Archives: Articles

 

By Nicola Nasser

Reports are abound by international organizations about the responsibility of the Syrian government for the human rights violations in the ongoing conflict in Syria, now in its fourth year, but the responsibility of the insurgents has been kept away from media spotlight for political reasons.

However, the horrible image of the “revolutionary” performance imposed itself on the media and public opinion to an extent that it has become impossible to black it out anymore.

Internationally last Thursday, for example, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said that Russia’s and China’s vetoes against a United Nations Security Council resolution to refer allegations of war crimes in Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC) “protect monstrous terrorist organizations operating in Syria … who are pursuing a fundamentalist assault on the Syrian people that knows no decency or humanity.”

Regionally on the same day, The Yemeni Coordination Committee for the Support of Syrian Revolution dissolved itself in protest against what it called in a statement “the diversion and transformation of the leaders of the revolution and opposition into terrorist gangs and groups.”

Since U.S. President Barak Obama imposed sanctions on April 29, 2011 on some Syrian officials reportedly accused of using violence against civilians, the U.S., European and regional sponsors of a “regime change” in the country have so far held the Syrian government as the only party accountable. The UN and western international human rights organizations followed suit.

Their blackout of the insurgents’ responsibility could not be avoided otherwise those sponsors would be held accountable as well and consequently could not continue their support to the insurgents with impunity, because without their support the insurgents would not have survived.

Their reluctance to arm the Syrian rebels with advanced weapons lest they fall into the hands of the terrorist organizations could not cover up their initial and ongoing arming and recruitment efforts, which empowered the militarization of the peaceful civilian protests with its most extreme Syrian and non-Syrian insurgents.

On last April 8, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was quoted as saying in a briefing to the UN Security Council that the actions of the forces of the Syrian government “far outweigh” the crimes by the “opposition” fighters.

Statistics Tell a Different Story

However, scrutiny of the statistics of the death toll and the facts of the humanitarian fallout of the conflict tell a different story. On this May 19, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said it had documented more than 162,000 deaths in the conflict until this May 17, more than 61 thousand of them were government troops, 42,701 rebels and more than 1600 foreign fighters; SOHR believes that both sides of the combat strongly tend to be very conservative about their human casualties. The rest were civilians many of whom were victims of suicide bombing and mortar shells fired by the rebels.

The breakdown of these figures show the government a victim rather than a culprit and indicate that the actions of the rebels “far outweigh” those of the government, contrary to Navi Pillay’s conclusion.

“Questioning the Syrian ‘Casualty List’” in the Lebanese Alakhbar on February 28, 2012, Sharmine Narwani documented that, “The very first incident of casualties from the Syrian regular army that I could verify dates to 10 April 2011, when gunmen shot up a bus of soldiers travelling through Banyas, in Tartous, killing nine,” i.e. few weeks after the first peaceful protests broke out in Syria, a fact which questions the now wrongfully accepted public knowledge that the government was the party who initiated the “violence.”

The communiqué issued by the eleven western and Arab foreign ministers of the core group of the so-called “Friends of Syria” after their meeting in London on this May 15 was the latest example of the political motives behind the blackout, which they have imposed for too long on the insurgents’ responsibility.

They called the upcoming presidential elections on next June 3 “illegitimate” and a “parody of democracy,” ignoring the fact that any power vacuum in Syria would only create the right environment for the collapse of the central government.

The inevitable result would be an exacerbation of the humanitarian crisis in the country, rendering their humanitarian rhetoric a parody of humanity.

Worse still, the eleven “Friends of Syria” had “agreed unanimously” to boost their support to what they described as “the moderate opposition National Coalition (SNC), its Supreme Military Council and associated moderate armed groups.”

What “moderates” did they refer to? On last September 25 the BBC quoted a recent study published by IHS Jane’s analyst Charles Lister, which concluded that, “the core of the Syrian insurgency is composed of Islamist groups of one kind or another.” “The armed opposition is all too much a part of the conflict,” Red Maistre wrote in The Northern Star four days later.

Three years and three months on, the “Friends of Syria” failed to bring the “regime” down. On the contrary, it has got the military upper hand, while the organizations which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had listed as terrorists got the upper hand in the rebel-held areas.

Whatever military supplies the “moderate” rebels could get will only prolong the war, postpone any political settlement and perpetuate and exacerbate the worsening humanitarian crisis.

Civilian protesters, political opposition and “secular” armed rebels were hijacked, sidelined and finally dumped by the mainstream terrorists, whose backbone consists of “foreign fighters,” thus dooming any political solution for a long time to come and vindicating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s determination on last August 4 that, “No solution can be reached with terror except by striking it with an iron fist.”

As early as March 2012 Sara Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, had warned that, ““The Syrian government’s brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups.”

Schools, universities, hospitals, health clinics, churches, mosques, religious monuments, power grids, railways, bridges, oil fields, historical sites, museum assets, police symbols of public safety and order and other infrastructure were targeted by the rebels with unprecedented level of destruction and civilian plight.

A survey, conducted by the Relief and Works Agency of UN’s Microfinance Programs and released early last April, said it would take 30 years for the Syrian economy to recover to its 2010 level.

According to the SOHR, the infighting among rebels has claimed more than five thousand casualties in 2014. The infighting over border crossings and oil fields displaced more than one hundred thousand civilians in north eastern Syria during the past month.

As a strategy, the rebels since the very beginning have been using Syrian civilians en masse as a bargaining chip and as human shields, a fact which the “Friends of Syria” have been keen to blackout.

On this May 12, rebels have agreed to free 1,500 families whom they had kidnapped and held hostages in Adra, a suburb of the capital Damascus, for the release of rebels jailed by the government. Two weeks ago they freed some one hundred infants, children and elderly men and women in exchange for evacuating the Old City of Homs unharmed.

On May 4, they cut off water supply to some three million civilians in Syria’s second largest city of Aleppo, a collective punishment reminiscent of a similar horrible practice by Israel in Beirut in 1982. Last month the rebels cut off the electricity supply. For less than two years now they have been bombarding the western side of the city, which is under government control, with mortar shells and turning the civilian life there into a nightmare of suicide and tunnel bombings from the eastern side, which they control.

Rule, Not Exception

These inhuman tactics are not the exception, but the norm and rule. Since the very beginning of their rebellion in March 2011, rebels stormed into Syrian city centers, where there was no official military presence, and used the civilian population as human shields against any retaliation by the government forces, thus unleashing what the United Nations described as the world’s largest refugee problem.

Civilians have paid the higher price. Syrians now hold the rebels responsible for their plight. Their sectarian public incubator has already turned against them in favour of restoring the missing safety, security and order by the government.

All factions of the rebels claim they are the representatives of the Muslim Sunni majority, but the overwhelming majority of some six million Syrians who are displaced internally are Sunnis, now hosted by non-Sunni compatriots in safe havens under government protection, let alone more than three million refugees who are also overwhelmingly Sunni Syrians and fled to neighbouring countries from the areas held by the rebels.

It’s a well-known fact now that creating a humanitarian crisis in Syria, whether real or fabricated, and holding the Syrian government responsible for it as a casus belli for foreign military intervention under the UN 2005 so-called “responsibility to protect” initiative was from the very beginning of the Syrian conflict the goal of the U.S.-led so-called “Friends of Syria’ coalition.

A second fact was the rush to militarize the Syrian civilian peaceful protests. When President al-Assad issued in 2011 the first of his six general amnesties, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on record with a public appeal to armed rebels not to lay down their arms in response.

In March 2014 a commission of inquiry mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, chaired by Paulo Pinheiro, for the first time accused the insurgents in Syria of “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes.”

On this May 14, Syrian Rev. Michael Rabaheih, from the Greek Orthodox Church, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying: “If this is freedom, we don’t need it.”

Rabaheih was one of some 80,000 Christians who returned to the Old City of Homs, which the opposition once proudly called “the capital of the revolution,” but which the rebels were forced to evacuate this month. He was seated next to the grave of the Dutch priest, Frans van der Lugt, who was assassinated by the rebels a few weeks earlier, not far from the gravely damaged historic Khalid ibn al-Walid mosque in the devastated neighbourhoods of Syria’s third largest city, where “little was left.”

Obviously, the “Friends of Syria” have failed to artificially create any credible alternative to the incumbent regime, which, however, did change indeed.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

23 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Farooque Chowdhury
In a symbolic, but historic blow to the hegemony of US dollar, China and Russia have concluded an agreement with far-reaching significance.

The deal bypasses US dollar in part of the two emerging powers’ trade. According to the agreement, two financial institutions of the two countries will pay each other in domestic currencies.

However, major western news agencies and media outlets have ignored the news.

It will not be surprising if any south Asian country enters into similar agreement in future with either of the two powers.

Moreover, there are indications that China is going to widen security dialogue and cooperation in Asia. The approach carries possibilities of alternative to the US approach in the Asia-Pacific region. The widening possibility carries bargaining space for geographically smaller countries like Bangladesh.

At the same time, there is suggestion from academic circle that the US should accept the rise of China.

An Al-Jazeera report (May 20, 2014) by Michael Pizzi said:

“In a symbolic blow to US global financial hegemony, Russia and China took a small step toward undercutting the domination of the US dollar as the international reserve currency on [May 20, 2014] when Russia’s second biggest financial institution, VTB, signed a deal with the Bank of China to bypass the dollar and pay each other in domestic currencies.

“The so-called Agreement on Cooperation — signed in the presence of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is on a visit to Shanghai — was followed by the long-awaited announcement on [May 21, 2014] of a massive natural gas deal 10 years in the making.

“‘Our countries have done a huge job to reach a new historic landmark’, Putin said on [May 20, 2014], making note of the $100 billion in annual trade that has been achieved between the two countries.”

The report said:

“Demand for the dollar, which has long served as a safe and reliable reserve currency in international transactions, has allowed the US to borrow almost unlimited cash and spend well beyond its means, which some economists say has afforded the United States an outsize influence on world affairs.”

The report headlined “Russia, China sign deal to bypass U.S. dollar” said:

The BRICS countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, a bloc of the world’s five major emerging economies — “have long sought to diminish their dependence on the dollar as a means of reshaping the world financial and geopolitical order. In the absence of a viable alternative, however, replacing it has proved difficult.”

The report cited Michael Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College: “For its part, ‘China sees the dominance of the dollar in international trade transactions as a remnant of American global dominance, which they hope to overthrow in the years ahead. This is a small step in that direction, to reduce the primacy of the dollar in international trade.”

The report cited Chris Weafer, a founding partner of Macro-Advisory, a consultancy in Moscow: “Breaking the dominance of the U.S. dollar in international trade between the BRICS is something that the group has been talking about for some time. The Ukraine crisis and the threats voiced by the U.S. administration may well provide the catalyst for that to start happening.”

The deal is a symbolic step.

Citing Liza Ermolenko, an emerging markets economist at Capital Economics in London, the report said:

The deal was still “a very small one, in the grand scale of things”. It wouldn’t change Russia’s reliance on the dollar “overnight.”

Russia’s most oil and gas export contracts are still priced in dollars, Liza Ermolenko noted, and “on a wider scale, replacing the dollar with the ruble is much too risky to even consider.”

The report added:

The “bank deal is another indicator that Russia and China are in the middle of a wider rapprochement, which analysts say is premised not on ideological alignment but on a mutual desire to undercut the US in their respective spheres of influence.

“Both countries are wary of president Barack Obama’s “pivot east,” a recalibration of US foreign policy away from decades of war in the Middle East and toward the fast-growing economies of the East. Cynical observers have interpreted the shift as an effort to contain China.

“‘This is a marriage of mutual strategic interests, not a marriage of love’, said Klare. ‘China wants energy and weapons from Russia, and Russia wants diplomatic backing and cash. It’s a quid pro quo.’”

China, Russia’s biggest trading partner, has already concluded similar dollar-bypassing deals with a number of economies in Asia and Europe.

On May 21, 2014, China, the world’s second-largest economy, signed a landmark deal to buy Russian natural gas worth about $400 billion, a figure greater than the GDP of South Africa, giving a boost to Russia president Vladimir Putin and expanding Moscow’s ties with Asia. Gas is due to begin flowing to China by 2018.

Only hours before the signing of the Sino-Russian gas deal a number of famous western news outlets amazingly reported that Putin has failed to make the deal.

Russian government-controlled Gazprom will supply state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. with 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually. The quantity would represent about a quarter of China’s current annual gas consumption of nearly 150 billion cubic meters.

Under the agreement, Russia will invest $55 billion while China will invest $22 billion.

There are plans for building a pipeline to link China’s northeast to a line that carries gas from western Siberia to the Pacific port of Vladivostok. The development of a gas center on the Pacific will allow Russia to export to prosperous markets in Japan and South Korea.

Alexander Lukin, a deputy head of the Russian Diplomatic Academy under Russian foreign ministry, was quoted by the Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency. “We will be able to show to Europe that we have other customers”, Lukin said.

Alexei Pushkov, head of the international affairs committee of the Russian parliament’s lower house, said on Twitter: “The 30-year gas contract with China is of strategic significance. Obama should give up the policy of isolating Russia: It will not work.”

The Sino-Russian partnership is strategic in the perspective of US-EU-Japan global dominance.

Putin was in Shanghai for an Asian security conference.

In the conference, China’s president called for a new model of Asian security cooperation based on a regional group that includes Russia and Iran and excludes the US.

Meanwhile, Chinese president Xi Jinping has sent a veiled warning to Washington.

“To beef up a military alliance targeting a third party is not conducive to regional common security”, Xi said without mentioning the US while delivering a keynote speech at a regional security forum in Shanghai on May 21, 2014.

Provocation and escalation of tensions for selfish interests should be opposed, he told participants at the fourth Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA).

China is actually suggesting the US to get used to China’s rise.

Citing a Kazakh proverb Xi said: “Someone who tries to blow out another’s oil lamp will set his beard on fire”.

The US provocative role in the Asia-Pacific region is a disturbing development in the region.

Pang Zhongying, professor of international affairs at Renmin University of China, said: “It is time to tell the US it is not justified in interfering in Asia’s affairs, which have nothing to do with the country.”

The comment is a reflection of attitude towards the Empire, which is experiencing a decline in its global influence and power.

China’s president Xi also said: “No country should attempt to dominate regional security affairs or infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of other countries.”

He said: Security problems in Asia should be solved by Asians themselves.

The Chinese president said: If Asian countries speak with a common voice they have the capacity to solve Asian problems themselves.

The statement shows China’s desire to have a collective approach in Asia.

Xi was speaking to reporters with president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu after a summit of CICA.

“Asian countries must collaborate with each other and work together,” Xi said. Asian nations have the capacity to realize security in Asia by cooperating among themselves, he added.

The summit was a gathering of representatives from 47 countries and international organizations, mainly from Asia, concluded on May 21, 2014.

Xi said countries must “completely abandon” the old security concepts, while advocating a new one pursuing cooperative and sustainable features, to create a security cooperation pattern of openness, equality and transparency.

The idea China is highlighting is a challenge to the US approach to the Asia-Pacific region, which is maintaining and strengthening of its dominance.

The Chinese president said: “China and Russia jointly initiated an Asia-Pacific security and cooperation initiative”.

Already the US has experienced unexpected developments in Europe. Moscow’s response to US meddling in Ukraine is strong, which the US has not expected. It’s natural that US standing is making its appearance as unreliable ally to its European partners. Probably, the Empire is going to face a situation spread over two fronts: Europe, and its much-desired Asia-Pacific. It, the possible “two fronts” reality, will be difficult for the Empire.

Xi has indicated that China is going to take “steps to strengthen security dialogue and cooperation with other parties, and jointly explore the formulation of a code of conduct for regional security and an Asian security partnership program”.

China’s tone to its neighbors is still not “do it”, which a number of Asian countries have experienced from the Empire. The Empire often “forgets” the concept of mutual respect.

With a win-win approach China has already indicated that it is willing to discuss with regional countries the creation of an Asian forum for security cooperation in law enforcement and an Asian security emergency response center.

Beijing is getting involved in regional cooperation processes that include SAARC and ASEAN. China is also trying to play a role to ensure development and security in Asia.

China, the emerging global power, plans to develop an economic belt along the Silk Road and a 21st Century maritime silk road. The country has already initiated the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an alternative to the Asian Development Bank. Countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal can benefit from these initiatives. These will also provide the countries vital space for cooperation and expansion in the areas of economy, finance, diplomacy, security and the all inclusive politics.

Farooque Chowdhury is Dhaka-based freelancer.

22 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Ram Puniyani
The results of Parliamentary Elections are very interesting. With 31% vote share BJP-Modi won 282 Parliament seats, Congress with 19% vote share got 44 seats, BSP polled 4.1 percent of votes and drew a total blank, the Trinamool Congress won 3.8 percent of vote share with 34 seats, Samajwadi Party won 3.4 percent with five MPs, AIADMK with 3.3 got 37 seats, Mamta with 3.8% of vote share got 32 seats while CPIM with 3.3 percent of vote share got nine seats. We should note that this time around Congress’s 19.3% votes translated into 44 seats while during last general elections of 2009 BJP’s 18.5% had fetched it 116 seats. That’s a tale by itself, the crying need for electoral reforms which has been pending despite such glaring disparities which weaken the representative character of our Parliament. Many social activists have been asking for these reforms but in vain.

Modi has been of course the flavor of the season and this time around it is being said that it was his plank of ‘development’ which attracted the voters to him, cutting across the caste and religious equations. How far is that true? Keeping aside the fact that Modi was backed to the hilt by Corporate, money flowed like water and all this was further aided by the steel frame of lakhs of RSS workers who managed the ground level electoral work for BJP. Thus Modi stood on two solid pillars, Corporate on one side and RSS on the other. He asserted that though he could not die for independence he will live for Independent India. This is again amongst the many falsehoods, which he has concocted to project his image in the public eye. One knows that he belongs to a political ideology and political stream of RSS-Hindutva, which was never a part of freedom struggle. RSS-BJP-Hindutva nationalism is different from the nationalism of freedom movement. Gandhi, freedom movement’s nationalism is Indian Nationalism while Modi parivar’s Nationalism is Hindu nationalism, a religious nationalism similar and parallel to Muslim nationalism of Jinnah: Muslim League. From the sidelines, RSS and its clones kept criticizing the freedom movement as it was for inclusive Indian nationalism, while Modi’ ideological school, RSS is for Hindu nationalism. So there no question of people like him or his predecessors dying for freedom of the country.

There are multiple other factors which helped him to be first past the pole, his aggressive style, his success in banking upon weaknesses of Congress, his ability to communicate with masses supplemented by the lackluster campaign of Congress and the Presidential style of electioneering added weight to Modi’s success. Congress, of course, has collected the baggage of corruption and weak governance. The out of proportion discrediting of Congress begun by Anna movement, backed by RSS, and then taken forward by Kejriwal contributed immensely knocking Congress out of reckoning for victory. Kejrival in particular woke up to BJP’s corruption a wee bit too late and with lots of reluctance for reasons beyond the comprehension. Anna, who at one time was being called the ‘second Gandhi’ eclipsed in to non-being after playing the crucial role for some time. Kejriwal pursuing his impressive looking agenda against corruption went on to transform the social movement into a political party and in the process raing lots of question on the nature and potentials of social movements. Kejrival’s AAP, definitely split the anti Modi votes with great ‘success’. AAP put more than 400 candidates and most of them have lost their deposits. Many of these candidates have excellent reputation and contribution to social issues and for engaging challenges related to social transformation. After this experience of electoral battlefield how much will they be able to go back to their agenda of social change-transformation through agitations and campaigns will remain to be seen.

Many commentators-leaders, after anointing Anna as the ‘Second Gandhi’ are now abusing Gandhi’s name yet again by comparing the likes of Ramdeo and Modi to Mahatma Gandhi. One Modi acolyte went on to say Modi is better than Gandhi! What a shame to appropriate the name of Gandhi, the great unifier of the nation with those whose foundations are on the divisive ideology of sectarian nationalism.

Coming to the ‘development’ agenda, it is true that after playing his role in Gujarat carnage, Modi quickly took up the task of propagating the ‘development’ of Gujarat. This ‘make believe’ myth of Gujarat’s development as such was state government’s generous attitude towards the Corporate, who in turn started clamoring for ‘Modi as PM’ right from 2007. While the religious minorities started being relegated to the second class citizenship in Gujarat, the myth of Gujarat development started becoming the part of folk lore, for long unchallenged by other parties and scholars studying the development. When the data from Gujarat started being analyzed critically the hoax of development lay exposed, but by that time it was too late for the truth of development to be communicated to the people far and wide. On the surface it appears as if this was the only agenda around which Modi campaigned. That’s far from true. Modi as such used communal and caste card time and over again. This was done with great amount of ease and shrewdness. He did criticize the export of beef labeling it Pink revolution, subtly hinting the link of meat-beef to Muslim minorities. This converted an economic issue into a communal one. Modi spoke regularly against Bangla speaking Muslims by saying that the Assam Government is doing away with Rhinos for accommodating the Bangla infiltrators. He further added that they should be ready to pack their bags on 16th May when he will take over as the Prime Minister of the country. The communal message was loud and clear. BJP spokesmen have already stated that these Bangla speaking Hindus are refugees while the Muslim is infiltrators.

If one examines the overall scatter of the areas where BJP has won a very disturbing fact comes to one’s mind. While at surface the plank of development ruled the roost there is definitely the subtle role played by communal polarization. BJP has mostly succeeded in areas where already communal polarization has been brought in through communal or violence or terrorist violence. Maharashtra, Gujarat, UP, MP, Bihar, Assam all these have seen massive communal violence in the past. While the states which have not come under the sway of BJP-Modi are the one’s which have been relatively free from communal violence: Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Kerala in particular. Orissa is a bit of an exception, where despite the Kandhmal violence, Navin Patnaik’s party is managing to be in power. The socio political interpretation of the deeper relations between acts of violence and victory of RSS-BJP-Modi needs to be grasped at depth; the polarizing role of communal-terrorist violence needs a deeper look. While on surface the development myth has won over large section of electorate, it has taken place in areas which have in past seen the bouts of violence. Most of the inquiry commission reports do attribute violence to the machinations of communal organization.

While overtly the caste was not used, Modi did exploit the word Neech Rajniti (Low level Politics) used by Priyanka Gandhi and converted it in to Neech Jati (low caste), flaunting his caste. At other occasions also he projected his caste, Ghanchi to polarize along caste lines.

What signal has been given by Modi’s victory? The message of Mumbai, Gujarat Muzzafarnagar and hoards of other such acts has created a deep sense of insecurity amongst sections of our population. Despite Modi’s brave denials and the struggles of social activists, justice delivery seems to be very slow, if at all, and it is eluding the victims. The culprits are claiming they are innocents and that they have got a ‘clean chit’. While there are many firsts in Modi coming to power, one first which is not highlighted is that, this is the first time a person accused of being part of the carnage process is going to have all the levers of power under his control. So what are the future prospects for the India of Gandhi and Nehru, what are the prospects of the values of India’s Constitution? Can Modi give up his core agenda of Hindu Nationalism, which has been the underlying ideology of his politics, or will he deliver a Hindu nation to his mentors? No prizes for guessing!

Ram Puniyani was a professor in biomedical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, and took voluntary retirement in December 2004 to work full time for communal harmony in India.

21 May 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

A delegation headed by Ambassador Fouad Maznaie, a representative of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Humanitarian Affairs Department, is reported to have arrived Chad on May 14, 2014. The Mission aims at assisting refugees displaced by the recent violence in the Central African Republic (CAR). The mission includes representatives from the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the International Islamic Relief Organization in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Red Cross, IHH and Doctors Around the World from Turkey, the Charity Foundation from Qatar, and the Islamic Relief and the Muslim Aid from Britain. The Mission has already declared a donation of US$5 million comprising urgent humanitarian assistance which include building of tents for displaced persons and refugees, truckloads of food and medicine and sinking of wells. A plane load with shipment of medicine from Turkey is expected to arrive in the Sar region of Chad on 25 May 2014.

Earlier the OIC had held an emergency ministerial Executive Committee meeting at its General Secretariat in Jeddah on 20 February 2014 in which it was decided that a high-level delegation would be dispatched to the CAR in order to assess the prevailing situation on the ground and to show solidarity with the Muslim community who have become victim of gross human rights violations. The meeting also had decided to appoint an OIC special envoy to the Central African Republic. OIC Secretary General Iyad Amin Madani then appointed a former Senegalese foreign minister, Cheikh Tidiane Gadio, as special envoy with the assignment of visiting Central African Republic and neighboring states to lay the groundwork for the delegation’s visit. This delegation now is expected to prepare a report on how to extend urgent humanitarian assistance to the displaced persons and refugees and to obtain first-hand information by visiting displaced persons camps in the Central African Republic and refugees camps in Cameroon and Chad. The Mission is mandated to assess and recommend needs for food and shelter, medical and educational needs for the refugees.

Background

Why has the OIC undertaken this mission? Clearly this is because almost all these refugees happen to be Muslim and all media reports during the past few months have highlighted the fact that Muslims were deliberately targeted and many parts of CAR have already been ethnically cleansed. Now the question is why and how Muslims have become victim in this conflict although officially the CAR has only 15 percent Muslim. The conflict has almost turned out to be a Christian-Muslim conflict only to support the clash of civilizations thesis. And this is a very serious development in the current international politics and must be examined carefully.

According to Think Africa Press (26 Feb 2014) the problem was never religious, rather it originated from ethnic orientation of government policies during the last three decades. It says, “[In] the CAR, we can see there has been a trend towards the politicisation of ethnicity, not religion. For example, former president André Kolingba (1981–93) explicitly rewarded his ethnic group, the Yakoma from southern CAR, with patronage and support. His successor, Ange-Félix Patassé (1993–2003) in turn dismissed the Yakoma and rewarded his own supporters from the northwest, mostly Sara-Kaba, with government positions and patronage. And Bozizé, who deposed Patassé and also came from the northwest, gave clear preferential treatment to the Gbaya. Kolingba, Patassé, and Bozizé all favoured different groups and politicised identity, but awarded privilege based on ethnic not religious terms. After all, all three were Christian.”

Earlier the French colonial administration established a political culture where force, rather than popular consent, was the source of authority. The French also cultivated commercial allies, exploited the territory’s resources, not to advance the native population’s wellbeing but their own and that of France. By setting up its authoritarian administration, colonial France transformed cultural groups, ethnic or religious, into state managed political categories. As with all colonial regimes, this strategy of divide and rule was meant to undermine the common political project of the African people and to prolong French dominance. France continued to have significant role in CAR military affairs and often called the shot, directly or indirectly, through its military capabilities, including local allies.

Discrimination against Muslims

The CAR got independence in 1960 and within a short period country’s politics turned to be ethnic based. The former colonial ruler France began to patronize authoritarian military personalities. The Muslim community, which was mainly a trading and farming community and survived under the colonial rule, increasingly became victim of discrimination. They became easy target of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) which was active in neighboring countries. According to Aljazeera, “for thirty years, the Lord’s Resistance Army has terrorised the rural population.” In its 2012 statement on International Religious Freedom in CAR the US State Department reported that, “Muslims continued to face discrimination in access to government services when low-level bureaucrats reportedly created informal barriers. The constitutional provision prohibiting religious intolerance was widely perceived as designed to protect Muslims; however, implementing legislation did not support the provision.”

In March 2103 a coalition forces known as Seleka in the local language overthrew the last authoritarian government of General Francios Bozize. A significant number of these rebels happened to be Muslim. Immediately the French dominated media depicted the conflict as a Christian-Muslim religious conflict and declared that Christians were under siege. The Seleka forces collapsed within months when they came under combined attack by the militia belonging to ethnic groups who had enjoyed power under the earlier authoritarian regimes. Within months over a million Muslims in the country came under heavy assault and were almost totally cleansed. Most took shelter in neighboring countries. In December 2013 France secured a UN Security Council resolution (2127 of 2013) to dispatch peace keeping troops to CAR. Unfortunately French troops took a partisan position in favor of the Christian militia and the armed forces under the former authoritarian regimes that were mainly Christian. With more than a million displaced populations the situation has reached a catastrophic stage.

The OIC initiative to undertake this humanitarian mission is timely and must be commended. This will definitely help soothing the Muslim frustration. This is important because such frustrations rouse extremism and provide ammunition to groups such as Boko Haram next door. However the international community must do more. The Chicago based body Justice for All, an interfaith group, after visiting the affected areas has reported that the Muslim Imam Oumar Layama of Bangui has taken refuge at the house of the Archbishop. But they have also reported that a Christian politician has been assassinated because of his public support for Muslim victims.

What Must be Done to Ensure Peace and Security

First of all one must recognize that the conflict in the Central African Republic is a huge security threat to international peace and this is not an isolated incident. The proponents of the clash of civilizations thesis and the Islamophobic elements, particularly in the media, seem to be encouraging and patronizing it. Therefore, the international community including the OIC must do the following:

1. The little effort undertaken by the local community under the leadership of the Archbishop and Imam of Bangui must be encouraged and whole-heartedly       supported.

2. The effort of the Chicago based interfaith group Justice for All also must be supported and advanced;

3. Distinguished Christian individuals and groups must come forward to condemn extremist groups such as the LRA and other Christian militias in the             region.

4. The UN peace keeping operations must not be led by troops from former colonial powers;

5. The OIC must convince its member-states to participate more actively in UN peace keeping operations.

Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan is the Vice-President of JUST.

22 May 2014

 

 

 

By Ynetnews

Significant Israeli investment in India is only going to grow under leadership of newly-elected prime minister Narendra Modi, who boasts long-time support of Israel.

Israel may have a staunch new ally in South Asia with India’s election of Narendra Modi to the position of Prime Minister, reported the New York-based International Business Times on Saturday.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time on Friday, calling Modi to congratulate him for his victory. In their phone conversation, the two had agreed to work to deepen cooperation between the two countries.

Modi is a Hindu nationalist and considered to be right-wing in Indian politics. Born into a poor family where he sold tea with his father as a child, he rose to prominence as the Chief Minister of Gujarat, a Western province in India.
There he gained recognition as a charismatic leader as he reversed economic trends in the province to make it one of India’s most important Industrial and financial centers.

Part of his success was due to a public relations campaign and financial incentives to encourage investment in development within Gujarat. Israel was reportedly one of Modi’s greatest allies in economic progress according to the International Business Times. He has visited Israel in the past and has publicly supported it.

Modi came to power as leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which has supported his close political and financial ties with Israel, who invested billions of dollars in Gujarat during Modi’s time as its leader.
In the latter half of 2013, agreements were signed with Israeli company Tower Semiconductor and a Swiss company to open two semiconductor fabrication plants (one of which would be in Gujarat) at a cost of $10.4 billion.

The two plants are projected to create 22,000 jobs. Indian consumption of the semiconductor products for electronic chips to be made at the plants is due to rise from $7 billion in 2014 to $55 billion in 2020, paving the way for investment in additional plants.

“Gujarat is a business-oriented state and this (memorandum of understanding) will help both Israeli and Gujarat-based companies in developing and strengthening the industrial relationship,” said Israel’s Consul General in Mumbai, Jonathan Miller, to Israel National News.

“Our focus is on increasing research ties with Gujarat. Israel is keen to increase research and development and cultural ties with Gujarat,” said Miller who also added that a free-trade agreement may be on the horizon for the two countries.

Miller also spoke on Indian TV to discuss Israeli involvement in agricultural projects. “Israel is a world leader in advanced agriculture technologies. Israel’s success lies in the determination and ingenuity of farmers and scientists and in the close cooperation between R&D and industry,” said Miller.

“These characteristics have created a flourishing agriculture sector amidst a difficult environment with limited ground and water resources. Amongst the many fields in which Israel and India collaborate, agriculture has always been front and center,” he concluded.

Though popular throughout much of the nation for his charisma and economic success, Modi is a highly controversial political figure since riots in 2002 in Gujarat when 1,200 people were killed in violence between Hindus and Muslims.

Modi was accused of complicity in the violence and though he was absolved of all accusations by India’s Supreme Court, the US and European countries rejected visas for Modi in sanctions meant to punish the leader for not doing enough to end the violence.

Israel gained Modi as a business partner and political supporter when he saw that attempting to find financial investment from the US and Europe wasn’t politically viable.

Yet, it isn’t only for financial gain that Israel finds itself naturally partnered with Modi’s BJP. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Islamic rhetoric from BJP officials over the years has drawn India closer to Israel politically and ideologically as they also search for ways to cooperate in fighting terrorism.

The National security adviser from a previous BJP government said in Washington that India, Israel, and the US must, “jointly face the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism.” The comments came in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and preceded the first state visit from an Israeli Prime Minister to India.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to the country was widely protested by Indian Muslims.
While any positive relationship between the two countries creates a complicated situation between the Indian State and the Islamic world, financial cooperation has been significant no matter who was in power. Israel is India’s largest provider of military equipment for example, amounting to $10 billion.
17 May 2014
Ynetnews

By Reuters

Victims of the Odessa fire massacre died within seconds, but not from smoke or carbon monoxide suffocation, the head of Odessa’s emergency service department, Vladimir Bodelan, said on his Facebook page.

Violent clashes erupted on May 2 between rival rallies of anti-government protesters and radicals supporting the coup-imposed authorities in Kiev. The confrontation led to a tragedy that left 48 people dead and 247 injured as nationalists burnt the protester camp and then set fire to the Trade Unions House with anti-Kiev activists trapped inside. According to witnesses, many of those who managed to escape the flames were then strangled or beaten with bats by radicals.

“I’m sure that 99.9 percent of the people were killed in the Trade Unions House within seconds and did not suffocate from smoke…[or burn in the] fire. But there are forensic experts, we will wait for their findings,” Bodelan said.

Bodelan was by the building when it was set on fire and said that even before the smoke spread inside, he saw people leaning outside windows trying to take a breath of fresh air.

“I cannot explain why they were having such trouble breathing, but I am 100 percent sure that it was not because of the smoke caused by the fire,” Bodelan said.

He added that there was a bang after the fire started inside the building, which apparently extinguished the blaze on the central staircase. “In that second, a few people jumped from the building…The majority of them were alive and they were even able to walk on their own two feet. But a couple dozen meters later, they lost consciousness and fell to the ground, with their tragic end known to all.”

He witnessed rescuers carrying more than 350 individuals out of the building while others who managed to jump out of the windows were heavily beaten by radicals – which led to many choosing to stay inside the building.

Bodelan said that several thousand individuals who were gathered outside the building prevented firefighters from getting close to the scene of the fire for quite some time.

“The worst thing in this situation was that fire brigades that arrived at the site on time could not begin putting out the fire because the attackers were shooting and resisting,” he said.

All of Bodelan’s attempts to increase police presence in the area went unanswered.

“I was forced to negotiate with activists, who looked to me as heads of fighter units, that we could work calmly,” he said.

At the same time, Kiev has made public its report, in which it also revealed what caused the death of nearly 50 people. According to “official information,” six people died of gun shots, 32 suffocated or died in the flames and another 10 fell to their deaths.

Forty-eight of those killed in the massacre have been identified by both local and social media. Three bodies people are still considered missing, according to various sources. Over 60 people remain in hospitals, 26 of whom are in grave condition.

Residents of Odessa gathered last weekend for a memorial service to commemorate the victims of the May 2 bloodshed.

15 May 2014
Reuters

By the Policy Study, Publication, and Advocacy (PSPA)

Signed on April 28 by Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and U.S. Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) risks violating the country’s national sovereignty and invites American forces’ occupation of the Philippines under various ruses set forth in the new pact.

Constitutionality and extraterritoriality

In the guise of “enhanced defense cooperation,” EDCA construes U.S. military basing in the Philippines that is more expanded and extensive than its previous military facilities under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement. In the agreement, the U.S. will “preposition and store” military equipment, supplies, and materiel at AFP bases and other territories. Under their operational control, they can use airfields, ports, public roads, and community areas; as well as construct infrastructures and other facilities in so-called “agreed locations.”

The agreement may remain in force beyond the 10 years contemplated in the absence of any prior notice for its termination which is unlikely considering that the U.S. will not spend so much money for building the facilities aside from operations without being assured of a longer or permanent stay. The new facilities, continuing prepositioning and rotation of U.S. forces and military equipment as well as the use of airfields, ports, public roads, and other territories including waters throughout the Philippines are nothing less than a basing system.

There is no other way to call this new U.S. military presence particularly in so-called “agreed locations” such as within AFP camps – where they will operate for free – than as a base. An example is the U.S. Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines (JSOTF-P) facility for espionage, psy-ops, and other covert operations of the U.S. Special Forces built inside Camp Navarro, Zamboanga City since 2003. The JSOTF-P has become a permanent site with at least 500 U.S. special operations forces involved in secret operations inside and out at any time. AFP authorities have to ask for permission in order to access this secret and high-security base. The JSOTF-P and other facilities set up by U.S. forces since the VFA have been described by Pentagon documents as “forward or advance operating bases.”

Is there a basis for invoking the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the U.S. and the Philippines to justify EDCA? The MDT was a cold war instrument whereby the Philippines at that time was made to believe that an “external threat” was poised against her and the U.S. – the “totalitarian USSR,” the newly-liberated communist China, and North Korea which sent forces into South Korea. The war in Indochina from which emerged the U.S. “domino theory” would heat up much later.

Conversely in the context of EDCA, there is no imminent “external attack”: The Philippine government can always say that China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) is an “armed threat” to the Philippines that warrants the treaty allies’ defensive or counter-offensive posture and the operationalization of the MDT. But the other treaty partner – the U.S., through President Barack Obama – has been non-committal to fighting on the side of the Philippines against China clarifying that the U.S. maintains “constructive” relations with China and calls for the rules-based peaceful settlement of the maritime disputes in the SCS/WPS.

Nuclear weapons will come in. Art. IV, Sec. 6 of the agreement which excludes nuclear weapons refers only to prepositioned materiel. The whole agreement is silent on the entry or access to Philippine territories of warships, warplanes, aircraft carriers, and submarines – most of them nuclear weapons-equipped whose presence in the country is prohibited by the 1987 Constitution. In fact since 1992 upon the dismantling of the first U.S. military bases, the U.S. has docked its nuclear-armed warships and flown its aircraft on Philippine territory with the quiet acquiescence of Philippine authorities. The U.S. has notoriety for its “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear weapons. In 1995, a Top Secret document revealed that the U.S. stored as many as 70 nuclear weapons in the Philippines during the cold war. Then as now, Philippine authorities are powerless at preventing the entry of these weapons of mass destruction given that whatever “access” is allowed does not carry the right to inspect on either prepositioned materiel or mobile vehicles such as nuclear-armed warships and warplanes.

Extraterritorial rights are granted to the U.S. in further violation of the Philippine constitution and other sovereign laws. Anything goes and the culprits will not be bound by Philippine laws. Because the “agreed locations” and other territories contemplated in the agreement will be under the “operational control” of the U.S. no Filipino will ever know what happens inside those locations especially activities and incidents that violate Philippine laws. U.S. laws and policies – not those of the host country – will govern defense contracts that include construction projects and installation of facilities such as telecommunications and radar systems.

Extraterritoriality suspends not only Philippine but also international laws. As in the VFA practice, the criminal jurisdiction over erring U.S. military and civilian personnel – who are expected to enter the Philippines in massive numbers never before imagined – remains vague. The agreement says all legal disputes and other matters will be left to an equally ambiguous “consultative mechanism” of the two countries. Victims of U.S. crimes are thus estopped from seeking justice and protection provided by Philippine laws; even international laws remain frozen. And yet in the EDCA preamble both parties uphold the primacy of the Philippine Constitution and national laws as well as international laws and UN conventions. How such “consultative mechanisms” for legal disputes and other matters will play to protect the rights of victims is not guaranteed so that the same unwritten rule of protecting erring U.S. forces so they can evade arrest and prosecution – both under the 1947 MBA and current defense agreements – will prevail.

On credible defense capability, modernization, and humanitarian aid

For decades now – except for a few years after its bases were dismantled in 1991 – America has in exchange for supporting its geo-strategic interests provided the Philippine military with sizeable amounts of military aid, arms supplies, military scholarships and training in the U.S. and, since the VFA, has conducted joint Balikatan war exercises and special forces training. Billions of pesos have also been earmarked for the AFP’s modernization in post-Marcos years – much of it remaining unaccounted for since Ramos. Now EDCA is being rationalized to help the Philippines develop its defense capability and modernization program – a tacit admission that the 60-year defense partnership has yielded no positive results in terms of at least strengthening the AFP. Today the Philippine military is considered among the weakest in Asia.

In truth, Pentagon reports reveal the unilateral advantages the U.S. gains by using the Philippines as a training ground for its own forces such as jungle warfare and as a laboratory for counter-insurgency, unconventional war, psywar and torture techniques to enhance U.S. military manuals that are then tested in warfronts such as Iraq, Afghanistan and, during the cold war, in Indochina, South America, and other regions. Humanitarian missions and recently, disaster relief, have nothing to do with American sympathy to disaster victims. These non-traditional missions have been part of the U.S.’ modern counter-insurgency and anti-terrorist intervention doctrines aimed at winning “the hearts and minds” of people against insurgencies and as a soft power to promote hegemonism.

Thus the alliance architecture crafted over the past 60 years around the now-defunct Military Bases Agreement (MBA, 1947), MDT, VFA, the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA), EDCA, and other agreements as well as military assistance, military scholarships, as well as special trainings and war exercises has been one-sided. The alliance compelled the Philippines to support U.S. wars of aggression and allowing the free use of military bases from the Korean war, to the Indohina war, and the first U.S. Gulf War (“Desert Storm”) in 1991, and most recently the “war on terror.” In effect, the alliance system has always been used by the U.S. to draw support for its wars in Asia – which, anyway, ended in either stalemate or in debacles to the U.S. as in Indochina – and to maintain its military hegemony in Asia Pacific. In the end, the alliance system has left the Philippines more and more militarily dependent on the U.S. and gave the latter the leverage to intervene in Philippine affairs.

The EDCA is an unequal agreement: For all the occupation and extraterritorial rights enjoyed by a foreign army – all for free – the Philippines is merely given the glorified role of providing security for the new bases and U.S. forces. Free security these foreign forces will enjoy whether doing covert operations or enjoying the country’s world-renowned beaches, paradise sites, as well as new prostitution communities that will rise once more all over the archipelago to cater to the Americans forces’ “R&R” requirements.

Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)
May 6, 2014

 

By Alan Hart
The conclusion to be drawn from the Obama administration’s predictable and predicted failure to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace process going is that the Zionist (not Jewish) monster state is beyond control. And the question arising is this. What are the real choices for the Palestinians?

In an editorial on 14 April the New York Times offered its advice to President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. It was that they should make a statement for the record of the principles they believe must underpin a two-state solution “should the Israelis and Palestinians ever decide to make peace.” And then what? They should “move on and devote their attention to other international challenges like Ukraine.” In other words, the NYT’s advice to the Obama administration was, “Wash your hands of the Israel-Palestine conflict and walk away from it.”

On the day of that editorial I had a conversation with a Pakistani friend now resident in the UK who had one-on-one conversations with President Musharaf when he, my friend, was a senior general in Pakistan’s army. According to my friend, Musharaf once said to him, “Should we not make peace with Israel in order to solve some of our problems and forget about these stupid Palestinians?”

My friend replied: “No, Mr. President. It’s a matter of principle.”

Musharaf then said, “There are no principles in politics“.

Nobody knows that better than Obama. His explanation for the failure to get a real peace process going was that both Palestinian and Israeli leaders “lack the political will to take the tough decisions.”

That explanation is not only disingenuous (dictionary definition – “not frank or open; merely posing as being frank and open; crafty, devious”). It is historically dishonest.

The truth of history is that the Palestinian leadership demonstrated the political will and took the tough decisions necessary for peace on terms any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief more than 34 years ago. It happened in 1979 when, by 296 votes in favour and only 4 against, the pragmatic Arafat persuaded the PNC, the Palestine National Council (more or less a parliament-in-exile) and then the highest decision-making body on the Palestinian side, to approve his policy of politics and what had been until then unthinkable compromise with Israel.

The true nature of the compromise for which Arafat secured overwhelming PNC support more than 34 years ago can be simply stated. It required the Palestinians to make peace with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip (land grabbed in a war of Israeli aggression not self-defence) to make the space for a Palestinian mini state with East Jerusalem its capital and/or the whole of Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states. In other words, the Palestinians were ready to make peace with Israel in exchange for the return of only 22 percent of their land. While not recognizing Israel’s “right to exist”, they were recognizing its actual existence on the other 78 percent of their land.

Only Arafat (no other Palestinian leader) could have persuaded the PNC to be ready to make peace on that basis. What he needed thereafter was an Israeli partner for peace and there wasn’t one.

There’s a case for saying that Prime Minister Rabin might have been the Israeli partner for peace Arafat needed but he was assassinated by a Zionist zealot who knew exactly what he was doing – killing the peace process that had been set in motion by the Rabin-Arafat handshake on the lawn of the Clinton White House.

One indication of how troubled Zionism was by Arafat’s success in preparing the ground on his side for peace on the basis of a viable mini state for the Palestinians was the decision in 1982 by Israeli Defence Minister Sharon to order an invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut for the prime purpose of exterminating the entire PLO leadership and destroying the organization’s infrastructure. (The PLO as a “terrorist” organization was something Zionism could live with. The PLO as a partner for peace was not).

The honest explanation for Kerry’s failure to get a real peace process going can also be simply stated. Obama lacks the political will to confront the Zionist lobby and its traitor agents in Congress. That is what he would have to do in order to use the leverage America has to try to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept, and which would be in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and international law. (I think it is correct to describe the Zionist lobby’s stooges in both houses of Congress as traitor agents for the simple reason that it’s not and never has been in America’s own best interests to support the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong).

As Obama was preparing to wash his hands of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel and walk away from it (not least because funding for the mid-term elections to Congress is underway), Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu came out with a statement that was outrageous even by his own standards of duplicity. The Palestinian leadership, he said, had had a choice to make – “Peace with Hamas or peace with Israel.” They could not have both, he asserted, and they had made the wrong choice in going for a reconciliation with Hamas.

With the cameras running Netanyahu told his cabinet that “Hamas denies the holocaust even as it attempts to create an additional holocaust by destroying the state of Israel.” And in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation programme he asserted that “Hamas calls for the extermination of Jews worldwide.”

The reality is that Hamas’s top leaders are on the public record with declarations that while not and never recognizing Israel’s right to exist, they are prepared to live at peace with an Israel withdrawn to the 1967 pre-war borders and which respects Palestinian sovereign rights. As Richard Falk commented in a recent article: “The contention that Hamas is pledged to Israel’s destruction is pure hasbara (propaganda bullshit) and a cynical means to manipulate the fear factor in Israeli domestic politics, as well as ensuring the persistence of the conflict. This approach has become Israel’s way of choosing expansion over peace.”

The Netanyahu notion that Israel’s leaders are open to peace on terms the Palestinians could accept is also complete, absolute, total propaganda nonsense. Zionism’s demolition of Palestinian homes and theft of Palestinian land and water – ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth – continues.

So given that the Zionism’s monster state is beyond control, what are the real choices for the occupied and oppressed Palestinians?

In my analysis there are three.

One is to abandon their struggle, surrender to Zionism’s will and make peace on its terms. This would give the Palestinians a few isolated bits of West Bank land, Bantustans, which they could call a state if they wished. In this scenario the Palestinians would be doing what they refused to do in 1948 – accepting their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.

Another choice is to let events take their course as dictated by Zionism. In this scenario the most likely end game is a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. (In my view a resort to armed struggle or violent confrontation in any shape or form is not a choice the Palestinians should make because it would play into Zionism’s hands and give Israel’s neo-fascist leaders the pretext they would otherwise have to create themselves to proceed with a final ethnic cleansing).

The third choice is to change the political dynamics by demanding and obtaining the dissolution of the corrupt and impotent PA (Palestinian Authority) and handing complete and full responsibility for occupation back to Israel. This, as I have indicated in previous articles, would impose significant security and financial burdens on Israel and, more to the point, it would make calling and holding the Zionist state to account for its crimes something less than what it currently is – a mission impossible.

As I have also asserted in previous articles, the momentum generated by changing the political dynamics as indicated above would be greatly assisted by the Palestinian diaspora putting its act together and becoming politically engaged for the purpose of bringing the PNC back to life, re-invigorated by elections to it in every country where Palestinians are living.

This would enable the Palestinians to be seen to be determining policy by truly democratic means and speaking with one credible voice; and that in turn would assist them to deploy the only weapon they have much more effectively than has been the case to date.

What is this weapon?

The justice of their cause.

Because there are no principles in politics I agree with Susan Abulhawa, the Palestinian author (and also the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, an NGO for children). In a recent article she said there is nothing for the Palestinians in negotiations with powerful elites which, I add, either do Zionism’s bidding or are frightened of offending it too much; and that it is time to take the struggle to the “global street”.

What she meant and said in her own eloquent way is that is that Zionism’s oppression of the Palestinians does not appeal to popular notions of morality, and that if enough citizens of conscience everywhere were aware of Zionism’s on-going destruction of an indigenous population, they could be mobilised to demand justice for the Palestinians.

On that basis Susan Abulhawa sees hope for her people.

In principle so do I, but there’s a troubling question that has to be addressed.

What, really, explains why the Zionist state of Israel is not interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept?

Over the years I have written and said on public platforms that most Israeli Jews are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians. To my way of thinking the best explanation of why this is so was provided by Israeli journalist Merav Michaeli in an article for Ha’aretz on 30 January 2012. The headline over it was Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. Here are five paragraphs from what she wrote (my emphasis added).

QUOTE

The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.

The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a foregone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).

The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.

So it is that we don’t have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That’s the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one’s surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.

What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.

UNQUOTE

There will no doubt be some and perhaps many anti-Zionists who will welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing. I don’t because of what Golda Meir said to me on camera in the course of an interview I did with her for BBC Television’s flagship Panorama programme.

At a point I said: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you have just said. You do mean that if ever Israel was facing a doomsday situation, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it …?”

Without the shortest of pauses for reflection she replied (she almost spat the words at me), “Yes! That’s exactly what I’m saying!“

I believed her then (as did the writer of the lead editorial in The Times which quoted what Golda said to me) and I still do.

Footnote

Who said the following?

“Israel better rid itself of the territories (grabbed in 1967) and their Arab populations as soon as possible. If it does not Israel will became an Apartheid state. Demography is a greater danger than not having the territorial depth the right wing is always claiming Israel needs to defend itself.”

No, dear readers, it was not U.S. Secretary of State Kerry! According to veteran Israel journalist Hirsh Goodman it was David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister.

In his 2005 book Let Me Create Paradise, God Said to Himself, Hirsh tells how home on for leave for 36 hours at the end of the Six Days War he turned on his bedroom radio and heard Ben-Gurion speaking those words. Hirsh, who grew up in South Africa added: “That phrase, ‘Israel will become an Apartheid state’ resonated with me. In a flash I understood what he was saying.”

Unlike Kerry Ben-Gurion did not offer a grovelling apology for using the “A” word.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent.

11 May, 2014

Alanhart.net

 

By John Scales Avery

 

Many traditional agricultural societies have an ethical code that requires them to preserve the fertility of the land for future generations. This recognition of a duty towards the distant future is in strong contrast to the shortsightedness of modern economists. For example, John Maynard Keynes has been quoted as saying “In the long run, we will all be dead”, meaning that we need not look that far ahead. By contrast, members of traditional societies recognize that their duties extend far into the distant future, since their descendants will still be alive.

Here is an ethical principle of the Native Americans: “Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children.” They also say: “We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren, and children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who cannot speak for themselves, such as the birds, animals, fish and trees.”

Here is a quotation form “The Land of the Spotted Eagle” by the Lakota chief Standing Bear (ca. 1834-1908): “The Lakota was a true lover of Nature. He loved the earth and all things of the earth… From Waken Tanka (the Great Spirit) there came a great unifying life force that flowered in and through all things: the flowers of the plains, blowing winds, rocks, trees, birds, animals, and was the same force that had been breathed into the first man. Thus all things were kindred and were brought together by the same Great Mystery.”

In some parts of Africa, a man who plans to cut down a tree offers a prayer of apology, telling the tree why necessity has forced him to harm it. This preindustrial attitude is something from which industrialized countries could learn. In industrial societies, land “belongs” to someone, and the owner has the “right” to ruin the land or to kill the communities of creatures living on it, if this happens to give some economic advantage, in much the same way that a Roman slave-owner was thought to have the “right” to kill his slaves. Preindustrial societies have a much less rapacious and much more custodial attitude towards the land and towards its non-human inhabitants.

Buddhists recognize the unity of all life on earth, and the duty of humans to protect all living things. They also recognize our duty to future generations.

On April 22, 2010, the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia, adopted a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. Here is a link: http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/ Contrast this expression of the deep ethical convictions of the world’s people with the cynical, money-centered results of various intergovernmental conferences on climate change!

Our economic system is built on the premise that individuals act out of self-interest, and as things are today, they do so with a vengeance.There is no place in the system for thoughts about the environment and the long-term future. All that matters is the bottom line. The machine moves on relentlessly, exhausting non-renewable resources, turning fertile land into deserts, driving animal species into extinction, felling the last of the world’s tropical rainforests, pumping greenhousue gasses into the atmosphere, and sponsoring TV programs that deny the reality of climate change, or other programs that extol the concept of never-ending industrial growth. But the economists, bankers, bribed politicians and corporation chiefs who destroy the earth today, are destroying the future for their own children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Does it make sense for them to saw off the branch on which they, like all of us, are sitting?

Recently an extremely grave danger to the long-term future of human civilization and the biosphere has become clear. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is melting far faster than was predicted by the IPCC. It now seems likely that the September Arctic sea ice will vanish by as early as 2016 or 2017. It will, of course, refreeze in the winters, but its average total mass will continue to rapidly decrease.

The rapid and non-linear vanishing of Arctic sea ice is due to a feedback loop involving albido, i.e the high reflectivity of white ice compared with dark sea water which absorbs most of the radiation that falls onto it. As Arctic sea ice disappears more radiation is absorbed, the Arctic temperature rises still further, still more ice melts, and so on in a vicious circle.

At present Arctic temperatures are roughly 4 degrees C higher than preindustrial levels, and this has led to increasingly rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap. It is now observed that during the summers, lakes of melted water form on the surface of the Greenland inland ice. These lakes feed rivers that run for some distance along the surface of the ice cap, but which ultimately fall through fissures to the bottom of the sheet, where they lubricate its flow. Through this mechanism, the Greenland ice cap is flowing more quickly and calving into massive icebergs much more rapidly than climate scientists expected.

Complete melting of the Greenland ice cap would raise ocean levels by 7 meters. Antarctic sea ice is also breaking up much more rapidly than expected. When it is totally gone, the disappearance of Antarctic sea ice would add another 7 meters to ocean levels, making a total of 14 meters. It is hard to predict how soon this will happen, but certainly within 1-3 centuries.

However, by far the most worrying threat to our long-term future comes from the danger of an out-of-control and exponentially accelerating feedback loop involving methane hydrates. When rivers carry organic matter into the ocean, it decays, forming methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. At the temperatuures and pressures currently prevaling on ocean floors, the methane combines with water molecules to form stable crystals called methane hydrates. The amount of carbon stored in methane hydrates is immense: roughly 10,000 gigatons. By comparison, the amount of carbon emitted by human activities since preindustrial times is only 337 gigatons.

Geologists have observed that life on earth has experienced 5 major extinction events, the largest of which was the Permian-Triasic event, when 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of all terrestrial vertebrates disappeared from the fossil record. Predictions based on current CO2 emission rates predict that early in the 22nd century, global temperature increases will have reached 6 degrees C, the temperature that is thought to have initiated the Permian-Triasic extinction event. These dangers are eloquently discussed in a short, important and clear video prepared by Thom Hartmann and his coworkers. It is available on www.lasthours.org

Must there be a human-initiated 6th geological extinction event? Is it inevitable that the long-term future will witness the disappearance of human civilization and most of the plants and animals that are alive today? No! Absolutely not! It is only inevitable if we persist in our greed and folly. It is only inevitable if we continue to value money more than nature. It is only inevitable if we are afraid to queustion the authority of corrupt politicians. It is only inevitable if we fail to cooperate globally. It is only inevitable if we fail to develop a new economic system with both a social conscience and an ecological concience.

We are living today in a time of acute crisis. We need to act with a sense of urgency never before experienced. We need to have great courage to meet an unprecedented challenge. We need to fulfil our duty to future generations

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago.

11 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Mike Head

With the open support of Washington and its European allies, the regime installed by Washington and Berlin in last February’s fascist-led putsch is now extending its reign of terror against all popular resistance in Ukraine. That is the significance of the events in the major eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol yesterday.

After tanks, armoured personnel carriers and heavily armed troops were unleashed on unarmed civilians in the city, the Kiev regime claimed to have killed some 20 people. The Obama administration immediately blamed the violent repression on “pro-Russian separatists.”

The violence bore all the hallmarks of a calculated provocation on the 69th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Soviet Red Army. “Victory Day,” long a day of celebration and pride among Russian and Ukrainian workers, who made immense sacrifices to end the Nazi war of extermination in the east, is hated and despised by the neo-Nazi gangs that propelled the US puppet regime in Kiev into power. These admirers of Hitler and his Ukrainian collaborators are now serving, with Washington’s full support, as the regime’s shock troops against popular opposition centred in the industrialised east of the country as well as in Russian-speaking centres such as Odessa in the south.

The same forces have been given free rein to attack anyone in the west of the country who dares to oppose the fascistic government in Kiev.

Outraged accounts from residents of Mariupol, verified by journalists on the ground, make it clear that many of those targeted by the Ukrainian National Guard and associated fascist elements on Friday had been participating in a Victory Day rally commemorating the anniversary.

Participants in the rally came to the defence of police officers who were barricaded inside the local Interior Ministry building after refusing to fire on civilians. Kiev’s armed forces then assaulted the building, using heavy weaponry and tanks, and turned their weapons on residents who flocked to the scene. Later, in scenes reminiscent of last week’s massacre in Odessa, the building was torched. Government troops then evacuated the city along streets lined with incensed and jeering residents.

Video footage, photos and eye-witness accounts appearing on social media show tanks and armoured personnel carriers rampaging through city streets and parks, and troops confronting residents.

Other postings document Ukrainian forces setting fire to the police building in which officers were barricaded and opening fire on unarmed protesters.

At yesterday’s US State Department press briefing, responding to a reporter’s question about the “worrying escalation of the violence” witnessed in Mariupol, spokeswoman Jen Psaki blamed opponents of the Kiev regime, declaring: “Well, we condemn the outbreak of violence caused by pro-Russia separatists this morning in Mariupol, which has resulted in multiple deaths.”

Her remarks, underscoring Washington’s support for the repression, came after Ukraine’s interim interior minister, Arsen Avakov, gloated on his Facebook page that security forces had killed about 20 “terrorists”—the regime’s term for all those who have opposed the Kiev putsch.

According to Mariupol health officials, at least seven people were killed and 39 injured, some seriously.

Once again, as with last week’s atrocity in Odessa, the US and Western media sought to obscure the facts of what happened on the streets of Mariupol, a large working class port city of half a million people. Vague reports of “clashes with separatists” whitewashed the escalation of the unelected Kiev regime’s military-fascist offensive in eastern Ukraine.

CNN, for example, cited Ukrainian authorities for its report that “at least seven people were killed and 39 others were injured in clashes between separatists and Ukrainian government forces in the flashpoint southeastern city of Mariupol.”

Such reports stand in stark contrast to the multitude of social media postings of the military violence and the involvement of fascist elements. “The National Guard went to war with local police,” local anti-fascist committee representative Pyotr Komissarov told the Russian media outlet RT. Neo-Nazi Right Sector elements were identified, he said, and described the attackers as “volunteers, mercenaries” from central and western parts of the country.

Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko, who represents the ultra-nationalist Radical Party, claimed on his Facebook account that Kiev’s forces had orders “not to take anyone alive.” During the assault on the Interior Ministry building in Mariupol, he wrote: “Terrorists are barricaded inside and are now returning fire. An order has been issued not to take anyone alive.”

Earlier in the week, Lyashko posted photographs on his blog of him personally interrogating Igor Kakidzyanov, the self-proclaimed defence minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who was captured by Ukrainian forces on Tuesday. Kakidzyanov had been stripped to his underwear and had his hands tied behind his back.

None of this naked military-fascist killing and terror would be possible without the protection and immunity provided by Washington and Berlin. Kiev’s bloody crackdown began after visits and discussions with the regime by CIA Director John Brennan and US Vice President Joseph Biden.

In her State Department briefing, Psaki revealed that Secretary of State John Kerry held a phone call yesterday morning, just as the events in Mariupol were unfolding, with acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. According to Psaki, “Prime Minister Yatsenyuk provided an update on the security situation on the ground, efforts to maintain calm, and preparations for the election”—a reference to the presidential poll planned for May 25 to try to legitimise the regime.

The US is overseeing and directing the crimes being carried out in Ukraine by its puppet regime in Kiev.

Psaki’s State Department briefing underscored Washington’s patent double standard. The Obama administration hailed as heroes of democracy the fascist Right Sector and Svoboda party forces who mounted armed protests, seized government buildings and fired on security forces to destabilise and overthrow the elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych last February. The White House declared at the time that Yanukovych had forfeited his legitimacy by mobilising police and security forces against the armed demonstrators.

Now, Washington denounces anti-government protesters who have seized official buildings in the east as Russian agents, echoing the Kiev government’s attack on them as “terrorists.” It backs the government’s use not just of police, but of tanks, troops, helicopter gunships and fascist thugs organised in the “National Guard” and “special units” to murder the regime’s opponents.

This is the second time in a week that the Obama administration has defended the role of the Kiev government in the murder of anti-government demonstrators, having done so following the Odessa killings (see: “US defends role of Kiev regime and fascists in Odessa massacre”).

Desperate to reach an accommodation with Washington, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday urged pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians to abandon planned separatist or autonomy referenda set for Sunday. But these efforts have been rebuffed by Washington.

Putin is unable to control the resistance that has spread across eastern Ukraine, with separatist spokesmen denouncing him as a “coward” and “traitor” for issuing his call.

It is clear, despite the non-stop flood of propaganda and lies from the Western governments and their compliant media, that the opposition to the Kiev regime in the east is broadly based and indigenous. There is deep hostility, particularly in the working class, to the resurgence of the fascist threat, which is associated with the deaths of millions during World War II. And there is widespread anger over appalling levels of unemployment and poverty throughout the industrial centres of Ukraine two decades on from the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

“We are on the brink of an uprising of poor against rich, of chaos, of a terrifying rebellion,” Sergei Chertkov, a regional administration official in the eastern town of Konstantinovka, told the Guardian. “America, Russia, Europe, the politicians in Kiev, everyone has tried to play their games here, and they have played so hard that now we are on the brink of catastrophe.”

Fearful that Ukraine’s descent into civil war could trigger a working-class movement against his own oligarchic regime, Putin is resorting to Russian nationalism and chauvinism to shore up his position, fueling precisely the divisions in the working class upon which the stooge regime in Kiev and its imperialist backers rely.

Appearing in Moscow and the Crimean port city of Sevastopol yesterday for Victory Day parades, Putin sought to associate the liberation of Ukraine from the Nazis with the supposed glories of the Russian Tsarist empire, declaring that 230 years ago Russian Empress Catherine the Great gave Sevastopol its name.

In response to Putin’s appearance in Sevastopol, Washington and Berlin stepped up their threats against Russia. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned Putin’s visit and the White House said it would exacerbate tensions.

10 May, 2014
WSWS.org