Steven Poole reviews Noam Chomsky and Colin Cremin in the Guardian

iCommunism

Writing in the Guardian, Steven Poole finds Colin Cremin’s Capitalism’s New Clothes: Enterprise, Ethics and Enjoyment in Times of Crisis to be “an implacable denunciation of modern finance, consumerism, work and politics”, and “excellent on the freakish demands of ‘employability’.” Unfortunately we can’t help Steven on whether or not Steve Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, approves of ‘iCommunism’. However we can exclusively reveal that Lenin was in favour (see picture for evidence).

Visit the Guardian to read the review in full.

Earlier this month Steven also reviewed Noam Chomsky’s Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force:

Chomsky is scathing on the US’s depredations in Latin America, its support for Israel and for Turkey against its Kurdish population; he often pictures his country (“very free” internally) as a “Mafia” godfather…he remains invaluable as a tireless scourge of our “submissive intellectual class”.

Visit the Guardian to read the review in full.

Capitalism’s New Clothes Enterprise, Ethics and Enjoyment in Times of Crisis Colin Cremin Explains why the more capitalism is revealed to be damaging and regressive, the more it gains acceptance in everyday life and popular culture. “Slicing through the evasions and double think of contemporary accounts of pleasure, Colin Cremin has produced a must-read text on the sociology of enjoyment. Accessible, penetrating, unmissable.” – Chris Rojek, Professor of Sociology & Culture, Brunel University, West London “With a ruthless elegance, Colin Cremin exposes the vacuousness of ‘creative’ capitalism’s pretensions to newness. Cremin shows that ‘entrepreneurialism’ and ‘enterprise’ are relics of a system that has run out of time, and dares to proclaim that, once again, the future belongs to the left.” – Mark Fisher, Visiting Fellow at Goldsmiths, University Of London, and author of Capitalist Realism (2010) £19.99 only £17.50 on the Pluto site

Power and Terror Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force Noam Chomsky Noam Chomsky analyses US foreign policy in the Middle East in the 10 years since 9/11. Includes 3 previously unpublished essays. “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty, and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive.” – The New York Times “On the one hand we have the established media, the respectable community of foreign affairs analysts, the government – on the other, Noam Chomsky.” – The Nation £12.99 only £11.50 on the Pluto site

‘Friends of the Palestinians should oppose this application’ – Ghada Karmi on the UN statehood bid

Ghada Karmi

Writing in the Guardian, Ghada Karmi, author of Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine, argues against the Palestinian application for statehood at the United Nations. She starts by recognising some positive gains that could be made from the bid:

Admitting “Palestine” as a full member state would undoubtedly provide some advantages. Statehood would change the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem from occupied territories to an occupied state, which could then request international help to end the occupation, as happened with Kuwait in 1990. Israel’s borders would be defined by law for the first time since the 1949 armistice and its expansion potentially halted.

However, given US determination to use its veto in the security council to prevent Palestine gaining full UN membership, it will not happen. But, with a two-thirds majority vote in the general assembly for Palestinian statehood almost assured, the Palestinians would be upgraded to non-member observer state status, like the Vatican. That would admit them to membership of several UN bodies hitherto barred, and could enable them to pursue cases against Israel at the international criminal court.

The arms fair and the media

It has now been six days since the main day of action called by the Stop the Arms Fair coalition against DSEi –the world’s largest arms fair- held in the Excel Centre in East London. The dust will always take a little while to settle after big campaigning days such as Tuesday, but enough of a picture has emerged to process it through the word mill.

Firstly, we were not successful in shutting down the arms fair. If this sounds like too much of a pipe dream to have seriously been considered a possibility, it is always worth remembering that a concerted campaign by peace activists in Australia did bear this very result. Though we are unsuccessful this time around, we can take some comfort from the fact that it has been achieved before, and will be achieved again.

New books from Pluto Press in September

The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards is an explosive and gripping memoir of how the West squandered the opportunity to bring stability to Afghanistan. Based on her six years in Afghanistan as an aid worker, election monitor, journalist and advisor to the EU ambassador in Kabul, the book reveals how Western intelligence services failed to seize key opportunities in the fight against the Taliban. Central to her story is Abdul Haq, an influential resistance fighter from the Soviet wars, who spearheaded a widely backed plan to topple the Taliban which was thwarted by the West.

The attacks yesterday on the US embassy and NATO military headquarters in Kabul are a timely reminder of how, ten years on from the NATO invasion, Afghanistan is still far from peace and stability.

Lucy will be in discussion with Martin Bell about the book at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival on Friday 16th September, then speaking at the Frontline Club in London on 5th October and the School of Oriental and African Studies on the 6th October. For more information on these events visit Lucy’s website.

The Afghan Solution The Inside Story of Abdul Haq, the CIA and How Western Hubris Lost Afghanistan Lucy Morgan Edwards “A deeply-reported, well-argued and deftly-written account of the opportunities not taken … based on the author’s own deep knowledge of Afghanistan.” – Peter Bergen, author of The Longest War: The Enduring War Between America and Al Qaeda “I was in direct contact with Abdul Haq in the days immediately following 9/11. His tragic story is a microcosm of where we have gone wrong in Afghanistan.” – Lord Paddy Ashdown, Liberal Democrat leader 1988 – 1999 £20 only £18.00 on the Pluto site

Who killed Syed Saleem Shahzad? – Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker

Syed Saleem Shahzad 1970-2011

In a major article for The New Yorker Dexter Filkins investigates the murder of Syed Saleem Shahzad, the courageous journalist killed in Pakistan in May and the author of Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11.

Filkins gives a sense of the importance of Shahzad’s work and his bravery as an investigative journalist:

Tony Allison, a South African who works in the Thailand offices of Asia Times Online, was Shahzad’s editor. “Sometimes, Saleem would disappear for three or four days, and I wouldn’t know where he’d gone, and then he would emerge with a great story,” he told me. “I knew he could get the story and I trusted him.”

Filkins writes about his meeting with Shahzad in a Islamabad coffee shop nine days before his murder where they discussed possible links between the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, and Al Qaeda:

Shahzad was tall and self-possessed; he had thick black hair and a round face offset by a trim beard. He was warm and expressive, the sort of reporter whom people talked to because he seemed genuinely nice. No wonder he got all those scoops, I thought. He was wearing Western clothes and spoke flawless English. He told me that he knew some of my colleagues, and offered to help me out in any way that he could.

And then Shahzad changed the subject. What he really wanted to talk about was his own safety. “Look, I’m in danger,” he said. “I’ve got to get out of Pakistan.” He added that he had a wife and three kids, and they weren’t safe, either. He’d been to London recently, and someone there had promised to help him move to England.

“Do you think the I.S.I. was hiding bin Laden?” I asked him.

Shahzad shrugged again and said yes. But he hadn’t been able to prove it. (The I.S.I. calls this claim an “unsubstantiated accusation of a very serious nature.”)

Now, two months later, there was another reason to worry: a book that he’d written, “Inside Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” was being released in three days, in both Pakistan and the West. The book, written in English, explored even more deeply the taboo subject of the I.S.I.’s relationship with Islamist militants.

“They’re going to be really mad,” Shahzad said.

9/11 perspectives – Chomsky, Shahzad, Mohamedou

Palgrave Macmillan in the US has just gone live with it’s excellent online ’9/11 forum’ which features authoritative and highly respected authors writing on themes related to the 9/11 attacks, including Syed Saleem Shahzad, author of Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 and Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, author of Understanding Al Qaeda: Changing War and Global Politics.

The site includes free access to articles related to 9/11 in Palgrave Journals and will be regularly updated with new commentary and analysis.

Noam Chomsky, author of Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force, has also just written a major article for the Boston Review in which he compares the ‘first’ and ‘second’ 9/11:

The crimes could have been even worse. Suppose that Flight 93, downed by courageous passengers in Pennsylvania, had bombed the White House, killing the president. Suppose that the perpetrators of the crime planned to, and did, impose a military dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands. Suppose the new dictatorship established, with the support of the criminals, an international terror center that helped impose similar torture-and-terror states elsewhere, and, as icing on the cake, brought in a team of economists—call them “the Kandahar boys”—who quickly drove the economy into one of the worst depressions in its history. That, plainly, would have been a lot worse than 9/11.

As we all should know, this is not a thought experiment. It happened. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the United States succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s ghastly regime in office. The dictatorship then installed the Chicago Boys—economists trained at the University of Chicago—to reshape Chile’s economy. Consider the economic destruction, the torture and kidnappings, and multiply the numbers killed by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, and you will see just how much more devastating the first 9/11 was.

Visit the Boston Review to read the article in full.

Power and Terror Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force Noam Chomsky Noam Chomsky analyses US foreign policy in the Middle East in the 10 years since 9/11. Includes 3 previously unpublished essays. “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty, and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive.” – The New York Times “On the one hand we have the established media, the respectable community of foreign affairs analysts, the government – on the other, Noam Chomsky.” – The Nation £12.99 only £11.50 on the Pluto site

Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 Syed Saleem Shahzad A unique insight into the post-Osama bin Laden generation of Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders from a journalist who interviewed many of them. “This is a disturbing book. … Shahzad considers the strategies of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist movements in terms that are not often heard.” – The Times “Buy Shahzad’s book. It tells us what the Pakistani government, whose corruption and brutality Shahzad died to expose, does not want us to know.” – Charles Glass £17.99 only £16.00 on the Pluto site

Understanding Al Qaeda – Second Edition Changing War and Global Politics Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou Updated edition of the controversial book which argues that the only way to defeat Al Qaeda it is to engage with its arguments in a serious way. “Mohamedou is a top-notch academic. In today’s world, you can’t afford to miss this book.” – Tim Sebastian, award-winning former BBC foreign correspondent and presenter of HARDtalk “Mohammad Mohamedou has written a political analysis which provides a much-needed secular understanding of Al Qaeda as one among several organised forces in a rapidly changing international arena. Unlike most writers on the subject who tend to be mesmerised by Al Qaeda’s religious discourse, Mohamedou insists on understanding the changing significance of the discourse against a historical backdrop of actions and events.” – Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Columbia University £16.99 only £15.00 on the Pluto site

Russian chess (part 2) – Tim Beal on Kim Jong Il’s visit to Russia

Tim Beal, author of Crisis in Korea: America, China and the Risk of War, writes about the relationship between North Korean and Russia, and what this means for the wider geo-political order, including Barack Obama’s foreign policy:

But what about Russia?  After all, just last year the Russian ambassador to Seoul was at pains to emphasise that his country was not ‘not an ally’ of Pyongyang. Now we have the Russian president describing it as a partner.  What has brought about this change? What have been the Russian objectives for the summit?

Russia’s strategy has two inter-related aspects – the economic and the geopolitical.

Russia wants to sell natural gas to South Korea.  This could be shipped from Vladivostok but that would increase costs; the cheapest way is via a pipeline, and that would go through North Korea.  The pipeline would be a major undertaking – 1,100 kms long, 700 of which would be through North Korea, and delivering 10 million cubic metres of gas a year. But it would complement existing pipelines to Europe and China so there would be no great technical barriers. South Korea itself is potentially a substantial market but the real prize is Japan, where it is anticipated that post-Fukushima antipathy to nuclear energy will boost demand for gas.  And then there is the China factor.  If Russia can develop substantial markets in South Korea and Japan this will give it leverage in what are reportedly tough negotiations with China over the price of gas imports from Russia.

If the gas pipeline goes through, so too do railways which have been bedevilled by the same political barriers.  If the railway systems between the two Koreas are reconnected, and the North’s upgraded, then there is a huge rail network connecting South Korea (and perhaps Japan) with Russia and Europe via the Trans-Siberian, and China and beyond, to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and one day to South Asia.  The economic, and geopolitical, implications of this, what the late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung dubbed the ‘iron silk road’ are huge and in fact dwarf the impact of the gas pipeline.  For the moment however, the emphasis is on the gas pipeline.

Dr Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, puts post-9/11 into historical perspective on Graduate Institute podcast

In the Institute’s latest podcast episode, Visiting Faculty member Dr Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou discusses the aftermath of one of the defining global events of the last decade. Interviewed by Katy Anderson, former BBC correspondent and Institute alumna, he traces the roots of the first transnational movement to declare war on the United States to a decade before the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. He also gives an academic and historic view of the major consequences of the United States reaction to the attacks and the effects that are still playing out in the field of international relations as well as international history and politics.

Listen to the podcast 9/11 Ten Years On.

Dr Mohamedou is a member of the Graduate Institute’s Visiting Faculty in its International History Department, and Master in Development Studies. He is also currently Visiting Fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. He has a PhD in Political Science from the City University of New York. He was previously Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation in Mauritania and prior to that Associate Director of the Programme of Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University where he founded the Transnational and Non-State Armed Groups Project. From 1998-2004, he was Director of Research at the International Council on Human Rights Policy.

His major publications include the books Understanding Al Qaeda: Changing War and Global Politics, and Iraq and the Second Gulf War: State-Building and Regime Security. In French, he has published Contre-croisade: origines et conséquences du 11 septembre.

Understanding Al Qaeda – Second Edition Changing War and Global Politics Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou Updated edition of the controversial book which argues that the only way to defeat Al Qaeda it is to engage with its arguments in a serious way. “Mohamedou is a top-notch academic. In today’s world, you can’t afford to miss this book.” – Tim Sebastian, award-winning former BBC foreign correspondent and presenter of HARDtalk “Mohammad Mohamedou has written a political analysis which provides a much-needed secular understanding of Al Qaeda as one among several organised forces in a rapidly changing international arena. Unlike most writers on the subject who tend to be mesmerised by Al Qaeda’s religious discourse, Mohamedou insists on understanding the changing significance of the discourse against a historical backdrop of actions and events.” – Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Columbia University £16.99 only £15.00 on the Pluto site

Palestinian ‘statehood’ – triumph or trap?

The much anticipated vote on Palestinian statehood at the UN takes place this month. Writing in The Scotsman Michael Bröning, author of The Politics of Change in Palestine: State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance, believes that a UN vote to endorse the borders of a Palestinian state would be cause for ‘some cautious optimism’:

A nuanced Palestinian resolution that moves beyond a zero-sum mindset and embraces legitimate Israeli concerns is possible, and could increase the likelihood of a return to constructive negotiations.

The lack of detail about the UN resolution allows room for manoeuvre. Such an approach would begin with refraining from forcing an immediate vote – and a dramatic US veto – in the Security Council. Instead, a carefully drafted motion in the form of a non-member state bid in the General Assembly could mark the way forward.

Drafted with reference to UN Resolution 181 (which partitioned Palestine in 1947), such a motion would reaffirm the establishment of a Palestinian state and a state for the Jewish people, based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements.

While such an approach would fall short of maximalist Palestinian demands, it would embrace the parameters outlined in May by US president Barack Obama. It would also address the Israeli government’s demand that the Palestinians recognise a “Jewish state”.

As such, the UN bid might well transform a confrontation into a potentially constructive tool of diplomacy.

Visit The Scotsman to read the article in full.

In contrast Mehdi Hasan from the New Statesman argues that ‘the Palestinians are walking into a trap of their own making’:

With the so-called “peace process” going nowhere, and with the number of Israeli settlements on the rise, the UN vote is an act of desperation, not strength, on the part of the Palestinian leadership. The risks are high; the benefits few and far between.

Proponents of statehood hide behind a series of spurious arguments. Some argue that statehood will give Palestinians a greater voice. Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president whose electoral mandate expired more than two years ago, has said that “when the recognition of our state on the 1967 borders happens, we will become a state under occupation, and then we would be able to go to the UN [with demands]“.

Yet Abbas also happens to be chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PLO, in its capacity as “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”, has had observer status at the UN since 1974 and been allowed to participate in security council debates since 1976. So Abbas can already raise whatever issue he likes at the UN. Why has he not, for instance, gone back to the international court of justice, which has previously declared Israeli settlements to be “illegal and an obstacle to peace”, for further rulings? Why has he not pushed for a security council debate on the Goldstone report, which accused the Israelis of committing war crimes in Gaza?

Visit the Guardian to read the article in full.

The Politics of Change in Palestine State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance Michael Bröning Highlights the political activity in Palestine that is building towards a coherent national movement to challenge Israel in the occupied territories. “Bröning’s lucid text on Palestinian affairs within the context of the continuing Israeli occupation is timely and immensely needed. This book is a must-read for those who want to comprehend the Israeli/Palestinian elephant in its totality, rather than be misled by a blind grasp of just the trunk, an ear, or the tail.” – Khaled Hroub, University of Cambridge “Michael Bröning provides a much-needed antidote to mainstream writing. He methodically sketches the arc of the Palestinian national movement in the Occupied Territories as it transforms itself from Fatah’s secular nationalist approach to Hamas’s Islamist nationalism. This is a highly valuable book that no student of Palestinian history or the Arab-Israeli conflict can afford to ignore.” – Joost R. Hiltermann, Deputy Program Director Middle East and North Africa, International Crisis Group, Washington DC £17.99 only £16.00 on the Pluto site

Popular Resistance in Palestine A History of Hope and Empowerment Mazin B. Qumsiyeh A detailed yet engaging study showing that the vast majority of Palestinian resistance over the last 100 years has been peaceful and creative. “Written with conviction and supported by extensive notes, this book should be required reading for the politicians who deal with peace in Palestine and the citizens who vote for them. Summing up: Essential for all readership levels.” – CHOICE “This is a timely and remarkable book written by the most important chronicler of contemporary popular resistance in Palestine. Mazin Qumsiyeh brilliantly evokes the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, Edward Said, Rachel Corrie and many others, to tell the unvarnished truth about Palestine and Zionist settler colonialism. With its focus on ‘history and activism from below’, this is a work of enormous significance. Developing further his original ideas on human rights in Palestine, media activism, public policies and popular, non-violent resistance, Mazin Qumsiyeh’s book is a must read for anyone interested in justice and how to produce the necessary breakthrough in the Israel-Palestine conflict.” – Nur Masalha £17.99 only £16.00 on the Pluto site

Israeli Rejectionism A Hidden Agenda in the Middle East Peace Process Zalman Amit and Daphna Levit An analysis of the Middle East ‘peace process’ showing that peace has never been in the interest of the state of Israel. £18.99 only £17.00 on the Pluto site

Israeli Apartheid A Beginner’s Guide Ben White Indispensable introduction to the Israel/Palestine conflict, examining the current structures of Israeli domination. “A very strong and clear voice that does not shun from exposing in full, and in a most accessible manner, the essence of Zionism and Israeli policies in Palestine. In a world confused by competing narratives, disinformation and fabrication, this book is an excellent guide for understanding the magnitude of the crimes committed against the Palestinians and the nature of their present suffering and oppression.” – Professor Ilan Pappe, University of Exeter, Israeli historian and author of ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ (2007) “This book deals rationally and cogently with a topic that almost always generates considerable heat even just with book titles. The reader may not agree with everything that White asserts but it is a highly commendable effort to throw light on a fraught subject.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate £9.99 only £8.50 on the Pluto site

Russian chess (part 1) – Tim Beal on Kim Jong Il’s visit to Russia

Tim Beal, author of Crisis in Korea: America, China and the Risk of War, writes about the relationship between North Korean and Russia, and what this means for the wider geo-political order, including Barack Obama’s foreign policy:

The visit of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to Russia in August 2011 received little attention in the international media, and most of the articles were uninformed. As is often the case, the South Korean media provided the best coverage.  The North Korean and Russian media gave little detail and scant analysis.  China was a bit better but tended to focus on the Six Party Talks, highlighting Kim (and Medvedev’s) commitment to resuming the talks without preconditions.  This is understandable, given that the establishment of the Beijing talks, bringing together the two Koreas, and the major world powers –the US, Japan, Russia, and China – was a great achievement.  Too great perhaps.  It was noticeable how quickly the US used the Cheonan Incident in March 2010 to sink the talks.  It is likely that the Obama administration realised that Bush had made a great strategic mistake in giving this diplomatic jewel to China and was glad of a pretext to let the talks wither.

In any case, Kim’s avowed commitment to the talks was not new; it restated statements made on visits to China, most recently in May,  and was consistent with long-standing North Korean policy.  The US, and South Korean, response was the same as before – no talks without preconditions.  It is an old diplomatic technique; if you don’t want negotiations you merely set preconditions the other side cannot accept without forfeiting their objective for negotiating. It was a common feature of US strategy during the Bush administration. Obama was supposed to change all that:

… when asked in a July 23, 2008 presidential primary debate, “Would you be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” candidate Obama replied, “I would.”

But President Obama is, as we well know now, not the same person as Candidate Obama.