Archives: Articles

By Jonathan Cook

14 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Don’t expect a second-term Obama to take on Israel

Nazareth: Barack Obama’s victory in the US presidential election last week was greeted with general unease in Israel.

Surveys conducted outside the US shortly before polling day showed Obama was the preferred candidate in every country but two – Pakistan and Israel. But unlike Pakistan, where the two candidates were equally unpopular, he scored just 22 per cent in Israel against a commanding 57 per cent for Mitt Romney.

Given these figures, it is unsurprising that Israel’s rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made little effort to conceal his political sympathies, laying on a hero’s welcome for Romney when he visited Jerusalem in the summer and starring in several of his TV campaign ads.

Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, accused Netanyahu of “spitting” in the president’s face, warning that Israel would now be exposed to Obama’s second-term wrath.

The general wisdom is that the president, freed of worries about being re-elected, will seek his revenge, both for Netanyahu’s long-term intransigence in the peace process and for interfering in the US campaign.

Newspaper cartoons summed up the mood last week. The liberal Haaretz showed a sweating Netanyahu gingerly putting his head into the mouth of an Obama-faced lion, while the rightwing Jerusalem Post had Netanyahu exclaiming “Oh bummer!” as he read the headlines.

The speculation among Israelis and many observers is that an Obama second term will see much greater pressure on Israel both to make major concessions on Palestinian statehood and to end its aggressive posturing towards Iran over its supposed ambition to build a nuclear warhead.

Such thinking, however, is fanciful. The White House’s approach towards Netanyahu and Israel is unlikely to alter significantly.

Netanyahu’s bullish mood was certainly on display as voting in the US election was under way: his government announced plans to build more than 1,200 homes for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem, the presumed capital of a future Palestinian state.

The reality, as Netanyahu understands well, is that Obama’s hands are now tied as firmly in the Middle East as they were during his first term.

Obama got burnt previously when he tried to impose a settlement freeze. There are no grounds for believing that Israel’s far-right lobbyists in Washington, led by AIPAC, will give the president an easier ride this time.

And as Ron Ben Yishai, a veteran Israeli commentator, noted, Obama will face the same US Congress, one that has “traditionally been a stronghold of near-unconditional support for Israel”.

Obama may not have to worry about re-election but he will not want to hand a poisoned legacy to the next Democratic presidential candidate, nor will want to mire his own final term in damaging confrontations with Israel. Memories are still raw of Bill Clinton’s failed gamble to push through a peace deal – one that, in truth, was a far-more generous to Israel than the Palestinians – at Camp David in the dying days of his second term.

And whatever his personal antipathy towards the Israeli prime minister, Obama also knows that, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aside, his policies in the Middle East are either aligned with Israel’s or dependent on Netanyahu’s cooperation to work.

Both want the Israel-Egypt peace agreement to hold. Both need to ensure the civil war in Syria does not spiral out of control, as the cross-border salvos in the Golan Heights have indicated in the past few days. Both prefer repressive West-friendly dictators in the region over Islamist gains.

And, of course, both want to box in Iran on its nuclear ambitions. So far Netanyahu has reluctantly toed the US line on “giving sanctions a chance”, toning down his rhetoric about launching an attack. The last thing the White House needs is a sulking Israeli premier priming his cohorts in Washington to undermine US policy.

A sliver of hope for Netanyahu’s opponents is that a disgruntled US president might still take limited revenge, turning the tables by interfering in the Israeli elections due in January. He could back more moderate challengers such as Olmert or Tzipi Livni, if they choose to run and start to look credible.

But even that would be a big gamble.

The evidence shows that, whatever the makeup of the next Israeli governing coalition, it will espouse policies little different from the current one. That simply reflects the lurch rightwards among Israeli voters, as indicated in a poll this month showing that 80 per cent now believe it is impossible to make peace with the Palestinians.

In fact, given the mood in Israel, an obvious attempt by Obama to side with one of Netanyahu’s opponents might actually harm their prospects for success. Netanyahu has already demonstrated to Israelis that he can defeat the US president in a staring contest. Many Israelis are likely to conclude that no one is better placed to keep an unsympathetic Obama in check in his second term.

Faced with a popular consensus in Israel and political backing in the US Congress for a hard line with the Palestinians, Obama is an unlikely champion of the peace process – and even of the Palestinians’ current lowly ambition to win observer status at the United Nations.

A vote on this matter is currently threatened for November 29, with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas apparently hoping that the anniversary of the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine will provide emotional resonance.

Meanwhile, all Israel’s main parties are battling for the large pool of rightwing votes. Shelley Yacimovich, leader of the opposition Labor party, last week denied her party was “left-wing”, in a sign of how dirty that word has become in Israel. She has studiously avoided mentioning the Palestinians or diplomatic issues.

And the great new hope of Israeli politics, former TV star Yair Lapid, has rapidly come to sound like a Netanyahu-lite. Last week he publicly opposed giving up even the Palestinian parts of East Jerusalem, arguing that the Palestinians could be browbeaten into surrendering their putative capital.

The reality is that the White House is stuck with an Israeli government, with or without Netanyahu, that rejects an agreement with the Palestinians. As tensions flare again on the Israel-Gaza border – threatening an Israeli attack, just as occurred in the run-up to the last Israeli election – it looks disturbingly like four more years of the same.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is

www.jonathan-cook.net

A version of this article originally appeared in the National (Abu Dhabi).

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Blog

13 November 12

@ readersupportednews.org

I hope the President starts negotiations over a “grand bargain” for deficit reduction by aiming high. After all, he won the election. And if the past four years has proven anything it’s that the White House should not begin with a compromise.

Assuming the goal is $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade (that’s the consensus of the Simpson-Bowles commission, the Congressional Budget Office, and most independent analysts), here’s what the President should propose:

First, raise taxes on the rich – and by more than the highest marginal rate under Bill Clinton or even a 30 percent (so-called Buffett Rule) minimum rate on millionaires. Remember: America’s top earners are now wealthier than they’ve ever been, and they’re taking home a larger share of total income and wealth than top earners have received in over 80 years.

Why not go back sixty years when Americans earning over $1 million in today’s dollars paid 55.2 percent of it in income taxes, after taking all deductions and credits? If they were taxed at that rate now, they’d pay at least $80 billion more annually – which would reduce the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade. That’s a quarter of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction right there.

A 2% surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent would bring in another $750 billion over the decade. A one-half of 1 percent tax on financial transactions would bring in an additional $250 billion.

Add this up and we get $2 trillion over ten years – half of the deficit-reduction goal.

Raise the capital gains rate to match the rate on ordinary income and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 a year, and that’s another $1 trillion over ten years. So now we’re up to $3 trillion in additional revenue.

Eliminate special tax preferences for oil and gas, price supports for big agriculture, tax breaks and research subsidies for Big Pharma, unnecessary weapons systems for military contractors, and indirect subsidies to the biggest banks on Wall Street, and we’re nearly there.

End the Bush tax cuts on incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, and – bingo – we made it: $4 trillion over 10 years.

And we haven’t had to raise taxes on America’s beleaguered middle class, cut Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid, reduce spending on education or infrastructure, or cut programs for the poor.

Mr. President, I’d recommend this as your opening bid. With enough luck and pluck, maybe even your closing bid. And if enough Americans are behind you, it could even be the final deal.

Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

By Countercurrents.org

13 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Nuke shutdown in Germany has started producing benefits. The country is getting economic and environmental benefits, which is reaching investors, businesses and farmers.

With wide political support the German government took off the county’s eight oldest nuclear reactors following the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant accident in 2011. A following legislation will close the country’s last nuclear power plant by 2022.

A special issue, “The German Nuclear Exit”, of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shows that the nuclear power plant shutdown and the following initiative to move toward renewable energy are generating economic and environmental benefits, and the benefits are measurable.

One expert called the German nuclear power plant phase-out a probable game-changer for the nuclear industry worldwide.

Alexander Glaser, a Princeton researcher, in his article, “From Brokdorf to Fukushima: The long journey to nuclear phase-out,” discusses the historical context of the German decision. The country experienced widespread police-anti-nuclear demonstrator clashes. There is strong public opposition to nuclear power in Germany. Very few persons in Germany support plan for new reactor construction.

Glaser notes that Germany’s decision last year to pursue a nuclear phase-out was anything but precipitous; serious planning to shutter the nuclear industry and greatly expand alternative energy production.

Glaser concludes: “Germany’s nuclear phase-out could provide a proof-of-concept, demonstrating the political and technical feasibility of abandoning a controversial high-risk technology. Germany’s nuclear phase-out, successful or not, is likely to become a game changer for nuclear energy worldwide.”

Miranda Schreurs, professor of politics, Freie Universitat, Berlin says the nuclear phase-out and accompanying shift to renewable energy have brought financial benefits to farmers, investors, and small business.

Felix Matthes of the Institute for Applied Ecology in Berlin concludes that the phase-out will have only small and temporary effects on electricity prices and the German economy.

Alexander Rossnagel and Anja Hentschel, legal experts, University of Kassel explain that electric utilities are unlikely to succeed in suing the government over the shutdown.

Lutz Mez, co-founder of Freie Universitat Berlin’s Environmental Policy Research Center, presents the most startling finding. The shift to alternative energy sources being pursued in parallel with the German nuclear exit has reached a climate change milestone, Mez writes: “It has actually decoupled energy from economic growth, with the country’s energy supply and carbon-dioxide emissions dropping from 1990 to 2011, even as its gross domestic product rose by 36 percent.”

The German experience help a lot to learn.

By Barbara H. Peterson

13 November, 2012

@ Farmwars.info

In case you didn’t know, genetically modified mosquitoes have been unleashed numerous times on planet Earth. Thus far, millions mosquitoes were released in various locations; Cayman Islands, Malaysia, and Brazil. Now, the GM mosquito creator Oxitec may release millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in the fields of crops, including olives, citrus fruits, cabbage, tomatoes, and cotton

Look out people of planet earth, genetically engineered bugs are here. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, our technocracy is working ever diligently on genetically engineering every last living cell on the planet – WITHOUT EXCEPTION. What does this mean for life here on earth? Ever hear the expression “soup sandwich?” Well, after these “scientific” geniuses are through with us, that is exactly what all life will be – a genetic soup sandwich, made in a lab, and stamped with a corporate logo embedded in our DNA.

If the following report from Testbiotech doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. Get ready world, because nothing will ever be the same. Ever. There is no remediation technique available to clean up genetically engineered mutations released into the wild and spread through horizontal gene transfer. Barb

Regulatory decisions on releasing genetically modified (GM) insects biased by corporate interests

Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.”

London/ Munich Thursday 8th November 2012 A briefing published today by public interest groups highlights how regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests.

The briefing shows how UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. Plans to commercialise GM insects would result in many millions of GM insects being released in fields of crops, including olives, tomatoes, citrus fruits, cabbages and cotton. In future, any insect species might be genetically modified.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is highlighted as one of several examples showing how industry organises its influence. In EFSA´s GM insects working group, which was established to develop guidance for risk assessment of genetically engineered insects, there are several cases of conflicts of interest, including experts with links to Oxitec who only partially declared their interests. The draft Guidance on risk assessment of GM insects shows some significant deficiencies: for example it does not consider the impacts of GM insects on the food chain. Oxitec’s GM insects are genetically engineered to die mostly at the larval stage so dead GM larvae will enter the food chain inside food crops such as olives, cabbages and tomatoes. Living GM insects could also be transported on crops to other farms or different countries. EFSA has excluded any consideration of these important issues from its draft guidance. Many other issues are not properly addressed.

The briefing also highlights problems with a World Health Organisation (WHO)-funded project which has allowed the company to bypass requirements for informed consent for the release of GM mosquitoes. The WHO-funded Mosqguide project, which was supposed to be developing best practice, also allowed the company to gain approval from Brazilian regulators to release 16 million GM mosquitoes before draft regulations on the release of GM insects had been finalised or adopted, without publishing a risk assessment.

Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.”

Christoph Then, Executive Director, Testbiotech, said: “Risk assessment of genetically engineered animals touches many areas where there is lack of knowledge. We are concerned that EFSA will apply a biased and selective protocol to safety without really sorting out potential hazards.”

François Meienberg, Berne Declaration, said: “Companies such as Syngenta and Oxitec have to learn that negative impacts on the environment or health can arise from their lobbying activities. To act responsibly they have to change their lobbying behaviour immediately.”

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), said: “Experts on EFSA’s working groups should not be allowed to have any conflict of interests with industry, let alone ties with companies producing the very product they are assessing – in this case GM insects. This clearly shows that EFSA’s rules to deal with conflicts of interest still have major gaps.”

Tina Goethe, SwissAid, said: “The development of GM-insects for agriculture implies unforeseeable risks for human health and environment. In order to meet the challenges of small scale agriculture in poor countries, we do not need expensive and high risk technologies, but agro-ecological solutions.”

The briefing highlights multiple attempts by Oxitec to influence regulation around the world, which have included:

>> Attempts to define ‘biological containment’ of the insects (which are programmed to die at the larval stage) as contained use, by-passing requirements for risk assessments and consultation on decisions to release GM insects into the environment;

>> Attempts to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops which will end up in the food chain;

>> Avoidance of any discussion of how GM insects can be contained at a site, or products produced using GM insects can be labelled;

>> Exclusion of many important issues from risk assessments, including impacts of surviving GM mosquitoes on the environment and health, and impacts of changing mosquito populations on human immunity and disease;

>> Failure to follow transboundary notification processes for exports of GM insects correctly;

>> Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease;

>> Attempts to avoid liability for any harm if anything goes wrong;

>> Pushing ahead with large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes before relevant guidance or regulations are adopted.

For further information contact:

Helen Wallace, GeneWatch UK, Tel +44 (0)1298-24300 (office); +44 (0)7903-311584 (mobile), helen.wallace@genewatch.org

Christoph Then, Testbiotech, Tel + 49151 54638040, info@testbiotech.org

François Meienberg, Berne Declaration, Ph: +41 44 277 70 04, Email: food@evb.ch

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Tel: +32 2 8930930, Mobile: +31 (0) 6 302 85 042, nina@corporateeurope.org

Tina Goethe, SwissAid, Tel.: +41-(0)31-350 53 75, t.goethe@swissaid.ch

Read the full report here:

Genetically modified insects: under whose control? GeneWatch UK, Testbiotech, SwissAid, Berne Declaration, Corporate Europe Observatory briefing. October 2012. http://www.testbiotech.de/node/729

Also Read

Can GM mosquitoes rid the world of a major killer? By Conl Urquhart, The Guardian

By Cathy Breen

13 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Najaf–I returned from Baghdad last night. Over coffee this morning, I filled the father of my host family in on my trip. I told him it was wonderful to see everyone, but I only heard sad stories.

A few minutes ago a fierce wind rose, blowing the trees and dust and everything in its path. We hurried to close the windows, but there was no way to prevent the fine powdery dirt from entering. It covers everything. The weather seems to fit my mood somehow. There are forces beyond our control.

Yesterday in Baghdad I was able to visit with two families who both have grown children in the U.S. The parents of a third family, whom we know from Syria , met with me briefly on a quickly decided location, one of the roads that exits through the concrete walls encompassing their neighborhood.

I wanted to give them a package from the states, and they were hesitant to have me come to their neighborhood, an area which has seen much violence and conflict over the last years.

It was an emotional moment as the mother and I exited our respective car and taxi and embraced. She wept. I hope I will be able to see their seven children before I leave Iraq , but for now I am grateful for the five minutes I had with them. Thank God for the driver who is able to negotiate all these encounters. Somehow, between his little English and my little Arabic, we have been able to manage. In the other two families we visited, someone spoke English well enough to serve as a translator. Of course both families have contact with their relatives in the U.S. by internet and phone, but somehow my presence connects them physically, like a bridge.

My first task this morning is to review and resize some of the photos taken yesterday, so that I can send them off with an account to the sons and daughters in the U.S. As I look at the faces before me, I imagine how emotional it will be for those opening the attachments when they catch the wistful longing in the eyes of their family members, see how they have aged, or behold the youngest members of the family whom they have not yet gotten to meet personally.

This is what war does, no? It separates families; it destroys the fiber and lifeblood of a society. I remember as a young adult, and not so young adult, being separated by oceans for years at a time from my own family. There were moments when I would become so choked up to hear their voices over the phone that I was unable to speak.

My visit was anticipated, and as is the beautiful custom here each family welcomed me warmly and served me. We were able to visit unhurriedly, and I had brought a few photos of their loved ones to show them. After assuring them that their family members were working hard but doing alright in the U.S. , I asked them what stories they had to tell me!

One family told of having to move to another area because there were a lot of explosions where they lived, and any young man in the vicinity of an attack was randomly rounded up. This family feared for their young sons. One mother, a teacher, spoke of the crowded classrooms, and of how fatigued teachers felt upon arriving at school after being held up at checkpoint after checkpoint in unendurable heat. “One can wait over half anhour just to go through one checkpoint.” This was exactly our experience that same morning as we made our way through Baghdad to their neighborhood.

“The children all want to be cops, and to carry guns.” The teacher spoke of the many orphans in her class and of the widowed teachers. “Everyone is exhausted from the situation. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow. Sometimes there are 10-15 explosions, other days there are none. With the situation in Syria we are all tense and feel insecure.” This family fled to Syria for some years and then returned to Iraq .

“I don’t think any of my dreams will come true,” said one of the sons, a bright handsome 17 year old with an easy smile. “There is nothing to do but stay home.” The parents felt that since the era of sanctions things have only gone backwards, not forward. “Young people don’t have any hope for a job here, except driving a taxi. Only if they go to another country will it be better…Most of our traditions have been lost, it is all about money now. You can’t do anything without bribes.”

In the other family I visited, the grandmother has bad asthma. There is an increase in asthma due to pollution, to lack of factory and vehicle emission controls, to the frequent use of generators for electricity. Even the benzene still has lead. One family member, a doctor, commented, “Nine years and no electrical system. Where is the big investment money? It is all about political decisions. The U.S. brought terrorists to our country, they came from all over the world, to fight terrorism in our country and destroy our country. I am sorry to tell you this, but it is the truth.” I told him that I didn’t disagree. We all sat together. “We are helpless and hopeless,” he said. After a long pause he added “but we are adapting.” Two little children were playing gleefully in our midst on the carpet.

What is there left to say?

Cathy Breen co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org). She is traveling for six weeks in Iraq .

By Nile Bowie

As China’s 18th Communist Party Congress draws to a close, the world’s most populous nation prepares to install the country’s fifth generation of leadership since the Chinese Revolution of 1949. Despite overseeing a stringent police state with heavy limitations on political expression, China’s leadership have taken the nation from starvation to space travel in just a few decades, lifting approximately 600 million people out of poverty. [1] Of course, the Communist Party still has a fair share of trouble on its hands; managing an economic slowdown, finding ways to raise incomes while keeping production costs competitive, and dealing with radical pro-secessionist sentiment in Tibet and Xinjiang. Undoubtedly, China’s leadership has maintained its legitimacy by overseeing massive economic growth – its inability to continue on such a path would ultimately create trouble for the Communist Party. Chairman Mao once preached, “An army of the people is invincible!” – hence, China spends an astounding $111 billion on internal security, more than what is allocated to the People’s Liberation Army. [2]

President Hu Jintao’s administration oversaw the construction of new infrastructure and high-speed rail networks, the rise of emerging provincial metropolises such as Shenzhen and Chongqing, and China’s lucrative economic engagement with Africa. During an address at the Party Congress, President Hu hinted at some kind of reform to the existing system:

“We must continue to make both active and prudent efforts to carry out the reform of the political structure, and make people’s democracy more extensive, fuller in scope and sounder in practice; however, we will never copy a Western political system.” [3]

It remains to be seen exactly what kind of “democracy” President Hu is referring to, however it is apparent that China’s leadership recknogizes the need to address the complete lack of public participation in the political direction of the country. Hu spoke of “diversifying the forms of democracy” and “democratic elections,” and with that, one would hope for the incremental relaxation on political expression and dissent.

In combating the severe wealth gap between the rich and poor, President Hu has also called for China to double its 2010 GDP and per capita income for both urban and rural residents by 2020, the first time that per capita income has been included in the country’s economic growth target. [4] Hu also called for the rapid modernization of national defense and armed forces, and the need to build China into a maritime power to protect its marine resources and interests. [5] Additionally, Hu praised the pro-autonomy policies of the “one country, two systems” arrangement, the need for integrating urban and rural development, and the possibility of military cooperation with Taiwan. [6] Of course, Hu himself will not be at the helm to steer China into its planned trajectory; it is safely assumed that Xi Jinping and his designated deputy, Li Keqiang, will be installed as president and premier in March 2013.

Xi Jinping is noted for ushering in positive economic reforms in the coastal province of Zhejiang, where GDP has grown by 10% annually over the past 30 years through bolstering small-scale entrepreneurs, providing supportive credit to private ventures, and governing with very little intervention in firm management. [7] Xi is the son one of the Communist Party’s founding fathers, Xi Zhongxun, and was banished to labor in the remote village of Liangjiahe as a teenager during the Cultural Revolution before studying chemical engineering at the elite Tsinghua University in Beijing. Xi belongs to the ‘princeling’ faction, the offspring of party veterans who favor crony-capitalism by steering economic growth with high levels of state intervention, many of whom (such as Bo Xilai) champion a revival of Maoist socialism with contemporary values. Xi will be the first ‘princeling’ in the seat of power and it is unclear if his policies will reflect the governing style of others in his faction, or that of his own approach of adopting lesser government intervention. Xi appears to relate little to Maoist policy, only to the nostalgia of singing red songs and using the Chairman’s aphorisms. [8]

Incoming premier Li Keqiang, who also toiled in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, is from the ‘tuanpai’ faction. The ‘tuanpai’ have come from lesser-privileged backgrounds and have been groomed for leadership through the Communist Youth League; the faction is more focused on populist policies, rural development, and improving the conditions of farmers and migrant workers. The ‘princelings’ orbit around former President Jiang Zemin, while the ‘tuanpai’ favor the direction taken under Hu Jintao; the incoming administration has likely been selected to strike a balance between the two factions. A more dismissive analysis of these factional differences by US-based Chinese dissident Yu Jie could potentially be more accurate:

“People say Hu and Xi belong to different political factions. They say Hu comes from the Communist Youth League and is therefore more populist, whereas Xi, because he represents the “princelings” — sons and daughters of high officials — works in service of the wealthier coastal provinces. I think they’re not that dissimilar. No matter if it’s Hu or Xi, they’re still only representative of the few-hundred families who make up the Chinese aristocracy. They are not in office thanks to a Western-style election, but are the products of a black-box operation. They didn’t rise because they’re clever and capable, but precisely because they’re mediocre. They are where they are today because they are harmless to the special interest groups that run China.” [9]

Since a large demographic of people in China have benefitted from economic development, many have become complacent or exorbitantly wealthy, and are generally uninterested in political activism. While public trust in the government may be higher today than in 1989, the new leadership has a chance to rebuild public confidence by raising per capita incomes and loosening restrictions on expression. If Xi governs the country using the “Zhejiang Model” and supports local entrepreneurship, this would help reduce the wealth gap and wouldn’t necessarily hinder the extraordinary monopoly profits of China’s state-owned enterprises. China has avoided the mistake of the Soviet Union when it attempted to reform politically before doing so economically, however it still remains unclear if the Communist Party is willing to engage in any meaningful reform of their political system.

As the United States shifts its economic and military focus to the Asia Pacific, the question of Sino-US relations under the Xi Administration is an important one. Beijing’s desire to flex its maritime muscle and exercise its sovereignty over disputed territories in the South China Sea will certainly not sit well with the Obama administration, which has ostensibly adopted a policy written about by American foreign policy theoreticians such as Robert Kagan, who has argued in favor of pressuring China through territorial containment. There are a myriad of ways in which the United States can accomplish these goals; it is more likely that Washington will continue supporting dissident groups and attempting to hamper China’s overseas development projects, rather than engage in any military exchange. The Korean Peninsula remains a tense flashpoint capable of drawing both the United States and China into military conflict. The incoming Xi administration must be a mediator; it should more adamantly oppose the US military presence in South Korea and more actively assist economic development and social programs in North Korea. Xi Jinping is known to be a straight talker of sorts, and Washington can likely expect less diplomatic rhetoric from Beijing if it continues its current policy:

“Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us. First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?” [10]

Notes

[1] China Wealth Gap to Stay in Danger Zone, Government Adviser Says, Bloomberg, September 24, 2012

[2] China to Spend USD 111 Billion on Internal Security, Outlook India, November 14, 2012

[3] Hu says China will not copy Western system in political reform, Xinhua, November 08, 2012

[4] China adds resident’s per capita income into economic growth target, Xinhua, November 08, 2012

[5] Hu calls for efforts to build China into maritime power, Xinhua, November 08, 2012

[6] Hu suggests military security trust mechanism, peace agreement with Taiwan, Xinhua, November 08, 2012

[7] Zhejiang Province: A Free-Market Success Story, Bloomberg, October 20, 2008

[8] Xi Jinping’s Chongqing Tour: Gang of Princelings Gains Clout, The Jamestown Foundation, December 17, 2010

[9] Empty Suit, Foreign Policy, February 13, 2012

[10] BBC News – Profile: Xi Jinping, BBC, November 08, 2012

Nile Bowie is a Kuala Lumpur-based American writer and photographer for the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada. He explores issues of terrorism, economics and geopolitics.

Mideast Buying Lifts Stagnant Global Market

By AARON MEHTA and ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS

12 November 2012

@ defensenews.com

The defense market may be slowing in some parts of the globe, with powerhouse players in Europe and the U.S. facing increasing budgetary pressures, but countries in the Mideast are still buying, and at record levels.

What have been noteworthy in the past year are efforts by smaller countries in the region to radically improve their arsenals, with deals rivaling those historically tied to the larger players, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

For instance, U.S. aerospace companies have earned almost $1 billion from the Sultanate of Oman in the past 18 months, with the money going primarily to purchase a dozen new F-16 Fighter jets and to modernize an older F-16 squadron.

Oman sits across a narrow body of water from Iran and is one of a handful of countries with immediate proximity to that diplomatically troubled nation that is trying to ratchet up its military capability, said Guy Ben-Ari, deputy director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Especially for the smaller [Arabian] Gulf states, they’re really trying to step up their military capabilities to act as both a deterrent toward Iran, but also to show their neighbors and the U.S. that they’re a good partner in the region that can bring relevant capabilities to the table,” Ben-Ari said.

More from our special report:

•http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121112/DEFREG02/311120012/Firms-Prepare-35B-Canadian-Naval-Boom?odyssey=mod newswell text World%20News s”>Firms Prepare for $35B Canadian Naval Boom

•http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121112/DEFREG02/311120013/Analysts-Scale-Back-Systems-South-American-Sales?odyssey=mod newswell text World%20News s”>Analysts: Scale Back Systems for South American Sales

•http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121112/DEFREG03/311120010/In-Asia-C4ISR-Market-Growing?odyssey=mod newswell text World%20News p”>In Asia, C4ISR Market Is Growing

•http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121112/DEFREG03/311120009/Corruption-Bureaucracy-Delay-100B-India-Buy?odyssey=mod newswell text World%20News s”>Corruption, Bureaucracy Delay $100B India Buy

•http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121112/DEFREG04/311120011/Israel-Leverages-Local-R-D-Overseas-Buys?odyssey=mod newswell text World%20News s”>Israel Leverages Local R&D for Overseas Buys

For Oman, the large purchases from U.S. firms are unusual given the country’s strong military ties to the U.K., especially when it comes to the Royal Air Force.

“The sultan has got a fair amount of money to spend, and he makes sure to spend it,” said James Worrall of the University of Leeds, an expert on Omani spending.

Oman plans out its spending in five-year cycles, with the latest cycle running from 2011-2015. Originally, the plan called for slightly reduced spending on defense. However, higher-than-expected gas prices this year have left the country with excess money, which Worrall said could easily be used on defense.

It’s part of a general theme in the region: As oil goes, so goes defense spending.

“It’s traditionally always been a good market, and by good, I mean there’s this perfect storm in that these governments have money, oil money, they have money to spend, and they’re in a very challenging security environment,” Ben-Ari said.

Since the 1980s, Oman’s average defense spending relative to gross domestic product has been in the double digits, the highest in the region. But in actual dollars, its spending pales in comparison with some of its neighbors.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, spent more than $46 billion on defense in 2011, according to statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). That’s more than the combined defense budgets of neighbors Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Syria.

An upcoming order with Oman for 12 Typhoons is expected in the next few months with BAE Systems.

Like Oman, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in fighter jets. In early November, the Defense Department announced an agreement between Boeing and Saudi Arabia worth almost $4 billion to upgrade 68 F-15s to the F-15SA configuration. The work is part of a $30 billion deal arranged between Boeing and the Middle Eastern nation last December, the most expensive foreign arms deal in U.S. history.

The Saudi government will purchase 84 new F-15SA fighters, to be delivered in 2015.

The emphasis on aircraft upgrades, especially for the F-16 market, where both Oman and Iraq have made purchases in the last year, has led to fierce international competition. While American companies have done well in the Middle East, the U.K. defense industry has maintained a strong regional presence. British defense exports are generally dominated by air systems.

Missile Defense

One of the primary targets for future spending in a region marked by instability and technology advances is missile defense.

French defense companies have seen in the past particular success with sales of frigates and short-range air defense missiles to the Saudis.

France has been negotiating a modernization of the Thales Crotale air defense missile system, which includes a replacement with the Crotale new-generation weapon. That upgrade was estimated at 3 billion to 4 billion euros ($3.8 billion to $5.1 billion) a few months ago, a source briefed on the subject said. That compares to a 2.5 billion euro budget reported in http://www.latribune.com/”>latribune.com, the online publication.

All the countries in the gulf region take the ballistic missile threat seriously, an industry executive said.

“It’s a reasonable proposition that the Aster and VL [vertical launch] Mica are proposed to all these countries,” the executive said.

The Aster and VL Mica package has been offered to Qatar, the executive said. Part of the sales pitch is the compatible command-and-control architecture for the Aster and VL Mica, which makes it easier to integrate the high- and low-level weapons into a multi-tier missile shield.

European missile company MBDA makes the Mica and is part of the Franco-Italian Eurosam consortium, which makes the Aster missile used in the SAMP/T anti-ballistic missile system.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have bought U.S. missile systems, leaving France to seek sales in Kuwait, Oman and Qatar.

Qatar is spending at least some of its missile defense budget on American designs. On Nov. 5, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the American entity that oversees foreign military sales, announced a $6.5 billion contract between Qatar and Lockheed Martin for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems and support.

That same day, DSCA announced a $1.1 billion deal with UAE for THAAD missiles and launchers.

Andrew Chuter in London and Pierre Tran in Paris contributed to this report.

By Niall Green

12 November, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Following the re-election of Barack Obama in last week’s US presidential poll, Washington and its allies have stepped up their war drive against Syria. In the most serious escalation of the 20-month conflict in the Middle East country, the Israeli armed forces fired a missile into Syrian territory Sunday.

The strike, by an advanced Tammuz guided missile, is the first acknowledged attack by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israeli warplanes struck the site of an alleged Syrian nuclear project in 2007, but neither regime ever officially confirmed the action.

The Israeli missile reportedly struck a Syrian army base, though the government in Damascus has not released any details of the damage caused.

The IDF strike was reportedly carried out in response to a Syrian mortar that landed in the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel since 1967. Nobody was reported killed or injured by what appears to have been a misdirected 120mm Syrian tank shell.

A statement issued by the IDF shortly after the Tammuz missile struck Syrian territory claimed, “IDF forces fired warning shots and relayed a message to the Syrian forces via the United Nations that warns against additional fire. Additional fire will prompt a quick response.”

The IDF acknowledged that eight Syrian shells had fallen within the Israeli-controlled section of the Golan Heights over the past two months, likely the inadvertent result of fighting between Syrian government forces and “rebel” fighters, without any military response from the IDF.

While Israel appears to have turned a blind eye to errant Syrian shells in the weeks leading up to the US election, the decision by the IDF to launch a strike now indicates that Washington and its allies are entering into a new phase of their conflict with the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Further evidence of a shift toward open conflict between the major powers and the Syrian regime was provided by General Sir David Richards, Britain’s Chief of the Defence Staff, who on Sunday revealed to the BBC that plans were in place for a military intervention by British forces into Syria.

General Richards told BBC television’s Andrew Marr Show that he expected the humanitarian crisis in Syria to worsen over the winter, which would increase pressure to “intervene in a limited way.”

“Obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things. It is my job to make sure that these options are continually brushed over to make sure that we can deliver them and they are credible,” Gen. Richards revealed.

While the UK’s top soldier couched his comments in “humanitarian” language, any invasion of Syrian territory by British and allied forces would be an act of war that would throw Syria and the entire region into even deeper turmoil, threatening to spark military counter-measures by Damascus.

Such a military intervention by Britain and the US, acting with their NATO and Middle Eastern allies, could spark a wider conflict with countries such as Iran, Russia, and China, which have retained close ties to the Assad regime and feel threatened by the explosion of militarist aggression, led by Washington, in the region.

In preparation for such a major offensive against Syria, the Obama administration has initiated a tactical shift away from some of the opposition political forces it has relied upon until now.

Addressing a press conference in Zagreb, Croatia, October 31, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US was transferring its support from the Syrian National Council (SNC) to a new opposition leadership.

After promoting the SNC for more than a year as the “legitimate” representative of the Syrian people, Clinton declared that they “could no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition.”

The SNC could “be part of a larger opposition,” Clinton allowed. “But that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.”

A Turkish-based gathering of affluent Syrian exiles with links to the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood, the SNC is deeply unpopular and wields almost no influence inside Syria. The fact that Washington has abruptly and unilaterally jettisoned the SNC only exposes the bogus character of US claims to have been working to secure “peace” and “democracy” in Syria.

Secretary Clinton then called for the formation of a new Syrian opposition bloc, declaring that the US State Department had compiled a list of “names and organizations that we believe should be included in any leadership structure.”

Washington moved rapidly to convene a meeting of its Syrian assets at a luxury hotel in the Qatari capital, Doha. The four-day gathering, which ended Sunday, saw officials from the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates broker a tentative deal between various opposition groups and individuals to establish a 55- to 60-member assembly.

As late as 3 a.m. on Sunday morning, the Doha talks seemed on the brink of collapse, as SNC representatives fought to maintain their influence over the new opposition bloc. One source inside the talks told the Reuters news agency that the SNC finally agreed to take a backseat role within the new assembly only after being threatened that the umbrella group would be set up and recognized by the US and its allies with or without the participation of the SNC.

The Obama administration expects that this new opposition leadership, which has been named the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, will be even more directly subordinate to the orders coming from State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA.

Washington also hopes that the refurbished opposition bloc will provide a more “inclusive” face for the US-led proxy war against Syria, proving more able to wield influence inside the country than the discredited SNC.

Cobbled together from various religious figures, exiled academics, disgruntled businessmen, defectors from the Assad regime, and Islamist militia commanders, the new Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces is unlikely to prove any more popular than the old SNC.

The new head of the Syrian opposition assembly is Moaz al-Khatib, a Sunni Muslim cleric. The former imam of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, Khatib fled Syria in July after being repeatedly detained by Syrian authorities for voicing criticisms of the regime.

Considered to be a political and religious “moderate,” Khatib is a compromise candidate between the rival factions of the Syrian opposition, all of whom are scrambling to secure foreign backing and a share in the spoils of victory in the event that the Assad regime falls. Given these divisions, which were evident during the conference in Doha, it is doubtful that Khatib will be able to unify the opposition forces.

Khatib’s prominent position at the head of a major Damascus mosque is intended to garner support for the opposition from moderate Sunnis and the urban population of Syria’s capital city. Despite widespread popular hatred of the Assad dictatorship, many Syrians remain deeply hostile to the Sunni sectarian-based “rebel” militias that Washington and its allies are using as their shock troops to weaken and destabilize Assad’s forces.

But the main purpose of Khatib’s sudden elevation is to provide Washington with another face — without widespread support, and just as disposable as SNC — behind which it can work to suppress the social demands of the Syrian masses and enforce the interests of imperialism in the Middle East.

By Countercurrents.org

12 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

General Sir David Richards, the UK’s most senior general, said Britain had in place contingency plans for a “very limited” response in the case of a worsening humanitarian situation in Syria within the next few months. He added that there could be British troops posted in countries neighboring Syria. Phillip Hammond, the UK Defense Secretary, also confirmed that the UK had not ruled out military intervention [1].

The admission from Chief of the Defense Staff General Richards on a BBC interview on November 11, 2012 is the most serious warning yet that Britain is preparing for some kind of military involvement in Syria.

It seems that British policy has now shifted from trying to support and organize the disparate rebel groups to considering full-blown military action.

“The situation this winter […] may deteriorate and may well provoke calls to intervene in a limited way,” General Richards told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“It’s my job […] to make sure these options are continually brushed over to make sure we can deliver them,” he continued.

Defense Secretary Hammond, who was interviewed on the BBC’s Sunday Politics program, also confirmed that the UK had not ruled out military intervention – but was still focused on trying to overcome objections from Russia and China to get a strong UN Security Council resolution condemning the Assad government.

“At the moment we don’t have a legal basis for delivering military assistance to the rebels. This is something the Prime Minster keeps asking us to test – the legal position, the practical military position, and we will continue to look at all options.” he said.

He stressed that Britain’s main focus at the moment was making sure the crisis doesn’t spill into any neighboring countries like Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan.

The countries around Syria “are allies of ours – we have small numbers of people routinely deployed there, and […] we’re preparing plans to make sure that when some disaster happens, we’re able to deal with it.”

However, Marcus Papadopoulos, editor of magazine Politics First, told RT that he didn’t think the British announcement should be taken too seriously.

“It’s more designed to actually invigorate the Syrian militants – who are of course the proxies of the West – and at the same time to try and scare the government of President Assad and try and demoralize the Syrian armed forces, which of course are fighting a very long, protracted, bloody war,” he said.

Another option that London is considering includes amending a 2011 EU trade embargo that would allow weapons to be sent to the rebels, for “humanitarian” reasons.

David Cameron wants to push for an end to the embargo, which does not allow either said receiving military aid from abroad. Cameron also wants to put more pressure on Washington to help the Syrian rebels, and if he is successful, it could see the UK supplying weapons directly to the rebels.

“Safe havens” for refugees are also being considered, but there are no plans to try and impose no-fly zones over Syria. Without a no-fly zone, a safe haven for refugees would be almost impossible to enforce.

Britain already has troops in Afghanistan, while its overstretched army, navy and air force face increasing budget cuts, so any credible military intervention would need to be in support of a larger US operation, or independently but on a minor scale.

British public opinion would also likely be firmly opposed to any new military intervention. A growing number of British people, including many politicians, want their troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. A new military intervention on any scale would be a very hard sell for the coalition, which is already under fire domestically for unpopular austerity measures and a faltering economy.

A report [2] by The Telegraph, UK said:

In the past week, British policy has moved from laying out plans to help organize the disparate rebel groups to discussing intervention.

Attention will now turn to a meeting of the National Security Council this week that will be devoted to the civil war.

The new, more assertive stance, led personally by Cameron, has surprised some allies, including the US, which remains hesitant to intervene.

Britain’s policy towards President Assad’s regime noticeably strengthened during a visit by Cameron to the Middle East last week. Cabinet Office officials have been instructed to re-examine a EU embargo banning arms sales to Syrian rebels to see if weapons can be supplied for “self-defence”, although officials insist that the Government will always respect international law.

A no-fly zone over the country, as was imposed on Libya last year, is not seen as an option by Downing Street at present.

Malik al-Kurdi, deputy head of the rebel Free Syrian Army, said: “It’s very important that the British are coming on the scene.”

Another report [3] from Doha and Idlib province of Syria tell more about intriguing situation. It said:

Downing Street is floating striking proposals to alter the EU’s embargo on Syria to allow arming the rebels, under the pretext of recognizing their “right to self-defence”. Rebels are demanding a shopping list of weapons they say will allow them to “finish the job” of removing President Assad.

But with rebel groups openly admitting to executing prisoners, and radical Islamist groups taking more prominent roles in the fighting, Cameron’s initiative has caused surprise in the US state department and elsewhere.

“It’s amazing,” said one western diplomat familiar with the startled US response. “Questions have to be asked in London as to what Cameron is thinking.”

The diplomat was speaking in Doha, the Qatari capital, where a disparate collection of Syrian exiles has spent the week with western and Arab backers trying to cajole them into a semblance of unity.

Cameron and European allies, including France and Italy, believe that any success should be rewarded with a bolder approach by the West on providing arms.

One rebel general complained to The Sunday Telegraph this week that the current policy seemed designed to create a permanent civil war.

“Personal weapons are provided, enough to leave the situation as it is now, in disorder,” said Gen Yehya al-Bitar, a defector from the regime’s air force, at FSA headquarters in Idlib province.

“When the revolutionaries get stronger, and start to best the government, the international community stops weapons being sent.

“Then when the revolutionaries become weak, more support arrives. When you look at what’s happened, at the support starting and stopping, you realize it is arranged so as to leave Syria in chaos, rather than to bring about change.”

Last week has been spent attempting to reconcile the competing demands of various factions inside and outside the biggest opposition body, the Syrian National Council, and the terms under which it would join a broader “National Initiative”.

A vote to appoint George Sabra, a Christian former communist, head of the SNC executive was heralded as a step forward but did little to disguise the reluctance of the competing factions to set aside their ambitions for the sake of unity.

Diplomats said the apparently pointless arguments were actually an improvement on previous meetings. At one gathering in Tunis, security had to be called five times to break up fist fights between delegates. In Turkey, a delegate walked out in protest at his position in an official photograph.

Cameron’s proposal is an attempt to bypass both the stalemate in Qatar and the stalemate in Syria itself.

It involves directing the Foreign Office to deal directly with those wielding influence through the power of the gun. If the embargo were altered, it would allow Britain to act as a “quartermaster” directing the flow of arms, one official said last week.

The Telegraph understands that the approach is being forced on a skeptical Foreign Office, whose officials are scathing about the performance of opposition politicians and until this week were not even allowed to talk to armed commanders.

They are unsure how to meet the Prime Minister’s demand for a renegotiation of the arms embargo, though one possibility is to insert a phrase allowing weapons to be sold for “self-defence”. They say there is no intention for Britain to provide arms itself.

One senior Western diplomat said: “We are saying clearly, with a unified voice, that we are prepared to respond positively on recognition and extra assistance. We are all on board with recognizing the right to self defence.”

The idea is likely to meet resistance from America.

The US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, clearly stated privately and publicly there had been no change in its decision not to provide heavy weaponry.

“The Americans are holding back – they are at the water’s edge, but they are not yet ready to swim,” said an informed source.

A western diplomat said: “The US is definitely the most cautious of everyone. If the US gave word the EU countries have expressed a readiness to act.”

The difficulty is that the longer the West’s intervention is delayed, the worse rebel divisions and atrocities become, making it ever more difficult to present a case for action to wary public opinion. Yet at the same time, the danger of more bloodshed and more chaos spreading through the region also increases.

“Obama has been trying to avoid a complete breakdown, but frankly that is now what we are heading towards,” said one analyst, Salman Sheikh, of the Brookings Institute. “The British want to go further. They understand that they can no longer do nothing and that Syria will only be more gripped by chaos through inaction.”

Eighteen months ago, Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France bounced a nervous Barack Obama into action in Libya. Whether Cameron will succeed a second time is another matter.

Source:

[1] RT, “Britain could intervene in Syria within months – top UK general”, Nov. 11, 2012, http://rt.com/news/syria-uk-military-intervention-468/

[2] The Telegraph, Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent and Richard Spencer in Antakya, “Britain could intervene militarily in Syria in months, UK’s top general suggests”, Nov. 11, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9670289/Britain-could-intervene-militarily-in-Syria-in-months-UKs-top-general-suggests.html

[3] The Telegraph, Ruth Sherlock and Richard Spencer, “David Cameron surprises allies with suggestion of arming Syrian rebels”, Nov. 10, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9669129/David-Cameron-surprises-allies-with-suggestion-of-arming-Syrian-rebels.html

By John Pilger

11 November, 2012

@ Johnpilger.com

In 1999, I travelled to Iraq with Denis Halliday who had resigned as assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations rather than enforce a punitive UN embargo on Iraq. Devised and policed by the United States and Britain, the extreme suffering caused by these “sanctions” included, according to Unicef, the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five.

Ten years later, in New York, I met the senior British official responsible for the imposition of sanctions. He is Carne Ross, once known in the UN as “Mr.Iraq”. I read to him a statement he made to a parliamentary select committee in 2007 : “The weight of evidence clearly indicates that sanctions caused massive human suffering among ordinary Iraqis, particularly children. We, the US and UK governments, were the primary engineers and offenders of sanctions and were well aware of this evidence at the time but we largely ignored it or blamed it on the Saddam government. [We] effectively denied the entire population a means to live.”

I said, “That’s a shocking admission.”

“Yes, I agree,” he replied, “I feel very ashamed about it… Before I went to New York, I went to the Foreign Office expecting a briefing on the vast piles of weapons that we still thought Iraq possessed, and the desk officer sort of looked at me slightly sheepishly and said, ‘Well actually, we don’t think there is anything in Iraq.’ ”

That was 1997, more than five years before George W. Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq for reasons they knew were fabricated. The bloodshed they caused, according to recent studies, is greater than that of the Rwanda genocide.

On 26 February 2003, one month before the invasion, Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a prominent cancer specialist in Syracuse, New York, was arrested by federal agents and interrogated about the charity he had founded, Help the Needy. Dr. Dhafir was one of many Americans, Muslims and non-Muslims, who for 13 years had raised money for food and medicines for sick and starving Iraqis who were the victims of sanctions. He had asked US officials if this humanitarian aid was legal and was assured it was — until the early morning he was hauled out of his car by federal agents as he left for his surgery. His front door was smashed down and his wife had guns pointed at her head. Today, he is serving 22 years in prison.

On the day of the arrest, Bush’s attorney-general, John Ashcroft, announced that “funders of terrorism” had been caught. The “terrorist” was a man who had devoted himself to caring for others, including cancer sufferers in his own New York community. More than $2 million was raised for his surety and several people pledged their homes; yet he was refused bail six times.

Charged under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Dhafir’s crime was to send food and medicine to the stricken country of his birth. He was “offered” the prospect of a lesser sentence if he pleaded guilty and he refused on principle. Plea bargaining is the iniquity of the US judicial system, giving prosecutors the powers of judge, jury and executioner. For refusing, he was punished with added charges, including defrauding the Medicare system, a “crime” based on not having filled out claim forms correctly, and money laundering and tax evasion, inflated technicalities related to the charitable status of Help the Needy.

The then Governor of New York, George Pataki, called this “money laundering to help terrorist organisations … conduct horrible acts”. He described Dr. Dhafir and the supporters of Help the Needy as “terrorists living here in New York among us … who are supporting and aiding and abetting those who would destroy our way of life and kill our friends and neighbours”. For jurors, the message was powerfully manipulative. This was America in the hysterical wake of 9/11.

The trial in 2004 and 2005 was out of Kafka. It began with the prosecution successfully petitioning the judge to prohibit “terrorism” from being mentioned. “This ruling turned into a brick wall for the defence,” says Katherine Hughes, an observer in court. “Prosecutors could hint at more serious charges, but the defence was never allowed to follow that line of questioning and demolish it. Consequently, the trial was not, in fact, what it was really about.”

It was a political show trial of Stalinist dimensions, an anti-Muslim sideshow to the “war on terror”. The jury was told darkly that Dr. Dhafir was a Salafi Muslim, as if this was sinister. Osama bin Laden was mentioned, with no relevance. That Help the Needy had openly advertised its humanitarian aims, and there were invoices and receipts for the purchase of emergency food aid was of no interest. Last February, the same judge, Norman Mordue, “re-sentenced” Dr. Dhafir to 22 years: a cruelty worthy of the Gulag.

With their “terrorist” case “won”, the prosecutors held a celebration dinner, “partying,” wrote a Syracuse lawyer to the local newspaper, “as if they had won the Super Bowl… having perpetuated a monstrous lie [against a man] who had helped thousands in Iraq suffering unjustly … the trial was a perversion”. No executive of the oil companies that did billions of dollars of illegal business with Saddam Hussein during the embargo has been prosecuted. “I am stunned by the conviction of this humanitarian,” said Denis Halliday, “especially as the US State Department breached its own sanctions to the tune of $10bn.”

During this year’s US presidential campaign, both candidates agreed on sanctions against Iran which, they claimed, posed a nuclear threat to the Middle East. Repeated over and again, this assertion evoked the lies told about Iraq and the extreme suffering of that country. Sanctions are already devastating Iran’s sick and disabled. As imported drugs become impossibly expensive, leukaemia and other cancer sufferers are the first victims. The Pentagon calls this “full spectrum dominance”.

John Pilger is an Australian journalist and documentary maker, based in London. He has twice won Britain’s Journalist of the Year Award, and his documentaries have received academy awards in Britain and the US