Just International

Globocop, gambling, fake news and security morons: Eight issues emerging from the Las Vegas tragedy

By Imtiaz Muqbil

Apparently unnoticed by any mainstream media, the tragic Las Vegas shooting occurred on the UN International Day of Non-Violence, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. Going right to the heart of multiple challenges threatening the future of travel & tourism, it should force some heavy-duty, industry-wide soul-searching about how to deal with them. A deeper debate is now unavoidable. Sweeping the emerging issues under the carpet will be like denying the presence of a cancerous tumour. The travel & tourism industry risks doing that at its peril.

I am raising these issues from a position of unmatched strength. I claim to be the only journalist in Asia to have warned explicitly over the years that America’s love-affair with violence will never end, NEVER. This assertion was repeatedly made in a former column called Soul-Searching which I wrote for the Bangkok Post for 15 years. The Bangkok Post gagged the column in July 2012. In protest, I uploaded the last unpublished column on my website here (along with many other earlier columns which can be read by clicking here):

Here are eight issues that must be put on the table of the travel & tourism industry:

1. The end of Globocop

America’s days as a global judge, jury and executioner are now effectively over. This is one physician who cannot heal himself. A country incapable of curbing such a long-standing and deep-rooted problem as its home-grown gun violence can NEVER establish global peace and order, and should NEVER be relied upon to do so. Indeed, the role of America’s industry of violence is worthy of much deeper introspection. While the U.S. gun lobby faces at least some kind of check-and-balance scrutiny at home, its international equivalent, the U.S. military-industrial complex, faces no scrutiny abroad as the world’s biggest arms exporter. A clear nexus exists between the internal and external violence resulting from U.S. weaponry, and goes a long way towards explaining the presence of so much global mayhem.

2. Disastrous side effects of gambling

What does this mean for the so-called “gaming” industry? Just as promoters and advocates of gay travel sweep issues related to the spread of HIV/AIDS under the carpet, so too do promoters of casinos only wish to portray sunny-side-up images of how much they contribute to jobs, economic growth and GDP. The negative side of gambling — addictions, debts, domestic violence, and now this — has never been publicly discussed at travel industry forums. Perhaps it is time to balance that.

3. Fake News

Media coverage of this tragedy has raised even more questions about the fake-news industry and journalistic professionalism. The so-called “ISIS” supposedly claimed responsibility. The Indian Express fell into the trap and unquestioningly ran the headline. The headline stayed on the Indian Express website for nearly 7 hours before being replaced.

A few months ago, I was in the Philippines, where “ISIS” also claimed responsibility for a similar deranged-gambler shooting at a Manila casino. That, too, turned out to be a fraud. As these ISIS claims are pretty much a work of fiction, it paves the way for deeper investigation of all its past claims, as well as the entire ISIS network. Indeed, there appeared to be a desperate spin attempt to link the shooting to Muslims, even though authorities said they hadn’t found any evidence of a connection.

4. The useless security apparatus

In spite of Las Vegas having one of the world’s most elaborate security networks, including omnipresent CCTV monitoring, this domestic terrorist managed to evade detection, haul a whole stash of guns into the hotel, find a birds-eye location, unload his formidable weapons and open fire. That makes the entire security apparatus look like a bunch of morons. Instead of accepting responsibility for this monstrous failure to protect, and hold itself accountable, the conniving security contractors will seek to convert a crisis into an opportunity by convincing the travel & tourism to throw more good money after bad. Travel & tourism would be even more moronic to dance to this tune.

The rush to pin the blame on “ISIS” makes the security apparatus look even more stupid. According to the Indian Express website, “ISIS” released a statement via its news agency Aamaq, naming the purported attacker as “Abu Abd el-Bar al-Amriki (the American),” saying he responded to calls by the group’s top leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to “target the countries of the Crusader coalition” battling the extremist group in Iraq and Syria. Really? How did they communicate with each other? By postcard? If the shooter could evade the entire communications monitoring and surveillance apparatus of the U.S. government, backed by the Israelis, it must be run by a bunch of morons.

5. Curbs on American travellers

Home-grown, white American gunmen are clearly proving to be as dangerous as terrorists of all ilks. Various media outlets compiled extensive figures on the string of American mass shootings over the years. If they had passports, all these American shooters could walk into most countries in the world, without a visa. Why should this continue to be the case? The Donald Trump administration has just put placed strict entry curbs on citizens of six Muslim-majority countries, purportedly on the grounds of security. Why shouldn’t all Americans now face the same curbs worldwide?

6. Double standards on travel advisories

Why aren’t countries around the world putting travel advisories on the United States? If this shooting had taken place in any other city in Asia, Africa or the Arab world, travel advisories would have flowed thick and fast, accompanied by visa restrictions, condemnations and more security. Again, why the weak-kneed reaction and double standards?

7. Brand image of America

The less said the better. The tourism marketing and promotion organisations US Travel and Brand USA, have got some heavy-duty soul-searching ahead of them. This commentary below appeared in June 2017 in an effort to stop the Trump Administration’s effort to disband Brand USA. With the major trade show season now starting worldwide, including ITB Asia and World Travel Mart, American tourism branding gurus have got their work cut out for them explaining how visitors can stay safe in their country.

8. Nomenclature of terrorism

Finally, this collection of media headlines below shows the stark differences in the way mainstream media labels acts of violence. If it’s a Muslim, it’s terrorism. Anyone else is a gunman, a shooter, a lone-wolf, a militant, everything but a terrorist. The Islamic world has now every reason to turn the tables and level the playing field. They are ALL terrorists, regardless of caste, colour, creed, nationality, religion or ethnicity.

www.travel-impact-newswire.com

3 October 2017

Why are people so vulnerable to frauds who masquerade as godmen?

By Swami Agnivesh and Valson Thampu

What should worry us is the readiness of the masses to embrace slavery. The denizens of the dens of ‘godmanity’ – the perversion of divinity – are voluntary slaves. Why, in an age that has deified freedom, do millions of human beings freely embrace slavery in the name of spirituality?

The pestilence of ‘godmanity’ will not subside with putting one Gurmeet behind bars. The antidote to this perversion is the education of the people and their all-round development as human beings.(AP)

So-called godmen like Gurmeet Singh and Asaram Bapu among others are meant to deliver the truth and tenets about spirituality to followers. But this begs the question, do we need an angel from heaven to tell us that spirituality and covetousness cannot co-exist? Can we think of a single instance of an authentic spiritual being who became opulent in his lifetime, on account of his work? How is it then, that our hyper-modern godmen and godwomen are rolling in wealth?

Second, is there any precedent in any spiritual tradition of anyone who is godly creating a fortress of secrecy around himself? We associate spirituality with light. Are not dens akin to darkness, rather than light? Do we know of a single instance in which what is good or lawful ever needed iron curtains of secrecy?

Third, who doesn’t know that wherever there is lust for money there will surely be (a) sexual depravity and (b) crime of diverse kinds? It is simply impossible that the sort and scale of crime that Gurmeet and wolves of his ilk perpetrate can be done with assured impunity even in the underworld. Are we to tolerate a situation in which the mask of godliness becomes a cover up for unspeakable depravity?

What should worry us, besides the above, is the readiness of the masses to embrace slavery. The denizens of the dens of ‘godmanity’ – a perversion of divinity – are voluntary slaves. Why, in an age that has deified freedom, do millions of human beings freely embrace slavery in the name of spirituality?

Choice is driven by taste. Taste is a matter of personal development. This puts the spotlight on our growth, on who we are. An animal grows as an animal should; a bird, likewise. So, a human being should grow as a human being. From time immemorial members of our species have known that we are a body-mind-spirit combine. To ‘grow’ humanly, therefore, is to grow in terms of all three dimensions. Fraud godmen thrive on the detritus of rotten religiosity that, by refusing to empower human beings with the light of reason, keeps them vulnerable to the predator that prowls in the darkness of blind faith.

A society that abdicates the duty to propagate a scientific temper and rational outlook abandons people, willy-nilly, to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Mistaking spirituality for psychological dependence, they become like creepers that need something to climb on. They fall short of discernment. This is an open invitation to the Gurmeet Singhs of this world! They are ready with their package of tricks, illusions and delusions to mesmerise even the educated.

We no longer have any excuse for not knowing that our godmen are not a religious phenomenon at all. They are the counterparts of hunters in the wild. Every animal adapts itself to its environment. Our godman predator is no exception to this law of nature. He is an expert in knowing and plying the ropes of society and in donning the attire that serves to deceive his prospective victims and to mask his perverse nature.

The nexus between godmen and what purports to be the secular State is not an accident, but a natural outcome. Godmen need the secular State as a camouflaging device. The public obeisance that ministers and officers of the State proffer to godmen is precisely the camouflage they need. This makes their criminal face inconspicuous to public. Those who provide political cover to these predators prowling with impunity in the society are as culpable as the godmen are. They are partners-in-crime with our fraud-men.

The pestilence of ‘godmanity’ will not subside with putting one Gurmeet behind bars. The antidote to this perversion is the education of the people and their all-round development as human beings. It is certain that no one with even minimal mental and spiritual discernment will succumb to the wiles of these wolves, with their mouths dripping with blood for those who have eyes to see. It is only the territory that the State abandons via quid pro quo that godmen annex. And that is where remedial action needs to begin.

Swami Agnivesh is an Arya Samaj scholar and social activist

Valson Thampu is a Christian theologian and former principal of St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi

www.hindustantimes.com

28 September 2017

Taking The Knee: An Old (New) Custom

By Sally Dugman

Perhaps the first or one of the first times that this taking the knee action became significant in the USA was when M. L. King, Jr., did it. He like many other defiant individuals of the social order acted respectfully and heartfelt Yet he was not going to stop his actions regardless of consequences, which ended in his murder.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., center, leads a group of civil rights workers and residents of Selma, Ala.

Customs often have an interesting way of arising. For example, we offer our right hands when greeting  strangers and shake them.

The original purpose for the handshake was this: to prove that your intentions toward the strangers were friendly. After all, the right hand  — the sword, saber and knife hand wiellder — was the right hand for most people. So symbolically you can show no ill will when the hand is offered free of a weapon.

Russian and American soldiers shaking hands and greeting each other

Jesus also condoned the defiance that is the custom of bending the knee, although he had another way to carry it out. … Contrary to modern derivatives of turning the other cheek’s meaning as indicating that one forgives and forgets, this action was an act of disobedience.

It is because offering your left facial cheek to a lord, ruler or other superior means that you would not show him his superiority to you by offering your right one for a possible slapping. So Jesus turned his left one to Romans and others to show noncompliance.

Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) did the same action with NOT kneeling or bending the knee before Royalty in England and elsewhere located. It was because they thought that we were all equal under the eyes of the ultimate Lord, God.

They refused to bend the knee to false Gods and those in power alike:

“What pictured forms of heathen lore, of god and goddess please you, What idol graven images you bend your wicked knees to.” – John Greenleaf Whittier

John Greenleaf Whittier – Wikipedia

John Greenleaf Whittier (December 17, 1807 – September 7, 1892) was an American Quaker poet and advocate of the abolition of slavery in the United States.

Yet the meanings of certain actions can change with time and I bet that now that some Quakers now are bending the knee in this vein if they are in sports’ stadium stands:

Several New England Patriots players kneeled during the national anthem before an N.F.L game against the Houston Texans on Sunday.

‘America’s Team’: All Dallas Cowboys, owner take a knee during Monday’s NFL
“President Donald Trump said Tuesday he felt “ashamed” by ‘disgraceful’ NFL-wide protests and accused participants of disrespecting military members who died or were injured defending the United States.

“’I was ashamed of what was taking place,’ Trump said during a joint press conference with the Spanish prime minister in the White House Rose Garden, referring to the numerous football players who knelt during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games.

“I don’t think you can disrespect our country, our flag, our national anthem,” Trump said. ‘Many people have died,’ he added, referring to fallen military members.” –Trump: I ‘felt ashamed’ after ‘disgraceful’ NFL protests, NBC News

Every time that those in power try to use fascist measures to control us, we people across the world need to lock arms in protest or take the knee. We need it as a form of protest against them and our huge capability to “speak truth to power.”

We need it across all countries at public events. We need to kneel or lock arms and show our rejection of a wrongful system. We need to do so since the tormentors won’t willingly cede their control of us unless we stand up to them with formidable force.

A number of my friends in the USA think that we are broiling toward another civil war. Some of the signs of this possibly coming into being in the USA are already present.

What is needed on behalf of all oppressed people across the world are huge protests, such as we had in Charlottesville, Boston (40,000 strong) and now at our sports’ stadiums in the USA. … What we need is an attempt to universally protect each other in unison, and in the nonviolent ways that M. Gandhi and M. L. King, Jr. both did. … Only when we continually speak truth to power and have enough people in unified defiance will we have the hope of finally being a bit free from covert or overt violence and intimidation!

Let’s all honor our societies’ best intentions by knee or locked arms:

A protester is detained by Portland police during a demonstration in Portland, Sunday, June

As an aside, people should never stereotype others. I have a policeman in my neighborhood, who would if defend anyone’s life by giving up his. He doesn’t care about your religious preferences, skin color or any aspects about you personally since he sees it his duty to serve humanity.
So I hope that we can continue to all resist, including him. Let’s fight the status quo full-force in peaceful ways! … Non-action is consent!

We need to take some sort of this rejecting action for all of the people, who for centuries before us fought. This includes my former friend, Andy Goodman, who was murdered while Freedom Riding. This involves Gauri Lankesh and will always involve new others like Prof Kancha Illaiah. If we won’t defend them, then who will? So rise up or go on knee.

Personally, I don’t care about the way that others resist. I think that we should all learn to carry out this action — the knee, the locked arms  or something else — across the world. So I want this fightt o spread as an action like a wild fire.  It is one of the few ways that we can fight back power with equal power. So I hope that this custom latches on across the world regardless of the way that it is enacted.

Sally Dugman is a writer from MA, USA.

www.countercurrents.org

27 September 2017

Nazis March Into Germany’s Parliament

By Thomas Kilkauer

On 24th September  2017, elections to Germany’s parliament resulted in the fact that for the first time since 1949, a neo-Nazi party was elected with 12.6%, just behind Merkel’s conservatives (32.9%) and the social-democratic SPD (20.5%). Other parties entering the German parliament are the neo-liberal FDP (10.7%), the Left (9.2%), and the Greens (8.9%).

Unlike the old Nazis who called themselves Nazis, the new Nazis call themselves “Alternative for Germany” (AfD) camouflaging their true ideology. The AfD is also known as “alternative for the dumb” in the best tradition of the AfD’s ideological predecessors. Neither Himmler, Goering or Hitler suffered from intellectualism – they were “men”(!) of brutality and action. Much of Hitler’s almost unreadable “Mein Kampf”, for example, was a fight against German grammar as it was a fight against Jews, workers, and the left. The Nazi’s tradition of stupidity, racism and anti-intellectualism lives on just as the old Nazis used to prevail in Germany’s post-World War II institutions. Apart from a few show trials, most Nazis seamlessly converted into post-war Germany’s political, economic, and legal institutions. These Nazis became government advisors (Globke), others became judges and state premiers (Filbinger), while others made it into Germany’s chancellery (Carstens), etc. They are the ideological forbearers of the AfD.

According to the recent (24th September) election results, the Nazi AfD became the third biggest party after the conservative centre-right CDU and the centre-left SPD.  Merkel’s CDU and the social-democratic SPD have been in a coalition in recent years governing Germany. Like Germany’s old Nazis and the Italian Fasci di Combattimento, capital gave a helping hand in founding the new Nazi’s AfD. Originally, the AfD was a free-market, pro-capitalism, anti-European party establishing itself to the right of Merkel’s conservatives. Today, it favours racism, Nazi glorification, anti-Semitism, is anti-Islamic and staunchly against anything remotely progressive (e.g. the left, trade unions, etc.).

For the most part, the AfD simply exchanged scapegoating Jews (old Nazis) with scapegoating Muslims (new Nazis) warning that Germany – and indeed Europe – will be overrun by Muslims. The AfD occupies the extreme right that is increasingly disillusioned with Germany’s traditional right as Merkel moves towards moderate conservatism. Since years East-Germany’s enlightened protestant Angelika Merkel has moved the CDU towards the political centre favouring strong state programmes, social welfare and giving a helping hand to migrants.

Quite similar to the old Nazis that were generously supported by German capital (Mercedes-Benz, Krupp, Deutsche Bank, Hugo Boss, etc.) and the press (Hugenberg), today’s media are, at least partly, responsible for the electoral growth. It allowed the AfD’s new(ish) Nazi ideology to enter into the mainstream. Virtually all German media channels pushed the AfD’s right-wing extremist ideology by inviting them into their TV studios. That never happened before in post-war Germany.

At the one and only TV debate between chancellor Merkel and her challenger Martin Schulz (social-democrats), for example, Germany’s leading TV channels (ARD, ZDF, RTL, Sat1) offered the AfD a platform allowing it to role out its xenophobic right-wing extremism. TV moderators were asking many questions about non-Germans. Journalists connected terror and immigration pushing the AfD’s ideological agenda. The threat of Nazism to Germany was not worthy of a single question. This is Germany in 2017. German journalist Stefan Niggemeier, for example, tweeted that over half of the 100-minute TV debate sounded like a pro-AfD show. The AfD support received by four of Germany’s leading journalists was shocking to many.

Earlier this month, AfD’s right-wing extremist Alice Weidel (e.g. ”the Wehrmacht did good”) was treated like a mainstream figure. Many are deeply shocked about German media and accuses made for the AfD’s right-wing extremist agenda. This should have no place in public TV.

Despite all this the question still is: what is the Alternative for Germany (AfD)? The party was founded in 2013 by a nationalistic capitalist named Bernd Lucke. Very soon thereafter, much more right-wing extremists took over the party, perhaps in a stark reminder of Hitler’s “night of the long knives”. The AfD’s turn towards Nazism included the election of the recently resigned Ms FraukePetry as head of the party in 2015. Since 2014, the AfD has been elected to several German state parliaments. Its main political ideologies are anti-EU, it defames abortion, promotes ultra-nationalism, racism, a mythical andxenophobic hatred of others, and embraces Germany’s Nazi past.

Fascism often comes with a mass movement. Italy’s fascists had the black-shirts, Hungary the Arrow-Cross and Germany’s old Nazi party had storm-troopers (SA and later SS). In modern fascism, the AfD’s outfit is called PEGIDA. The AfD also supports thousands of very dangerous neo-Nazi punchers. Between 1990 and 2013 alone, 184 people have been killed by neo-Nazis in Germany for political reasons – not to mention the Nazi-killers of the NSU. Nazi victims are mostly German-Turkish people, leftists, punk-rockers, Muslims, homeless people, and refugees, among many others.

The AfD’s head, FraukePetry, wants to reintroduce a core Nazi ideology called “völkisch”, a Nazi-term meaning the Aryan German master race – white power. The two leading campaigners for the AfD campaign, Alice Weidel and Alexander Gauland are right-wing extremists. In a recent e-mail Weidel wrote, members of Angela Merkel’s cabinet are “pigs” and “puppets of the winners of World War II”. She believes that Germany is not “sovereign”. This is a common Nazi claim. Hence the AfD’s call to re-introduceReichsbürger (race based citizenship).

The boss of the AfD in the parliament of the state of Saxony-Anhalt, for example, André Poggenburg, openly uses Nazi language against the left in a speech in parliament. Markus Frohnmaier, who is a candidate for the Bundestag in the state of Baden-Württemberg – he is the head of the AfD’s young alternative and a spokesperson for Alice Weidel – has close connections to neo-Nazis such as the  “German Defence League” (GDL). He said that he and the AfD would together “clear the country out” of the left. This is the Nazi language of concentration camps.

DubravkoMandic, an immigrant from Yugoslavia now agitates against immigration seeing the AfD as a right-wing radical network. The AfD agitates against a supposedreplacement of Europeans by people from the Middle East, mainly Muslims. Here Jew hatred and Muslim hatred overlap. Neo-Nazis and America’s extreme right in Charlottesville were chanting, “Jews will not replace us”. Like the AfD, they also believe Jews and Muslims are behind all evil. This is the very same anti-Semitic ideology AfD author Wolfgang Gedeon promotes. For him, all evil comes from the Jews, America, Zionism, Muslims, homosexuals, and the left.

Meanwhile the AfD’s Jens Maier trivialised Norwegian neo-Nazi mass murderer Anders Breivik who admitted that a book by the neo-Nazi Fjordman inspired him. Another leading figure of theAfD is Stephan Brandner – an extremely aggressive demagogue who wants Angela Merkel to be locked up. A stark reminder of Trump’s “lock her up”. Brander accuses Germany’s antifascists, the Antifa, as being SA-style Nazis.

AfD’s man in Bremen, Frank Magnitz shares many racist fantasies such as the coming destruction of all of Islam by sharing a picture with the inscription, “if you could push this button and remove Islam from the world forever, would you do it? Like and share for yes!” You see a group of praying Muslims and on the left side a red button. Pushing the button means supporting the destruction of Islam and all Muslims. These are old and new Nazi fantasies of killing an entire religion – ethnic cleansing and race hatred. Much of this is part of the AfD’s political project. Very soon, almost one-hundred of them will become members of Germany’s parliament.

Blogger David Berger will vote AfD as he publicly declared. At an AfD rally in Jena with key AfD politicians such as Alice Weidel, Stephan Brandner, WiebkeMuhsal, some 250 hard-core AfD supporters and 1000 counter-protesters, as well as some neo-Nazi AfD activists shouted, “we will build a subway system to Auschwitz”. This did not occur in 1933. This is Germany in 2017.

Gauland, the party’s no. 2 – many say de facto no. 1 – said recently at a neo-Nazi meeting at mount “Kyffhäuser” (a legendary Nazi pilgrimage site) that he is “proud of German soldiers in World War I and World War II”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#/media/File:Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_(1942).jpg

With the AfD, the affirmation of the Holocaust has become mainstream in Germany today. It is the ideology that got the new Nazis of the AfD into Germany’s parliament by deliveringalmost six million votes. Historically, Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht was an essential part of the Holocaust alongside the SS,Police Battalions and others.

One of the AfD’s leading Nazi politicians is BjörnHöcke. He speaks in a manner imitating Joseph Goebbels. He calls Germany’s Holocaust Memorial “a memorial of shame”. Other AfD figures such as Holocaust denier Wilhelm von Gottberg (aged 77) are on the election list of the AfD in the state of Lower Saxony. It might be interesting to pursue a “who voted for Hitler? ” comparison to ‘who voted for the AfD?”

All of this testifies that indeed, there is a nasty climate in Germany these days. Right-wing extremists and Nazis are able to shout the most anti-Semitic, racist and pro-Germanic race slogans such as the old Nazi’s “Germany Awake” or “Whatever it takes for Germany”. Both Nazi slogans are actually forbidden in Germany yet go unpunished.Nazi propaganda, ideology, brutality and murder more often than not were unpunished in the dying years of Weimar.

Today, mainstream Nazi ideology involves some very rich and influential people in Europe. According to a report by investigative journalist Tomasz Konicz, the AfD gets money and support from theMövenpick Company (ice-cream) and from the “Swiss Goal Corporation” that itself includes leading AfD politicians. Billionaire August von Finck junior (born 1930), among the richest people in Germany (he lives in Switzerland), is a supporter of the AfD. Finck’s company bought the name of the gold company “Degussa”. This is the very same Degussa that delivered Zyklon B to the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Degussa would also melt down the gold from the teeth of the murdered Jewish victims.

August von Finck’s father was a Nazi who “Aryanised” Jewish banks including the Rothschild Bank and Dreyfus & Co. in Germany. “The Junior”, as he is known, supports several right-wing parties – the most recent being the AfD. AfD politician Beatrix von Storch was, for example, a member of a reactionary “Citizens’ Convent” dedicated to a hard-core neoliberal campaign against Germany’s welfare state. They were generously supported by Finck’s company.Many have highlighted the connection of billionaire von Finck and the AfD. August von Finck is also owner of Mövenpick hotels & resorts. He represents the capitalist establishment in Germany. Not surprisingly, he was a big beneficiary of a tax reform in 2009, carried out by Merkel. Ideologically, the Finck family has a long history of pure Nazism – today culminating in its support for the AfD.

Journalist Marcus Engert of BuzzFeed News has analysed 396 AfD candidates exposing their extremist right-wing agendas. Meanwhile, professor HajoFunke fears that Germany’s parliament isn’t fit to deal with the looming Nazi onslaught. Until a few days ago, post-war Germany never had such a well-organised and strong Nazi party in its federal parliament. Unfortunately, over the years, Germany had dozens, if not hundreds of former individual Nazi party members in its parliament since from 1949 through the 1950s. This ugly German post-war history is well known. As soon as anti-Nazi re-education ended and America discovered that it needs Germany in its newly found Cold War fight against the Soviet Union, ex-Nazis were welcomed into the political-administrative elites of post-war Germany. Others simply continued. Germany never really had a de-Nazification. Nazism has lived on, often silently but it was there. Today, the AfD brings out the racist undercurrent that was kept alive for many years in Germany.

Carrying Nazi ideology into post-war Germany has many features. One includes leading Nazis such as the aforementioned Hans Globke responsible for Nazi race laws. He became minister under Konrad Adenauer in the 1950s. The list of post-war Nazis also includes Kurt-Georg Kiesinger – a Nazi party member – and later Germany’s chancellor (1966–1969). He was courageously and famously slapped by one of Europe’s greatest anti-fascists, BeateKlarsfeld, in 1968. One might also include Nazi-professor Heidegger and Hans Filbinger (CDU). Filbinger was state premier (Baden-Württemberg, 1966–1978). He was a member of the Nazi party. The sheer endless list of Nazis in post-war Germany also includes Carl Carstens – a Nazi party member who became Germany’s president (1979–1984).

Since 24th September 2017, Germany has Nazis in its parliament. Contrary to the 1960s, these days Germanyhas not yet seen another BeateKlarsfeld who will tell the AfD’s anti-Semites, racists, and Holocaust deniers that their politics will not go unchallenged. Today, Nazism is much more widespread compared to the 1960s. Today, we have many young and still a few old Nazis joining forces in an unprecedented way. In the 1960s, old Nazis never had a chance to form their own party and to be elected. In the year 2017, AfD Nazis have already fulfilled some of their ideological missions: honouring the Nazi Wehrmacht, denying the Holocaust, and fighting against democracy and the left.

Being furnished with parliamentarian status will only encourage Germany’s new Nazis. Like in 1933, they will not moderate themselves. If history is anything to go by, the gravest danger for Germany, the left and ultimately Europe and the world comes not only from the new Nazis. It comes also from a conservative coalition government that includes the new Nazis (AfD). By 1933 Hitler’s Nazi party was already in decline in electoral polling. His Nazis actually came to power through a conservative coalition government making Hitler Reichskanzler (chancellor). It was German conservatism that made Hitler possible. In 2017, one might hope that German conservatism has learned its historic lesson.

German born Thomas Klikauer(Pol. Sc. Bremen and Boston): https://klikauer.wordpress.com/

27 September 2017

Mr. Xi Jinping, Take A Look At This Photo

By M Adil Khan

I urge you, Mr. Xi Jinping, President of Peoples’ Republic of China to take a good look at this photo. Do you see what I see? I see the agony. I see sadness. I also see numerous questions in the eyes of these Rohingya kids that are asking – why are we here, why our parents are not with us, why we do not have our own place to live and why are we without food? They are also asking, who is responsible for inflicting upon us such horrific tragedy? What sins have we committed and why no one is doing anything about us and give back our homes, parents and security?

These Rohingya kids are refugees that have recently been driven out of their homes by the Myanmar military, begging for food at a refugee shelter in Teknaf, Chittagong, Bangladesh. Myanmar government’s ruthless and bloody persecutionsof them have brought them here. They are the world’s most hunted, hungry, humiliated, traumatised and dispossessed kids. This photo also depicts everything that is tragic about Rohingyas -480,000 of them made to flee to Bangladesh to escape Myanmar Military’s mayhem of murder, rape and destruction and another million or so left in Rakhine state facing similar fate. This photo resembles everything that is sad and also everything that is despicable and you Mr. Xi Jinping seems to have sided with the latter.

Your outright support of the tormentor, the Myanmar government that many believe has in fact encouraged them to unleash and expand their mission of ethnic cleansing manifold and with impunity has also put to question your government’s much promised and also much aspired alternative leadership to that of the West who are often derided and for good reasons, as unjust and unfair.Sadly, your government’s backing of Myanmar’s Rohingya persecution is a stark reminder that perhaps the aspiration of an alternative global leadership by China is little premature and that as is evident the leadership orientation of China is also no different from that of the West, it is guided more bycommerce and less by compassion though the empathy that has been demonstrated by West’s media and some of its governments on Rohingya issue has been exemplary.

You, Mr. Xi Jinping, President of China and Chair of 2017 BRICS Summit said that, “We in BRICS countries share the agony of those people who are still caught in chaos and poverty,” and thus commit ourselves to “the well-being of the world in our mind.” These words inspired millions around the world especially those that are disadvantaged and dispossessed. But sadly, the promise of lift people out of “chaos and poverty” did not seem to have translated itself into the policy on Rohingya crisis, a human tragedy of mammoth proportion that is happening right at China’s doorstep. On the contrary, China’s prompt endorsement of Myanmar government’s position that its military’s violence is in response to“the violent attacks”by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), a rag tag and poorly armed rebellious group that stormed several Rakhine police outposts with “sticks and knives and killed few officers and fled with light weaponry”while completely ignoring prolonged persecution of Rohingyas that had prompted rise and attacks of ARSA in the first place is a sad reminder that China’s global vision is less global and more parochial. Mr. Xi’s assertion that “as a friendly neighbor,” his government supports “Myanmar’s efforts to maintain peace in the region” may have been taken by the Myanmar government as a license to annihilate the entire Rohingya community. China’s veto at the UN on Security Council resolution on issue echoed its lack of interest in moral leadership.These are disturbing times.

It is evident that China’s ambivalence to Rohingya issue and for that matter its international relations as a whole is guided firstly, by its policy of non- interference in another country’s domestic affairs and secondly, its economic and geostrategic interestsbut exactly how one is delinked from the other is difficult to fathom.

China’s economic and geostrategic interest in Myanmar stems from Xi’s much touted “One Belt, One Road (OBOR)” initiative, a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan that purports to connect Asia with Europewhich involves $19.0 billion of direct investment in Myanmar that far exceeds investments inall other countries of whichnearly $3 billion and most of it in Rakhine state, the home of the Rohingyas are expected to be spent by 2017. Therefore, keeping Rakhine ‘trouble free’ at any cost is of utmost importance to China. Buthere is the conundrum for China. It needs to decide whether it is in its best interest to look the other way if not encourage Myanmar in a conflict that is increasingly looking less ‘domestic’,for because of conflict induced massive flow of refugees into Bangladesh, becoming more and more a ‘cross-border’ issue. Secondly, regardless of how much Myanmar or China would prefer the Rohingya issue to go away, given that their grievances are genuine and also that in their struggle theyare also not without friends and the fact that some of their backers arepowerful and in the region itself, the conflict is bound to continue ifget more violent and protracted in the coming days meaning that the Rohingya issue is as much humanitarian as geostrategic.

In these circumstances, China has one of these two options–option one, the so-called ‘peace’ in Rakhine is achieved by annihilating Rohingyas which Myanmar certainly aspires but given their number and the vast sympathy they enjoy especially in countries and among people that are China’s and Myanmar’s neighbours makes this option less tenable. Then there is option two, peace and stability with Rohingyas as citizens of Myanmar and also as active participants in China’s projects. Rohingyas who are also known as hard-working people and thus have the potential to become good resources for both China and also, Myanmar. Choice is China’s.

In recent times when China spoke out “… more forcefully on a range of global concerns” world was delighted and thought that they have finally found a moral alternative. But as is obvious it is going through a testing time. Indeed, its ability to take on global leadership also known as “Xi’s global vision’ depends largely on how it respondsto and balances humanitarianwith its economic and geo-strategic needs both within and across.

Rohingya is an acid test for China. It must find a way to balance moral with economic, it is not one or the other. If China thinks that it can achieve its ‘global vision’by simply throwing money at countries and not take moral stand where this is warranted, they would be like a village money lender (in some societies, the most despised characters) wishing to be called a philanthropist!

The author is a former senior UN policy manager

27 September 2017

CAN ASIA HELP TO RE-SHAPE GLOBALISATION FOR HUMAN DIGNITY ?

ABSTRACT

This is the Abstract of a Keynote delivered by Dr Chandra Muzaffar,at the Second Young Scholars Conference organised by the International Institute of Peace and Development Studies(IIPDS), Asian Muslim Action Network (AMAN) and the Asian Resource Foundation (ARF) with the co-operation of Chulalongkorn University held at the Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Thailand on 28 September 2017

Globalisation is a process through which the rapid diffusion of technologies around the world has transformed economies and cultures with implications for every other facet of life. As with other great historical processes, there are both positive and negative consequences emanating from globalisation. It has undoubtedly compelled those who wield power and influence to become more transparent and accountable. At the same time however the new communication technologies have also facilitated the spread of hatred, bigotry and prejudice. Consequently, it has become imperative to distinguish the positive from the negative, right from wrong. In the evolution of human civilisation. It is the values and principles embodied in religious philosophies that serve as the compass for separating good from bad. Asia, as the birth-place of all the great religious philosophies, should once again articulate a set of values and principles that will help to guide globalisation. This has become critical especially since it is Asia — specifically China — that is playing a major role today in shaping the global economy. Guided by the values embodied in their religious and cultural philosophies, Asian countries should be setting the pace in not only determining the direction of the global economy but also in articulating the content of global politics, global culture and global ethnic relations. If the accumulation of wealth in a few hands is not part of the ethic of any religion, we should develop a global economy that ensures equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. Likewise, if sacrificing principle for power is what drives politics today, Asia should instead practise politics based upon principles. If global culture is largely sensate and superficial we should create a cultural ethos that aims to develop character and human dignity. If ethnic relations in most places are characterised by distrust and suspicion, we should nurture ethnic and religious ties that are signified by respect, empathy and love. This alternative vision of a globalised world is not emerging because even Asian societies which are at the forefront of the global economy have chosen to adjust to the structures and patterns associated with the hegemonic power of the United States and its allies. Besides, when religion is brought to the fore in many instances, the preoccupation is with the form rather than the substance of faith. This is why Asia will not be able to shape the world in a manner that would enable human dignity and social justice to flourish. One hopes that in this situation young people will harness the noble values and principles at the heart of their religious philosophies rooted as they are in a spiritual-moral concept of the human being and make these values and principles the basis of a great transformation that renders globalisation a process that is just, equitable and compassionate.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
President,
International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

9 September 2017

Interfaith Interaction: A Great Means for Personal Spiritual Evolution

By Mary Huston

Today, one often hears about the pressing need for interfaith dialogue, mostly in the context of conflict-resolution and peace-building. Since many conflicts in different parts of the world today (as has been the case in much of humanity’s past) are between people who claim to follow different faiths, interfaith dialogue, it is said, is an urgent necessity. If human beings are to learn to live at peace with each other, interfaith interaction and understanding are of paramount importance.

That is true, of course, but there is another reason why interfaith interaction is very useful—and that is, that it can be a wonderful means for our own spiritual evolution. Strangely, though, this aspect is rarely recognized or talked about. When I look back at my own life, it is striking how much I owe to people from different faith backgrounds who have sought to live according to the teachings of their religion. I have learnt a great deal from them, and this has helped me in my own spiritual evolution. I would definitely not be the person I am now had it not been for all the many things I’ve imbibed from the many inspiring, loving, compassionate people from faith communities other than the one I happened to have been born into, whom I have had the good fortune of meeting over the years. These were people who, seeking to be faithful to their religion, led lives of charity and concern for others. Hardly any of them was ‘famous’—most were ‘ordinary’ people who were doing ‘little’ deeds of goodness with great love, deeds are at the heart of what religion ought to be.

I thought of one such person the other day: a young Muslim woman who has been a good friend for many years now.  She prays and fasts regularly, and, even though her income is quite modest, she is very particular about taking out her annual zakat and spending it on the poor and needy. Interestingly, she gives a good proportion of her zakat—in some years, maybe even most of it—to non-Muslims. I can’t say I am even half as generous with ‘my’ money as she is with hers, but I do think that some of her charitableness has rubbed off on me as I’ve witnessed her generosity in action, year after year, that is inspired by the teachings of her faith.

Besides zakat, my friend makes it a point to give what is called sadaqah or charity to one or more poor person when someone in her family falls sick, maybe in the hope of a cure. This beautiful practice, which I had never heard of before, is something that is enjoined upon in Islam, I have since learnt. It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad said: “Treat your sick by giving charity.”

Just the other day, when someone in my family was ill, I was inspired by this practice of sadaqah that I learnt about from my friend to contribute some money in charity. Incidentally, I gave it to a Muslim man who has been arranging for food to be cooked and served almost every day, for several years now, to a large number of very poor people from different religious backgrounds.

Along with giving sadaqah when someone at home or a friend is sick, my friend also prays for them to be cured. Having been brought up to believe that cure is just about potent medicines and a good doctor, my friend taught me a very valuable lesson here, too—about turning to God for healing. It is God that cures, she believes: medicines and doctors are simply a means for cure to happen.

This friend of mine is one of many people from religious traditions other than the one I was born into from whom I have learnt many valuable things, which have played a crucial role in my spiritual growth. I owe them all a very great debt.

Through interaction with people of other faiths, especially by cultivating close friendships, one can learn and adopt good practices that are enjoined in these faiths and that can help one spiritually evolve, as I myself have experienced.

Taking time off to think about and recognizing the many ways in which people of other faiths have transformed our lives for the better and helped us in our spiritual journey is also a great way to overcome deeply-rooted stereotypes that are so easily harnessed to foment hate in the name of religion.  Every one of us has greatly benefited, directly or indirectly, from people of faiths other than the one we claim to follow, although we don’t often or easily acknowledge this fact. If we did so, it would do wonders in healing broken hearts and lives and bringing us all, children of the One God, into closer communion with each other.

25 September 2017

National Geographic has run an important story about the Rohingya

By Brook Larmer

Since this article was published, the Myanmar military has escalated its attacks on Rohingya villages, spurring more than hundreds of thousands Rohingya to flee their homes as of September 11 and stream toward the overcrowded refugee camps in Bangladesh. On Aug. 25, Rohingya militants attacked security forces, killing at least a dozen. The army has responded in brutal fashion, according to refugee accounts, burning villages and killing hundreds.

“Dance!” shouted the army officer, waving a gun at the trembling girl. Afifa, just 14 years old, was corralled in a rice paddy with dozens of girls and women—all members of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority. The soldiers who invaded her village that morning last October said they were looking for militants who had carried out a surprise attack on three border posts, killing nine policemen. The village’s men and boys, fearing for their lives, had dashed into the forests to hide, and the soldiers began terrorizing the women and children.

After enduring an invasive body search, Afifa had watched soldiers drag two young women deep into the rice paddy before they turned their attention to her. “If you don’t dance at once,” the officer said, drawing his hand across his throat, “we will slaughter you.” Choking back tears, Afifa began to sway back and forth. The soldiers clapped rhythmically. A few pulled out mobile phones to shoot videos. The commanding officer slid his arm around Afifa’s waist.

“Now that’s better, isn’t it?” he said, flashing a smile.

The encounter marked only the beginning of the latest wave of violence against the estimated 1.1 million Rohingya who live, precariously, in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state. The United Nations considers the Rohingya one of the world’s most persecuted minorities. Muslims in a nation dominated by Buddhists, the Rohingya claim that they are indigenous to Rakhine, and many are descended from settlers who came in the 19th and early 20th century. Despite their roots, a 1982 law stripped the Rohingya of their citizenship. They are now considered illegal immigrants in Myanmar as well as in neighboring Bangladesh, the country to which as many as half a million have fled.

Five years ago, clashes between Buddhist and Muslim communities left hundreds dead, mostly Rohingya. With their mosques and villages torched, 120,000 Rohingya were forced into makeshift camps inside Myanmar (also known as Burma). This time the assault was unleashed by the Burmese military, the feared Tatmadaw, which ruled over Myanmar for five decades before overseeing a transition that led last year to a quasi-civilian government.

What began ostensibly as a hunt for the culprits behind the border post attacks turned into a four-month assault on the Rohingya population as a whole. According to witnesses interviewed by the UN and international human-rights groups, as well as National Geographic, the army campaign included executions, mass detentions, the razing of villages, and the systematic rape of Rohingya women. Yanghee Lee, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, believes it’s “very likely” the army committed crimes against humanity.

The full extent of what happened in northern Rakhine state is not yet known because the government has not allowed independent investigators, journalists, or aid groups unfettered access to the affected areas. Satellite imagery at the time showed Rohingya villages destroyed by fire. Amateur video appeared to show charred bodies of adults and children lying on the ground in the torched villages. Rights groups say hundreds of Rohingya have been killed. One incontrovertible truth is that the army assault triggered the exodus of more than 75,000 Rohingya into overcrowded refugee camps across the border in Bangladesh. Nearly 60 percent are children. (An estimated 20,000 or more Rohingya have been displaced within Myanmar’s borders.)

Before the soldiers left Afifa’s village that day, she says they set fire to the harvest-ready rice fields, looted houses, and shot or stole all of the cattle and goats. The devastation and fear compelled Afifa’s parents to split the family into two groups and escape in different directions—to improve their odds of survival. “We didn’t want to abandon our home,” Afifa’s father, Mohammed Islam, told me five months later, when five of the family’s 11 members staggered into Balukhali, a refugee camp in Bangladesh. “But the army has only one aim: to get rid of all Rohingya.”

It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way. More than a year ago, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi became Myanmar’s de facto leader, and international human-rights groups—as well as many Rohingya—hoped she would help move Rakhine toward peace and reconciliation. The daughter of Myanmar’s independence hero and martyr, General Aung San, she is celebrated for her fearless resistance to the country’s military dictatorship. After enduring more than 15 years under house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi led her National League of Democracy to a sweeping electoral victory in 2015. (A clause in the military-drafted constitution prevented her from becoming president, so a loyal underling serves as president while she runs the government as “state counselor.”)

“We had a very big hope that Suu Kyi and democracy would be good for us,” says Moulabi Jaffar, a 40-year-old Islamic cleric and shop owner from a village north of Maungdaw, sitting in his shack in Balukhali camp. “But the violence only got worse. That came as a big surprise.”

Despite her reputation as a human-rights icon, Aung San Suu Kyi has seemed unwilling or unable to speak about the violence against the Rohingya, much less bring perpetrators to justice. When reports of army atrocities emerged late last year, she broke her silence—not to rein in abusive soldiers but to scold the United Nations and human-rights groups for stoking “bigger fires of resentment” by dwelling on the testimonies of Rohingya who had fled to Bangladesh. It doesn’t help, she said, “if everybody is just concentrating on the negative side of the situation.” Aung San Suu Kyi has yet to visit northern Rakhine. But in a BBC interview in April, she said, “I don’t think there is ethnic cleansing going on.”

Aung San Suu Kyi remains an immensely popular figure in Myanmar, where 90 percent of the population is Buddhist and the military still wields enormous power. But her role in shielding the army from scrutiny in Rakhine has tarnished her global reputation, even prompting a letter from 13 Nobel laureates upbraiding her for failing to protect the rights of the Rohingya. “Like many in the international community, we expected more of Suu Kyi,” says Matthew Smith, co-founder of Fortify Rights, a Bangkok-based human-rights group. “She is operating in a delicate situation politically, but that doesn’t justify silence or wholesale denials in the face of mountains of evidence. The army launched an attack on a civilian population, and nobody has been held accountable.”

Myanmar set up three commissions to look into the turmoil in Rakhine state, but none is independent. The army’s report, released in May, proclaimed its innocence—except for two minor incidents, including one in which a soldier borrowed a motorbike without asking. A member of the main government inquiry dismissed reports of atrocities and contended that Burmese soldiers couldn’t have raped Rohingya women because they are “too dirty.” That commission’s final report, issued in early August, was another blanket denial, contending that “there is no evidence of crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.” Aung San Suu Kyi says her government will accept outside guidance only from an international commission chaired by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. Its report is also due this month, but its mandate is to make policy recommendations—not to investigate human-rights abuses.

In June, when a newly formed UN fact-finding mission sought to investigate human-rights violations in Myanmar, including Rakhine, Aung San Suu Kyi’s government refused to grant visas to the team members. “We don’t accept it,” she said, arguing that the mission could exacerbate divisions between Buddhists and Muslims. When Lee, the UN special rapporteur, returned to Myanmar in July, she and Aung San Suu Kyi shared a warm embrace—before Lee excoriated the government for blocking her access and intimidating witnesses, the same tactics used by the military junta. “In previous times, human rights defenders, journalists, and civilians were followed, monitored, and surveyed, and questioned—that’s still going on.”

Afia, her father, and siblings spent five months on the run inside Myanmar, sticking mostly to the forests to avoid the military, often going days without food. On their first attempt to cross the Naf River, which separates Myanmar and Bangladesh, a Burmese patrol boat opened fire, capsizing their boat and killing several refugees. It would be three months before they risked the crossing again.

I met Afifa in March on the day that half of her family finally reached Balukhali camp, where more than 11,000 new arrivals have turned the forested hills into a dusty hive of bamboo huts and black tarpaulins. Afifa wore the same soiled brown shirt she wore the day she danced for the soldiers five months before. “It’s all I have,” she says. Another family from their home village of Maung Hnama offered food to eat and a safe place to sleep, but Islam wept quietly. His wife and their five other children were still in hiding in Myanmar.

The refugee camps that line Bangladesh’s border are a short drive from the Bangladeshi resort of Cox’s Bazar. Tourists there cavort on the wide beach, taking grinning selfies in the surf, while a few miles away, hundreds of thousands of refugees marinate in grief and neglect. In Kutupalong, a sprawling camp with some 30,000 Rohingya refugees, the wood and bamboo dwellings radiate from the center like rings on a tree, each layer marking a wave of violence the Rohingya have fled.

Rozina Akhtar, 22, has lived here since she was seven years old. With no real hope of leaving—“we have no passports, no ID cards, so what can we do?”—she tries to help new arrivals adjust to their lives as refugees. “We can’t reject them,” she says. “These are our sisters and brothers.” Akhtar helps newcomers get medical care, plastic tarpaulins, and food rations, but what they really need are jobs. Men can occasionally get day jobs, fishing, harvesting rice, or laboring in the salt flats for a dollar or two a day, but many of the women beg for money along the road outside the camp.

Under a sprawling fig tree in Kutupalong, new arrivals gather to talk about the atrocities they endured in Myanmar. Nur Ayesha, 40, pulls back her headscarf to reveal bleached-white burn scars across her forehead; soldiers set fire to her house while she was still inside, she says. Residents of Kyet Yoe Pyin say the Burmese soldiers who firebombed their houses also gunned down six women and a man who had stayed behind to attend the birth of a baby—the mother included.

Minara, an 18-year-old in a black burqa, speaks about her missing family members before revealing that Burmese soldiers gang-raped her and several other young women in her village. Her voice barely rises above a whisper. As we talk, Minara, who, like many victims, didn’t choose to reveal her last name, bites the edge of her sleeve, pulling it over her face. By the end, only her eyes, darting back and forth, are visible. “We’re too scared to go back,” she says.

On a hill back in Balukhali camp, I meet a 14-year-old boy, Ajim Allah, getting his hair combed by a friend. Ajim shows me his shriveled left arm, shattered, he says, by a police bullet when he emerged from a madrassa last October; three of his friends died of gunshot wounds that night, he says. In a hut nearby, Yasmin, 27, recounts how soldiers burst into her home in Ngan Chaung village and took turns raping her at knifepoint in front of her five-year-old daughter. “When my daughter screamed, they pointed guns at her and told her they’d kill her if she made any more noise,” she says. The worst moment came after the soldiers left. Yasmin says she went out to look for her eight-year-old son, who had fled when the soldiers came into the village. She found him lying in a rice paddy, a bullet hole in his back.

The Rohingya are caught between two countries—and welcome in neither. More than 500,000 Rohingya now live in Bangladesh. Only 32,000 are officially registered, however, and no new Rohingya refugees have been registered since 1992—an apparent attempt to dissuade more Rohingya from seeking refuge in Bangladesh. That strategy hasn’t worked, but it means that there are close to half a million undocumented Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh with no right or access to employment, education, or basic health care.

Bangladesh, already poor and overpopulated, shows no enthusiasm for hosting the Rohingya. Conditions in the camps are miserable, but the government has declined many offers of humanitarian aid. It has even floated a plan to move the refugees to a remote island in the Bay of Bengal. The radical proposal seemed designed to keep Rohingya away from the tourist hub of Cox’s Bazar—and to push refugees to return to Myanmar. Many Rohingya, however, are too traumatized to go back to Rakhine, an area historically known as Arakan. One rape victim I spoke to recalled the chilling words of her army attacker: “He kept saying, ‘This kind of torture will continue until you leave the country.’”

A few years ago, many Rohingya men, including Yasmin’s husband, risked a perilous sea journey to seek construction work in Malaysia or Indonesia. With no citizenship and no passport, travel had to be undertaken illegally. Smugglers packed the refugees onto unregistered ships and cycled them through secret jungle camps, beating or starving to death the ones whose families didn’t pay exorbitant smuggling fees. A crackdown on human trafficking in Southeast Asia has closed off that route, leaving a lot of Rohingya men languishing in the refugee camps without any way to make a living. The mixture of despair and marginalization, experts warn, is a recipe for radicalization. Many refugees seek solace in religious faith. In the camps, clusters of young men armed with holy Korans go door to door, urging refugees to pray more devoutly. Out of sight, locals say, is something more ominous: A newly formed militant group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, is reportedly trying to recruit refugees to join a nascent insurgency against the Burmese army and its local government collaborators.

The last time I saw Afifa, she was sweeping a rectangular patch of dirt on a hill near the refugee camp’s edge—the site of the family’s new shelter. Her father had borrowed $30 from a fellow refugee to buy a horse-cart full of bamboo poles and strips, and he’d already erected the thickest poles at the corners. Islam, a former Arabic teacher, was dressed in a white skullcap and a clean cream-colored tunic, getting ready to attend midday Friday prayers—the jumu’ah—for the first time since he left his village five months before.

Just down the sandy path from their plot, barefoot men in sarongs scrambled to secure the bamboo scaffolding of Balukhali’s new mosque. It would be another week before the structure was finished, with palm fronds as the roof, but the muezzin sounded the call to prayer and dozens of bearded men in white caps gravitated to a small carpet in the center of the mosque. Islam found a spot in the first row and bowed in front of the imam, who stood on a red plastic stool. Later, as Islam walked back from the mosque, he smiled: “I feel better now.”

The misery, however, has continued. In late May, a cyclone ripped through southern Bangladesh, destroying the family’s shelter and thousands of others in the camps. Nobody died in Balukhali, and Afifa’s mother and other siblings have since made it to Bangladesh, easing the girl’s anxiety. Still, food remains scarce, the monsoon rains continue, and there are troubling reports of renewed violence in Rakhine from both sides—military operations by the Burmese army and occasional attacks by Rohingya militants. In this predicament, it’s unclear when, or if, Afifa and her family will ever have a place to call home.

As one neighbor lamented: “Bad days for us never end.”

Brook Larmer is a freelance writer based in Bangkok. William Daniels is a freelance photographer based in Paris.

22 August 2017

Beyond state capitalism: The commons economy in our lifetimes

By James Bernard Quilligan

In considering the essential problem of how to produce and distribute material wealth, virtually all of the great economists in Western history have ignored the significance of the commons—the shared resources of nature and society that people inherit, create and utilize.

Despite sharp differences in concept and ideology, economic thinkers from Smith, Ricardo, and Marx to Keynes, Hayek, Mises and Schumpeter largely based their assumptions on the world’s seemingly unlimited resources and fossil fuels, their infinite potential for creating economic growth, adequate supplies of labor for developing them, and the evolving monoculture of state capitalism responsible for their provision and allocation. Hence, in the Market State that has emerged, corporations and sovereign states make decisions on the production and distribution of Earth’s common resources more or less as a unitary system—with minimal participation from the people who depend on these commons for their livelihood and well-being. Because our forbears did not account for the biophysical flow of material resources from the environment through the production process and back into the environment, the real worth of natural resources and social labor is not factored into the economy. It is this centralized, hierarchical model that has led to the degradation and devaluation of our commons.

Over the past seventy years especially, the macroeconomic goals of sovereign states—for high levels and rapid growth of output, low unemployment and stable prices—have resulted in a highly dysfunctional world. The global economy has integrated dramatically in recent decades through financial and trade liberalization; yet the market is failing to protect natural and social resources, the state is failing to rectify the economic system, and the global polity is failing to manage its mounting imbalances in global resources and wealth. Without a ‘unified field theory’ of economics to explain how the commons is drastically undervalued and why world society is amassing huge debts to the environment, the poor and future generations, policymakers and their institutions lack the critical tools and support to address the massive instability that is now gripping the global economy. Businesses and governments are facing the Herculean challenge of reducing climate change and pollution while alleviating poverty without economic growth—a task for which the Market State is neither prepared nor designed to handle.

Meanwhile, the essential ideals of state capitalism—the rule-based systems of government enforcement and the spontaneous, self-regulating social order of markets—are finding direct expression in the co-governance and co-production of common goods by people in localities across the world. Whether these commons are traditional (rivers, forests, indigenous cultures) or emerging (energy, intellectual property, internet), communities are successfully managing them through collaboration and collective action. This growing movement has also begun to create social charters and commons trusts—formal instruments that define the incentives, rights and responsibilities of stakeholders for the supervision and protection of common resources. Ironically, by organizing to protect their commons through decentralized decision-making, the democratic principles of freedom and equality are being realized more fully in these resource communities than through the enterprises and policies of the Market State.

These evolving dynamics—the decommodification of common goods through co-governance and the deterritorialization of value through co-production—are shattering the liberal assumptions which underlie state capitalism. The emergence of this new kind of management and valuation for the preservation of natural and social assets is posing a momentous crisis for the Market State, imperiling the functional legitimacy of state sovereignty, national currencies, domestic fiscal policy, international trade and finance, and the global monetary system. Major changes are on the way. The transformation of modern political economy will involve reconnecting with—and reformulating—a pre-analytic vision of the post-macroeconomic global commons. Another world is coming: where common goods are capped and protected; a portion of these resources are rented to businesses for the production and consumption of private goods; and taxes on their use are redistributed by the state as public goods to provide a social income for the marginalized and to repair and restore the depleted commons.

Although people’s rights to their commons are often recognized and validated in smaller communities, scaling these lessons to the global level will require a new dimension of popular legitimacy and authority. The world community is rapidly evolving a sense of social interconnectivity, shared responsibility and global citizenship, yet the sovereign rights of people to the global commons have not been fully articulated. In declaring our planetary rights for these commons, we shall be confronting many decisive questions:

(1) Are modern societies prepared to create a framework in which the incentives behind production and governance are not private capital and debt-based growth, but human solidarity, quality of life and ecological sustainability?

(2) How soon—and how peacefully—will the subsystems of the Market State integrate their structures of value-creation and sovereign governance with the greater biophysical system of ecological and social interdependence?

(3) Can the global public organize effectively as a third power to develop checks and balances on the private and public sectors and establish the resource sovereignty and preservation value needed for a commons economy?

These issues will be filtering into mainstream discussion over the next two decades. Already the system of state capitalism is breaking down, threatening the entire planet, its institutions and species. When this collapse can no longer be contained and a global monetary crisis ensues, world society will have the choice of creating an economic system that follows the universal laws of biophysics and commons preservation—or accepting a new version of 18th-20th century mechanistic economics, obliging humanity to continue living off the common capital of the planet under corporate feudalism and über-militaristic regimes. Our decision will likely come down to this: global commons or global autarchy. As an economist, I don’t pretend to speak for the conscience of humanity; but as a human being, my heart tells me that we shall see the beginnings of a commons economy in our lifetimes. The long-forsaken global commons are beckoning.

James Bernard Quilligan has been an analyst and administrator in the field of international development since 1975. He has served as policy advisor and writer for many international politicians and leaders, including Pierre Trudeau, François Mitterand, Edward Heath, Julius Nyerere, Olof Palme, Willy Brandt, Jimmy Carter, and His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan of Jordan.Original source: Guernica

15 September 2017

90 Companies Helped Cause the Climate Crisis—They Should Pay For It

By Sarah van Gelder

Pacific Northwest forests are on fire. Several blazes are out of control, threatening rural towns, jumping rivers and highways, and covering Portland, Oregon, Seattle, and other cities in smoke and falling ash. Temperatures this summer are an average of 3.6 degrees higher than the last half of the 20th century, according to the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group analysis published in The Seattle Times.

Fire crews have been battling fires for months. In spite of all the effort, though, officials expect the fires to continue burning until major rains come sometime this fall. Meanwhile, firefighting coffers are running dry as costs run into the hundreds of millions.

The scale and costs of these disasters pale in comparison to the impacts of hurricanes Harvey and Irma: Accuweather is estimating the combined cost of these unprecedented storms at $290 billion. (Then there is the flooding in India and Bangladesh—less noted in U.S. news media—where 40 million were affected and 1,200 died.)

What these disasters have in common is that they are all exactly the sort predicted by climate models—and they will get terrifyingly worse over coming years.

So who will cover the costs? Who will pay for the first responders, for sheltering and relocating climate refugees, and for rebuilding homes, businesses, and infrastructure?

Our planet is quickly getting hotter, more volatile, and more dangerous. But Republicans are working to cut nearly $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and to give large corporations and the wealthy a big tax break. So who should pay for the climate disasters?

A report published in early September by the journal Climatic Change helps pinpoint a possible answer. According to the report, 90 companies are responsible for 42 to 50 percent of the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and 26 to 32 percent of sea level rise.

Some say we are all to blame for the climate crisis—at least all of us who get around in cars and planes. But there are reasons these 90 companies owe a major debt to the entire planet.

First, many of them knew what damage they were causing. According to the report, more than half of the carbon emissions produced since the industrial revolution were emitted since 1986, when the dangers of global warming were well-known. But these companiesburied their own research findings and doubled down on fossil fuel extraction.

Second, many of these companies spend vast sums promoting climate denial and undermining support for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other responses to the climate crisis. Industry lobbyists and think tanks, flush with money from fossil fuel companies and their executives, distort our democracy, making government accountable to their interests rather than to We the People.

Third, by doing these things, these companies prevented action during the brief window of time between climate science becoming clear and it becoming too late to avert disaster.

Now we are very short on time. This year’s fires and floods are just the beginning. But we can still make choices that would curb catastrophic outcomes. To make that difference, we need an all-out effort now on all fronts—in agriculture, transportation, and energy generation, conservation, and efficiency upgrades. That will take a lot of money.

A good place to start would be requiring those who caused the climate catastrophe to pay. The 90 companies could start by helping families and communities recover from the floods, wind damage, and fires, and helping homeowners and cities everywhere build resilience for withstanding the effects of future disasters. But they shouldn’t stop there. The companies that are responsible for the damage should pay their share for the transition to a carbon-free future.

There is a precedent for this. Tobacco companies too had been hiding and dismissing the evidence that their product caused massive damage. Big Tobacco and Big Oil even hired some of the same scientists and public relations firms to obscure the damage their industries were causing, according to ClimateWire. The 1998 tobacco settlement of lawsuits brought by nearly every U.S. state required the major tobacco companies to pay over $200 billion toward the increased cost of health care resulting from smoking and for prevention education.

There are far more victims of the fossil fuel industries’ deception—billions of people today, future generations, and many other species.

We’ve got a precedent, we’ve got a dire need, and we have clearly defined culprits.

Sarah van Gelder is co-founder and editor-at-large of YES! Magazine, and author of The Revolution Where You Live: Stories from a 12,000 Mile Journey Through a New America. Follow her blog and connect with Sarah on Twitter: @sarahvangelder

This article was written for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

15 September 2017