This request is for a reader.  Can anyone advise?  I know that Doshisha Univ. in Kyoto has a couple of professors involved in progressive media (may be liberal rather than radical).  Can anyone send us info?[/]i

----

Hello.
I’d be glad if you could help me.

My name’s Rafael, I’m from Brazil and I’m Journalism student. I enjoy studying/discussing on Journalism and I’m interested on independent media, media watch and social movements. I was a reader of brazilian indymedia.org and recently I’ve begun to read other indymedia sites, the Japanese as well.

The information I’m looking for is about research about media, journalism, media watch, independent media, community media in Japanese universities. I’m going to try a Monbusho scholarship and I need to find a university in japan with mastership program on these subjects. I’m not sure yet of what is my project going to be exactly, but i’m sure I want to involve independent media, media watch or even the indymedia in japan or worldwide

These kind of information is difficult to find here as well as about media criticism in Asia. In Brazil we study a little of the latin american theorists and the greater influence are the european (at least for me), like Pierre Bourdieu, Furio Colombo, Serge Halimi, Robert Kurz etc.

If you know this or could point someone who does, that would be nice.
Thank you,
Rafael Misael.

rafael misael

- ZNet Commentary Britain: Not Quite A Parallel Media Universe

By Norman Solomon

This is a ZNet Sustainer Commentary. Please go to the following address to become a Znet Sustainer and get commentaries every day, plus forum access:

LONDON—The people of Britain and the United States are living in parallel, yet substantively different, media universes. Bonds of language and overlaps of mass culture are obvious. But a visit to London quickly illuminates the reality that mainstream journalism is much less narrow here than in America.

One indicator of a robust press: Nearly a dozen ideologically diverse national daily papers are competing on British newsstands.

Granted, the picture isn’t all rosy. Tabloids feature lurid crime headlines and include exploitive photos of bare-breasted women. Several major newspapers reflect the distorting effects of right-wing owners like Rupert Murdoch (who has succeeded in foisting the execrable Fox News on the United States). And the circulation figures of Britain’s dailies show that the size of press runs is inversely proportional to journalistic quality, with the Sun at 3.5 million and the Daily Mail at 2.3 million—in contrast to two superb dailies, the Guardian (381,000) and the Independent (186,000).

Yet the impacts of the Guardian and the Independent, along with the Observer on Sunday, are much greater than their circulations might suggest. They’re unabashed progressive newspapers that combine often-exemplary journalism with a willingness to take on the powers that be. Those papers function with vitality in news reporting—and left-oriented political commentary—that cannot be consistently found in a single U.S. daily newspaper. Overall, in British newsprint, the spectrum of thought ranges so wide that a progressive-minded American might be tempted to take up residence here.

In comparison, the leading “liberal” dailies across the Atlantic—the New York Times and the Washington Post—are mouthpieces of corporate power and U.S. empire. If the Times and the Post were being published in London, then British readers would consider those newspapers to be centrist or even conservative.

The airwaves are also very different. The British Broadcasting Corp. has been faulted by some media critics for filtering out anti-war voices during the invasion of Iraq in early spring. But the baseline of the BBC’s usual reportage compares very favorably to what’s on U.S. networks, including such public TV and radio mainstays as PBS and NPR.

The BBC is audibly far more interested in a wide range of information, ideas and debate. Its director general, Greg Dyke, was on the mark when he commented several weeks ago: “Compared to the United States, we see impartiality as giving a range of views, including those critical of our own government’s position.” He’d recently visited the United States and was “amazed by how many people just came up to me and said they were following the war on the BBC because they no longer trusted the American electronic news media.”

Dyke commented: “Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war.” And he added: “For the health of our democracy, it’s vital we don’t follow the path of many American networks.”

Arriving in London early this month, I was immediately struck by the difference in Britain’s political atmosphere. Many politicians, reporters and commentators were putting the heat on Tony Blair, spotlighting the weighty new evidence that he’d lied to the public with his adamant claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He is clearly in big political trouble—unlike George W. Bush.

Back home in the USA, while several syndicated columnists at major newspapers have been raking Bush over the coals on this issue, no one can accurately claim that Bush is on the political ropes. A key factor is that few Democrats on Capitol Hill are willing to go for the political jugular against this deceitful president. But Blair’s troubles and Bush’s Teflon owe a lot to the different media environments of the two countries.

A variety of British outlets are vehemently refusing to let Blair off the hook. This is the result of a gradual and constructive shift in British media culture over the past quarter century. Deference to the prime minister has evolved into properly aggressive reporting. With journalists asking tough questions and demanding better answers, Blair now faces some rough treatment—in print and on the airwaves.

The willingness of news media to challenge leaders is a vital sign of democracy. But overall, in the United States, the pulse is weak.

___________________________________

Norman Solomon is co-author of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You.” For an excerpt and other information, go to: [url=http://www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target]http://www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target[/url]

-Debito Arudou on Japanese Human Rights Bureau Deceptions

The following is a long and interesting account of how the Japanese government, specifically the police and the various Justice Ministry agencies, violate human rights and lie to the United nations on the need to imporve the human rights sitution in Japan

INSTANT CHECKPOINTS PART SEVEN TAXATION, THEN EVASION CASE STUDY:  How Japan’s Ministry of Justice, Bureau of Human Rights, shirks its work By Arudou Debito June 17, 2003

Whenever there is a problem involving civil or human rights in Japan, one government agency, the Bureau of Human Rights (Jinken Yougobu, hereinafter BOHR), is charged with investigating and recommending solutions to the parties involved.  Source:  The Japanese government, who has repeatedly claimed in its reports to the United Nations (1999 and 2001, more below), that its adminstrative organs (specifically the BOHR) offer sufficient protection and recourse to victims of discrimination.  Therefore, they maintain, Japan does not need a specific anti-racial discrimination law. But as I shall show below, the BOHR, funded by our taxes, is not equal to the task.  In fact, this report, a case study of Japanese police breaking laws and one person’s attempt to work through the system for redress, will demonstrate that the BOHR deliberately avoids its responsibilities--to the point of twisting the law and telling lies.

=================================
QUICK BACKGROUND TO THE CASE:

On December 11, 2002, I was on my way to Tokyo when I was stopped by a Chitose Police officer outside the Shin Chitose Airport post office (i.e. not a high-security area).  Demanding to see my passport, the cop gave no reason, despite several requests, except to say “I ask everybody” (which is dubious, since Japanese do not usually carry passports, let alone any ID whatsoever unless they drive).  More importantly, police asking Japanese citizens personal questions like this for no appropriate reason (soutou na riyuu) is actually illegal, under the Police Execution of Duties Law(Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou-hou).  So as a Japanese citizen, I demanded a full explanation and an apology.  Request denied.  Repeated demands (both verbal and written) to the officer in question, his supervisors in Chitose, the Hokkaido Police Department Headquarters, and the Hokkaido Public Safety Committee (Kouan Iinkai) were rejected as groundless.  In passing, however, police admitted their reason for stopping me was because I looked foreign, making a foreign appearance sufficient grounds for criminal suspicion.

(Full background archived at http://www.debito.org/policeapology.html
) =================================

NEWS: My last communication with the police, dated March 6, 2003, stated (full text, my translation):

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“We hereby advise you of the results of our investigation of the
Hokkaido Police, as pertains to the issue you raised with us at the
Hokkaido Public Safety Committee on February 10, 2003.

“Regardless of whether matters questioned come under the Police Execution of Duties Law Article 2, police officers are permitted to ask personal questions (shokumu shitsumon) as an “optional activity” (nin’i katsudou--meaning the questioned has the option to answer), as long as there is no compulsion (kyousei) involved, in order to carry out their duties under Police Law (Keisatsu Hou) Article 2.

“As for the case you brought forth, the Chitose Police officer carried out his questioning of a personal nature without compulsion, as per the regulations above, demanding your optional cooperation.  Once you told him you are a Japanese citizen, the officer determined that he would not get your optional cooperation and discontinued the questioning.  Therefore we have determined that the questioning was legitimate.

“The Police Force endeavors to promote the proper enforcement of the laws and will continue to do so in future.  We ask for your understanding and cooperation.”

(no name or contact details included--which sounds extremely arrogant to Japanese in official correspondence) (original in Japanese at http://www.debito.org/chitosecopcheckpoint.html#kouan) //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This left an ironic aftertaste, not least because reports made by the Japanese government to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Committee, October 2001, about police training. Regarding the CERD’s scoldings about Japan’s spotty human rights record, Japan said:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“9. With regard to “the Committee urges the States Parties to provide
appropriate training to public officials, law enforcement officers and
administrators” in paragraph 13;

“The government has been conventionally taking subjects related to human rights in the curricula of various training programs for national public officials and thoroughly educating them on various conventions related to human rights and the idea of the Constitution of Japan which declares respect for human rights.

“For police officers, the government has been providing classes related to human rights protection including respect for human rights and various human rights-related conventions at training provided for newly-employed police officers and promoted police officers at police academies. These classes are included in classes on the Constitution, a fundamental law for human rights, on ethics of duties and on social studies

“Also, since police practices are duties deeply related to human rights, education is conducted based on the purport of the various human rights-related conventions and the Constitution on every occasion such as training at the working place, aiming at execution of duties in consideration of human rights…

“As such, Japan has been educating public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators about human rights including elimination of racial discrimination, and will continue to make further efforts for enrichment of the said education in the future.”

(page to this section in the report for yourself at http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html#9)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If the Chitose Police can so diffidently say, “oh well, we thought you were foreign, so too bad”, moreover justifying in writing a breach of the law without even so much as a simple, “we’re sorry to have inconvenienced you”, the Japanese Police Forces’ education in human rights, if it is actually happening, seems quite ineffective.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So what next?  I visited the BOHR in Sapporo and asked for assistance. After all, the Japanese Goverment averred in the same Oct 2001 UN report above:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“7....In addition, the Human Rights Organs [i.e. the BOHR] of the
Ministry of Justice actively conduct promotional activities concerning
all forms of discrimination including racial discrimination with the aim
of disseminating and enhancing respect for human rights. Human rights
counseling rooms are set up to accept inquiries from those who have
suffered discrimination. In addition, when specifically recognizing
incidents of alleged infringement of fundamental human rights, the
Organs promptly investigate the incidents as human rights infringements
cases, find out the fact of the infringement, and based on the results,
take proper measures for the case.”
(http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html#7)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sounds goods on paper:  Conduct an active and prompt investigation, take proper measures.  But here’s how their investigation went in my case:

JANUARY 8, 2003:  I meet with BOHR Dai-ni Kachou Mr Tashiro, and present in writing the facts of the Chitose Police case.  Mr Tashiro:  “We will determine whether this is illegal behavior (ihousei koui), and report back to you at a later date.” I specifically ask for a report in writing, remembering that the Sapporo BOHR has a long history of not replying to claimants about their cases (most significantly the Otaru Onsens Case, http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html, where the BOHR didn’t even visit the bathhouse refusing entry to all foreigners).  Mr Tashiro said he would take my request under consideration.

MARCH 7:  I receive the abovequoted letter from the Public Safety Committee denying any wrongdoing.  Contacting a Mr Tsukada at the PSC for at least a verbal apology, I am told that the contents of the letter are all the PSC has to say.  As far as the Hokkaido Police are concerned, case closed.

MARCH 27:  After receiving no word nearly three months after initially raising the issue, I phone the Sapporo BOHR and ask Mr Tashiro what happened to my case.  He responds, “We are under no legal obligation to send you a report.  The BOHR may only advise and ‘enlighten’ (keihatsu) the parties in question.  We do not report back to claimants.” I counter that in both the Misawa Exclusions Case (http://www.debito.org/misawahaiseki.html#aomori) and the Monbetsu Exclusions Case (http://www.debito.org/photosubstantiation.html#MONBETSU), the regional BOHRs provided me a summary of their activities and results. Mr Tashiro demurred:  “We are barred from doing that by law.” I asked if he would FAX me a copy of that law.  “No.  You must come downtown to our General Affairs Bureau (Shomuka) and request it via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, Jouhou Koukai Hou).  We cannot release information like that without a formal demand.” For a copy of a law?  “Yes.” Now how about your investigation of the illegality of the polices’ actions?  Mr Tashiro:  “I never said I would do any such thing.”

APRIL 15:  I go downtown to Sapporo Goudou Chousha Shomuka to fill out the appropriate paperwork, asking via the FOIA for any physical proof whatsoever that the BOHR actually carried out any “enlightenment” of the Hokkaido Police.  Also asked for copies of the appropriate laws forbidding the BOHR from issuing reports to the claimant. (http://www.debito.org/chitosecopcheckpoint.html#koukai) Cost of the request:  300 yen.

END-APRIL:  Sapporo BOHR calls.  An official advises me that I did not in fact have to go through the FOIA for a copy of said BOHR law, as it is a public document.  Thought so.  I ask to be transferred to Mr Tashiro for an apology for lying to me.  No can do.  Mr Tashiro was transferred to a different bureau at the end of March.  Where is he now?  The BOHR cannot release that information.

MAY 12 AND 13:  Nearly a month after I file the reqests, a copy of the law arrives.  So does a letter concerning the release of information on BOHR measures taken.  Request denied.  Reason:  “If we were to reveal information about the presence or absence (zonpi) of said information actually exists within our bureau, this would fall under Article 5 of the FOIA, concerning ‘releasing facts infringing on the human rights of specific individuals’ (tokutei no kojin ga jinken shingai).  Under Article 8 of the same law, we hereby refuse to release that information.” (http://www.debito.org/chitosecopcheckpoint.html#zonpi)

MAY 22:  I visit the BOHR again and talk to a Ms Satou about this case.  Yes, the “specific individual” referred to in the letter is none other than yours truly.  I question the need to protect my own privacy from myself, and say that I will not allow the BOHR to utilize a legal loophole to cover up its own negligence.  I return to the Shomuka and go through the FOIA once more to demand the specific records that the BOHR is required to create (according to “Regulation on Handling Human-rights Consultations” they sent me) whenever a case is brought before them: (http://www.debito.org/chitosecopcheckpoint.html#koukai2) 1) Records of the consultation, answers and an outline of measures taken (Article 6), 2) the “Human Rights Consultation Ticket” (hyou) (Article 11), the “Report on the Condition of Handling of Human Rights Consultation” (Article 12). (http://www.debito.org/chitosecopcheckpoint.html#kitei) I also asked for an additional report similar to the reports I received from the Aomori and Asahikawa BOHRs on the cases listed above. Plus a written apology from Mr Tashiro for advising me incorrectly.  I added:  Kindly respond in less than the month it took last time, please. Paid 600 yen this time for the privilege.

JUNE 11:  Nearly six months after the first BOHR consultations on this case, and three weeks after I file the second request under the FOIA, the BOHR calls to ask if I was aware the first FOIA request I made was the same as the second; if so, the answer would be the same, i.e. refusal.  I said that they were not the same.  My first request asked for general information, to which the BOHR claimed their acknowledgement of the “presence or absence” of which would be an invasion of my privacy.  However, the second request asked for documents in specific, the absence of which would be illegal, so the same situation does not apply.  They said things would be taken under consideration.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

CONCLUSIONS

Part seven of this saga and counting.  I discussed this with one of my lawyer friends, who said, “This is quite common.  You’re dealing with the national bureaucracy, and they are famously cold and uncooperative.  They do nothing out of the goodness of their heart, and will exploit any legal loophole, such as the FOIA’s ‘privacy of individuals’, to cover themselves. Doctors have done the same thing to avoid giving patients their own medical records.  The good news is that every time a case like this is brought before a court, thanks to the FOIA the claimant wins.  You could too, if you wanted to take on another lawsuit.”

The two I’m involved in now are quite enough, thanks.  But the case is clear--the BOHR is not doing its job of offering redress, while law enforcement agencies are getting away with random enforcement, in violation of both domestic law and international treaty.

Yet the government claims again and again that Japan does not need an anti-racial discrimination law.  As Japan’s government said in its reply to the 2001 UN report mentioned above:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“5)… We do not recognize that the present situation of Japan is one in
which discriminative acts cannot be effectively restrained by the
existing legal system and in which explicit racial discriminative acts,
which cannot be restrained by measures other than legislation, are
conducted. Therefore, penalization of these acts is not considered
necessary.” (http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html#5)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Even the UN doesn’t believe this, issuing reports highly-critical of Japan. The Committee on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which Japan joined in 1979) said as far back as Nov 1998, specifically about the BOHR and the Japanese police:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// “9. The Committee is concerned about the lack of institutional mechanisms available for investigating violations of human rights and for providing redress to the complainants.  Effective institutional mechanisms are required to ensure that the authorities do not abuse their power and that they respect the rights of individuals in practice. The Committee is of the view that the Civil Liberties Commission [i.e. the BOHR--the name is rendered differently per report] is not such a mechanism, since it is supervised by the Ministry of Justice and its powers are strictly limited to issuing recommendations.  The Committee strongly recommends to the State party to set up an independent mechanism for investigating complaints of violations of human rights.

“10. More particularly, the Committee is concerned that there is no independent authority to which complaints of ill-treatment by the police and immigration officials can be addressed for investigation and redress. The Committee recommends that such an independent body or authority be set up by the State party without delay.” (http://www.debito.org/CCPR1998.html#yougobu)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Without delay...?  Five years later, plus non change.

Eye-opening stuff.  Deserves to be more known about.  The more people the better, which is why this report.  I’m experiencing it as a naturalized citizen of racial difference not enjoying the equal protection of our Constitution and laws.  A small case study, yes, but one that offers incontrovertible evidence that the Japanese government is ignoring UN recommendations and lying about the the state of its human-rights enforcement.  Let’s keep an eye on things, and hope that both domestic and international shame will force our country to keep its international promises.

Arudou Debito Sapporo http://www.debito.org June 17, 2003
--------------------------------------
RELATED LINKS:
The Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination reports on Japan 1999
and 2001, with answers from the Japanese government, can be found at:
http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html
The Convention on Civil and Political Rights report on Japan 1998 can be
found at:
http://www.debito.org/CCPR1998.html

Thursday, June 12, 2003

Indymedia Suggestions

Japan Indymedia is located at http://japan.indymedia.org

Are there things you like about Japan Indymedia? Things you think could be improved? (We expect a lot of suggestions, since we have only recently started up!) Specific things you hope will be discussed?  Here is one way of getting your thoughts listened to.

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

-A Joint Appeal to End Ethnic Discrimination in Japanese Education

AN INVITATION TO JOIN:
A Joint Appeal to End Ethnic Discrimination
in Education in Japan
Recognize the Diplomas of all Non-Japanese High Schools!
Secure Equal Tax Benefits for Ethnic Schools!

A Call to Action
On March 28, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (Education Ministry) announced it would reconsider its “policy” of recognizing the diplomas of 16 “international” high schools but not those awarded by Korean, Chinese and other ethnic schools. The Ministry’s refusal until now to recognize diplomas issued by ethnic schools has arbitrarily deprived their graduates of the right to apply directly for admission to national universities; its decision to rethink that policy is a step in the right direction. Three days later, however, on March 31, the Ministry announced that it would apply its earlier school-certification criterion to school donations, allowing tax deductions only for contributions to international schools recognized by Western accrediting bodies. This decision discriminates against ethnic schools attended by North and South Koreans, Chinese, and Brazilians, which generally are not eligible for public funding and depend almost entirely on private grants.

The Education Ministry’s final determination on the academic status of ethnic high schools is still pending. On April 12, we organized a symposium calling on the Ministry to treat all non-Japanese high schools equally, accord tax incentives to donors to such institutions without special distinctions, and strive to foster the emergence of a multiethnic, multicultural society. The symposium criticized the Ministry’s stance on ethnic schools, in particular, and decided to mobilize teachers at national and private universities as well as concerned people across the country to oppose the government’s arbitrary and discriminatory policies.

Since September 17, 2002, when North Korean leader Kim Jong-il met Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Jun’ichiro in Pyongyang and apologized for the abduction of 13 Japanese nationals, Japanese public opinion has been whipped into a xenophobic frenzy. The furor over the kidnappings has eclipsed the issue of atoning for Japan’s wartime depredations in Korea and elsewhere and frustrated the desire of many here to see Japan play an active leadership role for peace in Asia. The ethnic school problem is one manifestation of the anti-foreign backlash that is sweeping the country. We are determined to counter this disturbing trend and work toward the creation of a society where Japanese, North and South Koreans, Chinese, Brazilians, and people of other nationalities, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds can live together peacefully in mutual self-respect.

Our Request
If you agree with our position, we ask you to add your name to the joint appeal below. We also request your cooperation in soliciting signatures from others sympathetic to our goals. This appeal has been translated into several languages and sent to human rights organizations throughout the world. We wish to receive the signatures by May 31 and present them to the Education Ministry in early June. We hope that educators and people from various walks of life in many countries will join us in opposing the Ministry’s attempts to deny Koreans, Chinese, Brazilians, and others the internationally recognized right to ethnic education.*

* In 1994, Japan ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 28 of that covenant requires ratifying parties to “make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means,” and Article 30 states that where “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.”

Homepage: http://minzoku-gakkou.mongran.com/
We have created the above homepage to publicize our appeal. In addition, the website includes presentations and materials from the April 12 symposium. We wish to post your signatures and comments, which should be e-mailed, faxed, or posted to any one of the addresses below by noon, June 30. In view of the very short deadline, we ask you to respond by e-mail if possible. To facilitate our task, please use the heading “Support Joint Appeal”. Finally, we request that you use the formats given below for individual and group endorsements, which will be processed separately.

Addresses:
E-mail:
Fax: 03-3204-9495 (c/o National Christian Council)
Postal Address: RAIK (Research Action Institution for Koreans in Japan)
2-3-18-52 Nishi Waseda,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051

Deadline: noon, June 30, 2003

Individual Endorsements:
Name
Place of residence, occupation and/or title (if appropriate)
Message (if appropriate)

Group Endorsements:
Name of group and endorsing members, with residence, occupation and/or title Message (if appropriate)

A Joint Appeal to End Ethnic Discrimination
in Education in Japan
Recognize the Diplomas of all Non-Japanese High Schools!
Secure Equal Tax Benefits for Ethnic Schools!

On March 6, 2003, the Ministry of Education announced that it would allow the graduates of a mere 16 out of 53 international high schools to qualify for the entrance exams to national universities. Then, on March 28, the Ministry informed the public that this “policy” would be momentarily suspended in order to reconsider the status of ethnic high schools, whose diplomas are not officially recognized.
The Ministry was forced to backtrack on its earlier pronouncement because of massive protests from across Japan. These voices were marshaled in a very short period of time to denounce this unjust policy. Some 1,433 educators and employees in 83 national universities declared in a joint appeal that “We refuse to become accomplices in abetting ethnic discrimination.” The appeal was completed in just 20 days and delivered to the Ministry in two parts on March 11 and 28. In the public comments solicited by the Ministry, an overwhelming majority of peopleÑ12,779 out of 13,343Ñstated that graduates of “ethnic schools should also allowed to take entrance exams for national universities.” These conscientious voices compelled the Ministry to rethink its policy.
On March 31, however, the Education Ministry announced it would designate the educational bodies operating Western international schools as Special Public-Benefit Promoting Organizations, thereby allowing donors to write off their financial contributions as tax deductions. Here again, ethnic schools for North and South Koreans, Chinese, and Brazilians were singled out for discriminatory treatment. The Ministry declared these schools ineligible for such tax breaks, effectively discouraging private donations.
The March 31 revision to the Income and Corporate Tax laws awarded this designation to “special schools established to provide elementary and secondary education in a foreign language.” It stipulated, however, that such schools must operate for the benefit of the children of diplomats, foreign government officials, corporate executives, and foreign students and specified that only international schools certified by Western accrediting bodies could receive this status. In other words, the Education Ministry turned around and used the very school-certification criterion it had suspended three days earlier to place ethnic high schools at a further disadvantage vis-a-vis their international counterparts. The Ministry in effect has reinstated its blatantly discriminatory “policy” of March 6.
Many pupils attending ethnic schools are forced to carry an alien registration card when they reach the age of 16. Upon graduating from high school, they find the doors of national universities closed to them. Can we, in good conscience, continue to allow these children to live in such an outrageously unjust society?

Refusing to condone such discrimination, we demand that:

1) the Ministry take legal steps to guarantee to graduates of all non-Japanese high schools the right to apply for admission to national universities; abolish discriminatory distinctions in the application of special tax measures and school subsidies; and treat non-Japanese secondary institutions of learning as “high schools” as defined in Article 1 of the School Education Law.

2) the National Diet immediately hold public hearings to voice the concerns of teachers and officials in non-Japanese high schools and conduct a survey of conditions in those schools in order to bring Japan’s educational system in line with the International Covenants on Human Rights and the requirements of international human rights bodies.

June 1, 2003

Initiators:

TANAKA Hiroshi (Ryukoku University), SATO Nobuyuki (Research-Action Institute for Koreans in JapanÑRAIK), KOMAGOME Takeshi (Kyoto University), MIZUNO Naoki (Kyoto University), SUZUKI Reiko (Moderator of National Christian Council in Japan), YAMAMOTO Toshimasa (General Secretary of National Christian Council in Japan), KITANI Hidehumi (Executive Secretary of National Christian Council in Japan), PARK Sookil (General Secretary of Korean Christian Church in Japan), CHU Moonhong (Chairperson of Social Concern Committee of Korean Christian Church in Japan), LEE Chongil (Director of Korean Christian Center)

Monday, June 09, 2003

-Video Activism

The following is from Z Magazine.  Please subscribe at http://zmag.org
Meanwhile, see bottom for more video/media links.--paul

Wielding Weapons of Mass Persuasion
The anti-war TV movement

by Linda Mamoun, communications director of FSTV. 

Recall the excitement on March 19, 2003 when U.S. and British forces launched, during prime-time television hours, their long-awaited sequel, Gulf War, Part II. After months of war promotion, U.S. citizens were perched on the couch, anxious for the catharsis of a neatly crushed Iraqi military. At least, this is the public to whom the major networks were speaking. But within the United States the public was not so united. 

Opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq grew rapidly, due in large part to advances in personal computing and electronic communications. Though a great deal has been written about the impact of the Internet on anti-war organizing, little has been written about anti-war TV-a relatively recent development that has informed, expanded, and mobilized the ranks of the anti-war movement, while engaging millions who would otherwise be forced to rely on the depthless drivel of mainstream television. 

Though many have yet to tune in, anti-war radio is nothing new. Its history can be traced back to the birth of Pacifica in the years following World War II. What is new and exceptional in the history of the American peace movement is the commitment of anti-war TV and radio organizations to join forces. 

Progressives in the United States, after years of concerted effort, have succeeded in building independent networks committed to progressive values, public education, and participatory democracy. What follows is a brief history of the intersection of anti-war and independent media movements, focused largely on the broadcast media. 

The 1940s

For over half a century, critics have contested that corporate control of the broadcast media would inexorably lead to the erosion of the public airwaves. As the number of media corporations continues to shrink, policy makers, legal experts and media activists are still arguing over the control of information and the shaping of public opinion by private interests. 

The Communications Act of 1934 stipulates that the airways are public property and requires the licensing of commercial broadcasters. The main condition for use of the broadcast spectrum requires broadcasters to serve the public in

terest, convenience, and necessity, although the FCC has yet to establish guidelines for “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

From 1949 through 1987, public interest advocates succeeded in enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine required broadcast licensees to carry reasonably “balanced coverage?h of issues of public importance. In order to receive and renew their licenses, broadcast licensees had to comply with the Fairness Doctrine. 

In the 1940s, the government also began to regulate the film industry. Shortly after World War II, the Supreme Court ruled that the Hollywood studio system constituted a monopoly in violation of antitrust laws and ordered studios to give up ownership of movie theaters. Meanwhile, McCarthyism was sweeping across the country and Congress began investigations of alleged communist infiltration of the motion-picture industry. Blacklisting of allegedly subversive writers, directors, actors, and scores of other professionals accelerated in the mid-to-late 1940s. 

Opposition to McCarthyism and a growing peace movement fueled the struggle to build the Pacifica Foundation, which was founded in 1946 by a group of war resisters and free speech advocates. Lee Hill was the visionary behind the burgeoning community of individuals who, in response to World War II and the deepening Cold War, sought to establish an independent radio station in Berkeley that would serve as a forum for radical views and diverse cultural expression. The launch of KPFA in 1949 marked the beginning of a long struggle by peace activists to build broadcast media structures independent of government and corporate interests.

The 1950s

World War II had played a decisive role in galvanizing the civil rights and women’s rights movements and the 1950s saw the formation of organized opposition to segregation and race and gender discrimination. Television also played an important role in the 1950’s civil rights movement by exposing millions of people to the plight of African Americans in the segregated South. 

In 1950, the Korean War was launched and, as the Cold War intensified, the U.S. government continued to build its nuclear arsenal and began its rise as a military-industrial state. The Internal Security Act, also known as the McCarran-Wood Act, was passed in 1950, requiring members of the Communist Party to register with the U.S. government. Other sections of the act declared it unlawful to conspire to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, to conceal membership in the Communist Party when seeking government employment, or for Communists to use a United States passport. Communists and members of other organizations considered to be dangerous to public safety could also be excluded or deported from the United States. In March 1950, artist Paul Robeson became the first American banned from television when NBC prevented his appearance on “Today with Mrs. Roosevelt?h because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. 

The 1950s also marked the emergence of counter-cultural values in U.S. society and a growing polarization between those who believed in the “American?h Dream and those who did not. University of Chicago historian Thomas Frank writes in The Conquest of Cool (1997), “By the middle of the 1950s, talk of conformity, of consumerism, and of the banality of mass-produced culture were routine elements of middle-class American life.?h A 1950’s youth movement known as the Beats began experimenting with non-traditional writing, music, art, and photography. In a documentary titled The Life and Times of Allen Ginsburg, Abbie Hoffman, a well-known anti-Vietnam war activist, links the culture of dissent in the 1960s to the rising counter-cultural movements of the 1950s: “You couldn’t have had the Sixties without the Fifties and the Fifties were the Beats.”

The 1960s

The progressive movements of the 1960s culminated in an explosion of diverse forms of alternative media. By the end of the decade, over 400 alternative newspapers were published by different organizations throughout the U.S., reaching millions of people. Marxist political organizations, like the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, had always published their own newspapers. But by the end of the 1960s, hundreds of new local and national groups, such as the Black Panther Party, began to publish their own newspapers as well. 

In addition, college papers and alternative weeklies sprouted up around the country and many groups also began to experiment with film as an organizing tool. People organized film collectives, focusing on a range of social and political issues such as the war in Vietnam, Third World liberation, racial injustice, women’s rights, student strikes, and labor battles. Local and national networks developed to produce and distribute programs on issues ignored or distorted by the mainstream media. Between 1967 and 1968, Newsreels were established in New York and California and, within two years, film collectives were founded in Boston, Chicago, Washington, DC, Cincinnati, Portland, Ann Arbor, and a number of other cities around the United States. 

In 1964, a few years after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, just as the Vietnam War was beginning, director Stanley Kubrick released Dr. Strangelove, a 20th century masterpiece of political satire. In his portrayal of the horror of nuclear brinkmanship, Stanley Kubrick joined hundreds of other filmmakers in the 1960s who rejected the wars of the U.S. government and the nationalist hysteria seeping into popular culture. Also in response to the artifice and banality of Hollywood, an underground film movement emerged in New York and in other major cities across the U.S. Expressions of anti-war sentiment by avant-garde filmmakers appeared in numerous experimental meditations on the atrocities of war. 

Although the Vietnam War was the first war to be televised, Newsreel collectives provided alternative coverage of the fighting and the widespread opposition to war. Because the collectives were composed not only of filmmakers and journalists, but also political activists who used their films as organizing tools, the Newsreels had a significant impact on the society at large. It was common for members of film collectives to bring their films and projectors to churches and community centers in order to provoke discussion and political mobilization. The Newsreels marked the beginning of broad outreach campaigns using documentary film, produced and distributed within the U.S. and internationally. Documentaries from this era include Black Panther, Chicago Convention Challenge, Boston Draft Resistance Group, People’s War, Columbia Revolt, and Ms. America.

The 1970s

In 1970, Erik Barnouw shook the world with the introduction of what is considered by many to be the most far-reaching anti-war documentary ever made, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, August 1945. The film was based on Japanese newsreel images of the indescribable human devastation resulting from atomic warfare. The newsreels had been kept under seal by the U.S. government until the 1960s. With the release of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the public was exposed to footage of Japanese victims of U.S. attacks suffering from catastrophic burns and radiation disease. 

Winter Soldier, also produced in 1970, set a precedent for collaborations between independent filmmakers and social change organizations. The Winterfilm Collective worked with Vietnam Veterans Against the War to document the personal experiences of veterans bearing witness to war crimes. Many of the veterans had been active participants in the U.S. military’s executions, tortures, and bombings of civilians. The anti-war movement mobilized millions of Americans on the basis of these and other testimonies, setting the stage for future activist/filmmaker collaborations. 

Film collectives in the 1970s also began to diversify their pools of filmmakers and broaden their constituencies. Issues of representation were debated and new communities entered the growing movement. In 1973, New York Newsreel recast itself as Third World Newsreel and began, much more extensively, to explore issues of importance to immigrants and people of color. 

Other alternative institutions were created in the 1970s to bridge the gap among independent filmmakers, funders, policy makers and the broader society. In 1973, The Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers was founded, creating a coalition of organizations that would advocate for, and bring together, independent filmmakers. In the last few decades, the AIVF has grown from a few hundred to a few thousand members, and now houses a library, organizes a festival bureau, and publishes its own magazine, The Independent. 

When cable television was introduced in the early 1970s, the FCC mandated that new cable systems, beginning in 1972, would be required to provide channels for government, educational purposes, and public access. Cable companies were also required to provide equipment and training for local communities wishing to produce public access programming. Community television stations were established around the country as a result of this legislation. However, in 1979 the Supreme Court struck down the FCC cable requirements, stating that the FCC did not have the authority to rule on this issue. 

In spite of this ruling, many municipalities around the country were able to negotiate for public access channels, and a public access TV movement began to grow. George Stoney, now professor of film at New York University, was one of the leaders of the public access movement advocating for people’s inclusion in the realm of television production and programming, so that alternatives to commercial TV could be created. Merging his training as a documentary filmmaker and his background in community activism and struggles for racial justice and free speech, Stoney co-founded the Alternative Media Center, one of many organizations created in the 1970s and 1980s to provide opportunities for people to participate in social change media and, for progressives in particular, to contribute to the public debate. 

In 1976, the Alliance for Community Media was established to represent public access organizations and the millions of others who advocate for community media. The ACM also provides training and technical assistance, supports grassroots organizing, and advocates for progressive media legislation. 

In 1978, Doug Kellner and Frank Morrow founded an Austin-based cable access program titled, “Alternative Views.?h This program was one of the first television series in the U.S. to present progressive views on social and political issues. The series included original productions and acquired films and documentaries on a broad range of issues: U.S. militarism, the peace movement, civil liberties, military interventions in South and Central America, Middle East politics, labor struggles, racial justice, and news not covered in the mainstream media. The series also featured hour-long interviews with leading anti-war activists like Helen Caldicott, George Wald, Ramsey Clark, Daniel Ellsberg, and Michael Klare. In 1984, Kellner and Morrow began distributing “Alternative Views?h to over 20 cities throughout the United States. 

The 1980s

As a result of the declining cost of video equipment, independent media organizations proliferated in the 1980s, and continued to advance progressive values in what was an increasingly conservative period of U.S. history. When the Republicans took the presidency and Senate in 1981, the FCC reexamined the Fairness Doctrine, eventually issuing the 1985 Fairness Report, which found that the Fairness Doctrine reduced the quality and quantity of public affairs programming, did not serve the public interest, and defied the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the FCC refused to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, the commission suggested that Congress review the legislation. Almost immediately a pair of decisions from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals forced the Commission’s hand. In response, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine on both public interest and constitutional grounds. Although the DC Circuit Court upheld the Commission’s decision, the court did so in a way that left room for Congress to come back and pass the doctrine again. 

There was at least one noteworthy attempt to pass the doctrine into law in the late 1980s. On June 3, 1987, before the FCC had repealed the Fairness Doctrine, the House passed a bill codifying the doctrine by 302-102. President Reagan then vetoed the bill, calling the Fairness Doctrine inconsistent with freedom of speech and the press. Congress did not challenge the veto. 

On the activist front, Paper Tiger TV, a radical video collective founded in 1981 by DeeDee Halleck and several others, launched a public access project that critiqued the mainstream media-most famously, perhaps, in Herb Schiller’s critical readings of the New York Times. The collective sought to empower individuals marginalized in society through videography featuring self-representation. Roar! The Paper Tiger Guide to Media Activism reads: “TV is being held captive. It is our mission to liberate it.?h Within a span of 20-odd years, Paper Tiger TV has created over 400 programs, workshops, and trainings designed to encourage participation in community/ media activism. 

In the mid-1980s, the launch of the home satellite industry once again transformed the media landscape; by 1986 more than 1.5 million Americans owned satellite dishes and were able to receive over 100 channels. Because of the increasing popularity of satellite TV, in 1986 Paper Tiger TV founder DeeDee Halleck, along with numerous supporters like Steve Pierce and filmmaker Robin Lloyd, founded Deep Dish Television-a collective of progressive activists and videographers determined to utilize the emerging satellite technology in order to reach millions around the country with access to satellite programming. 

Deep Dish TV began to rent time on satellites to distribute original programming to public access stations around the country. Halleck describes her experience with satellite activism in Hand-Held Visions, a book on community media that was published in 2002: “Deep Dish has proved that distribution on satellite is a powerful organizing tool. Uplinking programs can strengthen a sense of community across wide geographical regions.”

In addition to producing, Deep Dish TV built a solid network of community media organizations across the country and, at a time when there were roughly 1,200 access channels in the U.S., DDTV began to work with over 200 of these stations in key cities throughout the country. Deep Dish TV became a place where videographers and producers from all over the country could send their programming. Relative to the amount of access alternative media had to the public in the past, this access was greatly expanded by DDTV. Deep Dish programs covered issues relating to U.S. military interventions, the prison industry, LGBT communities, AIDS, the conservative backlash, and a host of other topics. 

Launched on satellite and cable TV in 1987, “America’s Defense Monitor,?h produced by the Center for Defense Information, is another progressive television series that presents critical documentaries on U.S. foreign policy, the expansion of the U.S. military, nuclear and conventional weapons, and interna- tional affairs. 

The birth of “America’s Defense Monitor,?h Paper Tiger TV, Deep Dish TV, and other organizations established in the tradition of the newsreel collectives, marked the beginnings of an institutional structure for alternative video media. This was a structure that appropriated television time in a way that Newsreel never did, but still maintained community-based production and distribution. 

The 1990s

One of the 1990s most active contributors to the independent media movement was public interest pioneer John Schwartz. He co-founded “The 90’s,?h a PBS-syndicated television program, and the 90’s Channel, a full-time progressive network airing independent productions on cable systems in major cities around the country. From 1990 to 1991, The 90’s Channel aired segments from The Gulf War Crisis TV Project, which constituted the first anti-war TV project intended to mobilize Americans against U.S. imperialism in Iraq and the Middle East. The Gulf War Crisis TV Project was produced and distributed over public access TV by the Deep Dish collective, and represented a large-scale collaboration of filmmakers, peace activists, and war resisters. 

Forced off the air in 1995 by TCI, then the world’s largest cable system, John Schwartz launched a new initiative in July 1995 called Free Speech TV. Unable to acquire a full-time cable channel, FSTV turned to the distribution model developed years earlier by Deep Dish TV and Paper Tiger Television. FSTV distributed free progressive programming to a network of 50 community access cable stations across the country. 

FSTV’s content during this formative period consisted entirely of programs acquired from independent film and videomakers. These programs dealt with a broad range of social, political, cultural, and environmental issues. Another strand of FSTV programming consisted of serial programs such as “Paper Tiger TV,?h “Deep Dish TV,?h “Dyke TV,?h “Termite TV,?h “America’s Defense Monitor,?h and “Rights & Wrongs.?h In 1998, Free Speech TV partnered with Human Rights Watch and 20 other social justice organizations to present “Just Solutions: Campaigning for Human Rights.”

In 1999, an unprecedented convergence of anti-globalization activists, video collectives, print journalists, and photographers at the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle launched the first Independent Media Center. The IMC became the center for journalists and videographers, who in collaboration with Paper Tiger TV, Deep Dish TV, Whispered Media, and Free Speech TV, produced daily reports on the street protests and police repression surrounding the WTO meeting. Free Speech TV’s website hosted video streams that were webcast around the world. 

The tremendous impact of the IMC and Internet efforts inspired the formation of Independent Media Centers around the world. Today there are over 100 of these collectives on every continent with thousands of journalists and activists working to break through the corporate media blockade. FSTV continues to broadcast “Indymedia Newsreel,?h which reports on progressive grassroots organizing around the world. 

In 1998, after years of political and legal struggle by independent media advocates, the FCC began enforcing a requirement of the 1992 Cable Act stipulating that Direct Broadcast Satellite companies must set aside 4 to 7 percent of their spectrum for non-commercial educational uses. In December 1999, another progressive television network was born when WorldLink TV acquired a channel on DirecTV and DISH Network, as part of this new federally mandated public interest obligation. WorldLink presents alternative perspectives, news from around the world, and international cultural programming. One of its most provocative programs is “Mosaic,?h a compilation of daily reports from dozens of TV stations throughout the Middle East. WorldLink also airs a regular program of media criticism hosted by Globalvision’s Danny Schecter. 

In January 2000, Free Speech TV was awarded a full-time satellite channel on DISH Network and has since continued to provide free programming to its community cable affiliates. 

21st Century TV

The events of September 11 and the U.S. government’s war against Afghanistan compelled the independent media community to further solidify and expand its international network of activists, journalists, and filmmakers. Within nine days of September 11, Free Speech TV began producing and broadcasting “World in Crisis,?h a top-of-the-hour news update that evolved into a half-hour weekly current affairs program, providing a national outlet for voices speaking out for peace, tolerance, and civil liberties. 

Also immediately following September 11, journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of the nationally syndicated radio program “Democracy Now!?h launched telecasts on Free Speech TV. Presenting news and critical analysis, “Democracy Now!?h served as a forum for voices excluded from the mainstream media. 

Today, in the face of yet another U.S.-led war against Iraq, “Democracy Now!?h continues to serve as a lifeline for people around the country who abhor the U.S. government’s wars abroad and its wars at home. 

In July 2002, World in Crisis evolved into FSTV’s partner-driven Mobile-Eyes campaigns. For these national “teach-ins,?h FSTV focuses on a single issue and partners with social justice organizations seeking national press coverage. Action alerts created in cooperation with partner groups, along with public service announcements listing contact information, are broadcast as part of each Mobile-Eyes campaign. 

FSTV’s November campaign, Mobile-Eyes Against Military Interventions, focused on the history of U.S. military interventions, its current role as sole superpower, and the movement to stop the war in Iraq. Among other programs, the series featured a roundtable discussion on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, footage from a CUNY teach-in, several recently released documentaries on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and coverage of 15 anti-war demonstrations from around the world. Partners included the American Friends Service Committee, International ANSWER, National Network to End the War in Iraq, and the Not In Our Name Project. 

FSTV’s current campaign, Mobile-Eyes: Resisting War & Repression, has included live broadcasts (often with national radio simulcasts via Pacifica Radio) from the major anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC, New York City, and San Francisco. Current partners include the Institute for Policy Studies, United for Peace & Justice, Global Exchange, and the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, along with partners from the Mobile-Eyes Against Military Interventions campaign. 

Shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq, WorldLink TV launched “The Active Opposition,?h a series hosted by actor and activist Peter Coyote, featuring analysis and commentary on the Bush administration’s war on Iraq, critiques of the mainstream media’s war coverage, and recent footage from Middle East TV networks. 

At the onset of the war, both WorldLink and FSTV pre-empted their regular programming to provide round-the-clock coverage of the U.S.-led attacks on Iraq, and war opposition and resistance. FSTV collaborated with WorldLink TV and Pacifica Radio to produce two days of live coverage from the streets and studios of San Francisco, including interviews with leaders of the anti-war movement, and footage from Middle East television networks recording responses abroad. 

Since September 2002, “Democracy Now!,?h Pacifica Radio, WorldLink TV, FSTV, Multimedia Group, and the INN Report, an alternative news magazine produced in collaboration with New York Indymedia activists, have mounted an historic initiative to provide the international community with a front- row seat to some of the largest anti-war demonstrations since the Vietnam War. Live satellite uplink collaborations are showing millions of people in the U.S. and around the world that America is not unified around Bush’s war. 

Toting camcorders, computers, and satellite uplink equipment, people from independent media organizations are collaborating in ways that, just a few years ago, were unimaginable. Not only are networks like Free Speech TV and World-Link airing footage of peace rallies around the world, but they are also offering free distribution of coverage of U.S. anti-war mobilizations to the international community. In March, the European Broadcast Union, a network of about 80 community radio and public television stations, and the Arab Radio and Television Network, which operates a dozen channels throughout the Middle East, downlinked the coverage produced by Pacifica, FSTV, and WorldLink. Expressing his hope that the anti-war TV movement will combat the distortions of the mainstream media, FSTV producer Brian Drolet says: “Most people around the world recognize that this war on Iraq, and the 12 years of bombings and sanctions that preceded it, has been orchestrated by a small number of ruling elites. But to the extent that it seems that all Americans are united behind this war, which is the image the U.S. government tries to portray, Americans themselves-innocent civilians-become targets for people who are filled with anger for what the U.S. government and corporations are doing?c. The hope is that the cycle of violence can finally be stopped.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Mamoun is communications director of FSTV. 



You may also be interested in the ZMedia Institute, now taking place--make your plans for next year, however:

http://www.zmag.org/aboutzmi.htm

Also, see be the videos here:
http://www.zmag.org/newvideos.htm

There are videos in several series, such as:

The Life After Capitalism Series
Talks from the 2004 WSF

The Socialist Scholars Conference Series
Talks at the 2004 Soc, Schl. Conf.

I Read About My Death In Vogue Magazine
A Feminist Satire/Comedy by Lydia Sargent

The ZMI Series
Descriptions of diverse videos of Chomsky, plus Albert, Schechter, Daniels, Frank

The (Participatory Economics) Shed Sessions
Descriptions of videos of Albert and Hahnel

The World Social Forum 2002 Series
Descriptions of videos of Albert, Klein, Bello, George, Bullard, Shiva

The South End Press Series
Descriptions of videos of Chomsky, Marable, Zinn, Hooks

http://www.zmag.org/newvideos.htm

And see the books here:
http://www.southendpress.org/

FILM - Video Machete is a Chicago-based, intergen- erational, collective of cultural workers. We are curating youth produced media work and are interested in screening the compilation at universities and organizations. This two-part program of youth-created media concentrates on such topics as being outcast and outraged. These videos are from the perspective of youth who are consistently under-represented in mainstream and independent film. This program is dedicated to fostering debate about the construction and implications of categories of youth culture and identity. 

Contact: 773-645-1272; [url=http://www.videomachete.org]http://www.videomachete.org[/url]

-English as a Foreign Language and the Occupation

by Bill Templar

Bill Templar is at the Lao-American College, Vientiane/Lao PDR and Dubnow Institute for Jewish History, University of Leipzig.

The following article is from ZMagazine.  Please go to http://zmag.orh to subscribe to the magazine, the website sustainer program, or both.

The new handheld electronic device known as a Phrasealator, first tried by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is a graphic emblem of the practical difficulties of diffusing American hegemonic power across the globe. The 1,000 phrases on the Phrasealator menu—such as “come out with your hands up�?—are translated instantaneously by this magic box into a spoken message, screeched out in Pashtu, Dari, Urdu, or, in this case, Iraqi Arabic. Its limited repertoire is designed for “crowd control, law and order and emergencies.�? But of course there is no way the American “liberators�? can understand what the “natives�? say in reply: “The marines have brought the whole encyclopedia of military technology with them to Iraq.… The equipment necessary to talk to Iraqis, understand their problems and respond to their needs, however, seems to have been left on the quayside in California.�?  Indeed, the Phrasealator offers a kind of metaphor for Western one-way communication with Arab and West Asian societies and, more broadly, for Eurocentric social science and its Western-generated theories of democracy, economics, and 100 other domains.

An Influx of Expertise

The Pentagon will need either entire battalions of interpreters or brigades of imported teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) to administer the “reconstructed�? Iraq now on the drawing boards. Most likely the second option will be promoted: the lucrative market for EFL being opened up by our generals will be a windfall for teachers from Sydney to Seattle. Experts from numerous other fields will also be recruited to reshape Iraqi education from kindergarten to university. Platoons of Western researchers, including graduate students, will likely descend on Iraq as transnational foundations seek to fund new projects. American universities will attempt to set agendas for collaboration and research in Iraqi academe. 

The Marine with his or her one-way Phrasealator points up the extent to which American hegemony must rely on the learning of its language in order to maintain and cement its control. While EFL suffuses at a dizzying pace along the Gulf, generating a veritable boom in lucrative positions for EFL teachers and applied linguists (witness the meteoric growth of TESOL Arabia [url=http://www.tesolarabia]http://www.tesolarabia[/url] org), Iraq has for two decades remained an impenetrable fortress. Now those walls are being breached, quite literally, and the scramble for jobs to teach EFL and other academic specialties in Iraq is in the offing. As a posting on an online job discussion board in January 2003 predicted: “The future of big bucks in EFL is in Iraq. The U.S. will set up a UN-approved puppet government and oil will flow again. Multinational corporations will move in with the blessings of the UN. Then you’ll see a need for English teachers the likes of which no one has ever seen.�? 

Complexity of Complicity

Talk inside the British Council and elsewhere about the role of English language teaching in the reconstruction of Iraq raises a central question about the politics of EFL in a conquered land, indeed the ethics of any kind of involvement as an academic or researcher from abroad in the architecture of occupation and development. It’s a casebook illustration of the “complexity of complicity.�? Opposition to this war, and the ideology of the New World Order of unilateral U.S. military supremacy behind it, entails opposition to all postwar arrangements under the gun: “because the war itself is illegal, any post-war U.S. occupation will be illegal too. That means the United States should not be allowed to claim any power to rule or determine economic, political or social arrangements in post-war Iraq.�?  A colleague’s recent response underscores the quandary professionals face: “As language teachers we see ourselves as playing a key role in development in all its senses. That is where our skills are and therefore where we feel we can genuinely do something constructive. If you take that away from us, what is the best way forward to act positively for those negatively affected by the war?�? 

Positive Ways Forward? 

EFL administrators and teacher trainers in the British Council and United States Information Agency are likely poised to hitch a ride into Basra and Baghdad on the back of the tanks, laying the groundwork for the Operation Iraqi English Literacy to follow. The English Language Fellow Program funded by the Department of State will probably soon announce openings in Iraqi academe. The commercial EFL industry is now gearing to set up a whole chain of private schools and language centers in the ruins to aid the Anglo-American construction firms already charting their bonanza. Peace Corps planners are doubtless hoping to finally realize an old dream: to penetrate the high schools and villages in a major country in the Arab East, gaining a foothold in a region where the Corps is still largely unrepresented. American universities will also be reconnoitering the Iraqi terrain for appropriate sites to set up branch campuses to promote democracy, teach business management, and of course EFL, molding the new pro-American Iraqi elite. 

Academic Moratorium? 

Yet North American educators and researchers who are outraged by this war and the values it represents will have to think hard about how they, their professional organizations and universities, should cooperate in the “transfer�? of knowledge and skills under the coming occupation. As our “gunfighter nation�? regenerates itself through unilateral conquest and overkill, the EFL profession in particular needs to (re)interrogate its vested interest and central role in the maintenance and reproduction of the language of empire and its Pax Americana. 

In any new beginning in education, the bottom line should be self-reliance and sustainability: Iraqi educators will have to lead the way, with their priorities, at their pace, wary of imposed imports and research projects from the Anglo-American west, the dangers of “educational imperialism.�? In this process, Iraqi language educators will need time to come to critical grips with the downside, indeed quandary, of the cultural politics of English as an international language: the problematic linkages between the diffusion of English and social inequality, English as a gatekeeper to privilege and power, and the certain future gap between the “globally educated�? and the masses in their own society, set to be widened and deepened by expanding the teaching. 

It will take time for wounds and memory to heal. But conquered Iraq will be a protectorate for the foreseeable future—initially, from what the Pentagon intimates, along the lines of Japan 1945. Under conditions of neocolonial reconstruction and semi-military administration, the first imperative is an academic boycott or moratorium on expatriate teacher recruitment across the disciplines and on participation in externally generated and uninvited “research.�? Inside the anti-(post)war movement, we need to raise and elaborate that call. 

Sunday, June 08, 2003

-SARS by Greg Nigh

ZNet Commentary
SARS May 28, 2003
By Greg Nigh

SARS is just over 6 months old and already it is difficult to say anything new about the disease. Medical researchers lunged into action in record time, and the media has been by their side all the way, marveling at the coordinated work around the globe and relaying all the frightening details.

It has been two months since the first appearance of SARS in the Western world. In that time the coronavirus has been identified and genetically sequenced, cell receptors for the virus have been found, antibodies to the virus have been discovered, immune cell responses have been analyzed and companies are already locked in legal battles for patents on the virus and tests to identify it.
Canadian researchers have found this virus in only 40% of their SARS patients and they find it in 14% of the healthy individuals they’ve tested. A skeptical medical community and public would want an explanation for this finding, and would want some compelling reasons why the coronavirus should still, in spite of its absence in over half of SARS cases, be considered the cause of the disease. Nevertheless, the media now unanimously refer to the coronavirus as “the SARS virus.”

There is no longer much time for skepticism in medical research, especially research driven ahead at breakneck speed by a pending epidemic and a potential goldmine of patents.

The mortality rate of SARS is climbing, leveling off, or falling, depending on the population and city being studied. On May 8 the World Health Organization announced that SARS is fatal more than 50% of the time to people aged 65 and older. By contrast, the fatality rate is less than 1% in people aged 24 and younger.

Those with pre-existing diabetes are over 6 times more likely to die of the disease, and other serious health conditions make the disease at least twice as lethal.

Geographically, SARS fatality is equally variable, with cases in the Hong Kong, Singapore and Beijing being dramatically more lethal than in the West. No one yet has died of SARS in the United States. In contrast, about 20,000 people in the US die annually from influenza, which has a mortality rate of about 13%.

The FDA has placed any drugs or vaccines being developed against SARS on the “fast track” approval schedule created for AIDS drugs. This means much shorter time to evaluate potential dangers, and it means tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved by the drug companies that can shorten their trials and expedite their research.
There is very little new to be said about SARS, except how tragic it is that our response to infectious disease has come to this. When a new disease appears, the absence of an effective drug or vaccine engenders panic. We have come to believe that drugs and vaccines aren’t just our last hope, but our only hope. The greatest triumph of modern medicine is the public acceptance of one simple idea: that we are helpless against disease without the protection of medical professionals and their tools.

The process of doing medicine has become so thoroughly technical that it has very little to do with people anymore, other than as the battleground for vaccines or drugs to fight their battles. Fluids from the sick get studied in laboratories, far removed from the bodies that are struggling to rid themselves of disease, far removed from the environments in which the healthy became infected and sick, and far removed from the mountain of variables that influence the competence of each individual’s immune response to an infection.

Medical science focuses entirely on finding drugs, vaccines and even genetic tricks that might tame the new viral villain, rather than on understanding why some die and others don’t. These latter variables, coincidentally or not, are the only ones within our personal sphere of influence.

The elderly are typically the most vulnerable to infectious disease, and SARS is no exception. The rest of us, we are led to believe, are mostly at the whim of chance. If we breathe in an infected cough or sneeze, we just hope we aren’t in the small percent that die from it.
There is another way to view the situation. We can acknowledge what has been known for over a century: susceptibility to infectious disease is related to the health of the person at the time of exposure. Immune status is profoundly affected by everything from nutrient intake and stress level, to environmental exposures, genetics, and exercise habits. It is even affected by the number of social ties an individual has to family, friends, and coworkers, and extroverts appear to be less susceptible to infections than introverts.

All these and many more factors come together in complex ways to determine susceptibility at any given moment. Not every exposure results in infection, and not every infection results in disease. This is true for everything from the common cold to HIV/AIDS. And, of course, SARS. We all fall somewhere on a continuum between highly resistant to infections and highly susceptible to them. We don’t have total control over our place in that continuum, but our place is also not entirely random.

Our collective attention too often focuses on the headlines that might tell of a new drug or a vaccine on the way. Perhaps activists will lobby for more money put toward SARS research. We trust the scientists who tell us that this latest virus is new, that it is different, that SARS has made “mother nature ... the ultimate terrorist,” as an editorial in the journal Nature put it.

In the meantime, a simple truth is lost: the progressive decline of immune competence around the globe is precisely because of the products of capitalist production that have invaded our bodies and their living spaces. We now consume vast quantities of chemicals - several pounds annually - that were never put into bodies even a few decades ago. We smear even more of these chemicals onto our skin, a very efficient way to get them into our bodies. We breathe them with every breath and drink them in most of our water. Our lives are filled with stress: work, financial, body image, relationship, terrorism and security and code yellow, etc. 

In short, we are creating a world in which simply living is immunosuppressive. As a society we are more susceptible to many things. Bugs are more dangerous to bodies less able to resist them or to control their replication. It is no surprise that medical science gives us many other reasons that we should fear the new germs: they are mutated, or they are resistant to drugs, or our antibodies don’t work against them.

Industrial medicine has morphed into a system of finding profitable cures for microscopic causes. Being “treated” means patching up our wounds so we can maintain a minimally functional level while continuing our consumption binge.

Of course this medical system is going to say that the bugs are more dangerous, rather than saying we are all simply more susceptible. Our medical system and the entire system of therapies it dispenses are in service to the demands of capitalism. There is no conspiracy behind this, nor any need for one. A look at institutional constraints and interests make it hard to ignore, though acknowledging it as such doesn’t make us feel very comfortable.
An important question follows: how might we think about responses to infectious disease epidemics within sustainable and participatory communities? First, within truly participatory communities, the health of everyone benefits by the very nature of the social arrangement. Food, for example, would be predominantly grown and consumed locally.

This one single change would enormously benefit the health of all individuals. Local food means unprocessed food for the most part. Eating a diet of whole foods would go a very long way toward reducing disease and bringing the community up to nutritional competence. This is especially true in a society where currently 20-66% of all patients entering a hospital have evidence of malnutrition, the percentage varying with age.

Work conditions would also be very, very different in such a community, and that would have an enormous beneficial impact on health in the community. Both new and old research shows the profound immune suppression that results from stress, especially chronic stress. In the capitalist work world, such stress is ever-present.

In a sustainable and participatory society, there are no longer factories belching their poisons in neighborhoods, no industries dumping into community wells. The benefit to the health of every individual would be significant.

What does all this mean for infectious disease epidemics? First, reduced overall susceptibility means such diseases are less frequent because they have a harder time moving through the population. Each body a virus encounters offers more resistance to the infection than it does now. Hospitals would no longer be the buildings where the technologies of medicine are delivered to passive recipients. Instead, all those variables already known to benefit immunity and recovery from disease are embraced.

Individuals in such a society suffering serious infectious diseases (SARS or others) must limit their contact with at-risk populations, while increasing their contact with caretakers, with health care professionals who not only deliver supportive care, but also provide human contact, a relationship that is itself healing, supportive, and crucial to raising the vitality of an infirm individual.
Micronutrients are just as likely to be dripping from IV bags as are pharmaceuticals, because we already know that many nutrients are anti-viral, anti-bacterial and they significantly reduce recovery time. Hospital meals would not be industrial productions, but prepared consciously to deliver the whole nutrients, the essential oils and the quality calories that we know benefit both short- and long-term recovery.

The tools of conventional medicine would still have their place: CT scans, MRIs, X-rays, and many other technologies make conventional emergency room medicine state-of-the-art. But emergency room medicine accounts for only about 4% of the total US medical expenditure.

Modern industrial medicine is not the last best hope for human health. Resistance to disease is a social endeavor as much as an individual one, and the resources needed can be public and empowering, not private, technical and subjectifying. We each benefit by enhancing the overall health of the community, rather than medicating bodies after they’ve been infected.

It is a lesson that doesn’t lend itself well to bestsellers or Hollywood hits about the next viral threat, but it does remind us that our diseases are a reflection of the world we create for ourselves.

Greg Nigh is a naturopathic physician and licensed acupuncturist practicing in Portland, Oregon. He writes and speaks frequently on topics related to politics, alternative medicine and health care. He can be reached at