Archives: Articles

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Neither Fatah nor Hamas have been of much relevance to the mass protests staged around Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem. Neither have American pressure, half-hearted European ‘concern about the situation’ or cliché Arab declarations made one iota of difference. United Nations officials warned of the grim scenarios of escalation, but their statements were mere words.

The spontaneous mass movement in Jerusalem, which eventually defeated Israeli plans to change the status of Al-Aqsa was purely a people’s movement. Despite the hefty price of several dead and hundreds wounded, it challenged both the Israeli government and the quisling Palestinian leadership.

Israel shut down Al-Aqsa compound on July 14, following a shootout between three armed Palestinians and Israeli occupation officers. The compound was reopened a few days later, but Palestinian worshipers refused to enter, as massive security installation, gates, cameras and metal detectors were installed.

The people of Jerusalem immediately understood the implication of the Israeli action. In the name of added security measures, the Israeli government was exploiting the situation to change the status of Al-Aqsa, as part of its efforts to further isolate Palestinians and Judaize the illegally occupied city.

The Israeli army occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem in 1967, annexing it in 1981 in defiance of international law and despite strong UN objection.

For 50 years, Jerusalem has endured daily battles. The Israelis fought to expand their influence in the city, increase the number of illegal Jewish settlers and cut off Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian Territories; while Palestinians, Muslim and Christians alike, fought back.

Al-Aqsa compound – also known as Haram Al-Sharif or the Noble Sanctuary – is the most symbolic element in the fight. It is a microcosm of the fate of the occupied city, in fact the fate of the entire Palestinian land.

The compound has been administered by Islamic Waqf, through an Israeli-Jordanian understanding. Many Israeli politicians in the Likud Party and the Netanyahu-led rightwing government coalition have tried to change this.

Palestinians understand that the fate of their mosque and the future of their city are tightly linked. For them, if Al-Aqsa is lost, then Jerusalem is truly conquered.

This fight, between Palestinian worshipers and the Israeli army happens every single day, usually escalating on Friday. It is on this holy day for Muslims that tens of thousands of faithful flock to Al-Aqsa to pray, oftentimes to be met by new military gates and army regulations. Young Palestinians, in particular, have been blocked from reaching Al-Aqsa, also in the name of security.

But the struggle for Jerusalem can rarely be expressed in numbers, death toll and televised reports. It is the ordinary Palestinians’ constant fight for space, for identity and to preserve the sanctity of their holy land.

In the last two years, the fight escalated further as Israel began expanding its illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and rightwing parties issued a series of laws targeting Palestinians in the city. One such law is the call for prayer law, aimed at preventing mosques from making the call for prayers at dawn, as has been the practice for a millennium.

Palestinian youth, many born after the failed Oslo Accords, are fed up as the Israeli military controls every aspect of their lives and their corrupt leadership grows more irrelevant and self-serving.

This frustration has been expressed in numerous ways: in non-violent resistance, new political ideas, in art, music, on social media, but also through individual acts of violent resistance.

Since the most recent Al-Quds Intifada – Jerusalem uprising – started in October 2015, “some 285 Palestinians have died in alleged attacks, protests and (Israeli) army raids,” reported Farah Najjar and Zena Tahhan. About 47 Israelis were killed in that same period.

But the Intifada was somehow contained and managed. Certainly, human rights groups protested many of the army killings of Palestinians as unnecessary or unprovoked, but little has changed on the ground. The Palestinian Authority has continued to operate almost entirely independent from the violent reality faced by its people on a daily basis.

The shootout of July 14 could have registered as yet another violent episode of many that have been reported in Jerusalem in recent months. Following such events, the Israeli official discourse ignores the military occupation entirely and focuses instead on Israel’s security problem caused by ‘Palestinian terror’. Politicians then, swoop in with new laws, proposals and radical ideas to exploit a tragic situation and remold the status quo.

Considering the numerous odds faced by Palestinians, every rational political analysis would have rightly concluded that Palestinians were losing this battle as well. With the United States fully backing Israeli measures and the international community growing distant and disinterested, the people of Jerusalem could not stand a chance.

But such understanding of conflict, however logical, often proves terribly wrong, since it casually overlooks the people.

In this latest confrontation, Palestinians of Jerusalem won, presenting an impressive model of mobilization and popular solidarity for all Palestinians. The Israeli army removed the barricades and the metal detectors, pushing Israel to the brink of a political crisis involving angry politicians, the army and internal intelligence, the Shin Bet.

The people’s victory was a massive embarrassment for Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. He tried to ‘piggyback off the protests’ but failed, reported the Atlantic.

Other factions, too, moved quickly to mobilize on the people’s victory, but their efforts have appeared staged andinsincere.

“Today is a joyful day, full of celebration and sorrow at the same time – sorrow for the people who lost their lives and were injured,” a protester told Journalists, as thousands stormed the gates of Jerusalem armed with their prayer rugs, flags and voices hoarse from chanting for nearly two weeks.

“This is very much a grassroots movement – this isn’t led by Hamas or Fatah, the traditional political leaders of the Palestinians,” journalist Imran Khan reported from outside the compound.

This grassroot movement was made of thousands of women, men and children. They included Zeina Amro, who cooked daily for those who held steadfast outside the compound, was shot by a rubber bullet in the head, yet returned to urge the men to stand their ground the following day.

It also includes the child Yousef Sakafi, whose chores included splashing water over people as they sat endless hours under the unforgiving sun, refusing to move.

It also includes many Palestinian Christians who came to pray with their Muslim brethren.

Conveying the scene from Jerusalem, television news footage and newspaper photos showed massive crowds of people, standing, sitting, praying or running in disarray among bullets, sound bombs and gas canisters.

But the crowds are made up of individuals, the likes of Zeina, Yousef and many more, all driven by their insistence to face injustice with their bare chests in an inspiring display of human tenacity.

Of course, more violence will follow, as the Israeli occupation is enriched and relentless, but ordinary Palestinians will not quit the fight. They have held resolute for nearly 70 years.

Rational political analysis cannot possibly fathom how a nation undergoing numerous odds can still mobilize against an army, and win.

But the power of the people often exceeds what is seemingly rational. Almost leaderless, Palestinians remain a strong nation, united by an identity that is predicated on the pillars of human rights, resistance and steadfastness.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years.

3 August 2017

By Rania Khalek

Feminist scholar Valentine Moghadam discusses Western liberal delusions around Islamism, guerrilla movements and the Arab Spring.

Feminist author and scholar Valentine Moghadam participated in the Iranian revolution of 1979. But after the downfall of the Shah, she and her leftist comrades “were crushed immediately by the Islamists,” Moghadam told me. “That’s why so many of us are in exile and so many others were executed, tortured, arrested.”

Now a professor of sociology and international affairs at Northeastern University, where she is director of the Middle East and international affairs programs, Moghadam’s experience in Iran continues to influence her approach to the region and Islamist movements more generally. Much of her academic work, including several books, has focused on women’s movements in the Middle East and the implications of Islamism on their lives.

“It’s really on the basis of my experience in Iran that I have come to be totally suspicious of and opposed to any kind of Islamist movement,” she explained. “The lesson that I and many Iranians learned from the Iranian revolution and the Islamization that occurred almost immediately was that Islamist movements are very strong in the region and that Islamist movements are not good movements. They are not emancipatory, they are not egalitarian, they are not women friendly and they make things worse than the previous status quo,” she said.

In the 1980s, Moghadam was often a lone voice railing against U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen, or anti-Soviet rebels, a subject she has written about extensively. She was particularly alarmed about the well-being of Afghan women and stunned by the silence of Western feminists and liberals as their governments funded a right-wing insurgency that sought to strip women and girls of basic rights.

In her book Globalization and Social Movements: Islamism, Feminism, and the Global Justice Movement, Moghadam attributed “the silence and confusion of the 1980s…to the anti-communism of liberal feminist groups, to an idealization of ‘Islamic guerrillas,’ to a misplaced cultural relativism, or to ignorance about Afghanistan.”

She expressed a similar critique of the feminist and leftist response to the conflict in Syria, where the U.S. tried to weaken the Syrian government by funding and arming a patchwork of religious fundamentalist groups that often worked side-by-side with Al Qaeda. In a strange affront to traditional leftist principles, large segments of the American left either stayed silent or expressed support for the armed insurgency, often whitewashing and denying its explicitly anti-democratic and sectarian agenda.

As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at University of California-Stanislaus, has observed that Syria coverage at the typically adversarial progressive program Democracy Now! has become indistinguishable from the one-sided State Department narrative promoted by establishment outlets. The Socialist Worker, the media arm of the International Socialist Organization, has published one piece after another glorifying the extremist-dominated insurgency and painting anyone opposed to it as “pro-Assadist.” One piece referred to the fighters in Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, Jabhat al Nusra, as “decent revolutionaries.” And Jacobin, a self-styled “leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture” routinely publishes articles that whitewash the armed groups in shocking terms. A January 2017 piece in Jacobin claimed that Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, two of the most fanatical armed opposition groups in Syria, “support national democratic transition” where “people will be able to choose their own representatives.”

This characterization couldn’t be further from the truth, as both groups are explicit about their intention to impose an Islamic state that woudl eradicate Syria’s tradition of pluralism. Until 2014, Ahrar al Sham worked arm in arm with the Islamic State, or ISIS. The groups had a falling out not over ideology, but over allegiance and tactics. Ahrar al Sham continued to work with Al Qaeda until a power struggle in the province of Idlib brought the two Islamist groups to loggerheads. Meanwhile, Jaysh al-Islam famously used caged Alawite families as human shields. Tellingly, Jacobin articles have repeatedly referred to the areas under the control of these groups as “liberated.”

Moghadam believes that these flawed analyses are rooted in the left’s enthusiasm for the Arab Spring, combined with ignorance about the Middle East, and as with Afghanistan, a romanticization of guerrilla movements.

Guerrilla groups that the American left has traditionally supported, like those that sprang up across Latin America in the post-colonial period, “had very clear and emancipatory social and economic and cultural projects which were quite explicit and they often included quite openly the emancipation and participation of women,” whereas the insurgencies in 1980s Afghanistan and today’s Syria “are Islamist and have absolutely no such emancipatory or egalitarian projects or programs.”

“A lot of hopes and aspirations, excitement and anticipation were pinned on the Arab Spring,” explained Moghadam. “I always took a more cautious approach to it because … the main opposition and the stronger alternative political movements to those authoritarian regimes were Islamists precisely because most of these authoritarian regimes … had not allowed the development and the growth and expansion of left-wing, progressive or even liberal activities.”

As a result, Moghadam cautions against “knee jerk support for any group that rebels against an authoritarian regime.” Instead, she advise that “leftists and feminists, when they are confronted with something like a rebellion in a country like Syria, should immediately ask themselves: Who are the rebels, what do they stand for? What is this regime, what does it stand for, what has it accomplished? And where would left-wing Syrians, where would Syrian women have more room for maneuver?”

I spoke to Moghadam in detail about the American left’s response to the war in Syria, the problem with Islamist movements and what a proper feminist response to right-wing rebellions against authoritarian regimes might look like. Below is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity.

RANIA KHALEK: You have written extensively about the US-backed Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the silence at the time from feminists. I see a similar dynamic around Syria, where the US has funded and armed a sectarian and fundamentalist insurgency. Many feminists and leftists in the US have been supportive of this armed insurgency, despite its right-wing and fundamentalist agenda. Why do you think that is?

VALENTINE MOGHADAM: There is a certain amount of ignorance about the Middle East on the part of some of these groups and organizations. I think that ignorance might also be tied to a certain romanticization of rebellion, guerrilla groups and so on. It’s certainly the case that the rebels in Syria, just like the mujahedeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, were nothing like the sorts of rebels and guerrilla groups that left wing organizations have traditionally supported. They’re nothing like, let’s say, the Vietcong or Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s groups, nothing like the Nicaraguans or the El Salvador groups. The movements that I just mentioned had very clear and emancipatory social and economic and cultural projects which were quite explicit and they often included quite openly the emancipation and participation of women. These other groups, the more contemporary ones, many of them are Islamist and have absolutely no such emancipatory or egalitarian projects or programs.

The mujahedeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, they were even opposed to the left-wing government’s plan for compulsory schooling for girls, and this in a country that was about 98 percent illiterate. And the United States supported them over a modernizing left-wing government. At the time, I was one of just a handful of people who were just appalled by the way almost the entire world, with the exception of course of the socialist block, had turned against Afghanistan and were cheering on the Mujahedeen. It was incomprehensible to me.

RK: Was it because of the way the media portrayed the Mujahedeen? Was it that people just weren’t aware of what their actual agenda was?

VM: I think there were several things going on. One was that this was still a time when the Soviet Union was in place, so there was an atmosphere of anti-communism in most of the western world. This was sort of the waning days of the cold war, but the cold war was still present. And so, anti-communism and cold war sentiments and anti-Soviet sentiments certainly played into all of this.

The American media, including human rights organizations, really played this up. The shocking misinformation and disinformation about, for example, education policy on the part of the left-wing government in Afghanistan at the time was that this was no more than Sovietization of schooling and a kind of ideological brainwashing of young Afghan minds. They were stooping that low to try to put the left-wing government and their Soviet allies in the worst possible light. This is a country that was 98 percent illiterate and the government was trying to bring the country into the 20th century and yet all these westerners were crafting the crudest form, but it was an effective form, of anti-Soviet and anti-Afghan government propaganda to steer people’s potential support for what the government was doing toward support for the tribal Islamist rebellion.

RK: This doesn’t sound so different from other propaganda at the time. There was a lot of propaganda around Nicaragua, but it doesn’t seem to have been as effective as it was with Afghanistan.

VM: If we’re just now focused on why left-wing movements were asleep, it was different because they were more familiar with and more knowledgeable about Central America than was the case with Afghanistan and think this is also the case with Syria, though Syria is a bit more complicated. But I do think that there’s a bit more knowledge of and familiarity with Central America, because of Cuba and the proximity but also the democratic transitions that had occurred in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. So people were much more familiar with what was going on in Latin America than what was going on in Afghanistan. There’s just a lot of ignorance about the Muslim majority world.

RK: In news articles from the 1980s Afghanistan war, I’ve noticed a great deal of excuse-making for the mujahideen’s opposition to girls going to school. A 1988 New York Times, for example, blamed the Afghan government’s ‘Marxist ideology’ for provoking the mujahideen’s extreme misogyny. What’s that about?

VM: There was a certain cultural relativist argument that was being bandied about. It’s a certain arrogant notion that these people have their own culture and it is not correct to impose western values and policies and procedures on their cultures. This idea that schooling is western rather than a universal notion of development and modernization, that this was somehow an imposition of the Soviet Union rather than recognizing that there was a certain social stratum of Afghans who themselves had been educated in various countries.

[Founding member of the Afghan communist party People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan] President Nur Muhammad Taraki had been educated in India for heavens sakes. And these people were very eager to be able to extend the benefits of schooling and awareness and knowledge and skills to their countrymen and countrywomen, yet this was derided and denigrated, again propagandistically I think, as a form of cultural imposition and wrong-headed cultural policy. As if things were never imposed in Western countries too, I mean we’ve had compulsory education in America for what, over a century or more? That has happened in lots of countries. In lots of countries there’s compulsory conscription, even compulsory voting. These were very very weak arguments in terms of their logic and ethical content but they were effective unfortunately because the more you repeat this kind of disinformation and lies, the more effective they become.

RK: That bring us to the Syria issue. Across the political spectrum, everyone except for a few minor groups has been incredibly supportive and cheering on the rebel takeover of Syrian cities.

VM: That’s been really quite shocking to me on a number of levels, but let’s go back to why that occurred. Let’s go back to January, February, March of 2011. The Arab Spring had erupted. There was a great deal of celebration, of optimism. A lot of hopes and aspirations, excitement and anticipation were pinned on the Arab Spring.

I remember that time very well because I was more or less in the midst of it as a scholar. And I was being interviewed at the time about the possible prospects and outcomes. I always took a more cautious approach to it because, yes, the region was filled with authoritarian regimes and dictatorships but I also knew that the main opposition and the stronger alternative political movements to those authoritarian regimes were Islamists precisely because most of these authoritarian regimes–there are some exceptions, Tunisia is an exception, Morocco is an exception to a certain extent–but most of these regimes had not allowed the development and the growth and expansion of left-wing, progressive or even liberal activities. In Egypt, Mubarak had been far more oppressive than Ben Ali of Tunisia had been and really clamped down on civil society. I knew that in Egypt the main opposition force that would come to power was the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists and that’s exactly what happened. I felt the same way about some of the other countries.

So, if I had to choose between an authoritarian regime ruled by the secular Republican Baath party in Syria and some unknown Islamist groups, I would definitely prefer the secular Republic and albeit authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad. And yet others didn’t understand this. I might’ve understood it because of my experience with the Iranian revolution.

At that time of the Iranian revolution we were all in favor of the revolution but we were leftists and the leftists were crushed by Islamists. The lesson that I and many Iranians learned from the Iranian revolution and the Islamization that occurred almost immediately was that Islamist movements are very strong in the region and that Islamist movements are not good movements. They are not emancipatory, they are not egalitarian, they are not women friendly and they make things worse than the previous status quo.

So I’ve been extremely opposed to regime change anywhere for two reasons. One is because in principle I’m opposed to this kind of regime change on the part of Western powers because I think that’s just a form of blatant imperialism. But secondly, it’s because of the likely outcomes, which Islamist groups coming to power or something even worse, which is the collapse of these societies and political systems into the kind of chaos we have seen in Libya.

Part of the lies is that Assad is responsible for ISIS. It’s really interesting but also quite appalling because ISIS was formed out of the mess the US created in Iraq. Al Baghdadi is an Iraqi who was also in an American prison and then he formed ISIS. It’s precisely because of destabilization of the region from external intervention and regime change and attempted regime change that you have seen ISIS expand throughout the region. So none of this is the fault of Assad or anyone else. It is really the fault of the United States, England and France that really pushed for a regime change in Libya and compelled NATO into bombing the heck out of Libya and quite a number of Libyans died.

And look at Libya today. It’s just a complete mess and no one’s taking responsibility for it and no one’s been held to account for it and yet the lies are that Assad is responsible for this.

RK: He’s responsible for plenty of stuff, but not this.

VM: Right. Early on in 2011 he did make the mistake of harshly putting down those protests. But let’s face it, a lot of countries have harshly put down protests. At the time I remember pointing out, look what the UK did to Northern Ireland, to the IRA. There was a great deal of hypocrisy going on at the time. Yes, Assad’s regime made a mistake by repressing the protests, but also yes, a lot of countries have done that, including our much-vaunted democracies. And their mistake, actually their crime was then to immediately finance and arm the armed rebellion, which by the way is against international law. You’re not supposed to arm non-state actors. But they started to do that, in particular their proxies in the region: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on.

So it’s true that the Syrian regime has been incredibly violent, but to a great extent it’s been forced to be because states do not simply put down their weapons and cry uncle. No state does that. If you look at the United States, even if you have just two or three armed militia groups that crop up every so often in places like Idaho or Texas, they react very, very harshly to them.

I actually blame all this terrible violence in Syria on these outside external forces. By encouraging and arming the rebellion, countries like the US and England and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and so on have simply been prolonging the misery of the Syrian people and creating chaos in that country. If they had not interfered back in 2011, 2012, 2013, there would have been some resolution that would have occurred organically between the government and the opposition. Either the government would have totally won and crushed the opposition on its own, and that happens time and again in our world, or there would have been some compromise.

RK: That would have been much better than seven years of violence and bloodshed. As much as I would love to see leftist movements and revolutions sweep across the region, that just isn’t the case.

VM: To the extent that there are left-wing groups and movements, they’re very small and weak, unfortunately. They simply cannot compete or compare with Islamist groups and movements. After all Islamist groups and movements have been getting their funding and logistical support from these big powers. If it’s not Saudi Arabia, then it’s Qatar or the Emirates or Turkey. We know that the CIA has also been supporting its so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria.

In the old days, of course, we had left-wing guerilla groups and progressive groups, but that was when the Soviet Union existed, so they could get some support from them, but we just don’t have that anymore.

RK: That’s what people with the Arab communist parties told me, that they can’t compete with the right-wing nationalist and Islamist groups because they have such a big funding stream and the leftists get nothing. The other thing I think is new in the region is this element of sectarianism that has become progressively worse. A lot of it has to do with the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies trying to counter Hezbollah and Iran by promoting anti-Shia sentiments and empowering Sunni extremist groups. In Syria, a major part of the rebel agenda has been the elimination of minorities. Was sectarianism this prevalent in Afghanistan?

VM: To some extent, but not as bad as it is today. The Taliban were more sectarian because they were almost exclusively Pashtun and almost exclusively Sunni. They carried out some horrific campaigns against Shia Hazaras and so on. But what is going on in the region today is really very troubling and disturbing and I think again the United States is largely responsible for it. It created this monster in Iraq. By invading and occupying Iraq, it opened up this Pandora’s box. Bush’s friend Maliki in particular became very sectarian and there was of course a legitimate resistance that developed in Iraq, but they turned increasingly violent and sectarian themselves, singling out Shia. This has spread across the region.

The other culprit is Saudi Arabia. For 30 years Saudi Arabia has been funding and encouraging and promoting a very draconian anti-feminist, anti-egalitarian Wahhabi Islamic ideology. Meanwhile, the US invades and occupies Iraq. One unintended consequences is the Shia government then becomes friendly with Iran. The United States is really concerned about this. Saudi Arabia is concerned about this. And then they keep pouring more fuel to fire by igniting and promoting sectarian divisions and differences.

The most extreme version of this is ISIS and the way they have systematically been targeting non-Sunnis all over the place.

I do want to say something about this sort of odd position of American left-wing media and groups, their utter silence over treatment of non-Muslims and non-Sunnis in the region. This systemic targeting of Christians, Yazidis, Alawites, Shias but also of secular Muslims, and not only in the Middle East but in other countries too, like Bangladesh, Pakistan—there’s utter silence about this. Absolutely nothing is being said about this targeted killing and mass migration from the region of all the religious minorities. And meanwhile at the same time that nothing is being said about that, we hear all this talk about Islamophobia.

RK: It seems to me that people are scared to touch on this topic because they don’t want to play into Islamophobia at a time when Muslims are being targeted by the U.S. government.

VM: Yes, there is a problem of Islamophobia in the United States and Europe, too. But any critique of Islamophobia has to be accompanied by or has to be a part of a larger critique of discrimination, oppression and the marginalization of all the religious minorities. And that includes the religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries. I would like to hear CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) and organizations like that talk about this, but they won’t. And to the extent that they will not, then for me Islamophobia becomes more marginal to some of the bigger issues and problems of the region, which is external intervention, regime change, the arms trade and the chaos that that creates.

RK: One thing I’ve noticed about the region is left-wing groups embracing Hezbollah. They oppose Islamism, but they don’t feel threatened by Hezbollah and instead view them as resistance to Israel and al Qaeda and ISIS. It’s an interesting dynamic.

VM: I was very suspicious of Hezbollah for a quite some time. But it’s interesting that more recently, they seem to be playing a more positive role especially in connection with Syria and trying to protect the integrity of the Syrian political system and the current regime there. It’s an extremely unpopular statement that I’m making and very, very controversial, but I think that just at this moment Hezbollah seems to be playing a positive role as I believe Iran is, even though people like me have suffered from the Islamization of the Iranian republic. But to be very objective about it, I think that both Hezbollah and the Iranian regime are correct to be insisting on the viability and integrity of the Syrian state. As for how the Lebanese view Hezbollah and what is the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon, that’s not for me to decide.

RK: Just to wrap it up, what should the feminist leftist response be to a conflict like Syria?

VM: I think that leftists and feminists, when they are confronted with something like a rebellion in a country like Syria, should immediately ask themselves: Who are the rebels, what do they stand for? What is this regime, what does it stand for, what has it accomplished? And where would left-wing Syrians, where would Syrian women have more room for maneuver? That is the question we always have to ask ourselves when we’re faced with something like this; not just this knee-jerk support for any group that rebels against an authoritarian regime. You have to ask yourself, what is the likely outcome and what does this rebel group stand for?

Rania Khalek is an independent journalist living in the Washington D.C. area.

31 July 2017

By Kevin Zeese & Margaret Flowers

The Coalition Against Foreign Military Bases is a new campaign focused on closing all US military bases abroad. This campaign strikes at the foundation of US empire, confronting its militarism, corporatism and imperialism. We urge you to endorse this campaign.

On the occasion of its announcement, the coalition issued a unity statement, which describes its intent as “raising public awareness and organizing non-violent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.” It further explains that US foreign military bases are “the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world.”

While the US sought to be an imperial force beginning just after the US Civil War and then escalated those efforts at the turn of the 20th Century, it became the dominant empire globally after World War II. This was during the time of de-colonization, when many traditional empires were forced to let their colonies become independent nations. So, while the US is the largest empire in world history, it is not a traditional empire in which nations are described as colonies of the US empire. Nations remain independent, at least in name, while allowing US bases on their soil and serving as a client state of the United States. They are controlled through the economic power of the US, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The US has used regime change tactics, including assassination and military force, to keep its empire intact.

Commentators have described the United States as an “empire of bases.” Chalmers Johnson wrote in 2004:

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire — an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage — Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another.

We do not know the exact number of US military bases and outposts throughout the world. The Unity Statement says “the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). . . . In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft — each of which can be considered a floating military base.”

The annual Department of Defense (DoD) Base Structure Report says the DoD manages a massive “global real property portfolio that consists of nearly 562,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on over 4,800 sites worldwide and covering over 24.9 million acres.” They value DoD property located in 42 nations at over $585 billion. It is difficult to tell from this report the number of bases and military outposts, which has led analysts like Tom Engelhardt to describe US empire as an “invisible” empire of bases. He points out the US military bases are rarely discussed in the media. It usually takes an incident, like US soldiers being attacked or a US aircraft being shot down, for them to get any mention in the media.

Many of the bases remain from previous wars, especially World War II and the Korean War:

According to official information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) there are still about 40,000 US troops, and 179 US bases in Germany, over 50,000 troops in Japan (and 109 bases), and tens of thousands of troops, with hundreds of bases, all over Europe. Over 28,000 US troops are present in 85 bases in South Korea, and have been since 1957.

The number of bases is always changing as the US seeks to continuously expand its empire of bases. Just this week the US is opening a military base in South Korea, which is described as a city of 25,000 people. The Washington Post reports:

“We built an entire city from scratch,” said Col. Scott W. Mueller, garrison commander of Camp Humphreys, one of the U.S. military’s largest overseas construction projects. If it were laid across Washington, the 3,454-acre base would stretch from Key Bridge to Nationals Park, from Arlington National Cemetery to the Capitol.

* * *

Now, the $11 billion base is beginning to look like the garrison that military planners envisaged decades ago.

The Eighth Army moved its headquarters here this month and there are about 25,000 people based here, including family members and contractors.

There are apartment buildings, sports fields, playgrounds and a water park, and an 18- hole golf course with the generals’ houses overlooking the greens. There is a “warrior zone” with Xboxes and Playstations, pool tables and dart boards, and a tavern for those old enough to drink.

Starting this August, there will be two elementary schools, a middle school and a high school. A new, 68-bed military hospital to replace the one at Yongsan is close to completion.

Also this week, it was reported that the United States has created ten new military bases in Syria. This was done without permission of the Syrian government and was exposed by Turkey in protest against the United States.

There is a cost to these bases, not only the $156 billion in annual funds spent on them, but also the conflicts they create between the United States and people around the world. There have been protests against the presence or development of US bases in Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany. Some of the bases are illegal, as the unity statement points out, “The base that the U.S. has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law.”  Cuba has called for the return of Guantánamo since 1959. David Vine, the author of Base Nation, describes how these bases, which seek to project US power around the globe, create political tensions, are a source for military attacks and create alliances with dictators. They breed sexual violence, displace indigenous peoples, and destroy the environment.

The unity statement of the Coalition Against Foreign Military Bases concludes by urging all of us to unite to close US bases around the world because:

U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security. They are the military expression of U.S. intrusion in the lives of sovereign countries on behalf of the dominant financial, political, and military interests of the ruling elite. Whether invited in or not by domestic interests that have agreed to be junior partners, no country, no peoples, no government, can claim to be able to make decisions totally in the interest of their people, with foreign troops on their soil representing interests antagonistic to the national purpose.

Please endorse the statement and join the campaign to remove US military bases from foreign soil.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance.

30 July 2017

By countercurrents.org

To: The Prime Minister of India, Chief Ministers of the States, and Lieutenant-Governors of the Union Territories.

30 July, 2017

We are a group of Veterans of the Indian Armed Forces who have spent our careers working for the security of our country. Collectively, our group holds no affiliation with any single political party, our only common commitment being to the Constitution of India.

It saddens us to write this letter, but current events in India have compelled us to register our dismay at the divisiveness that is gripping our country. We stand with the ‘Not in My Name’ campaign that mobilised thousands of citizens across the country to protest against the current climate of fear, intimidation, hate and suspicion.

The Armed Forces stand for “Unity in Diversity”. Differences in religion, language, caste, culture or any other marker of belonging have not mattered to the cohesion of the Armed Forces, and servicemen of different backgrounds have fought shoulder to shoulder in the defence of our nation, as they continue to do today. Throughout our service, a sense of openness, justice and fair play guided our actions. We are one family. Our heritage is like the multi-coloured quilt that is India, and we cherish this vibrant diversity.

However, what is happening in our country today strikes at all that the Armed Forces, and indeed our Constitution, stand for. We are witness to unprecedented attacks on society at large by the relentless vigilantism of self-appointed protectors of Hinduism. We condemn the targeting of Muslims and Dalits. We condemn the clampdowns on free speech by attacks on media outlets, civil society groups, universities, journalists and scholars, through a campaign of branding them anti-national and unleashing violence against them while the State looks away.

We can no longer look away. We would be doing a disservice to our country if we do not stand up and speak for the liberal and secular values that our Constitution espouses. Our diversity is our greatest strength. Dissent is not treason; in fact, it is the essence of democracy.

We urge the powers that be at the Centre and in the States to take note of our concerns and urgently act to uphold our Constitution, both in letter and in spirit.

Signatories (in alphabetical order of last name)

1. Lt Col EN Ambre

2. Brig VKS Antony

3. Maj MK Apte

4. Col CT Arasu

5. Lt Col Israr Asghar

6. Cdr CR Babu

7. Lt Cdr PS Bal

8. Lt Cdr Rakeh Bali

9. Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee

10 Lt Gen CA Barretto

11. Brig Noel Barretto

12. Col TS Bedi

13. Surg Cdr P Bellubi

14. Petty Off Gajanan Bhat IN

15. Cdr PG Bhat

16. Gp Capt AV Bhagwat

17. Col V Bopiah

18. Maj Gen PR Bose

19. Vice Adm A Britto

20. Col RT Chacko

21. Lt Col M Chandrasekhar

22. Cdre R Clarke

23. Col KS Choudhry

24. Brig TPS Chowdhury

25. Brig Dileep Deore

26. Col Samuel Dhar

27. Lt Gen FT Dias

28. Lt Col AP Durai

29. Gp Capt MP Elangovan

30. Maj Gen Shyamal Ghosh

31. Col V Nanda Gopal

32. Cdre EC Govindan

33. Col V Govindarajan

34. Col RP Grover

35. Cdre PC Gulati

36. Cdr M Hari

37. Lt Col Muzaffar Hasan

38. Brig Prem Hejmadi

39. AVM Kapil Kak

40. Col AT Kalghatgi

41. Maj Gen MPS Kandal

42. Col MS Kapoor

43. Maj Gen TK Kaul

44. Lt Col PB Keskar

45. Lt Col V Kharkar

46. Wg Cdr R Khosla

47. Brig Anil Malhotra

48. Col Arun Malhotra

49. Lt Col RC Malhotra

50. Brig GK Malik

51. Cdre G Menezes

52. Wg Cdr SN Metrani

53. Maj GN Misra

54. AVM RP Misra

55. Col Biman Mistry

56. Col RB Mistry

57. Col AK Mitra

58. Col Pradip Mitra

59. Maj Gen H Mukherji

60. Maj Gen RPRC Naidu

61. Col Pavan Nair

62. Lt Col VK Nair

63. Col RLV Nath

64. Cdr M Nirmal

65. Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi

66. Rear Adm Alan O’Leary

67. Air Cdre Tanpat Pannu

68. Lt Col Niraj Pant

69. Col RC Patial

70. Cdr Hector Poppen

71. Capt Subbarao Prabhala IN

72. Brig Ranjit Prasad

73. Brig VHM Prasad

74. Wg Cdr KV Raghuram

75. Brig RS Rajan

76. Col SS Rajan

77. Cdr SM Rajeshwar

78. Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar

79. Col TN Raman

80. Admiral L Ramdas

81. Vice Adm IC Rao

82. Col TK Ravindranath

83. Air Marshal DS Sabhikhi

84. Lt Col Nagaraj Sastry

85. Lt Gen KM Seth

86. Col PD Shah

87. Brig Baqir Shameem

88. Lt Gen YN Sharma

89. Lt Col HD Shirmane

90. Vice Adm MR Schunker

91. Cdr MA Somana

92. Brig Amardeep Singh

93. Gp Capt DR Singh

94. Brig Joginder Singh

95. Brig Mastinder Singh

96. Cdr Rajiv Singh

97. Col Salam K Singh

98. Col S Srikantha

99. Brig M Sudandiram

100. Flt Lt R Suresh

101. Sgt MN Subramani

102. Lt Cdr P Subramanyam

103. Maj Gen L Tahliani

104. Cdr SP Taneja

105. Cdr TP Tharian

106. Lt Col JK Thomas

107. Cdr M Thomas

108. Cdr N Tripathy

109. Air Marshal NV Tyagi

110. Capt AK Varma

111. Wg Cdr BJ Vaz

112. Maj Rajah Velu

113. Lt Col R Venugopal

114. Maj Gen SG Vombatkere
______________

31 July 2017

By Michael T Klare

Who says President Trump doesn’t have a coherent foreign policy?  Pundits and critics across the political spectrum have chided him for failing to articulate and implement a clear international agenda. Look closely at his overseas endeavors, though, and one all-too-consistent pattern emerges: Donald Trump will do whatever it takes to prolong the reign of fossil fuels by sabotaging efforts to curb carbon emissions and promoting the global consumption of U.S. oil, coal, and natural gas.  Whenever he meets with foreign leaders, it seems, his first impulse is to ply them with American fossil fuels.

His decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which obliged this country to reduce its coal consumption and take other steps to curb its carbon emissions, was widely covered by the American mainstream news media.  On the other hand, the president’s efforts to promote greater fossil fuel consumption abroad — just as significant in terms of potential harm to the planet — have received remarkably little attention.

Bear in mind that while Trump’s drive to sabotage international efforts to curb carbon emissions will undoubtedly slow progress in that area, it will hardly stop it.  At the recent G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, 19 of the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris accord and pledged to “mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through, among other [initiatives], increased innovation on sustainable and clean energies.”  This means that whatever Trump does, continuing innovation in the energy field will indeed help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and so slow the advance of climate change.  Unfortunately, Trump’s relentless drive to promote fossil-fuel consumption abroad could ensure that carbon emissions continue to rise anyway, neutralizing whatever progress might be made elsewhere and dooming humanity to a climate-ravaged future.

How the two sides of the ledger — green energy progress versus Trump’s drive to boost carbon exports — will balance out in the years ahead cannot be foreseen. Every boost in carbon emissions, however, pushes us closer to the moment when global temperatures will exceed the two degrees Celsius rise from pre-industrial levels that scientists say is the maximum the planet can absorb without suffering catastrophic consequences. Those would include rising sea levels that could drown New York, Miami, Shanghai, London, and many other coastal cities, as well as a sharp drop in global food production that could devastate entire populations.

Spreading the Cult of Carbon

President Trump’s pursuit of increased global carbon consumption is proving to be a two-front campaign.  He’s working in every way imaginable to increase the production of fossil fuels domestically, even as he engages in a diplomatic blitzkreig to open doors to American fossil-fuel exports abroad.

At home, he’s already reversed numerous Obama-era restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, including curbs on mountaintop removal — an environmentally hazardous form of coal mining — and on oil and gas drillingin Arctic waters off Alaska.  He’s also ordered the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt — a notorious enemy of environmental regulations opposed by the energy industry — to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s program to sharply reduce the use of coal in domestic electricity generation.

These and similar initiatives have gotten a fair amount of media attention already, but it’s no less important to focus on another key aspect of Trump’s pro-carbon global initiative which has gone largely unnoticed.  While, under the Paris climate accord, the other industrial powers are still obliged to help developing countries install carbon-free energy technologies, Trump has freed himself to sell American fossil fuels everywhere to his heart’s content.  At that G-20 meeting, for example, he forced his peers to insert a clause in their final communiqué stating, “The United States of America states it will endeavor to work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently.” (The “more cleanly and efficiently” was undoubtedly his modest concession to the other 19 leaders.)

To spread the mantra of fossil fuels, Trump has become the nation’s carbon-pusher in chief.  He’s already personally engaged in energy diplomacy, while demanding that various cabinet officials make oil, gas, and coal exports a priority.  On June 29th, for instance, he publicly ordered the Treasury Department to do away with “barriers to the financing of highly efficient overseas coal energy plants.”  In the same speech, he spoke of his desire to supply American coal to Ukraine, currently cut off from Russian natural gas thanks to its ongoing conflict with that country.  “Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons [of coal] right now,” Trump said, pointing out that there are many other countries in a similar state, “and we want to sell it to them, and to everyone else all over the globe who needs it.”

He added, “We are a top producer of petroleum and the number-one producer of natural gas.  We have so much more than we ever thought possible, and we’re going to be an exporter… We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.”

In his urge to preserve the reign of fossil fuels, President Trump has already taken on a unique personal role, meeting with foreign officials and promoting cooperation with key American energy firms.  Take the June 26th White House visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  While the media reported on how the two of them took up the subject of future arms sales to India, it made no mention of energy deals.  Yet Secretary of Energy Rick Perry revealed that this topic was crucial to their encounter.  At a Trump-hosted dinner for Modi at the White House, Perry reported, “we talked about the three areas of which there will be great back-and-forth cooperation — deal-making, if you will.  One of those is in LNG [liquefied natural gas].  The other side of that is in clean coal.  Thirdly is on the nuclear side. So there is great opportunity for India and the United States to become even stronger allies, stronger partners — energy being the glue that will hold that partnership together for a long, long time.”

To put this in context, making deals to sell coal to India is like selling OxyContin to an opioid addict.  After all, in 2015, that country overtook the United States to become the world’s second-biggest consumer of coal (after China).  To keep up the pace of its rapid economic growth, India had plans to increase its reliance on coal yet more, which would mean a steady increase in carbon emissions.  India now trails only China and the United States as an emitter of carbon dioxide and its share is expected to grow.  However, it is also likely to suffer disproportionately from climate change, which its emissions will only accelerate.  Given that future extreme heat events are expected to periodically destroy crops on which a large part of its population depends, Modi’s government has recently begun seeking ways to reduce the country’s long-term reliance on fossil fuels, in part by becoming a solar superpower.  In other words, in pitching coal to India — a true case of bringing coals to Newcastle (or at least Mumbai) — Trump is functionally working to sabotage India’s struggle to free itself from the scourge of carbon addiction.

He similarly pushed fossil-fuel exports in his first encounter with newly elected South Korean President Moon Jae-in.  Not surprisingly, press coverage of the event highlighted their discussions about the nuclear threat posed by North Korea.  Some reports also noted that trade issues came up, but none mentioned energy matters.  Yet, shortly before his state dinner with Moon, Trump announced that a U.S. company, Sempra Energy, had just that day signed an agreement to sell more American natural gas to South Korea.  “And, as you know,” he added, “the leaders of South Korea are coming to the White House today, and we’ve got a lot of discussion to do, but we will also be talking about them buying energy from the United States of America, and I’m sure they’ll like to do it.”  In other words, the president has made it eminently clear how foreign leaders in need of American support can please him.

His first overseas trips have also featured versions of such pitchmanship.  During his visit to Saudi Arabia in May, he evidently sought to promotecooperation between U.S. and Saudi energy firms.  Again, press coverage of his meeting with Saudi King Salman highlighted other topics, notably the war on terror, the regional divide between Sunnis and Shiites, and new Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s hard line on Iran.  But the two of them did, in fact, issue a statement affirming “the importance of investment in energy by companies in both countries, and the importance of coordinating policies that ensure the stability of markets and an abundance of supplies.”  Where this might lead is anyone’s guess, but presumably to a commitment to the continued dominance of petroleum in the world’s future energy markets.

On the subject of his two meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit (at the second of these without even an American translator), we obviously know far less.  It is, however, reasonable to assume that his interest in improving ties with Russia is at least partially energy-focused. During the first of those conversations, Trump was accompaniedonly by a translator and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who, as CEO of ExxonMobil, had inked energy deals with Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil giant, and lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on Russia’s energy sector.  (Those deals are now being investigated by the Treasury Department as possible violations of government-mandated sanctions then in effect.)  Five days later, while flying to Paris on Air Force One, Trump told reporters that he would like to meet again with Putin, once that became politically feasible, adding, “and, by the way, I only want to make great deals with Russia.”

To further boost the export of U.S. fossil fuels abroad, Trump has also leaned on various government agencies to facilitate such efforts.  In a talk he gave on June 29th to energy company officials at the Department of Energy, for example, the president hailed its approval of two long-term projects to promote U.S. energy abroad: the export of additional natural gas from a terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and plans to construct a new oil pipeline to Mexico — about which, he assured listeners, “It will go right under the wall, right?… You know, a little like this [gesticulating].  Right under the wall.”

And keep in mind that we are undoubtedly catching no more than a glimpse of Trump’s efforts to promote the sale of American oil, coal, and natural gas abroad.  From what little has been reported on the subject in his meetings with Prime Minister Modi, President Moon, and King Salman, it’s reasonable to assume that the topic has come up in most of his conversations with foreign leaders and represents a far more significant aspect of his international policymaking than generally realized.

American Energy Dominance

Don’t imagine, however, that Trump’s fossil-fueled salesmanship is primarily driven by a desire to enrich American energy firms (though he would undoubtedly consider that a plus).  It’s clearly motivated by a deeper, more visceral set of urges.  Still trapped in his memories of his 1950s childhood when gas-guzzling American cars were a prominent symbol of national wealth and power, he has a deep belief in the capacity of fossil fuels to propel and sustain the country’s global dominance.  He often recalls that formativeperiod in his musings, describing it as a golden age when America won all its wars and was dominant on the world stage.  For him, oil equals vigor equals national ascendancy, and no other countries — least of all an international community united behind the Paris climate accord — should be able to deprive the U.S. of its carbon fix.

All this was implicit in that Energy Department speech, which offered a genuine window into his thinking on the subject.  Here’s the crucial passage, delivered in his usual extemporaneous style:

“Our country is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance… We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal… We have so much more than we ever thought possible.  We are really in the driving seat.  And you know what?  We don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to do and how to do it.  With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we’ve been looking for so long, but American energy dominance.”

Trump’s personal fascination with symbols of excess — think of those giant golden letters over his properties — is evident in that monologue.  It’s clear that he’s been especially taken with breakthroughs in the enhancement of American energy abundance, especially the success of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.  That process has liberated vast quantities of oil and natural gas from previously unusable shale formations.  Prior to the introduction of fracking, oil and gas production in the United States had been in decline, but thanks to what’s been termed the “shale revolution,” production has soared.  In July 2017, at 9.4 million barrels per day, U.S. crude oil output was up 68%over six years earlier, when production was running at just 5.6 million barrels per day.  Natural gas has registered a similar leap.  All this, in turn, generated — at least for a time — a feeling of euphoria in the oil and gas industry, with some pundits even dubbing this country “Saudi America” and portraying it as a new energy El Dorado.

As this sense of euphoria took hold, American energy analysts began viewing the explosion of domestic hydrocarbon output as a crucial source of geopolitical clout.  The immense flood of cheap natural gas has “boosted U.S. economic competitiveness,” said Robert Manning of the Atlantic Council typically enough, “and by extension, U.S. comprehensive national power, and U.S. capacity for global leadership.” Think of it as Viagra for Washington policymakers.

Recently, however, some of this euphoria has dissipated as bargain-basement oil and gas prices, the inevitable consequence of overproduction, have been eating into corporate profits and forcing some over-exposed energy companies to declare bankruptcy.  Trump’s belief in the ability of petroleum to enhance America’s global clout has, however, clearly been unshaken.  “We’ve got underneath us more oil than anybody,” he declared in a conversation with journalists aboard Air Force One on July 12th.  “And I want to use it.”

Whatever the sources of his fascination with fossil fuels, six months into his presidency one thing is clear: he’s determined to spread the cult of American carbon internationally and this urge has already become a defining theme of his foreign policy, even if the mainstream media, despite its deluge of Trump-centered coverage, has hardly noticed.

A New American Legacy

Previous American presidents have sought fame through the promotion of freedom, democracy, and human rights abroad.  In fact, virtually every formal presidential expression of foreign policy in the post-Cold War era has ritualistically identified those values as America’s greatest exports (whatever values Washington was actually exporting). Not so for Donald Trump, however.  What he seeks to export are habit-forming, climate-altering hydrocarbons.

It remains to be seen how successful his drive to spread the cult of carbon will be.  As time goes on and the effects of climate change intensify in a warming world, more countries will undoubtedly begin to focus on easing or even ending their reliance on fossil fuels and promoting carbon-free alternatives.  Market forces will play a crucial role in this process, since the price of renewable energy — especially solar — has been dropping quickly and is already, in certain circumstances, a cheaper way to go than using coal to generate electricity.

Even if Trump’s fossil-fueled scheming doesn’t succeed in the long run, he will undoubtedly ensure that more greenhouse gases enter the planet’s atmosphere, meaning that temperatures will continue to climb and punishing droughts and heat waves will become ever more the new global norm.

It’s time to give his snake-oil-style energy salesmanship and the future environmental destruction that will accompany it the attention they deserve.  If humanity is to have any chance to survive the planetary warming to come in reasonable shape, all the American carbon Trump hopes to sell to foreigners has to stay in the ground.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author.

31 July 2017

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Israel, which has played a precarious role in the Syrian war since 2011, is furious to learn that the future of the conflict is not to its liking.

The six-year-old Syria war is moving to a new stage, perhaps its final. The Syrian regime is consolidating its control over most of the populated centers, while ISIS is losing ground fast – and everywhere.

Areas evacuated by the rapidly disintegrated militant group are up for grabs. There are many hotly contested regions sought over by the government of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and its allies, on the one hand, and the various anti-Assad opposition groups and their supporters, on the other.

With ISIS largely vanquished in Iraq – at an extremely high death toll of 40,000 people in Mosel alone –  – warring parties there are moving west. Shia militias, emboldened by the Iraq victory, have been pushing westward as far as the Iraq-Syria border, converging with forces loyal to the Syrian government on the other side.

Concurrently, first steps at a permanent ceasefire are bearing fruit, compared to many failed attempts in the past.

Following a ceasefire agreementbetween the United States and Russia on July 7 at the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, three provinces in southwestern Syria – bordering Jordan and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights – are now relatively quiet. The agreement is likely to be extended elsewhere.

The Israeli government has made it clear to the US that it is displeased with the agreement, and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been leading strong efforts to undermine the ceasefire.

Netanyahu’s worst fears are, perhaps, actualizing: a solution in Syria that would allow for a permanent Iranian and Hezbollah presence in the country.

In the early phases of the war, such a possibility seemed remote; the constantly changing fortunes in Syria’s brutal combat made the discussion altogether irrelevant.

But things have now changed.

Despite assurances to the contrary, Israel has always been involved in the Syria conflict. Israel’s repeated claims that “it maintains a policy of non-intervention in Syria’s civil war,” only fools US mainstream media.

Not only was Israel involved in the war, it also played no role in the aid efforts, nor did it ever extend a helping hand to Syrian refugees.

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have perished in the merciless war; many cities and villages were totally destroyed and millions of Syrians become refugees.

While tiny and poor Lebanon has hosted over a million Syrian refugees, every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees, as well. Except Israel.

Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped.

However, the nature of the Israeli involvement in Syria is starting to change. The ceasefire, the growing Russian clout and the inconsistent US position has forced Israel to redefine its role.

A sign of the times has been Netanyahu’s frequent visits to Moscow, to persuade the emboldened Russian President, Vladimir Putin, of Israel’s interests.

While Moscow is treading carefully, unlike Washington it hardly perceives Israeli interests as paramount. When Israel shot down a Syrian missile using an arrow missile last March, the Israeli ambassador to Moscow was summoned for reprimand.

The chastising of Israel took place only days after Netanyahu visited Moscow and “made it clear” to Putin that he wants to “prevent any Syrian settlement from leaving ‘Iran and its proxies with a military presence’ in Syria.”

Since the start of the conflict, Israel wanted to appear as if in control of the situation, at least regarding the conflict in southwestern Syria. It bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition groups.

In recent comments before European officials, Netanyahu admittedto striking Iranian convoys in Syria ‘dozens of times.”

But without a joint Israeli-US plan, Israel is now emerging as a weak party. Making that realization quite belatedly, Israel is become increasingly frustrated. After years of lobbying, the Obama Administration refused to regard Israel’s objectives in Syria as the driving force behind his government’s policies.

Failing to obtain such support from newly-elected President Donald Trump as well, Israel is now attempting to develop its own independent strategy.

On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving “secret aid” to Syrian rebels, in the form of “cash and humanitarian aid.”

The New York Times reported on July 20 of large shipments of Israeli aid that is “expected to (give) ‘glimmer of hope’ for Syrians.”

Needless to say, giving hope to Syrians is not an Israeli priority. Aside from the frequent bombing and refusal to host any refugees, Israel has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967 and illegally annexed the territory in 1981.

Instead, Israel’s aim is to infiltrate southern Syria to create a buffer against Iranian, Hezbollah and other hostile forces.

Termed “Operation Good Neighbor,” Israel is working diligently to build ties with various heads of tribes and influential groups in that region.

Yet, the Israeli plan appears to be a flimsy attempt at catching up, as Russia and the US, in addition to their regional allies, seem to be converging on an agreement independent from Israel’s own objectives or even security concerns.

Israeli officials are angry, and feel particularly betrayed by Washington. If things continue to move in this direction, Iran could soon have a secured pathway connecting Tehran to Damascus and Beirut,

Israeli National Security Council head, Yaakov Amidror, threatened in a recent press conference that his country is prepared to move against Iran in Syria, alone.

Vehemently rejecting the ceasefire, Amidror said that the Israeli army will “intervene and destroy every attempt to build (permanent Iranian) infrastructure in Syria.”

Netanyahu’s equally charged statements during his European visit also point at the growing frustration in Tel Aviv.

This stands in sharp contrast from the days when the neoconservatives in Washington managed the Middle East through a vision that was largely, if not fully, consistent with Israeli impulses.

The famed strategy paper prepared by a US study group led by Richard Perle in 1996 is of little use now, as the region is no longer shaped by a country or two.

The paper entitled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, saw a hostile Arab world masterfully managed by US and Israel.

For a fleeting moment, Tel Aviv hoped that Trump would bring about change to the US attitude.

Indeed, there was that euphoric movement in Israel when the Trump administration struck Syria. But the limited nature of the strike made it clear that the US had no plans for massive military deployment similar to that of Iraq in 2003.

The initial excitement was eventually replaced by cynicism as expressed by this headline in the Monitor: “Netanyahu puts Trump on notice over Syria.”

In 1982, taking advantage of sectarian conflicts, Israel invaded Lebanon and installed a government led by its allies. Those days are long gone.

While Israel remains militarily strong, the region itself has changed and Israel is not the only power holding all the cards.

Moreover, the receding global leadership of the US under Trump makes the Israeli-American duo less effective.

With no alternative allies influential enough to fill the gap, Israel is left, for the first time, with very limited options.

With Russia’s determined return to the Middle East, and the decided retreat by the US, the outcome of the Syria war is almost a foregone conclusion. Surely, this is not the ‘new Syria’ that Israel had hoped for.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years.

27 July 2017

By Farooque Chowdhury

Venezuela, it seems, is a riddle to the audience of the mainstream media. Yet the riddle conceals a fact. A conflict between opposing interests is roaring in Venezuela, and attempts to stoke that conflict are being intensified by the imperialist-interventionist quarter as the day for a vote on the proposed Constituent Assembly—July 30—is nearing.

Every day the mainstream media showers its viewers with news reports that are partial and biased. Here are some examples from the past several weeks:

1. A Venezuelan diplomat to the UN has decided to break with the government and resigned. The diplomat called on president Nicolas Maduro to resign immediately.

2. Recent protests have led to the deaths of more than 100 persons.

3. Venezuela’s chief prosecutor has confirmed a second death in Thursday’s protests. The chief prosecutor said she was investigating the death.

4. Maduro has decried the general strike called by the opposition as a crude attempt to sabotage the country’s economy.

5. Maduro has also denounced an opposition attack outside the offices of VTV, Venezuelan state TV.

6. Opposition protesters and pro-government forces threw rocks at one another while the Venezuelan National Guard launched tear gas and rubber bullets.

7. Streets in opposition-friendly neighborhoods in eastern Caracas were almost entirely void of activity during the strike. Some businesses remained open in parts of the capital traditionally loyal to the ruling party but foot and vehicle traffic was significantly reduced.

8. More than 7 million Venezuelans cast ballots in an opposition-led “consultation” on July 16. Nearly 700,000 of those votes came from Venezuelans abroad.

Other news

Yet there are a significant number of other news stories on Venezuela that the mainstream media chose not to report:

1. Citing the Proletarian Agency of Information, a grassroots media group, on July 20, 2017 Venezuela Analysis reported: In the industrial city of Barquisimeto, many workers have made efforts to maintain production despite several cases of sabotage by business owners, administrators, and protestors. In the case of DISICA, a private company that supplies state oil firm Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) with iron construction material, the workers “continue working and have not stopped operations.”

2. The same news-report said: State owned Lacteos Los Andes, a diary company, has alleged that since early hours of the afternoon, they have been under attack by opposition groups armed with home-made mortars and Molotov cocktails. The groups “tried to set […] fire to an industrial gas tank.”

3. Workers complained of delays caused by opposition barricades.

4. Opposition mayors supported the strike.

5. Working class neighborhoods have largely been unaffected by the strike.

6. Maduro told VTV: “The 700 largest companies in the country are working at 100 percent of their capacity.”

7. The government said: Almost all 2.8 million public employees including employees of PdVSA turned up to work. The PdVSA management said it was not affected by the strike. (Ryan Mallett-Outtrim and Katrina Kozarek, “Venezuela Divided Over Opposition’s General Strike,” Venezuela Analysis, July 20, 2017.)

8. Any change to the constitution by the proposed constituent assembly, once elected, will need to be put to a referendum.

9. The death of Hector Anuel, a citizen, assaulted by opposition protesters in Anzoategui state. Anuel’s death sparked a social media outrage, after footage went viral that seemed to show his charred corpse being beaten by opposition protesters. According to news outlet La Tabla, Anuel was killed after being hit by a home-made mortar used by opposition protesters. The shot itself was allegedly caught on camera. Anuel was burned, before being pummelled with stones and other debris. In the footage alleged to show his death, Anuel appeared unarmed. (Ryan Mallett-Outtrim, “Venezuela Shocked by Graphic Footage of Alleged Mortar Killing,” Venezuela Analysis, July 19, 2017.)

10. The Bolivarian government made no attempt to stop the opposition-organized “vote taking” even though it had no legal standing (and therefore was no more than a circus). Initially, the show was described as a “referendum” and a “plebiscite”. It had the logistical support of the National Assembly, the regional governors and opposition mayors. The propertied classes and imperialist camp also extended full support to the so-called referendum, which should be seen as part of attempts to organize a parallel government. Five rightist former presidents from Latin American countries were allowed to observe the proceedings. They made fiery speeches demanding Maduro’s exit. All these leaders are entangled in corruption cases, and they have not hesitated to use repressive power against workers and peasants in their respective countries. (Jorge Martin, “Venezuela: July 16 opposition ‘consultation’ countered by a Chavista show of strength,” In Defense of Marxism, July 20, 2017)

11. The opposition-organized show mobilized a large number of people. However, long queues at “polling stations” in some areas of the capital city were due to less number of “polling stations.” For example, in Catia, there was one polling station for 90,000 people. Moreover, the opposition leaders have admitted: people could vote more than once. There is already a video showing a person voting three times in one hour in the right-wing stronghold of Chacao. Furthermore, at the end of the day, they burnt the ballots and the registers, which demolishes all scopes to check the opposition announced result. This is the political force, “which has been accusing the Bolivarian revolution of election fraud for the last 15 years!” (ibid.)

12. There was an official dry run of the proposed Constituent Assembly (CA) elections—a presence of Chavismo’s strength—on the same day the so-called referendum was organized by the opposition. The dry run of the Constituent Assembly vote had very high turnout, as evidenced by long queues in front of official National Electoral Council polling stations throughout the country. Even in big cities, where opposition support is greatest, long queues were common. Local councils of a number of these cities are controlled by the opposition. In many neighborhoods the queues were so long that the polling stations had to keep open until 8pm (four hours later than the scheduled time). There was even significant voter presence in Petare parish, which supported the opposition in recent elections. In Merida, many people waited in queues for hours and finally had to return home without participating in the dry run. (ibid.)

13. In a poll by Hinterlaces of over 1,500 Venezuelans the majority of said they support a socialist economy, with the caveat that state-run enterprises need to improve their efficiency. The poll asked participants if “the best thing for Venezuela is a socialist economic model of production, where various forms of private property exist.” Three out of four Venezuelans agreed with this statement and only 1 percent was unsure. The results were released in a speech by Oscar Schemel (a pollster with Hinterlaces) to local business leaders in Caracas. Schemel said data shows Venezuelans want a socialist state with private investment and a “mixed economy.”: “61 percent of the population affirms that the economy must be led by the state, 86 percent think that the government should promote private investment, 78 percent consider that the government’s dialogue with businesspeople is more important than with the opposition, and 63 percent distrust the opposition.” While the majority of Venezuelans said they support socialism, 63 percent of the respondents said the government needs to become “more productive and efficient”, 32 percent said the current model should “change”, 74 percent said they would oppose any proposal to privatize PdVSA. When asked whether the electricity grid should be privatized, 67 percent opposed the suggestion while 69 percent opposed suggestion for privatizing state telecommunications giant CANTV. (Ryan Mallett-Outtrim, “POLL: 75% of Venezuelans support socialism, 63% distrust opposition,” MR Online, July 23, 2017)

The mainstream has failed to cover nearly all of these stories; when they have, the message has been distorted to fit the viewpoint of the US ruling class.

Deaths

Since the mainstream media incessantly flaunts its “objectivity” we can reasonably ask: how objective has their reporting been on deaths and killings over the last four months? Is there any mention of opposition-induced violence? Any reasonable assessment would conclude that opposition has played little if any role—other than to protest; whereas most if not all have been murdered by Maduro and his security machine.

So far, the opposition organized unrest has left 105 persons dead (date last updated: July 18). There is confusion over the causes of and parties responsible for these deaths. An in-depth account by Venezuelanalysis (“In detail: The deaths so far”, July 11, 2017) showed the following:

Deaths caused by authorities: 13

Direct victims of opposition political violence: 20

Deaths indirectly linked to opposition barricades: 8

Deaths still unaccounted for/disputed: 44

Accidental deaths: 3

Persons died during lootings: 14

Deaths attributed to pro-government civilians: 2.

The mainstream media not only avoid giving any such breakdown, they completely ignore who murdered who. They also ignore other pertinent details about the opposition protests:

1. Any details on the tactics most commonly used in opposition demonstrations.
2. How opposition protestors target day-to-day civilian activities, and attempt to create a sense of terror.
3. Any investigation into the class affiliation of participants in opposition demonstrations.
4. The extent to which vandalism, arson, bombings are used; or the routine targeting of public institutions (such as clinics).
5. The assassination of Chavista supporters.

Any honest coverage would compel one to ask: are these opposition “crusaders” genuinely interested in “democracy,” or do they simply want the right to plunder and terrorize until they get their way by force? We simply cannot rely on the mainstream media to provide any insight into such pertinent questions.

Voting mathematics

The voting tabulations given by the mainstream media more often than not conform to the viewpoint of the Venezuelan opposition leaders and their supporters. A look into their very own figures on voting in the much touted “consultation” (or “referendum”) is a sterling example. Following are a few key points:

1. The opposition has stated that they had 2,000 polling stations and a total of 14,000 polling booths, which remained open for 9 hours, from 7am until 4pm. A few of stations remained opened later, but most closed much earlier. They report a total of 7,186,170 votes. When we divide that figure by 14000 booths over 9 hours we get rough estimate of 57 votes per hour per booth. In other words, just over 1 vote every minute in each and every one of the polling booths: 9 hours straight! In one minute and 5 seconds every voter had to go to the table, show identification documents, have their details written down in the electoral register, receive a paper ballot, go into the booth and fill out the ballot, fold it and put it into the ballot box. Surely a “believable” estimate commented Jorge Martin: “massive achievement for the opposition, one which breaks all election records and a few laws of physics”! (“Venezuela: July 16 opposition ‘consultation’ countered by a Chavista show of strength”, In Defence of Marxism, July 20, 2017)

2. In Spain, there are 63,000 Venezuelans according to the census taken on January 2017. Of these 9,000 are below the voting age, leaving 54,000. The opposition claims that 91,981 participated in the consultation. Now, there may be some discrepancies between the census and the real figures, but is it reasonable to accept that there are 38,000 more people than are actually registered officially? Are we not justified to doubt these figures? (ibid.)

3. The opposition officially declared that 7,186,170 people had participated. Let’s assume that the figure is true. That would fall short of the 14 million they themselves had announced would take part, just days before July 16, and also short of the more conservative figure announced by Capriles as a litmus test for the day. The opposition also announced that “with this result Maduro would have lost a recall referendum.” This refers to the Constitution, which states that for a recall referendum to be binding on the sitting president, more people would have to vote for his recall than he actually won in the election. Unfortunately for the opposition, Maduro was elected with 7,587,579 votes in 2013, and thus would not have been recalled. More confusing yet, the figure they apparently plucked out of thin air is less even than the opposition candidate won in that presidential election, which was 7,363,980. (ibid.)

As one might expect, the mainstream media have totally misrepresented the news of the official dry run process of the Constituent Assembly, most claiming poor voter turnout. The Spanish El País informed its readers that in Caracas there was “little influx to some polling stations […]” where a few “looked empty.” Yet the four photographs published by El Pais were of very long Chavista queues, with a false caption saying the cues were of Chavistas going “to participate in the opposition consultation”! (ibid.)

Interventionist propaganda

The upper classes of Venezuela are trying to regain their lost fiefdom. The program of violence they are implementing, which has rocked Venezuela since April 4, 2017, is part of that effort.

Venezuelan bonds have crashed as result of the sustained unrest, with five-year debt yielding 36 percent. Economic problems and corruption are wearing down the Bolivarian revolution’s social base; as leaders are forced into a policy of class conciliation, revolutionary mobilization are weakened; and, thus, creating conditions favorable to the upper classes. The disturbances the wealthy elite are creating is part of the imperialists’ intervention plan in Venezuela. The disinformation campaign carried out by the mainstream media is a key component of that effort. So, we should not be surprised by the profusion of Orwellian statements and the incessant vilification of Maduro, in mainstream coverage of Venezuela:

• “The proposed Constituent Assembly would disenfranchise millions of Venezuelans.”
• “If the Maduro regime imposes its Constituent Assembly on July 30, the US will take strong and swift economic actions.”
• Mercosur has asked Maduro to suspend his plan to rewrite the country’s constitution.
• A group of US lawmakers has warned of a new Cuba as Venezuela is trying to transform the country to serve its own people. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said of Venezuela: “This is a dysfunctional narco-state.” Rubio also said: “How truly tragic would it be for […] one of the most democratic societies in the hemisphere to become Cuba.” Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey said: “We are talking about a nearly failed state in our own hemisphere.” Venezuela is a “nearly-failed”, “narco-state,” and yet is “one of the most democratic societies”?! Which statement to believe?
• Maduro is just another Fidel. [Yes, they say this.] Cuban-American Republicans and Democrats agree: Maduro must be stopped.
• Rubio brought the wife of Mr. Leopoldo López, one of Venezuela’s opposition leaders, to the White House in February.

The US would obviously prefer to restore its allies to the throne in Venezuela so that they can go on plundering the country; so that surplus labor of the toiling people of Venezuela can be appropriated.

It might be argued that while most of the facts presented above are objective, some are biased. But that would miss the point, which is the wildly divergent narrative presented by the mainstream media. The interests of capitalists and imperialists are stated and restated incessantly; while those of millions of people of Venezuela are downplayed, distorted or ignored.

We cannot remain silent. We must recognize that many other countries may face (or are already facing) the same situation. Would an imperialist state allow some other state to decide/define:

1. The imperialist state’s constitution?
2. Who runs the imperialist state or who should be the president?
3. Its domestic politics?
4. Type of constitution, form of democracy and form of government?

Shouldn’t people of respective country be allowed to decide the issues? These questions must be answered by those who support or downplay imperialist intervention in Venezuela and elsewhere.

No intervention should go unchallenged, whether in Venezuela or elsewhere. Piercing the edifice of mainstream media manipulation is a key part of exposing imperialist intervention, not least because it contributes to the political education of those fighting similar battles, leading to more effective organization and resistance.

Farooque Chowdhury, writing from Dhaka, has not authored/edited any book in English other than Micro Credit, Myth Manufactured (ed.), The Age of Crisis and What Next, The Great Financial Crisis (ed.), and he doesn’t operate any blog/web site.

27 July 2017

By Andre Vltchek

Covering the recent battle for the city of Marawi on Mindanao Island in the Southern Philippines, the Western media has been grossly exaggerating unconfirmed reports and rumors. It has been spreading twisted information and ‘facts’.

At the beginning of July, I visited Mindanao as one of only a few foreigners allowed inside the besieged city of Marawi and to its surrounding area.

I spoke to local people, to the IDPs – those who managed to escape the city taken over by the jihadists. I also managed to discuss the situation with the highest commanders of the military in charge of the combat, including General Ramiro Rey and Lt. Colonel Jo-Ar Herrera. I encountered many soldiers, civil servants, and relief workers.

My contacts in the capital informed me via text messages that I had been “red-flagged,” clearly, by the pro-US faction in the Philippine military. So before my presence was finally cleared from Manila, I was detained and held in a provisional military base in the city of Saguiaran. Here I was “softly” interrogated by military intelligence. A few steps away, a howitzer was firing artillery toward ISIS positions in Marawi, some 10 kilometers distant.

“So you believe the United States is responsible for spreading terrorism all over the world,” I was asked late at night by one of the officers, point blank, while local starlet was imitating old Chuck Berry’s hit “Johnny B. Goode” on TV, sound blasted all over the barracks. It was clear that someone ‘behind the scenes’ was busy studying my published work.

The Western establishment media and various servile NGOs (including those which are “defending human rights” in several rebellious and independent-minded countries) consistently demonize President Duterte, an anti-imperialist, progressive leader who enjoys well over 80 percent approval rating. It is no secret in the Philippines there are two distinct factions inside the military – one supports the president and his drive for independence from the West. The other, which is trained and often corrupted by Washington and other Western capitals, would love to see him go.

The pro-Western fraction obviously wanted me out, detained, perhaps even disappeared. The other one that stands by its president wanted me to see the truth, even to be allowed into Marawi.

A final decision was made late at night in Manila. I was released and granted permission to work in the besieged city. But even when the top commanders personally called the camp, there was, at least for a while, apparent reluctance to let me go.

My first reaction after visiting the Marawi front was one of shock and outrage. What I witnessed was fundamentally different from what has repeatedly been said by most of the Western mass media outlets, as well as pro-Western local news channels broadcasting from Manila.

It is evident, right from the start, that Marawi is not “totally destroyed,” as has been reported. Most of it is standing and standing firm. I would estimate that only between 20 and 30 percent of the houses and buildings, (most of them in the wealthy core center of the city) have sustained heavy damage.

It was explained to me during the presentation by top army commanders that the ISIS-related jihadists began their offensive on May 23rd 2017 and their plan was to take full control of the town by the time Ramadan was to begin (May 26th). The military spoiled their plans; it counter-attacked and managed to contain the terrorists in just one neighborhood, retaining or regaining control of all the other ‘barangays.’

Undoubtedly there were heavy losses, and, because of the palpable sense of fear after tremendous brutality unleashed by the terrorists, a substantial movement of IDPs (Internally Displaced  Persons). But it was never 400,000 people escaping the area, as reported in the West, but approximately 200,000 (the number once peaked at about 300,000 for a short time).

There has been no “indiscriminate bombing” of the civilians. I witnessed both incoming and outgoing howitzer fire and also very limited bombing from the air; it was all targeted and mostly precise, aiming at the position of the terrorists. As in all other war zones where I have been working, I refused any protection, including helmets and bulletproof vests. That allowed me to remain more mobile. I did manage to come ‘very close’ to the front. It was clear the fighting and bombing were strictly contained to one area, no more than one-kilometer square. Even there, the mosques and almost all other buildings and houses were still standing, as is demonstrated on my photographs.

Anti-Duterte NGOs and many Western governments claim that they ‘worry’ about the martial law imposed on Mindanao Island. I was told that in and around Marawi (or anywhere else on the Island), the martial law carried no brutal consequences. Even the curfew (9PM-5AM) is laxly implemented.

Brigadier General Ramiro Rey (head of the Joint Task Force Group, Ranao) explained to me in Marawi City:

“The difference between this martial law and those that were imposed during the reign of Ferdinand Marcos is that now the military is mainly doing real fighting while providing assistance to the civilians. I absolutely don’t interfere with the work of local elected government officials. I’m actually encouraging them to do their job as before, asking them to contact me only when my assistance is needed. I never took, and I don’t intend to take, control of the area.”

Local government officials and volunteers working for various relief agencies and NGO’s operating in the area have confirmed what General Rey said.

During my work in the conflict zone, I detected no fear among the residents. The relationship between the army and civilians was clearly friendly and cordial. As the military convoys were moving between the cities of Illigan and Marawi, both children and adults were smiling, waving, some cheering the soldiers.

In the camps housing the IDPs, there was almost unanimous consensus: while many citizens of Mindanao Island in general and the Marawi area in particular would most likely welcome more autonomy from Manila, during this ongoing and brutal conflict almost all local people have been supportive of the military and government efforts.

“We hope that both Filipino and foreign jihadi cadres would soon be crushed,” was an almost unanimous statement coming from the local people.

The Military Perspective

In the cities of Illigan and Marawi I was shown detailed maps clearly indicating positions of the ISIS and the military.

Both Lt. Colonel Jun Abad from Ranao Camp and the commanding officer, General Rey, gave me a clear and detailed briefing. As of July 3rd, the Agus River represented the ‘borderline’ between the ISIS-held area and the zone liberated and controlled by the army.

General Rey explained during our meeting in the Municipality of Marawi City (now the complex is also serving as the headquarters of the war theatre):

“The ISIS wants to establish their state on the island of Mindanao – an Islamic caliphate – right here in the Province of Lanao del Sur.”

But that’s not what the majority of local people want. Before President Duterte came to power little over one year ago, social situation in many parts of Mindanao was desperate and therefore there was at least some support for radical ‘solutions’. Since then, however, things changed dramatically. Healthcare, education and public housing are improving. Indiscriminate mining by multi-national companies has been deterred. People here; as well as in almost all other parts of the Philippines finally feel hopeful and optimistic about their future.

This converts into great support for both the government and the military.

There is no doubt the entire city will be freed, soon, most likely in July or August. The only reason why it did not happen yet is that the terrorists are using hostages, both Christians and Muslims, as human shields. President Duterte, General Rey, and other civilian and military officials are trying to avoid unnecessary human losses.

Cultural topography’ of the area is also very complex. Near the front line I was told by one of the top commanding army officers:

“We could take the city in just one day, but there would be great civilian casualties. The houses in this area are very sturdy; they are 2-3 stories high and fortified, as there are constant and brutal family feuds, called’ rido’, raging here, and have been for centuries.”

But to delay the liberation of Marawi is also very dangerous.

“The terrorists began using captured women as sex slaves,” explained Major Malvin Ligutan, standing in front of a temporary military base in Saguiaran.

Despite all the horrors of the Marawi war, the army refused to use brutal tactics, even after it found out that various local citizens clearly miscalculated and before the conflict began, offered substantial support to the ISIS-related terrorists.

Captain John Mark Silva Onipig clarified:

“These people belonging to the ISIS are not only terrorists, but they are also criminals. They were dealing in drugs… And some local people knew that… Actually, locals knew quite a lot; they knew about the presence of the terrorists in the area long before all this started, but they never reported it to the authorities.”

“How did the terrorists get hold of so many weapons?” I wanted to know.

“In the Philippines, those who have money can buy as many weapons as they want on the black market.”

The situation is extremely sensitive as there is clearly the involvement of foreign fighters. On June 30th, in Saguiaran, Major Malvin Ligutan admitted, hesitantly:

“In one of the safe houses, we found passports issued in Indonesia, Malaysia and several Arab countries.”

A month ago I wrote an essay exposing the complex network of Western-sponsored terrorism in Asia (“Washington Jihad Express: Indonesia, Afghanistan, Syria and Philippines”). I argued that in the 1980’s, Indonesian and Malaysian jihadists, indoctrinated by the Southeast Asian brand of extreme anti-Communism, went to fight in Afghanistan against the socialist governments of Karmal, and then Mohammad Najibullah, with the ultimate goal of destroying the Soviet Union.

Hardened and further brainwashed, they returned home to Southeast Asia, participated in several ethnic strives and pogroms (including those in Ambon and Poso), and then, in order to ‘bridge the generational gap’, embarked on the coaching of a young generation of terrorists, who eventually ended up fighting in Syria and recently in the Philippines.

My essay was full of facts, and I put into it various testimonies of Southeast Asian academics, thinkers, and even of one active and prominent ‘jihadi cadre’ who is now living in Jakarta.

In the Indonesian city of Bandung, Prof. Iman Soleh, a professor at the Faculty of Social and Political Science (University of Padjadjaran- UNPAD) offered his take on why the West is now so obsessed with destabilizing and smearing the Philippines and its current rebellious administration:

“Since World War Two, the U.S. was afraid of so-called ‘domino effects’. Among other things that are now happening in the Philippines under president Duterte, the government is curbing activities of the multi-national mining conglomerates, and the West cannot accept that. Philippines are putting its environmental concerns above the short-term profits! For the millions of left-wing activists here in Indonesia and all over Southeast Asia, President Duterte is a role model.”

It is no secret that the West punishes such ‘bad paradigms’ brutally and decisively.

Prof. Soleh continued:

“I think all that is happening is not just to ‘destabilize’ the Philippines, but also because the country has conflict areas that could be ‘nurtured’. The best example is the predominantly Muslim island of Mindanao, vs. the rest of the Philippines, which is predominantly a Catholic country…”

The West is regularly using ‘jihad,’ directly and indirectly, to destabilize socialist, anti-imperialist, and just patriotic countries and governments. In the past, it managed to ruin countries like Afghanistan, Indonesia (1965) and Syria. Many believe that the Philippines is the latest addition to the ‘hit-list.’

The China & Russia Connection

As Drei Toledo, a prominent Philippine journalist, educator and pro-Duterte activist, originally from Mindanao, explained:

“The reason why the West is hostile toward President Duterte is simple: he is working hard to reach a peace agreement with China, a country that is seen by Washington as its arch-enemy. Another ‘adversary of the West,’ Russia, is admired by Duterte and increasingly by his people. Recently, Russia and the Philippines signed a defense agreement. The president is also forging close ties with Cuba, particularly in the area of health… Before Duterte became our President, poverty by design in Philippines was restored and perpetuated by the U.S. and Malaysia-controlled Cojuangco-Aquino clan.

Foreign and local entities that have long benefited financially from Philippines being a weak state are now threatened overwhelmingly by President Duterte’s unifying agenda to create a socialist system in the Philippines.”

Ms. Toledo pointed her accusative finger at Malaysia:

“Malaysia benefits from Mindanao being in a perpetual state of chaos and conflict because this means we can never reclaim oil-rich Sabah.”

She also doesn’t spare Indonesia and its sinister political (anti-socialist and anti-Communist) as well as economic interests:

“As exposed by Rigoberto D. Tiglao, a Filipino diplomat and writer, Indonesian magnate Anthoni Salim, not only does have total control or substantial stakes in local mainstream media papers and networks, his conglomerate in Philippines is also based on telecoms, power, water distribution, and other public utilities.”

Or more precisely: it is based on making sure that ‘public utilities’ will never become truly ‘public’, remaining in private hands. Salim’s ‘empire’ already brought great damage to India, particularly to West Bengal where, some argue, because of allowing it to operate and to implement its brutal feudal-capitalist practices, the CPI (M) (Communist Party of India – Marxist) managed to thoroughly disgust local voters and to lose power.

The Human Cost

Nobody could deny the gravity of the situation.

I witnessed exhausted glances of the people from Marawi, now living in a rescue center built on the land of the town hall of Saguiaran.

“Yesterday two infants died,” I’m told by Amer Hassan, a student volunteer from Mindanao State University (MSU).

The reason was “different water, malnutrition, exhaustion…”

I wanted to know more, and Amer continues:

“People are still in shock… They can’t believe what is happening. Especially those whose houses were destroyed; those who lost their relatives, everything…”

While the West is constantly criticizing, does it provide help? Amer just shrugs his shoulders:

“There is no foreign help coming… Almost all that we have here comes from Manila, either from the government or local agencies. Duterte is working very hard, helping our people.”

A family of three, Camal Mimbalawag, his wife Ima and one-month-old baby Mohammad, is squeezed into a tiny space at the center. Their memories are bleak. Ima gives her account almost mechanically:

“We were in Marawi during the first stage of the attack. I was pregnant, ready to give birth. We were in the city hall when ISIS attacked… They erected checkpoints; divided people into groups… they pointed guns at us… They asked: ‘Muslim or not?’…and ‘If Muslim, then recite ‘Shahadat.’ If cannot, you get killed or taken as a hostage… We saw corpses of those killed, eaten by dogs under the burning sun…”

The battle for the city of Marawi is raging. I face it from the highest floor of the building, destroyed by ISIS snipers, a place where an Australian reporter was hit just two days earlier.

It is not Aleppo, but it could have been, if not for the heroic counter-attack of the army.

Marawi is just one new chapter in the already long book of horrors of brutal religious terrorist acts, most of them directly or indirectly triggered by Western imperialism. In the first wave of its fight again the secular socialist Muslim governments, the West destabilized Iran, Egypt and Indonesia. Then came the Afghanistan ‘gambit’, followed by the arch-brutal destruction of Iraq and Libya. Then it was Syria’s turn.

‘Jihad’ is consistently used against Russia, China as well as the former Central Asian Soviet republics.

All this I described in my 840-page book: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”, but one can never write fast enough and fully catch up with the crimes committed by the West.

It is often easy to pinpoint Western involvement in the religious conflicts, particularly in such places as Afghanistan and Syria. In the Philippines, the link is still indirect, well concealed, but it certainly exists.

To rebel against the Western Empire is always a costly and bloody affair. It often leads to coups sponsored by Washington, London or Paris, and even to direct military conflicts, interventions and full-scale wars.

But by now, the people of the Philippines have had it ‘up to here’. They had enough of being submissive; enough of being plundered while remaining silent. They are assembling behind their president. Duterte’s popularity is still around 75%. The army is clearly winning the war against the hardened local and foreign jihadists. Relief operations are effective and well organized. Things are just fine.

In only one year, the country has diametrically changed. To break the spirit of the liberated masses, to force people back onto their knees would be difficult, perhaps almost impossible, even if jihadi terror is unleashed brutally.

Almost 100 soldiers already lost their lives. Just one day before I encounter General Rey, six of his men were injured. It is said that 800 or more civilians died. Nobody knows exactly how many terrorists were killed. It is real war: tough and merciless as all wars are, but in this case, the ‘newly independent’ country is clearly winning.

It is an incredible sight: some soldiers, patriotic and determined, are still wearing those helmets with the US flags engraved into them, or some old Israeli bulletproof vests. But have no doubts: this is real, new country! Totally different Philippines and Marawi is one of the first and toughest tests it will have to endure.

The war united people and the army. No matter what the West and local corporate media are saying, most Filipinos know: this is their struggle; this is their president and their military fighting against something extremely foreign, violent and dreadful.

An previous version of this story was published on July 18, 2017.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

27 July 2017

By Dr Ludwig Watzal

Particularly, in the US and some European States, the Israeli and Zionist versions of history are wide-spread. Israel’s narrative relies on a collection of myths aimed at bringing the moral right and the ethical behavior of the Palestinians into twilight and making their claim to their country appear as illegitimate. Israel’s negation of Palestinian existence in the Land of Palestine is, however, a falsification of history.

“Ten Myths About Israel” came out in Germany in 2016 under the title ” What’s wrong with Israel? The Ten Main Myths of Zionism”. The mainstream media ignored it, which could also be the case in the US. It’s sad but that how media power works in favor of Israel.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, who lives in exile in Britain, deals in this book with the myths of Zionism and exposes them as legends consisting of half-truths and fabrications of history. The Zionist narrative has only little to do with historical reality and truth.

The “Running Gag” of the Zionist historical narrative is the story of the “empty land” of Palestine, into which people without a land had finally returned after 2000 years of exile. The slogan of a country without a people, for people without a country, is the most prominent expression of the Zionist mythology. For Pappe, it’s less important whether the Jews existed as a people, rather than that the Zionists deny the existence of a Palestinian population but simultaneously claim that the State of Israel represents all the Jews of the world and does everything for their benefit and acts for them. Such a claim is just as daring as the identification of Zionism with Judaism because it takes Jews hostage for Israel’s despising policy.

The Zionists presented the colonization of Palestine with biblical rhetoric; this served only as a means to an end. The highest prophet of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, even considered Uganda and other places instead of the Zionist Promised Land. Finally, they found their roots in Palestine. “From then on, the Bible became both the justification and the guideline of the Zionist colonization of Palestine,” writes Pappe. He describes Zionism as a “colonial settler movement” and Israel as a “Settler Colonial State.”

The author points out that the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1947/48 was “ethnic cleansing.” Likewise, the 1967 June war, which is also called the Sixth Day War, was not an act of self-defense of the “little David” against an overpowering “Goliath,” but an Israeli attack on which the Israeli security establishment has minutely prepared for years.

The claim of being the “only democracy in the Middle East” is put in the right perspective. Israel resembles rather an “ethnocracy” than a democracy in the classical sense of the meaning. The “peace process,” which was highly praised by the Western political establishment ended in the acceleration of the colonization of Palestine and in the establishment of Palestinian regime that has to do the dirty work for Israeli occupier.

In his book, Ilan Pappe gives his backing for the historical truth that the Israeli political establishment must face if it is interested in peace. Israel’s security establishment abuses Judaism because it equates its Zionist expansionist and oppressive policy with Judaism. Enlightenment is, therefore, more than a necessity, which the book does excellently by deconstructing the mythological web that surrounds the history of the State of Israel.

This book is an absolute must for an interested public, the political and the media class to understand what Israel is all about.

Ilan Pappe, Ten Myths About Israel, Verso, London 2017.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.

22 July 2017