Bush 'welcomed' by angry thousands in Canada

Compiled by Eamon Martin

Dec. 8 (AGR)— Thousands marched in anger. Nearly as many ideas were carried in the same spirit on signs. And at some turns last week, US President George W. Bush’s first official visit to Canada provoked hundreds to clash with riot police deployed to protect him.

Upon Bush’s arrival on Nov. 30 in central Ottawa, fist fights flared on the fringes of a mostly peaceful, almost festival-like day of bongo drumming and whistle blowing. Riot police — wearing helmets, face masks, in some cases gas masks, and carrying riot shields — held back a crowd as protesters sporadically threw sticks, stones, pumpkins and paint bombs. Several tactical officers were covered in red paint.

By day’s end, Ottawa police said 21 arrests were made after scraps with riot police and barricades were breached. Charges range from assaulting a police officer, obstruction, and breach of probation. One police officer was reported injured.

Bush, highly unpopular among Canadians, in typical fashion seemed unfazed, saying instead that he had been cheered by his reception, even though several thousand demonstrators had gathered to protest his visit.

Bush said he wanted to “thank the few Canadians who came out to wave — with all five fingers — for their hospitality.”

Much of the protest anger seemed focused on the US invasion of Iraq. Canada decided against sending troops to Iraq — a stand supported by more than 80 percent of Canadians.

Protesters carried signs bearing biting anti-Bush messages such as “Is God really an American?,” “Bush = Hitler,” and “Some terrorists wear suits.”

“Canada is not against America. We’re totally against Bush,” explained Fredric White, a 40-year-old who works for an entertainment company.

“He’s arrogant and ignorant. We totally disdain his policies on the war and his treatment of the UN. The administration has an imperialist attitude where he thinks he can take over countries by bombing them,” said White. “He’s courageous to come here because we can’t stand him.”

Protests had been organized by the No to Bush Committee —a coalition of demonstrators angry at Bush’s role in the war in Iraq, his stance on abortion rights, his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and what they see as Washington’s discrimination against Arabs and Muslims.

Protest organizers said a march that day drew up to 15,000 people, many of whom rode buses overnight from across Ontario and Quebec. Police estimated a dramatically lower figure of 5,000.

“Over 100,000 people have been killed so far by the invasion and occupation of Iraq,” said Dylan Penner, a leader of the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War. “War criminals like Bush aren’t welcome here.”

Disorder broke out shortly after Bush and Prime Minister Paul Martin gave a news conference at the headquarters of Canada’s Foreign Affairs department.

Police officers in riot gear pushed back a thick crowd of anti-war activists, some of whom were shouting at the security forces and trying to jostle them with the sticks of their placards.

The day culminated with the “toppling” of a tall papier mâché likeness of Bush on Parliament Hill. The stunt, mimicking a familiar image from the Iraq War when a statue of Saddam Hussein was brought down, followed a mock eulogy as people shouted “Bush go home” and “We don’t want war.”

The crowd roared when Michael Mandel of Lawyers Against the War talked of the estimated 100,000 Iraqis who have died since the US invasion.

“This isn’t a President,” he said. “This is a homicidal maniac.”

Normal life in the city was clearly disturbed with many workaday citizens caught off guard by the labyrinth of steel barriers that sealed off much of downtown Ottawa for most of the day.

“My guys are trapped inside a building on the other side of the barriers and I can’t get in,” said an exasperated Peter Worth, a 28-year-old construction foreman who stepped inside a bar to pass the afternoon.

The rallies and marches in Canada’s capital were one site of about 25 planned across the country to draw attention to Bush’s policies and politics during the visit. In Vancouver, protesters also pulled down a statue of Bush.

Later on, thousands of protesters tested Bush’s security bubble, toppling metal barricades and going nose-to-nose with riot police while the president attended a dinner inside the Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec.

Protest organizers attempted to keep marchers from clashing with police at the museum, but the protesters ignored the plea and began pulling down steel barriers as riot police took their place outside the museum. Determined protesters then pushed the line of riot police officers, armed with batons, tear gas, and German shepherds. A dozen demonstrators were arrested in the standoff that lasted more than one hour.

The next day thousands of protesters marched the winding streets of Halifax as Bush made a brief, final stop in the port city to end his two-day visit.

Chanting “Bush go home,” and “peace, peace,” a human convoy clogged six city blocks with protesters carrying flags and a giant model of two bloodied hands through the streets.

One sign read “Friends don’t let friends commit war crimes” another “Is the pretzel our best chance at peace?” — a reference to the story of Bush once almost choking on a pretzel.

Organizers said they were overwhelmed by a turnout which they had placed at 7,000 with police again estimating a lower number of 4,000.

Thousands of enthusiastic protesters, ranging from parents with bundled-up newborns to grannies with canes, milled about listening to speeches and music.

Bill Finbow of Dartmouth, carrying the American flag festooned with a Swastika, said he didn’t want to offend Americans or descendants of those killed by the Nazis.

“I think it’s the way the world properly perceives the American flag in its unbastardized form, given their domestic and foreign policy.”

Some carried Halloween masks of Bush, impaled on hockey sticks. Earlier that day, before Bush left the capital city, protesters burned the president in effigy.

Samuel Martin, a 21-year-old Halifax university student held a sign reading “When Bush comes to shove, shove back.”

Sources: The Advertiser, Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, Canadian Press, CBC News, (Toronto) Globe & Mail, Halifax Herald, The Scotsman, Toronto Star

Army’s unpopularity leads to surge in recruiting efforts

Compiled by Willy Rosencrans

Dec. 8 (AGR) — As hundreds, perhaps thousands, of soldiers are quietly trying to avoid being shipped to Iraq, at least six have fled to Canada, where they are petitioning for refugee status. One of those soldiers, Jeremy Hinzman, went before Canada’s refugee board Dec. 3; a decision is not expected until February. The adjudicator who will decide the case has already announced he will not consider the argument that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Hinzman arrived in Canada on Jan. 3 with his wife and child, fleeing his army unit just days before it was to depart for Iraq. The army specialist, who had already served in Afghanistan, had applied to be discharged or reassigned as a conscientious objector (CO) but the military denied his request.

“Desertion is a specific intent and crime,” cautions Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War, a member of the GI Rights network. “When folks go to Canada and apply for asylum, they provide the government with evidence, [and] they actually make their situation with the US military worse.”

Two recent COs who deserted, Camilo Mejia and Stephen Funk, each were sentenced to one year in jail by military courts-martial earlier this year.

A number of organizations have been founded that support the soldiers but not the war. One of these, Military Families Speak Out, has grown from two families in 2002 to more than 1,800 members. Calls to the GI Rights Hotline (800-394-9544) have also spiked, and now hold steady at about 2,800 a month.

Disquiet also appears among soldiers in Iraq, where 52 percent of troops rated their morale as low or very low in a 2003 Army survey. And a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July found that about one in six returning infantry soldiers suffer from mental disorders.

On Nov. 25 one serviceman, apparently distraught over the prospect of being sent back, threatened to kill himself as he stood naked and screaming outside of his Connecticut home. Officers found the man naked with blood on his body in front of his garage.

After struggling with officers, the man told police that he was scheduled to be sent back to Iraq in January, but didn’t want to because he would be forced to kill more people, police said. The man, who said that he had been drinking, told officers that “he just wanted to die.”

Insufficient troops trigger hard sell

The Pentagon’s announcement this week that it will increase the number of US troops in Iraq to 150,000 highlights a growing concern that America’s armed services are dangerously overextended and possibly nearing a breaking point.

To offset the gap, about 40,000 servicemen and women have been held in the military beyond their retirement or separation dates under emergency “stop-loss” orders, or kept overseas beyond their transfer dates under “stop move” orders.

One problem is declining recruitment. Increasing numbers of soldiers are deciding not to join the Army National Guard after they leave active duty; in fiscal 2004, of 7,100 soldiers expected to sign up after active duty tours, only 2,900 did. Overall the Guard achieved only 87 percent of its recruitment goal. The trend is so troubling that the Guard is hiring 1,400 more recruiters, in addition to its 2,700 already on the job.

At McDonough High, a working-class public school in Pomfret, MD, military recruiters chaperon dances and distribute key chains, mugs, and military brochures at McDonough’s cafeteria, and every prospect gets called at least six times by the Army alone. The recruiters use techniques such as identifying a popular student — whom they call a “center of influence” — and conspicuously talking to that student in front of others.

Officers call chosen students repeatedly, tracking their responses in a computer program the Army calls “the Blueprint.” Eligible students are hit with a blitz of mailings and home visits. Recruiters go hunting wherever teens from a targeted area hang out, following them to sporting events, shopping malls, and convenience stores.

A high-school recruiting manual describes the Army as “a product which can be sold.” The manual offers tips for recruiters to make themselves “indispensable” to schools; suggests tactics such as reading yearbooks to “mysteriously” know something about a prospect to spark the student’s curiosity; notes that “it is only natural for people to resist” and suggests ways to turn aside objections; and lists techniques for closing the deal, such as the “challenge close.”

“It works like this: When you find difficulty in closing, particularly when your prospect’s interest seems to be waning, challenge his ego by suggesting that basic training may be too difficult for him and he might not be able to pass it. Then, if he accepts your challenge, you will be a giant step closer to getting him to enlist.”

Sources: AP, Boston Globe, CBS news, Chicago Tribune, Connecticut Post, In These Times, IPS

25-year ‘war on drugs’ fails on the streets

By Jim Lobe

Washington, DC, Nov. 30 (IPS) — Neither its nearly quarter-century “war against drugs’’ nor the almost $3 billion Washington has spent since 2000 on Plan Colombia has resulted in higher prices on US streets for cocaine or heroin, says a major report by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) released Tuesday.

The 400-page report, which focuses mainly on the “collateral damage’’ inflicted on democratic institutions and stability in Mexico and Andean countries, called for a major reassessment of Washington’s efforts to cut the supply of drugs “at the source.’’

“After 25 years and $25 billion fighting drugs in Latin America, we are no closer to winning the war, the drug war — which is ultimately about reducing drug abuse,” said WOLA Executive Director Joy Olson at the report’s release.

Indeed, as of mid-2003, the last date for which data was available, both the wholesale and retail prices of the two drugs were at or close to their lowest levels in the 22 years since statistics were first collected, according to the document.

“Present policy is not working,’’ said Coletta Youngers, co-editor of the 400-page report, Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of US Policy. “We found no evidence of a significant reduction of illicit drugs flowing out of Andean or other countries’.’

The most dramatic disclosure in the report, the product of a three-year investigation involving nearly 20 US and Latin American researchers, is data on drug prices submitted by the RAND Corporation to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in early 2004.

US drug-control policy aims primarily at reducing the supply of drugs into the United States, on the assumption that reduced supply will drive up prices and discourage people from buying or using drugs.

The latest data, which appears to have been kept under wraps by the ONDCP, showed that prices of cocaine and heroin in the US — at both wholesale and retail levels — actually fell between 2000, the last year for which published government data are available, and June 2003.

“One can only conclude that cocaine and heroin remain widely available in the US,’’ said John Walsh, a WOLA analyst who contributed to the new book, and who suggested one reason that ONDCP has not published the latest data, which he said was obtained from a congressional office, may be because “prices are now lower than when Plan Colombia started.’’

But a senior ONDCP official told IPS the WOLA report “is filled with errors, irrelevancies and misinterpretations.”

“The impact of Plan Colombia wasn’t felt until August 2002, when President Uribe took charge in Colombia. By the end of 2003, there had been a 33-percent reduction in the coca crop in Colombia,” added the official, who asked to be unidentified.

He also denied the office had delayed publishing the data. Normally it takes at least one year from the time such information is received until a report is published, particularly one that requires inter-agency clearance, added the official.

Under Plan Colombia, which must be re-funded by Congress in 2005, Washington has provided nearly $3 billion in assistance — most of it in aid to Colombian military and security forces — since 2000, making Bogotá the third biggest recipient of US foreign aid, after Israel and Egypt.

The plan, the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s efforts to cut the supply of cocaine and heroin into the US, was originally designed to extend the Colombian government’s authority into parts of the country where coca and poppy cultivation had become particularly intense.

The strategy has relied heavily on the fumigation of vast areas of the countryside, drawing criticism by WOLA and other groups that it risked ruining the livelihoods of small farmers and destroying fragile ecosystems.

While the amount of area under cultivation has indeed been reduced as spraying has increased, according to the report, the strategy has failed to take into account the so-called “balloon effect,’’ that suppressing coca production in one area leads to heightened cultivation somewhere else, not just in Colombia, but across borders.

“There has been a dramatic increase in cultivation in Peru and Bolivia’,’ according to Gustavo Gorriti, an expert on the drug trade and co-director of Peru’s La Republica newspaper, who participated in the report’s release.

Moreover, he added, “spraying won’t happen in Peru or Bolivia,’’ because of the political strength of the growers. “Behind these increases are very strong cocalero (coca growers’) movements that you haven’t seen before,” Gorriti said.

Added Youngers, “the fumigation campaign has had a devastating impact on the livelihood of small farmers and contributes to the displacement of tens of thousands of Colombians, thrusting them even more deeply into poverty and insecurity.”

The book, which is divided into case studies of the impact of the drug war on individual countries, argues that the collateral damage of US drug-control policies has been extensive, and particularly harmful to democratic governments in the region.

“They have contributed to confusing military and law-enforcement functions, militarizing local police forces, and bringing the military into a domestic law enforcement role,’’ said Youngers. “They have thus strengthened military forces at the expense of civilian authorities — in a region with a tragic history of military rule.’’

The report argues the policies have led Washington to forge alliances with unscrupulous leaders, who, like Panamanian General Manuel Noriega and Vladimiro Montesinos in Peru, are heavily implicated in the drug trade themselves, in order to pursue short-term, anti-drug targets to the detriment of long-term democratic development.

The repressive nature of the “drug war’’ has also generated significant social conflict and political instability, as in Bolivia where an elected president was overthrown by an opposition that included cocaleros last year, or in Colombia itself, which suffers from Latin America’s worst human-rights violations, many of them committed by various forces contending for control of drug production and trafficking.

“US drug-control efforts have provoked a war on the poor and an assault on democratic institutions,’’ said Olson. “We’ve spent billions on anti-drug efforts in Latin America and have nothing to show for it but collateral damage.”

“We’ve been tough on drugs,” she added, “now it’s time to get smart.”