Archives: Articles

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Long before December 28, when Secretary of State, John Kerry took the podium at the Dean Acheson Auditorium in Washington DC to pontificate on the uncertain future of the two-state solution and the need to save Israel from itself, the subject of a Palestinian state has been paramount.

In fact, unlike common belief, the push to establish a Palestinian and a Jewish state side-by-side goes back years before the passing of United Nations Resolution 181 in November 1947. That infamous resolution had called for the partitioning of Palestine into three entities: a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and an international regime to govern Jerusalem.

A more thorough reading of history can pinpoint multiple references to the Palestinian (or Arab state) between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The idea of two states is western par excellence. No Palestinian party or leader had ever thought that partitioning the holy land was ever an option. Then, such an idea seemed preposterous, partly because, as Ilan Pappe’s ‘Ethnic Cleaning of Palestine‘ shows, “almost all of the cultivated land in Palestine was held by the indigenous population (while) only 5.8% percent was in Jewish ownership in 1947.”

An earlier, but equally important reference to a Palestinian state was made in the Peel Commission, a British commission of inquiry, led by Lord Peel that was sent to Palestine to investigate the reasons behind the popular strike, uprising and later armed rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted for nearly three years.

The “underlying causes of the disturbances” were two, resolved the commission: Palestinian desire for independence, and the “hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish national home.” The latter was promised by the British government to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland in 1917 which became known as the ‘Balfour Declaration.’

The Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, which would be incorporated into Transjordan, with enclaves reserved for the British Mandate government.

In the time between that recommendation eighty years ago, and Kerry’s warning that the two-state solution is “in serious jeopardy,” little has been done in terms of practical steps to establish a Palestinian state. Worse, the US has used its veto power in the UN repeatedly to impede the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as utilizing its political and economic might to intimidate others from recognizing (although symbolically) a Palestinian state. It has further played a key role in funding illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem – all of which rendered the existence of a Palestinian state virtually impossible.

The issue now is: why does the West continue to use the two-state solution as their political parameter for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while, at the same time ensuring that their own prescription for conflict resolution is never to become a reality?

The answer, partly, lies in the fact the two-state solution was never devised for implementation to begin with. Like the ‘peace process’ and other pretenses, it aimed to promote among Palestinians and Arabs the idea that there is a goal worth striving for, despite being unattainable.

But even that goal was itself conditioned on a set of demands that were unrealistic to begin with. Historically, Palestinians had to renounce violence (their armed resistance to Israel’s military occupation), consent to various UN resolutions (even if Israel still reject those resolutions), accept Israel’s ‘right’ to exist as a Jewish state, and so on. That yet-to-be-established Palestinian state was also meant to be demilitarized, divided between the West Bank and Gaza, and excluding most of Occupied East Jerusalem.

Many new ‘creative’ solutions were also offered to alleviate any Israeli fears that the nonexistent Palestinian state, in case of its establishment, never pose a threat to Israel. At times, discussions were afoot about a confederation between Palestine and Jordan, and other times, as in the most recent proposal by the head of Jewish Home Party, Israeli Minister Naftali Bennett, making Gaza a state of its own and annexing to Israel 60 percent of the West Bank.

And when Israel’s allies, frustrated by the rise of the rightwing in Israel and the obstinacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insist that time is running out for a two-state solution, they express their worries in the form of tough love. Israel’s settlement activity is “increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality,” said Kerry in his major policy speech last month.

Such a reality would force Israel to either compromise on the Jewish identity of the state (as if having religious/ethnic identities of a modern democratic state is a common precondition) or having to contend with being an Apartheid state (as if such reality doesn’t exist anyway.)

Kerry warned Israel that it will eventually be left with the option of placing Palestinians “under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms,” thus paving the ground for a “separate and unequal” scenario.

Yet while warnings that a two-state solution possibility is disintegrating, few bothered to try to understand the reality from a Palestinian perspective.

For Palestinians, the debate on Israel having to choose between being democratic and Jewish is ludicrous. For them, Israel’s democracy applies fully to its Jewish citizens and no one else, while Palestinians have subsisted for decades behind walls, fences, prisons and besieged enclaves, like the Gaza Strip.

And with two separate laws, rules and realities applying to two separate groups in the same land, Kerry’s ‘separate but unequal’ Apartheid scenario had taken place the moment Israel was established in 1948.

Fed up by the illusions of their own failed leadership, according to a recent poll, two thirds of Palestinians now agree that a two-state solution is not possible. And that margin keeps on growing as fast as the massive illegal settlement enterprise dotting the Occupied West Bank and Jerusalem.

This is not an argument against the two-state solution; for the latter merely existed as a ruse to pacify Palestinians, buy time and demarcate the conflict with a mirage-like political horizon. If the US was indeed keen on a two-state solution, it would have fought vehemently to make it a reality, decades ago.

To say that the two-state solution is now dead is to subscribe to the illusion that it was once alive and possible.

That said, it behooves everyone to understand that co-existence in a one democratic state is not a dark scenario that spells doom for the region.

It is time to abandon unattainable illusions and focus all energies to foster co-existence, based on equality and justice for all.

Indeed, there can be one state between the river and the sea, and that is a democratic state for all of its people, regardless of their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include “Searching Jenin”, “The Second Palestinian Intifada” and his latest “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story”. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

12 January 2017

By Simeon Kerr

Saudi Arabia is planning to cull billions of dollars of projects as part of its latest cost-cutting measures to narrow a gaping budget deficit and balance the books by 2020.

The government, which has been forced to slash spending because of low oil prices, has awarded a contract to PwC, the consultancy group, to identify between SR50bn and SR75bn ($13bn-$20bn) in savings, say people aware of the matter. The focus of the cuts will be on capital expenditure, such as infrastructure projects, as Riyadh hopes to avoid any politically sensitive spending reductions after austerity measures last year triggered an outburst of public discontent.

“PwC will be doing big number crunching, lots of accountancy work trying to understand the liabilities the ministries already have, who is doing what, and where the cuts can most easily be made,” said one executive aware of the contract. PwC and the government declined to comment. The project review, which will span ministries such as transport, health and municipal services, is another blow to construction companies and other businesses that have come under financial strain since Riyadh began tightening its belt after oil prices fell in mid-2014. The budget deficit declined from a record SR366bn in 2015 to SR297bn last year.

State spending, funded by oil revenues, is the main driver of the kingdom’s economy. But the government has halted or restructured hundreds of projects across the kingdom over the past two years. It has also delayed payments to companies, exacerbating the problems in the private sector and helping drive non-oil growth to less than 1 per cent last year, its lowest level in years. The finance ministry has pledged to finalise SR105bn in late payments by February. The council for economic and development affairs, the kingdom’s powerful economic decision-making body, also said this week that it would set up an electronic platform to boost transparency surrounding outstanding payments. The council is chaired by Mohammed bin Salman, the powerful deputy crown prince who is the driving force behind an ambitious transformation plan that is intended to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil.

Billions of dollars have started to flow to contractors that have had to wait months, or even years, to receive payment for goods and services delivered to the public sector. But some contractors complain that they are being forced to take large discounts on their invoices. Major construction companies, such as Saudi Binladin and Saudi Oger, owe local and foreign banks tens of billions of dollars, projecting their woes on to the financial system. Cuts to the Saudi project pipeline have been echoed across oil-rich Gulf states, deepening the pain for regional contracting companies that are desperate for new work to make up for cancelled and delayed projects.

The value of infrastructure contracts awarded in the Gulf last year fell 44 per cent to $100bn, compared with $178bn in 2015, according to data from the Middle East Economic Digest. That compares to a high of $186bn in 2014. Still, while the contactors’ order books have declined sharply, management consultants have been hoovering up work as Prince Mohammed marshals help to implement his vision for economic change.

PwC is one of many consultants, including McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group and Oliver Wyman, that have won large contracts in the kingdom. The consultants’ role in the reforms has sparked some public anger over the pace of change impacting the Saudi public, such as increases to energy prices and cuts to public sector salaries. Foreign advisers, especially McKinsey which is most associated with Prince Mohammed’s plans, have become lightning rods for criticism in a country where open dissent can raise the risk of arrest.

12 January 2017

By Masturah Alatas

The word ‘sosia’ takes its name from a character in Plautus’ Latin play, Amphitryon, and is still very much used in Italian today to refer to someone who looks a lot like a celebrity or an important person.  Sosias were extremely useful in mythology especially when they ended up tricking husbands and wives into thinking they were sleeping with their actual spouses.

But what about sosias in politics? Are people’s electoral tendencies or their acceptance or rejection of ideas subliminally influenced by a person’s resemblance to another in a position of authority? How would things have turned out if Donald Trump actually did look like those so many are saying he politically resembles—Hitler, Mussolini and Berlusconi? Would he look like one of them, or all three? What would a morphed monster of all three have to look like in order to attract or repel? Should it have Hitler’s moustache, Mussolini’s baldness and Berlusconi’s voice? And the height of all three? In the future, are men and women going to be encouraged or discouraged from entering politics because they look like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? What prospects of a political career would a woman who looks like, say, Queen Elizabeth II have in India? Or Malaysia? Or China?

I’m not sure if these are questions that can be taken seriously in political analysis. After all, we are not supposed to judge people on their appearance, on their identity. We can’t even agree on what ‘identity politics’ is if we are not seeing class, education, language, the way a person speaks and even dresses as crucial parts of identity that condition the way we perceive others and are perceived. Still, Chinese Trumps, Indian Queen Elizabeths, American Saddam Husseins, British Gadaffis and Italian Thatchers  are visions for a novelist’s imagination to play with.

Malaysia had a politician who looked like Fidel Castro more than even Castro’s own brother, and he also happened to be my father: Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007). Even Edward W. Said who had seen my father only in pictures was amused by my father’s striking resemblance to Fidel. But beyond similarities in appearance and private jokes, my father was never considered to be a Malaysian Fidel Castro in any political sense, and with good reason, too.

Alatas was one of the founders of Gerakan formed in 1968, then a multiethnic, opposition party, and he served as senator for a short while in the early 1970s. But he was a sociologist and an academic for most of his life, not a revolutionary leader like Fidel Castro. And he hardly influenced social and public policy. Alatas was one of the first, and remains one of the few Malaysians, to have written extensively about the social evils of corruption. Yet today, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is having difficulty coming up with a convincing explanation as to how a sum amounting to almost USD 700 million ended up in his personal bank accounts.

Both Alatas and Castro were anti-imperialist and they were socialist, though the second we say ‘socialist’ we are called upon to qualify what kind of socialist we mean. It is not just people who have sosias but ideologies, too. Socialism has its sosias. Alatas did not like the Eurocentric bias and prejudices of Marx and Engels whom he called socialist. But he considered the assimilation of socialism into Islam as something good. “Socialism has shown the way to realize social justice,” he wrote in his essay ‘Islam and Socialism’ (1977). “Islamic principles associated with the theories of socialism will be very useful for the Muslim world. But this evolution should be achieved without the arrogance that characterizes our generation.” Early in 2016, however, the media carried reports about the Malaysian police forbidding the Socialist Party of Malaysia from holding a course on Marxism scheduled to be held in March for fear that such courses would “revive communism”. While Castro’s revolution was mainly about feeding the people, the revolution Alatas felt Malaysia most needed was principally an intellectual one against the doltish, backward, reactionary thinking that afflicted the ruling class.

As British Marxist historian Victor Gordon Kiernan wrote in his review of Alatas’ book, Intellectuals in Developing, Societies (1977) which my father originally wanted to title The Revolution of the Fool, for Alatas

“colonial rule could spread a taste for the advantages of technology but it could not inspire an authentic enlightenment. These
societies suffer from a prevailing dualism;
they are modernistic in material terms,
but with a mentality still traditionalist, ready to swallow astrology or magic as well as motor cars and electric fans” (The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, March, 1980).

This dualism, my father felt, would be detrimental to Malaysia in the long run because it would make the country always dependent on others for serious thinking and problem-solving, something we saw, for instance, in the way the case of the missing flight MH370 was handled.

I have not come across any imaginative works written by Malaysians about the fact that Alatas looked like Fidel Castro.  I, myself, do not have many anecdotes to tell; except for the one where Robert Kennedy and my father are in the same Kuala Lumpur radio station in 1964, and Kennedy is startled out of his wits to see my father sitting in a corner, smoking a cigar, trying to mind his own business.

We are in the period fresh out of the Cuban Missile Crisis and fresh into the Konfrontasi (the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation) for which US Attorney General Robert Kennedy had been called upon to express his concern and mediate. Robert Kennedy himself would be assassinated four years later, though not for reasons connected to his Malaysia visit as far as is known.  What is known is that he got the shock of his life seeing my father in the radio station.

“What the hell is he doing here?” was not the question Kennedy whispered into the ear of the Radio Station director, but something more diplomatic like “Who is that sitting over there?” And Alatas and Robert Kennedy were brought together to shake hands and exchange a few words.

Almost two decades later, in 1983, my father was in Washington D.C. to finish a book on corruption. He and my mother were living relatively close to the red castle of the Smithsonian where my father had a room in the tower to work. He also wanted to live within walking distance of the Congress Library. All this walking put him in close contact with the street youth. I regret not having a camera to take a shot of some of those youngsters simulating a machine gun with their arms and pointing it at my father when he walked by.

“Yo Fidel!”, one of them said.

Better that than In-Fidel, I thought to myself.

Those were the Reagan years. As someone coming from Malaysia and Singapore who was used to people of different backgrounds living together, it was the first time I had heard others define, and with such frequency, residential areas according to the ethnicity of their residents—Black neighbourhood, Hispanic neighbourhood, etc. I wondered how much the youth from those areas knew about Fidel Castro, how successful the media was in demonizing him, in making him the enemy to be sniped at or a brother to say Yo to. One thing I do know, and will always remember: the half smile on my father’s face as he gazed at the ground, each slow step taking him home.

He obviously never felt a real gun would be turned on him. Or on me.

Masturah Alatas is the author of The life in the Writing (Marshall Cavendish, 2010) and The girl who made it snow in Singapore (Ethos Books, 2008). She is currently working on a novel. Masturah teaches English at the University of Macerata in Italy, and can be contacted at: alatas@unimc.it

29 November 2016

By Bryan MacDonald

The eagerly awaited Director Of National Intelligence’s (DNI) report “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” didn’t need such a long winded title. They could have just called it: “We Really Don’t Like RT.”

Almost every major western news outlet splashed this story. But it was probably the New York Times’ report which was the most amusing. America’s “paper of record” hailed the DNI’s homework as “damning and surprisingly detailed.” Then a few paragraphs later admitted the analysis contained no actual evidence.

Thus, in a few column inches, the Gray Lady went from describing the DNI’s release as something conclusive to conceding how it was all conjecture. “The declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions,” the reporter, one David E. Sanger, told us. He then reached further into his bag of tricks to warn how it is “bound to be attacked by skeptics.”

Yes, those skeptics. Aren’t they awful? Like, imagine not accepting an intelligence document at face value? Especially when it warns that a nuclear armed military superpower is interfering in the American democratic process, but then offers not a smidgen of proof for its assertions. Not to mention how it appears to have been put together by a group of people with barely a clue about Russia.

For instance, RT programs such as “Breaking The Set” and “The Truthseeker” are mentioned in a submission supposed to be about how RT seemingly cost Hillary Clinton the US Presidential Election. But both of these programmes went off air around two years ago.

And, back then, Clinton wasn’t even the Democratic Party candidate for the 2016 contest. Furthermore, it’s deeply odd how this seems to be part of a super old report, with just a tiny disclaimer in that regard.

The stream of obsolete information continues. Readers could be led to believe that the head of RT’s Arabic Service is Aydar Aganin and the London bureau is headed by Darya Pushkova. The problem is neither of these individuals currently work at RT, nor have done for a long time. And the focus on the latter is presumably because she’s defined as “the daughter of Aleksey Pushkov, the current chair of the Duma Russian Foreign Affairs Committee.”

But even if she were employed at RT, what would be unusual about it anyway? After all, many journalists have family members who’ve been involved in politics at one time or another. For instance, CNN host Christiane Amanpour’s husband James Rubin was an advisor to Hillary Clinton, and served as a US Assistant Secretary of State under her husband, Bill.

Plumbing the depths

So how bad is this report? You’d have to say on a scale of 1-10, it’d be eleven. The core message appears to be that having a point of view which is out of sync with the liberal popular media is considered a hostile act by US spooks. And it’s specifically the liberal press’ worldview they are defending here. Now, it’s up to you to judge whether this support, from state actors, is justified or not.

The DNI’s submission is ostensibly the work of highly qualified intelligence experts, but everything you learn about RT comes from publicly available interviews and Tweets posted by this channel’s own people. Yet, we are supposed to believe how the best Russia brains of three agencies – the CIA, FBI and NSA – laboured to produce this stuff? That said, the latter doesn’t appear to be fully on board, offering “moderate” confidence, in contrast to the other’s “high confidence.”

Approximately a third of the document centers on RT. And it appears that we should swallow how RT succeeded where the combined might of CNN, NBC, CBS, The Washington Post and the New York Times and others failed in influencing the US election. Not to mention the reality where 500 US media outlets endorsed Clinton and only 25 President-elect Donald Trump. It’s time to scream: “stop the lights!”

Meanwhile, the “background info” on RT offered here appears to have been compiled on the basis of poorly translated decade old articles and long-obsolete stats. As a result, the only current stuff, actually relevant to the 2016 election, comes down to “Russia hacked US election because RT criticized Clinton.” The absurdity of the claim is evidently lost on the authors.

Fragile facts

The mistakes are myriad. Audience figures are out of date. And the general feel is of some kind of amateurish compilation from a think tank. In fact, you could argue that many lobby firms’ anti-Russia reports have been more polished than this offering. But they are chancers, with faux academic sounding titles, and the DNI is supposed to boast the finest minds of US intelligence.

Of course, it could also be argued that it’s the inevitable result of how funding for Russian studies was choked in the US after the Soviet collapse. And many have argued this point. Because it’s abundantly clear that all three agencies urgently need to hire better experts for their Russian desks. For example, people who’ve spent a bit of time in the country and can point to a rudimentary grasp of the language.

More outdated facts follow. When it comes to YouTube views, the report cites a figure of 800 million for RT. However, it’s five times higher, at four billion, and counting. Indeed, the English language channel alone can be proud of over 1.5 billion hits at present.

The point needs to be laboured because it exposes how shoddy this submission is. The compilers plainly couldn’t have been bothered to engage an intern to update their figures before publication. And it speaks volumes. So too when a Kommersant article, dated 07/04/2012 is explained as the fourth of July, as opposed to the seventh of April. Because you’d imagine Russia focused spies would be able to understand the European dating style, wouldn’t you?

Then there’s how the ‘investigators’ refer to Dmitry Kiselev and Vladimir Zhironovsky as somehow influential here. They allege the former’s TV show was biased towards Trump’s candidacy. But it’s a domestic programme, in Russian, aimed at people who live in Russia and can’t vote in US elections. Likewise, Zhirinovsky’s presence is bizarre (he’s described as a ‘Kremlin proxy’) because he’s an ageing clown. And, as it happens, his remark about “drinking champagne’ in the event of a Trump victory is rather mild given his track record. We are talking about a man who once predicted that George Bush’s soldiers would be “torn to pieces” if they invaded Iraq. So Nostradamus, he ain’t. And his clout with Putin is probably somewhere between slim and none.

The DNI’s report is beyond bad. And it’s scary to think how outgoing President Obama has stirred up a nasty diplomatic battle with Russia based on intelligence so devoid of insight and quality. There is nothing here which suggests the authors have any special savvy or insight. In fact, you could argue how a group of students would’ve assembled something of similar substance by simply reading back issues of The New York Times.

But the biggest takeaway is that it’s clear how the calibre of Russia expertise in America is mediocre, if not spookily sparse. And while this report might be fodder for amusement, the actual policy implications are nothing short of dangerous.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

7 January 2017

By Kalinga Seneviratne

BANGKOK (IDN) – Early December three UN agencies UNDP, UNESCO and UNFPA organized a three-day youth mobilizing program at the UNESCAP building here called ‘Case for Space’ (C4S) touted as a campaign led by over 60 partners in the region to raise awareness and advocate for the promotion of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Asia-Pacific region.

Yet, it was dominated by mainly European and American speakers and consultants, with the project being led by a UK-based activist group Restless Development, which made many participants from the region to wonder whether the SDG agenda is being hijacked by westerner activists.

The C4S campaign is supposed to mobilise young people in the Asia-Pacific region to be engaged as “critical stakeholders” in the implementation of the SDGs. It should also allow “socially excluded” people to be engaged in the process, by creating space via social media and digital communications. It is supposed to build networks and capacities for the engagement of young people.

While all sounds good on paper, the way the project was initiated in Bangkok raises many questions about the involvement of Asians themselves in the process. Most of the speakers in plenary sessions who were trying to motivate Asian youth were from Europe or America and there was no noteworthy Asian expert in digital or social media among the speakers. Asia is not short of such talent, there are many around such as Steven Gan from Malaysiakini or Maria Reza from Rapplers in the Philippines.

The event was attended by over 200 youth from across the region, most of them with an activist slant. Even the youth newsroom that was organized and coordinated by four westerners had about 15 young journalists but not from any of the mainstream media. The focus of their stories were mainly based on ‘voices of dissent’ rather than looking at communication methodologies that could contribute towards a more cooperative and peaceful path towards achieving the SGDs.

A youth participant from Cambodia with rural roots explained to IDN that this type of open dissent based methodologies do not work in his country. “Our land is often taken over for so-called development and when we shout slogans and protest we are thrown in jail or bashed up by police,” he told IDN asking not to name him. “I would like to learn how to communicate with grassroots government authorities in a less confrontative manner,” he added.

“Empowered youth are the engine of the progress we all seek,” said Caitlin Wiesen, Chief of
UNDP’s Regional Policy and Programme Support for Asia and the Pacific, during her remarks at the opening ceremony. “Through our work, we are continuously reminded that young people today are more connected, more creative, more informed and more persuasive than any previous generation.”

The UNDP has devised a Youth Strategy 2014-2017 to identify strategic entry points to SDGs for youth with social media playing a leading role. There was much discussion on the wave of legislation in the region that is shrinking the space available in cyberspace where young people express themselves.

“Liking and sharing on social media – while it raises awareness on issues, is a first step leading to action that brings change,” said Samira Hassan, a youth organizer from Singapore who works with a community advocacy group for migrant rights at her school. “As young people, we need to start conversations about the social issues that we think are important,” she added.

There were many sessions during the two days of workshops on marginalized groups, online freedoms and training for young human rights defenders. But, one wonders that if this is the same recipe that mobilized young people in the Arab world which led to the “Arab Spring” uprising and accompanying social and political chaos?

Peddling of such recipes were in abundance during a plenary session on the final day when a panel moderated by Daniel Fieller, UK Ambassador to Thailand and including four westerners, an African and an Asian based in Canada talked about “concrete actions and partnerships” where they were mainly talking about how to pitch project ideas for funding by them.

“We invest in research work with youth … we play an advocacy role,” said Perry Maddox of Restless Development. Manfred Hornung of Heinrich Boll Foundation said “we fund on the ideas which young people bring to us not based on identity”. At one point Ambassador Fieller argued that countries which are democratic and allow freedom of speech for its people will find it easier to achieve the SDGs, conveniently forgetting that countries in this region which have achieved these goals already such as China, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea did not take that path to its success.

Thus, it was left to the African panelist, Layne Robinson, Head of Programs of the Youth Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat, to point out that governments are an important stakeholder in all this. “Lots of governments are trying to implement youth policies” he reminded the young participants, “you need to work with governments to get SDGs done, governments are critical to opening up space for young people”.

Speaking to IDN at the end of the event, Weipeng Wang, a youth participant from China said that translating information into local languages is crucial for communicating the SDGs. “We have a lot of experience in writing blogs. We can write and share information through Wechat,” he added.

Rejinel Valenua a youth from Philippines argued that it is not enough for only the youth to talk about these issues, lecturers at universities have to promote SDGs. “We need to dedicate a special day for C4S” he added.

The C4S has been an idea Restless Development brought to UNDP to be introduced to Asia, and UNDP has taken it up with UNESCO and UNFPA as well as another partner Forum-Asia to hold this event in Bangkok. Most of the funding came from the West.

UNDP’s Wiessen said in the closing remarks that 50 of their partners will be holding another meeting to plan a strategy to take the C4S forward in the region. “We want to expand this shrinking (civil society) space for young people (in Asia). We want to create space for young people. We stand with you to oppose restrictive practices,” she said.

After her closing remarks, one participant from an ASEAN (South East Asian) country who works with youth groups told IDN in disgust that the way the event was organized smacked of an European imperialistic initiative and it is not home driven. “This is a Restless Development project and they are pushing their agenda. This is not the way to do this in Asia,” she said asking not to use her name.  – IDN-InDepthNews

20 December 2016

 

By Michael Jabara CARLEY

Relations between Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Barack Obama are poisoned and irretrievably damaged. It’s therefore a good thing that Obama is leaving office on 20 January. Bad US-Russian relations are of course nothing new. Since the Anglo-American war against Iraq in 2003, the US-Russian relationship has been headed downhill. For Obama, it appears that everything has gotten personal. The US president often acts like a petulant adolescent, jealous of a high school rival. You know, the kid who does everything better than he does. The lad takes it badly and won’t let it go. He challenges his nemesis to some new contest at every opportunity only to lose again and again. That’s got to be hard on the ego. Between Obama and Putin there have been many such encounters. Nor can it help that western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin.

Let’s consider Obama’s remarks at his last press conference on Friday, 16 December. «The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us», said Obama: «They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate». This was insulting both Putin and his country, but not enough apparently for Obama. «They [the Russians] can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like».

What on earth is Mr. Obama talking about? Intimidate the press? The Moscow newspapers and television media are loaded with «liberals». Many Russians call them «fifth columnists». They are «people with ‘more advanced’ worldview[s] who do not tolerate ‘Russian propaganda’ themselves», according to one colleague in Moscow. But Mr. Putin tolerates them and pays them no mind.

«Lock up dissidents… discriminate against people»? What alternate reality does Mr. Obama live in? Doesn’t produce anything people want to buy? The United States buys rocket engines that it does not now produce at home. Maybe the Americans, a Russian commentator joked, can use high tech trampolines to get into space and do without Russian technology.

In an interview the previous day with the American National Public Radio Obama ranted about Putin. It must have been a rehearsal for his press conference. «This is somebody, the former head of the KGB», said Obama, «who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia… countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn; is currently making decisions that’s leading to a slaughter in Syria». What stupefying hypocrisy; what utter nonsense. Putin was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB, but never its head, and he certainly has not «crushed democracy in Russia». He even treats his political opposition with respect compared to Obama who dismisses president-elect Donald Trump as some kind of Russian Manchurian candidate. The Russians, according to Obama, interfered in the US presidential elections, and helped defeat fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. They hacked the Democratic National Committee’s hard drive and passed thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, although, according to others, an outraged Clinton insider leaked the cache of embarrassing emails. Obama has dismissed that possibility. The Russians did the hack, he insists , and Putin must be held personally responsible.

In Syria, the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists

Where’s the evidence? In Moscow, an angry Putin challenged Obama to put up or shut up. This is a hard thing for Obama to do. The Russians, he says, «counter American efforts to expand freedom at every turn». One wonders where that would be. In the Ukraine where the United States and European Union backed and guided the coup d’état against the democratically elected Ukrainian government? Or in Syria where the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists? How many democratic governments or popularly supported political movements has the United States plotted against or destroyed since 1945? The list is long, including the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Remember 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed?

Obama directly raised the issue of Syria during his NPR interview. The liberation of E. Aleppo from Al-Qaeda and other jihadists has infuriated the west. To the everlasting shame of France, the Eiffel Tower was darkened to mourn the defeat of Al-Qaeda. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is up in arms. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Palestinian and Iraqi militias have helped the Syrian Arab Army to cleanse Aleppo of jihadist terrorists, and thwart the United States and its vassals. This is what galls Obama, being outmanoeuvred by a lesser man than he and a lesser country than the United States. How deplorable to speak of the liberation of E. Aleppo as «a slaughter in Syria».

Obama’s frustrations began several years ago. Remember back in 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed? Apparently, the US government came within an ace or two of launching massive air attacks on Syria. Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making. All the while, Putin kept urging Russian-US cooperation against the jihadists in Syria, trying to draw the United States away from its ruinous policies. To no avail. Who then acted with greater statesmanship, Putin or Obama?

In 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons, Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making.

Temporarily thwarted in Syria, the United States opened up a new front on Russia’s southern frontier in the Ukraine. It backed the coup d’état in Kiev and turned a blind eye to the fascist vanguard, which kept the new Ukrainian junta in power. «The fascists are just ‘a few bad apples’», officials said in Washington, thinking that NATO had scored a great victory in getting its hands on Sevastopol so it could kick the Russian Black Sea fleet out of its traditional home base.

You have to give credit to Obama; he was ambitious, aiming for a big prize and the humiliation of Russia and its president. Again, he was thwarted not so much by President Putin but by the Russian people of the Crimea who immediately mobilised their local self-defence units backed by «polite people», Russian marines stationed in Sevastopol, to kick out the Ukrainians with scarcely a shot fired. They organised a referendum to approve entry into the Russian Federation. Reunification was quickly approved by a huge majority and celebrated in Moscow. Putin gave a remarkably candid speech, explaining the Russian position. «NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round».

«NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory», Putin said

It all happened so quickly, Obama must have looked on, dumbfounded, sputtering with angry frustration at having been outmanoeuvred by Crimean Russians who knew a thing or two after all about «innovating» and defending their land. Russians in the eastern Ukraine also resisted, taking up arms to defend themselves against Kiev’s fascist battalions.

That was too much. Putin became Obama’s nemesis. The US president struck back with economic sanctions, which his European vassals quickly endorsed. When Malaysian Airlines, MH17, was shot down over the eastern Ukraine, Obama and the EU at once accused Putin of being responsible without a shred of evidence. In fact, the available evidence points to the Kiev junta as the guilty party, but the MSM paid no attention. It ran an orchestrated propaganda campaign leading to harder sanctions against Russia intended to sabotage the Russian economy and break the Russian government.

Obama and his advisors again miscalculated. The Russian government instituted its own sanctions against the EU, and looked for other sources of supply or replaced foreign imports with Russian products. «We can do without Polish apples and French cheese», most Russians thought. «Liberals» sulked over the loss of their camembert, but that’s a small price to pay for Russian independence. Obama was outsmarted again by Russians who, he insists, can’t innovate. As for the EU, it suffered huge economic losses because of sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. It’s getting to be a habit; the EU has again renewed its sanctions against Russia.

The EU has suffered huge economic losses because of its anti-Russia sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot.

Whilst the Ukrainian crisis dragged on, Obama had to turn his attention back to Syria. In the autumn of 2015, Putin ordered Russian aerospace and naval forces to intervene on behalf of the hard-pressed Syrian government which asked for assistance against the western-backed jihadist invasion. The tide of battle slowly turned. Again, Obama was caught off guard; again, the US plan to overthrow the Syrian government was thwarted by Obama’s nemesis. The United States tried bogus truces to allow its jihadist mercenaries to refit and resupply. At first, the Russians did not seem to catch on, accepting American proposals as genuine. They had to learn the hard way, but they did eventually. The liberation of E. Aleppo, although overshadowed by the simultaneous loss of Palmyra, is another blow to Obama’s policies and to his fragile ego.

How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

No wonder the US president is lashing out at Putin, publically insulting him and his country. No wonder the MSM is up in arms. How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

Like the USSR before it, Russia has always had to pursue a politique du faible, a poor man’s policies, never having the abundant resources of it western adversaries. Russians learned early on to innovate. The fox has to make its way in a world full of dangerous wolves.

What Obama must hate most of all is Putin’s exposure of US support for Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Who indeed is responsible for the «slaughter» in Syria? Obama calls it fighting for democracy. «Airstrike democracy», Putin once derisively replied. «Do you realise what you have done?» Putin asked at the UN in 2015, shocking the MSM. Obviously not, if one is to judge by Obama’s remarks of the last few days. He’s still the obsessive adolescent with doubts about himself and in over his head against a real statesman. Thank heavens Obama is on his way out the door of the White House. It’s not a minute too soon. Olliver Cromwell’s famous remark in 1653 to the Rump Parliament seems apposite. «You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!»

23 December 2016

By M Zarni

To be Burmese is to be Buddhist: Myanmar Generals’ Winning Ideology

To build peace and reconciliation within society, Myanmar must destroy the view/sentiment that to be Burmese is to be Buddhist.

It is one big narrow-minded, religious obsession which has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism.

It is tinged with the old culturalist nationalism hoisted as the initial flag of resistance against the predominantly Christian British colonial rule. It is an anathema to the multi-faith founders of post-colonial Union of Burma, particularly the late U Aung San, the martyred father of the “Buddhist” leader of the NLD.

It makes non-Buddhists, whatever their ethnic ancestry, feel they are not fully equal or welcome or entitled to citizenship privileges, rights and protection.

This narrow view of Burmese identity amounts to religious bigotry. Bigotry serves the interests of the bigots – Buddhist monks, who operate within a closed system of thought, because of their devotional embrace of Buddhism as the only or superior Faith.

For their own strategic ends, the Burmese generals perniciously exploit this orthodox ideological community – nearly half-million men, usually drawn from rural, conservative backgrounds, not unlike the rank and file of the Burmese Armed Forces.

When Ne Win came to power in 1962, his regime of Burma Socialist Programme Party identified two above-ground social forces as major threats to the military and its attempts to shape society along its socialistic authoritarian lines. They were the Buddhist monks and university students.

Now the military has found a winning strategy: use the popular religious bigotry commonly shared among key national institutions – the Order, the armed forces and the society – to turn old enemies of monks and public into the tools of their own oppression.

It is an absolute necessity for those of who want to see a secularist country where people of different faiths and diverse ethnic ancestries can feel they are all equal, both in theory and in society to demolish this bigoted definition of the people of Burma.

National identities in a religiously diverse society must not be tied to any faith, deistic or atheistic, if the goal of the government and political parties are to forge an inclusive country.

Alas, that is not what is being pursued by neither Myanmar military, which thrives on exploiting ethnic and religious divisions in society, nor Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD, which attempt to placate, rather than educate and confront, the bigoted vocal minority.

10 January 2017

By M Zarni

Myanmar Generals and Their 8 Strategic Objectives behind Racism

Why does Myanmar Generals openly encourage Islamophobia?

Myanmar Military involves in using racism against Muslims and Islam to accomplish the following objectives, besides being themselves deeply racist:

1) to permanently disable NLD from governing the country: conflicts and societal instability serve the military’s strategic interests while undermining the NLD’s ability to push for reforms;

2) to keep in tact the military’s long-entrenched primacy and final say on the country’s affairs;

3) to enable the public to take their popular frustration, anger and discontent living in a deeply impoverished and un-just social order out on the vulnerable groups, which have long been subjects of disdain, disrespect and “Buddhist” mainstream racism;

4) to push the Burmese military on to the powerful – if failing and racist – western bandwagon of “global war on terror”;

5) to stunt the spread of human rights and democratic/liberal discourses within the society at large;

6) to remake the conservative ill- or little-educated orthodox Buddhist Order from one of the military’s main opposition social force into a powerful racist instrument against religious minorities;

7) to deflect attention from the economic plunder of the country by the Burmese generals, their families and cronies; and last but not least;

8) to prevent the development of a powerful, democratizing, inclusive society with mutually dependent, diverse ethnic and religious communities.

8 january 2017

By Patrick Cockburn

As recently as two years ago, Saudi Arabia’s half century-long effort to establish itself as the main power among Arab and Islamic states looked as if it was succeeding. A US State Department paper sent by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in 2014 and published by Wikileaks spoke of the Saudis and Qataris as rivals competing “to dominate the Sunni world”.

A year later in December 2015, the German foreign intelligence service BND was so worried about the growing influence of Saudi Arabia that it took the extraordinary step of producing a memo, saying that “the previous cautious diplomatic stance of older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention”.

An embarrassed German government forced the BND to recant, but over the last year its fears about the destabilising impact of more aggressive Saudi policies were more than fulfilled. What it did not foresee was the speed with which Saudi Arabia would see its high ambitions defeated or frustrated on almost every front. But in the last year Saudi Arabia has seen its allies in Syrian civil war lose their last big urban centre in east Aleppo. Here, at least, Saudi intervention was indirect but in Yemen direct engagement of the vastly expensive Saudi military machine has failed to produce a victory. Instead of Iranian influence being curtailed by a more energetic Saudi policy, the exact opposite has happened. In the last OPEC meeting, the Saudis agreed to cut crude production while Iran raised output, something Riyadh had said it would always reject.

In the US, the final guarantor of the continued rule of the House of Saud, President Obama allowed himself to be quoted as complaining about the convention in Washington of treating Saudi Arabia as a friend and ally. At a popular level, there is growing hostility to Saudi Arabia reflected in the near unanimous vote in Congress to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government as bearing responsibility for the attack.

Under the mercurial guidance of Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the most powerful figure in Saudi decision making, Saudi foreign policy became more militaristic and nationalistic after his 80 year old father Salman became king on 23 January 2015. Saudi military intervention in Yemen followed, as did increased Saudi assistance to a rebel alliance in Syria in which the most powerful fighting force was Jabhat al-Nusra, formerly the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda.

Nothing has gone well for the Saudis in Yemen and Syria. The Saudis apparently expected the Houthis to be defeated swiftly by pro-Saudi forces, but after fifteen months of bombing they and their ally, former President Saleh, still hold the capital Sanaa and northern Yemen. The prolonged bombardment of the Arab world’s poorest country by the richest has produced a humanitarian catastrophe in which at least 60 per cent of the 25 million Yemeni population do not get enough to eat or drink.

The enhanced Saudi involvement in Syria in 2015 on the side of the insurgents had similarly damaging and unexpected consequences. The Saudis had succeeded Qatar as the main Arab supporter of the Syrian insurgency in 2013 in the belief that their Syrian allies could defeat President Bashar al-Assad or lure the US into doing so for them. In the event, greater military pressure on Assad served only to make him seek more help from Russia and Iran and precipitated Russian military intervention in September 2015 which the US was not prepared to oppose.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being blamed inside and outside the Kingdom for impulsive misjudgments that have brought failure or stalemate. On the economic front, his Vision 2030 project whereby Saudi Arabia is to become less wholly dependent on oil revenues and more like a normal non-oil state attracted scepticism mixed with derision from the beginning. It is doubtful if there will be much change in the patronage system whereby a high proportion of oil revenues are spent on employing Saudis regardless of their qualifications or willingness to work.

Protests by Saudi Arabia’s ten million-strong foreign work force, a third of the 30 million population, because they have not been paid can be ignored or crushed by floggings and imprisonment. The security of the Saudi state is not threatened.

The danger for the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf states is rather that hubris and wishful thinking have tempted them to try to do things well beyond their strength. None of this is new and the Gulf oil states have been increasing their power in the Arab and Muslim worlds since the nationalist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Jordan were defeated by Israel in 1967. They found – and Saudi Arabia is now finding the same thing – that militaristic nationalism works well to foster support for rulers under pressure so long as they can promise victory, but delegitimises them when they suffered defeat.

Previously Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states had worked through allies and proxies but this restraint ended with the popular uprisings of 2011. Qatar and later Saudi Arabia shifted towards supporting regime change. Revolutions transmuted into counter-revolutions with a strong sectarian cutting edge in countries like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain where there were Sunni and non-Sunni populations.

Critics of Saudi and Qatari policies often demonise them as cunning and effective, but their most striking characteristic is their extreme messiness and ignorance of real conditions on the ground. In 2011, Qatar believed that Assad could be quickly driven from power just like Muamar Gaddafi in Libya. When this did not happen they pumped in money and weapons willy-nilly while hoping that the US could be persuaded to intervene militarily to overthrow Assad as Nato had done in Libya.

Experts on in Syria argue about the extent to which the Saudis and the Qataris knowingly funded Islamic State and various al-Qaeda clones. The answer seems to be that they did not know, and often did not care, exactly who they were funding and that, in any case, it often came from wealthy individuals and not from the Saudi government or intelligence services.

The mechanism whereby Saudi money finances extreme jihadi groups was explained in an article by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times in December on how the Saudis had bankrolled the Taliban after their defeat in 2001. The article cites the former Taliban Finance Minister, Agha Jan Motasim, as explaining in an interview how he would travel to Saudi Arabia to raise large sums of money from private individuals which was then covertly transferred to Afghanistan. Afghan officials are quoted as saying that a recent offensive by 40,000 Taliban cost foreign donors $1 billion.

The attempt by Saudi Arabia and Gulf oil states to achieve hegemony in the Arab and Sunni Muslim worlds has proved disastrous for almost everybody. The capture of east Aleppo by the Syrian Army and the likely fall of Mosul to the Iraqi Army means defeat for that the Sunni Arabs in a great swathe of territory stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean. Largely thanks to their Gulf benefactors, they are facing permanent subjection to hostile governments.

7 January 2017

By Cathy Breen

January 2, 2017: Being stuck in traffic is daily fare in Baghdad. While checkpoints have been dramatically reduced in recent times, and the number of concrete walls appear markedly decreased, traffic jams still defy description. It doesn’t help in the least that everyone is leaning on their horns. A half-a-million taxis roam around Baghdad spewing pollution as they look for potential fares. Proposals to counter this problem have been put forth to authorities, for example, the creation of taxi stands throughout the city. All attempts to remedy this problem seem futile.

In my travels this trip to Najaf, Karbala, Babylon and Baghdad, the dilemma of widespread corruption is of predominant concern. Young and old, without exception, feel caught in and strangulated by this reality. One young person related how one of the bosses in their workplace substantially increased their salary by fudging figures. If someone were to speak up they would, at best, be let go.

This past Monday a woman journalist, Afrah Shawqu al Qaisi, was kidnapped from her home in the Saidiya district of Baghdad by men claiming to be security personnel. She had written an article expressing anger that armed groups could act with impunity (BBC news Dec. 27, 2016).

“How do you get up in the morning?” I gently asked a young woman from Baghdad. “How do you manage?”

“With no hope” she replied.  “Each morning I get up with no hope.”  Her mother is ill and worries each day that her daughter will not get home safely from work. “All Iraqis want hope,” she added, “but they are resigned to bad conditions.”

But a gentleman who was also part of this conversation responded “There is no future if we keep silent.” Although he himself lost his position for speaking out against the corruption, he fears for the future of his children if the problem is not addressed. He believes that an answer for corruption is to educate by setting an example.

I had the great joy of visiting a family we have not seen for over three years.  Kathy Kelly first introduced me to this family in 2002, and we have tried to remain in contact throughout the years. As evening descended, some of us walked the streets of the old neighborhood where this family lives and where Voices rented an apartment, in 2003-2004.

We went to the site of the horrific suicide bombing of July 3, 2016, only two blocks away from the family’s apartment as well as where the Voices apartment was. The night of the bombings was on the eve of EID, ending the fasting month of Ramadan. Many people were out doing the final shopping for this celebration.  Vendors with their wares on the sidewalks, children eating ice cream in the blistering heat of summer. It was about 10:00 p.m. The blasts took the lives of over 300 people, many of them children. Over 200 more wounded. In the apartment where some of this family lives, three families lost children, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers in this explosion. I passed two of the survivors on the stairs this night.

I had my young friend take a photo across the street from one of the sites.  We became silent as we looked at this blackened mass towering over us. Months later the area is still blocked off by a corrugated fence as you can see in the picture. Across the street was a second bombed building. All around us were people visiting, walking, looking at wares, etc. “It is good to see life” said my young friend as we walked arm in arm. Armed vehicles and police were very present as well in this area.

A pain for me during my stay in Baghdad was not to be able to contact another family with whom we are also very close. I’ve written extensively about this family as the father and oldest son fled to Finland over a year ago. I had hoped to be able to meet up with the mother and at least some of the children at a place that would be safe for them. Sadly, this was not possible.

Baghdad cannot be compared to the relative quiet and safety of Karbala and Najaf.  As I write, we just got the distressing news of a double suicide bomb in a Baghdad market this morning. At least 28 people were killed. Many of the victims were people who had gathered near a cart selling breakfast when the explosions went off.
“Torn clothes and mangled iron were strewn across the ground in pools of blood at the site of the wreckage near Rasheed Street, one of the main thoroughfares in Baghdad,” an AFP photographer reported. “The targeted area is packed with shops, workshops and wholesale markets and usually teeming with delivery trucks and daily laborers unloading vans or wheeling carts around…Hugh crowds were expected to gather on Saturday evening in the streets of Baghdad to celebrate the New Year for only the second time since the lifting in 2015 of a year-old curfew.”  (The Telegraph News, UK, Dec. 31, 2016)

I was on Rasheed Street only yesterday.

While in Baghdad I stayed with a gracious couple who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, the Haj, this past year. In one of our many conversations, my host asked somewhat mischievously, “Which of the four do you think is the greatest sin in Islam?  Theft, illicit sex, drinking or lying?” I mulled this over not really knowing, but enjoying the exercise. The answer turned out to be “lying” and, curiously, I got it right.

But then the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deceit. Many in the U.S. accepted, without adequate investigation or even curiosity, the notion that the U.S. would improve conditions ordinary Iraqis faced following the 2003 invasion. Tragically, almost fourteen years later, nothing could be further from the truth. Yet we should ask now, with genuine care, what Iraqis will face in 2017 and how we can make reparations for the suffering we’ve caused.

Cathy Breen (newsfromcathy@yahoo.com) helps coordinate Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org)

4 January 2017