Just International

THE 2016 BUDGET AND COMBATING CORRUPTION

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.

What if the Chinese were to ‘raise human rights’ with us?

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/

REPORT ON PLENARY 3 OF THE RHODES FORUM 2015

Theme: Which Way WANA?

Date: 10 October 2015.
Time: 9.00 am to 1.30 pm.

The Plenary Session was moderated by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. He began by explaining the significance of the theme underscored by the wars and conflicts in the region in the midst of multiple, overlapping crises. He then introduced the five speakers.

The first speaker was Dr. Ali Allawi, a former Minister in the Iraqi government (2003-2006) and an author. He talked of the factors that contributed towards the multiple conflicts in WANA including sectarian politics, the growing socio-economic gap between elites and masses and the demographic explosion. The situation had become so complex that only a conference that brought all the actors within and without the region together in a sort of ‘Congress of Vienna’ type of meeting would be able to offer some solutions.

The second speaker was Professor Elena Savicheva an expert in International Relations and lecturer from Russia who argued that issues related to security lay at the root of many of the crises in WANA which was a major market for arms sales. Any attempt at resolving the crises must take into account the changing balance of power in the region.

The third speaker was Professor Jean Bricmont, an academic and political analyst from Belgium who spoke of the impact of Western interests and ideologies upon WANA. Their impact could be seen in Syria, among other places, which has descended into anarchy.

The fourth speaker was Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a scholar and activist from Palestine who traced some of the historical developments that have shaped the politics of his land. He was of the view that the remedy in Palestine under Israeli occupation for decades, and in many other conflict ridden states in WANA, lies in popular resistance. Apathy was the biggest enemy of justice.

The fifth and final speaker was Professor Richard Falk a scholar and human rights advocate from the United States and Turkey who analyzed the impact of the Sykes- Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the creation of Israel, the end of the Cold War, the 9-11 attack, Tahrir Square and the Arab uprisings upon WANA today. He also pointed out that WANA is one of the most ecologically vulnerable regions on earth. While it would continue to be blighted by sectarian politics and US helmed hegemony, he saw a glimmer of hope in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in relation to the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

About sixty minutes was set aside for interaction with the other participants. A number of them made comments and asked questions. The five speakers responded to the comments and questions.

The moderator then summed up the proceedings. He drew the attention of the session to the unique interplay of national, regional and global factors in the evolution of politics and economics in WANA. There was merit in the proposal to hold a conference that will address the root causes of the crises and conflicts in the region. The World Public Forum, he felt, should take up the suggestion. It would be in the interest of peace and security in the region and the world if the proposed conference could also focus upon the total elimination of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction in WANA.

Report prepared by Chandra Muzaffar.

19 October 2015.

The Palestinian Car Was Stolen by Israel, and It Must Be Returned

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

Hindutva Fascists And Barbaric Zionists Are Natural Partners!

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

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi, To Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

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

US Military Chief Pledges Increased Support As Israel Steps Up Attacks On Palestinians

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

 

TPP: Trading People For Profit

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

 

‘Global War On Terror’ : World War III On The Horizon?

By Sourav Banerjee

Since the Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 30th began airstrikes against ISIS and its affiliates in Syria at the request of the Syrian government, the world is thrown into a dark abyss of serious political turmoil. With at one side hubristic US and its allies including major powers like UK, France, Turkey, Canada and on the other Russia, Syria, Iran and now China along with Lebanon’s Hezbollah forces vying for a bigger pie in the strategic region, World War III is evidently not far from a reality, as we have the US government gratuitously threatening two nuclear powers. Ironically, both Washington and Moscow maintain their respective Syrian (mis)adventure is for the purpose of annihilating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot born out of Iraq and on prowl since 2003. However, deep beneath lay their real agendas hostile to each other that has created the crisis. For US, it is to topple the Bashar al-Assad government of Syria and install an American puppet regime as they did with Chile’s Allende government in another September 11, 1973, while Moscow’s main objective is to save its sole Middle Eastern ally from the US onslaught.

Such drastic change in the geopolitical equation in Syria as well as the world was evident when Putin declared in his UN speech on September 28 that Russia “can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world.” By this intolerable state of affairs Putin must have meant the US-manufactured crisis in the Middle East and south African countries, European refugee crisis, wide spread global Islamophobia, ISIS, sectarian violence, racism, apartheid, arbitrary regime change, military invasion of other countries, and plunder of foreign resources among many other ills, all of which gained maximum momentum since 9/11 towards an old Washington dream — “I am the monarch of all I survey.”

Pursuing its imperial aspirations quite systematically, post 9/11, in a theatre of ‘good over evil,’ US imperialism has been razing numerous nations to ground and murdering millions including women and children by whining stories of ‘terror’ and spawning enemies in different guises — al-Qaida, ISIS, Daesh, Taliban or their ‘state sponsors’. Every morning paper-boy brings some more from the battle fields of Afghanistan, Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq or South Africa to serve the mass hysteria on ‘terror’. There is never enough since the serial killing — the Global War on Terror (GWOT) — started fourteen years ago.

And all these make-believe efforts are to persuade that ‘America’ cares for democracy and peace; no matter if it yields heavy ‘collateral damage’(the recent being the killing of dozen’s of medics and patients in a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan). However, the beneficiaries of US neo-colonial policies knowingly abstain from condemning this war against humanity while it is ignorance for the majority of common masses, thanks to the corporate-mainstream media nexus that strives to keep people in dark. Rather, it has artistically embedded in our active consciousness that it’s not our goddamn business; there is a messiah to rid us all from evil. There is America.

And indeed. The country has deployed its ‘Seals’ and ‘Marines’ in thousands for ‘selfless humanitarian intervention’ in every corner of the world at the cost of trillions of dollars in order to fulfil its commitment towards saving democracy and deliver justice. America will never tolerate any entity depriving people of justice, equality and democracy; so it swears before invading any nation or state in search of evil. The world is now convinced and also grateful that the messianic decades long military campaign to eliminate terror from earth was launched by the then US President Bush and later carried on by apostles like Obama, Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron and their counterparts in France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel et al.

But appearances are not necessarily to be true. Thanks to the social and alternative media, it is no more a secret, or ‘conspiracy theory’ that Taliban to al-Qaida or present day ISIS, all were manufactured by US to serve its vested economic and political interests in various strategic regions. But in a tragic twist, with the rise of once loyal fundamentalist forces, the political architect of the crisis is now fighting the monster Frankestine, which it has created and reared out of a crooked intention to savouring political and cultural hegemony over the world and usurp all its rich resources.

The propaganda machinery has always mislead about the ‘compulsions’ behind waging such war. In case of ‘Global War on Terror’, a well organised media disinformation campaign was set to demonise al-Qaeda even before any investigation report confirms the group’s handiwork behind the 9/11 attacks. In order to hide the US state’s failure in providing security to its citizens and therefore converge every attention to al-Qaeda’s brutality and further affirm Laden as the West’s biggest enemy, a plethora of al-Qaeda related stories ranging from terrorist threats, beheading videos, religious fanaticism to regime change was brewed and served chilled on a daily basis in various medias. The theatric crash of the World Trade Centre (WTC) on 9/11 morning, simultaneous attacks on other major installations including Pentagon, and the loss of numerous innocent lives were used as a pretext and justification to manufacture public consent for the invasion campaign, while in essence it was to carry out a global war of conquest, solely to have a greater influence on the oil, natural gas, nuclear material and poppy rich “state sponsors of terrorism” — Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya and others — and also to safeguard its bases in the strategic region. In a March 2, 2007, Democracy Now! interview, retired four-star General Wesley Clark said that soon after the Sept 11, 2001 events, a general called to tell him that the US was going to invade Iraq and would “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off with Iran.” No doubt the informer was right, as the Mozart of war composed the whole orchestra long before 9/11, and have been playing it beautifully at the face of people, while the ideals of “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) bark at the moon. No one asks ‘why’, as we are only fed with ‘what’. However, truth too has its day.

Afghanistan Drama

After a meeting in Washington on the following morning of 9/11 (September 12, 2001) between the then head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmed and then US Secretary Colin Powell, Pakistan offered to assist the US in “going after Bin Laden”. The same day NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus a full-fledged war in derogation of international law which considers the war propaganda as a criminal act under ‘Nuremberg: Crime against the Peace’ provision, began. Meanwhile, the Afghan government twice offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US. However, President Bush rejected it as America “does not negotiate with terrorists”. Twenty-six days later on the morning of October 7, 2001, the war on Afghanistan was launched. Organising and executing such major military operation thousands of miles away which according to military experts otherwise takes months to up to a year, confirms that the war on Afghanistan was already underway long before September 11, 2001, and also corroborates the long-suppressed intelligence report that Washington had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

According to a hard-core investigative report (CBS news, Dan Rather, January 28, 2002) by a team of CBS news journalists including one of the reliable foreign correspondents in the industry, Barry Petersen, the Pakistan government, the most trusted ally of US in war against terror, in collusion with its intelligence wing ISI admitted the ‘enemy number one’ to the urology ward of a military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001. One would wonder, why then Laden was not arrested at the first place and a gory aftermath prevented? Had he been arrested, the humanity would have saved from the psychological scar of 9/11 and immeasurable loss and damage Laden-hunt yielded. But then what about an Osama legend, which apart from justifying the invasion of Afghanistan, generated maximum TRP thus billion dollar media economy in the course of last fourteen years?

The History of Islamic State

Though the IS today has risen to prominence as much as Obama did after being elected as a first black President of US, the group and its leaders have been shrouded in myth and mystery since its foundation by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — a Sunni militant from Jordan — in 1999. The confusion over its existence and modus operandi is so embarrassing that even the US government has to admit that the Islamic State’s second leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi never existed. Another top rank IS leader, Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, is so elusive that the global intelligence could gather only two photographs and one video recording of him in existence. Such fictitious existence of the most sought after enemies forced the US security experts to admit in a sly, “They know physically who this guy is, but his backstory is just myth.”

However, the Islamic State is a caliphate established by a jihadist Islamic group with an objective to establish Salafist government over the Levant region of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and Southern Turkey. Apart from 80,000 fighters, the group possesses convoys of identical Toyota trucks (thanks to the US), and a top grade arsenal including Stinger missiles, US-made anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank weapons, Blackhawk helicopters and cargo planes, and even Scud missiles of Gulf War fame. The group also allegedly got hold of nuclear materials from Iraq’s Mosul University, but the IAEA believes the material is too sub-standard to be a nuclear threat. Though initiated at as early as 1997-98, the so-called Islamic State became a violent phenomenon just a decade ago, evidently as a reaction to US policies and actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

The Father of terror

Numerous evidence including official documents of the US Congress and testimonies of US intelligence officials confirms the fact that al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war in 1980s and the US had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but in the wake of the Cold War “he (Osama Bin Laden) turned against us”. Bin Laden was 22 years old when he was enrolled and later trained in one of the CIA sponsored guerrilla training camps of the “Islamic freedom fighters” in Afghanistan unconditionally supported and endorsed by the Reagan administration. “Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the (Islamic) Jihad,” notes one source (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May, 2005). “The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,” reads another Washington Post article dated 23 March 2002. Such was the provocation. There is no doubt that like Laden many others must have been introduced to the business of ‘holy war’ either in school or through such CIA funded newspaper advertisements seeking Afghan and muslim youths to join Jihad.

In another equation related to Cuba, much of southern Florida had been home to a big training camp for anti-Castro terrorists for decades. Students graduated from these camps have carried out hundreds of heinous terrorist acts in the US as well as abroad including bombing of a Cuban airliner (Cubana de Aviacion Flight 455) in flight on October 6, 1976, killing all 73 people on board. But no wonder, it was never included in the ‘terror list’. Nor were the US supported Contras of Nicaragua in the 1980s, which was leading a ‘counter revolution’ opposing the Sandinista Junta government of Nicargua and had over 1300 deadly terror attacks in their kitty. In former CIA director Stansfield Turner’s admission, “I believe it is irrefutable that a number of the Contras’ actions have to be characterised as terrorism, as State-supported terrorism.” The same applies to groups in Kosovo and Bosnia with close ties to al-Qaeda and Laden which have allied themselves with Washington’s agenda in the former Yugoslavia since the 1990s. Throughout the post 9/11 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, and Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert and at times direct support to the al-Qaeda affiliated radical Islamist organisations like Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA). US proximity with a Taliban led Pakistani group Jundullah, which had kidnapped and killed more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials in cross-border attacks has been doing rounds in the intelligence circle. Thousands of Ladens are being produced everyday from such US-backed terror groups while America becomes an awkward father. With its failed policies fuelling the expansion of al-Qaeda like violent groups in over 20 countries, there is hardly any room to argue if Laden symbolises terrorism, then US stands for the father of terror.

The US Culture of Violence: Columbus to Obama

The United States has conducted war in brutal ways since before the country was founded, and perhaps so the country inherits a deep culture of violence, evident from its foreign policies as well as gun violence back home. Columbus discovered the continent and enslaved millions of indigenous peoples. He slaughtered them in thousands, “treated them as workhorse animals and sex slaves; fed live natives to his dogs, cut off the hands of those who did not work hard enough” and thus began a process of ethnic cleansing across the continent and gifted us with America. His son was one of the originators of the African slave trade.

That Columbus way of tyranny and war was pursued by almost all who ascended the throne of America there after, and it is still in vogue. Throughout the 19th century, the doctrine of Manifest Destiny — a widely held belief in the US that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent — gave the United States an impetus for a vigorous expansion across North America by capturing new territories, which saw a massive genocide and displacement of millions of American Indian tribes. Post Spanish-American War (1898) and World War I (1914) the country earned the status of a global super power and after WW II it became almost invincible with being the first country to develop nuclear weapons. Then began the era of Cold War (1947), named after its characteristics of indirect, compressed, small-scale proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. From 1965 to 1973, US Army dropped eight million tons of napalm bombs and between 1962 and 1971, it sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange — the chemical poison that not only kills people and causes serious health problems for generations, but also poisons the land beyond use — over Vietnam, destroying 5 million acres of forest lands and 24 million acres of agricultural land. Even bombing hospitals as a weapon of terror too were rampant. The US bombed Hanoi’s Bach Mai hospital on December 22, 1972, in which 28 doctors and nurses lay dead among the civilian casualties. During the Iraq invasion (2003), health services were categorically attacked under the Presidency of Sr George Bush. On November 9, 2003, US bombed the Hai Nazal Hospital in Falluja killing 35 patients, 15 medics, 4 nurses, 5 support staff and 4 doctors (The Nation, 13 December). Obama too is consistent with Columbus-like psychopathic compulsions of his predecessors, as his troops and allies are currently wreaking havoc in home and abroad. In a tragic similarity, he too bombed a charity hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan hardly a month back.

Washington’s obsession with power and profit unfolds a foretold era of global cricis including the absolute criminalisation of the American state back home. World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks further gave birth to the most paranoid country on earth, while the world saw the total collapse of civil liberties and democratic rights through the militarisation of US foreign policies seeking to achieve absolute dominance over the world. Washington’s vicious politics have done enough damage to the human civilisation and it is the time for people to resist and seek justice and “if there’s any justice it would result in the arrest of those who lead us into war in Iraq,” as a former CIA acting director said. And justice is not faraway, because “a state cannot survive treason (Roman philosopher Marcus Cicero).”

Sourav Banerjee is a political activist, writer and works as an editor with a US based publication house. He can be reached at souravbanerjee25@yahoo.co.in

17 October, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists

By Erika Solomon in Beirut, Guy Chazan and Sam Jones in London

Jihadis’ oil operation forces even their enemies to trade with them

On the outskirts of al-Omar oilfield in eastern Syria, with warplanes flying overhead, a line of trucks stretches for 6km. Some drivers wait for a month to fill up with crude.

Falafel stalls and tea shops have sprung up to cater to the drivers, such is the demand for oil. Traders sometimes leave their trucks unguarded for weeks, waiting for their turn.

This is the land of Isis, the jihadi organisation in control of swaths of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The trade in oil has been declared a prime target by the international military coalition fighting the group. And yet it goes on, undisturbed.

Oil is the black gold that funds Isis’ black flag — it fuels its war machine, provides electricity and gives the fanatical jihadis critical leverage against their neighbours.

But more than a year after US President Barack Obama launched an international coalition to fight Isis, the bustling trade at al-Omar and at least eight other fields has come to symbolise the dilemma the campaign faces: how to bring down the “caliphate” without destabilising the life of the estimated 10m civilians in areas under Isis control, and punishing the west’s allies?

The resilience of Isis, and the weakness of the US-led campaign, have given Russia a pretext to launch its own, bold intervention in Syria.

Despite all these efforts, dozens of interviews with Syrian traders and oil engineers as well as western intelligence officials and oil experts reveal a sprawling operation almost akin to a state oil company that has grown in size and expertise despite international attempts to destroy it.

Minutely managed, Isis’ oil company actively recruits skilled workers, from engineers to trainers and managers.

Estimates by local traders and engineers put crude production in Isis-held territory at about 34,000-40,000 bpd. The oil is sold at the wellhead for between $20 and $45 a barrel, earning the militants an average of $1.5m a day.

“It’s a situation that makes you laugh and cry,” said one Syrian rebel commander in Aleppo, who buys diesel from Isis areas even as his forces fight the group on the front lines. “But we have no other choice, and we are a poor man’s revolution. Is anyone else offering to give us fuel?”

Oil as a strategic weapon

Isis’ oil strategy has been long in the making. Since the group emerged on the scene in Syria in 2013, long before they reached Mosul in Iraq, the jihadis saw oil as a crutch for their vision for an Islamic state. The group’s shura council identified it as fundamental for the survival of the insurgency and, more importantly, to finance their ambition to create a caliphate.

Most of the oil Isis controls is in Syria’s oil-rich east, where it created a foothold in 2013, shortly after withdrawing from the north-west — an area of strategic importance but with no oil. These bridgeheads were then used to consolidate control over the whole of eastern Syria after the fall of Mosul in 2014.

When it pushed through northern Iraq and took over Mosul, Isis also seized the Ajil and Allas fields in north-eastern Iraq’s Kirkuk province. The very day of its takeover, locals say, militants secured the fields and engineers were sent in to begin operations and ship the oil to market.

“They were ready, they had people there in charge of the financial side, they had technicians that adjusted the filling and storage process,” said a local sheikh from the town of Hawija, near Kirkuk. “They brought hundreds of trucks in from Kirkuk and Mosul and they started to extract the oil and export it.” An average of 150 trucks, he added, were filled daily, with each containing about $10,000-worth of oil. Isis lost the fields to the Iraqi army in April but made an estimated $450m from them in the 10 months it controlled the area.

While al-Qaeda, the global terrorist network, depended on donations from wealthy foreign sponsors, Isis has derived its financial strength from its status as monopoly producer of an essential commodity consumed in vast quantities throughout the area it controls. Even without being able to export, it can thrive because it has a huge captive market in Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, diesel and petrol produced in Isis areas are not only consumed in territory the group controls but in areas that are technically at war with it, such as Syria’s rebel-held north: the region is dependent on the jihadis’ fuel for its survival. Hospitals, shops, tractors and machinery used to pull victims out of rubble run on generators that are powered by Isis oil.

“At any moment, the diesel can be cut. No diesel — Isis knows our life is completely dead,” says one oil trader who comes from rebel-held Aleppo each week to buy fuel and spoke to the Financial Times by telephone.

A national oil company

Isis’ strategy has rested on projecting the image of a state in the making, and it is attempting to run its oil industry by mimicking the ways of national oil corporations. According to Syrians who say Isis tried to recruit them, the group headhunts engineers, offering competitive salaries to those with the requisite experience, and encourages prospective employees to apply to its human resources department.

A roving committee of its specialists checks up on fields, monitors production and interviews workers about operations. It also appoints Isis members who have worked at oil companies in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East as “emirs”, or princes, to run its most important facilities, say traders who buy Isis oil and engineers who have worked at Isis-controlled fields.

Some technicians have been actively courted by Isis recruiters. Rami — not his real name — used to work in oil in Syria’s Deir Ezzor province before becoming a rebel commander. He was later contacted by an Isis military emir in Iraq via WhatsApp.

“I could choose whatever position I wanted, he promised me,” he said. “He said: ‘You can name your salary’.” Sceptical of the Isis project, Rami ultimately turned down the offer and fled to Turkey.

Isis also recruits from among its supporters abroad. In the speech he gave after the fall of Mosul, Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called not only for fighters but engineers, doctors and other skilled labour. The group recently appointed an Egyptian engineer who used to live in Sweden as the new manager of its Qayyara refinery in northern Iraq, according to an Iraqi petroleum engineer from Mosul, who declined to be named.

The central role of oil is also reflected in the status it is given in Isis’ power structures.

The group’s approach to government across the territories it controls is highly decentralised. For the most part, it relies on regional walis — governors — to administer territories according to the precepts laid down by the central shura.

However, oil — alongside Isis’ military and security operations and its sophisticated media output — is centrally controlled by the top leadership. “They are organised in their approach to oil,” said a senior western intelligence official. “That’s a key centrally controlled and documented area. It’s a central shura matter,” he added, referring to Isis’ ruling “cabinet”.

Until recently, Isis’ emir for oil was Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian whose real name, according to the Pentagon, was Fathi Ben Awn Ben Jildi Murad al-Tunisi, and who was killed by US special forces in a raid in May this year. According to US and European intelligence officials, a treasure trove of documentation relating to Isis’ oil operations was found with him. The documents laid bare a meticulously run operation, with revenues from wells and costs carefully accounted for. They showed a pragmatic approach to pricing too, with Isis carefully exploiting differences in demand across its territories to maximise profitability.

Oversight of the oil wells is carefully controlled by the Amniyat, Isis’ secret police, who ensure revenues go where they should — and mete out brutal punishments when they do not. Guards patrol the perimeter of pumping stations, while far-flung individual wells are surrounded by protective sand berms and each trader is carefully checked as he drives in to fill up.

At the al-Jibssa field in Hassakeh province, north-eastern Syria, which produces 2,500-3,000 bpd, “about 30-40 big trucks a day, each with 75 barrels of capacity, would fill up”, according to one Hassakeh oil trader.

Isis’ distribution network

But the biggest draw is al-Omar. According to one trader who regularly buys oil there, the system, with its 6km queue, is slow but market players have adapted to it. Drivers present a document with their licence plate number and tanker capacity to Isis officials, who enter them into a database and assign them a number.

Most then return to their villages, shuttling back to the site every two or three days to check up on their vehicles. Traders say that towards the end of the month, some people come back and set up tents to stay close to their trucks while they wait their turn.

Once in possession of al-Omar’s oil, the traders either take it to local refineries or sell it on at a mark-up to middlemen with smaller vehicles who transport it to cities further west such as Aleppo and Idlib.

Isis’ luck with oil may not last. Coalition bombs, the Russian intervention and low oil prices could put pressure on revenues. The biggest threat to Isis’ production so far, however, has been the depletion of Syria’s ageing oilfields. It does not have the technology of major foreign companies to counteract what locals describe as a slow drop in production. Isis’ need for fuel for its military operations means there is also less oil to sell in the market.

For now, though, in Isis-controlled territory, the jihadis control the supply and there is no shortage of demand. “Everyone here needs diesel: for water, for farming, for hospitals, for offices. If diesel is cut off, there is no life here,” says a businessman who works near Aleppo. “Isis knows this [oil] is a winning card.”

Additional reporting by Ahmad Mhidi, an independent journalist based on the Turkish border and Geoff Dyer in Washington

14 October 2015

http://www.ft.com/