Archives: Articles

By Tom Whipple

The daily newspapers are now full of stories predicting that Iraq, as we know it, will soon disintegrate into three or more warring states. In the last two weeks Sunni insurgents led by the extremist ISIS have routed a good part of the Iraqi army, taken over much of northern Iraq not controlled by the Kurds, and now are moving close to Baghdad. Despite the dispatch of American and Iranian military advisors to at least assess the situation, most observers say government forces are too weak to drive back the insurgents and retake the lost territory. Washington is refusing to get involved unless the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government makes radical changes in its relations with the Sunnis and Kurds.

Our concern here, however, is what all this has to do with the world’s oil supply and, closer to home, our gasoline prices. In recent days we have been told innumerable times that most of Iraq’s oil is way south of Baghdad where it is relatively immune from the turmoil in the north – so there is little chance that Iraq’s 2.5 million barrels a day (b/d) of exports will be affected. While this may true for the next few weeks or even months, the Sunni resurgence in the north is not a short-term problem and in the past week the ISIS has captured some formidable assets which could bring heavy pressure on, if not strangle, Baghdad.

ISIS now has control of one of three major refineries in Iraq which supplies the motor fuel and oil for power stations for the northern part of the country. [As of 6/30/14, control of the Baiji refinery appears to remain in dispute. -Ed.] Lines are already forming at gas stations. The ISIS controls the Euphrates and will likely gain control of the Haditha power dam, which supplies 360 MW to the national power grid. With control of the river dams, reduced flows of water could make life very difficult in southern Iraq before the summer is over. It is doubtful if the thousands of foreign oil workers that are expanding and overseeing Iraq’s oil production would stick around too long. Some non-essential-to-production foreigner oil workers are already leaving the country or moving to safer areas.

Another facet of last week’s developments is that the insurgent forces in Anbar province are getting very close to Baghdad’s airport. All it would take would be a few of the howitzers they captured from the Iraqi army and air travel into Baghdad could be restricted.

While it may be impossible for insurgent forces even of the fanatical variety to fight their way through thousands of Shiite militiamen to the southern Shiite shrines and oil fields, in a prolonged standoff (and this one has been going on for 1,400 years) serious harm is likely to be done to Iraq’s current and prospective oil production. Some observers are already saying that large increases in Iraqi oil production in the immediate future are unlikely, but as yet few are writing off the current 3.3 million barrels of daily oil production.

Let’s assume, however, that before this year or next is out, Iraqi oil exports drop substantially as it has in several other oil-exporting states undergoing similar political trauma. Just what does this mean for the world’s oil supply?

With 2.5 million additional barrels of oil disappearing from the market added to the 3.5 million that have already been lost due to lower production in Libya, Iran, Sudan, and Nigeria, the world markets would clearly be stressed.

The Saudis could probably come up with an extra million b/d for a while, but that is about it. Iran could sign a nuclear treaty this summer and be out from under sanctions, but it will take a while to develop significant increases in production. Libya, Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Yemen show no signs of settling their internal political problems and start exporting significantly larger amounts of crude in the foreseeable future.

Keep in mind that global demand for oil has recently been increasing at a rate of about 1.2 million b/d or so every year, while depletion of existing oilfields requires that another 3-4 million b/d be brought into production each year just to keep even.

Many people, including government forecasters, are looking to increasing U.S. shale oil production and more deepwater oil from the Gulf of Mexico to keep the world’s supply and demand in balance without sharp price increases. Somewhere down the line there may be more oil produced from the Arctic; from Kazakhstan; from off the coast of Brazil; from East Africa; and even significant shale oil production from other than in the U.S. But it will be many years before these new sources can start producing significant amounts of crude, and none of these are likely to make up for any shortages that develop in the next few years.

Deepwater oil production from the Gulf of Mexico has been flat recently, and we are starting to get indications that the rapid increases in U.S. shale oil production, which have kept prices under control for several years, may be drawing to a close. The geology of shale oil production dictates that once it stops growing, a rapid decline in production is likely.

In sum, it looks as if there will be higher and possibly much higher oil and gas prices coming soon. If ISIS decides that the way to finish off the Shiite “infidels” is by cutting their oil revenues, then a bombing and terror campaign against southern Iraqi oil installations and oil workers would be a likely result. It would not take much to send the foreigners running. The Chinese are already moving out some of the 10,000 oil workers they have in southern Iraq, and others are likely to follow as we have seen in so many other places.

Where do oil and gas prices go? The official forecasters are only talking about another couple of dollars a barrel this year, but this is clearly too low if significant shortages develop.

Tom Whipple is one of the most highly respected analysts of peak oil issues in the United States. A retired 30-year CIA analyst who has been following the peak oil story since 1999, Tom is the editor of the daily Peak Oil News and the weekly Peak Oil Review, both published by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA. He is also a weekly columnist on peak oil issues for the Falls Church News Press.

01 July, 2014
Falls Church News-Press

 

By Noam Chomsky

The question of how foreign policy is determined is a crucial one in world affairs. In these comments, I can only provide a few hints as to how I think the subject can be productively explored, keeping to the United States for several reasons. First, the U.S. is unmatched in its global significance and impact. Second, it is an unusually open society, possibly uniquely so, which means we know more about it. Finally, it is plainly the most important case for Americans, who are able to influence policy choices in the U.S. — and indeed for others, insofar as their actions can influence such choices. The general principles, however, extend to the other major powers, and well beyond.

There is a “received standard version,” common to academic scholarship, government pronouncements, and public discourse. It holds that the prime commitment of governments is to ensure security, and that the primary concern of the U.S. and its allies since 1945 was the Russian threat.

There are a number of ways to evaluate the doctrine. One obvious question to ask is: What happened when the Russian threat disappeared in 1989? Answer: everything continued much as before.

The U.S. immediately invaded Panama, killing probably thousands of people and installing a client regime. This was routine practice in U.S.-dominated domains — but in this case not quite as routine. For first time, a major foreign policy act was not justified by an alleged Russian threat.

Instead, a series of fraudulent pretexts for the invasion were concocted that collapse instantly on examination. The media chimed in enthusiastically, lauding the magnificent achievement of defeating Panama, unconcerned that the pretexts were ludicrous, that the act itself was a radical violation of international law, and that it was bitterly condemned elsewhere, most harshly in Latin America. Also ignored was the U.S. veto of a unanimous Security Council resolution condemning crimes by U.S. troops during the invasion, with Britain alone abstaining.

All routine. And all forgotten (which is also routine).

From El Salvador to the Russian Border

The administration of George H.W. Bush issued a new national security policy and defense budget in reaction to the collapse of the global enemy. It was pretty much the same as before, although with new pretexts. It was, it turned out, necessary to maintain a military establishment almost as great as the rest of the world combined and far more advanced in technological sophistication — but not for defense against the now-nonexistent Soviet Union. Rather, the excuse now was the growing “technological sophistication” of Third World powers. Disciplined intellectuals understood that it would have been improper to collapse in ridicule, so they maintained a proper silence.

The U.S., the new programs insisted, must maintain its “defense industrial base.” The phrase is a euphemism, referring to high-tech industry generally, which relies heavily on extensive state intervention for research and development, often under Pentagon cover, in what economists continue to call the U.S. “free-market economy.”

One of the most interesting provisions of the new plans had to do with the Middle East. There, it was declared, Washington must maintain intervention forces targeting a crucial region where the major problems “could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.” Contrary to 50 years of deceit, it was quietly conceded that the main concern was not the Russians, but rather what is called “radical nationalism,” meaning independent nationalism not under U.S. control.

All of this has evident bearing on the standard version, but it passed unnoticed — or perhaps, therefore it passed unnoticed.

Other important events took place immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, ending the Cold War. One was in El Salvador, the leading recipient of U.S. military aid — apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category — and with one of the worst human rights records anywhere. That is a familiar and very close correlation.

The Salvadoran high command ordered the Atlacatl Brigade to invade the Jesuit University and murder six leading Latin American intellectuals, all Jesuit priests, including the rector, Fr. Ignacio Ellacuría, and any witnesses, meaning their housekeeper and her daughter. The Brigade had just returned from advanced counterinsurgency training at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and had already left a bloody trail of thousands of the usual victims in the course of the U.S.-run state terror campaign in El Salvador, one part of a broader terror and torture campaign throughout the region. All routine. Ignored and virtually forgotten in the United States and by its allies, again routine. But it tells us a lot about the factors that drive policy, if we care to look at the real world.

Another important event took place in Europe. Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to allow the unification of Germany and its membership in NATO, a hostile military alliance. In the light of recent history, this was a most astonishing concession. There was a quid pro quo. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed that NATO would not expand “one inch to the East,” meaning into East Germany. Instantly, they expanded NATO to East Germany.

Gorbachev was naturally outraged, but when he complained, he was instructed by Washington that this had only been a verbal promise, a gentleman’s agreement, hence without force. If he was naïve enough to accept the word of American leaders, it was his problem.

All of this, too, was routine, as was the silent acceptance and approval of the expansion of NATO in the U.S. and the West generally. President Bill Clinton then expanded NATO further, right up to Russia’s borders. Today, the world faces a serious crisis that is in no small measure a result of these policies.

The Appeal of Plundering the Poor

Another source of evidence is the declassified historical record. It contains revealing accounts of the actual motives of state policy. The story is rich and complex, but a few persistent themes play a dominant role. One was articulated clearly at a western hemispheric conference called by the U.S. in Mexico in February 1945 where Washington imposed “An Economic Charter of the Americas” designed to eliminate economic nationalism “in all its forms.” There was one unspoken condition. Economic nationalism would be fine for the U.S. whose economy relies heavily on massive state intervention.

The elimination of economic nationalism for others stood in sharp conflict with the Latin American stand of that moment, which State Department officials described as “the philosophy of the New Nationalism [that] embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.” As U.S. policy analysts added, “Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.”

That, of course, will not do. Washington understands that the “first beneficiaries” should be U.S. investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function. It should not, as both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations would make clear, undergo “excessive industrial development” that might infringe on U.S. interests. Thus Brazil could produce low-quality steel that U.S. corporations did not want to bother with, but it would be “excessive,” were it to compete with U.S. firms.

Similar concerns resonate throughout the post-World War II period. The global system that was to be dominated by the U.S. was threatened by what internal documents call “radical and nationalistic regimes” that respond to popular pressures for independent development. That was the concern that motivated the overthrow of the parliamentary governments of Iran and Guatemala in 1953 and 1954, as well as numerous others. In the case of Iran, a major concern was the potential impact of Iranian independence on Egypt, then in turmoil over British colonial practice. In Guatemala, apart from the crime of the new democracy in empowering the peasant majority and infringing on possessions of the United Fruit Company — already offensive enough — Washington’s concern was labor unrest and popular mobilization in neighboring U.S.-backed dictatorships.

In both cases the consequences reach to the present. Literally not a day has passed since 1953 when the U.S. has not been torturing the people of Iran. Guatemala remains one of the world’s worst horror chambers. To this day, Mayans are fleeing from the effects of near-genocidal government military campaigns in the highlands backed by President Ronald Reagan and his top officials. As the country director of Oxfam, a Guatemalan doctor, reported recently,

“There is a dramatic deterioration of the political, social, and economic context. Attacks against Human Rights defenders have increased 300% during the last year. There is a clear evidence of a very well organized strategy by the private sector and Army. Both have captured the government in order to keep the status quo and to impose the extraction economic model, pushing away dramatically indigenous peoples from their own land, due to the mining industry, African Palm and sugar cane plantations. In addition the social movement defending their land and rights has been criminalized, many leaders are in jail, and many others have been killed.”

Nothing is known about this in the United States and the very obvious cause of it remains suppressed.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles explained quite clearly the dilemma that the U.S. faced. They complained that the Communists had an unfair advantage. They were able to “appeal directly to the masses” and “get control of mass movements, something we have no capacity to duplicate. The poor people are the ones they appeal to and they have always wanted to plunder the rich.”

That causes problems. The U.S. somehow finds it difficult to appeal to the poor with its doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor.

The Cuban Example

A clear illustration of the general pattern was Cuba, when it finally gained independence in 1959. Within months, military attacks on the island began. Shortly after, the Eisenhower administration made a secret decision to overthrow the government. John F. Kennedy then became president. He intended to devote more attention to Latin America and so, on taking office, he created a study group to develop policies headed by the historian Arthur Schlesinger, who summarized its conclusions for the incoming president.

As Schlesinger explained, threatening in an independent Cuba was “the Castro idea of taking matters into one’s own hands.” It was an idea that unfortunately appealed to the mass of the population in Latin America where “the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes, and the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living.” Again, Washington’s usual dilemma.

As the CIA explained, “The extensive influence of ‘Castroism’ is not a function of Cuban power… Castro’s shadow looms large because social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical change,” for which his Cuba provides a model. Kennedy feared that Russian aid might make Cuba a “showcase” for development, giving the Soviets the upper hand throughout Latin America.

The State Department Policy Planning Council warned that “the primary danger we face in Castro is… in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries… The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the U.S., a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half” — that is, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, when the U.S. declared its intention of dominating the hemisphere.

The immediate goal at the time was to conquer Cuba, but that could not be achieved because of the power of the British enemy. Still, that grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the intellectual father of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, informed his colleagues that over time Cuba would fall into our hands by “the laws of political gravitation,” as an apple falls from the tree. In brief, U.S. power would increase and Britain’s would decline.

In 1898, Adams’s prognosis was realized. The U.S. invaded Cuba in the guise of liberating it. In fact, it prevented the island’s liberation from Spain and turned it into a “virtual colony” to quote historians Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. Cuba remained so until January 1959, when it gained independence. Since that time it has been subjected to major U.S. terrorist wars, primarily during the Kennedy years, and economic strangulation. Not because of the Russians.

The pretense all along was that we were defending ourselves from the Russian threat — an absurd explanation that generally went unchallenged. A simple test of the thesis is what happened when any conceivable Russian threat disappeared. U.S. policy toward Cuba became even harsher, spearheaded by liberal Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who outflanked Bush from the right in the 1992 election. On the face of it, these events should have considerable bearing on the validity of the doctrinal framework for discussion of foreign policy and the factors that drive it. Once again, however, the impact was slight.

The Virus of Nationalism

To borrow Henry Kissinger’s terminology, independent nationalism is a “virus” that might “spread contagion.” Kissinger was referring to Salvador Allende’s Chile. The virus was the idea that there might be a parliamentary path towards some kind of socialist democracy. The way to deal with such a threat is to destroy the virus and to inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national security states. That was achieved in the case of Chile, but it is important to recognize that the thinking holds worldwide.

It was, for example, the reasoning behind the decision to oppose Vietnamese nationalism in the early 1950s and support France’s effort to reconquer its former colony. It was feared that independent Vietnamese nationalism might be a virus that would spread contagion to the surrounding regions, including resource-rich Indonesia. That might even have led Japan — called the “superdomino” by Asia scholar John Dower — to become the industrial and commercial center of an independent new order of the kind imperial Japan had so recently fought to establish. That, in turn, would have meant that the U.S. had lost the Pacific war, not an option to be considered in 1950. The remedy was clear — and largely achieved. Vietnam was virtually destroyed and ringed by military dictatorships that kept the “virus” from spreading contagion.

In retrospect, Kennedy-Johnson National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy reflected that Washington should have ended the Vietnam War in 1965, when the Suharto dictatorship was installed in Indonesia, with enormous massacres that the CIA compared to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. These were, however, greeted with unconstrained euphoria in the U.S. and the West generally because the “staggering bloodbath,” as the press cheerfully described it, ended any threat of contagion and opened Indonesia’s rich resources to western exploitation. After that, the war to destroy Vietnam was superfluous, as Bundy recognized in retrospect.

The same was true in Latin America in the same years: one virus after another was viciously attacked and either destroyed or weakened to the point of bare survival. From the early 1960s, a plague of repression was imposed on the continent that had no precedent in the violent history of the hemisphere, extending to Central America in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, a matter that there should be no need to review.

Much the same was true in the Middle East. The unique U.S. relations with Israel were established in their current form in 1967, when Israel delivered a smashing blow to Egypt, the center of secular Arab nationalism. By doing so, it protected U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, then engaged in military conflict with Egypt in Yemen. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the most extreme radical fundamentalist Islamic state, and also a missionary state, expending huge sums to establish its Wahhabi-Salafi doctrines beyond its borders. It is worth remembering that the U.S., like England before it, has tended to support radical fundamentalist Islam in opposition to secular nationalism, which has usually been perceived as posing more of a threat of independence and contagion.

The Value of Secrecy

There is much more to say, but the historical record demonstrates very clearly that the standard doctrine has little merit. Security in the normal sense is not a prominent factor in policy formation.

To repeat, in the normal sense. But in evaluating the standard doctrine we have to ask what is actually meant by “security”: security for whom?

One answer is: security for state power. There are many illustrations. Take a current one. In May, the U.S. agreed to support a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on the International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes in Syria, but with a proviso: there could be no inquiry into possible war crimes by Israel. Or by Washington, though it was really unnecessary to add that last condition. The U.S. is uniquely self-immunized from the international legal system. In fact, there is even congressional legislation authorizing the president to use armed force to “rescue” any American brought to the Hague for trial — the “Netherlands Invasion Act,” as it is sometimes called in Europe. That once again illustrates the importance of protecting the security of state power.

But protecting it from whom? There is, in fact, a strong case to be made that a prime concern of government is the security of state power from the population. As those who have spent time rummaging through archives should be aware, government secrecy is rarely motivated by a genuine for security, but it definitely does serve to keep the population in the dark. And for good reasons, which were lucidly explained by the prominent liberal scholar and government adviser Samuel Huntington, the professor of the science of government at Harvard University. In his words: “The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.”

He wrote that in 1981, when the Cold War was again heating up, and he explained further that “you may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has been doing ever since the Truman Doctrine.”

These simple truths are rarely acknowledged, but they provide insight into state power and policy, with reverberations to the present moment.

State power has to be protected from its domestic enemy; in sharp contrast, the population is not secure from state power. A striking current illustration is the radical attack on the Constitution by the Obama administration’s massive surveillance program. It is, of course, justified by “national security.” That is routine for virtually all actions of all states and so carries little information.

When the NSA’s surveillance program was exposed by Edward Snowden’s revelations, high officials claimed that it had prevented 54 terrorist acts. On inquiry, that was whittled down to a dozen. A high-level government panel then discovered that there was actually only one case: someone had sent $8,500 to Somalia. That was the total yield of the huge assault on the Constitution and, of course, on others throughout the world.

Britain’s attitude is interesting. In 2007, the British government called on Washington’s colossal spy agency “to analyze and retain any British citizens’ mobile phone and fax numbers, emails, and IP addresses swept up by its dragnet,” the Guardian reported. That is a useful indication of the relative significance, in government eyes, of the privacy of its own citizens and of Washington’s demands.

Another concern is security for private power. One current illustration is the huge trade agreements now being negotiated, the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic pacts. These are being negotiated in secret — but not completely in secret. They are not secret from the hundreds of corporate lawyers who are drawing up the detailed provisions. It is not hard to guess what the results will be, and the few leaks about them suggest that the expectations are accurate. Like NAFTA and other such pacts, these are not free trade agreements. In fact, they are not even trade agreements, but primarily investor rights agreements.

Again, secrecy is critically important to protect the primary domestic constituency of the governments involved, the corporate sector.

The Final Century of Human Civilization?

There are other examples too numerous to mention, facts that are well-established and would be taught in elementary schools in free societies.

There is, in other words, ample evidence that securing state power from the domestic population and securing concentrated private power are driving forces in policy formation. Of course, it is not quite that simple. There are interesting cases, some quite current, where these commitments conflict, but consider this a good first approximation and radically opposed to the received standard doctrine.

Let us turn to another question: What about the security of the population? It is easy to demonstrate that this is a marginal concern of policy planners. Take two prominent current examples, global warming and nuclear weapons. As any literate person is doubtless aware, these are dire threats to the security of the population. Turning to state policy, we find that it is committed to accelerating each of those threats — in the interests of the primary concerns, protection of state power and of the concentrated private power that largely determines state policy.

Consider global warming. There is now much exuberance in the United States about “100 years of energy independence” as we become “the Saudi Arabia of the next century” — perhaps the final century of human civilization if current policies persist.

That illustrates very clearly the nature of the concern for security, certainly not for the population. It also illustrates the moral calculus of contemporary Anglo-American state capitalism: the fate of our grandchildren counts as nothing when compared with the imperative of higher profits tomorrow.

These conclusions are fortified by a closer look at the propaganda system. There is a huge public relations campaign in the U.S., organized quite openly by Big Energy and the business world, to try to convince the public that global warming is either unreal or not a result of human activity. And it has had some impact. The U.S. ranks lower than other countries in public concern about global warming and the results are stratified: among Republicans, the party more fully dedicated to the interests of wealth and corporate power, it ranks far lower than the global norm.

The current issue of the premier journal of media criticism, the Columbia Journalism Review, has an interesting article on this subject, attributing this outcome to the media doctrine of “fair and balanced.” In other words, if a journal publishes an opinion piece reflecting the conclusions of 97% of scientists, it must also run a counter-piece expressing the viewpoint of the energy corporations.

That indeed is what happens, but there certainly is no “fair and balanced” doctrine. Thus, if a journal runs an opinion piece denouncing Russian President Vladimir Putin for the criminal act of taking over the Crimea, it surely does not have to run a piece pointing out that, while the act is indeed criminal, Russia has a far stronger case today than the U.S. did more than a century ago in taking over southeastern Cuba, including the country’s major port — and rejecting the Cuban demand since independence to have it returned. And the same is true of many other cases. The actual media doctrine is “fair and balanced” when the concerns of concentrated private power are involved, but surely not elsewhere.

On the issue of nuclear weapons, the record is similarly interesting — and frightening. It reveals very clearly that, from the earliest days, the security of the population was a non-issue, and remains so. There is no time here to run through the shocking record, but there is little doubt that it strongly supports the lament of General Lee Butler, the last commander of the Strategic Air Command, which was armed with nuclear weapons. In his words, we have so far survived the nuclear age “by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion.” And we can hardly count on continued divine intervention as policymakers play roulette with the fate of the species in pursuit of the driving factors in policy formation.

As we are all surely aware, we now face the most ominous decisions in human history. There are many problems that must be addressed, but two are overwhelming in their significance: environmental destruction and nuclear war. For the first time in history, we face the possibility of destroying the prospects for decent existence — and not in the distant future. For this reason alone, it is imperative to sweep away the ideological clouds and face honestly and realistically the question of how policy decisions are made, and what we can do to alter them before it is too late.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Among his recent books are Hegemony or Survival, Failed States, Power Systems, Occupy, and Hopes and Prospects. His latest book, Masters of Mankind, will be published soon by Haymarket Books, which is also reissuing twelve of his classic books in new editions over the coming year.

01 July, 2014
TomDispatch.com

 

By Juan Cole
The kidnapping and killing of three Israeli squatter youth whose parents usurped Palestinian land has produced a paroxysm of hatred and calls for reprisals in Israel. Whoever is responsible for it, the killing of the youth was a horrid and inexcusable crime, and the heart of any parent goes out to the bereaved families.

It should be noted that during the Israeli dragnet in the West Bank, some 9 Palestinians, some youth or children, have also been killed, and hundreds arbitrarily arrested. The heart of any parent also goes out to those bereaved families.

But assuming that Palestinians were the culprits, the social and political structures fostered by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party form an essential context here. Social scientists always contextualize, an anathema to propagandists and the more glib of the journalists, who confuse it with excusing things. To put things in context is not to justify anything, it is to seek and understanding of human actions beyond the simple demonization of the Other.

The Likud has a policy of keeping the Palestinians stateless. Stateless people lack the right to have rights, in the phrase of Hannah Arendt and the US Chief Justice Warren Burger. They have no state to back their rights, therefore they have no real title to their property, no rights over their land, water or air, nor really even control of their own bodies. In some ways their situation is analogous to that of slaves.

Since the stateless lack a state, they also lack law and order. What most struck me from my last visit to a Palestinian refugee camp was how much of a frontier situation it was. There are no police. Everyone has to fend for themselves. And it is easy for predatory gangs to form.

That is, statelessness produces small violent groups such as Islamic Jihad and perhaps the Palestinian branch of the so-called “Islamic State” of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It produces them because in the absence of formal state structures, such groups thrive in the interstices of society. And it produces them because statelessness and the consequent deprivation of basic human rights produces potent grievances.

If the Likud really wants an end to such incidents, then it should negotiate in good faith to bring about the kind of Palestinian state that could actually police Palestinian lives. Instead, Mr. Netanyahu, despite public denials, wants to make a Palestinian state forever impossible, because he sees it as a danger to his brand of Iron Wall Zionism, which is aggressive and expansionist and Jewish-supremacist. Netanyahu did everything he could to torpedo Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process. One side-effect of statelessness is lawlessness. Netanyahu is actively choosing it.

Likewise, the Likud Party (and its coalition partners, some more barracuda-like than even the Likud itself) is dedicated to a vast project of stealing Palestinian land and resources on the West Bank. They are building beehives of colonies, which are solely Jewish and racist in character, excluding the native Palestinians from dwellings built on their own territory. The intended end game here of people like Avigdor Lieberman is likely that once a majority of the population in the West Bank is Israeli, an incident like the one that just took place will be used as a pretext to simply chase all the Palestinians out to Jordan or Egypt and then lock them out of their own country– i.e. a repeat of what was done in 1948.

It should be fairly obvious that if you take adolescents into the middle of the Palestinian West Bank and steal Palestinian land and build houses on it and shoot at Palestinians trying to harvest their crops nearby and bulldoze down their homes or dig tube wells so deep as to cause the Palestinian wells to run dry– if you engage in this settler-colonial enterprise, then you are exposing those adolescents you drag with you into it to danger.

It is still wrong. Violence in anything other than direct self-defense is always wrong, and innocent non-combatant life must never be taken. A resistance movement is legitimate, but its quarrel must be with soldiers.

In the way of politics, the killing will be used by the Israeli Right wing to demonize all Palestinians and to justify collective punishment of innocents among them, and as a pretext to take further property and rights away from them. Mr. Netanyahu seems to think he can use the murders as a basis for a campaign to destroy the Hamas Party-Militia in Gaza altogether. But Hamas is a side effect of Israeli brutalization of Palestinians in Gaza, who live under an economic siege, and if it were destroyed, something worse would take its place. Intolerable situations produce resistance, and resistance movements are often fanatical. Of course, the Israeli crackdown actions will produce a backlash from Palestinians in turn. The Likud, with its Ku Klux Klan kind of ideology, thrives on such a backlash– just as the Klan liked to see defiant African-Americans in the days of Jim Crow so as to make it easier to stage a lynching.

The Likudniks, whether in Israel or in the US, seem blithely unaware that they are operating in the same world as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He didn’t expect suddenly to lose a third of the territory he controlled. While the surprises awaiting the Likudniks aren’t exactly like those that confronted al-Maliki, that there will be unpleasant surprises is fairly predictable. Grasping, indictive and petty policy always produces tragedies for those who pursue it.
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His new book, The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation Is Changing the Middle East (Simon and Schuster), will officially be published July 1st. He is also the author of Engaging the Muslim World and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East (both Palgrave Macmillan). He has appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle East is Informed Comment.

01 July, 2014
Informed Comment

 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The Al Qaeda legend and the threat of the “Outside Enemy” is sustained through extensive media and government propaganda.

In the post 9/11 era, the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda constitutes the building block of US-NATO military doctrine. It justifies –under a humanitarian mandate– the conduct of “counter-terrorism operations” Worldwide.

Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which in turn oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.

While the US State Department is accusing several countries of “harboring terrorists”, America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) –which operates in both Syria and Iraq– is covertly supported and financed by the US and its allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Moreover, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan, among others.

The US-led Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) constitutes the cornerstone of US military doctrine. “Going after Islamic terrorists” is part and parcel of non-conventional warfare. The underlying objective is to justify the conduct of counter-terrorism operations Worldwide, which enables the US and its allies to intervene in the affairs of sovereign countries.

Many progressive writers, including alternative media, while focusing on recent developments in Iraq, fail to understand the logic behind the “Global War on Terrorism.” The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Cham (ISIS) is often considered as an “independent entity” rather than an instrument of the Western military alliance. Moreover, many committed anti-war activists –who oppose the tenets of the US-NATO military agenda– will nonetheless endorse Washington’s counter-terrorism agenda directed against Al Qaeda:. The Worldwide terrorist threat is considered to be “real”: “We are against the war, but we support the Global War on Terrorism”.

The Caliphate Project and The US National Intelligence Council Report

A new gush of propaganda has been set in motion. The leader of the now defunct Islamic State of Iraq and Al Cham (ISIS) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced on June 29, 2014 the creation of an Islamic State:

Fighters loyal to the group’s proclaimed “Caliph Ibrahim ibn Awwad”, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as he was known until Sunday’s July 1st announcement, are inspired by the Rashidun caliphate, which succeeded the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century, and is revered by most Muslims.” (Daily Telegraph, June 30, 2014)

In a bitter irony, the caliphate project as an instrument of propaganda has been on the drawing board of US intelligence for more than ten years. In December 2004, under the Bush Administration, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicted that in the year 2020 a New Caliphate extending from the Western Mediterranean to Central Asia and South East Asia would emerge, threatening Western democracy and Western values.

The “findings” of the National Intelligence Council were published in a 123 page unclassified report entitled “Mapping the Global Future”.

“A New Caliphate provides an example of how a global movement fueled by radical religious identity politics could constitute a challenge to Western norms and values as the foundation of the global system” (emphasis added)

The NIC 2004 report borders on ridicule; it is devoid of intelligence, let alone historical and geopolitical analysis. Its fake narrative pertaining to the caliphate, nonetheless, bears a canny resemblance to the June 29, 2014 highly publicized PR announcement of the creation of the Caliphate by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The NIC report presents a so-called “fictional scenario of a letter from a fictional grandson of Bin Ladin to a family relative in 2020.” It is on this basis that it makes predictions for the year 2020. Based on an invented bin Laden grandson letter narrative rather than on intelligence and empirical analysis, the US intelligence community concludes that the caliphate constitutes a real danger for the Western World and Western civilization.

From a propaganda standpoint, the objective underlying the Caliphate project –as described by the NIC– is to demonize Muslims with a view to justifying a military crusade:

“The fictional scenario portrayed below provides an example of how a global movement fueled by radical religious identity could emerge.

Under this scenario, a new Caliphate is proclaimed and manages to advance a powerful counter ideology that has widespread appeal.

It is depicted in the form of a hypothetical letter from a fictional grandson of Bin Ladin to a family relative in 2020.

He recounts the struggles of the Caliph in trying to wrest control from traditional regimes and the conflict and confusion which ensue both within the Muslim world and outside between Muslims and the United States, Europe, Russia and China. While the Caliph’s success in mobilizing support varies, places far outside the Muslim core in the Middle East—in Africa and Asia—are convulsed as a result of his appeals.

The scenario ends before the Caliph is able to establish both spiritual and temporal authority over a territory— which historically has been the case for previous Caliphates. At the end of the scenario, we identify lessons to be drawn.”(“Mapping the Global Future”. p. 83)

This “authoritative” NIC “Mapping the Global Future” report was not only presented to the White House, the Congress and the Pentagon, it was also dispatched to America’s allies. The “threat emanating from the Muslim World” referred to in the NIC report (including the section on the caliphate project) is firmly entrenched in US-NATO military doctrine.

The NIC document was intended to be read by top officials. Broadly speaking it was part of the “Top official” (TOPOFF) propaganda campaign which targets senior foreign policy and military decision-makers, not to mention scholars, researchers and NGO “activists”. The objective is to ensure that “top officials” continue to believe that Islamic terrorists are threatening the security of the Western World.

The underpinnings of the caliphate scenario is the “Clash of Civilizations”, which provides a justification in the eyes of public opinion for America to intervene Worldwide as part of a global counter- terrorism agenda.

From a geopolitical and geographic standpoint, the caliphate constitutes a broad area in which the US is seeking to extend its economic and strategic influence. In the words of Dick Cheney pertaining to the 2004 NIC’s report:

“They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the Seventh Century Caliphate. This was the world as it was organized 1,200, 1,300 years, in effect, when Islam or Islamic people controlled everything from Portugal and Spain in the West; all through the Mediterranean to North Africa; all of North Africa; the Middle East; up into the Balkans; the Central Asian republics; the southern tip of Russia; a good swath of India; and on around to modern day Indonesia. In one sense from Bali and Jakarta on one end, to Madrid on the other.” Dick Cheney (emphasis added)

What Cheney is describing in today’s context is a broad region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia and South East Asia in which the US and its allies are directly involved in a variety of military and intelligence operations.

The stated aim of the NIC report was “to prepare the next Bush administration for challenges that lie ahead by projecting current trends that may pose a threat to US interests”.

The NIC intelligence document was based, lest we forget, on “a hypothetical letter from a fictional grandson of Bin Ladin to a [fictional] family relative in [the year] 2020″. “The Lessons Learnt” as outlined in this “authoritative’ NIC intelligence document are as follows:

the caliphate project “constitutes a serious challenge to the international order”.
“The IT revolution is likely to amplify the clash between Western and Muslim worlds…”
The document refers to the appeal of the caliphate to Muslims and concludes that:

“the proclamation of the Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and in fomenting more conflict”. [sic]

The NIC’s analysis suggests that the proclamation of a caliphate will generate a new wave of terrorism emanating from Muslim countries thereby justifying an escalation in America’s Global War on Terrorism (GWOT):

the proclamation of the caliphate … could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim World.” (emphasis added)

What the NIC report fails to mention is that US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6 and Israel’s Mossad are covertly involved in supporting both the terrorists and the caliphate project.

In turn, the media has embarked on a new wave of lies and fabrications, focusing on “a new terrorist threat” emanating not only from the Muslim World, but from “home grown Islamist terrorists” in Europe and North America.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website.

2 July 2014

By Phil Stewart

(Reuters) – U.S. military advisors have secretly operated in Somalia since around 2007 and Washington plans to deepen its security assistance to help the country fend off threats by Islamist militant group al Shabaab, U.S. officials said.

The comments are the first detailed public acknowledgement of a U.S. military presence in Somalia dating back since the U.S. administration of George W. Bush and add to other signs of a deepening U.S. commitment to Somalia’s government, which the Obama administration recognized last year.

The deployments, consisting of up to 120 troops on the ground, go beyond the Pentagon’s January announcement that it had sent a handful of advisors in October. That was seen at the time as the first assignment of U.S. troops to Somalia since 1993 when two U.S. helicopters were shot down and 18 American troops killed in the “Black Hawk Down” disaster.

The plans to further expand U.S. military assistance coincide with increasing efforts by the Somali government and African Union peacekeepers to counter a bloody seven-year insurgent campaign by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab to impose strict Islamic law inside Somalia.

Those U.S. plans include greater military engagement and new funds for training and assistance for the Somali National Army (SNA), after years of working with the African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, which has about 22,000 troops in the country from Uganda, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

“What you’ll see with this upcoming fiscal year is the beginning of engagement with the SNA proper,” said a U.S. defense official, who declined to be identified. The next fiscal year starts in October.

An Obama administration official told Reuters there were currently up to 120 U.S. military personnel on the ground throughout Somalia and described them as trainers and advisors.

“They’re not involved in combat,” the official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that until last year, U.S. military advisors had been working with AMISOM troop contributors, as opposed to Somali forces.

President Barack Obama last year determined that Somalia could receive U.S. military assistance.

Another official said American forces over the years had provided advice and assistance in areas related to mission planning, small unit tactics, medical care, human rights and communications. The official said U.S. forces in Somalia have also facilitated coordination, planning and communication between AMISOM troop contributors and Somali security forces.

SPECIAL OPS

The comments expand upon a little noticed section of a speech given early in June by Wendy Sherman, under secretary of state for political affairs. She publicly acknowledged that a “small contingent of U.S. military personnel” including special operations forces had been present in parts of Somalia for several years.

Still, it was not immediately clear from her remarks the extent to which U.S. personnel had been operating.

U.S. special operations forces have staged high-profile raids in the past in Somalia, including an aborted attempt in October to capture an al Shabaab operative in the militant group’s stronghold of Barawe. U.S. officials have acknowledged Washington’s support for AMISOM and Somalia’s struggle against al Shabaab.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officials have been known to operate in the country.

U.S. troop numbers on the ground in Somalia vary over time, the officials told Reuters. Deployments are “staggered” and “short-term,” one official said. But the Obama administration official added that there was overlap in the deployments to allow for a persistent presence on the ground.

Asked about where U.S. forces were deployed, the administration official said they were “in locations throughout Somalia” but declined to elaborate further for security reasons.

The official declined to say precisely when the first U.S. military forces went back into Somalia, saying: “It was around 2007” and in support of AMISOM.

Asked about why Sherman chose to disclose the information, a State Department official told Reuters: “In the past, our assessment of the security situation in Somalia informed our decision to err on the side of force protection concerns and not divulge their presence.”

That’s changed, the official said. “We do not currently believe that acknowledging the U.S. presence will increase the already high threat to our personnel and citizens operating in Somalia.”

The announcement also reflects a deepening of the U.S.-Somali relationship and comes as the United States prepares to name its first ambassador for Somalia since 1993, who would initially be based out of the country due to security concerns.

“Absolutely there’s been a shift” in the relationship, an Obama administration official said.

Military trainers from the European Union are already on the ground in Somalia training soldiers after shifting their operations at the end of last year to Mogadishu from Uganda, where troops were previously drilled.

Phil Stewart has worked for Reuters since 1998 and reported from more than 30 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt. Before becoming a Washington D.C.-based military affairs and intelligence reporter, Phil covered terrorism, foreign affairs and the Vatican from Rome from 2004 until mid-2009.

2 July 2014

From The Rev. Dr.

Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem

For the last three months, approximately 200 Palestinian administrative detainees have been on a hunger strike to protest their detention without charge or trial.

On May 15, 2014, on Nakba day, a few weeks before the kidnapping of the three young Israelis, the Israeli army killed two Palestinian teenagers near Ramallah in cold blood.

On Monday evening, June 30, the Israeli army found the bodies of the three missing Israeli teenagers. On Tuesday morning, July 1, the Israeli army killed a 16 year old Palestinian in Jenin and some settlers tried to snatch a 9 year old boy in Beit Hanina, but he was rescued by his mother and some passersby. Early Wednesday morning July 2, settlers kidnapped a 17 year old boy from Shufat, killed him and burned his body. In addition, over the last two weeks over 10 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army some of them quite young and over 500 detained and hundreds injured.

We grieve with all the families – Palestinians and Israelis. We condemn the killings whether by the Israeli army, the unruly settlers, extremist Palestinians or unknown suspects. We uphold the sanctity of all human life Israeli as well as Palestinian, Jew as well as Muslim, Muslim as well as Christian.

For those who have eyes to see, all the killings that have taken place were senseless and the major culprit is the right-wing Israeli government. Its policy has been a total rejection of peace on the basis of the demands of international law. It refuses to share the land and accept a sovereign Palestinian state on only 22% of historic
Palestine that is willing to live in peace next to Israel. The government of Israel believes that it can turn back the wheels of history and create an ethnic/religious state. It believes that it can impose its will on the Palestinians because it possesses the military power and the technology that is needed.

This cannot happen. It is on the wrong side of history. History itself is against it, not only the Palestinians. The future of the world is for multiethnic,
multiracial, and multireligious communities living together. History is for diversity and not for uniformity. Israel’s right wing government is the culprit. It is responsible; it is the offender. It is cheating the Israeli and Palestinian youths of life because it is charting an ethnic and racist course of history that is untenable.

The good people of Israel, Palestine, and the international community must put a stop to this madness. Long ago Jesus quoted the Psalmist saying, “The meek will inherit the land.” The meek are the people of the land and they are the Israelis and the Palestinians, but they are not the arrogant exclusivists of this world. The exclusivists will
eventually pass away and someday new leaders will emerge, an Israeli Abraham Lincoln, or an Israeli De Klerk who will lead Israel to peace based on sharing the land where every person – man and woman, Israeli and Palestinian – will live as equal citizens with human dignity.

We call on our Palestinian sisters and brothers to continue resisting every act of injustice with nonviolent action; our religious leaders, Muslim and Christian, to raise the prophetic voice against injustice and oppression; and the Palestinian Authority to remain steadfast in its commitment to a unified government.

If the Israeli government wants peace, it must be transformed. It needs to believe in the power of peace that is based on justice and equality. For such a time as this, Israeli leaders need the courage and the will to do the following:

They need to realize that violence can only beget violence and that despair can only beget desperate actions. Therefore the state must stop the cycle of violence and the cycle of vengeance.

They need to address the root causes of the problems: racist laws, the military occupation, and the illegal settlements.

They need to stop all collective punishments, arbitrary killings, and extra judicial executions and let the rule of law take its due course. It is unjust to punish innocent persons for the actions of a suspected few.

They need to work with the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority to find the resolution of the conflict on the basis of international law that will guarantee the needs of peace and security for both Israel and Palestine.

We lament the inaction of world leaders in the face of the entrenchment of the occupation. They need to realize that ultimately the resolution of the conflict requires outside intervention. World powers helped create the conflict and world powers must help resolve it.
For such a time as this, “He told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

July 4, 2014

 

By Gerald A. Perreira

The Organization of North Atlantic Tribes (NATO) brought together the enemies of the Libyan revolution under one umbrella to achieve their desired outcome. This concoction of insignificant non-entities and murderous gangs parading as ‘jihadists’ are now fighting each other over the spoils of war. They have been handed a resource rich nation state and are now one of the major supporters of the Islamist death squads throughout the region.
Truth be told, Barak Obama is a political dunce. Soon after Obama became the first Black president of the United States, Hugo Chavez presented him with a copy of Eduardo Galeano’s excellent work, Open Veins of Latin America. Obama should have read it.

Hugo Chavez presenting Obama with a copy of Eduardo Galeano’s book, Open Veins of
Latin America.

At that time, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and a number of other revolutionary and progressive leaders saw a glimmer of hope with Obama’s election. It was not that these leaders did not understand the nature of the American political system. Of course, they understood only too well that all talk of US democracy is a sham. They knew that the US political system offers a mere façade of democracy which allows for the rule of capital, and that both Republicans and Democrats are ideological-political expressions of the same ruling class. The ballot box cannot undo the power elite in American society.
They also knew that Obama was a political neophyte – a novice on the global stage – but a seemingly intelligent one – at least that’s how it appeared back then. It seemed that he might have the empathy and intelligence to listen and learn. Unfortunately he did not, and the rest is history. At that moment, soon after his election, when he appointed an array of advisors with connections to all manner of nefarious forces, including well known Zionists, the hope faded. Obama chose drones over his promise of diplomacy and dialogue, and chose to appease the forces of white supremacy, over his promise to bring about meaningful change.

It quickly became apparent that the Black face in the White House was the latest addition to white supremacy’s arsenal. Ill-informed and therefore easily misinformed, Obama has committed one foreign policy blunder after another with nightmarish consequences, especially for the Global South. When Obama made the fallacious comment that ‘Qaddafi had lost all credibility and that he must go’, it was obvious that he was being fed misinformation by deceptive forces bent on redesigning Africa and the Arab world. Under his presidential watch, even morons like McCain have thrived rather than being discredited, and have been used to galvanize support for the Obama’s incoherent and irrational foreign policy.

Recently I heard a sound bite that went like this, ‘Libya is in chaos as the armed militias that overthrew Qaddafi wage war on each other’. Notice how the pro-imperialist media conveniently remove the mass murderers in Britain, the US, France, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from the equation, even though it is crystal clear that without their intervention in Libya, the Jamahiriya could never have been overthrown, precisely because there was never a popular uprising against Qaddafi and the revolution. Even former Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, in a statement he made during a meeting of his party, Forza Italia, was forced to admit that: ‘This has nothing to do with a popular uprising. The Libyan people love Qaddafi, as I was able to see when I went to Libya…Powerful people decided to give life to a new era by trying to oust Qaddafi.’
The fact is, there was a popular uprising in support of Qaddafi and the Jamahiriya and against the invaders. This has become even clearer in the aftermath of the invasion, as more than 2.5 million Libyans have been forced to flee their country, and this is only the number of those who have been documented at border crossings and by refugee organizations. The real figures are much higher. When you consider that the total population was 6 million prior to the invasion, you then realize how devastating the situation has become. Libya is in chaos and the suffering is tangible. Imagine in the recently held elections, only 630,000 people turned out to vote. That is not a low show – that is a no show.

The popular uprising in Libya was in support of the Jamahiriya: during the invasion of Libya, 1.7million people, 95% of the population of Tripoli and one third of the entire population of Libya, gathered in downtown Tripoli in perhaps the largest demonstration in world history to support Qaddafi and the revolution.
In contrast, the recent elections in Libya held on June 25th, 2014 saw polling booths all over Libya empty – only 630,000 people turned out to vote.
Qaddafi really did create a Jamahiriya – translated as a state of the masses. The Libyan people stayed away from the polls in droves – it was probably the most impressive election boycott in history.

As Qaddafi outlined in The Green Book, ‘Democracy means, literally, the authority and sovereignty of the people – the entire people. It is not a monolithic product as the West would like us to believe’

Authority of the People certainly does not exist in the US or Europe.

Michael Parenti, in his ground-breaking work, Democracy for the Few, pointed out the framers and shapers of the US constitution, people like Elbridge Gerry, Alexander Hamilton and even George Washington, were all contemptuous of democracy. Gerry is on record referring to democracy as ‘the worst of all political evils’. Alexander Hamilton advocated for a strong state to ‘check the imprudence of democracy’. And Washington, who once traded an African slave for a barrel of molasses, cautioned those who were drafting the constitution not to produce a document to please the people.
The entire US political system is a sham, not just today but from its inception, and every country has the right and should be prepared to defend their gains and national dignity against re-colonization in the guise of their fallacious notions of ‘multi-party democracy’, ‘human rights’ and ‘rule of law’.

It is important to note that the so-called rebels never won a single battle during the invasion of Libya; everything was handed to them on a platter by the imperialist ground and air forces. With the overthrow of the Jamahiriya and the murder of Muammar Qaddafi, this bizarre concoction of monarchists, thugs parading as Jihadists and other reactionary forces are now at each other’s throats. They most definitely have no clue as to how to put together a plan to re-build and govern Libya.

What has resulted from the overthrow of the Libyan Jamahiriya is so hideous that even the imperialists don’t have the stomach for it. Libya hardly gets a mention now – the odd sound bite here and there. And anyway, who cares? Now that Qaddafi and the Jamahiriya are gone and Africa is once again a playing field for all and sundry, the mission is accomplished.

Qaddafi’s extensive popularity and influence throughout Africa, along with the fact that Libya was prepared to throw its economic might behind the Pan-African project, acted as a bulwark to all who wanted to lay their hands on Africa’s resources. And that is just about everyone. Even the Saudi’s and Qatari’s are buying up large tracts of African land to grow food and ensure their food security into the future. As I have said in so many previous articles, every modern, high-tech society must have access, one way or the other, to African resources. It is estimated that if access was to stop for even two weeks, the so-called developed world would grind to a halt. Rather than embracing this position of African power and strength, something Qaddafi tried to convince the continent’s leaders to do, they chose instead to prostrate themselves before their erstwhile colonial masters. Unfortunately, African countries, with a few exceptions, are governed by neo-colonial elites who pay lip service to Pan-Africanism and African unity. Rather than opposing this new wave of re-colonization they are actually acting as facilitators at worst, and at best, hopeless and helpless in the face of it.

Let us not commit the same error as the imperialist media and take white supremacy out of this equation. The great African leaders and movements of our time, who have fought for the true independence, dignity and unification of Africa, have been stalked and preyed upon by Western intelligence agencies and eventually have almost all been overthrown, murdered and/or demonized. There are too many to mention here. So let us not fall into the white lie that somehow ‘African regimes are all corrupt and oppressive.’ The fact is that every time, and there have been countless times, that a progressive regime comes to power anywhere in Africa or for that matter any part of the Global South, the imperialist mission is ‘Regime change by any means necessary’. And this entails backing anyone who can do the job, including throat slitting ‘Jihadists’ in Africa and the Arab world, to fascist outfits in Venezuela.

This is why they can be supporting and equipping the Islamists in Syria against the Assad regime on the one hand, while frantically talking with Nouri al Maliki about how to destroy the same group in Iraq on the other. Henry Kissinger put it in a nutshell when he uttered the now infamous dictum: ‘We have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies – we only have permanent interests’.

Of course, none of this is new – they have always operated this way. Western imperialism, by its very nature, has worked closely with extreme right-wing and fascist forces in every corner of the globe against revolutionary regimes and movements. In the high-tech age, the Empire has simply widened and deepened its dragnet, perfecting its surveillance and propaganda techniques, in its now desperate attempt to stay in control. However, no matter what the Empire does – none of dem can stop da tide. It is plain for all to see that the sun is setting on this Empire. The US and Europe’s influence in world affairs is waning faster than they can do damage control. They now want to talk to Iran but Iran does not want to talk to them without conditions. How the tables can turn. And Kerry is pleading with the Kurds to prevent what he is referring to as ‘the collapse of Iraq’. Surely he knows that Iraq collapsed a long time ago. Even US support for the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine is back-firing on them. In their attempt to undermine and discredit Russia and Putin, they have rather strengthened their hand.

Sometimes the enemy can be the best teacher.

‘Propaganda becomes ineffective the moment we are aware of it’, so stated Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

I doubt that anyone, anywhere, does not see through the lies, deception and blatant hypocrisy emanating from Western capitals. Their propaganda has, as Goebbels suggests, worn completely thin. The less obvious issue is how are we to deal with the new set of events that have emerged with the overthrow of the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Remember Qaddafi’s words? ‘The fight if it is not won in Libya will be coming to you. Prepare for it. Prepare traps for the invaders. You must defend your corners…build your defenses for they are coming if they manage to pass Libya.’ That has surely come to pass.

What is now taking place in Mali, Nigeria, Central African Republic (CAR) and most recently Iraq, are not isolated events, but are all part of the fallout from what happened in Libya. The so called ‘rebels’ of Libya are closely related to all the other Al-Qaeda inspired ‘rebels’ in the region – from Syria to Nigeria. Handing them an oil rich nation, i.e. Libya, has strengthened them beyond their wildest dreams and they are now running riot on all fronts – heavily armed and frighteningly emboldened.

A Muslim woman in Nigeria demonstrates against the terror of Boko Haram

They range from Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Egypt to Ansar al Sharia in Libya and Tunisia, to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali, Algeria and Mauritania, to Al Nusra Front and Al Dawlah al Islamiyah fi al Iraq wa al Sham (The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – ISIS/ISIL) to Boko Haram in Nigeria. They are all part of the same Al Qaeda inspired, Salafist network of murderous thugs, being financed, supported and equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the US, Britain and a number of other European states.

Even Nouri al Maliki denounced Saudi Arabia’s financial and moral support for these murderous gangs, including The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), currently destabilizing Iraq and the region.

Why doesn’t the West declare Saudi Arabia and Qatar sponsors of terrorism? Because in line with their foreign policy, once again, we find that one of the most oppressive regimes in the world – the House of Saud – is the darling of the US and Britain. The so-called war on terror is a myth. It is selective, hypocritical and immoral. In reality they all work in tandem, one minute friends; the next minute enemies, hence the coining of the term ‘frenemies’.
It is interesting to note that these so-called Jihadists have not attacked one Israeli/Zionist military target, in fact their actions often serve the interests of the Zionist state and they find themselves acting in unison. Israel has repeatedly bombed Assad’s forces in support of the ‘Jihadists’. And more recently, while these pretenders to Islam are busy fighting imperialism’s wars, Israel is once again bombing the Palestinians.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two major global hubs of Wahhabism, have, over the years, been promoting this deviant doctrine that masquerades as Islam, throughout Africa and the Indian sub- continent. Their target market: large groups of unemployed, impoverished and un-educated youth. Backed by Petro dollars, they provide them with scholarships to Saudi Arabia and Madrasas in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa where they are housed and fed for free and indoctrinated in Wahhabism.

Arrested Boko Haram members. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have, over the years, been promoting their deviant doctrine that masquerades as Islam, throughout Africa. Their target market: large groups of unemployed, impoverished and un-educated youth.

A complete distortion of Islam, Wahhabism is intolerant and hostile to Christians, Shias, Alawis, and any progressive Muslim leader who disagrees with Wahhabism is declared an apostate. The Saudis had declared Muammar Qaddafi an apostate as far back as the early 70s, when he dared to question their teaching and practices.

In a speech delivered in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1939, Abul Ala Maududi, one of the ideologues of the present day Islamist marauders stated, ‘Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it.’ The entire text of this speech was later published in booklet form under the title Jihad in Islam.

Maududi’s organization, Jamaat-e-Islami has had a longstanding relationship with the CIA. As far back as the 1970s they worked hand in hand with the US to remove the progressive Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and install Pakistani dictator, General Muhammad Zia-ul- Haq, and with the CIA in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean is not a new concept, it is just that it is now receiving attention in the Western media as these groups gain momentum. This battle between the Islam of Prophet Muhammad and this hijacked version of Islam has been raging for centuries. From its inception in 1969, the Libyan revolution had been in the forefront of the struggle to keep these deviant forces and their reactionary ideology at bay, which is why Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE were so eager to lead the charge against Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahiriya.

Boko Haram in Nigeria is a good example of this reactionary and authoritarian ideology. These deviant Islamic groups are being used by the Western imperialist powers in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to re-divide and carve up Africa and to destroy what little is left of the Pan African project. Chaos and instability is the perfect cover for re-colonization. While the Western imperialists use Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the ‘Jihadists’, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and ‘the Jihadists’ are also using the imperialists. They too have designs on Africa and the Arab world and since they are the frontline, and it is their ideology that is being fought for, it is a dangerous path the US is treading. In the end, the US must emerge as the losers in this ‘game of thrones’. This is evident already with the events unfolding in Iraq. Whichever way it goes – the US is the big loser.

Syrian ‘Jihadists’ from the Al Nusra front have slit the throats of Christians who refused to convert to Islam even though the Prophet of Islam made it abundantly clear that there is no religion by compulsion.

In his final communiqué, Qaddafi asked ‘What Sharia are you looking for other than the one which we have, since we were the first to bring Quran as the Law of Society in the Jamahiriya. Is it the Sharia of injustice, oppression, cowardice, murder, insanity and drugs? Is it the Sharia that elevates the rat with his gun to allow torture, rape and theft? No! That is not Sharia, ignoring all that is in the Qur’an.’

And that brings us to General Khalifa Haftar who is waging a military campaign in Benghazi against Ansar Al Sharia and other Islamist gangs claiming that the NATO/CIA installed Libyan regime is supporting them.

Haftar is himself a CIA operative from way back. In the 1980s, during the Libya-Chad war, this rogue general betrayed the Libyan forces, with intelligence support from France and the USA; he facilitated the capture of more than 600 Libyan troops. Haftar was briefly imprisoned in Chad before being moved to the United States where he resided for years, while being prepared for the events that unfolded in 2011 with the invasion of the Libyan Jamahiriya. During the invasion he was returned to Libya by his handlers in Washington, where he assisted in coordinating the so-called rebels. Now Libya has been abandoned by the so-called liberating forces of Western imperialism and left to stew in the ensuing chaos – just like Iraq. Haftar is today being used by the Americans to reign in the very murderous militias that the same Americans unleashed only yesterday on Libya.

Haftar is one of those hideous creatures of US imperialism. He is now openly accusing the Arab supremacist regime in Khartoum of supporting the ‘Islamist’ militias in Libya. Haftar is no genius but this is laughable. The Regime of Omar Al Bashir played a pivotal role in the destruction of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Certainly Haftar was on the ground when Sudanese troops were sent in to combat Loyalist forces in Kufra and in other locations near the Sudanese border. Haftar was right there when Sudan provided weaponry to the ‘Islamist’ gangs during the invasion of Libya so why is he crying about the Khartoum Regime now?

Haftar is hedging his bets. He demonstrated long ago that he could be bought by the highest bidder. He wants power and he wants to show the Americans and Europeans that he can reign in the Islamists. Washington and Brussels are also hedging their bets, keeping channels of communication open with both sides – all sides.

What Must Be Done?

The battle lines are clear – do not be confused. This is not a Christian–Muslim battle or a Sunni-Shia conflict. Rather it is the same old fight dressed up in different clothing, the age old battle between true religion and false religion – which rages inside both Islam and Christianity. It is the battle between oppressed and oppressors, between the revolutionary forces of Pan-Africanism and White supremacy, between the forces for economic justice and human dignity and those who wish us to remain subjugated under imperialism and capitalism’s yoke. It is a struggle between all those who believe that a new world is possible and those who proclaim the so-called end of history.

The time has surely come for a broad based alliance of revolutionary and progressive forces to come together to fight the forces of fascism being unleashed around the globe. This was the reason for the establishment of the World Mathaba in Tripoli, Libya in the early 80s. Mathaba is an old Arabic word which roughly translates as ‘the coming together/meeting point of forces for the purpose of achieving a shared objective’. The only criteria for admission to the World Mathaba, was that the member organization openly declared its opposition to fascism, racism, Zionism, capitalism and imperialism worldwide. Ideological uniformity beyond that was not asked for hence, the Mathaba was able to bring together an extremely broad alliance of revolutionary forces, including Muslims, Christians, Pan-Africanists, indigenous peoples’ organizations and revolutionary groupings of every hue.

Let us put our petty differences aside as we prepare to face this great battle that is surely coming our way – no matter where we stand.

The battle that is coming has been in the making for a long while – so has the resistance that will oppose it. The destruction of The World Mathaba and the Jamahiriya is not an end but a closing of one phase only to open the next phase, its forces empowered and strengthened by all the preparation and networks already forged.

As Qaddafi said, in his final communiqué to the peoples of the world, ‘Do not be afraid of power – possess it. Do not believe their trumpets. Whoever listens to the trumpets is making a mistake. You have your own Mathabas to go to for information and to meet and deliberate. Pay no heed to them. By now this should be clear to you. Fire is water, water is fire. Know that the future is yours, governments are finished, a new era of the masses is coming…’

Gerald A. Perreira is a founding member of the Guyanese organizations Joint Initiative for Human Advancement and Dignity and Black Consciousness Movement Guyana (BCMG) and International Secretary for ARM (African Revolutionary Movement). He lived in Libya for many years, served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Al Fateh revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

3 July 2014

By maannews.net

The number of Palestinian children in Israeli jails has surpassed 250 in the wake of the ongoing military search campaign in the West Bank, a Palestinian Authority lawyer said Tuesday.

“Israel is violating international children’s rights agreements by detaining Palestinian minors, and it is trying to cover up these violations with the story of the three missing settlers,” Hiba Masalha said in a statement.

The Israeli army launched a massive military campaign in the West Bank following the disappearance of three Israeli teenagers from the Gush Etzion settlement on June 12. Israeli forces have arrested hundreds of Palestinians and killed five throughout the search for the teens, who Israel alleges were kidnapped by Hamas.

“Detaining Palestinian children from their houses in the middle of the night without informing their parents and families of the reasons for their detention is kidnapping,” Masalha added.

The statement said Palestinian children are often subjected to violence upon being arrested and interrogated in Israeli prisons.
Sixteen-year-old Talal Khalid Sayf was detained on May 3, 2014, and claims to have been beaten badly by Israeli soldiers during the arrest process, the statement said.

Sayf was left with his nose and mouth bleeding, and was also struck in the stomach and back.

Islam Mahmoud Haimouni, 17, was detained from his home on Dec. 18, 2013, according to the statement. He was taken from his home into an Israeli military vehicle and beaten until he lost consciousness.

Sixteen-year-old Hassan Sharif Ghawadrah was beaten so badly during his detention on Nov. 13, 2013 that he was taken to the hospital, before spending 15 days in solitary confinement, the statement said.

Additionally, an interrogator in Huwwara prison beat 17-year-old Musleh Hatem Mifleh in the face and pulled his hair until he confessed, the statement said.
According to a 2013 report by the UN’s Children’s Fund, Israel is the only country in the world where children are systematically tried in military courts and subjected to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.”

Over the past decade, Israeli forces have arrested, interrogated, and prosecuted around 7,000 children between 12 and 17, mostly boys, at a rate of “an average of two children each day,” UNICEF said.

24 June 2014
(Ma’an – www.maannews.net)

By Iqbal Jassat

The Arabian Peninsula, which until recently held an exciting prospect of revolutionary change, is overwhelmed in contrasting moods swinging between depression and guarded optimism as internecine wars dominate it.

Allready pundits familiar with the history and politics of the region are predicting that the Peninsula will not be the same.

Borders arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers following World War 1 are destined to undergo dramatic changes. In other words the conflict-ridden legacy of Sykes-Picot is being forcefully transformed to a new future, albeit uncertain.

The movement known as ISIL or ISIS is credited for spearheading this campaign. Claims attributed to it reveal that it’s mission will not be complete in the absence of gaining key locations in Iraq.

Since it launched a blitzkrieg a few weeks ago, many strategic regions have fallen to it. It now seems poised to capture Baghdad if some news reports are to be believed.

Overnight the world’s attention has been drawn to witnessing a remarkable military conquest by a non – state actor of a region that for centuries has been an intellectual and cultural hub of the Muslim world.

If the Arabian Peninsula is destined for fundamental transformation from nation-states to an undefined Khilafat (Caliphate), the starting point many argue is Syria followed by Iraq.

Many others will argue that such radical change has to occur in Islam’s heartland which carries a post-Ottoman colonial family name: Saudi Arabia and therefrom liberate the rest of the Peninsula.

In the current mix of carnage and violent emphasis on sectarianism, questions about the the real goals of ISIS and who is driving it remains unanswered.

Suspicion that the Saudi monarchy is applying deceptive tactics by declaring ISIS a “terrorist” outfit while using it as a proxy to destabilise Iran’s influence in Iraq is not without foundation.

Neither is it an improbability given the role it has played in arming and financing certain opposition groups in Syria.

The Saudi factor in scuttling Egypt’s first and only democratically elected government is equally relevant to understand how and why it uses it’s “religious” muscle to remove potential threats to its oligarchy.

Bahrain and Yemen are two more countries where Saudi intervention protects these brutal dictatorships and allows them to flout every known convention on human rights.

So to add to the unanswered questions, it would be useful to know whether ISIS plans to extend it’s mission of restoring the Khilafat by storming and subduing the House of Saud.

And what about America? Is it sufficient to allow John Kerry’s spindoctoring to influence public opinion without interrogation?

Some analysts point to the Obama strategy of effecting change in pursuit of hegemonic interests without American boots on the ground.

Having been rebuffed by the Maliki regime which resulted in Washington having to witness its military influence whittling in Iraq, the Obama administration needs to restore its unchallenged supremacy.

Without implying that ISIS is an American bogeyman, it must be said that the current crisis places Maliki firmly back in the hands of the Pentagon. Argued differently it is pretty clear to most observers that if not for ISIS, Maliki would not be on his knees begging America to save him.

Israel as usual seems to be keeping a low profile. As a dominant military power with an entrenched intelligence network, it cannot claim not to have an interest in seeing the curtailment of Iran’s influence in Iraq and beyond.

Having failed to mobilise America’s military in preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and knowing that it’s propaganda war against the Islamic Republic has lost currency, Israel remains committed to igniting fires.

Between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia there exists a neat convergence of interests that ties in perfectly with the Pentagon’s.

Redrawing the map of the Arabian Peninsula while retaining the dominance of Zionism alongside an unelected British inspired monarchy cannot be reconciled with legitimate demands for change as encapsulated by the Arab Spring.

The test for ISIS will be whether it sets its sight on Mecca and Jerusalem or seeks only to fragment Iraq into cantons defined by sectarianism.

As tensions rise in the midst of a renewed refugee crisis and the spotlight of the world is on ISIS, many commentators are reviewing the futility of America’s illegitimate wars in the Muslim world.

At the same time warnings about immense danger resulting from exploiting sectarian divisions and how it could engulf the Peninsula in a perpetual cycle of violence have been issued by responsible Muslim leaders.

Will it impact on the direction of the trajectory unleashed by ISIS is anyone’s guess.

Iqbal Jassat is an executive member of Media Review Network.

27 June 2014

bbc.com

Few Australians are aware that the country’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had regular contact with foreign Muslims long before the arrival of Christian colonisers. And Islam continues to exercise an appeal for some Aboriginal peoples today, writes Janak Rogers.

The white lines are faint but unmistakable. Small sailing boats, picked out in white and yellow pigment on the red rocks of the Wellington Range in Arnhem Land, northern Australia, tell a different story from the one most Australians accept as the history of their nation.

They are traditional Indonesian boats known as praus and they brought Muslim fishermen from the flourishing trading city of Makassar in search of trepang, or sea cucumbers.

Exactly when the Makassans first arrived is uncertain.

Some historians say it was in the 1750s, but radiocarbon dating of beeswax figures superimposed on the cave paintings suggests that it was much earlier – one of the figures appears to have been made before 1664, perhaps as early as the 1500s.

They apparently made annual trips to gather the sea cucumbers, which fetched a high price because of their important role in Chinese medicine and cuisine.

The Makasssans represent Australia’s first attempt at international relations, according to anthropologist John Bradley from Melbourne’s Monash University – and it was a success. “They traded together. It was fair – there was no racial judgement, no race policy,” he says.

Quite a contrast to the British. Britain designated the country terra nullius – land belonging to no-one – and therefore colonised the country without a treaty or any recognition of the rights of indigenous people to their land.

Some Makassan cucumber traders stayed, married Aboriginal women and left a lasting religious and cultural legacy in Australia. Alongside the cave paintings and other Aboriginal art, Islamic beliefs influenced Aboriginal mythology.

“If you go to north-east Arnhem Land there is [a trace of Islam] in song, it is there in painting, it is there in dance, it is there in funeral rituals,” says Bradley. “It is patently obvious that there are borrowed items. With linguistic analysis as well, you’re hearing hymns to Allah, or at least certain prayers to Allah.”

One example of this is a figure called Walitha’walitha, which is worshipped by a clan of the Yolngu people on Elcho Island, off the northern coast of Arnhem Land. The name derives from the Arabic phrase “Allah ta’ala”, meaning “God, the exalted”. Walitha’walitha is closely associated with funeral rituals, which can include other Islamic elements like facing west during prayers – roughly the direction of Mecca – and ritual prostration reminiscent of the Muslim sujood.

“I think it would be hugely oversimplifying to suggest that this figure is Allah as the ‘one true God’,” says Howard Morphy, an anthropologist at Australian National University. It’s more the case of the Yolngu people adopting an Allah-like figure into their cosmology, he suggests.

The Makassan sea cucumber trade with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ended in 1906, killed off by heavy taxation and a government policy that restricted non-white commerce. More than a century later, the shared history between Aboriginal peoples and Makassans is still celebrated by Aboriginal communities in northern Australia as period of mutual trust and respect – in spite of some historical evidence that this wasn’t always the case.

“I’m a historian and I know that the Makassans, when they came to Arnhem Land, they had cannons, they were armed, there were violent incidents,” says Regina Ganter at Griffith University in Brisbane. But many in the Yolngu community are wedded to a view of the sea cucumber trade as an alternative to colonialism, she says, and even consider the Makassans long-lost relatives. When she mentioned the Makassans’ cannons to one elder in the tribe, he dismissed it. “He really wanted to tell this story as a story of successful cultural contact, which is so different to people coming and taking your land and taking your women and establishing themselves as superior.”

This wasn’t the only contact between Muslims and Aboriginal peoples. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the pearl-shelling industry brought so-called “Malays” from south-east Asia to work as indentured labourers in Broome on the north-west coast of Australia. Much like the Makassans, Malays intermarried with local Aboriginal people and brought with them Islamic religious and cultural practices. Today, plenty of families in Northern Australia have names that bear the mark of these interactions, like Doolah, Hassan and Khan.

Meanwhile, the forbidding deserts of central Australia gave rise to a separate Muslim influx.

In a quiet suburb of Alice Springs, a town of 26,000 people in the heart of central Australia, there sits an unlikely building: a mosque. Its minaret rises against the backdrop of the craggy rock and red dirt of the MacDonnell Ranges.

It is called the “Afghan Mosque”, and for a reason. Between 1860 and 1930 up to 4,000 cameleers came to Australia, bringing their camels with them. Many were indeed from Afghanistan, but they also came from India and present-day Pakistan.

They played a key role in opening up the deserts, providing supplies to remote mission stations, and helping to lay crucial national infrastructure like the Overland Telegraph Line and the Ghan Railway line, which still runs today, crossing the Australian desert from north to south. “Ghan” derives from “Afghan”, as the train’s logo of a cameleer makes plain.

“My grandfather’s father, he was a camel driver,” says 62-year-old Raymond Satour. “They had their own camels, over 40 camels,” he says. “On the camel train itself, that’s when they met the Aboriginal people that were camping out in the bush, and they got connected then – that’s how we are connected to Aboriginals.”

Far from their homes on the sub-continent, Afghan cameleers built makeshift mosques throughout central Australia, and many intermarried with Aboriginal peoples.

The work of the Afghan cameleers dried up in the 1930s, when motorised vehicles began to remove the need for the animals. Today, the Afghan Mosque in Alice is mostly filled with first-generation immigrants from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But worshippers from the mosque regularly visit the homes of some of the Afghan-Aboriginal descendants, including that of Raymond Satour. “The brothers come and hold prayer ceremonies and teachings,” he says. “We’re learning, and it’s helping us keep alive our connection to Islam and the old Afghans.”

These historical contacts have an echo in the present day, as a steadily growing number of Aboriginal people convert to Islam. According to Australia’s 2011 census, 1,140 people identify as Aboriginal Muslims. That’s still less than 1% of the country’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population – and it should be said that Aboriginals are also becoming born-again Christians – but it’s still almost double the number of Aboriginal Muslims recorded in the 2001 census.

Anthony Mundine, a former two-time WBA super middleweight champion and an IBO middleweight champion boxer, is perhaps the most high-profile Aboriginal Muslim convert. He takes inspiration from the American Black Power movement, especially from civil rights activist Malcolm X, a former leader of the Nation of Islam.

“Malcolm’s journey was unbelievable,” agrees Justin Agale, who is of mixed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent and converted to Islam 15 years ago. “Here was a man who was interested in social justice and in furthering the cause of his people but he was also interested in his own spiritual journey to truth.”

Agale is one of a number of Aboriginal people who, fairly or unfairly, have come to associate Christianity with the racism of colonial Australia.

“One of the things that the colonialists were very successful in Australia in doing was teaching the indigenous people that God hated us, and that we were unwanted children, that we were being punished for being savages,” he says.

By contrast, he sees Islam as a “continuation” of his Aboriginal cultural beliefs. Agale’s ancestors in the Torres Strait, the Meriam people, observed something they called Malo’s Law, which he says was “in favour of oneness and harmony”, and he sees parallels in Islam. “Islam – especially the Sufi tradition – has clear ideas of fitra and of tawhid, that each individual’s nature is part of a greater whole, and that we should live in a balanced way within nature.”

This sense of the compatibility of Aboriginal and Islamic beliefs is not uncommon, says Peta Stephenson, a sociologist at Victoria University. Shared practices include male circumcision, arranged or promised marriages and polygamy, and similar cultural attitudes like respect for land and resources, and respecting one’s elders.

“Many Aboriginal people I spoke with explained these cultural synergies often by quoting the well-known phrase from the Koran that 124,000 prophets had been sent to the Earth,” says Stephenson. “They argued that some of these prophets must have visited Aboriginal communities and shared their knowledge.”

For some Aboriginal converts, however, the appeal of Islam is not one of continuity, but a fresh start. Mohammed – not his real name – was once homeless and an alcoholic, but he found the Islamic doctrines of regular prayer, self-respect, avoidance of alcohol, drugs and gambling all helped him battle his addictions. He has now been sober for six years and holds down a steady, professional job.

“When I found Islam it was the first time in my life that I felt like a human,” he says. “Prior to that I had divided up into ‘half this, quarter that’. You’re never a complete, whole thing.”

Mohammed rejects the criticism that has been levelled at him by some Aboriginal people that he turned his back on his traditional way of life. He believes Aboriginal culture was destroyed by colonialism.

“Where is my culture?” he asks. “That was cut off from me two generations ago. One of the attractive things about Islam for me was that I found something that was unbroken.

“Do you go for something that is going to take you out of the gutter and become a better husband and father and neighbour? Or do you search for something that you probably never had any hope of ever finding?”

24 June 2014
www.bbc.com