Archives: Articles

By Eric Zuesse

On the Friday before Russian Orthodox Easter, the Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk U.S-coup-installed Ukrainian Government attacks on all fronts on April 9th, to continue their extermination-campaign against the residents of the area, Donbass, that refuses to accept the coup-government that was installed by the U.S. when the Ukrainian President whom 90% of those residents had voted for was overthrown by the U.S. This bare-faced violation of the Merkel-Hollande-arranged Minsk truce would not happen without Obama’s approval. He is choosing to have this done on Russian holy days in order to intensify the provocation against Russia. Obama is thus going all-out now to provoke from Russia a sending-in of Russian army troops and air power in order for Obama to have a pretext to go to war against Russia, his real target “in order to defend an ally” (which has been trying to exterminate the residents in the area that won’t accept Obama’s imposed rule).

The following reposts from Fort Russ:

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/04/kiev-junta-launches-large-scale-attack.html

Kiev junta launches a large scale attack on Novorossia right in time for Russian Orthodox Easter

April 9, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus
Based on reports from Rusvesna

Ex-Minister of Defence of DPR Igor Strelkov:

“In general, we can say that the ceasefire is over – the entire front is under fire, including artillery. Shock troops of the enemy moved to the forefront.”

Donetsk under fire
War correspondent “Step” reports:

Shells are whistling again over the cities of Donbass. In Donetsk the sirens of ambulances and emergency services are heard. Under fire: Kievsky district, Oktyabrsky village, Panfilov mine village, Gladkova, Severny, Putilovka.

The entire evening of April 9 there was a battle in the village of Spartak and near Peski. The punishers used artillery guns, tanks, mortars, heavy barreled artillery. Under the cover of artillery, the enemy attempted to seize the positions of the militia in Spartak and near the airport. During the battle, this attempt was severely suppressed.

Also suddenly the positions of the militia near the town of Yasynovataya were attacked. There was a battle using small arms. To the West of Petrovsky district of Donetsk working mortars are also heard, as well as grenade launchers and heavy machine guns.

From the occupied Volnovakha Dokuchayevsk was fired on. The outskirts of the city are under a heavy fire of the enemy, the people are hiding in shelters fearing the assault on the city by the punishers, who have assembled the biggest formation in this area of about 8 thousand people.

According to a resident of Dokuchayevsk, “Locals demand that the militia do not leave them alone and hold positions at any cost, women are hysterically crying, saying that Ukrainians will go into the city and start a massacre. Older women bless the passing trucks with soldiers and pray for the victory and a speedy liberation to the district from the Ukrainian troops”.

Over Donetsk about a dozen enemy drones were spotted, one of which was shot down near the Lidiyevka mine.

The militia is put on full alert and is ready for a full-scale attack of the enemy.

Shirokino
On April 9, 2015 near Mariupol in Shirokino there was a fierce battle. There were dead and wounded among the militia and the Ukrainian occupation troops.

Tanks approaching Donetsk

The Operational Coordination Centre reports Ukrainian armored column appraching Donetsk.
00:10. Donetsk.

From several directions at the moment, the occupants are pulling the tank columns to Donetsk.

In particular, a few dozen tanks approached the airport from the direction of Marinka and Avdeevka.

For the latest, see http://fortruss.blogspot.com/

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.
11 Apil, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Manzoor Alam

The speed and rapidity with which the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was established occupying a large chunk of territory, in Iraq and Syria, including Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, was really amazing and mind boggling. The rulers of this State exercise full administrative and political control and execute all state functions in the territories occupied by them. It appears that they have stabilised themselves and it will be difficult to dislodge them from the territories under their control.

The founders of ISIS claim that they are strictly adhering to the commands of the Qur’an and the methodology of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) while implementing the basic tenets and Shariah of Islam. Let us dispassionately examine the authenticity and validity of this claim.

The ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been succinctly summed up by Bernard Haykal, a leading authority on Islam. He states that, “the group is trying to recreate the earliest days of Islam and is faithfully reproducing the norms of war.” He further states that, “what is striking about them is not just the literalism but also the seriousness with which they read their texts. There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t have normally.” Hence the main ideology of ISIS is to revive the practices of the tribal culture of the 7th century, which they assert were used by the Prophet (saw)- in the incipient stage of the foundation of Islam, such as slavery, sex with female slaves was legitimate, killing of captives captured during the course of a war, crucifixion and revenge against individuals and enemy tribes. Further, they want revival of the Caliphate (Khilafat) and predict the imminent occurrence of the Apocalypse or Yaumul Qiamah or the Day of Resurrection ( Graeme Woo
d: What ISIS really wants, The Atlantic, March 2015)

The founders of the Islamic State ignore the fact that these were tribal practices some of which the Prophet (saw) could not reform in the early stage of the development of Islam. However, even in its initial phase of development, Islam emerged as a progressive religion and introduced many significant reforms in tribal society. For instance, women were given the right to property, granted freedom of speech and equal rights to grant protection to an acquaintance in distress as enjoyed by men. The Prophet’s daughter, Zainab, used this right to give protection to her polytheist husband Abul As. Islam abolished usury or exorbitant interests on loans. One of the most significant achievements of Islam was to abolish and dispense with the institution of priesthood which is still prevalent in most other religions. Similarly many other evil practices in the tribal society were abolished within the territory under the jurisdiction of the Islamic state of Madinah.

The rulers of ISIS assert that the following are the genuine Islamic practices which must be vigorously pursued:
A. Islam Rejects Peace as a Matter of Principle;
B. Forcible Conversion of Non-Muslims to Islam;
C. Revival of Slavery;
D. Crucifixion;
E. The Instituition of Caliphate;
F. The Apocalypse;
G. Apostasy (Takfeer );
H. Other Crazy Ideas Advanced by founders of the Islamic State.

A. Islam Rejects Peace as a matter of Principle: This perverts the fundamental principle of the mission of Islam which is renowned as a religion of peace, compassion and justice. It is an inconceivable travesty of truth. This is a blatantly false statement not supported by the Qur’an and the Traditions of the Prophet (saw). On the contrary, the Qur’an categorically states that “so long as they honour the treaty they have entered with you, have faith in them, Allah loves the righteous”. (At-Taubah (9), Verse 7). The Prophet (saw) signed the Treaty of Hudaibiya in 6th Hijri which even contained some unfavourable clauses. He had declared Jews as citizens of the Islamic state established in Madinah and granted them equal rights with the Muslim citizens. The Prophet was designated in the Qur’an as “Mercy unto world” and not as “Tyrant unto world” which according to ISIS leaders he was. The Prophet (saw) strictly adhered to the principle of peace and invariably followed it. This is evident from the fact that he did not initiate any aggressive war except against the Jews of Khyber who had conspired with the polytheists of Makkah, in the Battle of Uhad, to destroy the state of Madinah. Most of the wars were imposed upon him by polytheists of Makkah. Bernard Haykal incorrectly states that “it is true that all Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs”. Unfortunately he has not cited any example. The conquest of Makkah was a bloodless affair where the Prophet declared general amnesty to all whether they had accepted Islam or not. The Non-Muslims were allowed to participate in the Battle of Hunain and also received their share of the spoils of war.

B. Forcible conversion of people to Islam: A large number of Non-Muslims have been forcibly converted to Islam by ISIS. This contravenes the basic principle of Islam. The Qur’an categorically states “No compulsion in religion,” (Al-Baqarah (2) :verse 256). The Prophet Muhammad (saw) strictly adhered to this divine command. He conveyed the message but did not force any one to convert to Islam even after the conquest of Makkah. The peaceful missionary role of Islam was stressed by a distinguished scholar, Thomas Arnold, who stressed that “even where the Muslims ruled there was no complaint of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on Non-Muslims or any systematic execution to stamp out the Christian religion.”

C. Revival of slavery: The custom of slavery was the norm in the 7th century and even prior to that. It was customary even in the Roman and Persian empires. It is true that the Prophet (saw) did not abolish slavery because of the prevailing practice in the then tribal society. But he did encourage the freedom of slaves. Many of the freed slaves attained prominent positions in Islamic society such as Bilal who became Muezzin (calling people to come to prayer five times a day). The custom of slavery and trade in slave was abolished in a Geneva Convention held in 1926. Abolition of slavery stands for the restoration of human dignity. Islam is committed to it because of its inherent humanitarian nature. Thus the very idea of revival of slavery is reprehensible and denial of the progressive character of Islam. The Prophet (saw) was totally against oppression. He had joined an association called Hilful- Fudul formed in Makkah to prevent the elite of Makkah from committing oppression, tyranny, injustice and bullying against traders and businessmen coming from outside Makkah. He was proud of his association with this organization even after he was divinely commissioned as a Prophet. Finally the Qur’an unambiguously states “Cooperate with each other in performing pious and righteous deeds, do not cooperate in sinful and malicious deeds´(Al-Maeda (5):verse 2).The revival of slavery will be a malicious and repulsive act. The very concept of its revival is repugnant to Islam because it violates principle of human equality which is fundamenta to Islam.

D. Crucifixion: It is totally misleading to state that “the Qur’an specifies crucifixion as the only punishment permitted for enemies of Islam.” This was valid only for the then tribal society provided they were participating in a war Thus, it applied only to the combatants who were involved in the act of war. The civilian population was not to be touched. The terms and conditions for crucifixion prevailing in the seventh century cannot be superimposed in the 21st century. It is totally irrelevant to even conceive of it in the modern context. Moreover, the Prophet did not apply it after the conquest of Makkah. All the prisoners of war after the Battle of Badar, were released on payment of rans

E. The Institution of Caliphate (Khilafat): There is no reference to the institution of Caliphate in the Qur’an. In fact it does not reveal anything about the political system that should govern an Islamic country. The Prophet (saw), in one of his Traditions, did speak about 12 Caliphs (Khulafa), 7 of them are clearly identified including Mahdi, the last of them who is most likely appear just prior to Apocalypse. However, this Hadith (Tradition) clearly indicates that there is no permanency to the institution of Caliphate ( Khilafat). Moreover, Abu Bakar (r.a) who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad (saw), as the ruler of the State of Madinah did not adopt the title of a Caliph. Omar (r.a) adopted the title of Amirul Mominin. His successors Othman and Ali (r.a) were also addressed by the same title. It may be observed that Muslims, across the world, are now divided into various nationalities and sovereign states, each with its own system of government. It is impossible to pool them together into a single nation under the political jurisdiction of a Caliph (Khalifa). The concept is irrelevant in the contemporary context. It amounts to polytheism to suggest that “caliphate is not just a political entity but also a vehicle for salvation.” And to attribute to the Prophet (saw) such a statement that to “ die without pledging allegiance to a caliph is to die a Jahil (ignorant) and in disbelief”, is calumnious. Salvation is subject to observing the commands of Allah (swt) regarding the obligatory rituals with sincerity and devotion and not by offering allegiance or Bayah to a Caliph.

F. The Apocalypse: It refers to the Day of Reckoning or Resurrection when all the dead bodies will be brought back to life. All the human beings shall have to account for their earthly deeds. The Day of Reckoning is repeatedly stressed in the Qur’an and the Traditions of the Prophet. However, no one knows when it will happen. The Qur’an only reveals that the entire universe will be rudely shaken, mountains will be torn to pieces and the earth will be completely flattened. There is no controversy about the Apocalypse. What is questionable is their prediction about its imminence. It is meaningless to stress about its immediate occurrence because this catastrophic event is entirely in the domain of Allah (swt). No one knows when it will happen. The Prophet warned the people about this cataclysmic event but never predicted its period of occurrence.

G. Apostasy (Takfeer): The concept of Apostasy or Takfeer, calling a Muslim a non-believer, has been used very loosely and lightly by the ideologues of the ISIS. They cannot condemn any Muslim a Kafir or non-believer if he or she believes in the Unity of Allah, the divine revelations, in all the Prophets commissioned by Allah((swt) and that Muhammad (saw) was the last Prophet, the Qur’an is the last and final revealed book, and in the Day of Resurrection. To call such a person Kafir or Non-believer will be a sinful act. In order to proclaim a Fatwa of Kufr (religious ruling on Apostasy), Islamic scholars have to be very circumspect. They must bear in mind that Allah (swt) has reiterated in the Qur’an that He may forgive all sins except that of Shirk (Joining other gods with Allah (swt) ). IIt will be pertinent for the Muslim theologians to keep in mind the following two Qur’anic verses while issuing a ruling on Takfeer (declaring a Muslim as unbeliever); An-Nisa (4): verse 48: “ Allah does not forgive for partners to be set up with His worship. But He may forgive other sins. It is a grievous sin to associate partners with Allah”; also see verse 116 in An-Nisa); Al-Zumar (39): verse 53 “Say O my servants who have transgressed themselves by sinning do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed Allah forgives all sins (of those who sincerely repent and seek forgiveness). Indeed it is He Who is the forgiving and the merciful”. Remember how the Prophet (saw) tolerated the Munafeqin (Hypocrites) who pretended to be Muslims while they were secretly intriguing to undermine Islam.

H. Other crazy ideas advanced by the followers of ISIS: One of the prominent ideologues of the Islamic State called upon the Muslims in western countries to find the infidel, smash his head with a rock, poison him, run him over with a car or destroy his crop” even when he has not hurt the Muslims in any way. This is clear incitement to violence which violates the Divine command. The Qur’an categorically states that if you “kill an innocent person you have killed the entire community. If you saved a life you have saved the entire community (Al-Maeda (5) verse 32). The Prophet (saw) and his companions (Sahabi) firmly adhered to this noble principle enunciated in the Qur’an.

There are numerous other bizarre ideas expounded by the leaders of the Islamic State. For instance the Caliph must wage Jihad at least once a year even without any provocation. Obviously they do not appreciate the meaning and significance of Jihad. Maarcel Brosard in his book “Jihad a Commitment to Universal Peace”, wrote about the Prophet’s battle with the enemies of Islam: “It is just in its causes, defensive in its initiative, decent in its proceeding, pacific in its treatment of the conquered enemy.” Thus Jihad cannot be launched unless it is just in its cause.

They make a mockery of Islam when they assert that “to recognize the United Nations and send an ambassador to this organization is polytheism”. It is meaningless and insensible to state that “a Muslim will cease to be a Muslim if he “wears western clothes, shaves his beard, and votes in an election even for a Muslim candidate.” A Muslim is not identified by his/her dress but by his/her deeds. By expounding of the aforesaid weird and irrational ideas the leaders of the Islamic State expose their narrow mindedness and total ignorance of the fundamental principles of Islam as enunciated in the Qur’an and the Traditions of the Prophet (saw).

Islam was a progressive religion in its incipient state and it ought to maintain this character in the modern context. The Prophet (saw) himself initiated the concept of Ijtihad (independent thinking) so that Islam may maintain its progressive character. The Prophet (saw) had realized that with the evolution of human society, it may be observed that the Qur’an and Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet) may not offer complete guidance in the conduct of human life. He asked Moaz bin Jabl, whom he had appointed Governor of Yemen, as to how he would deal with the problems in such a situation. Moaz bin Jabal said that he would apply his intelligence and ingenuity and make decisions which, while resolving problems of human society, also do not violate the fundamental principles of Islam as enshrined in the Qur’an and Traditions of the Prophet (saw). He agreed with him.

The Prophet (saw) and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulafa), always preached and practiced a compassionate, just and tolerant Islam. The Prophet was an epitome of tolerance. He allowed the Christians of Najran who had come to meet him to offer their prayer with the Cross facing east right in the Prophet’s Mosque. Omar (ra), the second Caliph, offered generous terms of treaty to the vanquished Christians of Palestine. He allowed them complete freedom to celebrate their festivals with full pomp and pageantry. The Qur’an also encourages Muslims to repel evil with good deeds which may dramatically change the relationship between feuding parties. It proclaims that “the evil deeds and good deeds cannot be equal, repel evil with good deeds, then he, between he and you is enmity will become as though he was a close friend”,( Ham Mim As-Sajdah (41): verse 32).

The leaders of the Islamic State must remember and reflect that Islam was not spread by the sword. It was promoted by generous acts of rulers like Salahuddin Ayyubi. In order to regain control of Palestine the Third Crusade was launched in 1187 by the Pope and rulers of France, Spain and Germany. They were routed by Salahuddin Ayyubi, governor of Egypt, in the battle of Hattin. The leaders of Christian forces, kings, princes, cardinals and bishops fled back to Europe leaving behind their soldiers. Salahuddin Ayyubi treated these soldiers with compassion and generosity and they all voluntarily converted to Islam. It is the humanitarian values of Islam, as preached and practiced by the Prophet (saw), that shall have universal relevance, not the obsolete and inhuman tribal culture of the 7th century. The Muslims should avoid brutal and repulsive actions that cause aversion to Islam. The Prophet (saw) emphasised to“treat the people with ease, do not be hard on them, give them glad tidings, do not fill them with aversion, love each other and do not differ” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Vol.1, p.503).The Prophet (saw) and his companions displayed love and compassion, justice and honesty, tolerance and peace, and patience and perseverance to attract non-Muslims to Islam. These were the methods used by the Prophet which Muslims should sincerely try to emulate. This Prophetic method conforms to the commands of Allah (swt) as enshrined in the Qur’an.

8 April 2015

By Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu

As a lifetime student of classical mainline Islamic jurisprudential school of thought called “Sunni fiqh”, I feel saddened to note how the Western mainstream media succumbed to the Islamophobic propaganda of affixing the epithet “Sunni” to the militia of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

I can confidently say that ISIS is not Sunni because all that ISIS has done is to contravene the ethical teachings of Sunni Islam.

I consider Sunni Islam as the normative Islam practiced by the disciples of the Prophet Muhammad, who are called Sahabah (model companions) and the righteous caliphs “Al Khalifah Rashidun” (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) who were democratically elected by the whole Islamic Ummah (community). When the Islamophobic Western media equates ISIS barbarity and inhumanity to the normative Islamic term “Sunni” (which literally means followers of orthodox Islam), the Western media is simply serving US Hegemonic interests: by ensuring that neo-colonial and hegemonic forces will continue unabated the rising Islamophobia against Muslims and by effectively maligning Sunni Islam which is the prevalent school of Islamic jurisprudence in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.

I can honestly attest that as per my readings of Shariah principles of the Four Imams of Sunni Islam (Imams Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik and Ibn Hanbal) who were the eminent jurisprudents of classical Sunni Islam, I have never encountered any of their treatise justifying barbarism and inhumanity that are now being perpetrated by ISIS.

In fact, these Four Imams of classical Sunni Islam through their treatises strongly detest the barbarity of the ISIS militia. Here are six (6) reasons why the entire ISIS war outfit cannot not be considered a ‘Sunni movement” and should never be called “Sunni” militia, and therefore Western mainstream media should not and must not commit Islamophobic name-calling, and must therefore stop referring to ISIS as “Sunni” militia:

1.) ISIS destroyed many holy shrines of Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria, including the shrine and mosque of the Prophet Yunus (Jonah) of Ninawa (Nineveh), Iraq and the shrine of Prophet Ayyub (Job) in Oz, Mosul, Iraq; to mention a few. They destroyed holy graves of Sufi-Sunni Muslim saints in and around Mosul and Kirkuk in Iraq and in Damascus, Aleppo and Kobane in Syria.

2.) The Holy Quran declares that Muslims are forbidden to destroy places of worship of all religions; and particularly, the shrines of the Ahl-ul-Kitab (literally, “People with Sacred Scriptures”) i.e., Jews and Christians must be held inviolable and must even be secured by Muslims (Al-Qur-an 22:40-41), and yet ISIS barbarically destroyed Christian churches. Also, Islam in the Holy Quran solemnly declares that there should be no compulsion in religion (Al-Qur’an 2:256), and yet this ISIS militia are forcing Yezidis and Christians to convert or else face death. This is very strange: there is no news that records that Jews were forcibly converted by ISIS and synagogues around Mosul, Aleppo, Kirkuk and in cities of North Iraq were never destroyed by ISIS, even though there are resident Jews and there are a number of synagogues in these areas. This is a strange thing indeed! (See, The Majlis: Council of Ulama in South Africa; p. 8.)

3.) The Shariah Islamiyyah (Divine Law) of classical Sunni Islam are found in the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Qur’an clearly says that civilians and non-combatants’ lives are inviolable: (Al-Qur’an2:256, 5:69). As of this juncture, to quote from the Holy Qur’an is in order: “Allah forbids you to fight those who did not oppress you, nor threw you out of your homes, you ought to show compassion on them and manifest justice upon them. Verily Allah loves those who are just” (60:8). The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden in all Sunni rulings concerning defensive warfare. Sayyidina Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph of Sunni Islam penned this ruling to the armies of the Caliphate: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town and do not touch those who do not bear arms, do not kill those who surrender and take refuge in the designated places of refuge, all who surrender to you must be safe in your care.” (See Imam Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Fatawah-ul-Jihad-e-Abu Bakr Siddiq” [The Book of Abu Bakr Siddiq on the Proper Conduct of Warfare], pp. 37-39.).

4.) As far as my research goes, there are no Sunni scholars (ulama) and legitimate Sunni muftis and fuqaha (Islamic jurists and doctors of Islamic law) among the so-called ISIS Caliphate to clearly establish legitimate fatwas (Shariah rulings) on the legitimacy of their jihad from the Sunni Islamic perspective. There is not even an ustadh (Islamic scholar) of eminence among their ranks! The truth is that eminent Sunni scholars of Iraq and Syria have denounced ISIS for killing over 300 Sunni imams: which effectively belied the ISIS claim that it represents itself as the protector of Sunnis in Iraq and Syria. Many Sunni clerics in Iraq and the Levant declare ISIS combatants as “outside the bounds of Islam and are therefore excommunicated from the Islamic faith” because of their brutality inflicted on non-Muslims and on Sunni Muslims

(See: www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/07/03/sunni-mufti-isis-and-affiliates-have-killed-over-300-sunni-imams-and-preachers/).

5.) Using the classical rulings of Sunni Islam on governance as basis of legitimacy, the so-called ISIS Caliphate is illegitimate. Genuine and bonafide Sunni Caliphate is established by the expressed consensus and consent (al-mushshuw’ara al jamaah) of the whole Islamic community by explicit public allegiance (bay-ah) of the whole body of Muslims. ISIS has unilaterally declared their so-called caliph, Al-Baghdadi as Khalifah-ul-Muslimin” (Caliph of all Muslims) clandestinely and covertly, in which the whole Muslim Ummah did not participate in his election, nor choose him to be its caliph, nor give him pledge of allegiance!

6.) ISIS was only able to successfully recruit combatants from Europe to wage war in Iraq and the Levant, but it failed to enlist the grassroot support of Iraqi and Levantine Sunnis. Furthermore, it failed to enlist allegiance of the Sunni Arab and Kurdish clergies who strongly denounced ISIS as outside the pale of the Islamic faith

(See: www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/07/03/sunni-mufti-isis-and-affiliates-have-killed-over-300-sunni-imams-and-preachers/).

In fact most of these ISIS militia are Australians, British, Americans, Belgian, French, German, Chechens, who mostly came from Europe, so that most Iraqis and Syrians regard ISIS as an alien power forcing and imposing themselves and their barbarity upon Arab lands with their sophisticated weaponries and ammunition that are mostly sourced from US, Britain and the rest of Europe.

If ISIS is not a Sunni militia, then who are they working for?

Who employed them to wreck havoc in the Middle East?

Why is it that the US government and its NATO allies cannot seriously fight ISIS in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Levant? ISIS is US-made monster! ISIS Caliphate is never an Islamic Caliphate.

It is a “U.S.-made Caliphate” that does not have any binding authority whatsoever over worldwide Muslims.

It is known truth that CIA constantly backs-up and supports all known so-called jihadist groups from the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, to even Jemaa Islamiyya and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, and the Boko Haram of Nigeria.

That is why US will never seriously fight these monsters it created.

US is the invisible director of all international terrorism groups so that these monsters can commit crimes mercilessly and with impunity against humanity. These monsters are made alive and sustained by American dollars and ably, yet subtly directed by the master of the puppetry: US invisible hegemonic hand!

NATO is in unholy partnership with the CIA operators who are currently training, arming, funding and equipping thousands of ISIS combatants from Europe to overthrow secular and socialist Syria as part of the CIA ploy called “Arab Spring”—which is nothing but a covert ideological operation to to conquer the Middle East and Central Asia, its oil reserves, its pipeline corridors as part of an imperial agenda. (On The Trans-Afghan pipeline see Michel Chossudovsky, “America’s War on Terrorism”, chapter 5, pp. 65-91).

Therefore, who is supporting this ISIS militia, who is equipping them, who is funding them so heftily?

For what purpose are they doing these despicable acts? If they are truly Islamic fighters bent on fighting for the rights of Islam and the Muslims, then why do they bomb Sunni Muslim mosques, Sufi Muslim shrines and Shi’ite Muslim prayer halls of their co-religionists?

Is this about establishing a war scenario in the Middle East so that the global weaponry business of the US military industrial complex is at its best and profitable business as usual?

These are relevant questions for our sober reflection.

Professor Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines, Cebu City.

19 March 2015

By Peace for Life

The Working Group members and program teams of Peace for Life (PFL) has gathered here in Nairobi Kenya 8 to 10 April 2015 at a time when Kenya is in mourning for her 148 people who were mercilessly massacred my members of Al-Shabbab terror Group for the sole reason of being Christians. We are Muslims and Christians from Kenya, Zambia, Philippines, South Korea, Tanzania and India representing social movements around the world.

We join the Kenyan people who aspire for sustainable peace, conveying a strong message of solidarity to all who are directly affected by the Garissa massacre.

We, strongly condemn this act of terror, seeking to discern the root causes and searching for true means and ways of making true peace in Kenya and in the world.

We lament the loss of young innocent lives; pray for healing for all survivors of these violent acts of terror. We stand in deep sympathy with all the parents and relatives of the young students and workers and their families and friends.

We call upon all peace loving Muslims and Christians to stand together in a unified response that rejects acts of terror in the name of religion and to increase all efforts in working together for justice and peace in Kenya in seeking peaceful means to resolve conflict.

We urge the Kenyan government and international organisations to ensure the safety of all citizens by not engaging in further violent responses to this terror attack, and engage in peace building with all Kenyan people and with all people of the world struggling for peace. Peace is essential for social transformation, and for the attainment of dignity and rights for all people.

Peace for Life is a faith-based peace and justice movement and forum engaged in building interfaith solidarity and mobilising the power of spirituality for the struggle against life threatening forces of the empire.
April 10 2015

 

Why the conservatives will not be heard this time

By Julia Sveshnikova and Amir Roknifard

On April 2, 2015, or 13 farvardin 1394 on the Iranian calendar, marked for Iranians as a day of nature and the adjournment of the new year holidays, the the Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program were agreed upon.

The Supreme Leader of Iran kept silent, which in this case should be treated as a sign of approval. Many commentaries had discussed the advantages of the interim deal as a whole and the disadvantages of it in details that appeared in the media.

Foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif was twitting in real-time mode and probably the one who reacted among the first was the famous political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam: “If my fellow compatriots knew how much the nuclear program already cost to the nation, directly and indirectly, they would be celebrating in the streets by now”.

In fact, people came out to the streets and pretty quickly – the Internet blew up with photos and videos capturing young people dancing with clamorous glee. It is only that not everyone in Iran is convinced there was an unconditional reason for the celebration, albeit the positive comments that prevailed.

MP Ali Mottahari said that disregarding Ali Khamenei’s silence, all this time he casted a wary eye on what was going on in Lausanne (1).

On Friday, following the day when the framework document was signed, the Friday Imam Emami-Kashani (who is appointed directly by the Supreme Leader) spoke in support of the agreement and the negotiation team. However, in Kashani’s list, rating the factors of success, the negotiation team endeavor and took only the fourth place, ceding to the wise leadership of the Supreme Leader (this again speaks in favor of the leader’s approval of the interim result), the advancement of Iranian science and the results of the implementation of Iran’s Economy of Resistance plan. Among the gains of the deal, Emami-Kashani mentioned the acknowledgement of Iran’s right on the enrichment and the agreement to lift up the sanctions. Meanwhile, the Friday Imam stressed that Iran’s return to the negotiation table was not a result of sanctions and the outside pressure, but an evidence of the rational approach of Tehran to the current situation (2).

Editor in chief of the Sharg newspaper, Ahmad Gholami, in his article, “Uranium Enrichment – Trust Building” delicately puts that the appropriate mis en scene became a cornerstone of success. For example, precarious economic situation in Iran served as a background to the negotiation process, but it did not become the real reason of success, thinks Gholami. The agreement was not possible neither with Rafsanjani being a president, nor Khatami or even Ahmadinejad, because the conditions were not right, says Gholami, implying the strategic decision of the Supreme Leader. However, he leaves aside the reasons underlying this decision (3).

The most optimistic assessment of the interim result was given by the President Hassan Rouhani, who called the agreement just the first step to the fruitful collaboration between Iran and the other countries and promised that Iran will assiduously implement its part of the deal. “Centrifuges are spinning, so we need people’s life to ‘spin’ as well” – this was one of the mottos of Rouhani’s election campaign, and now the President intentionally underscores the significance of the agreement, even an interim, as an important step for improving the economic situation in Iran (4).

The response from the Iranian majlis was also mostly positive (5). For instance, MP Shahbaz Hassanpour believes that the negotiation team successfully played a kind of gambit, which was earlier mentioned by ayatollah Khamenei; Zarif made small concessions to win the major game (6).

It also did not become a secret that the main negotiations took place between Tehran and Washington, so the main concerns are about the US commitment to the deal. For example, paying a tribute to the mass glee, Matin Moslem in the Shahrvand newspaper agrees with the positive estimate of the negotiations at large, because there was no drums of war during the last one year and a half, besides the parties engaged into some trust building process. At the same time he throws cold water on the youngsters dancing in the streets; during the negotiations, adversaries of the deal had hoped for Iran to leave the negotiation table. Now, when there are not only options, but the interim agreement on the table, the ‘hawks’ will play trump opposing to Obama’s initiative in the new parliamentary session (7). Therefore, Moslem suggests to oversee first if they will succeed or otherwise.

In its recent speech, ayatollah Khamenei called the new 1394 year to be “a year of unity between the Iranian people and government”. Conservative media apparently considered the leader’s initiative on easing tension in relationship between the government and the people, and criticized the framework agreement quite carefully. This time the conservative press deserves a particular attention though, because inherent to it rationalism was not peculiar to the fervently celebrating reformists and liberals.

In the «Battle of Commentaries» in the Javan newspaper (associated with the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps), its editor in chief, Abdollah Ganji sarcastically argues that the current agreement was the only option for the USA, which, in fact, by their participation in the negotiations verified the failure of sanctions and irrelevance of the other options. However, this is not the most important of his comments. Ganji reasonably reminds the readers that Zarif ceded in several issues while he promised not to give up certain positions. For example, the negotiation team promised to keep all the enrichment facilities intact. Then how we should treat the situation with the Fordow enrichment facility now? Ganji compares Fordow under the agreement to a bus that is allowed to move, but prohibited from accepting more than one passenger on board. Besides, the Javan’s editor is wary of a simple shift of sanctions from the nuclear dossier to the profile of another issues regarding Iran, for instance, human rights issue. The USA are conducting negotiations as if they were at the table with an enemy, warns Ganji, thus, Iranians should not forget either that the battle with “the enemies of the revolution” is not over due to the current negotiations (8).

Asking the very same question about the strategy of the negotiation team, Mohammad Safari, in the conservative newspaper Siyasat-e rooz, recalls Zarif’s determination to attain cancellation of all the sanctions and also to forward the final agreement to the UN, so it would pass the resolution, compelling all the parties to annul all the sanctions, including the unilateral ones (9). Currently the framework agreement talks only about suspension, but not the cancellation of the American sanctions, which was mentioned by Barak Obama in his speech that followed the agreement.

Safari also mentions the Iranian concern about the impartiality of the IAEA, which is the final arbiter to verify Iran’s compliance with the deal, while, he argues, exactly the ambiguity of IAEA’s reports during recent years became the reason of protraction in negotiations. Then how Iran can be sure that the West will comply with its commitments, he asks (10).

Finally, the editor in chief of the conservative Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, supports his colleagues, recalling the promises of the negotiation team that without the condition of full lifting the sanctions, the agreement would not be signed. Recently, after the collective letter of American congressmen to the Iranian government, Javad Zarif also stated that it will be impossible to reach the agreement on the nuclear issue without the guarantee that the Congress is compelled to withdraw the sanctions. The same way Shariatmadari is wary of the controversial role of IAEA, which assessment must comply not only with objective criteria but also with the political circumstances, he believes.

 

In our opinion, to celebrate anything before reading the text of the agreement is premature, and after it – unduly optimistic. This time, curiously enough, conservatives address very reasonable concerns that regard the impartiality of the IAEA as a final arbiter; the possibility of the suspended sanctions to be reinstalled and the duration of the agreement that do not guarantee the subsequent restoration of Iran’s unrestricted status as a member of the NPT. With these concerns in mind, the only reason why the agreement was initially signed and received such a warm reception in Iran is the approval of the Supreme Leader, of which this is still painful for Iranians to bargain.

It is natural that the immediate participants of this process, that is Zarif and Rouhani, make an accent on the positive side of the agreement, in particular acknowledgement of Iran’s rights on enrichment and the perspective of lifting the sanctions. However, this will happen on the conditions other than those promised by the negotiation team at the beginning. This is for that reason that the Deputy Minister Abbas Araghchi, on his arrival to Tehran, rushed to tell the public that the agreement is only an interim one and can be amended in the course of negotiations. For the same reason, the conservatives stress so intensively, that the West have to comply with its commitments. Eventually, for this same reason the analysts argue that not economic sanctions, but Tehran’s reasonable policy and good will became the real reason for Iranians to return to the negotiation table.

Theoretically, the ideal agreement on the Iranian nuclear program must include the most important element. This element is to save the face of the Iranian government that for many years stood firm on the nuclear issue and on the issues of international cooperation. We are observing this image therapy right now.

Meanwhile, those who celebrated the deal needed not the text of the agreement, but the opportunity to conduct an ‘informal referendum’ on the concessions in the nuclear issue. Everybody and, it seems, even the blatant conservatives, grew weary of sanctions, politicisation of the nuclear issue and the social tension. However it is not necessary at all to discuss that somebody is giving up here. What is necessary is to look for the new forms of cooperation and in perspective – for the national consensus on another basis, not the nuclear one and, pehaps, not even the post-revolutionary one.

 

1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2015/04/150404_l26_iran_nuclear_motahari_majlis_reactions

2 http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/ بیانیه-شب-گذشته-موفقیت-نظام-جمهوری-اسلامی-است
3 http://sharghdaily.ir/News/ غنی سازی- اعتمادسازی/ 59218
4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2015/04/150403_l45_iran_rouhani_lussane_nuclear
5 http://isna.ir/fa/news/ حمایت-مجلس-از-عملکرد-تیم-مذاکره-کننده-هسته-ای/ 94011503231
6 http://isna.ir/fa/news/ اینک-هم-چرخ-اقتصاد-می-چرخد-و-هم-چرخ-سانتریفیوژها/ 94011503262
7 http://shahrvand-newspaper.ir/?News_Id=27289
8 http://javanonline.ir/fa/news/ نبرد-تفسیرها/ 711625
9 http://www.siasatrooz.ir/vdccoeqo.2bqs48laa2.html
10 http://www.siasatrooz.ir/vdccoeqo.2bqs48laa2.html
Julia Sveshnikova is a Junior Research Fellow in international relations at the National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Moscow), an expert at the Russian Center for Political Studies (PIR Center) and a Policy Analyst at the Islamic Renaissance Front (Kuala Lumpur).

Amir Roknifard is an information security specialist with an interest in the Middle East politics based in South East Asia.

11 April 2015

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The financial media as well as segments of the alternative media are pointing to a possible weakening of the US dollar as a global trading currency resulting from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) initiative.

One of the central arguments in this debate on competing World currencies hinges on the BRICS initiative to create a development bank which, according to analysts, challenges the hegemony of Wall Street and the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions.

The BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) was set up to challenge two major Western-led giants – the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. NDB’s key role will be to serve as a pool of currency for infrastructure projects within a group of five countries with major emerging national economies – Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa. (RT, October 9, 2015, emphasis added)

More recently, emphasis has been placed on the role of China’s new Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which, according to media reports, threatens to “transfer global financial control from Wall Street and City of London to the new development banks and funds of Beijing and Shanghai”.

There has been a lot of media hype regarding BRICS.

While the creation of BRICS has significant geopolitical implications, both the AIIB as well as the proposed BRICS Development Bank (NDB) and its Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) are dollar denominated entities. Unless they are coupled with a multi-currency system of trade and credit, they do not threaten dollar hegemony. Quite the opposite, they tend to sustain and extend dollar denominated lending. Moreover, they replicate several features the Bretton Woods framework.

Towards a Multi-Currency Arrangement?

What is significant, however, from a geopolitical standpoint is that China and Russia are developing a ruble-yuan swap, negotiated between the Russian Central Bank, and the People’s Bank of China,

The situation of the other three BRICS member states (Brazil, India, South Africa) with regard to the implementation of (real, rand rupiah) currency swaps is markedly different. These three highly indebted countries are in the straightjacket of IMF-World Bank conditionalities. They do not decide on fundamental issues of monetary policy and macro-economic reform without the green light from the Washington based international financial institutions.

Currency swaps between the BRICS central banks was put forth by Russia to:

“facilitate trade financing while completely bypassing the dollar. “At the same time, the new system will also act as a de facto replacement of the IMF, because it will allow the members of the alliance to direct resources to finance the weaker countries.” (Voice of Russia)

While Russia has formally raised the issue of a multi-currency arrangement, the Development Bank’s structure does not currently “officially” acknowledge such a framework:

“We are discussing with China and our BRICS parters the establishment of a system of multilateral swaps that will allow to transfer resources to one or another country, if needed. A part of the currency reserves can be directed to [the new system]” (Governor of the Russian Central Bank, June 2014, Prime news agency)

India, South Africa and Brazil have decided not to go along with a multiple currency arrangement, which would have allowed for the development of bilateral trade and investment activities between BRICs countries, operating outside the realm of dollar denominated credit. In fact they did not have the choice of making this decision in view of the strict loan conditionalities imposed by the IMF.

Heavily indebted under the brunt of their external creditors, all three countries are faithful pupils of the IMF-World Bank. The central bank of these countries is controlled by Wall Street and the IMF. For them to enter into a “non-dollar” or an “anti-dollar” development banking arrangement with multiple currencies, would have required prior approval of the IMF.

The Contingency Reserve Arrangement

The CRA is defined as a “framework for provision of support through liquidity and precautionary instruments in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures.” (Russia India Report April 7, 2015). In this context, the CRA fund does not constitute a “safety net” for BRICS countries, it accepts the hegemony of the US dollar which is sustained by large scale speculative operations in the currency and commodity markets.

In essence the CRA operates in a similar fashion to an IMF precautionary loan arrangement (e.g. Brazil November 1998) with a view to enabling highly indebted countries to maintain the parity of their exchange rate to the US dollar, by replenishing central bank reserves through borrowed money.

The CRA excludes the policy option of foreign exchange controls by BRICS member states. In the case of India, Brazil and South Africa, this option is largely foreclosed as a result of their agreements with the IMF.

The dollar denominated $100 billion CRA fund is a “silver platter” for Western “institutional speculators” including JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Goldman Sachs et al, which are involved in short selling operations on the Forex market. Ultimately the CRA fund will finance the speculative onslaught in the currency market.

Neoliberalism firmly entrenched

An arrangement using national currencies instead of the US dollar requires sovereignty in central bank monetary policy. In many regards, India, Brazil and South Africa are (from the monetary standpoint) US proxy states, firmly aligned with IMF-World Bank-WTO economic diktats.

It is worth recalling that since 1991, India’s macroeconomic policy was under under the control of the Bretton Woods institutions, with a former World Bank official, Dr. Manmohan Singh, serving first as Finance Minister and subsequently as Prime Minister.

Moreover, while India is an ally of China and Russia under BRICS, it has entered into a new defense cooperation deal with the Pentagon which is (unofficially) directed against Russia and China. It is also cooperating with the US in aerospace technology. India constitutes the largest market (after Saudi Arabia) for the sale of US weapons systems. And all these transactions are in US dollars.

Similarly, Brazil signed a far-reaching Defense agreement with the US in 2010 under the government of Luis Ignacio da Silva, who in the words of the IMF’s former managing director Heinrich Koeller, “Is Our Best President”, “… I am enthusiastic [with Lula’s administration]; but it is better to say I am deeply impressed by President Lula, indeed, and in particular because I do think he has the credibility” (IMF Managing Director Heinrich Koeller, Press conference, 10 April 2003 ).

In Brazil, the Bretton Woods institutions and Wall Street have dominated macro-economic reform since the outset of the government of Luis Ignacio da Silva in 2003. Under Lula, a Wall Street executive was appointed to head the Central Bank, the Banco do Brazil was in the hands of a former CitiGroup executive. While there are divisions within the ruling PT party, neoliberalism prevails. Economic and social in Brazil is in large part dictated by the country’s external creditors including JPMorgan Chase, Bank America and Citigroup.

Central Bank Reserves and The External Debt

India and Brazil (together with Mexico) are among the World’s most indebted developing countries. The foreign exchange reserves are fragile. India’s external debt in 2013 was of the order of more than $427 Billion, that of Brazil was a staggering $482 billion, South Africa’s external debt was of the order of $140 Billion. (World Bank, External Debt Stock, 2013).

External Debt Stock (2013)

Brazil $482 billion

India $427 billion

South Africa $140 billion

All three countries have central banks reserves (including gold and forex holdings) which are lower than their external debt (see table below).

Central Bank Reserves (2013)

Brazil $359 billion

India: $298 billion

South Africa $50 billion

The situation of South Africa is particularly precarious with an external debt which is almost three times its central bank reserves.

What this means is that these three BRICS member states are under the brunt of their Western creditors. Their central bank reserves are sustained by borrowed money. Their central bank operations (e.g. with a view to supporting domestic investments and development programs) will require borrowing in US dollars. Their central banks are essentially “currency board” arrangements, their national currencies are dollarized.

The BRICs Development Bank (NDB)

On 15 July 2014, the group of five countries signed an agreement to create the US$100 billion BRICS Development Bank together with a US dollar denominated ” reserve currency pool” of US$100 billion. These commitments were subsequently revised.

Each of the five-member countries ”is expected to allocate an equal share of the $50 billion startup capital that will be expanded to $100 billion. Russia has agreed to provide $2 billion from the federal budget for the bank over the next seven years.” (RT, March 9, 2015).

In turn, the commitments to the Contingency Reserve Arrangement are as follows;

Brazil, $18 billion

Russia $18 billion

India $18 billion

China $41 billion

South Africa $5 billion

Total $100 billion

As mentioned earlier, India, Brazil and South Africa, are heavily indebted countries with central bank reserves substantially below the level of their external debt. Their contribution to the two BRICs financial entities can only be financed:

by running down their dollar denominated central bank reserves and/or
by financing their contributions to the Development Bank and CRA, by borrowing the money, namely by “running up” their dollar denominated external debt.
In both cases, dollar hegemony prevails. In other words, the Western creditors of these three countries will be required to “contribute” directly or indirectly to the financing of the dollar denominated contributions of Brazil, India and South Africa to the BRICS development bank (NDB) and the CRA.

In the case of South Africa with Central Bank reserves of the order of 50 billion dollars, the contribution to the BRICS NDB will inevitably be financed by an increase in the country’s (US dollar denominated) external debt.

Moreover, with regard to India, Brazil and South Africa, their membership in the BRICS Development Bank was no doubt the object of behind closed doors negotiations with the IMF as well as guarantees that they would not depart from the “Washington Consensus” on macro-economic reform.

Under a scheme whereby these countries were to be in be in full control of their Central Bank monetary policy, the contributions to the Development Bank (NDB) would be allocated in national currency rather than US dollars under a multi-currency arrangement. Needless to say under a multi-currency system the contingency CRA fund would not be required.

The geopolitics behind the BRICS initiative are crucial. While the BRICS initiative from the very outset has accepted the dollar system, this does not exclude the introduction, at a later stage of a multiple currency arrangement, which challenges dollar hegemony.

8 April 2015

By Marin Jacques

The UK’s decision to become a founder member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a major historical event. Until then no Western country, with the exception of New Zealand, had signed up to join, not least because of intense American pressure. The UK, moreover, cannot be counted as any old Western nation; on the contrary, ever since 1945, it has been the US’s closest ally. For British politicians, Conservative and Labour alike, the ‘special relationship’, as it has been known, was sacrosanct. A decade ago, the UK stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how do we explain Britain’s about-turn?

The UK is certainly not what it was. Along with the other major European nations, its relative strength in the world has declined precipitously, accelerated in the recent period by the western financial crisis. Today its economy is barely bigger than it was in 2007. Unsurprisingly in such circumstances, economic and commercial considerations have loomed ever larger in the public mind while foreign policy concerns have come to be seen as something of a luxury. This shift in priorities has been accentuated by the dismal failure of the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the more recent one in Libya.

Previously the United States could rely on the UK always being by its side, forever prepared to do its bidding; America’s poodle, as it has often been described. But recently little cracks have begun to appear. The US has been arguing that its European allies should agree to spend not less than 2% of their GDP on defence. The UK has refused to commit. Strikingly it has played virtually no role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, leaving Germany and France to take the lead. None of these events, however, taken singularly or together, can be compared with, or prepared us for, the UK’s seismic decision to ignore American pressure and join the AIIB.

The game-changer is China. There is not a single European country – the same can be said of virtually every country in the world – that has not been affected and challenged by China’s rise and what attitude to adopt towards it. This has been a constantly moving process: starting with disbelief and scepticism, followed by growing interest and curiosity, and finally arriving at recognition, engagement and enthusiasm. Britain was a laggard, way behind Germany, for example, Europe’s pioneer in its relationship with China. The present coalition government spent the first two years playing the same old game of lecturing China on its shortcomings. Then David Cameron, the prime minister, met the Dalai Lama and in response China gave the UK the deep freeze treatment. Britain finally got the message. If it was going to be serious about pursuing a positive relationship with China, it had to show the latter due respect and be wholly committed.

Britain came to recognise that China was an enormous opportunity – a potential source of much-needed investment and the renminbi as crucial to the future of the City of London. All the old reservations, quibbles, complaints and misgivings were pushed aside as the UK sought to make up for a great deal of lost time. But even this does not quite explain its willingness to join the AIIB. After all, no major Western nation had made such a move, not even Germany. Britain, furthermore, has hitherto had little presence in East Asia. And, most crucially of all, its godfather, the United States, was pushing hard against the AIIB. In other words, Britain’s decision to join went entirely against the grain, an unpredicted and spectacular event, which took everyone by surprise. If Britain wanted to show China and the world how serious it now was about its relationship with China then this was exactly the way to do it. As the first major Western country to join, it reaped all the goodwill that went with that as far as the Chinese were concerned; and by doing so in the face of US opposition, it demonstrated its determination and intent.

It was already clear when the launch of the AIIB took place in October that, with 21 countries already signed up, and only Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand choosing to remain on the sidelines, that the AIIB, by virtue of its reach and inclusivity, especially given such determined American opposition, would have the effect of transforming the arguments in the Asia Pacific about its future trading and financial arrangements. Indeed, I would argue that the AIIB, at the moment of its launch, served to redraw the balance of forces in the region and largely undermined the American ‘rebalancing’ or ‘pivot’. As a result, the fallout from the success of the AIIB is bound to affect negotiations over the TPP and RCEP and their respective fortunes. Not least, it will surely make American efforts to exclude China, as in the case of the TPP, hugely more difficult if not impossible.

If this was true before the UK’s decision to join, the latter has only served to ratchet up the effect. New Zealand has already joined the AIIB negotiations. Australia has announced its attention to do so. South Korea now seems likely to join before the March 31st deadline. Most unexpectedly, even the Japanese are said to be divided about what to do. Which threatens to leave the United States – and probably still Japan – in a position of pretty much splendid isolation in Asia . The Americans have boxed themselves into a corner, increasingly deserted by all and sundry. As has been pointed out, they would have been better off joining the AIIB, but this was never a serious option because such a move would have been rejected by the US Congress.

The ramifications of the UK’s decision to join the AIIB go far beyond East Asia, Asia Pacific or Asia. Germany, France and Italy have announced their intention to join, and it seems likely that others, for example Luxembourg and Switzerland, will sign up. Where once the only Western countries that involved themselves in such Asia-Pacific institutions were, as a rule, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the AIIB is drawing in a growing number of European countries. A Chinese-inspired and led multilateral institution is fast achieving a global membership, exactly the opposite of what the United States wants, a rival not only to the Asia Development Bank, but in some respects the World Bank itself. At the same time the debate over the AIIB has served to sow major divisions between the US on the one hand and a growing number of European nations on the other.

I conclude with two general thoughts concerning the United States. Ever since the 1990s, if not earlier, the US has been a declining economic power in East Asia: in trading terms, for example, China and the US have more or less swapped places with China now occupying the position that the United States once did. There is no sign whatsoever that this situation will be reversed. The AIIB is a classic manifestation of China’s economic power in the region and the kind of influence that it now exercises. The United States cannot compete with this: its offer in the region is military strength. But in the longer run, economic power trumps military strength, as we have seen so clearly demonstrated over the last two decades. Furthermore, the fact that China, like the other 20 countries that first signed up to the AIIB, is a developing country gives it a unique insight, into and affinity with, the problems they face and the kind of things they need.

My second thought concerns the dilemmas that the United States faces as a declining power. It seeks to preserve the position and authority of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the two major institutions of the post-1945 international economic order. But as Western-made institutions they are creatures of the West, above all the United States. As the centre of economic gravity moves from the developed world to the developing countries, they are threatened with becoming an anachronism. To survive they must reinvent themselves, so they are no longer the preserve of the West but are representative, above all, of the developing countries. But how to do that without losing control: this is the American dilemma. This is why, five years on, the modest structural reforms agreed by the IMF in 2010 are still waiting for approval by the US Congress. Similarly the US Congress would not countenance the US joining the AIIB because they perceive it as a threat to the position of the IMF and the World Bank.

However, the longer reform of the IMF and World Bank is delayed, the more their influence and credibility will decline and crumble. At the same time, if the United States refuses to join Chinese-inspired institutions like the AIIB, the more isolated it will find itself. With each day that passes, it becomes more likely that the old institutional structure will decline and decay, to be increasingly replaced by institutions like the AIIB.

Martin Jacques is the author of the global best-seller ‘When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order’ and a Senior Fellow at Cambridge University.

By Nile Bowie

Greece’s newly elected government, led by the leftist Syriza coalition that swept into power in January on an anti-austerity platform, finds itself in a highly unenviable position. Athens is burdened by colossal debt, imminent liquidity problems and a looming banking collapse. What is at stake for Greece now is its very ability to survive economically within the euro-zone.

The Syriza coalition emerged from various offshoots of the Greek radical left, which set itself apart from the political mainstream by taking an anti-capitalist position emphasizing wealth redistribution and class struggle, while allying itself with alter-globalization movements and trade unions. The ascension of Syriza represents the most leftward shift in European politics in decades.

Once a negligible force at the ballot box, Syriza has gradually succeeded in commanding support among the wage-earning class and the urban unemployed, who view the coalition as the only political force capable of pulling the country off the trajectory of austerity, imposed by Greece’s creditors – primarily Germany.

The new government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has captured the broad popular support of Greek society as the country faces an asymmetric struggle to negotiate a restructuring of Athens’ debts and a reversal of austerity policies attached to a previous €240 billion bailout agreement, which Germany and the European Central Bank (ECB) remain inflexibly opposed to.

Austerity Assault

Greece’s debt crisis reflects the contradictions of the European monetary union, which has benefited the economies within the euro-zone’s core at the expense of those of the periphery. German banks, flushed with cash from Germany’s sizable trade surpluses between other euro-zone members, played a primary role spurring on the Greek insolvency dilemma.

Berlin, benefiting from lower exchange rates than it would have under its own currency regime, recycled capital from euro-zone export markets back into periphery economies in search of higher returns, fueling asset bubbles, predatory lending and severe deflation in debtor economies.

Greece’s public debt, the majority of it held by German banks, became unserviceable in 2010. In exchange for a €240 billion bailout agreement used to recapitalize the Greek banking sector, Athens was obliged to accept rigid austerity measures that mandated mass privatizations, drastic cuts in public expenditures, the selling-off of public assets and across-the-board deregulation.

Greece’s wage earners and pensioners have shouldered the burden of German-imposed austerity at great human cost. Since 2010, the Greek economy has contracted by 26 percent, while wages have declined at least 33 percent. Unemployment has risen from 8 to 26 percent, whereas youth employment has hovered at 60 percent. Spending cuts and tax increases have amounted to more than 45 per cent of household disposable income.

Homelessness increased by 25 percent from 2009 to 2011, imperiling members of the middle-class with medium or higher educational backgrounds. Access to healthcare has eroded, while incidents of suicide have reached record levels, increasing by 65 percent from 2009 to 2011. Greece is now cut off from markets, having endured thousands of job losses and the massive scaling-back of social protections.

Syriza’s Objectives

Syriza is committed to ending austerity in the belief that Athens’ ability to service its debt is conditional to growth-stimulating policies. The current gridlock between Germany and Greece can be explained as the latter seeking a window of financial stability to implement growth-inducing reforms and humanitarian policies, while the former has frozen the remainder of bailout financing until Syriza consents to continued austerity.

Yanis Varoufakis, the Syriza government’s finance minister, explained this position in his column in the New York Times: “The great difference between this government and previous Greek governments is twofold: We are determined to clash with mighty vested interests in order to reboot Greece and gain our partners’ trust. We are also determined not to be treated as a debt colony that should suffer what it must.”

The latest round of negotiations between the Greek government and its creditors in late February has been a major subject of contention within the Syriza coalition and the international left more generally. Some have characterized the Greek government’s negotiating strategy as capitulating to the Eurogroup, while others have argued that Syriza has opted for a tactical retreat that succeeded in buying time.

Syriza essentially entered into the negotiations with inadequate leverage, seeking financing to ease imminent liquidity fears and enact basic redistributive measures, but unwilling to play the ‘Grexit’ card. Athens is keenly aware that the effects of a disorderly exit from the euro-zone would be domestically destabilizing, at least in the near term, with ramifications that could potentially see other euro-zone debtor economies default, causing a humanitarian crisis and wider political upheaval.

Athens has resisted austerity in the short-term, but reluctantly consented to the February 20 agreement, committing it to continuing ongoing and outstanding privatizations, and measures that would require Greece’s creditors to approve prospective state policies to determine whether they can be implemented. It is on this basis that the European Commission condemned Greece for acting ‘unilaterally’ when it recently attempted to pass a law enabling social assistance.

Creative Solutions, Negotiated Exit

It is utterly untenable for Greece’s creditors to continue maintaining the delusion that the country would ever be able meet its obligations through tighter, growth-contracting austerity. German intransigence has inevitably raised the spectre of Grexit, having pushed Athens into a corner where it can only resist austerity and avoid a banking collapse by tapping into the cash reserves of pension funds and public sector entities.

Though the Greek leadership should certainly be encouraged to propose alternative solutions to ease deflationary pressures and address the liquidity crisis as practical measures to implement in the near term, the unwillingness of Athens’ lenders to concede to a modicum of relief for the social economy renders ineffective any strategy to restructure Greece’s debt within the euro framework.

If all options are exhausted, Syriza should be prepared to implement an alternative strategy that would imply a negotiated exit from the euro-zone, so as to regain sovereignty over monetary policy and open up a process of debt restructuring. Any exit would be chaotic due to the immense organizational and logistical challenges demanded by a new currency regime, which would allow Athens to regain a competitive advantage conducive to stimulating productive activity.

Strict public control would need to be exercised over the banking system, while a parallel currency denominated in euros could be utilized during a transition to provide short-term liquidity in concurrence with stringent capital control measures to prevent any excessive devaluation of a successor currency. Yanis Varoufakis has also discussed a variation of this option, advocating a state-backed cryptocurrency built on a transparent algorithm that could be utilized to hedge against deflation independent of the ECB.

If Germany and the Eurogroup intend to keep the monetary union together, which is certainly in their interest, a reduction in the nominal value of Greece’s outstanding debt and basic flexibility on social expenditure would be enough to ensure that Athens remained in the euro-zone. A growth-focused debt restructuring strategy centered on a repayment scheme tethered to GDP would be another measure in the interest of both Greece and its creditors.

There is no shortage of policy alternatives that can be explored to address the ongoing deadlock. If Syriza fails to steer Greece toward a new trajectory, elements of the extreme right – such as the Golden Dawn party, an openly neo-Nazi political force fast gaining momentum among disaffected segments of society – will ultimately stand to benefit from the fallout. As it stands, the primary obstacle facing Greece is the rigid inflexibility at the heart of European institutions.

Nile Bowie is a political analyst based in Malaysia who has written for a number of publications, his expertise lies in a number of areas, with a particular focus on Asian politics and geopolitics, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

3 April 2015

 

by Justin King

Editor’s Note: The Fifth Column does not report conspiracy theories. As bizarre as the unfolding story is, it is not based on anonymous sources or unsourced allegations.

22 Mar 2015 – In the latest of a string of incidents that call into question the West’s real intentions in the battle against the Islamic State, an alleged asset of Canadian Intelligence was caught red handed smuggling Islamic State sympathizers into Syria.

On Friday [20 Mar 2015], the Turkish Foreign Minister (a person holding the equivalent office of John Kerry) publicly stated:

“The person arrested by us is someone working for an intelligence agency in the coalition.”

Later in the week it was specified that the suspect was working for Canadian Intelligence.

It is important to note that Turkey is one of the West’s key allies in the region and has been since the nation joined NATO in 1952. This is not an allegation the Turkish government takes lightly.

Turkish authorities are holding Mohammed Mehmet Rashid (AKA Doctor Mehmet Rashid and Mohammed al Rashid) after he was caught smuggling three teenage girls into Syria to join the Islamic State. He confessed to working for the Canadian Embassy in Amman, Jordan. The bizarre claim was backed up with a computer and cell phone that are reportedly in Turkish custody that were provided by the Canadian government. When he was captured he also had in his possession the passport photographs of 17 other people, in addition to the three teenage girls he had just handed over to the Islamic State.

Rashid’s travel records indicate that he has bounced back and forth across the border more than 30 times since 2013, while most people have a hard time getting out of war torn Syria once. There was another entry on Rashid’s travel documents: a trip to Canada.

Rashid’s finances revealed another suspicious irregularity that confirmed his story. Payment for his services was made through a bank in the United Kingdom. The UK arguably has the strictest counterterrorism banking laws in the world. The laws are so broad that known legitimate charities have trouble transferring funds because of their work in conflict zones. Because of this, the Islamic State does not transfer money through banks, and certainly not banks in the UK. They use Hawaladors, which are paperless bankers throughout the world that transfer cash for a fee. Hawala is a literally ancient system of banking that is prominent in the Middle East and in Eastern Asia.

As an example, if I want to transfer funds from my location in Syria to your location in Uzbekistan; I contact my local Hawalador, hand him the cash, and tell him where I want it sent. He calls a colleague in Uzbekistan who will immediately hand you the money. Weeks later, the two men will settle their accounts. Both Hawaladors take a percentage as a fee. Although for the Islamic State they are probably conducting the transfers for free in order to keep their heads.

The important piece of information to take away from this is that Rashid was not being paid by the Islamic State.

On the other side of the espionage trail, we would have to identify Rashid’s handler. He confessed to working out of Canada’s embassy in Amman, Jordan. Handlers, more properly known as “case officers,” often work out of embassies under what are known as “diplomatic covers.” They take a position within the embassy and freely operate because if they are caught, they enjoy diplomatic immunity and are simply deported. Due to the prevalence of law students in the intelligence community, the most common cover position has been the office of the “legal attaché.” However, it was used so often that people immediately assumed every legal attaché was a spy, so intelligence agencies began placing officers in roles they weren’t qualified for so they could enjoy diplomatic immunity. When trying to identify an intelligence officer in an embassy, it becomes important to look for two things: someone holding a position they aren’t qualified for and someone who does not even pretend to fulfill the duties of their office.

One name jumps off of the Canadian Embassy’s roster: the Ambassador himself. Canada’s embassy in Jordan is a very special one. It handles Jordan, Iraq, and because the office in Syria is vacant, it handles that as well. One would think that given the current crisis, the Canadian government would want a top level diplomat assigned to the post. Instead, the position is filled by a man with no diplomatic experience. Literally none. He has never held a diplomatic post in his life. His background is certainly interesting though.

Bruno Saccomani’s prior experience is that he was a Mountie. Americans immediately think of a man on a horse wearing a funny hat and red coat when they hear the term. Of course, the reality of the situation is a little bit different. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the equivalent of the United States Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and every state police force rolled into one. Saccomani’s most recent position was the Prime Minister’s chief bodyguard. In this position, he was required to have the highest security clearance Canada has because he was with the country’s leader during classified briefings and as he traveled overseas.

So what does Saccomani do at the embassy? Nothing related to diplomacy. The chief diplomat seems to allow various Ministers to deal with the actual diplomacy. A quick scan of the embassy’s press releases reveals that he doesn’t even sign his name to public statements from the embassy.

Rashid and the Canadian Embassy came into contact when he was seeking asylum. Once the Canadians became involved in his asylum case, he traveled to Canada for a brief period of time before returning and beginning his smuggling. He recorded his smuggling escapades. These videos were probably of intelligence value to the Canadian intelligence services. However, after two years it is still unclear as to why the Canadians were running the smuggling operation for the Islamic State in the first place. The intelligence value of knowing who is entering and joining the Islamic State’s ranks is not even remotely equivalent to the value of shutting the routes down.

This is just the latest in a string of bizarre incidents that have led many to believe the West is funding, arming, and assisting the Islamic State so the war continues to destabilize regimes in the area.

Historical context of incidents:

An Islamic State commander admits receiving funding from US.

In an era when the US can send a missile into an 18 inch window, it has repeatedly dropped arms and supplies to Islamic State fighters by accident.

The US hampered Kurdish resistance to the Islamic State until significant pressure was brought to bear by independent media outlets.

While all of this is certainly damning and generates the appearance that the West is actively supporting the Islamic State, there are no credible theories as to why the West would be subverting its own interests. It is possible that this was yet another example of intelligence agencies running amok without proper supervision. Given the volume of factual evidence and the continued stream of anecdotal evidence, we must also consider that the West is involved in a large clandestine operation pursuing interests its citizens are unaware of.

30 March 2015