Archives: Articles

By Deborah Brautigam

WASHINGTON — Representatives from more than 150 countries began to gather in Beijing on Friday for a grand forum to celebrate China’s grand Belt and Road Initiative. Since its formal unveiling in 2013, B.R.I. — a vast, worldwide web of infrastructure-development projects mostly funded or sponsored by the Chinese government — has generated both tremendous enthusiasm and tremendous anxiety.

Some call the colossal program a new Marshall Plan, arguing that it could radically reduce the costs of international trade as well as underpin the economic transformation of poor countries.

Others accuse China of using B.R.I. as a way to flex its economic muscle for political gain on the sly. The whole effort is a cover for “debt-trap diplomacy,” goes one common criticism — or, to borrow from John R. Bolton, the United States national security adviser, China is making “strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands.” (Some American Democrats seem to agree with him, at least about this.)

Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story. But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China.
Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie’s Newsletter

Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.

The main example of these purported ploys is the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka: The government handed control over the port to a Chinese company in 2017 after struggling to make its loan payments to China. But that’s a special case, and it is widely misunderstood.

China does not publish details about its overseas lending, but the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (which I direct) has collected information on more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa between 2000 and 2017, totaling more than $143 billion. Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center has identified and tracked more than $140 billion in Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005.

Based on the findings of both institutes, it seems that the risks of B.R.I. are often overstated or mischaracterized.

Take Africa. The International Monetary Fund estimates that as of late January some 17 low-income African countries already were in, or were at risk of, “debt distress,” or of experiencing difficulties in servicing their public debt. We at the China Africa Research Initiative created debt profiles for those countries based on our data on Chinese loans as well as statistics from the World Bank and the I.M.F. — and we discovered that a crowd of global banks and bondholders were involved: notably, in Mozambique, Credit Suisse; or in Chad, the Anglo-Swiss mining giant Glencore. In some of the 17 countries the I.M.F. identified as vulnerable, including Cameroon and Ethiopia, China was the single-largest creditor, but non-Chinese lenders still held the majority of the debt. Only in Djibouti, the Republic of Congo and Zambia did Chinese loans account for half or more of the country’s public debt.

In its 2019 study on China in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Global Development Policy Center concluded that, aside from “the important possible exception of Venezuela,” financing from China alone did not appear to be driving borrowers above the I.M.F’s debt-sustainability thresholds.
Editors’ Picks
At 75, Taking Care of Mom, 99: ‘We Did Not Think She Would Live This Long’
When Your House Won’t Let You Go
‘Had I Catfished My Wife?’: A Debut Midlife-Crisis Memoir

In most of Africa and Latin America, in other words, China’s lending is significant, but fears that the Chinese government is deliberately preying on countries in need are unfounded.

Ms. Brautigam is an expert on China-Africa relations at Johns Hopkins University.

26 April 2019

Source: www.nytimes.com

BANGKOK (Reuters) – Unknown assailants attacked and wounded a Thai pro-democracy activist on Friday, apparently the latest victim of what rights groups call a systematic campaign of violence against critics of the army following a disputed election.

Sirawith Seritiwat, 27, was attacked by four men wielding clubs near his home in a Bangkok suburb leaving him in hospital with serious head injuries, his mother said.

“The doctor says they are concerned about his eyes because of the impact on the optic nerve,“ Sirawith’s mother, Patnaraee Charnkit, told reporters.

“His eyes are open but he is unresponsive,“ she said.

A police officer confirmed the late morning attack, saying the number of assailants was not known and police were investigating.

Rights groups say there have been seven violent attacks on activists since a March 24 election that resulted in former junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha staying on as a civilian prime minister under election rules written by the junta.

A similar number of attacks on activists took place in the year before the vote, they say. Patnaraee said it was the second time this month that her son had been assaulted.

“What we’re seeing is a pattern,“ Sunai Phasuk, senior Thai researcher for Human Rights Watch, said of the attacks on critics of the military’s involvement in politics.

“It shows that after the election, Thailand remains in a climate of fear and the country is not on a path towards a return to democratic rule.”

The military seized power in a 2014 coup and remains in charge until a new cabinet is sworn in, something that Prayuth says will likely happed by mid-July.

Opposition parties say the electoral system was designed to extend and legitimise military domination of civilian government.

A government spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Reporting by Panu Wongcha-um and Panarat Thepgumpanat; Editing by Robert Birsel.

28 June 2019

Source: www.reuters.com

By Mustafa Khan

The lynching of Tabrez Ansari was by means of threat and violence perpetrated with utter impunity for hours at end, nay, for days together. This is the darkest hour in the history of India which marks a departure of Narendra Modi from the first term as PM since he remained silent in most of such cases instead of condemning. It heralds the worst for the minorities. The miracle is that Tabrez survived to illustrate this fact four days and then died. Sure sign of phenomenalism. The realities and facts of today undoubtedly point it, coercion, a form of terrorism. Such is the power and efficacy of the second Reich of Modi that the remains of the cause of terror travelled to Japan within the week of his junket. Such inveterate is our PM that as CM of Gujarat he could ask the police to not come in the way of RSS, HVP, ABVP and let Hindus vent their anger in 2002. Those who revealed the truth of it, Haren Pandya and Sanjiv Bhat, met their end at his hand. Dissent is the crying need of today if we want our democracy to thrive and not throttled. What matters to him is that the Diaspora in 2002 was with him and now in Japan they encore him. ‘Jai Shri Ram.’ ‘Vande Matrum.’ The first slogan was never uttered with the same ferocity then. The second is in praise of India as a mother goddess, which Muslim refuse to utter because of idolatry. That is how the juggernaut of dividing India continues.

But what is painful is that those who lynched Tabrez coerced him to utter such slogans umpteen times, ad absurdum. When he was in jail after two days the main accused Papu Mandal went there and asked in surprise:‘Ab tak yeh mara kyon nahin? [why did he not die till now?]’ The wife of Tabrez and his mother in law were also there whom the police threatened that they would break their knees if they did not go out. (1) The young widow passed out at the sight of her husband.

It is strange that only the crime of theft is registered but not of attack on the victim and his death! They forced him to chant against his will. This is part of the definition of terror and then they left him as a living mummy that amounts to lynching and essentially terrorism. He died on account of the torture. The police aggravated the condition by not paying attention to the serious condition.

There are no reasons to believe that a man could have done thieving hardly a month after marriage. He had a job of a welder in Pune and was visiting his village for Id festival. He was to return back to Pune soon to resume his work. This is not a “cut and paste” allegation of terror, as the Jharkhand minister would like us to believe. It is sheer terror. It has put on notice the minorities that they are at the mercy of the majority Hindus. When Menahem Begin and his groups of terrorists bombed Hotel David in Jerusalem they had put the imperialist British on notice that their days were over and Israel would be created.

Despite of the gravity of the lynching of the week Modi went to G20 meeting in Japan. He spoke succinctly on the global threat of terrorism on June 28. Terrorism is the greatest threat to humanity. It kills not only innocent people but also has most disastrous effect on economic opportunity and poses threat to social stability and to remove it, we have to close all the means that support communalism and extremism.

This is a sham statement because he and his right wing groups and party do not believe what he is pontificating there. What is rampant in India is precisely due to him: communalism and extremism. Tabrez’s lynching is the living proof of it. If it cannot change the game then it is hunting with the hounds and playing with the hare. But can he play until kingdom come!

The world is a large stage and he cannot strut and fret forever
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

(1) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jharkhand-lynching-case-tabrez-would-have-been-alive-if-given-minimum-medical-attention/article28136106.ece

Mustafa Khan is a political commentator

29 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Alex Lantier

On Friday, diplomats from Germany, Britain, France, the European Union, China, Russia and Iran met in Vienna for talks on the 2015 Iranian nuclear treaty, a year after Washington unilaterally scrapped the agreement. No agreement emerged from the meeting on the central issue: the growing danger of a US war against Iran.

Last week, amid an ongoing US military build-up in the Persian Gulf, US President Donald Trump announced that he had pulled back from launching air strikes on Iran that would have caused hundreds of deaths only 10 minutes before they were to begin. On Friday, at the G20 summit in Osaka, he indicated that US war threats would escalate, declaring that “there’s no rush” to ease tensions with Iran.

“There’s absolutely no time pressure,” he added. “I think that in the end, hopefully, it’s going to work out. If it does, great. And if doesn’t, you’ll be hearing about it.”

It is clear that Washington’s unilateral scrapping of the 2015 treaty and its imposition of sanctions targeting Iranian exports were a prelude to a new US war drive. Prior to the Vienna summit between representatives of the remaining signatories to the 2015 treaty, Iranian officials warned that it was the “last chance.”

“I think this meeting can be the last chance for the remaining parties … to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi told the Fars news agency. He added that US sanctions against Iran “lack any legal basis” and are a “desperate” measure.

On Friday, during the G20 summit in Osaka, Chinese President Xi Jinping starkly warned that the Persian Gulf, the center of the world’s oil supply, is “standing at a crossroads of war and peace.” According to China’s Xinhua news agency, Xi said, “China always stands on the side of peace and opposes war. All parties must remain calm and exercise restraint, strengthen dialogue and consultations, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability.”

Xi’s statement came after his June 5 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, where China and Russia vowed to “protect” their ties to Iran and “firmly oppose the imposition of unilateral sanctions” by anyone.

Nonetheless, despite the danger of all-out war across the Middle East, and potentially the entire world, under conditions where Iran and Russia are already engaged in a bloody eight-year proxy war against US-backed militias fighting for regime-change in Syria and Iraq, the Vienna summit failed to reach any deal.

“It was a step forward, but it is still not enough and not meeting Iran’s expectations,” Iran’s representative in Vienna, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, said of the talks.

Araqchi said the sticking point was the EU’s refusal to defy crippling US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports that are strangling its economy. Araqchi criticized the Instex (Instrument to Support Trade Exchanges) institution set up in Paris by Germany, Britain and France to finance EU-Iran trade without using the US dollar. Up to now, the EU powers and European companies have refused to trade with Iran through Instex, citing fears of US retaliation.

“For Instex to be useful for Iran, Europeans need to buy oil or consider credit lines for this mechanism. Otherwise, Instex is not like they or we expect,” Araqchi said.

Even as it faces US trade war threats, China is defying US sanctions on Iranian oil and greeting Iranian oil tankers in its major ports. It is expected to import 200,000 barrels per day from Iran, according to industry estimates cited by the Financial Times.

Asked in Vienna whether China would obey Trump’s order to cut Iranian oil exports to “zero,” Chinese Foreign Ministry official Fu Cong said, “We reject the unilateral imposition of sanctions, and for us energy security is important … We do not accept this zero policy of the United States.”

The EU, Berlin, London and Paris are pursuing a different policy—capitulating to US threats and demanding that Iran take no action, even as Washington sends thousands of troops and an armada of warships to the Persian Gulf to threaten it.

In Vienna, EU diplomat Helga Schmid merely confirmed that Instex is “operational” before demanding Iran’s “full and effective implementation” of the 2015 treaty. She thus echoed demands this week from EU Council President Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron that Tehran abide by the treaty, even after Washington has discarded it and threatened to bomb Iran.

Araqchi rebuffed these calls, warning that Iran could act on its threat to restart uranium enrichment and make more than the 300kg limit on uranium specified by the 2015 treaty. “I don’t think the progress made today will be enough to stop our process, but the decision will be made in Tehran,” he said.

This statement reflects growing anger with the EU in Iranian ruling circles. After German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas visited Tehran earlier this month to demand that Tehran observe the 2015 treaty, while warning that Europe “cannot work miracles” in foreign policy, the Iranian press mocked him. “The impotent cannot work miracles,” wrote the daily Resalat, while the daily Javancaricatured him as an officer doing a Nazi salute and asked, “What was the point of his visit?”

The Vienna talks underscore the failure of whatever hopes remained, after nearly 30 years of bloodletting after the first US war against Iraq in 1990-1991, that rival capitalist governments’ diplomatic maneuvers can avert a new imperialist war in the Middle East. Instead, even broader disasters are being prepared.

Amid its continuing economic decline compared to powers like China and Germany, Washington is resorting more aggressively to its military to try to restore its former global hegemony. Yet a US war with Iran, a country with three times the population and four times the size of Iraq, would dwarf even the horrific 2003-2011 US occupation of Iraq, which left a million dead. After a decade of bloody proxy wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, such a war would even more rapidly move toward a global war between the world’s major nuclear-armed powers, threatening the survival of humanity.

The EU powers’ attempts to whip Iran into line with US demands do not reflect agreement with Washington’s Iran policy. Behind the scenes, US-EU tensions are surging. At a NATO defense ministers’ meeting Thursday in Brussels, when newly installed acting US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he would tolerate no further actions from Iran, his French counterpart, Florence Parly, reportedly replied by demanding that Washington not involve NATO in military action in the Persian Gulf.

The EU powers plan to spend hundreds of billions of euros on a future independent European army, and Washington has sent repeated diplomatic communications in recent weeks threatening to cut off military cooperation with the European Union. Plans for an EU army are more and more clearly bound up with the rivalry between the United States and Europe over the trillions of dollars in oil money, critical positions on world markets and control of military bases at stake in the new round of imperialist wars of plunder that are being prepared.

Nevertheless, amid growing opposition from workers across Europe to police state policies and austerity measures intended to finance Europe’s military build-up, EU politicians are downplaying US war threats against Iran. Macron declared Thursday that he shares the US “strategic objective” in Iran, namely, preventing “Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” He decried any Iranian moves to abandon the nuclear treaty.

Macron also contested Russian reports, backed by radar data, that the US drone shot down by Iran over the Persian Gulf was hit over Iranian territorial waters. He said the information available to French authorities indicated it was “in the international zone,” as alleged by Washington.

London has already announced the dispatch of a hundred British commandos to the Persian Gulf to join the military build-up against Iran.

Originally published in WSWS.org

29 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jafar M Ramini

Well it’s happened. It’s real. Mr Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and Senior Advisor of President Trump has delivered 136 pages of lies, suppositions and conjuring tricks to seduce or compel us Palestinians to accept our fate and surrender our rights. What rights? As far as this document is concerned Palestinians have no rights whatsoever and as for a Palestinian perspective, what is that?

The Palestinians were not even invited to Manama, let alone considered. What about the Israelis? Were they there? Were they invited? On the face of it, no, but in reality they were amply represented. What is Jared Kushner if not the team captain for the Greater Israel Project? After all, he is Jewish, an ardent Zionist, an investor in the illegal settlements in Palestine and an advocate, par excellence, for Israeli survival and supremacy.

The Lie Of The Century, as I call it, is just that. A lie. From beginning to end, every word, every supposition of this long-winded deception is to ensure that the Greater Israel Project will advance unhindered and we, the Palestinians, are to accept the crumbs off the table of our land-lords. Or perish.

But, hang on a minute, how could an occupier who seized our land by brute force be made a legitimate land-lord over us? The answer is simple. In the Trumpian universe all that matters are power and Mammon. Isn’t this what the ‘Deal of The Century’ is all about? American/Israeli power exercised over us Palestinians without mercy? And what about the money? Oh yes, there is money, but it is not American nor Israeli money. It’s Arab money. To be extorted from despotic, Arabic regimes in the Gulf, as per usual. Trump demands and the Arab Regimes of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia oblige. If they don’t, as Mr Trump intimated, their shaky thrones wouldn’t last a week without US protection.

Mr Kushner promised $50 billion in Arab money to be divided between Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. Nowhere in the document was there any mention of Palestinian political rights, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees or even the Israeli occupation of Palestine. All was conveniently kicked into touch because it doesn’t matter, you see. What matters is Israeli survival and supremacy and the continued, rapid march of the Greater Israel Project.

I say ‘rapid march’ because who is to stop it? The Palestinians do not have an army, an airforce, a navy or even a coalition to stop this march. Jordan has already succumbed to American threats and promises of prosperity. The same goes for Egypt. Especially under the hand-picked President Abdul Fatah Alsisi, whose sole purpose is to neuter Egypt and serve as a facilitator for American and Israeli hegemony in our area.

Syria? Western powers, Israel and despotic Arab/Muslim states have made sure that Syria is taken out of the equation by embroiling it in a 7-year long devastating war.

The Gulf States? Saudi Arabia? Instead of stopping this advance of Greater Israel they are facilitating it by making a frantic rush towards normalisation with Israel and to form a coalition of the willing to combat a perceived threat from another Muslim country, Iran. The honourable exception is the State of Kuwait who refused to attend this farce and reaffirmed their total support of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

Let’s look closely at the word, ‘surrender’. Many of you might remember an article I wrote recently entitled, ‘Surrender Or Die’. It didn’t take too long for the Israelis to prove me right. There it is. From the Grand weasel’s mouth, none other than Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN. In an article entitled, ‘What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender”, published in the New York Times on June 24th, one day before the Manama ‘Workshop’. “Surrender”, he wrote,” is the recognition that in a contest, staying the course will prove costlier than submission.”

There you have it. To the victor the spoils.

And then comes the other Grand Weasel, Mr Jared Kushner, to deliver the message of surrender to a room full of weasels. All these aforementioned weasels, who have been gnawing at our heels for over a century omitted to consider one vital point. The Palestinian character and pride.

Surrender is not in our character. We’d rather die standing up, defending our rights than exist, kneeling at the feet of our self-appointed land-lords and benefactors.

Just in case any of those weasels calling for our surrender might have any interest in what we Palestinians want, here is how Executive Member of the PLO, Dr Hanan Ashrawi, put it.

Jafar M Ramini is a Palestinian writer and political analyst, based in London, presently in Perth, Western Australia.

29 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Chloé Benoist

Middle East Eye looked at the plan – already unanimously rejected by the Palestinian leadership – to decipher its economics-heavy approach. As with all visions of the future, it is as notable for what it left out as for what it included.

1.No mention of the occupation…
The plan and its accompanying “programmes and projects” booklet run to 136 pages, detailing at length where the Palestinian economy needs a boost. But the White House fails to mention one issue, without which, according to the UN, the Palestinian economy would be more than double its current size: the Israeli occupation. As has been pointed out by several observers, Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands isn’t mentioned once: the closest it gets is a reference to “higher-wage, high-growth occupations”, meaning jobs – which is far removed from how most people understand the term in the context of Palestine.

Similarly missing are related terms such as “siege”, “blockade” and “settlements”, as well as any acknowledgement as to how Areas A, B and C – the different parts of the West Bank under Israeli or Palestinian Authority (PA) control since 1995 – would be affected. One has to read between the lines to find any allusion to Israeli policies which negatively affect Palestinians, such as “protracted crisis”, “logistical challenges”, “impediments to growth”, “resource constraints” and “regulatory barriers to the movement of Palestinian goods and people”.

2. …or refugees
Another word absent from the document is “refugee”. More than two million refugees live in Gaza and the West Bank, yet the Kushner plan fails to address how they are affected by the drastic cuts in US aid to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Yes, the plan dedicates $13.7bn in prospective funding to Lebanon and Jordan, now home to an estimated 2.5m Palestinian refugees, but there is no mention as to whether any of the money will actually be for Palestinians.

3. Jerusalem is off the table
In January 2018, Trump promised to take Jerusalem “off the table”. The “Peace to Prosperity” document does just that, failing to mention the holy city. This is in line with the US decision to move its embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018, thereby recognising it as the capital of Israel in spite of long-standing Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. It remains unclear what, if anything, the White House thinks should be done with the estimated 300,000 Palestinians who currently live in East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel against international law in 1967.

4. Israel keeps a low profile
The document heavily downplays Israel’s role in regional tensions: when it is mentioned, it is usually tucked away amid a list of “neighbours” and “key trading partners” such as “Egypt, Israel and Jordan” rather than on its own. Some of the economic suggestions are set to benefit Israel financially, including the sale of water to Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan; the provision of gas and electricity to Gaza; the promotion of increased trade with Egypt and the occupied Palestinian territory; and the use of spyware tech by Jordan.

5. US still prioritizes arms for Israel
Kushner’s plan for Palestine says that it has the “potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years”. But only $27.8bn of that will go directly to the occupied Palestinian territory, while the remainder will go to neighbouring states. That $27.8bn is around 27 percent less than the $38bn ten-year military aid deal that the US made with Israel in 2016.

6. US tells Palestine: It’s your fault
With no mention on Israel’s role in the conflict, the White House emphasizes that the Palestinians are responsible for their current predicament and that, should the “deal of the century” fail, it would be their own doing. “Ultimately, however, the power to unlock [this vision] lies in the hands of the Palestinian people,” the document reads at one point. While the Kushner plan promises to “unleash” Palestine’s potential, it never comes close to revealing who or what restrained this potential in the first place.

Elsewhere it states that “a lasting peace agreement will ensure a future of economic opportunity for all Palestinians”. A lasting peace with whom? The question is left unanswered. It also implies awareness that “peace for prosperity” is a futile exercise: several sweeping statements begin with conditional clauses, such as “If implemented” or “If the government realises its potential”.

7. Education questions are unanswered
The Trump administration’s oversight of what prevents Palestine from growing is demonstrated nowhere better than when it comes to education. Here, the document concedes that “Palestinians have among the highest graduation rates in the region”, but does not explain why many Palestinian schools “are stretched beyond their capacity”. It emphasizes the need to “focus on supporting schools operating in underserved communities”, but makes no mention of the numerous EU-funded schools in Area C of the West Bank that have been torn down by Israeli forces for failing to secure nearly impossible-to-obtain construction permits. Nor is there mention of the 500,000 Palestinian students affected by the US’s decision in 2018 to cut all funding to UNRWA.

The plan promises $300m in scholarships for Palestinian students to study abroad, but fails to address how Palestinians currently on such schemes struggle to obtain visas to leave the West Bank and Gaza. Sports, health care, agriculture and tourism are likewise assessed without context and assigned solutions with little regard for the reality on the ground.

8. ‘Jared, are we giving property rights to Palestinians?’
Kushner’s plan places a large emphasis on Palestinians’ “property rights” – the phrase is used 13 times throughout the document. “Land registration is a critical step in the transformation of the Palestinian economy” it states on page 32. It later adds: “Strong property rights are critical to realizing this future.” The plan fails, however, to mention the systematic expropriation of Palestinian land by Israel from 1948 until the present day.

Many refugees still hold the deeds and keys to the homes they left behind in historic Palestine, as do Palestinians whose lands and homes in the occupied West Bank have been seized by Israeli settlers. Is this what Kushner and Trump, who had an Israeli settlement named after him this month in the Golan Heights, have in mind? The detail is unclear.

9. Palestinians are customers, not citizens
“Peace to Prosperity” has clearly been authored by writers with a business background (Trump has long touted his experience as a businessman; Kushner is an investor and real estate promoter). The documents are full of management language that calls for a “business-friendly” approach to “unlocking human potential” through “investment-led growth” by fostering an “incubator ecosystem” and a “strong local start-up culture”.

Perhaps most telling is the line: “Good Palestinian governance requires commitment to its customers: the Palestinian people.” In the absence of a proper state, the plan implies that Palestinians are not citizens, but consumers whose political aspirations can be met by goods and services.

10. Let Palestinians eat cake – and 5G
The document’s business-like approach includes several ambitious high-end goals, like turning Gaza into a “modern metropolitan city”, a central online e-government system, and developing 5G access across the Palestinian territory. Such proposals seem out of touch compared to the basic necessities of which many Palestinians are still deprived. For example, 53 percent of residents of Gaza live in poverty today. On the technology side, Israel only lifted its ban on Palestinian telecom operators accessing 3G networks a year ago.

11. Setting the bar high
One of the plan’s goals is for Gaza and the West Bank to score 0.70 on the World Bank Human Capital Index, which measures the potential of a population’s labour. If Palestine were to achieve this, then it would put it ahead of some of the economies cited elsewhere in the plan as examples, including mainland China (0.67), the UAE (0.66), Bahrain (0.67) and Lebanon (0.54). Another suggested goal is that Palestinian governance scores 60 or above on Transparency International’s Corruption Index. That’s way above the 36 scored by Bahrain, host of this week’s conference, and more than double the 28 achieved by Lebanon. Even Israel, in existence for more than 70 years, only manages 61.

12. Gaza as the next Rio?
The plan also alludes to several visions for Palestine as a high-end touristic destination. At one point it suggests that the 40km of Gaza’s Mediterranean “could develop into a modern metropolitan city overlooking the beach, drawing from examples like Beirut, Hong Kong, Lisbon, Rio de Janeiro, Singapore, and Tel Aviv”.

No mention is made of the state of the coastline polluted as Gaza’s fragile infrastructure finds itself unable to process waste that ends up in the sea – or that Palestinians are currently prohibited by the Israeli navy from venturing more than a few miles from shore. The plan also suggests that one reason why the Palestinian tourism sector isn’t thriving is because Palestinians, well-known across the region for their hospitality, need to partner with “leading international hospitality schools” such as the United Arab Emirates Academy of Hospitality.

13. Palestine as the next Singapore?
Ambitious metrics aside, it is also revealing that some of the places cited as examples for any future Palestinian economy are not noted for their tolerance or freedom of speech.
The plan cites states like the UAE or Singapore, which have been accused by groups such as Human Rights Watch of trading political rights for the benefit of economic advancement – an accusation that Palestinians have levelled against the Trump administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan. Comparisons are also made with Beirut as an example of a seaside metropolis: these seem ill-thought out, given the Lebanese capital’s ongoing struggles with the privatisation of public spaces and its nonexistent urban planning.

14. Cultural faux pas
The report hails how “the West Bank and Gaza” have been cultural centres “from ancient to modern times”. It recognises Palestinian contributions to “the region’s most renowned artists and poets” – but fails to cite any examples. In defence of the White House, to describe the likes of Mahmoud Darwish, Ghassan Kanafani, Sliman Mansour or Annemarie Jacir as noteworthy would be to acknowledge how crucial politics and national aspirations have been to Palestinian culture during the past half-century.

Ironically, the report does mention the Nabi Musa festival as a “great cultural legacy should be celebrated and supported”. A core tradition of this religious event is an annual pilgrimage from Jerusalem to Jericho – a route that’s impossible for Palestinians to follow if one accepts the Trump administration’s view of Jerusalem as exclusively Israeli.

15. Cash for neighbours’ gas, power, tech
Several infrastructure projects in other countries are listed as potentially helpful to Palestinians, such as Egyptian electricity lines feeding into Gaza or upgraded Jordanian frontier crossings. But other proposals are more baffling and have no apparent direct benefit to Palestinians. The plan argues, for example, that tourism in neighbouring countries will have a trickle-down effect on Palestinian tourism. This ignores that the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt is regularly closed. Or that Lebanon officially refuses entry to individuals with Israeli stamps on their passports.

The plan earmarks $1.5bn for a natural gas hub off the Egyptian coast to “help coordinate energy development in the Eastern Mediterranean”; and $500m to provide Jordan with “national cybersecurity infrastructure and capacity building” to “open up opportunities for more international cyber collaboration”. While the benefits of these projects to Palestinians are unclear, Israel has long-standing interests in both Mediterranean gas reserves and cyber security and spyware technology.

16. Lebanon is not on board…
A total of $6.33bn is budgeted for Lebanon in the plan, including $200m to “support regional trade integration to incentivise exporters to become engaged in regional value chains to significantly reduce the cost of doing business in the region”.

This may come as a surprise to some observers for three reasons. First, Lebanon does not share a boundary with either Gaza or the West Bank. Second, it has not sent any representation to the Bahrain conference. Third, unlike Egypt and Jordan, it refuses to have any diplomatic or economic relations with neighbouring Israel. Is the Trump administration hoping to lure Beirut into better ties with Israel? Some in the Lebanese parliament believe so. Nabih Berri, parliament speaker, said on June 23 that “those who think that waving billions of dollars can lure Lebanon, […] into succumbing or bartering over its principles are mistaken”.

17. …and neither is the ‘Strawberry King’
The document of the plan is illustrated with photos of smiling people drinking water from a tap (a distant memory in Gaza), or hiking through countryside (much of which has been taken over by Israeli settlers). Especially prominent are images of strawberry farmer Osama Abu al-Rub, which seem to have repurposed from USAID brochures where he is described as the “Strawberry King”. Al-Rub, who lives in Qabatiya, south of Jenin, was also featured in a 2017 USAID video after receiving assistance – but he said this week he is unhappy with his appearance in “Peace to Prosperity” documentation. “I am very upset by the publication of my family photos and the US manipulation in promoting the ‘deal of the century’,” he told MEE. “We are ashamed of this project aimed at liquidating the Palestinian cause. It is impossible to accept it or to be one of its tools.”

Chloé Benoist is a French journalist who has been working in and on the Middle East since 2011.

28 June 2019

Source: www.opendemocracy.net

By Peter Koenig

Madame Angela Merkel – the head of Europe’s strongest economy, of the leader of the European Union, said that there was strong evidence that Iran attacked the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Ten days ago, German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, travelled to Tehran, officially to “save” the Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPoA), but in reality, to ‘negotiate’ with Tehran ways so Germany and by association other EU members, might still do business with Iran, against some “concessions” by Iran, in order to appease Washington.

Iran’s President Rouhani reacted quickly. FM Maas got the cold shoulder and was dismissed. And rightly so. Maas was not really representing Germany – but the United States. Iran gave the EU an “ultimatum” of 60 days to stick to their commitments on trading with Iran according to the Nuclear Deal – despite the US reneging on it – or else, Iran may bypass some of the conditions under the JCPOA accord. The EU – not being independent and her member countries having lost all sovereignty by submitting to the dictate first from Brussels, second from the tyranny of Washington, didn’t like the ultimatum, and said so in a joint statement. They added a weak and meek phrase, “We call on countries not party to the JCPOA to refrain from taking any actions that impede the remaining parties’ ability to fully perform their commitments;” not even daring calling the country by name, for whom the statement was destined, i.e. the US of A.

Germany’s position is as absurd as it has ever been since Merkel and the entire Bundestag accepted the sanctions imposed by Washington on Russia in 2014 – and replicated them along with the rest of the EU – even to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire EU. Chancellor Merkel and apparently the entire Bundestag, again, go along with Washington’s equally absurd and false accusation that Iran has attacked the two tankers, one Japanese owned, the other Norwegian. The latter belonging to a close friend of Iran’s, and the Japanese one, hardest hit – exactly at the time when Japan’s PM Shinzō Abe, was visiting the Ayatollah in Tehran to discuss how to maintain the Nuclear Deal – trading – despite the sanctions and threats of Washington, hence, a friendly visit.

A blind person can see that these were two false flags – so thinly masked, with badly fabricated US ‘video evidence’ that even according to CIA and US military brass did not deliver conclusive evidence. In fact, none at all. Madame Merkel – why do you not first ask the obvious question “Cui bono?”— Who benefits? Certainly not Iran – but the aggressor, the US which has been planning and preparing for war with Iran for decades, ever since the first Iraq war under Father Bush, in 1991. At the 2003 invasion of Iraq – Bolton openly expressed his dreams to demolish Iran. He and Pompeo are liars and war criminals, who run the White House and pretend to run the Pentagon – and who act in impunity. Their power seems limitless. Trump – seems to be a mere puppet.

Getting Merkel on board of the flagrant US lie that Iran was attacking two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, is a strategic hit, enhancing the lies’ credibility and, thus, making a US attack on Iran more palatable to the rest of the world. Yet, apparently this was not enough. The Pentagon sent an unmanned high-altitude Global Hawk drone into Iranian airspace, a provocation Iran could not resist and shot the drone down, but not before sending warning signals, about which today nobody talks. The world shouldn’t know that Iran had the noblesse to warn the US about the drone being in their airspace. As can be expected the White House gnomes deny that the drone was invading Iranian airspace, but pretend it was in international air space, when it was shot down.

This raised the ante for Washington to launch an attack on Iran. All was planned to be carried from Thursday to Friday (20 to 21 June), and at last minute Trump stopped it. Is it true? – It could be, because somebody a bit ‘higher up’ than Trump and his warrior minions, must have realized the danger that such an attack may pose to the rest of the world – or actually that it could trigger a nuclear conflict. However, that the attack plan was stopped doesn’t mean it was canceled. Maybe it was just postponed.

In the meantime, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered all US airlines to avoid the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Hormuz. And, as could be expected, the airlines of Washington’s “true” puppet allies have followed suit, i.e. Australia’s Qantas Airways Ltd, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Germany’s Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France and its Dutch KLM affiliate, as well as Malaysia Airlines, said they were re-routing flights to avoid the area. Others may follow under direct or tacit pressure of the US. The Japanese airline ANA said they were considering alternative routings. Effectively, the US was able to declare a no-fly zone over a significant area of Iran.

Let’s make no mistake, all the visible key figures at the helm of the White House – are run in the back by Israel, by Netanyahu and the Chosen People he represents, those who also run Wall Street and the western world’s banking and financial system. Israel would like to see Iran in rubbles, or better, in eternal chaos, the goal that was set for Iraq, Afghanistan and that the US was and still is dreaming for Syria. This bunch of evil elite pulls the strings and hopes to soon pull just ONE string for global hegemony, under a ONE World Order.

Back to Germany. Instead of jumping off the sinking ship of Washington and its faithful entourage of the willing, as rats would do, and as the vast majority of the German people would prefer, let alone German and European business, Madame Merkel and apparently all her circles, including Berlin’s Parliament, follow the US flagrant lie propaganda. Why? – Well, this is the deal: There are many ways to “buy” top politicians, with threats or with money or by outright inflicting fear through ‘proxy-assassinations’.

Once Germany is on board – the rest of Europe will follow suit. In that case, Washington – Trump and consortia – think they have Iran totally strangled, by blocking all trade and all financial transactions, plus confiscating Iranian assets abroad – on top of imposing stiff tariffs, so that Iran can no longer afford importing vital goods for manufacturing – or for sheer survival from the west. Once a country is weak, it can be taken over easily. So, the western, AngloZionist thinking goes.

Iran – her Fifth-Columnists aside – is strong and has already proven that it is detaching from the west. Even trying to adhere and fight for the Nuclear Deal which the west, i.e. Europe is incapable of respecting for lack of backbone, is a waste of time. To demonstrate that Iran has alternatives, Mr. Rouhani was attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on 13 and 14 June 2019, by invitation of China, the leader of the 8-member “club”.

SCO stands for promoting peace, trade and a non-aggressive defense strategy (the antidote to the NATO-type military aggression). As of now, Mr. Rouhani is an observer for his country, Iran which is in an advanced stage in the process of entering the SCO as a full member. This could happen later this year or in 2020. Iran would recover her sovereignty, her economic potential and would – and will – be able to detach from the west, pretty much as did Russia and China, the two super-powers under constant assaults of sanctions, denigration and false accusations.

Turkey – is in a similar situation. If Turkey is admitted by the SCO – also very likely – their NATO exit will be imminent. What that will mean for the rest of NATO, at this point we can only guess and dream of, especially since there is an ever-stronger people’s movement throughout Europe to exit NATO. It is particularly strong in Italy and paradoxically also in Germany. The vast majority of Germans want to exit NATO, but the government doesn’t listen. “So far” doesn’t listen. The German anti-NATO movement has been gaining strength ever since the anti-nuclear energy protests in the early seventies which were followed and intensified in the late 1970’s early 1980s against nuclear arms stockpiled in Germany by the US, particularly those stored at the US Air Force base of Ramstein, near Kaiserslautern.

The “so-far” is a precursor to a break with NATO, as the pressure against the USAF base Ramstein, against NATO, is mounting, and that, when Madame Merkel decides firmly to go with the sinking ship – risking to pull Germany and her people down the drain for sheer senseless and outdated obedience to the succumbing tyrant. How absurd!

While Iran is making smart moves, gradually away from western economics, from trading with the west – and moving eastwards – where the future is – Germany backtracks, literally into the orbit of a dying beast, into what is ever-more detectible – a decaying empire.

When will Germany wake up? When the first bombs fall on her cities – a WWI and WWII redux? Except this time, it may not be just the falling of conventional bombs. It may be nuclear meeting nuclear at Ramstein. Madame Merkel, your obligation to the people who apparently elected you is larger than you think and larger than yourself – and much larger than whatever goes on in your mind to follow a defeated warrior and rogue nation into hell.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst.

23 June 2019

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Calls for the annexation of the Occupied West Bank are gaining momentum in both Tel Aviv and Washington. But Israel and its American allies should be careful what they wish for. Annexing the Occupied Palestinian Territories will only reinforce the current rethink of the Palestinian strategy, as opposed to solving Israel’s self-induced problems.

Encouraged by the Donald Trump administration’s decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israeli government officials feel that the time for annexing the entirety of the West Bank is now.

In fact, “there is no better time than now” was the exact phrase used by former Israeli Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, as she promoted annexation at a recent New York conference.

Certainly, it is election season in Israel again, as Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to form a government following the last elections in April. So much saber-rattling happens during such political campaigns, as candidates talk tough in the name of ‘security’, fighting terrorism, and so on.

But Shaked’s comments cannot be dismissed as fleeting election kerfuffle. They represent so much more, if understood within the larger political context.

Indeed, since Trump’s advent to the White House, Israel has never – and I mean, never – had it so easy. It is as if the rightwing government’s most radical agenda became a wish list for Israel’s allies in Washington. This list includes the US recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of Occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem, of the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, and the dismissal of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return altogether.

But that is not all. Statements made by influential US officials indicate initial interest in the outright annexation of the Occupied West Bank or, at least, large parts of it. The latest of such calls was made by US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.

“Israel has the right to retain some … of the West Bank,” Friedman said in an interview, cited in the New York Times on June 8.

Friedman is deeply involved in the so-called ‘Deal of the Century’, a political gambit championed mostly by Trump’s top advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The apparent idea behind this ‘deal’ is to dismiss the core demands of the Palestinians, while reassuring Israel regarding its quest for demographic majority and ‘security’ concerns.

Other US officials behind Washington’s efforts on behalf of Israel include US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, and former US Ambassador to the UN, Nicki Haley. In a recent interview with the Israeli rightwing newspaper, Israel Hayom, Haley said that the Israeli government “should not be worried” regarding the yet-to-be fully revealed details of the ‘Deal of the Century.’

Knowing Haley’s love-affair with – and brazen defense of – Israel at the United Nations, it should not be too difficult to fathom the subtle and obvious meaning of her words.

This is why Shaked’s call for the annexation of the West Bank cannot be dismissed as typical election season talk.

But can Israel annex the West Bank?

Practically speaking, yes, it can. True, it would be a flagrant violation of international law, but such a notion has never irked Israel, nor stopped it from annexing Palestinian or Arab territories. For example, it occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1980 and 1981 respectively.

Moreover, the political mood in Israel is increasingly receptive to such a step. A poll conducted by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, last March revealed that 42% of Israelis back West Bank annexation. This number is expected to rise in the following months as Israel continues to move to the right.

It is also important to note that several steps have already been taken in that direction, including the Israeli Knesset’s (parliament) decision to apply the same civil laws to illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank as to those living in Israel.

But that is where Israel faces its greatest dilemma.

According to a joint poll conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in August 2018, over 50% of Palestinians realize that a so-called two-state solution is no longer tenable. Moreover, a growing number of Palestinians also believe that co-existence in a single state, where Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs (Muslims and Christians, alike) live side by side, is the only possible formula for a better future.

The dichotomy for Israeli officials, who are keen on maintaining Jewish demographic majority and the marginalization of Palestinian rights, is that they no longer have good options.

First, they understand that the indefinite occupation of Palestinian territories cannot be sustained. Ongoing Palestinian resistance at home, and the rise of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement abroad is challenging Israel’s very political legitimacy across the world.

Second, they must also be aware of the fact that, from an Israeli Jewish leaders’ point of view, annexing the West Bank, along with millions of Palestinians, will multiply the very ‘demographic threat’ that they have been dreading for many years.

Third, the ethnic cleansing of whole Palestinian communities – the so-called ‘transfer’ option – as Israel has done upon its founding in 1948, and again, in 1967, is no longer possible. Neither will Arab countries open their borders for Israel’s convenient genocides, nor will Palestinians leave, however high the price. The fact that Gazans remained put, despite years of siege and brutal wars, is a case in point.

Political grandstanding aside, Israeli leaders understand that they are no longer in the driver’s seat and, despite their military and political advantage over Palestinians, it is becoming clear that firepower and Washington’s blind support are no longer enough to determine the future of the Palestinian people.

It is also clear that the Palestinian people are not, and never were, passive actors in their own fate. If Israel maintains its 52-year old Occupation, Palestinians will continue to resist. That resistance will not be weakened, or quelled, by any decision to annex the West Bank, in part or in full, the same way that Palestinian resistance in Jerusalem did not cease since its illegal annexation by Tel Aviv four decades ago.

Finally, the illegal annexation of the West Bank can only contribute to the irreversible awareness among Palestinians that their fight for freedom, human rights, justice and equality can be better served through a civil rights struggle within the borders of one single democratic state.

In her blind arrogance, Shaked and her rightwing ilk are only accelerating the demise of Israel as an ethnic, racist state, while opening up the stage for better possibilities than perpetual violence and apartheid.

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle.

25 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

Co-Written by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

The recent escalation of conflict between the United States and Iran threatens another US military quagmire that would create crisis and chaos in Iran, the region and perhaps globally as well as costing the US trillions of dollars. The US needs to change course — a deeply wrong course it has been on regarding Iran since the 1950s, escalating since Iran declared its independence in their 1979 Revolution. There is a path out of this situation, but it requires leadership from President Trump, which will only come if the people of the United States mobilize to demand it.

The Trump Story Of Last Minute Decision Not To Attack Iran, Doubted

The story repeated in the corporate media, including the New York Times, Washington, Post, CNN, ABC News, and others is that President Trump called off a military attack on Iran at the last moment because he was told that 150 Iranians could be killed. It is evident this was the story being pushed by the White House. Initially, the story was that Trump stopped the bombing with ten minutes to spare, while the planes were already in the air. On Sunday, the story changed to Trump was asked for a decision by the Pentagon a half hour before the attack and said ‘no’ to the attack because he was told about civilian casualties.

This story is being doubted by many. Even on FOX News, two of its leading broadcasters, Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, said Trump’s story of stopping the attack at the last moment, “does not hold water” and “something is wrong here.” They talked with former military officials and said it was highly unlikely that the president would not have been told of the likely casualties from the possible military scenarios.

Did President Trump really think the US could drop bombs on Iran and not kill people? Trump broke the record for bombs dropped in Afghanistan when in 2018 he dropped more than 5,200 bombs. The UN found that in 2019, the US and its allies were responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. In 2017, President Trump loosened the rules on drone strikes causing a significant escalation in drone strikes. The US and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017 in Syria, reducing cities to literal rubble. With this record, how can anyone believe Trump was worried about a potential 150 deaths in Iran?

And, bombs are not the only way President Trump kills people. Economic coercive measures (aka sanctions) in Venezuela put in place by President Trump in August 2017 have resulted in 40,000 deaths. In Iran, Trump has escalated sanctions to choke the economy and create hardship for the Iranian people. Sanctions are as deadly as war but are worse because people find them to be more palatable than bombs.

If it was not a concern for the death of civilians, why did Trump not bomb Iran in response to the drone being shot down?

Iran Shows it can Defend Itself Against a US Military Attack

One concern about the destruction of the US drone is whether it was over Iranian airspace when it was destroyed. Iran maintains that it was in their airspace. The US claims it was in international air space, but the US lacks credibility when it makes such claims. Perhaps one reason Trump has not acted is he knows Iran was within its rights.

Iran reports that they did not shoot down the drone until after giving several warnings to the United States. Major General Hossein Salami of the Revolutionary Guard said, “The downing of the US drone had an explicit, decisive and clear message that defenders of the Islamic Iran’s borders will show decisive and knockout reactions to aggression against this territory by any alien.”

According to Reuters, Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace division, said that a manned US Boeing P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane was also in Iranian airspace at the same time as the drone. Iran decided not to shoot it down because there were 35 people on board. Hajizadeh said, the US “plane also entered our airspace and we could have shot it down, but we did not.”

Reuters also reported that Iran received a message from the United States through Oman that a military strike was imminent and that Trump was against any war with Iran but wanted to talk to Iran about various issues. Iran responded: “We made it clear that the leader is against any talks, but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision … However, we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences.”

Iran shot down the drone with a Surface to Air Missile that was an Iranian-produced defense system. This illustrates that a military conflict with the Islamic Republic would be very challenging for the United States. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that Iran has the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East. Tehran views missile defense as vital against Washington’s aggression. The missile attack on the US drone shows Iran has aerial defense capability.

Military Times reports how difficult war with Iran would be writing, “Iranian coastal defenses would likely render the entire Persian Gulf off-limits to U.S. Navy warships. Iran’s advanced surface-to-air missile defenses would be a significant threat to U.S. pilots. And Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles put U.S military installations across the U.S. Central Command region at risk. The cost in U.S. casualties could be high.”

The big problem for the United States is it simply does not have the military power to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, 30% of the world’s oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, stated reality clearly: “If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces.”

Pepe Escobar explains the Iranian border of the Persian Gulf is lined up with anti-ship missiles and Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting “carriers in the sea” with precision. He explains that blocking the Strait would dramatically increase oil prices and detonate “the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.”

Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan are ready for joint operations in response to a US military war against Iran. According to Eliajah J.Magnier, they are prepared and on alert at the highest level. Joint operations will begin from the moment they are necessary. According to sources, Iran’s allies will open fire against already agreed on objectives in an organized, orchestrated, synchronized and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months. The US will face war on many fronts very quickly.

The US lacks international support for a military attack on Iran. Russia, China, the European Union, and other major powers have called for de-escalation. A military attack on Iran would lead to a quagmire that could take a decade or more and end in defeat for the United States, destruction in Iran and chaos in the region. The US has spent more than $7 trillion since the beginning of the Iraq War and Iran is larger in geography and population as well as having a better militarily. The United States cannot afford another $7+ trillion dollar war for another decade. It would be an economic and military disaster that would further isolate the United States.

Iran in Context and a Path Out of the US-Created Debacle

In our conversation on the Clearing the FOG podcast, which will air Monday, June 24, conflict resolution expert, Patrick Hiller, explained how sometimes to resolve a conflict, the conflict must be heightened. The US conflict with Iran is escalating in dangerous ways where perhaps both sides can see that the path to war will produce no winners and could be the greatest foreign policy error in US history.

President Trump can be the hero as the US heads into 2020 presidential elections but it will require him to stop listening to National Security Advisor, John Bolton and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who both want war with Iran. Their advice is the opposite of President Trump’s criticism of war during his last campaign. They have teamed up to undermine Trump’s negotiations with North Korea, prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, led him into a failed coup in Venezuela and now to the brink of war with Iran. Trump would be wise to replace both Bolton and Pompeo.

The idiocy of Pompeo was shown this week when he claimed Iran’s actions “should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression.” Is Pompeo really that ignorant of history?

Popular Resistance has often reported on the US overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953. The CIA has confirmed its role in this coup as has the US State Department. This coup ended Iran’s brief experience with a secular democracy. If that democracy had been allowed to flourish, the story of the Middle East would have been very different than the war, chaos and brutal governments we have seen since that time. Mossadegh was followed by the US puppet, the Shah, who brutally ruled the country until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

After the Iranian Revolution, the US encouraged and supported the eight-year Iraq War against Iran with money, naval assistance, and weapons. The US provided Iraq with the ingredients for chemical weapons as well as intelligence on where to use them. More than one million people were killed and more than 80,000 were injured by chemical weapons in the war.

The US also killed 290 Iranians, including 66 children, when a US missile shot down a commercial Iranian airliner in July 1988. The US has never apologized for this mass killing of civilians. The US has imposed aggressive economic sanctions against Iran since they declared their independence and has consistently escalated those sanctions in an attempt to destroy their economy. And, the US has spent millions of dollars to build opposition inside Iran to the Iranian government as well as working with the opposition, MEK, secretly trained by the US military, which is branded a terrorist group by Iran (and used to be designated a terrorist group by the US).

The US has imposed economic sanctions since 1980 when the US broke diplomatic relations with Iran. President Carter put in place sanctions including freezing $12 billion in Iranian assets and banning imports of Iranian oil. The economic war and the illegal unilateral coercive measures have been escalated by every president, including by President Trump when he violated the carefully negotiated nuclear agreement. Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif painstakingly negotiated the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal between China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the European Union for more than a decade. Instead of abiding by the agreement, the US violated it and escalated sanctions against Iran.

The US is also fomenting rebellion. The Trump administration has been seeking regime change through various actions including violence. Trump created a Mission Center in the CIA focused on regime change in Iran and spends millions of dollars to encourage opposition in Iran, working to manipulate protests to support a US agenda.

The path out of this mess is for President Trump to lead. He needs to acknowledge this history and the mistakes of his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, rejoin the nuclear agreement, abide by it by lifting the illegal US sanctions and promise to abide by international law. It will take positive actions by the United States to make up for decades of aggressive abuses against Iran to bring Iran to the table of diplomacy.

If these steps are taken, a positive relationship based on mutual respect can be developed between the US and Iran. It is the job of the peace movement and all those who seek stability and justice in the world to work toward this outcome.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are directors of Popular Resistance where this article originally published

25 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Gautam Navlakha

On June 16 China announced that it had reached a “broad consensus” about counter-terror work with United Nations, after UN’s chief for Counter-terrorism, Russian diplomat Vladimir Voronkov made a visit to Xinjiang from June 13-15. China’s handling of so called terror threat posed by Uighur extremists has been much talked about by western media and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres raised the issue about the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang in April when he visited Beijing and met State Councillor Wang Yi. UN Human Rights chief Michelle Bachelet has been pushing China to allow UN access to investigate reports of disappearances and arbitrary detention of Uighur Muslims. Whether China encouraged the UN counter-terror chief to visit to circumvent the pressure it was coming under for its counter-terror measures is difficult to say but the visit certainly helped to ward off, for the time being, investigation by UNHRC team. Except it does not mean that China’s use of counter-terror approach towards Uighur Muslims and measures it has adopted for tackling it are above board.

Infact for years China denied existence of arbitrary detentions and enforced political re-eductaion bases. Then they claimed that these re-education camps were meant only against “minor criminals” and the idea was to “asist and educate” them. Its only since last year that China has begun to accept that “transformation through education” camps do exist in order to eliminate “religious extremism”. Indeed new rules enacted by the ruling Party allows “Governments at county level and above can set up education and trasnformation organisation and supervising departments” such as vocational training centres “to educate and transform people who have been infleunced by extremism” says a new clause in the Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region Regulation on Anti-Extremism.

These centres apart from teaching vocational skills are required to provide education on spoken and written Chinese (Mandarin), aspects of law and organise “ideological education to eliminate extremism”. They are also expected to carry out psychological treatment and behaviour correction to “help trainees to transform their thoughts and return to society and their families.”

In March 2017 a law was passed to ban acts deemed manifestation of extremism, including wearing veils, having “abnormal” beard, refusing to watch TV, listen to Radio and preventing children from national education.

Xinjiang situated on ancient silk route is a major logistical hub for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Xinjiang is also rich in oil and other natural deposits. Starting around turn of the century investments in oil, gas and other mineral extraction industry have resulted in influx of Han Chinese settlers to Xinjiang. In 2009 riots had broken out in capital Urumqi since then repression increased. But it took a new turn in 2014 when in the name of combating terrorism and extremism Chinese authorities cracked down on Uighurs. Observers claim that the new Communist Party leader of Xinjiang Chen Quanguo, who was previously posted in restive Tibet and also a key player in the suppression of Falun Gong sect/religion across China, brought in a new grid system under which authorities divided city into squares of about 500 people with a police outpost to keep tab on people. In rural areas every village got a police outpost. The other change he brought in was banning certain names (such as Imam or Mohammed) and long beards and began targetting certain practices and beliefs of Muslims.

It is worth noting that in China there has been, what the Chinese describe, as two-line struggle within the Party on its stance on ethnic and religious minorities. The two lines, were “themes”, “ethnic mingling” versus “ethnic diversity”. Under cultural revolution, ethnic groups had suffered at the hands of Red Guards zealots, thereafter Party had moderated its stance towards minorities. Indeed as late as in 1999 Chinese Government adopted a policy “to preserve the traditional cultures of the ethnic minorities, the state formulated plans or organised specialists for work invloving the collecting, editing, translating and publishing of their cultural heritage and protecting their famous historical monuments, scenic spots, rare cultural relics and other important items of historical and cultural heritage”. However, this policy did not survive for long. This was the period when many Uigurs chose to migrate to Turkey and Pakistan as well as to Central Asian Republics. In particular, some Uighurs joined Al Qaida in Afghanistan or later joined Al Nusrat front in Syria.

While China’s fear of radicalised Uighurs posing a threat to its security and BRI which passes through Xinjiang can not be dismissed. It is equally, if not more true that the way China has gone about handling this challenge is deplorable. Although at Central Ethnic Workshop in September 2014 President Xi Jinping sought to bring the debate between those espousing end to ethnic autonomy and those espousing its expansion, in reality he lay emphasis on promoting collective belonging through Mandarin language instruction, patriotic education in Frontier region, stressed “equality before law of everyone” rather than group differentiated rights under China’s Constitution. Party began to stress residential integration, joint schooling, inter-ethnic mobility and migration as ways of getting around extremism.In the process there is demographic transformation taking place which, given Xinjiang’s strategic location, is a counter-productive move.

It is significant that ‘transformation through education” was first tried out against Falun Gong members, who were Han Chinese and millions of them spread all across China. The same leadership team which undertook this task is also reportedly engaged in the “transformation through education” project today in Xinjiang. Although westerm media and human rights group cite figures of a million, the exact number of people is difficult to verify. While numbers may be exaggerated the coercive nature of this re-education is not. What is disturbing about them is the fact that unlike draconian laws which target ethnic extremists/militants, or ruthless approach towards those using violence, the “transformation through education” targets ordinary Uighurs, or civilians. Even discounting for western media’s biasesd reportage of China and China related news, one cannot ignore the fact that there is mass detention of Uighurs who spend from several months to years in such camps. And these camps, it appears from reports, are not benign since the very idea of transforming people’s attitude is inherently coercive.

What is unfortunate is not just the fact that Chinese ruling Party has not been able to evolve a approach towards ethnic minorities which is accomodative and allows them elbow room to protect their cultural specifity. Instead the Party perceives cultural and political diversity as being a threat, rather than a source of strength. And as a result shows no scruple in practising suppression of ethnic diversity, unmindful of what damage it causes to the people. What is worse is that they are oblivious of enlightened self-interest because had they been alert to it the Party would realise that they are actually sowing seeds of a long drawn out conflict. Because, just as they are unable to stamp out Falun Gong, despite ban and its criminalisation. Uighurs with their ethnic kin in CAR and Afghanistan and Turkey, can nurture their rage and resentment.

Since Xinjiang shares border with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Turkmenistan, trouble in Xinjiang is bound to spill over. Just as trouble in Afghanistan and Pakistan can spillover into Xinjiang. In other words, a wiser course would be for the Chinese Party to return to the Constitutional guarantees offered to minorities, and to policy of respect for “ethnic diversity” lest Xinjiang, strategic logistical hub remain turbulent putting a spoke in China’s BRI project, because ideas do not disappear.

Gautam Navlakha is a political commentator

25 June 2019

Source: countercurrents.org