War By Other Means

It’s a tragic and criminal fact that where there’re modern armies there’s prostitution, child sex and human traffickingHalliburton and Dyncorp in the Balkans war being a case in point – but prosttution was never historically organised openly by the Army command structure – was it? Shadow of The Hegemon has an outraged post at what’s emerged about the US’ postwar occupation of Japan: :

The Americans Kept Comfort Women

There are times when I feel that there’s no real point to keeping one of these things up… when I look at the readership stats and think “is it really necessary”?

Then I read something like this, and remember what it really is… a place to be able to speak out, at least in some small way, and say that THIS IS INTOLERABLE.

Japan’s abhorrent practice of enslaving women to provide sex for its troops in World War II has a little-known sequel: After its surrender — with tacit approval from the U.S. occupation authorities — Japan set up a similar “comfort women” system for American GIs.

An Associated Press review of historical documents and records shows American authorities permitted the official brothel system to operate despite internal reports that women were being coerced into prostitution. The Americans also had full knowledge by then of Japan’s atrocious treatment of women in countries across Asia that it conquered during the war.

Tens of thousands of women were employed to provide cheap sex to U.S. troops until the spring of 1946, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur shut the brothels down.

The documents show the brothels were rushed into operation as American forces poured into Japan beginning in August 1945.

“Sadly, we police had to set up sexual comfort stations for the occupation troops,” recounts the official history of the Ibaraki Prefectural Police Department, whose jurisdiction is just northeast of Tokyo. “The strategy was, through the special work of experienced women, to create a breakwater to protect regular women and girls.”…

And now we’re finding out that the single most egregious crime of the Imperial Japan, sexual coercion (if not out and out slavery), was enthusiastically embraced by the American occupation? That the “heroes” of the Pacific War, the lions of history, the grandfathers and great-grandfathers that all Americans look up to and venerate were lining up en masse to pay to violate some poor Japanese girl over, and over, and over again?

With the official sanction of the American occupational government?

INTOLERABLE.

Read more.

We hear so little about other places in the world under historic American or allied occupation protection that it’s easy to forget that US and allied troops have been stationed for many years in large numbers elsewhere than Iraq or Afghanistan. Japan, for instance. It’s easy to take no notice of what they’ve been up to there when there’s much more exciting, photogenic stuff happening elsewhere. So when what really happened comes out, no wonder people are shocked.

Read More

As Over There, So Over Here

It’s just so bloody predictable – where the US goes, the UK goes, but 5 years later.

GPs ‘refuse to sign abortion forms’

Press Association
Thursday May 3, 2007 7:08 AM

Almost a quarter of GPs are refusing to sign abortion referral forms, a survey reveals.

According to the poll by the doctors’ newspaper Pulse, nearly one in five GPs do not believe abortion should be legal.

And 55% of the 309 GPs questioned said they wanted the current 24-week limit for abortions to be reduced.

The law in the UK states that two doctors need to sign a form referring a female patient for an abortion, to show that the woman meets the grounds that make abortion legal.

The most common reasons for abortion within 24 weeks relate to the woman’s physical or mental health. But 24% of GPs questioned said they would not sign abortion referral forms and 19% did not believe abortion should be legal.

The findings have provoked concern amongst women’s health experts. Dr Robbie Foy, clinical senior lecturer at Newcastle University, who has conducted research on abortion, said that current access to abortion services are “a lottery for women”.

“We must provide reliable, secure and non-judgmental care. Many women are still not getting this at present and face unacceptable delays which increase the risks of complications as well as causing additional anxiety,” he said. “Any sort of trend towards more doctors refusing to participate in induced abortion will risk marginalising this essential service.”

But Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, a sexual healthcare charity specialising in abortion services, does not believe the survey accurately reflected GPs’ opinions as it polled less than 1% of the UK’s 40,000 GPs.

“Pulse’s findings differ from weighted, representative UK public opinion poll results which have shown majority support for safe, legal

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “If GPs feel their beliefs might affect the treatment, this must be explained to the patient who should be told of their right to see another doctor.”

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

BPAS’ response sounds remarkably like NARAL’s reaction to the US right’s war on women – “Hey, there’s no problem, nothing to see here, move along please”.

South Derbyshire is no South Dakota ; nevertheless, British womens’ right to choose is being sliced away by small increments, and complacency from organisations like BPAS, who should be reminding doctors that it’s not their job to impose their own morality on others, doesn’t help.

Comment of The Day – Several Days Late and Several Dollars Short

Naomi Wolf’s Guardian article “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps” has been riding high at the top of the paper’s most-read list and has been being feverishly linked to and discussed widely on US liberal blogs. Unsurprisingly so, as it ticks all the boxes and provides the perfect predigested narrative for what Bushco has been up to since ‘elected’. Simple, they’ve been putting in place planned fascism.

Wolf is not exactly what you’d call left-wing; rather she’s in the van of the soft liberal Democrat-ism that enabled Bush in the first place. So why the cries of fascism now? She took her time noticing. and is she actually sincere, or is it more Dem triangulation?

Leninology:

If you ask me, it’s part of this ‘Anyone But Bush’ politics that is destroying the American left and drawing the antiwar movement into the frigid Democratic Party graveyard. The politics of MoveOn.org, Howard Dean’s fan club, and such alignments, are to divert mass disaffection with Bush’s wars into the mainstream of the Democratic Party

Commenter Spartan Weakling takes that view further:

Playing the Fascist Card is calling for the disastrous Popular Front against it: working class organisations will HAVE TO “ally” themselves (read: support without question) with all “progressive” political forces, that is, who seek to return to the “previous” state of political status quo, being oh so much better than the current one (now christened “fascism”).

Therefore, the peace movement, the veterans, the families of the soldiers, the workers who pay for the war MUST come under the leadership of the Democrats (that progressive force in US politics), or else… FASCISM!!! And you don’t want to support FASCISM do you? Then shut up and come under the leadership of the radical (lol) bourgeoisie, because FASCISM!, and otherwise FASCISM!, and if you don’t then FASCISM! and anything else (read: the current state of affairs with no substantial change) is so much better than FASCISM! what’s the matter with you people.

So for me, it’s once again the question of the Popular Front vs the United Front, on which Trotsky had rather A LOT to say…

Now I don’t disagree with Wolf that the framework for fascism is in place and ready to roll, when it so patently is. I don’t disagree on the facts; indeed it’s us left-wing bloggers that have made sure those facts came to light. We’ve been warning of creeping US fascism on this blog since we started in 2001, and before, and there’s thousands of others just like us who’ve been doing the same.

The current US political situation didn’t just happen. Extremists need passive collaborators, or at the very least people too self-absorbed to notice anything that does not directly affect them, to do their nefarious work and Wolf was one, part of the charmed circle of the ‘feminist’ political media establishment, the one that trumpets free markets and the corporate state as empowering for all women despite the empirical evidence. She’s as much a Democratic political operative as she is a writer:

Wolf was involved in Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election bid where she brainstormed with the Clinton-Gore team about ways to reach “soccer moms” and other female voters.

During Al Gore’s unsuccessful bid for the 2000 US presidency, Wolf was hired as a consultant to target female voters, reprising her role in the Clinton campaign. Wolf’s ideas and participation in the Gore campaign generated considerable media coverage and criticism. According to a report by Michael Duffy in Time Magazine, “Wolf [was] paid a salary of $15,000 a month…in exchange for advice on everything from how to win the women’s vote to shirt-and-tie combinations.” This article was the original source of the widely reported claim that Wolf was responsible for Gore’s “three-buttoned, earth-toned look.” The Duffy article did not mention “earth tones.” The Time article and others also claimed that Wolf had developed the idea that Gore is “a beta male who needs to take on the alpha male in the Oval Office”.

In an interview with Melinda Henneberger in the New York Times, Wolf denied ever advising Gore on his wardrobe. Wolf herself claimed she mentioned the term “alpha male” only once in passing and that “[it] was just a truism, something the pundits had been saying for months, that the vice president is in a supportive role and the President is in an initiatory role…I used those terms as shorthand in talking about the difference in their job descriptions.”

It’s all very well Wolf standing up at this too-late stage in a foreign newspaper and saying this, but where was she when it really mattered, when this could have been nipped in the bud? When Alito was up for confirmation, for example? Too busy pushing her career of telling us ordinary women what failures we are compared to her and her privileged sisters, that’s where.

Did it never once occur to Wolf that the reason she made so much money and did so well pushing her personal empowerment agenda through her books is because it suits the long-term propaganda purposes of the very institutions, individuals and organisations she now accuses of enabling fascism?

Oh, how I loathe accommodationist women.

Comment of The Day: French Framing

Democracy, though sickly and a bit nauseous from repeated blows to civil liberties, is not yet dead in Europe: 85% of the electorate, a tribute to banlieues activism, came out in France yesterday and made a statement – no more wishy washy middle. France seems to want a clear choice between neoliberalism or socialism; ether more of the Blair and Bush-led globalisation agenda, or a President that thinks that ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’ applies to more than just middle-aged white men with a comfy bank balance.

No prizes for guessing which candidate I prefer; although my preference is irrelevant given that I can’t vote there, nevertheless I think it would be a triumph for all European women should the French elect a female socialist president at the heart of the ‘old’ EU.

But now the election will move into a whole new phase. The stakes get much higher. In comments to Peter Preston’s Guardian article on the election this morning, a French commenter points out the election has wider implications – that it’s not just a left-right battle, but a question of the basic legitimacy of public leftwing ideas:

Being french, I found this article quit interesting, but even more the reactions some people have posted here. Indeed, france does have some things it can be proud of (good health care, excellent rail network, free education – from primary school to university – , and state subventions to sport, art, environmental groups, …), and of course some bad things that go with it (people abusing the health system creating a great debt, a very heavy bureaucracy, many taxs that few people understand). But it is true that this “France in a state of decline” narrative is indeed the corporate media’s ploy to break what was left of, not the socialist party, but the credibility of left wing policies. We hear all the time that Mrs Royal has no program, but that is not true. She has solid a program, many ideas,not all brilliant, but dominantly a pragmatic left wing.

But medias today spend their time telling us that we can be left wing untill we are 30 year’s old, but then, “please, be serious, a globalized society doesn’t have room for such nonsense. Get back to work and stop being childish”. Because problems in our welfare system do exist, we are made to believe that any welfare system is doomed to faliure. Indeed corporations big and small, and individuals do abuse of this system, but it does not mean that this system is a bad one, that it couldn’t be repaired. When your car has a flat wheel (or even two flat wheels), do you just scrap the car ? By ridiculizing the system, corporation and media are just slowly killing the idea that people can be left wing, by promoting a new idealic society of which their corporations would be at the center making the money and dictating their policies. This election isn’t just an election between RIGHT and LEFT, it is an election where the existence and legitimacy of LEFT ideas are at stake.”

Framing affects everything we see in the media. There is little reported in any media that is not intermediated by another person in some way even if it’s only uploading a clip. Someone still chose that clip. They framed the picture you see.

You cannot ever completely exclude the editorial voice, no matter how hard you try. Because worldwide media as currently constituted is corporate and profit making in structure, its larger editorial voice is also corporatist and the information put out is framed to support the making of those profits. To do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible and negligent towards the shareholders: sensation sells more than fluffy bunnies and hope so that’s the course the media follows.

Thus the narrative of permanent decline that suffuses everything we read and hear – we’re under attack, an amorphous ‘they’ is trying.to take our stuff, we’re being swamped, invaded… unimporant threats are hyped into planetwide scourges while imporant yet dull, worthy, complicated yet important issues are trivialised or go unreported.

The commenter has spotted the biggest frame of all in modern western democratic politics in action. It’s been the ur-narrative of all western politics since the industrial revolution and the concomitant rise of the newspaper barons, advertising and then the PR industry. The philosophy is so all pervasive that it was built in to EU institutions too.

Capitalism is not only the best way, it’s the only way. The Free Market is a pure and ineluctable product of nature, like sunlight or a mother’s love, or butterflies’ wings. Capitalism’s been ordained by God to make all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous lunatic and one of the amorphous ‘they’ trying to take our stuff.

So, put very crudely, goes the story and so goes the editorial direction of the US and European corporate media-at-large.

Now, at least in France, the mainstream media will have to engage publicly with actual socialist politics again. That certainly seems to be what the public want – not just, as in the UK, a non-choice between one bunch of incompetent neoliberals and another but a proper public debate and a real choice between ideological directions for the country.

But the socialists had better be on the ball media-wise and not give their usual ‘our ideas will shine through because they’re right’, naive tv and radio performance. In Spain and the Netherlands socialist parties have shown that it’s perfectly possible to handle the media on your terms and be elected on principled positions. I hope the French socialists are ready for this coming campaign – because it’s not just Sarko v Sego now, it’s Sarkozy and the whole media and cultural establishment’s framing v Segolene.

Comment of The Day II

Is from Mnemosyne at Pandagon, on the religiously and misogynistically motivated US Supreme Court decision to outlaw a method of late-term abortion used to save women’s lives when babies are irretrievably malformed or dead in the womb :

Mnemosyne
Apr 19th, 2007 at 2:04 am

Not to mention … not a single “baby’s” life will be saved by this bill.

Not one.

The only reason women have this procedure done is because there is no way for the fetus to survive outside of the womb, assuming it’s not already dead, as Martha Mendoza’s son was.

The right-wing can scream and cry about saving “babies” all they want, but this decision did nothing but harm women whose planned and wanted pregnancies went horribly, horribly wrong and left those women’s doctors with fewer options to save their patients’ fertility if they want to try again.

So, trolls, go ahead and pat yourselves on the back: you just made life harder for thousands of women who’ve already gotten the worst news a pregnant woman can get — “Your baby will not survive to be born.” Yay, you! Time to par-TAY!

Exactly.

Do read that Martha Mendoza link and you’ll get some idea of the enormity of this attack by fundies on women’s right to decide about their own health and future.

It’s always been my view as a socialist that the reason why elites, ie white western men in this instance, want to deny women’s rights is to keep control over the means of production of new workers.

Heaven forbid that the silly fertile incubators should be in charge of their own bodies: the rich might run out of servants and cheap labour and that would never do. This decision, reached by religious absolutists appointed by Bush, reduces a woman’s status to that of a passive incubator with no say over whatsoever her own body. Which, the fundies consider, is as it should be – because God owns her body and God speaks to them so they get to say, not her.

And who will pay for the ageing white males’ pensions and make up for their declining fertility by providing them photogenic adoptive babies, if those uppity women get to decide not to have children?

Unthinkable. Better a few women should die from unsafe procedures. They’re not worth that much anyway, the dirty sluts, or they wouldn’t’ve had sex in the first place.

UPDATE: On rereading that I don’t feel I made my point sufficiently clear. This decision is about bodily autonomy: who owns women? The state or themselves?

The supreme court has decided that the state owns and controls women. Men, however, being superior, own themselves.

The US consitution, “Life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness” applies to you only if you’ve been born xy rather than xx.