Archives: Articles

By Robert J. Burrowes

04 July, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Some people have accused Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden of being traitors. But this obscures a deeper and more important question.

If the government of the United States is engaged in endless acts of lawless violence, as the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates, (See Fred Branfman, ‘World’s Most Evil and Lawless Institution? The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government’: http://www.alternet.org/investigations/executive-branch-evil-and-lawless) then it is not Manning and Snowden who are the traitors for providing evidence of this violence and the surveillance necessary to carry it out. The real traitors are all of those other employees of intelligence agencies who say nothing while they collaborate with the endless and often secret perpetration of violence by the U.S. government and its allied governments in our name.

Why does this matter? It matters because it tells us that thousands of individuals are willing to collaborate, without the intervention of analytical thought, compassionate feeling or conscience, with the use of violence. And that bodes ill for our society.

Collaborators and traitors take many forms: they are prevalent in warfare but common in ‘ordinary’ society as well, and labels such as ‘scab labourer’ are used to describe them. Most frequently, they are those relatives and friends who ‘stab you in the back’. Why do so many people collaborate with perpetrators of violence? See ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence An understanding of their psychological profile will tell us this.

First, collaborators are terrified and they are particularly terrified of those individuals (usually one or both parents or other significant adults) who perpetrated violence against them when they were a child although this terror and, remarkably, the identity of their perpetrator(s) remain unconscious to them. Second, because they are terrified, they are unable to defend themselves against the original perpetrator(s) but also, as a result, they are unable to defend themselves against other perpetrators who attack them later in life.

This lack of capacity to defend themself leads to a third feeling – a deep sense of powerlessness. Thus, terrified, defenceless and powerless, some victims will try to placate the perpetrator. Victims who resort to placation, the fourth attribute of collaborators, will invariably fear those individuals who resist the perpetrator’s violence, will usually perceive resistance to violence as ‘morally wrong’ and perhaps even perceive any resistance to violence (including explicitly nonviolent resistance) as ‘violent’, because their own fear of resisting perpetrators is now so deeply embedded in their unconscious that any form of resistance is considered futile and likely to provoke further perpetrator violence. And this ‘violates’ their powerless ‘strategy’ of placation.

The strategy of placation is also attractive to collaborators because they have a warped sense of empathy and sympathy, the fifth attribute. They will have empathy and sympathy for the perpetrators of violence, rather than the perpetrator’s victims, as an outcome of how they were emotionally damaged as a child.

Having unconsciously ‘chosen’ collaboration and betrayal as a means of ‘defending’ themselves against personal victimisation, the collaborator will now acquire a deep sense of self-hatred (precisely because they cannot defend themselves and now betray others) which, in turn, will negate any remaining sense of personal self-worth.

However, it is too terrifying and painful for the collaborator/traitor to be conscious of any of these feelings, so they will usually exhibit an eighth attribute if challenged: self-righteous justification for their collaboration/betrayal often expressed in either ideological/religious terms or as sympathy for the perpetrator.

One version of this occurs when collaborators justify their collaboration with perpetrators of violence in terms of a supposed ‘obligation to obey’, although they might not use this precise language: many collaborators will characterise their obedience as ‘loyalty’, ‘support’ or ‘helpfulness’ in order to mask from themselves the fear that drives their submissive behaviour. For collaborators, the importance of obedience also far outweighs any sense of personal moral choice, if the idea of personal moral choice makes any sense to them at all. If you are scared to resist violence, then you must make a virtue out of submission and obedience.

Penultimately, collaborators/traitors invariably exhibit a ninth attribute: they unconsciously project their fear and self-hatred, as outcomes of their own victimhood, as fear of and hatred for the perpetrator’s victims.

Finally, as a result of all of the above, the collaborator will exhibit a tenth attribute: the delusion that they are ‘in control’; that is, they are no longer (and never were) the victim of violence themselves. Tragically, of course, this delusion is a trap: an individual is never safe in the role of collaborator. The perpetrator might turn on them at any time.

Collaborators and traitors learn their ‘craft’ during childhood. Most usually it will originate when a parent terrorises the child (by threatening and/or inflicting violence) into collaborating with this parent against the other parent and/or the child’s siblings. Sometimes it originates when a teacher terrorises the child into collaborating with the teacher against the child’s fellow students, perhaps to find out who was responsible for some minor ‘wrongdoing’.

Once the child has betrayed its siblings or classmates, it will usually need the ‘protection’ of the violent parent or teacher as a ‘defence’ against any retaliation by its siblings or classmates. Hence, it will become ‘locked’ into the role of collaborator/traitor out of fear of the perpetrator’s violence against it as well as fear of the violent retaliation of siblings or classmates. This, of course, suits the perpetrator.

The collaborator will perform this role throughout their life as they now unconsciously recognise and identify with those who are most violent, including state authorities that inflict ‘legitimised’ violence on those individuals perceived as ‘enemies’ or ‘criminals’.

If you wish to publicly identify yourself as someone who will not collaborate with violence, you are welcome to sign online ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com

Robert has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

By Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

04 July, 2013

@ WSWS.org

The ouster of Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi, following four days of nationwide mass protests, has placed power in the hands of a military junta which is committed to the defense of the economic interests of the country’s ruling class and to the geo-political aims of American imperialism.

The removal of the hated Mursi regime has evoked jubilation. However sincere and deeply felt this sentiment may be, the fact is that Mursi’s overthrow has placed the army, not the masses, in power. None of the essential demands that motivated the mass protests—for decent jobs, livable wages, adequate social services, and democratic rights—will be met by the military regime.

The military has intervened for one overriding purpose: to pre-empt and suppress the growing political movement of the Egyptian working class. The coalition government that it unveiled last night is in no way a genuine expression of the democratic strivings of the working class. Rather, the new ruling structure is a sinister coalition of reactionary forces, which includes long-time henchmen of Hosni Mubarak, various Islamic politicians, and several liberal politicians with close connections to the US-based International Monetary Fund. None of the individuals and organizations has either a mass social base or advances a popular social program.

After seizing control of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) television stations and reportedly arresting Mursi, the head of the military junta, General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi, unveiled a political “road map” that includes the immediate suspension of the constitution and the formation of a so-called “national technocratic” government.

The term “technocratic” is being bandied about to evoke the image of politically neutral experts who stand above partisan class interests. In reality, the so-called “technocrats” are steeped in the reactionary nostrums of the international banks.

The anti-working class character of the government emerges clearly from examining the list of reactionaries who flanked al-Sisi as he announced his “road map” yesterday evening. These included several generals, Coptic pope Tawadros II, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, and opposition politicians including National Salvation Front (NSF) leader and former UN official Mohamed ElBaradei, Younis Makhioun of the far-right Salafist Al Nour Party, and Mahmoud Badr of the opposition Tamarod (“Rebel”) coalition.

Each one of these figures was selected to create the impression of broad support for the new regime across key political and religious divides in Egypt.

The army chose the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adly Mansour, as president. Mohamed ElBaradei has been named prime minister. There are vague promises of early elections.

Mansour had long ties to the old Mubarak regime. ElBaradei, who worked for years as an official of the United Nations, has close ties to the economic and foreign policy establishment of the United States. ElBaradei supports austerity measures worked out in talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which favors cuts to subsidies for basic goods such as grain and fuel.

In the political maneuvers that set the stage for the military coup, a key role has been played by the Tamarod coalition. This is a thoroughly pro-capitalist political movement. Founded at the end of April as a campaign to collect signatures against Mursi, it quickly became a rallying point for a range of opposition parties—liberal, Islamist and pseudo-left alike—and remnants of the former Mubarak regime who oppose the MB. Its supporters include El Baradei’s NSF, the Islamist Strong Egypt Party of former MB member Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, the April 6 Youth Movement, and the pseudo-left Revolutionary Socialists (RS). The movement also accepted an endorsement from General Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under Mubarak.

Although the United States had been backing Mursi, the Obama administration entered into talks with the Egyptian military once it became clear that the regime could not be saved. The Egyptian army launched the coup after intensive discussions with General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a statement yesterday evening, US President Barack Obama backed the removal of Mursi, while taking care to avoid the word “coup.” Using vague language that imposed no restraints on the military, Obama sanctimoniously requested that the army “move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible, through an inclusive and transparent process.”

Once again, the Revolutionary Socialists—the most prominent of the pseudo-left groups in Egypt—has adapted its rhetoric to the political maneuvers of the bourgeoisie. In February 2011, the RS backed the military junta that came to power after Mubarak’s ouster. In 2012, as the military faced mounting popular opposition, they hailed Mursi’s election as a victory for the revolution. Now that the working class has moved into struggle against Mursi and the MB, they have aligned themselves with a coup to bring back the army and elements of the old Mubarak regime into power.

The only consistent element of the RS’s reactionary politics has been their opposition to the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class. They speak for sections of the upper middle class, closely connected to the Egyptian bourgeois establishment and its imperialist backers.

By Danny Schechter

03 July 13

@ Consortium News

When Nelson Mandela was a dedicated freedom-fighter against white-ruled South Africa, he was almost as much a “non-person” in the U.S. media as he was in South Africa’s press. Only after Mandela pulled back from demands about redistributing wealth was he embraced as a mass media icon, Danny Schechter reports.

There’s anger amidst the apprehension in South Africa as the numbers of “journalists” on the Mandela deathwatch grows. Members of his family have about had it, comparing what even the New York Times called a “media swarm” to African vultures that wait to pounce on the carcasses of dead animals.

President Barack Obama was soon in South Africa, carrying a message that he hyped as one of “profound gratitude” to Nelson Mandela. The Times reported, “Mr. Obama said the main message he intended to deliver to Mr. Mandela, ‘if not directly to him but to his family, is simply our profound gratitude for his leadership all these years and that the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with him, and his family, and his country.'”

It doesn’t seem as if the South Africa’s grieving for their former president’s imminent demise are too impressed with Obama seeking the spotlight. Some groups including top unions protested his receiving an honorary degree from a university in Johannesburg.

Interestingly, NBC with its team buttressed by former South African correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault did not bother to cover the protest but relied on Reuters reporting “nearly 1,000 trade unionists, Muslim activists, South African Communist Party members and others marched to the U.S. Embassy where they burned a U.S. flag, calling Obama’s foreign policy ‘arrogant and oppressive.'”

“We had expectations of America’s first black president. Knowing Africa’s history, we expected more,” Khomotso Makola, a 19-year-old law student, told Reuters. He said Obama was a “disappointment, I think Mandela too would be disappointed and feel let down.”

Reuters reported, “South African critics of Obama have focused in particular on his support for U.S. drone strikes overseas, which they say have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and his failure to deliver on a pledge to close the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba housing terrorism suspects.”

(Oddly, The South African police detained a local cameraman who used his own drone to photograph the hospital from above. He was stopped for “security” reasons.)

 

For symbolic reasons, as well as because of his global popularity, Nelson Mandela seems to be of special interest to the American media with the networks, nominally in an austerity mode, busting their budgets to have a dominant presence.

South African skeptic Rian Malan writes in the Spectator, “Every time Mandela goes into hospital, large numbers of Americans (up to 50) are flown here to take up their positions, and the South African network is similarly activated. Colin, (a cameraman who works for a U.S. network) for instance, travels to Johannesburg, hires a car and checks into a hotel, all on the network’s ticket. Since last December, he’s probably spent close to 30 days (at $2000 a day, expenses included) cooling his heels at various poolsides. And he has yet to shoot a single frame.

“As Colin says, this could be the worst disaster in American media history, inter alia because all these delays are destroying the story. When the old man finally dies, a lot of punters are going to yawn and say, Mandela died? Didn’t that already happen a year ago?”

Hostility to the media is satirized in an open letter by Richard Poplak from the foreign media to South Africa that appears in The Daily Maverick:

“As you may have noted, we’re back! It’s been four long months since the Oscar Pistorius bail hearing thing, and just as we were forgetting just how crappy the Internet connections are in Johannestoria, the Mandela story breaks.

“We feel that it is vital locals understand just how big a deal this is for us. In the real world – far away from your sleepy backwater – news works on a 24-hour cycle. That single shot of a hospital with people occasionally going into and out of the front door, while a reporter describes exactly what is happening-at length and in detail? That’s our bread and butter. It’s what we do. And you need to get out of the way while we do it.”

Why all the fanatical interest? The U.S. media loves larger-than-life personalities, often creating them when they don’t exist. Mandela has assumed the heroic mantle for them of Martin Luther King Jr. whose memory enjoys iconic status even as his achievements like Voting Rights Act was just picked apart by right-wing judicial buzzards in black robes. (King’s image was also sanitized with his international outlook often muzzled).

The current homage to Mandela wasn’t always like this. For many years, the U.S. media treated Mandela as a communist and terrorist, respecting South African censorship laws that kept his image secret. Reports about the CIA’s role in capturing him were few and far between. Ditto for evidence of U.S. spying documented in cables released by Wikileaks.

In the Reagan years, Mandela’s law partner Oliver Tambo, then the leader of the ANC while Mandela was in prison, was barred from coming to the U.S. and then, when he did, meeting with top officials. Later, Rep. Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming, refused to support a congressional call for Mandela’s release from jail.

In 1988, I, among other TV producers, launched the TV series “South Africa Now” to cover the unrest the networks were largely ignoring as stories shot by U.S. crews ended up on “the shelf,” not on the air.

A 1988 concert to free Mandela was shown by the Fox Network as a “freedom fest” with artists told not to mention Mandela’s name less they “politicize” all the fun. When he was released in 2000, a jammed all-star celebration at London’s Wembley Stadium was shown everywhere in the world, except by the American networks.

Once Mandela adopted reconciliation as his principal political tenet and dropped demands for nationalization anchored in the ANC’s “Freedom Charter,” his image in the U.S. was quickly rehabilitated. He was elevated into a symbolic hero for all praised by the people and the global elite alike. Little mention was made of his role as the creator of an Armed Struggle, and its Commander in Chief,

U.S. networks also did not cover the role played by the U.S.-dominated IMF and World Bank in steering the economy in a market-oriented neo-liberal direction, assuring the new government could not erase deep inequality and massive poverty and that the whites would retain privileges.

The American press shaped how Mandela was portrayed in the U.S. The lawyer and anti-nuclear campaigner, Alice Slater, tells a story of her efforts to win Mandela’s support for nuclear disarmament.

When “Nelson Mandela announced that he would be retiring from the presidency of South Africa, we organized a world-wide letter writing campaign, urging him to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons at his farewell address to the United Nations. The gambit worked.

“At the UN, Nelson Mandela called for the elimination of nuclear weapons, saying, ‘these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway?’ The London Guardian had a picture of Mandela on its front page, with the headline, ‘Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.’

“The New York Times had a story buried on page 46, announcing Mandela’s retirement from the Presidency of South Africa and speculating on who might succeed him, reporting that he gave his last speech as President to the UN, while omitting to mention the content of his speech.”

And so it goes, with his death seeming to be imminent, he has been reduced to a symbolic mythic figure, a moral voice, not the politician he always was. He became an adorable grandfather praised for his charities with his political ideas and values often lost in the ether of his celebrity. He has insisted that he not be treated as a saint or a savior. Tell that to the media.

As ANC veteran Pallo Jordan told me, “To call him a celebrity is to treat him like Madonna. And that’s not what he is. At the same time, he deserves to be celebrated as the freedom fighter he was.”

Watch the coverage and see if that message is coming through, with all of its implications for the struggle in South Africa that still lies ahead.

By Yasmine Fathi

03 July, 2013

@ Ahram Online

Despite decades of planning for Egypt ‘s eventual transition into an Islamic state, only two years of post-revolution politics appear to have put paid to the Muslim Brotherhood’s longed-for Islamist renaissance

As Egypt ‘s first freely chosen president took the stage last summer, the thousands arrayed in Cairo ‘s Tahrir Square roared their approval. After a knife’s-edge vote, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi had clinched the country’s most powerful civilian position – the secretive Islamist organization’s goal for over eight decades. Now, surely, an Islamic state was within its grasp.

But one year on, Morsi’s unofficial inauguration in downtown Cairo seems more like the pinnacle of the Islamists’ power then the emergence of a Sharia-compliant Egypt .

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood’s dream of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Some experts believe that, not only has Morsi’s first year in power tarnished the image of the 85-year-old group, but that of all Islamists.

Following Mubarak’s downfall in February 2011, the Islamists – and specifically the Brotherhood – were expected to effortlessly climb to power. They were the largest opposition present at the time and had the sympathy of many average Egyptians. Their selling point was Islamic Law and the establishment of an Islamic state that would take Egypt back to the glory days of Islam.

The Brotherhood quickly established its political leg, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).

Meanwhile, members of Egypt ‘s Salafist Call – the country’s largest Salafist movement – established the Nour Party. During the Mubarak era, Salafists had refused to participate in opposition politics on grounds that it was sinful to oppose a Muslim ruler.

Parliamentary, constitutional travails

The two competed in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary and Shura Council elections, winning majorities in both. Despite their lackluster performance in parliament – in which they were accused of ignoring pressing matters, such as Egypt’s failing economy, while focusing on trivial issues – they remained popular with many Egyptians.

“Their performance in parliament had a negative impact,” explained political analyst and former MP Emad Gad. “But when Morsi came to power, most people still had a positive view of the Islamic project. But during his first year in office he managed to destroy this image in the eyes of most Egyptians.”

He points out that Morsi has made many promises that he never kept and that his regime has tried to ‘Brotherhoodise’ the nation by taking over many of the country’s top institutions, including the Ministry of Interior and the judiciary.

However, Gad adds that the turning point came when he passed a constitution that was rejected by most political forces in Egypt .

The constituent assembly tasked with drafting Egypt ‘s new constitution saw numerous squabbles, along with accusations that Islamist assembly members were forcing their opinions on the non-Islamist minority. This led most non-Islamist members to withdraw from the constitution-drafting body, leaving only the Islamists to conduct a final vote in a 14-hour marathon session.

“After this, he confirmed to the public that the Islamic current is undemocratic and does not like dialogue,” said Gad.

Morsi’s refusal to fulfill his promises, including the creation of a coalition government that would include Egypt ‘s diverse political forces, also hurt his popularity, say critics.

“His lack of commitment to democracy made people not trust him,” explained Khalil El-Anani, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington . “Secondly, it showed that the Islamists are fascists, and don’t have a democratic ideology.”

Additionally, many Egyptians began to realize that what is said and what is done are two different things.

“He talked about the Islamic project, but did not apply Islamic Law, which is one of the main sellers of the Islamic project,” said El-Anani.

El-Anani pointed out that Morsi agreed to take a loan from the IMF at interest, which is forbidden by Islamic Law.

However, Ahmed Sobie, a leading member of the FJP shoots down these accusations.

“The Islamic current has actually proven to be much more democratic and more serious about pushing Egypt into a democratic path then the other currents,” he said.

He pointed out that it is the Islamist current that has fought to keep the parliament and Shura Council in place. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) that was ruling Egypt after the ousting of Mubarak had dissolved the parliament in June after a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) found fault with laws governing the assembly’s elections.

One of Morsi’s first actions after becoming president is to reinstate the parliament. When the SCC suspended his decision a few days later, the Islamists began a yearlong fight to keep the Shura Council, which was threatened with a similar fate.

“We did this to protect Egypt . We had to make sure that all its important institutions were working,” Sobie added.

 

He also said that it was the Islamists who fought to draft a new constitution for Egypt . He also denied that the Islamists controlled the constituent assembly.

“Let’s not forget that it was the Islamist ultra conservative Building and Development Party that decided to give up their seats in the constituent assembly for the liberals and leftists,” Sobie said. “They did this in order to give them a voice,” stressed Sobie.

He also pointed out that it was Morsi who turned Egypt from a military state to a civil state.

“I doubt either the liberal or Nasserists would have been able to do this amidst all the criticism we received,” explained Sobie.

Alienating the Islamists

However, it is not just the liberal and leftists forces that are at loggerheads with Morsi. The Islamists themselves have also felt let down by him.

“I believe that Morsi’s first year in power, had a negative impact on the Islamic project,” said Nader Bakar, spokesperson of the Salafist Nour Party.

He accused Morsi and the Brotherhood of marginalizing and alienating anyone who is not a member of the group. Then he points out that shed a bad light on the Islamic project.

“The Islamic project does not say that you discriminate between the citizens of one country; it does not say promote authoritarian rule, it does not tell us to ignore those who have opposing views,” explained Bakar. “The stubbornness of the Brotherhood and the unprofessional manner in which they dealt with all the problems of the country has had a negative impact on the way average Egyptians view the Islamists.”

The Islamists also had other gripes with Morsi including his decision to license liquor stores and his lack of support to officers wanting to sport Islamist-style beards. He also opted to smooth relations with Iran thus paving the way for Shia tourists – often seen as a threat by Sunni Muslims – to enter Egypt .

“He also allowed security forces to pursue jihadists, which turned even more Islamists against him,” said El-Anani.

He adds that several other factors have led to the Brotherhood’s failure to lead the country, one of which is the lack of experience in running a populous, diverse and complex state like Egypt .

Mubarak’s iron-fisted rule and repression of the Islamists also resulted in their being excluded from working in government bodies and gaining needed experience.

“Another is the secretive character of the Brotherhood,” said El-Anani. “They know how to work under pressure, but not openly.”

Nor did Egypt ‘s January 25 Revolution provide the group sufficient time to go from repressed opposition to ruling power.

El-Anani cited the example of Turkey , where the Islamists were gradually drawn into politics allowing them to develop their ideas and moderate their political discourse and approach.

In Egypt , by contrast, the Brotherhood was faced with what El-Anani calls “sudden inclusion.”

“They couldn’t strike the balance between being an opposition movement and a responsible political force or ruling party. So they now hover between both,” he explained. “They still think of themselves as an opposition movement, staging protests, strikes and sit-ins; the mindset has not changed.”

On a more practical level, Morsi’s government has failed to provide Egyptians with much needed services. During the past year, there have been frequent power cuts, along with shortages of diesel fuel, gasoline and bread, among other vital commodities.

“These shortfalls are what bother people the most,” says political analyst Amr Hashem Rabie. “In terms of other issues – concerning politics, judicial independence, human rights and civil rights – Mubarak repressed the Egyptians in all this, too. But he, at least, offered these services to the people, so they were patient with his rule to a certain extent.”

Islamist disunity

What’s more, the Islamists’ united front after Mubarak’s downfall did not last long. Within months, cracks appeared, as electoral rivalries heated up.

Hostilities climaxed when the Salafist Nour Party split in early 2013, after party president Emad Abdel-Ghafour defected and announced the formation of a new party, the Watan Party. There were reports that the Brotherhood had played a role in the falling out.

“The Brotherhood encouraged the differences between the Salafists to split and weaken them,” explained El-Anani. “This is what used to happen under Mubarak; it’s the same old game played by Mubarak-era leaders to divide the opposition in order to manipulate them.”

Another issue is that inter-Islamist divisions have always been present. Their unity in the days following the revolution, says El-Anani, was only temporary.

“There has always been historical tension between them,” he explained. “They never trusted each other. This dates back to the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, when they clashed in Alexandria University .”

Tarek Osman, author of ‘ Egypt on the Brink,’ added that the revolution had brought together different Islamic forces to fight a common enemy.

“The revolution brought together these forces behind a very clear objective: defining themselves as ‘Islamists’ against the old regime and against the liberal current in Egypt ,” he said. “The more they delve into the details of the country’s legislative, political and economic transition, the more the fractures appear.”

Many Egyptians are now discontented with the Brotherhood’s performance. The group’s seeming confusion has prompted a popular joke: “The Brotherhood fought to control Egypt for 80 years but had no plan what to do when it actually achieved it.”

It remains unclear how much damage this last year has done to the Islamists’ popularity.

“In this struggle about the country’s social identity, the shape of the future, the loudest voice – the key determinant – will be the 45-million Egyptians under 35 years old,” said Osman. “Their preferences, ideas and views will be the deciding factor,” he asserted. “At the end of the day, it is a fight over the hearts and minds of this generation.”

© 2010 Ahram Online

By Edward Snowden

02 July, 2013

@ Common Dreams

The following is the full text of a letter by Edward Snowden to the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. Written in Spanish, it was obtained and translated by the Press Association in London.

There are few world leaders who would risk standing for the human rights of an individual against the most powerful government on earth, and the bravery of Ecuador and its people is an example to the world.

I must express my deep respect for your principles and sincere thanks for your government’s action in considering my request for political asylum.

The government of the United States of America has built the world’s largest system of surveillance. This global system affects every human life touched by technology; recording, analysing, and passing secret judgment over each member of the international public.

It is a grave violation of our universal human rights when a political system perpetuates automatic, pervasive and unwarranted spying against innocent people.

In accordance with this belief, I revealed this programme to my country and the world. While the public has cried out support of my shining a light on this secret system of injustice, the government of the United States of America responded with an extrajudicial man-hunt costing me my family, my freedom to travel and my right to live peacefully without fear of illegal aggression.

As I face this persecution, there has been silence from governments afraid of the United States government and their threats. Ecuador however, rose to stand and defend the human right to seek asylum.

The decisive action of your consul in London, Fidel Narvaez, guaranteed my rights would be protected upon departing Hong Kong – I could never have risked travel without that. Now, as a result, and through the continued support of your government, I remain free and able to publish information that serves the public interest.

No matter how many more days my life contains, I remain dedicated to the fight for justice in this unequal world. If any of those days ahead realise a contribution to the common good, the world will have the principles of Ecuador to thank.

Please accept my gratitude on behalf of your government and the people of the Republic of Ecuador, as well as my great personal admiration of your commitment to doing what is right rather than what is rewarding.

Edward Joseph Snowden.

Whistleblower Edward Joseph Snowden is a US former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who leaked details of top-secret US and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

 

Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a statement that “the way that the protests are reflected in the media depict Turkey as a second class democracy.” He said this in response to US Vice-president Joe Biden’s comment that, “Turkey’s future belongs to the people of Turkey and no one else. But the United States does not pretend to be indifferent to the outcome.” Biden’s comment came following a State Department travel alert to the country. Earlier U.S. State Department Spokesman Jen Psaki said, “We believe that Turkey’s long-term stability, security and prosperity can be guaranteed with the protection of the fundamental freedoms. That’s what the [protesters] seemed to be doing. These freedoms are very important in a healthy democracy.” These developments lead us to raise question about democracy. What does democracy entail? How does a “first class democracy” function? What are the characteristics of a first class democracy? Why is Turkey’s democracy being categorized second class democracy?

How did the US administration deal with the Occupy Wall Street Movement? How was this movement different from Turkish Taksim Square demonstrations? Both began with insignificant number of people but were joined by thousands, in fact millions all over the world in the case of Occupy Wall Street Movement, with the passage of time. In both instances the security forces have used tear gas and pepper spray to control protesters. In both instances hundreds were arrested. The Turkish Prime Minister has labeled some protesters as being extremist and terrorist while U.S. government documents suggest that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been monitoring Occupy Wall Street activists through joint terrorism task force. However, Turkish police are reported to have used disproportionate force, and this is a matter of concern, but there are striking differences in the nature and characteristics of the two movements.

 

Originally Occupy Wall Street activists wanted to hold their demonstration in front of 1 Chase Plaza but as soon as the police came to know about it a fence was put around the area in order to prevent the demonstrators. Demonstrators then decided to move to nearby Zuccotti Park where they continued to express their views until they were totally evicted by the police. The demonstrators claimed to represent 99% and wanted to curb influence of corporations in politics. It should be noted that the movement emerged in the context of 2008 global financial crisis and 2011 Arab uprisings. However, although within months this movement attracted huge attention and millions expressed their support holding demonstrations various parts of the world, it seems to have lost momentum. The White House hardly took any notice of their demands.

 

As opposed to Occupy Wall Street Movement the Turkish Taksim Square demonstration began with less than hundred environmentalists expressing concern about a development project. They were then infiltrated by opponents of government: among them were former vested interests known as Kemalists, leftists, ultra-nationalists, homosexuals and other marginalized minorities. They provoked the police who responded heavy-handedly creating chaos in the area. The government responded by both carrot and stick. While the Prime Minister offered to abide by court ruling on the issue and offered to hold a referendum; he also accused some protesters as being extremist and terrorist. The President and the Deputy Prime Minister came out with more sympathy for the demonstrators. Following days of violent confrontation the police seem to have succeeded in restoring order. Do the two settings say anything about democracy? I leave readers to judge, but as one who voted for Biden (he was Obama’s choice, not mine) I feel embarrassed.

 

In this context one may ask what happened to Obama’s pre-election commitments. I don’t want to list broken promises but my question is: Is it democratic to ignore electoral promises? Many observers blame various other centers of power in American politics for this failure of President Obama. This division of power has been viewed positively by scholars. According to Francis Fukuyama, “The American system was built around a firm conviction that concentrated political power constituted an imminent danger to the lives and liberty of citizens. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution was designed with a broad range of checks and balances by which different parts of the government could prevent other parts from exercising tyrannical control.” (The Origins of Political Order. 2012). Division of power? Yes, of course! Fukuyama has failed to comprehend how with the passage of time certain non-democratic elements have learned how to flout all centers of power and pose danger on lives and liberty of citizens. This element is called lobby: American democracy today is no more “for the people, by the people, of the people;” it is almost “for the lobby, by the lobby of the lobby.”

 

America and Turkey are not the only example of democracy in the world: many observers romanticize India as “the largest democracy in the world today.” How democratic is India? Hypothetically I have always felt that the caste system and democratic values don’t go together. Let us see how it has worked in practice: In 1951, when India declared holding of an election for a legislative assembly in Kashmir, based on a UN resolution the world body reminded that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.” Yet the Indian authorities went ahead to hold what they called a democratic election. It was a total sham: With blessings from Delhi, Sheikh Abdullah’s party won 73 seats out of a total of 75. All seats were won uncontested because the Election Commission refused to accept opposition candidates. According to opposition sources, all subsequent elections in Kashmir were heavily rigged since then. In this contest India’s incorporation of Sikkim in 1974/75 and current attempts to “democratically” absorb Bangladesh are also relevant. Whenever I see slums in large Indian cities, naked poverty in rural areas, and the victim of loan sharks committing suicide, I tell myself these Indians must be convinced of their “sins” in their “previous life.”

 

Role of the Media

 

Prime Minister Erdugan of Turkey has accused the international media of lying and exaggerating protests marches in his country. The international media on its part has accused the Turkish media of ignoring the early days of protest marches in Taksim Square. While Erdugan has held the foreign media of conspiring to destabilize his government, the international media continues to accuse the Turkish government of intimidating the national media in support of the government.

 

An examination of the media needs some reflections on demands of the protesters and government’s response to those demands and how they have been covered by various formal and informal news outlets. While demands of Occupy Wall Street Movement are relatively clearer; they are not as clear for Taksim Square occupants where many different groups have converged. Interestingly although the government has been repeating about the planned project that there is no design on the table to build any shopping mall or expensive residential structure, there is very little coverage of that in the media. In fact the government is claiming that there will be more green spaces in the area than before and the main idea behind the reconstruction is to revive Turkey’s rich heritage and take most communication facilities underground. The original environmentalists seem to have agreed to discuss the plan with the government, but the movement seems to have gone out of their hands. The protesters do not seem to have any other demand than seeking resignation of the prime minister. However, the government on its part has declared a referendum on the issue and also pointed out the scheduled city election due early next year. Yet neither do the protesters nor do the media see any merit in these commitments. They seem to have forgotten that democracy demands another election to bring down a democratically elected government.

 

Interestingly the international media paid almost no attention to another protest uprising, which was brutally suppressed at the beginning of May in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The main difference between the two protest marches in Bangladesh and in Turkey was that the former, was staged by a group called Hefazat-i-Islam which demanded strict Islamic law in the country. According to activists, the authorities in Bangladesh killed thousands of their supporter using live bullets after midnight of May 5 by means of creating electricity blackout. The method in which the Turkish Taksim Square movement has been covered by the international media only suggests their Islamophobic approach in covering news.  In this there is no difference between Socialistworker.org and The New York Times, CNN, BBC: all mainstream news channels ignored Hefazat-i-Islam’s peaceful protests and their consequences.

 

What is more interesting is that there is new information about the so-called miracle girl saved after 17 days from the garment factory disaster that happened a few days before the Hefazat-i-Islam crackdown. According to a new investigation, the story was a staged one. In order to divert public attention from the brutal action against Hefazat-i-Islam activists the government staged this story. Sadly the international media has paid no attention to this new investigation.

 

The international media has turned a “Standing Man” into an icon of protest in Taksim Square. I remember standing in front of Topkapi Palace some years ago for more than five minutes to observe the standing guard whether he was a real man or a statue. It was only his eye blinking that convinced me that he was a real human being.

 

Taksim Protest and Turkey’s Image

 

Although the protesters have not succeeded in destabilizing the government in Turkey, they have succeeded in tarnishing Turkey’s international image. This seems to have been the objective of the international media and, I think, they have succeeded. During the past decade Turkey had emerged as a financial giant by ending IMF/ World Bank loans, by tripling its GDP and bringing millions out of poverty. Many international observers were citing Turkey’s success story as a model for development in the 21^st century. This seemed to have become an eyesore many islamophobic elements all over the world.

 

Prime Minster Erdugan has reacted sharply to this attempt of tarnishing of Turkish image and has accused Turkey’s foreign enemies of conspiring against his country through Taksim uprising. Is there anything new in this allegation? Is economic progress and good governance enough to neutralize conspiracies? Were there no conspiracies against the prophet of Islam?

 

Many observers have raised questions about PM Erdugan’s approach in handling this crisis. Apparently he feels this as a challenge to his person. As opposed to his approach one may note those of Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc and President Abdullah Gul. I am not a member of the ruling AKP of Turkey, nor am I a Turkish citizen of the country. I don’t think I am in any position to comment on which approach is better to handle this situation. However I strongly believe that institutions should be based on principles not individuals. The Qur’an has taught us not to depend even on the personality of the prophet when it comes to one’s mission and responsibility: It says: Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude (3:144).

 

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

 

By Countercurrents.org

30 June, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Artists and intellectuals in Egypt are heroically struggling against “brotherhoodization” of Egypt ‘s culture. It has turned out as their daily struggle. They are joining the June 30 protest in Tahrir Square .

Since Morsi’s appointment as president of Egypt in June 2012, his policies have triggered discontent in the arts and culture community in the country. The following timeline prepared by Ahram Online on June 27, 2013 points to the main developments in Egypt ‘s arts and culture scene in the last 12 months. The incidents show the continuing struggle within the society.

During the year of his rule, several protests have been staged by the cultural community, opposing the government’s attacks on the Egyptian cultural identity, as perceived by the artists.

The appointment of Alaa Abdel-Aziz as the new Minister of Culture has only additionally fuelled the enraged cultural scene.

2012

September 1

Sheikh Abdallah Badr says on El-Hafez television channel that actress “Elham Shahin is cursed and she will never enter heaven.” Shahin later files a case against the conservative sheikh who criticized her several times.

September 2

Hundreds of Egyptian writers and artists stage a protest in front of the Shura Council (parliament’s upper house) building to protest the first leaked drafts of the constitution that was being written by the Constituent Assembly.

Protesters demanded the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, which they described as “illegitimate.” Protesters argued that the members of the current Assembly were not elected and do not represent the wide range of Egyptian society. They said that the Assembly is part of the ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of the country, as its members only reflect the views of the Muslim Brotherhood.

September 6

President Morsi meets a group of prominent artists and intellectuals to discuss the future of art and creativity in Egypt . A number of the artists invited, however, refused to attend the event. According to the attendees, the president expressed that he appreciates ‘meaningful’ arts, yet did not discuss any clear plans for the culture field. He condemned the attack on actress Elham Shahin by a Salafi sheikh.

October 28

A concert that was to be held in Minya to affirm the unity of Muslims and Copts during Eid Al-Adha (the Muslim feast of sacrifice) is cancelled. Entitled “From the Heart of Egypt, Hand in Hand,” the concert included performances by several alternative bands; it was reportedly stopped by a group of Salafists and other Islamists who stood at the entrance to the concert, preventing people from going in after the event had already begun.

November 9

Underground musicians stage a protest outside of El-Sawy Culturewheel centre in Cairo to press for a resolution of the pending issues between the syndicate and independent musicians.

November 17

A Cairo misdemeanor court sentenced Islamic preacher Abdullah Badr to a year in jail and set bail at LE20,000 for insulting known actress Elham Shahin on El-Hafez television channel.

November 27

Anti-Morsi opposition march by several hundred artists moves from the grounds near the Cairo Opera House to Tahrir Square . The crowd included members of the music and film syndicates, among many others.

December 13

Several cultural coalitions, along with independent artists and intellectuals march to Tahrir Square in support of freedom of expression and against the referendum on Egypt ‘s constitution.

Artists march to Tahrir for freedom of expression on 13 December 2012 (Photo: Rowan El Shimi)

2013

May 7

President Morsi’s cabinet reshuffle includes the appointment of Alaa Abdel-Aziz as Egypt ‘s sixth minister of culture since January 2011 Tahrir Square uprising.

Following the appointment, Abdel-Aziz was rejected by the community of artists and intellectuals, on grounds of allegedly attempting to ‘Brotherhoodise’ the Egyptian arts scene. Days after his appointment, Abdel-Aziz placed five members of the Freedom and Justice Party inside the Ministry of Culture. One of them took charge of all external communication of the ministry, according to the employees at the Ministry of Culture.

May 12

Culture Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz sacks the head of the General Egyptian Book Organization (GEBO) Ahmed Megahed without explanation, outraging intellectuals and writers. Writer and journalist Osama Afifi resigned from his post as the Chief Editor of Al-Majalla cultural magazine, published by the GEBO in protest for sacking Megahed.

May 13

An old dispute between Arts academy director Sameh Mahran and the Culture Minister Abdel-Aziz surfaces quicker than expected, taking a scandalous bend. The Egyptian Academy of Arts hosted a conference to protest President Morsi’s appointment.

May 14

Members of artists and intellectuals community march from Cairo Opera House to newly-appointed minister’s office to protest alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of Egyptian culture.

May 27

The minister dismisses Salah El-Meligy, head of the Fine Arts Sector.

May 29

Minister of Culture fires Ines Abdel Dayem, chairperson of the Cairo Opera House.

In response, artists hold a large protest at the Cairo Opera House grounds and freeze performance of the opera Aida with an on-stage strike.

May 29

Said Tawfiq, secretary-general of the Supreme Council for Culture, resigns from his post in protest against the series of dismissals by Alaa Abdel-Aziz and opposing the minister’s alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of the Egyptian culture.

May 30

Bahaa Taher, renowned Egyptian novelist and winner of the International Prize for Arabic Fiction in 2008, resigns from the Supreme Council for Culture, where he was a honorary member. Taher’s resignation came as a protest against the culture minister’s decision to fire a number of key culture officials in recent days, including the head of the opera house.

Egyptian artists and intellectuals protest recent culture ministry decisions and demand dismissal of Morsi-appointed minister.

June 1

Cairo Symphony Orchestra carries out on-stage strike. Artists from the Cairo Symphony Orchestra, supported by the Opera’s musicians and staff, announced their continuation of their strike in place of concert by world-class pianist Ramzi Yassa. Several crucial figures from Egypt ‘s arts and culture scene joined on stage.

June 2

Angry Egyptian artists trap culture minister in ministerial building in Cairo for hours.

June 3

Head of the ministry’s foreign relations sector, Professor Camillia Sobhy resigns. She resigned to add her voice to the protesters that accuse the culture minister of implementing an agenda to destroy and Islamize Egyptian culture, thus changing the national identity to serve the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood.

June 5

Artists storm the Ministry of Culture building in Cairo .

The employees of the Ministry of Culture use the general commotion to expel the members of the Freedom and Justice Party from the ministerial building.

June 6

Artists launch artistic activities on the street in front of the ministry in Cairo as the sit-in inside the ministry continues.

June 9

National Archives head Abdel-Wahed El-Nabawe is sacked by Culture Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz.

Dancers perform Zorba ballet as part of the protest outside the occupied Ministry of Culture in Cairo .

June 10

The new head of the Egyptian National Library and Archives, Khaled Fahmy, states openly that he has Islamist leanings.

June 11

Muslim Brotherhood supporters try to break up sit-in by artists outside Ministry of Culture in Cairo , several police injured.

June 14

Shababeek Culture Centre in Cairo hosts events to raise awareness on artists’ and intellectuals’ ongoing protests.

June 15

Ongoing protests against newly-appointed culture minister and alleged ‘Brotherhoodisation’ of culture spread to Egypt ‘s second city, Alexandria .

June 17

Following a meeting, Egypt ‘s Supreme Culture Council members declare they do not recognize the Morsi-appointed Culture Minister Abdel-Aziz and will sue him for libel.

June 18

Ahram Online visits sit-in at Beram El-Tonsy theatre in Alexandria as it enters fourth day; artists insist movement bigger than culture minister discontent.

June 21

Joining world celebrations of music, many artists from the Cairo Opera House perform on the street in front of the culture ministry in Cairo where ongoing protests against the minister’s policies enters a third week.

June 24

Unidentified assailants attack a nine-day-old sit-in at Alexandria ‘s Beram El-Tonsy Theatre, injuring several activists.

June 26

Rehearsals for the ballet Zorba, scheduled to run at the Cairo Opera House from July 4 to July 8, continue – despite statements by Shura Council MP calling ballet “art of nudity.”

Artists’ march

A group of Egyptian artists and intellectuals who have been protesting the appointment of a new culture minister since May are joining the June 30, 2013 anti-government protests.

Earlier, Maha Effat, the spokesman for the group of artists and intellectuals who have been occupying parts of the ministry of culture since 5 May, informed of their planned march to Tahrir Square .

The artists were joined by other groups of artists. Then they all marched to Tahrir Square .”

Effat stressed that the occupation of the culture ministry will continue.

Effat said: Artists and intellectuals will not give up until ” Egypt is completely liberated from the current regime.”

“Over the past 25 days of the ministry occupation, we showed the Egyptian people that we are entitled to claim our institutions. Neither ministry of culture, nor any other governmental institution, can be taken by the hands of the current regime,” Effat said, referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. “We have to liberate the whole Egypt from their influence.”

Art performances including concert by renowned musician Ali El-Haggar and performance of parts of the ballet Zorba are being held daily in front of the occupied cultural ministry that.

On June 5, dozens of prominent artists and intellectuals broke into Egypt ‘s ministry of culture, declaring an open-ended sit-in inside the building until minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz is replaced.

The current crisis in Egypt ‘s cultural scene started in May when the culture minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz took office, despite opposition to the relatively unknown figure’s appointment from many within the culture scene. The opposition became more heated when Abdel-Aziz began a series of dismissals of key figures within

By Countercurrents.org

30 June 30, 2013

Countercurrents.org

Masses of people are assembling from the early hours of June 30, 2013 in the Tahrir Square in Cairo and in other cities and towns of the country to voice their rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood rule led by president Morsi that signify a deep crisis the country is facing. Protesting people started to assemble since June 29 in major squares in other cities including the country’s second city Alexandria , Suez , Port Said , Mahalla, Sharqiya, Menoufia. The situation is tense.

The Rebel signature drive announced on June 29, 2013 that 22 million people – almost half of Egypt ‘s eligible voters and 9 million more than voted Morsi into office – have signed a petition calling for the president’s removal. The 22 million signatures surpass Rebel’s original goal of 15 million before 30 June. The aim of the campaign was to outnumber the amount of votes Morsi had garnered in the presidential elections.

Unrest over the past week left at least seven dead and hundreds others wounded in factional street fighting between both rival camps.

Media reports from Egypt said:

Thousands and thousands of anti-Islamist government protesters started flocking to the iconic Tahrir Square early morning – the first day of planned countrywide rallies and protest marches aimed at unseating Islamist Morsi, whose rule is marked with failures. The situation has given birth to a political uncertainty.

Carrying a 70 meter national flag, protesters roamed the square, the seat of the 2011 popular revolt that toppled strongman Mubarak, chanting anti-Muslim Brotherhood and anti-Morsi slogans.

The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party catapulted Morsi into the presidency last year and has since been seen as the ruling party.

Dozens of volunteers set up checkpoints on the side streets that open to Tahrir Square to search anyone wanting to enter so as to ensure security. Protesters vowed to camp out at Tahrir Square and major squares in governorates across Egypt until Morsi leaves.

Cairo streets, usually known for standstill jams, was virtually traffic-free on June 30, 2013 morning, since some people stayed home from work to avoid the expected turbulence, others took the day off to take part in the protests.

In Nasr City , a densely populated Cairo suburb, Morsi’s Islamist backers are camping out for the third consecutive day to defend the “the president.”

Also in Nasr City , tens of anti-government demonstrators settled outside the defense ministry chanting pro-army slogans urging the military to assume power from the beleaguered president.

Opposition is divided principally along this line; however, as revolutionaries condemn the army for the atrocities they committed during its year and half in power immediately following Mubarak’s ouster.

The Brotherhood is on alert to protect their offices, some of which have been set on fire recently or have seen clashes. In fact, some have also been camping out for three days at the Ittihadiya palace, steeling themselves for the big protest day spearheaded by the anti-Morsi petition drive, Rebel Campaign.

Outside of Cairo

Protesters have been camping since yesterday in major squares in Suez , Port Said , Mahalla, Sharqiya, Menoufia and Egypt ‘s second city, Alexandria .

Protests have already started in governorates such as Suez , Sharqiya, Menoufia and Gharbiya.

Traffic in Egypt ‘s second-largest city, Alexandria almost came to a standstill in the late hours of Saturday after thousands of protesters held sit-ins in some vital districts.

In Suez , a city known for being somewhat volatile, the army distributed flyers among demonstrators urging them to stay away from state institutions and prisons.

“We all feel we’re walking on a dead-end road and that the country will collapse,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, former IAEA director, Nobel laureate and liberal party leader in a video message supporting 30 June protests.

“All Egypt must go out tomorrow to say we want to return to the ballot box and build the foundations of the house we will all live in.”

Defense Minister Abdel Fattah El-Sisi stressed the army will respect the “will of the people,” and urged politicians to forge consensus.

The anti-Morsi protesters are demanding early presidential elections.

Expats’ voices

The Egyptian embassy in Australia saw the first expat protests outside their doors, chanting for them to join the anti-Morsi protests. Likewise, France , Germany and the UK are expected to see expats protesting.

By Glen Ford

30 June, 2013

@ Black Agenda Report

The President and his family are spending a week in sub-Saharan Africa, with Senegal, Tanzania and South Africa on the itinerary. The focus of the trip, if you believe the White House, is trade, an arena in which the United States has been eclipsed by China since 2009. China, by some measurements, now does nearly twice as much business with Africa as the U.S., and the gap is growing. It is now commonly accepted that the Chinese offer far better terms of trade and investment than the Americans, that they create more jobs for Africans, and their investments leave behind infrastructure that can enrich their African trading partners in the long haul.

No one expects Obama to offer anything on this trip that will reverse America’s declining share of the African market. That’s because the U.S. is not in the business of fair and mutually beneficial trade – it’s about the business of imperialism, which is another matter, entirely. The Americans ensure their access to African natural resources through the barrel of a gun.

So, while the Chinese and Indians and Brazilians and other economic powerhouses play by the rules of give and take, the U.S. tightens its military grip on the continent through its ever-expanding military command, AFRICOM.

To justify its rapid militarization of Africa, Washington plunges whole regions of the continent into chaos. U.S. policies, under presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, have utterly destroyed Somalia, made the Horn of Africa a theater of war, drawn the northern tier of the continent into America’s cauldron of terror, and killed six million people in the eastern Congo.

The face of America in Africa is war, not trade; extraction of minerals by military intimidation, not conventional commerce. Washington’s priority is to embed AFRICOM ever deeper into the militaries of African states – rather than configuring more favorable trade relationships on the continent. But you won’t learn that from the U.S. corporate media, which chooses to focus on the $100 million cost of Obama’s African trip, or to look for human interest angles on Obama’s decision not to touch down in his father’s homeland, Kenya. However, even that angle is too sinister for deeper exploration by the corporate press, because Kenya’s absence from the itinerary is meant as a threat.

The United States is angry because Washington wanted the Kenyan people to elect a different president, one more acceptable to U.S. policymakers. The Americans expected the whole of Kenyan civil society to bend to Washington’s will, and reject the candidacy of Uhuru Kenyatta, simply to please the superpower. When that didn’t happen, it was decided that Kenya must be shunned, despite its past services to U.S. imperialism.

Skipping Kenya was a warning that more serious repercussions may lurk in the future – which is a potent threat, because the U.S. controls most of the guns of Africa. As the U.S.-backed warlord in Somalia said in Jeremy Scahill’s excellent film The Dirty War, “The Americans are masters of war.” War, and the threat of war, is the reality behind every U.S. presidential visit, to Africa and everywhere else. Whether the terms of trade are good or bad, the declining U.S. empire will get access to the resources it needs, or thousands – millions! – will die.

Back Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

© 2013 Black Agenda Report

 

 

 

By Emrah Guler

30 June, 2013

@ Hurriyet Daily News

Despite the anxiety over Gezi Park , creativity has been on watch. Filmmakers and musicians have been voicing their concerns here and across the globe. Creative visuals, songs and videos have been an integral part of the protests

The pictures and videos emerging from Gezi Park for the last 18 days are, among many other things, of great contradiction to the world trying to make sense of the protests and the clashes. The live coverage of police brutality to protesters and civilians with tear gas and water cannons alternate with scenes of peace and solidarity the next day, like a piano concerto in the park where thousands watched and applauded, including the riot police.

German musician Davide Martello carried his piano to the center of the park on June 12 for a spontaneous performance with Turkish musician Yigit Özatalay. The reaction was emotional, the feelings overwhelming, and the inspiration instant. Soon after, New York ‘s Zuccotti Park , home to the Occupy Wall Street movement, had its own baby piano.

As much as the protests against the Turkish government’s increasingly autocratic regime have been a source of angst and anxiety since its first days, it has also been a source of creativity and artistic inspiration. Protesters in social media have coined the term “disproportional wit” or “disproportional creativity” in an answer to the much-used term “disproportional violence” throughout the protests.

In the first days of the protests, pictures of graffiti, street art and posters put smiles across faces of those across their computers, surfing frantically on social media. Within the week, short films, animations and videos were circulating on social media. Some of these were the works of young, passionate amateurs, others products of professionals who contributed to the fight for democracy and freedoms through putting their talents in use.

If you visit the website capulcular.bandcamp.com, you’ll be able to listen to over 80 songs written, performed and recorded during these 18 days. Some of these songs are the covers of famous songs, like Sting’s “I’ll Be Watching You” or the rebel song from the musical “Les Misérables,” “Do You Hear the People Sing?” with the lyrics appropriate for the protests.

Do you hear the people sing?

But more than half of these songs are original songs, showing the diversity of the groups that have become part of the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul and across Turkey . You will listen to ethnic music of Laz and Alevi, classical Turkish music, rock, electro-pop, rap and anthems. Some of these songs were written and performed by acclaimed Turkish musicians like the momsy doyenne of Turkish pop, Nazan Öncel, and the rock heartthrobs Duman. Even the world-famous classical music pianist Fazil Say, a recent target of the government’s crackdown on free speech, gave a concert in the Aegean city of Izmir with a pan, a popular tool of protest of those at their homes. Many filmmakers and actors have also become the voices of the resistance, going as far to set up a Filmmakers’ Tent in the colorful tent city in Gezi Park (to be broken by a raid by the police with tear gas last week). More than 700 film professionals, including directors like Özcan Alper, Fatih Akin and actors like Halit Ergenç and Cem Yilmaz, as well as 13 film associations, issued a call to the government last week, urging for “the termination of police violence, an end to threats of intervention and continuation of the dialogue.”

The concerned voices from the world of arts not only came from Turkey , but across the globe. The photo of a smiling Tilda Swinton, holding a paper that read, “Right now police is violently attacking citizens in Istanbul ,” made the rounds in social media.

To reconcile (or not) with the art world

Other messages came from acclaimed musicians Patti Smith, Joan Baez, Roger Waters and Thom Yorke. An open letter to prime minister Tayyip Erdogan began with, “We, citizens of the world, are deeply saddened and concerned by the severe violence against citizens of Turkey by the Turkish police over the last couple of days in Turkish cities including Istanbul .” The letter was signed by American political critic and activist Noam Chomsky, British author Hanif Kureishi, actress and activist Susan Sarandon, British filmmaker Terry Gilliam, among other renowned names. The ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) ignorance, disregard, and often disdain, for the arts have been a major concern of Turkey’s intellectuals, artists, and educated, urban citizens for some time now.

Two years ago, the prime minister had called well-known artist Mehmet Aksoy’s sculpture in Kars , a symbol of Turkish-Armenian friendship and reconciliation “a freak,” and asked for its demolition. Last year, Erdogan condemned Turkish intellectuals of “despotic arrogance” after his daughter was insulted during the staging of a play. He threatened to cut state funding of country’s theaters, and he is making good of his word as the funding cuts for state theaters, ballet and opera are imminent.

So out of touch are Erdogan and his colleagues from the AKP with the world of arts and culture, that their attempts to reach out and reconcile became a source of joke when he invited Necati Sasmaz, the leading actor of the now-canceled ultra-nationalist TV series “Kurtlar Vadisi” (Valley of the Wolves), and the popular actress and diva Hülya Avsar, a public figure of indifference and insensitivity towards women’s issues and ethnic minorities. Sasmaz’s lack of coherence and poor Turkish during a televised press statement following his meeting with the prime minister flooded Twitter with thousands of jokes. “World of translators and linguists unite,” said one tweet.

For Avsar’s meeting with Erdogan, another tweet said it all, “Imagine Obama calling Kim Kardashian to the White House after a civil uprising.”