Just International

Failures of the Western Left

By Andre Vltchek

“Information Clearing House” – It is tough to fight any real war. And it takes true guts, discipline and determination to win it.

For years and decades, the so-called ‘left’ in the West has been moderately critical of North American (and sometimes even of European) imperialism and neo-colonialism. But whenever some individual or country rose up and began openly challenging the Empire, most of the Western left-wing intellectuals simply closed their eyes, and refused to offer their full, unconditional support to those who were putting their lives (and often even the existence of their countries) on the line.

I will never forget all those derogatory punches directed at Hugo Chavez, punches coming from members of the ‘anti-Communist left’, after he dared to insult George W. Bush at the United Nations in 2006, calling him a “devil” and choking, theatrically, from the sulfur that was still ‘hanging in the air’ after the US President’s appearance at the General Assembly.

I will not be dropping names here, but readers would be surprised if they knew how many of those iconic leaders of the US left described Chavez and his speech as ‘impolite’, ‘counter-productive’, and even ‘insulting’.

Tens of millions of people have died because of Western imperialism, after WWII. Under the horrid leadership of George W Bush, Afghanistan and Iraq have been reduced to ruins… But one has to remain ‘polite’, ‘objective’ and cool headed?

Well, that is not how real revolutions have been ignited. This is not how the successful anti-colonialist wars are fought. When the real battle begins, ‘politeness’ is actually mostly unacceptable, simply because the oppressed masses are endlessly pissed off, and they want their feelings to be registered and expressed by the leaders. Even the search for ‘objectivity’ is often out of place, when still fragile revolutions have to face the entire monumental hostile propaganda of the regime – of the Empire.

But the question is: do most of the Western leftists really support revolutions and anti-colonialist struggles of the oppressed world?

I believe they don’t. And this is clearly visible from reading most of the so-called alternative media in both North America and Europe.

Whoever stands up, whoever leads his nation into battle against the Western global dictatorship, is almost immediately defined as a demagogue. He or she is most likely christened ‘undemocratic’, and not just by the mass and ‘liberal’ media, but also on the pages of the so-called ‘alternative’ and ‘progressive’ Western press. Not all, but some, and frankly: most of it!

Chavez actually received very little support from Western ‘left-wing’ intellectuals. And now when Venezuela is bleeding, the ‘Bolivarian Republic’ can only count on a handful of revolutionary Latin American nations, as well as on China, Iran and Russia; definitely not on the robust, organized and militant solidarity from Western countries.

Cuba received even less support than Venezuela. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, no attempt was actually made by Western leftists to bail the heroic nation out. It was China, in the end, which ran to its rescue and saved Cuban socialism. (When I wrote about it, I got hundreds of Western leftists at my throat, and in the end it took Fidel to confirm, in his ‘Reflections’, what I was saying, to get them off my back). Then, when the Obama administration began making dangerous advances on Havana, almost everyone in the West began screwing those cynical grimaces: ‘you see; now everything will collapse! They will buy Cuba!’ They didn’t. I travelled to the beloved green island, and it was so clear from the first moment there, that the ‘revolution is not for sale’. But you will not read it often in the Western ‘progressive’ media.

It is of course not just Latin America that is ‘disliked’ by the progressives in the West. Actually, Latin America is still at least getting some nominal support there.

China and Russia, two powerful nations, which are now standing openly against Western imperialism, are despised by virtually all ‘liberals’ and by most of the Western ‘left’. In those circles, there is total ignorance about the Chinese type of democracy, about its ancient culture, and about it’s complex but extremely successful form of Communism (or calls it ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’). Like parrots, the Western leftists repeat ‘liberal’ propaganda that ‘China is being capitalist’, or that it is being ruled by ‘state capitalism’. The internationalism of Chinese foreign policy is constantly played down, even mocked.

The hostility of the Western ‘left’ towards China has disgusted many Chinese leaders and intellectuals. I only realized the extent of this revulsion, when I spoke, last year, at the First World Cultural Forum in Beijing, and mingled with the thinkers at the China Academy of Social Sciences, the right (intellectual) arm of the government and the Party.

China can count on its allies in Russia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, but definitely not in the West.

It is pointless to even mention Russia or South Africa.

Russia, ‘the victim’ during the horrid Yeltsin years was ‘embraced’ by the Western left. Russia the warrior, Russia the adversary to Western imperialism, is, once again, loathed.

It appears that the ‘progressives’ in the United States and Europe really prefer ‘victims’. They can, somehow, feel pity and even write a few lines about the ‘suffering of defenseless women and children’ in the countries that the West is plundering and raping. That does not extend to all countries that are being brutalized, but at least to some…

What they don’t like at all, are strong men and women that have decided to fight: to defend their rights, to face the Empire.

The Syrian government is hated. The North Korean government is despised. The President of the Philippines is judged by Western liberal media measures: as a vulgar freak who is killing thousands of ‘innocent’ drug pushers and consumers (definitely not as a possibly new Sukarno who is willing to send the entire West to hell).

Whatever the Western ‘left’ thinks about North Korea and its government (and in fact, I think, it cannot really think much, as it is fully ignorant about it), the main reason why the DPRK is hated so much by the West regime, is because it, together with Cuba, basically liberated Africa. It fought for the freedom of Angola and Namibia, it flew Egyptian MIGs against Israel, it struggled in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as well as in many other countries, and it sent aid, teachers and doctors to the entire continent devastated by the Western colonialist barbarity.

Much good it received in return! At best, indifference, at worse, total spite!

Some say that the Western ‘left’ doesn’t want to take power, anymore. It lost all of its important battles. It became toothless, impotent, and angry about the world and itself.

When in January 2016 I spoke at the Italian Parliament (ending up insulting the West for its global plunder, hypocrisy), I mingled a lot with the 5 Star Movement, which had actually invited me to Rome. I spent time with its radical left wing. There are some great people there, but overall, it soon became clear that this potentially the biggest political movement in the country is actually horrified of coming to power! It does not really want to govern.

But then, why call those weak bizarre selfish Western entities – the ‘left wing’? Why confuse terms, and by that, why discredit those true revolutionaries, those true fighters, who are risking, sacrificing their lives, right now, all over the world?

Wars are all extremely ugly. I have covered many of them, and I know… But some of them, those that are fought for the survival of humanity, or for survival of the particular countries, are inevitable. One either fights, or the entire Planet ends up being colonized and oppressed, in shackles.

If one decides to fight, then there has to be discipline and single-mindedness; total determination. Or the battle is lost from the very beginning!

When the freedom and survival of one’s motherland is at stake, things get very serious, ‘dead-serious’. Battle is not a discussion club. It is not some chat.

If we, as ‘leftists’, have already once decided that imperialism and colonialism (or ‘neo-colonialism’) are the greatest evils destroying our humanity, then we have to show discipline and join ranks, and support those who are at the frontline.

Otherwise we will become an irrelevant laughingstock, and history will and should judge us harshly!

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

30 September 2016

 

Letters – Jammu & Kashmir voters have their say

By Nikhilesh Giri

I HAVE seen the article titled “Kashmir: The world should stand up” published in theSun on Sept 22. The article has been authored by Dr Chandra Muzaffar, president of JUST, Malaysia.

I am constrained to say that the article is misinformed, misleading and lacks objectivity, particularly since it provides an excuse for terrorism and seeks dismemberment of a sovereign nation.

In this context, I would like to flag three specific points:
(i) The state of Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. Democratic elections have been regularly held in the state, including in 2014 on the last occasion, where the people of Jammu & Kashmir have exercised their right of franchise in a free and fair manner to elect their representatives to the Jammu & Kashmir State legislature and the Parliament of India.
(ii) The recent upsurge in violence and terrorist activities in the state of Jammu & Kashmir is fomented by forces from across the border to disrupt peace and development activities in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The people of the state have demonstrated commendable resilience in the face of disturbance.
(iii) Indian security forces have exercised maximum restraint in dealing with the violence that has been instigated from across the border.

The Government of India appreciates the understanding shown by the international community towards the difficulties being faced by the Government of India in facing the terror onslaught from groups based across the border.

Nikhilesh Giri
Deputy High Commissioner of India
Kuala Lumpur

2 October 2016

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

 

“Jammu & Kashmir voters have their say”

I read the letter with the above title by Mr. Nikhilesh Giri, Deputy High Commissioner of India in Malaysia (the Sun daily, 2 October 2016) with interest. He wrote in response to JUST president Dr. Chandra Muzaffar’s article titled “Kashmir: The world should stand up” published in the Sun on Sept 22. He found the article “misinformed, misleading and lacks objectivity, particularly since it provides an excuse for terrorism.” As a student of history I feel compelled to write and highlight some facts on the subject.

Mr. Giri claims that Kashmir is a part of “sovereign” state India and voters in Kashmir have their say.” Really? Does he know how Kashmir became part of India? Does he know that India landed its regular troops in Sri Nagar, Kashmir’s capital on October 27, 1947? If the people of Kashmir were to decide their fate why did India need to deploy troops there? My question 69 years later may sound irrelevant and outdated to Mr. Giri. That is why, as a student of history, I will only cite some facts and quote some international and Indian personalities on the issue.

The term ‘dispute’ to describe the subject was not coined by Pakistan but by the United Nations where India tabled the issue. It is well-known that the UN decided to hold a plebiscite but the chief of the UN mission Sir Owen Dixon, a senior Australian judge, later wrote in a report that he was not able to hold it because of the presence of “large numbers of regular soldiers of the Indian Army as well as the State Militia and police” in the state. “I could not expose a plebiscite conducted under the authority of the United Nations to the dangers which I believed certainly to exist,” he said.

Then in October 1949 the Indian Constituent Assembly incorporated an article in its constitution declaring Kashmir within Indian jurisdiction. In 1951 India conducted an election in which 73 out of 75 seats in Kashmir Assembly were elected uncontested. Why and how so many seats were won uncontested? The authorities simply didn’t allow any opposition to join any democratic process. Then in October 1956 the same Assembly adopted a resolution declaring Kashmir an integral part of India. Would Mr. Giri still claim that the voters in Kashmir have their say?

Is Mr. Giri aware of the opinion of Mr. B.K. Nehru, who served as Delhi’s appointed governor of the state of Kashmir? He is reported to have said, “From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that State [of J&K] had been nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhi’s nominee was elected by huge majorities.” I would also strongly recommend Mr. Giri to read Arundhati Roy on the subject.

Mr. Giri has accused Dr. Chandra of providing “excuse for terrorism.” This is a very serious allegation at this juncture of history and this is no diplomacy. Accusing Dr. Chandra or “enemies” on the other side of the border will not help Indian diplomacy. If Mr. Giri is really objective in finding the truth about the current upsurge of violence in Kashmir, he should read not only history of the conflict objectively but do objective reading of some current affairs such as the Huffington Post article ‘Burhan Wani’ also written by an Indian journalist. 22 year old Burhan Wani became violent, as his father put it, not because he was born with Indian hatred, but because he felt humiliated by the Indian troops in Kashmir. Mr. Giri should learn from Dr. Chandra that every human being loves dignity as do the people of Kashmir.

3 September 2016

What It’s Like To Be A Muslim Australian

By Ghali Hassan

A recent Essential Research poll had found 49 per cent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, including 60 per cent of Liberal-National Coalition voters, 40 per cent of Labor voters and 34 per cent of Greens voters agreed with the proposition that Muslim Australians were not integrating (assimilating) into “Australian culture” and pose a threat to Australia. It is the result of a steady diet of fear, and xenophobia fed to Australians by openly racist politicians and the mass media.

Australian politicians and the media are demonising an already marginalised small Muslim Community (2.2% of the total Australian population) to score point and win votes. It is true that Muslims have a strong Muslim identity, because Islam is not just a religion, Islam is a way of life. However, when compared with other minorities, Muslim Australians are the most integrated Australians in every field of life. They have succumbed to a repressive society that imposed its beliefs and values on them. It is nothing more than force assimilation justify by exaggerated fears of a fabricated threat.

Despite the daily racism and extreme hostility they face, nearly 86 per cent of Muslim Australians felt that relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were friendly and were not strained as politicians and the media allege, according to a study by the University of Western Sydney. The study ultimately revealed the “ordinariness of the Muslims” and their aspiration in Australia, said Professor Kevin Dunn of Western Sydney University. (The Study).

Muslim Australians have the right to live their lives without being vilified and discriminated against. As Uthman Badar writes in The Sydney Morning Herald: “Contrary to baseless claims otherwise, Muslims are not demanding that Australia become an Islamic state, or that sharia be enforced. They are not demanding to be outside the law or judged by another set of laws. They’re simply asking to be left alone to practice their faith; that their beliefs and values not be interfered with by the state; that if some Muslim does the wrong thing he be dealt like any other criminal, without the entire community being criminalised and Islam demonised; that they be able to participate in debates about the law, morality and government policy without being considered a fifth column”. How can a small minority of ordinary Australian Muslims pose a threat to “Australian culture”?

Let’s call a spade a spade. What is “Australian culture”? There is no unique white Australian culture. Australia is not known for its vibrant culture. Australia is a pretentious society addicted to punching far above its weight. There is an old Indigenous Culture with unique languages and cultural adaptations that most non-Indigenous Australians know nothing about. How many non-Indigenous Australians know where the Anindilyakwa people live? We all know how brutally Indigenous Australians are treated. They are despised by non-Indigenous Australians. Most non-Indigenous Australians choose the privilege of turning a blind eye. Outside Indigenous Culture, everything else is imported and repackaged – not AFL football. Australia is a colonial outpost, dominated by white Anglo-American culture. The so-called “Multiculturalism” – where each ethnic group put in its designated box – is racially-promoted ghettoization designed to enforce white privilege and white supremacy. To the contrary, Australia has a concocted image that is the exact opposite of its ugly reality. After the election of Pauline Hanson, Australia can claim to be the world’s most anti-Muslim and systemically racist societies where victims (mostly Muslims) of white racism have no protection. As victims of racism, Muslims are on their own. There is noone (nations or organisations) that has the courage to stand up for Muslims and defend them. Most of the so-called “Islamic nations” (with majority Muslims population) are U.S. clients ruled by despotic regimes. It is the reason Muslims are discriminated against and attacked in Australia with ease.

While many Australians are blaming Pauline Hanson and her gang for promoting racism, racism is deeply-entrenched in Australia. Australia was built on Racism and violence. It is elite racism – coated with the language of “tolerance” and multiculturalism – imposed by the white dominant class. The media, the education system, sport, the police, the justice system and Australian politics are systemically racist and plagued by rampant corruption. Most Australians breathe racism and cannot live without it. It is in their DNA makeup. From early childhood, Australians are conditioned by the corporate media (TV in particular), politicians and even their parents, to objectify others – non-white people and women. Unlike in other countries, racism in Australia is a well-managed subtle kind of racism. It is structural form of racism that, have a far larger impact on people’s lives: where religious, cultural or ethnic minorities are made to feel they do not belong in Australia.

Most people know that, “anti-Muslim sentiment did not begin with Pauline Hanson. A more sophisticated, highbrow anti-Muslim sentiment was used to justify the mandatory indefinite detention of Muslim [refugees]. It was used to justify the torture of Australian citizens in Guantanamo Bay. It was, and is used to justify wars in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, [Libya and Syria]. It is used to justify our support for Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians. It is used to justify our support for murderous tyrants in Muslim countries, who oppress their Muslim citizens. A lot of anti-Muslim argument has come from the elite’s need to defend their anti-Muslim policies. As Eric Hoffer observed, ‘when power is wedded to chronic fear… it becomes formidable”. (A. McQuire, M. Brull, & S. Sabawi, New Matilda, 22 July 2016).

Muslims are discriminated against because they are Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims are not integrating into Australian culture. Most Australians have never met a Muslim in their lives and most Australians know nothing about Islam. Indeed, according to a recent study by Deakin University: “people who don’t know any Muslims or interact with any Muslims in the community felt the most fear around terrorism. People who know Muslims and more about Islam as a religion are the ones who don’t feel threatened”, said the researcher, Dr Matteo Vergani.

All what Australians know about Muslims in Australia is from racist politicians and the media. For example, more often Australian TV channels devote time to “discuss” (denounce and demonise) Muslims and Islam without a Muslim voice to respond, denying Australians a rare opportunity to hear two sides. When the elitist Sydney Writers’ Festival invites an illiterate and ignorant Somali-born refugee (the anti-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and promotes her as an expert on Muslims and Islam, you know there is something wrong with Australian society. As Professor As’ad AbuKhalil of California State University observes, “Hirsi has no relevant expertise on Islam – she is ‘only because of her bigotry… treated as an expert on Islam’. Hirsi has identified Islam as ‘a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.’ This sounds a lot like the language of Tony Abbott on ISIS terrorists. Yet while right-thinking progressives in Australia have mocked Abbott’s rhetoric, Hirsi gets a warmer reception” (Michael Brull, New Matilda). Hirsi, validates what the anti-Muslim white bigots already believe: that Islam is bad and the West is inherently good.

What is really astonishing about Australians (the elites) is that, Donald Trump, the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, has been criticised in Australia by the Australian political and media establishments, who are rubbing shoulders with Pauline Hanson and her gang. Trump hasn’t said anything that Australia is not doing or not supporting. He is demonised thoroughly simply because he said he will do what Australia is already doing. May be because he said that if elected he will talk to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Australian Greens Party leader Richard Di Natale said recently: “I think [Trump] is dangerous for the U.S. and dangerous for the global community, and you just need to look at those clashes that we have seen recently between anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters”. What a cynical propaganda? Take a look in your own backyard, Mr Di Natale. The Clintons war criminals have been (and will be if elected) disastrous for world’s peace and prosperity.

Like in the U.S. and in many parts of Europe, Australian Muslims are living in fear. People do not know when the Police and Special Forces will raid their homes, arrest and imprisoned their loved ones indefinitely. The policy is reminiscent of Kristallnacht, the night of horror in 1938 when rampaging Nazis smashed Jewish homes and businesses in Germany and killed scores of Jews. Muslims are unfairly targeted and accused of terrorism, because terrorism is framed as a Muslim problem. Hence, too many anti-Muslims draconian laws are predicated on the false and racist assumption that Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism. To the contrary, Muslims are the victims of well-orchestrated terrorism.

For more than five years, the Syria people have paid dearly for the crimes of terrorists. It is well-documented that terrorist networks like ISIS [Daesh], al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and their affiliates are U.S.-Israel proxy terror networks. They are labelled by Western governments and Western media as “moderate rebels”, “militants” and “opposition forces”, but not terrorists. They have been trained, financed, armed, directed and protected by the U.S. and U.S. allies, including Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Qatar, Jordan among others. In addition, the U.S. and its allies air forces acting as the terrorists’ air force and provided air cover for the terrorists. The recent deliberate air strikes (17 Sep. 2016) by the U.S. and its allies on the positions of the Syrian troops at Deir ez-Zor, south east Al-Raqqa – which more than 60 troops were killed and hundreds were injured –, is a case in point. It allowed ISIS terrorists to occupy the heights around the airport. The criminal air attacks designed to sabotage the ceasefire agreement and strengthen the terrorists (ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra Front) against the democratically-elected Syrian Government. Before this dirty war on Syria, Syria was an Oasis of civilisation and religious tolerance.

The so-called “Islamic Terrorism” is a Western-concocted pretext to manipulate the public (instil fear) and justify discrimination against Muslims. The ongoing demonisation of Muslims and Islam in Australia, the U.S. and Europe is part of the policy to divert attention away from Western nations roles in creating and supporting terrorism. As the violence increase in their homelands, Muslims who manged to flee and seek refuge abroad are demonised and used as scapegoat by politicians and the media.

Australia which is reached by only a trickle of Muslim refugees, has turned into a nightmare for them. Australia prides itself on its widely-condemned and inhumane anti-Muslim “White Australia’s” refugee policy. The New York Times has recently called Australia’s draconian refugee policy as “unconscionable”, and urged European policymakers not to look at Australia’s “ruthlessly effective effort to stop boats” as an option. No decent human being like to associate with a society that sells cruelty and treat dogs better than humans. The current Muslim refugee crisis is the predictable results of U.S.-led Western war of terror in the Middle East and Africa, to which Australia is a party.

In Australia refugees – mostly Muslims – are stopped at sea by the Australian Navy and Borders Control Forces (Operation Sovereign Borders) and shipped to grotesque Concentration Camps in poor Island nations like Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The voiceless refugees, including children, women and men have been sexually abused, tortured, exploited and some have been murdered. Journalists and media who visited the refugee Camp on Manus Island have been ordered (and threatened) to delete footages. It is the Government’s view that anything that contradict the Government narrative is unacceptable and should not be made available to Australians.

A recent article, entitled “Is Australia engaged in torturing asylum seekers? A cautionary tale for Europe,” co-authored by John-Saul Sanggaran, a medical officer, who worked at one of such camps which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that the Australian government is creating unbearable conditions at these Concentration Camps to send a message to others would be refugees not to come to Australia. The criminal policy is supported by the majority of Australians. Can you imagine the outrage if Australian women and children are treated in the same way as refugees are treated?

Although most Australians know that the Government’s refugee policy is cruel and in flagrant violation of international law, a poll in January 2014 found that 60 per cent of Australians support the Government policy of harsh treatment of refugees and urge the Government to “increase the severity” of the policy. As Henry Giroux writes: “Shallow consumerisms coupled with an indifference to the needs and suffering of others has produce a politics of disengagement and a culture of moral irresponsibility” in the Australian society. Any society in which politicians and the media appeal to bigotry, promoting hatred and promising to terrorise refugees to win elections is a sick society.

The onus is on the other half of Australians to begin the dismantling of the Hansonism culture of ignorance and racism. Australia needs to evolve beyond the façade of multiculturalism into a cohesive nation for every Australians. The 49 per cent of Australians who support this racist and backwards policy against Muslims are doing Australia great harm. As McQuire and colleagues rightly argue: “We don’t have a Muslim problem in Australia. We have a racism problem, and it is an emergency. We urge readers to take this as a wake-up call, to build stronger ties across communities, and to challenge racism, whether it comes from the top or from the bottom”. Only together, the contagious virus of racism will be defeated.

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst and researcher living in Australia.

30 September 2016

Shimon Peres From The Perspective Of His Victims

Ilan Pappe

The obituaries for Shimon Peres have already appeared, no doubt prepared in advance as the news of his hospitalization reached the media.

The verdict on his life is very clear and was already pronounced by US President Barack Obama: Peres was a man who changed the course of human history in his relentless search for peace in the Middle East.

My guess is that very few of the obituaries will examine Peres’ life and activities from the perspective of the victims of Zionism and Israel.

He occupied many positions in politics that had immense impact on the Palestinians wherever they are. He was director general of the Israeli defense ministry, minister of defense, minister for development of the Galilee and the Negev (Naqab), prime minister and president.

In all these roles, the decisions he took and the policies he pursued contributed to the destruction of the Palestinian people and did nothing to advance the cause of peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Born Szymon Perski in 1923, in a town that was then part of Poland, Peres immigrated to Palestine in 1934. As a teenager in an agricultural school, he became active in politics within the Labor Zionist movement that led Zionism and later the young State of Israel.

As a leading figure in the movement’s youth cadres, Peres attracted the attention of the high command of the Jewish paramilitary force in British-ruled Palestine, the Haganah.

Nuclear bomb
In 1947, Peres was fully recruited to the organization and sent abroad by its leader David Ben-Gurion to purchase arms which were later used in the 1948 Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and against the Arab contingents that entered Palestine that year.

After a few years abroad, mainly in the United States, where he was busy purchasing arms and building the infrastructure for the Israeli military industry, he returned to become director general of the defense ministry.

Peres was active in forging Israel’s collusion with the UK and France to invade Egypt in 1956, for which Israel was rewarded by France with the needed capacity to build nuclear weapons.

Indeed it was Peres himself who largely oversaw Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.

No less important was the zeal Peres showed under Ben-Gurion’s guidance and inspiration to Judaize the Galilee. Despite the 1948 ethnic cleansing, that part of Israel was still very much Palestinian countryside and landscape.

Peres was behind the idea of confiscating Palestinian land for the purpose of building exclusive Jewish towns such as Karmiel and Upper Nazareth and basing the military in the region so as to disrupt territorial contiguity between Palestinian villages and towns.

This ruination of the Palestinian countryside led to the disappearance of the traditional Palestinian villages and the transformation of the farmers into an underemployed and deprived urban working class. This dismal reality is still with us today.

Settlers’ champion
Peres disappeared for a while from the political scene when his master Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, was pushed aside in 1963 by a new generation of leaders.

He came back after the 1967 War and the first portfolio he held was as minister responsible for the occupied territories. In this role, he legitimized, quite often retroactively, the settlement drive in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As so many of us realize today, by the time the pro-settlement Likud party came to power in 1977, the Jewish settlement infrastructure, in particular in the West Bank, had already rendered a two-state solution an impossible vision.

In 1974, Peres’ political career became intimately connected to that of his nemesis, Yitzhak Rabin. The two politicians who could not stand each other, had to work in tandem for the sake of political survival.

However, on Israel’s strategy toward the Palestinians, they shared the Zionist settler-colonial perspective, coveting as much of Palestine’s land as possible with as few Palestinians on it as possible.

They worked well together in quelling brutally the Palestinian uprising that began in 1987.

Peres’ first role in this difficult partnership was as defense minister in the 1974 Rabin government. The first real crisis Peres faced was a major expansion of the messianic settler movement Gush Emunim’s colonization effort in and around the West Bank city of Nablus.

Rabin opposed the new settlements, but Peres stood with the settlers and those colonies that now strangulate Nablus are there thanks to his efforts.

In 1976, Peres led government policy on the occupied territories, convinced that a deal could be struck with Jordan, by which the West Bank would be within Jordanian jurisdiction but under effective Israeli rule.

He initiated municipal elections in the West Bank but to his great surprise and disappointment, the candidates identified with the Palestine Liberation Organization were elected and not the ones loyal to Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy.

But Peres remained faithful to what he named the “Jordanian option” as an opposition leader after 1977 and when he returned to power in coalition with the Likud in 1984-1988. He pushed forward the negotiations on the basis of this concept until King Hussein’s decision to cede any political connection between Jordan and the West Bank in 1988.

Israel’s international face
The 1990s exposed to the world to a more mature and coherent Peres. He was Israel’s international face, whether in government or outside it. He played this role even after the Likud ascended as the main political force in the land.

In power, in Rabin’s government in the early 1990s, as prime minister after Rabin’s 1995 assassination, and then as a minister in the cabinet of Ehud Barak from 1999 to 2001, Peres pushed a new concept for what he called “peace.”

Instead of sharing rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jordan or Egypt, he now wished to do it with the Palestine Liberation Organization. The idea was accepted by PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who may have hoped to build on this a new project for the liberation of Palestine.

As enshrined in the 1993 Oslo accords, this concept was enthusiastically endorsed by Israel’s international allies.

Peres was the leading ambassador of this peace process charade that provided an international umbrella for Israel to establish facts on the ground that would create a greater apartheid Israel with small Palestinianbantustans scattered within it.

The fact that he won a Nobel Peace Prize for a process that advanced the ruination of Palestine and its people is yet another testimony to world governments’ misunderstanding, cynicism and apathy toward their suffering.

We are fortunate to live in an era in which international civil society has exposed this charade and offers, through the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and the growing support for the one-state solution, a more hopeful and genuine path forward.

Qana
As prime minister, Peres had one additional “contribution” to make to the history of Palestinian and Lebanese suffering.

In response to the endless skirmishes between Hizballah and the Israeli army in southern Lebanon, where Hizballah and other groups resisted the Israeli occupation that began in 1982 until they drove it out in 2000, Peres ordered the bombing of the whole area in April 1996.

During what Israel dubbed Operation Grapes of Wrath, Israeli shelling killed more than 100 people – civilians fleeing bombardment and UN peacekeepers from Fiji – near the village of Qana.

Despite a United Nations investigation that found Israel’s explanation that the shelling had been an accident to be “unlikely,” the massacre did nothing to dent Peres’ international reputation as a “peacemaker.”

In this century, Peres was more a symbolic figurehead than an active politician. He founded the Peres Center for Peace, built on confiscated Palestinian refugee property in Jaffa, which continues to sell the idea of a Palestinian “state” with little land, real independence or sovereignty as the best possible solution.

That will never work, but if the world continues to be committed to this Peres legacy, there will be no end to the suffering of the Palestinians.

Shimon Peres symbolized the beautification of Zionism, but the facts on the ground lay bare his role in perpetrating so much suffering and conflict. Knowing the truth, at least, helps us understand how to move forward and undo so much of the injustice Peres helped create.

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

First published in The Electronic Intifada

30 September 2016

Congress Overrides Obama Veto Of Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits

By Tom Carter

On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and Obama administrations.

The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.

The Obama administration and the military and intelligence agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all publicly opposed the bill.

In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”

In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”

In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US war criminal in their own countries’ courts.

Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It’s an example of why sometimes you have to do what’s hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do … And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the dilemma.

Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence agencies, and the New York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with respect to the September 11 attacks.

The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11 attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American support for Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the attacks. Why did US intelligence agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks, based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally? Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?” Why was nobody prosecuted?

The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.”

In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.

These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy, the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday, is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”

Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.

During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.

The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of expenditures.

The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.

First published by WSWS.org

30 September 2016

Indian And Pakistani Citizens Speak Out Against War

BY CounterCurrents

We, the people of India and Pakistan, stand in solidarity with each other to speak out against war in any form because, in war, we are all losers regardless of who might appear to win.

We hope that the elected representatives of both countries will exercise restraint, and act with wisdom, in the interests of lasting peace in our region, which alone can ensure economic progress and political stability.

We urge our leaders to come up with creative diplomatic solutions instead of engaging in a violent display of military might that threatens to destroy precious human life and natural resources.

We are determined to end the hostility that has festered between our nations since 1947, so that we can collectively work on the challenges that our common to us: climate change, terrorism, and widespread social injustice.

We want India and Pakistan to make a joint commitment to promote a culture of peace and non-violence, in keeping with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and our vision for a better future for the young people of this planet.

Please Sign the Petition here
This petition will be delivered to:

Prime Minister Of India Narendra Modi
Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif

30 September 2016

 

 

EU–Iran Relations after Brexit

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

TEHRAN, Sep. 29 (MNA) – The decision by British voters to leave the European Union coincides with improving relations between Europe and Iran. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s relationship with Europe’s major powers has been characterized by periods of economic cooperation followed by near-complete disengagement.

The nuclear deal struck between Iran and world powers in July 2015 – which the EU played a major role in negotiating – removed the economic sanctions that since 2006 have stood in the way of deeper ties. A new chapter in Iranian–European relations has already begun. But the impending exit of the United Kingdom from the EU further paves the way for a new paradigm in Europe’s relationship with Iran: strategic EU–Iran engagement that is separate from, but parallel to, high-level UK–Iran talks.

Separating the UK

London and Tehran have not had sustainably good relations since before the revolution. Over the course of the past century, Iranians of all walks of life have come to view Britain differently, and with far more suspicion, than they view other European states. At the root of this mistrust is Britain’s colonial era history in Iran. Nearly every Iranian bitterly recalls incidents such as the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, which split Iran into Russian and British spheres of influence; the engineering by the British of Reza Khan’s (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) ascension to the throne in 1925; Britain’s opposition to the nationalization of Iranian oil; and its infamous 1953 plot with the CIA to oust prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. This history has been so seared into the consciousness of Iranians that many believe Britain is to this day still trying to manipulate events inside Iran to its benefit.

These feelings have been reinforced since the revolution by Britain’s support for forceful US policies against Iran, and its continuing refusal to acknowledge its historical offences. This was most evident during the early years of the nuclear crisis, when Iran negotiated with the E3 powers (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) over its nuclear program. During this period, I served as the spokesman for Iran’s negotiating team.

In spring 2005, I privately presented a similar proposal to my counterparts in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. While it was met with support in Berlin, my meeting with ultimately turn down the offer in my talks with him, French nuclear negotiator Stanislas Lefebvre de Laboulaye led me to conclude that France would accept the proposal only if the UK did. However, London’s nuclear negotiator, John Sawers, would telling me that Washington would not tolerate even one centrifuge spinning in Iran. This episode served as a striking example of America’s hold, through Britain, on the foreign-policy decision-making of other EU states. Jack Straw, then UK foreign minister, would later say: ‘Had it not been for major problems within the US administration under President Bush, we could have actually settled the whole Iran nuclear dossier back in 2005.’

The period of negotiations between Iran and the E3 from 2003–05 was nevertheless significant, as it marked an effort by the EU to play a strategic role in the Middle East. The subsequent eight years, however, would see Iran’s relations with the EU, and the UK in particular, hit rock bottom. The format of the negotiations changed in 2006 to include other major world powers, adding the United States along with China and Russia to what became the E3+3, also known as the P5+1. As negotiations stalled during the second term of George W. Bush and President Barack Obama’s first term, the US and its allies imposed an increasingly draconian sanctions regime while Iran increased the size and capacity of its nuclear program.

In November 2011, the United States and its allies also imposed what would be their hardest-hitting sanctions on Iran, effectively cutting the country out of most international trade and banking.In late 2011, the crisis reached its peak. Iran’s ‘breakout time’ – the amount of time it needed to amass the quantity of fissile material needed for a single weapon if it made the decision to do so – reached just a few months, according to some estimates. In November 2011, the United States and its allies also imposed what would be their hardest-hitting sanctions on Iran, effectively cutting the country out of most international trade and banking.

Immediately following this move, Iran’s parliament passed a bill to expel the British ambassador to Tehran and reduce diplomatic contact. This was not a spontaneous decision, but rather the result of years of increasingly louder calls in Iran to downgrade relations with Britain. The origin of the feud went back to the protests that rocked Iran following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election in 2009, during which Iranian authorities arrested nine local British embassy staff, including chief political analyst Hossein Rassam, for allegedly playing a ‘significant role’ in the post-election protests of that year. At the time, then-foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned that Iran would downgrade ties, and intelligence minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i even alleged that some of the violent protesters had been caught with British passports. Iranian authorities subsequently tried Rassam for espionage. The British government vigorously denied the charges.

A day after the bill was passed in 2011, a group of angry young protesters surrounded the British embassy in Tehran, chanting slogans and pushing up to the embassy walls. They eventually overcame police guards and stormed the embassy, setting fire to the first floor and causing extensive damage to the rest of the compound. The action spurred outrage across the world. The foreign ministry called it ‘unacceptable’. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later said of the protesters, ‘The feelings of the youth were correct, but their behavior was not correct.’ The British government argued, however, that the protests could not have taken place without a degree of institutional consent.

The 2011 attack on the British embassy exemplified the vehement animosity against Britain that continues to exist in segments of Iranian society. It also contributed to escalating EU–Iran tensions and tipped the EU into firmly supporting additional US sanctions against Iran. As a result, the EU’s total trade with Iran dropped to €6 billion by 2013, down from a high of roughly €27bn in 2011.

With the election of President Hassan Rouhani in June 2013, and a decision by second-term President Obama to pivot from a position of no enrichment in Iran to no nuclear weapons, the path to reconciliation between Iran and the UK, and by extension the EU, was cleared. The British embassy in Tehran reopened one month after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was reached, nearly four years after it was attacked. For many in Iran, it had become clear that the EU’s position was heavily influenced by the UK and that Iran could not have a meaningful economic relationship with the EU if it continued to have poor relations with Britain.

One implication of an EU without the United Kingdom is that British, and by extension American, influence on EU–Iran relations will be diminished. This was one reason why Hamid Aboutalebi, Rouhani’s deputy chief of staff for political affairs, tweeted after the vote that ‘Brexit is a “historic opportunity” for Iran’. Continental Europe has always been friendlier towards Iran and far more willing to do business with it. This has been evident since the JCPOA was reached, with EU–Iran trade picking up dramatically (serious banking issues notwithstanding) and political delegations travelling back and forth.

Iranian leaders should bear in mind, however, that despite Britain’s exit from the EU, Iran’s relations with the UK will still affect the kind of relationship Iran can have with the West. If tensions between Iran and the US and UK were to increase to the levels seen during the nuclear crisis, EU–Iran relations would almost certainly deteriorate again as well. As such, in light of Brexit, there is a vital need for direct high-level talks between London and Tehran aimed at defining a new relationship. These talks should focus on eliminating mistrust, and give Britain the opportunity to address Iranian grievances and acknowledge past wrongdoings. Given the unique history between Iran and the UK, the talks need to be held within their own framework and separately from efforts aimed at EU–Iran engagement. And for the UK–Iran relationship to be reconstructed, it is also imperative that regional policies be discussed, as many Iranian officials firmly believe that London has always pursued a strategy of dividing Iran from its Arab neighbors.

Britain today has strong ties with many of Iran’s Arab neighbors, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. By engaging Iran at a deeper level, it stands to play an instrumental role in fostering detente between Iran and the GCC states and facilitating the creation of a regional cooperation system. This would have a stabilizing effect in the region and benefit Britain by diminishing the threat of terrorism, stemming refugee flows and securing the Persian Gulf as an economically prosperous area where investments can be made and safe passage for energy resources is guaranteed.

A new relationship with Europe

Following the conclusion of the JCPOA, Europe has the opportunity to shift towards a more constructive approach towards Iran. Iran and the rest of the EU have a different history, and the opportunity exists for deeper, strategic engagement between them. Since 1979, tensions between EU member states and Iran have centered on four major issues: terrorism, human rights, weapons of mass destruction and the Israeli– Palestinian conflict. When I became Iran’s ambassador to Germany in 1990, I tried to establish a joint working group to address these differences. These efforts led to a ‘critical dialogue’ between Iran and the EU from 1992–97 followed by a ‘comprehensive dialogue’. While then-German chancellor Helmut Kohl was receptive to these initiatives, he was met with opposition from the United States. Nevertheless, the EU and Iran developed amicable ties over time, and Europe even became Iran’s largest trading partner, until the nuclear crisis emerged.

While EU–Iran relations suffered greatly during the nuclear-crisis era, especially from 2011 to 2013, the EU played an instrumental role in the diplomacy that eventually led to the JCPOA. EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton and her successor, Federica Mogherini, spearheaded the negotiations between the E3+3 and Iran, and the EU’s High Representative now holds the decisive role of Coordinator of the Joint Commission that will oversee the JCPOA’s implementation.

Following the conclusion of the JCPOA, Europe has the opportunity to shift towards a more constructive approach towards Iran. The increasingly shared interests and threats between the two sides have created room not just for tactical cooperation and increased trade, but for broader strategic dialogue on a host of decisive issues.

Western Asia today is a significantly different place than it was a decade or even five years ago. Large swathes of Iraq and Syria have become battlefields or been occupied by violent terrorist groups, the most notorious of which is the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Other Arab states, such as Libya, Egypt and Bahrain, are either in complete disarray or on shaky foundations. Refugees in their millions are entering Europe, testing the continent’s social cohesion and public services in unprecedented ways. A two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is also a more distant prospect than ever. Europe simply cannot turn its back on the turmoil in the Middle East, and urgently needs to help foster a stabilizing regional order for its own well-being.

In the face of all this disorder, Iran is a strong state with functioning institutions and significant influence throughout the region. It has a pluralistic political system, by regional standards, and regularly holds elections. It is at the forefront of the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and is engaged in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. Simply stated, Iran stands to be an effective partner in helping the EU alleviate the trifecta of serious challenges it faces today: terrorism, migration and a stumbling economy. The differences that once existed between Iran and the EU are either no longer pertinent or can be mitigated through deeper engagement.

Iran is among the few countries in the Middle East fighting terrorist groups that have been responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Europeans, including ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra (now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham).On the issue of terrorism, Iran is among the few countries in the Middle East fighting terrorist groups that have been responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Europeans, including ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra (now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham). By contrast, US Vice President Joe Biden has accused US regional allies of supporting extremists in Syria in their eagerness to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton also stated at the Brookings Institution last year: ‘Much of the extremism in the world today is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the Saudi government and individuals. We would be foolish not to recognize that.’

The nuclear deal also resolved, at least for the moment, the long-standing issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation. Through diplomacy, the EU, Iran and other world powers not only managed to reach the most comprehensive agreement on nuclear non-proliferation in history, but also established a model that can be used to address proliferation concerns in other countries, particularly in the Middle East. The initiative of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (MENWFZ) was first proposed by Iran and Egypt in 1974. If the principles of the JCPOA are implemented regionally, it would finally be realized.

On the issue of human rights, differences will undeniably continue to exist. However, there is also room for dialogue on human rights that focuses on identifying ways to minimize differences and cooperate on common interests. One possible area for cooperation is the refugee crisis, which has had unique consequences for both the EU and Iran. Europe has found itself taking in more than one million refugees and migrants in 2015 alone, posing unprecedented security, political, demographic and economic challenges. Iran, on the other hand, is surrounded by several of the failed states from which many of the refugees are fleeing, greatly threatening its national security. Iran and the EU both stand to benefit from changing this status quo, and could work together to foster stable orders in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan in order to allow refugees to return.

On other human-rights issues, it is important for the EU to hold Iran to the same standards it does other regional countries, of which Iran is often far ahead on human rights. For example, whereas Iranian women are active in nearly all walks of professional life, vote and seek elected office, women in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to drive.

An agenda for cooperation

Strategic EU–Iran engagement would entail deep and long-lasting cooperation in economics, security and regional stability. Iran is strategically located at the crossroads of the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe, and in between the energy-rich Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf. Its geographic position also makes it an ideal alternative to conventional shipping routes to Asia, Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In short, Iran is a significant regional player that the EU can no longer afford to ignore.

Iran is resource-rich, with the fourth-largest oil reserves and the largest natural-gas reserves in the world. It could be an integral part of Europe’s efforts at energy diversification. In order to foster broader energy cooperation, a working committee of European and Iranian energy executives could be set up to explore opportunities for EU companies to become commercial partners in investing in and developing Iran’s energy sector.

On the security front, there is a vital need for the EU and Iran to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Since ISIS and other terrorist groups established a foothold in Syria, there has been a dramatic rise in both the number and scope of terrorist attacks around the world. Whether in ISIS-inspired attacks like the Orlando shooting that left 49 dead, or the ISIS-directed attack at Istanbul’s Atatürk Airport, which killed 44, it is clear that the group’s reach is not limited to any specific territory. Terrorism from ISIS and likeminded groups is now the number-one security threat not just to the Middle East, but also to Europe. Iran is leading the fight on the ground against terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. While cooperation in Syria is highly unlikely until a settlement is reached between the Syrian government and members of the opposition, the EU can work more closely with Iran in Iraq to combat ISIS and strengthen the Iraqi government. Formal intelligence sharing is one possible and immediate step the EU and Iran could pursue.

Strategic engagement between the EU and Iran also promises to be a great boost to regional security. Iran and the E3+3 could agree to a model for crisis management based on the template of the nuclear negotiations, which succeeded in large part because the end state was agreed to at the beginning of the negotiating process. The conflicts raging in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain all share a common root cause: the social and political marginalization of a major group within society. In Syria, this group was the majority Sunni Arab population; in Bahrain, the majority Shia population; and in Yemen, the Zaydi Muslims who constitute a large minority. EU–Iran cooperation on solving the discord in these countries should center on bringing about a solution that emphasizes majority rule, minority rights, power sharing and free elections.

While the EU imports most of its oil and gas from Russia, Central Asia and North Africa, stability in the Persian Gulf would ensure a lower price for energy and provide the EU with a viable alternative energy source, thereby lowering the leverage of its current suppliers.EU leaders should be aware of the fact that the free flow of hydrocarbons out of the Persian Gulf is dependent on regional stability. While the EU imports most of its oil and gas from Russia, Central Asia and North Africa, stability in the Persian Gulf would ensure a lower price for energy and provide the EU with a viable alternative energy source, thereby lowering the leverage of its current suppliers. To ensure the continued secure flow of energy resources out of the region and boost regional stability at the same time, the EU could work with Iran and the GCC countries to develop plans for regional energy interconnectivity. Iran’s natural-gas endowment, in particular, could serve as a source of energy for GCC countries whose own energy exports are being cut by their growing domestic energy demands. This would give countries on all sides of the Gulf a real stake in each other’s well-being, promoting regional cooperation.

The EU can also help bring order to the region by supporting the establishment of a system that allows Iran and the GCC to have substantive dialogue on security issues. Establishing a regional security structure was once the initiative of former German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who pushed for a system of cooperation that would include Iran and the GCC states. Such a system would, importantly, allow Saudi Arabia and Iran to mend their differences, take into account each other’s interests and cooperate to stabilize the region. It would help to end the proxy wars that have for so long tormented the region, and usher in a durable peace.

Another fruitful area for dialogue and increased cooperation between the EU and Iran is the environment, and averting man-made disasters more broadly. Iran is wrestling with severe environmental challenges, ranging from drought to heavy pollution. Its quest for nuclear energy has also seen it construct a nuclear power plant in the coastal city of Bushehr, which sits on seismic fault lines. European businesses and specialists can help in both of these cases: by developing water-efficiency programs, and sharing methods for enhancing nuclear safety.

The most immediate potential obstacle to strategic Iran–EU cooperation would be a failure to live up to JCPOA commitments.The most immediate potential obstacle to strategic Iran–EU cooperation would be a failure to live up to JCPOA commitments. US sanctions legislation still in place has inhibited EU financial institutions from facilitating trade with Iran, preventing Iran from receiving the sanctions relief it expected under the nuclear deal. If this impasse can be overcome, the EU will find a strong partner in Iran. If not, Iran will turn further towards non-Western countries and the EU will be left with its hands tied in the Middle East.

The Middle East is on the verge of total collapse, and there is no surefire way to bring it back from the brink. There is no doubt, however, that strategic EU–Iran engagement would be a step towards order and away from further chaos. For decades, the Middle East has been a battleground for outside powers vying for control. In the past, the turmoil created in the region largely stayed there. Today, this is no longer the case. This new world calls for abandoning counterproductive policies of exclusion, and pursuing new partnerships that offer a real opportunity to make the region, and the world, a safer and more prosperous place.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is Iranian associate research scholar at Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, who has also served as a diplomat and official since the Revolution.

This article was first published in Survival Journal of Global Politics and Strategy.

29 September 2016

IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND:RECONCILING ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

By Zainah Anwar

4th Raja Aziz Addruse Memorial Lecture
Royale Chulan, Kuala Lumpur, 21 September 2016
Ladies and gentlemen, I am really honoured to be standing here today to give the 4th Raja Aziz Addruse Memorial Lecture. Thank you to the Bar Council and Steven Thiru, and the Organising Committee, for this brave invitation. I give talks and lectures all over the world, but it is not often that I get invited to give such a public lecture to a big and particularly important audience in Malaysia. So thank you for this honour, not least because it is in the name of a man I have always admired, the late Raja Aziz Addruse – a man of integrity and honour, a man who upheld the rule of law, who was passionate about human rights, who had the courage of his convictions. And not least, a man who believed that no matter how tough the battle is, we must never give up – to stand up and speak out for what is right and what is just. So thank you once again for this honour.

Ladies and Gentlemen, when I began to speak publicly of finding equality and justice in Islam over 25 years ago, a common response was, “Why bother?” Muslim feminists told me it was a waste of time, a losing battle because Islam, in fact, all religions are inherently unjust and patriarchal: for every alternative interpretation I could offer to justify equality, the ulama could counter with 100 others. And it is their voice that is recognized as the voice of authority on matters of faith, not mine.

The secularists said it was a dangerous enterprise, as I was giving legitimacy to the position of religion in the public square. Religion is private between you and God and should have no role to play in public life, let alone in public law and policy. To argue that religion can be a source of good and a source of justice is to give strength to the place of religion in public life. Religion must remain personal, and be delegitimized in the public sphere.

And the human rights activists felt it was wrong to engage with religion as the fight for justice and equality can only and should only be fought through a human rights framework, through UN conventions and universal principles. This is our area of strength that the ulama and Islamist activists do not have, and we should focus our struggle within only this universal framework.

All fair arguments, but, I do not believe they are strategic. This decision of so many human rights and women’s rights activists to ignore religion has been harmful to the larger human rights movement and democracy building, not least for all us living in Muslim contexts. Religion has not gone away from public life. And to continue to wilfully ignore religion, its importance to the lives of citizens and the so many women we claim we want to help, and its use and abuse in politics and public law and policy, is I believe irresponsible and self-defeating.

Let’s get real here. We do not live in a country where there is a separation of religion and state, let alone religion and politics. The reality is we live in a country where religion, and in this particular context, Islam, is a source of law and public policy.

And yet, for too long, we have left the field of religion and public policy wide open for the most conservative and authoritarian forces within Islam to define, dominate and set the parameters of what Islam is and what it is not. They decide what a good or bad Muslim is, they dictate how to be a good Muslim woman, wife and daughter, and then prescribe laws and policies that keep us women, in particular, shackled as second-class Muslims, and indeed, third class citizens. For at the top of pecking order would be Muslim men, then non-Muslims, men and women, and then only Muslim women who certainly have less rights in this country than their sisters of other faiths.

Then, when we protest, they shut us up, because, they say, we have no authority to speak on Islam.

Yet, Islam, in their own words, is a way of life. Islam has all the answers. Islam is the solution. But how can Islam be a way of life, contain all the answers to all that is wrong in our lives and our society, and yet we – those who are directly affected by Islamic laws and practices – have no say in it? No right at all to define what Islam means to us? We are supposed to just listen and obey? How can it be relevant to our lives when too many of those who question the orthodoxy are intimidated into silence? How can it be a tenable solution when many are persecuted in the name of religion, and in some countries, even killed, beheaded, stoned to death, hands and feet cut off?

As a Muslim woman who believes in an Islam that is just, and a God that is just, I am outraged how the religion I love, the God I love has been hijacked by authoritarian forces who have turned it into a faith I cannot recognize. An authoritative God, an authoritative Text has been abused for authoritarian purposes.

What are the choices before us? I could turn my back on religion, as so many Muslim feminists and human rights activists have done all over the world. Forget about Islam; let’s focus our struggle for equality and justice from within the human rights framework only. However, I am a believer and turning my back on God was simply not an option. I felt compelled to understand my religion better, to ask questions, to search for answers to reconcile the supposed disconnect between my faith and my realities. Why must I choose between being a Muslim or a feminist, a Muslim or a human rights activist? Or for that matter, why should you, if you are a lawyer, choose between being a Muslim or a lawyer who believes in justice and equality, a Muslim or a judge upholding the rule of law and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land?

These are the questions I ask. I believe these choices we are asked to make are false binaries, constructed to divide us for political purposes, for an ideological project. Let us be clear about that. This is not about Islam. It is about politics, power and privilege.

So we can keep a blind eye, turn our back or as responsible citizens, we can engage, understand. My friends and I chose to make the effort to read, to learn, to open our minds, and our hearts, to the possibilities for beauty, justice and equality in the sacred Text.

And that was what the group I co-founded, Sisters in Islam, did. Read, (Iqraq) the first word God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). That was in 1987, almost 30 years ago. That’s how long we have existed! For us, opening the Qur’an once again with feminist eyes, was a revelation. It was the most liberating experience for us to discover numerous verses in the Qur’an that provide for an ethical vision of Islam, advocating the absolute moral and spiritual equality of women and men.

Verses such as Surah 33:35 on common and identical spiritual and
moral obligations placed on all individuals regardless of sex; Surah 3:195 which declares that men and woman are members, one of another; 2:187 which describes Muslim men and women as each other’s garments; 9:71, the final verse on the relationship between men and women which talks about them being each other’s ‘awliyya -protecting friends and guardians – and the obligations for both men and women, to enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil, to observe regular prayers, pay the zakat (tithe) and obey Allah and his Messenger and they will be equally rewarded. These verses are unequivocally egalitarian in spirit and substance, and reflect the Qur’anic view on the relationship between men and women.

This egalitarian vision also extends to human biology. The verses on creation of men and women talk about the characteristic of pairs in creation (51:49, 53:45,78:8, 50:7, 22:5, 36:36). Since everything created must be in pairs, the male and female must both be necessary, must exist by the definition of createdness. Neither one comes before the other or from the other. One is not superior to the other, nor a derivative of the other. This means that in Allah’s creation of human beings, no priority or superiority is accorded to either man or woman. These are incredibly empowering verses in the Qur’an.

So, if we are equal in the eyes of God, why are we not equal in the eyes of men?

What happened to the ethical voice of the Qur’an which insistently enjoins equality of all individuals? which insistently enjoins justice – even if it means going against your own personal interest, or your parents or your relatives? How did this voice become silent, and largely absent in the body of political and legal thought in Islam? When women decided to read the Qur’an for themselves, they discovered this ethical message of equality and justice in Islam. They began to question why this voice was silent in the exegetical and juristic Texts of the religion and in the codification of the teachings of the religion into public law. Who decided that these verses in the Qur’an shall be put aside? Why couldn’t these egalitarian and compassionate verses be used to guide the laws governing marital relations in Islam? Who decided the verses that could be read as discriminatory towards women be the source of law and public policy?

In making these choices, whose interests are served, protected, and advanced, and whose interests are shunted aside? Is this really about living the will of God on earth as these men in authority would like us to believe or is it more about how the word of God could be used, should be used, to perpetuate patriarchy and dominance and resist the changing realities galloping before their our very eyes?

The setting
Ladies and Gentlemen, my work over the past 30 years has centred on the struggle for equality and justice for Muslim women living in Muslim contexts.
I believe, one of the most profound challenges we as Muslims face today is the search for ways to live our faith in a world where democracy, human rights and women’s rights constitute the dominant ethical paradigm of the modern world. In the 21st century, there cannot be justice without equality. It is as simple and undisputable as that.

As someone who believes that God is just, that Islam is just, I am outraged that so much injustice, cruelty, and violence are perpetrated in the name of Islam. I will not go into the long and depressing list of outrageous acts against women and children justified in the name of Islam that occur daily throughout the Muslim world, and against those who think, act, believe and behave differently, and the violence and senseless killings and other barbaric acts, with the rise of the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups. We are all too familiar with these depressing horror stories that surface in national and global press coverage on a daily basis.

What I want to do today is to give you hope and possibility – to share with you how much the world of scholarship and activism have changed in many Muslim contexts over the past 20 years or so – and changed for the better. I want to share with you the courage and the will of Muslim women, working with outstanding Muslim scholars, who are taking the lead to define how religion is understood and practised, and who are demanding that OUR experience of living Islam and being impacted by laws and policies made in the name of Islam give us the right and the authority to decide and shape what Islam means and should mean in our daily lives, and as a source of law and public policy in our countries.

It is because women have borne the brunt of this suffering in the name of religion, that in many parts of the Muslim world today, it is women who are organized, and are at the forefront of our societies in pushing for change in the understanding and practice of our religion – to recognize equality and justice and to push for law reform to uphold these principles, and to end practices in the name of religion and culture that are harmful to us.

But of course bringing change is never easy. Those who have benefitted from the status quo are resistant to change and use all kinds of tactics to demonize and delegitimize the voice of change. Look at the constant attacks against Sisters in Islam. Our book, Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism, was banned because it supposedly was confusing the minds of Muslim women and was a source of public disorder! If only those men go to the supermarket and realize that women on a daily basis are faced with numerous choices, over what coffee to buy, what milk, what rice, what cereal. Making and weighing pros and cons of the wisdom of the decisions we make may be alien to some men, but not to women. Finding out that God actually says that men and women are equal before his eyes, that marrying one is best for you to prevent you from doing injustice, is music to women’s ears and a source of happiness, not a source of public disorder!

The reality is women’s lives throughout the world have changed. Our realities, our needs, our roles and status have changed. And yet, the understanding of Islam that those in authority use to govern our lives has not changed.

For many of us who have decided to engage with religion to fight for our rights, it is our utter faith in a just God and a just Islam that have made us embark on this perilous, but compelling public struggle to push for an understanding of Islam that recognizes the urgent necessity that we, women, be treated as human beings of equal worth and dignity. Is that such a radical and unIslamic notion? Really?

We believe these principles and the ideals of equality and justice are intrinsic to the Qur’an and are also of course upheld in universal human rights principles that regard all human beings as equal. What could be more Islamic than the first article of the UN Declaration on Human Rights which states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

The Challenge
So, how do we as Muslims reconcile the tenets of our faith to the challenge of modernity, of plurality, of changing times and circumstances? Today citizens, women, men, youth, are out in the streets clamouring for justice, equality, freedom, dignity, respect for rule of law. This clamour must necessarily include justice, equality, freedom, dignity and respect for women as well, for the simple reason that we are part of the human race, too.

So how can the teachings of Islam be reconciled with the realities and aspirations of living in the 21st century?

I want to draw your attention to the incredible efforts of many scholars and activists living in Muslim contexts who have been engaged in the production of new feminist and rights-based knowledge in Islam, and are creating a public voice at the national and international levels, pushing for the possibility and necessity of reform of Muslims laws and practices to uphold the principles of equality and justice. What they have been doing is to bridge the seeming divide between Islam and human rights/women’s rights and break that constructed binary – as if all the forces of evil are on one side and the forces of good on the other.

They are separating patriarchy from Islam’s sacred Text; their work transcend ideological dichotomies such as ‘secular’ versus ‘religious’ feminism, or ‘Islam’ versus ‘human rights’ or ‘Islam’ versus ‘women’s rights’; they show these dichotomies to be false and arbitrary. They point out that the real battleground is not between Islam and secularism or human rights or women’s rights, but between despotism and patriarchy on the one hand, and democracy and gender equality on the other.

It is this voice that today is challenging the ideology of intolerance, misogyny, conservatism and extremism that dominate the mindsets of so many of those in authority in the Muslim world today.

It is led by Muslim scholars and activists who advocate a review and critical re-interpretation of the exegetical and jurisprudential texts and traditions within Islam. This work places emphasis on how religion is understood, how religious knowledge is produced, and how rights are constructed in the Islamic legal tradition and how they can be reconstructed. It locates the production of religious knowledge in the socio-historical context of its time and asserts that given changing times and circumstances, new religious knowledge needs to be produced to deal with new challenges, questions and issues that the tradition had not dealt with.

What makes this work exciting is that it is done not just at the theological level, but also at the political and social levels. It is cutting edge work at the intersection of Islam, politics, law and gender.

The Path
Let me share with you the beginning of one group, Sisters in Islam in Malaysia, the group that I co-founded in 1987. Yes, it was that long time ago before anyone noticed the importance of Islam and its use and abuse as a political ideology.

Like many other women’s groups, it is injustice, oppression and ill-treatment that mobilized us Muslim women. Sisters in Islam first got together because of our deep concerns over the injustice women suffered under the Shari’ah system. As professional women and as activists, other women often approached us to confide their marital problems and the challenges faced when they approached the religious authorities to seek redress to their issues. We got together first to look into the obstacles women faced in accessing their rights under the Islamic Family law. The difficulties in getting divorce, maintenance, a share of the marital assets, custody of their children – all rights that existed under the law, but given the gender bias in the system, women faced an uphill battle whenever their husbands decided to challenge their claims. This was 1987.

We felt angry and powerless in the face of complaints by women that they had to suffer in silence confronted by disempowering advice from the religious authorities; hearing talks, again and again, in religious classes, over radio and television, where women were often told that men are superior to women, that men have authority over women, that a man has a right to beat his wife, that a woman must obey her husband, the evidence of two women equals to one man, the husband has a God-given right to take a second wife, and therefore it is a sin for a woman to deny him that right, that a wife has no right to say no to sex with her husband, that hell is full of women because they leave their heads uncovered and are disobedient to their husbands.

Where is the justice for women in all these pronouncements? It was this kind of questioning, and above all, the conviction that Allah could never be unjust, that eventually led us to go back to the primary source of our religion, the Qur’an. We felt the urgent need to read the Qur’an for ourselves and to find out if the Text actually supported the oppression and ill-treatment of women.

Given the audience today, a little bit of Malaysian history is appropriate. We actually first began to meet under the auspices of the Association of Women Lawyers. The then President, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, was my housemate. So the AWL Shari’ah sub-committee members and a few of us outside the association who felt strongly about the issue, met in my house to discuss the need to do something about the administration of the Islamic Family law. And we organized a conference with the Women’s department in the Prime Minister’s Office and the then Pusat Islam to raise all these problems and find solutions.

As time went on, some of us felt that dealing with law alone was not enough. If the Qur’an was used to justify discrimination against women, then it was incumbent on us to read and understand what the source of those laws and practices actually said. Thus the decision to open the Qur’an to read for ourselves and find out if God really meant to treat women as second-class to men. Surprisingly, perhaps not to you who have been trained as lawyers, the lawyers in the group dropped out of the study session, one by one. Noor Farida had left for England to head the Gender Unit in the Commonwealth Secretariat and only one lawyer from AWL remained in the study group that eventually became Sisters in Islam.

Let me tell you, this process that Sisters went through was the most liberating and spiritually uplifting experience for all of us. We took the path of Iqraq (“Read”) and it opened a world of Islam that we could recognize, a world for women that was filled with love and mercy and with equality and justice. Women’s rights were actually rooted in our tradition, in our faith. Those verses I listed out earlier were empowering to us as women who believe in our right to justice and equality, to be treated as human beings of equal worth and dignity. We were more convinced than ever that it is not Islam that oppress women, but interpretations of the Qur’an influenced by cultural practices and values of a patriarchal society which regard women as inferior and subordinate to men.

For much of Islamic history, it is men who have interpreted the Qur’an and the
traditions for us. The woman’s voice, the woman’s experience, the woman’s
realities had been largely silent and silenced in the reading and interpretation of the Text. The silence of that interpretive voice was seen as the silence of the Text. But when Sisters read the Text, we discovered words, messages and meanings that many of us were not exposed to in the traditional education on Islam that we went through in our lives.

For us, it was the beginning of a new journey of discovery. It was a revelation to us that the verse on polygamy (Sura an-Nisa, 4:3) explicitly said “…if you fear you shall not be able to deal justly with women, then marry only one.” How come one half of the verse that said a man can have up to four wives becomes universally known and accepted as a right in Islam and is codified into law, but the other half of the very same verse that promotes monogamy is largely unheard of.

It dawned on us that when men read the verse, they only saw “marry two, three or four”. They stopped reading, for in that phrase, they saw the word of God that validated their desire for and their experience of multiple sexual partners. But women continued to read the verse, and it clearly said, “… if you fear you cannot deal justly with women, then marry only one.”

Those were the words of Allah that spoke to our fears of injustice and heartache. We understood that the right to polygamy was conditional, and if a man cannot fulfill those conditions of equal and just treatment, then Allah said marry only one. And I haven’t even gone on to the debate on whether it is only orphans or war widows and in times of warfare that polygamy can be practiced – not in peacetime, and certainly not in marrying 21-year-old model/actress/singer all rolled into one that many men these days seem to want to take as a second wife.

In fact the verse ends by saying that marrying only one “…will be best for you to prevent you from doing injustice.” What further validation do we need to argue that polygamy is not a right in Islam, but is actually a responsibility allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

The question that arose was obvious to us: WHO decides which verse, which
interpretation, which juristic opinion, which hadith, traditional practice of the Prophet, would prevail and be the source of codified law in this modern world, to govern our private and public lives and punish us if we fail to abide, and which verse would fall by the wayside? On what basis is that decision made? Whose interests are protected and whose interests are denied? It was clear to us that the outcome of this process was more about power, privilege and politics rather than living the divine will on earth.

As feminists, as believers, and as activists living within a democratic
constitutional framework, we decided to assert and claim our right to have our
VOICE heard in the public sphere and to engage in the decision-making
process on matters of religion that we believe must take into consideration the realities of our lives and the justice enjoined by the Qur’an.

The Challenge
Through letters to the editor, memorandums to the government, press statements, training programmes and publications, we took positions, guided by the principles of justice, equality and compassion found in the Qur’an, on contentious issues such as polygamy, equal rights, dress and modesty,
domestic violence, hudud laws, and eventually on larger issues of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and other fundamental liberties.

Of course by claiming our right and creating the space to speak out in public on Islam, we have made enemies. We are often criticized by patriarchal politicians, conservative scholars and Islamist activists – a common experience of other women’s groups and progressive scholars in other Muslim countries.

The attacks and condemnations usually take three forms:
First, they undermine our right and our legitimacy to speak on Islam by
questioning our credentials. They say we have no right to speak on Islam
because we are not traditionally educated in religious schools, we do not have a degree in Islam from a recognized Arab university, we do not speak Arabic, and we do not cover our heads. They say we are western-educated feminists
representing an elite strata of society who are trying to impose alien western values on Islam and the ummah.

Second, they accuse us of having deviated from our faith. They equate our
questioning and challenging of their obscurantist views on women and
fundamental liberties, and their interpretations of the Qur’an as questioning the word of God, and therefore they say we doubt the infallibility of God and the perfection of the message.

Third, they contend that it is dangerous to offer alternative opinions and
interpretations of the religion as this could confuse the ummah and lead to
disunity. There can only be one interpretation to be decided upon by the ulama and all citizens must abide by this interpretation.

It must be understood that while all Muslims accept the Qur’an as one, the human effort in interpreting the Qur’an had always led to diverse and differing opinions. Until today we have the diverse schools of law and schools of theology in the Islamic tradition that are still in use throughout the Muslim world. It is precisely because of this wealth of diversity that Islam spread and flourished in different cultures and societies – all could accommodate the universal message of justice in Islam. And yet in many Muslim societies today, there are many who condemn those who offer alternative views as infidels and apostates, and they willfully choose to deny or negate the richness, complexity and diversity of our heritage.

There is also a denial of the historical context within which Islamic jurisprudence, fiqh, itself was constructed, and of the consequently historical character of the corpus of the Islamic legal tradition as it was developed and applied within early and classical Islamic civilization.

For example, in classical Islamic jurisprudential texts, gender inequality is taken for granted, a priori, as a principle. Women are depicted as “sexual beings” not as “social beings” and their rights are discussed largely in the context of family law. The classical jurists’ construction of women’s roles and responsibilities was right for their times, for it reflected the world in which they lived where inequality between women and men was the natural order of things and women had little role to play in public life. Men were supposed to provide for and protect women and the family, in return women must obey and be available for men’s needs. But today, women provide for and protect their families as well, including the men, but they are still expected to obey and be treated unequally.

Our realities have changed. And yet the conservative ulama that dominate the religious authorities and so many Islamist activists of today seem unable or unwilling to see Islamic law from a historical perspective as rules that were socially constructed to deal with the socio-economic and political context of the time, and that given a different context, these laws have to change to ensure that the eternal principles of justice are served.

In this process, it is human agency that determines which Texts are relevant, and how they should be interpreted to serve the best interest of the
community. While the source is divine as it is the revealed word of God, human understanding of the word of God is a human construct that is fallible and changeable in accordance with changing times and circumstances. Therefore the role of human experience and intellect in engagement with the divine Text will lead to the production of Islamic knowledge and Islamic laws that cannot then be regarded as divine.

They can therefore be changed, criticized, refined and redefined. Unfortunately, in the traditional Islamic education most of our ulama have gone through, the belief in taqlid (blind imitation) and that the doors of ijtihad (reinterpretation) are closed is so strong. This rationale is based on the belief that the great scholars of the classical period who lived closer to the time of the Prophet were unsurpassed in their knowledge and interpretative skills.

But to adopt such an attitude is totally untenable in today’s world when we face new and different challenges: the issue of human rights, of democracy, of
women’s rights, the challenge of modernity, the challenge of change. How do we find solutions from within our faith if we do not exert in ijtihad and produce new knowledge and new understandings of Islam in the face of new problems? How do we ensure that the eternal principle of justice in Islam remains at the core of Islamic law in substance and in implementation?

This problem is compounded by the fact that most Muslims have traditionally
been educated to believe that only the ulama have the right to talk about Islam. What are the implications to democratic governance, to human rights and gender justice, if only a small group of people, the ulama, as traditionally believed, have the right to interpret the Qur’an, and codify the Text in a manner that very often isolates the Text from the socio-historical context of its revelation, isolates classical juristic opinion especially on women’s issues, from the socio-historical context of the lives of the founding jurists of Islam, and isolates our textual heritage from the context of contemporary society, the world that we live in today.

What you get today then is a disconnect between law and reality, between dogma and ideology, and reality. To continue to ignore the changing realities on the ground is untenable.

And yet, we see political leaders, religious leaders, international institutions in paralysis, or worse in complicity in dealing with the ways religion is used and abused in many societies.

As an activist of almost 30 years, I am near to giving up that change can come from the top. Today, I feel very strongly that the role played by civil society groups, the women’s rights and human rights activists who risk life and limb, and public intellectuals will be key in bringing about change in the terms of public engagement on Islam and its role and place in many Muslim societies.

For this to happen, however, the public space to debate on Islam and Islamic
issues have to open up. This is why I believe the struggle for a more just and liberating Islam has to take place within the struggle for democratization within Muslim societies. I am always amazed when Westerners, in particular, the Americans twist themselves into knots, puzzled as to why so much of what they see as Islam in the Muslim world remains misogynistic, undemocratic, extremist and cruel. Well, what do you expect? You cannot expect a democratic and progressive Islam to suddenly grow and thrive within despotic states, led by powerful leaders supported by the most powerful nation on earth.

The fight to open up the space for debate in Muslim contexts is extremely critical and so is the ability to stand your ground when under attack. For Sisters in Islam, every attack against us is seen as an opportunity to bring more voices into the public space and to challenge the myth that there can be only one opinion in Islam. For example: When the government banned our book Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism, we took them to court, challenging the ban on constitutional grounds. The government claimed that our book was a threat to public order as it confuses Muslims, especially women and those whose faith is shallow! We won at the High Court, the government appealed, we won again at the Court of Appeal and the government appealed yet again to the Federal Court, and the Federal Court threw out the government’s leave for appeal. It was music to our ears when one of the judges, in a panel of five, that included two women, said the Home Minister was supposed to apply his mind to this case, he did not, instead he applied the mind of the religious authorities.

Thank God for little mercies, it makes the struggle worth it.

Currently, we are under attack again by a state religious authority. A fatwa has been issued against Sisters in Islam, declaring us as deviants for subscribing to religious pluralism and liberalism, whatever that means. Again, we have taken this case to court challenging it on several constitutional grounds, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. The High Court has thrown the case to the Shari’ah court, but we are appealing against that decision.

The idea that women have a voice and a say in how the religion is interpreted and practiced in a country that uses Islam as a source of law and public policy, remains a radical notion!! Trust what your heart says and you will know this is not rocket science.

Global Impact
Needless to say, the work of Sisters in Islam in Malaysia, has had a global impact. In 2007, we led the initiative to form Musawah, the Global Movement for Equality and Justice in the Muslim family.

Given the frustrations and opposition Muslim women activists faced in trying to push for reform of discriminatory Muslim Family laws and the issue of women’s rights in Islam, we felt it was high time that all us who have for decades struggled against patriarchs in government, society, and our private lives, come together and create a very collective international public voice of Muslim women demanding our right to equality and justice. Thus Musawah, which means equality in Arabic, was launched in February 2009 in Kuala Lumpur with over 250 participants from 47 countries, including 32 member countries of the OIC, Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It was an exciting moment that until today we rejoice in.

What Musawah hopes to bring to the larger women’s and human rights movement at the global level is this:
• an assertion that Islam can be a source of empowerment, not a source of oppression and discrimination;
• an effort to open new horizons for rethinking the relationship between Islam and human rights, equality and justice;
• an offer to open a new constructive dialogue where religion is no longer an obstacle to equality for women, but a source for liberation;
• a collective strength of conviction and courage to stop governments and patriarchal authorities, and ideological non-state actors from the convenience of using religion and the word of God to silence our demands for equality; and
• a space where activists, scholars, decision makers, working within the human rights or the Islamic framework, or both, can interact and mutually strengthen our common pursuit of equality and justice for Muslim women.

Since then, Musawah has gained an international reputation for its groundbreaking work in knowledge building, capacity building and international advocacy. It challenges patriarchal interpretations of the Shari’ah from within Islamic tradition. It links scholarship with activism to bring new perspectives on Islamic teachings, inserting women’s voices and concerns into the production of religious knowledge and legal reform in Muslim contexts. It uses a holistic framework, the Musawah Framework for Action, that integrates Islamic teachings, universal human rights principles, contemporary state constitutions and laws that recognize equality and non-discrimination, and the lived realities of women and men, to argue for the possibility of reform and for the necessity of equality and justice for women living in Muslim contexts.

Our latest Knowledge Building project on qiwamah and wilayah, twin legal concepts in the Islamic tradition that mandate male authority over women, has produced a ground breaking publication, Men in Charge? Rethinking Authority in Muslim Legal Tradition.

The book has received raving reviews from major Islamic scholars. The chapters in the book raise several important questions. Why and how did verse 4:34 (commonly interpreted to mean men have authority over women), and not other Qur’anic verses that uphold equality and justice and compassion between men and women, become the foundation for the legal construction of marriage in Islam? How and through what legal logic did these two concepts become organizing principles in Muslim family laws? Why are these concepts still the basis of gender relations in the imagination of modern-day jurists and Muslims who resist and denounce the idea of equality in marriage as alien to Islam? What do equality and justice mean for women and the family today?

I would urge you to buy the book now! Within a few months of its release, it has been used as recommended readings in 17 universities in eight countries, including several Arab countries. I hold my breath for the first Malaysian university to use this book.

Musawah also works in two other key areas – capacity building and international advocacy.

Our 7-day short course, called ‘Islam and Gender Equality and Justice’ exposes women’s rights activists to how knowledge is produced in the Islamic tradition, by examining the methodology and conceptual tools used to build the interpretive and legal traditions in Islam. Participants learn how the Qur’an is interpreted, how Hadith is transmitted, how Fiqh is constructed – all within a social context – and explore the possibilities of constructing new understandings to deal with changing times and circumstances and develop action plans on strategies for reform and building a voice and culture of public debate on matters of religion. In the past one year, we have held regional trainings – for South Asian activists from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, for the Horn of Africa activists from Sudan, Somalia, Somaliland, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, and for the Middle East activists from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.

Guys, the world is changing. Don’t be left behind.

Many find the course empowering and transformative as they discover an Islam that is liberating and that makes sense to their realities. The course builds their knowledge and confidence to critically engage with the ways their governments and religious authorities use Islam to justify discrimination against women and offer an alternative vision of Islam that upholds equality and justice. This training is critical as we believe that change can only happen if we can build a public voice and public will for reform to take place. And today, more and more women’s rights activists living in Muslim contexts have begun to recognize the strategic need to understand Islam better, acquire the knowledge and courage not just to challenge the ways Islam is used to discriminate against women, but more importantly to offer an alternative vision that reconciles religion with human rights and women’s rights. In countries and communities where Islam is used as a source of law and public policy and shape culture and tradition, I believe this is an imperative.

In the area of international advocacy, Musawah is engaged deeply with the CEDAW process (the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women – the women’s international bill of rights that Malaysia has ratified). We did a major research on CEDAW and Muslim Family Laws, critically examining how governments from major OIC countries use Islam to justify reservations and non-compliance with treaty obligations. We critiqued their approach, and offer the Musawah Framework for Action as an approach that reconciles Islam with women’s rights, and provide the conceptual legal tools and language to argue for the possibility of equality and justice and reform of Muslim family laws. Today we regularly submit Thematic Reports and issue Oral Statements on Article 16 on marriage and family relations whenever key Muslim countries report before the CEDAW Committee. Governments that continue to say that the Muslim Family Law of their country which discriminate against women cannot be changed because they are God’s law are routinely challenged by CEDAW experts who are now aware of the diversity of interpretations and juristic opinions and the richness of the Muslim legal tradition that enables reform to take place. They use the examples we provide of good practices from various Muslim countries to question governments that if indeed these discriminatory laws are divine and cannot be changed, why then do different Muslim countries have different laws and practices on any particular issue – all on the basis of Islam. Why does Tunisia ban polygamy, why do Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon allow a woman to include in her marriage contract that the husband cannot take a another wife and if he breaches this term, she is entitled to a divorce; why does Morocco have equal and minimum age of marriage for both boys and girls at 18, why do Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Tunisia not require a woman to have a wali/guardian in order to get married, why do Turkey and Tunisia recognize the mother’s equal right to guardianship of her children.

You see, ladies and gentleman, the issue indeed is not that there cannot be reform, there cannot be equality and justice for women in Islam; the issue is whether governments and those in religious authority have the political will to end discrimination against women. The arguments for reform are there – within Islam, within our Constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of gender, within the human rights principles we subscribe to when we agree to be part of the international system, and not least in the realities of women’s lives today and what it means to build and sustain the well-being of the family, all members of the family, not just one.

The Way Forward
Let me conclude this talk by urging all of us to exercise some clarity in the terms we use to engage publicly on Islamic matters and its role in public law and policy, especially to the lawyers and aspiring lawyers here today.

Let us understand a few key terms that are now bandied about freely and interchangeably today.

First, there are distinctions between Shari’ah, fiqh, hukum and qanun. Shari’ah literally means the way, the path. What we mean by Shari’ah, is God’s revelation to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as embodied in the Qur’an, encompassing ethical values and principles to guide humans in the direction of justice and correct conduct. No person nor institution has the authority to claim certainty in understanding the divine will. Only God possesses perfect knowledge.

This led to the development of fiqh, which literally means understanding. It is the process by which humans attempt to derive legal rules from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (practices) of the Prophet. The classical Muslim jurists developed rigorous methodologies and principles to establish a legal system that they believed could best reflect the divine will. And yet none of them ever claimed certainty over their opinions and rulings. Certitude belongs only to God. So while Shari’ah, God’s revelation, is immutable and infallible; fiqh is changeable and fallible. Much of what we freely label as “Shari’ah law” today is actually fiqh, a human construction. Polygamy is banned in Tunisia, permitted without restrictions in many countries, permitted with permission in countries like Malaysia and Singapore. These decisions are based on different fiqh opinions and understandings. It is decided by men, not God.

Hukum are legal determinations, rulings in any given case. Qanun are codified laws and regulations enacted by a government.

So what we are actually talking about when we dispute over khalwat, moral policing, cross dressing, hudud, and family laws are actually qanun laws based on fiqh, our human understanding of God’s teachings. They change with time and circumstance. We are not talking about Shari’ah, the divine word of God. We are talking and questioning the role and motivations of human agency and the methodologies used in the construction and implementation of those laws that have increasingly led to injustice and conflict of laws in our constitutional democracy today.

So the next time a self-appointed soldier of God tells you, ‘You don’t have a right to question or have a different opinion,’ ask him exactly what is it that you are not supposed to talk about – Shari’ah, fiqh, hukum, qanun? And be clear yourself that what you are talking about is not theology alone, but the intersection of theology, with law and public policy – and politics and gender. In the end, what we are discussing about is actually public law and public policy that governs and affects our lives in very fundamental ways. And every citizen within a democracy has a right to engage in this.

Second, there are categories of laws in the Muslim legal tradition. Ibadat (rules that regulate the relationship between humans and God) where there is little room for disputation, and mu’amalat, rules that regulate the relationship of humans with one another. Much of the debate and contestations going on now in Malaysia are about mu’amalat laws – where jurists of over 1,000 years ago have favoured human reason, human experience, and discretion to serve the well-being of society, depending on time and place. We all know the famous example of Imam Shafi’i who changed his legal rulings when he moved from Iraq to Egypt – because of different circumstances and social conditions. This was a principle established over 1,100 years ago, ladies and gentlemen! It is not a new invention of westernized feminists. It is our tradition.

Third, the Muslim legal tradition is packed with rich and sophisticated juristic concepts that make reform towards equality and justice possible. There are the principles of maslaha (public interest), ikhtilaf (differences of opinion), istihsan (choosing the best opinion in the interest of equity and justice), istislah (choosing the best opinion in the interest of public good). How do we apply these principles to solve the problems and contestations we face in the context of 21st century multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia in order to ensure that justice is done? Or do we continue in our wilful resistance to the changing realities on the ground, and shunt aside all that is good and rich in our tradition?

Let’s build some pride and knowledge in our own legal tradition, instead of defiling it with shrill sloganeering that Islam is under threat, and Muslims are under siege. It’s your authoritarian will that is under threat. Not Islam.

In the end, what we need to ask is this: what is the purpose of Islam in public life and what is the purpose of these Islamic laws? Why would the citizens of Malaysia want an Islamic state with Islamic laws that assert different rights for Muslim men, Muslim women and citizens of other faiths and minorities, rather than equal rights for all? Why would those whose equal status and rights are recognized by a modern democratic system support the creation of such an Islamic state? If an Islamic state means an authoritarian theocratic political system committed to enforcing androcentric and dogmatic legal rulings that lead only to injustice, and silencing or even eliminating those who challenge state authority and its understanding of Islam, then why would those whose fundamental liberties and human rights are protected by a democratic state support such an Islamic state?

We as Muslims make the effort to comply with the divine will for a purpose – to do good, to bring about justice, to contribute to the well-being of family and society.

Alas, the ugly truth is too many abuse God and Islam to serve their own personal interest to remain in power, to enrich themselves, to remain privileged and protected or to get into power, only to do more of the same.

As we descend into an Orwellian society where wrong is right and bad is good, and where Big Brother watches our every move, let us who believe in justice and reason take strength in the legal maxim, attributed to Imams Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa: “We believe that our opinions are correct, but we are always cognizant of the fact that our opinions may be wrong. We also believe that the opinions of our opponents are wrong, but we are always cognizant of the fact that they may be correct.”

And in our search for solutions, let us be resolute and be guided by the words of the 14th century jurist, Ibn Qayim al-Jawziyyah, “The fundamentals of the Shari’ah are rooted in wisdom and promotion of the welfare of human beings in this life and the Hereafter. Shari’ah embraces justice, kindness, the common good and wisdom. Any rule that departs from justice to injustice, from kindness to harshness, from the common good to harm, or from rationality to absurdity cannot be part of Shari’ah …”

In the end, only God knows best. So let’s not play God on this earth.

For Sisters in Islam and Musawah, the journey towards our vision of an Islam that is kind and compassionate, that upholds equality and justice remains long and challenging. Many of us live in authoritarian states with little tolerance for dissenting voices. The barbarity of ISIS seems to have no bounds. Our political leaders, many of them unpopular, delegitimized and desperate to stay in power are ever willing to use and abuse religion for political ends.

But for many of us, there is no other choice. We don’t wish to emigrate and live in foreign lands. We must stay and fight for the country we love, we want to live in and leave for our children. The challenge is to expand this public space we have created, to open up the debate, to turn the dissenting voices into a clamour for justice and equality, for freedom and dignity at the national, regional and international levels. And for those in authority to realize that there is already a paradigm shift in Islamic scholarship and activism in Muslim contexts, and to support these critical, ground-breaking initiatives. For change to be sustainable, it must take place from within – not from the barrel of a gun, from foreign interventions. Change from within is slow, perilous, but there is no other alternative.

I hope you will agree, as many others do, and as I know the late Raja Aziz did, that indeed what groups like Sisters in Islam and Musawah stand for today are a source of hope to the world, not least the Muslim world, and that what we stand for today represents what it means to be Muslim in the 21st century. Look, it is a no brainer – it is SIS…. or ISIS.

Thank you for listening.

Unenforced Syrian ceasefire was bound to fail

BY AMEC

The collapse of the recent Syrian ceasefire and resultant blame game being played by the USA and Russia is an indication of the complex nature of the Syrian crisis and more importantly indicates the interests and motivations of the ceasefire’s chief protagonists. Although violence lessened slightly during the four- to five-day armistice, its collapse points to the differing interests of the actors involved, and to the partiality of the supposed enforcers. The consequent Aleppo offensive has compounded this, illustrating that Russia will continue backing the Syrian regime, while the USA is more concerned about the Islamic State group (IS). Moreover, even Russia recently admitted that it is now impossible to bring ‘peace’ to the conflict arena.

Negotiated between Russia and the USA, neither the regime nor opposition groups fully endorsed the 9 September ceasefire, revealing a clearly erroneous assumption that the conflict is between two clearly identifiable sets of belligerents that could be restrained by their supposed patrons. Further, the agreement was not made public (though it was subsequently leaked), or even made available to the rebel groups that were to implement it, thus inhibiting its chances for success and undermining the already tenuous US influence. Moreover, the regime, though using limited aerial bombardment, utilised the ‘pause’ to consolidate and continued attacking areas in Aleppo, Homs and east Ghouta (east of the capital Damascus). Rebel groups were also accused of violations, especially in Aleppo, although these were mostly less intense than those of the regime. The violations that fundamentally ended the ceasefire, however, were the 17 September USA-led attackattack in Deir al-Zor that killed sixty-two Syrian soldiers, and the attack attack on a thirty-one truck aid convoy entering Aleppo, allegedly carried out by Russian aircraft two days later. Fighting subsequently intensified, and the regime resumed its aerial bombardment of besieged east Aleppo, declaring a new offensive to ‘liberate’ the area.

The ceasefire’s flaws were already apparent when considering the interests motivating the chief protagonists and the steps it was to follow. The US views the fight against IS and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formally Jabhat al-Nusra), still believed by the Obama administration to have links with al-Qa’ida, as more pertinent, and believes that a political solution, however skewed in the regime’s favour, would help attempts to combat these groups. Further, it is wary of intensifying its military involvement in the conflict and has thus concentrated its assistance mainly on the fight against IS. Conversely, the Russians possess strategic interests in Syria, are fearful of a power vacuum were the regime to fall, and perceive most Islamist rebel groups as terrorists that pose a threat to the country. Since September 2015 Russia has acted directly, militarily, to protect these interests. Convergences over IS, and US reticence to confront Russia, meant that the USA endorsed or ignored Russia’s actions. The Obama administration also agreed to include Jabhat in the list of groups against which attacks were allowed even during the ceasefire, and committed to the formation of a joint intelligence centre with Russia to confront these groups if the ceasefire lasted more than a week. Notably, Jabhat had been actively involved in temporarily breaking the siege on Aleppo in July, and its entrenchment in Aleppo and other areas controlled by opposition groups prevent regime forces from continuing attacks in contested areas despite the ceasefire. The USA also altered its stance on the future role of Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad, and now is open to Asad leading a transitionary government of national unity.

The ceasefire, thus, to be enforced by parties who were partial, and, especially in the case of the USA, had little influence on the ground because of this partiality and its unwillingness to follow up on policy pronouncements. Further, this partiality inhibited the chances for effective monitoring of the ceasefire, allowing for violations, especially by the regime, to go unpunished. Opposition forces were in a bind: coordinating with Jabhat would render them susceptible to Russian and US attacks, while halting coordination with and confronting the former al-Qa’ida affiliate would allow the disciplined group to consolidate control. In some instances, regime forces captured territory when US coalition attacks forced IS to retreat, and it was feared that Jabhat’s retreat would have a similar result, especially around Aleppo. Therefore, unlike the February ceasefire attempt which was endorsed by groups representing the regime and opposition factions and which lasted around a month, the September truce lasted five days.

Although the ceasefire has failed, it is likely that attempts will be made to broker a new one along similar lines, despite the current war of words between USA and Russia. The USA, believing that IS poses a greater threat than the Syrian regime, and having misgivings about the main Islamist forces that are currently the strongest and most well-organised rebel components, and which would benefit most from Asad’s fall, will go along with a Russian initiative. The balance of power on the ground heavily favours Russia, and dissuades active interference by other foreign powers for fear of confrontation with Russia. Further, the Turkish incursion into Syria is also likely to lead to a weakening of support for opposition groups, especially in light of the recent Turkish-Russian and Turkish-Iranian rapprochements and the belief that Turkey is reassessing its position on Asad. Already, thousands of Turkey-backed fighters have withdrawn from east Aleppo to focus on consolidating Turkey’s control of its 900-square kilometre incursion, and to prepare for a push towards the IS-held town of Al-Bab. Talks on reviving the Geneva peace process will continue after the current US-Russian spat settles, mainly because international powers are unable and unwilling to conceive of new solutions. Thus, even though the twenty-three-member International Syria Support Group meeting, held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, collapsed on 22 September with accusations of partisanship and no new measures formulated, and although the USA, the UK and France have accusedUK and France have accused Russia of war crimes, little actual action is being proposed to make even a ceasefire more enforceable.

29 September 2016

Socialist Jeremy Corbyn Re-elected As UK Labour Leader In Massive Defeat Of Neoliberal Blairites

By Gideon Polya

The re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the British Labour Party with an overwhelming 62% support of Labour Party members is a victory for decency and sanity over the US lackey, pro-war, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-Apartheid, pro-Zionist and neoliberal Blairite pragmatists led by about 80% of the UK Labour Party MPs and who are traitors not just to the Labour Movement but to Humanity.

The Blairite Labour argument is that the socialist policies of Jeremy Corbyn will keep Labour out of power for a generation. The counter-argument is that it is better to have a sane and humane Labour Opposition than an unprincipled, dishonest, anything-goes, inhumane, pro-war, nuclear terrorist, pro-Apartheid, neoliberal, Tory-lite Labour Government.

In the wonderful words of the King James Bible (Matthew 16:26) : “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” [1].

As outlined below, from a national and international perspective, Jeremy Corbyn is a voice for humanity, sanity and equity in a neoliberalism-dominated world acutely threatened by nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty.

Socialism not deadly neoliberalism.
The greedy and inhumane ideology of neoliberalism – espoused by the anti-Corbyn, Blairite New Labour MPs – seeks to maximize the freedom of the smart and advantaged to exploit the human and natural resources of the world in order to maximize personal profit, compounding this with an utterly dishonest claim of “trickle down” benefits for the less smart and less advantaged. In contrast, social humanism (socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism, eco-socialism, the welfare state) – espoused by Jeremy Corbyn and the 62% of the British Labour Party membership that support him – involves sustainably maximizing human happiness, opportunity and dignity through evolving national and international social contracts for the betterment of all people and the irreplaceable Biosphere (biodiversity) on which they depend [2-4].

Neoliberalism kills and poverty kills – thus each year 17 million people die avoidably from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease in a Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust on Spaceship Earth with inhumane and remorselessly greedy, neoliberal, First World One Percenters in charge of the flight deck [5]. It has been estimated by DARA that 0.4 million people die from neoliberalism-driven climate change each year [6, 7], but it is clear that climate change impacts the horrendous Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust. Thus pollutants from carbon fuel burning kill 7 million people annually (WHO) and have killed 105 million people thus in the 15 years since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity in 2001 that killed 3,000 people – there have been 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US political terrorism deaths since the 9-11 atrocity (3,000 deaths) [8, 9].

However, even in the rich Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada, UK and the US where avoidable death (avoidable mortality, excess death, excess mortality) on a global comparative scale is almost zero, one can identify hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths annually from major killers such as such as adverse hospital outcomes, smoking, obesity, air pollution and alcohol down to relatively minor killers such as homicide and illicit drugs. Annual preventable deaths from such causes in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US total , 85,000, 101,000, 150,000 and 1.7 million, respectively [10-14]. Such preventable deaths in Australia, Canada, UK and the US have thus totalled 1.2 million, 1.5 million, 2.2 million, and 24 million, respectively, since the American (and Apartheid Israeli and Apartheid Saudi?) 9/11 false-flag atrocity in 2001 that killed about 3,000 people [9].

Climate change action not terracidal climate change inaction.
The worsening Climate Emergency, driven by neoliberal greed, is such that it is now extremely unlikely that the world will avoid a catastrophic plus 2 degrees Centigrade temperature rise, and the worst culprits in this catastrophe in terms of “per capita income weighted annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” include the rich Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada, UK and the US [15, 16]. Thus revised annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution for all countries in units of tonnes CO2-e per person per year is 366.7 for Belize (the world’s highest), 21.5 for the UK, 8.9 for the World, 7.4 for China and 2.1 for India [15]. In terms of “per capita income weighted annual per capita GHG pollution”, the score is 924.3 for Qatar (the world’s highest), 92.9 for the UK, 5.2 for China and 0.3 for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh [16]. Of course, the UK would have even greater score in this regard if it had not exported much of its GHG-polluting manufacturing to places like China. It is estimated that failure to address man-made climate change will wipe out much of the Biosphere and kill all but 0.5 billion people this century i.e. kill about 10 billion people this century [17]. Indeed Professor Lord Nicholas Stern has described climate change inaction as the greatest market failure in human history [18].

In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn released a “Protecting Our Planet Manifesto” detailing plans for a “Green Investment Bank” that would invest in renewable energy. Corbyn wants to ban “fracking” for natural gas, wants to phase out all fossil fuel extraction and wants to maximize clean and efficient public transport for energy efficiency and to improve air quality [19]. Urgent action is certainly needed along these lines because it is now likely that the lower limit (1.5C) of the 1.5C – 2C limit to global warming agreed to by all nations in Paris will be exceeded within a mere 4-10 years [20-22]. It has been recently expertly estimated that about 10,000 people die annually from air pollution in London [8].

Nuclear disarmament not nuclear terrorism.
A nuclear exchange would wipe out most of Humanity (current population about 7.4 billion) , successively through the initial instantaneous destruction of cities, subsequent deaths from burns and radiation sickness from radioactive fallout, and finally through a “Nuclear Winter” decimating agriculture, photosynthesis and photosynthate-based life in general. The upper estimates of stored nuclear weapons are as follows: US (7,315), Russia (8,000), Apartheid Israel (400), France (300), UK (250), China (250), Pakistan (120), India (100), and North Korea (less than 10) [23].

Jeremy Corbyn wants sanity i.e. nuclear disarmament and a nuclear weapons ban. In this he is supported by 127 sane countries who have signed up to a nuclear weapons ban pledge [23]. Does the UK really think it is threatened by invasion from Russia or China? Jeremy Corbyn voted against the renewal of the UK Trident nuclear submarine system. A possible outcome of Brexit is that the British Empire on which “the sun never set” may finally be reduced to a tiny rump of Wales and England, and making this tiny patch a nuclear target could well be seen as lunacy by even died in the wool British jingoists.

Peace and human rights, not war.
Jeremy Corbyn has a decent and long record of opposition to war in general and to recent US Alliance wars in particular. Unlike the Blairite Labor MPs, Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to the war criminal invasions of Iraq, Libya and Syria by the UK and the US Alliance, and to NATO and US warmongering in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe [19]. Corbyn is also opposed to UK ‘blood trade” linkage to the illegal and war criminal Saudi invasion of Yemen [19]. For his opposition to Israeli Apartheid and support for Palestinian human rights Jeremy Corbyn has been falsely vilified as an anti-Semite by the anti-Arab anti-Semitic racist Zionists and by the Zionist-perverted Tories and Tory-lite Blairites. Jeremy Corbyn’s pro-Apartheid Israel opponents are anti-Arab anti-Semitic through their support for the ongoing Palestinian Genocide and the US War on Muslims (32 million Muslim deaths from violence, 5 million, or from war- or hegemony-imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity) [24-29].

These anti-Arab anti-Semitic US Alliance latter-day Nazis are also anti-Jewish anti-Semitic for falsely conflating nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist-run, genocidally racist, democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel with all Jews (including anti-racist Jews) and for falsely defaming the many decent anti-racist Jewish people who oppose Israeli Apartheid, the ongoing Palestinian Genocide and the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide [24-29]. Jeremy Corbyn wants war criminal Tony Blair to be investigated for war crimes over the illegal UK invasion of Iraq that was associated with 1.5 million violent Iraqi deaths and 1.2 million Iraqi deaths from war-imposed deprivation [28].

Jeremy Corbyn is remarkable for a British politician in wanting a peaceful settlement of the Falkland Islands issue with Argentina, and wanting the return of the US- and UK-violated Chagossians to their former Indian Ocean paradise [19].

Equity and equal opportunity.
Jeremy Corbyn has espoused numerous pro-equity social and economic policies for the UK including re-nationalising of rail transport, a strengthening of trade union rights, support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and questioning (LGBTIQ) human rights, opposition to “austerity”, opposition to tax avoidance, free university education (20 countries around the world have free university education) [30] , and strengthening of the National Heath Service (150,000 British citizens have died preventably in the UK each year this century as successive Tory-lite Blairite New Labour and Tory Governments have spent billions of pounds on killing Muslims abroad rather than keeping British citizens alive at home) [12].

Concluding comments.

Decent pro-peace, pro-equity people around the world were delighted with the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the British Labour Party with an overwhelming 62% support of Labour Party members, a great victory for decency and sanity over the US lackey, pro-war, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-Apartheid, pro-Zionist, neoliberal Blairite pragmatists led by about 80% of the UK Labour Party MPs. Jeremy Corbyn’s social humanist policies are hardly radical . Thus, for example, Jeremy Corbyn’s policy of free university education is now a reality in 20 variously rich and poor countries around the world [30]. Jeremy Corbyn’s sane policy of nuclear disarmament is supported by 127 countries around the world [23].

Actually Jeremy Corbyn could go much further and indeed was rhetorically upstaged by his Blairite opponent, Owen Smith, who has advocated an extremely modest £3 billion (US$3.9 billion) annual “wealth tax” on the rich [31]. Professor Thomas Piketty in his seminal book “Capital in the Twenty-first Century” has cogently argued that the worsening huge disparity in wealth between the rich and poor is bad for the economy (the poor cannot afford to buy much of the goods and services they produce) and bad for democracy (Big Money owns Mainstream media, determines public perception of reality and hence buys votes and political power). Professor Piketty suggests an annual wealth tax of up to 10% to address this ever-growing and damaging inequity [32-35]. Indeed France has an annual wealth tax of up to 1.5% and Islam has had an annual wealth tax (zakkat) of 2.5% for 1,400 years [34].

According to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) “In July 2012 to June 2014: Aggregate total wealth of all private households in Great Britain was £11.1 trillion. The wealthiest 10% of households owned 45% of total aggregate household wealth. The least wealthy half of households owned 9% of total aggregate household wealth. Private pension wealth was the largest component of aggregate total wealth. Half of all households had total wealth of £225,100 or more. Households in the South East had the highest median wealth (£342,400)”. A French-style 1.5% annual tax applied to the top 10% would collect 0.015 x 0.45 x £11,100 billion = £75 billion = US$97.5 billion each year i.e. 25 times more than the measly US$3.9 billion per annum proposed by Corbyn’s opponent, Blairite but self-asserted “socialist” Owen Smith.

Of course an effective annual wealth tax is predicated on what Professor Piketty calls “a genuine world register of assets” [37]. Thus in relation to the huge wealth disparity in post-Apartheid South Africa, Professor Piketty has written: “Some also envision the establishment of a progressive tax on capital, to gradually redistribute economic power. Such a plan was on the table between 1994 and 1999 before finally being abandoned by the ANC. According to former president Thabo Mbeki, the police and army, then still led by whites, wouldn’t have allowed it” [37]. One supposes that the violent, manipulative, Mainstream media-owning, genocidally racist, and war criminal British Establishment – Britain has invaded nearly every country on earth and is still at it [38] – wouldn’t allow it either.

A corollary to an effective social humanist agenda for Jeremy Corbyn and his Corbynistas is a socialist Labour newspaper free of the One Percenter Big Money pressures that have turned the UK into a Plutocracy, Kleptocracy, Murdochracy, Lobbyocracy, Corporatocracy and Dollarocracy in which Big Money purchases people, politicians, parties, public perception of reality, political power and thence more private profit [40- 43]. In Chapter 25 of Voltaire’s novel “Candide”, entitled “Visit to Lord Pococurante, Venetian nobleman” we find : “Martin noticed some shelves laden with English books. “I trust”, he said, “that a republican must take pleasure in the majority of those books written with so much freedom”. “Yes”, replied Pococurante, “it’s a fine thing to write what one thinks; it’s the privilege of man. In all Italy people write only what they don’t think; those who inhabit the native land of the Caesars and the Antonines don’t care to have an idea without permission of a Dominican. I would be happy with the freedom that inspires the English geniuses if party feeling and party spirit didn’t corrupt everything estimable in that precious freedom” [44].

References

[1]. Matthew 16: 26, King James Bible.

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Canadian academic: “F— neoliberalism””, MWC News, 14 May 2016: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/58847-f-neoliberalism.html .

[3]. Brian Ellis, “Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics” , Routledge , UK , 2012.

[4]. Gideon Polya, “Book Review: “Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics” By Brian Ellis – Last Chance To Save Planet?”, Countercurrents, 19 August, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190812.htm .

[5]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes succinct histories of all countries from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the Web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/ .

[6]. DARA, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor. A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet”, 2012, Executive Summary pp2-3: http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/ .

[7]. DARA report quoted by Reuters, ”100 mln to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate”, 28 September 2012: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/climate-inaction-idINDEE88P05P20120926 .

[8]. “Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths .

[9]. “Carbon terrorism: 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US political terrorism deaths since 9-11 (2001-2015)”, State crime and non-state terrorism: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/carbon-terrorism .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “Australian State Terrorism – Zero Australian Terrorism Deaths, 1 Million Preventable Australian Deaths & 10 Million Muslims Killed By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 23 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230914.htm .

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Zionist, Pro-war, Pro-Opium, War Criminal Canadian Government Defames Iran & Cuts Diplomatic Links”, Countercurrents, 10 September, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya100912.htm .

[12]. Gideon Polya, “UK Terror Hysteria exposed – Empirical Annual Probability of UK Terrorism Death 1 in 16 million”, Countercurrents, 16 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160914.htm .

[13]. Gideon Polya, “West Ignores 11 Million Muslim War Deaths & 23 Million Preventable American Deaths Since US Government’s False-flag 9-11 Atrocity”, Countercurrents, 9 September, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya090915.htm

[14]. Gideon Polya, “Corporate terrorism is state sanctioned, kills over 30 million people annually and dooms humanity by lying”, State crime and non-state terrorism: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/corporate-terrorism .

[15]. Gideon Polya, “ Revised Annual Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Pollution For All Countries – What Is Your Country Doing?”, Countercurrents, 6 January, 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya060116.htm .

[16]. Gideon Polya, “Exposing And Thence Punishing Worst Polluter Nations Via Weighted Annual Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Pollution Scores”, Countercurrents, 19 March, 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190316.htm

[17]. “Climate Genocide”: ”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

[18]. Sir Nicholas Stern, quoted in “Climate change: “the greatest market failure the word has seen””, New Economist, 30 October 2006: http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/10/stern_review_2.html .

[19]. “Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn .

[20]. Laurie Goering, “Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade: scientists”, Reuters Global Energy News, 22 September 2016: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idUSKCN11S1FE .

[21]. “Fossil fuel reserves would crush climate goals”, Phys.org, 22 September 2016 : http://phys.org/news/2016-09-fossil-fuel-reserves-climate-goals.html .

[22]. Liam Wagner, Ian Ross, John Foster and Ben Hankamer, “Trading off global fuel supply, CO2 emissions and sustainable development”, Plos, 9 March 2016: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406 .

[23]. “Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty & reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/nuclear-weapons-ban .

[24]. Gideon Polya, “Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm.

[25]. Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[26]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[27]. “Palestinian Genocide” : http://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

[28]. Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”: http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .

[29]. “Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: http://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[30]. “Free university education”: https://sites.google.com/site/freeuniversityeducation/home .

[31]. Michael Settle, “Smith promises “socialist revolution” as he denounces Corbyn for his weak leadership”, Herald Scotland, 28 July 2016: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14646290.
Smith_promises__quot_socialist_revolution_quot__as_
he_denounces_Corbyn_for_his_weak_leadership/ .

[32]. Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”, Harvard, 2014).

[33]. Gideon Polya, “Key Book Review: “Capital In The Twenty-First Century” By Thomas Piketty”, Countercurrents, 01 July, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htm .

[34]. “1% ON 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .

[35]. Gideon Polya, “4 % Annual Global Wealth Tax To Stop The 17 Million Deaths Annually”, Countercurrents, 27 June, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270614.htm .

[36]. UK Office for National Statistics, “Chapter 2. Total wealth. Wealth in Great Britain, 2012 to 2014”, “Wealth in Great Britain Wave 4, 2012 to 2014” : http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/was/wealth-in-great-britain-wave-4/2012-2014/rpt-chapter-2.html .

[37]. Thomas Piketty, “Capital in South Africa”, October 5 , 2015, pages 168-170, in Thomas Piketty, “Chronicles On Our Troubled Times”, Viking, 2016.

[38]. Gideon Polya, “British Have Invaded 193 Countries: Make 26 January ( Australia Day, Invasion Day) British Invasion Day”, Countercurrents, 23 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230115.htm .

[39]. “Stop state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

[40]. Gideon Polya (2008), “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2008 edition that is now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ .

[41]. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, “Manufacturing Consent”, Pantheon, 1998, 2002.

[42]. “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/home .

[43]. “Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home .

[44]. Voltaire, “Candide”.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australian-complicity-in-iraq-mass-mortality/3369002#transcript

) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/listen-the-bengal-famine ; Gideon Polya: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home ; Gideon Polya Writing: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/ ; Gideon Polya, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Polya ) . When words fail one can say it in pictures – for images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ .

29 September 2016