Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts

Monday, 11 January 2010

Avatar – Anti-imperialism in 3D

There is much more to Avatar than the spectacular special effects, says Nagesh Rao
from US Socialist Worker
7 January, 2010

AVATAR IS a visually stunning marvel of film technology, as many reviewers will tell you, but what really stands out in James Cameron's newest film is its unabashed critique of corporate greed and its inspiring tale of solidarity and resistance against occupation.

Set on a distant planet called Pandora, Avatar re-enacts the genocide of indigenous populations by colonial capitalism, and links this history to the rapacious resource wars of our own times. The film is not a moralistic wringing of hands that relies on "white-guilt fantasies" as some commentators have claimed; rather, it is an uncompromising defense of the principle of self-determination and the right to resist exploitation and plunder.

Read more...

Friday, 22 February 2008

Kosovo’s breakaway will inflame 'cold war' tensions

Kosovo’s breakaway will inflame 'cold war' tensions

by Chris Bambery

The US, Britain, France, Germany and Italy have rushed to recognise last Sunday’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia made by the parliament in Kosovo.

This move can only inflame ethnic tension in the region. It also represents a dangerous ratcheting up of the “new Cold War” between the West and Russia, which is Serbia’s key ally.

Serbia was the target of a Nato-led war in 1999. Some 78 days of air strikes against the former Yugoslav republic saw US, British and other Western planes targeting bridges, factories, power stations and, in one infamous attack, the main TV centre.

Bill Clinton, the US president at the time, and Tony Blair justified the war by claiming 225,000 Kosovo Albanian men had disappeared and that “genocide” was being carried out by Serbian security forces in the province.

No mass graves were ever found. Award winning journalist, Robert Fisk reported, “The number of Serbs killed in the five months since the war comes close to that of Albanians murdered by Serbs in the five months before Nato began its bombardment.”

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovo’s new prime minister, was a leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during the war. He has a track record of killing and torturing political rivals, and has been accused of profiteering from KLA arms deals.

Thaçi and his followers want to create a “greater Albania”, eyeing further territorial gains in Serbia and Macedonia.

Minorities

They also want to remove the Serbs and other minorities from Kosovo who, from bitter experience, have little or no faith in Nato protecting them.

During the war the KLA went from being listed as a terrorist organisation by the CIA to being a key ally of the US and Nato.

While Western planes bombed Belgrade and other Serbian cities, in Kosovo the KLA provided the ground troops and Nato provided the air cover.

The West eventually secured the removal of Serbian forces from Kosovo. Nato troops took over security and the United Nations (UN) took over the administration of the province.

The KLA used the opportunity to launch pogroms against Serbians and Roma in Kosovo. This fact was admitted even by Freedom House, an institution funded by US corporations and government departments.

“Since international forces moved into Kosovo in mid-1999, a campaign of reverse ethnic cleansing has been taking place,” it wrote in 2002.

“More than 250,000 Serbs, Roma, Bosniacs, Croats, Turks and Jews have been forced to flee the province.”

In return for withdrawing its forces, Serbia secured a pledge from the UN that Kosovo would not be granted independence.

That undertaking has now been broken by the decision of the US and its allies to recognise Kosovo.

The Albanian population makes up the overwhelming majority in Kosovo, and it is undeniable that they suffered discrimination under Serbian rule.

But the Nato war on Serbia was not motivated by Western humanitarian concerns for Kosovo’s Albanians.

As Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to the Balkans, has admitted, the war was about “the credibility of Nato”. The US wanted to show the world that it could use its military power to impose its will.

Now some 16,000 Nato troops remain on the ground while the UN plans to hand over administration of the province to the European Union.

Bosnia, another former Yugoslav republic, remains under Nato control, run effectively as a Western colony.

Rivalries

When Yugoslavia fell apart in the 1990s, former Communist rulers attempted to channel popular discontent in a nationalist direction. This fuelled rivalries that quickly exploded into war and ethnic cleansing.

The former Yugoslavia and the Balkans in general are home to a complex mixture of different groups. Historically any attempt to carve out a state for one of these groups has led to ethnic cleansing.

That is why the left in the region has championed a socialist federation of the Balkans based on equality and justice for all.

Thursday, 7 February 2008

End the siege of Gaza!

Gaza siege is a war crime: End all support for Israel! Tony Iltis 1 February 2008 On January 23, a series of explosions ripped open the concrete and steel barrier that had sealed off the Gaza Strip from the outside world. The breach in the barrier allowed hundreds of thousands of desperate Palestinians, perhaps a third of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents, to surge into the Egyptian cross-border town of Rafah to buy some of life’s basic necessities — denied them by Israel’s siege of the 10 kilometre wide, 40-kilometre long Palestinian enclave. The explosion also blew holes in the inversion of reality anti-Palestinian propaganda in the Western media. For the past few months, mainstream media coverage of events in Palestine has been focussed on the US-orchestrated ’’Peace talks” between Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestinian National Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. The impression given by this coverage is that the US and its European Union allies are “honest brokers”, pushing for a settlement to the 60-year Arab-Israeli conflict based on Arab acceptance of Israel’s ’right” to exist with “secure borders” and Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian state ruling over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Abbas-led PA has been presented as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and a “partner for peace”. The impression has been given that the main obstacle to a “peace” settlement is the alleged refusal of Hamas — portrayed as terrorists and agents of “rogue states” Iran and Syria — to “renounce violence” against Israel and recognise the Israeli state’s “right to exist”. Hamas is presented as having ’’seized” control over Gaza to use it as a staging ground for attacking Israel. Ignored is the fact that the Hamas-led administration in Gaza is all that remains of the PA government elected by Palestinian voters in early 2006, following the US- and Israeli-backed, unconstitutional takeover of the PA administration in West Bank by Abbas and his Fatah party in June 2007. War crimes Ignored is the fact that ever since September 2000, about 1800 Palestinian civilians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli military attacks, while over the same period only a dozen Israeli citizens have been killed by cross-border Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza. In the first two weeks of January, the Israeli military has killed 50 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, while Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel have slightly injured three Israelis. Yet, Israel and its Western backers, portray Israel, with the Middle East’s most powerful military machine, as the innocent victim of Palestinian aggression. Also ignored is the fact that Israel’s siege of Gaza — closing every access into the enclave, including for the delivery of fuel and food supplies, and the bombing of Gaza’s main power station — is a war crime. The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol, that, “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”. The dramatic events since January 23 have made two realities clear. Firstly, that the policies of Israel and its Western backers have turned Palestinians in Gaza into paupers and, secondly, that the Palestinian people retain a willingness to engage in mass defiance of their Israeli overlords. These events have also shown that far from being terrorist agents of outside powers, Hamas enjoys the support of the mass of Gazans because of its role in enabling this mass defiance. Occupied territories The 365km² Gaza Strip has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison. It is also the most densely populated place on Earth. When the Israeli state was created in 1947-49 through the violent seizure and ethnic cleansing of 78% of Palestine by Jewish colonists from Europe, some 800,000 Palestinian refugees fled to the West Bank and Gaza — the only parts of Palestine that remained outside of the new Jewish state. But in 1967, Israel invaded and occupied both of these territories. The bringing of all of the Palestinian nation’s homeland under Israeli rule did not mean that Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank could return to their pre-1948 home towns and villages. The UN-designated Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) remained administratively separated from pre-1967 Israel. This division did not stop Israel, in blatant violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, from planting settlements of its citizens in the OPT. From the outset Israeli control of the movement of people and goods, through military checkpoints and repeated border closures, was used to repress resistance to Israeli’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. When the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the late Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993, accepting a “two-state solution”, the assumption was that an independent Palestinian state would comprise the 22% of Palestine that remained outside of Israeli rule between 1948 and June 1967 — the West Bank and Gaza — with unimpeded access between Gaza and the West Bank. However, while the PLO was allowed by Israel to set up the PA — with the formal trappings of a government — the creation of such an independent Palestinian state was never the intention of Israel or its Western backers. Israeli settlements, with a population of just under half a million, along with by-pass roads and the “separation barrier” — an 8-metre high fortified concrete and steel barrier that encircles and divides the West Bank — have effectively annexed to Israel half of the West Bank. While Israeli settlements were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it was surrounded by a wall and its residents were denied access to Gaza’s own airspace and coastal waters, destroying the livelihoods of Gazan fishers. As if to underline the impossibility of these isolated and walled-off Palestinian ghettos somehow forming an independent state, Israel subjects the OPT to regular air strikes and periodic ground invasions. While Israel’s rulers publicly say they support a “two-state solution”, their actions show that what they really want is an “independent” Palestinian state consisting of a series of isolated apartheid-style ’’bantustans”. This is what the Israeli rulers want Palestinians to accept as a “two-state solution”. Hoever, Israel needs to maintain the illusion that a “two-state solution” is a viable possibility. Last November, Olmert made this clear when he told the Tel Aviv Haaretz daily: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.” Olmert had expressed the same fear in a 2003 interview with Haaretz, saying: “More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against ‘occupation’, in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man [sic], one-vote. “That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle — and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.” The other part of Israel’s strategy is its attempt to turn the PA into a compliant collaborator in its apartheid-style “two-state solution”. While Arafat was never entirely willing to play this role, since Arafat’s death in a Ramallah compound besieged by Israeli tanks, Abbas has proved to be a much more willing Israeli “partner”. Western complicity It was in this context that the Hamas-led Change and Reform coalition, opposed to the widespread corruption in the Abbas-led PA, won the January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections. Immediately after this, the US, the EU and other Western countries, including Australia, showed their real attitude to democracy in the Middle East by imposing an economic blockade on the OPT as collective punishment for not having voted for Abbas-aligned candidates. The only Western aid that continued to be given to the PA was military assistance to the Abbas-controlled security police. In June 2006, the US-financed and Israeli-armed Abbas-aligned PA secret police chief Mohamed Dahlan attempted to oust PA forces loyal to the Hamas-led coalition from Gaza. He failed, with pro-Hamas forces driving out Dahlan and his uniformed thugs. Israel, with support and encouragement from its Western allies, has since placed Gaza under a medieval-style siege. Food, medicine and fuel have become increasingly scarce, with electricity supplies from Israel being drastically cut. By mid-January, Gaza’s hospitals were on the verge of running out of fuel for electricity generators. While medical services in Gaza are barely functioning, Israel has even stopped ambulances from leaving, resulting in 85 preventable deaths since June. At least 95% of Gaza’s businesses have closed and 85% of Gazans are now dependent on foreign food aid which, the UN Relief and Works Agency reports, is rapidly running out. Caught between a US patron demanding that the Gaza prison-break be ended and a population disgusted by his complicity with Israel’s Gaza siege, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has restricted goods getting to Rafah and the nearby town of El Arish so as to discourage Gazans from crossing the border. On February 1, Egyptian soldiers tried to lay down metal barriers across several Hamas-made breaches in the Rafah border crossing, but Hamas militants, supported by hundreds of demonstrating Gazans, used bulldozers to tear down the barriers. The Gaza siege is a crime against humanity. It could not occur without the backing of Western governments. All support for the Apartheid state of Israel, and its war crimes, must be ended From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #738 6 February 2008.

Tuesday, 11 January 2000

Avatar – Anti-imperialism in 3-D

There is much more to Avatar than the spectacular special effects, says Nagesh Rao
from US Socialist Worker
7 January, 2010

AVATAR IS a visually stunning marvel of film technology, as many reviewers will tell you, but what really stands out in James Cameron's newest film is its unabashed critique of corporate greed and its inspiring tale of solidarity and resistance against occupation.

Set on a distant planet called Pandora, Avatar re-enacts the genocide of indigenous populations by colonial capitalism, and links this history to the rapacious resource wars of our own times. The film is not a moralistic wringing of hands that relies on "white-guilt fantasies" as some commentators have claimed; rather, it is an uncompromising defense of the principle of self-determination and the right to resist exploitation and plunder.

Listing some of Cameron's blockbuster films The Abyss, Aliens, the Terminator films and The Titanic – is enough to remind us that we are dealing with a master of visual effects technology. Fans of his earlier work won't be disappointed with Avatar's special effects – the 3-D version in particular is a breathtaking experience. As the New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis writes:

This isn't the 3-D of the 1950s or even contemporary films, those flicks that try to give you a virtual poke in the eye with flying spears. Rather, Mr. Cameron uses 3-D to amplify the immersive experience of spectacle cinema...After a few minutes the novelty of people and objects hovering above the row in front of you wears off, and you tend not to notice the 3-D, which speaks to the subtlety of its use...

Similarly, we find ourselves dazzled by the brilliantly rendered planet of Pandora, replete with bioluminescent flora and fauna, ethereal floating mountains and touch-me-nots that look like giant seashells. All of this, no doubt, represents advances in special effects not seen since the Wachowski brothers invented "Bullet Time" for The Matrix, and Peter Jackson brought Gollum to life in The Lord of the Rings. Only the most jaded and cynical of moviegoers would deny Cameron's accomplishments in this area.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HOWEVER, FOR all the gushing praise that Cameron has received from critics for the film's technological accomplishments, reviewers have been less enthusiastic about Avatar's political message. Some of them seem to be so dazzled by the spectacle that they don't even notice its ideological significance.

In the New York Times, Ross Douthat dismisses it as a "long apologia for pantheism--a faith that equates God with Nature." Similarly, while Dargis' review acknowledges the film's "anti-corporate message," she seems unmoved by its uncompromising anti-imperialist message.

On the other hand, left-wing critics have panned the film's politics for its director's "banal and conformist outlook" (David Walsh's review at wsws.org) and as "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people" (Annalee Newitz's much-circulated post for the sci-fi Web site io9.com).

Let's concede a couple of points at the outset. James Cameron isn't Gillo Pontecorvo, and Avatar is no Battle of Algiers. It's a popular science fiction thriller, and a damn good one at that. It thus conforms to some of the conventions of the genre, employing stock characters like the mercenary Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), and predictable plotlines such as the romance that ensures a happy ending.

No doubt the dialogue is, at times, contrived and clichéd, and the film could have used a better script. Nevertheless, its narrative arc is compelling, and the transformation of its central character, disabled marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is convincing.

Jake is your archetypal warrior hero, except for his disability (he is paralyzed from the waist down), which draws sneers from the other marines (one refers to him as "meals on wheels"). When we first encounter him, he is awakened from a state of hibernation in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship. Here, as the characters hover and float around, we fail to notice Jake's paralysis.

When we see him in his wheelchair for the first time, his comrades taunt him, and we see, through his eyes and from his perspective, the mammoth scale of the war machines and armaments being deployed by the mercenary forces on Pandora.

His disability, in other words, isn't incidental. It's central to his character, because his disability marks him out as an underdog among the top dogs, so to speak. His disability sets him apart as someone who might not necessarily conform to all that he sees around him. Moreover, as the plot unfolds, we learn that his colonel is trying to hold him hostage to his disability, promising him the use of his legs in return for acting as the colonel's stooge.

Early in the film, we learn that Jake cannot afford the medical care he needs to be able to walk again, and that although he isn't looking forward to the mission on Pandora, he can do little else, given the state of the economy.

White man though he is, Jake Sully is nevertheless himself a victim of oppression. And crucially, Jake's liberation is contingent upon his identification with the natives of Pandora, the Na'vi, a tribe of 12-feet tall, blue-skinned humanoids with prehensile tails.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THIS sense, Avatar can't simply be dismissed as a "white man's guilt" narrative, as Annalee Newitz does in her post on the sci-fi Web site io9.com. Newitz rightly points out that the trope of the white man who "goes native" is an old one, which has its origins in European colonial ideology.

Sure enough, as Newitz points out, in contemporary Western culture in general and Hollywood in particular, the fantasy of "going native" often ends with the white man not only assimilating into the "native" culture, but emerging as their leader in their quest for salvation or liberation from some oppressive force or circumstance. Think here of films as diverse as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Last Samurai and City of God.

Certainly, Jake feels conflicted and guilty about what his comrades are about to do to the Na'vi and to Pandora. And certainly, this is at least partially a result of his falling in love with Nyteri (Zoe Saldana), the female Na'vi warrior. And yes, Jake's avatar emerges as the leader of the Na'vi in their struggle against the human plunderers. But surely this in itself is insufficient grounds to condemn the film as just so much unreconstructed Orientalism.

By plugging into the avatar, Jake's consciousness is quite literally embodied in the "other"; in this sense, he comes closer to genuine empathy with the Na'vi than can be realistically conceived (hence the term "science fiction"). If we grant this central premise of the film, then it seems to me somewhat churlish to suggest that Jake Sully is nothing but a 21st century T.E. Lawrence or Indiana Jones.

Furthermore, Jake's Na'vi self initially rebels against the human incursion into Pandora as an act of self-preservation. He attacks the giant bulldozers that arrive on the scene while he is asleep (and back in his human incarnation) with a desperation that the audience can identify with, as they seem intent on mowing down everything in their path, including Jake and Nyteri.

It's not too much of a stretch to suggest that the bulldozers destroying the Na'vi forests are like the Israeli bulldozers in occupied Palestine, and that Jake's defiance of them is like the courageous stance of activists like Rachel Corrie.

By slow degrees, Jake comes to identify with the "other" and their way of life. Once he becomes fully aware of the mercenary calculations of the corporation that will stop at nothing in its bid to extract the precious "unobtanium," Jake switches sides, as do the team of scientists led by the strong-willed Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). To suggest that this act is little more than a demonstration of "white man's guilt" is, I think, to render meaningless the idea of solidarity.

Jake's speech rallying the Na'vi, and calling on them to reach out to the other tribes reminded me of Tecumseh and of later anti-colonial revolutionaries who rallied diverse colonized peoples against their common oppressors. The conclusion of the film, which shows the chastened humans being escorted back to their waiting spaceship, just as surely harkens back to the images of the withdrawal of the defeated American forces from Vietnam.

In the context of the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is cultural dynamite. And in the context of Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize lecture on "just war," Jake Sully's wry admission is timely: "I was a soldier who tried to bring peace, but sooner or later everyone has to wake up."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANOTHER ELEMENT of the film's anti-imperialism that critics seem to have missed is its subtle criticism of the negative historical role played by anthropologists and other social scientists working for colonial powers. Grace and her team of scientists are employed by the same corporate entity that has hired Col. Quaritch and his trigger-happy mercenaries.

In this respect, the scientists in the film are like those employed by the U.S. Army's "Human Terrain System," whose stated purpose is to "improve the military's ability to understand the highly complex local socio-cultural environment in the areas where they are deployed."

But Grace is no military lackey, and her team's meticulous attention to the scientific project, as well as their moral and ethical sensibilities drive them to oppose Col. Quaritch and their corporate sponsor, in the form of Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi). The film's insistence that the aims of social science can't be reconciled with those of imperialism stands in stark contrast to the complicity of academics currently involved in the Human Terrain System program.

Like most sci-fi films, Avatar offers a withering critique of the world that we live in. But unlike most recent sci-fi films, it is filled with a utopianism that we haven't seen in a while. Is this a nostalgic longing for lost innocence? By presenting the Na'vi and their way of life as akin to indigenous cultures destroyed by colonialism, does the film run the risk of grasping at an irrecoverable past?

Perhaps here too Avatar offers more than at first meets the eye. There is something undeniably futuristic about Pandora itself, where flora and fauna alike are interconnected as if part of one gigantic neural network. The network of energy that binds everything on Pandora is ultimately responsible for Jake's resurrection as his Na'vi avatar.

The process that transfers his consciousness from his human body to his Na'vi body seems to involve millions of tendrils that resemble tiny optical fibers. Interestingly enough, this postmodern, high-tech aesthetic stands in stark contrast to the decidedly modernist, industrial design of the humans' arms and armaments, which recalls the gritty and clunky aesthetic of Battlestar Galactica.

Such utopianism in our time might seem unjustified, if not incongruous, but it is certainly a breath of fresh air. There are those who will squirm at the film's obvious references to our contemporary reality (as when the campaign against the Na'vi is referred to as "shock and awe"), and those who will wince at its sometimes clumsy dialogue.

But there's no denying that millions of moviegoers around the world are flocking to a film that unflinchingly indicts imperialism and corporate greed, defends the right of the oppressed to fight back, and holds open the potential for solidarity between people on opposite sides of a conflict not of their choosing.