Archives: Articles

By rt.com

CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour, who challenged the Russian foreign minister with a photo of ‘Aleppo boy’, should go and ask the child and his family for the real story behind the iconic picture, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Omran Daqneesh was filmed by the controversial White Helmets group last year. The image of him covered in blood and dust sitting in an orange ambulance chair in the aftermath of an airstrike quickly went viral.

The Western mainstream media touted the boy as the face of civilian suffering in Aleppo, which at the time was divided between pro-government and rebel forces and suffered under intensive fighting.

Amanpour used the picture of Daqneesh in her October interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to question Russia’s support of Damascus in the Syrian conflict.

“What do you say to the civilians, who are simply asking for the right to not be bombed?” she asked after showing the photo. “That is a war crime, sir.”

Daqneesh resurfaced in world media this month after his family agreed to talk to some journalists, including RT’s Ruptly news agency. His father Mohammad Kheir Daqneesh accused the White Helmets of using his family to produce propaganda.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova challenged Amanpour to properly follow up on the story she once put forth.

“She may have enough courage, journalistic professional ethics and simple human conscience to finish it. To go to Aleppo, to go to Syria, find the family of that boy and do a really honest interview with him, not a staged one, which CNN is so capable of,” Zakharova said.

“You may ask some possibly difficult questions and produce a true report about this boy. About how the US media have been spinning his photo and his story and for years the fate of Syria as well,” she added.

Zakharova added that the mainstream media, including the CNN, “have been caught red-handed” with their use of the “Aleppo boy” image, and should take responsibility for it.

RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan offered help in organizing an interview.

“We could take Christiane Amanpour and anyone wishing to come with us next time. As long as they have the courage to talk to this boy Omran and his family,” she said.

8 June 2017

By Mohammad Javad Zarif

‘Much is being articulated today about the formidable challenge presented to the global community by terrorism and extremism, and on the approaches to combat and contain—and hopefully eradicate— them. Regardless of where each state stands on these twin challenges, and whatever the quintessence of the official policy of this or that country, the international community in its entirety shares the common conviction that these problems need to be addressed urgently. The global community must be rid of them as effectively as possible, and I doubt the exigency of the challenging task before us all is in any question.

The twin problems of terrorism and extremism, far beyond the never-ending polemics among politicians, stand out as the natural outcome of intrinsic failings in the current (and recent) international situation. They are neither confined to any part of the world, are exclusive to one religion, nor can they be combated on a regional basis and then only through heavy reliance on military hardware. After a decade-and-a-half of wholesale failure in combating post-9/11 terrorism, ugly realities on the ground push us to look at these challenges with open eyes—without illusions or indeed self-delusion. It should have become all too clear by now that a successful, effective fight against these two cancerous phenomena calls for a comprehensive approach and a multi-pronged strategy which depends, first and foremost, on a sober understanding and recognition of their enabling social, cultural, economic and global conditions.

Containing – and the ultimate physical elimination – of extremist terrorist organizations on the ground is certainly required, but only as a necessary first step and only as a component of a much larger effort. Problems of a global nature with deep-seated roots call for the requisite proper understanding and genuine global cooperation in confronting them.

Misperceptions, misrepresentations, and misplaced finger-pointing abound; and to get to the real enabling social and global conditions, the erroneous assumptions must be debunked. The dominant and official spin on terrorism and extremism, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, appears to be generally tailor-made for domestic consumption, or as the rationale for certain policy lines and actions. This being the case, it isn’t surprising to hear the national security advisor of a major regional state, for example, say, “extremists and the Syrian forces will destroy each other on the battlefields of Syria.” That line of thinking and policy explains to some extent how and why the situation has reached the current impasse. Myopic views of a complex situation, let alone the pursuit of shortsighted self-serving policies, are bound to fail. And of course, they have, as everyone can see, and not only in Syria.

There is a second myth to debunk. It is easy for us in West Asia to blame the West as the ultimate culprit in our problems. There is no shortage of history here. The long shadows and painful memories and enduring, yet divisive, heritage of the ‘lines drawn in the sand’ during and after the First World War, still reverberate and haunt many states and communities in West Asia. Simultaneously, it has been even more convenient for the West to blame us – Muslims in the West Asia region – irrespective of our divergence, disagreements and even disputes and conflicts. Finger-pointing in both directions, and within the region, is perhaps the easiest diversion for everybody. But this is neither accurate nor helpful, as our world has become far more complicated than ever before.

The third myth to debunk concerns the presumed direct relationship between dictatorship and extremism, and the oft-repeated axiomatic assertion that democracies do not fight each other. While there is some truth to it, the actual situation we face today is more complex than the statement would indicate, and defies convenient explanations. When one witnesses Western-born and -educated individuals, raised in democratic, affluent Western societies and who speak French or English as their mother tongues, yet brandish the beheading of innocent human beings in Syria and Iraq on television screens and in cyberspace, then one cannot seek refuge in depicting simplistic scenarios and engage in politically-correct blame games. Children raised in democratic environments are killing their neighbors, as well as each other. It is simply unconvincing to blame such bloody atrocities on a certain faith, or solely on the educational or even political system in any West Asian society.

Global, internal and regional enabling conditions

The situation we find ourselves in, as ugly as it is, is too serious for a game of blaming each other. The fact is that while we can recognize there is a lot of blame to go around, we need to break the habit of always throwing the ball into another side’s court. If we’re willing to engage in honest soul-searching, it will start with raising simple but serious questions, such as: what is it that creates an extremist out of a youngster born and raised in France, or for that matter, in other European or North American societies? Even as much as a similar youngster born and raised in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere in our region? We all must start by looking at extremism as a common predicament and a common problem, not one confined to a certain region, race, religion, or sect.

Lack of hope

Looking at some of the enabling conditions, hope, or actually the lack of hope – is central to the equation. And this is precisely where the hard facts puncture the monolithic presumptions relegating the problem at hand to a region and society, developed or developing, Western or Eastern, Muslim or otherwise. It is now a widely-established fact—and not merely theoretical speculation or even academic analysis—that a common thread that binds all those engaged in extremist violence is that they feel, and regard themselves, as marginalized in their respective societies—even globally. They believe that they have no hope for a better future, they see no actual and feasible possibility for productive self-fulfillment in an enabling and humanely conducive social environment – whether in Western societies which are becoming more and more introverted and xenophobic, or in the region in the grip of underdevelopment and without meaningful possibilities for representative government. The wave of nationalistic sentiments expressed at the ballot box in recent years, from Europe and crossing the Atlantic, might, unfortunately, only be more fodder for the hopelessness described. But in the region, even if one admits that significant differences exist among various states on practical approaches to elections as a form of popular representation, it can be readily agreed that in very few countries in West Asia are there possibilities for the populace to vent their frustration through the ballot box, a box or even concept which simply does not exist in many other countries in the region.

Marginalization, disenfranchisement, disrespect

While in Western countries, the ballot box generally functions well, the problem lies in another dangerously exacerbating trend: when significant parts of the institutionally-marginalized population find themselves at the losing end of the economic bargain, and worse still, see their beliefs, their values, and their sanctities targeted on a regular basis, we shouldn’t be too surprised that some of them, no matter how tiny a minority, will turn to something other than peaceful protest. As a European politician once publicly stated, “In the West, if you attack blacks, you’re a racist; if you attack Jews, you’re an anti-Semite; but if you attack Muslims, then you are exercising your freedom of expression”. It is ironic, but a candid reflection on a real and yet problematic condition: the direct assault on the existence and identity of the targeted population or community. It is thus bound to create resentment and anger that has nothing to do with any belief system.

The existing and rich literature in the field of social analysis, along with the well-researched findings of numerous case studies in various societies—including in the specific case of social unrest in France a few years back—gives us a disquieting picture of the reality of marginalization and socio-cultural and political alienation. Our task therefore is to win what is a race between desperation and the rekindling of hope.

Delving deeper, though, we are reminded that quite a fuzzy set of factors are at play. Some of the people who have committed some of the worst acts of barbarism in the name of Islam have not even been practicing Muslims. It is curious that the person who walked into the kosher grocery in Paris and began randomly shooting people was accompanied by his girlfriend – not exactly a relationship that a practicing, let alone fanatic, Muslim would be engaged in. The Nice attack in France—running over men, women, and children with a truck—was perpetuated by someone who was known to frequent bars. Drinking alcohol is also not compatible, as most people know, with the practice of the faith. So, what we are faced with is a socio-cultural problem, and not solely a religious phenomenon: a social phenomenon caused by a deeply-felt state of deprivation, alienation, and marginalization in an otherwise affluent and developed environment, one that practically denies security, respect, engagement, and hope for disenfranchised individuals, groups and communities. The relevance of the question of identity – and the ugly unacceptable consequences when and where it is bruised – can hardly be over-emphasized. This is one enabling condition that needs to be tackled and remedied.

Intervention and hegemonic tendencies

Another issue to examine is the endemic and age-old problem of foreign invasion and occupation, and what it has brought in its wake. The almost seventy-year state of occupation in Palestine is the most pressing. This has been further compounded by the systematic political and military interventions by the United States to preserve, perpetuate, and create its desired regional configuration and architecture and a “new world order”. When President George H.W. Bush proclaimed the emergence of a “new world order” in his address to the UN General Assembly, it was premised on the illusion that the United States had won the Cold War, wheras in fact the Soviet Union collapsed largely due to its own internal rot. In a non-zero-sum world, the West hadn’t won the Cold War; the Soviets had simply lost it. But the illusion created a mentality and subsequent momentum to try to institutionalize the perceived conquest through repeated military engagements – which occurred almost once a year under both Presidents Bush (senior) and President Clinton, and not merely under George W. Bush. Some may have forgotten the almost annual and major operations in Iraq in the 90s, the invasion of Somalia, the attack against Libya, Kosovo, and elsewhere in Europe during the first post-Cold War decade; all of which reflected the U.S. wish to use its superior military force to institutionalize its temporary supremacy in the shaken global order.

That pattern of active U.S. resort to military force reached a new climax with the 2001 ascendance of the neocons in Washington. The tragedy of 9/11 precipitated the full-scale invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and then subsequently the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Incidentally, these two American military adventures destroyed two of Iran’s mortal enemies –the Taliban in the east and the Ba’athist regime in the west. But for us, judging them from a longer term and region-wide perspective, those interventions have always been deemed as costly and disastrous political gambles that will inevitably result in instability that threatens all legitimate actors in the region. In February 2003, shortly before the US invasion of Iraq, and while serving as Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, I stated before the Security Council: “Given the state of Iraqi society and the whole region, there are so many wild cards, and no party could fit them beforehand into its calculations with any degree of certainty. But one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq.” That conviction was widely shared by my colleagues from the region, even though few were willing to say it publicly. It didn’t take a genius to reason as such. It only reflected a simple calculus of basic facts of action-and-reaction in our region.

It is now abundantly clear that those two failed gambles lie at the very root of the ongoing tragic situations we witness today in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, is it more secure today than in 2001? Aside from the satisfaction in seeing the Taliban defeated, the fact remains that the injured psyche of the Afghan people and a consequent deep sense of resentment continue to bedevil war-ravaged Afghan society. The continued state of insecurity and internal strife, further compounded, among others, by a lack of serious investment in the Afghan economy, have led to the burgeoning drug economy. The net result of foreign invasion has been a continuation of rampant violence and unchecked terrorist activity, along with an unrivaled drug trade, providing much of the world’s heroin, that we in Iran must confront.

The military adventure in Iraq has given rise to the chain of events and the intractable situation now gripping our neighborhood: the emergence and onslaught of terror groups such as Daesh and the Al-Nusrah Front; and a cycle of totally unprecedented ruthless, barbaric violence. Numerous examples of suicide terror acts in recent years, including by recruits as young as 14, point to the deep-seated anger among the populace subjugated to contemptuous foreign occupation. It is not just a matter of ideological indoctrination and brainwashing of an isolated bunch of fanatics. It is well-organized, well-financed campaign, using state-of-the-art communications systems and advanced brainwashing techniques in order to recruit and train hordes of enthusiastic suicide bombers. The so-called ‘appeal of terrorist groups’ is indeed confounding and mind boggling; it defies our shared understanding of the modern world. Many analysts have written on the deep-seated sense of powerlessness and resentment caused first by the still unsettled Palestinian question and in more recent times by the violent occupation of other Arab and Muslim territories. So, all of us have come to reap what others have sown in these lands, which has been suffering the long-term consequences of those ‘lines drawn in the sand’ a century ago.

It is important to draw an even wider conclusion from the ill-fated military adventures in our region. Most simply put, the age of hegemony is long past its sell-by date. The global developments in the post-Cold War era, particularly the multiplicity of actors on the global scene, have made it impossible for any single global power, however disproportionately advantaged in its military, economic and ideational might, to act as a hegemon. The mere fact that non-state actors have become significant and determining security actors is one reason contributing to the demise of hegemony. Such tendencies between 1990 and 2005 have cost trillions of dollars for American taxpayers, and much grief, misery and loss of human life for all. They continue to take a heavy toll in our region and beyond in the form of extremist violence. It is hoped that misplaced nationalism will not attempt to resuscitate such disastrous tendencies, however appealing their simplified populist reverberations may have been to an electorate or not. It must be recognized and appreciated by all regional actors that the same applies to regional hegemonic tendencies. This is particularly the case in West Asia, which is already paying a heavy toll because of global hegemonic aspirations. It is expected that other regional powers join Iran in accepting this fundamental characteristic of our times.

Internal ingredients

To understand what has been happening on the ground in the societies in the grip of strife and violence, it is certainly misleading to only focus on external factors or rely on conspiracy theories. The concrete – and plainly observable – facts all around should be enough: developing societies ripped apart by invasion and occupation, stymied development processes, rampant and worsening poverty with all of its negative consequences for the social fabric, including widespread unemployment and bleak prospects for a reasonable healthy future, all point to the unhealthy social environment which serves as the conducive breeding ground for all kinds of social ills – and self-feeding, spiraling political violence.

Failure of the state

The most significant internal component of the complex mosaic before us is the failure of the state system to respond to the fundamental demand of a populace for dignity. The fact remains that some of the worst suicide bombers have come from the most affluent societies in West Asia, and some from quite well-to-do families. The full story of the 9/11 perpetrators is common knowledge; 15 out of 19 came from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the UAE, and only one from Egypt and Lebanon. So, poverty and deprivation do not appear to explain everything. The question then becomes why it is that people coming from an affluent background turn to the type of ‘irrational’ behavior befitting ‘desperados’. For analysts trying to explain the unprecedented surge of seemingly senseless violence in our part of the world, the primary local reason lies in the historical failure of the state system to address – and effectively respond to – the fundamental aspirations of its people.

The inherent logic of the revolt of the disenfranchised masses against unaccountable and generally dysfunctional state apparatuses in West Asia is not difficult to fathom; a revolt against the entire state system and its inability to address the basic needs and aspirations of the populace. It can certainly be understood – and analyzed – in terms of the Islamic World’s frustrating inability to resolve the Palestinian situation, but it is not merely limited to it. Much could be said and written about the institutional faults and shortcomings in these societies accounting for the current predicament but that’s not the issue here, except insofar as it bears on the twin problems of extremism and terrorism.

Diversion tactics

The frustration of the youth that is being masterfully manipulated by extremist demagogues and their financiers to vent – albeit temporarily – through senseless and barbaric violence against innocents, is ultimately directed against the very foundations of the states in the region. Therefore, it is dangerously misleading to try to defuse this existential internal threat through diverting the anger towards fabricated external enemies. As alluded to earlier, some governments in the region have instigated, armed and financed extremist groups, such as Daesh and Al-Nusrah, utilizing them in proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. While this delusional naivete has caused hundreds of thousands of fatalities, it has not, and will not, lead to the “desired” outcome of “Syrians and extremists killing each other off in the battlefields of Syria.” Rather, monsters have been created who not only are not exterminated through bloodshed, but in fact broadcast pictures of their brutality to attract new recruits. And the focus of their real anger has already re-emerged to bite the hands that fed and nourished them.

Ideology of exclusion

Beyond the failed, unresponsive and unaccountable state apparatus, and the attempt to divert its focus, there exists also a pseudo-ideological component based on division, hatred, and denunciation and rejection of “the other”. This ideology has nothing to do with the genuine, original message of Islam – as reflected in the Book and in the Prophet’s tradition. But regrettably within the Muslim community there exists an ideology based on the notion of “Takfir”, or rejection-contrary to the very fundamental Qur’anic teaching. Takfiri groups including Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Daesh, Al-Nusrah and a host of other smaller new variants, have been fully and lavishly financed by easily traceable petrodollars. This has been undertaken and pursued through a worldwide network of mosques and religious schools, both in Muslim societies as well as elsewhere. Such massive propagation of hatred has been sold globally, and particularly to the U.S. and its allies, for nearly four decades as a “moderate” Islam to confront a “radical” Iran. As such, it has not only been tolerated by the United States and its western allies, but even promoted and protected.

But the Takfiri perversion of Islam metastasized in West Asia and beyond as a result of the deepening popular resentment emanating from the protracted U.S. adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with wide-spread frustration with the domestic social, economic and political deadlock. Along the process, demagogues turned this perverted misreading of Islam into a well-organized collectivity of disparate groups and forces – some with significant military capability, also drawing on the remnants of the Ba’athists in Iraq – and expansive outreach networks finding recruits from the marginalized Muslim minorities in the West. The self-perpetuating pattern of an action-reaction cycle has brought the sense of immediate and imminent threat to the very door of the advanced, democratic societies presumed to be immune to such phenomena. That’s why – and how – the festering problem considered germane to a certain area, locality, and culture, has forced itself on the international community as a source of practically omnipresent active threat, spanning from East Asia all the way through West Asia, North Africa, Europe, and even North America.

The regional factor

There is obviously a regional component to the current extremist violence, particularly in Iraq and Syria. The fall of Saddam Hussein and the emergence of a popularly elected government in Iraq produced anxieties in some regional countries regarding a disequilibrium in West Asia in favor of Iran that needed to be reversed at all cost, at least as they saw it. The Iraqi Al-Qaeda, led by Zarqawi, in an arranged marriage of convenience with the remnants of Ba’athist generals, led by Ezzat Ebrahim al-Douri, ensured instability and violence in post-Saddam Iraq, and later emerged as Daesh and other similar groups. Regional backing—by purported allies of the west—for forces such as these cannot be ignored. The anxiety was further exacerbated into a panic after the fall of certain “friendly” governments in North Africa and an uprising in Yemen.

What has ensued went beyond Iraq and brought misery and bloodshed to Bahrain, Syria and Yemen and is poised to engulf Afghanistan and Central Asia. The chain of action-and-reaction, combined with other events and certain statements – regardless of the initiators or the culprits –has benefited extremist terrorists, and presents a danger of escalation and conflict.

The very existence of the threat and its seemingly die-hard nature, as the situation in Iraq and Syria amply manifest, has led to a growing collective awareness across the globe, although to varying degrees, as well as an increasing level of international political consensus on the urgent need to confront the phenomenon and the threat head-on. Iran, itself a victim of terrorism since the early days of the Revolution, believes in the imperative of decisive, comprehensive and collective regional and international response to this menace and its underlying enabling conditions. The initiatives of “Dialogue among Civilizations”, proposed by Iran in 1998 (well before 9/11 and before any notion of a “clash of civilizations” took hold among the general public), and “World Against Violence and Extremism” (WAVE) proposed by President Rouhani in 2013, and both endorsed by the UN General Assembly, accurately diagnose the enabling social, cultural and global conditions that have given rise to the formation and spread of extremist violence. Success depends on engagement of all actors, at both regional and international levels.

As for the regional component, Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Iran in September 1980 and the costly 8-year-long conflict that ensued has taught everyone in the Persian Gulf region the enduring lesson that they shall not be allowed to descend into another military conflict. Iran had hoped, seemingly in vain, that its neighbors would have learned from the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war that the monster they created to destroy a manufactured enemy ended up as their own nightmare. The war also underlined the imperative of regional security arrangements and mechanisms, which was enshrined in paragraph 8 of UN Security Council resolution 598 which brought the Iran-Iraq war to an end. That provision continues to be relevant for promoting regional security cooperation.

While such forces as Daesh and its offshoots must be effectively debilitated and defeated, meaningful restoration of peace and stability to West Asian, and particularly the Persian Gulf region, hinges on the promotion of a set of common principles of mutual understanding and collective regional security cooperation.

History – and the concrete examples in other regions, most notably in Europe and Southeast Asia – tells us that the countries in the region need to surmount the current state of division and tension and instead move in the direction of erecting a working and yet modest and realistic regional mechanism; one that can start with a regional dialogue forum. Such a forum should be based on generally recognized principles and shared objectives, notably, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of all states; the inviolability of international boundaries; non-interference in internal affairs of others; the peaceful settlement of disputes; the impermissibility of threats or use of force, and the promotion of peace, stability, progress and prosperity in the region. A forum such as this could help promote understanding and interaction at the levels of government, the private sector and civil society, and lead to agreement on a broad spectrum of issues, including confidence- and security-building measures; combating terrorism, extremism and sectarianism; ensuring freedom of navigation and the free flow of oil and other resources; and the protection of the environment.

Such a regional dialogue forum could eventually develop more formal nonaggression and security cooperation arrangements. While this dialogue must be kept to relevant regional stakeholders, existing institutional frameworks for dialogue, and especially the United Nations, must be utilized. A regional role for the United Nations, already envisaged in Security Council resolution 598, would help alleviate concerns and anxieties, particularly of smaller countries, provide the international community with assurances and mechanisms for safeguarding its legitimate interests, and link any regional dialogue with issues that inherently go beyond the boundaries of the region.

Cognitive adjustment

Delving into the fundamentals of various actual situations in the West Asia region – whether for example in Syria or in Yemen – including why and how each situation has evolved as it has, is outside the realm of this essay. However, it shouldn’t be difficult to fathom the reasons, factors, and policies that have contributed to the development and emergence of these tragic situations. As an American politician once said, “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Facts are indisputable in this equation, and it is time for all to agree on the facts before attempting to tackle the problem.

With the benefit of hindsight and looking at the larger global situation, it is necessary to fully recognize the dichotomy between two opposing outlooks in approaching regional and international crises: a zero-sum mentality versus a non-zero-sum approach. In a globalized world, where everything from environment to security, has been globalized, it is virtually impossible to gain at the expense of others. Zero-sum approaches lead to negative-sum outcomes. Put in very simple terms, the stark choice is between a “lose-lose” scenario as opposed to a “win-win” solution. There is no middle ground.

Consequently, conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain do not have a military solution. I cannot emphasize that more strongly. They require a political solution, based on a positive-sum approach, where no genuine actor – naturally apart from those who lead extremist violence—is excluded from the process or marginalized in the outcome. Alas, this dictum is easier said than actually practiced, or even believed. One might, however, seek refuge in the wisdom of the dictum, “where there is a will, there is a way.” The recent positive development in Lebanon in electing a new president, following two long years of bitter politicking, and in OPEC where all parties set aside their differences to reach a mutually beneficial resolution—or more accurately avoid a generally disastrous outcome—reflect a simple but important political lesson: the parties concerned gave up their maximalist – zero-sum – expectations in favor of a working compromise. Looking at other situations, particularly Syria and Yemen, one can take a cue from the Lebanese and hope that a political process of sorts – that is, a process of give and take and a process requiring compromise and inclusion—might be relied upon in bringing the current unspeakable carnage to an end. And the sooner the better.

Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in each crisis, there are always possibilities for exploring and eventually arriving at an outcome that is acceptable to all concerned. Or, more bluntly, there is always a way of “getting to yes”: but to do so, the definition of the problem needs to be re-examined. Once a problem is defined in a non-zero-sum way, the most important step has been taken toward resolving it. The challenge is first and foremost cognitive in nature and essence. Once actors are prepared to set aside their predispositions and think differently, policies and actions will follow.

Mohammad Javad Zarif Khonsari is an Iranian career diplomat, academic and current Minister of Foreign Affairs.

30 December 2016

By Ron Forthofer

This column is about events so counterintuitive that Hollywood would reject the plot as being too unbelievable. Fifty years ago on June 8th, another nation intentionally attacked a U.S. Navy ship in international waters, and the U.S. didn’t respond.

The attack

The lightly-armed intelligence-gathering U.S. ship was under close observation for at least six hours before an air attack began around 2 pm. The ship was flying a five-by-eight-foot American flag for most of that time. The flag continued to be flown until being shot down and then replaced with an even larger flag.

The attacking jets used cannons, rockets and napalm against this basically defenseless ship. The attack, consisting of about thirty air sorties over a twenty-five minute period, killed and wounded a number of the crew, caused raging fires, and knocked out the defensive gun mounts and most of the ship’s communication equipment. The attackers also jammed the ship’s radios on both the U.S. Navy’s tactical and the international maritime distress frequencies. However, due to the actions of a brave radio operator, the ship was able to send a distress call to the U.S. Sixth Fleet over 400 miles away.

After the air attack ended, three torpedo boats appeared and came in for the kill. They opened fire with 20 and 40-mm guns and torpedoes. One torpedo hit just below the waterline and opened up a 39-foot-wide hole in the U.S. Navy ship, now basically dead in the water. The torpedo boats continued to fire armor-piercing projectiles into the ship for forty minutes.

Three lifeboats that were still usable were secured and dropped over the ship’s side. The attackers shot up two of the lifeboats and carried the third lifeboat away. Shortly afterward, more jet fighters and two assault helicopters carrying armed troops appeared. However, before the final assault, these aircraft suddenly departed.

The attackers killed thirty-four Americans and wounded over 170 out of 294 crewmembers.

The appalling betrayal and cover up

Before the torpedo boats attacked, four U.S. jets were launched to help the U.S. ship. However, they were soon recalled on order of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. The reason given for the recall was that these planes were carrying nuclear weapons. About 95 minutes later, another wave of U.S. planes was launched, but it was subsequently recalled on order of the U.S. president. The U.S. ship did not receive any aid from the Navy until around dawn the next day when two U.S. destroyers finally arrived.

The Navy ordered the sailors not to discuss the attack with anyone, and split up and reassigned the crew. While the ship was limping to a dry dock in Malta, the Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry. Strangely, the Court’s mission was not to investigate the attack, but to determine whether any shortcomings of the crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack. What!? The Court had one week to report which led to what Rear Admiral Merlin Sterling, the Navy’s former judge advocate general, later described as a “hasty, superficial, incomplete and totally inadequate inquiry.”

Defying the cover up

In June 1982, the ship’s crewmembers reunited for the first time and formed an association with, among others, the goal of obtaining a Congressional investigation of the attack and of bringing the true story to the American people.

As a result of efforts of an association member and of a local activist, Boulder Mayor Linda Jourgensen declared June 8, 1987 to be a day to memorialize the ship and the 34 crew members who were killed in the attack. In 1988, Colorado Governor Roy Romer issued a similar proclamation for June 8, 1988. A few other cities and states have also recognized the ship and her crew. However Congress has yet to thoroughly investigate the attack.

Identities

The ship was the USS Liberty, Israel was the attacker, Lyndon Johnson was the President and the Defense Secretary was Robert McNamara. This murderous Israeli attack and reprehensible cover up demonstrated to Israel that it could literally get away with murder, a terrible situation for the Middle East and U.S. policy independence.

Israeli apologists claim that this was a case of mistaken identity, but that claim is debunked in, for example, http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html and https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/04/still-waiting-for-uss-libertys-truth/.

Remember the USS Liberty! Spread the word about this heroic crew, the despicable attack and the shameful cover up.

Ron Forthofer, Ph.D. is a retired Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas; former Green Party candidate for Congress and for Governor of Colorado

7 June 2017

By Megan Cornish

Most working people think of the buck as the way they pay their bills. But its use goes far beyond the USA’s borders. The greenback is the major world currency for trade and finance. This international role bestows vast power on the U.S. government and the rich. But its status doesn’t help ordinary people much.

Fundamentally, the exchange of commodities and investments under global capitalism requires generally accepted forms of money to buy and sell them with. And the notes issued by the largest and richest economies tend to be employed the most. Today, the dollar is the most widely used, followed by the euro, the British pound, the Japanese yen, and since 2015, the Chinese yuan.

These world currencies have many uses. Besides international trade in commodities, there is foreign exchange, which is the buying and selling of the legal tender of different countries. Governments must hold foreign currency reserves to back up their money in case of economic crises, especially massive speculation in their own notes that can cause their value to collapse. In weaker and smaller economies, many everyday transactions take place in dollars or other international bills rather than the official local money. Some countries, like Panama, don’t have their own currency, and instead use the dollar.

How the greenback became king

Dollars backed by the government began (except for a brief unsuccessful run during the Civil War) with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Government-backed notes allowed the USA to compete with Britain and its pound for economic dominance. In World War I, and later World War II, U.S. businesses profited mightily from supplying the combatants, and the country became the center of global finance. In 1944, representatives from over 40 countries met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and signed an agreement that the dollar would be the world currency, convertible to gold by central banks at fixed exchange rates.

That arrangement lasted until 1971, when massive deficit spending on the war in Vietnam inflated the greenback and caused other countries to demand its exchange for gold. President Nixon ended this international convertibility, effectively devaluing the dollar.

The other result was that all currencies floated in value relative to each other, and there was no longer one official world paper money. The chaotic capitalist market prevailed, and a whole new arena of finance flourished — currency speculation.

But since the U.S. economy still dominated world finance and trade, the buck retained much of its international financial role. For instance, at the end of 2016, almost 64 percent of known foreign exchange reserves were held in dollars. They still predominate — so far — because of the size and relative strength of the economy of the USA and the dominance of its financial markets.

Who does a strong buck benefit?

To listen to the financial press,workers and business have the same interests. When governments, institutions and rich individuals are buying U.S. securities, stocks and real estate, interest rates tend to stay low and Wall Street booms. But that mainly benefits the rich who live off investments.

A rising greenback is a danger to workers and the overall economy. In this time of economic stagnation, when wealth is flowing almost exclusively to those at the top, the demand to buy dollars as an investment has soared, and so has its value. Between mid-2014 and 2016, the dollar appreciated 20 percent in relation to other main currencies.

This in turn has made the U.S. trade deficit explode. That is because as the buck rises, imports become cheaper to buy (in dollars) and exports to other countries become more expensive. Not only do exports fall, but production for the home market does too, as it becomes cheaper for consumers to buy foreign products.

This results in job cuts. Domestic production shrinks and national businesses try to reduce their costs by increasing automation. The high value of the greenback becomes a drag on the whole economy.

Calls for protectionism tend to increase, often along with xenophobic and racist movements. Witness the Trump phenomenon, and fascist-based movements in Europe. But neither protectionism nor “free” trade is good for workers anywhere. Capitalism is all about pitting working people against each other.

Feeding the war machine

One of the major ways governments and institutions hold dollars is in the form of U.S. Treasury securities. The buyer is lending their money to the government. The buck’s high value helps Uncle Sam to sell ever more bonds. Unfortunately, much of the proceeds are plowed into military spending. This process has been funding the war industry since WWII. It has pushed the explosion of military actions that are devastating the Middle East and destabilizing many countries. It has cemented U.S. imperialism and world dominance at the cost of mayhem and misery.

Military spending plays a significant role in the economy of the USA, making large parts of the country’s production not for human use, but for destruction. However, it props up the economy only so long as the greenback is an attractive investment. The United States can’t maintain this house of cards forever, and it behooves workers here to remember that their interests remain with all the world’s workers, not with “our” ruling class.

Send feedback to author Megan Cornish at fsnews@mindspring.com.

7 June 2017

By Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC)

The 5 June decision by Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and their allies and proxies – Egypt, Bahrain, the Maldives, Mauritania and rival governments in Libya and Yemen – to sever diplomatic and other links with Qatar is payback for Qatar’s support of the wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa in 2010-2011. It represents, for KSA and UAE, another phase in their process since 2011 to reverse the changes brought about by the uprisings.
The sanctions on Qatar aim to force the government of Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to alter its foreign policy – particularly regarding its warming relations with Iran, and to end its financial and political support for Islamist dissidents in the region such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
The Saudi-led move followed and was encouraged by US President Donald Trump’s visit to KSA in May, and his 21 May speech in Riyadh where he supported stronger action against Iran, and spoke out against terrorism – including Hamas in his list of terrorist groups.

Saudi and Emirati claims

The main reason advanced by KSA and UAE for harsh measures such as the land-sea-air embargo and travel prohibition for citizens of these countries, was a statement attributed to Al Thani, in which he allegedly praised Iran’s regional role and criticised states seeking to declare the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) a terrorist organisation. The 23 May statement, published on the website of the state-owned Qatari News Agency, is likely a hack, as the Qatari foreign ministry has claimed. No audio or video footage exists of the emir’s speech, purportedly presented at a graduation ceremony for National Guard officers at the Al Udeid base. Although the alleged statement may reflect the broad trajectory of Qatari foreign policy, Al Thani is unlikely to have expressed such sentiments publicly. Moreover, statements praising Hizbullah and criticising the US are at odds with Qatar’s policy and national interest, especially considering that Qatar supports forces opposing Hizbullah in Syria, while the US troops stationed at Al Udeid are critical to Qatar’s security.

Nevertheless, there are indications of a warming of relations between Qatar and Iran, as evidenced by Al Thani’s 27 May congratulatory phone call to Iran’s re-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, during which he proposed enhancing Qatari-Iranian ties. Further, reports that Qatar paid a $1 billion ransom for Qatari royals kidnapped in Iraq, and that about $700 million ended up with Iran and Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, also enraged the KSA and UAE. KSA viewed these moves as compromising its battle with Iran for regional hegemony. For the Saudis, this is the main reason for its action against Qatar.

The UAE, on the other hand, used the KSA action to pursue its agenda of trying to force Qatar to cease support for the MB and other such groups. Since 2011, it has worked strenuously to undermine and destroy the MB-aligned organisations throughout the region through attempting to finance parties such as Nidaa Tounes in Tunisia (against the Islamist Ennahda), by militarily supporting the campaigns of Khalifa Haftar in Libya, and by supporting the 2013 coup in Egypt which overthrew the MB’s Mohammed Morsi.

Both KSA and UAE regarded Qatar’s support for civil society action during the 2011 uprisings as incompatible with their regional aims, upsetting the regional balance, and potentially ultimately threaten their own monarchies.

The sanctions, however, did not happen entirely suddenly and without careful consideration. In 2014, the KSA and UAE, together with Bahrain, recalled their ambassadors from Doha in a successful attempt to weaken Qatari ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. The current sanctions follow a campaign by, mainly, the UAE to demonise Qatar, particularly in the USA where, in the run-up to the breaking of ties, fourteen op-eds in US media attacked Qatar and called for the USA to downgrade relations with that country. And, at the end of May, Saudi media alleged Qatar’s foreign minister, Mohammad bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani, secretly met with Qasim Sulaimani and discussed enhanced intelligence cooperation between the two countries. The cutting of ties by Egypt, Yemen, the Maldives, Mauritania, the House of Representatives in eastern Libya, and the Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi government in Yemen was primarily in support of the Saudi and Emirati benefactors of these actors. There has been some suspicion in the region that KSA and UAE would act against Qatar, but the suddenness (and severity) took everyone by surprise. It is possible that the suddenness is related to recently leaked email correspondence of UAE ambassador to Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba, which reveal his country’s disdain for US-Qatari relations, anger at the US military base in Qatar, and envy about Qatar’s hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The emails hint at Otaiba’s role in the anti-Qatar campaign in Washington over the past few weeks.

To justify the action, the two countries have accused Doha of threatening the region’s stability, ‘adopting’ terrorist organisations – including the Islamic State group, and supporting opposition Shi’a groups in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Much of this is untrue. What is true, however, is that the UAE-KSA and Qatar also support different (even opposing) sides in Egypt, Libya and Syria, and both countries regard Qatar as an obstacle to their agenda for the region.

Saudi and Emirati objectives

Following the conclusion of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Saudi Arabia has attempted to contain Iran’s growing influence in the region. The kingdom has sought to enhance this containment strategy by advocating unity among ‘Sunni’ states, and by tolerating (and even sponsoring) Islamists linked to the MB, such as Yemen’s Islah movement. Trump’s singling out Iran as the greatest regional threat emboldened KSA, and especially its inexperienced deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. The Riyadh declaration, which KSA issued after Trump’s visit, vociferously admonished Iran’s regional role and advocated a coordinated containment strategy. However, Qatar was regarded as not being entirely compliant with KSA’s wish to isolate Iran.

The UAE focused mainly on Qatari support for Islamists such as Hamas and the MB, which the Emiratis believes pose a greater threat to them than Iran. This conformed to Cairo’s position on the MB, and Egypt thus fell in line with the UAE, already a major financial backer of the Egyptian state under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Abu Dhabi also used the situation to reduce tension between forces it supports in Yemen and those supported by KSA. Pressure had been building since June 2016, when the UAE redeployed its frontline forces to southern Yemen, to consolidate the gains of the secessionist Southern Movement (Al-Hirak), in opposition to Saudi interests. Worsening the situation, in February 2017, forces loyal to the UAE prevented Hadi, heavily supported by KSA, from landing at Aden’s airport, forcing Riyadh to mediate in an attempt to enforce Hadi’s ‘prerogative’. There was likelihood of even further deterioration when the UAE-supported forces routed those of Hadi, and consolidated control over the Aden airport. At the heart of these differences is UAE opposition to Saudi support for Yemen’s MB-aligned Islah movement.

The UAE thus expertly exploited the inexperience of Saudi Arabia’s thirty-one-year-old deputy crown prince to create a false consensus around Qatar. Significantly, the suspension of Qatari troops from Yemen as part of KSA-UAE sanctions will empower UAE-supported groups, at the expense of Saudi-supported Hadi. Although Qatar’s troop contingent was small, Doha and Riyadh have comparable interests in Yemen – which are not the same as the UAE’s.

Other actors

In what is definitely a major diplomatic crisis for the Gulf, other countries are also becoming engaged. Apart from KSA and UAE allies that also cut ties with Qatar, Jordan has downgraded its links. On the other hand, Iran offered to export food to Qatar from Iranian ports – which are around 200 nautical miles from Doha, and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erodgan, defended  Qatar, opposing the sanctions. Furthermore, on Monday, less than a day after the sanctions were implemented, Turkey exported planeloads of food to Doha to replace food that had previously been imported from KSA. The USA, which has its largest Middle East military base, and 11 000 troops, in Qatar, has issued contradictory messages. While Trump tweeted support the sanctions, claiming responsibility for its success, the Pentagon praised Doha for hosting US troops and for its ‘enduring commitment to regional security’, and US secretary of state Rex Tillerson offered to mediate. The USA will likely attempt to ensure the smooth continuation of relations with both Doha and Riyadh, and will seek to maintain the unity of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Looking forward

As in 2014, Kuwait and Oman will attempt to mediate a resolution to the crisis. Neither has severed ties with Qatar, and Kuwait’s emir has been shuttling around the Gulf to seek agreement on a mediation process. Both states maintain good ties with Iran, and Oman was involved in preliminary negotiations for the nuclear deal in March 2013, helping to ensure face-to-face talks between Iranian and American officials prior to the commencement of public negotiations. However, resolving the dispute this time will be more challenging, especially since the demands on Qatar are multifaceted, and because the measures instituted are more wide-ranging than in 2014.

Qatar faces three possible options. First is the unlikely possibility of it aligning with Iran. Second, it could buckle under the pressure and give in to KSA-UAE demands, especially since it depends on Gulf transit routes for its food security, and because of its strong economic links with Saudi Arabia. Such a capitulation could mean that members of Hamas and the MB residing in Doha will be expelled (possibly to Turkey and Lebanon). Further, Qatari media activities will be severely curtailed, and the AlJazeera network, in particular, will have its wings clipped and will begin resembling other Gulf media outlets. Qatar’s links with Iran will also have to be firmly cut. The third option is that Qatar remains defiant, and joins with Turkey to informally form a third (neutral) axis – which could include Oman and Kuwait.

With countries such as Turkey and Pakistan seeking to balance relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran, albeit unconvincingly at times, this third axis is slowly emerging. Heavy-handed measures such as the current siege on Qatar are increasingly forcing smaller states to unhappily choose sides, accelerating the development of a third path, even if informally. It is, however, debatable whether these countries together are strong enough to form such a coalition in opposition to the KSA- and Iran-led axes.

The increasing tension also indicates a weakening of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which was established in 1981 to ensure unity and coordination among Gulf countries, as a response to the 1979 Iranian revolution. Although GCC countries have been coordinating on regional policing, established the Peninsula Shield Force military arm, and signed agreements on economic and taxation matters, the organisation has been increasingly fragmented by different stances of individual states. In 2013, for example, Oman was widely criticised for hosting secret negotiations between Iran and the USA, prior to the nuclear deal; in 2014, Oman and Kuwait refused to recall their ambassadors from Qatar; and in 2016, when KSA severed ties with Iran, Bahrain was the only GCC member to follow suit. No matter how the current crisis ends, the GCC will emerge weaker. If Qatar refuses to capitulate, that could spell the beginning of the end of the council.

7 April 2017

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

There is a saying that goes: “Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it.” This has been Israel’s dilemma from the very beginning.

The Zionist movement, which held its first conference in Basel, Switzerland 120 years ago, wanted Palestine but not the Palestinians. They achieved this objective 50 years later, in what Israel termed as its ‘war of independence.’

Then, in 1947-48, the Palestinian homeland was captured, but millions of Palestinians were cruelly evicted following a harrowing war and many massacres.

That dynamic was not at work when the rest of historic Palestine was occupied during the war of 1967.

Ali Jarbawi, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, told the Economist that Palestinians were ‘lucky’ that they “were defeated so fast and so massively.”

The rapid events of the war made it too difficult for Israel to ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, as it did to hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages, during what Palestinians call the Nakba of ’48 –  the ‘Catastrophic’ loss of their homeland.

Well, perhaps ‘lucky’ is a bit of a stretch, since the last 50 years of military occupation has wrought untold pain and misery on occupied Palestinians. It has been a period in which international law has repeatedly been broken by Israel. It has been a period in which Palestinians escalated their resistance, non-violent for most of it, but violent at times. The price was, and remains, terribly high.

This resultant reality drove Israeli commentator, Gideon Levy, to declare in a recent article in ‘Haaretz’ that in the “terrible summer of 1967,” Israel had “won a war and lost nearly everything.”

The loss that Levy refers to is hardly material. “A state that celebrates 50 years of Occupation is a state whose sense of direction has been lost, its ability to distinguish good from evil, impaired,” he wrote.

The loss for Palestinians, however, was far greater. They watched as Arab armies were either defeated on a massive scale, or simply evacuated their positions, conceding East Jerusalem without much fighting.

Indeed, the defeat brought shame, but also the realization that Palestinians must claim their own position at the center of the fight. The events of the war made that realization quite effortless.

On the morning of June 5, 1967, the entire Egyptian Air Force was destroyed, its entire fleet still sitting on the tarmac. Within the next 24 hours, the air forces of Jordan and Syria were also pounded.

By June 7, Jordan had ceded Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

By June 10, Israel had captured the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula, from the Suez Canal and down to Sharm-el-Sheikh.

Syria was forced to concede its strategically and economically prized Golan Heights.

Thanks to American and Western support, Israel soundly defeated the Arabs. Within days, Israel had occupied three times more territories than it did post-1948.

While Palestinians experienced another ‘Nakba’ as a result of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, Israel celebrated its ‘liberation’ of Jerusalem, and the redeeming of biblical ‘Judea and Samaria’.

In Israel, and around the world, Jewish nationalism took on a new meaning. Israel’s ‘Invincible Army’ was born, and even cynical Jews began to view Israel differently, a victorious state, maybe once an impulsive colonial gambit, but now a regional, if not international, force to be reckoned with.

So much had abruptly changed during those short, but painful, days of war. The existing refugee problem was now exacerbated and compounded by the war and the creation of 400,000 new refugees.

The international response to the war was not promising. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242, on November 22, 1967, reflecting the Johnson administration’s wish to capitalize on the new status quo, suggesting Israeli withdrawal “from occupied territories” in exchange for normalization with Israel.

The rest is history, and an agonizing one. Israel entrenched its occupation; built hundreds of illegal settlements and is yet to implement a single UN resolution pertaining to the Occupation, or previous violations.

The Washington-led consensus on Palestine perceives no other solution to the conflict but the two-state solution; it deems armed resistance as a form of terrorism; and it sees the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees as impractical.

Palestinians who dare operate outside this “acceptable” paradigm are to be ostracized, boycotted and forced to change.

But the war and occupation has also entrenched the sense of nationhood among Palestinians. Prior to the war, the Palestinian people were fragmented between those who remained in their original homeland – later renamed Israel; those who lived in the West Bank and Jerusalem under Jordanian control, and those in Gaza, under Egyptian administration. Indeed, the Palestinian identity was in tatters.

The 1967 war united Palestinians, although under Israeli political and military control. Within years, the Palestinian national movement was thriving and its leaders, mostly intellectuals from all Palestinian regions, were able to articulate a new national discourse that remains in effect to this day.

On June 7, 1967 when Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, Levi Eshkol, learned that Jerusalem was captured he uttered his famous quote: “We’ve been given a good dowry, but it comes with a bride we don’t like.” The ‘dowry’ being Jerusalem, of course, and the ‘bride’ being the Palestinian people.

Since then, that unwanted ‘bride’ has been shackled and abused; yet 50 years of such mistreatment are yet to break her spirit.

And in that, there is a source of hope. Now that Israel, rich and powerful, has control over the whole of historic Palestine, it also controls a Palestinian population nearly of the same size as the Jewish population living in that same land.

The land is already shared between two people, but under entirely different rules. Jews are governed through a democratic system almost exclusively tailored for them, and Palestinians subsist under an Apartheid regime designed to keep them marginalized, occupied and oppressed.

50 years later, it is crystal clear that military solutions have failed; that Apartheid can only contribute to further strife, bring more pain and misery, but never true peace.

The 1967 war is a lesson that war is never the answer, and that a shared future is possible when we all understand that violent occupation can never bring a just peace. Only co-existence, based on equal rights for both peoples, will.

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

6 June 2017

By Anandita Ghosh and Milind Champanerkar

“Not war against our own citizens, but dialogue with all stakeholders in Kashmir, including emerging youth leadership, is the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue.” – This was a common view expressed by all the speakers at a lecture programme on ‘Kashmiriyonka Najariya :Vastavaur Mithak’ (Kashmiri Peoples’ Perspective : Myth & Reality’) held on 3rd June 2017 at Shramik Patrakar Bhavan, Pune. The programme was organised by the Pune chapter of ‘Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy’ (PIPFPD). The speakers included Ms. Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal (Editor of ‘Kashmir Times’, Jammu), Mr. Bashir Manzar (Editor of ‘Kashmir Images’, Sri Nagar) and Mr. Jatin Desai (Senior journalist, Mumbai). The programme was presided over by Mr. Milind Champanerkar (Chairperson, PIPFPD, Pune).

At the outset, while explaining the objective of the programme, Mr. Milind said, “Although Kashmir is a burning issue today, most of the electronic media has chosen to sensationalise the issue and present a one-sided picture. The objective of the programme is to enlighten people about the objective reality in Kashmir, give insight into situation at the ground and understand the plight of common people there.” Mr.  Anwar Rajan, the national executive committee member of PIPFPD, explained how the PIPFPD has been consistent for the last two decades in emphasizing the need for involving Kashmiri people of both sides to resolve conflict.

Mr. Bashir Manzaragreed that the scene in Kashmir today is indeed very dangerous and frightening. However, the death of Burhan Wani was not the cause of the present unrest. While explaining how tension had been building up since 2010, he drew attention towards stone pelting at its peak in 2010.  More than a hundred children were killed during the agitation due to military action. “This gave rise to intense discontent.” he said. While criticizing the present government for not making any efforts to calm down tempers, he said that previous governments had at least made an effort. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee appealed to  kashmiri peoples’ hearts by mentioning accepting that the people of the valley had been wronged, and he was with them in their pain. He initiated dialogue with the people. Mr.Manmohan Singh sent a parliamentary delegation to meet all the stakeholders and set up a team of interlocutors headed by a senior journalist, Late DilipPadgaonkar. Mr. Bashir asserted, “If the government had implemented the recommendations of the report, the situation would not have have worsened to the extent it has today.”

He drew attention to 65% turn out people in the valley during the assembly elections of 2014 which he said was a reflection of their faith in the Indian system. He said “Domestic parties fought the elections on the singular agenda of keeping the BJP out of J&K. The youth from South Kashmir voted in favour of PDP led by Mufti Mohmmed Syed wanting to keep BJP’s Hindutva agenda out of Kashmir.” However, after the results as the PDP had to form a coalition government with BJP, whom Kashmiri people in the valley had rejected, the youth felt betrayed and frustration started setting in. The disturbance in South kashmir and growing tensions is largely owing to this felt betrayal and discomfort with BJP’s Hindutva agendas. MrManzar asserted, “Burhan Wani incident in July 2016 was merely a trigger, anything could’ve resulted in a crisis. Burhan’s killing happened to be a pretext.”

Mr. Bashir also said that the situation in the Islamic world cannot be ignored. He emphasised, “These elements are ‘politically religious’, and their influence is gradually growing among the youth. To resist such radicalisation, spaces have to be created for other voices.”  Mr. Bashir felt that New Delhi was not serious in its efforts and was only trying to exhaust the people. While people will certainly be exhausted, they will also slowly become radicalised. However, he reminded the gathering that in 1990s there were four to five thousand militants in Kashmir, but there are barely 100 militants today. “So Isn’t the present government exaggerating the situation?” he asked. Mr. Bashir concluded saying, “But I am very optimistic. I have hope that 2017 won’t be as bad as 2016. But, the way I see things on the ground, I can see that anger is slowing evolving into hatred.”

AnuradhaBhasinassertedthat the situation in Kashmir impacts all of us, as Indians and as South Asians. While commenting on the role of biased mainstream, she said that the government and its power circles, including businesses and the media, create a picture that fails to convince the people. Falsities are presented, contradictions appear, and it leaves the public confused. A picture is created wherein all Kashmiris are portrayed as villains, suggesting people don’t want peace. But one begs the question, why are Kashmiris pelting stones?

Emphasizing that the situation in Kashmir is a dire one, she criticised the methods of responding of security forces to the agitating stone-pelters. She said, “The forces, without any hesitation, have been retaliating with bullets, pellet guns, or tear gas; these shells are shot at targets, point blank. Since 2010, many have been killed due to tear gas shells. Many, including small children, have lost their eye sights due to pellet guns.” And yet the debates continue on whether these pellet guns should be used or not!

Condemning the Army chief’s recent statements that young people should take guns up guns instead of stones or that the public should be afraid of the army, Ms.Anuradha said, “He blurred the lines between the general public and enemies.” Alleging that people of Kashmir are meted out discriminatory treatment, Ms. Anuradha said, “Although there have been violent protests in the other parts of India, including in Haryana, the army retaliation has never been as brutal as in Kashmir. You say Kashmir is an integral part of India. Then why so many rules, restrictions and interference in its day to day functioning, its politics, economy and so on?”

She further said that there have been atrocities in the valley for a very long time now, and they have been affected due to the conflict- the Pandits moving out, killing of 70,000 people, illegal arrests and missing persons. These people were ignored, and the anger had been building up. “What we see today, the stone pelting or guns, has been an evolution. It wasn’t sudden.” she emphasised.

Ms.Anuradha believes that war is not the answer to any issue. Communication is key to arriving at a solution. She felt that there is also an emerging leadership among the youth in Kashmir who are socially engaged, excellent writers, lawyers, or pursuing other professions. It is important to include them in this dialogue and begin grooming leaders.Ms.Anuradha believes it’s necessary to have athree-tier dialogue- first, between india and Pakistan; second, between India and Kashmir and Kashmir and Pakistan; and third, intra Kashmir dialogue with Kashmir as it stood in 1947. While peace talks will not mean that conflicts will be resolved immediately, she believes the violence will eventually fizzle out.Lastly, she said, “The peace process requires consistency and political will. There is a dearth of both.”

Mr.Jatin Desai, senior journalist and the national general secretary of PIPFPD, began with saying that PIPFPD sees the Kashmir issue as a tri-lateral issue between India, Kashmir and Pakistan. The fate of Kashmir cannot be decided by India and Pakistan without taking the people of Kashmir into confidence. It is crucial that voices of Kashmiris and their aspirations be heard. The lack of communication has led to a worsening of situation in Kashmir.

Since the 8th of July last year, when Burhan Wani was killed, there has been no dialogue with the people of Kashmir. This lack of communication is leading to dangerous levels of frustration and resentment among Kashmiris and a gradual radicalisation of the youth in Kashmir. Furthermore, statements like the one made by General BipinRawat wishing the youth came with guns instead of stones, only worsen the situation. Mr.Jatin stated that this was a systematic attempt to provoke the population of Kashmir. He said, “The government policy is non-communication. Their strategy being exhausting the people, following which, they will surrender.”

The lack of interest in dialogue on part of the government has led to a coming together of the various extreme and moderate Hurriyat factions. Mr.Jatin said that the government must initiate dialogue with all stakeholders including the Huriyat and take them in confidence. Mr.Jatin concluded by saying, “When talking about Kashmir, the conversation is either about the militancy or about Kashmir’s natural beauty. But between these two, are the people of the valley, and it is high time we think about them.”

In times when the media does not offer the entire truth, this program certainly filled a gap in the Kashmir narrative.

6 June 2017

By Kevin Zeese

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement follows the path of previous presidents who have undermined international climate agreements. We disagree with Trump but it is important to understand his actions in the context of the history of the United States regarding previous climate agreements. Once again, the political problems in the US are bigger than Trump. His action brings greater clarity to the inability of the US government to confront the climate crisis and clarifies the tasks of people seeking smart climate policy.

The US Has Always Prevented Effective International Climate Agreements

The US has consistently blocked effective climate agreements because both parties in power have put the profits of big energy before the climate crisis when it comes to domestic and international policies. The Republicans proclaimed themselves the “drill baby drill” party while the Democrats are the “all of the above energy” party. Both slogans mean the parties seek to ensure US corporations profit from carbon energy. Both have supported massive oil and gas infrastructure and extreme energy excavation including the most dangerous forms, i.e. tar sands and fracking. Both parties have also supported wars for oil and gas. All of these positions will be viewed as extreme as the world confronts the great dangers of the climate crisis and the US will be deservedly blamed.

If we go back to the Clinton-Gore administration and the Kyoto Protocol we find the US pushing a “free market” trade in pollution credits, where corporations would buy the right to pollute in other places around the world, i.e. poor and developing countries. Gore made sure other countries understood the US’ position. As Mitchel Cohen writes:

Gore commandeered the Kyoto conference. The U.S. government, he said, would not sign the Accord – as limited as it was – if it imposed emissions reductions on industrial countries. Instead, he demanded that the rest of the world adopt his proposal that would allow industrial nations like the U.S. to continue polluting by establishing an international trade in carbon pollution credits. Gore’s “solution” – like Obama’s – was to turn pollution into a commodity and buy and sell it in the form of “pollution rights”. The free market trade in “pollution credits” would simply shift around pollution and spread it out more evenly without reducing the total amount of ozone-depleting greenhouse gases. It would allow the United States and other industrial countries to continue polluting the rest of the world.

The Kyoto Protocol failed. Rather than reducing climate gas emissions by the 5 percent target, there was a significant increase of 58 percent from 1990 to 2012.

In Copenhagen, the story is more complex but has the same result — the US undermined efforts for an agreement with enforceable reductions in climate emissions. The US role in Copenhagen become more fully understood when Edward Snowden leaked documents showing intense US spying on other nations participating in the climate talks. The most important spying was on the Danish government where the US leaked a draft of a plan for enforceable emissions standards; and on China where the US intruded into a meeting where the Chinese, Indians and others were working on a similar plan.Chinese negotiators entered into the talks willing to undertake mandatory emissions cuts but instead the US falsely turned China into the villain. The editor of the Ecologist, Oliver Tickell, summarized what happened:

Looking at the evidence as a whole there can be little doubt that the Copenhagen climate talks were deliberately and highly effectively scuppered by a ‘dirty tricks’ operation carried out by the NSA and other US security agencies – including the pivotal leak to The Guardian of the Danish text.

Following Snowden’s revelations, we know that they had the ability to do that in spades. They also had motives. The US wanted:

• to protect their politically powerful fossil fuel industries, and their right as a nation to carry on polluting;

• to avoid having to pay out billions of dollars in climate funding to developing countries;

• to deny China the global leadership role it sought to secure for itself, and instead leave it humiliated;

• to present the USA and its President Barack Obama as trying against the odds to secure a climate agreement, in the face of obdurate resistance by other countries.

The operation was, in other words, spectacularly successful. The rest of the world were played for suckers. China emerged with a bloody nose. And the US was free to carry on letting rip with its emissions.

Making this more confusing for people in the United States are the false statements of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign where she claimed the she and Obama came to the rescue and saved the world from China. This falsehood is described as an alternative reality by some of those who covered the meetings.

The US Undermines the Paris Agreement

We reported extensively on the Paris climate agreement when it happened noting that it was a small and inadequate step because the goals were not strong enough and there was no enforcement to ensure countries met their promised reductions in climate gasses. We were not alone in this analysis. In a newsletter after the agreement, COP21 An Opportunity For Climate Justice, If We Mobilize, we wrote:

Friends of the Earth International described the agreement as “a sham.” The New Internationalist, measuring the deal against the People’s Climate Test developed before COP21, described it as “an epic fail on a planetary scale.”  Climate scientist James Hansen said it was a “fraud . . . fake . . . bullshit.”

Analysts blamed the United States for the weakness of the agreement, writing COP 21 crafted “the deal according to US specifications in order to insulate Obama and the agreement from attacks.” Obama insisted that the 31-page agreement exclude emissions reductions targets and finance requirements from the legally binding parts of the deal because making those binding would have required US Senate approval, which he could not achieve due to the power of the oil, gas and coal lobbies influence, especially over the Republican Party. Also excluded from legal enforcement was a clause in the agreement that would expose the US to liability and compensation claims for causing climate change.

While we are critical of the shortcomings of the Paris agreement we also recognize it is a step to finally — after 21 years of trying — get an international agreement approved by all but two countries (Syria and Nicaragua). Dahr Jamail correctly summarizes the situation when he describes the Paris Accord as not going far enough but Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement endangering life on Earth. He points to the reaction of the world in response to Trump, with uniform opposition to his decision. The new French president Emmanuel Macron urged US scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs to come to France and help “make the world great again” by working to confront the climate crisis. Environmental groups focused on climate change were uniformly critical with some describing the action as making the US a rogue nation. Trump was already unpopular around the world, protested wherever he went, but now he has become a pariah.

The Task of the Movement is Clarified

There was an immediate reaction to Trump’s decision with protests at the White House and around the world, with mayors and governors saying they will abide by the climate pact and with business leaders leaving Trump’s business advisory board in protest. The climate justice movement, already growing, will build on this decision by growing even more. The long history of US climate inaction from both parties demonstrates we must build independent political power that undermines those who profit from the status quo and makes both parties face the reality of climate change.

Persistence is a key. The day before Trump’s announcement ExxonMobil shareholders and investors voted to require the company to report annually on climate related risks to the corporation. This took decades of work by shareholders inside ExxonMobil. Similar shareholder resolutions are being passed by shareholders of other companies and other votes are very close to passage at energy utilities. The oil and gas industry must be held responsible for their role in the climate crisis. Litigation against ExxonMobil for hiding the truth about climate change for four decades is advancing in what will be the crime of the century with great liability.

There is tremendous momentum around transitioning to a clean energy economy. Jobs in clean energy in the US are at 800,000 and growing and around the world at 10 million workers. In the last three years there has been an 83 percent increase in solar jobs and 100 percent increase in wind jobs. Solar employs more people in the US than oil, gas and coal combined. This January all new energy came from solar and wind without any increase in oil, gas, nuclear and coal. Renewables now account for 18 percent of total installed operating capacity in the US. Renewables accounted for 64 percent of all new electrical generating capacity installed last year in the US. Researchers report that gas powered cars will disappear in the next decade and the oil industry will collapse. Investor advisers are telling people to expect the demise of the industry. The US is just scratching the surface potential of this new economy.

Keep protesting because resistance to the oil, gas and coal agenda continues to be critical. People power has been reported by the industry as the greatest threat to their expansion. Infrastructure protests continue to grow at a time when science tells us to stop developing such infrastructure. Similarly protests are occurring against oil trains turning into a nationwide resistance against the oil trains’ high risks to communities.

Another national effort is focused on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which serves as a rubber stamp for the oil and gas industry. For the past five moths, the FERC has only had two commissioners out of five seats, leaving it without a quorum and unable to approve new fossil fuel projects. Beyond Extreme Energy (BXE) is working to prevent the conformation of new commissioners until FERC stops serving the oil and gas industry and starts serving the health and safety of communities impacted by its projects. On May 25, BXE disrupted a Senate hearing focused on the FERC commissioners. More actions are planned. Visit BeyondExtremeEnergy.org to get involved. There is something for everyone to do.

Another form of extreme energy is nuclear power. Indigenous communities in the Southwest are mobilizing to stop uranium mining on the rim of the Grand Canyon in a sacred site. If the Canyon Mine succeeds, toxic ore will be trucked 300 miles through tribal lands to a mill close to the Ute Mountain Utes. This month, a Haul No! Tour is being held to raise awareness and hold actions. There is a long legacy of poisoning the air, land and water from abandoned uranium mines throughout the US. On a related note, Ban the Bomb actions are planned on June 17 in support of a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

On the electoral front, Trump’s move ensures climate will be a centerpiece of the 2018 and 2020 elections as the US cannot actually withdraw from the Paris agreement until after the 2020 presidential race. We cannot allow the fraudulent debate commission (really a front for the two corporate parties) to not ask a single question about climate change. There are massive majorities in favor of staying in the climate agreement – 70 percent of all voters, majorities in both major parties and among independents. In every state this is a majority position. But the reality is the US has a government owned by big energy and Wall Street investors who profit from climate pollution.

The current Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, attended a meeting in Saudi Arabia where ExxonMobil made a multi-billion dollar deal to explore gas off the coast of Mexico and build a refinery in Texas. The US government has been marinated in oil for decades, with presidents and vice presidents who have come from the oil, gas and related industries. Now is the time to change that. We need to make 2020 an election that produces a president who leads on effective actions to address the climate crisis.

Finally, we agree with Ken Ward, a former deputy director of Greenpeace facing felony charges for shutting down an oil sands pipeline, that Trump’s action is an opportunity. The fig leaf of the inadequate Paris agreement has been removed. The world can advance in creating an agreement not held back by the United States. The movement for a new energy economy must now build enough power to put in place real solutions to the climate crisis. As with many other issues, Trump’s actions crystallize the reality we have been facing for many presidential administrations so the movement now knows what it must do.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are co-directors of Popular Resistance.

5 June 2017

By Alain Gresh

Fifty years after the June 1967 war, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands continues. Whatever new plan is devised will concern the entire region and the wider Muslim world.

This April a number of Republican congressmen set up an Israel Victory Caucus in Washington (1). Its co-chair Bill Johnson said: ‘We believe Israel has been victorious in the war and that this reality must be recognised for any peace to be achieved between Israel and its neighbours.’ Historian Daniel Pipes added that ‘victory means imposing your will on your enemy.’ As if in response, hundreds of Palestinian political prisoners acted on a call from their best-known member, Marwan Barghouti, to go on hunger strike, their way of saying loud and clear that the Palestinians’ resistance continues and all ideas of their destruction are illusions.

This was not the first time Israel and its allies had fantasised about the Palestinians’ capitulation or even disappearance. After the Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9, Moshe Sharett, the influential Zionist Labour leader and future prime minister, had prophesied a grim future for the 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes: ‘The refugees will find their place in the diaspora. Through natural selection, some will survive, others won’t. The majority will become the dregs of the human race and melt into the poorest strata of the Arab world’ (2).

The Palestinians had just suffered a heavy defeat. The territory designated for their state under the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947 had been divided in three: Israel had conquered one part (including Upper Galilee); Jordan had annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem; and the small Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control, though with limited autonomy. Their institutions were in turmoil and political leadership was lacking.

This catastrophe — the Nakba in Arabic — followed another defeat, the crushing of the Arab Revolt of 1936-9, the civil and military uprising demanding British withdrawal and a halt to Jewish immigration. It was put down by British troops allied to Zionist militia, who acquired experience and UK-supplied arms that made possible their subsequent victory over the Arab armies in 1948-9.

With their people scattered in camps in neighbouring countries or under Israel’s control, the Palestinians seemed destined to disappear as Sharett had predicted, like the indigenous peoples exterminated in the conquests of North America, Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps they would be absorbed into the wider Arab world? After all, they shared the language, culture and often religion of the countries that had taken them in.
First act of resistance

Israel condemned the Arab countries’ refusal to assimilate the refugees. But it was the Palestinians themselves who, in a first act of resistance, rejected any attempt to settle them permanently in the host countries. Initially they even rejected the idea of building lasting structures in the camps. And though Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser signed an agreement with UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) in July 1953 to settle tens of thousands of refugees in Sinai, Palestinians violently protested in Gaza against this. Going home remained the only dream.

Israeli peace campaigner Uri Avnery reported an exchange with a child when he was serving as a soldier during the 1956 war (3) and first, brief Israeli occupation of Gaza: ‘I asked a young Arab living in a refugee camp where he came from. “From Al-Kubab” he said. I was struck by this response because the boy was seven. So he had been born in Gaza after the war and had never even seen Al-Kubab, a village which had long ceased to exist’ (4). Now, 60 years on, most Palestinians have been born in exile but the response of adults and children remains the same: they belong to the village their family was expelled from. The Zionist movement, which turned a millennia-old prayer — ‘next year in Jerusalem’ — into a political slogan, should be able to understand this attachment.

After the Nakba, the Palestinian national movement built on this determination. And the regional context contributed to it. The creation of Israel shook the Middle East and hastened the collapse of pro-western Arab regimes. Nasser came to power in Egypt in 1952, revolutionary nationalism grew across the region, and Iraq’s monarchy fell in 1958. This ferment, and the rivalry between Arab countries keen to erase the memory of their humiliating defeat by Israel, led the Arab League to create the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in 1964, while, Fatah, a then unknown organisation, launched its first armed operations against Israel in January 1965. The Arab defeat in June 1967 (5) created the conditions in which the Palestinian struggle would become autonomous. In February 1969, Fatah leader Yasser Arafat was elected president of the PLO’s executive committee.

The Palestinian national movement became part of the international landscape with other wars of resistance: Vietnam, East Timor, Latin America, South Africa. The writer Jean Genet summed up these aspirations in his last book, Prisoner of Love (1986): Palestine, he wrote, was at the heart of ‘a great firework display of a revolution, leaping from bank to bank, opera house to opera house, prison to law court.’
More limited aims
These hopes have endured. For the Palestinians — caught up in internal Lebanese conflicts, targeted by Israeli operations in the occupied territories and Lebanon, and victims of divisions in the Arab world and regional meddling (by Iraq, Syria, Jordan) — had to learn to live with more limited aims, and accept the idea of sharing Palestine. They gradually abandoned the armed struggle and ‘external operations’ — especially plane hijackings — that had brought their cause to international attention and led western states to classify them as terrorists. Instead, they focused on diplomacy and political efforts, building relatively stable institutions such as youth organisations, trade unions and writers’ unions.

The PLO gained international stature, bolstered notably by the increasing mobilisation of the populations of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, all occupied in 1967. Arafat was invited to address the UN General Assembly in 1974, and the PLO was recognised by the vast majority of states — though not Israel or the US. (The latter changed its position in the 1990s.) In the 1980s, Europe, including France, helped establish two principles: the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and the need for dialogue with their representatives, the PLO.

But it took the first intifada, which began in December 1986, and the end of the cold war, to reach the Oslo accord, signed in Washington on 13 September 1993 by Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, sponsored by US president Bill Clinton. Arafat established the Palestinian Authority on 1 July 1994, initially in Gaza and Jericho. Despite the vagueness of the Oslo accords, there was to have been recognition of a clear principle: ‘the exchange of land for peace’, with the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel within the 4 June 1967 borders.

As we know, this ‘peace process’ failed. Though Palestinians were given limited autonomy, their daily life deteriorated, freedom of movement was increasingly curtailed by checkpoints, and settlement-building continued inexorably under Israeli governments of both right and left.

Which way to go?
Various explanations for this failure are possible, but the main one is the colonial nature of the Zionist project, which has fuelled a feeling of superiority over ‘indigenous’ peoples and encouraged Israeli leaders’ de facto refusal to recognise the Palestinians’ equality and right to self-determination. To the government in Tel Aviv, an Israeli’s security is precious. A Palestinian’s is worth little.

The quashing of the second intifada, which broke out in September 2000, led to a weakening of the Palestinian Authority, with a division between Gaza, under the control of Islamist Hamas, and the West Bank, under Arafat’s Fatah. But there were diplomatic successes, including Palestine securing UN observer status and diplomatic acceptance by around 100 states. Another achievement was the consolidation of a strong brand of nationalism that went beyond local allegiances and diverse experiences of exile. Neither internal divisions nor Israeli efforts have caused the Palestinians to give up. Not only have they held on to their homes, they have also proudly claimed their identity, under occupation and in exile. On the territory of mandatory Palestine, there are more Palestinians (seven million, counting those in Israel) than Jewish Israelis (six million), a nightmare for Zionist leaders who once dreamed of a ‘land without people’.

Even so, ‘reviving the peace process’ now seems an illusion, except in the eyes of President Mahmoud Abbas and the ‘international community’, which views keeping his administration going on life support as vital, to justify its own failure to act or to come up with any innovative proposal grounded in international law.

What new strategy can the Palestinians adopt? It will take time to construct a new plan, for the phase that began with the June 1967 war came to a definitive end with the failure of Oslo. The debate is divisive: should the Palestinians abandon the idea of sharing the land and demand a one-state solution? Or dissolve the Palestinian Authority? And what about the use of violence? Even Hamas, known for its discipline, has not escaped the debate, as seen in its new programme, which for the first time clearly accepts the idea of a state within the 1967 borders.

Meanwhile, in the words of two Palestinian academics, ‘in the absence of clarity about the ultimate political solution, the core goals must be the fundamental rights that are the essential elements of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and that, as such, must form part of any future political solution. These are freedom from occupation and colonisation, the right of the refugees to return to their homes and properties (6), non-discrimination and the full equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel. These three goals … were laid out in the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] against Israel’ (7).

New roads to freedom

The BDS movement, launched in July 2005 in response to calls from 171 NGOs, marked a new phase in Palestinian history: civil society has taken up the baton out of frustration with the impotence of political forces. This non-violent movement for equal rights, which some western governments have tried to criminalise, has had widespread support, from Latin America to Europe and Asia. This was seen during the war in Gaza in the summer of 2014. The question is why.

During the latter half of the 20th century, two main causes mobilised support beyond national borders: Vietnam then South Africa. The number of people killed was not the main cause of outrage; international public opinion is also sensitive to a situation’s symbolic resonance. At certain points, a conflict can go beyond the narrow confines of its own geography, acquiring universal significance and expressing the ‘truth’ of a period. Despite their dissimilarities, Vietnam and South Africa were both situated on a fault line between North and South, and both conflicts had a colonial dimension. This is also true of Palestine, though the context is different. The South African experience, with the African National Congress’s project of a ‘rainbow nation’ that integrated whites rather than pursuing theories of ‘black power’, showed that times had changed. Armed struggle was no longer the only way; there were new roads to freedom, and equal rights were central.

More than a question of land, Palestine is a question of justice, or rather of continuing injustice
With Palestine, the longest-running conflict of the present age, we go beyond purely territorial differences. More than a question of land, Palestine is above all a question of justice, or rather of continuing injustice. In the occupied territories, the population faces a phenomenon that has disappeared elsewhere: encroaching colonialism. Since 1967, Israel has moved more than 650,000 settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a practice that the International Criminal Court considers a war crime. Palestinians’ daily life is marked by the confiscation of their land, destruction of their homes, arrests (a majority of the adult male population has at some point been imprisoned), torture, an army that shoots on sight, and a wall that does not separate two populations but contributes to containing one of them. An archipelago of Bantustans is being created, bounded by roads reserved for Israelis, a form of segregation unknown even in South Africa. The Palestinian population is governed by special laws, a regime that resembles apartheid in many ways — two peoples on the same land (the West Bank and East Jerusalem), Palestinians and settlers, subject to different laws and courts.
Millions of people worldwide can empathise with the Palestinians’ struggle, relating it to their own revolt against discrimination and for equal rights. A young person in the West who feels marginalised can imagine himself in the situation of a Palestinian, as can an Indian expelled from his land or an Irishman proud of past struggle against British colonialism. Even if this solidarity does not guarantee the victory of their cause, it remains one of the Palestinians’ major advantages, ensuring that beyond their own determination, their cause will live on.

On 2 November 1917 Lord Balfour signed a letter declaring that the British government ‘view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ (a first draft mentioned ‘the Jewish race’) and ‘will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.’ As Arthur Koestler, who fought for Zionist organisations, later wrote, ‘one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.’ This colonial enterprise initiated a long century of instability, wars, bitterness and hatred. It fed and continues to feed all the frustrations in the region (see Exploiting Arab anger). Resolving the Palestinian situation will not instantly bring peace, but for as long as the occupation lasts, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East.

Alain Gresh is editor of the online journal OrientXXI.info. His many publications include Un chant d’amour: Israël-Palestine, une histoire française (illustrated by Hélène Aldeguer), La Découverte, Paris, 2017.

2 June 2017

By Sara Flounders

Imperialism is worried that China’s huge global infrastructure projects could challenge the U.S.-led world order

The People’s Republic of China hosted a summit May 14 called the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, also known as the New Silk Road project. Twenty-nine heads of state and representatives of 130 countries attended from across Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. Seventy countries signed agreements with China to participate.

The “Belt” refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt. It encompasses land route development from central China to Central Asia, Iran, Turkey and Eastern Europe. The “Road” refers to the Maritime Silk Road. This involves ports and coastal infrastructure from Southeast Asia to East Africa and the Mediterranean.

The plan projects a network of trade routes with new rail lines, ports, highways, pipelines, telecommunications facilities and energy centers linking countries on four continents. It includes financing to promote urban planning, potable water, sanitation and food development. China is calling it the “plan of the century.”

China describes the project as a revival of the ancient Silk Road with 21st-century technology. It is projected to be 12 times the size of the U.S. Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Western Europe after World War II.

Major corporate media around the world warn that the gathering signals the end of the American Century — the U.S. claim to be the world’s sole superpower. Numerous analysts suggest the project could shift the center of the global economy and challenge the U.S.-led world order.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Freeman described the OBOR project as “potentially the most transformative engineering effort in human history. China will become the center of economic gravity as it becomes the world’s largest economy. The ‘Belt and Road’ program includes no military component, but it clearly has the potential to upend the world’s geopolitics as well as its economics.” (NBC News, May 12)

In a May 13 article, “Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order,” the New York Times predicted: “The initiative … looms on a scope and scale with little precedent in modern history, promising more than $1 trillion in infrastructure and spanning more than 60 countries. Mr. Xi is aiming to use China’s wealth and industrial know-how to create a new kind of globalization that will dispense with the rules of the aging Western-dominated institutions. The goal is to refashion the global economic order, drawing countries and companies more tightly into China’s orbit. It is impossible for any foreign leader, multinational executive or international banker to ignore China’s push to remake global trade. American influence in the region is seen to be waning.”

U.S. infrastructure is collapsing

Meanwhile, the U.S. infrastructure is literally falling apart. Crumbling roads, bridges, dams and schools have been given an overall D+ grade by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Investment in infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and wastewater treatment plants, is at a 30-year low.

Donald Trump, with his “America First” campaign slogan, pledged to rebuild the country’s broken infrastructure. But since becoming president, his administration has instead opted for cutting taxes on the rich while increasing the military budget. Meanwhile, the U.S.-initiated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which was designed to exclude China, has collapsed.

China’s OBOR project has generated enormous interest because U.S. imperialism has less and less to offer any developing country, except weapons sales and military bases. Weapons quickly become obsolete, leaving only debt and underdevelopment.

Where U.S. infrastructure projects are in place around the world, they are focused on building and maintaining a vast high-tech network of 800+ military bases and servicing an armada of aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and destroyers. Each base is an expense to and an attack on the sovereignty of the host country. U.S. foreign aid ranks near the bottom of such expenditures of all developed countries, amounting to less than 1 percent of the federal budget. It is largely military aid to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.

U.S. wars have resulted in great profit for U.S. corporations while massively destroying vital civilian infrastructure in developing countries under attack. Water purification plants, sanitation, sewage, irrigation, electric grid, communication centers, hospitals and schools have been intentionally destroyed in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. By contrast, China has no foreign military bases. Its ambitious OBOR initiative does not include military equipment or facilities.

Nevertheless, U.S. corporate power sees all other economic development as a threat to its global domination. Its aim is to protect at all costs the irrational capitalist system.

Response to U.S. pivot to Asia

The pivot to Asia begun during the Obama administration is an aggressive military plan that includes the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the Pentagon’s new THAAD missile battery in South Korea. Its focus is containing and threatening China’s growing economic influence in the region.

U.S. military planners brag of their ability to strangle China and cut its vital shipping lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca. This narrow transit point between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea handles 80 percent of China’s crude oil and other vital imports.

China, now the world’s largest trading nation, has responded with the nonmilitary OBOR plan that will open many trade routes through surrounding countries. Trade routes, unlike U.S. military bases, offer immediate benefit to the development of these countries. China is expected to invest up to $1.3 trillion in OBOR infrastructure projects.

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Challenge to IMF and World Bank

Past U.S. practices of seizing the assets of countries holding substantial funds in U.S. banks meant that the $1.26 trillion that China has held in U.S. Treasury notes was especially vulnerable. Until six months ago, China was the number one investor in U.S. Treasury notes. Now China is divesting.

China has used a part of its significant reserves to establish the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The AIIB plays an essential role in encouraging trade and economic cooperation with other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. This Chinese initiative is seen as a counter to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

As the Cuban news outlet Granma wrote on March 6: “AIIB aims to rescue those areas of the region somewhat abandoned by both the World Bank and the Asian Investment Bank (AIB), as well as encourage trade and economic cooperation.”

Both the IMF and the World Bank exert enormous leverage through “structural adjustment” policies. Debt repayment requires countries to cut spending on education, health, food and transportation subsidies. Their real goal is to force developing countries to privatize their national assets.

Phony concern for environment

Corporate-funded nongovernmental organizations and social media campaigns claim that China will not show the same respect for the environment and human rights as the U.S. and other imperialist powers do. They claim that China might not follow environmental restrictions on loans imposed by the World Bank and IMF.

This is sheer hypocrisy. The U.S. military machine is the world’s biggest institutional consumer of petroleum products and worst polluter of greenhouse gas emissions and many toxic pollutants. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.

U.S. wars have contaminated the soil and water of vast regions under U.S. occupation with depleted uranium, benzene and trichloroethylene at air base operations and with perchlorate, a toxic ingredient in rocket propellant.

Despite U.S. pressure, AIIB grows

Despite strong U.S. efforts to discourage international participation in the OBOR infrastructure fund, Russia, Iran and Latin American countries promptly joined and contributed substantial capital. Breaking ranks, Germany and South Korea then became major shareholders, followed by Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Australia. The Philippines and even Saudi Arabia saw the advantages of participation. The AIIB, founded on June 29, 2015, began operations last year.

According to a Times editorial of Dec. 5, 2015, “Countries are finding they must increasingly operate in China’s orbit. The United States worries that China will use the bank to set the global economic agenda on its own terms.”

In addition to the AIIB, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China already finance big-ticket projects in Asia and Africa. By Chinese estimates, their combined overseas assets stand at $500 billion — more than the combined capital of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Socialist planning to overcome underdevelopment

China’s past decades of development and modernization and its current surpluses are what make these new global plans possible. China has an estimated $4 trillion in foreign currency reserves. Its granaries are full and there are surpluses in cement and steel.

In 1949, when the revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party took power, China was an underdeveloped, war-torn country with a largely illiterate, majority peasant population. Western and Japanese imperialist powers had looted and carved up China for their own profits. Breaking their hold was the first step in liberation, but China was deeply impoverished.

After nearly 30 years of heroic efforts to modernize the economy based on the organization and efforts of the masses, the Chinese Communist Party in 1978 opened the country up to some forms of capitalist ownership and foreign capitalist investment.

This still risky policy has continued for nearly 40 years. It has allowed Chinese millionaires and even billionaires to develop and spread corruption. Foreign capital, ever hopeful of totally overturning the Chinese state, invested because profits could be made. But the Communist Party has used the years of capitalist investment to build up a modern, state-owned infrastructure alongside the growth of private capital.

Now China ranks as a developing country with a majority urban population living in modern, planned cities. The working class is now the largest social class in China. Wages for shop-floor workers in China have tripled in the last decade to become the highest in developing Asia.

China adopted a new industrial policy in 2015: “Made in China 2025,” which intends to upgrade manufacturing capabilities for high-tech products. These plans are supported by $150 billion in public or state-linked funds. It is this kind of long-term socialist planning that is the motor behind China’s new One Belt, One Road plan.

While the U.S. attempts to block these needed infrastructure efforts, move missiles and aircraft carriers off China’s coast, and send the lowest possible diplomatic delegation to China for the OBOR summit, Washington had the audacity and arrogance to warn China against north Korean participation. The DPRK sent a high-level delegation.

28 May 2017