Archive for the ‘External Affairs’ Category

Hamas Leader Mourns Murdered Children, Apartheid; Welcomes President Carter Peace Mission

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

“Tear down that wall Mr Olmert!”

It is essential that the United States adopt Senator Barack Obama’s approach to external relations. Namely negotiate with our adversaries and derivately compel our dependent allies to do the same. I wish Senator Obama, however, would more consistently adhere to his unique position vis a  vis Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Sen. Obama has criticised President Jimmy Carter’s peace mission to dialogue with Hamas–the legally elected government since January 2006 of the open-air concentration camp in Gaza.

The Illinois Senator is being coerced to abandon his ideology of compassion and hope and peace by Clinton surrogate George Stephanopoulus and other media stars. Mr Stephanopoulus and the shallow Charles Gibson were appropriately called “despicable” and the former ”slimy” as well for their unprofessional, almost defamatory performance in the Democratic presidential candidate debate from Philadelphia on April 16, 2008: The absurd demands that he leave a church that Reverend Jeremiah Wright so courageously led with his denunciations of American genocide in World War II and its legacy of slavery and Jim Crow; the criticisms of his rather tangential interaction with former Weatherperson Professor Bill Ayers (we were both included in David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America); and the curious insistence that he wear an American flag lapel pin despite the apparent decisions of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vietnam-genocide veteran Senator John McCain to eschew such silly sartorial ornamentation. {If I were the president of ABC news, Mr Stephanopoulus would have been fired for his biased incompetence in allowing a “debate” to become a “lynching” of Senator Obama. Mr Gibson would have been rebuked and removed from any future debate format.}

By Mahmoud al-Zahar
Thursday, April 17, 2008; A23

This article appeared in the Washington Post

GAZA — President Jimmy Carter’s sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is “business as usual” for the Palestinians.

Last week’s attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot should not surprise critics in the West. Palestinians are fighting a total war waged on us by a nation that mobilizes against our people with every means at its disposal — from its high-tech military to its economic stranglehold, from its falsified history to its judiciary that “legalizes” the infrastructure of apartheid. Resistance remains our only option. Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world’s largest open-air prison, can do no less.

The U.S.-Israeli alliance has sought to negate the results of the January 2006 elections, when the Palestinian people handed our party a mandate to rule. Hundreds of independent monitors, Carter among them, declared this the fairest election ever held in the Arab Middle East. Yet efforts to subvert our democratic experience include the American coup d’etat that created the new sectarian paradigm with Fatah and the continuing warfare against and enforced isolation of Gazans.

Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no “peace plan,” “road map” or “legacy” can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions.

Israel’s escalation of violence since the staged Annapolis “peace conference” in November has been consistent with its policy of illegal, often deadly collective punishment — in violation of international conventions. Israeli military strikes on Gaza have killed hundreds of Palestinians since then with unwavering White House approval; in 2007 alone the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 40 to 1, up from 4 to 1 during the period from 2000 to 2005.

Only three months ago I buried my son Hussam, who studied finance at college and wanted to be an accountant; he was killed by an Israeli airstrike. In 2003, I buried Khaled — my first-born — after an Israeli F-16 targeting me wounded my daughter and my wife and flattened the apartment building where we lived, injuring and killing many of our neighbors. Last year, my son-in-law was killed.

Hussam was only 21, but like most young men in Gaza he had grown up fast out of necessity. When I was his age, I wanted to be a surgeon; in the 1960s, we were already refugees, but there was no humiliating blockade then. But now, after decades of imprisonment, killing, statelessness and impoverishment, we ask: What peace can there be if there is no dignity first? And where does dignity come from if not from justice?

Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state — the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees — to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism — which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam — has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.

A “peace process” with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

I am eternally proud of my sons and miss them every day. I think of them as fathers everywhere, even in Israel, think of their sons — as innocent boys, as curious students, as young men with limitless potential — not as “gunmen” or “militants.” But better that they were defenders of their people than parties to their ultimate dispossession; better that they were active in the Palestinian struggle for survival than passive witnesses to our subjugation.

History teaches us that everything is in flux. Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun, and adversity has taught us patience. As for the Israeli state and its Spartan culture of permanent war, it is all too vulnerable to time, fatigue and demographics: In the end, it is always a question of our children and those who come after us.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a surgeon, is a founder of Hamas. He is foreign minister in the government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, which was elected in January 2006

Slovenia Art Exhibit to Examine Progressive Themes, Publish Essay

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

I was asked to submit an essay that will accompany a Slovenian exhibit in display text, appear possibly in an exhibition book and in the press. Slovenia is a member of the eurozone of the European Union and was part of the former Yugoslavia. The exhibition’s principal organiser is Rado Poggi.

This is a brief excerpt from my essay,  ”American Imperialism and the Paranoid Style of American Politics.”

“Jihadists, Muslims in general, terrorists, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, al Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (P.K.K.) are designated or depicted as terrorist organisations. This is an effort to dehumanise and marginalise those who have legitimate grievances against the United States, Israel or other oppressive governments. No other nation is as frightened as the United States about the external world and yet ironically no other nation can project power across the full spectrum of military assets. Yet this power has led to a perpetual unease, a sense of hysteria, a compulsion and addiction to war, a rogue state status of human rights violations and a slow but palpable decline in both its standard of living and civil liberties.”

24-03-2008

Necessary Discourse:hysteria (ND:hysteria) _update1_

ND:hysteria  is an art exhibition.

ND:hysteria points out on the identified predicament “hysteria”.

ND:hysteria brings two generations of artists together.

ND:hysteria combines points of view of artists and scientists from other fields.

ND:hysteria gives the contemporary art museum an active role in the society.

These five points are the columns of the project. During the first month of work on the realization  of ND:hysteria we collected several interesting and stimulating impulses, we want to communicate you, even to illustrate the process that will leads us to November 2008.

Hysteria can not only be interpreted as a rich and promising instrument to get influence on public opinion building, but there are also interesting thoughts that amplifies its contemporary meaning, such as:

  • - Hysteria – elections, (US-elections Nov.2008, Slovenian parliamentarian elections in Sept. 2008)
  • - Hysteria – current global economic crisis (incl. low US-dollar, high energy and food prices, etc.),
  • - Hysteria – trendy disease
  • - Hysteria – language evolution / extinction
  • - Hysteria – aging population in welfare-societies
  • - Hysteria – exceeded nations identity (e.g. Slovenia – Yugoslavia, Slovenia – EU)
  • - Hysteria – ecology, climatic change
  • - Hysteria – gene manipulation
  • - Hysteria – world religions (coexistence, dialogue)

During the 4-weeks exhibition-process we are planning to organize other activities such as symposia, lectures, performances, concerts, theatre, discussions, etc.

Some proposals that reached us:

  • - Lecture by Yael Ben Shalom (hysteria-memory-utopia-Israel-neuland-cionism)
  • - Lecture by Simon Bryceson (commercialisation of everyday life)
  • - Cither – concert (Mlakar)
  • - Music performance by Mukul Deora
  • - World Cultural Forum – symposium
  • - Discussion on topic “What Slovenians believe it’s not true in everyday media-news?”

The final part of the ND:hysteria will be the book in which all artworks, essays and public reactions will be documented.

So far the following partisans confirmed their participation:

Pino Poggi, Timm Ulrichs, Rainer Wittenborn,

Janez Jansa, Janez Jansa, Mladen Stropnik & Natasa Skusek, Lada Cerar & Saso Sedlacek, Saso Vrabic,

Peter N. Kirstein, Yael Katz Ben Shalom, WCF-Members, Robert Kurz, Loretta Napoleoni, Mukul Deora, Caroline Kihato, Simon Bryceson,

ND:hysteria is an ongoing process, therefore we are looking forward to collect your feedback and impulses, that we think are essential to create a relevant discourse and to legitimate its necessity.

Smash the Empire: America the Racist, Lover of War and Violence

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

Dear Super Patriots:

Kindly put this in your pipe and smoke it. Mr Bush’s 2009 budget includes $588 billion for the war budget to kill, dominate and destroy non-white peoples throughout the world and to contain the terrible radical, non-white, Islamic terrorists who want to take away our freedoms. Freedoms for those on death row; freedom for those 47,000,000 without healthcare; freedom for the roughly 37,000,000 in poverty who constitute a shocking 12.7% of the population; freedom for the roughly 200,000 Veterans who are homeless; freedom for the 4.9% unemployed; freedom for hardworking immigrants and especially undocumented workers who are deported and persecuted for trying to make a life for themselves.

Ahh, but terrorist America has money to burn $588 billion annually for war–note the little lie of “Defence.” That of course does not include at least $79-$100 billion more for the criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You see the neocons of the criminal Bush adminstration such as John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Doug Feith, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol  and their acolytes such as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,  do not include Iraq and Afghanistan  in fiscal year 2009 budgetary outlays but add them later as supplemental requests. This is just another sleazy effort to conceal the true costs to the American people of what a monstrous, militaristic empire is doing to itself and to the victims of its rage and racist preemptive imperialism: innocents abroad and taxpayers at home.

Some have estimated as food stamp recipients increase and the national life expectancy falls behind numerous countries, that about $660 billion have been allocated for the Iraq and Afghan colonial, imperialist wars. Almost 4% of G.D.P. is spent on the obscene military and current wars. If one adds the roughtly 30-40  billion spent on terrorist, spy intelligence agencies such as  C.I.A., N.S.A., and the egregious N.A.S.A. space colonisation agency and the Department of Energy that runs the nuclear stockpile, budgetary outlays would approach about $1,000,000,000 a year on war or security related matters. Oh yeah, throw in the farcical, obscene Department of Homeland Security.

The great America is coward America. The great empire is so afraid of the big, bad world, that it feels it has to control it and dominate it. What other nation expends these type of monies for the illusory goal of total security? A nation born of genocide against the aboriginies, the nation that feasts on war for its self-image and the hauteur of American exceptionalism is hooked on fear as an excuse for domination but the domination leads to resistance such as 9/11 which leads to more paranoia and more waste of our nation’s declining wealth on such egregious and immoral adventures of nationalistic excess.

Kirstein Talk on American Imperialism Carried on University of Southern California Center for Public Diplomacy Website.

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

My remarks, “Towards a New Past: The Meaning of the Iraq War,” before the Progressive Forum has been linked on the U. S. C. Center on Public Diplomacy web log. It is #5 from the top.

Full Text: Professor Kirstein Speech before The Progressive Forum, December 19, 2007

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

Speech at the Progressive Forum: Matteson, Illinois Dec. 19, 2007

“Towards a New Past: The Meaning of the Iraq War”*

Former assistant secretary of the navy, Theodore Roosevelt, confided to a colleague in 1897, “In strict confidence…I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.” “War is the health of the state” was the sarcastic assessment of essayist and progressive intellectual Randolph Bourne during World War I, as war frequently benefits only the ruling classes who cynically promote patriotic fervour in order to silence dissent during war.  [Quotations from Howard Zinn, The Twentieth Century.] Elite-university presidents during World War I such as Columbia University’s Nicholas Murray Butler, simply abolished academic freedom during the Great War by using his commencement address in 1917 as a “warning to any among us…who are not with whole heart and mind and strength committed to fight with us to make the whole world safe for democracy.” Ironically, this autocratic censor shared the Nobel Peace Price in 1931 with Illinois native, Jane Addams of Hull House fame.

For the United States, the development of military power and its emergence as the world’s most dominant nation has created a sense of destiny, a hubris of American exceptionalism, a belief that might makes right and confers upon it the legitimacy to assert moral and political leadership over the planet’s disparate peoples.

Most Americans are proud of their country’s hyperpower status and are convinced that their freedom and putative democracy are sustained and nourished by constant muscular vigilance, endless wars and an unrestrained worshipping of its military culture. Indeed, patriotism and love of country are to a large extent predicated on the fantasy that the American military is the sine qua non for our prosperity, protection and stability as a nation. Military academies, think tanks, specialised military universities, war-memorial monuments as prolific as McDonalds’s, veterans groups, Air Force Ones, marine presidential helicopters, colour guards, summertime glorification-of-war “air shows,” bellicose “bombs bursting in air” national anthems, p.o.w. flags, national holidays such as Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day and so-called Armed Forces Day and the universality of the American flag are constant reminders of martial attributes that prefer war and the use of force over diplomacy and non-violent conflict resolution. Washington, D.C. is virtually a military theme park that reflects the core values of the nation with scant attention to honouring those who advocate international peace and justice.

The military-industrial-complex was courageously described by President Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell address of January 17, 1961 as a vital threat to American strategic interests. In particular the military component that even has its own privileged airspace and consumes more petroleum than any other organisation on Earth, is alienated from civil society with its separate laws, language and uniforms. Its primary interaction with society is its vainglorious effort to justify and exaggerate its importance to American national security. It is hardened by its vicious “don’t ask, don’t tell” homophobia that persecutes patriotic and courageous homosexuals, and is sustained by trillions of dollars of unlimited resources that must be reduced in the name of democracy, immense poverty and the survival of the species.

Note this robbing of the people’s treasury does not provide adequate salaries for enlisted personnel, appropriate medical treatment for injured solders and even protection from poverty as the homeless veteran population increases dramatically. There has been a huge surge in the numbers of homeless veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone with 400 living on the streets or in homeless shelters. About 26% of the nation’s homeless are veterans even though veterans constitute only 11% of the adult population.  (NYT: Erik Eckholm, November 8, 2007). And they say those who oppose American militarism and imperialism don’t support the troops. When a country prefers war over peace and publicly proclaims its policy to be militarily dominant, don’t expect compassion for the weak and vulnerable- -especially for military personnel once their fighting days have ended.

There are other sacrifices Americans endure for sustaining this bloated military establishment that is virtually a state within a state: these include the increasing demand for conformity and the rigid equating of patriotism with supporting American foreign policy even when destructive of America’s vital interests. Regardless of one’s assessment of the impact of the United States on world politics and civilisation, there must be lively dialogue, the tolerance of critical thinking and the presence of a radical politics that demands the demilitarisation of America in order to redeem it and spare untold millions from a terrorist nation that is contemptuous of diplomacy, multilateralism and international comity as barriers to its global imperial ambitions.

As Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has written: “Free speech is an empty freedom if not possessed by a free mind.” Free minds that challenge the glorification of United States military power and the use of force as a legitimate expression of national policy are also casualties of the “War on Terrorism” with its notable lack of an exit strategy and even a desire for rapprochement with Islamic liberation forces. While wars may be waged for a variety of reasons, greater attention should be devoted to their threat to civil liberties and First Amendment rights of free speech and petitioning one’s government for a redress of grievances. A call to arms against the latest designer enemy abroad is also fought on the home front against those very freedoms we are told war is supposed to preserve. As seen during World War I, McCarthyism and the Iraq War/”War on Terrorism,” organised state violence unleashes collateral damage on democracy in America.

One of the few remaining institutions that retain even a modicum of independence from the warrior kingdom of America is higher education. A few of us dare challenge the acceptable centre. America is smothered by a vital centre, which historians such as the late Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. adulated in The Vital Center as essential for stability and freedom: “The center is vital; the center must hold.” In military affairs, the center debates strategy and tactics, not ethics and morality. How many troops should have invaded Iraq? What is the best way to achieve regime change in Iran? How do we sustain the capacity to fight multiple wars simultaneously? What are the proper tactics in waging counterinsurgency? How do we insure the viability of our strategic nuclear forces? These questions are tactical and do not challenge the ethical mayhem that war and militarism cause.

The center, with its Democratic and Republican wings, argues whether Iraq is a central front or a diversion from the bumper sticker “war against terrorism?” As true debate and radical alternatives are increasingly suppressed in the United States, academia is under considerable coercion and pressure to toe the line, to reject a dialectics of liberation that denounces U.S. crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and the projection of illegitimate military power against weaker and non-threatening states with wanton destruction of cities and non-combatants. A pall of silence obscures the reality, for example, of America’s use of weapons of mass destruction in the very Iraq War it claims it waged for counterproliferation against W.M.D.

Conformist thinking vilifies any reasoned opposition to the United States unwavering support of Israeli apartheid with its Jewish-only settlements spreading throughout the occupied West Bank. Few protest the unseemly and dishonest assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapon’s programme but nary a complaint about Israel’s possession of both atomic and thermonuclear weapons. A Jewish bomb is acceptable; a Middle East Muslim bomb is not. I state nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the world’s arsenals and in the short term, certainly a nuclear weapons free zone from Tel Aviv to Tehran should be pursued with robust diplomacy.

The end of the Cold War changed nothing. There was no peace dividend, for the demise of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991 was sold as the result of its financial incapacity to compete for military supremacy. There was no end of history as predicted by the erstwhile neoconservative Francis Fukuyama. Instead there emerged according to Noam Chomsky in Government in the Future, “[A] technique of domestic control, a technique for developing the climate of paranoia and psychosis in which the taxpayer will be willing to provide an enormous, endless subsidy…” to the warfare, corporate state.

The price of being the world’s primary sponsor of state terrorism and the principal threat to international peace and security is very costly to the American people. It is difficult to have guns and butter when the guns become so costly to maintain. According to the Associated Press (New York Times, August 12, 2007), the U.S. is now ranked forty-second in the world in life expectancy (77.9). African-Americans have a life expectancy five years shorter than whites. (73.2 v. 78.3). A record number of Americans, some 10%, are starving to death or malnourished and require Food Stamps for their survival. Some 23,600,000 received Food Stamps in August 2007 which is a record number since their inception during President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society of the 1960s. In 1970 only about 2 in 100 Americans received them. In 1980 the number had reached 9 out of every 100. Now it is 10%. Half of the Department of Agriculture budget is devoted to food assistance programmes (New York Times, December 9, 2007). It is perhaps the biggest welfare agency in the world which may come as a surprise to some.

Yet the nation’s finite resources are increasingly being squandered in its paranoid pursuit of total security. When a nation seeks empire and global dominance, it ironically feels less secure as its hyperpower status compulsively requires total control over the world’s political, economic and raw material resources. An empire can never feel secure as the slightest threat to its domination anywhere leads to criminal war everywhere such as Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf War of 1990, the baby-killing Iraq sanctions from 1991-2003 and the subsequent Nazi-style invasion of Iraq that commenced on March 19, 2003.

Indeed, Americans bear a heavy burden in supporting the world’s latest empire as did the Persians, the Romans, the Chinese during the Tang Dynasty, the Mongols, the Dutch and the British in earlier hyperpower empires: Military spending, not including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is about $500,000,000,000 a year. The State Department budget is a mere $36 billion, and while State is basically a propaganda arm of the Pentagon, it is at least nominally inclined to prefer diplomacy over surges, cluster bombs and white phosphorous attacks in Falluja. President Bush has already received some $600 billion in supplemental appropriation for the Iraq quagmire according to New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert. He estimates the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars will soon exceed $3.5 trillion.

Why do Americans accept this perverseness and how can we go about establishing a democratic society based upon human rights and respect for international law?

Americans are convinced there are endless enemies, which have been so dehumanized by propaganda, that diplomacy and compromise are increasingly construed as useless alternatives to war. A nation constantly at war with others, as only the U.S. is, eventually convinces its populace that only war can protect our freedoms; only war can preserve our sham democracy; only war can protect our God-given status, as President Reagan would claim, as the City on a Hill-as originally invoked by Puritan leader John Winthrop.

Americans are convinced that patriotism is a positive attribute and that it must be defined in terms of accepting and supporting American military action regardless of its destructive nature and possible violation of every tenet of Just War Doctrine. Soldiers become iconic idols and while they pay the heaviest price among Americans for the death and injury that wars cause, they become the purpose of war, the celebration of war and the casus belli. Resisting war desecrates their mission, courage and tarnishes their bigger than life status as guardians of the gate. Soldiers are better dead than alive for national-security elites who benefit from the propaganda that dying in war justifies the war and that heroic sacrifice is emphasised to suppress the question as to why should there be any sacrifice to spread the religious exclusivity of Zionism, to justify preemptive aggression of malevolent neo-Conservatism, to covet other nations’ petroleum reserves, and to impose an American-style democracy that excludes forty-seven million uninsured “free” citizens from its health-care industry.

The culture of competition and greed that emanates from American capitalism, with its ethos of profit, rugged individualism, excessive liberty and unbridled market competition has fueled imperial ambitions since the racist Manifest Destiny of the 1840s. The United States sees the world not as an entity to be preserved, but a commodity to be exploited for its own ends. Al Gore, while referencing climate change in his December 10, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, asserted the need for the U.S. and China to “stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.” The U.S. does not construe its role on Earth as a custodian of its resources or as a progressive force for civilisation, but as basically a hefty challenge for domination by war planners and national-security managers. The world according to our elites must serve American interests whether it is oil, raw materials or cheap labour. Its pursuit of absolute national sovereignty blinds America from its custodial obligation to be a progressive force among the community of nations.

Competition as the primary engine of American economic culture is also its dominant ethic in approaching global affairs. No nation in the world today is as irresponsible and destructive of world aspirations and needs as the U.S. From Kyoto, to ABM termination, to the use of WMD in every war, to its parallel to Bali cynical climate change talks in Hawai’i next month, to its evil invention of nuclear weapons, the result is the same: A rogue nation incapable of self-examination due to hysterical nationalism and an obsession with the notion of power and dominance. How sad that we have become like this. How tragic that America has acquired such dominance that no other countervailing power(s) has been able to stymie with effective containment.

Yet there are some good signs. Desertions within the military have been escalating. I remember the slogan: “What if they gave a war and nobody came.” According to the Associated Press in an article written by Lolita C. Baldor, the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are beginning to take an increasing toll on the willingness of soldiers to participate in this aggression. In the army that takes the brunt of the casualties, 9 out of every 1000 soldiers in fiscal year 2007 which ended on September 30 took to the highway. Some 4700 soldiers deserted as compared to 3300 desertions in fiscal year 2006: an increase of 42%. The military construes desertion as a period of at least one month without reporting to duty. Hopefully this will contribute to a decision on the part of the Bush-Clinton clique that their religious wars must end, and aggressive imperialism is not only a disgrace to the nation but also a disincentive for vulnerable working-class Americans to enlist in an army of imperialism and venal occupation.

Our national security does not require alliances, an over-bloated military establishment, a perpetuation of the hubris of American exceptionalism and American leadership of the “civilised world.” Defence of the nation does not require a Department of Homeland Security, Gestapo-type terrorist organisations such as the C.I.A., National Security Agency (N.S.A.) spying on Americans and the warrantless outlaw disregard of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F.I.S.A. 1978). Our vital strategic interests are not enhanced by 9,938 strategic nuclear warheads of which 5,163 are actively deployed and 4,775 are “inactive” spares (data from Federation of American Scientists). The deployment of an incipient Star Wars ballistic-missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and ten nuclear powered and nuclear weaponised Ohio class S.S.B.Ns. (ballistic-missile submarines) with their obscene MIRVed Trident C-4 and D-5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles do not increase national security.

Another hopeful development is the global perception that the United States is considered a pariah state with a foreign policy that is one of the least respected in the world today. Increasing numbers of Americans are becoming aware that it is not enough to improve cosmetically our disinformation and propaganda activities as President Bush attempted with his appointment of long-time political crony, Karen P. Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Thankfully she is leaving that post and hopefully it will not be filled again with another disinformation crony. Whether the end of American prestige in the world, a remarkable phenomenon, will lead to a change in policy is an open question and one to be approached with skepticism.

However, since I am a professor and I suppose I should engage in some traditional approaches to public speaking, I will conclude these remarks with specific recommendations on how the United States can pursue a more rational and ethical foreign policy. Collectively my suggestions might lead to a more responsible projection of American soft power and enhance its status as a constructive national entity.

  1. Remove all combat troops from Iraq within six months.
  2. Attempt to establish a U.N. peacekeeping force in unstable areas of Iraq with Muslim peacekeepers.
  3. Convene a donor’s conference to forgive any Iraq foreign debt, to assist in the reconstruction of the country that the U.S. failed to do with particular attention to the everyday needs of the Iraqi people.
  4. The U.S. should cease any more military assistance to Israel until it unilaterally dismantles all settlements on occupied territory and dismantles the illegal separation barrier which is a scar in and along the West Bank. It was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004 and the U.S. must insist it be located only within the State of Israel.
  5. Seek a nuclear weapon’s free zone in the Middle East.
  6. Create a two-state solution in Palestine with Jerusalem a divided city and Israel’s return to its 1967 borders. Islamic state recognition of Israel as developed in the Saudi Plan should follow these developments with a reasonable solution to the Palestine refugee diaspora.
  7. Engage in direct high-level diplomacy with Iran and Syria, as urged by the Iraq Study Group, with the objective of ending efforts at regime change, having full I.A.E.A. inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, repatriating all Iranian subjects under U.S. control in Iraq, ending all sanctions against that country and recognising legitimate Iranian and Syrian interests in Iraq. Of course the Golan Heights, which was ruthlessly annexed in 1981, must be returned to Syria.
  8. Close the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp and release all prisoners and repatriate them to their native lands as long as they would not be harmed.
  9.  End the blockade of Cuba and return the Guantánamo Bay naval station to Cuba.
  10. Increase dramatically our foreign assistance programmes, double the size of the Peace Corps, increase developmental programmes in Asia and Africa, pay all of our U.N. dues and become a more responsible “world citizen” within that body.
  11. Require the national leadership that prosecuted the immoral and illegal Iraq War to undergo criminal indictments and prosecution at a special Iraq War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. These would include President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, former Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith, former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The Senate should also censure and even expel all Republican and especially Democratic Senators that voted to authorize the use of force in October 2002. They have shamed the nation and do not deserve to occupy a position of trust in the Congress.
  12. The U.S. should apologise for the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations in Japan at the end of World War II in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the genocidal war in Vietnam in which approximately two million Vietnamese were exterminated by American military power.
  13. At some point, the military empire that undermines our nation’s security needs to be dismantled and downsized in a manner that would not lead to unilateral disarmament beyond legitimate self-defence, but would clearly reduce the capacity of this country to wage war.

Speaking truth to power, the United States of America is such a dangerous, irresponsible and destructive force, that for the sake of international peace and security, America must become a less powerful and a more rational-state actor. The Fate of the Earth hangs in the balance.

*Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History” was the title of a 1960s pioneer work of revisionism, edited by Barton J. Bernstein. I incorporated a portion of the title for my address.

Professor Kirstein to Publish Progressive Forum Speech

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

I will be publishing the full text of my address, “Towards a New Past: The Meaning of the Iraq War,” that will be presented to the Progressive Forum on Wednesday December 19, 2007 as well as any press reaction to my remarks. This is the location of the venue in a conference room of the Empire International Buffet restaurant in Matteson, Illinois.

Yes, the organiser of the event is George Ochsenfeld who heckled former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell when he spoke at St Xavier University on September 19. 2007. I had wished the university had selected a speaker that was not so intimately tied to the disinformation and frankly deliberate lies that preceded the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq. General Powell’s address before the United Nations was one of the more disgraceful moments in American diplomatic history. His vouching for and promise of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the putative arsenals of President Saddam Hussein proved to be false. His U.N. address on February 5, 2003 was a pivotal moment in the road to war and gratuitous destruction of a small and defenceless nation. I think universities should be less concerned about image and publicity and more concerned about the implications of inviting figures who contributed to the use of violence and the horror of unjust war.

Yet I do not believe in restricting access to any invited speaker to a campus. Academic freedom is best served when speakers, regardless of their controversial actions or stance on public issues, are given full access to a university community. I do not endorse heckling either, even though Mr Ochsenfeld’s use of the word “traitor” could be analysed and debated with regard to Mr Powell’s role in advocating the Iraq War and his virulent homophobia and willingness to persecute homosexuals in the military. I share Mr Ochsenfeld’s rage and antipathy toward the secretary and indeed participated, prior to the secretary’s address, in an antiwar demonstration at one of the entrances to the university.

I was heckled once in front of an audience of World War II and Korean War veterans and it was not a pleasant experience. Heckling is a form of censorship and an attempt to interfere with the relationship between a speaker and an audience: To speak and to be challenged at the appropriate time. Yet I was flattered that he invited me to speak at this forum and look forward to meeting him in person. He is a good man who cares about his nation and his world.

Southtown Star to Cover Kirstein Speech before the Progressive Forum

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

The Southtown Star carried this item announcing my upcoming address:

December 16, 2007

Iraq war topic for talk

Peter N. Kirstein, professor of history at Saint Xavier University in Chicago, will speak on “Towards a New Past: The Meaning of the Iraq War” from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at Empire Buffet, 4601 Lincoln Highway (U.S. 30), Matteson. An optional dinner will precede the program from 6 to 7 p.m.

Kirstein is nationally known for his anti-war advocacy and defense of academic freedom. He was suspended for an anti-war e-mail to an Air Force Academy cadet in 2002 that was the subject of a national controversy over academic freedom and free speech. Kirstein was profiled in David Horowitz’s “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” and debated the conservative author on the Iraq war and academic freedom. Kirstein was the recipient of his university’s Teaching Excellence Award and recently was elected vice president of the American Association of University Professors-Illinois Conference. He is a veteran of the Army Reserve. 

Here is an excerpt of my planned remarks. Since most of the talk will be on current events, I will excerpt a brief historical portion on the issue of apology and historical memory. Many nations have apologised for past crimes: Japan has in some areas; Germany has as well; Russia as long ago as Nikita Khrushchev’s accession to power acknowledged some of Josef Stalin’s transgressions. The U.S. rarely does so due to its hyperpower hauteur yet President Reagan did apologise for the ten racist, Nazi-style concentration camps that were built in seven states to “intern” Americans of Japanese ancestry. While there were not massive deaths, some died and only racism accounted for their “internment” and vicious removal from civilian society.

“The U.S. should apologise for the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations in Japan at the end of World War II in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the genocidal war in Vietnam in which approximately two million Vietnamese were exterminated by American military power.”

What No October Surprise?: Mr Bush backs down from Iran War

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

 

The lastest National Intelligence Estimate N.I.E. says with “high confidence” Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.  It must be election time. The G.O.P. knew Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini had issued a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons as contrary to state policy some time ago. The reason for this latest “revelation” is political. The Bush administration knows that it could never have gotten either Congressional or U.N. support for a bombing campaign against Iran. It also knows that an invasion could not have been implemented due to a lack of force structure capable of such a monstrous and evil undertaking.

The government which said Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction  (W.M.D.) and invaded to decapitate his government and alleged programme then found out there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now the intelligence community is saying Iran has no nukes and indeed for five years has eschewed a fission-weapon programme and so there is no need to invade. Maybe the “Iraq Syndrome” (I loved the Vietnam one) has made it less likely the United States will use force to engage ostensibly in counterproliferation because the Director of the Office of National Intelligence is too inept in developing “high confidence” HUMIT and some recognise the strategic disaster such adventures cause.

While I do not know absolutely why the Bush administration has stepped down from another front in its war of aggression against Islam, I think it may be the Huck-Rudy-Mitt factor. Going into 2008, the Republicans do not need another war on top of an unpopular war. No October surprise scenario because one war is too many now; yes a war with Iran would have been likely had we not been bogged down in Vietnam-west (Iraq) and such a declaration of an imminent nuclear threat would have played well in Peoria: remember how the war criminals played it so well in 2002 and 2003. Someone somewhere has recognised that some wars are not politically advantageous and have spread the news that Iran is not a nuclear nation, does not have nuclear ambitions beyond atomic-energy development and that other items of strategic importance should occupy the United States: like the destruction of the Earth by American corporate greed, the globalisation disaster of exporting pollution and Marxian proletarian misery to developing nations and the need to stop nickle and diming hard working Americans and give them health insurance.

What the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference is Lacking:

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

1) A non-terrorist state as host. It is risible that the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism and a current occupier of a sovereign Arab nation is hosting a peace conference that excludes its own aggressive war as an agenda item. Such hypocrisy is typical of a nation whose only claim to international legitimacy and primacy is its military power. I cannot imagine a worse host for this conference than the United States.

2)  The exclusion of Hamas: Hamas, a legitimate and historically significant Palestinian organisation, came to power legitimately through the democratic process but due to the Israel Lobby and support of radical Zionism, was dismissed as a terrorist organisation for its use of force to liberate Palestine. Hamas should eschew violence and accept an Israeli sovereign entity but its use of force, which is rather tepid and episodic, compares to the occupation and savage butchery that Israel imposes on the precious innocent Arabs of Gaza. Gaza is even more undeveloped and economically devastated than Haiti. Israel has blood on its hands and a direct responsibility for the suppression and destruction of so many innocents in that widowed land. The absence of Hamas from Annapolis is emblematic of a Zionist effort to only negotiate with American lackeys and avoid the hard choices that peace relies upon: NEGOTIATING WITH ONE’S ENEMIES.

3) The exclusion of Iran: Leaving Iran out of a peace conference that ostensibly deals with the Israel-Palestinian conflict is another reflection of U.S. incompetence and lack of commitment for an authentic peace. Syria rightfully resisted attending until it was told it could introduce the issue of Israeli occupation and outright theft of the Golan Heights which it stole and even annexed after the 1967 war. While it may be true that you can’t wage war without Egypt and you can’t have peace without Syria, it is equally true that a comprehensive settlement of the underlying fissures in the region, cannot be addressed without involving Iran.

4) A commitment by the Bush administration to end its war crime in Iraq: Here you have a state sponsor of terrorism attempting to convene a successful peace conference when it has the blood of Arab babies on its hands. The American monster propelled by Democratic warhawks such as Senator Hillary Clinton and the neo-conservative cowards who cavalierly spill the blood of American soldiers, refused to even consider a non-violent, diplomatic, PEACEFUL alternative to conflict resolution. It invaded a weak, defenceless, contained Iraq on March 19. 2003. Yet the press is extolling this event as a means for Mr Bush to burnish his legacy. Should one be concerned about the personal leagcy of an American monarch who has never experienced an average American’s struggle to pay bill, educate kids, fend for health care, pay mortgages, meet car payment demands and who don’t garner aeroplanes and marine helicopters to ferry them around from one military venue to another?

These are briefly but I think succinctly why this conference which is less of a peace conference than a putative commitment to initiate one, will probably not succeed. While I won’t call it a sham because whenever nations engage in diplomacy, it is so much preferable to the dog of war. Yet its failure to achieve tangible results has both the burden of history and its lack of inclusiveness as its likely outcome.

Professor Kirstein to Publish on “Academic Freedom” and “J. Robert Oppenheimer” in Encyclopedia of the Culture Wars

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

 

In December, 2008 the two-volume set Encyclopedia of the Culture Wars will be released. I contributed articles on the history of academic freedom and its current problematic status and a biography of the “father” of the atomic bomb,  Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer. The latter was director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico that built the genocidal atomic bombs which were introduced during World War II. L.A.N.L. also conducted the world’s first atomic explosion, “The Gadget,” in southern New Mexico on July 16, 1945.  The murderers were so confident of the efficiency of a uranium-core device, such as the one dropped above Hiroshima, they only tested a plutonium-core weapon which destroyed Nagasaki. The Hiroshima,  gun-assembly bomb was NEVER tested prior to its mass-murder deployment on August 6, 1945.

It has always discomfited me that liberals have portrayed the physicist as a great martyr due to his opposition to the development of thermonuclear, fission-fusion weapons during the McCarthy Era. I would prefer that martyrdom not be conferred on violent men who were the architects of the world’s most evil invention,  the atomic bomb. While Dr Oppenheimer later bemoaned the atomic carnage, it was too late for redemption with 250,000 dead innocent Japanese burned and irradiated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is an online synopsis of the Encyclopedia of the Culture Wars:

Featuring hundreds of A-Z entries and numerous photos, the set examines the history and relevance of the issues, events, controversies, personalities, groups, and concepts that have contributed to the political and social polarization of American society over recent decades. It details hot-button topics as well as the role of the media in defining and shaping these issues–everything from abortion, the Christian Coalition, the environmental movement, feminism, and gay rights, to illegal aliens, pornography, stem-cell research, Watergate, and zero tolerance. A topic finder, bibliography, and index add to the set’s utility.

A Pawn But a Perpetrator of Genocide: Enola Gay’s Paul Tibbets is Dead

Thursday, November 1st, 2007

 

Quincy, Illinois native, babykiller holding affectionately a model of the Enola Gay. Photo: New York Times

The captain of the Enola Gay, a weapon that perpetrated a holocaust over a city, is typical of America’s disregard for non-combatants and a racist fury that has not abated since this evil moment in world history on August 6, 1945. Mr Tibbets was a colonel at the time but of course was later promoted to Brigadier General for his racist butchery of untold magnitude.

This murderer thought destroying a city of innocents was jocular amusement. In 1976 he flew a B-29 mock atomic run at a Texas, where else?, air show in which a non-nuclear weapon was detonated on a runway that created an ersatz mushroom cloud. I wonder if this monster got paid for the entertainment.

Remember the genocide forever and the evil nation that introduced nuclear weapons into the world’s arsenal. America, you are a killer nation that is responsible for some of the worst examples of state terrorism in human history.

1 The war was over and Japan was on the verge of surrender.

2 An invasion was not planned for months afterwards at Kyushu and the major one not scheduled until Spring, 1946 across the Tokyo plain.

3 Russia would enter the war in days and the A-bomb was not needed to defeat Japan.

4 Japan may well have surrendered if promised prior to the genocide that its monarchy would be preserved.

5 Japan may well have surrendered if given a demonstration in an unpopulated area or in a third country.

6 Japan may well have surrenderd if given a warning.

7 The fission bombs used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki had political overtones in containing the Soviet Union and were not entirely intended for military victory but as a political brinkspersonship stunt in the U.S. orchestrated Cold War.

8 Conventional bombing, blockading the Japanese islands would have caused surrender without having to use “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” uranium and plutonium bombs.

9 The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered without an invasion, without the use of nuclear weapons and without even a Soviet entry into the Pacific War on August 8, 1945.

Professor Kirstein On War and Academic Freedom at Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society

Monday, October 22nd, 2007

I will present a paper at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society biennial international conference on Saturday, October 27, 2007 at the venerable Palmer House in Chicago’s Loop. These are the participants, of whom some are civilian but many are senior level military personnel from various nation-states.

This is an abstract of my paper: “The War on “Terror” as Threat to America: Academic Freedom and Suppressing Dissent.”

The War on Terrorism, beginning after 11 September 2001, and the Iraq War are justified by American national-security elites as essential in preserving American democracy and freedom. “Radical Islam” is portrayed as “evil” and a mortal threat to the liberal democracies of the “civilized world.” Not since McCarthyism, however, has the United States witnessed such a comprehensive assault on dissent and critical thinking within the academy.

Academic freedom, an essential component in the advancement of knowledge and the challenging of unbridled state power and militarism, has been eviscerated on many college and university campuses. Professors have been forced into early retirement (Berthold), suspended (Kirstein), intimidated by members of Congress (De Genova), incarcerated (Al-Arian) and fired (Churchill) for antiwar activities. Professors from abroad have been denied visas due to political beliefs or even ethnic association that may not satisfy the conformist demands of the Department of Homeland Security (Ari; Ramadan). Professors have been blacklisted and vilified as anti-American and sympathetic to terrorism by major conservative figures such as David Horowitz, Laura Ingraham and Daniel Pipes. In the name of counter-terrorism, both governmental and neo-conservative supporters are attacking many of our rights, such as academic freedom, they disingenuously claim are protected by military action.

This is the panel to which I have been assigned:

Session Topic: Communication at All Levels

Paul R. Viotti, University of Denver, chair and presenter

John R. Ballard, National War College, “The Role of Information in the War on Terrorism in Iraq”

Peter N. Kirstein, St Xavier University, “The War on “Terror” as Threat to America: Academic Freedom and Suppressing Dissent”

Jeanine Kabrich, University of Tennessee, “History of the Roles of Women in American Forces Radio and Television Services”

Israel Slaughter of American Sailors on U.S.S. Liberty Finally Proven by Chicago Tribune

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007

While most have known that the destruction by Israel of the U.S.S. Liberty in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 1967 Israel-Arab Six-Day War, was a deliberate act of terrorism, John Crewdson has painstakingly reconstructed the event and concluded that this slaughter was covered-up by both the United States and Israeli governments. He presents information that shows the American flag was easily seen by Israeli pilots, that the ship had been identified as an American communications ship and was methodically attacked by air and sea on June 8, 1967. The defenceless ship was attacked by machine guns, 30 mm cannon, and with weapons of mass destruction such as NAPALM. As its crew were writhing in agony and lives were ending, it was struck by an Israeli torpedo in order to finish the job.

Insignia of U.S.S. Liberty (AGTR-5)

John Crewdson is a veteran investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He has a dream assignment of not having to file daily dispatches or adhere to deadlines. He is given freedom to carefully, and methodically investigate an issue. Sometimes I wonder if he is still in the employ of the paper, when all of a sudden a magisterial and frankly wondrous piece of journalistic reportage appears. While I am sure it will not occur, I believe a Pulitzer Prize should be awarded for these revelations this morning.

U.S.S. Liberty

For those who claim that the left does not support the troops because of its opposition to war, it might behoove them to realise it is the elites who dispatch our men and women to die in battle or in this case participate in a monstrous cover-up of state terrorism directed against U.S. interests. Here you have a savage attack on brave and young American military personnel, and presumably for purposes of politics and not wanting to alienate the Israel lobby, premeditated attacks against our military personnel are simply ignored, covered up and dismissed.

Shame on Israel for this murder. I do not believe its reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors will bring back the thirty-four dead seapersons, and the $6 million paid to restore the ship will not end the agony or heal the lingering post-traumatic stress disorders of the survivors. It is not enough to apologise or claim faulty intelligence. There should be war crimes trials and significant reassessment of the strategic relationship between the two great colonisers of Arab land. What is fair is fair. No country which is not attacked and is not threatened by American imperialism or military action should be allowed to murder our brave military personnel with virtual impunity. I am ashamed of this incident but so proud to live in Chicago where this brilliant article appeared today with beautiful graphics and tables in the hard-copy edition.

While the Tribune has drifted toward a staunchly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian editorial posture in recent years, it should be credited with journalistic courage in allowing Mr Crewdson to investigate and publish this article. I am sure there will be a firestorm of demands for censorship and efforts to degrade the independence of the paper, which is being taken private by real estate tycoon Sam Zell, but they know they have a first-rate reporter and are willing to trust him with this controversial topic of the attack of the U.S.S. Liberty.

General Peter Pace: Disgraceful Chair of Joint Chiefs Forced Out

Monday, October 1st, 2007

 

Peter Pace was the first marine corps general to be chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Today he is gone and replaced by Navy Adm. Mike Mullen. I believe General Pace was a disgrace to the military and reflected un-American values. Gen. Pace wanted a second term as chair of the chiefs but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wanted him out: he had rebuked him for his homophobic remarks but it probably was the result of a house cleaning from the Don Rumsfeld era and an effort to get a “fresh face” for the Iraq War Crime.  Yet Gen Pace was such a poor soldier, war planner and was not a gentleman despite being an officer.

Frequently he alluded to homosexuality as immoral  as if going to war against a defenceless country, destroying its cities, forcing millions into exile, killing 100,000s of non-combatants is moral and an appropriate way for a nation-state to conduct its external relations. I wonder if those gays who were killed in the immoral Iraq war or who have suffered life-altering wounds are considered “immoral” by this arm-chair general collecting an enormous pension.

The don’t ask, don’t tell policy of the military hardly reflects the so-called democratic values we are brainwashed into believing our “fighting men” are protecting.

African-Americans were either excluded from combat or segregated into separate units until after World War II. As they experienced Jim Crow and a vicious American apartheid system in the United States, they were serving in the armed forces and allegedly fighting for our wondrous democracy that was denied them at home. Gays and lesbians have always served in the military and General Pace should keep his homophobic views to himself. To think that homosexuals are separated from the service even if virginal and if they have not engaged in sexual activity is rank discrimination. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is discriminatory and should be removed.  While the military cannot inquire about one’s sexual orientation upon application, one is subject to dismissal if one’s sexual orientation is “discovered” to be gay after enlistment.

One should not be punished for who they are, but for conduct that may violate regulations. Peter Pace was unfit to serve in the United States military due to his fanatical bias against loyal. freedom-loving Americans who wished to serve in “his” military. Hopefully Admiral Mullen does not harbour and will not express such homophobic prejudice.

One does not have to endorse homosexuality or engage in that lifestyle to simply recognise that they should be treated with the same respect and have the same rights as others.

Professor Peter N. Kirstein Iran Television Interview on YouTube

Friday, September 28th, 2007

This video is posted on YouTube which contains two excerpts of commentary on the Israel-Lebanon War of July-August 2006 and United States imperialism. The interview took place in Chicago, Illinois in March 2007 and the tape was sent to London and then to Tehran, Iran. Subtitles were added and the video appeared on two public affairs programmes on July 23 and August 13, 2007 on Jame Jam television from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I had stated in the interview but it did not appear in the broadcast excerpt that Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist, had written last July that the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab world was a “mistake” and that it has triggered an ongong conflict stretching into two centuries. I also said elsewhere on the original tape that I supported a two-state solution and the right of Israel to live within secure borders.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Insulted by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger

Monday, September 24th, 2007

President Ahmadinejad in his much anticipated speech at Columbia this afternoon, stated the Holocaust did occur but that research on this and any other topic should not be silenced. I agree.

He was asked repeatedly why should reseach on the Holocaust be tolerated if the “facts” are known. He stated facts can change and new research may alter original assumptions. I must admit I was bemused that a head of state from Iran would have to remind an administration at one of the nation’s preeminent universities that no area of human inquiry should be off limits to continuous academic revisionism. Thank you President Ahmadinejad!

President Ahmadinejad averred that even though the Palestinians were not the perpetrators of the Holocaust, they have suffered the tragic results of displacement by a Jewish state, that in large measure, was the result of the Jewish experiences in Europe during the war. President Ahmadinejad has stated this before and conceded the existence of the Holocaust well before this address and I think it is a telling argument to ask: “If the Holocaust happened in Europe, then why do Palestinians pay the price of Jewish suffering for some sixty years?”

The indomitable Shi’a president denounced the incarceration in Europe of those who dare question, deny or revise aspects of the holocaust. I agree and have defended David Irving’s right to speak and publish history without his repulsive imprisonment in Wien. President Ahmadinejad was clearly defending academic freedom, which is frequently denied in his own country, for those who wish to study World War II’s only taboo topic: the parameters of the Jewish genocide during the war.

President Ahmadinejad stated his own country was the victim of terrorism. He cited the 100,000s that were killed after Iraq under President Saddam Hussein invaded his nation that precipitated the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. He spoke about the Iranian victims of chemical weapons’ attacks.

In one of his more poignant and eloquent moments, he questioned the legitimacy of the United States in insisting upon restricting Iran’s nuclear development. While stating that a nuclear option was not his nation’s goal, he noted the U.S. introduction of these weapons during World War II and its “fifth generation” of these devices. He insisted that Iran was not in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970)- – which Israel has not even ratified- -and that it is adhering to International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguard inspection regime.

Dr Lee Bollinger was frankly abusive in his introduction. He even stated that he knew in advance that the Iranian president would not answer questions that dealt with the issues of “terrrorism,” Israel, the Holocaust etc. President Bollinger berated his guest in a manner that I have never seen before. I realise Columbia University is under great pressure from the Israel Lobby to prevent speech and critical thinking that is controversial or offensive, and that he had to prove his pro-Israel bona fides. Fair enough but to introduce a major head of state in such a sardonic and aggressive manner is contrary to normal professional discourse with a guest on a university campus.

The main reason I would condemn President Bollinger is that when a university president expresses such passionate positions on issues of the day, it could have a chilling effect on academic freedom and dialogue on a campus. Recognising Columbia’s strong affirmation of free speech in inviting President Ahmadinejad, I don’t think we should “balance” positive actions with negative actions in order to placate the enemies of free speech.

Professor Kirstein on Iran Television (YouTube)

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Leaves for New York

Sunday, September 23rd, 2007

This is the report from Iran sources on his journey to America and the United Nations’s General Assembly fall session.

I find it interesting that “liberals” who persecuted Dr Norman Finkelstein, Dr El Haj, Dr Juan Cole, Drs Mearsheimer and Walt for addressing Israeli transgressions and advocating a reassessment of the Israeli-American “strategic” partnership, are either shunning or demanding that the dynamic Iranian leader be prevented from speaking at Columbia University.

I also thought it was disgraceful that a gesture of reconciliation was rebuffed by partisans of hate and war. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to visit the site of the former World Trade Center and lay a wreath for the approximately 2800 individuals that died at that location. American jihadists such as Senator Hillary Clinton–who Tim Russert exposed today on Meet the Press as constantly changing her position on the Iraq war–supported rebuffing this significant world leader’s expression of sympathy and reconciliation. She averred, like other partisans of a war between civilisations, that “Ground Zero” is sacred space.

It is a gutted piece of undeveloped real estate where two large office structures crashed to the ground on September 11, 2001. They crashed because of an ongoing war between the United States and Islam. The war did not begin on September 11; it merely represemted a new front in a sensational and shocking manner. Consecrating that soil does not mean exclusion or barring visitors from adversarial regimes, but using that symbol of death and destruction to reconsider the United States relationship to Israel and its support of Arab autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If September 11 represented anything, it confirmed that our policies of denying Palestinians self-determination and attempting to create an American hegemony in the region are deeply resented. Although Iran was not involved in the attacks on New York or Washington, D.C., it is a major player in the region.

The road to peace is paved with reconciliation, respect and a willingness to give American audiences exposure to disparate views and cultures. May we welcome with open arms, but recognising our differences, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran. Happy Ramadan to the Iranian people to whom I pray are not exterminated by General[s] Betray Us in another war of imperialism, racism and aggressive unilateralism.

Professor Kirstein interview on Iran Television:

Columbia University Courageously Allows Iran President Ahmadinejad to Speak

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

Columbia University which has been under a vicious attack from radical extremists who wish to prevent debate over Israeli occupation of Palestine or even a discussion that would criticise Israel, is finally beginning to fight back. President Lee Bollinger, a former president and law school dean at the University of Michigan, has been bending under the winds of persecution from the David Project and other groups’s efforts to banish members of Columbia’s Middle East Asian Languages and Cultures Department. President Bollinger’s denunciation of Nicholas De Genova in 2003 was not helpful, yet this is clearly a reversal of course for the values progressive academicians hold dearly.

I was interviewed recently on Iranian television and it is nice to see an American university allowing Iranian senior officials to speak. We either communicate to each other or we find ourselves with more war and more needless human suffering. I think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has offered some refreshing criticisms of the United Nations Security Council membership and has allowed an exhibit on the Holocaust to depict various interpretations. Artistic expression may infuriate but need not become a cause celebre of adjudigng a nation or condemning its license of speech. Of course his statement of the holocaust being a myth is egregious and his war of words with Israel needs to be toned down. Yet he is a rational actor, a keen student of international affairs, and someone that a great power such as the United States should engage directly in diplomacy as the Iraq Study Group recommended.

Hail to Columbia for its invitation and with such resoluteness for defending academic freedom and advancing the cause of peace and reconciliaton. How grand and courageous of you and how noble you are in setting a standard for higher education in this diminished democracy we are experiencing during wartime!!

September 20, 2007 The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Iranian President to Speak at Columbia U.”

Iran’s controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York next week to address the United Nations, will not be allowed to visit Ground Zero — the site of the World Trade Center, leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists — but he will give a speech at another location in Manhattan that has been on the front lines of the debate over conflict in the Middle East: Columbia University.

Columbia’s president, Lee C. Bollinger, announced last night that President Ahmadinejad would speak and answer audience questions on Monday afternoon as part of the university’s World Leaders Forum. Mr. Bollinger said he would introduce the president by issuing “sharp challenges” to his denial of the Holocaust, stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, support for terrorism, defiance of sanctions stemming from Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and suppression of human rights and civil liberties.

The invitation to speak, postponed from a year ago, is part of Columbia’s mission to understand the world “as it is and as it might be,” Mr. Bollinger said, even if that means having to listen courteously to ideas that are “offensive and even odious.” He called for Mr. Ahmadinejad to be received with “the powers of dialogue and reason.”

That seems unlikely at Columbia, which has been a battleground over the conflicts in the Middle East, featuring a continuing tenure fight, attacks on books, outside pressure to fire scholars, fights over Middle East studies, and allegations of classroom bias, among others. As the protesters gear up for Monday’s fireworks, stay tuned. —Andrew Mytelka

Professor Kirstein Op-ed in Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon) on American Militarism

Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

I was invited by Tom Hastings to submit an op-ed on America’s imperial overstretch. It appeared in the Statesman Journal in the Oregon capital of Salem.

August 23, 2007
“Eisenhower’s warning ignored at our peril”

Americans need to construe the Iraq War and the so-called “War Against Terrorism” as symptoms of a broader problem that afflicts America. That problem is militarism as a key component of our culture and ethos, and explains in part why the United States is unwilling to behave in a more responsible manner as a custodian of our planet.

The obsession with national security, vital strategic interests and America’s global power projection have undermined the nation’s capacity to assume responsibility or even concern about the future of the world’s 6 billion people. America is driven merely by geopolitics fueled by adoration of its destructive power.

The United States, despite the warnings of President Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address, has become a vicious military-industrial complex whereby its wealth and culture increasingly revolves around the glorification of war and the military that wages it. Indeed, patriotism and love of country are to a large extent predicated on the belief that the American military is the sine qua non for our prosperity, protection and stability as a nation.

Military academies, think tanks, specialised military universities, war-memorial monuments as prolific as McDonalds, veterans groups, Air Force Ones, marine-presidential helicopters, color guards, “bombs bursting in air” national anthems, p.o.w. flags, national holidays such as Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day and even an Armed Forces Day and the universality of the American flag are constant reminders of martial attributes that extol imperialism and America’s brutal approach to international relations. The Washington, D.C. Mall is virtually a military-theme park that reflects the core values of the nation with scant attention to international peace and security.

One of the major challenges for Americans is to compel their government to see the overlapping parallels between national security and international security. Our paranoid style of politics that has to have an enemy whether it is communism, antiwar dissent or Islam, perceives the world as a geopolitical entity which is divided up into “commands” such as the European Command and Central Command. It is not in the interest of American ruling elites to share their sovereign authority with international bodies such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court but to perpetuate unilaterally their power and sense of importance. Peace would reduce their status as war managers and imperialists. International comity threatens the eternal-enemy syndrome which justifies continuous war and trillion-dollar defence budgets.

The path ahead may have to lie outside the vital center that the late historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. so admired which is dominated by two very similar national parties. Republicans who orchestrated this war and Democrats who pay the bill are complicit in the crime that is the Iraq War. Recognizing that the future of America is harnessed to these war-making entities will hopefully overtime induce greater resistance and commitment to a politics of liberation.

Peter N. Kirstein is professor of history at Saint Xavier University

Transcript: Professor Kirstein Iran TV interview: August 13, 2007

Friday, August 17th, 2007

Jame Jam 2 TV, Islam Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

I was interviewed again on Iran television, Jame Jam, "Kankesh" programme on August 13, 2007. The topic was the United States image in the world today. These are my remarks as transcribed from a videocasette. I hope to ultimately post both of my broadcasts on the Internet and am in the process of exploring that avenue. The interview was conducted in Chicago this Spring and has recently begun to air. It is easy to kill people in distant lands but communication and dialogue are more constructive and ethical. I will not hesitate to engage in dialogue with entities that are considered adversaries of the United States. Peace is not merely an abstract concept; it requires both national and individual acts of reconciliation and dialogue. I intend to continue such actions if they do not contravene my ethical principles, if I am accurately represented in what I say and if I construe the topic as one in which I have expertise.

These were my televised comments:

"We [United States] do not know what international comity is. We violate Security Council resolutions. We violate international treaties. We are an outlaw nation and all we do is claim, well Hamas is terroirst; Hezbollah is terrorist; North Korea has violated this agreement, Iraq under Saddam. So we go around and we claim that this resolution has been violated. It is almost, it makes almost a mockery of international relations.

“And finally I would say. I never thought I would see this day but the United States is really, indeed construed as a pariah state now. Most of the world sees the United States as a negative impact on international affairs. It is astonishing. It is unbelievable. It is one of the most remarkable developments. I’m not glad to see it. I’m sorry to see it but the United States reputation in the world now is much closer to the reality than it’s ever been before. It’s over. It’s over when the United States can simply anticipate that the rest of the world is going to admire it.

“We’ve killed too many people and finally the world is beginning to recognise that not only do we kill people. Not only do we kill people. They’re beginning to see. In Vietnam they were close to seeing it, but now they are seeing Iraq was a war that did not need to be fought. It was a completely elective war. There was no reason to fight that war and so whether or not this will modify our behaviour I don’t know.”

Professor Kirstein Interviewed Second Time on Iran TV

Tuesday, August 14th, 2007

YouTube Video of Iran TV Broadcast

IRIB’s Jame Jam channel showed another segment of an interview on August 13, 2007 on its Kankash programme. The programme’s topic was U.S. policy in Iraq. When I receive the tape, I will initially post the transcript as I did the initial interview. The programme was hosted by Mohammad Sajadi. Dr. Farhad Komaili, a Tehran University Professor of international relations, was the programme’s live guest. On Monday night, August 6, they also aired an interview with the great scholar and courageous academician, Richard Falk. Dr Falk has accurately compared the treatment of the Palestinians as an example of an incipient holocaust.

Cuba Courageously Refers to U.S. Atomic Attacks as “Genocide”

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

Cuba News Agency report on the genocide:


Intrepid Cubans, despite living under criminal U.S. blockade, mourn for the hibakusha, atomic survivors, and those killed in the American atomic genocide during World War II.

Holocaust From The Sky: American Atomic Genocide (Nagasaki, August 9, 1945)

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

On this date, August 9, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb, one of the most disgraceful and evil inventions ever consummated under state-sponsored science, on a city full of non-combatants in Nagasaki, Japan.


Nagasaki Genocide against a defeated non-nuclear power.

The second atomic bomb, was nicknamed “Fat Man”, contained plutonium fissile material and was a war crime of inestimable proportions.

“The Day After.” Nagasaki Genocide, August 10, 1945; photograph by Yosuke Yamahata

These acts of butchery during World War II created a moral parallel with Adolph Hitler and reduces the notion that morality and ethics were the sole province of the allies in their war against National Socialism and Japan. These events constituted, perhaps, the greatest single assault on human morality and civilisation ever perpetrated during war. This nuclear war hopefully will induce reflection whether the “Good War” was really won by the western exterminators, as the world struggles to contain proliferation of this potentially Earth-eliminating technology. Let us honour the innocents in Japan and so many other lands that were destroyed and slaughtered by American violence and its ruthless martial culture that adores war and those who wage it. This is an article I published on Nagasaki.

“Terrorism from the Sky: The Destruction of Nagasaki,” New Ground

by Peter N. Kirstein, Ph.D.

Sky full of fire, pain pourin’ downBob Dylan1

The last time an atomic weapon was used in combat was the incineration of Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. Most of the world’s attention, however, has concentrated upon the first B-29 Enola Gay mission that rained nuclear death over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. During the fiftieth anniversary of the atomic attacks in 1995, a flurry of press coverage and specials emphasized the Hiroshima, “Little Boy” bombing. Both print and electronic media explored the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, but virtually ignored its most recent application, when Nagasaki’s civilian population was decimated. While the Hiroshima nuclear attack represented the first use of a weapon of mass destruction, the atomic slaughter is the tale of two cities destroyed for reasons other than military necessity. In part, it was driven by the terrorist policy of unconditional surrender, that prolonged the carnage and deterred the Axis Powers from seeking an armistice on terms that might conclude the conflict. As the debate over the nuclearization of World War II continues to rage almost sixty years later, one should remember that the indiscriminate slaughter from America’s weapons of mass destruction, were visited upon two non-white civilian populations for revenge, a thirst for mass murder and atomic diplomacy.

Inside the world’s oldest and largest avionics museum, the United States Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is displayed the perfectly-restored Bokscar, the frequently ignored B-29 Superfortress that released over Nagasaki the plutonium, “Fat Man” bomb. Its commander was Major Charles Sweeney. Although the propeller-engine bomber bore the eponymous reference to Captain Frederick C. Bock, he switched aircraft prior to takeoff from Tinian in the Mariana Islands.2

President Harry S. Truman, through a White House-issued press release, announced the Hiroshima bombing on August 6. He finally gave an atomic warning to Japan, with a minatory promise that America would continue its nuclear attack in a manner, heretofore, unachievable through air power: the destruction of an entire people and nation:

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications… If they do not accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.


The strategic bomber that killed babies and other Japanese during the genocide: Bokscar, B-29.

Truman’s threatening of the pastoralization of Japan, which was not dissimilar to the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, did not occur, but additional butchery and destruction were unleashed. As the pace of the scientific and technological revolution had already accelerated beyond humankind’s capacity to control and harness it, three days later, Nagasaki became Truman’s next victim of a “rain of ruin.”

Kokura had been chosen as the primary target since it would be easier to demolish than Nagasaki. The latter was a less accessible countervalue target because the bomb’s impact “would be wasted outside the built up areas.” Target selection anticipated a diminution of Nagasaki’s damage due to surrounding hills of the relatively intact city, a port on the west coast of the southern island of Kyushu.4 Kokura’s residents were spared annihilation, however, because of cloud cover and the strict rules of engagement that required, in addition to radar, actual visual sighting of the target before discharge of the gravity bomb. Prior to abandoning its primary, Bokscar unsuccessfully attempted three bombing runs over cloudy Kokura. As the B-29 propeller-driven aircraft was running out of fuel, Sweeney and Commander Fred L. Ashworth, the weaponeer, raced to Nagasaki for one last desperate bombing attempt, before heading to Okinawa for an unscheduled emergency landing. Tinian was beyond return at this point. Nagasaki weather temporarily cleared to permit “Fat Man’s” journey of death, and with two engines sputtering halfway down the runway, Bokscar landed at Okinawa.5 It was the first B-29 to appear on the island, and after refueling and concealing their atomic mission, the crew promptly returned their aircraft to Tinian.6

In the hours preceding the United States bombing of the city, there were several alerts of an impending air attack. A general alert had sounded at 7:48 a.m., with an air raid alert lasting from 7:50 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. While Nagasaki remained on general warning, there was no repetition of an air raid signal until 11:09 a.m., seven minutes after the bomb exploded in airburst fashion over the city. The weapon did not impact the Earth’s surface, and was designed to implode in the atmosphere for purposes of maximizing its destructive-blast radius. Unfortunately, only 400 Japanese were in tunnel shelters which, had they been fully occupied, could have protected 30% of Nagasaki’s population.

At 11:02 a.m., an atomic bomb exploded in the sky over Nagasaki. It completely eradicated one-third of the city with its unique sequence of blast, heat, shock wave and prompt and delayed radiation. The fission weapon killed initially at least 35,000 people, and an additional 35,000 perished from radiation sickness and other post-attack atomic injuries. “Fat Man” contained a core of Plutonium 239, weighed 4.5 tons, was eleven feet long and had a yield of twenty-one kilotons, equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT. Some of America’s current strategic-terrorist weapons dwarf the Nagasaki plutonium bomb, such as the W88 warhead inside the Mk-5 reentry vehicle, that is deployed on Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It contains a destructive yield of 475 kilotons.7

The fireball, a ghastly but hauntingly mesmerizing force, reached a zenith of 656 feet in one second. Shadows of bodies were burnt into the walls of the Nagasaki Fortress Command, which was 2.2 miles from the hypocenter, the area directly under a nuclear explosion. Humans that were approximate to the hypocenter were nearly carbonized.

The Mitsubishi Steel Works factory was reduced to rubble and schools full of children crumbled and collapsed.8 At Shiroyama Primary School, 131 out of 151 children were killed as the three-story concrete building collapsed around them. The catastrophe was repeated at Chinzei Middle School where only fifteen children survived out of a student population of 118. The force of the Bokscar bomb also ended the lives of 414 medical students whom were attending Nagasaki Medical University, a school founded by Franciscan missionaries. Of the seventy Nagasaki physicians in private practice, twenty died and twenty more were critically injured, leaving only thirty of them to provide medical treatment to a stunned, atomic-ravaged population.

Nagasaki had been visited by St. Francis Xavier in 1549, and was the most Christian of Japanese cities with 10% of its population being Catholic. It contained the largest Catholic cathedral in East Asia; during the atomic attack, its roof crumbled killing dozens of parishioners that were about to give confession. Of Nagasaki’s prebomb population of 22,000 Christians, most of whom were Catholic, only 13,000 survived the A-bomb.9

In this second senseless nuclear holocaust, Americans also perished from a weapon allegedly intended to “save lives.” Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell was at Trinity in New Mexico when the first nuclear device, “The Gadget,” was tested on July 16, 1945, and at Tinian. He was a powerful, yet still relatively obscure, military figure who played a significant role in the atomic bombings at the end of World War II. Serving as chief deputy to General Leslie R. Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, Farrell exulted, in an extensive eyewitness summary of the bombings, how “all concerned should feel a deep satisfaction in the success of the operation.”10

Farrell was also one of the first Americans to reach Nagasaki for bomb damage assessment (BDA) of the nuclear carnage. American BDA provided scant reference to “friendly” nuclear fire. Farrell states laconically, “there was a prisoner of war camp in Nagasaki and that some few [American] prisoners were made casualties by our bombing.” While it had been previously reported that American POW were in Kokura, the Target Committee that developed the nuclear targeting plan rejected any consideration to sparing American lives that could give Japan a “prisoner’s veto.” While not knowing in advance that POW were in Nagasaki, nuclear targets were chosen regardless of the known or suspected presence of American military personnel.11

Initial American reports of the nuclear terrorism came from spotter aircraft that accompanied Bokscar. Their crews reported a city covered with smoke, and engulfed in a conflagration of twenty immense fires that emanated from the Mitsubishi Steel Works that was close to the hypocenter. Large explosions were frequent and visible for miles.12 Unlike American damage-assessment surveys that emphasized the destruction of buildings, infrastructure and raw numbers of dead and wounded, Japanese studies of the carnage included humanistic accounts of the impact of the atomic bomb on ordinary citizens, far removed from the counsels of war.

Dr. Masoa Shiotauki was a physician at the Omura Naval Hospital near Nagasaki when the explosion occurred on atomic Thursday. He described a “bright sunny day,” during a dry spell of a Japanese summer, that would tragically facilitate the required visual sighting of the intended target. Then he witnessed a bright flash followed by a “thunderous roar.” Subsequent to this initial, weapons effect of a nuclear explosion, was blast pressure that converted Dr. Shiotauki’s hospital into a killing field where glass was transformed into deadly shards hurtling throughout the facility.

The physician rushed outside to an air raid shelter and saw “a large white cloud in the shape of an opened umbrella with a pink (or light orange) shadow.” His city was destroyed “beyond description” in which every building was damaged or destroyed. Looking at the mountains surrounding the city, he noted later how the leaves had been scorched up to eight kilometers from the hypocenter. Although the date was August 31, Shiotauki noted how “it looked as though autumn had come.”13

Shiotauki, however, soon returned to Omura Naval Hospital where he witnessed the medical consequences of nuclear war: Too many patients and too few surviving physicians to triage in an environment of mass casualties and symptoms unknown to Japanese medicine. Within hours of the explosion of “Fat Man,” 600 Japanese were brought to Omura. Shiotauki stated starkly the condition of the hibakusha the atomic survivors:

The appearance of the patients…was horrifying. Their hair was burned, their clothes torn to pieces and stained by blood, and the naked parts were all burned and inflamed. Their wounds were contaminated by filth. Many among them had numerous pieces of glass and wood projecting from the skin of the face and back. Many were in such a state that they were with difficulty recognized as human beings.14

While most historians and political scientists confine their analysis of the decision to use the atomic bomb to geostrategic themes of motivation, strategy and nuclear proliferation, the A-bomb’s impact on the Japanese population is usually peripheral to their core analyses. Nations that defend their war crimes, and liberal analysts who assess causes and rationale, frequently remain within the narrow international relations and national-security confines of realism and neorealism. Even the most significant historical-revisionist studies of the A-bomb seldom depict its impact on the hibakusha. Survivors or journalists dominate that terrain.15

Seventy-one patients had been transported by train on August 9, and received preliminary treatment at Zatsumura Elementary School in Omura. Then they were moved by truck on August 10, when they were finally hospitalized at Omura Naval Hospital. Fuyoko Araki was a forty-one year old “housewife,” who was only 750 meters from the explosion. She received flash burns on her face, and contusions and abrasions on her lower extremities. On the morning of August 13, Araki suddenly lost her eyesight, and a spinal puncture produced “dark red blood.” She died the next day on August 14.16 Hatsuko Ikei was a seventeen-year old female. She was about 1150 meters from the explosion and was severely burned. Her appetite was suppressed; her eyesight was deteriorating and she suffered brain damage. Ikei developed petechia: purple spots on her body that were as large as a thumb. She died at 4:30 p.m. on August 15, 1945. In Ward 12 at Omura Naval Hospital, a Japanese patient, Chizuko Yamada, was treated for abrasions on her chest, left arm and hip. Her medical condition degenerated into herpes, epilation (hair loss), fever and petechia. She died eleven days after the nuclear explosion. A young fourteen-year-old male student, Todachi Kusumoto, was a patient in Ward 6, and at the time of the “Fat Man” attack, was only one kilometer from the hypocenter. Initially, Kusumoto had no external signs of injury; there were no burns or wounds but he carried a fever and experienced total scalp-hair loss. Typical of radiation disease, hair loss is pronounced, and exacerbated even if touched by a wet hand. His body was covered with petechiae, and then he exhibited cardiac arrhythmia symptoms. Kusumoto became one of Nagasaki’s 70,000 nuclear-noncombatant casualties on August 25, from what was probably radiation disease.17

One cannot effectively assess the decision to incorporate atomic weaponry into the campaign of strategic bombing without confronting Truman’s decision to use a second A-bomb, the last significant military event of the war. Unleashed in combat only three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, it allowed insufficient time to determine Japan’s response to this crushing new reality of American-military power. According to Barton J. Bernstein, the emperor was preparing to end this horrible war, and had decided to seek peace prior to the Nagasaki carnage.18 Furthermore, Washington had neither anticipated nor expected an immediate Japanese response after the initial-atomic blast of August 6, 1945.

 Hirohito, 124th Emperor of Japan

Was the decision to bomb Nagasaki based on reasons other than attempting to bring the four-year Pacific War to an end? It should be recalled, almost sixty years after the pivotal, but hotly-disputed Yalta Conference (February 4-11, 1945), that a pre-nuclear United States had prevailed upon the former Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan. Stalin, who did not want to fight a two-front war, agreed at the Crimean conference to initiate hostilities against Japan within three months after the defeat of Hitler. On August 8, exactly ninety days after V-E Day, Russia declared war on Japan, and launched cross-border military operations to liberate Manchuria from the oppressive occupation of a million-person Japanese army. The next day Nagasaki was bombed.

Possessing an atomic monopoly and a belief in its invulnerability, the U.S. abruptly abandoned its pursuit of Russian assistance in the war against Japan. This was the beginning of the containment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. With the proto-Cold War unfolding, the spectre of a joint Soviet-American occupation in Japan was unacceptable to hegemonic Washington. Given the unnecessary use of the A-bomb to defeat Japan, the weapon might forestall or limit a Soviet-Japanese war that could confer a postwar-Soviet sphere-of-influence in northern China and Japan.19

Avoiding a climactic invasion of Japan’s home islands, with its projected casualties of thousands of Americans and Japanese, was not a legitimate excuse for using the A-bomb. A preliminary invasion, called “Operation Olympic,” would not commence until November 1, 1945 on the island of Kyushu, and the full-scale landings on the Tokyo Plain (”Operation Coronet”) were not planned before March 1, 1946, almost seven months after the Nagasaki bombing. Clearly other military or diplomatic options were available that could have obviated the nuclear-strategic bombing of civilian, noncombatant targets.20

Had the United States been willing to modify, even slightly, the policy of unconditional surrender, and allowed Japan before, and not after the atomic bombings to retain its emperor, an atomic attack on a now-reluctant belligerent may have been averted. Certainly, a preattack atomic warning, a demonstration on an unpopulated area such as Tokyo Bay or elsewhere (as Edward Teller once retrospectively advocated), the continuation of the naval blockade and conventional bombing, were options that might have concluded the Pacific War without the introduction of weapons of mass destruction into combat.21

As the controversy continues over the justification for Truman’s epochal decision to incorporate nuclear weapons as a component of strategic bombing, the atomic memory of Nagasaki must be preserved.22 The last nuclear battlefield, perpetrated by a terrorist democracy that has long proclaimed itself as the ethical and moral model for the world, must not be driven from our history and its chroniclers censored or suspended into silence.23 During World War II, the United States committed war crimes that were equivalent to those of Nazi Germany and Japan. While public awareness of the war’s tragic legacy appropriately recalls the deaths in concentration camps, the Rape of Nanking and the wehrmacht’s ravaging of Soviet Russia, Nagasaki’s destruction must also endure as a symbol of senseless inhumanity. Coming to terms with America’s use of nuclear weapons, and its ruthless pursuit of victory over an Asian race, which it dehumanized and despised,24 requires that we never forget the tragic and haunting history of Nagasaki.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Peter Kirstein is Professor of History at St. Xavier University in Chicago. He may be reached at kirstein@sxu.edu

Notes

1 Bob Dylan, “Mississippi,” Love and Theft, 2001. The album was released on September 11, 2001.

2 Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Touchstone, 1986), 739.

3 Statement by the President of the United States, August 6. 1945; roll 6, file 74, Harrison-Bundy Files Relating to the Development of the Atomic Bomb, 1942-1946, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, National Archives-Great Lakes Region (Chicago, Illinois). (Hereafter referred to as H-B Files). It was delivered at 10:45 a.m., Washington time, August 6, 1945. The president was at sea on the U.S.S Augusta returning from the Potsdam conference.

4 Thomas F. Farrell, “Report on Overseas OperationsAtomic Bomb,” September 27, 1945, 2; roll 13, Manhattan Engineer District History, Records of the Defense Nuclear Agency, RG 374, NA-Great Lakes Region (Chicago, Illinois). [Hereafter referred to as Manhattan Files].

5 “Nagasaki Plane Landing on Two Engines,” ND and no author; roll 8, H-B Files; Ibid., 5.

6 The Beverly Review (Chicago), August 16, 1995, 10.

7 Robert Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Nuclear Notebook,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May-June 2003, 74-5.

8 Peter N. Kirstein, “Will Fat Man be the Last?” Op-Ed, Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1984.

9 New York Times, August 9, 1995.

10 Farrell, “Report,” 6.

11 Ibid., 2.

12 Memorandum, 20th Air Force, Guam to War Dept. Headquarters, US Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, August 9, 1945, roll 1, H-B Files.

13 Masoa Shiotauki, “The Effects of the Explosion of the Atomic Bomb on the Human Body,” September 10, 1945, 1, Appendix 2, Preliminary Report of Findings of Atomic Bomb Investigating Groups at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; roll 14, Manhattan Files.

14 Ibid., 2.

15 Hideko Tamura Snider, One Sunny Day (Chicago: Open Court, 1996); John Hersey, Hiroshima (New York: Vintage, 1989); Michihiko Hachiya, Hiroshima Diary (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995).

16 Shiotauki, “Explosion,” 6-7.

17 Ibid.,

Remembering the Genocide: Hiroshima (August 6, 1945)

Monday, August 6th, 2007

HIROSHIMA — Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba called for action to create a nuclear weapon-free world as he read out the city’s 2007 Peace Declaration on Monday, the 62nd anniversary of the devastating atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima.

In the declaration, Akiba explained the damage caused by the bombing. He then criticized the “handful of old-fashioned leaders” of nations possessing nuclear weapons, saying that they had turned their backs on the message of hibakusha — survivors of the bombing.. For full story.


Japanese pray for victims of one of the greatest war crimes in history and its most significant catalyst for nuclear proliferation.


Hiroshima mushroom cloud after air-burst genocide uranium-bomb explosion.


The barbaric direct attack against defenceless innocents by the Enola Gay B-29 monstrous strategic bomber. Now the killers call it “collateral damage.”


Hiroshima natives mourning the 62nd anniversary of the genocide in Peace Memorial Park.


The mass murderer, President Harry S Truman, now revered by liberal, consensus presidential historians, such as the great plagiarist, fraud and Meet the Press “savant” Doris Kearns Goodwin. The non-historian described Mr Truman: “I think Harry Truman ended up being an extraordinary president.” I guess this proves my point about the Missouri-born president. We Missourians don’t stick together when it comes to genocide and Nazi-equivalent war crimes.

Transcript: Professor Kirstein Interview on Iran Television

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

Update: Kindly See YouTube Video of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Interviews. 

This is a transcript of the video of an interview I did on Iran’s Jame Jam television network on July 23, 2007 to discuss peace and reconciliation. The 2:13 minutes-seconds excerpt was from a two hour interview last Spring in Chicago and is a reflection on the Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon war of July-August, 2006. I have been told that Richard Falk, professor-emeritus of Princeton and now at the University of California-Santa Barbara also appeared on earlier segments.

[Note bene:] I had stated but it was excised from the video that Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist, had written last July that the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab world was a “mistake” and that it has triggered an ongong conflict stretching into two centuries. I also said elsewhere on the original tape that I supported a two-state solution and the right of Israel to live within secure borders.

I also strongly believe that the so-called War on Terrorism and the religious wars of Judeo-Christianity v Islam cannot be resolved without ending the Palestinian crisis. King Abdullah of Jordan and the Iraq Study Group are two of many sources that affirm that without a Palestinian homeland and a resolution of the ongoing Israeli occupation, the tensions and conflicts between America and the Muslim world cannot be resolved. I also believe that violence by Hamas or Hezbollah is not to be affirmed or praised and that it is the duty of the leadership in the region and in America to adopt confidence building measures to end this tragedy. Dismantling the settlements would be a good place to start the process of reconciliaton.

I noticed there were subtitles in Persian that accompanied my interview. Iran usually refers to the State of Israel as the Zionist Entity. Well, I am not conversant in Persian (Farsi) but the audio of course was in English and I used the word “Israel” throughout. So at least on this broadcast, the word “Israel” was used and not subsituted by the silly non-recognition appellation of “The Zionist Entity.”

This is the transcript:

“With regard to the war last July, this was an absolute disgrace.
Israel disgraced itself. It disgraced some of its Zionist figures.
It engaged in criminal acts of a nature which disgraced this Israel.
The use of cluster bombs in a gratuitous manner within the last 72 hours of the war just so babies and innocents would die for months afterwards.

“To think that the kidnapping of two soldiers on their border with Hezbollah, and one soldier by Hamas could lead to this, was almost beyond belief that they would use this as an excuse to exterminate Qana, to destroy south Beirut, and the United States, which is typical, essentially said continue this killing of Arabs. Arabs are not Americans. Though we have five to six million Arab-Americans in this country.

“And so it was a pitiful disgrace that the United States supports Israel in the manner that it does.
And so, you oppose war, you don’t support the troops they say.
If you criticise Israel, you are anti-Semitic some say.
Well you have to do it anyway.

“You have to stand up for peace and justice.
You have to stand up against racism.
You have to stand up against having concentration camp walls being built through the West Bank.
You have to stand up against targeted assassinations.
You have to stand up against 300,000 to 400,000 Arab peoples that were displaced when this mistake was created in 1948.
You have to stand up and you have to say that Israel acts in a criminal manner as President Carter said practices apartheid with the Palestinians.”

A Difference Between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton: A Willingness to Talk to Our Adversaries

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007

During the Democratic presidential Charleston debate last night at The Citadel, which only recently admitted women I might add, Senator Barack Obama stated he would meet with the leaders of nations with which the U.S. has antagonistic relationships. These include Cuba, North Korea (D.P.R.K.), Venezuela, Iran and Syria. It actually includes dozens more due to the Bush-Clinton quagmire we are currently suffering as the result of the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton said she would not promise to meet or explore that possibility for fear of being subjected to propaganda. She is was very forceful in expressing the usual arrogance of America: we want to dominate or rule and not engage in dialogue for that would lessen our power and influence. Yes she did indicate some willingness to assign lower-ranking officials but is playing the Thatcher card very consistently.


Is Senator Clinton Afraid of President Castro?

Is Senator Clinton that insecure and afraid of America’s vulnerability to ideas and principles that would damage our national security interests to meet with a Fidel Castro or a Hugo Chavez or a Kim Jong-il or an Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Bashar Al-Asad? The conservative senator is rather traditional and old school. She says she might send an envoy but has a fear of losing control of the agenda and being out foxed by a foreign head of state. While I preferred at least her “agnosticism” on increasing nuclear power as an energy source as opposed to Senator Obama’s apparent willingness to utilise fission-generated energy, I think that the fate of the Earth is better guided by a president who is willing to talk to other human beings. I am concerned that Mrs. Clinton is not committed to progressive internationalism or possesses a sense of global responsibility but remains essentially an orthodox prisoner of the Cold War notion that diplomatic outreach should be carefully circumscribed. Yet as Senator Obama stated, even during the Cold War the U.S. had bilateral talks between heads of state and conducted “summits” with the Soviet Union on a fairly regular basis.

While I am not yet endorsing a candidate on a university-server blog, I am extremely concerned that Sen Clinton would essentially pursue the neo-conservative muscular preemption of the Neo-Cons. After all, she voted for the war and has stood by that decision as the body count approaches 4,000 K.I.A.

Professor Kirstein Interview to Appear on Iran Television, July 23, 2007

Monday, July 23rd, 2007


Photo courtesy of UnitedWeStandWorld.com

I was informed that a segment of an interview that was taped months ago in Chicago will be shown on Islamic Republic or Iran Broadcasting’s Jame Jam network tonight. I do not speak Persian or Farsi and presume they are going to have subtitles. Hopefully it will be accurate in translation. Dr Richard Falk, formerly of Princeton, and others were also interviewed in Chicago for possible broadcast, but I do not know if other clips will be shown. The segment will appear on the weekly program “Kankash,” which is the network’s most popular current events show. The program will air tonight between 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. central time. I will probably get a tape but have no way to access the show live on cable.

I believe if we do not talk to our adversaries, we frustrate the potential for international reconciliation and the reduction in violence. I am pleased that even the Bush administration which has a callous indifference to the benefits of diplomacy, has been engaging in more direct contact with Iran. The latest hopefully will lead to an exchange of prisoners and civilians both nations have unfortunately detained. Diplomatic engagement was one of the key proposals of the Iraq Study Group. If my interview advances greater understanding, even a little bit, it would have been worth the effort. Hatred, recrimination, stereotypical dismissals and the effort to dehumanise one’s opponents or antagonists is not in the national interest and certainly not in the interest of the global community. If I learned one thing in all my classes with Dr Howard Zinn, it was we are all connected and that a universality of identification is preferable to a narrow and somewhat segregated notion of national identity.

I do not support ANY nation having nuclear weapons in the Middle East whether it be Iran or the State of Israel, and call for implementation of the denuclearisation Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968). I do not support nations intervening in the internal affairs of other states. I do not support nations that talk about war and wiping countries off the map. I do, however, expect that the most powerful and wealthy of nations would exercise greater humility and less brutality in attempting to coerce compliant behaviour from national actors that dissent from an ethos of hegemony. We will either live together or die together and in the nuclear age it is best we not forget that.

Let us speak to one another as I am tonight!!

Good News From the Front: Army Misses Quota For Second Month

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

The United States Army which is intended to kill people in the name of national security in this the 21th Century, when the world is craving for moral leadership from this warrior nation, has failed to meet its monthly recruitment quota.

According to reports the Army wanted to add 8400 more soldiers in June but fell more than a 1000 short of that recruitment goal. In May, its more modest number of adding active-duty recruits to serve as new cannon fodder for the Bush-Sen Clinton arrogance of imperium was 5,500 and that number fell short by 400.

I believe that the only way to bring this empire into a more modest and less threatening posture is for Americans to reconsider the prestige of military service. It is not terribly masculine for a man or impressive for a woman to learn how to use weapons to kill other babies or soldiers or non-combatants. Men who join the marines, for example, are not terribly impressive and have little to brag about in terms of service to humankind. They really do not compare favourably with a nurse, a soup-kitchen volunteer or a person who assists the handicapped. Many will die for nothing and while their dress uniforms are smart and well-tailored, they are innocent and helpless pawns in the game of empire. Professors have been too timid and pusillanimous in communicating the horror of war to their students. We need to seriously question the need for military service and to confront directly the morality of training to kill and slaughter others. Those who call progressives anti-American for opposing war are quite willing to shed the blood of others. It is cowardice to be prowar and not demonstrate a commitment to participate in that war if of physical or legal elligibility.

While I am not saying that those in uniform are morally deficient, I am saying that the belief in war and the use of force to resolve basic conflicts between nations is simply unacceptable. We expect humans to resolve disputes peacefully but seem to glorify and justify through strategic doctrine when nations attack each other. Nation-states that accept state terrorism as a legitimate expresssion of national security are evil and despicable and do not deserve the support of their people by joining and becoming a military person. Leave the military! Compel our leaders to become more responsible in harnessing and using the Earth’s resources and refuse to fight for elites who care nothing about you.

During the Vietnam genocide, there was an expression I have learned in studying that war of so many years ago. “What if they gave a war and nobody came!”

Remember Iran Air Flight 655 and U.S. War Crimes: July 3, 1988

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007

This is the nineteenth anniversary of the criminal United States destruction of an Iran Air passenger liner. The United States deliberately and without provocation slaughtered 290 innocent passengers aboard an Iranian commercial aircraft. Oh sure we hear about Lockerbee, the 9/11 air raids and Iran daring to contain the hyperpower, that invaded Iraq, as Adolph Hitler did with Poland in 1939. All the suffering of innocents we ascribe to other nations that are called evil empires, or axis of evil and other insulting and provocative names.

The U.S.S. Vincennes, which aggressively patrolled the Persian Gulf as if it were its own territory, fired one missile and deliberately destroyed, in an act of terrorism, this passenger, civilian aircraft. No aircraft were descending toward the ship; there were no active measures taken by Iran that could justify a Fog of War scenario. A single missile was launched and mass murder occurred. The U.S. initially lied, shocking is not that, and said the Airbus-similar designed aircraft was at 7000 feet and heading toward the ship. The murderers then revised this cowardly excuse and stated it was human error. The bully, the great superpower, the great destroyer, is always at the quick to spew out disinformation. When caught lying, as in Haditha or Abu Ghraib etc. it might make a concessionary statement and then if really forced, launch an inquiry in which some military inspector general or prime time TV N.C.I.S. unit investigates itself!!

A special condemnation is reserved for war criminal U.S. Navy Capt. Will C. Rogers III, the skipper of the ship. He should have been court-martialed and sent to prison for life but instead he retired in 1991 and, of course, his crew received medals. You bet. War medals are really not for the individuals but to maintain the belief that killing other humans is an exercise that should be awarded and praised.

It is true there was tension in the Gulf in which America had flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers so the profligate U.S. could get its fix of petrol to run its large cars, NASCAR stock races, and fill up that absurd U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Yet did the killers on the Vincennes really believe the lumbering aircraft was a fighter plane?? It is like confusing a battleship with a frigate, or perhaps more accurately with a yacht. It stretches incredulity how that crew could have felt threatened.

As the U.S. gears up for another Bush war against Iran, it might do well to think of the aggression the former has committed against the latter. Iran can hardly be expected to be a passive onlooker as its neighbor Iraq is being destroyed by the western invaders. The U.S. vice-president is leading the charge for more military action in the Middle East. Senator Joseph Lieberman, “Independent Democrat” of Connecticut, is also part of this gang that detests Muslims and relishes their slaughter in the name of an imaginary war against terrorism and our monstrous, indiscriminate support of our joint occupier of Muslim land, Israel.

Vladimir Putin: Appropriately Compares U.S. War Crimes to Stalin Purges

Sunday, June 24th, 2007

Vladimir Putin, the courageous and bold president of the Russain Federation, has responded to the 60th anniversary of the Stalin Purges. This has been another Churchillian moment for the emerging spokesperson for the oppressed peoples of the Earth. In 1937 thousands of Russians were killed, arrested, shot and subjected to show-trials as a maniacal effort to cleanse the Communist Party of revisionists and disloyal members. While these Communist Party purges had begun in 1934, they reached a quantitative zenith in 1937. Mr Putin acknowledged the excesses of this period but claims Russia should not be forced to feel guilty about them.

I don’t agree with that but I do agree with his insistence that the United States should not pass judgment on the atrocities of the Stalin Era. He appropriately compares U.S. conduct in external affairs as equivalent to some of Josef Stalin’s horrors. If one were to add centuries of slavery, and another century of Jim Crow, one could argue that the United States has the worst human rights record in modern history and has committed the most war crimes in its conduct of interstate relations since the invasion of Poland by Germany on September 1, 1939.

Mr Putin stated:
“We have not used nuclear weapons against a civilian population,” he said. “We have not sprayed thousands of kilometers (miles) with chemicals, (or) dropped on a small country seven times more bombs than in all the Great Patriotic (War)” – Russia’s name for World War II.

He is referring to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 and the Vietnam genocide in which agent orange and Napalm were used to destroy the green vegetation of South Vietnam–our so-called ally–and as an anti-personnel burn-the-skin torture weapon. He is referencing that more bomb tonnage was dropped by U.S. imperialist forces in the Vietnam genocide than was dropped in Europe during World War II.

The president was speaking to an audience of history and social science teachers. I wonder if an American chief executive could be as self-critical and introspective as the Russian president.