Archives: Articles

By Jack A. Smith

“The United States seems destined to plague us with miseries in the name of liberty.”

Simon Bolivar, the Liberator of Latin America

“Once the United States is in Cuba, who will get it out?”

José Martí, Cuban national hero.

 

Fair minded people and governments around the world have praised the U.S. decision to finally ease up on Cuba after 55 years of unmitigated hostility. The final agreement, which included a prisoner swap, was hammered outin nine meetings over 18 months of secret talks in Canada between representatives of Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro, with the Vatican acting as intermediary.

But what is the true meaning of President Obama’s historic announcement Dec. 17 about establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and eliminating some — though hardly all — the diverse punishments imposed upon this small socialist society a stone’s throw away from the vengeful Yankee Colossus?

It means that efforts to destroy the communist government of Cuba — from a CIA invasion to the imposition of seemingly endless draconian economic and political sanctions—have failed. In this David-Goliath contest, David was seriously wounded, but won. However, there is a second round to this competition that will likewise test David’s powers.

Obama’s policy change does not signify Washington accepts the existence of socialist or communist governments in Latin America and the Caribbean. They remain forbidden in the hemisphere presided over by the world’s richest and most militarily powerful capitalist state. Washington’s continual effort to undermine Venezuela’s momentum toward socialism is one more evidence of this fact.

The United States remains dedicated to transforming or ejecting revolutionary socialism in Cuba but recognizes the old Cold War method didn’t work. The “bad cop” with the bludgeon botched the job, so the “good cop” with the smile takes over.

This is why Raul Castro, who became president when his ailing brother Fidel stepped down in 2006, made it clear in a speech Dec. 20 that communism will not fade away. “Every country has the inalienable right to choose its own political systems,” he said. “No one can claim that improving relations with the United States means Cuba is renouncing its ideas.” At the end of the speech he declared “Viva Fidel,” a tribute to the elderly infirm man who helped keep the wolf from the door all these years.

This new U.S. approach still remains an act of uninvited intervention by a powerful country into the affairs of a small country. Washington’s continuing intention is to transform a socialist society into a capitalist society in the name of bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to Cuba along with foreign investment and substantial support for “civil society” but not the government.

This perspective intentionally overlooks the liberalizing changes that been made by the Havana regime over the last several years under the leadership of President Castro and the Communist Party that are part of a long-range plan to modernize the society within a socialist context. The Obama Administration wants modernization toward capitalism, not socialism.

Obama’s speech and the just published White House “Fact Sheet” on Cuba make this clear if one reads between the lines.

In the speech, Obama declared: “In the most significant changes in our policy in more than 50 years, we will end an outdated approach that, for decades, has failed to advance our interests, and instead we will begin to normalize relations between our two countries….

“Proudly, the United States has supported democracy and human rights in Cuba through these five decades. We have done so primarily through policies that aimed to isolate the island, preventing the most basic travel and commerce that Americans can enjoy anyplace else. And though this policy has been rooted in the best of intentions, no other nation joins us in imposing these sanctions, and it has had little effect beyond providing the Cuban government with a rationale for restrictions on its people. Today, Cuba is still governed by the Castros and the Communist Party that came to power half a century ago…. I do not expect the changes I am announcing today to bring about a transformation of Cuban society overnight….U.S. engagement will be critical when appropriate and will include continued strong support for improved human rights conditions and democratic reforms.”

“Overnight?” The implication about an eventual transformation is clear in the fact sheet: “We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result…. Today, the President announced additional measures to end our outdated approach, and to promote more effectively change in Cuba that is consistent with U.S. support for the Cuban people and in line with U.S. national security interests.”

In effect, the White House indicated all that was wrong with its“well-intentioned” effort to crush a sovereign country was that it flopped. Actually, Washington’s anti-Cuba policy amounted to a gross long-term violation of the human rights of 11 million Cuban citizens in hopes they would rebel under such pressure, but they didn’t.

The program about which the Oval Office is “proud” included: Over five decades of strangulating economic and political sanctions;thousands of acts of subversion;an invasion and war;completely cutting off credit and loans from international banks; preventing free trade; hundreds of attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro;crop destructions, travel bans; uninterrupted anti-Cuban propaganda; and support for terrorist exile groups safely headquartered in Florida. Cuba’s only retaliation was to survive.

The U.S. added Cuba to Washington’s State Sponsor of Terrorism list 32 years ago, although the country has not engaged in or sponsored terrorism. The designation was intended to embarrass and further cripple the country by tightening restrictions. Among Obama’s new measures is a six-month study to determine whether the designation should be removed. Members of the Cuban Five, who were traded for a Cuban and American in the island’s prisons, were accused of spying on the U.S. but they actually were anti-terrorist agents eavesdropping on violent Cuban exile organizations in Florida. The U.S. was well aware of this fact when they jailed the five for 16 years.

Other aspects of President Obama’s new policy include: Discussions with Cuba on the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which the U.S. severed in July 1961; opening the embassy in Havana (until now called the U.S. Interests Section); carrying out high-level exchanges and visits; working with Cuba on matters of mutual concern and that advance U.S. national interests; ending, not just loosening travel restrictions; raising remittance levels from $500 to $2,000 per quarter for general donative remittances to Cuban nationals; efforts to empower the nascent Cuban private sector; initiating certain limited trade areas; availing Cuban citizens with more sophisticated communications equipment.

The remaining issue — the biggest — is sanctions, which have not been ended.Sanctions serve a critical function in crushing Cuba but have also become a major international humiliation for the United States. On Oct. 28 the UN General Assembly voted for the 23rd year in a row to condemn the U.S. commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba. This year’s vote was 188-2, with only Israel siding with Washington.

Obama indicated he wanted to drop sanctions but said that was a matter for Congress, where the Republicans will control both houses. He has some executive powers in this regard, but Congress is responsible for passing two of the most important anti-Cuba restrictions.Obama stated: “We cannot unilaterally bring down the embargo…. I don’t anticipate that that happens right away.” President Castro later noted, “an important step was taken, but the essential problem of the economic embargo still needs to be solved.” Without this, all talk of even a phony rapprochement is virtually meaningless.

Bipartisan sanctions, the worst of Washington’s retribution for Cuba’s choice of socialism, have been growing in strength since first launched in 1960 by President Eisenhower. President Kennedy increased sanctions in 1962 following his failed invasion a year earlier. In1992, after the Soviet Union imploded —a tragedy for Cuba, which lost its biggest trading partner by far — Congress passed the mislabeled Cuban Democracy Act that extended the economic and trade sanctions to subsidiaries of U.S. firms abroad. In 1996 President Clinton signed the cruelest measure of all, the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton bill, which not only bars any foreign company from trading with Cuba but also has an attached proviso permitting Congress to supersede a White House order to end the program.

Many Republicans, but not all, are determined to retain the sanctions, Many, but fewer Democrats, have supported the sanctions but most will now follow their president.

An encouraging sign in the end-sanctions argument is the fact that very large sectors of U.S. business and agriculture desperately want access to the Cuban market which has been deprived of many goods for decades.The New York Times reported Dec. 18: “Within hours of President Obama’s historic move to restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba, companies in the United States were already developing strategies to introduce their products and services to a market they have not been in for the better part of 50 years — if ever.”

In addition to the failure of the White House anti-Cuba policy up until now, another reason for changeis that the U.S.has lost considerable authority in Latin America and the Caribbean in the last 15 years. This is a region of nearly 600 million people over which Uncle Sam ruled for 100 or so years.

America’s prolonged mistreatment of Cuba by its northern neighbor is certainly a factor in reduced influence. Most Latin American governments have insisted on a change in U.S. behavior toward Havana. They have developed close relations with Cuba. Another factor has been Havana’s continual criticism of Washington’s neoliberal policies, which has had an important impact on the region and were picked up by progressive nations such as Venezuela and Bolivia, among others.

The reaction to Obama’s announcement from the nearly two million Cubans in the U.S. is more muted than anticipated. The mostly older “anti-Castro” hardliners are a passing breed. A small demonstration of the ultras took place in Miami Dec. 20, mainly denouncing Obama for selling them out. At the rally, according to the Times, Roberto Delgado Ramos, 78, declared that “all Obama is doing is throwing a lifeline to the Castros so that they can continue crushing the people of Cuba.”

Florida International University in Miami, which has been polling Cuban-Americans since 1991, reported in a recent poll of Cuban-Americans that 68% favor restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. (Among younger respondents, it was 90%.) Some 69% of all respondents favor the lifting of travel restrictions impeding all Americans from traveling to Cuba. Regarding elections, 53% said they would be likely to vote for a “candidate for political office who supported the reestablishment of diplomatic relations.”A large majority of 71% thought the U.S. embargo of Cuba either has not worked at all or has not worked very well.

The great majority of people in the United States know little about the situation in Cuba before what they have been told was a “communist takeover,” but it is a large factor explaining Havana’s intense commitment to national independence.

At 10 minutes after 2 o’clock on the New Year’s morning of Jan. 1, 1959, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista frantically boarded a plane in Havana to flee his country as liberation forces of the 26th of July Movement, led by Fidel Castro, were preparing to declare victory throughout the largest island in the Caribbean Sea after several years of intense struggle.

The peoples’ victorywas the first time in 467 years that Cuba was totally cleansed of foreign domination. This is certainly a compelling reason why loyalist Cubans have held on so tenaciously to national independence against the brutal Yankee onslaught.

Spain claimed possession of the island when it was “discovered” by Christopher Columbus in 1492, oppressing the native people, African slaves and former slaves until 1898 when the U.S. seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War. The Cubans themselves, who had earlier launched two liberation wars that did not succeed, demanded control of their own country after Spain’s fall but were brushed aside by Washington.

U.S. military forces took command on Jan. 1, 1899. A one-sided independence arrangement was forced upon the Cubans in 1902 transforming the country in effect into a U.S. protectorate. Washington controlled much of Cuba — particularly its foreign affairs and lesser so the economy— ordering U.S. Marines to restore imperial order from time to time in the early decades of the relationship. (The right of the U.S. to occupysole use of Guantanamo for insignificant rent emanated from this period. Cuba has sought its return for decades but was thwarted. The territory now functions as a detention and torture facility for its high and mighty neighbor.)

Testifying before a Congressional committee soon after the 1959 revolution, former U.S. ambassador to Havana Earl Smith stated: “Until the advent of Castro… the American ambassador was the second most important [official] in Cuba, sometimes even more important than the [Cuban] president.” Batista, the last Washington puppet, was a corrupt, anti-democratic dictator who catered to the wealthy and U.S. criminal elements which invested heavily in turning Havana into a playground for foreign tourists, featuring big time gambling and prostitution.

It is amazing that the Havana governmentmanaged to survive Washington’s hostility,especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its associated countries nearly a quarter century ago. The U.S. created extremely hard times for the Cuban people, many of whom took advantage of the policy providing all those who reached American shoresfrom Cuba with an immediate green cardand various benefits to settle in Florida or New Jersey. This was done to embarrass the Havana government. In the early years after the revolution it was mainly the better off sector of the population that left for the U.S. Later, the reasons were largely economic.

Friends of Cuba throughout the world are overjoyed by the news Obama is modifying U.S. antagonism toward Cuba, and most also realize that Yankee “friendship” could well be a two-edged sword intended to “capture the castle from within.”

There can be little doubt, however, that once the economic boycott is terminated and the U.S. removes its chokehold of sabotage, propaganda and continual efforts to manipulate the political direction of the Havana government, Cuba at last will breathe freely and socialism will have the opportunity to flourish.

Jack A. Smith is editor of the Activist Newsletter and is former editor of the (U.S.) Guardian Newsweekly.

23 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By La Via Campesina, GRAIN

How the industrial food system contributes to the climate crisis. Between 44% and 57% of all GHG emissions come from the global food system

Deforestation: 15-18%

deforestation_1.jpgBefore the planting starts, the bulldozers do their job. Worldwide, industrial agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands and forests, ploughing under huge amounts of land. The FAO says the expansion of the agricultural frontier accounts for 70-90% of global deforestation, at least half of that for the production of a few agricultural commodities for export. Agriculture’s contribution to deforestation thus accounts for 15-18% of global GHG emissions.

Farming: 11-15%

farming.jpgIt is generally acknowledged that farming itself contributes 11-15% of all greenhouse gasses produced globally. Most of these emissions result from the use of industrial inputs, such as chemical fertilisers and petrol to run tractors and irrigation machinery, as well as the excess manure generated by intensive livestock keeping.

Transport: 5-6%

transport.jpgThe industrial food system acts like a global travel agency. Crops for animal feed may be grown in Argentina and fed to chickens in Chile that are exported to China for processing and eventually eaten in a McDonald’s in the US. Much of our food, grown under industrial conditions in faraway places, travels thousands of kilometres before it reaches our plates. We can conservatively estimate that the transportation of food accounts for a quarter of global GHG emissions linked to transportation, or 5-6% of all global GHG emissions.

Processing & packaging: 8-10%

processing.jpgProcessing is the next, highly profitable, step in the industrial food chain. The transformation of foods into ready-made meals, snacks and beverages requires an enormous amount of energy, mostly in the form of carbon. So does the packaging and canning of these foods. Processing and packaging enables the food industry to stack the shelves of supermarkets and convenience stores with hundreds of different formats and brands, but it also generates a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions – some 8 to 10% of the global total.

Freezing & Retail: 2-4%

freezing.jpgRefrigeration is the lynchpin of the modern supermarket and fast food chains’ vast global procurement systems. Wherever the industrial food system goes, so do cold chains. Considering that cooling is responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and that leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of GHGs, we can safely say that the refrigeration of foods accounts for some 1-2% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The retailing of foods accounts for another 1-2%.

Waste: 3-4%

waste.jpgThe industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, thrown out on the long journey from farms to traders, to food processors, and eventually to retailers and restaurants. A lot of this waste rots on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of GHGs. Between 3.5-4.5% of global GHG emissions come from waste, and over 90% of these are produced by materials originating within the food system.

Food sovereignty: 5 steps to cool the planet and feed its people

1. Take care of the soil

takecare.jpgThe food/climate equation is rooted in the earth. The expansion of unsustainable agricultural practices over the past century has led to the destruction of between 30-75% of the organic matter on arable lands, and 50% of the organic matter on pastures and prairies. This massive loss of organic matter is responsible for between 25% and 40% of the current excess CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. But the good news is that this CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere can be put back into the soil, simply by restoring the practices that small farmers have been engaging in for generations. If the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it. This would offset between 24-30% of all current global greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Natural farming, no chemicals

nochemicals.jpgThe use of chemicals on industrial farms is increasing all the time, as soils are further depleted and pests and weeds become immune to insecticides and herbicides. Small farmers around the world, however, still havethe knowledge and the diversity of crops and animals to farm productively without the use of chemicals by diversifying cropping systems, integrating crop and animal production, and incorporating trees and wild vegetation. These practices enhance the productive potential of the land because they improve soil fertility and prevent soil erosion. Every year more organic matter is built up in the soil, making it possible to produce more and more food.

3 Cut the food miles, and focus on fresh food

cut.jpgThe corporate logic that results in the shipment of foods around the world and back again, makes no sense from an environmental perspective, or any other perspective for that matter. The global trade in food, from the opening of vast swaths of lands and forests to produce agricultural commodities to the frozen foods sold in supermarkets, is the chief culprit in the food system’s overweight contribution to GHG emissions. Much of the food system’s GHG emissions can be eliminated if food production is reoriented towards local markets and fresh foods, and away from cheap meat and processed foods. But achieving this is probably the toughest fight of all, as corporations and governments are deeply committed to expanding the trade in foods.

4. Give the land back to the farmers, and stop the mega plantations

givetheland.jpgOver the past 50 years, a staggering 140 million hectares – the size of almost all the farmland in India – has been taken over by four crops grown predominantly on large plantations: soybeans, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane. The global area under these and other industrial commodity crops, all of them notorious emitters of greenhouse gases, is set to further grow if policies don’t change. Today, small farmers are squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmlands, but they continue to produce most of the world’s food – 80% of the food in non-industrialised countries says the FAO. Small farmers produce this food far more efficiently than big plantations, and in ways that are better for the planet. A worldwide redistribution of lands to small farmers, combined with policies to help them rebuild soil fertility and policies to support local markers, can reduce GHG emissions by half within a few decades.

5. Forget the false solutions, focus on what works

forget.jpgThere is growing recognition that food is central to climate change. The latest IPCC reports and international summits have recognised that food and agriculture are major drivers of GHG emissions and that climate change poses tremendous challenges to our capacity to feed a growing global population. Yet there has been zero political will to challenge the dominant model of industrial food production and distribution. Instead, governments and corporations are proposing a number of false solutions. There is the empty shell of Climate Smart Agriculture, which is essentially just a rebranding of the Green Revolution. There are new, risky technologies such as crops genetically engineered for drought resistance or large scale geo-engineering projects. There are mandates for biofuels, which are driving land grabs in the South. And there are carbon markets and REDD+ projects, that essentially allow the worst GHG offenders to avoid cuts in emissions by turning the forests and farmlands of peasants and indigenous peoples into conservation parks and plantations. None of these “solutions” can work because they all work against the only effective solution: a shift from a globalised, industrial food system governed by corporations to local food systems in the hands of small farmers.

La Via Campesina is the international movement which brings together millions of peasants, small and medium-size farmers, landless people, women farmers, indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world. It defends small-scale sustainable agriculture as a way to promote social justice and dignity. It strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture and transnational companies that are destroying people and nature.

GRAIN is a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems

23 December, 2014
Grain.org

 

By Bill Van Auken

For the first time since the redeployment of US troops to Iraq, American military “advisers” have reportedly engaged in combat with elements of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the country’s embattled western Anbar Province.

The reported combat involved US troops based at Anbar’s al-Assad military base fighting alongside Iraqi army forces to drive back an ISIS attack on the town of al-Baghdadi. Al Jazeera cited the testimony of an Iraqi officer, First Lieutenant Muneer al Quod, who reported the fighting.

Reports of the battle described fighting as fierce, with multiple casualties on both sides. The ISIS forces were dislodged from the town only after several hours of clashes.

An unnamed senior US military officer was quoted by the Bloomberg news agency as saying that no US ground troops are fighting in Iraq, although American forces are authorized to act in self-defense as required. The officer insisted that the mission for the US forces in Iraq is “to prepare and support the country in fighting Islamic State forces, and no engagement with militant forces was being tracked.”

While such operations may not be “tracked” by the Pentagon for purposes of informing the public, the testimony of the Iraqi officer exposes the fact that they are taking place.

All the claims that US forces are merely “trainers” and “advisers”—not combat troops—and only act in self defense amount to carefully crafted semantics designed to conceal the political fact that, three years after proclaiming an end to all US military operations in Iraq, the Obama administration has launched a new war in which US troops are once again carrying out combat operations.

The reports of US soldiers engaging in combat came as it was announced that the main element of the 1,500 more US troops that President Barack Obama ordered to Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the midterm elections will be drawn from the 82nd Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One thousand paratroopers from the brigade are supposed to be deployed in January. They are in addition to a 250-member unit from the same brigade, whose deployment was announced in early December and is expected to begin by the end of the month. Each of these deployments is supposed to last for nine months.

In a statement released after the first deployment was announced, the brigade’s commander, Col. Curtis Buzzard, said those being sent were from a “well-led and highly trained unit with extremely talented and adaptable paratroopers. I know they are ready for any contingency and am confident they will accomplish the mission.”

The 82nd Airborne, which specializes in parachute assault operations, was among the main combat units used in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Its actions in Anbar province in the early days of the occupation included the April 2003 killing of 20 unarmed residents of Fallujah who had attempted to protest against the American troops occupying a local school. The massacre provoked popular resistance, which led to subsequent US sieges that demolished most of the city, killed thousands and reduced Fallujah’s population by at least 60 percent.

The announcement of the US military buildup came amid heavy fighting around the town of Sinjar in northwestern Iraq. Kurdish Peshmerga forces, reportedly numbering as many as 8,000, carried out one of the biggest operations since ISIS conquered one-third of the country beginning last June.

The Kurdish offensive was preceded by an intensive US air bombardment involving some 50 air strikes. It reportedly wrested the town of Sinjar from ISIS, though there were some reports of continuing fighting. It also ended ISIS control over the Sinjar mountains, scene of an earlier siege that trapped members of the Yazidi religious minority. It was “humanitarian” relief of this siege that was invoked as the pretext for beginning US air strikes last August. Afterwards, Washington’s concern for the Yazidis quickly faded.

Meanwhile, the profit interests served by the new US war were made plain in a pair of announcements by the State Department last week. The first revealed the approval of a proposed sale to Iraq of up to $2.4 billion in M1A1 Abrams tanks, produced by General Dynamics. The second authorized the sale to the regime in Baghdad of $579 million worth of up-armored Humvees made by AM General. Similar weaponry was supplied in the US endeavor to rebuild and train the Iraqi army during the nearly nine-year American occupation of the country. Much of that equipment ended up in the hands of ISIS in the debacle last June, which saw the US-trained forces disintegrate in the face of ISIS attacks.

23 December, 2014
WSWS.org

 

By Nicola Nasser

Defying a consensus that it is a priority by the world community comprising international rivals like the United States, Europe, Russia and China and regional rivals like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Israel, like Turkey, does not eye the U.S. – led war on the IS as its regional priority. Nor fighting Israel is an IS priority.

The Israeli top priority is to dictate its terms to Syria to sign a peace treaty with Israel before withdrawing its forces from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, Palestinian territories and Lebanese southern lands.

For this purpose, Israel is determined to break down the Syria – Iran alliance, which has been the main obstacle preventing Israel from realising its goals. Changing the ruling regime in either Damascus or Tehran would be a step forward. Towards this Israeli strategic goal the IS could not be but an Israeli asset.

“To defeat ISIS (The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as the IS was previously known) and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly last September.

Therefore, “it should not come as a surprise that the (Benjamin) Netanyahu government has not yet taken any immediate steps against IS,” according to Amos Harel, writing in Foreign Policy on September 15.

However, information is already surfacing that Israel is “taking steps” in the opposite direction, to empower the IS and other terrorist groups fighting and infighting in Syria.

Israeli daily Haaretz on last October 31 quoted a “senior Northern Command officer” as saying that the U.S. – led coalition “is making a big mistake in fighting against ISIS … the United States, Canada and France are on the same side as Hezbollah, Iran and [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad. That does not make sense.”

Regardless, on September 8 Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel has provided “satellite imagery and other information” to the coalition. Three days later Netanyahu said at a conference in Herzliya: “Israel fully supports President [Barack] Obama’s call for united actions against ISIS … We are playing our part in this continued effort. Some of the things are known; some of the things are less known.”
Obama’s call was the green light for Israel to support Syrian and non- Syrian rebels. Syrian official statements claim that Israel has been closely coordinating with the rebels.

Israeli statements claim theirs is confined to “humanitarian” support to “moderate” Syrian opposition, which the U.S. has already pledged to train and arm in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. A significant portion of the $64 billion earmarked for conflicts abroad in the budget legislation signed by Obama on December 19 will go to these “moderates.”

Both Israel and the U.S. have no headaches about whether the “moderates” would remain as such after being armed with lethal weapons or whether it remains appropriate to call them “opposition.”

But the Israeli “humanitarian” claim is challenged by the fact that Israel is the only neighbouring country which still closes its doors to Syrian civilian refugees while keeping its doors wide open to the wounded rebels who are treated in Israeli hospitals and allowed to return to the battle front after recovery.

IS close to Israeli borders

The Israeli foreign ministry on last September 3 confirmed that the U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff whom the IS had beheaded was an Israeli citizen as well. In a speech addressed to Sotloff’s family, Netanyahu condemned the IS as a “branch” of a “poisonous tree” and a “tentacle” of a “violent Islamist terrorism.”

On the same day Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon officially outlawed the IS and anyone associating with it.

On September 10, Netanyahu convened an urgent security meeting to prepare for the possible danger of the IS advancing closer to the Israeli border, a prospect confirmed by the latest battles for power between the IS and the al – Nusra Front on the southern Syrian – Lebanese borders and in southern Syria, within the artillery range of Israeli forces.

On November 9, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (ABM), which has been operating against the Egyptian army, released an audio clip pledging allegiance to the IS to declare later the first IS Wilayah (province) in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, south of Israel.

On last November 14 The Israeli Daily quoted Netanyahu as saying in a private defense meeting that the IS is “currently operating out of Lebanon … close to Israel’s northern border. We must take this as a serious threat.”

However, “in truth, as most of Israel’s intelligence community has been quick to point out, there are no signs that anything of the sort is actually happening,” according to Amos Harel, writing in Foreign Policy five days later.

Moshe Ya’alon told journalists in September that “the organization operates far from Israel” and thus presents no imminent threat. Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, on November 14, wrote: “The present and former generals who shape Israel’s policy can only smile when this ‘danger’ is mentioned.”

Israel “certainly does not see the group as an external threat” and the “Islamic State also does not yet pose an internal threat to Israel,” according to Israeli journalist and Associate Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Dimi Reider, writing in a Reuters blog on last October 21.

What Netanyahu described as a “serious threat” in the north does not yet dictate any Israeli action against it because “we must assume that Hizballah,” which is allied to Syria and Iran, “does not have its house in order,” according to the Israeli premier.

The presence of the IS Wilayah on its southern border with Egypt is preoccupying the country with an internal bloody anti-terror conflict that would prevent any concrete Egyptian contribution to the stabilization of the Arab Levant or support to the Palestinians in their struggle to end the Israeli occupation of their land, let alone the fact that this presence is already pitting Egypt against Israel’s archenemy, Hamas, in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and creating a hostile environment that dictates closer Egyptian – Israeli security coordination.

Therefore, Israel is not going to “interfere” because “these are internal issues of the countries where it is happening.” Israel is “informally … ready to render assistance, but not in a military way and not by joining the (U.S. – led) coalition” against the IS, according to the deputy head of the Israeli embassy in Moscow, Olga Slov, as quoted by Russian media on November 14.

Jordan is another story

However, Israel’s eastern neighbours in Jordan and Syria seem another story.

“Jordan feels threatened by IS. We will cooperate with them one way or another,” ambassador Slov said. Jordanian media has been reporting that more than 2000 Jordanians had already joined al-Qaeda splinter the IS, al-Qaeda’s branch al-Nusra Front or other rebels who are fighting for an “Islamic” state in Syria. Hundreds of them were killed by the Syrian Arab Army.

The Daily Beast on last June 27 quoted Thomas Sanderson, the co-director for transnational threats at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as saying that Israel considers the survival of Jordan as “a paramount national security objective.”

If Jordan requested Israeli assistance in protecting its borders, Israel would have “little choice” but to help, the Beast quoted the director of the Israeli National Security Council, Yaakov Amidror, as saying.

As a precaution measure, Israel is building now a 500-kilometre “security fence” on its border with Jordan.

While Israel is willing and getting ready to “interfere” in Jordan, it is already deeply interfering in Syria, where the real battle has been raging for less than four years now against terrorists led by the IS.

A few weeks ago The Associated Press reported that the IS and the al-Nusra had concluded an agreement to stop fighting each other and cooperate on destroying the U.S. – trained and supported rebels (The Syrian Revolutionaries Front and the Hazm movement) as well as the Syrian government forces in northern Syria.

But in southern Syria all these and other terrorist organizations are coordinating among themselves and have what Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) called “a gentleman’s agreement” with Israel across the border, according to Colum Lynch in Foreign Policy on June 11.

Last October, Al-Qaeda branch in Syria, al-Nusra, was among the rebel groups which overtook the only border crossing of Quneitra between Syria and the Israeli – occupied Golan Heights. Israel has yet to demonstrate its objection.

“Many Sunnis in Iraq and the Gulf consider ISIS a bullet in their rifles aimed at Shiite extremism, in their bid to restore their lost standing,” Raghida Dergham, a columnist and a senior diplomatic correspondent for the London – based Arabic Al-Hayat daily, wrote in the huffingtonpost on September 19.

A political public agreement between Israel and the Gulf Arabs has developed on a mutual understanding that the dismantling of the Syria – Iran alliance as a prelude to a “regime change” in both countries is the regional priority, without loosing sight of the endgame, which is to dictate peace with Israel as the regional power under the U.S. hegemony. The IS is “the bullet in their rifles.” From their perspective, the U.S. war on the IS is irrelevant, for now at least.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (nassernicola@ymail.com).

24 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Akbar E. Torbat

Because the economic pressures against Iran have not succeeded to completely shut down the entire Iran’s nuclear program, it seems political strategies are now accentuated to confront the regime in Tehran. One such strategy could be the release of details of how the West managed to overthrow the Shah in 1979 and helped the clerics to form the Islamic Republic. The BBC released an interview with the late Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, in which he said that the US government prepared the ground for victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Historically the British and later the United States have used the Islamic clerics’ influence to promote their interests in Iran. To curb the power of the Leftists, nationalists, and secular political groups, the US and its Western allies have supported the Islamic factions in Muslim countries for decades. During the Iranian revolution, the Western intelligence agencies played an important role in promoting the Islamic factions led by the clerics. The key clerics that founded the Islamic republic had close ties with the West.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had been exiled in Najaf. On October 6, 1978, he was expelled from Iraq because of his efforts to radicalize the Iraqi Shias against the Iraq’s government. Subsequently, he resided in Neauphle-le-Chateau near Paris.[1] The Western intelligence services gathered around the residence of Ayatollah Khomeini in Neauphle-le-Chateau to manage the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The Western media, and in particular the Persian radio BBC became a propaganda tool to turn the 1979 revolution away from the secular factions in favor of the Islamic groups hoping that the Islamists would serve the interests of the West. From France, Khomeini made anti-Shah speeches which often were broadcasted by the BBC Persian language radio to Iran. He encouraged the Iranians to rise against the Shah’s government.

Khomeini returned to Iran, on February 1, 1979, with a large entourage aboard a French government jet. Three key persons who had established connections with Khomeini while he was exiled were Ebrahim Yazdi, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, and Abul-Hassan Bani-Sadr(the first President of Iran).[2] They had joined Khomeini in Paris and came aboard the same aircraft that brought Khomeini to Tehran. Professor Richart Cottom , a pro-Khomeini “Iran Expert” had made friendship with Yazdi and Ghotbzadeh years earlier.[3] Yazdi became Khomeini’s translator in France and later his foreign minister. Few days after his arrival, Khomeini ordered the formation of a provisional government to replace the Shah’s government which at that time was headed by Shahpour Bakhtiar, the Shah’s last prime Minster.

BBC Released the Dead Cleric’s Interview

On December 17, 2014, the Persian BBC television program released an edited version of an interview with the late ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri.[4] BBC had interviewed Montazeri about fifteen years ago, but the interview had not been broadcasted until now. Montazeri was a leading cleric who helped to write the 1979 constitution and was once heir-apparent to the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini. He resigned from that position because of his opposition to mass executions of political prisoners in 1988 by Khomeini’s order. In 1997, Montazeri was placed under house arrest in the holy city of Qom because he had questioned the unaccountable rules exercised by the supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Montazeri passed away on December 19, 2009. He had good relations with the British and his memoirs have been banned in Iran.

At the minute 18 of the tape Montazeri said “Our [Islamic] revolution victory was almost due to the environment that President Jimmy Carter had prepared.” He further mentioned, a constitution for the new government had been drafted in Paris by Dr. Hassan Habibi and he inserted the key word Velayat-e Faghih (Guardianship of the Jurist) in the constitution, making the otherwise secular constitution an Islamic one and giving ayatollah Khomeini the sole authority to rule Iran. A more detailed written version of the BBC’s interview with Montazeri had been previously published in several issues of Nimrooz newspaper in February 2000. In the written version Montazeri had said he favored free market capitalism

The involvement of western powers in the Islamic uprising of 1979 have been explained in many books and articles published previously. For example, one may refer to the books “Answer to History” by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, or “Hostage to Khomeini” by Robert Dreyfuss, and the “Last Shah of Iran” by Hooshang Nahavandi.

As a matter of fact, the Western powers had intervened in Iranian internal affairs many times before. A very important one is the 1953 coup orchestrated by the US and Britain against the nationalist government of then Prime Minister Mosaddegh. Ayatollah Abul-Qassem Kashani, a powerful cleric at the time, in collaboration with the West, mobilized the mobs, mullahs, and royalists to provide support for a coup which brought Mosaddegh down in 1953. Because of these historical disasters, Iranians are very antagonistic to foreign interventions in their country.

It is now about 35 years since the formation of the Islamic Republic. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the full or partial disclosures of the US government involvement in bringing Khomeini to power may surface to show how the West acted to change the Shah’s government to the present clerical regime in Iran. However, even before such disclosures, the fact that the West orchestrated a “regime change” in Iran in 1979 and brought the clergy to power is already known to the Iranian people inside and outside Iran. Therefore, the Iranian people should stop the clerics’ concessions to the West in return for preventing these historical “revelations” to surface by the BBC and the like.

Akbar E. Torbat teaches economics at California State University, Los Angeles. He received his PhD in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.

24 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Eric Zuesse

Decisive evidence as to how the July 17th shooting-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner occurred is being hidden by the four-nation team that’s doing the official ‘investigation’ into the plane-downing incident.

This decisive evidence is the coroner’s report on the corpse of the airliner’s pilot. If the pilot was killed by bullets, then the standard ‘explanation’ of the downing (that the plane was downed by a ground-fired missile) isn’t just false, it’s an outright hoax. So: where’s the pilot’s autopsy?

This investigation is important because stringent economic sanctions against Russia were instituted immediately after the downing; these sanctions were based upon never-substantiated charges from the Ukrainian Government, and from its sponsor the U.S. Government, alleging that the plane had been downed by rebels who were supported by Russia. (The “Buk” missile launcher charged by Ukraine as the cause was actually manned by Ukraine’s soldiers.)

The same Government, the U.S., that had lied its way into invading Iraq, might now be orchestrating still-more-dangerous frauds, with the potential even for a nuclear war against Russia.

The four nations doing the official investigation and report into the airliner-downing are: Ukraine, Australia, Belgium, and Netherlands. All four are U.S. allies; and, one of them, Ukraine, is one of the two main suspects in this case, the other being separatists against the Ukrainian Government. (They’re not represented in this ‘investigation.’) The United States and Ukraine say that the airliner was downed by separatists who mistakenly thought that they were shooting down a Ukrainian bomber instead of an airliner. (Even if that had been true, the U.S. would still have been the ultimate cause of the downing. The whole cover-story was designed to be believed only by fools.)

However, the Ukrainian Government, which until now has maintained steadfastly that there is only one possible explanation for the downing — their explanation, that it had been downed by a “Buk” ground-fired missile controlled by the rebels — finally changed their tune on December 21st, and announced that maybe it wasn’t. Apparently, the other three nations on the team are refusing to sign their names onto a joint report from all four (according to the secret agreement signed by them all on August 8th, this report will be unanimous or else it won’t be at all) that commits to Ukraine’s ‘explanation,’ because the real evidence is overwhelmingly against it — as will herein be explained and documented.

According to London’s Daily Mail on December 5th, a video documentary from a Russian journalist “suggested” that, “pieces of 30mm rounds were found in the bodies of the pilots.” 30mm bullets are the same size of bullets that come from the types of fighter-jet planes that are in the Ukrainian Air Force, including the following jets: Su-25, Su-27, and Mig-29. 30mm bullets are very different from missile-shrapnel, which the U.S. and Ukraine allege had brought down this airliner.

A retired Lufthansa pilot, Peter Haisenko, examined a remarkably clear photo of the key piece of evidence on the downing, which is the side-panel of the fuselage right next to the pilot; this panel was riddled with what he said were 30mm bullet holes, shot right into the spot where the pilot’s belly would be. Apparently (if Haisenko is correct), the airliner’s pilot was machine-gunned to death, his belly was ripped into by a hail of bullets, after which the attacking jet or jets fired a missile into the airliner’s body, and the airliner then promptly plummeted to earth. No ground-fired missile was involved. (The ground-fired “Buk” would have been 33,000 feet below, much too far away for precise targeting at the plane’s pilot; and shrapnel-holes are not round; they’re very different from bullet-holes.)

What’s in question is whether the approximately two-foot-diameter gash into the fuselage right next to the pilot was the result of hundreds of bullets fired into the pilot’s belly, as Haisenko alleges. If any bullets at all were involved in this downing, then the Ukrainian Government is the guilty party in it, because only they have an Air Force; the separatists do not. The separatists had no way to machine-gun the plane’s pilot to death. The separatists were never that close to the airliner.

Because of the allegation in the Daily Mail, I consulted the source of that allegation, which was a documentary film that had been made by Russian journalist Andrei Karaulov. Because it’s in Russian, I engaged a Russian translator, who found that the source of the Daily Mail’s allegation was at 3:50-5:00 on this video.

It says there:

“Judging by the cockpit fragments photos, the cockpit was shot by 30-mm cannon projectiles. There should be plenty of them in the pilots’ bodies. As announced, the bodies of the passengers were transferred to relatives, but the bodies of both main and support jet crews (currently kept in the Netherlands), were in bad condition due to (1) heavy shelling targeted at the cockpit, and (2) crashing to earth. The projectiles must have been found by now, most certainly. Their type must have been definitely ascertained. Why are these findings not announced? There is but one inference: the high professionals on the international investigation board are severely pressured by some powers, which don’t want certain of the findings to be publicly disclosed.”

“One month ago [from the time of shooting the video] the international commission announced that it found certain ‘objects’ in pilots’ bodies. I believe these were 30mm cannon projectile particles. When we were in Copenhagen, we were told by the international investigation commission that investigation results would be made public on 9 October. To this day it hasn’t been done.”

So: Where’s this crucial autopsy-report? We’ve seen the side-panel with its bullet-holes; were bullets lodged in the corpse?

(Here are photos of the Pilot’s coffin and funeral-procession.)

What we have gotten instead is the Ukrainian Government backing away from the ‘explanation’ that U.S. President Barack Obama, who installed their regime, endorsed, and used as his excuse for the EU to hike sanctions against Russia — an act of war, which now has been followed by the President and Congress virtually declaring war against Russia by taking over Ukraine on Russia’s very border. Based totally on lies.

Evidently, Obama believes that if George W. Bush could fool the American public into invading Iraq, Obama can fool them into invading Russia. Can it be: he’s aiming to out-do even Bush?

PS: a note that my translator wants to append:

I have now read the Daily Mail article for the first time — what a distortion of the facts stated in the documentary!!!

1. They claim that, according to the Russian media, the air traffic controller and the pilot fled together, which was never said (nor even suggested) in the documentary. This was apparently done in order to make the documentary look ridiculous and far-fetched, which it is not.

2. They forget to mention, that authorities of Borispol [the airport] tower, when contacted by A. Karaulov’s team, said they never had anyone by the name of Anna Petrenko [the alleged fighter-jet’s alleged girlfriend] on staff, when the opposite was said by lower rank employees. And when the journalists contacted some unnamed boss, s/he just hung up the phone on them.

3. The article doesn’t give any proof of the girl and the pilot still being alive, which makes it seem even more sinister [i.e.: did the Government kill them, to silence them?].

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

24 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Patrick Martin

In an action calculated to provoke further conflict with Russia, Ukraine’s parliament voted Tuesday to repeal legislation defining the country as “non-aligned,” and thus barring it from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The vote came by an overwhelming margin, 303 to 8, one month after President Petro Poroshenko declared his support for the step.

The two major right-wing parties in parliament, headed respectively by Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, spearheaded passage of the measure. Ultra-right and neo-fascist deputies also voted to pave the way for the country’s entry into the US-dominated military alliance.

Ukraine is not expected to formally apply for NATO membership anytime soon, because its armed forces are well below the NATO standard in terms of armaments, training and budget. Given Ukraine’s near-bankruptcy, the military buildup required to reach that goal can only proceed slowly.

But the goal has been set. Addressing parliament before the vote, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said, “This will lead to integration in the European and the Euro-Atlantic space.” A NATO spokesman responded in kind, saying, “Our door is open and Ukraine will become a member of NATO if it so requests and fulfills the standards and adheres to the necessary principles.”

The main significance of the vote was as a political gesture of hostility towards neighboring Russia. Speaking to a group of foreign ambassadors in Kiev on the eve of the vote, Poroshenko said that Ukraine’s “fight for its independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty has turned into a decisive factor in our relations with the world.”

Russian government officials responded angrily. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev said there would be “negative consequences” for Ukraine’s breaking with non-alignment. “In essence, an application for NATO membership will turn Ukraine into a potential military opponent for Russia,” he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Ukraine’s action a “counterproductive” step that would increase political tensions. “It will only escalate the confrontation and creates the illusion that it is possible to resolve Ukraine’s deep internal crisis by passing such laws,” he said.

Actual NATO membership would mean that the United States and its European allies would be legally obligated under Article IV of the NATO treaty to go to war in defense of Ukraine, an obligation that would extend to Ukraine’s claim to Crimea, annexed by Russia earlier this year, and to the eastern territories now controlled by pro-Russian separatists.

Since this would threaten war between nuclear-armed powers, the major European countries, including Germany and France, have discouraged talk of NATO membership for Ukraine. But the Obama administration has had no such reservations.

At Wednesday’s State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Marie Harf merely paraphrased the official NATO statement, saying, “[T]he door is open … countries that are willing to contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic space are welcome to apply for membership. Each application will be considered on the merits.”

She concluded, “[A]ny decision on potential NATO membership is one for Ukraine and NATO to make.” In other words, Russia has no say on whether NATO tanks and warplanes should be stationed on its doorstep.

Ukraine only formally adopted non-aligned status in 2010, when Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych was president and his party controlled parliament. But the principle that Ukraine would not join NATO, founded as an anti-Soviet, anti-Russian military bloc, was accepted by both Stalinist and imperialist officials at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

In 1991, when Ukraine became an independent republic rather than a constituent member of the USSR, the country gave up its portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, which was dismantled under international supervision, and the NATO powers tacitly agreed that the US-dominated bloc would not expand into the territory of the former Soviet Union. This agreement was broken during the Bush administration, when Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were admitted as NATO members.

The integration of Ukraine into NATO would be another matter entirely, bringing NATO forces nearly as far east as Hitler’s armies reached in the days leading up to the battle of Stalingrad, 72 years ago, the turning point in the fighting on the Eastern front in World War II.

Hitler conquered virtually the entire territory of present-day Ukraine, a feat which German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the US President Barack Obama seek to duplicate, not through open invasion, but by the use of cash, political subversion and neo-Nazi gangs.

Russian officials reiterated their opposition to Ukraine entering NATO in the talks that led to the September 5 ceasefire between Kiev’s forces and pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces of eastern Ukraine.

These talks were set to resume today in Minsk, capital of Belarus, but the Ukraine parliament vote makes that problematic. Already, leaders of the pro-Russian separatists said they might not attend because the Ukrainian government has cut off state pensions and other forms of social benefits for those living in the separatist-controlled territory.

Ukrainian government officials said Monday that they might step up the pressure on the eastern region by cutting off electricity supplies. Deputy Energy Minister Oleksander Svetelyk said that the fighting in the east had disrupted coal production in that area, which supplies coal-burning power plants.

“In order to save the power system we need to impose limits on everyone,” he said. “There are no regions of Ukraine that will not be subject to rolling blackouts.” If the eastern region refused to ration electricity under instructions from his ministry, the supply would be cut off entirely, he said. Ukraine has a daily deficit of 3,500 megawatts, and coal reserves are only one-third of the supply usually needed at the beginning of winter.

The electricity crisis is only part of a more general economic and social collapse in Ukraine. The Yatsenyuk government has adopted a radical program of social austerity, aimed at slashing consumption and public spending in line with demands from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The Washington Post hailed the program of budget-cutting and privatization in an editorial Wednesday that called the Yatsenyuk cabinet “a technocrat’s dream,” and noted the presence of “Natalia Jaresko, a US citizen and highly respected investment banker who has taken over the finance ministry.”

24 December, 2014
WSWS.org

 

By Shehzad Poonawalla

Petition (filed) to PM, MHA, MHRD, Law Ministry against the proposed installation of statues of Nathuram Godse, terrorist and killer of MK Gandhi using public funds/land and attempts to revisit, legitimise his case by Sangh ideological affiliates/Hindu Mahasabha . Action demanded from PM and Government of India

To,
The Prime Minister of India,
Government of India.
CC:
The Home Minister of India,
Government of India.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India.
Sir,

As a concerned citizen of India I would like to draw your attention to this extremely disturbing news report that indicates the intention of the Hindu Mahasabha outfit, an ideological affiliate of the Sangh Parivar, to install the statues and busts of Nathuram Godse’s, the murderer of our Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, at public places across India. Moreover, the outfit has also stated on record its intention to write to you to that the Gandhi murder case be revisited. The Mahasabha’s national president, Chandra Prakash Kaushik, reportedly told The Hindu “There needs to be a thorough investigation of the events that led to the assassination, so that vilification of Nathuram Godse ends and the people of this country know that he wasn’t an assassin by choice but was forced to make the decision to kill Gandhi.”

Here are news reports confirming the same.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/hindu-mahasabha-wants-to-install-godses-bust-at-public-places/article6702846.ece?ref=relatedNews

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hindu-Mahasabha-wants-Godse-busts-across-India/articleshow/45568302.cms

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/miscellaneous/now-hindu-mahasabha-seeks-space-for-installing-mahatma-gandhi-killer-nathuram-godses-busts-across-india-from-narendra-modi-govt/21104/

Sir I would humbly pray for the following from your office:

Communicate with the Law Ministry

1) Any attempt to revisit and question a decided case I.e. The murder of Mahatma Gandhi in which Nathuram Godse (amongst others) was convicted with a death sentence , by no less than the Punjab and Haryana High court on 21st June 1949 in a 315 page judgment would amount to Contempt of Court. Any attempt by your office or the Government of India to do the same, at their request or otherwise, would amount to legitimisation and glorification of a terrorist convicted by the court and would entail appropriate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Communicate with the Home Ministry

2) Mr.Nathuram Godse is a criminal convicted of an heinous offence namely murder by the law of the land. His offence is graver as his victim was the Father of the Nation. To allow the use of any public space or funds for the erection of any statues/busts or to pay any tributes to him at the expense of public exchequer would not just be morally objectionable but a violation of the law by attracting penal provisions for Misuse of Public Funds under Indian Penal Code, 1860. It may even lead to a law and order crisis across India as sentiments may be deeply wounded by the honouring of a terrorist who killed the Father of the Nation Nathuram Godse. In addition if any public land/ funds is spent on honouring a person like Nathuram Godse, a terrorist, it is my intention to move the appropriate court of law through writ petition/PIL to prohibit the Government or any government body from doing so. It is hereby requested that the Ministry of Home Affairs, adheres to the law and morality of the situation and forewarns in writing m at the earliest, all state governments, government bodies, local authorities receiving public funds/support to disallow the use of their space or funds for the erection of a statue dedicated to Nathuram Godse.

Communicate with the HRD Ministry

3) The Hindu Mahasabha is an ideological affiliate of the Rasthriya Swayamsevak Sangh which was banned by Shri Vallabhbhai Patel in the aftermath of the Gandhi murder. Godse himself was a member of the RSS. Many leaders of the RSS were seen and reported to be celebrating on the death of Gandhi ji as per Sardar Patel’s letters. You claim to be a proud proponent of the RSS. As a citizen I would like to know whether you stand with the idea of India as represented by Mahatma Gandhi or as represented by the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha. Recently, Sakshi Maharaj, a member of Parliament from your party namely the BJP too, handed a certificate of patriotism to Nathuram Godse. On the one hand you pay lip service to Mahatma Gandhi when you enter your office and law flowers at his picture. On the other hand you remain silent when your own colleagues celebrate the terrorist act of man and an organisation that cost us the Mahatma’s life. On the one hand you initiate programs like Swach Bharat and claim to be the torchbearer of his vision yet you do nothing as the ideals of secularism, cherished by Mahatma, enshrined in our holy book the Constitution are thwarted every day by your own party colleagues by their communal vile. Be it Yogi Adityanath, Sakshi Maharaj, Giriraj Singh, Praveen Togadia, Sadhvi Jyoti, Vinay Katiyar, etc.

It is incumbent for us to know whether you only have Gandhi on your lips and Godse in your heart? If not, I hope you will act immediately by not only ensuring that no public funds are spent on Godse statues but also that no legitimacy is given by your office to groups like the Hindu Mahasabha. No attempt should be made to revisit the decided case of Mahatma Gandhi. And no endeavour should be made to white wash the role of communal fanatics through post-facto justifications in the discourse of our educational syllabi in state run or subsidised schools. Here should be no linkages of outfits such as Hindu Mahasabha in drafting educational curriculum or content whatsoever. Such standing instructions must be issued to all state governments, government schools and colleges.

I expect you to publicly act and speak, to demonstrate your will and intention on this subject and move the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Human Resource Development to take necessary steps as suggested, as this issue lies at the very heart of India’s plural, secular ethos

In the event you don’t, your silence and your inaction will only be worthy of one judgment by the collective conscience of India

“Hey Ram”

Secularly yours,

Shehzad Poonawalla
Lawyer activist
New Delhi

20 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Franklin Lamb

With the Syrian army deep inside Aleppo’s old city: This observer has long sought an extended visit to the old city of Aleppo which is also one of this cradle of civilizations cultural and educational centers. Despite being in a continuing war zone, the visit materialized when security authorities granted permission and assistance to this observer to complete research finalizing more than two years of research across Syria on the subject of Syria’s Endangered Heritage: The Story Of A Nations Fight To Preserve Its Cultural Heritage.

Several visits to damaged archeological sites and quality briefings soon turned a few days into more than a week with more than a two dozen detailed evaluations and analyses during meetings with Syrian nationalists among them, M.B. Shabani, Director of the Aleppo National Museum. Another was with Professor of Islamic Science, Bouthania Chalkhi and a group of her faculty colleagues and researchers at Aleppo’s 80,000 plus student university. Aleppo University, like nearly all of Syria’s institutions of higher learning has paid a bitter price for keeping its classrooms open. On January 15 2013 the School of Architecture was shelled and more than 90 students and visitors on campus were killed. By shocking coincidence, Damascus University’s School of Architecture was similarly shelled only five weeks later on March 28, 2013, killing more than 15 students.

Two military commanders, currently with their troops deep inside the old city near the ancient Citadel, seemed more like college philosophy instructors than military men, as they discussed the massive destruction inside the old city including more than 1,600 khans and souks.

This observer and another American, a special young man from Maryland who is studying Arabic in this region, was guided along with two colleagues on a long nighttime tour and briefing among alleys inside the ancient burned out and blasted medina souk. Sometimes as we paused our army guide would comment on how parts of the souk might be salvageable and how he felt anger at what was wantonly inflicted in the area now under his command. Our military escort advised us that our tour of the remains of this UNESCO World Heritage site was the first such visit allowed since its destruction more than 18 months ago. He even joked that nearly a month ago a team with the BBC was offered a more limited tour but that a famous female BBC Middle East correspondent, one of this observers favorites, turned back after penetrating the warrens by less than 50 yards.

Surely not the first or last time that Yankees have followed up Brits to complete a task, our interpreter from Damascus giggled.

For hours we trudged through the widely reported massive destruction observing the burned detritus of what were formerly historic “khans” which for centuries traded and sold specialty items as noted below. The tour left one in numbed disbelief over the extent of the destruction.

Among the most historic souks in Aleppo’s old city, verified by this observer as having been destroyed on 9/29/2012, all within the burned out covered alleyways of Souk al-Madina, include, but are not limited to the following. This partial list is presented as a condolence to Syrian artisans and citizens whose lives have been deeply, negatively, and irreversibly damaged. Wanton destruction of a significant part of the shared global heritage of us all.

Khan al-Qadi, one of the oldest khans (specialized souk areas) in Aleppo dating back to 1450;
Khan al-Burghul (Bulger), built in 1472 and the location of the British general consulate of Aleppo until the beginning of the 20th century;
Souk al-Saboun (soap khan) built in the beginning of the 16th century was the main center of the soap production in Aleppo;
Souk Khan al-Nahhaseen (coppersmiths), built in 1539. The general consulate of Belgium was at this location during the16th century. Before its destruction it including more than 80 traditional and modern shoe-trading and production shops;
Khan al-Shouneh, built in 1546 was a market for trades and traditional handicrafts of Aleppine art;
Souq Khan al-Jumrok or the customs’ khan, was a textile trading center with more than 50 stores. Built in 1574, Khan Al-Gumrok was considered to be the largest khan in ancient Aleppo;
Souk Khan al-Wazir, built in 1682, was the main souk for cotton products in Aleppo;
Souk al-Farrayin was the fur market, is the main entrance to the souk from the south. The souk is home to 77 stores mainly specialized in furry products;
Souk al-Hiraj, traditionally was historically the main market for firewood and charcoal. Until its destruction it reportedly included 33 stores mainly dealing in rug and carpet weaving and products;
Souk al-Dira’, was perhaps the main center for tailoring and one of the most organized alleys in the souk with more than 60 workshops;
Souk al-Attareen for more than a century was the vast herbal market and in fact was the main spice-selling market of Aleppo. Before its destruction it was a textile-selling center with more than 80 stores, including spice-selling shops;
Souk az-Zirb, was the main entrance to the souq from the east and the place where coins were being struck during the Mamluk (18th century) period. All of its 72 shops featured textiles and the basic needs of the Bedouins;
Souk al-Behramiyeh, located near the Behramiyeh mosque had more than 20 stores trading in foodstuffs;
Souk Marcopoli (derived from Marco Polo), was a center of textile trading with 29 stores.
Souk al-Atiq specialized in raw leather trading with 48 outlets;
Souk as-Siyyagh or the jewelry market was the main center of jewelry shops in Aleppo and Syria with more than 100 outlets located in 2 parallel alleys.
The Venetians’ Khan, was home to the consul of Venice and the Venetian merchants.
Souk an-Niswan or the women’s market, was an area where accessories, clothes and wedding equipment’s of the bride could be found;
Souk Arslan Dada, is one of the main entrances to the walled city from the north. With 33 stores, the souk is a center of leather and textile trading;
Souk al-Haddadin, is one of the northern entrances to the old city. Located outside the main gate it was considered to be the old traditional blacksmiths’ market with more than 40 workshops;
Souk Khan al-Harir (the silk khan) was another entrance to the old city from the north and was buiit in the second half of the 16th century. The silk souk hosted the Iranian consulate until 1919.
Suweiqa (small souk) consisted of 2 long alleys: Sweiqat Ali and Suweiqat Hatem, located in al-Farafira district which contained markets mainly specialized in home and kitchen equipment.
One is left distraught over the seeming futility of even contemplating rebuilding this world heritage site. Would it require half a century to reconstruct, as was required in Dresden Germany following three days of firebombing by British and American planes, which began on February 13, 1945?

There are many questions to be answered whether rebuilding would ever authentically restore Aleppo’s old city to what it had been for centuries.

Would “restoration” render it a sterile or glitzy place with the main focus on the tourist dollar? Which countries would help rebuild it and where would the money come from, and could Syria and her experts influence and oversee the reconstruction? One professor of Archeology at Aleppo University asked, “Could a rebuilt Medina souk ever again be ‘my neighborhood, the cherished neighborhood of my youth and of my family over preceding generations?” Many of the individual souks, maybe 12 feet by 10 feet were valued at close of one million dollars and restoration would cost hundreds of millions.

Locating experts in areas amidst fairly intense government security concerns and measures which are much greater than in Damascus was not always easy. It was compounded by the fact of 2 hour per day electricity and water shortages, yet one still had the opportunity to discuss and learn from a cross section of this community including academic, governmental, business and citizen activists.

Three tentative conclusions arrived at by this observer from fascinating and heart felt discussions include one from Professor Lamis Herbly, Chairperson of the Archeology department of Aleppo University. This warm and elegant lady’s eyes welled with tears, being the mother of two youngsters and who worries daily about the safety of her children while insisting that they stay in school despite the dangers, described her and her communities losses. She also expressed the concerns of her academic colleagues that if and when reconstruction begins in the old city of Aleppo that it must be done with utmost care and under Syrian experts control. She explained what she meant was that reconstruction in Syria not mirror what was done in Beirut to renovate the ‘downtown’ area which separated Muslim and Christian militia along the ‘green line’ during Lebanon’s 15 year (1975-1990).

One professor declared the reconstruction of downtown Beirut and the filling in of Beirut harbor with thousands of years of antiquities as Saudi financed, behemoth Mercedes Benz earth movers shoved much of Lebanon’s history into the sea to make way for upscale fancy tourist attracting shops catering to rich Gulf tourists (of whom there are very few these days). “So they can buy yet more jewelry and Paris fashions?” she asked. Someone else joined in saying what happened in Lebanon was a cultural crime.

“Downtown Beirut is an obscenity,” one PhD candidate, a young lady who formerly lived near the old city insisted. This student is among those who joined efforts that began nearly two decades ago to preserve and protect one of Aleppo’s two remaining synagogues in the Samoua neighborhood. She vowed that citizens of Aleppo must not and will not allow what happened in Beirut to happen here in Aleppo.

Another concern, discussed with citizens in Aleppo is the often expressed worry over whether other countries that unfortunately had, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, a hand in the destruction of much of Syria cultural heritage would be willing to help with its preservation and reconstruction. This observer, who has studied the subject over the past two years in Syria shared this concern, but sought to assure Aleppo interlocutors that indeed many governments acknowledge with gratitude the work of the Syrian people in protecting our mutual global heritage, in the custody of country’s people for millennia, share their horror over what has happened and indeed want to help as soon as a lasting ceasefire can be achieved. This subject was one of the most frequently raised by both experts and average citizens in Aleppo.

Archeological and restoration experts in Syria tend to agree with international research findings that estimate that despite the vast heartbreaking destruction, looting, politically motivated desecration of countless mosques and churches as well as thousands of years of pagan artifacts, that approximately 96 percent of our shared cultural heritage in Syria can be repaired, restored, or even replicated when no other option in available. What is urgently needed before more damage is infected is a ceasefire or freeze in place and is being discussed by UN mediators. Objects that have been blow up in a frenzy of ignorance and malevolence are lost and irreplaceable. The tens of thousands of illegally excavated and looted priceless antiquities now scattered to private collections and speculators have been routed through, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Jordan. They must be returned as part of a massive international antiquities retrieval campaign that should include an expanded role for Interpol, auction houses and governments as well as international institution of the UN. One student at Damascus University told this observer recently that she and fellow students have started an international campaign focusing on auction houses and governments seeking the return of stolen Syrian antiquities. They have named their student led organization: “I’m Syrian and I need to go home. Please help me.”

One of life’s seeming wonderful incongruities is experienced by visitors all across Syria these days. It has to do with the human spirit. Examining and contemplating just the one example of damage to our shared global heritage in Aleppo, as depressing and discouraging as any of the damage done to our shared global culture heritage one might be excused for becoming cynical and even somewhat catatonic as one observes and studies the desecration and destruction here in Aleppo and in so many other areas.

But not the Syrian people. Rather than slump and becoming crestfallen, this observer finds Syrians resolute and even somehow inspiring in their determination to preserve, protect and restore our cultural heritage. Space allows for one example.

This observer, spent an afternoon this week next to the glowing fireplace on a cold rainy day in the warm and cozy office of Mohammad Kujjah, Director of the 1924 founded Archeological Institute of Aleppo. I was joined by some of his staff, all experts on preserving archeological treasures. One taciturn scholar sitting next to me, who I thought appeared to be on the verge of nodding off, saddening perked up and squeezed my arm to get my undivided attention. He then proceeded to further light up the bookcase lined office by presenting a brilliant lecture that, were he asked, this observer would entitle something like:

The Germans rebuilt Dresden and the Syrians will rebuild Aleppo!

He began with fascinating comparisons between what was and what was done to Dresden beginning on February 13, 1945 and what happened to Aleppo’s old city on September 28, 2012. Dresden was carpet bombed by 722 RAF and 527 USAAF bombers that dropped 2431 tons of high explosive bombs, and 1475.9 tons of incendiaries. The high explosive bombs damaged buildings and exposed their ancient wooden structures, while the incendiaries ignited them. The massive wooden structures, like in Aleppo, burned to the ground. The resultant firestorms killed an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 people, although the total number is disputed. Dresden, an historic center held no strategic value. The war in Europe was coming to an end, and the city was packed with refugees fleeing the advancing Red Army. It is widely believed that the bombing was a revenge attack for the German bombing of Coventry as well as a show of force.

As he spoke the professor displayed for his guests a large photograph of Dresden taken in early March of 1945. The high explosive bombs damaged buildings and exposed their wooden structures, while the incendiaries ignited them. The massive wooden structures of Aleppo’s old city also burned to the ground.

The archeologist lectured his rapt American audience, seemingly also to the delight of his Aleppine colleagues on how Aleppo reconstruction could be achieved and he spoke of the Syrian peoples will that it shall be done.

All people of good will who accept their personal duty to join the people of Syria in preserving, protecting and restoring our shared global heritage can take solace from what this observer witnessed an exhilarating demonstration of the sublime capacities of our shared human spirit as we help to salvage our cultural heritage.

Franklin Lamb’s most recent book, Syria’s Endangered Heritage, An international Responsibility to Protect and Preserve is in production by Orontes River Publishing, Hama, Syrian Arab Republic.

20 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Richard Heinberg

Oil prices have fallen by half since late June. This is a significant development for the oil industry and for the global economy, though no one knows exactly how either the industry or the economy will respond in the long run. Since it’s almost the end of the year, perhaps this is a good time to stop and ask: (1) Why is this happening? (2) Who wins and who loses over the short term?, and (3) What will be the impacts on oil production in 2015?

1. Why is this happening?

Euan Mearns does a good job of explaining the oil price crash here. Briefly, demand for oil is softening (notably in China, Japan, and Europe) because economic growth is faltering. Meanwhile, the US is importing less petroleum because domestic supplies are increasing—almost entirely due to the frantic pace of drilling in “tight” oil fields in North Dakota and Texas, using hydrofracturing and horizontal drilling technologies—while demand has leveled off.

Usually when there is a mismatch between supply and demand in the global crude market, it is up to Saudi Arabia—the world’s top exporter—to ramp production up or down in order to stabilize prices. But this time the Saudis have refused to cut back on production and have instead unilaterally cut prices to customers in Asia, evidently because the Arabian royals want prices low. There is speculation that the Saudis wish to punish Russia and Iran for their involvement in Syria and Iraq. Low prices have the added benefit (to Riyadh) of shaking at least some high-cost tight oil, deepwater, and tar sands producers in North America out of the market, thus enhancing Saudi market share.

The media frame this situation as an oil “glut,” but it’s important to recall the bigger picture: world production of conventional oil (excluding natural gas liquids, tar sands, deepwater, and tight oil) stopped growing in 2005, and has actually declined a bit since then. Nearly all supply growth has come from more costly (and more environmentally ruinous) resources such as tight oil and tar sands. Consequently, oil prices have been very high during this period (with the exception of the deepest, darkest months of the Great Recession). Even at their current depressed level of $55 to $60, petroleum prices are still above the International Energy Agency’s high-price scenario for this period contained in forecasts issued a decade ago.

Part of the reason has to do with the fact that costs of exploration and production within the industry have risen dramatically (early this year Steve Kopits of the energy market analytic firm Douglas-Westwood estimated that costs were rising at nearly 11 percent annually).

In short, during this past decade the oil industry has entered a new regime of steeper production costs, slower supply growth, declining resource quality, and higher prices. That all-important context is largely absent from most news stories about the price plunge, but without it recent events are unintelligible. If the current oil market can be characterized as being in a state of “glut,” that simply means that at this moment, and at this price, there are more willing sellers than buyers; it shouldn’t be taken as a fundamental or long-term indication of resource abundance.

2. Who wins and loses, short-term?

Gail Tverberg does a great job of teasing apart the likely consequences of the oil price slump here. For the US, there will be some tangible benefits from falling gasoline prices: motorists now have more money in their pockets to spend on Christmas gifts. However, there are also perils to the price plunge, and the longer prices remain low, the higher the risk. For the past five years, tight oil and shale gas have been significant drivers of growth in the American economy, adding $300 to 400 billion annually to GDP. States with active shale plays have seen a significant increase of jobs while the rest of the nation has merely sputtered along.

The shale boom seems to have resulted from a combination of high petroleum prices and easy financing: with the Fed keeping interest rates near zero, scores of small oil and gas companies were able to take on enormous amounts of debt so as to pay for the purchase of drilling leases, the rental of rigs, and the expensive process of fracking. This was a tenuous business even in good times, with many companies subsisting on re-sale of leases and creative financing, while failing to show a clear profit on sales of product. Now, if prices remain low, most of these companies will cut back on drilling and some will disappear altogether.

The price rout is hitting Russia quicker and harder than perhaps any other nation. That country is (in most months) the world’s biggest producer, and oil and gas provide its main sources of income. As a result of the price crash and US-imposed economic sanctions, the ruble has cratered. Over the short term, Russia’s oil and gas companies are somewhat cushioned from impact: they earn high-value US dollars from sales of their products while paying their expenses in rubles that have lost roughly half their value (compared to the dollar) in the past five months. But for the average Russian and for the national government, these are tough times.

There is at least a possibility that the oil price crash has important geopolitical significance. The US and Russia are engaged in what can only be called low-level warfare over Ukraine: Moscow resents what it sees as efforts to wrest that country from its orbit and to surround Russia with NATO bases; Washington, meanwhile, would like to alienate Europe from Russia, thereby heading off long-term economic integration across Eurasia (which, if it were to transpire, would undermine America’s “sole superpower” status; see discussion here); Washington also sees Russia’s annexation of Crimea as violating international accords. Some argue that the oil price rout resulted from Washington talking Saudi Arabia into flooding the market so as to hammer Russia’s economy, thereby neutralizing Moscow’s resistance to NATO encirclement (albeit at the price of short-term losses for the US tight oil industry). Russia has recently cemented closer energy and economic ties with China, perhaps partly in response; in view of this latter development, the Saudis’ decision to sell oil to China at a discount could be explained as yet another attempt by Washington (via its OPEC proxy) to avert Eurasian economic integration.

Other oil exporting nations with a high-price break-even point—notably Venezuela and Iran, also on Washington’s enemies list—are likewise experiencing the price crash as economic catastrophe. But the pain is widely spread: Nigeria has had to redraw its government budget for next year, and North Sea oil production is nearing a point of collapse.

Events are unfolding very quickly, and economic and geopolitical pressures are building. Historically, circumstances like these have sometimes led to major open conflicts, though all-out war between the US and Russia remains unthinkable due to the nuclear deterrents that both nations possess.

If there are indeed elements of US-led geopolitical intrigue at work here (and admittedly this is largely speculation), they carry a serious risk of economic blowback: the oil price plunge appears to be bursting the bubble in high-yield, energy-related junk bonds that, along with rising oil production, helped fuel the American economic “recovery,” and it could result not just in layoffs throughout the energy industry but a contagion of fear in the banking sector. Thus the ultimate consequences of the price crash could include a global financial panic (John Michael Greer makes that case persuasively and, as always, quite entertainingly), though it is too soon to consider this as anything more than a possibility.

3. What will be the impacts for oil production?

There’s actually some good news for the oil industry in all of this: costs of production will almost certainly decline during the next few months. Companies will cut expenses wherever they can (watch out, middle-level managers!). As drilling rigs are idled, rental costs for rigs will fall. Since the price of oil is an ingredient in the price of just about everything else, cheaper oil will reduce the costs of logistics and oil transport by rail and tanker. Producers will defer investments. Companies will focus only on the most productive, lowest-cost drilling locations, and this will again lower averaged industry costs. In short order, the industry will be advertising itself to investors as newly lean and mean. But the main underlying reason production costs were rising during the past decade—declining resource quality as older conventional oil reservoirs dry up—hasn’t gone away. And those most productive, lowest-cost drilling locations (also known as “sweet spots”) are limited in size and number.

The industry is putting on a brave face, and for good reason. Companies in the shale patch need to look profitable in order to keep the value of their bonds from evaporating. Major oil companies largely stayed clear of involvement in the tight oil boom; nevertheless, low prices will force them to cut back on upstream investment as well. Drilling will not cease; it will merely contract (the number of new US oil and gas well permits issued in Novemberfell by 40 percent from the previous month). Many companies have no choice but to continue pursuing projects to which they are already financially committed, so we won’t see substantial production declines for several months. Production from Canada’s tar sands will probably continue at its current pace, but will not expand since new projects willrequire an oil price at or higher than the current level in order to break even.

As analysis by David Hughes of Post Carbon Institute shows, even without the price crash production in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays would have been expected to peak and begin a sharp decline within the next two or three years. The price crash can only hasten that inevitable inflection point.

How much and how fast will world oil production fall? Euan Mearns offers three scenarios; in the most likely of these (in his opinion) world production capacity will contract by about two million barrels per day over the next two years as a result of the price collapse.

We may be witnessing one of history’s little ironies: the historic commencement of an inevitable, overall, persistent decline of world liquid fuels production may be ushered in not by skyrocketing oil prices such as we saw in the 1970s or in 2008, but by a price crash that at least some pundits are spinning as the death of “peak oil.” Meanwhile, the economic and geopolitical perils of the unfolding oil price rout make expectations of business-as-usual for 2015 ring rather hollow.

Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute

20 December, 2014
Post Carbon Institute Blog