Archives: Articles

By Alan Hart

In his major speech at Cairo University on 4 June 2009 which he labelled as marking “a new beginning” in the relationship between the Islamic world and the West, President Obama described the. Palestinian situation as “intolerable”. And he put flesh on that bone by saying, “They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.”

He also said the only resolution of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel “is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

He then gave this commitment:

QUOTE

That (the two-state solution) is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.

UNQUOTE

More than six years on all that is left of that commitment is its rhetoric.

On Obama’s watch the pace of Israel’s colonization of the occupied West Bank, on-going ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth, has been speeded up and confirmed what has long been the case – that the two-state solution is dead and cannot be resurrected.

It’s true that quite early in his presidency Obama called for a halt to illegal Israeli settlement activity but Prime Minister Netanyahu effectively told him to go to hell.

The evidence that supports my headline for this article was in one of Obama’s responses to the current upsurge of violence and killing in Israel/Palestine. To his repeated assertion that two states was “the only solution” he added that it (a peaceful resolution of the conflict) “is up to the parties.”

Given that one of the two parties, the Zionist (not Jewish) state, has no intention of making peace on terms the other could accept, Obama’s words can mean only one thing. He was effectively saying, “In what is left of my presidency I have no intention of using the leverage I have to try to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.”

That would have been the sweetest music to the ears of Israel’s Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked. Speaking at a conference in Washington D.C. she said: “We are against a Palestinian state. There is not and never will be a Palestinian state.”

There is still some speculation that because he loathes Netanyahu and all he represents Obama may decide that America should not veto any future Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel and demand that it be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. But even if Obama did refuse to appease Zionism by saying “No” to another America veto, that would change nothing on the ground in Israel-Palestine.

It is interesting to recall that way back in February 2011 when he was running against Obama for the White House, Republican Mitt Romney said Obama “has thrown Israel under a bus”.

That was Romney’s response to an Obama statement that not only called for a two-state solution but said that Israel’s pre-1967 war borders should roughly guide the formation of a Palestinian state though some land could be swapped.

Given the way things are today and look like going my speculation is that future honest historians will conclude that Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby in America threw Obama under the bus.

I myself would go one stage further and say that Obama threw the Palestinians under the bus.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent. He is author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs at http://www.alanhart.net and tweets via http://twitter.com/alanauthor

22 October, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Shobha Shukla

(CNS): The world is agog with excitement at the recent adoption by the 70th UN General Assembly, of the new framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, composed of 17 goals and 169 targets to wipe out poverty, fight inequality and tackle climate change over the next 15 years. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, hails these goals as “A blueprint for a better future…. to transform the world. We must leave no-one behind.”

Justin Kilcullen, co-chair of CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE), and Paul Quintos of IBON International spoke with CNS (Citizen News Service) on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, on the implications of these goals to the people for whom they are actually meant.

“We should rejoice in what we have achieved, but we must not believe that it is going to be easy,” Justin remarked pertaining to the advance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) compared to its predecessor MDGs.

Critics point out that one of the main flaws of the MDGs is the lack of ownership and engagement – something the SDGs have the potential to overcome. During the last 15 years, the world has seen an increasing engagement of citizens, NGOs and government organizations around issues of development. “The challenge now lies in governments fulfilling their commitments to the people,” Justin added.

Each of the 17 Global Goals for sustainable development is essentially a human right, says Justin, with the last goal (Goal 17) being the most important, as it is about resources and new partnerships, without which countries will not be able to deliver the other 16 Global Goals. He calls this the contradiction of the summer of 2015.

“While the SDGs tell us of ‘what the governments have agreed to do for their people’, they do not give a sense that ‘governments will work with the people to help them bring the change these goals envisage’. It is very much top-down”, warns Justin.

Binding trade treaties versus non-binding development agenda

Other members of civil society have also expressed concerns on how the SDGs will be implemented. One reason to worry, according to Paul Quintos of IBON International is the apparent over emphasis on business sector participation in the 2030 agenda. Like many CSOs, Quintos too is cautious, if not skeptical, of the 2030 sustainable development agenda that according to him “was launched by the UN with much hype and fanfare, with advice from professional corporate marketing agencies.”

“This is ironic, because 15 years ago, when the Millennium Declaration was unveiled, much the same aspirations, hopes and promises had been pledged by these same governments in these very halls. And 15 years hence the world faces the same problems, if not worse,” he added.

The paradox, according to Quintos, lies in the fact that while governments seem to commit to ending poverty by 2030 by agreeing on a ‘non-binding’ global agenda, these same governments are also in the process of negotiating free trade agreements, which are binding and may potentially reverse any development progress the world has gained in the last century. Quintos further warns that these FTAs will grant enormous new powers to corporations by allowing them to veto laws and national regulations in the name of profit making.

Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

Quintos is also vocal about governments raising the ambition of the Global Goals while at the same time avoiding making concrete commitments in terms of public financing. Governments are constructing a narrative wherein there are not enough public resources to fund such an ambitious development agenda, which consequently justifies greater private sector involvement under the garb of PPP, Quintos noted.

“But by resorting to the private sector as being the main driver of development, we are making interests of the private sector primary in terms of what is likely to be prioritized in this agenda,” said Quintos.

PPP has been prominently featured in various development forums and seminars as an innovative means to bridge the funding gap in terms of financing national development. Civil society however fears that PPPs primarily serve business interests over public welfare. In most cases of PPPs, governments end up paying more to cover ‘regulatory risk guarantees’ in order to ensure the profit returns of business concessionaires.

“So what we see is a socialization of risks and further privatization of gains or profits. This is the most alarming aspect to this agenda”, he added.

Role of civil society

As we talk of a new global partnership, Justin Kilcullen wonders about the role of civil society in it. He agrees that civil society organizations, like CPDE, are in a very strong position today as civil society has been recognized as an independent development actor, having a voice in the negotiations. But there is a question mark over the future of this role because SDGs are purely intergovernmental. In the UN, the role of civil society remains consultative with minimal if totally no actual influence in policy-making. Other than playing a role in implementing projects in sectors like agriculture, health, and education, what is needed more is to hear the voices of citizens holding governments to account and challenging them if they make mistakes. This is what good citizenship is about, feels Justin, and wonders why governments perceive active citizens and civil society as a threat, instead of as an asset.

He gives the example of his own country, Ireland, where civil society played a very significant role in its development after it got independence from British rule. “The Catholic Church did a lot for education and healthcare of poor people; other NGOs were involved with homeless people; sports organizations built up the national spirit of the new state; and cultural organizations helped re-establish our Irish identity. All this was done outside the government, with civil society playing a major role in making Ireland a modern and wealthy state”.

Paul sees the 2030 agenda as non-transformative, as it does not challenge existing unequal relationships of power and distribution of wealth. So it remains for the civil society to continue engaging with governments and making sure that they are held accountable for the promises that they have made. Most importantly, it is about how we build power from below through people’s collective action, in challenging those who are in power.

“People will have to continue to challenge the status quo by resisting and fighting land grabs, mining expansions and plunder, making sure that corporations are held accountable for human rights violations and environmental impacts of their operations, and governments’ complicity to all that. That is where the hope lies,” said Paul.

Leaving no one behind

The theme of the post 2015 goals is that ‘No one will be left behind.’ For Justin it is a big challenge to ensure that this becomes a reality. “For me hope is a very strong virtue and with the commitment and the energy of civil society around the world we can make something of these goals. No matter how difficult it may be, I believe in the end it will be right”.

According to Paul, people are not just left behind but they are actually pushed back by the current mode of development– “It is the market and private sector led mode of development that we must leave behind if we want no person on this planet to be destroyed by the current system”.
Video of Paul Quintos’ interview is online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I0Z0hvIKe0

Video of Justin Kilcullen’s interview is online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juf1nYzrnbA
(The author is the Managing Editor of CNS, and is supported by CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) to provide thematic coverage around UN General Assembly where Global Goals for Sustainable Development are being adopted. Follow us on Twitter: @Shobha1Shukla, @CNS_Health and @CSOpartnership_ )

Shared under Creative Commons (CC) Attribution License

22 October, 2015
Citizen News Service

While there are some positive features in the 2016 Federal Budget, there is a glaring omission in it: there is hardly any mention of how the government intends to step up its battle against corruption or how it plans to reduce persistent leakages or enhance integrity in governance. And yet, integrity at all levels of society — especially at the apex — is the greatest challenge facing the nation today.

The Budget could have addressed this challenge from various perspectives. It could have proposed specific, concrete measures that government departments and state agencies would undertake in order to overcome problems arising from ministerial and departmental over-spending, above market-price purchases and delays in approvals — all of which have often been highlighted by the Auditor-General in his comprehensive audit reports. The millions of ringgit lost year in and year out from acts of omission and commission of this sort could have been better utilized for the well-being of the people.

The lack of effective enforcement by state institutions has also cost us dearly. Instead of dealing with the culprits through punitive measures that serve as effective deterrents, the tendency is to choose a mild mode of punishment which has very little impact upon the wrongdoer. As a result, wrongdoings have become more and more serious over the decades. The human trafficking tragedy at the Malaysia-Thai border exposed earlier this year that resulted in the deaths of scores of Rohingyas is an example of what can happen when enforcement officers fail to carry out their duties mainly because they had compromised their integrity.

If such erring officers are not caught or punished severely, part of the reason may be because there is no institution that has the powers to conduct truly independent investigations into the misdeeds of enforcement personnel and enforcement agencies. There is an urgent need for such an independent institution which will have the full authority to act against enforcers whether they are from the police or immigration or some other agency. The present Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) does have the power to act effectively. This is why the Budget could have provided for the establishment of such an entity staffed with well trained personnel capable of adhering to the highest standards of integrity.

The Budget could have also perhaps allocated more resources for the enhancement of knowledge and skills among anti-corruption officials at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) which by and large has discharged its duties with distinction. Such upgrading is imperative in an environment in which acts of corruption have become more sophisticated and transcend national boundaries. The 1MDB episode is a case in point. Money-laundering today for instance has become far more complex than what it was two or three decades ago.

To put it in a nutshell, the 2016 Budget does not indicate that the powers-that-be are serious or sincere about combating high-level corruption and strengthening the sinews of integrity in Malaysian society. It is perhaps a manifestation of the major cause of the spread of the scourge of corruption: the lack of political will among those who wield power and influence.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
Chairman,
Board of Trustees,
Yayasan 1Malaysia.

Petaling Jaya,

24 October 2015.

By Simon Jenkins

The British could pretend to care about China’s human rights, but it would be impolite, pointless, hypocritical and probably counter-productive

British ministers are to “raise human right concerns” with their Chinese guests this week. What on earth for? It is impolite, pointless, hypocritical and probably counter-productive. We are cringing supplicants for Chinese capital – as we claim to be for Saudi “intelligence”. What has this to do with human rights?

The itch to pass judgment on other people’s affairs is the occupational disease of British rulers. Sometime it drives us wretchedly to war, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

Otherwise it is merely rude, a diplomatic tic, a state of mind. If I were a Chinese guest at dinner tonight and a British minister dared to mention human rights, I would reply in kind.

I would ask how come if you British are so clever your David Cameron and George Osborne come knocking endlessly at our door, bowing and scraping for cash? They have a stash of vanity projects we know no sane capitalist will touch: for trains in the wrong places, madcap power stations, crystal palaces, luxury flats, even Weetabix factories. They are so stupid they offer us profits and guarantees against risk, even when they know we will fill the projects with cyberspies.

Then the British perform this ritual. They puff up their chests and “raise human rights concerns”.

Their Lord Coe and Tessa Jowell did it when kowtowing over the Olympics. Theythink they are so good at politics they can run China better than we do.

Two can play at “issues raising”. If I were that Chinese person I would politely warn the Queen of “legitimate” Chinese concerns over her surveillance cameras in every street; her police listening to private phone calls; her slave workers in the fields and domestic service. I would ask what kind of justice denies legal aid and charges a fee to use a court. How can Britain export terrorists to the Middle East and kill Muslims by the thousand for not accepting “British values”? How can it fail to teach its children simple maths?

Should Her Majesty claim this is all terribly rude and none of China’s business, I would tell her in that case she knows where she can take her HS2s, Hinkley Points and human rights issues. If Britain cannot get capitalists to build them, why should China pour its savings into them?

The reality is that Osborne’s trade opening to China makes sense. It was about money. So why jeopardise it with talk of human rights, which the Chinese government will politely ignore, just so a few British lobbyists can feel good? If the government cared about China’s human rights, it would not do business there. So it cares just enough to be rude.

Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard and chaired the National Trust. His latest book is England’s Hundred Best Views.

20 October 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/

By Abby Zimet

Here’s a chance to hear the great Gideon Levy, Israeli-born-and-bred writer for Haaretz and indefatigable critic of Zionism, who spoke this week in Westchester, N.Y. A guest of Jewish Voice For Peace and Wespac, Levy faced down several obstreperous hecklers by turning their strident claims – “Terrorist! Levy=Hate” – back on them, charging them with the same blind ignorance practised by too many Israelis, and insisting on a concise defense of Palestinian rights: “When someone steals your car, you have to get (it) back. The Palestinian car was stolen by Israel, and it must be returned, without any conditions.”

A longtime anti-Zionist who has been called “the most hated man in Israel,” Levy has described growing up “totally blind to the occupation – it was a word I didn’t dare to pronounce.” His political evolution began with writing stories from the Occupied Territories – “I was attracted gradually like a butterfly to a fire or to a light” – and realizing “there was no one to tell (the story of the Occupation) to the Israelis. Today he regularly blasts “the brutality and cruelty” of his country, a place that represents “Democracy (for) Jews, discrimination for Israeli Arabs, and apartheid for Palestinians.”

Speaking last night at the Greenburgh town hall, Levy outlined the three deeply flawed beliefs that rule Israel’s increasingly extremist politics: As Jews, we are the chosen people and can do whatever we want; the Holocaust renders us the biggest and only victims in history – “The only occupation in history where the occupier presents itself as the victim” – and because Palestinians aren’t really human, killing them isn’t really a violation of human rights. In response to this criminal mindset, Levy counters with the blunt reality of his country: “If two peoples share one piece of land, and one people gets all the rights in the world, and the other people don’t get any rights, this is apartheid. There is no other way to call it.” In the end, he insists, “The struggle, the discourse is simple – equal rights for all.”

Because Israelis are too blind and brainwashed to change from within, Levy called for international pressure, intervention and boycott to force them to respond. Even amidst ongoing violence, he offered hopeful models from the past: the end of apartheid in South Africa, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “many times in history things happen in the most unexpected way.” Israel too can fall, he suggested, like a big tree that one day mysteriously crashes down, because “it turns out to be totally rotten from the inside.” Many thanks to Mondoweiss for this video.

20 Oktober 2015

By Anand Singh

Last year, when Israel was carrying out one of the most barbaric genocides of this century by bombarding the Gaza strip, justice-loving people across the world, including India, were out on streets to protest. But it was the same time, when frenzied triumphalism of Hindutva fascists was at its peak in the corridors of power. Now more than a year has elapsed since the Hindutva fascists came to power in India under the leadership of Narendra Modi. As expected, the BJP government has made it clear through its conduct in the last one year that Hindutva fascists and Zionists are the ideological kins. To strengthen this bonhomie, Narendra Modi has announced his visit to Israel. As a gesture of friendship, Modi government has thrice abstained from voting in United Nations in the last three months, instead of voting against Israel.

India’s relationship with Israel started getting warmer as India embarked upon the path of neo-liberalism, when the Congress government of P V Narsimha Rao established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. After that, Deve Gowda’s United Front government signed the Barak missile agreement, which also marked the beginning of defense ties with Israel. Notably, parliamentary and pseudo communists were part of that government and they had a portfolio as important as the home ministry with them. Atal Bihari Vajpayee led NDA government took the relations with Israel to new heights. It was the same time, when the cannibal prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon visited India. It was the first visit to India by an Israeli prime minister. Between 2004 and 2014 also, the process of expanding the defense ties with Israel, continued uninterrupted, during Manmohan Singh led Congress rule.

The efforts to strengthen the relationship with Israel had started ever since Modi led Hindutva forces came to power last year. While Israel was bombing Gaza, the Hindutvavadis refused to conduct a debate in the parliament on this issue so as not to cause any embarrassment to their Zionist friends. Last year in September, during the UN General Assembly session in New York, Modi shook his hands which is stained with the blood of innocent victims of Gujarat genocide with that of Netanyahu which was immersed with the fresh blood of the innocent victims of Gaza genocide. Netanyahu seemed overwhelmed with this meeting as if he had found his lost cousin. He immediately invited Modi to visit Israel. Modi has already visited Israel as the chief minister of Gujarat, this will be his first visit as prime minister.

After Modi-Netanyahu meet, Defense Acquisition Council sanctioned defense projects worth Rs.8 billion. Out of this, Rs.5 billion will be spent to build six submarines for the Navy. Rs.320 million will be spent in the purchase of 8000 Spike, Israeli anti-tank guided missiles. It is to be noted that India has preferred this Israeli missile over American Javelin missile, for which USA had been lobbying for a long time. Also, the US defense minister Chuck Hagel lobbied for this missile to sell to India during his last visit. But preferring Israeli missiles over the American ones reveals the deep relationship between Hindutvavadis and Israeli Zionists. Israel also wants to sell to India its anti-missile system Iron Dome, in future.

At the beginning of November last year, home minister Rajnath Singh visited Israel. After Lal Krishna Advani, who visited Israel in year 2000, this was the first visit by any Indian home minister. During this visit, Rajnath Singh invited Israeli defense companies to invest in India as part of the ‘Make in India’ campaign. During his meeting with the Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, he especially underlined Modi government’s decision to grant concessions to FDI in the defense sector. Israeli defense minister expressed his intent to transfer cutting-edge technologies to India in the field of defense. During the visit, Rajnath Singh also visited Israeli military checkpoints on the Gaza border. Authorities said that Singh seemed quite impressed with the modern technology being used by Israel for their border security. This technology includes the long range day and night camera observation system. Besides, Rajnath Singh was also quite impressed with the radar system allowing detection of cross-border movement up to several kilometers. Not only this, he also seemed impressed with the seismic system motion sensors employed to crackdown on any efforts to dig tunnels on the Gaza border. Obviously, Israel is planning to sell these technologies to India in future. Demonstration of these technologies to Rajnath Singh can be understood only in this context.

Several countries of the world have limited their trade relations with Israel as part of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement going on since last decade, which has endangered its economic growth. In this context, Israel’s growing relationship with India is proving to be a boon for its economy. India is one of the few countries, besides US, with which Israel’s defense and trade relations are prospering. India is the largest importer of weapons being sold by Israel and Israel is the second largest supplier to India among all countries. Not only defense, Israel has opened its centers of excellence in many Indian states in the fields of water conservation and irrigation etc. for technical assistance and has plans to open several more in the coming days. With Hindutva forces in power, the spectre of Islamic terrorism is being erected yet again. A famous Israeli historian has termed the strategy of killing innocents in the name of anti-terrorism by Israel, as ‘Incremental Genocide’. Hindutva fascists are desperate to learn this skill of incremental genocide from their ideological kins, so that they can practice it in India too. Modi’s upcoming trip to Israel needs to be understood from this perspective.

Anand Singh is an activist and writer associated with a labour monthly ‘Mazdoor Bigul’ and a students-youth magazine ‘Ahwan’. He is also part of a forum called ‘Indian People in Solidarity with Palestine’ which was launched last year to express the solidarity of Indian people with the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people.

19 October, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Garikai Chengu

Tuesday marks the four-year anniversary of the US-backed assassination of Libya’s former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the decline into chaos of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

Today, Libya is a failed state. Western military intervention has caused all of the worst-scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for ISIS terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

Libya currently has two competing governments, two parliaments, two sets of rivaling claims to control over the central bank and the national oil company, no functioning national police or army, and the United States now believes that ISIS is running training camps across large swathes of the country.

On one side, in the West of the nation, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other key cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was previously elected.

On the other side, in the East of the nation, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything. The democracy which Libyans were promised by Western governments after the fall of Colonel Gaddafi has all but vanished.

Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States. However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised merely of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process. Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.

For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.

For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and an invariably wealthy local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

America’s bombing campaign of 2011 has not only destroyed the infrastructure of Libya’s democracy, America has also actively promoted ISIS terror group leader Abdelhakim Belhadj whose organization is making the establishment of Libyan democracy impossible.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups in North Africa and the Middle East will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side Western nations and extremist political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

Since then America has used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against Soviet expansion, the Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia and the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least there is Al-Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization throughout the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means “the base” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq.

ISIS is metastasizing at an alarming rate in Libya, under the leadership of one Abdelhakim Belhadj. Fox News recently admitted that Mr. Belhadj “was once courted by the Obama administration and members of Congress” and he was a staunch ally of the United States in the quest to topple Gaddafi. In 2011, the United States and Senator McCain hailed Belhadj as a “heroic freedom fighter” and Washington gave his organization arms and logistical support. Now Senator McCain has called Belhadj’s organization ISIS, “probably the biggest threat to America and everything we stand for.”

Under Gaddafi, Islamic terrorism was virtually non existent and in 2009 the US State Department called Libya “an important ally in the war on terrorism”.

Today, after US intervention, Libya is home to the world’s largest loose arms cache, and its porous borders are routinely transited by a host of heavily armed non-state actors including Tuareg separatists, jihadists who forced Mali’s national military from Timbuktu and increasingly ISIS militiamen led by former US ally Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Clearly, Gaddafi’s system of economic and direct democracy was one of the 21st century’s most profound democratic experiments and NATO’s bombardment of Libya may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest military failures of the 21st century.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com

19 October, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Jean Shaoul

General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, flew to Tel Aviv Sunday to discuss a 10-year military aid package worth some $3.7 billion a year. The pledge of increased American military support came in the midst of an increasingly brutal Israeli crackdown on Palestinians within both the occupied territories and Israel itself.

In his first overseas visit since assuming the post of joint chiefs chairman at the beginning of October, Dunford sought to play down the frosty relations in recent months between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Underscoring Washington’s support for the Israeli regime and its repression of the Palestinian masses, he said that “the military-to-military relationship had remained strong,” adding, “The challenges that we face, we face together.”

The Obama administration announced it would step up US military aid to Israel following the signing of the nuclear deal with Iran over the bitter opposition of Netanyahu, who directly campaigned for the US Congress to block implementation of the agreement.

US and Israeli officials have indicated that the size of the military package could well rise above $3.7 billion per year. Tel Aviv is pushing for more aid, claiming that Iran is likely to use sanctions relief to finance forces hostile to Israel, a reference to Iran’s support for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon is due to follow up Dunford’s visit with talks in Washington later this month, and Netanyahu will meet with President Barack Obama in the White House on November 9.

Dunford’s visit coincided with the launching of a joint US-Israeli air force drill in the southern Negev, set to last two weeks. The exercise, known as “Blue Flag,” is held twice a year and simulates a large-scale multinational air operation.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio also arrived in Israel for a three-day “solidarity mission at a difficult time.” The Democratic politician, who presents himself as a left-leaning “progressive,” wasted no time in lining up behind the Israeli government. He said Palestinian attacks on Israelis “must end” and called them “unconscionable and unacceptable” acts of violence. De Blasio is not scheduled to meet any Palestinian leaders. It is his first visit to Israel as mayor of New York.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is to meet Netanyahu in Germany before going on to a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah in a bid to restore calm. Netanyahu had been due to visit Berlin on October 8 for an annual joint cabinet meeting and talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel, but postponed the trip due to the violent clashes between Palestinians, Israeli security forces and Jewish settlers.

Kerry has been at pains not to blame Israel or the Palestinians for the recent wave of violence, saying, “I am not going to point fingers [at the culprits] from afar.” His public caution reflects concerns within the Obama administration that the escalating violence could ignite protests throughout the Arab world, potentially disrupting Israel’s relations with its Arab and Muslim neighbours, with whom it has been covertly working in support of the US-backed war to topple the Assad regime.

Recent incidences of individual attacks by Palestinians on Israelis, mainly in East Jerusalem, are the outcome of relentless repression on the part of Israeli authorities combined with pervasive poverty and unemployment. Three quarters of the population in Arab East Jerusalem live below the official Israeli poverty line. Protests in the enclave have increased sharply since Jewish extremists kidnapped 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir from the Shuafat neighbourhood, poured gasoline down his throat and set him afire. That atrocity occurred just days before Israel launched a 49-day war that killed over 2,300 Gazans and wounded another 10,900, mainly civilians.

Last week, Israel denounced a Palestinian call at the United Nations for an international force to protect Palestinian worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, also known as Temple Mount, in Jerusalem’s Old City. The al-Aqsa mosque has been at the centre of the escalating violence, amid fears that the government plans to open the site to Jewish prayer in contravention of the 1994 Peace Treaty with Jordan, which retains ultimate control over religious affairs at the compound.

The new Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told reporters on Friday, “Israel will not agree to any international presence on the Temple Mount. … Any such intervention would violate the decades-long status quo.”

Yesterday, Netanyahu rejected a French proposal for international observers at the mosque. He said, “Israel cannot accept the French draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council,” adding, “It doesn’t mention Palestinian incitement; it doesn’t mention Palestinian terrorism; and it calls for the internationalisation of the Temple Mount.”

Jordan, Washington’s client, has also opposed the deployment of an international force. Its ambassador to the UN, Dina Kawar, said she was not pushing for an international force, although she called for Israeli security forces to stay away from al-Aqsa.

Over the weekend, Israeli security forces shot and killed at least five more Palestinians. This brings to at least 56 the number of Palestinians killed by security forces this month, including 18 alleged assailants who were shot on the spot. Most of the victims were killed in clashes in the West Bank or along the Gaza border. A pregnant woman and her 2-year-old daughter were killed by Israeli air strikes on Gaza.

In the southern city of Beersheba, an assailant shot and killed an Israeli soldier, took his gun, and shot and wounded 10 others, including four police officers, at the central bus station. Israeli police said they killed one attacker who they thought was a Palestinian and critically wounded another, who is now believed not to be a second attacker, but an Eritrean migrant. This brings the total number of Israelis killed in attacks by lone Palestinians to eight this month.

Last week, nine Israeli human rights organisations issued a statement, based on videos and photographs taken on bystanders’ cameras, challenging the accuracy of Israeli accounts of the shootings and killings by security forces. The organisations said the videos provided clear evidence that police were carrying out a “quick to shoot to kill” policy, rather than arresting Palestinians in Jerusalem and Israel they suspected of attacking Israeli Jews. They also noted that the Palestinians had been shot despite posing no physical threat to security forces.

Adalah, a legal centre for Israeli Palestinians, and Addameer, a Palestinian NGO defending prisoners’ rights, say Israeli officials are blocking any investigation of one of the filmed shootings—of Fadi Alloun on October 4. Videos show a police officer shooting the 19-year-old Alloun even though he posed no threat. Alloun had been chased by a mob of Israeli Jews accusing him of a stabbing that had occurred earlier and demanding his execution.

The government has authorised the use of live ammunition against Palestinians who throw stones in Israel and East Jerusalem, thereby bringing the practice of extra-judicial executions from the West Bank to Israel itself. While the Palestinians in the West Bank live under military rule, Palestinians in Israel, including East Jerusalem, which Israel illegally annexed after the 1967 war, are subject to civil law.

On Saturday night, some 1,500 Jewish and Palestinian Israelis rallied in Jerusalem to call for an end to the weeks of violence and a resumption of negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Meretz party leader and legislator Zahava Gal-On called on Netanyahu to accept the French proposal to deploy international observers to the Temple Mount. In Beersheba, some 150 Palestinian and Jewish activists formed a human chain in support of peace.
19 October, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Mark Moreno Pascual

The recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will expand corporate profits at the expense of people’s rights

A new addition to the growing number of “free trade” agreements (FTAs) took centerstage last Monday as the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries announced the conclusion of a mammoth “trade” deal that covers more than 60% of the global economy.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement has drawn strong opposition from countries involved in the negotiations as well as from people’s organisations around the world. It is deemed as a US-conceived treaty that is part of its pivot to Asia in an attempt to maintain its economic clout and counter the rise of China.

Why so secret?

Like all other FTAs, the TPP is negotiated behind closed doors—only corporate advisors and lobbyists are given exclusive access to the text. In 2010, TPP member states agreed not to release the negotiating text until four years after an actual agreement has been made and/or abandoned.[i] This elicits the obvious question—why keep it a secret? What is in the text that compels negotiating governments to hide it away from public scrutiny?

Here’s a hint: the only way to complete the deal is to keep it hidden from the very people who would have to live with its consequences.

The ISDS and expanding corporate rights

Often dubbed as ‘NAFTA[1] on steroids,’ the TPP includes a scandalous clause on investment that would give enormous powers to corporations. Albeit negotiated in secret, leaked sections of the agreement indicate the TPP’s full endorsement of the notorious NAFTA corporate tribunals otherwise known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). [ii]

The ISDS is a dispute settlement modality that allows corporations and foreign investors to sue governments over actions perceived as detrimental to expected future profits.[iii] In other words, the TPP would grant corporations the right to file legal complaints against governments for policies inimical to profit-making such as raising the minimum wage or increasing the quality of basic social services as both actions would cost corporations more capital outlay and therefore less profit.

Under TPP rules, signatory countries would be obliged to conform their domestic policies, laws and regulations in accordance with the agreement. Any constitutional protection afforded by national laws would be wiped out to give way to greater corporate control.

Privatisation and diminishing state regulation

Based on the leaked drafts, it would also appear that one of the TPP’s key objectives is to diminish the state’s role in national development. Under the guise of “regulatory cooperation,” enormous pressure is coming from big US businesses that want to “level the playing field” between the private sector and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) citing the unfair advantage given to the latter.

SOEs play an important role in providing public goods to citizens at a cheaper price – all because of the preferential treatment and subsidy provided by the government. By regulating SOEs to comply with open market standards, procurement rounds would be overrun by big foreign corporations that can freely dictate prices for consumer goods and services. In addition, social services provided by SOEs that are deemed non-profitable would be disposed and/or opened to private sector acquisition. Ultimately under TPP conditions, SOEs will be privatized and their structure will be overhauled to align with commercial objectives, effectively subsuming any prior commitment to provide public service.[iv]

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and its impact on health, farming and internet freedom

Perhaps one of the most dangerous elements of the TPP is the section on IPR rules that contain far-reaching implications across sectors. For farmers, this would entail restrictions in the use of seeds that have patented materials. IPR rules will also extend medicine patent rights for up to 25 years enabling big pharmaceutical companies to monopolize the drug market and keep charging high prices without generic competition.[v] Lastly, the TPP provision on data privacy will severely limit internet freedom by compelling internet service providers to spy on user activity, and cut user access to common-generated content such as YouTube among others.[vi]

APEC Manila: A prelude for things to come

The APEC Ministerial meetings scheduled in Manila from 18-19 November comes as an opportune moment for the US and its cohorts to celebrate their recent victory with the signing of the largest ‘free trade’ agreement ever concluded worldwide in more than a decade. With the TPP now in place and more importantly, open to new members, APEC Manila is expected to serve as a victory lap that aims to encourage other APEC member countries to join this new trade pact. In effect, it becomes a prelude to cement a larger (or even an APEC-wide) trade deal that serves the interests of the US and its corporations.

At the eve of the APEC ministerial, people’s organisations, women, youth, indigenous peoples, migrants, workers, farmers and international activists will gather in Manila for the International Festival for People’s Rights and Struggles (IFPRS 2015) as part of a series of anti-APEC/TPP activities and protest actions to register the people’s demands for a socially just world.

As the experiences of the world’s poor and working class have shown, the TPP and other free trade agreements in the offing could only mean one thing: a new world trade disorder where corporate privileges continue to expand at the expense of people’s rights and welfare.

Mark Moreno Pascual (@makoypascual) currently works as Communications Officer for IBON International – a southern International NGO working for peoples rights and democracy. Before that, he spent some years doing research and advocacy with the progressive youth movement in the Philippines campaigning against tuition fee increases and for students rights and welfare.
[1] North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a trade agreement signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States creating a trilateral rules-based trade bloc in North America

WORKS CITED:

[i] Wallach, L. (2012, June 27). NAFTA on Steroids: The Transpacific Partnership would grant enormous new powers to corporations, is a massive assault on democracy. Retrieved from: http://www.thenation.com/article/nafta-steroids/

[ii] Krajewski, M. (2014). Modalities for investment protection and Investor- State-Dispute-Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspective. Brussels: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

[iii] Corporate Europe Observatory (2012). Profiting from injustice: how law firms, arbitrators and financiers are fuelling an investment arbitration boom. Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.

[iv] Kelsey, J. (2012, March 4). The Risks of Disciplines on State-Owned Enterprises in the Proposed Transpacific Partnership Agreement. Retrieved from: http://www.itsourfuture. org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Kelsey-TPP-SOE-paper.pdf

[v] Kelsey, J. (2011, October 22). Leaked Trans-Pacific FTA Texts Reveal US Undermining Access to Medicine. Retrieved from: http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/ uploads/2011/10/TransPacific_RegCoherenceMemo.pdf

[vi] Public Citizen. (2014, October 16). The TPP’s New Plant-Related Intellectual Property Provisions. Retrieved from Public Citizen: https://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-plant-related-ip-provisions.pdf
17 October, 2015
Countercurrents.org