Archives: Articles

By Judith Bello

Here is a brief update on the activities of the US Peace Council delegation in Syria. I could spend many words and hours debunking every lie you have been told about Syria and Syrians in the last 5 years, a Sisyphean task in today’s environment. Instead I will share some of my perceptions of recent events based on my experiences in Damascus this week.

Yesterday was quite an interesting day. We met with President Assad in the morning and talked at some length. We began by exchanging introductions and then we asked him some very serious questions. We were not allowed to record the session but many of us took at least some notes. He told us that his strongest focus is on representing the Syrian people and holding the state together on their behalf. He described numerous programs the Syrian state has enacted to protect the people during this very difficult time. The government has converted schools and other buildings into refugee centers. They continue to provide, to the best of their ability, free education and medical care to everyone in the government held areas; they supply power, clean water and food even to areas that are occupied by militants where it is possible.

And he proudly told us that the Syrian Arab Army, an army of the people which is defending the country against a brutal attack, have finally closed the road from Aleppo to Turkey. This is very important because the militants in East Aleppo, and especially Al Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, have been receiving money and weapons from Turkey. He then told us that he had just issued the order to implement the humanitarian corridors and amnesty for Syrian nationals. He said that there are two ways to deplete the violence. The first is to fight to the bitter end. The other is to provide an incentive for people to stop fighting and give them a safe passage back to the lives they have left.

These are the first steps in the reconciliation plan which the Reconciliation Minister had talked about extensively, and which was cited by many others we spoke to as the best thinking to restore peace to Syria. We had already had two extended meetings with the Minister of Reconciliation, one in his office and the other over dinner at our hotel where he explained the methodology for reconciliation which they have been developing for some time. Amnesty and humanitarian aid are just the beginning. Evacuating as many civilians as possible is a temporary step to secure their welfare while negotiations are ongoing.

They used this process quite successfully in Homs last winter when they evacuated thousands of fighters and their families from neighborhoods they have long held hostage. Many were bused to Idlib where they may well resume fighting, but a densely populated areas of Homs is now secure and the civilians are able to live their lives in peace. The tens of thousands of citizens who remained were provided humanitarian relief and basic needs with reconstruction assistance on the horizon. You can see the video I posted on my blog at the time when they joyously welcomed the Syrian Arab Army. Minister Haidar admitted that Reconciliation plans are a work in progress and problems do occur. He also explained a complex process involving contact with and empowerment of the local people in the occupied areas that I can explain at some other time.

Each case is unique. East Aleppo has been very closely tied to a stream of foreign fighters who came in through Turkey. They are unlikely to walk away. Al Nusra/Al Qaeda is the primary organization there. And there may be a larger civilian population than in some of the other areas where the plan has succeeded. While the world is watching, it must be stated that the deep plan of working with local fighters and civilian councils will not unfold immediately. Ali Haidar, the Minister of Reconciliation and the long time leader of a dissident party prior to the current crisis in Syria (the war), is on his way to Aleppo to assess conditions and work on making the contacts necessary to begin the real process of reconciliation.

Of course, the first steps of this plan for reconciliation have been all over the news with varying judgements. The New York Times refers to reconciliation and restoration of the fighters’ citizenship as ‘surrender’, but that is not the way those vested in ‘reconciliation’ see it. People we spoke to told us that Syrians are tired of the war. Many initially joined the fight because they were being paid. They say that others joined out of confusion during the initial attacks on their villages and neighborhoods and that many men in occupied areas are given the choice to fight for the militants or be killed immediately. The president told us that he would prefer to heal the country rather than unleash a sea of rage and revenge. The only context in which this does not make sense is one where the sovereign Syrian State is not acknowledged.

Starvation might be less an issue in Aleppo than the fact that the fighters and their families will no longer have income. Last week it was reported, even by Western sources that the current situation was imminent and so an effort was made by the militants in East Aleppo to bring in several months worth of food and other necessities. In the last 24 hours, the Russians have air dropped more food and supplies into East Aleppo. And there are resources at the humanitarian corridors. The NY Times is reporting that people don’t want to leave East Aleppo. However, RT, however, is reporting that militants are firing on civilians who try to leave the area. Clearly there are problems that need to be addressed.

However, there are significant differences between the perspective presented by the Western press and that of the Syrians we met with this week. There is one I would like to point out, that was made very clear by everyone I met with during my stay here in Damascus. Syria is a sovereign country. It has a government which is doing its best to provide the services that governments provide including the provision of necessary resources and services to civilians including personal security which includes ethnic and religious tolerance and equality under the law. None of the forces at war with the government of Syria have demonstrated the capacity, or more importantly, the desire to provide these basic human and civil rights to the people of Syria.

President Bashar Assad, who was elected 2 years ago by the majority of Syrian citizens with a clear majority of votes, comes across as a well educated, progressive individual who is taking responsibility for providing for the people of his country who elected him by a significant majority, and leading a government which is attempting to respond to the issues that have caused civil unrest and discontent within that society while at the same time facing a vicious attack, funded, armed and manned by wealthy countries that have no civil rights and provide few social resources to their population. Not only is the government of Syria with their President doing their best to support the people of that country, but were he to leave, there would be no leadership in the fight against forces that oppose the values of the vast majority of Syrian people and are determined to tear the state apart.

Syrian is home to several ethnic groups and numerous sects of Christianity and Islam. They have lived together in peace for centuries if not longer. This week, the Grand Muftii and the Bishop of the Orthodox Church told us they are ‘cousins’. People tell me it is shameful to ask another person their religion or ethnic background as it is socially irrelevant. There is an awareness of the economic issues that are a source of suffering but the war has taken precedence. There is no doubt that the Syrian government has made mistakes and no one in Syria denies it. However, the US demand that Assad abandon his office and his responsibilities is unrealistic and out of sync with American values as well as with Syrian values. The US insistence on continuing to fuel this vicious war with money and weapons, through proxies and direct strikes, through propaganda and political manipulation, until he abdicates is criminal. It is a violation of international law, us law, and common morality.

Judith Bello has spent the week in Damascus with a US Peace Council Delegation on a fact finding mission. We talked to people in government, business and social services. We spoke to professors, staff and student representatives at Damascus University, and we met at length with Ali Haidar, Chairman of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and Minister of Reconciliation in the current Government. Yesterday we had a meeting with the President. Today we went to Ma’alula. Tomorrow most of us will fly home. Judith joined the Delegation as a representative of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC). She will be writing more about this unique and eye opening experience as will the other participants.

30 July 2016

By Franklin Lamb

Jablah, North Syria: “Don’t cry for us Syria” has recently become a motto/logo of sorts for many physically and psychologically brutalized youth around this ancient land. They are the youngsters who represent a new generation of Syrians, many of whom were born in this century. It is into their patriotic hands that the Syria’s Torch has been passed.

Amid all the dissension and fear-mongering surrounding refugees in the midst of a bloody civil/proxy war, many of Syria’s youth are focused on helping fellow Syrians. As much of the rest of the world seemingly passes its time pontificating and posturing in padded chairs and security councils, volunteers around Syria are risking their lives to help those in dire need and who are attempting to find safety.

The war statistics from Syria are fairly well known. As are the dangers of Syria’s youth heeding seductive Sirene calls to violence with offers of salaries and various perks and escapes from reality. The conflict here has, according to some NGO estimates, now claimed the lives of nearly half a million Syrians, out of a pre-war population of 22 million. More than 11 percent of the Syrian population is estimated to have been killed or injured. More than five million have fled the country while approximately 8 million are internally displaced. The UN estimates that nearly 12 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, more than six million being children ranging from infants to age 12. These distressing numbers rise every day and have left few Syrian families untouched as they carve a deep psychological scar on the population, none more so than upon the youth.

One consequence from more five years of civil war in their country is the pulling of Syria’s youth toward extremist groups due to myriad deprivations and personal traumas, loss of economic and educational opportunities, the destruction of infrastructure and spreading fighting; besieged areas, and much more. Youth unemployment now reaches nearly 90 percent in some areas of the country with no end in sight for this conflict. These factors, more than ideology cause many youth to join extremist groups such that many male adolescents end up joining armed groups for lack of a better option and for some income.

Many Syrian adolescents, who this observer has had the honor to meet, have experienced terrible psychological traumas, like losing family members and other conflict-related tragedies. The widely reported increase in the use of drugs and alcohol among adolescents, as a coping measure in the face of hardship, is a point of concern when it comes to the health of young Syrians. The financial resources of most Syrian families have become so limited, it is to the point that fathers cannot provide for their families and increasingly marry their daughters off prematurely. Where male mobility is hindered by security concerns, females may be the sole family support. Looking for basic necessities such as food, fuel and water, they often end up waiting in line for hours to receive relief assistance.

Fragmentation of family structure, tensions due to the economic situation, contrasting political views, exposure to sectarianism, and tribal conflict often result in a rise of adolescents’ insecurity and fear, a wish for rebellion, feelings of hatred, and radical thinking that can have potentially long-lasting results on their future and Syria’s. This trend is particularly evident in areas where sectarian and tribal conflicts are widespread.

At the same time, adolescents reveal great determination to improve lives here. Despite fearing for their lives as well as the lives of loved ones, Syria’s youth are today exhibiting extraordinary resilience and freely discuss with foreigners, various strategies that would help them and their fellow citizens. Foremost is the need felt by youngsters for the return of security and peace in the country for their parents and the overall community. Paralyzing fear and extreme sadness resulting from the war permeates every discussion with Syria youngsters who see the end of the conflict as the only hope for a better future. One youngster in the Wadi al Nasra (Valley of the Christian) near Homs, explained, “We do not know what is coming. We have a very long, painful road ahead but I know that our involvement change our country’s course.”

For this observer, some surprising reactions among Syria’s youth include a strong rejection of the forces inside and outside of Syria who seek to manipulate religions and sects for political purposes. Student’s frankness and detailed knowledge expressed is encouraging given their resistance to confessional political manipulation. It gives one hope for this country’s future. Syrian youth generally want no part of turning sects against one another and vow that after this war ends Syria will embrace all her people whether they are believers or not and with a blind eye to what sect or religion someone belongs to. “This is who we are as a people, two medical students explained to this observer, this is our heritage and our values and we shall return to them and hopefully learn from this ugly experience that distorted us and gave the world the wrong impression of who we are.”

Syrian adolescents are also calling for more opportunities to actively help their community and the people most severely affected by the situation, through volunteering and joining charities and relief organizations. According to a UNICEF survey of last year, roughly 60 percent of the interviewed adolescents would like to engage in activities, especially in relief work and related trainings (e.g., first aid), and recreational and cultural activities for their countrymen. There is currently a serious shortage of centers available at key locations.

Their strength and resilience comes from the love and support of parents and friends; from the community that shares their fate and the inspiring example of relief workers who devote their time to helping others as well as from within themselves and from their desire for a better future.

Syria’s new generation wants to be evaluated by their community with respect, their capabilities and potentials recognized, to be supported, understood and encouraged. Amidst sentiments of uncertainty on how the war here will develop, Syrian’s youth are committed in many ways to bring positive changes and improvements to their communities. Today they are feeding the hungry, organizing dozens of activities for children, repairing war damage, cleaning streets and alleys, trimming foliage in parks and along highways, tutoring kids out of regular schools, volunteering at hospitals and clinics, donating blood, organizing scout trips into the countryside, counseling and supporting traumatized patients, organizing funfairs and arts and crafts events for kids, teaching and conducting art projects to games to nutritious meals preparations, to discussions about what to do and what not to do to stay safe in their neighborhoods, and much more. Syria’s youngsters, like most youngsters are spectacular.

Parents of young people here in Syria are naturally deeply concerned about the numerous daily threats their children face and their bleak future. As a result, they often become overprotective and give little space or freedom to adolescents in a desperate effort to keep them safe. Parents themselves are under enormous stress and sometimes end up isolating their children in order to protect them without considering the psychological impact, particularly on adolescents. Parents’ restrictions create a deep feeling of frustration in adolescents, especially among girls, who feel locked inside the house, confined to their bedrooms and constantly longing to get out and be with their friends.

Nevertheless parents, while expressing disapproval to this observer for some of their children’s behavior, consider their children this country’s future and the only hope for a better Syria. They know the hardship that their children’s generation is experiencing and their delayed potential. Parents here know well that social tensions from the war negatively influence adolescent behavior. Finishing education is clearly a priority for 94 percent of parents surveyed last year by the NGO, Mercy Corp. A high percentage (81 percent) of adolescents who were interviewed by Merci Corps is currently studying, with the largest majority getting formal education in public and private schools. Nevertheless, 76 percent are facing serious difficulties in continuing their education. As one male adolescent explained, “We go to school every day. Sometimes there is no teacher, but we still go. It is better than sitting doing nothing.”

The main obstacle for all students here remains the security situation, which results in challenges to the school premises; the closure of schools; lack of teachers, books and supplies; and parents forcing their children to drop out because of fear for their safety as well as the financial need to work. Further, among displaced adolescents, a strong feeling of marginalization within the school environment often results in adolescents dropping out of school.

Those who are able to find a job (22 percent according to the UNHCR) dropped out of school and are currently working but they are often poorly paid. Driven by the need to help their families and sometimes being the only breadwinner in the household, adolescents work as shop assistants, street vendors, in construction and farming. The majority receive, on average, less than $100 per month.

Against this bleak backdrop, Syria’s youth refuse to be defeated or to abandon what many refer to as “Mother Syria.” Youngsters today in Syria are seeking educational activities and relief work and volunteering with charities and relief organizations for the purpose of helping their countrymen in need. Youngsters here explain that by helping others it gives them a sense of purpose and they deem it rewarding, even when dangerous. According to a UNICEF survey on last year, roughly 60 percent of the interviewed adolescents would like to engage in activities, especially in relief work and related trainings (e.g., first aid), and recreational and cultural activities for their countrymen. Syrian adolescents are also calling for more opportunities to actively help their community and the people most severely affected by the situation, through volunteering and joining charities and relief organizations. Their strength and resilience comes from the love and support of parents and friends; from the community that shares their fate and the inspiring example of relief workers who devote their time to helping others.

Though rare, some recreational activities, such as sports, especially football are available at times. They often are organized by local groups and schools. In some communities, religious groups engage with youth quite actively. Whatever the type of activity that adolescents take part in, there is always positive feedback that brings purpose to their lives and encourages them, especially if it involves helping others.

Hundreds of thousands of youngsters have fled Syria for a new life abroad. An equal number refused to leave and resolved to continue trying to salvage their beloved Syria recognizing that there were many needs that they can help fill on the grass roots level despite the increasingly complexity of the regional and international competition for Syria.

For this observer, surprising reactions among Syria’s youth include a strong rejection of the forces inside and outside of Syria who seek to manipulate religions and sects for political purposes. Students frankness and detailed knowledge expressed is encouraging given their resistance to confessional political manipulation is refreshing and gives one hope for this country’s future. They want no part of turning sects against one another and vow that after this war ends Syria will embrace all her people whether they are believers or not and with a blind eye to what sect or religion one belongs to. “This is who we are as a people, two medical students vising the crusader fortress Crac des Chevalier last week, explained to this observer, “this is our heritage and our values and we shall return to them and hopefully learn from this ugly experience that distorted us and gave the world the wrong impression of who we are.”

May Syria’s youth ever grasp tightly and proudly their country’s Torch as its flame brightens Syrian paths as they reclaim and rebuild this cradle of civilization.

To provide a meal to a Syrian refugee child in Lebanon: Please visit:

http://mealsforsyrianrefugeechildrenlebanon.com

For Syria Heritage Updates please visit:

www.Syrian-heritage.com

Franklin Lamb is a visiting Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law, Damascus University and volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program (sssp-lb.com).

30 July 2016

By Mohammad Ashraf

(For three weeks now the entire Kashmir Valley has been turned into a huge prison with total blockade of communication within and with outside world)

The intention of the authorities in Delhi appears to cow down Kashmiris to the extent that they bite the dust and give up! This shows the utter lack of knowledge about the Kashmiris and their 5,000 year old history. Kashmir from the ancient times was known to be a very beautiful country somewhere in the Himalaya. One finds mention of Kashmir in almost all ancient chronicles of the Greeks, the Arabs and even the Chinese. There are no other people in this area who have such an ancient recorded history. It used to be the best seat of learning in this entire area. Kashmir had trade relations with Central Asia and people from far and wide used to come here for studies. The most important Buddhist Council which changed this religion from the strictest Hinayana School to the more acceptable Mahayana was held in Kashmir.

Kashmiris are proud of their ancient history. However, the country was an independent sovereign kingdom till the sixteenth century when Akbar, the Mughal King annexed it to his empire through treachery. Mughals had failed twice to capture Kashmir but then Akbar invited the then king Yusuf Shah Chak to Lahore for talks, arrested him there and attacked Kashmir. Being leaderless, Kashmiris still gave a fight and his son Yaqub Shah Chak fought a guerrilla war for six months but was ultimately captured in Kishtwar. Thus ended Kashmir’s independence in 1586!

Since that time the country of Kashmir has been under the occupation of outsiders who took turns in capturing it one after the other. After Mughals came the Afghans. Then came the Sikhs and finally, the Dogras purchased it from the British for a paltry sum of rupees seventy five lakhs along with its inhabitants. All the foreign rulers oppressed the local people so much that they ultimately became wretched serfs without any self-respect and dignity. The four centuries of slavery completely squeezed out of them every semblance of chivalry and manhood and they were turned into characterless bonded labour! However, there were occasional rebellions but these were put down with a harsh hand!

In spite of all the harshest conditions for last four centuries, Kashmiris have survived and are now more vigorous and vocal than ever before! There are no Mughals; there are no Afghans, there is no Sikh empire and there is no Dogra kingdom but the Kashmiris are still there! It is only their misfortune that when the whole sub-continent was having an awakening of freedom and they were expecting to free themselves from the centuries of slavery that they got locked up in a tangle which refuses to go away.However, they have not given up the hope of final salvation. It is the misfortune of the authorities keeping them down that they have not learnt a lesson from Kashmir’s history. Kashmiris will survive all the harshest measures and would still be there. However, on the contrary, the people oppressing themmercilessly may not be there like the oppressors of the earlier times!

For last three weeks the entire valley has been converted into a prison and a virtual concentration camp. There is continuous curfew in the entire valley without any relaxation or break. All communication links within Kashmir and with the outside world have been snapped. Nonstop protests are taking place all over the valley. Protesting teenagers, children and women are being showered with bullets and pellets. Over 50 people have been killed and more than 3,000 injured. As per latest reports, the pellets have affected the eyesight of over 185 persons. The newspaper presses and offices were sealed and papers confiscated. One used to hear about such harsh measures being taken in the countries behind the erstwhile “Iron Curtain”. Some of the measures are even harsher than the “Iron Curtain” measures! Kashmir is supposed to be an integral part of the democratic and secular republic of India. There is no record of similar measures ever having being taken in any other part of the republic of India. The authorities could have learnt a lesson from the happenings of 2008 and 2010. Kashmiris can never be cowed down and they always rise up whenever they feel their existence is being threatened.

For last 70 years it has not been possible for the outside forces to bring down Kashmiris on their knees. They have risen up again and again and will continue to do so in future also. A British author has observed that no outsider has ever been able to know what is really in the heart of a Kashmiri and it is only a kind word and a joke which brings out the best in a Kashmiri.The authorities in Delhi stillseem to believe in cowing down and subduing people rather than winning them over. Probably they have forgotten the saying of the most famous illustrious son of Kashmir, Kalhana, “The country of Kashmir may be conquered by the force of spiritual merit, but not by the force of soldiers!” The time seems to have run out for Delhi and there appears no turning back now!

Mohammad Ashraf, I.A.S. (Retired), Former Director General Tourism, Jammu & Kashmir.

28 July 2016

By Andre Vltchek

New Cold War is now in full swing and the West is using both old and new tactics, in order to demonize and discredit all of its opponents: from Russia to China, Venezuela, North Korea, South Africa and Iran.

Our anti-imperialist media outlets, including those of the RT, TeleSUR, Press TV, CCTV and Sputnik are being labeled as ‘propaganda’ channels. Defensive and internationalist initiatives of our countries are branded as aggressions. Those governments that are relentlessly working on behalf of the people are defined as ‘evil’ or at least as ‘dictatorships’.

The Empire is erecting complex and destructive web of lies and manipulations, literally trapping some countries in grotesque pseudo-legal concepts, as recently happened to China, which was confronted by The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague, which has recently ruled against, what F. William Engdhal described, as “any and all claims of China to various islands or even rocks inside what is known as the ‘Nine Dash Line’ between China’s coast and The Philippines.” China actually never asked for any ‘arbitration’; it is repeating that it has been ready to negotiate directly with the Philippines. But the West and the previous servile administration in Manila decided to turn this historical dispute into a yet another ideological and propaganda battle.

The War against the “coalition of unwilling” is constantly diversifying. Propagandists in North America and Europe are inventing new ‘weapons’ of mass intellectual and information destruction. Nothing is left intact.

The latest ‘battle’ is truly unconventional, one could even say ‘innovative’ – it is an attempt to demonize Russian athletes, and even to prevent them, at lease some of them, from participating in the upcoming Rio de Janeiro Olympic games!

Of course, Russia’s athletes are legendary, as are its artists, scientists and thinkers. To drag the entire Russian Olympic team through the dirt and infamy could be definitely considered a great victory for the Western Empire and its fundamentalist philosophy. To ban it altogether from participating at the Olympics would be even more ‘delightful’.

“Just look at those sneaky, filthy, dishonest Russians – they are cheating wherever they go! They are doping their athletes, turning them into some robots stuffed with steroids… They are winning unfairly!”

Deena Stryker makes an excellent point in her recent essay for the NEO:

“Today the airways were full of talk about the possibility that Russia would be banned from taking part in the up-coming Olympic Games in Brazil, on the pretext that the IOC has ‘definitive proof’ — in the words of a spokesman — that the Putin government was complicit in the doping of its athletes going back to 2013.

Two things strike me as strange: the first is the fact that the Russian doctor and former lab head who apparently faked test results now lives in California, were he heads a laboratory.

The second thing is that sports fans are less likely than other people to be up on foreign news and international politics, while they are passionate about sports news… These people are bound to make up a sizable portion of any electorate, so someone in President Obama’s foreign policy team probably decided to target them instead of consumers of hard news. Sports fans have probably not followed the Ukraine coup, or even the NATO buildup on Russia’s borders…”

The IOC itself is historically a notoriously corrupt institution. It has been always more than willing to provide favors to those who either pay, or hold reigns of power.

It is not that the Russian labs and all Russian athletes are clean, far from it! There were definitely several (or many) cases of doping, and the labs were not always ‘clean’ or transparent. But!

But so many athletes and so many labs, all over the world, are guilty of the same wrongdoings. But it is only Russia that may be forced to pay the heaviest, the ultimate price.

To claim that this is not part of the political battle would be ludicrous.

But sidelining, even demonizing Russia may not be the only purpose for this complex ‘operation’.

Just very recently, Brazil, the host country of the 2016 Olympic games, went through some agonizing events. Its socialist government had been framed and forced out of power, by both the local extreme right wing elites and by their handlers in the West.

Protests are still raging. Discontent with the coup and with the new regime is growing.

There is great chance that there will be clashes between the protesters and armed forces, during the Games.

In such an explosive environment, anything could become symbolic, even the epic fight of the Russian, Chinese, Cuban and other athletes against the competitors representing the West.

During my recent visit to Brazil I realized how popular Russia is becoming among the ordinary people there. It is clear for whom so many Brazilian sports fans would be cheering, especially now, after the shameless coup.

This (the planners in Washington most likely decided) has to be prevented. The solidarity of BRICS countries should not be shown on television screens to those billions of sports fans all over the world.

Now, with Temer and his clique holding power in Brazil, it would be much easier to simply ‘delete’ Russia from the Olympic map, if the IOC decides to impose blank ban on the entire Russian team.

If the coup never took place, if Dilma and the PT were still in power, there were several ways to resist this latest West’s onslaught against Russia and its athletes. There were even ways to humiliate the spineless IOC. For instance, the government of Brazil could have arranged a parallel event for the Russian athletes, in order to show its solidarity. But now, the way things are, there is no chance for such a ‘rebellion’!

Brazil is screaming under attacks from the market fundamentalists. Its new (illegitimate, but fully pro-Western) government naturally sees Russia as one of its archenemies.

One should never under-estimate the Empire! In its own, deeply destructive way, it is truly brilliant. Its Machiavellian tactics are extremely effective. And this sport saga is just a proof of it!

On July 26, 2016, the RT reported:

“The International Olympic Committee has rejected calls for a blanket ban on Russia at the Rio 2016 Games, ruling that individual sports federations should decide whether Russian athletes are eligible to compete.

Athletes will need to meet strict criteria laid out by the IOC, including proving to international federations that they have a clean doping record and have been tested by “reliable” international anti-doping bodies.”

Conditions are almost impossible to meet, in such a short time that is left before the beginning of the Olympic games in Rio.

The Empire is becoming thoroughly unpredictable. It is attacking on all fronts. It lost all its shame and decency.

And the Western mass media is now fully lined-up, providing ideological cover and unabashed propaganda. And now it is not only the media in the United States, but also in Germany, the U.K. and elsewhere.

Most likely, the free world (those countries that are refusing to accept the West’s dictates) will soon lose one more important battle. But the struggle goes on! Those Russian athletes who will make it to Rio will be fighting great symbolic battles, like those that were fought in Berlin, during the 1936 Olympics.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries.

28 July 2016

By Pepe Escobar

Since the recent ruling by The Hague in favor of the Philippines and against China over the South China Sea, Southeast Asia has been engulfed on how to respond. They dithered. They haggled. They were plunged into despair.

It was a graphic demonstration of how “win-win” business is done in Asia. At least in theory.

In the end, at a summit in Vientiane, Laos, the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China finally settled for that household mantra – “defusing tensions”.

They agreed to stop sending people to currently uninhabited “islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features” after ASEAN declared itself worried about land reclamation and “escalations of activities in the area”.

And all this without even naming China – or referring to the ruling in The Hague.

China and ASEAN also pledged to respect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea (which Washington insists is in danger); solve territorial disputes peacefully, through negotiations (that happens to be the official Chinese position), also taking into consideration the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); and work hard to come up with a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (that’s been going on for years; optimistically, a binding text will be ready by the first half of 2017).

So, problem solved? Not really. At first, it was Deadlock City. Things only started moving when the Philippines desisted to mention The Hague in the final statement; Cambodia – allied with China – had prevented it from the start.

And that’s the heart of the matter when it comes to ASEAN negotiating with China. It’s a Sisyphean task to reach consensus among the 10 members – even as ASEAN spins its role as the perfect negotiation conduit. China for its part prefers bilaterals – and has applied Divide and Rule to get what it wants, seducing mostly Laos and Cambodia as allies.

That threat by a peer competitor

The strategic geopolitical centrality of the South China Sea is well known: A naval crossroads of roughly $5 trillion in annual trade; transit sea lanes to roughly half of global daily merchant shipping, a third of global oil trade and two-thirds of all liquid natural gas (LNG) trade.

It’s also the key hub of China’s global supply chain. The South China Sea protects China’s access to the India Ocean, which happens to be Beijing’s crucial energy lifeline. Woody Island in the Paracels, southeast of Hainan island, also happens to be a key bridgehead in One Belt, One Road (OBOR) – the New Silk Roads. The South China Sea is strictly linked to the Maritime Silk Road.

The arbitration panel in The Hague (composed of four Europeans, one American of Ghanaian descent and, significantly, no Asians) issued a ruling that is non-binding; moreover, it was not exactly neutral, as China, one the conflicting parties, simply refused to take part.

Beyond these expressions of mutual ASEAN-China understanding, hardcore action will keep everyone’s juices flowing. The Pentagon, predictably, won’t refrain from its FON (Freedom of Navigation) program, which has recently featured several B-52 overflights in the South China Sea along with the usual US Navy patrols.

But now Beijing is counter punching in style – showing off one of its H-6K long-range nuclear-capable bombers overflying Scarborough Shoal, near the Philippines. That only increased Pentagon paranoia, because the real game in the South China Sea revolves to a large extent over China’s aerial and underwater military strategy.

To understand the progression, we need to go back to the early 1980s, when the Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping set up China’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Shenzhen. From the start, the whole Chinese miracle always depended upon China’s eastern seaboard’s fabulous capacity to engage in global trade. More than half of China’s GDP depends on global trade.

But, strategically, China has no direct access to the open seas. Geophysics is implacable: there are islands all around. And geopolitics followed; many of these are and can become a problem.

Wu Shicun, the president of China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies, has been constant over the years; all of Beijing’s actions boil down to securing strategic access to the opens seas. This may be construed in the West as aiming for a “Chinese lake”. But it’s in fact about securing its own naval backyard. And that implies, predictably, deep suspicion about what the US Navy may come up with. The Defense Ministry loses sleep about it 24/7.

For Beijing, it’s crystal clear; the eastern seaboard must be protected at all costs – because they are the entry and exit point of China’s global supply chains. Yet as Beijing improves its military sophistication, the hegemon – or exceptionalist – machine gets itchier and itchier. Because the whole ingrained exceptionalist worldview can only conceive it as a “threat” by a peer competitor.

The larger-than-life “access” drama

From Exceptionalistan’s point of view, it’s all about the myth of “access”. The US must have full, unrestricted “access” to the seven seas, the base of its Empire of Bases, post-Rule Britannia system: the “indispensable nation” ruling the waves.

But now Beijing has reached a new threshold. It’s already in the position to successfully defend the strategic southern island of Hainan. The Yulin naval base in Hainan is the site of China’s expanded submarine fleet, which not only features stalwarts such as the 094A Jin-class submarine, but the capability to deliver China’s new generation ICBM, the JL-3, with an estimated range of 12,000km.

Translation: China now can not only protect, but also project power, aiming ultimately at unrestricted access to the Pacific.

The US counter punch to all this is “Anti-Access”, or A2, plus Area Denial, which in Pentagonese turns out as A2/AD. Yet China has evolved very sophisticated A2/AD tactics, which include cyber warfare; submarines equipped with cruise missiles; and most of all anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the Dongfeng 21-D, an absolute nightmare for those sitting duck billion-dollar US aircraft carriers.

A program called Pacific Vision, funded by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessments, eventually came up with the Air-Sea Battle concept. Virtually everything about Air-Sea Battle is classified. As the concept was being elaborated, China has mastered the art of very long range ballistic missiles – a lethal threat to the Empire of Bases, fixed and/or floating.

What is known is that the core Air-Sea Battle concept, known in Orwellian Pentagonese as “NIA/D3”,“networked, integrated forces capable of attack-in-depth to disrupt, destroy and defeat adversary forces”. To break through the fog, this is how the Pentagon would trample over Chinese A2/AD. The Pentagon wants to be able to attack all sorts of Chinese command and control centers in a swarm of “surgical operations”. And all this without ever mentioning the word “China”.

So these are the stakes. The indispensable nation’s military hegemony over the whole South China Sea must always be undisputed. Always. But already it is not. China is positioning itself as a cunning, asymmetrical aspirant to “peer competitor”. For the moment Beijing ranks second in the Pentagon’s list of “existential threats” to the US. Were not for Russia’s formidable nuclear power, China would already be number one.

At the same time China does not need to launch any military offensive against an ASEAN member; it’s bad for business. The environment after The Hague’s ruling – as the Laos summit proved – points toward long-term diplomatic solutions. But make no mistake; at some point in the future, there will be a serious confrontation between the US and China over “access” to the South China Sea.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia.

27 July 2016

By Afro-Middle East Centre

Although Turkey survived the recent coup attempt, the impact of that operation will be felt for a long time, and there are serious implications for the putchists as well as the rest of Turkish society and the Middle East region.

The evening of Friday, 15 July, saw one of the most severe attacks on Turkey’s democracy since 1997, as a small faction of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) attempted to wrestle control of the state. With more than 200 people killed and 1 500 wounded, a state of emergency was declared days later for a period of three months. As the government began its clampdown against those it accuses of being participants in or complicit with the coup attempt, questions have already been raised about the nature of the democratic process in Turkey, the clampdown by the state, and the stability of the strategically important Eurasian country in an already politically volatile region. Much of this discussion is spiced with a range of conspiracy theories.

How the coup attempt unfolded

The coup operation began around 19:30 Turkish time, and was initially met with shock as many citizens assumed the military presence suggested an imminent terrorist threat; the terrorist attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport two weeks earlier was still fresh in Turkish minds. But as tanks rolled onto two Bosphorus bridges in Istanbul, and social media showed military planes flying low over Istanbul and Ankara, it was clear something was awry. A short while later Prime Minister Binali Yildirim confirmed that Turkey was under threat of a coup d’état. The coup plotters did not, however, expect a strong civilian opposition to tanks, attack helicopters and armoured vehicles. After President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s public call on citizens to oppose the military action by those he claimed were members of the movement of US-based Turkish businessperson and preacher Fethullah Gulen, Istanbul and Ankara streets became sites of determined civilian resistance.

The coup plot seemed to have been organised well in advance, and was supported by a significant number of senior officers of the TSK’s air, navy and ground forces. Importantly, the chief of staff, and the heads of the airforce, naval and ground troops refused to cooperate with the plotters, resulting in the breakdown of communication within the army. Had the heads of these strategic arms of the army cooperated, a substantially different picture might have emerged. The putschists incorrectly assumed that they would receive the support of a significant part of the armed forces.

The execution of the plot seemed to have been accelerated by about six hours because of security warnings issued by the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) to senior TSK commanders that afternoon. The operation was planned to begin in the early hours of Saturday morning. The confusion resulting from the change of plan helped make the coup a failure. Another failure followed the disorientation of conscript soldiers who faced public resistance, and who were unaware of the intentions of the putschists, having been told they would be performing an anti-terror exercise. The plotters’ strategy was severely weakened by the fact that they failed to shut down satellite communications, and media was was able to broadcast messages from the prime minister. Further, they seem to have been blindsided by the calls from minarets around the country for civilians to oppose the coup. The Turkish media played a major role in encouraging resistance to the coup, and, in a rare show of unity, media outlets from across the political spectrum declared the coup illegal and a threat to Turkey’s democracy. (In contrast, some western and Arab media such as CNBC and Al Ahram falsely reported Friday night that Erdogan had fled, and sought asylum in Germany.)

Whose coup is it anyway?

From the first announcement about the unfolding coup by Erdogan, Yildirim and other government sources linked the operation to Gulen and his Hizmet movement. His followers around the world are estimated at between three and six million. US court records estimate his institutions’ worth as being between 20 and 50 billion dollars in the USA alone. Some figures put the total global assets as 150 billion dollars. Some opposition groups, notably the fiercely secular Hurriyet newspaper and the opposition Republican Party (CHP) – both extremely critical of Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) – also pointed fingers at Hizmet. Hurriyet’s Ahmet Hakan, one of the loudest critics of the AKP and Erdogan, also dismissed the theory posited in western media that the president had planned the coup to strengthen his grip over the state. A number of other theories also allege conspiracies, with some accusing the USA, including the claim that the CIA had plotted with Gulen; and others adding that the MIT had been pre-emptively informed of the coup by the Russians as part of their attempt to strengthen relations with Turkey. These theories were spurred on by the fact that western politicians waited for the coup to fail before condemning it, and that the aircraft involved in the coup took off from Incirlik military airbase where the US airforce fighting the Islamic State group (IS) is based.

The timing of the coup attempt is likely linked to the fact that the government already had plans to shake up the top ranks of the army before the end of 2016, with a number of officers, it is suspected, being dismissed, retired or tried. In addition, the annual meeting of the Supreme Council of Ministers, which is tasked with the appointment of military personnel, is to take place in August 2016, and Gulenists expected that meeting to result in a purge of their members in the army. An MIT list of alleged Gulen ‘infiltrators’ was to be used at the meeting, and it is likely that a number of the putschists’ names were on that list. The July coup would, then, have been their last opportunity to protect their positions and oppose Erdogan and the government. Many of the coup plotters, government sources claim, had graduated from Hizmet schools.

The Gulen-AKP alliance and split

The Gulen movement – now outlawed in Turkey as a terrorist organisation – has a long history in Turkish politics dating back to the early 1970s when Gulen’s exceptional oratory skills made him a popular preacher, and his network of schools was started. Gulen’s views on the need to mainstream Islam within the major organs of the state in the 1980s, when the Turkish state was a secular fundamentalist state ruled by an anti-religious military junta, gained it favour with Islamists such as those from Necmettin Erbakan’s MilliGorus (Felicity) Islamic Party. Erdogan, a former student of Erbakan, became the mayor of Istanbul in 1996 on a MiliGorus ticket. Although Erbakan remained sceptical of Gulen’s ideology, the AKP, a MiliGorus breakaway that won national elections in 2002, perceived Gulen as an ally against a hostile state that positioned the military as the guardian of the republic.
Erdogan saw Gulen as politically significant precisely because Hizmet, although never openly contesting for space on the Turkish political stage in its forty-year history, was regarded as apolitical. This perception allowed the preacher to cross the boundaries between politics, religion, power and influence. A core arm of Hizmet is its huge school network which includes around 930 schools in Turkey – many catering to the upper echelons of Turkish society, and whose graduates have occupied significant positions in the state apparatus since the mid-1980s, as well as about 2 000 schools in 160 other countries around the world, including South Africa. These cater for a total of around 1.2 million students.

There is little doubt that Gulen wields significant influence, and that millions of dollars flow through his global education network and associated business, media and other organisations. The ease with which Gulen schools operate around the world, employing hundreds of teachers, enrolling thousands of students, and with strong government and civil society contacts, has resulted in allegations that its activities are convenient for intelligence gathering and exercising political influence. Unlike various Middle East Islamist parties which have usually been met with sanctions, Hizmet has become an influential lobby in the USA. It cultivates the image of a ‘moderate’ Muslim group led by a ‘moderate’ Muslim personality who focuses on what Hizmet calls ‘cultural Islam’ – as opposed to ‘political Islam’ . This brand of Islam made Gulen popular in the West, particularly in post-9/11 USA where Gulen became a significant voice in the US ‘war against terror’.

The Gulenist emphasis on interfaith dialogue and its relaxed attitude in some circumstances on issues like alcohol attracted the attention of states that view Erdogan and the AKP as more extreme. As important for his critics is the fact that Gulen never criticised Israeli policies or US foreign policy in the Middle East – even when this seemed detrimental to Turkish interests. Gulen was scathing in his criticism of the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ that attempted to ferry aid to the besieged Palestinian territory of Gaza. In contrast to global condemnation of the murder of nine (Turkish) civilians on board the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the 2010 Freedom Flotilla, by Israeli security forces, Gulen blamed flotilla organisers because they did not obtain Israeli permission. He also said those in the flotilla knew that they had put their lives at risk, suggesting they deserved the treatment they received from the Israelis.
The AKP’s first decade in power helped strengthen Gulen’s power base in Turkey. The AKP-Hizmet alliance proved useful for both parties – even after Gulen criticised Erdogan for the Mavi Marmara debacle – until 2012 when MIT head Hakan Fidan was arrested. Fidan was leading secret peace talks with the leader of the banned Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan. The arrest was seen by the government as an attempt at sabotage by Gulenists within the judiciary who were loathe to see reconciliation between the Kurdish rebel group and the state. In response, the government sponsored a bill which, after it was passed in 2014, threatened closure of Hizmet’s chain of preparatory schools in Turkey. This was followed by corruption allegations against AKP politicians, leading to the arrests of top AKP officials, and a number of resignations and dismissals of officials. The AKP alleged this was a campaign by Gulenists in the judiciary who were part of what the AKP began calling a ‘parallel state’. Relations between the former allies descended into distrust and acrimony, with tit-for-tat actions that included banning of pro-Gulen media and judicial attacks against AKP members.

Aftermath and impact

The most obvious result of 15 July was the mass arrests that include people from the military, police, judiciary and the education sector. The coup attempt provided the AKP government an opportunity to crush Hizmet and get rid of its members in state structures, and also to clamp down on other dissenting voices. Around 10 000 people have been detained, with around 9 000 of those being soldiers, and there have been allegations that some detainees are being tortured. In addition, around 40 000 military officials, police officers, judges, governors, teachers and academics have been suspended or dismissed.
While most Turkish opposition parties have expressed support of the government’s security efforts after the defeat of the coup attempt, various western governments have been vocal in their criticism of the mass arrests and clampdown in Turkey. In particular, European and US spokespersons have repeatedly insisted that Turkey must deal with the coup within the ‘rule of law’ – even before the arrests had begun.
This places Turkey on a collision course with the USA. Although a formal extradition request for Gulen has not yet been submitted to the USA, various Turkish officials – including Erdogan – have emphasised that it will be. US officials, including secretary of state John Kerry, have responded by insisting that such a request will only be considered if sufficient evidence is provided that Gulen is guilty as claimed. Relations between Turkey and the USA – fellow NATO members and ostensible allies – have been rocky for the past few years. Despite the US use of Turkey’s Incirlik airforce base to launch attacks against IS, the relationship is fraught. An extradition demand, together with the warming of relations with Russia, will likely make US-Turkish relations even more tenuous.

Turkey’s relations with the European Union and various EU member states are also likely to sour. Erdogan’s ignoring of European demands regarding the mass arrests are set to be significantly readjusted. Anti-EU sentiment has risen in Turkey, reflected in the opinion columns of newspapers. This is a result of what many in Turkey see as the hypocritical stance by the EU that was reflected in its slow reaction to the attempted coup, and threats that Turkey might will disqualify itself for EU accession should it reinstate the death penalty will help ensure that Turkey becomes even more distant from the possibility of EU membership. However, the manner in which . Turkish officials believe that if their country had not been able to join the EU after fifty-three years, it is unlikely to succeed now. EU accession has been used as a carrot by the bloc and its members, they believe, to garner Turkish support in the Middle East with little benefit to Turkey. Turkey, meanwhile, has been a benefactor for NATO states. With Turkey’s interest in the EU waning, the country seems more concerned in rebuilding relations with its neighbours.

Relations with Russia are set to improve. The coup attempt came three weeks after Turkey began a rapprochement with Russia, following a break in relations after Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet. Turkish-Russian relations have been tested by Russia’s airstrikes on the Turkmen region of Bayirbucak in Northern Syria. However, the soldiers responsible for downing the Russian jet have been arrested on suspicion of being part of the coup network. Some Russian officials suggest that their government has accepted the Turkish version that the Russian jet was shot down as part of a Gulen plot. Russia having been one of the first governments to condemn the coup, and with Erdogan and Russian president, Vladimir Putin, set to meet in weeks, Turkey will seek to advance its political and economic relationship with Russia. Turkey’s suggestion that it will improve relations with Syria will likely be taken forward – with Russian help. And relations with Iran – with whom there is already booming trade – will also likely improve.
A key question relates to the seeming intelligence failure that allowed the plot to proceed as far as it did. Erdogan’s irritation at the lack of intelligence has been plain. Fidan’s role as MIT head will likely be reviewed, with questions already raised about why, if Fidan’s office had information about the plot, it was not timeously directed to the presidency.

The instability in the intelligence sector and armed forces will definitely impact upon Turkey’s war on the PKK, with the Kurdish group being handed an opportunity as a large number of senior officers are removed from the army. As the instability is exploited by Turkey’s southern nemesis, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Asad, matters will be further complicated for Turkey by the PKK’s links to the Syrian Democratic Union Party (PYD). Syria has, previously, successfully used Kurdish grievances against the Turkish state.

Domestically, the AKP will use the fallout from the attempted coup to its advantage. With Erdogan riding a wave as a saviour of Turkish democracy, it is possible that at the end of the state of emergency there will be either a snap election or a constitutional referendum on the question of a presidential system, which Erdogan could not have won before the coup attempt but which could now turn out favourably for him. Already there are indications that most opposition parties will support constitutional amendments, although it is unclear what precise amendments they are referring to.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that after the dust has settled in the squares and the sense of unity that is generally being felt across the country in response to the coup becomes less tangible, Turkey will be faced with greater challenges than the overt violence of a week ago. The Turkish state is fragile, and state institutions could either be stabilised or could further weaken as a result of the current purges. Should the Gulen movement be legally charged with subversion, its networks in Turkey and globally could be seriously affected. This could have implications for Turkey’s foreign relations, especially its policy towards countries that maintain links with the Hizmet movement, and, in particular, with the USA where Gulen resides. Turkey’s view of and its role within NATO could also be considered more carefully, given that no assistance was given to a member whose institutions were being attacked from the air by hostile forces. Whether Turkey will be able to weather the storm in the long term will depend on the willingness of all political forces to cooperate in the best interests of the broader society, and whether the government considers the rights of its citizens as important as it does the security of the state. Of course, as long as the legitimate grievances of its Kurdish population are not addressed, the Turkish state will remain in a state of uncertainty and instability. It also remains to be seen whether Turkey decides to reprioritise its domestic and regional imperatives over those of its global alliances.

28 July 2016

 

By William D Hartung

When American firms dominate a global market worth more than $70 billion a year, you’d expect to hear about it. Not so with the global arms trade. It’s good for one or two stories a year in the mainstream media, usually when the annual statistics on the state of the business come out.

It’s not that no one writes about aspects of the arms trade. There are occasional pieces that, for example, take note of the impact of U.S. weapons transfers, including cluster bombs, to Saudi Arabia, or of the disastrous dispensation of weaponry to U.S. allies in Syria, or of foreign sales of the costly, controversial F-35 combat aircraft. And once in a while, if a foreign leader meets with the president, U.S. arms sales to his or her country might generate an article or two. But the sheer size of the American arms trade, the politics that drive it, the companies that profit from it, and its devastating global impacts are rarely discussed, much less analyzed in any depth.

So here’s a question that’s puzzled me for years (and I’m something of an arms wonk): Why do other major U.S. exports — from Hollywood movies to Midwestern grain shipments to Boeing airliners — garner regular coverage while trends in weapons exports remain in relative obscurity? Are we ashamed of standing essentially alone as the world’s number one arms dealer, or is our Weapons “R” Us role such a commonplace that we take it for granted, like death or taxes?

The numbers should stagger anyone. According to the latest figures available from the Congressional Research Service, the United States was credited with more than half the value of all global arms transfer agreements in 2014, the most recent year for which full statistics are available. At 14%, the world’s second largest supplier, Russia, lagged far behind. Washington’s “leadership” in this field has never truly been challenged. The U.S. share has fluctuated between one-third and one-half of the global market for the past two decades, peaking at an almost monopolistic 70% of all weapons sold in 2011. And the gold rush continues. Vice Admiral Joe Rixey, who heads the Pentagon’s arms sales agency, euphemistically known as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, estimates that arms deals facilitated by the Pentagon topped $46 billion in 2015, and are on track to hit $40 billion in 2016.

To be completely accurate, there is one group of people who pay remarkably close attention to these trends — executives of the defense contractors that are cashing in on this growth market. With the Pentagon and related agencies taking in “only” about $600 billion a year — high by historical standards but tens of billions of dollars less than hoped for by the defense industry — companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have been looking to global markets as their major source of new revenue.

In a January 2015 investor call, for example, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson was asked whether the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration and five other powers might reduce tensions in the Middle East, undermining the company’s strategy of increasing its arms exports to the region. She responded that continuing “volatility” in both the Middle East and Asia would make them “growth areas” for the foreseeable future. In other words, no worries. As long as the world stays at war or on the verge of it, Lockheed Martin’s profits won’t suffer — and, of course, its products will help ensure that any such “volatility” will prove lethal indeed.

Under Hewson, Lockheed has set a goal of getting at least 25% of its revenues from weapons exports, and Boeing has done that company one better. It’s seeking to make overseas arms sales 30% of its business.

Good News From the Middle East (If You’re an Arms Maker)

Arms deals are a way of life in Washington. From the president on down, significant parts of the government are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life. From the president on his trips abroad to visit allied world leaders to the secretaries of state and defense to the staffs of U.S. embassies, American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms. And the Pentagon is their enabler. From brokering, facilitating, and literally banking the money from arms deals to transferring weapons to favored allies on the taxpayers’ dime, it is in essence the world’s largest arms dealer.

In a typical sale, the U.S. government is involved every step of the way. The Pentagon often does assessments of an allied nation’s armed forces in order to tell them what they “need” — and of course what they always need is billions of dollars in new U.S.-supplied equipment. Then the Pentagon helps negotiate the terms of the deal, notifies Congress of its details, and collects the funds from the foreign buyer, which it then gives to the U.S. supplier in the form of a defense contract. In most deals, the Pentagon is also the point of contact for maintenance and spare parts for any U.S.-supplied system. The bureaucracy that helps make all of this happen, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, is funded from a 3.5% surcharge on the deals it negotiates. This gives it all the more incentive to sell, sell, sell.

And the pressure for yet more of the same is always intense, in part because the weapons makers are careful to spread their production facilities to as many states and localities as possible. In this way, they ensure that endless support for government promotion of major arms sales becomes part and parcel of domestic politics.

General Dynamics, for instance, has managed to keep its tank plants in Ohio and Michigan running through a combination of add-ons to the Army budget — funds inserted into that budget by Congress even though the Pentagon didn’t request them — and exports to Saudi Arabia. Boeing is banking on a proposed deal to sell 40 F-18s to Kuwait to keep its St. Louis production line open, and is currently jousting with the Obama administration to get it to move more quickly on the deal. Not surprisingly, members of Congress and local business leaders in such states become strong supporters of weapons exports.

Though seldom thought of this way, the U.S. political system is also a global arms distribution system of the first order. In this context, the Obama administration has proven itself a good friend to arms exporting firms. During President Obama’s first six years in office, Washington entered into agreements to sell more than $190 billion in weaponry worldwide — more, that is, than any U.S. administration since World War II. In addition, Team Obama has loosened restrictions on arms exports, making it possible to send abroad a whole new range of weapons and weapons components — including Black Hawk and Huey helicopters and engines for C-17 transport planes — with far less scrutiny than was previously required.

This has been good news for the industry, which had been pressing for such changes for decades with little success. But the weaker regulations also make it potentially easier for arms smugglers and human rights abusers to get their hands on U.S. arms. For example, 36 U.S. allies — from Argentina and Bulgaria to Romania and Turkey — will no longer need licenses from the State Department to import weapons and weapons parts from the United States. This will make it far easier for smuggling networks to set up front companies in such countries and get U.S. arms and arms components that they can then pass on to third parties like Iran or China. Already a common practice, it will only increase under the new regulations.

The degree to which the Obama administration has been willing to bend over backward to help weapons exporters was underscored at a 2013 hearing on those administration export “reforms.” Tom Kelly, then the deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, caught the spirit of the era when asked whether the administration was doing enough to promote American arms exports. He responded:

“[We are] advocating on behalf of our companies and doing everything we can to make sure that these sales go through… and that is something we are doing every day, basically [on] every continent in the world… and we’re constantly thinking of how we can do better.”

One place where, with a helping hand from the Obama administration and the Pentagon, the arms industry has been doing a lot better of late is the Middle East. Washington has brokered deals for more than $50 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia alone for everything from F-15 fighter aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to combat ships and missile defense systems.

The most damaging deals, if not the most lucrative, have been the sales of bombs and missiles to the Saudis for their brutal war in Yemen, where thousands of civilians have been killed and millions of people are going hungry. Members of Congress like Michigan Representative John Conyers and Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy have pressed for legislation that would at least stem the flow of the most deadly of the weaponry being sent for use there, but they have yet to overcome the considerable clout of the Saudis in Washington (and, of course, that of the arms industry as well).

When it comes to the arms business, however, there’s no end to the good news from the Middle East. Take the administration’s proposed new 10-year aid deal with Israel. If enacted as currently planned, it would boost U.S. military assistance to that country by up to 25% — to roughly $4 billion per year. At the same time, it would phase out a provision that had allowed Israel to spend one-quarter of Washington’s aid developing its own defense industry. In other words, all that money, the full $4 billion in taxpayer dollars, will now flow directly into the coffers of companies like Lockheed Martin, which is in the midst of completing a multi-billion-dollar deal to sell the Israelis F-35s.

“Volatility” in Asia and Europe

As Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson noted, however, the Middle East is hardly the only growth area for that firm or others like it. The dispute between China and its neighbors over the control of the South China Sea (which is in many ways an incipient conflict over whether that country or the United States will control that part of the Pacific Ocean) has opened up new vistas when it comes to the sale of American warships and other military equipment to Washington’s East Asian allies. The recent Hague court decision rejecting Chinese claims to those waters (and the Chinese rejection of it) is only likely to increase the pace of arms buying in the region.

At the same time, in the good-news-never-ends department, growing fears of North Korea’s nuclear program have stoked a demand for U.S.-supplied missile defense systems. The South Koreans have, in fact, just agreed to deploy Lockheed Martin’s THAAD anti-missile system. In addition, the Obama administration’s decision to end the longstanding embargo on U.S. arms sales to Vietnam is likely to open yet another significant market for U.S. firms. In the past two years alone, the U.S. has offered more than $15 billion worth of weaponry to allies in East Asia, with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea accounting for the bulk of the sales.

In addition, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to build a defense relationship with India, a development guaranteed to benefit U.S. arms exporters. Last year, Washington and New Delhi signed a 10-year defense agreement that included pledges of future joint work on aircraft engines and aircraft carrier designs. In these years, the U.S. has made significant inroads into the Indian arms market, which had traditionally been dominated by the Soviet Union and then Russia. Recent deals include a $5.8 billion sale of Boeing C-17 transport aircraft and a $1.4 billion agreement to provide support services related to a planned purchase of Apache attack helicopters.

And don’t forget “volatile” Europe. Great Britain’s recent Brexit vote introduced an uncertainty factor into American arms exports to that country. The United Kingdom has been by far the biggest purchaser of U.S. weapons in Europe of late, with more than $6 billion in deals struck over the past two years alone — more, that is, than the U.S. has sold to all other European countries combined.

The British defense behemoth BAE is Lockheed Martin’s principal foreign partner on the F-35 combat aircraft, which at a projected cost of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime already qualifies as the most expensive weapons program in history. If Brexit-driven austerity were to lead to a delay in, or the cancellation of, the F-35 deal (or any other major weapons shipments), it would be a blow to American arms makers. But count on one thing: were there to be even a hint that this might happen to the F-35, lobbyists for BAE will mobilize to get the deal privileged status, whatever other budget cuts may be in the works.

On the bright side (if you happen to be a weapons maker), any British reductions will certainly be more than offset by opportunities in Eastern and Central Europe, where a new Cold War seems to be gaining traction. Between 2014 and 2015, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, military spending increased by 13% in the region in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The rise in Poland’s outlays, at 22%, was particularly steep.

Under the circumstances, it should be obvious that trends in the global arms trade are a major news story and should be dealt with as such in the country most responsible for putting more weapons of a more powerful nature into the hands of those living in “volatile” regions. It’s a monster business (in every sense of the word) and certainly has far more dangerous consequences than licensing a Hollywood blockbuster or selling another Boeing airliner.

Historically, there have been rare occasions of public protest against unbridled arms trafficking, as with the backlash against “the merchants of death” after World War I, or the controversy over who armed Saddam Hussein that followed the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Even now, small numbers of congressional representatives, including John Conyers, Chris Murphy, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, continue to try to halt the sale of cluster munitions, bombs, and missiles to Saudi Arabia.

There is, however, unlikely to be a genuine public debate about the value of the arms business and Washington’s place in it if it isn’t even considered a subject worthy of more than an occasional media story. In the meantime, the United States continues to hold onto the number one role in the global arms trade, the White House does its part, the Pentagon greases the wheels, and the dollars roll in to profit-hungry U.S. weapons contractors.

William D Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior advisor to the Security Assistance Monitor. He is the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Copyright 2016 William D. Hartung

26 July 2016

By Dr Binoy Kampmark

Collective punishment has a primitive resonance. It lacks focus, is disproportionate, and is, by nature, poor in its judgment. It suggests that responsibility is cultural, total, and institutional, flickering in the moment of vengeance.

At international law, concepts of collective punishment are generally frowned upon. The Geneva Conventions prohibit such measures in, or instance, the implementation of disciplinary measures, or the application of collective penalty “for individual acts” (Geneva POW Convention, Art 46, para 4; Geneva Convention III, Art 87, para 3). The 1977 Additional Protocol I also makes that injunction clear.

Despite such cautionary injunctions, the temptation to exclude in wholesale fashion does crop up from time to time. Those in the business of punishment remain tempted. In the case of the Olympics and the issue of doping, it has found form in voices favouring a ban of Russia for the Rio de Janeiro Games. Much of this had already been given a spur with the finding of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upholding a ban on the country’s 68 track and field athletes.

The state has been accused largely for adopting what is termed the Disappearing Positive Methodology. Officials were said to have swapped dope-contaminated urine for non-dope equivalents to guarantee a subsequent clean result.[1]

According to Richard McLaren’s World Anti-Doping Agency report, the instigation of that program came from the Russian ministry of sport in 2010 in light of the country’s poor showing at the Winter Olympics at Vancouver. Twenty-eight sports were implicated.

Steroid cocktails ingeniously designed to evade detection were also concocted, much of this taking place under the direction of whistleblower Dr. Grigor Rodchenko as head of the Moscow laboratory. The role of the intelligence services (the FSB), of which Rodchenko admitted to being a member, seemed to the final nail in this widening coffin.

Such findings stirred former WADA head, John Fahey, to insist that the only appropriate measure here was a collective one. If the IOC were to exclude Russia “I think they would be applauded.” Doing so would be a “statement in favour of clean athletes. What is the point of having that sort of sanction if you don’t use it.”[2]

In the case of the doping allegations regarding Russia, athletes who have trained for years risk being deprived a run at the Olympics. Not that a disruption of proceedings at Rio should not be entertained. Having been conceived and practiced as a monument to racial, cultural and political pursuits at stages of its history, the Olympics has never been nobly inclined. Athletes have tended to be hostages to the fortunes of others.

The idea of excluding a country wholesale brings with it dangers that decision makers may well not see. It eliminates specific, untainted talents who also deserve to be protected in international sport. It also violates that great presumption of innocence by pre-emptively judging the conduct of all athletes.

This is not a point that bothers Fahey, who lazily assumes that allowing athletes not affected by a doping program to participate would put “the IOC in a precarious position in terms of its credibility.” It is hard to believe how the IOC could possibly get through such a decision untainted.

The broader issue of creating further fracture within the institutional framework of sport is also very much at the forefront of arguments. Banish Russia, ostensibly to uphold broader Olympic values, which in any case are deeply artificial as they are, is not a grand precedent to emulate. When we are speaking of the Olympic brand, what is meant is never clear. The ideal, for one, has long ceased to be relevant.

Former International Olympic Committee vice president Kevan Gosper, a figure involved in the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980, told ABC News Radio that a return to that move is far from desirable. “I can’t remember anything quite so complicated involving the welfare of athletes, doping, and one of the most important countries – not only political – but in terms of Olympic history.”[3]

There are also structural impediments. The move on the part of the International Association for Sport in June was to expand its powers regarding moves against members in contravention of the anti-doping rules. Deferral to individual sports bodies, in other words, seems to be the accepted norm.

Furthermore, it also suggests that the state in question will have no incentive not to remain rogue. Group punishments can actually negate the incentive to alter, eliminating any deterrent effect. The history of the Olympics, far from being one of harmonious interaction, has been characterised by prejudice, politics and power. Beware, as Gosper notes, making “the wrong move with an important country like Russia”.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

25 July 2016

 

By AMEC

The recent African Union decision adding a more ‘robust’ peace enforcement component to the current 12 000 strong UN mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) risks further militarising an ostensibly political conflict over resources and patronage. Further, even if implemented, the proposed force will be difficult to sustain in light of the complex and overlapping nature of the conflict and the differing agendas of outside actors. The ‘temporary’ replacement of now former vice president Riek Machar with Taban Deng through an internal coup in the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLMIO) underscores the complexity and fluidity of South Sudanese politics and alliances.

The decision, at the just-concluded AU heads of state summit in Rwanda, follows a proposal by the East African Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) for the AU to request that the UN expands its mission in South Sudan to include peace enforcement modelled on the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) in eastern Congo. The proposal came in the wake of a collapsing power-sharing agreement between the two main protagonists in South Sudan, President Salva Kiir and Vice-President Riek Machar, in early July when conflict erupted between their security details in Juba.

Since its establishment in 2011, South Sudan has experienced continual conflict; first was the clash imposed on it by its northern neighbour, Sudan, over oil revenue and borders in 2012; more recently – between December 2013 and August 2015 – militia allied to Machar and Kiir clashed. That conflict was halted through a power-sharing agreement reached in August 2015, in terms of which the rivals would retain their prior positions as president and vice president, and would integrate parts of their militia. The deal only came into force in April this year when Machar was restored as vice president and entered Juba with 1 400 troops as part of the pact. The agreement was fraught from inception. It assumed that there were only two belligerents, Kiir and Machar, and failed to integrate other groups such as the Shilluk clan (South Sudan’s third largest tribe after the Dinka and Nuer), and address more localised concerns between tribes over land and revenue distribution. Further, it failed to adequately consider the
roles played by outside forces such as Uganda in propping up Kiir, skewing the balance of forces and disincentivising compliance. Moreover, it failed to adequately consider South Sudan’s fractious history and lack of institutional capacity as engendering a situation wherein securitisation is prioritised and instrumentalised by political actors. Thus, even before the agreement was concluded, Kiir expressed dissatisfaction, arguing that it was a foreign imposition, and because militia loyal to him held the balance of power. Further, no effort was made toward reversing his decision to redraw South Sudan’s provincial borders, increasing the number of provinces from ten to twenty-eight in order to benefit tribes and militias loyal to him. Deng’s power play – possibly engineered by Kiir – changes little because South Sudanese politics is still governed by force, and Deng’s support and influence in this area is less than Machar’s.

The proposed intervention force will be hamstrung by a number of factors. First, distinguishing the main belligerent in an arena wherein there is a multiplicity of groups – often with local grievances – will complicate and stall armed intervention measures. This is especially true in light of Machar’s ‘temporary’ replacement. Will UNMISS distinguish between Machar’s well-armed support and that of Deng, who is even distrusted by Kiir?

Moreover, the brigade is to comprise forces from Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan, all with differing interests in the conflict, which currently support different actors, maintain antagonisms toward each other in the quest for sub-regional hegemony, and – in the case of Uganda – has already deployed thousands of troops to support Kiir.

Further, South Sudan’s lack of central institutional governing capacity and fractious nature will complicate territorial handovers and administration efforts. The neutrality of the force will also be questioned, impeding its legitimacy. This is mainly because UNMISS has often coordinated activities with Kiir’s forces, even when these had been accused of being partly responsible for intensifying the most recent conflict. Notably, UNMISS’s mandate included working with Kiir’s government in the pursuit of state building following South Sudan’s independence, and, at the conflict’s inception, the force was outnumbered and outgunned, and forced to rely on the government for its survival.

Last, the global economic slowdown will mean that funding the expansion will be challenging. Already, some EU members have reduced their contributions to peacekeeping missions by over twenty per cent. This is significant, as the brigade will not only comprise a few thousand troops, but will require advanced weaponry and airpower to confront government forces. Even in the DRC, where the FIB has been viewed as a template for the South Sudan mission, problems are currently plaguing the mission.

The AU resolution thus will escalate the militarisation of a complex political matter. A properly enforced arms embargo could contain the situation better, and allow time to conceptualise and implement a more inclusive power-sharing agreement through IGAD, especially since South Sudan is landlocked and reliant on its neighbours, and because the USA and China can pressure the Ugandan and Sudanese governments to comply. Moreover, this would require less funding and be easier to implement. In the meanwhile, conflicts continue in Jonglei, Equatoria and other states, while the international community is fixated on the capital Juba, and on the notion that there are two clearly distinguishable belligerents.

25 July 2016