Archives: Articles

By Asma Firdous

05 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Every newspaper, flared -up with news of ‘Band’ of three girls, who took part in singing and formed a ‘Band’ Pragaash to give vent to their expressions through singing, but, unfortunately it took an ugly turn and became a controversial for them, which later got a decree from a grand cleric of Kashmir. In fact, music is a powerful tool of expressing one’s feelings, and highlight the sufferings of people. The Band of teenaged girls who came to limelight in late December last year after their scintillating performance at the annual ‘Battle of the Bands’ competition have received online threats and absurd comments on facebook, although, as per the reports suggest they have decided to quit but Omar Abdullah assured them his full support. Also, the Indian media highlighted and debated the issue with full coverage and proper follow up, urged the girls to shun the decree and continue their Band Pragaash.

As I am a student and according to me, it’s an act of peculiarity and utter shame for those who posed threat to them, it may be wrong in accordance to Islam, but the history of Kashmiri culture bears testimony and has produced best singers, composers, who have had expressed their heart via singing and music. What wrong if these girls have defied their conventional, and have opted to use their way of expressing themselves. There are dozens of bands currently playing popular music of different genres in the valley. But, why targeted this band, because it comprises girls, who are always [mis]understood as slaves of men, who could remain confined to four walls and men dictate to them.

I am not a preacher, but as a teenager asking my beloved leaders (who oppose them), is it worth appreciable to muzzle the voice of these girls who attempted to voice their concern through singing? What about the cases where domestic violence is eminent and no decree is proclaimed? What about the hartal calls, rapes and crimes against women? Aren’t they invalidated by Islam? Don’t they require, reform! Our CM has done always a lip service to bring culprits to justice, and everytime justice denied, he fails to meet his promises! Shame.

I want to ask those Clerics and Leaders who always dictate terms over acts of womenfolk and never provide a solution which acceptable to all. If music is controversial, what about the DOWRY, which is undoubtedly Haraam, unlawful in Islam, and by this reason there are thousands of girls who are over aged but still waiting for their marriage proposals, the reason behind their late marriages is DOWRY which their parents cannot afford, pomp and show. Moreover, the Islamic leaders should also pronounce their verdict upon those who steal electricity, by way of hooking and tempering electric meters. Moreover, we also have in Kashmir banks which are based on interest, if they have much love to Islam, why they have not even initiated to establish an Islamic banking system in Kashmir .

I therefore, request my leaders to first deal with these issues then thinks of banning the band of girls.

Asma Firdous is a student Emailed at : ktehrika@gmail.com

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

05 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

When our founders were drafting the Constitution, they went out of their way to give warmaking powers to Congress, not the President.

They understood that if the President could make war on his own, he’d be no different than a king.

And they also understood, as James Madison said, that such power “would be too much temptation” for one man.

And so they vested that power in Congress.

But since World War II, one President after another has usurped that power.

The latest usurper is President Obama, who did so in Libya, and with drones, and now is prepared to do so in cyberspace.

According to The New York Times, the Obama Administration has concluded that the President has the authority to launch preemptive cyberattacks.

This is a very dangerous, and very undemocratic power grab.

There are no checks or balances when the President, alone, decides when to engage in an act of war.

And this new aggressive stance will lead to a cyber arms race. The United States has evidently already used cyber weapons against Iran, and so many other countries will assume that cyber warfare is an acceptable tool and will try to use it themselves.

Most troubling, U.S. cybersupremacy – and that is Pentagon doctrine – will also raise fears among nuclear powers like Russia, China, and North Korea that the United States may use a cyberattack as the opening move in a nuclear attack.

For if the United States can knock out the command and control structure of an enemy’s nuclear arsenal, it can then launch an all-out nuclear attack on that enemy with impunity. This would make such nuclear powers more ready to launch their nuclear weapons preemptively for fear that they would be rendered useless. So we’ve just moved a little closer to midnight.

Now, I don’t think Obama would use cyberwafare as a first strike in a nuclear war. But our adversaries may not be so sure, either about Obama or his successors.

They, too, worry about the temptations of a President.

By Joseph Kishore

05 February, 2013

@ WSWS.org

The Obama administration has concluded that the president can authorize pre-emptive cyberwar attacks, according to a secret legal review prepared by the US government. The move is part of efforts to expand the ability of the American military to use new technologies to carry out acts of aggression—with Iran and China the most immediate targets.

The discussions within the administration were reported by the New York Times in an article published on Monday.

While invariably couched in the language of “defense,” the Pentagon’s cyberwarfare plans are part of an array of offensive capabilities—in addition to and alongside economic sanctions, global spying, drone assassination strikes and more traditional military actions.

According to the Times, the administration’s legal review concludes that the president “has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad.” The newspaper also reports on new policies “that will govern how intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attack on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code—even if there is no declared war.”

The doctrine of pre-emptive war was adopted by the Bush administration for the purpose of justifying military aggression against any country deemed an existent or even potential threat to the United States. The Times notes in an aside, “Pre-emption has always been a disputed legal concept,” citing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the fraudulent pretext of that country’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Such disputes have evidently been swept aside by the Obama administration.

The importance of cyberwarfare has expanded with the increasing reliance on computer networks for the delivery of basic services. A cyber attack could take down power plants, hospitals, transportation systems or other critical infrastructure, potentially leading to economic devastation and widespread casualties.

According to the Times, decisions to authorize cyberwarfare will generally be made by the president himself. “One senior American official said that officials quickly determined that the cyberweapons were so powerful that—like nuclear weapons—they should be unleashed only on the direct orders of the commander in chief.”

China is a particular target of current or potential cyberwarfare carried out by the US. Seeing China as a principal economic and geopolitical competitor, the Obama administration has organized a “pivot” to Asia and the Pacific to focus military resources in the region.

The Times quotes Richard Falkenrath of the Council on Foreign Relations: “While this is all described in neutral terms—what are we going to do about cyber attacks—the underlying question is, ‘What are we going to do about China?’”

The report comes only days after a number of newspapers—including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Times itself—announced that they had been the target of hacking attacks by individuals in China, which the Times, in particular, sought to link to the Chinese government.

The most significant act of cyberwar to date, however, came not from China, but from the United States and Israel, and was directed at Iran’s nuclear program. It was revealed last year that the two countries were behind the creation of the Stuxnet virus, which infected Iranian networks in June 2010. The US military operation, dubbed Operation Olympic Games, began under Bush and was continued under Obama.

As with drone assassinations, Obama personally directed the cyber attack on Iran from the Situation Room, receiving updates on a regular basis.

Stuxnet was accompanied by the release of the Flame malware virus, also jointly developed by the US and Israel, first discovered in 2012. While originally produced to monitor Iranian government computers, the Flame virus escaped into the general population, infecting thousands of computers.

What has been disclosed publicly is only a small indication of what is already being carried out. “This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” one former high-ranking US intelligence official told the Washington Post in June 2012, around the time that the Flame virus was first discovered. “Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.”

The Times quotes one administration official as declaring, “There are levels of cyberwarfare that are far more aggressive than anything that has been used or recommended to be done.”

Cyber actions are being coordinated by Cyber Command, originally set up under the authority of the Obama administration in 2010. It is led by General Keith Alexander, who is also the head of the National Security Agency, the military’s main spy agency. The NSA maintains vast databases of communications, foreign and domestic.

According to an article in the Washington Post last week, the military recently approved a fivefold increase in the number of personnel in the Cyber Command, from 900 to 4,900. The newspaper writes that the move is “part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force.”

Heavily involved in developing the Obama administration’s policy on cyberwarfare is John Brennan. Obama’s pick to head the CIA, Brennan has played a central role in defending and institutionalizing the administration’s policy of extra-judicial drone assassination, including of American citizens.

The recent actions are part of a broader campaign. In mid-October of last year, Obama signed an executive order expanding military authority to carry out cyber attacks and redefine as “defensive” actions that would previously have been considered acts of aggression—such as the cutting off of computer networks.

Around the same time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave a bellicose speech in which he warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” A cyber attack on the US could “cause physical destruction and the loss of life” and “paralyze and shock the nation and create a new profound sense of vulnerability,” he said.

Panetta’s speech aimed both at justifying an expansion of cyberwar capabilities and preparing the ground for military action using the pretext of a cyber attack on the US.

In addition to plans for aggressive war abroad, the expansion of military cyberwarfare poses immense dangers to the democratic rights of the American people, as the administration moves to expand government control over the Internet and create the basis for military intervention and oversight within the United States.

The cyberwar plans include procedures for military action within the United States. According to the Times, the military “would become involved in cases of a major cyberattack within the United States” under certain conditions, with Panetta describing “the ‘red line’ [to justify such actions] in the vaguest of terms—as a ‘cyber 9/11.’”

By William A. Cook

04 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

“The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality; crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded, one is forgotten as quickly as the other. The world is ruled by power and power is obtained with money. To work is senseless, because money cannot be obtained through work, but through exploitation of others. And if we cannot exploit as much as we wish, at least let us work as little as we can. Moral duty? We believe neither in the morality of man nor in the morality of systems.” 

?   TadeuszBorowski ,   This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen

This hideous and degrading picture of the human animal Borowski painted at Auschwitz : humankind without benevolence, without compassion; lacking empathy, lacking mercy; inexorable, ruthless, and malevolent; a savage, brutal animal devoid of morals but obedient to laws. Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. Borowski, a poet and a writer, labored at Auschwitz from 1942 until the liberation of the camps; he was not a homosexual, or a Roma or a Jew; he was an observer of human nature in a place where it was bared to the bone. But if his life there brought him to the realization of the barbarity of humans, devoid of morals, then he also understood what we lost as a result of that void:

“There can be no beauty if it is paid for by human injustice, nor truth that passes over injustice in silence, nor moral virtue that condones it.”

Until and unless we eradicate injustice, we have no reason to know beauty, for all that we create is tainted by that injustice pretending all is well with our world. Truth does not exist if injustice surrounds us and we are silent in our complicity. Proclaiming moral virtue in a world awash in crimes against humanity is condoning the crimes unless we act to eradicate the crimes.

Borowski’s work came to mind during these days of Holocaust remembrance because I used his words in a commencement address to our law school some years ago. His thoughts permeate this day of remembrance. On January 29 th , Nick Cumming-Bruce writing from Geneva for the New York Times, reported that “ Israel became the first country to withhold cooperation from a United Nations review of its human rights practices on Tuesday, shunning efforts by the United States and others to encourage it to participate.”

How strange that a people who endured the horrendous human betrayal of their inalienable rights to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should become the next perpetrators of evil against another people denied their rights of recognition of equal justice and dignity and respect and honor as neighbors in this world where all should enjoy the fruits of this earth. How can one understand the state of Israel, the state declared to be the “Jewish State,” the state that rang the rafters of the United Nations with cries against Iraq and Iranfor discrimination, for anti-Semitism, for existential threats of death to Israel, running to the UNHRC to survey nations to find those antagonistic to Israel and bring them before the Human Rights Council for public punishment and admonishment to correct their criminal behavior, indeed, to levy fines and threaten sanctions should they not relent,only to become the state that defies the same UNHRC when it is their turn for review.

Did they not find the United Nations an institution designed to protect the weak against the strong, to provide conventions that protected all peoples regardless of color, ethnic background, religious beliefs, political and economic systems, a means of regress for themselves, a small nation set in the middle of their perceived enemies,or did they understand that they could manipulate the system when convenient to gain their ends and defy it when they should be condemned. Did not the Neo-Cons and their allies damn the UN for inaction against Saddam Hussein for defying 16 UN Resolutions thus establishing the justice of an invasion of Iraq even though Israel had defied over 160 like resolutions? Have they not been vociferous in their demands that Iran be placed under sanctions and indeed invaded to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction even as they have 100s of such weapons and refuse to admit that publically or to sign the Mid-East Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, yet demand action be taken against the existential threat that Iran places against their state? Why then do they defy the UNHRC?

Let’s be as blunt as Borowski: the world is not ruled by justice or morality, it is ruled by power. Israel knows this. They have taken control of the greatest military machine the world has ever known, the United States . They control our President, our Senate, and our Congress, and they did this just as Borowski had declared, with money. If one needs proof of these assertions consider this photo of Senator Lindsay Graham as he interrogates Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, with some help from our masters.

C:UserswcookAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesLowContent.IE5MBSZ3W9Glindsay-graham-aipac[1].jpg

Neither AIPAC nor Israel fear retribution—they disdain the opinions of the peoples of this earth, they ridicule the organizations that have been established to guide nations in peaceful ways, and they laugh at the morals taught by the religions of the world, because they have no respect for those bound by a moral order. They act by sheer hutzpah, through the vetting of those who occupy an office, those who intend to run for office, and where necessary who should run for office. It is Israel ‘s agenda that our representatives attend to, not the agenda of the American people. Unending wars benefit the wealthy, they destroy the average citizen.

Unfortunately American democracy is a bidding war, an auction of offices able to be purchased by the pound. The American people no longer run the government; the forces that pay the puppet run the country. Consider the reality that the UN faces today. On November 29 they invited Palestine in as a member nation; that was anathema to the Zionist government of Israel that denied that recognition even though they are a signatory of that organization. They simply impose their law and their political determinations on all the peoples of the earth. In short, they determine what the UN will do or they will reject the world body. They can do this because they can tell the U.S. how they will vote in the Security Council. Thus the impunity. Understand that 5% of the world’s population runs the UN; 95% of the world’s population becomes mute in the oligarchical power structure that the U.S combined with Israel asserts over the wishes of the peoples of the world.

How then achieve not only peace in Palestine , but any possible justice for the people of Palestine ? The answer rests with the people of the world, not with their governments which are held beneath the gold bricks of the U.S. and Israel ; but the people are represented in the UNHRC (Human Rights Council) that has been crippled by the United States ‘ refusal to pay for operations because it admitted Palestine to participation without the US ‘ permission. Thus do the few cripple the many while denying justice to the oppressed and the occupied. It should be obvious to all that the US does not have a moral base from which it operates. It operates only for money, for the 1%, and it uses its citizens as collateral damage against those who question or attack its control. That’s AIPAC’s way, that’s PINAC’s way, that’s the way of the Neo-Cons; it’s what the Zionists learned from Nazi Germany, it’s the answer to MP David Ward’s question, “What did they learn at Auschwitz ?” They learned what Borowski learned: “The world is ruled by power and power is obtained by money.” There is no moral virtue that determines justice for people.

But for those who believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the opposite, the road to peace must be throughthe UNHRC and the International Court of Justice. The people of the world have spoken for 64 years through resolutions voicing in clear and bold language the crimes against humanity inflicted on the Palestinian people.The laws of the UN Conventions and the obligations of the nations of the world that have signed to be members of that organization are clear, the alleged crimes must be brought before these bodies to face justice and to bring justice. Should this not be done, both Israel and the US will recreate the laws of war so that their crimes are washed away as easily as Pilate washed his hands of the sentencing of Jesus. “The world is ruled by power”; it is happening as I write this piece.

Let’s continue the bluntness of Borowski. The UNHRC has prepared a comprehensive document to be used when Israel comes before it, a document that itemizes its crimes against humanity with focus on the Settlements and the devastation they have brought to the Palestinian people. Israel knows of this report. It will not be brought before the world court of public opinion and certainly will not be brought before a court of justice. It will not just defy the UN, it will castigate the 188 nation states that allowed Palestine to become a member state as biased and discriminatory against the Jewish State; they will flaunt the Holocaust as it represented anti-Semitism that necessitated the creation of a state for Jews as protection for their people; and it will build its case for its actions on grounds that only their military can defend their people and hence the constant cry of self-defense. Israel has no compunctions about being the sole nation to not adhere to the UN’s human rights reviews of all member states; Israel cares nothing about the UN or its purpose. It will act unilaterally because it can undo anything the UN desires to do.

Let’s understand the actions of this amoral nation. It has just attacked Syria , a recognized member of the United Nations. Syria has executed no actions against Israel that can be justified under the Geneva Conventions; the Israeli government has invaded a nation without provocation regardless of the innocent citizens that are hurt or killed, indeed oblivious of such consequences because in fact they have no conscience that questions such behavior. What would impel the government of Israel to such an act? The answer is simple: how can they force an alliance between the US and Israel that can eliminate any chance that the American government might not support Israel’s defiance of the UN, especially since the US had admonished Israel along with all the other member states about defying the call from the UNHRC. They know that the UN must condemn this act; they care not to obey any laws that restrict their drive to control all of Palestine , and if necessary, expand Eretz Israel beyond even these borders. Their end determines their actions; their laws supersede all others. Here are the words Weizmann and Ben-Gurion promised the Mandate Government:

“if further action was taken against them (by the British Mandate Government) to destroy Zionism, then there would be a blood bath. Nothing could prevent it. Nobody would be safe in Palestine  (July 12, 1946, Rhodes Archive Documents). If need be, we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small, her frontiers will have to be extended” (Ben Gurion, Appendix LVc).

The announcement of the UNHRC’s review of Israel ‘s record forced Israel to yoke America to its needs and bury the defiance of the UN so that the US cannot abstain should the vote come before the UNSC. These actions foretell the response Israel would take if brought before the International Court of Justice. First, it will damn the resolution as anti-Semitic; second it will argue that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over their state as it has its own laws in place and is not beholden to laws that can supersede their own thus denying the sovereignty of Israel; and third, they will present arguments that will delay action knowing time erases memory and, as they have experienced for 64 years, the world will forget. One need only remember the abandonment of the Goldstone Report.

Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. These are men who have traded their soul to the state in exchange for the consequences of confronting the all-powerful state. They are as Henry David Thoreau once stated, so many wooden soldiers marching to another’s tune. But for those of us who accept the transcendent reality of moral righteousness, selling of the soul cannot be an option. We bear the responsibility to act as the arbiter for the state of our soul.No educated person can escape responsibility for his or her actions. No educated person can escape the ethical obligations of a free mind. We are responsible to ourselves if we bear responsibility to meaning and truth.

The world is not bound by borders ultimately; it is bound by a moral order. No nation has the right to impose by violence its will on another by exorcising the universal principle that there exists a basic, fundamental, and inalienable right that is premised on freedom and justice, humanity and truth. If we do not lead by moral force, we are by acquiescence the followers of those who fail to act and subjects of those who impose their will. There comes a time when everyone must cry for justice, to cry for those who cannot cry for themselves.

This is the only answer to Borowski’s sorrowful lament as he witnessed the inhumanity of those in power over the weak and helpless Romas, Communists, homosexuals, the abnormal, and the Jews, a horrid mixture of calculated humiliation, degradation of spirit, physical abuse, slaughter and disregard of civilized behavior in favor of laws created by the conqueror in a raw display of arrogance against the beliefs of all other nations. Today, the nations of the world are faced with a similar power that has determined to subjugate the nations of the world by arrogance, coercion, fraud, invasion, and financial strategies that cripple nations, while undermining the one agency that has brought a semblance of civilized behavior to crisis’s around the world, the United Nations. The United Nations alone can and must take control of these two renegade states or their Nazi like behavior made possible over a prolonged period of years will negate all International laws in favor of those who will impose their power on the weak thus justifying the criminal against the victim. Should that happen, we will have allowed Borowski’s horrid picture of humanity to be the epitaph of our destroyed world.

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. He writes frequently for Internet publications including The Palestine Chronicle, MWC News, Atlantic Free Press, Pacific Free Press, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, World Prout Assembly, Dissident Voice, and Information Clearing House among others. His books include Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, a novella, and the forthcoming The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

ShareThisShareThis

Comments are moderated

By Dr. Elias Akleh

04 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Israel has done it again. Last Wednesday January 30 th Israeli war planes violated Lebanese air space for the nth time in their way to bomb Syrian military research center. The US and the UN had also done it again. The US supported this Israeli raid as Israel’s alleged “right to protect itself”, while the UN denied Israel’s aggression claiming it could not verify it due to “bad weather conditions.”

While Israel kept silent about the raid with some of its officials hinting that Israel could have done it and has the right to do it allegedly in self defense, pro-Zionist media sources claimed that Israeli war planes targeted trucks transporting weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah on the Syrian/Lebanese border. Media outlets, including Qatari Al Jazeera, reported Israel’s fears of Hezbollah getting its hands on Syrian chemical weapons and Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, as reported by an Israeli security officials’ chief, who spoke on condition of anonymity since he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Israel’s unfounded claimed fear of having Syrian chemical weapons in the hands of Hezbollah is a total nonsense and smoke screen in the face. If Syria wanted to transport such weapons to Hezbollah it wouldn’t do it in conspicuous convoys crossing the border. Hezbollah had demonstrated its capability to defeat and deter Israeli aggression using conventional weapons during summer of 2006 and does not need any chemical weapons. Such claims are used as a justification for aggressive interventions on the Syrian borders to relieve pressure on the anti-Syrian terrorist groups.

Syrian officials reported that Israeli war planes had violated Syrian air space and bombed the Jamraya research center in the suburbs of Damascus, far from the Lebanese borders. This research center has been the target of attacks by the American/Israeli-Turkey/Qatari supported anti-Syrian terrorists and militias; the so-called Free Syrian Army, al-Qaeda and Annusra Front. For the last seven months these mercenary terrorists were directed to attack Syria’s air defense systems and military bases in order to incapacitate Syria’s military defense capabilities. They had managed to attack one S-200 base and four surface-to-air missile bases. They have also succeeded in assassinating military scientific project managers such as Colonel Dawoud Rajiha, who was managing Syria’s long-range missile project. Yet their many attempts to attack and inflict any damage onto the Jamraya research center had failed since it was heavily protected. This job was left, then, to the Israeli air forces. The Israeli air raid shows very clearly the degree of Israel’s involvement with the anti-Syrian terrorist groups.

No official statement, Syrian or otherwise, had stated exactly what the Israeli planes had targeted. Yet some reports claim that the strike was intended to destroy Syria’s development of advance airspace defensive technology based on nuclear plasma technology developed by Iranian born nuclear engineer Mehran Keshe, known as “Tesla of physics”. It is reported that Iran gave this technology to Syria. This is the same technology Iran used to “pull” down the American spying drones in perfect conditions.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry filed a complaint letter with the United Nations Security Council urging the Council to issue a “clear condemnation of the flagrant Israeli attack on the territories of a sovereign state and the Israeli violation of the UN Charter, the international law, the Disengagement of Forces Agreement in 1974 and the relevant UNSC resolutions.”

The Israeli air raid was also condemned by the Russian government calling it “unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it.” Iran, Syria’s closest regional ally, warned that the “Zionist regime’s attack on the outskirts of Damascus will have grave consequences for Tel Aviv.” Iran has a cooperative defense pact with Syria, and had previously warned that any attack on Syria would be considered an act of aggression against its own country.

The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, denounced the Israeli raid as flagrant aggression and accused Israel of “… exploiting the development in Syria to carry out its aggressive policies, indifferent to all the humanitarian and international treaties.”

Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mohamed Kamel Amr, denounced the Israeli attack saying “Such an assault on Arab land is entirely rejected and represents a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.” He, also, called on the international community to hold Israel accountable for its attacks on Arab countries, describing the raid as a danger to regional security and to Middle Eastern sovereignty.

When it comes to Israel’s violations of international laws and humanitarian laws, the responses of the American-controlled United Nation are very disappointing and do not hold the international laws. Claiming “unclear weather conditions” the UN stated that it could not confirm the Israeli raid. The only thing Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, could offer was his concern over the raid. The deafening silence of the UNSC about the Israeli violations of the sovereignty of its neighboring countries had encouraged Israel to continue its terrorist attacks. The UN always apply double standards when it comes to Israel; the UN either overlooks Israeli terror attacks or considers them self-defense, while Palestinian and Lebanese opposition to Israeli occupation and terrorism is considered terrorist acts. In the case of Syria the UN overlooks the anti-Syrian terrorist supporting states of US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. These terrorist have been involved in grave human right violations and war crimes, the latest was the cold blooded execution of 80 young men in Halab.

The American response to the Israeli raid is also very typically biased towards Israel. American officials as well as media had focused on the alleged transporting Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Lebanon. The NBC reported that the missiles “would remove Israel’s critical freedom of flight over Lebanon.” This alleged freedom of flight is a violation of the air space of a sovereign country. Would Israel give this type of freedom to Syrian war plane into Israeli air space?

Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security advisor, warned Syria it should not “further destabilize the region by transferring weaponry to Hezbollah.” This warning implies justification for the Israeli raid and for future such raids. During an interview with French media last Friday the American Defense Secretary Panetta expressed American concern of the increasing probabilities of Hezbollah acquiring advanced weaponry from Syria. In her farewell speech, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia and Iran of “stepping up” military support for Syria and thus adding fuel to possible regional conflict.

Israel is the mad dog in the Middle East attacking all its neighboring countries without any provocation. The Israelis claim that acquiring advanced weapons by any of its neighboring countries means an existential threat to Israel, and thus they consider attacking and bombing that country their right of self defense. So Israel had bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in the 1970’s, waged aggression wars against Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and lately Gaza Strip. It had bombed in 2009 Sudanese alleged arm smuggling convoys transporting weapons to Gaza, and in 2012 bombed Sudan’s small arms factory. In 2007 Israel bombed Syrian alleged nuclear facility and last week bombed Syrian research center. This twisted logic is somehow supported by the US and the UN. I wonder if this logic gives any Arab country the right to bomb Israel’s nuclear facility in Dimona or any of its chemical and biological weapons facility! Does it also give them the right to bomb any American ships carrying weapons to Israel?

Israel’s perpetual terrorism is a flagrant declaration of war against every country it had bombed. Israel, not Syria or any other Arab country, is the “destabilizing” factor of the Middle East. Israel’s latest terrorist attack on Syria could serve as the beginning of a far wider war to include Iran, driving the whole region into an inferno, whose flame would touch the whole world.

Dr. Elias Akleh is a writer living in Corona, CA., eakleh@ca.rr.com

By Feroze Mithiborwala

04 February, 2013

Countercurrents.org

I was a little benumbed whilst watching this technically advanced, but socio-politically regressive movie. Kamal Hassan has lied to all of us when he had stated that this movie is his tribute to Indian Muslims & will make them proud.

This movie had me even more worried than earlier!

The message propagated all through the course of this slick production is basically – “One Good Muslim, All the rest – Bad Muslims” .

The hero, Taufik is an Indian Muslim who saves the world, whilst the rest of the Muslims portrayed in the movie, are all committed to destruction & mayhem, all in the name of their religion.

This is the state of the world – Vishwaroopam.

Yet, let me categorically state that I do not support any cuts, or further censorship of the mobs, but will certainly strive to counter this movie & all like it – intellectually & on the ideological plane, where the true battle lies

This movie also justifies the US wars & occupation of Afghanistan in ways that even Hollywood would have felt ashamed of portraying. All this for the NRI audience I would tend to venture. My first opposition to the movie stemmed from the fact that the posters prominently posited the infamous ‘stars & stripes’ in the background & I knew that trouble was brewing. Mind you, the Indian Tri-colour is far less prominent & even missing for the most . . . so much for NRI nationalism, or for that matter that of the RNI’s, the Resident Non-Indians, the chatterati where these communal stereotypes hold sway.

And coming back to the movie, I have never ever seen so many scenes of Namaz in any single film & there is certainly a sickeningly strong overdose of Islamic imagery & the overwhelming majority of it linked to negativity & violence. The movie is one big screenplay of Namaz & Bombs, Namaz & Terror, Namaz & Violence. I wonder as to how Kamal Hassan, who is also the scriptwriter, thought that this would help the cause of Indian Muslims, knowing full well what the community has been through for the past two decades & more. The way the entire community has been ‘terrorized by the terror’ & this has led to their further demonization & isolation.

More so, the script is deeply flawed, lacks intelligence & an honest research. One would have tended to expect a little more from Bollywood after certain good movies dealing with this genre, such as ‘Dhoka’ (Mahesh Bhatt), ‘New York’ (Kabeer Khan), ‘Qurbaan’ (Saif Ali Khan), ‘My Name is Khan’ (Karan Johar & Shahrukh Khan), ‘Agent Vinod’ (Saif Ali Khan) & last but not the least ‘Tere Bin Laden’ (Abhishek Sharma), certainly the best political satire in a generation. It also had a far more genuine Bin Laden look-alike than the ones that appear in the CIA produced videos.

All of the above movies were good honest efforts & there is a common thread as well as a degree of intelligent sensitivity that has gone into researching these scripts & directing these movies, none of which faced any public opprobrium or ire, even though they were far more complex than this ignominious, outrageous ill-conceived prejudiced charade called Vishwaroopam.

Yet, I want no cuts here . . . . . . .

The two lines attributed to Rahul Bose , whom many of us consider to be our own, are the most dangerous & misleading of all the dialogues in the movie.

Rahul Bose, who plays Umar (alluding to Mullah Umar, the leader of the Taliban, I would presume), is facing an assault on his village. The Taliban have captured a few American soldiers & are on the move. The US army, attack the village where they have been led by a trace, with the help of Kamal Hassan, who plays Taufik, a RAW agent. Taufik has infiltrated the ranks of the Taliban to rise to be the ipso facto No. 2.

Wonder what the RAW itself has to comment here.

With the US helicopter gunships blazing away as they did in Vietnam & Iraq, as they do in Somalia, Yemen & Libya – & hope to in Syria – the Taliban are on the run.

Here Rahul Umar Bose makes a statement to assure his fellow Talibani’s – “Don’t worry, the Americans do not kill women & children”.

All I could think of in that Shakespearian moment was – “Et Tu Rahul!!”

To what extent can an artist such as Rahul Bose sell himself, his very moral intellect, is a question that he & many others need to seriously ponder upon.

This dialogue would be considered ridiculous & even blasphemous by the Americans themselves, who always refer to the deaths of civilians as ‘collateral damage’ , but Kamal Hassan in his willful pandering has gone even beyond the worst in Hollywood.

Thus the movie further portrays the US soldier manning the gunship, feeling sorry for killing innocents, whilst the Afghans are all portrayed as dehumanized killing machines. I do not think our immediate neighbours are going to appreciate this movie very much. But who cares, our movies are a reflection of our skewed foreign policy as it does appear. And the Afghans are not exactly a market yet.

The second statement by Rahul Umar Bose is even more dangerous for Indian Muslims & for all the secular activists who have stood by the community as it was demonised, isolated & entrapped into the false-flag terror attacks that we have witnessed since the post-9/11 world. This was the phase of ‘controlled chaos’ & ‘unending perpetual state of wars’ – to use Neoconservative terms.

Here whilst talking to Kamal Taufik Hassan, Rahul Umar Bose smilingly & nonchalantly mentions that “We were also involved in the terror attacks of Malegaon, Bombay & other Indian cities” . In the Tamil & Telegu versions , Coimbatore & Madurai are mentioned.

‘Good God!!’ , I exclaimed to myself, even dropping my popcorn – this movie is basically stating that the Taliban & Al Qaeda are active in India & thus certain sections of the Indian Muslim population are certainly enmeshed with the global terror network. This will prove to be catastrophic in the subconscious perceptions that tend to get ingrained deep into our reality.

This, Mr. Kamal Hassan, is going to be disastrous for Indian Muslims & we can all assure you that.

But where is the research may we ask? Have you not heard of ATS Chief Hemant Karkare , who even served in the RAW? Are you not aware that since 2007 the role of the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha in terror attacks across the country is being probed? Particularly in Malegaon, Nanded, Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid, Ajmer, Goa & another 10 more as per the statements of the Home Ministry. Actually there are more than 16 recorded cases, but we will leave that for later. All of which are further linked to the right-wing Manuwadi Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)?

Are you really unaware of these facts? Are you planning to leave the country, or had you already left India & were living in New York & are thus so ill-informed whilst writing the script, which lacks even an iota of honesty & responsibility?

And this is thus a question that we as secular activists must ask ourselves. Many Hollywood movies with a geopolitical strategic agenda are produced in tandem with the Pentagon, so as to further the Imperial agenda of global hegemony & the advancement of the Military-Security-Industrial-Corporate-Media Complex.

The Zionist dominated Hollywood target & portray Palestinians & Arabs in particular & Muslims in general as terrorists & fanatics & thus these societies need to be invaded & civilized – & their resources taken over for good measure.

This movie by Kamal Hassan in my estimation also certainly falls in that category of disinformation & propaganda to serve the cause of the Empire & to justify the wars, occupation & the genocide of the Afghan nation, as well as the people of Pakistan. Thus not even a fleeting reference to the drone attacks & the killings of innocents, of women & children – thus & as to how it continues to create & foster more & more militants & terrorists.

Then comes the part where there is a meeting between the leadership of the Taliban led by Rahul Umar & Al Qaeda-Osama Bin Laden. Here again I would request all those who have been taken in by the recent supposed assassination of OBL at the staged operation at Abbotabad, to read the excellent & well researched book by David Ray Griffin – ‘Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive?’ ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bin-laden-dead-or-alive/15601 ). According to many honest experts, OBL has been dead since December 15, 2001.

It is also time, actually high time, for the Indian peace movement to address the issues of the 9/11 false-flag terror attack , which has been central, seminal & defining moment of the 21 st century, changing the very trajectory of international politics & leading to an era of wars, occupation & genocide. ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ).

Recently more than 12,500 police stations across America received petitions by peace activists stating that the attack on WTC 1, 2 & 7 were an inside job & demanding that the investigation be reopened. This movement is being spearheaded by more than 1700 architects & engineers & they have the support of many prominent intellectuals, scholars, and human-rights activists, whistle-blowers from within the CIA-FBI, as well as vast sections of American society & the numbers are growing. ( http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/AE911Truth_Police_Letter.pdf )

The reason as to why we will have to grapple with these issues is that, I personally know of Muslim youth who have been quizzed about their positions on 9/11, Bin Laden & Al Qaeda. The youth have been perplexed & horrified & left wondering as to what a job application in the engineering, IT & telecom sectors have to do with their knowledge or lack off, on these issues. With Muslim children who have tried to step out of their ghettoes & seek admission in a multi-cultural milieu, being denied & told to go back where they came from. Of Muslims being denied housing in secular neighbourhoods. All these discriminative practices have also increased in the last decade – thanks to the dominant paradigm of terror.

Now, let us get back to the movie.

Soon after the carnage at Rahul Umar’s village, we are transported into America. Here Kamal Taufik Hassan is working incognito singing & dancing to songs written by Javed Akhtar (Lyricist), as any good Muslim should be. Then a terror network begins to unravel & here we have Rahul Umar now planning to explode a Dirty-Bomb made of waste radioactive material, which the good Muslim does foil, but after saying his Namaz! Whilst in the room inside wherein lies the Dirty-Bomb, is a bad Muslim, an African-American of Nigerian descent, busy offering Namaz before he is to blow the city to kingdom come.

Herein lies another serious problem with this film & that is the tarnishing of African-American Muslims as part of the global terror network . In most Hollywood movies, they are sensitive enough to portray the African American as the FBI boss, under whom the White officers serve. But here the RAW agent is working with only Whites, presumably Anglo-Saxon agents, whilst the African-American Muslim, is in tandem with the Taliban. Another case of out-sourcing I guess.

Yet again, Kamal Hassan fails in his research. The terror attacks portrayed in the film have never occurred. Also the FBI has been entrapping Muslim youth from various ethnic backgrounds & this too is a documented fact. Since there are no serious terror threats to America, the FBI actually manufactures them, as there is no other way to justify Homeland Security & it’s vast gargantuan powers & budget. FBI agents, informers, or ex-convicts working in tandem with the FBI are sent into Muslim communities with an attempt to create terrorists. During the course of the year, a couple of youth, mainly with a criminal background do get entrapped due to intensive indoctrination about the crimes of the American Empire against their people. These youth are then further induced & provided training to carry out a terror attack. Targets are indentified, funds, bombs & ammunition provided & the day that they do carry out the attack, they are apprehended red-handed. The bombs turn out to be fake & so do the guns & that is how stupid this supposed terrorists are.

( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )

This information is now available in the mainstream corporate media & should have been studied by Kamal Taufik Hassan, before trying to give the FBI a positive image in India.

This movie thus is basically a propaganda tool for the FBI, as well as the US Empire. And now apart from Hollywood, they even have some of the best known names from Bollywood to do their bidding. I wonder as to how much of the financial backing of this movie came from sources such as these & this question must be asked in all seriousness.

The plot foiled, America saved, sorry, the world saved – Rahul Umar & his Taliban cohorts decide to flee to – India for God’s sake!! Thus we end with the inevitability of Vishwaroopam II-India!

Actually Kamal Taufik Hassan, might even consider shifting the next locale to Qatar, where the ‘Good Taliban’ now have a functioning office. Here they will all have ample security as the US has a vast network of naval & airforce bases. ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-03/20/content_789607.htm ).

So Rahul Umar Bose, the FBI-CIA & Kamal Taufik Hassan can actually sort out all their problems there itself, without dragging India into the picture.

But therein lies the threat, the clear & present danger to all of us. You can imagine the next movie where Mullah Umar is in Mumbai, or Delhi, maybe in Chennai (threatening Jajayalaitha for the way she dealt with Kamal Hassan), or in Malegaon, or in Srinagar, or Hyderabad, or in the Samjhauta Express, or in Ajmer. Thus taking the blame for all the terror attacks, that now are alleged to be the handiwork of the right-wing Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha, as per the National Investigation Agency (NIA) & certain Anti-Terror Squads (ATS).

And then, is Osama Bin Laden & his dreaded Al-Qaeda far behind in reaching India?

The fear that it will instill amongst the ordinary masses of India & the further fear & isolation towards which will be driven the Muslim community is apparent to many.

The terror of the politics of terror . . . . . . .

Also a little sincere & not-so-secret advice to film producers, directors, financiers & aspiring writers. In case you are sure that your film (or a book) is going to bomb at the box-office, be sure to include a few scenes that you may think may be offensive to the emotions of the Muslim community. Then arrange a screening prior to the release, even though your film has been cleared by the censor board – & rest assured that a few Muslims will fall prey to your trap & voila – you have your much needed controversy.

My sincere advice to the Muslim community is the following. Islam is to great a religion for one book or a movie to harm our faith. Let us overcome our insecurities & notice that the tide is turning in our favour. The protests against the film have harmed the image of the Muslim community, even more than Vishawaroopam was planned to. We need to learn to ignore certain barbs hurled at us & do not need to fall for the traps laid for us every time.

We have every right to protest & this is our constitutional & democratic right. Our strategy should have been to evoke support & call for a debate on the movie, whilst pointing out its flaws & distortions. Demanding the cuts after the censor board had cleared the movie, has harmed our image & further portrayed the community as extremist & undemocratic.

The problem with Vishwaroopam, is that it has projected only a miniscule part of the reality of the Afghan quagmire over a period of more than three decades. But one cannot deny that today the Taliban & their ilk, do represent a form of a vitiated, extremist & a violent form of Islam. From the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha’s, to the attacks on schools & clinics, to the enforced imposition of a regressive barbaric code on women, to the public flogging & stoning, to the sectarian hatred & killings, to the destruction of Sufi Mazar’s & the genocide of the Shia’s – all this is being waged in the name of Islam. This cannot be denied by any honest God-loving/fearing Muslim.

This form of extremism is indeed alien & against the very letter, grain & spirit of Islam. Let us all stand up in unison & condemn this debasement & defilement of Islam. This we really do not venture into often enough – do we honestly?

In the course of the last 2-3 years, the truth about the terror attacks is being revealed & this is due to the sustained struggle of Muslim organizations, in tandem with our secular allies, despite all the odds, with the entire media & dominant sections of the Government-intelligence-security apparatus ranged against us – but yet we have overcome all these odds. Now is the time to reach out to all the communities that make up this great & dynamic nation & expose the true facts of the terror networks that are now being revealed. ( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/joining-the-dots/1068448/ )

If India is not to go the way of Pakistan, with its assorted Lashkar-Frankensteins, then we have to put a stop to those religious extremist forces that threaten to destroy the unity & social fabric of our nation. Now after the statement by the Union Home Minister, the tide has clearly changed in our favour & thus let’s not undermine our struggle by isolating ourselves any further by taking to the streets in the manner that we have & I was personally both angry & ashamed at the public spectacle. There is a certain degree of double-standards, intolerance & hypocrisy within the Muslim community as well.

Also I would want to appeal here to all those who rightly advised the Muslim community on the values of freedom of expression, democracy & modernity. Kindly stand up, script & produce a movie based on the charge-sheet filed by Hemant Karkare, in a movie that can be titled ‘Bharatroopam’ . I would love to see as to how many takers there would be from Bollywood, especially all the ones shouting ‘cultural terrorism’.

In terms of soft-targets, the Muslim community is far more of a soft-target, than many film makers & writers.

Yet, I will not ask for a cut, even though both my mind & my heart have suffered a few deep searing cuts.

This is because I have immense faith in the great legacy of this country. I have great faith in the teachings of Krativeer Jotiba Phule, Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar & Shaheed Bhagat Singh. I have great faith in the people of India, in our secular democracy.

Feroze Mithiborwala is a peace activist in Mumbai. He led the Asia to Gaza peace flotilla.

By Noam Chomsky

04 February, 2013

@ TomDispatch.com

[This piece is adapted from “Uprisings,” a chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, Noam Chomsky’s new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian’s, the answers Chomsky’s.]

Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources — the main concern of U.S. planners — have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism — mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach U.S. goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.” In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, U.S. policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

Declining because of economic weakness?

Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world — not unrealistically at the time.

This was called “Grand Area” planning?

Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What’s happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China — and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a U.S.-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much.

Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.

Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.

I merely mention that to illustrate that in the intellectual culture, even at what’s called the left liberal end of the political spectrum, the core principles haven’t changed very much. But the capacity to implement them has been sharply reduced. That’s why you get all this talk about American decline. Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster.

The New York Times describes the “defining policy quandary of the Arab Spring: how to square contradictory American impulses that include support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and wariness of Islamists who have become a potent political force.” The Times identifies three U.S. goals. What do you make of them?

Two of them are accurate. The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to U.S. orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade them and destroy them.

I’ve occasionally quoted one of my favorite illustrations of this, which is from a well-known, very good liberal foreign policy analyst, James Chace, a former editor of Foreign Affairs. Writing about the overthrow of the Salvador Allende regime and the imposition of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said that we had to “destabilize” Chile in the interests of “stability.” That’s not perceived to be a contradiction — and it isn’t. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to gain stability, meaning that they do what we say. So yes, we are in favor of stability in this technical sense.

Concern about political Islam is just like concern about any independent development. Anything that’s independent you have to have concern about because it might undermine you. In fact, it’s a little ironic, because traditionally the United States and Britain have by and large strongly supported radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a force to block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. It has a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam to Pakistan, funding terror. But it’s the bastion of U.S. and British policy. They’ve consistently supported it against the threat of secular nationalism from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim’s Iraq, among many others. But they don’t like political Islam because it might become independent.

The first of the three points, our yearning for democracy, that’s about on the level of Joseph Stalin talking about the Russian commitment to freedom, democracy, and liberty for the world. It’s the kind of statement you laugh about when you hear it from commissars or Iranian clerics, but you nod politely and maybe even with awe when you hear it from their Western counterparts.

If you look at the record, the yearning for democracy is a bad joke. That’s even recognized by leading scholars, though they don’t put it this way. One of the major scholars on so-called democracy promotion is Thomas Carothers, who is pretty conservative and highly regarded — a neo-Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He worked in Reagan’s State Department and has several books reviewing the course of democracy promotion, which he takes very seriously. He says, yes, this is a deep-seated American ideal, but it has a funny history. The history is that every U.S. administration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as if the United States needed psychiatric treatment or something. Of course, there’s another interpretation, but one that can’t come to mind if you’re a well-educated, properly behaved intellectual.

Within several months of the toppling of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the dock facing criminal charges and prosecution. It’s inconceivable that U.S. leaders will ever be held to account for their crimes in Iraq or beyond. Is that going to change anytime soon?

That’s basically the Yglesias principle: the very foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence at will. So how can you charge anybody?

And no one else has that right.

Of course not. Well, maybe our clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon and kills a thousand people and destroys half the country, okay, that’s all right. It’s interesting. Barack Obama was a senator before he was president. He didn’t do much as a senator, but he did a couple of things, including one he was particularly proud of. In fact, if you looked at his website before the primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsored a Senate resolution demanding that the United States do nothing to impede Israel’s military actions until they had achieved their objectives and censuring Iran and Syria because they were supporting resistance to Israel’s destruction of southern Lebanon, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25 years. So they inherit the right. Other clients do, too.

But the rights really reside in Washington. That’s what it means to own the world. It’s like the air you breathe. You can’t question it. The main founder of contemporary IR [international relations] theory, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite a decent person, one of the very few political scientists and international affairs specialists to criticize the Vietnam War on moral, not tactical, grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book called The Purpose of American Politics. You already know what’s coming. Other countries don’t have purposes. The purpose of America, on the other hand, is “transcendent”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he’s a good scholar, like Carothers. So he went through the record. He said, when you study the record, it looks as if the United States hasn’t lived up to its transcendent purpose. But then he says, to criticize our transcendent purpose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds” — which is a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched religious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” — interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including recently Hopes and Prospects and Making the Future. This piece is adapted from the chapter “Uprisings” in his newest book (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).

Excerpted from Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, published this month by Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright (c) 2013 by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. All rights reserved.

ShareThisShareThis

Comments are moderated

By Farid Marjai & Mehrnaz Shahabi

03 February, 2013

@ Monthly Review

“Iranian Mothers for Peace,” in an open letter of January 2013 to Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, and Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Heath Organization, have alerted the responsible world bodies and human rights organizations to the critical shortage of vital medication due to the US/EU-led sanctions on Iran and their deadly impact on the lives and health of the Iranian population.

“Iranian Mothers for Peace” is a non-profit forum, well known and respected in Iran’s civil society. In 2006 a number of social activists came together to form this forum. “Mothers for Peace” is not a political party and organizationally it has a flexible structure. “Mothers for Peace” takes pride that its 700 participants come from very diverse political backgrounds and different social classes. It affirmatively celebrates diversity which it considers a reflection of the tolerance the group espouses.

With the ideal of peace in mind, “Mothers for Peace” is open to all participants who take a stand against any form of violence, poverty, and oppression.

“In our campaigns to protect the environment, we encourage measures that reduce the impact of human violence against it. We take solid steps to eliminate and mitigate gender inequality. Over the years, our projects have focused on welfare of addicts and prisoners, and publicizing their rights.

The scope of our vision and work is to achieve social security and permanent peace. Hence, this non-profit institution has a wider definition of the concept of ‘peace’; it refutes the narrow perspective of ‘peace’ as mere absence of external military violence and confrontation. And it is precisely in this context that we view the Western-imposed crippling sanctions on the people of Iran as a form of structural violence — a silent, yet a predatory war.

The everyday reality we observe on the ground in Iran has convinced us that the draconian sanctions are victimizing the very fabric of the society we intend to strengthen.

Presently, a number of the core group members of ‘Mothers for Peace’ are suffering from cancer. Sadly, they are having a difficult time obtaining the medicines needed for their treatment, and like many of their compatriots they suffer from unnecessary additional anxiety that might further deteriorates their precarious health condition.”

Below is the text of the open letter (published at mothersofpeace-iran.com/?p=1049) in English.

* * *January, 26, 20013

Dr. Margaret Chan

Director General

World Health Organization

Avenue Appia 20

1211 Geneva 27

Switzerland

Dear Dr. Margaret Chan

As you know, the illegal and inhumane actions led by the US and the EU, targeting the country and the population of Iran, with the stated intention to put pressure on the government of Iran, have intensified in the past two years and increasingly harsher sanctions are imposed almost on a monthly basis. The regulations governing these inhumane and arbitrary sanctions are executed with such strict inflexibility that Iran is now excluded from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) and the sanctions on banking transactions are preventing Iran from even purchasing its needed medical supplies and instruments. On the other hand, to avoid suspicion for dealing with Iran, the European banks are fearful not to engage in any kind of financial transactions with Iran and, therefore, in practice, refuse any transfer of payment for medical and health-related items and raw materials needed for the production of domestic pharmaceutical drugs, even payment for well-recognized drugs for the treatment of Special Diseases, which are not of dual use.

Madam Director,

Are you aware that while American and European soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan are being saved by Iranian anti-snake venom potions and medication, Iranian hemophilic children, cancer patients, and those suffering diabetes, under the pretext of the execution of ‘smart sanctions’, are being deprived of their lifeline medication and face death or irreversible disability? We ask you: What could possibly be the intended target of the wealthy and powerful US and European statesmen’s ‘targeted’ and ‘smart’ sanctions but to destroy the physical and psychological health of the population through the increase of disease and disability?

Madam Director,

We respectfully request from you and from all the relevant international bodies, specially, the World Health Organization and human rights organizations, to act according to their humanitarian and legal responsibilities, and demand the American and European countries leading sanctions on Iran to urgently create the necessary mechanism for opening financial transactions and letters of credit to facilitate the purchase of medicine for Iranian patients.

The right to health and access to medical treatment and medication is one of the fundamental human rights anywhere in the world. Please do not allow the killing of our sick children, beloved families, and fellow Iranians from the lack of medicine, caught in instrumental policies of coercion and power.

Iranian Mothers for Peace

Farid Marjai is a contributor to Reformist newspapers in Iran. Mehrnaz Shahabi is an anti-war activist and independent researcher.

By Countercurrents.org

03 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state, planned to arm Syrian interventionists. But White House did not accept the plan.

In further development, Munich saw diplomatic moves related to Syria conflict.

A Washington datelined Reuters report [1] said:

A plan developed last summer by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus to arm and train Syrian rebels was rebuffed by the White House, The New York Times reported on February 2, 2013.

The United States has sent humanitarian aid to Syria but has declined requests for weapons by rebels fighting to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The White House rejected the Clinton-Petraeus proposal over concerns it could draw the United States into the Syrian conflict and the arms could fall into the wrong hands, the Times said, citing unnamed Obama administration officials.

The plan called for vetting rebels and arming a group of fighters with the assistance of some neighboring countries.

Some administration officials expected the issue to come up again after the November US elections, but the plan apparently died after Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Clinton missed weeks of work with health issues, the Times said.

Clinton, who stepped down as secretary of state on Friday, declined in a recent interview with the Times to comment on her role in the debate over arming the rebels.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was said by some officials to be sympathetic to the idea, the paper reported.

Petraeus and a spokesman for Panetta declined to comment, the Times said.

Talks

From Munich Khaled Yacoub Oweis and Stephen Brown reported [2]:

The Syrian opposition leader met the foreign ministers of Russia and Iran on February 2, 2013, opening a window to a possible breakthrough in efforts to broker an end to Syria’s civil war.

Russia and Iran have been the staunchest allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout an armed uprising, and any understandings they might reach with Assad’s foes could help overcome the two sides’ refusal to negotiate.

At an annual international security conference in Munich, Syrian National Coalition leader Moaz Alkhatib had talks with Russia’s Sergei Lavrov that may have been made possible by Alkhatib signaling readiness to talk to Damascus.

“Russia has a certain vision but we welcome negotiations to alleviate the crisis and there are lots of details that need to be discussed,” Alkhatib said after the meeting.

After a 45-minute meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, Alkhatib told Reuters: “We agreed we have to find a solution to end the suffering of the Syrian people.”

He also met separately with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and U.N. special envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi.

Alkhatib’s purpose in his meetings was “to discuss finding a way to remove the regime with the least possible bloodshed and loss of life,” he said.

Russia has blocked three U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at pushing out Assad out or pressuring him to end the civil war, in which more than 60,000 people have died. But Moscow has also tried to distance itself from Assad by saying it is not trying to prop him up and will not offer him asylum.

“The talks about Syria are intensifying and the Iranians have been drawn in. Let’s see how it all ends,” one diplomatic source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Big Signal”

Alkhatib put his authority within the opposition movement at risk earlier this week when he broke ranks to say he would be willing to meet Syrian officials to discuss a transition if political prisoners arrested during the uprising were freed.

The opposition coalition’s 12-member politburo then told Alkhatib not to respond to any proposals made in Munich without consulting with them first, with one opposition source citing concern that Alkhatib’s move would damage the revolt’s morale.

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Alkhatib’s apparent readiness to meet Assad envoys outside Syria, calling him “not only courageous but smart”.

She also voiced concern that Iran had recently increased military support for Assad.

While some headway was apparently being made in Munich, Iranian media said that Saeed Jalili of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had traveled to Damascus to meet officials and help Assad “stand against plots hatched by global arrogance” – an allusion to the United States and other Western powers.

A comment by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev this week that Assad’s chances of staying in power were getting “smaller and smaller” was regarded in some quarters as a sign of a shift in the Kremlin’s Syria policy.

At the same time, Syrian opposition figure Hassan Bali, in Munich as an independent observer, called Alkhatib’s meeting with Biden “a big signal from the Americans” that they were upgrading support for rebels fighting to topple Assad.

Biden said he had urged Alkhatib “to isolate extremist elements within the broader opposition and to reach out to, and be inclusive of, a broad range of communities inside Syria, including Alawites, Christians and Kurds”.

Lack of leadership

There was little evidence at the Munich conference that the US and Russian positions on Assad were getting any closer.

“The persistence of those who say that priority number one is the removal of Assad is the single biggest reason for the continuing tragedy in Syria,” Lavrov told the conference.

Biden on the other hand said the White House was “convinced that President Assad, a tyrant hell-bent on clinging to power, is no longer fit to lead Syrian people and he must go”.

U.S. Republican Senator John McCain, a long-time critic of the Obama administration’s reluctance to intervene in Syria, said in Munich that the United States and its allies had “stood by and watched the massacre of 60,000 innocent people”.

McCain told reporters Obama should have explained to the American people the need to intervene – but that “requires leadership”, he said. “And so far there is no American presidential leadership.”

Source:

[1] Feb 2, 2013, “White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report”,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/03/us-usa-syria-clinton-idUSBRE91201220130203

[2] Reuters, Feb 2, 2013 “Syrian opposition talks with Russia and Iran”,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/02/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9100KV20130202

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK

03 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

The film Dirty Wars, which premiered at Sundance, can be viewed, as Amy Goodman sees it, as an important narrative of excesses in the global “war on terror”. It is also a record of something scary for those of us at home – and uncovers the biggest story, I would say, in our nation’s contemporary history.

Though they wisely refrain from drawing inferences, Scahill and Rowley have uncovered the facts of a new unaccountable power in America and the world that has the potential to shape domestic and international events in an unprecedented way. The film tracks the Joint Special Operations Command (JSoc), a network of highly-trained, completely unaccountable US assassins, armed with ever-expanding “kill lists”. It was JSoc that ran the operation behind the Navy Seal team six that killed bin Laden.

Scahill and Rowley track this new model of US warfare that strikes at civilians and insurgents alike – in 70 countries. They interview former JSoc assassins, who are shell-shocked at how the “kill lists” they are given keep expanding, even as they eliminate more and more people.

Our conventional forces are subject to international laws of war: they are accountable for crimes in courts martial; and they run according to a clear chain of command. As much as the US military may fall short of these standards at times, it is a model of lawfulness compared with JSoc, which has far greater scope to undertake the commission of extra-legal operations – and unimaginable crimes.

JSoc morphs the secretive, unaccountable mercenary model of private military contracting, which Scahill identified in Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, into a hybrid with the firepower and intelligence backup of our full state resources. The Hill reports that JSoc is now seeking more “flexibility” to expand its operations globally.

JSoc operates outside the traditional chain of command; it reports directly to the president of the United States. In the words of Wired magazine:

“JSoc operates with practically no accountability.”

Scahill calls JSoc the president’s “paramilitary”. Its budget, which may be in the billions, is secret.

What does it means for the president to have an unaccountable paramilitary force, which can assassinate anyone anywhere in the world? JSoc has already been sent to kill at least one US citizen – one who had been indicted for no crime, but was condemned for propagandizing for al-Qaida. Anwar al-Awlaki, on JSoc’s “kill list” since 2010, was killed by CIA-controlled drone attack in September 2011; his teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki – also a US citizen – was killed by a US drone two weeks later.

This arrangement – where death squads roam under the sole control of the executive – is one definition of dictatorship. It now has the potential to threaten critics of the US anywhere in the world.

The film reveals some of these dangers: Scahill, writing in the Nation, reported that President Obama called Yemen’s President Saleh in 2011 to express “concern” about jailed reporter Abdulelah Haider Shaye. US spokespeople have confirmed the US interest in keeping him in prison.

Shaye, a Yemeni journalist based in Sana’a, had a reputation for independent journalism through his neutral interviewing of al-Qaida operatives, and of critics of US policy such as Anwar al-Awlaki. Journalist colleagues in Yemen dismiss the notion of any terrorist affiliation: Shaye had worked for the Washington Post, ABC news, al-Jazeera, and other major media outlets.

Shaye went to al-Majala in Yemen, where a missile strike had killed a group that the US had called “al-Qaida”. “What he discovered,” reports Scahill, “were the remnants of Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs … some of them bearing the label ‘Made in the USA’, and distributed the photos to international media outlets.”

Fourteen women and 21 children were killed. “Whether anyone actually active in al-Qaida was killed remains hotly contested.” Shortly afterwards, Shaye was kidnapped and beaten by Yemeni security forces. In a trial that was criticized internationally by reporters’ groups and human rights organizations, he was accused of terrorism. Shaye is currently serving a five-year sentence.

Scahill and Rowley got to the bars of Shaye’s cell to interview him, before the camera goes dark (in almost every scene, they put their lives at risk). This might also bring to mind the fates of Sami al-Haj of al-Jazeera, also kidnapped, and sent to Guantánamo, and of Julian Assange, trapped in asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy.

President Obama thus helped put a respected reporter in prison for reporting critically on JSoc’s activities. The most disturbing issue of all, however, is the documentation of the “secret laws” now facilitating these abuses of American power: Scahill succeeds in getting Senator Ron Wyden, who sits on the Senate intelligence committee, to confirm the fact that there are secret legal opinions governing the use of drones in targeted assassinations that, he says, Americans would be “very surprised” to know about. This is not the first time Wyden has issued this warning.

In 2011, Wyden sought an amendment to the USA Patriot Act titled requiring the US government “to end practice of secretly interpreting law”. Wyden warns that there is now a system of law beneath or behind the law that we can see and debate:

“It is impossible for Congress to hold an informed public debate on the Patriot Act when there is a significant gap between what most Americans believe the law says and what the government is using the law to do. In fact, I believe many members of Congress who have voted on this issue would be stunned to know how the Patriot Act is being interpreted and applied.

“Even secret operations need to be conducted within the bounds of established, publicly understood law. Any time there is a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the government secretly thinks the law says, I believe you have a serious problem.”

I have often wondered, since I first wrote about America’s slide toward fascism, what was driving it. I saw the symptoms but not the cause. Scahill’s and Rowley’s brave, transformational film reveals the prime movers at work. The US executive now has a network of secret laws, secret budgets, secret kill lists, and a well-funded, globally deployed army of secret teams of assassins. That is precisely the driving force working behind what we can see. Is fascism really too strong a word to describe it?