Just International

Who Is Destabilizing The EU? Greece or Germany?

By Jon V Kofas

Does Greece with just 2% of EU GDP have the ability to destabilize the EU simply by refusing the IMF-EU imposed austerity program, or does Germany have such power because it has been trying to impose its economic hegemony over the rest of Europe?

On 19 February 2015, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble rejected a Greek compromise proposal for a Greek “bridge loan” that would essentially buy six-month time for the new SYRIZA government in Athens to restructure the fiscal system and stabilize the government’s finances while meeting domestic needs.

Rejecting the proposal from Athens, a proposal that most of the EU members are willing to support, Germany demanded that the new SYRIZA (center-left) government of Greece continue with IMF-EU austerity as previous (neo-liberal oriented) governments had agreed in the past five years. Of course, austerity has resulted in a drop in GDP of 25%, drop in one-third of incomes (wages, benefits and social security) for about two-thirds of the population, unemployment of 26% and a mass exodus for college educated people, while leaving the public health care system in shambles because money was transferred from health care to paying interest on debt. At the same time, debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 110% before austerity to 175% in 2015. The strongest argument against austerity is that every single promise the IMFand Germany made about its results – economic development, lower unemployment, lower debt-to-GDP ratio, healthier government revenues – turned out to be entirely false.

For its part, Germany insists that Greece is trying to negotiate an extension of euro zone funding with no strings attached and it must abide by all neo-liberal policies previous governments agreed to implement, regardless of the cost to the middle class and workers, to health care and education, as long as the defense sector stays untouched because Germany exports weapons, submarines, etc to Greece. Meanwhile, Athens promises to meet its debt obligations as long as it has better terms and no interference in domestic policies. This means no interference in the country’s institutions impacting everything from health care and education to the fiscal system and privatization of public assets that Germany wants sold for pennies on the euro to billionaires waiting for the fire sale. Ruling out any compromise, Schaeuble argued that: “Our room for maneuver is limited. We must keep in mind that we have a huge responsibility to keep Europe stable.”

The German finance minister clearly presents his government as the guarantor of EU stability and Greece as the catalyst for instability. The EU’s largest creditor nation, Germany is the victim of the EU’s largest debtor nation, Greece, so Berlin must protect the integrity of the EU as far as Schaeuble is concerned. The question is whether this is the case, or is the German finance minister demonizing the weak debtor nation, buying time and forcing it to make even more compromises so that the failed IMF-German-imposed program prevails in Greece. This would then send a message to all of the EU that Germany is hegemonic and its austerity and neo-liberal policies will prevail over the periphery members in the EU that Germany has reduced into quasi-colonies, as the Greek prime minister implied in a recent speech before Parliament.

Germany has a long history of trying to impose its hegemony over Europe, going to war when Prussia led the unification of the Germanic states in 1870. Germany went to war again in1914 in a blatant attempt to secure more colonies, semi-colonies and spheres of influence, and global markets. In 1939, Hitler, following the long-standing German tradition of hegemony went to war against the rest of Europe, putting an end to the strategy of war as a way of securing the goal of hegemony. In the second half of the 20th century, Germany turned to the concept of European economic integration to accomplish the goal of hegemony where war had failed in 1914 and 1939.

One of Germany’s best historians of the 20th century, Fritz Fischer, argued in his works dealing with the German Empire that the goal of Prussian (Junker aristocracy)-led regime from 1870 to 1914 was to be a world power, otherwise the alternative was decline. (See Fischer’s Weltmacht oder Niedergang: Deutschland im ersten Weltkrieg, 1965)

The concept of global power status is deeply ingrained in German culture and today it manifests itself in the patron-client integration model that Angela Merkel has been pursuing in order to achieve the goal, while at the same time enjoying the support of German banks and corporations, many of which the government is itself a stockholder. In other words, German contemporary foreign financial and economic policy as practiced through the mechanisms of the European Union have a historical basis, and reflect the “Fischer Thesis” of World Power or Decline!
One could argue that just because Germany was founded as a nation by going to war against neighboring France in 1870, that does not mean Germany in early 21st century is militaristic like old Prussia. The same argument could then made about Germany’s quest for hegemony in 1914, and again in 1939. In this case, let us wipe out the memory of the holocaust, Jews, gypsies, Communists, among other war crimes, including those that the Third Reich committed throughout the Balkans, including Greece. Let us simply accept that Germany in the early 21st century is not militarist and it is not pursuing political hegemony at the expense of its neighbors, having learned bitter lessons from history. Can we possibly make the same argument about German economic hegemony ambitions?

The obstacle for Germany is not Greece and the periphery nations in the EU that are powerless to determine what happens to the monetary bloc. After all, Greece like all of the periphery EU members have always been dependencies of the core countries. From its creation as an independent nation in 1832 until the present Greece was always a debtor nation and always a dependency of Great Britain from 1832 until the Truman Doctrine, and then on the US from 1947 until the 1970s when it took a turn toward much greater European integration and depndence.

Germany’s problem today is actually the core EU members, especially the UK that wishes to redefine its relationship with the EU, and the US that wants a balance of power in Europe with a modicum of containment imposed on Germany through the EU and NATO. At the same time, there is the reliance of Germany on Russian energy that makes it vulnerable and the global competition from China that is investing hundreds of billions in Europe, thus investing in market share at Germany’s expense. Greece is small, symbolic, and a political issue that reflects Germany’s larger problems in its quest for global status.

The issue for Germany is to inject sufficient fear into the rest of Europeans about any nation deviating from German policy dictates so that they follow faithfully as they have in the past. Greece is only the example Germany is using to accomplish its goal, because Greece has only “negative political and economic leverage” while Germany has positive leverage. In short, Greece, like all debtor nations in our modern times can threaten suspension of payments thus causing instability among private and public bondholders who would rather secure a deal securing some return on investment than no return.

The massive transfer of wealth from Greece to Germany in the last five years of austerity has resulted in several billion euro profits for German banks. True, German taxpayers have provided loans to Greece used to repay German and other EU creditors, but the money never goes to Athens, but directly to the banks including European Central Bank that has also made huge profits from Greek bonds. In other words, in the short term European taxpayers are making loans to Greece to pay the EU banks, while Greece will be saddled with debt for the next 80 years. This kind of negative leverage actually destabilizes markets because large institutional investors fear not making as much money as they hoped. Of course, there is one other type of negative leverage Greece enjoys that really angers Germans, even if they do not support their government’s tough policy. The left-center SYRIZA government has repeatdly asked Berlin to open negotiations for war crimes and several billion – anywhere from 30 to 150 billion euro – that Germany owes Greece. Berlin insists it will not discuss war crimes and damages owed to Greece.

On the other hand, there is the positive leverage that Germany exercises as the hegemonic creditor nation. In order to secure austerity that keeps the currency strong at the expense of debtor nations whose economies are weak and become even more dependent on the creditors, Germany and by extension the EU is refusing liquidity to the debtor nation. The threat of Germany immediately throws off the bond and stock markets, because it means that the absence of agreement with the debtor will mean financial and economic turmoil.

Germany’s positive leverage stems from its massive economic power within the EU and clearly as the dominant country it has the ability to stabilize or destabilize as it wishes. At the same time, Germany feels the pressure from the US and China, pressure it resents as we have seen over the disagreements on the Russia-Ukraine crisis. In its quest for global power status, Germany wants a freer hand in the EU that it considers its back yard, just like the US considers the Caribbean and Central America its back yard. With France politically and economically weak, the major obstacle to Germany is the persistence of anti-EU sentiment coming out of the UK. It is possible that the UK will have an even larger economy than Germany at some point before 2024, and this is something that Germans take into account when they position themselves for hegemony today. In short, the German-UK power struggle is important today, though hardly fierce enough for these two economic rivals to go to war as they did in 1914.

German power means the power to stabilize or destabilize the entire euro zone. Greek weakness means that it must use every other power from China and Russia to the US in order to counterbalance Germany’s pressures. Berlin resents that the UK and US, as well as China and Russia want a European balance of power with a Germany that is weaker than it is. Not too long ago, a US government official noted that the German trade surplus is a destabilizing factor in the EU and it comes at the expense of the other members. This kind of thinking prevails among the other great powers in the world, and it is something that Germany is trying to surpass when it adopts a harsh negotiating posture toward Greece. Unlike many analysts who insist that the issue is a culture clash, a difference between a northern European vs. a southern European country, I believe that those are marginal issues and at the core rests German strategy for hegemony and Greek insistence at preserving a modicum of national integrity and sovereingty.

Jon V Kofas is a novelist. He blogs at http://www.jonkofas.blogspot.in/

20 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

US-Backed Kiev Regime Faces Military Debacle In East Ukraine War

By Alex Lantier

Reports of the fighting in the strategic east Ukrainian city of Debaltseve make clear that the US-backed Kiev regime sustained a humiliating defeat this week.

Late Wednesday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko claimed that six soldiers had been killed and 100 wounded in a hurried evacuation of Debaltseve. He justified the evacuation by claiming that 2,475 soldiers and 200 military vehicles had been pulled out in time from the encirclement maneuver launched by Russian-backed forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

Yesterday, Poroshenko revised the casualty count upwards to 13 killed, 157 wounded, 90 captured, and “at least” 82 missing. However, according to the New York Times, “the number of dead would likely grow considerably higher.”

With estimates of the number of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the Debaltseve area ranging from 5,000 to 8,000, it appears the Kiev regime’s losses are to be counted in the thousands. Yesterday, DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko declared, “We have completed an operation to clear Debaltseve. Unfortunately, Ukrainian authorities have failed to listen to reason and lay down arms … The losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the [Debaltseve] pocket are estimated at around 3,000 to 3,500.”

Zakharchenko said that DPR authorities were negotiating with the Kiev regime for the return of the bodies of the fallen and the release of Ukrainian prisoners of war.

“The amount of equipment Ukrainian units have lost here is beyond description. We have taken loads of ammunition both in Debaltseve and Uglegorsk,” said Zakharchenko. He added that the Kiev regime had “lost its best units and a large amount of hardware and ammunition in the Debaltseve trap.” He said many fighters from the Ukrainian 128th mountain rifle brigade, the 8th special force regiment, and the far-right Ukrainian National Guard had been killed.

DPR officials claimed yesterday that they were ending major combat operations. DPR Defense Ministry spokesman Eduard Basurin said, “On the whole, the situation along the contact line is gradually stabilizing. Units of the DPR’s armed forces strictly abide by a ceasefire and don’t fall for sporadic provocations by Ukrainian troops.”

Basurin reported, however, that fighting was still ongoing to crush isolated groups of Kiev regime fighters on the outskirts of Debaltseve.

Interviews of Ukrainian troops by Western journalists sympathetic to the Kiev regime painted a picture of total collapse. Ukrainian supply lines to Debaltseve were cut off for a week by DPR forces prior to the final assault, the Guardian reported, calling the Kiev regime’s situation in east Ukraine “catastrophic.”

“We knew that if we stayed there, it would definitely either be captivity or death,” Ukrainian Lieutenant Yuriy Prekharia told the Guardian .

Ukrainian troops refused a DPR offer to let them to retreat unharmed if they abandoned their arms, and they repeatedly came under artillery and small arms fire as they fled. Medic Albert Sardarian said that after his column of armored vehicles carrying 1,000 men came under artillery fire, survivors had to flee on foot, leaving their dead and wounded behind.

As Ukrainian soldiers fleeing from Debaltseve arrived in Artemivsk, New York Times journalists reported, “Many soldiers were in a demoralized and drunken state. Shellshocked soldiers from the battle in Debaltseve wandered the streets through the day Wednesday, before beginning to drink heavily…At Biblios, an upscale restaurant in Artemivsk, soldiers staggered about in the dining room, ordering brandy for which they had no money to pay, and then firing shots into the ceiling as other guests quietly fled the premises.”

The debacle suffered by the Kiev regime exposes the utterly reckless and frankly stupid character of the policy pursued by Washington and its EU allies in Ukraine.

One year ago, Washington, Berlin and the other NATO powers backed a putsch led by pro-Nazi forces of the Right Sector, exploiting the right-wing, pro-EU Maidan protests to topple President Viktor Yanukovych. The putsch had no popular support, and the Maidan protests rarely gathered more than a few thousand people bused in from western Ukraine. The regime that emerged, led by right-wing forces, including the fascist, anti-Russian Svoboda Party, deeply alienated the population in the more pro-Russian industrial heartland of east Ukraine.

The initial attempts of the Kiev regime and its CIA backers to subjugate east Ukraine by sheer military terror, relying on fascist militias and select units of the Ukraine army that it considered to be reliable, have failed. Popular opposition and covert Kremlin support for east Ukrainian forces has sufficed to defeat those units that Kiev could throw against the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Nevertheless, Washington is pressing Kiev to prepare for a renewed offensive and is still discussing directly arming the Ukrainian army against Russia with US weapons. While Washington pursues a strategy that could trigger a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, a nuclear-armed power, its proxy regime in Kiev is disintegrating.

In west Ukraine, the population is evading or resisting draft orders to obtain more cannon fodder for the east Ukraine war. At the same time, Ukraine’s economy, cut off from its main industrial base in east Ukraine and its export markets in Russia, is collapsing.

“The country is at war that they cannot afford to fight. There is no economy any longer. When you look at where the industrial base of Ukraine is, and the conflict going on in the east, there is absolutely no doubt as to why it is happening,” Gerald Celente of Trends Journal told Russia Today. “That $160 billion loss of trade with Russia has destroyed the economy, when it was already in a severe recession. It went from very bad to worse than depression levels.”

Ukraine’s Gross Domestic Product has shrunk 6.5 percent. Workers’ purchasing power is collapsing, with inflation expected to reach 27 percent this year and the hryvnia, the Ukrainian currency, losing roughly half its value against the dollar. In the meantime, Kiev is slashing wages, industrial subsidies, and social spending, throwing large sections of the working class out of work.

The Kiev regime’s reverses do not, however, signify an end to the conflict in Ukraine, which is driven above all by NATO’s drive to tear Ukraine out of Russia’s geostrategic orbit, to humiliate Russia and prepare to reduce it to the status of a semi-colonial dependency of the NATO powers. The only force that can stop this offensive is the international working class, mobilizing itself in struggle against NATO’s war plans.

Without such an intervention, NATO’s Ukrainian proxies will simply regroup and launch a renewed assault—as they did in the aftermath of the previous ceasefire negotiated in Minsk last September.

Poroshenko reacted to the defeat in Debaltseve by calling for what would be a new, major escalation of the conflict: deploying European Union (EU) troops as peacekeepers to east Ukraine to confront Russian-backed forces. He claimed this deployment would aim to enforce the terms of the second Minsk cease-fire agreement announced last week, which both sides in Ukraine have ignored.

“The best format for us is a policing mission from the European Union. We are convinced that this will be the most effective and optimal solution in a situation when promises of peace have not been kept,” Poroshenko declared. He said Kiev would “launch official consultations with our foreign partners” to this effect.

Oleksandr Turchynov, the head of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, called for EU troops to also deploy to Ukraine’s border with Russia—an utterly reckless move that would position EU troops for a direct attack on the centers of European Russia.

20 February, 2015
WSWS.org

 

Who is Netanyahu and why should the US Congress boycott his speech??

By Mazin Qumsiyeh

From http://qumsiyeh.org/israelileaders/ where you can find more about
“Israeli leaders”

Benyamin Mileikowsky (aka Netanyahu) was born to Benzion Mileikowsky(later changed names to Netanyahu), a polish immigrant. His American
father became secretary to terrorist leader Vladimir Yevgenyevich Zhabotinsky (aka Zeev Jabotinsky) founder of “revisionist” Zionism and
supported groups like Irgun terrorist organization during the mandate in Palestine. His son continues to idolize these early Jewish
terrorists. Both Benjamin and his brother served in units of the Israeli forces responsible for assassinations on foreign lands (in
violations of international law) and committed other war crimes. Benjamin Miliekowsky (Netanyahu) is known both among Israelis and
globally as a consummate liar who refused to accept the Oslo accords (even though they were partial to Israel) and has gotten rich off of
his political activities. Here is a video of him thinking the camera was off explaining his true contributions during his first stint as
Israeli prime minister in the 1990s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtuBas3Ipw. see also this report:
http://972mag.com/netanyahu-clinton-administration-was-%E2%80%9Cextremely-pro-palestinian%E2%80%9D-i-stopped-oslo/135/

This is after all the same terrorist who gave a speech to dozens of Likud Party members in Eilat in which he admitted this is his
strategy. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (15 July 2001): “…giving his audience a bit of advice on how to deal with foreign
interviewers (Netanyahu said): ‘Always, irrespective of whether you’re right or not, you must always present your side as right.’ In 2011,
the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, described Netanyahu as a liar in a private exchange with US President Barack Obama at the G20 summit
(it was inadvertently broadcast to journalists). “I cannot stand him. He’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama. The US president Obama responded by
saying: “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/sarkozy-obama-netanyahu-gaffe-microphone

Act to Cancel Netanyahu’s visit to Congress
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/boycott-bibis-bluster

Rajai Masri wrote “The world, as I am sure you would agree with me, is made up of a cluster of Zones termed Spheres of Influence. No small
fish, like a miniscule Jordan for example, can ever survive without falling under one of these spheres of influence. Israel with the
vanity of access to the Exceptional powers, resources and reaches of the world Jewry imagines that through the fragmentation of the Middle
Eastern region into sectarian and ethnic constituency. Given Israel’s exceptional military prowess, it could ultimately dominate the whole
Middle East and render, in the example of Sparta in the old history, the fragmented entities of the Middle East vassal clients rendering
the region Israel’s Sphere of Influence.”

I would agree and add that Israel (Netanyahu’s last tirade) fixation on Hizbollah, Syria, Hamas, and Iran only shows who actually stands in
resistance to this blood-drenched scenario planned by the Zionist movement. As I always said, Zionism as a racist movement built with
ethnic cleansing will lose either way it chooses: by being forced with BDS and world outrage as happened in South Africa or violently in
conflict. Most of humanity prefers the non-violent pressure and we must act to pressure.

22 January 2015

Mazin Qumsiyeh
Professor and Director
Palestine Museum of Natural History
Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability
Bethlehem University
http://palestinenature.org

Is the Israeli Bullying of International Politics Nearing an End?

By Abdullah Al-Ahsan

“I believe his shameful remarks must be repudiated by the international community, because the war against terror will only succeed if it’s guided by moral clarity,” The Times of Israel reported (January 14) Prime Minister Netanyahu as saying to visiting leaders of the US pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. The Israeli leader said this in response to Turkish President Erdugan’s challenge for his attendance at the anti-terror solidarity march held in Paris on January 11. So far no European or North American leader has come forward to repudiate Erdugan or even to explain “moral clarity” sought by the Israeli leader, but interestingly an Israeli newspaper has reported that, French President Francois Hollande had asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to go to Paris for the march, but the Israel premier decided to attend anyway after hearing that his political rivals were going to be there (Forward January 12, 2015). Clearly it was domestic consideration that provoked the Israeli leader to embark on the trip to Paris. However, what the Israeli leader would like to call diplomacy might be viewed is nothing but bullying in international relations.

Israel at the UN

Israel has applied its “diplomatic” ploy even before its birth: the story of its entrance into the United Nations is relevant. On the request of Britain the UN formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in May 1947 to deliberate the conflict in Palestine: No Arab country was included; only one Muslim country – Iran – was in the Committee. Interestingly a number of renowned Zionists were included as members of the Committee representing the USA and Britain. Israel used the Diaspora extensively to achieve its goal. Since the Jewish representative insisted on the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, the Committee decided to investigate public opinions in the area. The UNSCOP came up with two plans: one known as the majority plan prepared by mostly Western countries proposing to divide the land between Jews (over 56% of the territory for 31.7% mostly immigrant population) and Palestinians (about 43%) and Jerusalem as a neutral international city under direct supervision of the UN. The other known as the minority plan backed by India, Iran and Yugoslavia advocating a federated state composed of two component territories, each enjoying local autonomy with Jerusalem as the capital. The Palestinians somehow reluctantly accepted the minority plan (they wanted a unitary state with democratic rights of every citizen in the territory) while the Zionists, also reluctantly (they wanted the whole of Palestine as a Jewish state) favored the majority plan. When the proposals were put forward for discussion the Zionists vigorously embarked on gathering international support for the majority plan. American observer Kermit Roosevelt describes Zionist activities on the UN resolution as follows:

Rallying a group of influential Americans and selecting their targets with care, they exerted all possible influence – personal suasion, floods of telegrams and letters, political and economic pressure. … Many of the telegrams, particularly, were from Congressmen, and others as well invoked the name and prestige of the United States government. An ex-Governor, a prominent Democrat with White House and other connections, personally telephoned Haiti urging that its delegation be instructed to change its vote. (“The Partition of Palestine,” in The Middle East Journal. Vol. 2 No. 1 (January 1948).

He further noted that the Zionists also targeted Liberia, China, the Philippines, Ethiopia and Greece. One US government report noted the situation as:

The US and USSR played leading roles in bringing about a vote favorable to partition. Without US leadership and the pressures which developed during UN consideration of the question, the necessary two-thirds majority in the General Assembly could not have been obtained … It has been shown that various unauthorized US nationals and organizations, including members of Congress, notably in the closing days of the Assembly, brought pressure bear on various foreign delegates and their home governments to induce them to support the US attitude on the Palestine Question. (See, Henry Cattan, The Palestine Question. (London: Croom Helm, 1988).

On November 29, 1947 the UN adopted the majority plan to divide Palestine on conditions that Israel recognized the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes and both states maintain an economic union. The UN resolution also noted that Britain would withdraw from the country by August 1948 and a five member UN Commission would supervise the division of Palestine. The Palestinians were extremely disappointed and rejected the plan. Other Arab states complained that the resolution had violated the UN Charter and rejected the planned partition.

As soon as it was clear that the British were leaving the territory reports of clashes between Jewish and Palestinian armed groups for land began to appear. In reality, however, organized armed Jewish groups were attacking Palestinian villages and forcing the Palestinians out to make space for Jewish immigrants. As a result, Britain decided to terminate its mandate and leave Palestine earlier. Britain set May 15 for withdrawal, but on May 14, a day before, a group of Jewish activists in Tel Aviv proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine. Within hours the US and the USSR recognized the new state, and other western countries followed. These recognitions were possible due to Zionist lobby campaigns in these countries. Immediately an all-out war broke out between 75,000 strong Israeli armed forces and disorganized Palestinian groups. Although volunteers and regular armies from neighboring Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon entered in support of the Palestinians, they were no match for the Israeli troops. The Israelis had acquired arms, munitions and even airplanes from European countries and had smuggled many weapons into Palestine despite a UN ban on arms shipment to the region. Israel was also supported by Jewish volunteers, some with sophisticated military training, from various parts of the world.

Meanwhile the UN continued with its effort to end the violence and on May 20, 1948 the Security Council appointed Count Folke Bernadotte, president of the Swedish Red Cross who enjoyed the reputation of negotiating with the Nazis and saving many Jewish lives, as UN mediator for Palestine. The UN also established the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to help mediate between the conflicting parties in Palestine. Bernadotte was ordered to “promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation in Palestine” and was allowed to negotiate beyond the terms of the Partition Plan. Bernadotte recommended certain modifications in the Plan by slightly reducing the size of the Jewish occupied territories. The next day, on September 17, 1948, he was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist group in Jerusalem. No action was taken against those who were identified as Bernadotte’s assassins. One of the accused, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Israel’s prime minister. This clearly indicated the limitations the UN was going to have in handling the issue. It is noteworthy that in spite of the sympathetic role played by the UN in its establishment through direct intervention, the State of Israel developed an antagonistic attitude toward the world body. By the middle of 1949 the war stopped, and military might determined the future of Palestine; Israel occupied almost 78 percent of the historical territory, Egypt occupied Gaza and the Jordanian forces occupied central and eastern parts of Palestine which came to be known as the West Bank.

On November 29, 1948 Israel applied for UN membership but was rejected because of its position on the question of its boundary, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. When it reapplied in February 1949 the Secretary General held discussions on those questions, and after having assurance from Israeli authorities, the country was granted UN membership on May 11, 1949. None of the three issues have settled during almost six decades of Israel’s existence at the world body. Israel is the only member state of the UN which does not have a defined border.

Incessant Israeli Defiance of the World Body

In spite of the extremely favorable treatment that Israel received during its entrance into the UN, Israel now considers the world body an Israel-bashing institution. Volumes of books may be written on Israeli behavior in the United Nations. In July last year UN human rights chief Navi Pillay slammed what she said was Israel’s deliberate defiance of international law during the Gaza conflict. But Israel accused Pillay as being biased against Israel. Not only Pillay, Israel also has accused William Schabas, professor of international law and genocide studies who was assigned by the UN to inquire whether violations were committed in Gaza over the summer (2014), for being prejudiced against Israel. As a result Schabas resigned. Earlier Justice Richard J Goldstone, an international award-winning and experienced judge from South Africa, was appointed by the UNHRC to head a committee of four members to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza (Dec 2008 – Jan 2009). In an Op-ed in NY Times he said, “In many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives (Sept 17, 2009.)” But after publication of the Goldstone report the Judge seems to have come under pressure from Israeli circles and retracted his position saying, “if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document” (Guardian April 3, 2011.) It is hard to imagine how an experienced of his caliber would have altered opinion on such an important and sensitive issue for world peace and security without publicly producing what he came to know later. Did Goldstone come under pressure from pro-Israeli bullies? Who knows?

It is interesting to note that the UN and other affiliated institutions have tried to employ well known experts in the field mainly from the Jewish background such as Schabas and Goldstone, yet both of them appear to have come under attack and have been challenged for their moral and professional integrity. One self-declared human rights scrutinizing institution – UN Watch which claims its mandate as “to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter” – has welcomed Goldstone’s revised statement and resignation of Schabas. Amusingly UN Watch has not found Israel’s flouting of the three conditions that the world body had set as pre-condition for its membership. Although UN Watch seems to have been successful in defusing Goldstone and Schabas, it has failed to silence Richard Falk, the former professor of international law who served United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. UN Watch expressed satisfaction on the expiry of his term in June last year. Earlier it had accused Falk as being a believer in conspiracy theory who made “statements supporting terrorism against America, the West and Israel.” What is the evidence? Who requires evidence for such allegations? Richard Falk also seems to have become victim of identity theft. Anti-Semitic trash has been posted in his name in the social media to defame him. Is this part of a smear campaign against him only because he has exposed Israeli human right violations? Who knows?

Israeli Bullying in US Politics

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made his remarks about international community’s moral obligation to speak against Turkish Prime Minister Erdugan as mentioned earlier while speaking to visiting leaders of the US lobby AIPAC. Israel has successfully influenced US policies for generations; the US has used its veto power on behalf of Israel 32 times. With the passage of time Israel’s power in the US politics has risen significantly. Many even have started to call Netanyahu “the Republican Senator from Israel (Forbes February 1).” Recently House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin to address the Congress on Iran without even informing the White House. According to The USA Today “When House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cooked up a plan to bypass the White House and have Netanyahu address Congress, both men surely thought they had pulled off a coup.” This has created uproar in US politics: many commentators have described this plan as churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous. NY Times writer Thomas Friedman has called it a bad mistake (February 4). Why so many well wishers of Israel have come up against the Boehner Netanyahu scheme? Is Israeli influence in the US politics coming to an end? But make no mistake; Netanyahu has supporters in the media and among political lobby groups. Generally it is extremely difficult to take any principled stand on Israel in America. Paul Findley in his They Dare to Speak Out has highlighted this decades ago. The recent experience of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt also speak loudly about this problem. Powerful Israeli interests are not confined to the USA alone; they are able to impact all over the world. That is why it is difficult to find academicians such as Richard Falk and politicians such as Erdugan.

Erdugan’s Courage to Challenge Israeli Bullying

In recent times only President Erdugan has effectively challenged Israeli bullying in international politics. In January 2009 he effectively challenged Israeli leader Shimon Peres on Gaza in the World Economic Forum in Davos and in 2013 he has secured an apology from Prime Minister Netanyahu for Israel’s 2010 attack on Turkish humanitarian flotilla destined for Gaza. However, Israeli Foreign Minister has recently declared that Netanyahu’s apology was a mistake. The apology deal was originally brokered by President Obama. Although the apology should have been followed by compensation claims by Turkey, nothing was done in that direction. Perhaps this was part of the deal that Turkey would not seek compensation. But is this how other nations deal with Israel? How long can the civilized world endure this bullying behavior? There are good signs – some European countries have now developed the courage to challenge Israel’s anti-Palestinian rhetoric for its “struggle for existence.” World leaders must develop more courage to confront Israeli bullying. The faster that they are able to do this, the faster they will pave the way for peaceful co-existence in the world today.

Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan is Vice-President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

18 February 2015

The US Police And Surveillance State

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal

After 40 years in the United States of America, Palestinian-American Professor Sami al-Arian was deported to Turkey. He was born in Kuwait. His parents were Palestinian refugees. He had tenure at the University of South Florida. His ordeal began after a contentious interview with Bill O’Reilly on the right-wing channel “Fox News ” and lasted for twelve years.

Also he has supported George W. Bush in his 2000 election campaign in Florida, in February 2003 he was indicted under the infamous and totalitarian-like “Patriot Act”. All charges against him were fabricated by government prosecutors. His trial was a travesty of justice. The US justice system from above is lousy. Justice for Al-Arian came from below, from the American people. The justice system like the state apparatus is in the hand of a criminal political class. His case is “a chilling chapter in” US history. A “shocking abuse” of power. “A flagrant violation of (plea bargain terms) reached with the Justice Department.” Classic police state injustice”, writes Stephen Lendman on “MWC News”. [1]

Before leaving for Turkey, he wrote the following letter to “his friends and supporters”:

“After 40 years, my time in the US has come to an end. Like many immigrants of my generation, I came to the US in 1975 to seek a higher education and greater opportunities. But I also wanted to live in a free society where freedom of speech, association and religion are not only tolerated but guaranteed and protected under the law.”

“That’s why I decided to stay and raise my family here, after earning my doctorate in 1986. Simply put, to me, freedom of speech and thought represented the cornerstone of a dignified life. Today, freedom of expression has become a defining feature in the struggle to realize our humanity and liberty.”

“The forces of intolerance, hegemony, and exclusionary politics tend to favor the stifling of free speech and the suppression of dissent. But nothing is more dangerous than when such suppression is perpetrated and sanctioned by government. As one early American once observed, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.’ Because government has enormous power and authority over its people, such control must be checked, and people, especially those advocating unpopular opinions, must have absolute protections from governmental overreach and abuse of power.”

“A case in point of course is the issue of Palestinian self-determination. In the United States, as well as in many other western countries, those who support the Palestinian struggle for justice, and criticize Israel’s occupation and brutal policies, have often experienced an assault on their freedom of speech in academia, media, politics and society at large.”

“After the tragic events of September 11th, such actions by the government intensified, in the name of security. Far too many people have been targeted and punished because of their unpopular opinions or beliefs. During their opening statement in my trial in June 2005, my lawyers showed the jury two poster-sized photographs of items that government agents took during searches of my home many years earlier.”

“In one photo, there were several stacks of books taken from my home library. The other photo showed a small gun I owned at the time. The attorney looked the jury in the eyes and said: ‘This is what this case is about. When the government raided my client’s house, this is what they seized,’ he said, pointing to the books, ‘and this is what they left,’ he added, pointing to the gun in the other picture.”

“‘This case is not about terrorism but about my client’s right to freedom of speech,’ he continued.”

“Indeed, much of the evidence the government presented to the jury during the six-month trial were speeches I delivered, lectures I presented, articles I wrote, magazines I edited, books I owned, conferences I convened, rallies I attended, interviews I gave, news I heard, and websites I never even accessed.”

“But the most disturbing part of the trial was not that the government offered my speeches, opinions, books, writings, and dreams into evidence, but that an intimidated judicial system allowed them to be admitted into evidence.”

“That’s why we applauded the jury’s verdict. Our jurors represented the best society had to offer. Despite all of the fear-mongering and scare tactics used by the authorities, the jury acted as free people, people of conscience, able to see through Big Brother’s tactics.”

“One hard lesson that must be learned from the trial is that political cases should have no place in a free and democratic society. But despite the long and arduous ordeal and hardships suffered by my family, I leave with no bitterness or resentment in my heart whatsoever. In fact, I’m very grateful for the opportunities and experiences afforded to me and my family in this country, and for the friendships we’ve cultivated over the decades. These are lifelong connections that could never be affected by distance.”

“I would like to thank God for all the blessings in my life. My faith sustained me during my many months in solitary confinement and gave me comfort that justice would ultimately prevail. Our deep thanks go to the friends and supporters across the US, from university professors to grassroots activists, individuals and organizations, who have stood alongside us in the struggle for justice.”

“My trial attorneys, Linda Moreno and the late Bill Moffitt, were the best advocates anyone could ask for, both inside and outside of the courtroom. Their spirit, intelligence, passion and principle were inspirational to so many.I am also grateful to Jonathan Turley and his legal team, whose tireless efforts saw the case to its conclusion. Jonathan’s commitment to justice and brilliant legal representation resulted in the government finally dropping the case.”

“Our gratitude also goes to my immigration lawyers, Ira Kurzban and John Pratt, for the tremendous work they did in smoothing the way for this next phase of our lives. Thanks also to my children for their patience, perseverance and support during the challenges of the last decade. I am so proud of them. Finally, my wife Nahla has been a pillar of love, strength and resilience. She kept our family together during the most difficult times.”

“There are no words to convey the extent of my gratitude. We look forward to the journey ahead and take with us the countless happy memories we formed during our life in the United States.”

“Democracy Now” interviewed Sami and his daughter Laila al-Arian after his deportation. It’s chilling what they have to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XZakdeyTQ

The Sami al-Arian case is shocking. Rightly, the political show trials in the former Soviet Union raised shock waves in the US, nowadays, however, they have become almost the norm against Muslim-Americans and their ilk. The so-called “land of the free” and the “brave” has turned into a totalitarian Police and Surveillance State that even George Orwell hadn’t dreamt of. At the end of the interview, Sami al-Arian gave a very realistic evaluation of the Obama administration: “It’s all rhetoric.”

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

10 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

BJP Routed In Delhi; End of “Modi Wave”?

By Countercurrents

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was routed in the Delhi state elections after Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party or Commomn Man’s Party (AAP) won 67 of the 70 assembly seats. BJP managed to win only three seats. India’s main opposition Congress party failed to win even a single seat. Congress had ruled Delhi for 15 years until 2014.

It is the BJP’s first setback since it triumphed in the 2014 general election. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has enjoyed huge popularity since taking office last year, winning a string of local elections and wooing international investors and world leaders.

Aam Aadmi Party was routed by the BJP in last May’s general elections, months after the AAP made a spectacular debut in the 2013 Delhi elections.

The Aam Aadmi, led by former tax inspector Arvind Kejriwal campaigned on a platform of pro-poor polices and clean government.

After BJP came to power, social tensions had risen sharply in India as Hindu hardline groups tied to the BJP became more emboldened, rowing with Muslim and Christian minority groups over religious conversions. Christian groups have also sought greater police protection after a series of attacks on churches.

Even President Barack Obama warned during a visit last month that India could only realise its full potential if it practised religious tolerance.

It seems that BJP president Amit Shah’s tactics of dividing and polarising socieity to win elections didn’t pay off rich dividents in Delhi. Modi’s charisma that won BJP so many elections in the past failed to impress the Delhi voters. Does it mean that the “Modi Wave” has finally subsided? Only time will tell.

 

10 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Cranks & propagandists: Meet the Economist editor who desperately wants to gag RT

By RT news

At a time when the Western media machine no longer enjoys singular purchase on the news, and a more balanced view on global events is instantly available, foreign news organizations like RT are being described as enemies.

Just one month after Andrew Lack – the newly appointed chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – mentioned RT in the very same breath as the Islamic State and Boko Haram, Edward Lucas, senior editor of British magazine The Economist, advised that RT be pushed “into the media fringes so they are no longer treated as real journalists and real programs but as cranks and propagandists.”

Clearly, the mud-slinging “information war” that Hillary Clinton spoke of back in March 2011 is in full swing. And it seems like Western “info troops” are dropping their “dirty bombs” into the info space.

Fear-mongering sells well

Meet one of the soldiers. On top of his journalism, Edward Lucas is also a prolific writer. His books on Russia – ominous titles like ‘Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the West’ and ‘The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West,’ mostly printed with Putin’s image looming on the cover – are to Russophobes what Stephen King novels are to horror fans. Unfortunately, however, Lucas is hawking a damaged product to an unsuspecting public. But he should know better, since he’s certainly neither a stranger to Russia, nor to the world of publishing.

Lucas, who served as The Economist’s Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, has become something of a self-appointed mouthpiece for the “real story” on Russia. This allows him to offer his fire-and-brimstone opinions at international security meetings (no irony there), where virulent, hysterical views on Russia sell better than lemonade in hell.

But he is, for sure, not even close to being a lone fighter on that battlefield. Meet Lucas’ wife, Christina Odone. She heads communications at the Legatum Institute, a think-tank which officially proclaimed “countering Russian propaganda” as its key initiative back in October. Dear Russia-basher Anne Applebaum, who is married to former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky, is also onboard the Legatum ship (of course she is). And who was at captain’s bridge there until 2014? Jeffrey Gedmin, who, before becoming Legatum’s CEO, headed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – one of the main assets of BBG. Yes, that same BBG whose current CEO puts RT on the same challenge list as ISIS terrorists. Connections are pretty tight, aren’t they?

War recipe premiere: How to invade using a TV channel
But back to Munich. In an effort to explain how Russia “won the war in Crimea without really having to fire a shot,” Lucas told attendees at the Munich Security Conference that it was accomplished due to “so-called Russian media organizations” that have “corroded and confused the decision-making capabilities of Ukraine that even though the Ukrainians had thousands of troops…Crimea fell almost without a shot.” (Lucas never bothers to explain this mysterious mind-altering technique supposedly employed by Russian media, but one might assume it involves amulets and incantations of some sort).

So was this some sort of a desperate cry for bloodshed on the part of Lucas, who, after cheerleading the Western invasions of Middle Eastern countries and planting the seeds of democracy in the burnt-out craters of drone strikes, can’t comprehend a peaceful resolution to an approaching tragedy? Does he really believe that the people of Crimea, who marched to the polling stations as opposed to the battlefields to vote (overwhelmingly) in favor of joining the Russian Federation, were deprived of their “decision-making capabilities” by the likes of RT? Calling it a stretch, anyone?

Secure & entice

This was certainly not the first time Lucas had spoken like some medieval warlord intoxicated by the fumes of war.

In September, Lucas fired off a lengthy and deluded letter to the UK House of Commons, where he offered some brilliant insight on how to engage Russia: “Many European countries have no appetite for confrontation with Russia. They take an essentially pacifist stance, that military solutions never solve problems, and that dialogue is under all circumstances better than confrontation. The United States is distracted by multiple urgent problems elsewhere and many Americans wonder why they should be borrowing money to pay for security in bigger, richer Europe.”

“That gives Russia, with its bold decision-making and high tolerance for risk and pain, free rein. Our feeble response has allowed Russia to wage war in Ukraine with disastrous effect.”

So, quick recap, here’s the world according to Mr. Lucas: European countries are much too pacifistic, the US is too busy heroically solving global problems, and Russia is waging war in Ukraine. Simple as that.

The Economist vs RT

Media wars are nothing new to the sphere, but it is one thing to criticize the approach and quite another to call for bans. Just two weeks ago, RT’s Anissa Naouai slammed The Economist, which Lucas edits, for its approach to Russian news. In particular, she pointed out that viewers simply cannot verify some facts the magazine cites, and are forced to believe them – even if they are not necessarily true.

Will Stevens, of the US embassy in Moscow, decided to come to the magazine’s rescue and asked his followers on Twitter: “whom do you trust? RT for @theEconomist, Fav for @RT_com.” RT has so far scooped over 1,500 votes, while The Economist stands with 81 support retweets.

“We have a regulated media space,” Edward Lucas might conclude. “In my own country, Ofcom is complaining to RT about its lack of balance. So, there are things we can do but I think those things are the last resort, not the first resort.”

Well, indeed RT has come under the British media regulator’s gaze after some viewers accused the channel of unbalanced reports on the MH17 tragedy. The public scrutiny even prompted a reaction from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. FM Sergey Lavrov warned at the time that taking the channel off air in the UK would be “an absolutely barefaced attempt at censorship.”

However (and this might be a big surprise for Mr. Lucas), in late January – after watching 30 hours of RT

9 February 2015

Hezbollah: The Global Footprint Of Terror or A Pretext For War Against Iran?

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal

In February 2008, a high-ranking Hezbollah leader, Imad Mughniyah, was assassinated in Damascus. Everybody assumed that it was done by the infamous Israeli Mossad. After seven years, it was reported that the CIA did the killing and Mossad delivered only the parameters. This spin doesn’t surprise anyone. Aren’t both organization involved in criminal acts all around the world? The question that immediately arises is; why now?

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is doing everything possible to bring the negotiations between the US and Iran to fail. After his amateurishly threaded speech before the US Congress on March 3, in cooperation with Obama’s intimate enemy John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, Netanyahu thought he scored a coup against President Obama but it turned out to be a flop. It has been the greatest affront to a US President in a series of countless humiliations of US top officials. It shows who really calls the shots on Capitol Hill what US Middle Eastern policy is concerned.
Some democrats have threatened to skip Netanyahu’s expected hate speech against major US national interests, namely the normalization of relations with Iran after 36 years of enmity and alienation. A sign of solidarity with President Obama would be if all democrats stayed away, including Vice President Joe Biden, who chairs these sessions along with Boehner. Apparently, Biden will be out of town! It would be a strong symbolic sign to the American people. In Israel, however, Netanyahu’s indignities against Obama have not caused much damage in the polls. How much political blood will be left on the carpet between the US and Israel remains to be seen.

The youngest propaganda spin about the murder of Hezbollah leader Mughniyah was broken by Newsweek magazine, the Washington Post and WINEP (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), an outpost of Zionist propaganda in the US, and flanked by the right-wing “Jerusalem Post”. Before WINEP was outsourced, it belonged to AIPAC, the well-known Zionist lobby that supports almost all members of Congress financially to get their votes for Israel’s occupation policy and colonialism in Palestine.

The message of this “breaking news” to Obama was “you need us”. Of course, both intelligence agencies are partners in crime. But the real message is that Netanyahu wanted to limit the damage that his abysmal try to sidestep the Obama administration caused in order to address Congress. By exposing the CIA as a killer organization, the Zionist lobbyists signal what “secrets” the Mossad might still have in its repertory. This Zionist spin is just another try to sabotage the negotiations between Iran and the US. Netanyahu knows that Obama is politically a “lame duck”, that’s why, he can behave like a reckless cowboy.

The Zionist lobby uses Hezbollah as a scapegoat but it’s real target is Iran. At this point, Mathew Levitt, who works for WINEP, comes into play. He has not only cartooned Hamas in 2006 as a “Terrorist Organization” but also Hezbollah in his latest book. What he and his buddy Adam Goldman from the Washington Post had to say about Hezbollah was just beyond the pale. Levitt was quoted several times in the Post.

According to Levitt’s book, Hezbollah conquers the world, i. e. Hezbollah is behind almost every “terror attack”, but the real instigator behind the scene is Iran. The purpose of this piece of Zionist bogus is to spread fear and manipulate Americans into a war against Iran for the benefit of Israel.

The Table of Contents tells everyone what to expect from this book. “Hezbollah targets Westerners in Lebanon and beyond”, Bombings in Buenos Aires”, “A Near Miss in Bangkok”, “Hezbollah Comes to North America”, ” Bombing Khobar Towers”, “Hezbollah in Iraq”, “Party of Fraud—Hezbollah’s Criminal Enterprise in America” “Shadow War”. Almost half of the book is loaded with footnotes. To back trace them, the original source does hardly match Levitt’s commentary or interpretation.
For Levitt, Iran is the sinister power that pulls the stings in the back. It’s like George W. Bush’s rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”. His ideological biased book is of the same ilk as the assertion that the CIA had murdered the Hezbollah leader. These allegations are backed up by anonymous sources, which can also be made up by any journalist.

The Zionist lobby puts much on the line to drag the United States into a war against Iran. It’s unlikely that under the Obama presidency there will be a war with Iran. Such a war might be waged under Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush who are more inclined to fulfill the Lobby’s dream. Obama, instead, should take revenge on Netanyahu for his indignities and recognize the State of Palestine. The Obama administration should throw Netanyahu under the bus in order to regain its self esteem.

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

08 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Prince Charles: The Ceremonial Pimp Of British-Saudi Venality And Hypocrisy

 

By Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Before recently flying out to pay his last respects to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the last time Prince Charles jetted out to the Wahhabi Kingdom was on Tuesday 18th November 2014 to bring a ceremonial end to the long running business saga by literally customarily dancing to the tune of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. The first in line to the British crown dressed to the nines in traditional military regalia of the Saudi nepotistic despots, as he helped to seal yet another military deal which will healthily burnish the order book of Europe’s largest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. The price for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets was finally agreed to by the Saudi clan.

The deal, aptly and Orwellianly named “Salam” (i.e. Peace), is worth £4.5 billion (equivalent to roughly $7.1 billion) and according to a report in the Times of London, is part of the notorious and corrupt £40 billion “Yamamah” (i.e. Dove) deal. Furthermore, the hundreds of millions of pounds newly “wringed” from the Saudi clan will underpin thousands of jobs in the North West of England “and around the British defence supply chain” added the Times.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT,) an organisation which monitors the arms industry, claimed that the United Kingdom sells more weapons to the Saudis than any other country in the world. On the day of the Prince’s arrival to Saudi Arabia a CAAT spokesman urged him to “disassociate” himself from the “despotic regime” so as not to confer legitimacy on it. They also urged Charles to raise the issue of human rights abuses in the Kingdom.

The following day, CAAT was more forthright and condemned Prince Charles for securing the Typhoon deal with the ruling clan. The spokesman once again reiterated the organisation’s contention that the deal primarily lends “legitimacy” to the Saudi repressive regime. On the other hand, an analyst at the investment bank, RBC Capital claimed that with “Salam cash coming in, this should give BAE more flexibility for cash deployment moving forward.”

From Saudi Arabia, the Prince travelled to the only other Wahhabi kingdom in the region, its neighbor Qatar, where there are currently military bids on the table for (coincidentally!) 72 fighter jets. One of the bidders is surprise, surprise, BAE Systems but amazingly Prince Charles seems to only have had time for his favourite hobby horse, global environmental degradation. Naturally he commended the work done by Qataris in addressing the environmental challenges faced by the principality then merrily flew back to Blighty.

However, it is all very well for CAAT to argue the UK and its wondrous Prince Charming is conferring and bestowing “legitimacy” on the Saudis, but if it wasn’t for the Saudis and the other Arabian despots of the Persian Gulf who else would be purchasing arms from BAE Systems or for that matter bankrolling other aspects of the British economy?

In the past decade, Saudi Arabia and the Arab statelets (i.e. Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) created by British Imperialism during the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth century have been pumping billions into the British economy keeping it afloat in these financially difficult times. Each of the states have highly dubious human rights records and none are democracies in any sense of the word.

Qatar, for example recently purchased Harrods, the world famous store and built the tallest building in western Europe, the Shard in London. The opulence and waste behind the Shard was partly justified as Qatari “confidence” in London’s economy. Sainsbury’s, a national UK supermarket chain has been kept afloat by the ruling Qatari al-Thani family as well. London’s Olympic Village is owned by Qatari ownership after a deal worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Recently, it was announced that £10billion is on the verge of being invested by Qatar in British infrastructure projects. Kuwait, on the other hand, has already invested half of that on these projects in the UK.

More so, ‘Little Chef’, a UK roadside diner was bailed out by a Kuwaiti company and the British national lingerie retailer ‘La Senza’ was saved from bankruptcy by another Kuwaiti company.

The nepotistic Gulf dynasties have also invested heavily in British sports events through sponsorship and even purchasing football clubs such as Manchester City or Nottingham Forrest. UAE helped to build Arsenal Football Club’s stadium. Cricket stadiums built by British companies, a sport which has little traction for Arabs, are multiplying in the Gulf. The UAE and Qatar ruling families also possess a soft spot for British race horses, spending millions on these animals while indigenous Arabs in the hinterland of the Arab World scrape a living and Palestinians continue to endure occupation, theft and ethnic cleansing.

Furthermore, Qatar and UAE have a combined 48% stake in the London Stock Exchange. When Barclays Bank was on the verge of collapse during the recent financial crises, its Chief Executive successfully travelled to Qatar for financial assistance.

Is it really a contradiction that the world’s main harbingers and supporters of jihadism, al-Qaeda and the theology that spawns these violent trends is also the main and largest customer of Great Britain’s ultimate merchant of death, BAE Systems? More so, when Prince Charles complains about the ‘tragic plight’ of Christians in the Middle East isn’t he but exposing his own and Her Majesty Government’s hypocrisy knowing full well that this plight is caused by the ‘sugar daddies’ of the British economy, i.e. the Gulf states, in their support for jihadis in Iraq and Syria?

It is all very well for CAAT to bemoan Prince Charles’s visit to the Kingdom and insist he secularly redeem himself by advocating human rights but the British have been dependent on the Gulf despots for a long time. In the late 1950’s Harold Macmillan, a former British Prime Minister, stated that without the oil of the Arabian peninsula the British nation would be “lost” and the whole structure of the British “economy would collapse”. Furthermore, “Without oil,” Macmillan noted, “and without the profits from oil” the UK will not be able to survive.[1]

The late Prime Minister’s opinion is probably more true today than it was back in the 1950’s when Great Britain was still renowned for its manufacturing industry which is now greatly diminished. Indeed, the very status of BAE Systems as a leading manufacturer would very much be in question without the “profits from oil.”

In conclusion, CAAT’s notion the Prince should be preaching human rights to the Saudi, Thani or any other Gulf Kingdom clan, British imperialism brought into existence misses the point. Venality and doing business with despots, is the latest economic strategy in a long line of total and inexcusable immoral policies rooted in British imperialist history.

Conducting business with the Saudis and the other Gulf nepotistic despots today is just as important to British prosperity as piracy, the slave trade, imperialist military conquest and colonialism was in the past.

[1] Alistair Horne, “Macmillan 1894-1956 Volume 1 of the Official Biography” (London: Macmillan, 1988) pg.411,422 and 429 respectively.

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a Yemeni-English independent researcher specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World.

08 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

Genocide In Kashmir: India’s Shame

By Andre Vltchek

Welcome to Kashmir! It is deep winter. The mountains are covered with snow and the naked trees above the lakes at sunset, look melancholic and magnificent, precisely like a completed Chinese brush painting.

Welcome to a nation overrun by the 700,000-strong security forces of the occupying power – India. Welcome to the continuous presence of barbed wire, of military columns, and ‘security checks’. Welcome to a brutality unimaginable almost anywhere else on earth!

Welcome to a land of joint military exercises conducted by the United States, Israel and India.

Kashmir! Still beautiful but scarred. Still proud but bleeding and thoroughly exhausted… Still standing, still resisting, still free and independent, at least in its heart!

Four kids are standing near the Grand Mosque in Srinagar. They are edgy; they appear to be ready to jump, to run, and to fight, also ready to run and retreat if necessary. It all depends on the circumstances.

“They are raping our sisters and mothers!” screams one youth. I am shown teargas canisters, similar to those used in so many other parts of the world to disperse protesters. They are usually fired into the air. Here they are fired by the security forces directly at people’s heads – with the intention to kill.

In this Kashmiri Intifada, the police, army and paramilitary use slings, guns, teargas canisters, everything that is available, to suppress rebellion.

It also uses video cameras; it films stone-throwing protesters and then it detains them, “disappears” them, and sometimes uses savage torture methods in order to subdue them.

Young men in this neighborhood are routinely detained, and most of them have at least once, been brutalized.

I am photographing empty gas canisters in their hands, always pointing my lenses away from their faces. But kids actually want to pose: they are not afraid, anymore.

Ironically, it is 26th January, the Indian Republic Day.

“We are going later today! To fight them! Come with us!”

They use Arabic words. They point their fingers towards the sky. They are smiling, pretending that they are brave and ready to die, to martyr themselves. But I know that they are scared. I have been in this for many years… I can sense how frightened they are.

They are good kids. They are desperate, cornered, but good.

I promise. I say I will come. Later: as always, I keep my word.

***

A few days later, in New Delhi, in his comfortable, old-fashioned apartment, the great Indian Kashmiri independent documentary film director, Sanjay Kak, talks to me about the Indian colonialism, in both Kashmir and the Northeast.

We both agree that all over the world, there is very little knowledge about the horrors of the occupation of Kashmir, and almost no knowledge at all about the occupation of the Northeast. In unison, the mass media in India and in the West, censors the information about the true nature of oppression, killing, torture and rapes.

It is because India has betrayed BRICS and moved closer and closer to the Empire, towards the West, signing military pacts with it, while spreading market-oriented gospel. Now it can count on having ‘special status’, like Indonesia. No matter what it does, it will easily get away with it!

Mr. Kak also says that these days it is “difficult to compete in the market-place of global sorrow.”

When I mention the involvement of both the United States and Israel in joint exercises with India, in Kashmir, as well as in the training of Indian police and army officers deployed in Kashmir, Sanjay Kak replies:

“When it comes to brutality, Indian forces could actually teach both Israelis and the United States quite a few things.”

A friend of Sanjay Kak, an Indian writer and activist, Arundhati Roy, explained in March 2013, on “Democracy Now”:

“Today Kashmir is the most densely militarized zone in the world. India has something like 700,000 security forces there. And in the ’90s, early ’90s, the fight became—turned into an armed struggle, and since then, More than 70,000 people have died, maybe 100,000 tortured, more than 8000 disappeared. I mean, we all talk a lot about Chile, Pinochet, but these numbers are far greater.”

***

In Kashmir itself, I work closely with “Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society” – with both its President, Parvez Imroz, and with Parvaiz Matta, a human rights researcher. Both men became my good friends.

JKCCS actually believes that since the 90’s, More than 70,000 people have lost their lives in Kashmir, mostly civilians. The organization is openly calling what occurs in Kashmir – genocide.

Mr. Parvez Imroz wrote for this essay:

“The army since 1989 has resorted to war crimes as they have been given the legal impunity and seldom have any armed personnel for crimes against humanity have been punished. The militarization in Jammu and Kashmir has affected all aspects of life and unfortunately the Indian media and civil society, with some exceptions, have been also extending the moral and political impunity to the army who they believe are fighting trans-border terrorism. The systematic disappearance, mass graves, torture has been completely ignored by the Indian and international media.”

“In order to suppress the freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government has resorted to systematic and institutional repression. More than 700,000 armed forces have been pressed into service to neutralize the armed struggle and to control the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are seeking the right of self-determination which government of India had promised before the United Nations in the 1948 and 1949 resolutions. The repression of the Indian state has been part of their policy. In this lie culpable even the judiciary who as a wing of the State has served the interests of the executive and not the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

“The international institutions and particularly the western civil society and governments after 9/11 and because of Islamophobia and other interests are completely ignoring the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.”

In Kashmir, no matter where I go, no matter where I drive, there are constant, powerful reminders of the occupation: from the almost grotesque presence of the military, police and paramilitary forces, to mass graves. Army barracks are lined up along all the major roads. Military and police trucks drive on them in all directions, on all the major and secondary roads. There are countless roadblocks and checkpoints.

But it is not just the direct and brutal force that is bleeding and destroying Kashmir. Parvaiz Matta explains that this enormous Indian security force has managed to infiltrate and divide local society. Spies and snitches have been inserted. Brave resistance fighters were discredited as informers. Resistance movements have been broken, divided, and so have entire communities, even families.

There is great sense of insecurity. Interrogators telephone formerly detained, alleged resistance figures, and tell them: “We will soon get your sister.”

The brutality of the torture here is unimaginable by any standards. I have investigated and reported on countless warzones, all over the world and countless times, I was entrusted with hair-raising stories of savagery. However, what I learned in Kashmir exceeds the most terrible practices.

In modern history, the cruelty of Indian forces in Kashmir can only be compared to the Indonesian atrocities of 1965 and to its genocide in East Timor, as well as in Papua, or to the brutality of the Rwandese and Ugandan forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or to the Empire’s direct extermination campaign in Indochina.

Not surprisingly, both India and Indonesia are the West’s client states, promoted as examples of ‘democracy’ and ‘tolerance’.

***

“India is deprived, hegemonic and violent”, I am told at the house of Parvez Imroz, outside of Srinagar city.

In the highly traditional Kashmiri custom, several people sit on the floor, legs stretched, old-fashioned heaters placed under the blankets. We are drinking tea.

When it comes to this meeting, I can only identify two men in this essay from the JKCCS, by their real names. The rest are those who are working on behalf of their abused land, but their positions in the international organizations and press agencies would be compromised, were they to go publicly on the record.

They all helped me a lot, guiding me, explaining the situation, supplying me with contacts and information. They were willing to speak on condition of anonymity, and it is clear where their hearts and allegiances were:

“Indians are very moralistic, when it comes to Palestine… Although, even that is changing, after this administration of Prime Minister Modi is moving India closer and closer towards the West. US and Israel here are deeply involved in ‘anti-terrorist training’. Countless military and police officers are receiving their education in the US, European Union, and Israel. Police officers are being flown abroad. The army is performing regular exercises with the US and Israeli forces, mainly in the area of Ladakh, near Pakistan.”

“Ladakh is actually extremely popular among Israelis. 20,000 to 30,000 come here, every year, as tourists, or in some double capacity.”

“The ideas and methods of Israeli settlements are widely used in Kashmir. But they are ‘improved’ here. The Indian state is fine-tuning Israeli policies of apartheid.”

Everybody here agrees that the brutality factor is much higher in Kashmir than in Palestine:

“The brutality of Israeli forces is not hidden: it is all in the open. Every action against the Palestinian people is well documented. Israeli actions are constantly criticized from abroad, even at home. Huge blocks of countries, even the EU, are demanding independence for Palestine. Kashmir is different: our Intifada is hidden from the rest of the world. At least 8,000 of our people have already died. Hundreds of thousands have been tortured. But there is almost total silence coming from abroad.”

The similarities between Palestinian and Kashmiri resistance and their aim for independence and statehood, are striking. One of the most famous films made by my friend Sanjay Kak from New Delhi, is called “Jashn-e-Azadi – How We Celebrate Freedom”, and it is exactly about the topic. Sanjay also edited a book: Until My Freedom Has Come – The New Intifada in Kashmir (2011).

***

Kupwara. Mass graves dot the hill.

When we arrive, the town itself is totally shut down. It is the 21st anniversary of the massacre of local people by Indian forces. Around 27 people were slaughtered here, more than two decades ago, as they demanded the end of the Indian occupation.

“Here, many people were ‘disappeared’; they were killed in so-called staged battles. It happened on several occasions”, explains Parvaiz Matta. “Countless bodies arrived mutilated at the local hospitals: some with no legs, a clear result of torture.”

There are rusting stretchers resting against a tree. I am told that they were used to shuttle bodies from the hospital to this mass grave. And the bodies kept arriving, being carried by security forces from the forest.

The mass graves are all over the hill, some right next to a public school, which sits at the summit.

“The security forces described the bodies as being those of ‘unidentified foreign terrorists’, I am told. But ‘foreign’ is already a form of identification, isn’t it?”

There are 7000 unmarked and mass graves in Kashmir, I am told…

***

The 700,000-strong security forces are fighting between 200 and 300 active Mujahedin, resistance fighters.

The ‘fighting’ mainly consists of murdering innocent bystanders and villagers in the remote areas. These corpses are then passed off as the corpses of the Mujahedeen, ‘killed in combat’. That consequently ‘justifies’ huge military operations and budgets.

The ‘fighting’ also includes torturing anyone who is suspected or ‘accused’ of belonging to, or supporting the Mujahedeen; therefore anyone whom the security forces decide to identify as such.

The ‘signature’ torture in Kupwara, consists of cutting off legs or fingers. Torture tools and methods here, in this area, which is very near the Pakistani border, are very elaborate.

The chests of victims are burned with red-hot coins, and electric current administered through the penis. The testicles of victims are burned. Bottles of alcohol are inserted into the rectum of men who are then hung upside down from the ceiling. Wooden rollers are used to destroy legs. Nails are hammered into the feet of prisoners. Those who have half-moon tattoos, have them removed by red-hot pliers.

When a woman gets arrested, it is almost certain that her torture will include gang rape.

Sodomizing male prisoners is also common, all over Kashmir.

All of this, of course, could not pass as anything ‘spontaneous’. There is clearly a pattern. The security forces are trained to do what they are doing. A new, extremely brutal group has been created by the state. It is called SOG, and it mainly consists of the children of police and military personnel killed in battles with the Mujahedeen. It is easy to imagine the type of methods it uses.

“Most cases of torture and rape are not documented”, explained Parvaiz. “But my organization alone has already managed to amass documentation on around 5,000 instances of torture. For instance, a father had his head chopped off in front of his horrified family…”

I make him stop, at least for a few minutes. I need to at least have a short time to digest what I see around me, as well as what I am told.
We drive further, towards the Pakistani border. It is all really lush here – lush and stunningly beautiful. Tall mountains covered by snowcaps, pristine lakes and meadows. I ask our driver to stop; I need some fresh air. I need to see this magnificence, in order to regain strength, before we proceed towards a place that I dread visiting, but which I have to visit nevertheless.

We are heading towards two villages: Kunan and Poshpora.

Here, on 23rd February 1991, the armed forces of India surrounded Kunan, and arrested all men older than the age of 13. They arrived with the tools of torture, in their vehicles, and the torture that they administered, was horrible.

We park the car and I am lead into one of the houses.

It is a traditional, neat and extremely clean house. We take off our shoes. Two men are already waiting in the main room, resting their backs against the wall and soft pillows. A third man arrives shortly after.

We are not here to discuss torture. It is mass rape I am supposed to hear about.

But first, the men recall their own suffering. One of them begins:

“It was February and it was late at night; cold outside, winter. It all began at 11 PM and did not stop until 4 AM, early in the morning. All the men were taken out, into the bitter cold. They stripped us naked, and forced us to stand in an ice-cold stream. There was snow, 3 feet tall all around. They tortured 100 of us; of the men… 40 to 50 were severely tortured. They used electric current, and also, they put red chilly into the water and forced our heads down into it.”

There are no women in the room; no women at all that could be spotted around the house.

Another old man began speaking, while I averted my eyes. It was all extremely uncomfortable, and I knew what a great effort and determination it took for these men to speak about that horrible night, almost a quarter of century ago.

“Women and girls were left in the houses. They were alone and defenseless. The soldiers, around 200 of them, entered the houses, mostly 5-10 per house. They were carrying bottles of alcohol with them – they were drunk. It was all planned like this!”

Now the men spoke over each other:

“Women were raped. All of them… And not only women, but also small girls, from 6 to 13 years of age… Their clothes were torn off, they were insulted, humiliated, then raped.”

Soldiers were screaming at women: ‘You are bloody helping the militants, aren’t you?’

And this was done by Indian troops, and in India, so often; even rape does not end with the act itself. The brutality of the act is regularly indescribable; it includes the insertion of sharp objects, of rusty bars, of anything.

“Many of our women bled profusely. Some were unconscious for 4 or 5 days,” these 3 husbands whose wives survived that terrible night told me.

“One of the women delivered a baby, just 4 days earlier. The baby was hugging her mom when the soldiers entered. They first killed the baby, then gang-raped the mother.”

“They tortured and raped a minor, a girl. They broke her leg. She died later…”

“Some women have undergone treatment for many years, as their rectums were severely damaged”.

5 women died as a result of what took place that night.

There were two cops, from the village, who tried to assist the injured women. Later, they were willing to come forward and to testify. One of them was shot dead – murdered.

I am told that 40 women came forward and gave testimonies. These were married women. Minor, unmarried girls, had kept their identity secret. But even so, almost no young woman from Kunan could get married, afterwards. The stigma was too great and no villager from the area wanted to marry a rape victim.

Parvaiz explained that the rapes are still taking place in the deep provinces, in the frontier areas, where the people are at the mercy of the military. “Still, rape is used as a weapon of war”, he said.

For the Kunan onslaught, not one soldier has been punished, so far.

Before we left, the husbands of the rape victims, explained:

“This happened at the beginning… Then many other, terrible events took place. We tried to play by the rules, using the Indian legal system. But after almost a quarter of a century, there has been no justice. Here, the law only protects those guilty ones. This militarization of Kashmir ruined our lives! Now, we just want to be freed by destiny! This was all a terrible trauma for us. Even children from other villages are mocking our women and girls: “Oh, you come from that village where all the women were raped!”

It was a humbling experience, facing those tough Kashmiri men, who decided to open themselves up to me.

After they spoke, we walked from Kunan to Poshpora Village. Metaphorically, the ice was broken. I was allowed to photograph villagers, both men and women. I was accepted.

As we began driving towards Srinagar, there was a long silence inside the car. Then I broke it:

“Parvaiz?”

“Hmmm?”

“The fact that they mock the girls and women…” I began…

I knew he was thinking the same.

“Would you marry a rape victim?” He asked.

“If I were to be in love with her, yes, of course I would.”

“Are you sure?”

“Yes,” I said.

“This is where our culture has failed”, he said. And this is when I knew, that he would do the same.

I told him about the mass rape in the city of Ermera, in East Timor. The Indonesian forces did it – exactly the same scenario as in the Kashmiri village of Kunan.

I was then working illegally in East Timor. I was detained and tortured. Nobody ever got punished for the rape or for the killings. Many people directly responsible for the genocide in East Timor are now governing Indonesia.

***

As we passed Kupwara, the mood in the car significantly improved.

“I did not want to tell you, but chances were that before reaching Kupwara, we could have been stopped, interrogated and then…”

I got the point.

But now ‘it was fine’.

The further we drove away from Kupwara, the safer it was getting; by now we would have many arguments for justifying our trip. I photographed a few military and paramilitary camps, through the windshield.

Then I asked our driver to stop. I needed to take a piss. He pushed the brakes right next to some beautiful Kashmiri apple orchard.

I stepped out from the car and walked towards the first tree; the fresh air and beautiful countryside, and stuff like that… Then I spotted him: a soldier, semi-camouflaged, holding his machinegun, ready. I pissed towards him, defiantly. Then I saluted him, mockingly. He did not even smile, just stood there, like an idiot, under the apple tree.

I was wondering whether there are more Indian security personnel in Kashmir, or apple trees?

I visited Mr. Hassan Bhat in Sopore City, known for its resistance fighters.

Mr. Bhat used to be one of them, but he was captured and tortured savagely, on several occasions, and he gave up on active duty.

The security forces killed both his sons. Just like that, both died by the time they reached the age of 15.

One son had gone to a local store, in 2006, to buy milk, and a security agent shot him through the chest, from his speeding police car. Another boy died in 2010, when some kids got engaged in stone-throwing, and he was caught in the middle of it, when he got scared, and jumped into the river. Police began shooting tear gas canisters at anyone who was in the water. They hit him with one of those, and he died.

“I know the perpetrators, I know the officer who was in charge”, said Mr. Bhat. He tried to file a complaint, but the police refused to register the case.

“The officer-in-charge was going to join the UN Peacekeepers”, said Parvaiz. “India often sends people who fought in Kashmir, to the UN. It is a huge money-making scheme for the country… But my organization identified him, and supplied the UN with detailed evidence on his crimes. After that, his application got rejected.”

I actually saw the Indian UN “Peacekeepers” in action, in Goma, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where even the former UNHCR head, Ms. Masako Yonekawa, complained to me about the many illegal activities perpetrated by the Indian ‘peacekeeping contingent’.

Then, Mr. Bhat and I stood by the shore of the River Jhelum.

“It flows all the way to Pakistan,” he sighed.

Mr. Bhat, despite all those horrors that he has survived, is a kind, gentle man.

I asked him whether he thinks that Kashmir will be able to, at some point, gain its independence.

“80% of Kashmiri people want freedom”, he said. “80% is a lot of people, don’t you think?”

I am being shown where, in 1993, an entire area had been destroyed, by the BSF (Border Security Forces). Back then, 53 people died.

Later we go, in the middle of the night, to a house where a battle took place between the Indian forces and the Mujahedeen, just a few days earlier.

Sopore is still fighting.

But there is fear. It is cold; it is an omnipresent fear.

I am told by many, that now, people are afraid of even protesting against the scarcity of basic supplies. One could easily disappear.

I am told that here, the Indian forces are trying to hook young people on alcohol and drugs, in order to keep them away from the resistance.

But others say: in this city, in Sopore, people are determined. They resist. They are active here. This city produces big people! People that never surrender! Indian forces call it “Little Pakistan”.

Can the huge oppressive force really be defeated, and if yes, then how?

This is when, even in Sopore; even in the middle of the night, in front of a house that recently witnessed a real battle, everyone gets realistic:

“Only international pressure can help!”

At some point, one gets exhausted, almost numb, after listening to detailed and well-documented accounts of extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture and rapes.

At one point I was presented with evidence about a man who was detained, questioned and when he appeared defiant, both of his feet were chopped off. He survived. When still in detention, sometime later, the security forces cut off substantial parts of his flesh, from different parts of his body; cooked it, and forced him to eat it, for several days. He survived… The case is documented and HR organizations are demanding justice. No one has been punished.

***

There is genocide: terrible, outrageous and unreported by the cowardly media and the intellectuals, in both India and the West.

People, who dare to speak and write about the plight of Kashmir, are intimidated, deported, and even physically attacked.

Arundhati Roy is periodically threatened with sedition charges, lawsuits and life imprisonment.

Others, like the legendary radio host David Barsamian, got deported from India, no explanation given.

In October 2011, a senior Supreme Court advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan (who drafted the Lokpal Bill), was brutally beaten in his chambers at the Supreme Court after he made comments on Kashmir. Mr. Bhushan’s spoke on human rights violations and militarization in Kashmir.

***

There are tourists in Kashmir, not only Indian, but foreigners as well. They go skiing and snowboarding in Gulmarg, or hiking to Ladakh. There are Europeans and Israelis, some North Americans.

Many locals call it “horror tourism in Rapistan”.

I encountered several couples, high in the mountains, in Gulmarg: red cheeks from too much fresh air at the high altitude. I talked to a British couple enjoying skiing, a German couple on vacation… They had no clue about what was happening in Kashmir. When I pressed them a bit: “But you must have noticed all those bunkers, military convoys and checkpoints”, their simple reply was: “Yes… Well, India has to do something about the terrorism problem, right?”

It is a well-documented fact that the Empire is counting on several countries, all over the world, for acting on its behalf, spreading terror in the ‘neighborhood’, often brutalizing even its own people. These countries are, for instance, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya in Africa, Honduras and Columbia in Latin America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the Middle East, Indonesia, Thailand and now India in Southern Asia.

Most of the brutal lackey states are christened as ‘democracies’, as tolerant, as the examples worth following.

These countries are promoted as ‘Lands of Smiles’, or as ‘cultures of non-violence’. It is all farcical, but somehow, not many people seem to be laughing.

It is because they don’t know. It is because brutality and cynicism still pays.

And this approach should stop! Brutal crimes against humanity have to be exposed. Countries that are murdering thousands of innocent people have to be shamed publicly and dealt with, internationally. It goes without saying that a state that is serving the Empire, torturing and raping those who are longing for independence, while in the same time spitting on its own poor, should never have place in an organization like BRICS!

I went back to the area of the Grand Mosque in Srinagar, on 26th January, as I promised. I followed the kids. A few streets away, after 2 PM, fighting erupted.

It was all raw and tough, and it clearly resembled Palestine.

The only great difference was that other than me there were no witnesses, to describe the courage of local youth, as well as the oppression of the Kashmiri people by the Indian state.

Two days later I took the longest cable car in Asia, at Gulmarg. I wanted to see ‘what was up there’. There is, of course, a military base!

On the way down, the electricity collapsed and our gondola froze, suspended in midair. The door would not close, and there were holes, all over. It was India, after all. I could have frozen to death, if the stuff did not begin moving a few minutes later.

India is facing some of the most serious challenges on Earth: from illiteracy to deep poverty. 700,000 security forces cost billions of dollars, annually, pragmatically speaking. Even if the Indian elites, government and military do not care about the Kashmiri people and their plight, they should care at least about their own poor!

Holding Kashmir against its will brings no benefits to India and its people. It is definitely undemocratic and brutal… and absolutely unnecessary!

Welcome to Kashmir! Its beauty is fabled. Its lakes, mountain ranges, deep valleys and rivers are proud and striking. Its people warm, welcoming, but strong.

Kashmir is bleeding. Its valleys are divided by barbed wire. Its women are raped. Its men tortured and humiliated. The cries of Kashmiri people are muted. The world knows almost nothing about their plight, about their suffering.

700,000-man security force fighting around 300 men! And they cannot win. Why? The answer is simple: It is because no brutal force on earth could ever defeat those who are fighting for the survival of their land, for something so dear, so beloved!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

08 February, 2015
Counterpunch.org