorney, General Gustavo de Greiff, to the country's most popular singer, Juan Esteban Aristizabal, it is being argued that an end to drug prohibition is the only long-term solution to the civil war. Yet Britain demands the opposite.
   There is one more crucial reason why we are supporting the Colombian military. The British oil firm BP controls half of Columbia's petrol output. The historian Mark Curtis argues the UK is keen to ensure resources 'remain in the correct hands' - that is, 'our' hands. In a highly unequal country angry at seeing its resources siphoned off by foreigners, that means supporting an elite who are willing to keep the majority in their place.
   These three factors can help us to understand why the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone so wrong. As in Colombia, we got in, in large part, out of loyalty to the US. As in Colombia, we are inflicting the 'war on drugs' on Afghanistan. If we turned up in any country and announced that we were there to destroy 40 per cent of their economy, the people would fight back. This is why we are losing southern Afghanistan even to the hated Taliban.
   And as in Colombia, the US-UK Coalition has misgoverned Iraq so catastrophically because it has been primarily driven by a desire to ensure that control of the country's resources went to the Right People. The protection of the Oil Ministry, while Baghdad's museums and hospitals and universities were looted and burned all around it, is only the most bleak symbol of this.
   The image of Kim Howells squatting with a unit who are alleged to have tortured and butchered trade unionists can be seen as a Rosetta Stone for the dark side of our foreign policy. It is a reminder that, if we want to turn Britain into a force for human rights in the world, we have to campaign long and hard to turn much of it around. If we don't, it will end with more women like Rosa Maria Zapata, clutching her dead disabled son and asking why.
   j.hari@independent.co.uk

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Globalisation widening rich-poor gap

Dr. Mahfuz R. Chowdhury in New York

The world today is known to be gripped in the process of globalisation, and this process is influencing the worldwide wealth distribution. The term 'globalisation' refers to the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of greatly increased trade and cultural exchange. In the context of economics, it is understood to refer almost exclusively to the effects of trade, specifically trade liberalisation or free trade. Although trade between nations is not a new phenomenon, the term 'globalisation' has come to be used extensively since the late 1990s as a result of the rapid increase of world-wide integration of markets of goods, services and capital. With modern technology such as Internet, fast communication, and rapid transportation, money as well as economic resources can now move from one country to another practically in a flash.
   
   US policy
   The growth of capitalism depends on trade, and the freer that trade is the faster it would grow. As the benefactor of modern capitalism, the United States adopted the policy of free trade to basically promote and preserve the economic superiority it has already achieved. But, what is good for the United States economically may not be good for others, especially when it involves the economies of the poor developing countries.
   By adopting the policy of free trade a country openly subject itself to the international competition for all goods and services. Since the economies of poor countries are weak, their outmoded industries could not withstand competitive pressure from outside. So, the race for business competition for these developing countries may be over before it could begin. Also, it is said that developing countries have advantage in labour intensive industries, but it has been proven that cheap labour is not quite a good substitute for capital goods. With capital goods, the developed countries have achieved much higher productivity per worker, and they are able to increase such productivity with better education, improved healthcare as well as modern amenities. In other words, the playing field for free trade is not level, and the developed countries come out ahead with such a system. So, instead of reducing inequality between nations, trade liberalisation is actually having the opposite effect - it is widening the economic gap in the world.
   However, some countries, especially China and India, seem to have turned the situation around. These two countries initially took different routes to development and kept their economies mostly closed from outside competition. But in so doing they were able to put their houses in order and brought a kind of economic stability. When they finally embraced the capitalist bandwagon, they were pretty much prepared to take advantage of the free trade that the United States was promoting. Today, with improved education and better technology these countries are enjoying the fastest growing economies in the world. According to historian Peter Stearns, the trend has been successfully turned. He maintains that although the United States will still be a factor, the economies of China and India will become very dominant by 2050. Now, even if his prediction comes true, it must be noted that their growth is not benefiting everybody equally. As capitalism did elsewhere, a big gap between the rich and poor is being created in these countries as well.
   Society has come a long way from the Stone Age to the modern age. Slavery and monarchy supposedly have ended in society. Democracy has since been established. Society made tremendous achievements in every conceivable field. It has even invalidated Thomas Malthus' theory of 'doomsday' by acquiring the technological know-how to produce enough food to feed the world. Yet, the problem of hunger, oppression, injustice, and inequality in the world remained very much unresolved. The overall system may have changed, but economic exploitation has continued.
   Not only does serious disparity exist between different countries, it also exists within each country. Take the example of the United States of America, the richest country in the world. Here, the richest 20 per cent of people own close to 80 per cent of America, who receive 50 percent of national income, while the bottom 20 per cent hardly receives 5 per cent of the national income. The country spends nearly $8 billion dollars a month to fight a controversial war in Iraq, while it fails to provide healthcare coverage to more than 45 million of its citizens.
   Thus, one can easily see how extortion, brutality and oppressions that the emerging ruling class established in early days have been institutionalised under capitalism in the name of democracy. When the monarchs of the world lost power, a new breed of elites took over, which now controls democracy everywhere. Today they are being accused of perpetrating similar acts of exploitation within society. There may be differences in the make-up of these elites, but their characters essentially remained the same. The economic power rests with them and they use that power to further their wealth. Earlier the wealth in society mostly followed power, now the power tends to follow wealth. At one time, colonisation was used to accumulate wealth, now it is being accomplished in the name of free market system. As a result, the gaps between the rich and poor of the world are widening and not diminishing.
   As it has so far shaped the present world, economics is likely to shape the future as well. Capitalism is currently dominating. But, for reasons of inequality, it is also fueling the kind of social unrest the world never has seen before, such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America. The world always experienced social unrests as it struggled with the law of survival of the fittest and social dominance. When religion was first introduced, it had a profound effect on human lives. But, since religious ideas fell short of fulfilling people's economic expectations, its dominancy gradually diminished. The apparent revival of religious fervour may not necessarily mean that religion will dominate again. It should be seen, however, as a clear indication that people, especially in developing countries, are loosing their patience with the existing system for change. For lack of any other viable system, people are simply falling back on religion.
   Many of the acute problems the world is facing today, such as the rise of fundamentalism, increased insurgency or terrorism, and the plight of immigration, can be easily traced to the widening economic disparity between the rich and poor countries. These problems cannot be solved without addressing their root cause - the economic disparity.
   Unless the world moves to establish a more equitable distribution of wealth, enforces much greater accountability, provides equal opportunity for everybody, and institutes a better safety net for common people, the present unrest in the world is not likely to go away but will intensify in much bigger force. So, what lies ahead for mankind depends entirely on how capitalism meets these challenges.
   The writer teaches Economics at C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, New York.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Jehan Perera in Colombo

The Indian government has been making pronouncements that have a repetitive air about them.  The gist of the message is that India does not believe there is a military solution to the ethnic conflict. Most recently this position has been articulated by both Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and by the Indian Defence Ministry.  They have both said that only a political solution that is acceptable to all sections of the people, including the Tamil community, and will lead to peace. But it seems that the message is not getting through to its intended recipients.
   In a letter to a pro-LTTE political leader in Tamil Nadu state, the Indian Prime Minister stated that "the way forward lies in a peacefully negotiated political settlement within the framework of a united Sri Lanka acceptable to all communities."   In its annual report to the Indian Parliament, the Defence Ministry stated that "We strongly believe that there is no military solution. What is required is a settlement of the political, constitutional and other issues within the framework of a united Sri Lanka which addresses the concerns of all communities, especially that of the ethnic minority."
   On the other hand, the Indian government has been providing Sri Lanka with weapons systems, albeit for defensive purposes, and training Sri Lankan military personnel in India. Recently India also invited the Sri Lankan army commander, General Sarath Fonseka for a visit where he was, by all accounts, very graciously hosted. This in turn led to an outburst from the LTTE which accused India of committing yet another blunder of historical proportions.
   A similar double message to Sri Lanka also comes from the United States.  On the one hand, the US State Department's annual human rights report on Sri Lanka earned the ire of the Sri Lankan government.  The report pointed to the most distressing features of the Sri Lankan crisis, including mass displacements, assassinations and abductions and disappearances which have been taking place with impunity.  The value of this report for human rights defenders is that it documents several of the human rights violations and provides a credible reference point in the face of bland governmental denials.
   On the other hand, and like India, the US government has been providing Sri Lanka with weapons for defensive purposes and also training its combat personnel.  The question is what lies behind these mixed messages.  There is insistence on a political solution and on political processes.  At the same time there is a military strengthening of one of the parties.  It would appear that the answer would need to be found in the context of three factors.  These are the preservation of Sri Lanka's territorial integrity, the unacceptability of the LTTE as it presently is, and the impracticability of a military solution.
   
   GOVERNMENT'S MISCALCULATION
   As a longstanding member of the UN and the international community, and with its acceptance of nearly all international agreements on human rights and governance, Sri Lanka is well regarded in the world as a functioning democracy.  Foreigners who visit Sri Lanka are usually impressed by what they see.  As a result, with possibly a few exceptions, there is no desire within the international community to punish Sri Lanka.  Instead there is a desire to assist it out of its protracted conflict.
   In contrast to the acceptability that the government has, the LTTE has little or no international acceptability.  It is evident that even the countries that have been most critical of the Sri Lankan government on account of its unwillingness or inability to prevent human rights abuses, have no desire to side with the LTTE. Those who have a knowledge of the Sri Lankan situation may believe that the LTTE has grown out of Tamil frustrations, but they are not prepared to accept the LTTE as it is.
   It is this fundamental asymmetry between the government and LTTE that had led the most important countries in the international community to clearly side with the government in the conflict with the LTTE.  The weapons and training that the Sri Lankan military obtains from countries such as the United States and India is to ensure that the LTTE does not get the military upper hand over the government.  It is also to convince the LTTE that its own reliance on a military solution to the ethnic conflict is but a chimera. This is because the LTTE, and not only the government, believes in the possibility of a military solution.
   The reality today is that the world's biggest military powers, the United States, India, China and Pakistan have indirectly joined hands to support the Sri Lankan government in its confrontation with the LTTE.  The problem is that the government apparently believes that this support will enable it to win the war against the LTTE and solve the problem.  This is where the government and all those who have joined the bandwagon of war seem to be making a miscalculation.
   The most powerful sections of the international community are militarily supporting the government to ensure that the LTTE does not once again get the military upper hand.  They are thereby sending a clear message to the LTTE that its own reliance on a military solution cannot succeed.  But they also insist, without exception, that human rights should not be violated and that the practice of impunity should cease because they believe that the ethnic conflict cannot be resolved by military means but requires a political solution.
   The lesson from ethnic conflicts in different parts of the world is that military solutions and enforced solutions do not work.  This is what the international community has been trying to impress on the government and LTTE, both of whom continue to believe in the military solution.  Except in rare instances, the government had to make peace finally with the main militant organisation in cases of ethnic conflict. Sometimes this happened after many breakdowns of peace talks and ceasefires.  Sri Lanka will not be an exception to this rule.  The sooner the Sri Lankan government decides to focus on a political solution, the sooner will peace come.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

ISLAMABAD DIARY

Jonaid Iqbal

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and his assistant Richard Boucher are here again, for the umpteenth time.
   They arrived 'hurriedly' just when Yousaf Raza Gillani reached the 'ascertainment' condition, receiving massive 264 votes to validate that he enjoyed the confidence of two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Gillani on Tuesday took over office of the 24th Prime Minister. He is due to muster a vote confidence a second time scheduled for March 29. No doubt, an equal number of vote counts will be repeated.
   Soon thereafter he received a telephone call from the US president Bush congratulating the new prime minister but the real intention may be to seek assurance that Gillani would continue the US policy on the war of terror. Gillani is said to have told Bush that it was in everybody's interest to continue to fight extremists. President Musharraf is also believed to have said to John Negroponte and company that the previous strategy would continue.
   
   'Dressing down'
   But the delegation of deputy secretary and assistant secretary of state did not have that much luck with one member of coalition partner, Nawaz Sharif who, according to NY Times report gave a 'dressing down' to the two US foreign policy handlers.
   "Now we have a sovereign parliament elected by the people, and every thing would be decided in the Parliament according to the mandate of the people; it would not be one-person dictated policy," or words to that effect, referring to Musharraf's policy.
   Later, at a news conference, Nawaz informed Pakistani journalists that about the war on terrorism, Pakistan has to see national priorities in addition to international ones.
   "Pakistan wants to see peace in every country, including the United States. However, to ensure peace in other countries, we cannot turn our own country into killing fields," in what would be a reference to the situation that has turned the once peaceful North Western Frontier Province into a war torn area where the Americans freely sends unmanned planes to bomb tribal areas where it suspects Osama or Al-Qaeda militants were in hiding.
   Public opinion in Pakistan seems to think that the visit of the American delegation is timely. It suspects that it has come either to persuade to get concessions for Pervez Musharraf or to cajole or frighten the new administration to keep Pakistan in on the old ways in the fight against terror, which most Pakistan believe had been a disastrous decision which polarized the Pakistani society.
   Any way, it is too early for all that. The administration has not even settled down to doing things for the massive work it has on hands about satisfying public aspirations to bring down the food prices, gasoline, sugar, ghee and shortage of power.
   However, the most important task waiting the new coalition is to restore about 60 Judges who were disrobed when President Musharraf-enforced Emergency and slapped a new Provisional Constitutional Order, on Nov. 3, 2007.
   
   The Muree Accord
   The Muree Accord envisages a target period of 30 days from the day the Assembly meets to make it happen. Will the Assembly succeed in this matter. PML (N) information secretary Ahsan iqbal says that a document to this effect has been prepared with the consultation of the legal Authority.
   However, Prime Minister Gillani took the first step by ordering that the incarcerated judges should be set free. He gave this first executive order from the National Assembly as soon as he passed the ascertainment test.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Lives of Iraqis are plagued by fear

Ali Marzook in Baghdad

It's been five years since the so-called occupation, liberation, invasion - and we're not witnessing progress.
   In fact, there are no signs of development. Our infrastructure is damaged, as is the spirit of the people. There is little optimism for the future. Instead, we are surrounded by fear, depression and violence.
   I returned to Baghdad late last year and initially felt hopeful. I had lost neighbours and friends, but the violence was lessening as security had improved.
   As I have further explored Baghdad, however, my first impressions of hope have been dashed. The city centre is surrounded by cement walls now, resembling a jail. The paintings on the walls don't make up for the beauty that is lost. These cement barriers are giant creatures swallowing up the city's historical landmarks and its beauty and greatness.
   The change is not just structural. Fear has taken over the people, who are suspicious of even those they usually trust. The fear has cut away at the city's once-famous social fabric.
   No one dares to utter a controversial word in front of his friend or neighbour, for fear that the individual may report him to a political party or militia.
   When I tried to talk with one man about Iraq's critical situation, his 19-year-old son interrupted, saying, "Please, we aren't involved in politics. We don't know you or your party."
   When I assured him that speaking about issues was not political, he replied, "Everything now is political."
   Most Iraqis look exhausted - the tension and nervousness apparent on their pale faces. The fear is apparent in their eyes, as well. They anticipate death at any moment, on any corner, because no one knows when a car or roadside bomb might explode.
   People thank God when they arrive home safely to enjoy time with their families. But as night falls and darkness prevails, the atmosphere also grows dark. Residents sit in blackness - electricity and water are scarce - to guard their homes. They do not know if a militia will come to kill or kidnap under the protection of the black sky. The shooting heard at night, mostly random, deepens people's fear and acts as a constant reminder that they may be the next victim.
   The biggest danger in Baghdad is the break up of families, particularly if parents are from different sects. Families are tired and anxious, and children are paying the price through neglect. Fed up with what is going on outside of their homes, parents cannot deal with stresses at home.
   Chaos and the absence of law and order have forced Baghdad residents to adopt a survivalist mindset, but it does not seem that many in power care that such large numbers of residents are poor and live on the edge of hunger. Many have no salaries or pensions.
   The bitterness is clear. Officials make promises and speeches, but Iraqis dismiss them, as they don't believe that any pledge relates to the realities on the ground. The politicians are considered liars, and the parliament dead. It does nothing for the interests of the people, and only cares about increasing their salaries and benefits.
   Parliament may not represent the citizens or defend their rights, but their sessions are broadcast on television. Some consider watching these sessions a waste of time. But for others, it's like viewing a candid camera show. For once, people are provided with some much-needed comic relief.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE