Under Gov. Sarah Palin, Alaska is a State Sponsor of Terrorism

[McCamy Taylor]

I. The Myth

From the VP Debate:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

PALIN: But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.
America is in a position to help. What I've done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that's pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

II. The Reality

http://www.sudandivestment.org/home.asp

A quick glance at the U.S. map on the Sudan Divestment Task Force Site shows that Alaska is a no action state under Gov. Sarah Palin. That means that Alaska is a state sponsor of the terrorism known as genocide.

Yes, it is officially known as genocide. The Secretary of State of the United States under our most conservative president ever, George W. Bush called it that in 2004.

While Sudan has been in a civil war for two decades that has claimed thousands of lives through fighting and famine, the state initiatives picked up momentum after Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, said in late 2004 that the United States viewed violence in the Darfur region of western Sudan as genocide.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/20/business/sudan.php?page=2

What went wrong in Alaska? What stood in the way of Sarah Palin’s dream of ending government sponsored terrorism against the people of the Sudan ? That is easy. Sarah Palin stood in Sarah Palin’s way.

From an ABC News report about how Palin’s administration killed the Sudan Divestment Bill in committee this year in Alaska:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.

Gara says the lack of support from Palin's administration helped kill the measure.

"I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled of the February meeting. Because of the Palin administration's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee," he explained. At no point did Palin come out in support of the effort, Gara said.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5948944&page=1

If it is any consolation to the people of Darfur, Palin promised to reconsider the bill next year.

Note that while John McCain also gives lip service to promoting divestment from Sudan, his wife Cindy recently revealed that she had large investments in the country and had to dump them to avoid an embarrassing political scandal, according to ABC.

III. Why Terrorism Matters and Genocide Doesn’t

Palin’s lie during the debate reveals many things about her. She showed that she can not bear to be one upped. If Biden was against genocide, then she was against genocide---even if Gwen Ifill’s question was meant to be a political softball for the Republicans, a chance for them to point their fingers and say See, even Democrats engage in democracy building exercises. Who knows what kind of unpopular wars Barack Obama may get us into? Since her handlers had not prepared a base pleasing answer for this question ( “John and I do not believe in risking U.S. military lives unless U.S. security is directly at stake.”) she lied to make herself look good.

There is another context, too. Palin is running around, flapping her lips about how Obama consorts with terrorists. Well, Governor, you fund genocide. And that is the worst kind of terrorism. So, now we know that Palin thinks that political opponents of the state, even former political opponents of the state who work within the system, are much scarier, than states which are actively committing genocide. In other words, she would rather have Hitler baby sit Trig than one of the American Founders, because, hey, they participated in the Boston Tea Party, and that was an act of terrorism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


genocide n. n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Note that world statute makes genocide unlawful, that it also involves the use of force or violence and that it is used for ideological or political reasons. The main difference between terrorism and genocide is the latter is vastly wider in its scope.

The American right wing is amazingly indifferent to anything labeled a “genocide”. Indeed, call a situation “genocide” and you are almost asking for some ultra right group to proclaim that the victims are really the source of the violence or “They had it coming.” The term genocide implies an extreme imbalance in power, with the perpetrators possessing all the advantages and the victims being very poor and very weak. The American right wing likes to identify itself with the winner, even if victory is achieved at a terrible moral cost---as in the case of the near genocide of the Native American people. There is a deep Calvinist streak within the conservative movement which insists that any material victory, no matter what means are used to achieved it, is justified as long as you can get others to admit that you won----for material success is the measure of spiritual sanctity. If your world view tells you that the rich shall inherit the earth, you are not likely to pull your investments out of the Sudan just because they are taking out their "trash".

Study the map from the Sudan Divestment site again. Remind you of anything? Maybe recent electoral maps from the 2008 presidential contests?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html

All those red states that claim to fear the kind of terrorism in which a handful of people brutalize another handful of people so much that they are willing to strip you and me of our Constitutional rights—those same people do not give a shit about the kind of terrorism in which a whole government full of people kill an oppressed minority. Not if they can make some money from the deaths of the oppressed minority. Remember the words from the Alaska governor’s office. Financial security is the only security that counts.

It is the Sarah Palin way.

Smarter people know that when we allow genocide to occur anywhere in the world, the results will eventually affect us, here at home. Refugees move from country to country, sparking famine, disease. Deadly viruses erupt. Economies are disrupted. Wars are started. Like dominoes, the effects pile up until they reach our shore. The World Trade Center was attacked because of policies affecting the Palestinians, some of the most powerless people on earth.

But Sarah Palin thinks that genocide is a matter of no importance, something quaint out of a WWII movie that should not interfere with business as usual in the state of Alaska. Nor should it interfere with politics as usual, even if she has to lie about it.

This year, next year,what difference does it make? They are only peasants from Darfur. Nothing that happens to them can ever affect Sarah Palin.

[man4allcats]

1. It is sad that people such as Sarah Palin

can not only run for but also garner considerable support as candidates for federal office in the United States today. I would ask what this country has come to if I weren't afraid of the answer.